Tsunami Hazard Assessment for Izmir Bay, Turkey

TSUNAMI HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR IZMIR BAY, TURKEY

Gözde Güney DOĞAN1, Nazan YILMAZ KILIÇ2, Ahmet Cevdet YALÇINER3, Mehmet Semih YÜCEMEN3

ABSTRACT

Aegean Sea experienced numerous strong earthquakes in history. Since the region is highly prone to catastrophic events, such as earthquakes or earthquake/landslide-induced tsunamis because of the nearby active fault zones and their recent activities, the awareness about tsunamis that might take place around the western coasts of Turkey should be raised. Therefore, a complete tsunami hazard analysis with high resolution data is necessary for better understanding of the effects of tsunamis on Izmir Bay region. In the first stage of this study, different possible seismic tsunami sources in northern Aegean Sea which may affect Izmir Bay are determined from the analysis of historical data of earthquakes/tsunamis together with the instrumental data of seismicity. Then, a series of high resolution simulations of different sources are performed using tsunami numerical code, NAMI DANCE, to understand the generation and propagation of possible tsunamis in Aegean Sea and assess their behavior and coastal amplifications in Izmir Bay. The potential effects of probable tsunamis such as the arrival time, maximum positive amplitudes near shoreline and flow depth in inundation zone are computed, presented and discussed. As mentioned above, besides the deterministic evaluation, the probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) is implemented to estimate the likelihood and severity of earthquake induced tsunami hazard for the Izmir Bay. The methodology applied in the study is similar to the well-established probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). The output of the PTHA will be the annual probability of exceeding different levels of tsunami amplitudes at the most critical coastal locations of the Izmir Bay.

Keywords: Tsunami; Izmir Bay; Probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis; Deterministic tsunami hazard analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

The coasts of Aegean Sea have experienced numerous tsunamis in history due to the frequent earthquakes of varying magnitudes (Tselentis et al. 1988). Most of the eastern Mediterranean tsunamis occurred in Aegean Sea and along the surrounding coasts. According to the historical records, these events have affected the nearby coastal settlements (Ambraseys 1960, 1962; Antonopoulos 1978; Papadopoulos and Chalkis 1984; Papazachos et al. 1985; Papadopoulos 1993; Altinok and Ersoy 2000). There were two recent events happened in 2017 in Aegean Sea. One is the Lesvos Earthquake th with Mw=6.2 magnitude occurred on 12 of June, 2017 at a location between Lesvos Island (Greece) and Karaburun Peninsula (Izmir, Turkey). The other one is the Bodrum-Kos Earthquake with Mw=6.5 magnitude occurred on 20th of July, 2017 at a location between Bodrum Town (Turkey) and Kos Island (Greece). One of the important source areas of tsunamis in the Aegean region which is accelerating its seismic activity with the current events is the central Aegean Sea including Izmir Bay because the region is located between the North Anatolian fault zone in the north, and the Hellenic Arc in the south (Altinok et al. 2005). The region is tectonically active and the seismicity is high as declared by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey (AFAD). Since numerous catastrophic tsunami events have occurred in the Aegean Sea basin and may continue to occur in the future, various studies were conducted on tsunamis in the Aegean Sea by Yalciner et al. (1994, 2002);

1PhD Student, Project Assistant, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] 2Dr., Earthquake Department, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected] 3Faculty Member, Prof. Dr., Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, [email protected], [email protected]

Kuran and Yalciner (1993); Altinok et al. (2011); Perissoratis and Papadopoulos (1999); Howes (2002); Mitsoudis (2012) and Sorensen et al. (2012) and Onat and Yalciner (2013). Therefore, a complete tsunami hazard analysis with high resolution data is necessary for better understanding of the effects of tsunamis in Izmir Bay.

Deterministic tsunami hazard assessment which includes the evaluation of numerically simulated nearshore tsunami parameters corresponding to ‘maximum-credible’ scenarios from different subduction zones is one of the procedures which have been commonly used to evaluate the tsunami hazard and risk distribution in coastal regions. It has traditionally been studied with little emphasis on the probability of the scenario events by Tinti and Armigliato (2003); Hébert et al. (2005); Paulatto et al. (2007); Lorito et al. (2008) and Shaw et al. (2008). Although such scenarios are very useful for understanding the effects of tsunamis on coastal regions and for response and evacuation planning, it is necessary to know the probability of occurrence of an event for risk mitigation and defining design specifications. Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (PTHA) has therefore gained attention remarkably in the recent years (Geist and Parsons 2006; Power et al. 2007; Thio et al. 2007). The probabilistic approach to the tsunami hazard assessment problem provides an analysis of the relative contributions of large and small events to the hazard. Furthermore, the identified critical scenarios based on the probabilistic hazard estimates can be studied in more detailed, higher resolution deterministic studies where local effects can be explained better.

The scope of this study is the assessment of tsunami hazard in Izmir Bay, based on both deterministic and probabilistic procedures. In the first stage of the study, different possible seismic tsunami sources in northern and central Aegean Sea which may affect Izmir Bay are determined from the analysis of historical data of earthquakes/tsunamis together with the instrumental data of seismicity. Then, a series of high resolution simulations of different sources are performed using tsunami numerical code, NAMI DANCE, to understand the generation and propagation of possible tsunamis in Aegean Sea and assess their behavior and coastal amplifications in Izmir Bay. High resolution bathymetry and topography data for Izmir Bay is processed for input to tsunami numerical modeling. NAMI DANCE solves nonlinear form of shallow water equations with friction term in GPU environments. It computes maximum and minimum water surface elevations, velocities in horizontal plane, momentum fluxes and their directions, flow depths in the study domain. Besides the deterministic evaluation, the probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) is implemented to estimate the likelihood and severity of earthquake induced tsunami hazard for Izmir Bay. The methodology applied in the study is quite similar to the well-established probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). The outputs of the PTHA are the annual probabilities of exceeding different levels of tsunami amplitudes at the most critical coastal locations of Izmir Bay.

2. DETERMINISTIC TSUNAMI HAZARD ANALYSIS

2.1 Bathymetric and Topographical Maps

The bathymetric data for tsunami numerical modeling are obtained from General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO 2016) with a spatial resolution of 30 arc seconds. The dataset acquired from available navigational charts is added to improve the bathymetric data in the shallow zone. Furthermore, the topographical and bathymetric data for the inner part of Izmir Bay (including the region from Mavisehir to Inciralti districts) are purchased from Izmir Metropolitan Municipality. Based on the selected study domains for numerical modeling, topographical and bathymetric data are eliminated and processed. A series of simulations are performed in this study within the nested domains B (large) and C(small). Domain B is bounded by the coordinates of 22.50o-27.30o E; 37.30o- 41.00o N with a grid size of 160m. Domain C is bounded by 26.4731o-27.1833o E; 38.2954o-38.6602o N with a grid size of 20m. The general view of the nested study domains is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Nested study domains B and C used in the simulations (Scales are in meters)

2.2 Tsunami Source Selection and Related Rupture Parameters

The distribution of earthquake epicenters occurred in Aegean Sea since 1900 are analyzed based on available and reliable earthquake catalogues. The epicenters are clustered as ellipses (Figure 2) representing the probable tsunami source areas related to seismic activities. Considering the historical documents and distribution of the main undersea fault zones as well as other probable tsunamigenic sea bottom deformations (Yalciner et al. 2001; Yalciner et al. 2008; Onat and Yalciner, 2013), 13 tsunami source areas are selected as responsible for the tsunamis that may affect Izmir Bay. The selected rupture parameters of each segment for the elliptical faults are given in Table 1.

Figure 2. Distribution of earthquake epicenters since 1900 and main fault zones in the region

Table 1. Estimated rupture parameters for each source segment.

Name of Epicenter Dip Rake Strike Depth Length Width Vertical the Source (°) (°) (°) (km) (km) (km) Displacement (m) Z04 23.78E 40.83N 45 45 140 10 90 12 6 Z10-1 26.40E 40.40N 60 45 250 10 70 20 10 Z10-2 25.90E 40.25N 60 45 230 10 80 15 10 Z10-3 25.15E 39.75N 60 45 230 10 85 15 10 Z10-4 24.15E 39.60N 60 45 220 10 60 15 10 Z14-r 25.05E 38.50N 45 45 80 15 60 15 6 Z15-1 26.30E 38.85N 45 45 105 15 52 15 6 Z15-2 25.35E 38.90N 45 45 80 15 60 15 6 Z17-1 23.54E 39.42N 45 45 120 10 90 30 6

Name of Epicenter Dip Rake Strike Depth Length Width Vertical the Source (°) (°) (°) (km) (km) (km) Displacement (m) Z17-2 25.00E 39.40N 45 45 80 10 100 15 6 Z17-3 26.92E 38.81N 45 45 330 10 100 15 6 Z17-4 25.85E 39.53N 45 45 70 15 80 15 6 Z17-5 25.00E 39.00N 45 45 45 10 80 15 6

It is important to note that the results obtained in this study are conservative in comparison with the well-accepted tsunami source characteristics. The tsunami sources are computed using Okada relations (1985). The simulation results of the given tsunami sources are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Initial sea state in domain B and distribution of maximum water levels in domain C.

Source Initial Sea State Distribution of Max. Source Initial Sea State Distribution of Max. Name Domain B Levels Name Domain B Water Levels

Z04 Z15-2

Z10-1 Z17-1

Z10-2 Z17-2

Z10-3 Z17-3

Z10-4 Z17-4

Z14-r Z17-5

Z15-1

2.3 Simulation Results

The tsunami numerical model, NAMI DANCE, which solves nonlinear form of shallow water equations with friction term is used in GPU environment. The code computes all tsunami hydrodynamic parameters throughout the study domain. The duration of the simulations is taken as 360 min since the area of domain B and the distance from some of the sources to Izmir Bay are large. The selected time step is 0.25 s which satisfies the CFL condition. In addition, the friction coefficient is taken as 0.015. The selected forecast points in Izmir Bay on a Google Earth image is given in Figure 3.

gauge-izmir-15 gauge-6 gauge-22 gauge-15 gauge-19

gauge-7 gauge-izmir-08 gauge-izmir-09

Figure 3. Selected forecast points in Izmir Bay on Google Earth image

The tsunami parameters for the most critical two scenarios among the selected tsunami scenarios which are Z17-5 and Z10-3 are computed near the shorelines in Domain C, and the results are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. The arrival time of the maximum tsunami waves and the maximum positive and negative wave amplitudes at the selected gauges (see Figure 3) are also listed in Table 3 and Table 4 for tsunami scenarios Z17-5 and Z10-3.

Figure 4. Maximum positive wave distribution and time histories of water levels at selected gauges (Z17-5) 5

Table 3. Arrival time of the maximum tsunami waves and the maximum positive and negative wave amplitudes at the selected gauges according to the simulations of source Z17-5.

Gauge Name Depth of Coordinate Arrival Time Max. (+) Wave Max. (-) Wave Gauge (Lon,Lat) (min) Amplitude (m) Amplitude (m) gauge-izmir-08 1.97 (26.6483,38.3416) 127 2.295 -1.765 gauge-izmir-09 2.45 (26.6994,38.3179) 141 1.809 -2.082 gauge-izmir-15 0.80 (26.6391,38.4803) 97 2.547 -0.805 gauge-6 2.71 (26.7192,38.4381) 107 1.642 -1.878 gauge-7 4.29 (26.7975,38.3615) 150 1.597 -2.210 gauge-15 1.80 (27.1627,38.4513) 136 0.529 -0.605 gauge-19 0.76 (27.0782,38.4654) 337 0.539 -0.767 gauge-22 3.19 (26.9409,38.4311) 132 0.401 -0.456

Figure 5. Maximum positive wave distribution and time histories of water levels at selected gauges (Z10-3)

Table 4. Arrival time of the maximum tsunami waves and the maximum positive and negative wave amplitudes at the selected gauges according to the simulations of source Z10-3.

Gauge Name Depth of Geographic Arrival Time Max. (+) Wave Max. (-) Wave the Gauge Coordinate (min) Amplitude Amplitude (Lon,Lat) gauge-izmir-08 1.97 (26.6483,38.3416) 155 1.864 -1.193 gauge-izmir-09 2.45 (26.6994,38.3179) 144 1.761 -1.549 gauge-izmir-15 0.80 (26.6391,38.4803) 126 1.753 -0.805 gauge-6 2.71 (26.7192,38.4381) 136 1.186 -1.492 gauge-7 4.29 (26.7975,38.3615) 180 1.445 -1.745 gauge-15 1.80 (27.1627,38.4513) 174 0.614 -0.595 gauge-19 0.76 (27.0782,38.4654) 248 0.405 -0.768 gauge-22 3.19 (26.9409,38.4311) 201 0.485 -0.429 6

3. PROBABILISTIC TSUNAMI HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PTHA)

3.1 Introduction

In this section, the aim is to estimate the likelihood and severity of earthquake induced tsunami hazard for Izmir Bay by conducting a probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), originally developed by Cornell (1968), has been widely used in estimating seismic hazard. On the other hand, studies on probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (PTHA) are quite limited in number. The methodology applied here is similar in many aspects to the well- established PSHA. Earthquake activity rates are estimated based on observed seismicity and the tsunami wave amplitudes are obtained from deterministic wave propagation scenarios. The output of the study is the annual probability of exceeding different levels of peak coastal tsunami amplitude (PCTA) at Izmir Bay. The PTHA method that will be implemented in this study consists of two stages, namely: compilation of the input data and computation of the hazard curve. All of the steps involving the compilation of the basic input data are covered in the previous sections of the paper within the scope of deterministic tsunami hazard analysis.

In Table 5 all potentially tsunamigenic earthquake sources are listed together with their seismicity parameters that are computed based on the information provided by the deterministic analysis and in Figure 2 their locations are shown. These tsunamigenic earthquake sources formed the basis for the PTHA. The activity rates are described through the ν(M) and β-values of the truncated Gutenberg- Richter relation, where ν(M) is the annual number of events with magnitude ≥ M and m0 and m1 are the minimum and maximum magnitudes considered, respectively. For each source, by using NAMI DANCE, nested simulations (in Domains B and C) are carried out to estimate peak coastal tsunami amplitude (PCTA) in Izmir Bay. Detailed information on these simulations is already given in the previous sections.

Table 5. Input values corresponding to each tsunamigenic earthquake source considered in the PTHA for the computation of annual rates of exceedance and the resulting annual rates of exceedance.

Name of the No m m' m ν (m≥m ) β ∆m ∆m ν (m≥m') Source Region 0 1 0 C 1 s01-Z04 4.5 7.0 7.5 0.2564 1.1534 0.5 1 0.0251 2 s02-Z10-1 4.5 6.8 7.3 0.3077 1.6804 0.5 1 0.0271 3 s03-Z10-2 4.5 6.9 7.4 0.1026 1.6804 0.5 1 0.0077 4 s04-Z10-3 4.5 7.0 7.5 0.1282 1.6804 0.5 1 0.0082 5 s05-Z10-4 4.5 6.7 7.2 0.1197 1.6804 0.5 1 0.0123 6 s06-Z15-1 4.5 6.7 7.2 0.2991 1.6982 0.5 1 0.0305 7 s07-Z15-2 4.5 6.7 7.2 0.1368 1.6982 0.5 1 0.0139 8 s08-Z17-1 4.5 7.3 7.8 0.6410 1.8734 0.5 1 0.0201 9 s09-Z17-2 4.5 7.1 7.6 0.3761 1.8734 0.5 1 0.0169 10 s10-Z17-3 4.5 7.1 7.6 0.0769 1.8734 0.5 1 0.0035 11 s11-Z17-4 4.5 6.9 7.4 0.1453 1.8734 0.5 1 0.0093 12 s12-Z17-5 4.5 6.9 7.4 0.2821 1.8734 0.5 1 0.0182 13 s13-Z14-r 4.5 6.7 7.2 0.1538 1.0537 0.5 1 0.0218

The second stage which is the computation of the PCTA hazard curve involves the following steps: i) Selection of the appropriate probabilistic and stochastic models for the description of the earthquake magnitude distribution and the earthquake occurrences in the time domain. ii) Preparation of a computational algorithm which will aggregate the tsunami hazard nucleating from different sources, yielding the probability distribution for the PCTA at a specified location. iii) Consideration of different sources of uncertainties (aleatory and epistemic) and reflection of their effects to the hazard results either directly or by conducting sensitivity studies and employing logic tree or similar statistical methods. iv) Plotting of PCTA hazard curve and selecting the appropriate PCTA values corresponding to specified return periods.

3.2 Computation of the PCTA Hazard Curve for the Izmir Bay Region

Consistent with the level of available information we adapted the characteristic earthquake model introduced by Schwartz and Coppersmith (1984). This model is proposed for defining the recurrence rates of large magnitude earthquakes. Since the input parameters for tsunami simulations are based on maximum earthquake magnitudes estimated for each zone, the characteristic earthquake model appears to be appropriate (Geist, et al. 2009). In order to implement this model, Youngs and Coppersmith (1985) have derived a density function for magnitudes corresponding to the characteristic earthquake model. In this model magnitudes are assumed to be exponentially distributed up to the magnitude level m′. Above this magnitude, the characteristic earthquake lies with a uniform distribution between (m1−Δmc) and m1, where m1 is the upper bound value of magnitude assigned to a seismic region. The figurative representation of the model proposed by Youngs and Coppersmith (1985) as adopted for our study is illustrated in Figure 6.

(m) Exponential

M M magnitudes f

Characteristic Log f Log magnitude

m

m c

m o m m  m 1 exp Magnitude, m

Figure 6. Characteristic earthquake model implemented in the PTHA conducted in this study

Table 6 summarizes the resulting annual rates for the occurrence of tsunamigenic earthquakes associated with each tsunamigenic earthquake source and the PCTA values at Izmir Bay corresponding to these earthquakes as obtained from the deterministic simulation runs. Based on the values listed in this table, annual exceedance rates of different PCTA levels at Izmir Bay region are computed and tabulated in Table 7. The resulting PCTA - annual exceedance rate pairs are also plotted and displayed in Figure 7 in the form of a scatter diagram. As observed in Figure 7 the upper bound hazard level of the PTHA corresponds to a return period of approximately 55 years with a PCTA value of 3.56 m. To extrapolate the results to longer return periods it is necessary to fit an appropriate curve to the points displayed in Figure 7.

In selecting the type of the function to be fitted, two alternatives are considered, namely: linear and logarithmic fits. The logarithmic function is selected due to the fact that PTHA strongly depends on the exponential distribution; tsunami inter-event times can be assumed exponential (Geist, et al., 2009) as well as the Gutenberg-Richter relationship adopted for the magnitude-frequency relationship yields to an exponential distribution for magnitude. Figure 8 shows the resulting curves and equations obtained based on linear and logarithmic fits. Here the coefficients of determination and correlation are found to be, 0.94 and 0.97, respectively for the linear fit and 0.99 and 0.994, respectively for the logarithmic function, indicating extremely good fits, especially in the case of logarithmic function. The PCTA values corresponding to return periods of 475 and 1000 years are obtained from the extrapolated portions of these two curves and are given in Table 8. In this table, the averages of these two sets of values are also shown and are treated as our “best” estimates.

Table 6. Different levels of PCTA values and the corresponding annual rates computed for the thirteen tsunamigenic earthquake sources.

Name of the Source Annual Rate of No PCTA (m) Region Occurrence 1 s01-Z04 0.63 0.0251 2 s02-Z10-1 0.74 0.0271 3 s03-Z10-2 1.20 0.0077 4 s04-Z10-3 3.31 0.0082 5 s05-Z10-4 1.22 0.0123 6 s06-Z15-1 2.27 0.0305 7 s07-Z15-2 1.56 0.0139 8 s08-Z17-1 1.63 0.0201 9 s09-Z17-2 2.77 0.0169 10 s10-Z17-3 2.12 0.0035 11 s11-Z17-4 0.63 0.0093 12 s12-Z17-5 3.56 0.0182 13 s13-Z14-r 0.50 0.0218

Table 7. Annual rates of exceeding different levels of PCTA values in Izmir Bay.

PCTA (m) Annual Rate of Exceedance 0.50 0.2145 0.63 0.1927 0.74 0.1583 1.20 0.1312 1.22 0.1235 1.56 0.1112 1.63 0.0973 2.12 0.0772 2.27 0.0738 2.77 0.0433 3.31 0.0264 3.56 0.0182

1.0000

0.1000

0.0100 Annual Rate of Exceedance Annual

0.0010 0.10 1.00 10.00 PCTA (m)

Figure 7. Scatter diagram showing the probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis results for Izmir Bay

1.0000 Annual Rate of Exceedance = -0.05886 PCTA + 0.21115 (R² =0.93642)

0.1000

0.0100 Annual Rate of Exceedance = -0.09606 ln PCTA + 0.14499

(R² = 0.98859) Annual Rate of Exceedance Annual

0.0010 0.10 1.00 10.00 PCTA (m)

Figure 8. Extrapolation of the PTHA results by fitting linear and logarithmic functions to the resulting annual exceedance rate - PCTA values

Table 8. PCTA values for different return periods based on linear and logarithmic extrapolations.

Return Period Peak Coastal Tsunami Amplitude (PCTA) (m) (years) Linear Logarithmic Average 475 3.55 4.43 3.99 1000 3.57 4.48 4.03

4. CONCLUSIONS

This study is focused on possible water level increase in regard to tsunami action in Izmir Bay. According to the computed distributions of maximum water elevations in Izmir Bay for the selected scenarios, the critical regions in Izmir Bay appear as i) the strait at the west of Uzunada, ii) the strait at the south of Uzunada, iii) Balikliova at Gulbahce Bay, iv) southern tip of Gulbahce Bay, v) the coastline from Fevzi Cakmak district to Inciralti district at southern coast of Izmir Bay, vi) eastern end of Izmir Bay, vii) Bostanli district and its west at the north coast of Izmir Bay, viii) Cigli coast, ix) all low elevation areas at Gediz Delta.

A probabilistic model to compute the annual probability of exceeding a given peak coastal tsunami amplitude (PCTA) at a certain coastal site is presented. In this probabilistic model, the corresponding hazard is determined by combining the PCTA values obtained from the deterministic tsunami propagation simulations with the annual seismic hazard values associated with the earthquake scenarios creating tsunamis. The PTHA model is applied to estimate the maximum probable PCTA value for the Izmir Bay region. The results are expressed in the form of a hazard curve, which displays, for the Izmir Bay region the annual probability of exceedance as a function of PCTA. For the Izmir Bay region, the best estimate PCTA values are computed as 3.99 m and 4.03 m, for return periods of 475 years and 1000 years, respectively. The closeness of these two PCTA values, in spite of the twofold difference in return periods, is due to the fact that the extrapolation beyond 55 years decays almost vertically.

It should also be noted here that even if the tsunami elevation is low, the marinas, passenger terminals, ports, harbors and all small craft berthing places, seafront recreational and industrial utilities are vulnerable against tsunami action. Further tsunami motion analyses considering the current velocities and impact forces focusing on Izmir Bay and critical structures are necessary for more detailed tsunami hazard assessment in Izmir Bay.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was partly supported by EC project ASTARTE-Assessment, Strategy And Risk Reduction for Tsunamis in Europe - FP7-ENV2013 6.4-3, Grant 603839, UDAP-Ç-12-14 project granted by Disaster Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey (AFAD) and TUBITAK 113M556, 108Y227 and 213M534 Projects. The data used in this study is provided by Izmir Metropolitan Municipality. The authors thank Prof. Dr. Mehmet Lütfi Süzen, Res. Assist. Duygu Tüfekçi Enginar and Dr. Işıkhan Güler for their collaboration and efforts in development of this paper. The authors also thank to PhD student Bora Yalciner and Assoc. Prof. Andrey Zaytsev for their efforts in development of the tsunami code NAMI DANCE.

6. REFERENCES

Altinok Y. and Ersoy S. (2000). Tsunamis Observed on and Near the Turkish Coast. Natural Hazards. 21. 185- 205. 10.1023/A:1008155117243. Altinok Y., Alpar B., Özer, N., and Gazioglu, C. (2005). 1881 and 1949 earthquakes at the Chios-Cesme Strait (Aegean Sea) and their relation to tsunamis. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5(5), 717-725. Altinok Y., Alpar B., Özer, N., and Aykurt, H. (2011). Revision of the tsunami catalogue affecting Turkish coasts and surrounding regions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(2), 273 Ambraseys N. N. (1960), The seismic sea waves on July 9, in the Greek Archipelago, J. Geophys. Res. 65(4) (1956), 1257–1265. Ambraseys, N. N. (1962). Data for the investigation of the seismic sea-waves in the Eastern Mediterranean, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 52 (1962), 895–913. Antonopoulos A. (1978). Contribution to the knowledge of tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean from ancient times until the recent, Ann. Geol. Des. Pays. Helleniques T XXIX(2), 740–757. Cornell C.A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.58, 1583-1606. Geist E. L. and Parsons T. (2006), Probabilistic analysis of tsunami hazards, Nat. Hazards, 37, 277–314, doi:10.1007/s11069-005-4646-z. Geist E. L., Parsons T., ten Brink U. S. and Lee H. J. (2009), Tsunami probability, The Sea, Volume 15, edited by A. R. Robinson and E. N. Bernard, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 93-135. Hébert H., Schindeléü F., Altinok Y., Alpar B., and Gazioglu C. (2005), Tsunami hazard in the Marmara Sea (Turkey): A numerical approach to discuss active faulting and impact on the Istanbul coastal areas, Mar. Geol., 215, 23–43, doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2004.11.006. Howes D. (2002). Documentary and geological records of tsunamis in the Aegean Sea region of Greece and their potential value to risk assessment and disaster management. Natural Hazards, 25(3), 195-224. Kuran U., Yalçiner A. C. (1993) Crack Propagations, Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Vicinity of Anatolia. In: Tinti S. (eds) Tsunamis in the World. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht Lorito S., Tiberti M. M., Basili R., Piatanesi A., and Valensise G. (2008), Earthquake-generated tsunamis in the Mediterranean Sea: Scenarios of potential threats to Southern Italy, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B01301, doi:10.1029/2007JB004943. Mitsoudis D. A., Flouri E. T., Chrysoulakis N., Kamarianakis Y., Okal E. A., and Synolakis C. E. (2012). Tsunami hazard in the southeast Aegean Sea. Coastal Engineering, 60, 136-148. Okada Y. (1985). Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bulletin of the seismological society of America, 75(4), 1135-1154. Onat Y. and Yalciner A. C., (2013), “Initial stage of database development for the Tsunami Warning System along Turkish Coast”, Ocean Engineering 74, 141-154. Papadopoulos G. A. and Chalkis, B. J. (1984) Tsunamis observed in Greece and the surrounding area from antiquity to the present times, Marine Geol. 56, 309–317.

Papadopoulos G. A. (1993) Seismic faulting and nonseismic tsunami generation in Greece, In: Proc. IUGG/IOC International Tsunami Symposium, 23–27 August, Wakayama, Japan, pp.115–123. Papazachos, B. C., Koutitas, Ch., Hatzidimitriou, P. M., Karacostas, B. G., and Papaioannou, Ch. A. (1986) Tsunami hazard in Greece and the surrounding area, Annales Geophysicae 4B(1), 79–90. Paulatto, M., T. Pinat, and F. Romanelli (2007), Tsunami hazard scenarios in the Adriatic Sea domain, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 309–325, doi:10.5194/nhess-7-309-2007. Perissoratis, C., and Papadopoulos, G. A. (1999). Sediment instability and slumping in the southern Aegean Sea and the case history of the 1956 tsunami. Marine Geology, 161(2), 287-305. Power W., Downes G., and Stirling M. (2007), Estimation of tsunami hazard in New Zealand due to South American earthquakes, Pure Appl. Geophys., 164, 547–564, doi:10.1007/s00024-006-0166-3. Schwartz D. P. and Coppersmith K. J. (1984). Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 5681-5698. Shaw B., Ambraseys N. N., England P. C., Floyd M. A., Gorman G. J., Higham T. F. G., Jackson J. A., Nocquet J. M., Pain C. C., and Piggott M. D. (2008), Eastern Mediterranean tectonics and tsunami hazard inferred from the AD 365 earthquake, Nat. Geosci., 1, 268–276, doi:10.1038/ngeo151. Sørensen M. B., Spada, M., Babeyko, A., Wiemer, S., and Grünthal, G. (2012). Probabilistic tsunami hazard in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117(B1). Thio H. K., Somerville P., and Ichinose G. (2007), Probabilistic analysis of strong ground motion and tsunami hazard in Southeast Asia, J. Earthquake Tsunami, 1(2), 119–137, doi:10.1142/S1793431107000080. Tinti S., and Armigliato A. (2003), The use of scenarios to evaluate tsunami impact in southern Italy, Mar. Geol., 199, 221–243, doi:10.1016/S0025-3227(03)00192-0. Tselentis G.A, Stavrakakis G, Makropoulos K., J. Latousakis J. and Drakopoulos J. (1988) Seismic Moments of Earthquakes at the Western Hellenic Arc and Their Application to the Seismic Hazard of the Area, Tectonophysics, 148 (1-2): 73-82. Youngs R. R. and Coppersmith K. J. (1985). Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 75, 939-964. Yalciner A. C., Kuran U., Akyarli A., and Imamura, F. (1994). An investigation on the propagation of tsunamis in the Aegean Sea by mathematical modeling. In Tsunami: Progress in prediction, disaster prevention and warning (pp. 55-70). Springer Netherlands. Yalciner A. C., Kuran U, Altinok Y, Alpar B and Ersoy S. (2001) Historical earthquakes and associated tsunamis in the Aegean Sea, Turkiye kiyilarinda tarihsel depremler ve onlara iliskin tsunamilerin izlerinin arastirilmasi. Final Report of Basic Research Project No: TUBITAK-INTAG-827. p. 74 (in Turkish). Yalciner A. C., Alpar B., Altinok Y., Ozbay I., Imamura F., (2002). Tsunamis in the Sea of Marmara. historical documents for the past, models for the future. Mar. Geol. 190, 445 – 463. Yalciner A. C., Pelinovsky E., Zaytsev A., Kurkin A., Ozer C., Karakus H., Ozyurt G., (2008), Modeling and visualization of tsunamis, Mediterranean Examples, Tsunami and Nonlinear Waves, p.273-285 Springer.