Journals / Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3

A GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THE REGION-TIME BEHAVIORS OF THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY IN THE MARMARA REGION OF TURKEY

Pages
1623–1641
Publication Date
2021-10-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a remarkable fact, a correlation and combined interpretation of these seismotectonic parameters may supply a preliminary and essential perspective in the seismic hazard for strong/large earthquake occurrences in the Marmara region of Turkey in the intermediate/long terms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The principal aim of this study is to make a general assessment of the regional and temporal behaviors of the seismicity in the Marmara region of Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data catalog is homogeneous for local magnitude, ML, and includes 18,662 events with 0.4≤ML≤5.7 between 2000 and 2020.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a remarkable fact, a correlation and combined interpretation of these seismotectonic parameters may supply a preliminary and essential perspective in the seismic hazard for strong/large earthquake occurrences in the Marmara region of Turkey in the intermediate/long terms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Marmara region · Mc-value · b-value

Abstract

The principal aim of this study is to make a general assessment of the regional and temporal behaviors of the seismicity in the Marmara region of Turkey. For this purpose, the well-known spatio-temporal tools such as Mc-value, b-value, Dc-value, Z-value, recurrence period and annual probability were evaluated. The data catalog is homogeneous for local magnitude, ML, and includes 18,662 events with 0.4≤ML≤5.7 between 2000 and 2020. Earthquake magnitudes change between 1.5 and 3.0 and hence, Mc-value was taken as 2.7. b-value was calculated as 1.14±0.07 and the earthquakes with small magnitude can be effective on this relatively large value. Dc-value was estimated as 1.57±0.03 with a scale invariance from 5.03 to 87.64 km. This moderate value means that distance between the epicenters approaches the diameter of cluster and, earthquake activity is more clustered in larger areas or at smaller scales. Time-magnitude estimations of annual probability and recurrence period indicate that the Marmara region has an intermediate/long terms hazard for the occurrence of strong/large earthquakes. Anomaly regions with low b-value and large Z-value observed at the beginning of 2019 can be considered as the most likely regions for strong/large earthquake occurrences in the next. As a remarkable fact, a correlation and combined interpretation of these seismotectonic parameters may supply a preliminary and essential perspective in the seismic hazard for strong/large earthquake occurrences in the Marmara region of Turkey in the intermediate/long terms.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, S., GERDAN, S. (2021). A GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THE REGION-TIME BEHAVIORS OF THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY IN THE MARMARA REGION OF TURKEY. Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3, 1623–1641. https://ajindex.com/articles/419095

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. S. Wiemer and M. Wyss, “Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan,” BSSA, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 859-869, 2000
  2. A. O. Öncel and T. H. Wilson, “Space-time correlations of ceismotectonic parameters and examples from Japan and Turkey preceding the İzmit earthquake,” BSSA, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 339-350, 2002
  3. O. Polat, E. Gok and D. Yılmaz, “Earthquake hazard of the Aegean extension region (west Turkey),” Turkish J. Earth Sci., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 593-614, 2008
  4. S. Roy, U. Ghosh, S. Hazra and J. R. Kayal, “Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 57, pp. 27-37, 2011
  5. S. Öztürk, “A statistical assessment of current seismic quiescence along the North Anatolian Fault Zone: Earthquake precursors,” Austrian J. Earth Sci., vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 4-17, 2013
  6. C. Raub, P. Martínez-Garzón, G. Kwiatek, M. Bohnhoff and G. Dresen, “Variations of seismic b-value at different stages of the seismic cycle along the North Anatolian Fault Zone in northwestern Turkey,” Tectonophysics, vol. 712-713, pp. 232-248, 2017
  7. C. Ozer, M. Ozyazicioglu, E. Gok and O. Polat, “Imaging the crustal structure throughout the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey, by local earthquake tomography,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 176, no. 6, 2235-2261, 2019
  8. S. Uner, E. Ozsayin and A. S. Selcuk, “Seismites as an indicator for determination of earthquake recurrence interval: A case study from Erciş Fault (Eastern Anatolia-Turkey),” Tectonophysics, vol. 766, pp. 167-178, 2019
  9. S. Öztürk, “A study on the variations of recent seismicity in and around the Central Anatolian region of Turkey,” Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, vol. 301, no. 106453, pp. 1-10, 2020
  10. R. Gutenberg and C. F. Richter, “Frequency of earthquakes in California,” BSSA, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 185-188, 1944
  11. C. H. Scholz, “The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes,” BSSA, vol. 58, pp. 399-415, 1968
  12. B. Enescu and K. Ito, “Spatial analysis of the frequency-magnitude distribution and decay rate of aftershock activity of the 2000 Western Tottori earthquake,” Earth Planets Space, vol. 54, pp. 847–859, 2002
  13. S. Öztürk, “Characteristics of seismic activity in the western, central and eastern parts of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey: Temporal and spatial analysis,” Acta Geoph., vol. 59, no.2, pp. 209-238, 201