The new empirical magnitude conversion relations using an improved earthquake catalogue for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900 2012)

The new empirical magnitude conversion relations using an improved earthquake catalogue for Turkey and its near vicinity (1900 2012)

Empirical magnitude conversion relationships are one of the important parameters for not only seismological studies but also seismic hazard analysis and development of the attenuation relationships. Particularly, for seismic hazard analysis, conversion of various types of magnitudes to moment magnitude, which is the most reliable and common magnitude scale, is a key requirement. Within this scope, different magnitude conversion equations have been derived by various researchers in the literature. In this study, new empirical magnitude conversion formulas for conversion from mb, ML, Md, and MS to Mw were derived by using a recently established earthquake catalogue. The most important feature of the new relationships is the use of the maximum data with respect to the literature. It is a well-known fact that having a greater number of data increases the sensitivity of the equations derived. Both orthogonal regression (OR) and ordinary least squares (OLS) were used to derive conversion equations, and the results obtained from these two methods were compared. In the derivation, 489 events with magnitudes in Mw scale taken from the Harvard GCMT Catalogue were used. Residual graphs created for both methods showed that the OR method gives better results than OLS for conversion from MS to Mw. On the other hand, the OLS method showed preferable performance for conversions from mb, ML, and Md to Mw. The equations proposed in this study were also compared with other empirical relations in the literature.

___

  • Akkar S, Çağnan Z, Yenier E, Erdoğan Ö, Sandıkkaya MA, Gülkan P (2010). The recently compiled Turkish strong motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol 14: 457-479.
  • Alsan E, Tezuçan L, Bath M (1975). An Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey for the Interval 1913-1970 Report No 7-75. İstanbul, Turkey: Kandilli Observatory Seismological Department.
  • Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1987). Seismicity of Turkey and neighbouring regions, 1899-1915. Ann Geophys 5B: 701-726.
  • Ambraseys NN, Jackson JA (1990). Seismicity and associated strain of central Greece between 1890-1988. Geophys J Int 101: 663-708.
  • Ambraseys NN, Jackson JA (1998). Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys J Int 133: 390-406.
  • Argyrous G (2011). Statistics for Research: With a Guide to SPSS. London, UK: SAGE.
  • Ayhan E, Alsan E, Sancaklı N, Üçer SB (1981). Türkiye ve Dolayları Deprem Kataloğu 1881-1980. İstanbul, Turkey: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları (in Turkish).
  • Bayrak Y, Öztürk S, Çınar H, Kalafat D, Tsapanos MT, Koravas GC, Leventakis GA (2009). Estimating earthquake hazard parameters from instrumental data for different regions in and around Turkey. Eng Geol 105: 200-210.
  • Bayrak Y, Yılmaztürk A, Öztürk S (2005). Relationships between fundamental seismic hazard parameters for the different source regions in Turkey. Nat Hazards 36: 445-462.
  • Bormann P (2002). Magnitude of seismic events. In: Bormann P, editor. New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice, Vol. 1. Potsdam, Germany: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, pp. 16-50.
  • Carroll RI, Ruppert D (1996). The use and misuse of orthogonal regression in linear errors-in-variables models. Am Stat 50: 1-6.
  • Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Kagan YY (2006). Regression problems for magnitudes. Geophys J Int 165: 913-930.
  • Chernick MR (1999). Bootstrap Methods: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers. 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
  • Çıvgın B (2015). Regression relations for conversion of various magnitude types and catalogs for the earthquakes of Turkey and vicinity. Seismol Res Lett 86: 876-889.
  • Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2011). Global regression relations for conversion of surface wave and body wave magnitudes to moment magnitude. Nat Hazards 59: 801-810.
  • Deniz A (2006). Estimation of earthquake insurance premium rates based on stochastic methods. MSc, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Ekström G, Nettles M, Dziewonski AM (2012). The global CMT project 2004-2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Phys Earth Planet In 200-201: 1-9.
  • Gilat A, editor (2004). MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Granville JP, Richards PG, Kim WY, Sykes LR (2005). Understanding the differences between three teleseismic mb scales. B Seismol Soc Am 95: 1809-1824.
  • Grünthal G, Wahlstrom R, Stromeyer D (2009). The unified catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern, and northwestern (CENEC) - updated and expanded to the last millennium. J Seismol 13: 517-541.
  • Gutenberg B (1945a). Amplitudes of P, PP and S and magnitudes of shallow earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 35: 57-69.
  • Gutenberg B (1945b). Amplitudes of surface waves and magnitudes of shallow earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 35: 3-12.
  • Gutenberg B (1945c). Magnitude determination for deep-focus earthquakes. B Seismol Soc Am 35: 117-130.
  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954). Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956a). Magnitude and energy earthquakes. Ann Geophys 9: 1-15.
  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1956b). Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration (second paper). B Seismol Soc Am 46: 105-145.
  • Kadirioğlu FT, Kartal RF, Kılıç T, Kalafat D, Duman TY, Özalp S, Emre Ö (2014). An improved earthquake catalogue (M ≥ 4.0) for Turkey and near surrounding (1900-2012). In: 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Proceedings, pp. 411-422.
  • Kalafat D, Güneş Y, Kara M, Deniz P, Kekovalı K, Kuleli HS, Gülen L, Yılmazer M, Özel NM (2007). A Revised and Extended Earthquake Catalogue for Turkey Since 1900 (Mw ≥ 4.0). İstanbul, Turkey: Boğaziçi University.
  • Kalafat D, Güneş Y, Kekovalı K, Kara M, Deniz P, Yılmazer M (2011). Bütünleştirilmiş Homojen Türkiye Deprem Kataloğu (1900-2010; M ≥ 4.0). İstanbul, Turkey: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü.
  • Kanamori H (1983). Magnitude scale and quantification of earthquakes. Tectonophysics 93: 185-199.
  • Köseoğlu A, Özel NM, Barış Ş, Üçer SB, Ottemöller L (2014). Spectral determination of source parameters in the Marmara Region. J Seismol 18: 651-669.
  • McCalpin PJ (2012). Earthquake magnitude scales, appendix 1. In: McCalpin PJ, editor. Paleoseismology. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press, pp. A1-A3.
  • Richter CF (1935). An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. B Seismol Soc Am 25: 1-32.
  • Scordilis EM (2006). Empirical global relations converting Ms and mb to moment magnitude. J Seismol 10: 225-236.
  • Sims BH, Wiedlea KA, Wilson GD (2008). Expert opinion in reliability. In: Ruggeri F, editor. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
  • Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sönmez H, Gökçeoğlu C (2004). An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-acceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74: 265-291.
  • Zaré M, Bard PY (2002). Strong motion dataset of Turkey: data processing and site classification. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22: 703-718.