THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION OF SEISMIC WAVE PROPAGATION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF ZMR, TURKEY

by Gkhan GKTRKLER

December, 2002 zmir

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION OF SEISMIC WAVE PROPAGATION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF ZMR, TURKEY

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Dokuz Eyll University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geophysical Engineering, Geophysical Engineering Program

by Gkhan GKTRKLER

December, 2002 zmir

To the memory of my father, Vedat GKTRKLER

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank The Department of Geophysical Engineering of Dokuz Eyll University for their support during my thesis study. I owe special thanks to The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Marmara Research Center (MAM) Earth and Marine Sciences Research Institute for generously letting me use their computer facilities for simulation studies. Also, I would like to thank my advisor Prof. Dr. A. Gngr Taktak for his support and guidance.

ABSTRACT

Using a finite-difference scheme, 3-D seismic wave propagation in the metropolitan area of zmir, Turkey was simulated. The scheme is based on the velocity-stress formulation of the wave equation on a staggered-grid. A 3-D elastic model was constructed using well data drilled for engineering purposes and limited seismic experiments in the zmir Bay. The model consists mainly of unconsolidated sediment cover overlying a basement. Seismic wave propagation was simulated for a hypothetical earthquake on the western segment of the zmir fault. It was defined as a point source at the depth of 5 km. Simulations were carried out by using two different approaches to the source: an explosive pressure source and a rupture having normal fault features. Lateral propagation of the basin-edge-generated waves in the bay area and resonating seismic energy in the Bornova basin were the main features of the wave propagation induced by the pressure source. The basin-edge-generated waves are considered as the Rayleigh surface waves. Calculation of the normalized cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity on the surface of the study area indicates the largest values in the vicinity of the epicenter and the bay area including the Balova and Karyaka-Bostanl areas. The Bornova basin is characterized by relatively low values of kinetic energy and peak particle velocity. Broad features of the wave propagation were observed in the simulation for a hypothetical rupture. The direct S-wave propagation was the main event of the wave propagation, and P-wave was quite negligible as the result of the source type used. Basin-edge-generated waves in the bay area and S-to-P conversion were the other features of the wave propagation.

Keywords: finite difference method, simulation, velocity-stress formulation, seismic wave propagation, zmir fault.

ZET

Bir sonlu farklar algoritmas (staggered-grid finite difference) kullanlarak zmir metropolitan alannda boyutlu (3B) sismik dalga yaylm simlasyonu gerekletirilmitir. Yntem, dalga denkleminin hz-gerilme eklinde ifade edilmesine dayanmaktadr. Mhendislik amal alan sondaj kuyular ve zmir Krfezindeki kstl sismik almalardan yararlanarak 3B bir hz modeli oluturulmutur. Model, biri sedimanter dolguyu, dieri temeli temsil eden iki birimden olumaktadr. zmir Faynn bat segmenti zerinde, yaklak 5 km derinlikte varsaymsal bir depremden kaynaklanan sismik dalga yaylm, nokta kaynak yaklam kullanlarak modellenmitir. Simlasyon almalar, sismik kaynak ilk nce bir basn kayna, daha sonra ise normal fay karakterine sahip bir deprem kayna kabul edilerek gerekletirilmitir. zmir Krfezi civarnda, sedimanter dolgu ile ana kaya arasndaki ara yzeyde (zmir Fay) retilen fazlarn kuzeye doru yaylm ve Bornova Basenindeki rezonans basn kaynann sebep olduu dalga yaylmnn en belirgin zellikleridir. Ara yzeyde retilen fazlar Rayleigh yzey dalgas olarak yorumlanmtr. alma alannn yzeyinde normalize edilmi kinetik enerji ve maksimum parack hz dalmlar hesaplanmtr. Buna gre, en yksek deerler episantr civarnda ve Balova ile Karyaka-Bostanl blgelerini iine alan krfez blgesinde grlmektedir. Ayrca Bornova Baseni greceli olarak dk deerlerle temsil olunmaktadr. Deprem kayna kullanlarak gerekletirilen simlasyon, alma alannda dalga yaylmnn ok genel zelliklerini ortaya koymutur. Direkt S dalgas yaylm, simlasyonun en belirgin zelliidir. Kullanlan kaynak trnden dolay belirgin bir P dalgas yaylm gzlenmemitir. Basen kenarlarnda retilen fazlar ve S-P mod dnmleri dalga yaylmnn dier zellikleridir. Anahtar Szckler: sonlu farklar yntemi, simlasyon, hz-gerilme denklemi, sismik dalga yaylm, zmir Fay.

CONTENTS

Page Contents ....................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables ............................................................................................................... x List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xi

Chapter One INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Chapter Two GEOLOGY, TECTONICS, and SEISMICITY

2.1. Geology and Tectonics of the Western Anatolia ............................................... 5 2.2. Geology of the Study Area............................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Bornova Plain........................................................................................... 10

2.2.2. Balova Area............................................................................................ 11 2.2.3. zmir Bay.................................................................................................. 12 2.2.4. Karyaka-Bostanl Area .......................................................................... 12 2.3. Major Tectonic Elements in the Study Area .................................................... 12 2.3.1. Bornova Fault........................................................................................... 13 2.3.2. zmir Fault................................................................................................ 13 2.4. Seismicity of the Study Area............................................................................ 15 2.4.1. Historic Seismicity ................................................................................... 16 2.4.2. Present-Day Seismicity ............................................................................ 18

Chapter Three METHOD: STAGGERED-GRID FINITE-DIFFERENCE

3.1. Computational Method .................................................................................... 22 3.2. Velocity-Stress Formulation of the Wave Equation ........................................ 24 3.3. Finite-Difference Implementation.................................................................... 25 3.4. Source Implementation .................................................................................... 29 3.5. Boundary Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 3.5.1. Absorbing Boundary Conditions ............................................................. 32 3.5.2. Free-Surface Boundary Conditions.......................................................... 34

Chapter Four SIMULATION STUDIES

4.1. Three-Dimensional Model for the Study Area................................................. 42 4.2. Seismic Source Used in Simulations ............................................................... 44 4.3. Results of Wave Propagation Simulations....................................................... 45 4.3.1. Simulation for an Explosive Pressure source........................................... 47 4.3.2. Simulation for a Hypothetical Earthquake............................................... 56

Chapter Five CONCLUSIONS

5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 65

References .................................................................................................................. 68 Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 80 Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 82 Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 83 Appendix D ................................................................................................................ 84

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1. Modeling parameters used in 3D simulation with a pressure source ............................................................................................ 48 Table 4.2. Earthquake rupture parameters ................................................................. 56 Table 4.3. Modeling parameters used in 3D simulation for an earthquake................................................................................................... 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 2.1. Major geologic units and tectonic elements in the western Anatolia. ................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2. Map showing major neotectonic structures and neotectonic provinces in Turkey ................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.3. Major structural elements in western Anatolia.......................................... 9 Figure 2.4. Geological map of zmir and adjacent areas............................................ 11 Figure 2.5. Tectonic elements in the study area......................................................... 14 Figure 2.6. Destructive earthquakes in Turkey and adjacent areas between 10 AD 1000 AD ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.7. Major earthquakes (M > 5.9) in Turkey and its vicinity during the 20th century...................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.8. Epicenter distribution of historical earthquakes in the western Anatolia ................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.9. Major earthquakes, which caused damages in zmir and its vicinity during the 20th century ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.10. Earthquake focal mechanism in the Aegean region .............................. 21 Figure 3.1. Staggered grid used in the finite difference calculations......................... 26 Figure 3.2. Definition of the faultorientation parameters (strike s, dip , rake ) and Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z)........................................................... 30

Figure 3.3. Representation of the body-force distribution in the x-direction (fx) based on generalized moment-tensor source description....................................... 33 Figure 3.4. Wave-field variables in an xz plane......................................................... 36 Figure 3.5. Snapshots of some of the wave-field variables in a homogeneous medium................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3.6. Snapshots of horizontal and vertical components at 1.8, 2.5 and 3.1 s ................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 3.7. Comparison of synthetic seismograms calculated by finite-difference (FD) and frequency-wavenumber (FK) technique...................... 40 Figure 3.8. Synthetic seismogram calculated by finite difference scheme utilizing the moment-tensor source formulation is compared with that obtained by frequency-wavenumber integration................................................... 41 Figure 4.1. Model of basement depth distribution in the study area.......................... 46 Figure 4.2. Pressure-time history (top) and amplitude spectrum (bottom) of the source-time function used in the simulation ........................................................... 47 Figure 4.3. Snapshots of 3D-simulated wave propagation in the study area for a pressure source at the depth of 5 km ............................................................. 49 Figure 4.4. Seismic record sections for the radial and vertical velocities along two profiles running N-S........................................................................................ 52 Figure 4.5. Time histories of radial and vertical velocities at four different sites (marked by solid triangles) in the study area ................................................ 53 Figure 4.6. Normalized cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity distributions on the surface of the study area......................................................... 55

Figure 4.7. Source-time function used in 3-D simulation for a hypothetical earthquake on the zmir fault ................................................................................. 57 Figure 4.8. Snapshots of 3D-simulated seismic wave propagation in the study area for a hypothetical earthquake with a focal depth of 5 km .................... 59 Figure 4.9. Time histories in the form of seismic record section for the radial, tangential and vertical components of the particle velocity along the profile AA across the Balova region, zmir Bay, and Karyaka-Bostanl region ........ 61 Figure 4.10. Seismic record sections of the radial, tangential, and vertical components of the particle velocity along the profile BB across the Bornova basin ....................................................................................................... 62 Figure 4.11. Time histories of the particle velocity at four different sites (marked by filled triangles) in the study area...................................................................... 64

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction Understanding the characteristics of seismic wave propagation in a region may help to mitigate earthquake hazards. One way to understand that is numerical modeling. Developments in computer sciences have made realistic seismic wavepropagation simulations feasible since 1990s. Realistic simulation means modeling three-dimensional (3-D) elastic wave propagation in the earth. As known, many cities in Turkey are located near the rupture zones of large earthquakes, and the city of zmir is one of them. Therefore, in the framework of this thesis study, 3-D simulation of seismic waves in the metropolitan area of zmir is studied. On the other hand, zmir is one of nine cities in the world selected for the RADIUS (Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas Against Seismic Disasters) project. Because of geological characteristic of the region in which the city is located, it is under the serious earthquake risk. Also the city experienced many destructive earthquakes in the past. Therefore, an Earthquake Disaster Masterplan for the city has been prepared by collaboration of the Bosphorus University and Istanbul Technical University. In this masterplan, earthquake hazard analysis has been carried out and earthquake hazard scenario has been developed for the city. The zmir fault, which is the main active fault system in the citys metropolitan area, was chosen as the scenario fault for these studies (Selvitopu & Tuna, 2000). The study area mainly comprises the zmir Bay and the surrounding area. It includes the zmir Bay in the west, the Bornova plain in the east, the Karyaka-Bostanl area in the north of the bay and the Balova area in the south of the bay. It also covers some parts of the Buca district but the geological structure is taken as the bedrock there. Since the model did not cover that area completely, taking into account its geology would not be realistic. The model covers a volume of 15 (N S) x 27 (E W) x 7 (Depth) km.

Using a 3-D staggered-grid finite-difference (FD) scheme, seismic wave propagation was simulated in the study area. A 3-D model was constructed using well data drilled for water and geothermal explorations and limited marine seismic studies in the zmir Bay. It mainly includes a sedimentary basin over the basement. Simulations are carried out for a hypothetical earthquake on the western segment of the zmir fault. It is a point source at the depth of 5 km. Seismic wavefields are calculated by two different approaches to the source: an explosive pressure source and a rupture with normal fault mechanism. Using some numerical methods, simulation of seismic wave propagation within the earth is known as seismic modeling and it aims to obtain the seismogram at a certain location for a given subsurface structure and source function. Simulating wave propagation on a numerical mesh, representing the subsurface by finite number of points, is called as grid method or full-wave equation method because it propagates the complete wavefield through the model (Carcione et al., 2002). Any heterogeneity of the medium is easily included into model in the grid method. After the work of Alterman & Karal (1968), use of finite-difference method became a standard tool in seismic modeling. They solved an elastic wave propagation problem in a layered half-space induced by a compressional buried point source. Boore (1972) discussed seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous materials by use of the finitedifference methods. Alford et al. (1974) studied the effects of the second-order and forth-order finite-difference operators for space derivatives on the accuracy of acoustic wave propagation calculations. Kelly et al. (1976) introduced the homogeneous and heterogeneous finite-difference formulations of elastic wavefield in two-dimensional media, and they successfully applied the method to different earth models. Following Madariaga (1976), Virieux (1986, 1984) showed P-SV and SH-wave propagations on a staggered-grid based on velocity-stress formulation. Levander (1988) calculated P-SV seismograms using a forth-order finite-difference scheme based on the Madariaga-Virieux staggered-grid formulation. As a result of the advancements in computer technologies, 3-D simulations of seismic waves became possible for geoscientists. Frankel & Vidale (1992) used finite-difference

method to model 3-D wave propagation in the Santa Clara Valley, California for an aftershock of the Loma Prieta earthquake (1989). Frankel (1993) modeled threedimensional ground motions in the San Bernardino Valley, California for hypothetical earthquakes on the San Andreas fault. Introducing the moment-tensor source description, he successfully included earthquakes with arbitrary source mechanism in simulations and modeled seismic wave propagation for a point source and an extended rupture. Yomogida & Etgen (1993) simulated 3-D seismic waves in the Los Angeles basin for the Whittier-Narrows earthquake (1988) using a high-order scheme on a staggered grid. Olsen et al. (1995) simulated 3-D elastic wave propagation in the Salt Lake basin, Utah. Olsen & Archuleta (1996) carried out simulations in the metropolitan area of the greater Los Angeles area for the earthquakes on the Los Angeles Fault system using a 3-D velocity-stress staggeredgrid finite-difference scheme. They modeled propagating ruptures with constant slip on the fault system. Pitarka et al. (1998) studied the near-fault ground motion for the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake, Japan by 3-D simulation. Sato et al. (1999) modeled 3-D ground motions in the Tokyo metropolitan area for the 1990 Odawara earthquake and the great 1923 Kanto earthquake in Japan. Employing an algorithm similar to that of Graves (1996), Frankel & Stephenson (2000) carried out 3-D ground-motion simulations in the Seattle region by hypothetical earthquakes on the Seattle fault. Also, Satoh et al. (2001) modeled waveforms of strong motions in the Sendai basin, Japan, by staggered-grid 3-D finite-difference scheme using variable grid spacing. A 3-D staggered-grid finite-difference scheme was employed to simulate seismic wave propagation in the study area. It follows the algorithm described by Graves (1996). The scheme is based on the velocitystress formulation of the wave equation. It propagates the complete wavefield in a heterogeneous elastic medium. Arbitrary velocity and density distributions can be included in the modeling without any difficulty. The scheme is fourth-order-accurate in space and second-order-accurate in time and uses the effective media parameters (Randall et al., 1991). The implementation of the source is achieved by using the generalized moment-tensor source description. It is based on the work of Frankel (1993). Using this source

description a wide range of seismic sources from explosion to shear dislocation is easily introduced to simulations. The source implementation is realized as applied to either the velocity or the stress components of the wavefield (e.g., Graves, 1996; Olsen & Archuleta, 1996). No anelastic attenuation is taken into account in simulations. I apply absorbing boundary conditions to all edges of the computational domain except the free surface. In each simulation, the grid spacing and time step were 150 m and 0.017 s, respectively. A 17-s simulation was achieved. Propagation of the basin-edge-generated waves in the bay area and prolonged duration of seismic energy in the Bornova basin are the main features of the wave propagation for the pressure source. The ground-motion parameters (cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity) of this simulation indicate the largest values near the epicenter and in the bay area comprising the Balova and KaryakaBostanl areas. Relatively low values exist over the Bornova basin. Broad features of the wave equation are observed in the simulation for a hypothetical rupture on the western segment of the zmir fault. The direct S-wave propagation is the main event and P-wave is not strong due to the source type used. The Bornova basin does not show a strong impact on the wave propagation, but this is the result of the simulation parameters used rather than that of the geological setting in the Bornova basin. Due to computational power restrictions the simulation were carried out using relatively large grid spacing and this resulted in reduced resolution. Therefore, I consider the simulation for a hypothetical earthquake as a modeling study, which reveals gross features of the wave propagation in the study area. In the following pages, a brief discussion on the geology, tectonics and seismicity of the western Anatolia is given in Chapter 2. It is followed by discussion on the geology, major tectonic elements and seismicity of the study area. Chapter 3 includes the details of simulation method. In this chapter, computational method, finitedifference implementation of the scheme, implementation of the source and boundary conditions are discussed. In Chapter 4, 3-D elastic model for the study are and the results of the wave propagation simulations are discussed, and conclusion are given in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER TWO

GEOLOGY, TECTONICS, and SEISMICITY

2.1. Geology and Tectonics of the Western Anatolia There are four major paleotectonic units in the western Anatolia (Figure 2.1) (engr et al., 1985; engr, 1987; Ylmaz, 1997). These units are generally in the direction of NE-SW. They had come together at the different times prior to the middle Miocene as a result of different tectonic processes. They are as the following from north to south (Erdik et al., 1999): Sakarya continent, zmir Ankara suture zone, Menderes massive, Lycian nappes

Sakarya continent locates between the zmir-Ankara suture zone in the south and Inner-Pontid suture zone in the north. It has a basement being composed of metamorphic and non-metamorphic Paleozoic units. The Mesozoic and Cenozoic units overlay the basement (Ylmaz, 1997). The zmir-Ankara suture zone is between the Sakarya continent and the Menderes massive. It consists of ophiolitic melange and peridotites. It has experienced metamorphism at some places (Ylmaz, 1997). It is named as the Bornova schist or melange in near zmir (Kaya, 1981; Erdoan & Gngr, 1992). The Menderes massive, which is the most important metamorphic unit in the western Anatolia, is located between the zmir-Ankara suture zone and Lycian nappes. The massive has complex lithology and structure. It is thought that the main phase of metamorphism had taken place between the Late Cretaceous and Early Miocene (Ylmaz, 1997). Lycian nappes are between the Menderes massive

and the Bey Dalar autochthon. Obduction of the oceanic crust onto the Anatolid Torid platform during the subduction along the zmir-Ankara suture zone in the Late Cretaceous together with accretionary complex of the subduction phase of the continental collision in the Late PaleoceneEarly Eocene has been considered for the origin of Lycian nappes for last three decades (Brunn et al, 1971; Graciansky, 1972; engr & Ylmaz, 1981; engr et al., 1984; Ersoy, 1990; Erdik et al., 1999). A wide spread magmatic activity is observed in the region. Age of granites, which consist of granodoirites and monozonites, is about 3520 Ma. According to Ylmaz (1989, 1990) there exist three different phases in the period of the MiocenePliocene. The first period produced calcalkaline magma (Late OligoceneEarly Miocene); the second phase is a transition period (Miocene), and alkaline magma is the product of the third period (PlioQuaternary). Volcanic rocks also indicate three different phases (Kaya, 1981). The first period took place between 3015 Ma and included very different compositions (e.g., basaltic andesite, andesite and dasite), and volcanic activity was quiet between 1512 Ma (Kaya, 1981). The second phase of the activity took place between 1210 Ma. Kula basalts are the product of the last period and they are very young (300.00010.000 a). Neotectonics of Anatolia is known better than its paleotectonics even though neotectonics of the region includes many controversial subjects. In the following lines broad features of Turkeys neotectonics will be discussed in the basis of the work of Bozkurt (2001). The main driving force of active tectonics in Turkey is the interactions among the Eurasian, Anatolian and Arabian plates. The northward movement of the African and Arabian plates relative to the Eurasian plate causes this. Three major elements resulting from this interaction control the neotectonics of the country. These are the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) and the Aegean-Cyprean Arc (Figure 2.2). The NAFZ and EAFZ are intracontinental strike-slip faults, and the Anatolian block moves toward west from the collision zone of the Arabian and Eurasian plates (engr & Ylmaz, 1981; engr et al., 1985). The rate of this escape is ~20 mm year (Barka, 1992; Westaway, 1994; Kahle et al., 1998). This extrusion is accompanied by anticlockwise rotation in

the Aegean region (McKenzie, 1970; Dewey & engr, 1979; Rotstein, 1984; Jackson and McKenzie, 1988; Seber et al., 1997). Consequently, this tectonic mechanism has created four different neotectonic proviences in Turkey (Figure 2.2). These are West Anatolian Extensional Province, North Anatolian Province, Central Anatolian Ova Province and East Anatolian Contractional Province (engr et al, 1985; Bozkurt, 2001).

Figure 2.1. Major geologic units and tectonic elements in the western Anatolia. (From Seyitolu & Scott, 1996)

As a part of the Aegean Extensional Province, a region of extension including parts of Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Albania (Bozkurt, 2001), the western Anatolia is one of the most rapidly being deformed continental regions in the world, the present widely spread seismicity is an indicator of this deformation (Jackson & McKenzie, 1988; Ambraseys, 1988; Taymaz et al., 1991). Currently, the region is experiencing NS extension at a rate of ~3040 mm year (Oral et al., 1995; Le Pichon et al., 1995). Besides of seismicity, high heat flow, intensive faulting and volcanism are the other characteristics of the region. The present-day geomorphology is characterized by a series of approximately EW trending major grabens (e.g., Edremit, Bakray, Simav, Gediz, Kk Menderes, Byk Menderes and Gkova grabens) and NE SW trending secondary (crosscutting) grabens (Westaway, 1990; Paton, 1992; Seyitolu & Scott, 1992; Seyitolu et al., 1992; Koyiit et al., 1999; Bozkurt, 2000) (Figure 2.3). Therefore, basinforming normal faults are the characteristic elements of neotectonic features of western Anatolia. The secondary features in the region are the basins trending NNE and their intervening horsts (e.g., Grdes, Demirci, Selendi basins) (engr, 1987; Ylmaz et al., 2000).

Figure 2.2. Map showing major neotectonic sutructures and neotectonic provinces in Turkey. (From Bozkurt, 2001)

There are several models for the cause and origin of extensional mechanism in the region (Bozkurt, 2001). These are tectonic escape (Dewey & engr, 1979; engr 1979, 1980, 1987; engr et al., 1985), back-arc spreading (Le Pichon & Angelier, 1979; Meulenkamp et al., 1988), orogenic collapse (Dewey, 1988; Seyitolu & Scott,

Figure 2.3. Major structural elements in western Anatolia. (From Bozkurt, 2001) 1996; Seyitolu et al., 1992) and episodic (a two-stage graben) models (Koyiit et al., 1999). The tectonic escape model considers the westward motion of the Anatolian block since the late Serravalian (12 Ma). The back-arc spreading model

10

suggests that back-arc extension is the cause for the extensional regime as a result of the south-southwestward migration of the Aegean Trench system. The origin date of the subduction rollback process is controversial and they range between 60 Ma and 5 Ma. The spreading and thinning of over-thickened crust is considered as the cause of the extension following the latest Palaeocene collision by the orogenic collapse model. Episodic approach takes a orogenic collapse (Mioceneearly Pliocene) as the first phase and westward motion of the Anatolian block (PlioQuaternary) as the second phase of NS extensional regime (Bozkurt, 2001). Also, there is no agreement on the age of the grabens. Suggestions can be classified into three major groups. These are (1) they commenced to form during the Tortonian (engr & Ylmaz, 1981; engr et al., 1985; engr, 1987), (2) their formation was started during the Early Miocene (Seyitolu & Scott, 1992, 1996), (3) they are considered as Plio-Quaternary structures (Koyiit et al., 1999; Bozkurt, 2000; Ylmaz et al., 2000) (Bozkurt, 2001). 2.2. Geology of the Study Area 2.2.1. Bornova Plain The geological map in Figure 2.4 indicates two groups of rocks in the region. The first group is the Cretaceous and Tertiary consolidated rocks. These outcrop on the hills surrounding the Bornova plain and they also form the basement of the plain. Therefore, they are named as the basement rock. The second group includes Quaternary unconsolidated formations. These are the units filling the basin. The basement includes three main rock units as sedimentary, Neogene rocks and Tertiary volcanic rocks. The oldest formation is the Cretaceous flysh. It outcrops on the small areas in the southern eastern borders of the plain. On the large areas, which are in the east and southeast also in the north the Cretaceous limestone outcrops. Neogene limestones are located along the northeastern and southern borders of the plain and there is discordance between the Cretaceous and Neogene limestones. Miocene (Tertiary) volcanic rocks are seen along the northwestern and southeastern edges of the plain and they overlay the sedimentary rocks. The main unit is andesite. The Bornova plain has very flat surface. The elevation changes from 90 m in the eastern

11

end to 0.5 m in the zmir bay. The sedimentary fill in the basin comprises clay, sand and gravel beds (DSI, 1971). 2.2.2. Balova Area As the area is one of the most important geothermal fields in the western Anatolia, there are a number of wells drilled for geothermal energy by MTA (The Directorate

Figure 2.4. Geological map of zmir and adjacent areas. The map was compiled from MTA, 1973; Ate, 1994; Erien et al., 1996. (Modified from Erdik et al., 1999.)

of Mineral Research and Exploration). Thus, our knowledge of the subsurface region is mainly based on drilling works. Quaternary sediments and Cretaceous flysh are the main units. Based on the geological observations and deep drillings the Cretaceous

12

flysh is the oldest unit in the region. The flysh includes meta-sandstone, metaclaystone, meta-siltstone and limestone, serpentine, diabas mega blocks. It is alloctone on the Menderes massive metamorphits. Faults related with graben system play an important role in the development of geothermal system in this region. The thickness of the sedimantary fill deepens toward the north from 22 m to 182 m approximately (Ylmazer, 1989; etiner, 1999). 2.2.3. zmir Bay According to the marine seismic studies in the zmir bay carried out by Institute of Marine Science and technology of Dokuz Eyll University, there are four different geological units in the bay area. These are Quaternary sediments, Neogene sediments, Neogene volcanic facies and Cretaceous flysh. These data were complied using the refraction studies carried out in the inner and middle bay area. Even though we have information on the layering and seismic wave velocities in the bay area, depth information and topography of interfaces are still problematic (Ulu & zdar, 1988; Gnay, 1998). 2.2.4. Karyaka-Bostanl Area The area is covered by Gediz alluvium. It probably overlies the andesitic rocks. The thickness of the sediments is problematic. Even though there are wells with the depths of ~200 m, they do not mostly reach the basement. Therefore, our knowledge of the thickness is not reliable. The alluvium is mainly composed of sand, silt and clay. It also includes very thin (in the range of a few centimeters) organic clay levels. The sediments are mainly water saturated due to low elevation. Thus, they lack of compactness. Also, swamps are observed in the areas near the coastline (Gnay, 1998). 2.3. Major Tectonic Elements in the Study Area Neotectonic structures in zmir and adjacent areas indicate three major directions as E-W, NE-SW and NW-SE. The dominant morphological structures are in the

13

direction of E-W. These units which show normal fault characteristics are located in the zmir bay and western end of the Gediz graben system. Faults with the directions of NE-SW and NW-SE are dominant in the surrounding region. They have different kinematic features, and this implies that the region has very complex tectonic features. The main active faults in the study area (Figure 2.5) are the zmir and Bornova faults (Erdik et al., 1999; Emre & Barka, 2000). 2.3.1. Bornova Fault This fault is situated in the northeast of zmir bay and it is in the direction of E-W. It has normal fault characteristics. It might be considered as the conjugate component of the zmir fault. Our knowledge on its activity is very limited. This fault formed in the neotectonic period (Erdik et al., 1999; Emre & Barka, 2000).

2.3.2. zmir Fault This fault forms the southern border of the zmir Bay. It runs in the direction of EW. It comprises two major segments. The one is between zmir and Pnarba, and then other is between Gzelbahe and kuyular. Based on geomorphological features, it is in the form of normal fault. The eastern segment between zmir and Pnarba includes two small segments, trending E-W. In the west of Kadifekale the fault jumps toward south about 5 km. The western segment is between Gzelbahe and kuyular. The footwall of the fault along this segment created a 1000m topography. Alluvial fans have been formed in Narldere. Also a delta has developed on the hanging wall of the fault between Balova nad Narldere. Moreover, the Agamemnon thermal springs, known since ancient times, is between Balova and Narldere. Because of dense settlement in both Balova and Bornova regions geological observations of zmir fault are very limited (Erdik et al., 1999; Emre & Barka, 2000). Also our knowledge of its seismic activity is not satisfactory but available historical data show that the fault had generated hazardous earthquakes in the past (Ergin et al., 1967; Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995).

14

Figure 2.5. Tectonic elements in the study area. They are in the form of normal fault. The zmir fault forms the southern border of the zmir Bay, and the Bornova fault is considered as its conjugate component. (Modified from Erdik et al., 1999.)

15

2.4. Seismicity of the Study Area Turkey is located within the most seismically active region in the world, which is known as the Mediterranean Earthquake Belt (Bozkurt, 2001), and it is a part of the Alpine Himalayan Zone. Anatolia has experienced many destructive earthquakes in the past and recent times. The events of 1458 Erzincan, 1509 and 1556 stanbul, 1688 and 1778 zmir, 1766 Marmara, 1912 Mreftearky, 1939 Erzincan, 17 August 1999 Kocaeli and 12 November 1999 Dzce might be mentioned as examples (Erdik et al., 1999). Seismicity of a region is governed by its tectonic regime. The seismic activity in Turkey is the result of the lithospheric collision between the African and Eurasian plates.

Epicenter distribution of the earthquakes occurred in Turkey and adjacent areas between 10AD1000AD are shown in Figure 2.6. Relation between epicenter distributions and tectonic proviences given in Figure 2.2 is in excellent agreement. In addition, Figure 2.7 shows the epicenters of the major events (M > 5.9) of the 20th century. It displays almost the same pattern between the earthquake distribution and tectonic proviences as the historical events. Comparison of these two seismicity maps reveals that recent seismicity is a mere repetition of the historical pattern of seismicity. On the other hand, Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show historical and recent major events in the western Anatolia, respectively. Most of the earthquakes are clearly related with the horstgraben system. Again current seismicity may be considered as a repetition of the historical one. The overall seismicity of the region is manifested by a number of mediummagnitude earthquakes and earthquake swarms (Erdik et al., 1999). Earthquake focal mechanisms in the Aegean region are given in Figure 2.10. Since basin-bounding normal faults are the main tectonic features in the western Anatolia (Bozkurt, 2001), the area is characterized by normal fault solutions.

2.4.1. Historic Seismicity (pre1900) In historic period of the seismicity of the western Anatolia many hazardous earthquakes had occurred as shown in Figure 2.8. A list of major historical events

16

affected the city of zmir is given as follows. Intensity (Io) is in MSK (Medvedev Sponheur Karnik) scale. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 17, Asia Minor (zmir, Efes, Sart, Aydn, Manisa ve Alaehir; Io=X), 178, zmir (Io=VIII), 688, zmir (Io=IX), 1039, zmir (Io=VIII), 1056, zmir (Io=VIII), 1688 July 10, zmir (Io= X), 1723 September, zmir (Io=VIII),

8. 1739 April 4, zmir (Io=IX), 9. 1778 July 3-5, zmir (Io=IX) (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995, Erdik et al., 1999).

The event of 17 AD was catastrophic for the region. It caused severe damage in 12 major Ionian cities (Guidobani et al., 1994). Among the events above the earthquakes of 1688, 1739 and 1778 were very destructive for the city of zmir. The event of 1688 was a smallmagnitude and locallydestructive earthquake. More than 5000 people died and many houses and public buildings collapsed. Small - scale seismic seawaves occurred (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995). In the following, a broad definition of the disaster is given ... The shock occurred at 11 h 45 m and lasted 20 to 30 seconds. In zmir much of the destruction was caused in the lowlying area of the city and most east- facing walls collapsed, together with three quarters of the houses and public buildings. Out of seventeen large mosques only three were left standing, shattered and on the verge of collapse. ... The shock started a fire in the European quarter of the city that spread rapidly along the Street of France from the coast, spreading eastwards to the quarter of Apano Mahalas.

17

... As a result of the earthquake, the fort of Sancak Burnu, situated on a peninsula at the entrance of the Gulf of zmir, about three kilometers from the city, was totally destroyed. The fort and ground around it sunk to the extent that the site became an islet separated from the mainland by a stretch of sea 30 metres wide. The fort itself sunk into the ground bodily to the extent that the sea reached the embrasures and the cannon within. On the mainland in the vicinity of the fort, about three quarters of the houses were destroyed by the shock. Elsewhere, the ground in the low lying parts of the city opened up with the first shock and in places water was ejected from fissures. After the earthquake, it was found that the seashore in Smyrna had advanced inland as result of a general sinking of the ground by about 60 centimetres. (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995; pp. 91-92)

The area near the fort of Sancak Burnu (see Figure 2.5) is considered as the epicenter of the earthquake (Ergin et al.1967, Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995) and this event is taken into account an activity of the zmir fault.

The event of 1739 occurred in the Gulf of zmir. It was a damaging earthquake and caused a widespread destruction in the city. Also it caused damage in Foa. It hit the Smyrna at very early hours of the day (4 h 15 m) without any foreshocks. About 80 people died. The delta at the mouth of the Gediz River submerged because of the earthquake (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995).

On the 3rd of July, 1778 there was a main shock, almost totally damaged the city. The earthquake, lasted about 15 seconds, occurred at 2 h 30 m. Many houses and public buildings collapsed. There were aftershocks continued for 24 hours, and they increased the damaged. A second strong shock hit the city at 13 h 30 m on the 5th of July. It brought down walls and houses and commenced a fire burning down half of the city in 36 hours. Aftershocks went on for six weeks. As a result of these earthquakes more than 200 people lost their lives (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995).

18

2.4.2. Present-day Seismicity During the 20th century the western Anatolia experienced major earthquakes (Figure 2.9), and zmir and adjacent areas have been damaged by these events. A list of major earthquakes is given the following with intensities (Io) in MSK scale: 1. 1928 March 31, Tepeky-Torbal (38.09N - 27.35E; M=6.5; Io=IX), 2. 1939 September 22, Dikili (39.05N - 26.93E; M=6.5; Io=VIII), 3. 1949 July 23, Karaburun-eme (38.55N - 26.27E; M=6.6; Io=VIII), 4. 1953 March 18, Yenice-Gnen (40.00N - 27.50E; M=7.2; Io=IX), 5. 1955 July 16, Ske-Balat (37.70N - 27.20E, M=6.7, Io=VIII), 6. 1969 March 25, Demirci (39.20N - 28.40E, M=6.1, Io=VIII), 7. 1969 March 28, Alaehir (38.45N - 28.50E, M=6.5, Io=VIII), 8. 1974 February 1, zmir (38.50N 27.20E, M=5.5, Io=VII), 9. 1977 December 9, zmir (38.56N - 27.47E, M=4.8, Io=VII), 10. 1977 December 16, zmir (38.41N - 27.19E, M=5.5, Io=VII) (Erdik et al., 1999). The list includes the earthquakes with the epicenters in zmir and some serious events (M > 6) with the epicenters in the surrounding area. A more detailed list of the earthquakes of the present time is given in Appendix D. The shock of 1974 caused heavy damage in Alsancak, Konak and Karyaka. About 47 houses have been affected. Two people died and seven people have been injured. After three years, the city experienced two successive earthquakes in a month. These were not strong shocks. They caused some damage in about 40 houses and 20 people have been injured.

19

Figure 2.6. Destructive earthquakes in Turkey and adjacent areas between 10 AD1000 AD. (From Ambraseys, 1971.)

Figure 2.7. Major earthquakes (M > 5.9) in Turkey and its vicinity during the 20th century. (From Erdik et al., 1999.)

20

Figure 2.8. Epicenter distribution of historical earthquakes in the western Anatolia. (From Erdik et al., 1999.)

Figure 2.9. Major earthquakes, which caused damages in zmir and its vicinity during the 20th century. (From Erdik et al., 1999.)

21

Figure 2.10. Earthquake focal mechanism in the Aegean region. They are mainly the events of Mw 5.5. The earthquakes of Mw 6.0 are indicated by the larger symbols. (From Jackson, 1994.)

22

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD: STAGGERED-GRID FINITE-DIFFERENCE

3.1. Computational Method Finite-difference techniques are widely used to solve a broad range of seismic wave propagation problems from exploration to earthquake simulation. One advantage of these techniques is their ability to model wave propagation through structurally complex media. Of these techniques, one is staggered-grid finitedifference scheme. It has become a very popular numerical tool in computational seismology since the works of Madariaga and Virieux. Madariaga (1976) developed a staggered-grid finite-difference method for modeling expanding circular crack, and Virieux (1986, 1984) adapted the scheme to model SH and P-SV wave propagation in a two-dimensional (2-D) medium. In a staggered-grid scheme, some of wave-field components are defined at different nodes of the grid as opposed to the conventional finite-difference approach, in which the components are located at the same nodes, and only displacements are calculated at these nodes of the grid (e.g., Alterman & Karal, 1968; Kelly et al., 1976). In a staggered-grid configuration, the grids for particle displacements (velocities) and stresses are shifted from those for other components by half a grid length in space (Yomogida & Etgen, 1993). Use of this grid configuration has important advantages compared with the conventional finite-difference algorithm. They can be summarized as the following: Since the velocity components are located at different nodes, the scheme is stable for all range of the Poissons ratio. This means that the stability condition is not a function of the Poissons ratio. Therefore, the same code

23

can be used for models including liquid-solid interfaces without any special treatments for the interfaces, It has small grid dispersion and grid anisotropy, and they are relatively insensitive to Poissons ratio, The system includes no spatial derivatives of the material properties. This means that treatment of the internal interfaces does not require explicit boundary conditions and interfaces are represented by changes in material properties (elastic parameters and density). Therefore, medium heterogeneity has no influence on the form of differential terms, The source insertion is very simple and can be easily initiated in terms of particle displacement/velocity (via body forces) or stress, Since velocity and stress components are not calculated at the same node location, infinite amplitudes at the source location and very large values at the adjacent nodes due to the source singularity are avoided (Alterman & Karal, 1968; Virieux, 1986), A stable and accurate representation of a planar free-surface boundary condition is easily satisfied (Virieux, 1984; 1986; Levander, 1988; Graves, 1996). Modeling wave propagation over a staggered-grid can be achieved by using one of displacement-stress (Yomogida & Etgen, 1993; Ohminato & Chouet, 1997; Moczo et al., 2000), velocity-stress (Olsen & Archuleta, 1996; Graves, 1996) or displacement-velocity-stress (Moczo et al., in press) formulations. In the framework of this study, I used a staggered-grid finite-difference algorithm to model seismic wave propagation expressed as the first-order elastodynamic equations of motion in terms of velocity and stress. I followed the formulation of Graves (1996), and in the following pages, implementation of the scheme will be explained in the basis of his

24

work. Also, some details of this algorithm are given in Appendices A, B and C. Details of the other types of formulation could be found in the articles mentioned above. 3.2. Velocity-Stress Formulation of the Wave Equation Wave propagation in a three-dimensional, linearly elastic and isotropic medium is described by equations of motion. Equations of momentum conversation: ttux = xxx + yxy + zxz + fx, ttuy = xxy + yyy + zyz + fy, ttuz = xxz + yyz + zzz + fz, and stress-strain relations: xx = ( + 2) x ux + (y uy + z uz ), yy = ( + 2) y uy + (x ux + z uz ), zz = ( + 2) z uz + (x ux + y uy ), xy = (y ux + x uy), xz = (z ux + x uz), yz = (z uy + y uz). In these equations, (ux, uy, uz) is the displacement vector; (3.2) (3.1)

(xx, yy, zz, xy, xz, yz) is the stress tensor; (fx, fy, fz) is the body force vector; is the density; and are Lam coefficients; x = /x, y = /y, z = /z, and tt = 2/t2. These equations can be transformed into a set of first-order differential equations as the following:

25

tvx = b(xxx + yxy + zxz + fx), tvy = b(xxy + yyy + zyz + fy), tvz = b(xxz + yyz + zzz + fz), and xx = ( + 2) x vx + (y vy + z vz), yy = ( + 2) y vy + (x vx + z vz), zz = ( + 2) z vz + (x vx + y vy), xy = (y vx + x vy), xz = (z vx + x vz), yz = (z vy + y vz). Here, (vx, vy, vz) is the particle velocity vector. b(x, y, z) is the lightness or the buoyancy (inverse of density). 3.3. Finite - Difference Implementation Solution of the system of equations (3.3) and (3.4) can be easily obtained using a staggered-grid finite-difference approximation. Details on stability, grid dispersion and numerical accuracy analyses of the staggered-grid finite-difference approximation and details on its numerical implementation can be found in related articles (e.g, Virieux, 1986; Levander, 1988; Randall, 1989; Moczo et al., 2000). Configuration of the wavefield variables and media parameters on the staggeredgrid mesh are shown in Figure (3.1). The system is staggered in space and it is also staggered in time. The numerical scheme, which is equivalent to the system of equations (3.3) and (3.4) is given as the following: (3.4) (3.3)

26

Figure 3.1. Staggered grid used in the finite difference calculations. The wave-field variables and media parameters are defined at specific nodes of the unit cell, as shown in the top of the figure. By using a series of unit cell, the model space is filled up. The indices i, j and k represent the coordinates x, y and z, respectively. h is the grid spacing. (From Graves, 1996.)

27

n n vxi+11//22, j , k = vxi11//22, j , k + tbx ( Dx xx + Dy yx + Dz zx + f x ) |in+1 / 2, j , k + +

n / n / v yi+1 +2 / 2, k = v yi1j +2 / 2, k + tby ( Dx xy + Dy yy + Dz yz + f y ) |in, j +1 / 2, k ,j 1 , 1

(3.5)

n n vzi+1,/k2+1 / 2 = vzi1,/k2+1 / 2 + tbz ( Dx xz + Dy yz + Dz zz + f z ) |in, j , k +1 / 2 ,j ,j

for the particle velocities, and

n+ n xxi1j , k = xxi , j , k + t [( + 2 ) Dx vx + ( Dy v y + Dz vz )] |in,+j1k/ 2 , ,

n+ n yyi1 j , k = yyi , j , k + t [( + 2 ) Dy v y + ( Dx vx + Dz vz )] |in,+j1k/ 2 , ,

n+ n zzi ,1j , k = zzi , j , k + t [( + 2 ) Dz vz + ( Dx vx + Dy v y )] |in,+j1k/ 2 ,

(3.6)

n+ n H xyi1 1 / 2, j +1 / 2, k = xyi +1 / 2, j +1 / 2, k + t [ xy ( Dy vx + Dx v y )] |in++11//22, j +1 / 2, k +

n+ n H xzi 11 / 2, j , k +1 / 2 = xzi +1 / 2, j , k +1 / 2 + t [ xz ( Dz vx + Dx vz )] |in++11//22, j , k +1 / 2 +

n n H yz+,1j +1 / 2, k +1 / 2 = yz , j +1 / 2, k +1 / 2 + t [ yz ( Dz v y + Dy vz )] |in,+j1 /12/ 2, k +1 / 2 +

for the stresses. In these equations, the subscripts and superscripts are used for the spatial indices and time index, respectively. If the grid spacing is h and the time step is t then the following expression
n v xi+11//22, j ,k +

(3.7)

shows the x-component of velocity calculated at the point x = [i + (1/2)]h, y = jh, z = kh, and time t = [n + (1/2)] t. Dx, Dy, Dz represent spatial differential operators.

28

Either secondorder or fourthorder (or higher) operators can be employed. In 3-D applications use of secondorder operators is not efficient since they require increased number of grid points causing high computational cost. Thereby, fourth order operators are preferred in 3-D simulations. Considering this, I used a fourth order operator for the spatial derivatives and a secondorder operator for the time stepping, O( t 2 , x 4 ) (see Appendix A). The following equations defines the effective media parameters, used in equations (3.5) and (3.6):

bx =

(b

i, j,k

+ bi +1, j , k ) 2

by =

(b

i, j,k

+ bi , j +1, k ) 2 + bi , j , k +1 ) 2

(3.8)

bz =

(b

i, j,k

for the buoyancy, and (1 / i , j , k + 1 / i +1, j , k + 1 / i , j +1, k + 1 / i +1, j +1, k ) = 4 (1 / i , j , k + 1 / i +1, j , k + 1 / i , j , k +1 + 1 / i +1, j , k +1 ) = 4 (1 / i , j , k + 1 / i , j +1, k + 1 / i , j , k +1 + 1 / i , j +1, k +1 ) = 4
1

H xy

H xz

(3.9)

H yz

for the rigidity. The expressions in equation (3.9) are harmonic averaging of the shear modulus. The use of effective media parameters in the staggered-grid formulation (Randall et al., 1991) generates more accurate results and also ensures

29

numerical stability in case of an interface with large media contrast intersecting the free surface (Graves, 1996). 3.4. Source Implementation In velocity-stress staggered-grid finite difference method, implementation of source can be carried out using either the velocity components (e.g., Yomogida & Etgen, 1993; Graves, 1996) or the stress components (e.g., Coutent et al., 1995; Olsen et al., 1995). A general approach is to use a generalized moment-tensor source description. Using moment-tensor approach a wide range of source types from explosion (implosion) to earthquakes can be included in simulations. In this study, I am interested in modeling seismic wave propagation induced by earthquakes. So, I will try to explain the representation of earthquakes in velocity-stress staggered-grid finite-difference scheme. Earthquakes can be described as shear dislocations along a planar fault. Therefore, an earthquake source can be simulated by a shear fault and seismic moment (Mo). A shear fault is described by some orientation parameters in Cartesian coordinates. These are strike s, dip and rake . Figure (3.2) depicts these parameters. Strike is measured clockwise round from north (0 s < 2); dip is measured down from horizontal (0 /2) and the angle between strike direction and slip is rake (- < ). For a reverse or a thrust fault, for example, dip is 0 < < /2 and rake is in the range of (0, ). If rake is within the range (-, 0) then we have a normal fault. More detailed discussions on the fault orientation parameters and slip directions of fundamental fault types are given in Aki & Richards (1980) and Lay & Wallace (1995). Taking coordinates (x, y, z) at the source as (North, East, Down) Cartesian components of moment tensor M for a shear fault of arbitrary orientation are defined by fault parameters (s, , ) and seismic moment (Mo) as the following (ki & Richards, 1980, p. 117):

30

Figure 3.2. Definition of the faultorientation parameters (strike s, dip , rake ) and Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). u is the fault slip. This coordinate system is used in obtaining moment tensor components. (From Aki & Richards, 1980.)

M xx = M 0 sin cos sin 2 s + sin 2 sin sin 2 s ,

1 M xy = M 0 sin cos cos 2 s + sin 2 sin sin 2 s = M yx , 2 M xz = M 0 cos cos cos s + cos 2 sin sin s = M zx ,
M yy M yz
2 0 s s

) = M (sin cos sin 2 sin 2 sin cos ), = M (cos cos sin cos 2 sin cos ) = M
0 s s

(3.10)

zy

M zz = M 0 sin 2 sin . Following the algorithm presented by Frankel (1993), Graves (1996) introduced a generalized moment-tensor source description using a distribution of body forces as

31

added to the individual velocity components. In his approach, an equivalent distribution of body-force couples centered at the grid location x = ih, y = jh, z = kh (h is grid spacing) can be defined by moment-tensor components. Mxx(t), Mxy(t) and Mxz(t) are the moment-tensor components contributing to the x component of the body-forces, fx. The component Mxx(t), for example, represents a force couple with a moment arm of length h aligned in the x direction. Mxx(t)/h is the strength of each force. Since the body force is the force per unit volume, we have Mxx(t)/h4 by normalizing the term with the volume of the grid cell, h3. Then, we get the equivalent body-force distribution for this component of the body force as:
M xx (t ) , h4

fx i+1/2, j, k =

(3.11) fx i-1/2, j, k =
M xx (t ) . h4

In a similar manner, the contributions of Mxy(t) and Mxz(t) to the body-force distribution are M xy (t ) 4h 4 M xy (t ) 4h 4 4h 4 M xy (t ) 4h 4
M xz (t ) , 4h 4 M xz (t ) , 4h 4

fx i-1/2, j+1, k = fx i+1/2, j+1, k = fx i-1/2, j-1, k = fx i+1/2, j-1, k =

, , , , (3.12)

M xy (t )

fx i-1/2, j, k+1 = fx i+1/2, j, k+1 =

32

fx i-1/2, j, k-1 = fx i+1/2, j, k-1 =

M xz (t ) , 4h 4 M xz (t ) . 4h 4

The illustrations of these force distributions are shown in Figure (3.3). The corresponding expressions for the y and z components of body forces, fy and fz are given in Appendix B. As I mentioned previously, source implementation is also possible via stress components of the wave-field in staggered-grid finite-difference scheme. Using the generalized moment-tensor approach the implementation of the source is quite straightforward. It is achieved by adding the term
& tM ij (t ) h3

(3.13)

& to the stress tensor ij(t). Here M ij is the ijth component of the moment-rate tensor of

the earthquake; h is the grid spacing and h3 is the volume of the grid cell. ij(t) is the ijth component of the stress tensor at time t (Gottschmmer & Olsen, 2001). Explicit forms of the term above are given in Appendix C.
3.5. Boundary Conditions 3.5.1. Absorbing Boundary Conditions

In the numerical simulation of wave propagation, one of the serious problems is artificial reflection generated by the edges of the computational domain. To obtain reliable solutions these artificial phases should be reduced. This may be achieved by using absorbing boundary conditions. Type of such boundary conditions might be

33

Figure 3.3. Representation of the body-force distribution in the x-direction (fx) based

on generalized moment-tensor source description. As shown in the figure, it is applied to the vx component of the wave field. The vectors in each diagram indicate the force direction, and the expression to the right of each diagram defines the strength of the body force. Representations for fy and fz are made in similar fashion. (From Graves, 1996.) classified as two general catagories: transmitting (Lysmer & Kuhlmeyer, 1969; Clayton & Engquist, 1977; Reynolds, 1978; Randall, 1988; Higdon, 1991) and attenuating (Cerjan et al., 1985; Dablain, 1986) boundary conditions. The first category is a derivation from various approximations of the wave equation at the

34

boundary, which makes the edges of the mesh transparent to outward-moving waves. In the second category, an attenuating region is added as a strip of nodes along the edges of the computational domain. Waves travelling through that region are damped by gradual reduction of the amplitudes (Cao & Greenhalgh, 1998). In the framework of this thesis study a combination of these two boundary conditions is employed for artificial reflection reduction. Along the borders of the domain of computation A1 absorbing boundary condition of Clayton & Engquist (1977) is used as applied to the velocity components. The A1 boundary condition is a paraxial approximation of the wave equation. By modeling only outward-moving energy artificial edge reflections can be reduced. They are computationally cheap and easy to implement. They are able to absorb energy over a wide range of incident angles. The difference equations corresponding to A1 boundary conditions and details of their implementation are given in Ohminato & Chouet (1997). To reduce the edge reflections further each side of the computational domain was extended by a strip of 20 nodes, having attenuative feature except the free surface (Cerjan et al., 1985). Within a strip both velocity and stress components of wavefield are attenuated by means of multiplying by exponentially decreasing terms (Hestholm & Ruud, 1994).
3.5.2. Free-surface Boundary Conditions

To model wave propagation in a semi-infinite space, we need to satisfy the freesurface boundary conditions. When surface topography is negligible compare to wavelength of the phases propagating areas with slowly changing topography we can explicitly formulate the free-surface conditions using a planar free-surface assumption (Levander, 1988; Graves, 1996; Gottschmmer & Olsen, 2001). Usually this is the case in 3-D earthquake simulations. Therefore, they are considered as long-period wave propagation modeling. Numerically stable and accurate implementation of the planar free surface can easily be achieved by explicitly satisfying zero-stress condition at the surface (e.g., Levander, 1988; Graves, 1996). In this section Graves (1996) zero-stress formulation will be described. Choosing the z axis as positive downward and letting the plane z = 0 be the free surface (Figure 3. 4), the zero-stress condition is met by setting

35

zz = xz = yz = 0| z = 0 .

(3.14)

Since we set the free surface at vertical index k, and zz is located at the surface, then
k zz = 0 .

(3.15)

As a result of model discretizing, we need particular values of the velocity and stress components at and above the free-surface boundary. The following expressions are obtained by imaging zz , xz , yz components of the stress tensor as odd functions

around the free surface:

k k zz1 = zz+1 ,

xz = xz , xz = xz ,
yz = yz , and yz = yz .
k 1 2 k+ 1 2 k 3 2 k+ 3 2

1 2

k+

1 2

3 2

k+

3 2

(3.16)

xx, yy, xy are not needed above the free-surface. The following difference equations

are derived by using the above relations with equations (3.2) for the velocity components at the free-surface boundary:
k k Dx v x + D y v y + 2

D z v zk =

],
1

[Dz vx + Dxvz ]k 2 = [Dz vx + Dxvz ]k + 2 ,

(3.17)

[D v

z y

+ Dy vz

1 2

= Dz v y + Dy vz

k+

1 2 .

Here D is second-order difference operator (Appendix A). Above difference equations can be solved to obtain the velocity components along the grid row just

36

above the free surface given the interior values of vx, vy, and vz at and below the free surface. Gottschmmer & Olsen (2001) showed that centering the staggered wavefield at the free surface by averaging it across the free surface produced more accurate solutions. Therefore, seismograms for the vertical velocity component at the free surface boundary are obtained by averaging the components above and below the surface.

Figure 3.4. Wavefield variables in an xz plane. The zero-stress free-surface

boundary is coincident with the normal stress nodes (open circles). (From Graves, 1996.) Figure 3.5 shows snapshots in the xz-plane of some of the wave-field components (xx, zz, xz, vx, vz) in an infinite homogeneous medium (vp = 4000 m/s, vs = 2300 m/s, = 1.8 g/cm3). I have used the same values of velocities and density as Graves

37

(1996). The medium is excited by a pressure source. For this reason, only P-wave is propagating in the medium.

Figure 3.5. Snapshots of some of the wave-field variables in a homogeneous

medium. Since a pressure source has been used, only P-waves are propagating in the medium. To test the accuracy of implementation of the planar free surface, I solved a wave propagation problem in a 3-D half-space (vp = 4000 m/s, vs = 2300 m/s, = 1.8 g/cm3), and it is similar to Lambs problem. I used a point explosive pressure source

38

located just below the free surface. It emits a 25-Hz Ricker wavelet. What is expected by the solution of this problem is Rayleigh surface wave excitation and generation of PS phase by P to S conversion at the free surface. Figure 3.6 shows the snapshots of the vertical (vz) and horizontal (vx) particle velocities at times of 1.8, 2.5 and 3.1 s. In the snapshots at 2.5 and 3.1 s, Rayleigh wave propagating along the free surface and propagation of the PS phase through the medium are clearly seen in each component.

Figure 3.6. Snapshots of horizontal and vertical components at 1.8, 2.5 and 3.1 s.

Rayleigh wave excitation and generation of converted phase PS by using a pressure source located just below the surface are very clear. A more quantitative comparison of the free surface condition implementation is given in the figure below (Figure 3.7). Synthetic seismograms obtained by staggered-

39

grid finite-difference scheme are compared with those obtained by analytical solution. Again a half- space model (vp = 4000 m/s, vs = 2300 m/s, = 1.8 g/cm3) was used. The seismograms were calculated in an observation point on the surface at a horizontal range of 20 km. An explosion source was placed at the depth of 0.5 km from the surface. The source time function was a triangle, which is 1 sec wide. Numerical solutions have carried out using a grid spacing of 0.25 km and a time step of 0.025 s. Analytical solution of the problem have been obtained by a frequencywavenumber (FK) integration technique (e. g., Wang & Herrmann, 1980; Saikia, 1994). The seismograms have been filtered by a low-pass filter at 1 Hz. Figure 7 shows comparison of seismograms of vertical and radial components from each method by the end of a 16-s modeling. There is a very good agreement in both waveforms and amplitudes. The direct P-wave arrives about 5 s and a very strong Rayleigh wave arrives about 9 s after the origin time. The misfit in the tail of the Rayleigh wave is caused by artificial edge reflections, which cannot be suppressed completely by the absorbing boundaries. Using the same problem discussed above, I tested the accuracy of the generalized moment-tensor source description scheme. I used an earthquake source located at depth of 2.5 km. It was simulated using a dip-slip (DS) fault having the orientation parameters (, , ) as (90, 90, 90) and a seismic moment (Mo) of 11016 N - m. The seismograms were calculated in an observation point on the surface at a horizontal range of 10 km. The source time function was again a 1-sec triangle. Comparison between analytical solutions obtained by FK technique and FD scheme is shown in Figure 3.8. Observation azimuth of each component is indicated on the figure. There is an excellent agreement between seismogram calculated by each method considering amplitudes and waveforms.

40

Figure 3.7. Comparison of synthetic seismograms calculated by finite difference

(FD) and frequency-wavenumber (FK) technique. They were calculated using a halfspace model and a pressure source at the depth of 0.5 km. Comparison indicates good agreement between the seismograms.

41

Figure 3.8. Synthetic seismogram calculated by finite difference scheme utilizing the

moment-tensor source formulation is compared with that obtained by frequencywavenumber integration. The agreement between them is very good, and this indicates the accuracy of earthquake source implementation algorithm.

42

CHAPTER FOUR

SIMULATION STUDIES

4.1. Three-Dimensional Model for the Study Area

Earthquake simulations like the one studied within the framework of this thesis have some requirements. Mainly, these are a three-dimensional (3-D) model of the medium in which wave propagation will be simulated, and type of source. The question of 3-D model requires physical and geometrical parameters of the medium. Geometrical parameters are the number of layers, thickness of the layers, topography of interfaces, etc. Physical parameters, on the other hand, include density and seismic velocity distributions in the model. Type of the source is to define what kind of faulting mechanism generates earthquake. To construct a 3-D model, I subdivided the study area into four regions. These are the Bornova basin (it also includes the downtown area of the city), Balova area, zmir Bay, and KaryakaBostanl area (Figure 4.1). Each area was studied separately and then the results were combined to obtain a global model for the study area. Since I carried out a lowfrequency wave propagation simulation and I am mainly interested some broad features in the study area which are observable in the frequency range up to 1 Hz, I assumed a simplified twolayer model: a sedimentary layer with low velocity underlaid by a high velocity basement. On the other hand, our limited knowledge of both the subsurface structure and velocity distribution does not allow building a more complex model. Use of a simplified model is also a common approach in such modeling studies (e.g., Frankel & Vidale, 1992; Yomogida & Etgen, 1993; Frankel, 1993; Olsen et al., 1996). Data used for constructing a reliable 3-D model are based on the wells drilled for water and geothermal explorations by DSI (The State Hydrology Department), MTA (The

43

Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration) and private companies and some limited seismic experiments in the zmir Bay carried out by Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology of Dokuz Eyll University. In the Bornova basin the main source of the data comes from the wells drilled for water exploration by DSI and some private companies. They are in the depth range of 100-350 m. Especially, a study known as The zmir Water Project carried out in 1971 by DSI yielded valuable data for subsurface structure in the Bornova basin, and I mainly used this data set. In the Balova area, there area number of wells drilled for geothermal energy by MTA as the region is one of the most important geothermal fields in the western Anatolia. They have depths ranging from 100-700 m. Thus our knowledge of the subsurface in the area is based on these drilling works. These wells are divided into three groups as shallow production wells, gradient wells for temperature measurements and deep production wells. Considering the vertical extent of the model, I preferred to use the gradient and deep production wells. Although we have information on broad layering and seismic velocities in the bay of zmir based on seismic studies, our knowledge of depth and topography of interfaces is not satisfactory. Seismic experiments reveals four different geologic units in the bay area (Ulu & zdar, 1988; Gnay, 1998); these are together with corresponding average P-wave velocities:

Quaternary sediments (1700 m/s), Neogene sediments (2000 m/s), Neogene volcanic facies (2600 m/s), Cretaceous flysh (3200 m/s).

In the KaryakaBostanl area, I mainly used the data from wells drilled by private companies for engineering purposes. The well coverage in the area is not satisfactory and most of them do not penetrate the basement. Actually this was a common disadvantage of developing a model based on information from wells. Figure 4.1 shows the map of basement depth in the study area. The model covers an area of 15 (N S) x 27 (E W) x 7 (Depth) km. Due to the computational restrictions, I limited the vertical extent of the model to 7 km. As seen from the map,

44

the model mainly comprises the metropolitan area of the city. The topography of surrounding hills is not included. The maximum basement depth is in the bay area with a value of > 400 m. The part of the basin in the Bornova plain (i.e., the eastern end of the basin) is characterized by values of depth to bedrock ranging from 100 m to 300 m. It is deeper in the south than that in the north. This reveals halfgraben feature of the basin. This is a common characteristic of the grabens in western Anatolia (Ylmaz et al., 2000). This also implies that the southern border of the basin is more active compared to the northern border. As mentioned previously, the southern border is formed by the zmir fault. Considering the seismic refraction experiments carried out in the zmir bay, I assigned a P-wave velocity of 2000 m/s, and density of 2.0 g/cm3 for the sedimentary layer of the model. The refraction experiments indicate a P-wave velocity ranging from 1700 m/s to 2000 m/s in sedimentary units. These studies also give an average P-wave velocity of 3200 m/s for the Cretaceous flysh, which is considered as the basement rock. Therefore I assumed the basement to have a slightly higher velocity of 3500 m/s, and a density of 2.6 g/cm3. The value (2000 m/s) assigned for the sedimentary unit is relatively higher. The reason for choosing this value is to reduce the number of grid points used in simulation. Use of lower velocities requires smaller grid spacing, and this causes an increase in grid dimensions. Because of our limited computational power relatively high velocity was preferred. The velocities are uniform within each layer. That is, no velocity gradient is taken into account in the model. I adopted density values for the units from literature. S-wave velocities are set to be 3 times lower than the P-wave velocities. A constant grid spacing of 150 m is

employed for both the horizontal and vertical directions. This yielded 141 x 221 x 65 (= 2,025,465) grid points.
4.2. Seismic Source Used in Simulations

Even though we have no enough seismological observations for the activity of the fault, historical records of the seismicity of the city indicate some major events likely related with the zmir fault. The event of 10 July 1688 caused a general sinking of

45

the ground by about 60 cm and the seashore advanced inland. The shock almost ruined the city. Based on the damage in the fort of Sancak Burnu (Yenikale), the epicenter of the event is assumed to be near Sancak Burnu peninsula (Ergin et al., 1967; Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995). This peninsula is situated on the delta developed on the hanging wall of the zmir fault between Balova and Narldere (see Figure 2.5). Also the earthquake occurred on 4 April 1739 is taken as an event having the epicenter in the Gulf of zmir (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995). As a result of the earthquake, the delta at the mouth of the Gediz River submerged, and some other morphological changes occurred. Again the city experienced widespread damage. Another destructive shock of the citys history took place in the July of 1778. The city was damaged almost totally and some morphological changes were again reported (Ambraseys & Finkel, 1995, p. 156). Both heavy damage in the city and morphological changes stress the possibility of these earthquakes being related with the fault systems in the citys metropolitan area. As mentioned above, the zmir fault is more active, and it is most likely responsible for destructive seismic activity in the citys past. Therefore, a hypothetical earthquake on the zmir fault was assumed as the source in simulation of the wave propagation in the study area. The focal depth of this event was set to be at 5 km, and it was considered as a point source having a normal fault mechanism. Its epicenter is shown in Figure 4.1 by a star.
4.3. Results of Wave Propagation Simulation

In the framework of this thesis study, 3-D simulation of seismic wave propagation in the study area is studied by two different approaches to seismic source. In the first approach, seismic wave propagation is induced by an explosive pressure source while it is achieved by hypothetical earthquake (a dislocation source) in the second approach. Each source has the same hypothetical coordinate and depth. The reasons for use of a pressure source are its simplicity as a source compared with an earthquake (considering the radiation patterns for different wave types) and to analyze the broad features of the basins response to wave propagation by means of a simple source. Analysis of wave propagation using such simplifications is common

47

Figure 4.1. Model of basement depth distribution in the study area. The maximum basement depth is in the bay area ( > 400 m).

The part of the basin in the Bornova plain (the eastern end of the basin) is characterized by values of depth to bedrock ranging from 100 m to 300 m. Halfgraben features is clearly seen in this area. Contour interval 100 m. Star shows the epicenter of the hypothetical earthquake.

49

in computational seismology (e.g., Bard & Bouchon, 1980a, b; Graves & Clayton, 1992; Olsen & Schuster, 1995).
4.3.1. Simulation for an Explosive Pressure Source

I carried out a simulation using a point explosive pressure source at the depth of 5 km. The implementation of the source was achieved by generalized moment-tensor source description using a distribution of body forces as added to the individual velocity components at the source location. All the elements of the moment tensor except the ones on the main diagonal are zero. Those on the main diagonal equal to unity (i.e., M xx = 1, M yy = 1, M zz = 1) . The second derivative of a Gaussian pulse was used as source-time function. The source spectrum has a peak frequency of about 0.75 Hz, and it contains nonnegligible energy from 0.2 Hz up to 1.5 Hz. Therefore, the source has a bandwidth of approximately 0.2 to 1.5 Hz. Figure 4.2 shows pressure-time history and amplitude spectrum of the source function used in simulation, and the modeling parameters of 3-D simulation are given in Table 4.1. No anelastic attenuation is included in the modeling.

Figure 4.2. Pressure-time history (top) and amplitude spectrum (bottom) of the

source-time function used in the simulation.

50

Table 4.1. Modeling Parameters Used in 3-D Simulation with a Pressure Source

P-wave velocity of sediments (m/s) S-wave velocity of sediments (m/s) Density of sediments (g/cm3) P-wave velocity of bedrock (m/s) S-wave velocity of bedrock (m/s) Density of bedrock (g/cm3) Spatial discretization (m) Temporal discretization (s) Number of time steps Simulation time (s) Depth of source (km) Central frequency of source (Hz)

2000 1155 2.0 3500 2020 2.6 150 0.017 1000 17 5 0.75

Using the source type discussed above, I carried out a 17-s wave propagation simulation in the study area. I calculated radial and tangential components of the motion using the horizontal components (N-S and E-W) of particle velocity. Figure 4.3 shows the snapshots (time slices) of radial-, tangential-, and vertical-components of particle velocity on the earths surface at several times of the simulation. Vertical, radial and tangential components correspond to P, SV, and SH motions, respectively but there is a minor energy leakages between the components due to the angle of incidence. Around 3 s primary P-wave arrive the surface in the bay area. At 5.1 s, the direct P-wave enters the Bornova basin. Since the pressure source is located at the depth of 5 km, the Rayleigh surface wave generation associated with the direct Pwave is not observed on the snapshots. On the radial component, a slight distortion is seen in the wavefront of the primary P-wave. Naturally, the P-wave is absent on the tangential component. Instead, the western part of the study area, especially, is dominated by some energy. This energy is the result of reflections and mode conversions at the sediment-bedrock interface and the free surface. The vertical component, on the other hand, displays almost a circular wavefront, that is, no significant delay is observed. The snapshots at 6.8 s depict the wave propagation in the Bornova basin and the surrounding area. The P-wave traveling in the basin sediments lag behind wave propagating in the surrounding bedrock. This is caused by low velocity of sediments compared with high-velocity bedrock. Moreover, passage of the P-wave through the Bornova basin is followed by a wake of scattered

51

Figure 4.3. Snapshots of 3D-simulated wave propagation in the study area for a

pressure source at the depth of 5 km. The snapshots display the particle velocities of radial, tangential and vertical components on the earths surface between 3.4 s to 13.6 s. The inner contour is the coastline of the zmir Bay, and the outer contour is the border between the basin sediments and bedrock. Star shows the epicenter of the seismic source.

52

energy in the sediments. Also some waves propagating toward north in the bay area are observed. These are clearly seen on the tangential and vertical components. These events are basin-edge-generated waves. They are caused at the vertical interfaces between the basin sediments and bedrock (i.e., the western segment of the zmir fault), and they are reflected back to basin. At 8.5 s, the direct P-wave almost leaves the study area through the eastern edge of the model. On each component, ground motions due to both scattered and trapped energy are present in the Bornova basin. The events propagating northward in the bay area are more pronounced in the tangential and vertical component. At 10.2 s, ground motion is observed in the Bornova basin, and the northward traveling waves arrive the northern shoreline of the zmir bay. The main features of ground motion at 11.9 and 13.6 s are resonating energy in the Bornova basin and wave propagation in the bay area. The pattern of resonating energy is coincident with the deeper parts of the Bornova basin. Even though the deepest part of the sedimentary layer of the model is in the bay area, noticeable resonating seismic energy is not observed in that part of the basin. Resonance is the result of the trapped seismic energy. The geometry of the basin does not allow the energy being trapped in that part of the model, and direct, reflected and scattered waves leave the basin through the northwestern part of the northern edge of the model (the Karyaka-Bostanl area). On the other hand, seismic energy is trapped in the Bornova basin due to its geometry. Figure 4.4 gives some seismic record sections of particle velocity along two profiles in direction of N-S. Since a pressure source was used, I focused only the radial and vertical components of motion. Each record shows 13 s of the simulation. Seismic records along the profile A-A (Figure 4.4a) display the time histories of the wave propagation in the bay area. The main event on these components is the direct P-wave with an arrival time of around 3 s. The rest of the seismograms is dominated by laterally propagating disturbances, which are basin-edge-induced phases. They are generated at the southern and northern boundaries of the basin and subsequently travel across the basin. They originate around 4 km and 12 km on the profile A-A. The one generated at the southern boundary and northward propagating are more pronounced as a result of the sharp boundary between the basin and bedrock (the

53

western segment of the zmir fault). They propagate with relatively slow apparent velocity, and they are more dominant in the vertical components of motion. Therefore, I consider them as the Rayleigh surface waves caused at the edges of the basin. Bard & Bouchon. (1980a, 1980b) showed generation of surface waves at the edges of sediment-filled valleys and their lateral propagation inside the basin in the case of vertically incident P, SV and SH waves. The seismic record sections on the profile B-B are given in Figure 4.4b. These synthetic records reveal the effect of the Bornova basin on the wave propagation. The direct P-wave arrives at 6s to the region. The delay on the first arrivals between 7.5 km and 12 km is caused by low-velocity basin sediments. The time histories indicate prolonged duration of the wave motion in the basin. Moreover, the waves propagate with relatively smaller amplitude outside the basin (in the surrounding bedrock). Figure 4.5 shows 13-s particle velocity seismograms of the radial and vertical components of the wavefield at four different sites in the study area. The sites are marked by a solid triangle on the figure. They, except the site 4, are located on the sedimentary unit of the model. Each site was scaled by different scaling factors for a better comparison. The site 1 is situated near the epicenter of the event. Each seismogram is characterized by large-amplitude first arrivals. They reach the site 1 around 1.5 s. The part of the seismograms between 4 s and 13 s is dominated by both reflected and scattered energy. They have noticeably small amplitudes. At the site 2, similar features are observed on the seismograms. The first arrivals are characterized by high amplitudes 2.5 s after the origin time. There is a wavepackage between 8 s and 12 s on both components. These are basin-edge-generated phases (The Rayleigh waves) propagating across the basin in the direction of N-S. 12 s after the origin time, there are no noticeable disturbances on the components. The seismograms in the site 3 show the ground motion in the Bornova basin. The direct P-wave arrives the site 3 at 4 s. The first arrivals are immediately followed by a wavepackage between 6 s and 9 s. This is the scattered energy in the sediments caused by the passage of the P-wave. This situation is more pronounced on the radial component.

54

Figure 4.4. Seismic record sections for the radial and vertical velocities along two

profiles running N-S.(a) Profile A-A across the Balova area, zmir bay, and Karyaka-Bostanl area. (b) Profile B-B across the Bornova basin.

55

Figure 4.5. Time histories of radial and vertical velocities at four different sites (marked by solid triangles) in the

study area. R: Radial and V: Vertical components.

56

After 9 s, the seismograms are dominated by small-magnitude disturbances generated by resonating energy in the Bornova basin. The site 4 is located on the bedrock. The main event on the seismograms is the direct P-wave between 4 s and 6 s. The rest of the time histories include very small-scale disturbances caused by the scattered energy. Based on the simulation for an explosive pressure source, I calculated cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity distributions on the surface of the study area for the vertical, radial and tangential components relative to those at a rock site. Cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity are considered as the groundmotion parameters (Olsen et al., 1996), and they are referred to measures of basin amplification. The peak particle velocity at location (x,y) is defined as
Pk ( x, y ) = max( v k ( x, y, t ) ) ,

(4.1)

where v k ( x, y, t ) is the velocity seismogram at location (x,y), k is the component (i.e., vertical, radial and tangential), and max is the maximum value of v k ( x, y, t ) . On the other hand, the cumulative kinetic energy at location (x,y) is defined as
T

E k ( x, y ) =

1 ( x, y ) v k2 ( x, y, t )dt , 2 0

(4.2)

where ( x, y ) is the density at location (x,y), and T is the duration of the velocity seismogram. Figure 4.6 shows the cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity distributions in the study area. Each of these ground motion parameters was normalized by the vertical-component parameters at the rock site (marked by a filled

57

Figure 4.6. Normalized cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity

distributions on the surface of the study area. Each of the components were normalized by the vertical-component parameters (vertical cumulative kinetic energy and vertical peak particle velocity) on the bedrock. This reference site is shown by a solid triangle on the figure. Star indicates the epicenter of the source, which is located at the depth of 5 km. Maximum values are observed near the epicenter and in the bay area.

58

triangle at the bottom of the figure). According to these distributions, the largest values are obtained in the vicinity of the source and the bay area including the Balova and Karyaka-Bostanl areas. Also relatively small values are observed above the deeper parts of the Bornova basin. Even though simulation for a pressure source produced motion primarily on the vertical and radial components (see Figure 4.3), there exists some nonnegligiable energy on the tangential component considering the ground-motion parameters. This could be explained with energy transfer from the radial and vertical components to the tangential component. This energy is the result of reflections, refractions and mode conversions at the sedimentbedrock interface and the free surface.
4.3.2. Simulation for a Hypothetical Earthquake

Although we lack enough seismological observations for the seismic activity of the zmir fault, historic seismicity in zmir and its vicinity indicates some major earthquakes likely related with this fault system. Therefore, a hypothetical rupture on the zmir fault was assumed for this part of 3D-simulated seismic wave propagation. The focal depth of the event is again set to be at 5 km, and it is modeled as a point source with a normal fault mechanism. The implementation of the earthquake source was achieved using the generalized moment-tensor source description as applied to the stress components of the wavefield at the source location. A Gaussian-shaped function with a bandwith of 0.0 to 0.75 Hz was used for slip-rate. Figure 4.7 shows its slip and slip-rate functions, and velocity spectrum. The earthquake rupture and modeling parameters are listed in Table 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. The rise time is about 1.5 s. Like the previous simulation no anelastic attenuation (seismic Q) is included.
Table 4.2. Earthquake Rupture Parameters

Strike () Dip () Rake () Seismic Moment Mo (N-m)

270 60 270 11016

59

Figure 4.7. Source-time function used in the 3-D simulation for a hypothetical

earthquake on the zmir fault. Normalized slip (top), slip-rate (middle), and velocity spectrum (bottom). The source includes noticeable energy up to 0.75 Hz.
Table 4.3. Modeling Parameters Used in the 3-D Simulation for an Earthquake

P-wave velocity of sediments (m/s) S-wave velocity of sediments (m/s) Density of sediments (g/cm3) P-wave velocity of bedrock (m/s) S-wave velocity of bedrock (m/s) Density of bedrock (g/cm3) Spatial discretization (m) Temporal discretization (s) Number of time steps Simulation time (s) Depth of source (km) Maximum frequency of source (Hz)

2000 1155 2.0 3500 2020 2.6 150 0.017 1000 17 5 1.0

60

Figure 4.8 depicts the time slices of the radial, tangential and vertical components of 17-s simulated wavefield for an earthquake source from 5.1 s to 15.3 s. The snapshots show the particle velocity of ground motion on the surface of the study area at successive instants of time. At 5.1 s the primary (direct) S-wave is observed in the bay area. The P-wave, on the other hand, is rather negligible in the simulation due to the source type used. 6.8 s after the origin time, the direct S-wave propagates across the bay area and reaches the northern edge of the model. Also it starts to enter the Bornova basin. It displays undistorted circular wavefront. Moreover, some smallamplitude scattered energy is visible in the bay area. At 8.5 s, S-wave continues to propagate in the Bornova basin. SH motion is clearly seen on the tangential component with the node in the radiation pattern almost in the central part of the model surface. No noticeable delay on the wavefront is observed although the basin is filled up with low-velocity material. This can be explained by the quarter wavelength criterion. The Bornova basin does not have significant impact on the wave propagation because of both relatively large wavelength of the phase traveling across and shallow basin depth. Also the time slices of the radial and vertical components at 8.5 s indicate a wavefront preceding the direct S-wave in the Bornova basin and NE of the zmir bay. This is S-to-P conversion at the interface between the bedrock and sediment-filled basin. At 10.2 s, the basin-edge-generated waves propagating across the bay area in the direction of NS are clearly observed, and they are more pronounced on the radial and vertical components. Some scattered energy propagating in the directions of SW in the bay area is seen at 13.6 s. 15.3 s after the start of the simulation the primary S-wave leave the study area at the eastern edge of the model without causing any significant energy in the Bornova basin and the scattered energies go on propagation in the bay area. Figure 4.9 gives the time histories of the particle velocities on the radial, tangential and vertical components in the form of seismic record sections along the profile AA. Each section displays a 17-s simulation. The main event on these sections is the highamplitude direct S-wave arrivals around 3 s. The complexity of the seismograms is a result of the radiation-pattern features of the earthquake source. In the vicinity of the epicenter, especially in the Balova area, the separation of the P- and S-phases is

61

Figure 4.8. Snapshots of 3D-simulated seismic wave propagation in the study area

for a hypothetical earthquake with a focal depth of 5 km. The snapshots depict the particle velocities of radial, tangential and vertical components on the earths surface from 5.1 s to 15.3 s. The inner contour is the coastline of the zmir Bay, and the outer contour is the border between the basin sediments and bedrock. Star shows the epicenter of the event.

62

rather difficult. Later times of the seismograms (> 8 s) indicate laterally propagating small-amplitude disturbances in the bay area, and they are more dominant in the vertical and radial components. After ~12 s, no significant energy is observed on the seismograms. The seismic record sections on the profile BB are shown in Figure 4.10. Like the profile AA large-amplitude direct S-wave arrivals around ~8 s are the dominant events on the seismograms. On the vertical and radial components smallamplitude P-wave arrivals are observed between 4s and 8s. These arrivals include both the direct P-wave and S-to-P conversions. Naturally, they are absent on the tangential component. A polarity reversal at the distance of 7.5 km on the tangential component is present due to the radiation pattern of the source. Even though there are some disturbances between 5 and 10 km on the profile, the time histories do not indicate any noticeable effect of the Bornova basin on the wave propagation. Figure 4.11 shows the particle velocity seismograms at four different sites in the study area. Sites are marked by a solid triangle on the map in the middle of the figure. Each site was scaled by different scaling factors for better display, and the maximum values are printed on each seismogram. The site 1 is located near the epicenter of the earthquake. The radial and vertical components are characterized by large-amplitude primary S-wave arrivals around 3 s while no significant event exists on the tangential component. On the vertical component small-amplitude direct Pwave at ~2 s is observed. After ~5 s no noticeable energy is seen on the radial and vertical components. At the site 2 the similar features are observed on the seismograms with late arrival times. Again no noticeable event is seen on the tangential component as a result of the radiation pattern. The velocity seismograms at the site 3 reveal the effect of the Bornova basin on the wave propagation relatively better than the snapshots (Figure 4.8) and seismic record sections (Figures 4.9, 4.10). According to the radial and vertical components, P-waves reach the site ~5 s after the origin time and is followed by S-wave with large amplitude. No P-wave arrival is observed on the tangential component. The rest of each seismogram (> 9 s) is dominated by scattered energy and trapped energies. The site 4 is located on the rock site. The direct P-wave arrives the site ~ 4.5 s and is followed by the direct S-wave. Between 6 s and 10 s there is a major arrival on the tangential component indicating

63

Figure 4.9. Time histories in the form of seismic record section for the radial,

tangential and vertical components of the particle velocity along the profile AA across the Balova area, zmir bay, and Karyaka-Bostanl area.

64

Figure 4.10.

Seismic record sections of the radial, tangential, and vertical

components of the particle velocity along the profile BB across the Bornova basin.

65

SH motion of the wavefield. It has relatively large amplitude compared with the other components. After 10 s, each seismogram displays some small-scale disturbances. Based on the results of 3-D simulation for a hypothetical earthquake on the zmir fault one can conclude that the sedimentary layer in the model does not have a serious impact on the wave propagation. However, this is not a consequence of geological features of the study area. It is a result of modeling parameters used in the simulation. In such 3-D simulations the main parameters, which control computer power requirements (memory and CPU speed) are the minimum velocity in the model and maximum frequency up to which the source function contains nonnegligible energy. These parameters directly define the grid spacing and consequently the number of the grid points. Due to limited computational power, I assigned relatively high velocity for the sedimentary layer and used a source-time function having low maximum frequency. Thus, this resulted in a simulation with relatively large wavelengths especially for S-wave. Since the sedimentary layer is shallow in thickness particularly in the Bornova basin (< 300 m), it does not show serious interaction with wave propagation as a consequence of the quarter wavelength criterion. Therefore, this simulation reveals gross features of seismic wave propagation in the study area induced by an earthquake. In other words it lacks resolution.

66

Figure 4.11. Time histories of the particle velocity at four different sites (marked by filled triangles) in the study area.

The maximum velocities (cm/s) are indicated on the seismograms. R: Radial, T: Tangential, and V: Vertical components.

67

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS

5. Conclusions

Using a staggered-grid finite-difference scheme 3-D seismic wave propagation simulation studies have been carried out in the metropolitan area of zmir (Turkey). The scheme is based on the velocity-stress formulation of wave equation in heterogeneous medium, and it is forth-order-accurate in space and second-orderaccurate in time. During the simulations a simplified 3-D elastic model essentially consisting of a sedimentary basin over the basement has been used. The model was developed in the basis of well data drilled for engineering purposes (mainly for water and geothermal explorations) and some limited seismic studies in the zmir bay. No topographical changes are included in the model. The simulations were carried out for a hypothetical earthquake on the western segment of the zmir fault, and it is considered as a point source at the depth of 5 km rather than an extended rupture. The simulations are studied by two different approaches to the seismic source. First, it is considered as an explosive pressure source. Second, it is a rupture with normal fault characteristics. Use of pressure source aims to exploit its simplicity as a source compared with an earthquake and to analyze the broad features of basins response to wave propagation by a simple source. Low-frequency wave propagation is achieved; therefore, the solutions are in the range of 0.0 to 1.0 Hz approximately. The total time for each simulation is 17 s. In the simulation for the pressure source, the primary P-wave arrive the surface in the bay area around 3 s. At 5.1 s, the direct P-wave enters the Bornova basin. Since the pressure source is located at the depth of 5 km, surface wave generation

68

associated with the direct P-wave is not observed. The results at 6.8 s depict the wave propagation in the Bornova basin and the surrounding area. The P-wave traveling in the basin sediments lag behind wave propagating in the surrounding bedrock due to low velocity of sediments compared with high-velocity bedrock. Moreover, passage of the P-wave through the Bornova basin is followed by a wake of scattered energy in the sediments. Also some waves propagating toward north in the bay area are observed, and these are basin-edge-generated waves. They are caused at the vertical interfaces between the basin sediments and bedrock (i.e., the western segment of the zmir fault). At 8.5 s, the direct P-wave almost leaves the study area through the eastern edge of the model. At 10.2 s, ground motion is observed in the Bornova basin, and the northward traveling waves arrive the northern shoreline of the zmir bay. The main features of ground motion at 11.9 and 13.6 s are resonating energy in the Bornova basin and wave propagation in the bay area. Considering this simulation, laterally propagating basin-edge-generated waves in the bay area and prolonged duration of the motion in the Bornova basin are the main features of the wave propagation. The basin-edge-generated waves are considered as the Rayleigh surface waves. Prolonged duration in the Bornova basin is the result of the seismic energy, which is trapped within the low-velocity basin sediments. Also the pattern of this resonating energy is coincident with the deeper parts of the Bornova basin. Based on this simulation, the normalized cumulative kinetic energy and peak particle velocity distributions on the surface of the study area have been calculated. The largest values of these distributions are observed in the vicinity of the epicenter and the bay area including the Balova and Karyaka-Bostanl areas. Relatively small values are also observed above the deeper parts of the Bornova basin. In the simulation for a hypothetical rupture on the fault, the source is included in the scheme using the generalized moment-tensor source description, and it has normal fault characteristics. According to the results, the primary (direct) S-wave is observed in the bay area at 5.1 s. The P-wave, on the other hand, is rather negligible in the simulation due to the source type used. 6.8 s after the origin time, the direct S-

69

wave propagates across the bay area and reaches the northern edge of the model. Also it starts to enter the Bornova basin. It displays undistorted circular wavefront. Moreover, some small-amplitude scattered energy is visible in the bay area. At 8.5 s, the S-wave continues to propagate in the Bornova basin, and S-to-P conversion at the interface between the bedrock and sediment-filled basin is observed. At 10.2 s, the basin-edge-generated waves propagating across the bay area in the direction of NS are clearly seen. Some scattered energy propagating in the directions of SW in the bay area is observed at 13.6 s. 15.3 s after the start of the simulation the primary Swave leave the study area at the eastern edge of the model without causing any significant energy in the Bornova basin and the scattered energies go on propagation in the bay area. Considering these results, the direct S-wave propagation is the main feature of the simulated wave propagation. The S-wave propagation generally displays undistorted circular wavefront in the study area. The Bornova basin does not show significant effect on the wave propagation. This is not a result of geological setting in the study area but the result of the modeling parameters used in the simulation. Due to limited computational power the simulation could not been carried out using smaller grid spacing. Therefore, the Bornova basin does not indicate satisfactory interaction with the wave propagation as a result of the quarter wavelength criterion. Laterally propagating basin-edge-generated waves in the bay area and S-to-P conversion at the interface between the bedrock and sediment-filled basin are the other features of the wave propagation. This simulation reveals only very broad features of the seismic wave propagation induced by an earthquake in the study area. Based on these simulation studies, I can conclude that staggered-grid finitedifference method used in this thesis study is an important tool to understand seismic wave propagation properties in a region, and that it has important potential in earthquake hazard estimation studies. Considering the steady development in computer technologies the method is going to be used in such studies routinely in near future.

70

REFERENCES

Aki, K. & Richards, P. G. (1980). Quantitative Seismology. 2 vols. W. H. Freemann and Co., San Francisco. Alford, R. M., Kelly, K. R. & Boore, D. M. (1974). Accuracy of finite-difference modeling of the acoustic wave equation. Geophysics, 39, 834-842. Alterman, Z. & Karal, F. C. (1968). Propagation of elastic waves in layered media by finite-difference methods. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 58, 367-398. Ambraseys, N. N. & Finkel, C. F. (1995). The seismicity of Turkey and adjacent areas. A historical review, 1500-1800. Eren Publ., stanbul. Ambraseys, N.N. (1988). Engineering seismology, Earthq. Engineer. Struct. Dynam. 17, 1105. Ambraseys, N.N., 1971, Some characteristic features of the Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics, 9, 143-165, Ate, M. (1994). Geologic map (1: 25 000) of Aliaa. Sheet URL-K17b3, Maden Tetkik Arama Genel Mdrl (MTA) (unpublished report). Bard, P.-Y. & Bouchon, M. (1980a). The seismic response of sediment-filled valleys. Part 1. The case of incident SH waves. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 70, 1263-1286. Bard, P.-Y. & Bouchon, M. (1980b). The seismic response of sediment-filled valleys Part 2. The case of incident P-SV waves. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 70, 1921-1941.

71

Barka, A.A. (1992). The North Anatolian Fault zone. Annales Tecton., 6, 164195. Boore, D. M. (1972). Methods in computational physics, v. 2. In B. Adler, S. Fernbach & M. Rotenberg (Eds.), Finite-difference methods for seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous materials. Academic Press, New York, 21-22. Bozkurt, E. (2000). Tectonics and magmatism in Turkey and the surrounding area. In E. Bozkurt, J.A.Winchester, & J.D.A. Piper (Eds.), Timing of extension on the Byk Menderes Graben, western Turkey, and its tectonic implications. Geological Society Special Publication no. 173, Geological Society, London, , 385 403. Bozkurt, E. (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta, 14, 330. Brunn, J. H., Dumont, J.F., De Graciansky, P.C., Gutnic, M., Juteau, T., Marcaux, J., & Poisson, A. (1971). Geology and history of Turkey. In A.S. Campwell (Ed.), Outline geology of the Western Taurides, Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya, Tripoli, 225257. Cao, S. & Greenhalgh, S. (1998). 2.5D modeling of seismic wave propagation: Boundary condition, stability criterion, and efficiency. Geophysics, 63, 2082-2090. Carcione, J. M., Herman, G. C., & ten Kroode A. P. E. (2002). Seismic modeling. Geophysics, 67, 1304-1325. Cerjan, C., Kosloff, D., Kosloff, R., & Reshef, M. (1985). A nonreflecting boundary condition for discrete acoustic and elastic wave equations. Geophysics, 50, 705708. Clayton, R. W. & Engquist, B. (1977). Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 67, 1529-1540.

72

Coutant, O., Virieux, J., & Zollo, A. (1995). Numerical source implementation in a 2D finite difference scheme for wave propagation. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 1507-1512. etiner, L. (1999). Jeotermal sahalarda nerilen iletme stratejileri ve reenjeksiyon kavram. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Mdrl (MTA) (unpublished report). Dablain, M. A. (1986). The application of high-order differencing to the scalar wave equation. Geophysics, 51, 54-66. Dewey, J.F. (1988). Extensional collapse of orogens. Tectonics, 7, 1123-1139. Dewey, J.F. & engr A.M.C. (1979). Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiple and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 90, 8492. DSI, (1971). zmir Projesi: Su temini masterplan ve fizibilite raporu, c. 1, ubat 1971, zmir. Emre, . & Barka, A. (2000). Gediz grabeni-Ege denizi arasnn (zmir yresi) aktif faylar. Bat Anadolunun Depremsellii Sempozyumu (BADSEM), pp. 131-132 (in Turkish with English abstract). Ergin, K., Gl, . & Uz, Z. (1967). Trkiye ve civarnn deprem katalou. Arz Fizii Enst. Yayn., no. 24, Maden Fak. stanbul niv., stanbul. Erdik, M., Barka, A, Ansal, A., Aydnolu, N., Yzgll, ., Ikara, A.M., Avc, J., zel, O., Biro, Y., & Birgren, G. (1999). zmir Bykehir deprem master plan. Final raporu. Boazii niversitesi, stanbul. Erdoan, B. & Gngr, T. (1992). Menderes masifi nin kuzey kanadnn stratigrafisi. TPJD Blteni, 4/1, 9-34.

73

Erien, B., Akku, ., Uygur, N., & Koak, A. (1996). Turkiyenin jeotermal envanteri. Maden Tetnik Arama Genel Mdrl (MTA). Ersoy, . (1990). Bat Toros naplarnn yapsal elerinin ve evriminin analizi. Jeoloji Mh. Derg. 37, 3-16. Frankel, A. & Stephenson, W. (2000). Three-dimensional simulations of ground motions in the Seattle region for earthquakes in the Seattle fault zone. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 90, 1251-1267. Frankel, A. (1993). Three-dimensional simulations of ground motions in the San Bernardino Valley, California, for hypothetical earthquakes on the San Andreas fault. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 83, 1020-1041. Frankel, A., & Vidale, J. (1992). A three-dimensional simulation of seismic waves in the Santa Clara Valley, California, from a Loma Prieta aftershock. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 82, 2045-2074. Gottschmmer, E., & Olsen, K. B. (2001). Accuracy of the explicit planar Freesurface boundary condition implemented in a fourth-order staggered-grid velocitystress finite-difference scheme. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 91, 617-623. Goidobani, E., Comastri, A., & Traina, G. (1994). Catalogue of ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up to the 10 th century. Inst. Nazionale di Geofisica, pp. 504. Graciansky, P. C. (1972). Reserches gologiques dans le Taurus Lycien occidental. Thse Doctorat d'Etat, Universit de Paris-Sud Orsay no. 896, pp. 762. Graves, R. W. (1996). Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite-differences. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 86, 1091-1106. Graves, R. W. & Clayton, R. W. (1992). Modeling path effects in three-dimensional basin structures. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 82, 81-103.

74

Gnay, C. (1998). Bat Anadolu-Ege denizi neotektoniinin jeofizik yntemlerle incelenmesi (zmir Krfezi rneinde). Ph. D. Thesis. Dokuz Eyll University, zmir (in Turkish with English abstract). Helvac, C. (1990). Borate Deposits: Field Excursion A2. International Earth Sciences Congress on Aegean Regions, Publication No. 4, zmir. D. E. University, Dept. of Geology. Hestholm, S. & Ruud, B. (1994). 2D finite-difference elastic wave modelling including surface topography. Geophys. Pros., 42, 371-390. Higdon, R. L. (1991). Absorbing boundary conditions for elastic waves. Geophysics, 56, 231-241. Jackson, J. (1994). Active tectonics of the Aegean Region. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 22, 239-271. Jackson, J. & McKenzie, D. P. (1988). The relationship between plate motions and seismic moment tensors, and rates of active deformation in the Mediterranean and Middle East. Geophys. J., 93, 45-73. Jackson, J.A. & McKenzie, D.P. (1988). Rates of active deformation in the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Basin Res.,1,121128. Kaya, O. (1981). Miocene reference sections for the coastal parts of west Anatolia. Newslett. Stratig., 10, 164191. Kahle, H.G., Straub, C., Reilinge, R., McClusky, S., King, R., Hurst, K., Veis, G., Kastens, K., & Cross, P. (1998). The strain rate field in the eastern Mediterranean region, estimated by repeated GPS measurements. Tectonophysics, 294, 237252.

75

Koyiit, A., Yusufolu, H., & Bozkurt, E. (1999). Evidence from the Gediz graben for episodic two-stage extension in western Turkey, J. Geol. Soc., London, 156, 605616. Kelly, K. R., Ward, R. W., Trietel, S., & Alford, R. M. (1976). Synthetic seismograms: A finite-difference approach. Geophysics, 41, 2- 27. Ketin, . (1983). Trkiye jeolojisine genel bir bak. Publication of stanbul Technical University, No 1259 (in Turkish). Lay, T. & Wallace, T. C. (1995). Modern Global Seismology. Academic Press, San Diego. Le Pichon, X., Chamot-Rooke, C., Lallemant, S., Noomen, R.,Veis, G. (1995). Geodetic determination of the kinematics of CentralGreece with respect to Europe: implications for EasternMediterranean tectonics. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 12675 12690. Le Pichon, X. & Angelier, J. (1979). The Aegean arc and trench system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics, 60, 142. Levander, A. R.(1988). Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms.

Geophysics, 53, 1425-1436. Lysmer, J. & Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969). Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J. Eng. Mech. Div., 95,859-877. Madariaga, R. (1976). Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 66, 639-666. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Mdrl (MTA) (1973). Trkiye jeoloji haritas, zmir paftas, 1:500 000. MTA Ankara, pp. 115 (with explanatory text in English).

76

Meulenkamp, J.E., Wortel, W.J.R., Van Wamel, W.A., Spakman, W., Hoogerduyn, & Strating, E. (1988). On the Hellenic subduction zone and geodynamic evolution of Crete in the late middle Miocene. Tectonophysics, 146, 203215. McKenzie, D.P. (1970). Plate tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Nature, 220, 239343. Moczo, P., Kristek, J. & Halada, L. (2000). 3D Fourth-order staggered-grid finitedifference schemes: Stability and grid dispersion. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 90, 587603. Moczo, P., Kristek, J., & Bystrick (in press). Efficiency and optimization of the 3D finite-difference modeling of seismic ground motion. J. Comp. Acoustics. Ohminato, T. & Chouet, B. A. (1997). A free-surface boundary condition for including 3D topography in the finite-difference method. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 87, 494-515. Olsen, K. B., Pechmann, J. C., & Schuster, G. T. (1996). An analysis of simulated and observed blast records in the Salt Lake Basin. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 86, 10611076. Olsen, K. B. & Schuster, G. T. (1995). Causes of low-frequency ground motion amplification in the Salt Lake Basin: the case of the vertically-incident P wave. Geophys. J. Int., 122, 1045-1061. Olsen, K. B. & Archuleta, R. J. (1996). Three-dimensional simulation of earthquakes on the Los Angeles fault system. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 86, 575-596. Olsen, K. B., Pechmann, J. C., & Schuster, G. T. (1995). Simulation of 3D elastic wave propagation in the Salt Lake Basin. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 1688-1710.

77

Oral, M. B., Reilinger, R. E., Toksz, M. N., Kong R. W., Barka A. A., Knk, I ., & Lenk, O. (1995). Global positioning system offers evidence of plate motions in eastern Mediterranean. EOS Transac., 76, 9. Paton, S. (1992). Active normal faulting, drainage patterns and sedimentation in southwestern Turkey. J. Geol. Soc., London, 149, 10311044. Pitarka, A., Irikura, K., Iwata, T., & Sekiguchi, H. (1998). Three-dimensional simulation of the near-fault ground motion for the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88, 428-440. Randall, C. J., Scheibner, D. J., & Wu, P. T. (1991). Multiple borehole acoustic waveforms: synthetic logs with beds and borehole washouts. Geophysics, 56, 1757-1769. Randall, C. J. (1989). Absorbing boundary condition for the elastic wave equation: velocity-stress formulation, Geophysics, 54, 1141-1152. Randall, C. J. (1988). Absorbing boundary condition for the elastic wave equation. Geophysics, 53, 611-624. Reynolds, A. C., (1978). Boundary conditions for the numerical solution of wave propagation problems. Geophysics, 43, 1099-1110. Rotstein, Y. (1984). Counterclockwise rotation of Anatolian block. Tectonophysics, 108, 7191. Saikia, C. K. (1994). Modified frequency-wavenumber algorithm for regional seismograms using Filons quadrature: modelling of Lg waves in eastern North America. Geophys. J. Int., 118, 142-158.

78

Sato, T., Graves, R. W., & Somerville, P. G. (1999). 3-D finite-difference simulations of long-period strong motions in the Tokyo metropolitan area during the 1990 Odawara earthquake (MJ 5.1) and the great 1923 Kanto earthquake (MS 8.2) in Japan. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 89, 579-607. Satoh, T., Kawase, H., Sato, T., & Pitarka, A. (2001). Three-dimensional finitedifference waveform modeling of strong motions observed in the Sendai basin, Japan. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 91, 812-825. Seber, D., Vallve, M., Sandol, E., Steer, D., & Barazangi, M. (1997). Middle, East tectonics: applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), GSA Today, 7, 16. Selvitopu, F. & Tuna, M. (2000). Deprem senaryolarnn hedefi ve zmir de RADIUS almalar. Bat Anadolunun Depremsellii Sempozyumu (BADSEM), pp. 467-479 (in Turkish with English abstract). Seyitolu, G. & Scott, B. (1992). The age of the Byk Menderes Graben (western Turkey) and its tectonic implications, Geol. Mag., 129, 239242. Seyitolu, G. & Scott, B. (1996). The cause of NS extensional tectonics on western Turkey: tectonic escape vs back-arc spreading vs orogenic collapse, J. Geodyn., 22, 145153. Seyitolu, G., Scott B. C., & Rundle, C.C. (1992). Timing of Cenozoic extensional tectonics in west Turkey, J. Geol. Soc., London, 149, 533538. engr, A. M. C., Grr, N., & arolu, F. (1985). Strike-slip deformation basin formation and sedimentation: Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogist, Special Publication, 37, 227-264.

79

engr, A.M.C., Satr, M., & Akkk, R. (1984). Timing of tectonic events in the Menderes massif, Western Turkey: Implications for tectonic evolution and evidencefor Pan-African basement in Turkey. Tectonics , 3, 693-707. engr, A.M.C. & Ylmaz Y. (1981). Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics, 75,181241. engr, A.M.C. (1979). The North Anatolian Transform Fault: its age, offset and tectonic significance. J. Geol. Soc., London, 136, 269282. engr, A.M.C. (1980). Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic evolution of Anatolia and surrounding regions. Bull. Bur. Rech. Gol. Min. France, 115, 1137. engr, A.M.C. (1987). Continental Extensional Tectonics, In M.P. Coward, J.F. Dewey, & P.L. Hancock (Eds.), Cross-faults and differential stretching of hanging walls in regions of low-angle normal faulting: examples from western Turkey. Geological Society Special Publication, 28, Geological Society, London, 575589. Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., & Mc Kenzie, D.P. (1991). Active tectonics of the North and Central Aegean Sea. Geophy. J. Inter., 106 433490. Ulu, A. & zdar, K. E. (1988). Deniz sismik almalar ile zmir krfezi nin jeolojik geliiminin incelenmesi. TMMOB Jeofizik Mhendisleri Odas 10. Trkiye Jeofizik Kurultay, Bildiri zetleri. Jeofizik, 2, pp.90-91. van Vossen, Robertsson, J. O. A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Finite-difference modeling of wave propagation in a fluid-solid configuration. Geophysics, 67, 618-624. Virieux, J. (1984). SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity - stress finite-difference method. Geophysics, 49, 1933-1957. Virieux, J. (1986). P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity stress finite-difference method. Geophysics, 51, 889-901.

80

Westaway, R. (1990). Block rotation in western Turkey. 1.Observational evidence. J. Geophys. Res., 95,1985719884. Westaway, R. (1994). Present-day kinematics of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. J. Geophys. Res., 99,1207112090. Wang, C. Y. & Herrmann, R. B. (1980). A numerical study of P-, SV-, and SH-wave generation in a plane layered medium. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 70, 1015-1036. Ylmaz, Y., Gen, S. C., Grer, O.F., Bozcu, M., Ylmaz, K., Karack Z., Altunkaynak, ., & Elmas, A. (2000). Tectonics and magmatism in Turkey and the surrounding area. In E. Bozkurt, J.A. Winchester, & J.D.A. Piper (Eds.), When did the western Anatolian grabens begin to develop? Geological Society Special Publication, 173, Geological Society, London, , 353384. Ylmaz, Y. (1989). Tectonic evolution of the Tethyan region. In A.M.C. engr (Ed.), An approach to the origin of young volcanic rocks of western Turkey. Kluwer Dordrecht, pp. 159-189. Ylmaz, Y. (1990). Comparison of young volcanic associations of western and eastern Anatolia under compressional regime; a review. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 44, 69-87. Ylmaz, Y. (1997). Active tectonics of Northwestern Anatolia The MARMARA Poly Project; A multidisciplinary approach by Space Geodesy, Geology, Hydrogeology, Geothermics and Seismology.. In 53. C. Schindler, & M. Pfister, (Eds.), Geology of Western Anatolia, Vdf. Hochschulerl, an der ETH Zurich, 31

81

Ylmazer, S. (1989). Balova kaplcalarnn (zmir) jeokimyasal zellikleri ve alann jeotermal enerji olanaklar. Ph. Thesis. Dokuz Eyll University, zmir (in Turkish with English abstract). Yomogida, K. & Etgen, J. T. (1993). 3-D wave propagation in the Los Angeles Basin for the Whittier-Narrows earthquake. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 83, 1325-1344.

82

APPENDIX A

Finite-Difference Operators

Following Graves (1996), explicit form of the spatial difference operators used in equations (3.5) and (3.6) will be given below. Equations (3.5) and (3.6) can be solved by using either a second-order or a forth-order operator. The spatial derivatives in equations (3.5) and (3.6) are expressed in the following form
x = vx Dx vx |i , j , k . x (A1)
) acting on the horizontal x

Here, Dx is the discrete form of the differential operator (

component of particle velocity (vx), and calculated at the point x = ih, y = jh, z = kh (h is the grid spacing). Then, the second-order operator is in the form of
Dx vx |i , j , k =

(v

xi +1 / 2 , j , k

vxi 1 / 2, j , k )

(A2)

(Virieux, 1986), and the forth-order is in the form of

Dx vx |i , j , k =

1 co (vxi +1 / 2, j , k vx 1 / 2, j , k ) c1 (vxi + 3 / 2, j , k vxi 3 / 2, j , k ) , h

(A3)

where co =

9 1 and c1 = (Levander, 1988). 8 24

Solution of equations (3.5) and (3.6) by the second-order operators requires a minimum of 10 grid points per minimum wavelength while the solution by a forthorder operator requires a minimum of 5 grid points per minimum wavelength (Virieux, 1986; Levander, 1988). For this reason, forth-order operators are preferred due to the reduced grid dimensions in 3-D modeling studies.

83

When using fixed grid spacing (h), the time step ( t ) is determined as based on the Courant stability criterion for stable solutions: , (A4) v max where is the Courant number (van Vossen et al., 2002). The Courant number for a 3-D system employing second-order operator is 0.577, and that using forth-order operator is 0.495. t < h

84

APPENDIX B

fy and fz Body-Force Components

Like fx component of body force discussed in chapter 3, fy and fz components are expressed using generalized moment tensor description for a source centered at the grid location x = ih, y = jh, z= kh as follows (Graves, 1996):
M yy (t )
4

h M yy (t ) , fy i,j-1/2, k = h4 M xy (t ) fy i+1,j-1/2,k = , 4h 4 M xy (t ) fy i+1,j+1/2,k = , 4h 4 M xy (t ) fy i-1,j-1/2,k = , 4h 4

fy i,j+1/2,k =

M zz (t ) , h4 M zz (t ) fz i,j,k-1/2 = , h4 M (t ) fz i+1,j,k-1/2 = xz 4 , 4h M (t ) fz i+1,j,k+1/2 = xz 4 , 4h M xz (t ) , fz i-1,j,k-1/2 = 4h 4 fz i,j,k+1/2 = fz i-1,j,k+1/2 = M xz (t ) , 4h 4 M (t ) fz i,j+1,k-1/2 = yz 4 , 4h M (t ) fz i,j+1,k+1/2 = yz 4 , 4h M yz (t ) fz i,j-1,k-1/2 = , 4h 4 M yz (t ) fz i,j-1,k+1/2 = . 4h 4 (B1)

4h M (t ) fy i,j-1/2,k+1 = yz 4 , 4h M (t ) fy i,j+1/2,k+1 = yz 4 , 4h M yz (t ) , fy i,j-1/2,k-1 = 4h 4 M yz (t ) , fy i,j+1/2,k-1 = 4h 4

fy i-1,j+1/2,k =

M xy (t )
4

85

APPENDIX C

Source Implementation via Stress Components

Stress increments, which should be added to the stress tensor ij (t ) for a source centered at the grid location x = ih, y = jh, z= kh are the following:
& tM xx , h3

xxi , j , k =

xyi 1 / 2, j +1 / 2, k =

& tM xy

4h3
& tM xy

yyi , j , k =

& tM yy

h3

xyi +1 / 2, j +1 / 2, k =

4h3

zzi , j , k =

& tM zz , h3

xyi 1 / 2, j 1 / 2, k =

& tM xy 4h3 & tM xy 4h3 & tM yz 4h3 & tM yz 4h3 & tM yz 4h3 & tM yz 4h3

xyi +1 / 2, j 1 / 2, k =

, (C1)

xzi 1 / 2, j , k +1 / 2 =

& tM xz , 4h3 & tM xz , 4h3 & tM xz , 4h3 & tM xz , 4h3

yzi , j 1 / 2, k +1 / 2 =

xzi +1 / 2, j , k +1 / 2 =

yzi , j +1 / 2, k +1 / 2 =

xzi 1 / 2, j , k 1 / 2 =

yzi , j 1 / 2, k 1 / 2 =

xzi +1 / 2, j , k / 2 =

yzi , j +1 / 2, k 1 / 2 =

86

APPENDIX D

The list of major events of present time seismicity in zmir and adjacent areas is given in the following. Intensity (Io) is in MSK (Medvedev Sponheur Karnik) scale (Erdik et al., 1999). 1. 1909 January 19, Foa (38.66N - 26.94E; M=5.8; Io=IX) 2. 1928 March 31, Tepeky-Torbal (38.09N - 27.35E; M=6.5; Io=IX) 3. 1939 September 22, Dikili (39.05N - 26.93E; M=6.5; Io=VIII) 4. 1949 July 23, Karaburun-eme (38.55N - 26.27E; M=6.6; Io=VIII) 5. 1953 March 18, Yenice-Gnen (40.00N - 27.50E; M=7.2; Io=IX) 6. 1953 May 2, Karaburun (38.60N - 26.60E; M=5.6; Io=VIII) 7. 1955 July 16, Ske-Balat (37.70N - 27.20E; M=6.7; Io=VIII) 8. 1966 June 19, Menemen (38.51N - 27.21E; M=4.9; Io=VI) 9. 1969 March 23, Demirci (39.10N - 28.50E; M=5.9) 10. 1969 March 25, Demirci (39.20N 28.40E; M=6.1; Io=VIII) 11. 1969 March 28, Alaehir (38.45N - 28.50E; M=6.5; Io=VIII) 12. 1969 April 6, Karaburun (38.35N - 26.40E; M=5.8; Io=VII) 13. 1970 April 23, Demirci (39.13N - 28.65E; M=5.6; Io=VII) 14. 1974 February 1, zmir (38.50N 27.20E; M=5.5; Io=VII) 15. 1977 December 9, zmir (38.56N - 27.47E; M=4.8) 16. 1977 December 16, zmir (38.41N - 27.19E; M=5.5; Io=VII) 17. 1979 June 14, Karaburun (38.79E - 26.57N; M=5.7; Io=VII) 18. 1992 November 6, Doanbey (38.16E - 27.00N; M=6.0; Io=VII) 19. 1994 January 28, Manisa (38.69N - 27.49E; M=5.1; Io=VII) 20. 1994 May 24, Karaburun (38.66N - 26.59E; M=5.4; Io=VII)