Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 85

# Ground Motion Prediction

Equations
In this chapter you will learn:
Terms included in Early-Stage GMPEs and
their evolution,
Magnitude and distance measures,
Turkish Practice for GMPEs,
Currently popular GMPEs in Europe.
Next generation attenuation (NGA) models
Regionalization of global GMPEs

## How can we find the design ground motions for a

project?
Simple and valid
for regular
buildings, but be
aware of the TEC
2007 handicaps!

## Building code approach

(We use Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007)

## Widely used for the last

ten years. Results
significantly depend on
the selected prediction
model!
For special projects:
- Selected ground
motions are used in
structural analysis.
- Large uncertainty is
included so expert
opinion is required.

## Using prediction models to estimate the

response spectra for scenario earthquake

## Choosing appropriate ground motions and

developing the response spectra based on
selected ground motions

## Estimation of Ground Motion Parameters

The peak acceleration, peak velocity and response spectral accelerations
are used directly and indirectly in the earthquake resistant design.

Popular in 1970s

## More popular now, since

the response of the
structure is represented
better

For proper design, the levels of ground shaking (in terms of PHA or
Sa) should be estimated.
The most commonly used method for estimating the ground motion is
predictive relationships (in other words) attenuation relations. The
attenuation relations for ground motion parameters are statistical
regressions on appropriate sets of data.

## Estimation of Ground Motion Parameters

More than 500 published attenuation models are avaliable
around the world.
How can you choose the correct one to use?
a) According to the tectonic regime: Many published studies
found significant differences in attenuation between various
tectonic regions and also for various geological conditions. We
may group the attenuation relations in three main headings:
Shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (Turkey,
California...)
Shallow crustal earthquakes in stable continental regions
(Eastern US, Europe)
Subduction zone earthquakes (Japan, Chile...)
b) According to the parameter: There are various
relationships
for
peak
acceleration,
velocity,
spectral
accelerations, Fourier amplitude spectrum, duration, Arias
Intensity...etc. You may use one of them according to the
parameter you are interested in.

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Simplest Forms

Why log Y?
Remember magnitude relations?

## Magnitude and distance terms

(linear and independent)

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Magnitude and Distance Effects

Earthquakes vary enormously in strength, and
great earthquakes produce wave amplitudes that
are thousands of times larger than those
generated by weak tremors. To accommodate
this wide variation, Richter used a logarithmic
scale to express magnitude.

M5
M6
The amount of ground shaking for a 5-magnitude
earthquake is 10 times greater than that produced by an
earthquake having a Richter magnitude of 4.
In addition, each unit of Richter magnitude an earthquake
with a magnitude of 6.5 releases 32 times more energy
than one with a magnitude of 5.5, and roughly 1000 times
more energy than a 4.5-magnitude quake .

M7

## By the way: Which magnitude

All GMPEs include earthquake magnitude and some measure of sourceto-site distance as predictor variables in the model.

## The most commonly used scales have been surface-wave magnitude,

Ms, and moment magnitude, Mw. Many equations for smallermagnitude earthquakes use local magnitude, ML.
Be careful!!

## Models that use local magnitude,

ML, to quantify earthquake size
might be avoided by the hazard
analyst, especially if from a
different region than that for
which
the
PSHA
is
being
conducted.

## There are a number of

empirical
relationships
between these scales that may
be
used
to
make
the
conversion
Be careful!!

## Variability associated with

these relationships must be
propagated into the sigma
value of the GMPE

## Magnitude and distance terms

(linear and independent)
Same functional form (just take exp!)
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Simplest Forms

New terms:
term
Site effects?

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## This is called a site effects dummy variable!

(Dummy variable: a variable that can be 0 or 1)

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## `h` is called the fictitious depth term

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

Better forms:
Nonlinear magnitude term
Fictitious depth term
Site dummy

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

New term:
Style of faulting dummy!

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

New terms:
Site effects, ground motion
station information, directivity
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Inter-event: between earthquakes

Intra-event: within one earthquake

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Remember the fundamental period of

soil is equal to: 4H/Vs!

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

New term:
Continuous site effects term instead of
site dummies !
Va represents?
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## The seismogenic layer is the range of

depths within the crust or lithosphere
over which most earthquakes are
initiated. Typically in continental crust
this is in the uppermost 15 km.
What is seismogenic depth?
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Source to site distance measures:

Distance Definitions
rjb, the closest horizontal
distance to the vertical
projection of the rupture (the
Joyner-Boore distance)
rrup, the closest distance to
the rupture surface
rseis, the closest distance to
the seismogenic part of the
rupture surface
rhyp, the hypocentral distance
repi, the epicentral distance

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

New term:
Continuous site effects term instead of
site dummies !
Va represents?
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Better functional forms

New term:
Continuous site effects term instead of
site dummies !
Va represents?
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Summarizing all

Base form

mind:
A proper GMPE
should include
and magnitudedependent distance
slope!
Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Summarizing all

Other terms:

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Turkish Practice

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Turkish Practice

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Turkish Practice

Site dummies !

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Weaker functional form but stronger statistical approach!

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Only for PGA!

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Turkish Practice

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Magnitude dependent sigma!

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Early-Stage GMPEs: Currently popular in Europe

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

## Better functional form!

CE 7013_Chap3_ Part 1

Data taken from the PEER Report PEER 2011/102 by John Douglas

Annual
Annual rate
rate of
of exceedence
exceedence

km

PGA(g)

Annual
Annual rate
rate of
of exceedence
exceedence

PGA(g)

## Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models

In 2005, PEER initiated the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relation
project incorporating a number of attenuation relationship developer
teams to model their own sets of NGA relationships in a systematic
process using the improved resources. The NGA project required the
developers to extrapolate their model to be applicable to the ranges
shown in this table.

## Style of Faulting: Strike-slip, Reverse, Normal

Distance Range: 0-200 km
Magnitude Range (for Strike-slip): 5.0-8.5
Magnitude Range (for Reverse and
5.0-8.0
Normal):
PGA, PGV, PGD, Sa (5% damping)
Ground Motion Parameters: for average horizontal, fault normal
and fault parallel
Spectral Period Range: 0.0 to 10.0 seconds.

## NGA Approach vs. Previous Studies

Previous Studies
Usually, a single researcher with one-year funding
New model published and tested in application after publication

NGA
Multi-year effort
Coordinated study with broad involvement of experts in the
ground motion community
NGA involved over 40 researchers

## Extensive effort on ground motion data base

Collect key missing data where possible
This takes several years

## Multiple alternative models developed

5 NGA models
Interaction between developers of the different models
Provides peer review and detailed comparisons of the models prior
to publication

Model Development
Ground motion models are primarily based on empirical data
Use numerical simulations to help constrain the models
outside of the range of the empirical data
Hard-rock ground motions using finite-fault seismological simulations
1-D site response amplification factors using equivalent-linear method
3-D basin response for the Los Angeles Region

## Multiple soil profiles (VS30) and soil depths considered,

Input Rock PGA Values: 0.001, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0,

## Data Set Size

8

7.5

Magnitude

6.5

5.5

4.5

4
0.01

11

1 1 1 111

B
B
11 1 111 111 1
11
111
1111
1111111111111111
11
11111111
11
11
11
11
11
1
11
111
11
11
11
11
1
11
1
11
1
11
1
11
1111111
11
111111
11 B 1 11
1
11
11111 B 1111 111111 1
B
B B BBB BBBBBBBB
BB
B
B B
BBBBBB BBB
B
BBBB
B
BB
B
B
B
B
BB
B
B
BB B
B
1
11 11111 11111111
11
1111
111
11
11111111
11
1111111
BBB B BB
B
B B
BB BBB
BB
BBBBB
BB
B
B
B
B
B
BBB
B
B
BB
B
B
BBBB
BB
B
B
B
BBB B
BB B
B
B
BB
B
BBB
BBBBBB
BBB
B
B
B
BB
B
B
B
BB
BB
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
BB
1B11
B 111
111
B
B BBB
B
BBB
B
BBBB
B
B
BB BBBB
B
BBB
B
B
B
B BB BBB B B BBBBBB
BBB
BB
B
B
BB
BBB
BB
B
BBBB
B
B
B
B
B
BBB
B
B
B
BB
BB
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BBB
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
BB BBB
B
B
B 111B B 11
B111
11
11
11
B
11
1
11
11
11
11
11111
B
11
B
1
1
11
111
11
1111
11
11
11111
B
B
B
BBB11
B1B
11
BB
B
B1B
B
B11
1
1B
1
B
B
1
B
11
B
B
1
B
1
11
B
BB
1
B
11
B
B
1
11
11
B
1
B
BBB
1
111
11
B
1
B
1
11
1
11
1
B
11
1
B
11
111
1
B
11
1
1
B
11
1
11
11
1
B
1
11
111
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
11
1
1
11
1111111
BB BB
BB BBBBBB1 B
BBB
BBB
BB
B
B
B
BB
B
1
B
B
BB
BB
B
B
B
B
BB
B
B
B
BB
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
BBBBB
BB
BBB
B BB1
B
11B1
B
B
1B
1
BBB
B11B
1
B
1
B
B
1B
11
111
B
1
11
1
11
1
B
BB
11
11
B
11
B
1
1111111
11
1
11
11111
11
11111
BB
BBBBBBBBB
BBB
B
1BB
BB
1B
BBB B
BB BBBBBBBB
BBBB
B
BB B B B
BB
1111
B
1111
B
BBBBBBBBBB
B BB B
B BB
BBB
B
B
BB B B BB
B
B BBBB
BB
B BBBBBB
B
BBBB
BB
B
BB
BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
BB
B
BB
BB
B
1BB1
B
B
1B1
BB
BB
B
11B
1
BBB
B
BBBBB
BB
1B
BB
1
BBB
BBB B
B
B
B B111 1
B
BBBB BBB
B
BB
BBBBBBBBB BBB B
BB1
B
1
BBBBB
B B
1
B11
1
B
111
11
1111
B
111111111 111B
1 B1
BBBBB
B
B
1
B
B
111 111111111111111
11
1
11
11111
11
111
11
111
B
BBB
B11
BBB
11B111
B111 11 1
B Pre 1996
BB B BB
BB BBBB
B
B
BB
1 Post 1996
11111
11
111
11
1
111
11 111
11
BBB
1

0.1

10
Distance (km)

100

## See the Turkish Dataset

just for comparison!

1000

## NGA Data Set: 173 earthquakes, 3551 recordings

Developers select their own subset of data to use

## Developer Data Sets

Developer

Numberof
Earthquakes

Numberof
Recordings

AS08

135

2754

BA08

58

1574

CB08

64

1561

CY08

125

1950

I08

72

942

Aftershocks
AS08, CY08, I08
included aftershocks
BA08, CB08 excluded
aftershocks
Site Conditions
I08 model only
included rock sites
(450<VS30<900
m/s)

Number of Recordings
BA08 and CB08 use only well recorded earthquakes (earthquakes
with single recordings excluded)
Large Distance Recordings
AS08 excluded recordings at > 100 km from earthquakes outside of
the WUS

## Main Changes from Previous

Models
Use of Vs30 (Use of VS30 allow for consistency in application
with Building codes that are based on VS30. Previously, most
models used generic soil and rock site.)

## Non-linear site response

Hanging wall and Footwall factors
Depth to Top of Rupture (Effect of rupture depth is still
controversial. Not all models include this effect. )
Depth of Soil
Dip (HW factor only)

## Decrease in median on rock (Vs=760),

particularly at large magnitudes

## Main Changes from Previous Models

Increase in the sigma for large magnitudes,
decrease in sigma for small magnitudes (M<6)
At high GM levels, some models give smaller sigma for
soil than for rock sites due to non-linearity

## SOF factor more complicated, not just reverse vs

strike-slip
HW included in most models, (JB distance implicitly
includes HW) and more complicated
Models applicable (controlled extrapolation) out to
200 km and for M up to 8.5 SS

Soil (VS30=270)
Rrup=30 km

Rock (VS30=760)
Rrup=30 km

## Note: The previous generic rock models correspond to about

VS30=550 m/s, not 760 as generally assumed. The NGA models
for M6 at 30 km are similar to the previous results.

Soil
(VS30=270)
RJB=1 km

Rock (VS30=760)
RJB=1 km

## When compared to VS30 760, the NGA models lead to reduced

ground motions. For soil sites, and M6, the NGA Models are similar
to the old models.

## Residuals for AS08 (T=0.2)

These are just examples of how the models are doing in matching data.
The inter-event term can be thought of as the average misfit for each
earthquake. There is one point for each earthquake. Ideally, these
points lie along the zero line.

## Residuals for AS08 (T=0.2)

These figures show the intra-event residuals. Here, there is one point
for each recording (not one point for each earthquake)

Dist Scaling
PGA
SS
VS30=760
For these
comparisons,
the key is that
the models
are generally
factor of 1.5
of each other.
This is much
better
agreement
than previous
models,
especially for
the larger
magnitude
earthquakes.

VS30
Scaling
M=7,
RJB=100 km
Similar slopes
(against VS30) for
the NGA models

Standard Deviation
(RJB=30 km, VS30=760)

Standard deviations for the NGA models are similar for M7 but very
different for small magnitudes (M5).
This is related to the
inclusion/exclusion of aftershocks in the data sets.
Models without
aftershocks also used a standard deviation that is constant for all

Rock
Spectra
RJB=10 km
VS30=760

Summary:
The NGA models superseeded the early stage models we do
not use them any more!
Even though the target area was Western US (WUS), the
GMPEs were intended to be applicable in other shallow crustal
and active tectonic regions around the world. Slowly, NGA
GMPEs have been used in probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment (PSHA) studies in various regions, raising the issue
of their applicability outside WUS.
Before using them, we can test them
Recent studies by Stafford et al. (2008), Scasserra et al.
(2009), Shoja-Taheri et al. (2010), and Bradley (2013) tested
the applicability of the NGA-W1 GMPEs for Euro-Mediterranean
Region, Italy, Iran, and New Zealand.
It is possible to use the models by modifying them for you
region. This approach is called regionalization of global
ground motion prediction models

## Use of Strong Ground Motion

Database in Selecting Proper
GMPEs for PSHA:
Turkey Example
Dr. Zeynep Glerce
METU Civil Engineering Department

## Dr. Norman A. Abrahamson

PG&E, Senior Seismologist

## The NGA ground motion prediction models have been adopted in

the PSHA studies in active tectonic regions all around the world.
Due to the limitations of the PEER-NGA project and the missing
parameters in The Turkey GM dataset, a very small number of
ground motions recorded during the earthquakes occurred in
Turkey was included in the NGA -W1 database (Chiou, 2008)

Year

## Number of recordings included in the

Mwdataset
A&S
B&A
C&B
C&Y Idriss
2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Izmir (44)

1977

5.30

Dursunbey (47)

1979

5.34

Erzincan (121)

1992

6.69

Dinar (134)

1995

6.4

Kocaeli (136)

1999

7.51

17

26

22

17

Duzce (138)

1999

7.14

13

22

14

12

Caldiran (141)

1976

7.21

35

52

40

36

14

Event Name
(ID)

Total

## Even though a large amount of data is available, a whole

database with complete source metadata and recording
station information was difficult to establish during the
project.

daphne.deprem.gov.tr
4607 sets of ground motions recorded during the earthquakes
occurred in Turkey between 1976-2007 were gathered and
delivered through the project web-site.

## The objectives of this study are:

Developing an up-to-date dataset that
includes all possible source information for the
events (moment magnitude, style of faulting,
depth, rake and dip angles) and site
information for the recording stations.
Challenging due to missing information
Recent earthquakes!!
Using the developed dataset, evaluate the
regional effects by comparing the magnitude,
distance and site effects scaling of Turkish
strong ground motions and that of the NGAW1 models.
Modifying the NGA-W1 GMPEs for PSHA studies
conducted in Turkey.

TSGM database
includes 4067
sets of
recordings
from 2996
events.

## Only 173 of these events are magnitude 5 or bigger.

During these 173 events 685 recordings were taken.
To preserve all valuable data, all of these recordings are added
to the comparison dataset.

## The starting point: TSGM (Daphne) Database

What did we do?
Small magnitude events
(M<5) only if 3 or more
recordings are available.
The moment magnitude for
119 of events estimated from
ML using Akkar et al. 2010
No site information (Vs30 or
site classification) could be
found for 431 recordings
(estimated
from
NGA-W1
database or removed)

## The style of faulting for 68 recordings are estimated from

the mechanisms of other earthquakes in the sequence or
due to the dominant mechanism of the region.
If the distance measures were missing (96 recordings)
they were estimated from the Rhypo and Repi values.

## A cceleration (cm /s2)

A cceleration (cm /s2 )

## The time histories

were checked for
data quality and
38 recordings were
eliminated
from
the dataset due to
spike, insufficient
digitizer resolution,
multi-event or Swave
trigger
problems.

What did we do?
4
2
0
-2
-4

North-South
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

4
2
0
-2
-4

East-West
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1

Vertical
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time (s)

## While we check the

time histories we
see
that
some
recordings have a
time lag between
the
EW
and
NS
components!

## Time lag: What did we do?

This time lag results from the
separate a-causal low-cut filtering
applied to the components of the
different lengths.
To calculate the orientation
independent ground motion intensity
measures (GMRotI), two horizontal
components of the records should
have the same excitation time!

## We performed a systematic screening

procedure on the waveforms and shifted
the short horizontal component by
horizontal component in each recording
with a time lag.

## Distance metrics with NGA-W1 database

GmRotI50 consistency with the NGA-W1 database
Depth to top estimation
Declustering (Thanks to Katie Woddell from PG&E)

Residual

Mean
Offset

Event
Term

IntraEvent
Residual

## STEPS 1-3: MAGNITUDE SCALING OF NGA-W1 GMPES:

Observation: The
magnitude scaling of
the Turkish dataset is
drastically different that
the NGA-W1 models
and this feature needs
to be fixed to consider
the models applicable
in Turkey.
But: Preserving the
well-constrained pieces
of the model is critical,
since the large
magnitude earthquakes
are poorly represented
in the Turkish dataset
and any changes on
large magnitude
parameters will have a
major impact on the
hazard calculations

## STEPS 1-3: MAGNITUDE SCALING OF NGA-W1 GMPES: SOLUTION

function is
NGA-W1 models
for Turkey!
The coefficient
determined by
regression for each
model separately

## Hinge magnitude Mw=6.75

(or (6.5)

Selected adjustment function affects the magnitude scaling for only small
and moderate events, therefore the well-constrained large magnitude
scaling of the models are not modified.
The coefficient can be used to modify the original model coefficients or
f1_TA
term can be added to the GMPE individually.
1_TA

## Abrahamson and Silva (2008):

f 1 ( M , R rup )

## a1 a 4 ( M c1 ) a 8 (8.5 M ) 2 a 2 a 3 ( M c1 ) ln( R ) for ( M c1 )

a1 a 5 ( M c1 ) a 8 (8.5 M ) 2 a 2 a 3 ( M c1 ) ln( R ) for ( M c1 )

Corrected
!

Untouche
d!

EFFECTS:

## Observation: NGAW1 models slightly

underestimate the
ground motions in
the Turkish
comparison dataset
for rupture distances
within the range of
100-200 km.
But: The distance
scaling of BA08,
CB08 and ID08
models do not
include a separate
large distance
scaling term

## STEPS 4-6: DISTANCE SCALING OF NGA-W1 GMPES AND LARGE DISTANCE

EFFECTS:

function is
AS08 and CY08
models for
Turkey!

The coefficient
determined by
regression for each
model separately

Selected adjustment function affects the distance scaling after 100 kms,
therefore the well-constrained short distance scaling of the models are not
modified.
The coefficient is used to modify the original model coefficients of AS08
model but f2_TA
term is added to the CY08 model individually.
2_TA

EFFECTS:

Untouche
d!

Corrected
!

## STEPS 4-6: SITE EFFECTS SCALING OF NGA-W1 GMPES:

Observations: AS08,
BA08, CB08 and CY08
models under predict
the ground motions in
the Turkey comparison
dataset at stiff
soil/engineering rock
sites.
The trends in the
residuals for BA08 and
CB08 models are
negligible but for
AS08 and CY08
models, which
included the
aftershocks in their
datasets, the
underestimation is
more noticeable.
No trend is observed
in ID08 model since
the model dataset is

Corrected
!

Untouche
d!

GMPES

Before
nts

After
nts

M5, D10,
Rock

M7, D10,
Rock

M5, D10,
Soil

M7, D10,
Soil

M7, D10,
Rock

M7, D10,
Soil

M7, D150,

M7, D150,

MODEL

M5, D10,
Rock

M5, D10,
Soil

M7, D10,

M7, D10,

M7, D10,
Rock

M7, D10,
Soil

M7, D150,

M7, D150,

## Summary and Conclusions:

The Turkish ground motions are poorly represented in NGA-W1
database for several reasons.
Daphne TSGM database and processed time histories were modified
for comparison.
Using the random-effects regression with a constant term, model
residuals between the actual strong motion data and NGA-W1 model
predictions are calculated for each recording in the comparison
dataset.
Plots of the residuals are used to evaluate the differences in the
magnitude, distance, and site amplification scaling between the
Turkish data set and the NGA-W1 models.
Model residuals indicated that the ground motions in the dataset are
overestimated by all 5 NGA-W1 models especially for small-tomoderate magnitude earthquakes.
Is the magnitude matrix compatible?
After seperating the mean offset term, the distance scaling of the
Turkish ground motions are compatible with NGA-W1 models up to
100 kms.
Vs30 scaling is compatible up to 500-600 m/s, linear Vs30 scaling
terms of the models should be modified.

## 5 new models for Turkey (TR-Adjusted NGA-W1 models) is published in

Earthquake Spectra.

## Ocurred on leftlateral strike-slip East

Anatolian Fault (EAF)
which is one of the
two major active
fault systems in
Turkey
42 people lost their
lives and 137 were
injured during the
event

BA 2008

CB 2008

ID 2008

CY 2008
AS 2008

BA 2008

CB 2008

ID 2008

CY 2008
AS 2008

## October 23, 2011 Van-Tabanl Earthquake (MW =7.1)

Reverse
mechanism (rare in
Turkey)
Only 3 recordings
within 200 km from
the mainshock

BA 2008

CB 2008

ID 2008

CY 2008
AS 2008

BA 2008

CB 2008

ID 2008

CY 2008
AS 2008

Rock