This article describes the Engineering Strong-Motion Database (ESM), developed in the framework of the European project Network of European Research Infrastructures for Earthquake Risk Assessment and Mitigation (NERA, see Data and Resources). ESM is specifically designed to provide end users only with quality-checked, uniformly processed strong-motion data and relevant parameters and has done so since 1969 in the Euro-Mediterranean region. The database was designed for a large variety of stakeholders (expert seismologists, earthquake engineers, students, and professionals) with a user-friendly and straightforward web interface. Users can access earthquake and station information and download waveforms of events with magnitude ≥ 4:0 (unprocessed and processed acceleration, velocity, and displacement, and acceleration and displacement response spectra at 5% damping). Specific tools are also available to users to process strong-motion data and select ground-motion suites for codebased seismic structural analyses.

A review on the historical evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey is followed by summarizing the important aspects of the updated national probabilistic seismic hazard maps. Comparisons with the predecessor probabilistic seismic hazard maps as well as the implications on the national design codes conclude the paper.

No abstract

Abstract. The Marmara section of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) runs under water and is located less than 20 km from the 15-million-person population center of Istanbul in its eastern portion. Based on historical seismicity data, recurrence times forecast an impending magnitude M>7 earthquake for this region. The permanent GONAF (Geophysical Observatory at the North Anatolian Fault) has been installed around this section to help capture the seismic and strain activity preceding, during, and after such an anticipated event.GONAF (Geophysical Observatory at the North Anatolian Fault) is currently comprised of seven 300 m deep vertical seismic profiling stations and four collocated 100 m deep borehole strainmeters. Five of the stations are located on the land surrounding the Princes Islands segment below the eastern Sea of Marmara and two are on the near-fault Princes Islands south of Istanbul. The 300 m boreholes have 1, 2, and 15 Hz 3-C seismometers near their bottoms. Above this are vertical, 1 Hz, seismometers at ∼ 210, 140, and 70 m depths. The strainmeter boreholes are located within a few meters of the seismometer boreholes and contain horizontal strain tensor sensors and 2 Hz 3-C seismometers at their bottoms. This selection of instruments and depths was made so as to ensure high-precision and broad-frequency earthquake monitoring and vertical profiling, all under low-noise conditions.GONAF is the first ICDP-driven project with a primary focus on long-term monitoring of fault-zone dynamics. It has already contributed to earthquake hazard studies in the Istanbul area in several ways. Combining GONAF recordings with existing regional seismic stations now allows monitoring of the NAFZ offshore of Istanbul down to magnitudes M<0. GONAF also improves the resolution of earthquake hypocenters and source parameters, better defining local fault branches, their seismicity, and earthquake potential. Using its vertical distribution of sensors, it has directly measured depth-dependent seismic side-effects for ground shaking studies. GONAF is starting to address fundamental questions related to earthquake nucleation, rupture dynamics, temporal changes in material properties and strain.

A primary hurdle in observing small foreshocks is the detection-limit of most seismic networks, which is typically about magnitude M1-1.5. We show that a start-up test of a borehole-based seismic network with a much lower detection limit overcame this problem for an Mw4.2 earthquake. This earthquake occurred offshore of Istanbul, Turkey, on a fault system that is likely to rupture in an M > 7 event in the coming decades. In the three days before and two after, a total of 62 or more earthquakes, including at least 18 foreshocks, came from the mainshock source area. The signal similarity of the foreshocks shows a clear increase during the hours before the Mw4.2 mainshock. Similar foreshock sequences have recently been reported for a few well monitored M > 7 plate-boundary earthquakes. The sequence surrounding the Mw4.2 gives the impression of stochastic failures that ended up interactively unloading stress concentrations. The Mw4.2 mainshock then resulted from the accumulated release of significantly smaller events, as suggested by other field and laboratory studies.