Cite as: Baltzopoulos G., Baraschino R., Chioccarelli E., Cito P., Iervolino I.

(2023) Preliminary engineering report on ground

motion data of the Feb. 2023 Turkey seismic sequence V1.0.

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT ON

GROUND MOTION DATA OF THE FEB. 2023
TURKEY SEISMIC SEQUENCE V. 1.0

Georgios Baltzopoulos,1 Roberto Baraschino,2 Eugenio Chioccarelli,3 Pasquale Cito,1

Iunio Iervolino1,4 (iunio.iervolino@unina.it)
Warning: This report was based on data available on Feb. 07th 2023 and may be subjected to editing and revisions
as new data become available.

Index
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................1
2. Evolution of the seismic sequence so far..........................................................................................................3
3. The ground motion at a regional scale ..............................................................................................................4
4. Near-source ground motions ............................................................................................................................6
5. Investigation for pulse like features................................................................................................................18
6. Final remarks ..................................................................................................................................................24
7. Data and resources ..........................................................................................................................................24
8. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................24
9. References ......................................................................................................................................................24

1. Introduction
Yesterday, Feb. 6th 2023, at 1.17 AM (UTC+3) a major earthquake whose moment magnitude was estimated at
M7.7 according to AFAD (see Data and resources) struck Turkey and nearby Syria. It started a seismic sequence
of hundreds of recorded earthquakes of magnitude larger than three and featured at least another event of moment
magnitude M7.6 (i.e., comparable to the first shock) and one 6.7. The area hit by the sequence, which extends over
several hundreds of kilometers, is located in the eastern Turkey, close to Syria, which is, together with the North-
Anatolian fault system and the western part of the country, the most seismically hazardous according to
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. In Figure 1, the long-term seismic hazard in terms of peak ground
acceleration (PGA) on rock with exceedance return period equal to 475yr is displayed (Giardini et al., 2018),
together with the rectangle framing the zone interested by the sequences. Figure 2 shows the historical earthquakes
in the area according to the catalog of Zare et al. (2014).

1
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy.
2
Studio SPERI, Naples, Italy.
3
Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria, Italy.
4
Scuola Superiore Universitaria di Pavia, Italy.
1
 Figure 1. Seismic hazard map in terms of PGA with 475yr exceedance return period on rock soil condition (adopted from
Giardini et al., 2018) and zone subjected to the sequence (framed by rectangle).

Figure 2. Historical earthquakes in the area struck by the sequence according to the catalog of Zare et al. (2014).

Table 1 reports the coordinates of the epicenters of the three main events of the sequence, the hypocentral depth,
and the fault mechanism. At this point thirty-five hundreds fatalities are reported (https://en.afad.gov.tr/press-
bulletin-about-the-earthquake-in-kahramanmaras-basin-bulteni-10).
Table 1. Essential data about the three largest magnitude events in the sequence (data from EPOS; see Data and resources).

Date Time Depth [km]

Magnitude Long. [°] Lat. [°] Mechanism*
(UTC+3)
06-02-2023 01:17:36 7.8 or 7.7 37.08 37.17 20 Strike-Slip
06-02-2023 01:28:19 6.7 or 6.6 36.81 37.13 40 Strike-Slip

2
06-02-2023 10:24:49 7.5 or 7.6 37.24 38.11 10 Strike-Slip
*
Based on fault models from literature (Gülerce et al., 2017).

This preliminary report aims at illustrating the main features of the sequence as recorded so far. In particular, the
recorded earthquakes in terms of magnitude, time and location are illustrated in the next section. Then, the rest of
the document focuses on the earthquakes in Table 1. Section 3 shows the attenuation with distance of peak ground
motion intensity for all of them, including a comparison with a ground motion prediction model (GMPM)
calibrated for the region in question. Section 4 provides the elastic spectra and Husid plots for the ten recorded
ground motions closest to the epicenter of the event, for each earthquake. Finally, Section 5 investigates pulse-like
features. Some concluding remarks summarize the findings, although it should be noted that this is a live document
eventually updated as soon as more data become available (check document version).

2. Evolution of the seismic sequence so far

On Feb. 6th 2023, at 1:17 local time (UTC+3), a M7.8 earthquake struck Turkey’s Giazantep province. This event
triggered a sequence of which about five-hundred earthquake, above magnitude two, have been recorded up to
Feb. 7th, 12:00 UTC+3, that is, about fifteen events per hour, on average. The epicenters of the earthquakes within
the sequence are shown in Figure 3 (top), while Figure 3 (bottom) represents the trend of the sequence in the
considered thirty-six hours interval (data were derived from EPOS, see Data and resources).
In both panels, the size and color of the markers vary with the earthquake magnitude. It can be seen that the event
initiating the sequence is the largest magnitude one so far (commonly acknowledged as the mainshock), that is, no
foreshocks can be attributed to the sequence according to available data. About ten minutes after the mainshock,
and at less than 25 km away from its epicenter, a M6.7 event occurred. Data reveal that, in the first hour of the
sequence, nine earthquakes with magnitude above five were recorded. To give a comparison, the same number of
M5.0+ events was recorded during the long-lasting 2016-2017 central Italy seismic sequence (Iervolino et al.,
2021), yet in five months.
Back to the Turkish sequence, about one-hundred fifty events, most of which with magnitude between four and
five, were recorded up to 10:24 UTC+3 of Feb. 6th. Then, the second strongest event of the sequence, M7.5,
occurred about one 100 km north of the mainshock, followed by five M5.0+ in the next ninety minutes. At this
point, Tukey has been hit by about one-hundred eighty earthquakes, two of which with magnitude larger than
seven, in less than half a day. Starting from 12:00 UTC+3 of Feb. 6th, the magnitude of the about three-hundred
events detected in the next twenty-four hours keeps below six; however, four M5+ earthquakes were recorded.

3
Figure 3. Evolution of the sequence in terms of location of recorded earthquakes up to Feb. 7th 12.00 PM (UTC+3) (top);
evolution of the sequence in terms of magnitude vs time of recorded earthquakes up to Feb. 7 th 12.00 PM (UTC+3) (bottom).

3. The ground motion at a regional scale

The PGA of the horizontal recorded ground motions available at AFAD (see Data and resources) are compared
with the mean (plus/minus one standard deviation) of the GMPM of Bommer et al., 2012 that is developed for
Europe and Middle East region. To allow such a comparison, the epicentral distance provided for each record is
converted in Joyner and Boore distance (Rjb) according to Montaldo et al., 2005.
Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 show the PGA recorded during three earthquakes, all of them occurred at Feb. 6th
2023: the M7.7 mainshock occurred at 1:17, the M6.6, occurred at 1:28, and the M7.6 occurred at 10:24 (local
time; i.e., UTC+3). Each figure is divided in three panels in which the comparison for rock soil (shear wave
velocity in the upper 30m or Vs30 is larger than 750 m/s), soft soil (Vs30<=360 m/s) and stiff soil
(360<Vs30<=750m/s) is reported, respectively.
274 records are available for the M7.7 event: 23 of them refer to rock, 46 to soft soil, and 103 to stiff; 174 were
neglected because the Vs30 was unknown. Data from the 6.6 earthquake are 135: 17 for rock soil, 19 soft soil, 52
stiff soil, and 47 unknown. Finally, data of the M7.6 are 240: 25 of them refer to rock, 38 to soft soil, and 81 to

4
stiff; 96 were neglected because the Vs30 was unknown. Shown data were recorded by the stations represented in
Figure 7.
Plots show that (i) no data are available for Rjb lower than 10 km, (ii) in the medium range of distances (between
10 and 100 km) general agreement between recorded data and the GMPM results are shown, (iii) data recorded at
Rjb larger than 100 km seem to be slightly lower than the values provided by the chosen GMPM.

Figure 4. Comparison between PGA and Bommer et al. (2012) referring to, from left to right, rock soil, soft soil and stiff
soil data recorded during the M7.7 earthquake.

Figure 5. Comparison between PGA and Bommer et al. (2012) referring to, from left to right, rock soil, soft soil and stiff
soil data recorded during the M6.6 earthquake.

Figure 6. Comparison between PGA and Bommer et al. (2012) referring to, from left to right, rock soil, soft soil and stiff
soil data recorded during the M7.6 earthquake

5
 Figure 7. Maps of the stations providing the PGA values used in the previous figures.

4. Near-source ground motions

Table 2 reports station code for the M7.7 earthquake, the coordinates, peak ground acceleration (PGA) for two
horizontal and one vertical components, and epicentral distance, of the ten stations which recorded the highest
values of the PGA. Figures from Figure 8 to Figure 16 show husid plot and 5% damping acceleration elastic spectra
for all the stations. Table 3 and Table 4 report data for the M6.6 and M7.6 evenrs, respectively. Once again data
refer to the ten recording stations closer to the epicenter. From Figure 18 to Figure 27 and Figure 28 to Figure 37
show husid plot and 5% damping accelleration elastic spectra for the stations under investigation for the two events
respecitvely. It can be seen that all these events produced actions which can challenge structures. It is interesting
tonote that large epicentral distances do nt correspond to strong attenutation in several cases, likely due to the size
of the sources.
Table 2. Data of ten closest recording stations for the M7.7 event.

PGA_EW PGA_UD
Code Longitude Latitude PGA_NS (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) Repi
4615 37.14 37.39 587.70 556.41 664.56 18.23

6
NAR 37.16 37.39 646.52 578.79 398.66 19.48
3144 36.49 36.76 611.28 763.43 451.65 73.56
3137 36.49 36.69 453.07 847.97 501.96 78.72
3145 36.41 36.65 600.06 696.45 663.17 87.50
3142 36.37 36.50 646.63 749.52 505.90 102.53
0201 38.27 37.76 474.07 879.99 318.99 121.71
3124 36.17 36.24 572.30 638.26 578.12 136.06
3123 36.16 36.21 655.35 593.89 867.60 138.94
3132 36.17 36.21 515.27 514.56 354.15 139.02

7
 1 1.4
0201 - EW
1.2 0201 - NS
0.8 0201 - UD
1 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.8 Epicentral distance: 120.12 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 7 km

0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 8. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 2.5
3124 - EW
3124 - NS
0.8 2 3124 - UD
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) 1.5 Epicentral distance: 140.11 km

Depth: 7 km

0.4 1

0.2 0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 9. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 3
3123 - EW
3123 - NS
2.5
0.8 3123 - UD
Data source: AFAD
2 Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 143 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 7 km
1.5
0.4
1

0.2
0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 10. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

8
 1 1.6
3132 - EW
1.4 3132 - NS
0.8 3132 - UD
1.2
Data source: AFAD
1 Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 143.12 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 7 km
0.8
0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 11. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 2
3137 - EW
3137 - NS
0.8 3137 - UD
1.5
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 82.48 km

Depth: 7 km
Sa (g)
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 12. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 2
3142 - EW
3142 - NS
0.8 3142 - UD
1.5
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 106.49 km

Depth: 7 km
Sa (g)

1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 13. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

9
 1 2
3144 - EW
3144 - NS
0.8 3144 - UD
1.5
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 77.04 km

Depth: 7 km

Sa (g)
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 14. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 2.5
3145 - EW
3145 - NS
0.8 2 3145 - UD
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) 1.5 Epicentral distance: 91.13 km

Depth: 7 km

0.4 1

0.2 0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 15. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 1.6
4615 - EW
1.4 4615 - NS
0.8 4615 - UD
1.2
Data source: AFAD
1 Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 13.83 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 7 km
0.8
0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 16. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

10
 1 2
NAR - EW
NAR - NS
0.8 NAR - UD
1.5
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.7
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 15.35 km

Depth: 7 km

Sa (g)
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 17. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

Table 3. Data of ten closest recording stations for the M6.6 event.

PGA_EW PGA_UD
Code Longitude Latitude PGA_NS (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) Repi
4616 36.84 37.38 233.01 259.80 145.89 10.74
2712 36.73 37.18 445.29 336.80 319.34 21.27
NAR 37.16 37.39 61.86 137.37 55.95 23.15
4624 36.92 37.54 146.37 182.10 79.52 25.81
4617 36.83 37.59 116.28 147.62 33.94 32.29
2708 36.65 37.10 312.95 355.45 208.24 33.12
8002 36.56 37.19 127.15 163.64 125.62 34.07
2718 36.63 37.01 220.03 308.99 129.75 41.97
2716 36.69 36.86 86.90 179.51 72.34 53.84
3143 36.56 36.85 113.80 136.46 75.55 59.98

11
 1 1.2
2708 - EW
2708 - NS
1
0.8 2708 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.8 Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 33.12 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 6.2 km
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 18. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 1.4
2712 - EW
1.2 2712 - NS
0.8 2712 - UD
1 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) 0.8 Epicentral distance: 21.27 km

Depth: 6.2 km

0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 19. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

1 0.8
2716 - EW
0.7 2716 - NS
0.8 2716 - UD
0.6
Data source: AFAD
0.5 Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 53.84 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 6.2 km
0.4
0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 20. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

12
 1 1.4
2718 - EW
1.2 2718 - NS
0.8 2718 - UD
1 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.8 Epicentral distance: 41.97 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 6.2 km

0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 21. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.6
3143 - EW
3143 - NS
0.5
0.8 3143 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.4 Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) Epicentral distance: 59.98 km

Depth: 6.2 km
0.3
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 22. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.35
4617 - EW
0.3 4617 - NS
0.8 4617 - UD
0.25 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 6.6
0.6 Epicentral distance: 32.29 km
IA norm -

0.2
Sa (g)

Depth: 6.2 km

0.4 0.15

0.1
0.2
0.05

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 23. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

13
 1 1.2
4616 - EW
4616 - NS
1
0.8 4616 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.8 Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 10.74 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 6.2 km
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 24. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.6
4624 - EW
4624 - NS
0.5
0.8 4624 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.4 Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) Epicentral distance: 25.81 km

Depth: 6.2 km
0.3
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 25. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.5
NAR - EW
NAR - NS
0.8 0.4 NAR - UD
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.3 Epicentral distance: 23.15 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 6.2 km

0.4 0.2

0.2 0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 26. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

14
 1 0.7
8002 - EW
0.6 8002 - NS
0.8 8002 - UD
0.5 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 6.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.4 Epicentral distance: 34.07 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 6.2 km

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 27. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

Table 4. Data of ten closest recording stations for the M7.6 event.

PGA_EW PGA_UD
Code Longitude Latitude PGA_NS (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) Repi
4408 37.89 38.10 52.37 142.29 275.29 56.74
4409 37.49 38.56 214.22 150.23 62.29 56.86
4612 36.48 38.02 637.92 522.63 372.97 66.68
4406 37.97 38.34 428.25 373.32 286.23 70.17
3802 36.50 38.48 193.76 218.62 118.06 77.41
0129 36.21 38.26 149.67 166.27 80.81 91.84
4405 37.94 38.81 136.82 149.87 83.11 100.81
0141 35.53 37.56 78.64 189.25 74.48 161.28

15
 1 0.6
0129 - EW
0129 - NS
0.5
0.8 0129 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.4 Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 91.84 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 7 km
0.3
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 28. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 1
0141 - EW
0141 - NS
0.8 0.8 0141 - UD
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) 0.6 Epicentral distance: 161.28 km

Depth: 7 km

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 29. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.7
3802 - EW
0.6 3802 - NS
0.8 3802 - UD
0.5 Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.4 Epicentral distance: 77.41 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 7 km

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 30. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

16
 1 0.5
4405 - EW
4405 - NS
0.8 0.4 4405 - UD
Data source: AFAD
Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 0.3 Epicentral distance: 100.81 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 7 km

0.4 0.2

0.2 0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 31. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.6
4408 - EW
4408 - NS
0.5
0.8 4408 - UD
Data source: AFAD
0.4 Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) Epicentral distance: 56.74 km

Depth: 7 km
0.3
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.1

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 32. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 0.8
4409 - EW
0.7 4409 - NS
0.8 4409 - UD
0.6
Data source: AFAD
0.5 Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 56.86 km

Sa (g)

Depth: 7 km
0.4
0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 33. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

17
 1 1.5
4612 - EW
4612 - NS
0.8 4612 - UD
Data source: AFAD
1 Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Epicentral distance: 66.68 km

Sa (g)
Depth: 7 km

0.4
0.5

0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 34. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.
1 1.6
4406 - EW
1.4 4406 - NS
0.8 4406 - UD
1.2
Data source: AFAD
1 Magnitude: 7.6
IA norm (-)

0.6 Sa (g) Epicentral distance: 70.17 km

Depth: 7 km
0.8
0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4
t (s) T (s)

Figure 35. Husid plot (left) and 5% damping spectra for the three components (right) of the recorded ground motion.

5. Investigation for pulse like features

This section covers a preliminary analysis of near-source ground motion waveforms from the three largest-
magnitude events of the sequence so far, which are investigated for potential pulse-like features. Pulse-like ground
motions are of particular engineering interest, as they exhibit peculiar spectral shape, characterized by narrowband
amplification for both elastic and inelastic spectra and known for imposing more severe inelastic demand on certain
structures than non-impulsive accelerograms, at least on average (Baez & Miranda, 2000; Iervolino et al., 2012;
Shahi & Baker, 2011). Perhaps the most notorious causes of impulsive ground motion waveforms, are certain so-
called near-source effects, such as rupture directivity or fling-step. Sites that are aligned with the direction of
rupture propagation along the fault may experience the near-simultaneous arrival of shear waves emitted from
different points on the rupture plane. This so-called directivity effect is conspicuously manifest in the ground
velocity time-history, where constructive wave interference can cause notable double-side pulses (Somerville et
al., 1997).
At this preliminary stage, lacking sufficient information on the finite-fault geometry, the analysis is limited to a
characterization of certain near-source records as pulse-like based on the features of the ground motion records
alone, without consideration of the physical rupture process in relation to each recording site’s location. In this
sense, directivity can be considered as one of many possible causes of the impulsive features detected in the records
investigated.
Overall, ten records from each of the three considered shocks were included in this investigation, for a total of
thirty. Velocity time-histories were obtained via integration of the accelerometric series for both horizontal

18
components of motion, and the resulting vector was rotated over one-hundred and eighty degrees at a step of one
degree. For each orientation, a consolidated wavelet-based algorithm was applied to extract candidate pulse
waveforms from the velocity time series (Baker, 2007) and to assign a pulse indicator (PI) score to each one.
Ground motions were preliminarily characterized as pulse-like if they exhibited a consistently high score of
PI>0.90 over an arc of more than 60o, and also exhibited a satisfactory match of the pseudo-velocity spectra of the
ground motion and the candidate pulse wavelet, around the pulse period Tp (Baltzopoulos et al., 2020). In this
context, pulse period is defined as the pseudo-period of the highest-energy constituent Daubechies wavelet of the
candidate pulse.
This procedure led to the characterization of six records as pulse-like, out of the thirty examined. The velocity
time-histories of these records, rotated at the orientation of the maximum PI score, are shown in Figure 36 Figure
41. These were the records from station codes NAR and 4615 from the M7.7 shock, the record from station 4612
from the M7.6 shock and the records from stations 2708, 2718 and 4616 from the M6.6 shock. All pulse periods
identified and reported in the figures are somewhat below the median predictions given magnitude, from regression
models in the literature. For example, one such model would predict median Tp of 7.5s, 6.7s and 2.4s for Mw of
7.7, 7.6 and 6.6, respectively (Baltzopoulos et al., 2016).
The spectral pseudo-velocity (PSV), for the same ground motion components, are plotted in Figures 42-47, along
with the corresponding PSV of the wavelet-based extracted pulses. These figures show that the extracted candidate
pulses account for the local spectral shape around the peaks of the PSV, which is part of the classification criterion
as described above. Note that, for the most part, the identified pulse periods Tp are close to the period of maximum
PSV, Tg, as expected from earlier studies (Ruiz-Garcia, 2011).

19
 100
original signal
extracted pulse Tp =4.536s
50

Velocity (cm/s)
0

-50

-100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
t (s)

Figure 36. Velocity time-history recorded at NAR station during the Mw7.7 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=4.54s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 34 o).

100 original signal

extracted pulse Tp =5.166s
50
Velocity (cm/s)

-50

-100

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
t (s)

Figure 37. Velocity time-history recorded at station 4615 during the Mw7.7 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=5.17s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 157o).
150
extracted pulse Tp =5.754s
100 original signal
Velocity (cm/s)

50

-50

-100

-150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
t (s)

Figure 38. Velocity time-history recorded at station 4612 during the Mw7.6 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=5.75s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 151 o).

20
 30 extracted pulse Tp =1.33s
original signal
20

Velocity (cm/s)
10

0
-10
-20

-30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
t (s)

Figure 39. Velocity time-history recorded at station 2708 during the Mw6.6 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=1.33s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 72o).

extracted pulse Tp =1.876s

20 original signal

10
Velocity (cm/s)

-10

-20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
t (s)

Figure 40. Velocity time-history recorded at station 2718 during the Mw6.6 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=1.88s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 75o).
20
extracted pulse Tp =0.826s
15 original signal
10
Velocity (cm/s)

5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
t (s)

Figure 41. Velocity time-history recorded at station 4616 during the Mw6.6 shock and extracted velocity pulse, with period
Tp=0.83s (azimuth of ground motion horizontal component 117o).

21
 250
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at T =3.51s
g
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period Tp =4.536s
200

PSV (cm/s)
150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
T (s)

Figure 42. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (NAR station,
Mw7.7 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 34o).
250

200
PSV (cm/s)

150

100

50
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at Tg =4.03s
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period T =5.166s
p
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T (s)

Figure 43. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (station 4615,
Mw7.7 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 157 o).
300
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at T =1.51s
g
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period T =5.754s
p
250

200
PSV (cm/s)

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
T (s)

Figure 44. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (station 4612,
Mw7.6 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 151o)

22
 100

80

PSV (cm/s)
60

40

20
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at Tg =1.23s
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period T =1.33s
p
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Figure 45. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (station 2708,
Mw6.6 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 72o)
60

50

40
PSV (cm/s)

30

20

10
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at Tg =1.66s
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period T =1.876s
p
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Figure 46. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (station 2718,
Mw6.6 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 75o)
60
spectral pseudo-velocity of original signal, max at T =0.82s
g
spectral pseudo-velocity of extracted pulse with period Tp =0.826s
50

40
PSV (cm/s)

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T (s)

Figure 47. Comparison of pseudo-spectral velocity of the original ground motion and the extracted pulse (station 4616,
Mw6.6 shock, azimuth of horizontal component 117o)

23
 6. Final remarks
The sequence started with the M7.8 mainshock and counts about five-hundred recorded earthquakes in less than
thirty-six hours. So far, the strongest events occurred in the first twelve hours, with data showing two M7.0+ events
occurring 100 km from each other. The three main events M7.7, M6.6, and M7.6 have been preliminarily analyzed
herein.
Recorded PGAs for the three main events are generally in agreement with the results of a ground motion model
for distances lower than 100km; PGA recorded at larger distances attenuate faster than as expected by the chosen
GMPE.
The spectra of ten stations closest to the source show that all the main events produced actions generally
challenging for structures and that the epicentral distance, as it is well known, is not the best proxy for earthquake
whit large ruptures.
Finally, investigation for pulse-like effect clearly identified near-source pulses, with pulses quite large with respect
to those natural of most structures, as expected for large magnitude events. Nevertheless, the attribution to these
pulses to rupture phenomena (e.g., forward directivity) can only be conducted in the wake of rupture models for
the considered events.

7. Data and resources

Ground motion records AFAD: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/list-waveform (last accessed 07/02/2023).
EPOS earthquake data : https://seismicportal.eu/ (last accessed 07/02/2023).

8. Acknowledgements
For data and the valuable insights, we would like to thank Lucia Luzi of the INGV.

9. References
Baez, J. I., & Miranda, E. (2000). Amplification Factors to Estimate Inelastic Displacement Demands for the
Design of Structures in the Near Field. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Baker, J. W. (2007). Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486–1501. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255
Baltzopoulos, G., Luzi, L., & Iervolino, I. (2020). Analysis of Near-Source Ground Motion from the 2019
Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 110(4), 1495–1505.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200038
Baltzopoulos, G., Vamvatsikos, D., & Iervolino, I. (2016). Analytical modelling of near-source pulse-like seismic
demand for multi-linear backbone oscillators. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2729
Bommer, J. J., Akkar, S., & Drouet, S. (2012). Extending ground-motion prediction equations for spectral
accelerations to higher response frequencies. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(2), 379–399.
Giardini, D., Danciu, L., Erdik, M., Şeşetyan, K., Demircioğlu Tümsa, M. B., Akkar, S., Gülen, L., & Zare, M.
(2018). Seismic hazard map of the Middle East. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3567–3570.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0347-3

24
Gülerce, Z., Tanvir Shah, S., Menekşe, A., Arda Özacar, A., Kaymakci, N., & Önder Çetin, K. (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
Iervolino, I., Chioccarelli, E., & Baltzopoulos, G. (2012). Inelastic displacement ratio of near-source pulse-like
ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2167
Iervolino, I., Cito, P., Felicetta, C., Lanzano, G., & Vitale, A. (2021). Exceedance of design actions in epicentral
areas: insights from the ShakeMap envelopes for the 2016–2017 central Italy sequence. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 19(13), 5391–5414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01192-z
Montaldo, V., Faccioli, E., Zonno, G., Akinci, A., & Malagnini, L. (2005). Treatment of ground-motion predictive
relationships for the reference seismic hazard map of Italy. Journal of Seismology, 9(3), 295–316.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-005-5966-x
Ruiz-Garcia, J. (2011). Inelastic displacement ratios for seismic assessment of structures subjected to forward-
directivity near-fault ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(3), 449–468.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2010.498560
Shahi, S. K., & Baker, J. W. (2011). An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects of near-fault
directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(2),
742–755. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100090
Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., & Abrahamson, N. A. (1997). Modification of Empirical Strong
Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity.
Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199
Zare, M., Amini, H., Yazdi, P., Sesetyan, K., Demircioglu, M. B., Kalafat, D., Erdik, M., Giardini, D., Khan, M.
A., & Tsereteli, N. (2014). Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. Journal of Seismology, 18(4),
749–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-014-9444-1

25