SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences / 2014 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3

Seismic hazard assessment of Turkey by statistical approaches

Serpil ÜNAL
Salih ÇELEBİOĞLU
Bülent ÖZMEN
Pages
350–360
Publication Date
2014-05-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The main purpose is to show that earthquakes occurring in Turkey can be modeled successfully by both a Markov chain, in which we have a different zoning, and the Poisson model, which can determine seismic hazard.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, 2 probabilistic methods are presented for seismic hazard assessment in Turkey: Markov chains based on modeling the transition probabilities of states (related to the presence or absence of the earthquakes having magnitude M >= 4 during the time interval Dt = 0.07 years in each region of Turkey located between 36°N and 42°N and 26°E and 45°E), and the Poisson model, used for computing occurrence probability and recurrence periods of earthquakes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In particular, it should be stated that in this study, our purpose is not to compare the results obtained from these 2 methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The main purpose is to show that earthquakes occurring in Turkey can be modeled successfully by both a Markov chain, in which we have a different zoning, and the Poisson model, which can determine seismic hazard.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Markov chain · Poisson model · seismic hazard

Abstract

In this study, 2 probabilistic methods are presented for seismic hazard assessment in Turkey: Markov chains based on modeling the transition probabilities of states (related to the presence or absence of the earthquakes having magnitude M >= 4 during the time interval Dt = 0.07 years in each region of Turkey located between 36°N and 42°N and 26°E and 45°E), and the Poisson model, used for computing occurrence probability and recurrence periods of earthquakes. In particular, it should be stated that in this study, our purpose is not to compare the results obtained from these 2 methods. The main purpose is to show that earthquakes occurring in Turkey can be modeled successfully by both a Markov chain, in which we have a different zoning, and the Poisson model, which can determine seismic hazard.

Özet

In this study, 2 probabilistic methods are presented for seismic hazard assessment in Turkey: Markov chains based on modeling the transition probabilities of states (related to the presence or absence of the earthquakes having magnitude M >= 4 during the time interval Dt = 0.07 years in each region of Turkey located between 36°N and 42°N and 26°E and 45°E), and the Poisson model, used for computing occurrence probability and recurrence periods of earthquakes. In particular, it should be stated that in this study, our purpose is not to compare the results obtained from these 2 methods. The main purpose is to show that earthquakes occurring in Turkey can be modeled successfully by both a Markov chain, in which we have a different zoning, and the Poisson model, which can determine seismic hazard.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNAL, S., ÇELEBİOĞLU, S., ÖZMEN, B. (2014). Seismic hazard assessment of Turkey by statistical approaches. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 3, 350–360. https://ajindex.com/articles/205504

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Altınok Y (1988). Seismic risk estimation of the North Anatolian Faulth Zone using semi-Markov model. Jeofizik 2: 44–58 (article in Turkish with English abstract). Altınok Y (1991). Evaluation of earthquake risk in West Anatolia by semi-Markov model. Jeofizik 5: 135–140 (article in Turkish with English abstract). Altınok Y, Kolçak D (1999). An application of the semi-Markov model for earthquake occurrences in North Anatolia, Turkey. J Balkan Geophys Soc 2: 90–99.
  2. Bağcı G (1996). Earthquake occurrences in Western Anatolia by Markov model. Jeofizik 10: 67–75.
  3. Ching W, Ng MK (2006). Markov Chains: Models, Algorithms and Applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer, pp. 1–15.
  4. Çınlar E (1975). Introduction to Stochastic Processes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, pp. 106–277.
  5. Çobanoğlu İ, Bozdağ Ş, Dinçer İ, Erol H (2006). Statistical approaches to estimating the recurrence of earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. İstanbul Üniv Müh Fak Yerbilimleri Dergisi 19: 91–100.
  6. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954). Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration. Bull Seism Soc Am 32: 163–191.
  7. Jaynes ET (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys Rev 106: 620–630.
  8. Karlin S, Taylor HE (1975). A First Course in Stochastic Processes. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, pp. 495–502.
  9. Karmeshu, Pal NR (2003).
  10. Uncertainty, Entropy and Maximum Entropy Principle – An Overview in Entropy Measures, Maximum Entropy Principle and Emerging Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Kasap R, Gürlen Ü (2003). Obtaining the return period of earthquake magnitudes: as an example Marmara Region. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 4: 157–166 (article in Turkish with English abstract). Lee WHK, Kanomori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (2003). International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part B. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, pp. 1234–1237.
  11. Nava FA, Herrera C, Frez J, Glowacka E (2005). Seismic hazard evaluation using Markov Chains: application to the Japan Area. Pure Appl Geophys 162: 1347–1366.
  12. Özkul S (2001). Entropy-based assessment of water quality monitoring networks. Turk J Engin Environ Sci 25: 435–452.
  13. Özmen B (2012). The historical development of seismic zoning maps of Turkey. Geol Bull Turk 55: 43–55.
  14. Özmen B, Nurlu M, Güler H (1997). Analysis of Earthquake Zones with Geographical Information System. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, E