Advanced Search

Indexed by SCI、CA、РЖ、PA、CSA、ZR、etc .

Volume 34 Issue 2
Apr 2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
INTRODUCTION
SOURCE PROCESS
GROUND MOTIONS AND EARTHQUAKE CASUALTY ESTIMATION
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
References
Journal of Earth Science  > 2023  >  34(2): 297-303.
Wenkai Chen, Gang Rao, Dengjie Kang, Zhifan Wan, Dun Wang. Early Report of the Source Characteristics, Ground Motions, and Casualty Estimates of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.5 Turkey Earthquakes. Journal of Earth Science, 2023, 34(2): 297-303. doi: 10.1007/s12583-023-1316-6
Citation: Wenkai Chen, Gang Rao, Dengjie Kang, Zhifan Wan, Dun Wang. Early Report of the Source Characteristics, Ground Motions, and Casualty Estimates of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.5 Turkey Earthquakes. Journal of Earth Science, 2023, 34(2): 297-303. doi: 10.1007/s12583-023-1316-6
shu

Early Report of the Source Characteristics, Ground Motions, and Casualty Estimates of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.5 Turkey Earthquakes

doi: 10.1007/s12583-023-1316-6
  • 1.

    Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Lanzhou 730000, China

  • 2.

    School of Geoscience and Technology, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China

  • 3.

    State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, School of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China

Funds:

the Major Science and Technology Projects of Gansu Province 21ZD4FA011

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 41874062

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 41922025

the National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFB0504104

More Information
  • Corresponding author: Dun Wang, wangdun@cug.edu.cn
  • Received Date: 19 Feb 2023
  • Accepted Date: 25 Feb 2023
    Abstract
    • FullText(HTML)

  • At 01:17 UTC (04:17 on local time) on Feb. 6, 2023, a devastating earthquake with a moment magnitude (Mw) 7.8 occurred in the Gaziantep, southern Turkey. The earthquake was located at 37.174°N and 37.032°E, with a hypocentral depth of 17.9 km as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Nine hours later, a Mw 7.5 earthquake occurred in Kahramanmaras, about 95 km north to the epicenter of the Mw 7.8 earthquake (37.203°E, 38.024°N, depth 10.0 km). The Mw 7.8 earthquake was the most devastating earthquake in Turkey after the 1939 M 7.9 Erzincan Earthquake (killed more than 33 000 people). Until 01:16 UTC of Feb. 13 (one week following the Mw 7.8 earthquake), there have been 1 114 earthquakes, including one M > 7, two M 6–7, 26 M 5–6, and 212 M 4–5 events according to the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC). Here the magnitude scale is either Mw or mb.

    The Turkey earthquake sequence occurred at the junction of the East Anatolian fault zone (EAFZ) with the Dead Sea fault zone (DSFZ). The seismically active left-lateral EAFZ together with the right-lateral North Anatolian fault zone (NAFZ) accommodate the westward extrusion of the Anatolian microplate with respect to the Eurasian and Arabian plates (Fig. 1a; Jackson and McKenzie, 1984; McKenzie, 1976, 1972). The EAFZ is characterized by pronounced segmentation of faulting (Fig. 1b; Gülerce et al., 2017; Duman and Ermre, 2013). To the south, the EAFZ connects with the DSFZ and the Cyprian arc via Amik triple junction (Fig. 1b; Duman and Emre, 2013). The EAFZ and the DSFZ overlap for about 160 km in the Karasu trough bounded by the left-lateral Amanos and Yesemek fault segments, respectively (Fig. 1b). Present GPS observations reveal a slip rate of ~6.8 mm/yr along the Karasu trough (Reilinger et al., 2006). The Yesemek fault segment delimits the eastern margin of the Karasu trough, which may have generated the 1822 Ms 7.5 earthquake (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1998). Further north, the Narli fault segment is the northernmost tip of the DSFZ, consisting of sub-parallel normal faults separated by relay ramps (Duman and Emre, 2013). The 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake occurred at the location between these two faults. Later, another earthquake of Mw 7.5 happened along the roughly east-west trending Cardak fault segment of the EAFZ (see Fig. 1b for the location). The Cardak fault cuts former thrust faults and folds, and has produced prominent left-lateral slip morphology, with a slip rate of ~2.5 mm/yr (Duman and Emre, 2013).

    Figure  1.  Geological environment of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.5 damaging earthquakes that occurred at the junction of the East Anatolian fault zone (EAFZ) with the Dead Sea fault zone (DSFZ). (a) Tectonic background of the study area (modified after Gülerce et al., 2017; Duman and Emre, 2013; Kaymakci et al., 2007). (b) The distribution of active fault traces and earthquake epicenters reveals pronounced segmentation of faulting (Gülerce et al., 2017). The 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes are from the USGS, and the information for the other earthquakes is integrated from Ambraseys and Jackson (1998), Milkereit et al. (2004), Xu et al. (2020), and Lin et al. (2021).
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    We use data recorded in Alaskan and Canadian seismic stations to back-project the source propagation of the Mw 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes. The Alaskan and Canadian seismic stations consist of ~295 broadband seismic stations with sampling rate of 100 Hz (Busby and Aderhold, 2020), among which we chose seismic stations with epicenter distances to the Turkey Mw 7.8 earthquake ranging from 70° to 85° with azimuths of 344° to 349°.

    The back-projection method can resolve the rupture fault(s) with less requirement of model parameter setting (Ishii et al., 2005; Krüger and Ohrnberger, 2005). Thus, it has been widely applied in studies of source characteristics of earthquakes (Okuwaki et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2016; Wang and Mori, 2016; Fan and Shearer, 2015; Satriano et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2011; Zhang and Ge, 2010; Vallée et al., 2008). In this study, we performed a back-projection method (beamforming over a sliding/moving window), to trace the rupture processes of the two Turkey earthquakes (Wang et al., 2017). The frequency band, length of the stacking window, and the interval between stacking windows, were 0.8–10.0 Hz, 10 s, and 1 s, respectively. The horizontal grid points were setting at depth of 20 km with an interval of 2 km in horizontal plane.

    Figure 2 shows the time propagation of the back-projection results. We used the high frequency waveforms in the back- projection, Hence the results mainly represent rupture front propagations.

    Figure  2.  Time (color of the circles) and amplitudes (size of the circles) of the back-projection results for the Mw 7.8 (a) and 7.5 (b) Turkey earthquakes. The seismic data recorded at Alaskan and Canadian stations were used in the back-projection. The red star indicates the epicenter determined by the USGS. The red, and yellow diamonds represent the aftershocks that occurred between the origin times of the Mw 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes, and in 15 h following the Mw 7.5 earthquake (one day following the Mw 7.8 earthquake) according to the EMSC.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    For the Mw 7.8 earthquake, the rupture propagated bilaterally along the NE and SW directions. The rupture firstly propagated ~140 km along the NE direction for the first 50 s. Then the rupture started to propagate in the SSW direction from the epicenter over a representative length of ~130 km for about 30 s. The SSW rupture seems to be more complex; not along a single, straight fault plane, probably in association with multiple, discrete fault segments. The total rupture length and the source duration of the rupture are ~270 km and ~80 s, respectively. Early aftershocks usually delineate rupture fault(s) of mainshocks (EMSC). Locations of the aftershocks that occurred in the first day following the Mw 7.8 earthquake showed highly compatible fault patterns with the back-projection results.

    The Mw 7.5 earthquake also ruptured bilaterally along the W and E directions on the Cardak fault. The rupture expanded ~60 km in ~20 s in the west direction, and expanded ~50 km for ~30 s in the east direction according to the distribution of the early aftershocks and the back-projection. The total rupture length and the source duration are 110 km and ~30 s, respectively. From the back-projection results, one can observe that the east portion of the ruptured fault was adequately illumina-ted, while the west portion of the rupture fault was ambiguously recognized.

    Based on the back-projection results and a Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE, Si and Midorigawa, 1999), we estimated the Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) fileds of the Mw 7.8 and 7.5 the earthquakes (Kang et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022a, b). Here the attenuation of the seismic intensity was empirically approximated by the GMPE (Si and Midorigawa, 1999), which employed the closest distance from the back-projected seismic sources. The estimated PGV were then corrected for the site effect using the Vs30 data (USGS).

    We set a grid of point (1 km × 1 km) around the source area of 1 000 km × 1 000 km. For each grid, we first calculated the closest distance between the grid point and back-projected source locations. Then we estimated the PGV on stiff ground in each site following Si and Midorigawa (1999). After that, we calculated the site amplification factor for the PGV using the Vs30 dataset following Midorikawa (1994). We further converted the PGV on stiff ground to the PGV on the ground surface (PGVVs30). The PGV on each grid point was converted to the seismic intensity scale of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI, Worden et al., 2012). Hence, the seismic intensity maps of the two earthquakes were created.

    The seismic intensity map for the Mw 7.8 earthquake shows higher intensity in and around the NE-striking rupture fault(s) derived from the back-projection (Fig. 3), with the maximum intensity of Ⅸ. The intensity Ⅸ area is 3 260 km2, most of which are distributed in and to the southwest of the epicenter. The contour lines of the seismic intensity map for the Mw 7.5 earthquake show elliptical shapes with the major axis trending W-E direction, in which the maximum intensity is Ⅸ. Due to the relatively small magnitude, the size of the area with intensity Ⅸ (379 km2) is significantly smaller than those for the Mw 7.8 earthquake.

    Figure  3.  PGVVs30 estimates for the 2023 Mw 7.8 (a) and Mw 7.5 (b) Turkey earthquakes. Red star indicates the earthquake epicenter. Black line represents the country border between Turkey and the Syrian Arab Republic.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    We collected the population distribution in the grid area according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL, https://landscan.ornl.gov). Superimposing the population distribution on the seismic intensity map (Fig. 4), we got the number of exposed people in respective MMI values. We downloaded the PGAs and PGVs of the local strong motion obervations from the USGS, to compare our calculated ground motions. The average residuals (log10 (obs./calc.)) between our calculated and observed ground motions (PGA and PGV) in 300 km to epicenter were 0.043 and 0.319, respectively. The relatively small average residuals of the calculated ground motions validated our estimate of the ground motions (Fig. 5). The numbers of the exposed people in areas with intensity Ⅸ for the Mw 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes are 650 000, and 70 000, respectively. Those values are 2 570 000, and 140 000, in areas with intensity Ⅷ, respectively. We then estimated the casualties of the two earthquakes using an empirical approach of Jaiswal et al. (2009), the death toll from the two earthquakes is expected to exceed 21 000.

    Figure  4.  Exposed population in the Mw 7.8 (a) and Mw 7.5 (b) earthquakes. Colorful contour lines indicate the seismic intensity information of the Mw 7.8 (a) and Mw 7.5 (b) earthquakes. Population density is represented by the shade of gray.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure  5.  Comparison between instrument-recorded and calculated ground motions for the 2023 Mw 7.8 Turkey earthquake. (a) Blue triangle represents the strong-motion station and the background color represents the seismic intensities estimated in this study. The seismic observation data are collected from the USGS. The original data are from the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD). (b) Residuals between the calculated and observed PGAs recorded during the Mw 7.8 earthquake. Black dot and solid line are the mean residuals and their trendlines in (c) the same as in (b) except for PGVs.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    The 2023 Mw 7.8 (and 7.5) Turkey earthquake sequence is another large continental earthquake that caused catastrophic damages after the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan, China and the 2010 Mw 7.0 Haiti earthquake. Here we utilized the back-projection method and seismic data recorded in Alaskan and Canadian seismic stations, to resolve the ruptured faults of the two Turkey earthquakes.

    The results showed that the Mw 7.8 earthquake ruptured bilaterally along the NE and SW directions, for about 140 and 130 km, respectively. The total rupture length and source duration were ~270 km and 80 s, respectively. Based on the resolved fault patterns, we estimated the ground motions of the earthquakes and evaluated the casualties.

    Without fault patterns, it is difficult to map the damaging zone accurately (Fig. 6a). That information could be incorporated in the ground motion estimations using source process determined by back-projection, stabilized finite slip inversion, locations of a few days' aftershocks, and/or field damage reports (Fig. 6b). The latest version of the ShakeMap that incorporated aftershock locations, field damage reports (DYFI), and other seismological observations show generally similar pattern of the seismic intensity map estimated from back-projection in this study (Fig. 6).

    Figure  6.  Evolution of the ShakeMap for the 2023 Mw 7.8 Turkey earthquake; (a) and (b) showing the two versions of the seismic intensity map (USGS, V2.0 and V13.0).
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Among the approaches of estimating fault patterns, the back-projection offers promising results in quasi-real-time. Such efforts are valuable for immediate emergency response and rescue operation. For example, we determined the ground motion estimates of the Mw 7.8 and 7.5 Turkey earthquakes in 2 h and 1 h following the earthquake origin times. The very fast ground motion map, together with the fault patterns, helped better estimate of the earthquake damages and rescue operations right after large earthquakes.

    There are many factors influencing the assessment of earthquake casualties, which is technically very challenging. Earthquake intensity, seismic performance of buildings, population density, post-earthquake disasters, and site effects all affect the results of casualty assessment. Here we rapidly assessed the casualty of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake sequence as 21 000, which is in the same order of the number of casualty (~44 000, according to the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) up to Feb. 25, 2023) and is fairly good for emergency response right after the mainshock.

    Another interesting phenomenon is the fault interaction among earthquake faults shown in the Turkey earthquake sequence. The Mw 7.5 earthquake that was located ~95 km north to the epicenter, occurred ~9 h after the Mw 7.8 earthquake. Likely the seismogenic fault for the Mw 7.5 earthquake was triggered by the Mw 7.8 earthquake. How the NE-striking faults affects the EW-striking Cardak fault and nearby faults warrants further investigation.

    ACKNOWLDGMENTS: This study was supported by the Major Science and Technology Projects of Gansu Province (No. 21ZD4FA011), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41874062 and 41922025), and the National Key R & D Program of China (No. 2017YFB0504104). We would like to thank Dr. Hongjun Si (Seismological Research Institute Inc., Japan) for related scientific discussion and suggestions. The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-023-1316-6.
    • References(30)
  • Ambraseys, N. N., Jackson, J. A., 1998. Faulting Associated with Historical and Recent Earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Geophysical Journal International, 133(2): 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00508.x
    Busby, R. W., Aderhold, K., 2020. The Alaska Transportable Array: As Built. Seismological Research Letters, 91(6): 3017–3027. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200154
    Chen, W. K., Wang, D., Si, H. J., et al., 2022a. Rapid Estimation of Seismic Intensities Using a New Algorithm that Incorporates Array Technologies and Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 112(3): 1647–1661. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210207
    Chen, W. K., Wang, D., Zhang, C., et al., 2022b. Estimating Seismic Intensity Maps of the 2021 Mw 7.3 Madoi, Qinghai and Mw 6.1 Yangbi, Yunnan, China Earthquakes. Journal of Earth Science, 33(4): 839–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-021-1586-9
    Duman, T. Y., Emre, Ö., 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, Segmentation and Jog Characteristics. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 372(1): 495–529. https://doi.org/10.1144/sp372.14
    Fan, W. Y., Shearer, P. M., 2015. Detailed Rupture Imaging of the 25 April 2015 Nepal Earthquake Using Teleseismic P Waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14): 5744–5752. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl064587
    Gülerce, Z., Tanvir Shah, S., Menekşe, A., et al., 2017. Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Assessment for East Anatolian Fault Zone Using Planar Fault Source Models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(5): 2353–2366. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170009
    Ishii, M., Shearer, P. M., Houston, H., et al., 2005. Extent, Duration and Speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake Imaged by the Hi-Net Array. Nature, 435(7044): 933–936. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03675
    Jackson, J., McKenzie, D., 1984. Active Tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan Belt between Western Turkey and Pakistan. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 77(1): 185–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1984.tb01931.x
    Jaiswal, K., Wald, D. J., Hearne, M., 2009. Estimating Casualties for Large Earthquakes Worldwide Using an Empirical Approach. USGS Open—File Report 2009-1136. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20091136
    Kang, D. J., Chen, W. K., Zhao, H. Q., et al., 2023. Rapid Assessment of the September 5, 2022 Ms 6.8 Luding Earthquake in Sichuan, China. Earthquake Research Advances, 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqrea.2023.100214
    Kaymakci, N., Aldanmaz, E., Langereis, C., et al., 2007. Late Miocene Transcurrent Tectonics in NW Turkey: Evidence from Palaeomagnetism and 40Ar-39Ar Dating of Alkaline Volcanic Rocks. Geological Magazine, 144(2): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0016756806003074
    Krüger, F., Ohrnberger, M., 2005. Tracking the Rupture of the Mw=9.3 Sumatra Earthquake over 1 150 km at Teleseismic Distance. Nature, 435(7044): 937–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03696
    Lin, X., Hao, J. L., Wang, D., et al., 2021. Coseismic Slip Distribution of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 Doganyol Earthquake and in Relation to the Foreshock and Aftershock Activities. Seismological Research Letters, 92(1): 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200152
    McKenzie, D. P., 1972. Active Tectonics of the Mediterranean Region. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 30(2): 109–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1972.tb02351.x
    McKenzie, D. P., 1976. The East Anatolian Fault: a Major Structure in Eastern Turkey. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 29(1): 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821x(76)90038-8
    Meng, L. S., Zhang, A. L., Yagi, Y., 2016. Improving back Projection Imaging with a Novel Physics-Based Aftershock Calibration Approach: A Case Study of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(2): 628–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl067034
    Midorikawa, S., 1994. Site Effects on Strong-Motion Records Observed during the 1987 Chiba-Ken-Toho-Oki, Japan Earthquake. Environ-mental Science, 9(3): 85–90
    Milkereit, C., Grosser, H., Wang, R. J., et al., 2004. Implications of the 2003 Bingol Earthquake for the Interaction between the North and East Anatolian Faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6): 2400–2406. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030194
    Okuwaki, R., Kasahara, A., Yagi, Y., et al., 2019. Backprojection to Image Slip. Geophysical Journal International, 216(3): 1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy505
    Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., et al., 2006. GPS Constraints on Continental Deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia Continental Collision Zone and Implications for the Dynamics of Plate Interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5): B05411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jb004051
    Satriano, C., Kiraly, E., Bernard, P., et al., 2012. The 2012 Mw 8.6 Sumatra Earthquake: Evidence of Westward Sequential Seismic Ruptures Asso-ciated to the Reactivation of a N-S Ocean Fabric. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(15): L15302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl052387
    Si, H., Midorikawa, S., 1999. New Attenuation Relationships for Peak Ground Acceleration and Velocity Considering Effects of Fault Type and Site Condition. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of Aij), 64:63–70. https://doi.org/10.3130/AIJS.64.63_2
    Vallée, M., Landès, M., Shapiro, N. M., et al., 2008. The 14 November 2001 Kokoxili (Tibet) Earthquake: High-Frequency Seismic Radiation Originating from the Transitions between Sub-Rayleigh and Supershear Rupture Velocity Regimes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 113(B7): B07305. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jb005520
    Wang, D., Kawakatsu, H., Zhuang, J. C., et al., 2017. Automated Determination of Magnitude and Source Length of Large Earthquakes Using Backprojection and P Wave Amplitudes. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(11): 5447–5456. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073801
    Wang, D., Mori, J., 2016. Short-Period Energy of the 25 April 2015 Mw 7.8 Nepal Earthquake Determined from Backprojection Using Four Arrays in Europe, China, Japan, and Australia. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106(1): 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150236
    Worden, C. B., Gerstenberger, M. C., Rhoades, D. A., et al., 2012. Proba-bilistic Relationships between Ground-Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(1): 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110156
    Xu, J., Liu, C. L., Xiong, X., 2020. Source Process of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey, Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters, 91(6): 3120–3128. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200124
    Yao, H. J., Gerstoft, P., Shearer, P. M., et al., 2011. Compressive Sensing of the Tohoku-Oki Mw 9.0 Earthquake: Frequency-Dependent Rupture Modes. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(20): L20310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl049223
    Zhang, H., Ge, Z., 2010. Tracking the Rupture of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake by Using the Relative Back-Projection Method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5B): 2551–2560. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090243
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(46)

    1. Sheng Li, Nelson Lam, Hing-Ho Tsang. Lateral stability design and modelling of high-rise fully modular buildings with superelastic tendon restrained rocking isolation. Journal of Building Engineering, 2025, 99: 111589. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.111589
    2. Amir Shahmohammadian, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany. Game theory applications in managing stakeholder conflicts for building safety and resilience against natural disasters. Progress in Disaster Science, 2025, 26: 100409. doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2025.100409
    3. Xi-Yang Yu, Yan-Wen Li, Junxian Zhao, et al. A unified low cycle fatigue model of axial-loaded buckling-restrained Fe-SMA plates in high-performance metallic dampers. Engineering Structures, 2025, 325: 119461. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.119461
    4. Yücel Yılmaz, Ömer Feyzi Gürer, Erdinç Yiğitbaş. 2023 Kahramanmaraş Deprem Fayları üzerinde Gözlemler ve Değerlendirmeler / Field Data and Some Thoughts on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes Faults. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni / Geological Bulletin of Turkey, 2025, 68(4): 1. doi:10.25288/tjb.1577026
    5. Muhammad Umair Raza, Faheem Butt, Farhan Ahmad, et al. Seismic safety assessment of buildings and perceptions of earthquake risk among communities in Mingora, Swat, Pakistan. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2025, 10(4) doi:10.1007/s41062-025-01932-z
    6. Zhi Wang, Yi Fu, Shunping Pei. Relationship between seismic structures and the diverse rupture processes of the 2023 Türkiye earthquake doublet. Science China Earth Sciences, 2024, 67(9): 2810. doi:10.1007/s11430-023-1324-y
    7. David Dominguez-Santos, María Constanza Gutiérrez Guerra. Mechanical and Structural Behavior of Concrete Blocks with Granulated Polystyrene (PS) and Recycled Polypropylene (PP) Fibres and Their Use in Low and Medium Height Frames. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2024, 28(7): 2000. doi:10.1080/13632469.2023.2271074
    8. Xiaoqiang Wang, Junyan Han, Anqi Kang, et al. Seismic fragility analysis of buried pipelines under Kahramanmaraş ground motions. Engineering Geology, 2024, 337: 107596. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107596
    9. Alparslan Güzey, Mehmet Hakan Satman. Collaborative Truck/Drone Routing Problem: An Application to Disaster Logistics. İstatistik ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 2024. doi:10.52693/jsas.1474515
    10. Lihui Wu, Jinling Li, Sarina Bao, et al. Visualization analysis of ambient seismic noise research. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2024, 12 doi:10.3389/feart.2024.1452324
    11. Zhike Guo, Junyan Han, M. Hesham El Naggar, et al. Vector-valued fragility analysis of subway station structures subjected to the Kahramanmaras earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2024, 182: 108739. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108739
    12. Carlo Doglioni. Gravitational and elastic energies stored in crustal volumes activate normal versus strike-slip and thrust seismogenic faults. Geoscience Frontiers, 2024, 15(6): 101894. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101894
    13. Jiang Liu, Xuemin Zhang, Muping Yang, et al. Pre-seismic anomaly analysis of the Turkey earthquakes on 6 February 2023 based on multi-source satellite observations. Natural Hazards, 2024, 120(13): 12491. doi:10.1007/s11069-024-06694-y
    14. Kejie Chen, Guoguang Wei, Christopher Milliner, et al. Super-shear ruptures steered by pre-stress heterogeneities during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake doublet. Nature Communications, 2024, 15(1) doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51446-y
    15. Yijiao Jia, Wenkai Chen, Dengjie Kang, et al. Rapid determination of source parameters of the M6.2 Jishishan earthquake in Gansu Province and its application in emergency response. Earthquake Research Advances, 2024, 4(4): 100310. doi:10.1016/j.eqrea.2024.100310
    16. Xiangli He, Tao Li, Qinxia Wang, et al. Recent progress in earthquake science based on summary of the 18th academic conference of the Seismological Society of China. Earthquake Research Advances, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.eqrea.2024.100351
    17. Weili Luo, Qiuhe Liang, Yun Zhou, et al. A novel three-dimensional isolation bearing for buildings subject to metro- and earthquake-induced vibrations: Laboratory test and application. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 86: 108798. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108798
    18. Dengjie Kang, Wenkai Chen, Yijiao Jia. Bayesian maximum entropy interpolation analysis for rapid assessment of seismic intensity using station and ground motion prediction equations. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2024, 12 doi:10.3389/feart.2024.1394937
    19. Bonan Cao, Zengxi Ge. Cascading multi-segment rupture process of the 2023 Turkish earthquake doublet on a complex fault system revealed by teleseismic P wave back projection method. Earthquake Science, 2024, 37(2): 158. doi:10.1016/j.eqs.2024.01.017
    20. Jianning Wang, Hongjie Wang, Peng Pan, et al. Endurance time analysis for seismic performance of underground structures subjected to mainshock–aftershock sequences. Engineering Structures, 2024, 306: 117879. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117879
    21. Zhonghua Hong, Hongyang Zhang, Xiaohua Tong, et al. Rapid Fine-Grained Damage Assessment of Buildings on a Large Scale: A Case Study of the February 2023 Earthquake in Turkey. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2024, 17: 5204. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2024.3362809
    22. Sheng Li, Hing-Ho Tsang, Nelson Lam. Seismic Performance of Fully Modular High-Rise Buildings with Superelastic Tendon Restrained Rocking. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2024, 150(9) doi:10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12979
    23. Yunyun Jin, Chaolie Ning, Jie Li. Regional Seismic Damage Prediction of Buildings Based on Bayesian Network and Community Information Database: A Case Study in Shanghai. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2024, 28(15): 4436. doi:10.1080/13632469.2024.2387036
    24. Haritha Chandriyan, Paresh Nath Singha Roy. Tectonic Duets: Self-Similar Approach to Investigate Eastern Anatolian Fault’s Recent Seismicity, with Special Emphasis on the 6 February 2023 Earthquake Doublet. Seismological Research Letters, 2024, 95(2A): 626. doi:10.1785/0220230341
    25. Zhifan Wan, Rendong Dong, Dun Wang, et al. Along-Strike Variation of Rupture Characteristics and Aftershock Patterns of the 2023 Mw 7.8 Türkiye Earthquake Controlled by Fault Structure. Seismological Research Letters, 2024, 95(4): 2071. doi:10.1785/0220230378
    26. Shanbai Wu, Liangqing Wang, Qiong Wu, et al. Dynamic stability analysis of anchored anti-dip slope under the Ludian earthquake: a case study of the Manhekuan slope, Yunnan, China. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2024, 83(11) doi:10.1007/s10064-024-03904-6
    27. Fatih Karsli, Erdem Bayrak. Single-station microtremor surveys for site characterization: A case study in Erzurum city, eastern Turkey. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2024, 23(3): 563. doi:10.1007/s11803-024-2257-5
    28. Jinfan Liang, Hanping Zhao, Zezheng Yan, et al. Rapid construction method of emergency material supply chain based on shared platform covering market resources. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024, 105: 104365. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104365
    29. Sanjeev Bhatta, Ji Dang. Multiclass seismic damage detection of buildings using quantum convolutional neural network. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2024, 39(3): 406. doi:10.1111/mice.13084
    30. 志 王, 毅 伏, 顺平 裴. <bold>2023</bold>年土耳其双重地震不同破裂过程与地震结构的关系. SCIENTIA SINICA Terrae, 2024, 54(9): 2864. doi:10.1360/N072023-0181
    31. De-Cheng Feng, Xin Yi, Zeynep Tuna Deger, et al. Rapid post-earthquake damage assessment of building portfolios through deep learning-based component-level image recognition. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 98: 111380. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.111380
    32. Jingtao Mei, Yongge Wan. 基于先验约束和InSAR数据估计土耳其双震的同震破裂分布. Earth Science-Journal of China University of Geosciences, 2024, 49(8): 2961. doi:10.3799/dqkx.2024.015
    33. Muharrem Baturu, Ömer Bayrak, Mehmet Öztürk, et al. Exploring the relationship between earthquake exposure and severity of erectile dysfunction in southern part of Türkiye. Investigative and Clinical Urology, 2024, 65(5): 473. doi:10.4111/icu.20240200
    34. Yushi Duan, Jingshan Bo, Da Peng, et al. Analysis of Peak Ground Acceleration and Seismogenic Fault Characteristics of the Mw7.8 Earthquake in Turkey. Applied Sciences, 2023, 13(19): 10896. doi:10.3390/app131910896
    35. Xiaotian Ding, Shiqing Xu, Yuqing Xie, et al. The sharp turn: Backward rupture branching during the 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquake. Seismica, 2023, 2(3) doi:10.26443/seismica.v2i3.1083
    36. Lihui Wu, Da Ma, Jinling Li. Assessment of the Regional Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in China Based on DEA Model. Sustainability, 2023, 15(14): 10936. doi:10.3390/su151410936
    37. Sihan Yu, Qiyun Lei, Chao Liu, et al. Application research on digital twins of urban earthquake disasters. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 2023, 14(1) doi:10.1080/19475705.2023.2278274
    38. A. I. Filippova, A. S. Fomochkina. Source Parameters of Strong Turkish Earthquakes on February 6, 2023 (Mw = 7.8 and Mw = 7.7) from Surface Wave Data. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2023, 59(6): 899. doi:10.1134/S1069351323060071
    39. Yutao Li, Chuanguo Jia, Hong Chen, et al. Machine Learning Assessment of Damage Grade for Post-Earthquake Buildings: A Three-Stage Approach Directly Handling Categorical Features. Sustainability, 2023, 15(18): 13847. doi:10.3390/su151813847
    40. A. I. Filippova, A. S. Fomochkina. Source Parameters of Strong Turkish Earthquakes on February 6, 2023 (Mw = 7.8 and Mw = 7.7) from Surface Wave Data. Физика земли, 2023. doi:10.31857/S0002333723060078
    41. Huaiqun Zhao, Wenkai Chen, Can Zhang, et al. Rapid estimation of seismic intensities by analyzing early aftershock sequences using the robust locally weighted regression program (LOWESS). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2023, 23(9): 3031. doi:10.5194/nhess-23-3031-2023
    42. Balaji Lakkimsetti, Gali Madhavi Latha. Role of geofoam inclusions on the liquefaction resilience of transportation geostructures. Transportation Geotechnics, 2023, 41: 101041. doi:10.1016/j.trgeo.2023.101041
    43. Sami Acik, Selahattin Kosunalp. Real-time Observation of Earthquake Disaster Zones with Wireless Sensor Networks-based Solutions. 2023 4th International Conference on Communications, Information, Electronic and Energy Systems (CIEES), doi:10.1109/CIEES58940.2023.10378820
    44. Hakan T. Otal, M. Abdullah Canbaz. AI-Powered Crisis Response: Streamlining Emergency Management with LLMs. 2024 IEEE World Forum on Public Safety Technology (WFPST), doi:10.1109/WFPST58552.2024.00009
    45. Hakan T. Otal, Eric Stern, M. Abdullah Canbaz. LLM-Assisted Crisis Management: Building Advanced LLM Platforms for Effective Emergency Response and Public Collaboration. 2024 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI), doi:10.1109/CAI59869.2024.00159
    46. Hang Yuan. Application and Comparison of Search Algorithms in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Big Data and Internet of Things, doi:10.1145/3697355.3697420

    Other cited types(0)

  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(6)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 8
    Article views(1056) PDF downloads(182) Cited by(46)
    Proportional views
    Related

    Copyright © 2013-2020 Journal of Earth Science 鄂ICP备15021562号-2

    Tel: +86-27-67885075 Fax: +86-27-67885075 E-mail: xbb@cug.edu.cn

    Address: Editorial Office of Journal, China University of Geosciences, Yujiashan, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, P. R. China

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd  E-mail: info@rhhz.net  

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return