Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of strong ground motion from the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence

  • S.I. : February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquakes
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On the 6th February 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Sequence occurred at the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) and the Sürgü-Çardak Fault Zone (SCFZ), causing significant damage to buildings and infrastructure in southeast-central Türkiye and northern Syria, and claiming the lives of > 50,000 of people. We use the strong ground motion records provided by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Türkiye (AFAD) to discuss the characteristics of response spectra of interested stations, to identify and analyze the pulse-like ground motion records in the earthquake doublet, and compare the PGA, PGV, spectral acceleration and significant duration with the relevant prediction models. It is found that pulse-like ground motions are mainly distributed on the fault zone, and the velocity pulses are characterized by short-duration, short-period, and high-amplitude. The smaller pulse period may be due to the small proportion of low-frequency content energy of pulse-like ground motions. The residuals of the empirical model increase with the increase of VS30, implying that the regional duration model needs to be further studied. The existing models significantly overestimates the significant duration of pulse-like ground motion records, which may be related to the directional effect of pulse-like ground motion. The existing model has well predicted the attenuation of ground motion for short periods, while the ground motion records in Türkiye attenuated faster for the larger distances (> 120 km). Due to the presence of many large-amplitude, long-period velocity pulse-like records in the near-fault, PGV and long-period response spectra of pulse-like ground motion records are underestimated by the existing model. The complex dynamics of the 2023 sequence justify further studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The authors declare that all data and materials support their published claims and comply with field standards.

Code availability

The authors declare that software application supports their published claims and comply with field standards.

References

  • Afshari K, Stewart JP (2016) Physically parameterized prediction equations for significant duration in active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2057–2081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point-and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:359–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(6):687–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN (1989) Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophys J Int 96(2):11–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Jackson JA (1998) Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Geophys J Int 133:390–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(2):255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y (2019) Comparison of the recorded significant duration of the Lushan earthquake with empirical model predictions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(6):2325–2339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltzopoulos G, Baraschino R, Chioccarelli E, Cito P, Vitale A, Iervolino I (2023) Preliminary engineering report on ground motion data of the Feb. 2023 Turkey seismic sequence V3–17/03/2023

  • Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(2):93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Thompson EM (2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2541–2552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stephens CD, Joyner WB (2002) Comments on baseline correction of digital strong-motion data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(4):1543–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Azari Sisi A, Akkar S (2012) Using pad-stripped acausally filtered strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(2):751–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(11):815–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandramohan R, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2016) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthq Spectra 32(2):927–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chousianitis K, Del Gaudio V, Pierri P, Tselentis GA (2018) Regional ground-motion prediction equations for amplitude-, frequency response-, and duration-based parameters for Greece. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(11):2252–2274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cork TG, Kim JH, Mavroeidis GP, Kim JK, Halldorsson B, Papageorgiou AS (2016) Effects of tectonic regime and soil conditions on the pulse period of near-fault ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 80:102–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dal Zilio L, Ampuero JP (2023) Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria. Commun Earth Environ 4(1):71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du W (2017) An empirical model for the mean period (Tm) of ground motions using the NGA-West2 database. Bull Earthq Eng 15(7):2673–2693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du W, Wang G (2017) Prediction equations for ground-motion significant durations using the NGA-West2 database. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(1):319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan Y, Bo J, Peng D, Li Q, Wan W, Qi W (2023) Analysis of peak ground acceleration and seismogenic fault characteristics of the Mw7.8 earthquake in Turkey. Appl Sci 13(19):10896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duman TY, Emre Ö (2013) The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geol Soc Lond Special Publ 372(1):495–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding EJ, Lundgren PR, Taymaz T, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Owen SE (2013) Fault-slip source models for the 2011 M7.1 Van Earthquake in Turkey from SAR Interferometry, Pixel Offset Tracking, GPS and seismic waveform analysis. Seismol Res Lett 84(4):579–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Taymaz T, Reitman NG, Hatem AE, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Barnhart WD, Irmak TS, Wald DJ, Öcalan T, Yeck WL, Özkan B, Jobe JAT, Shelly DR, Thompson EM, DuRoss CB, Earle P, Briggs RW, Benz H, Erman C, Doğan AH, Altuntaş C (2023) Rapid characterization of the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye. Earthq Sequen Seismic Record 3(2):56–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Gülerce Z, Askan A, Kale Ö, Sandıkkaya A, Işık NS, İlhan O, Can G, Ilgaç M, Özacar AA, Çetin KÖ, Akbaş B, Altındal A, Sopacı E, Aydın MF, Güryuva B, Kanun O, Albayrak K, Muratoğlu G, Okçu OS, Aİçen(j) A (2023) Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on February 6, 2023, Pazarcık Mw=7.7 and Elbistan Mw=7.6, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquakes: preliminary analysis of strong ground motion characteristics, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, METU/EERC 2023–01.

  • Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(2–4):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang X, Song X, Li T, Wu K (2023) Moment magnitudes of two large Turkish earthquakes on February 6, 2023 from long-period coda. Earthq Sci 36(2):169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale Ö (2019) Some discussions on data-driven testing of ground-motion prediction equations under the Turkish ground-motion database. J Earthq Eng 23(1):160–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale Ö, Akkar S, Ansari A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for Iran and Türkiye for horizontal PGA, PGV and 5%-damped response spectrum: Investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:963–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasin IB (2023) Comparative analysis of the 2023 Pazarcık and Elbistan Earthquakes in Diyarbakır. Buildings 13(10):2474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Weatherill G, Bindi D, Cotton F (2020) A regionally-adaptable ground-motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bull Earthq Eng 18(9):4091–4125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersy

    Google Scholar 

  • Lashgari A, Jafarian Y (2022) Empirical model for frequency content estimation of strong ground motion records of Iran. Eng Geol 297:106526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loh CH, Wu TC, Huang NE (2001) Application of the empirical mode decomposition-Hilbert spectrum method to identify near-fault ground-motion characteristics and structural responses. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(5):1339–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1099–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melgar D, Ganas A, Taymaz T, Valkaniotis S, Crowell BW, Kapetanidis V, Tsironi V, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Öcalan T (2020) Rupture kinematics of 2020 January 24 Mw 6.7 Doğanyol-Sivrice, Turkey earthquake on the East Anatolian Fault Zone imaged by space geodesy. Geophys J Int 223(2):862–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melgar D, Taymaz T, Ganas A, Crowell B, Öcalan T, Kahraman M, Tsironi V, Yolsal-Çevikbil S, Valkaniotis S, Irmak TS, Eken T, Erman C, Özkan B, Dogan AH, Altuntaş C (2023) Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica. https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papazafeiropoulos G, Plevris V (2023) Kahramanmaras—Gaziantep, Türkiye Mw 7.8 earthquake on 6 February 2023: strong ground motion and building response estimations. Buildings 13(5):1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathje EM, Faraj F, Russell S, Bray JD (2004) Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 20(1):119–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaeian S, Al Atik L, Kuehn NM, Abrahamson N, Bozorgnia Y, Mazzoni S, Campbell K (2021) Spectral damping scaling factors for horizontal components of ground motions from subduction earthquakes using NGA-Subduction data. Earthq Spectra 37(4):2453–2492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2456–2466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville PG (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys Earth Planet Inter 137(1–4):201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan O, Taymaz T (2006) Active tectonics of the caucasus: earthquake source mechanisms and rupture histories obtained from inversion of teleseismic body-waveforms. In: Post-collisional tectonics and magmatism in the mediterranean region and Asia, Geological Society of America, Special Paper 409, pp 531–578

  • Taymaz T, Eyidoğan H, Jackson JA (1991) Source parameters of large earthquakes in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey). Geophys J Int 106:537–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taymaz T, Ganas A, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Vera F, Eken T, Erman C, Keleş D, Kapetanidis V, Valkaniotis S, Karasante I, Tsironi V, Gaebler P, Melgar D, Ocalan T (2021) Source mechanism and rupture process of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 Doğanyol-sivrice earthquake obtained from seismological waveform analysis and space geodetic observations on the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey). Tectonophysics 804:228745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2021.228745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taymaz T, Ganas A, Berberian M, Eken T, Irmak TS, Kapetanidis V, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Erman C, Keleş D, Esmaeili C, Tsironi V, Özkan B (2022) The 23 February 2020 qotur-ravian earthquake doublet at the iranian-turkish border: seismological and InSAR evidence for escape tectonics. Tectonophysics 838:229482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2022.229482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TBEC, Turkish Building Earthquake Code (2018) Ministry of Interior, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), Ankara, Türkiye

  • Toksöz MN, Shakal AF, Michael AJ (1979) Space-time migration of earthquakes along the North Anatolian fault zone and seismic gaps. Pure Appl Geophys 117:1258–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Geological Survey. (2023a). Event page for the M7.8—Pazarcık, Turkey, earthquake. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz. Accessed March 2023.

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2023b) Event page for the M7.5—Elbistan, Turkey, earthquake. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jlqa. Accessed March 2023.

  • Wu F, Xie JJ, An Z, Lyu CH, Taymaz T, Irmak TS, Li XJ, Wen ZP, Zhou BF (2023) Pulse-like ground motion observed during the 6 February 2023 MW7.8 Pazarcık Earthquake (Kahramanmaraş, SE Türkiye). Earthq Sci 36:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Liu C, Xiong X (2020) Source process of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 East Anatolian fault zone, Türkiye, earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 91(6):3120–3128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaghmaei-Sabegh S (2015) New models for frequency content prediction of earthquake records based on Iranian ground-motion data. J Seismolog 19:831–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai C, Li C, Kunnath S, Wen W (2018) An efficient algorithm for identifying pulse-like ground motions based on significant velocity half-cycles. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(3):757–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Foundation of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (Grant Number. 2021EEEVL0103) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number. U1939210). We would like to acknowledge the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Türkiye (AFAD) for setting up a dense near-fault observatories of strong ground motion network and for immediately publishing a huge number of openly accessible accelerometers during the catastrophic times for Türkiye. Tuncay Taymaz acknowledges support by Istanbul Technical University Research Fund (ITU-BAP) as well as Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA-GEBİP) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Research Fellowship Award through the Humboldt-Stiftung Follow-Up Program. TT also thanks Dr. Beyza Taymaz for her phenomenal support and assistance during hectic days dealing with global media requests and organizing international scientific collaborations and for her guidance and discussions during four-weeks of sleepless nights. We wish to thank Berkan Özkan for his help collecting the strong ground motion recordings, the anonymous reviewers and the editors for constructive and judicial comments.

Funding

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Foundation of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (Grant Number 2021EEEVL0103) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (52078470; U1939210).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, China

    Jinjun Hu, Mingji Liu & Longbing Ding

  2. Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, China

    Jinjun Hu, Mingji Liu & Longbing Ding

  3. Department of Geophysical Engineering, The Faculty of Mines, Istanbul Technical University, 34467, Sarıyer, Istanbul, Türkiye

    Tuncay Taymaz

  4. Department of Geophysical Engineering, Kocaeli University, 41380, Umuttepe, Kocaeli, Türkiye

    Tahir Serkan Irmak

Authors
  1. Jinjun Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingji Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tuncay Taymaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Longbing Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tahir Serkan Irmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Jinjun Hu, Mingji Liu, Tuncay Taymaz, Longbing Ding and Tahir Serkan Irmak. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jinjun Hu, and Mingji Liu, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinjun Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (XLSX 179 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, J., Liu, M., Taymaz, T. et al. Characteristics of strong ground motion from the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. Bull Earthquake Eng (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01844-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01844-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation