KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yerbilimleri / 2026 / Cilt: 47 Sayı: 1

26 Eylül 2019 (M5.8) ve 23 Nisan 2025 (M6.2) depremleri sonrasında Ana Marmara Fayı’nın sismik tehlikesinin yeniden değerlendirilmesi

Reassessment of the seismic hazard of the Main Marmara Fault following the 26 September 2019 (M5.8) and 23 April 2025 (M6.2) earthquakes

Eşref Yalçınkaya(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY-CERRAHPASA)0000-0003-0593-0656
Murat Utkucu(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, JEOFİZİK MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7528-937X
Ethem Görgün(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, JEOFİZİK MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4563-3296
Hande Aykurt Vardar(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ, JEOFİZİK MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ, JEOFİZİK MÜHENDİSLİĞİ PR.)0000-0001-7265-6832
Sayfa
35–52
Yayın Tarihi
2026-05-02
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Ana Marmara Fayı gerilme birikimi, depremsellik örüntüleri, gerilme eksen yönelimleri, odak mekanizmasındaki değişimler, fay geometrisi, kabuksal sismik hız yapısı gibi çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenen parçalı bir yapı sergilemekteyken, tarihsel büyük depremler yeterli gerilme birikimine sahip parçalı fay sistemlerinin M7 ve üzeri büyüklükte deprem üretebilme potansiyeline sahip olabileceğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Orta Marmara’da gerçekleşen iki orta büyüklükteki deprem (26 Eylül 2019 M5.8 ve 23 Nisan 2025 M6.2), dünyanın en önemli sismik boşluklarından biri olarak bilinen Marmara’da sismik tehlikenin yeniden tartışılmasına neden olmuştur.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmada 2025 depremi sonrası bilim insanları arasında çokça gündeme gelen 5 tartışma maddesi üzerinden bir beyin fırtınası çalışması yapılmış ve elde edilen görüşler değerlendirilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ana Marmara Fayı gerilme birikimi, depremsellik örüntüleri, gerilme eksen yönelimleri, odak mekanizmasındaki değişimler, fay geometrisi, kabuksal sismik hız yapısı gibi çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenen parçalı bir yapı sergilemekteyken, tarihsel büyük depremler yeterli gerilme birikimine sahip parçalı fay sistemlerinin M7 ve üzeri büyüklükte deprem üretebilme potansiyeline sahip olabileceğini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Marmara · İstanbul · Sismik tehlike

Özet

Orta Marmara’da gerçekleşen iki orta büyüklükteki deprem (26 Eylül 2019 M5.8 ve 23 Nisan 2025 M6.2), dünyanın en önemli sismik boşluklarından biri olarak bilinen Marmara’da sismik tehlikenin yeniden tartışılmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada 2025 depremi sonrası bilim insanları arasında çokça gündeme gelen 5 tartışma maddesi üzerinden bir beyin fırtınası çalışması yapılmış ve elde edilen görüşler değerlendirilmiştir. Her iki depremin de Marmara’daki genel deprem tehlikesini değiştirecek ölçüde olmadığı düşünülmekle birlikte, gelecekte kırılması beklenen komşu fay segmentleri üzerinde oluşturdukları gerilme değişimlerinin göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiği vurgulanmıştır. Ana Marmara Fayı gerilme birikimi, depremsellik örüntüleri, gerilme eksen yönelimleri, odak mekanizmasındaki değişimler, fay geometrisi, kabuksal sismik hız yapısı gibi çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenen parçalı bir yapı sergilemekteyken, tarihsel büyük depremler yeterli gerilme birikimine sahip parçalı fay sistemlerinin M7 ve üzeri büyüklükte deprem üretebilme potansiyeline sahip olabileceğini göstermektedir. Artan sayılardaki kara ve deniz tabanı gözlem istasyonları, üç boyutlu kabuk hız yapısı araştırmaları ve makine öğrenmesine dayalı deprem algılama eşik değerlerinin düşürülmesi, Marmara’daki veri katkısı açısından oldukça kıymetli olduğu değerlendirilmiştir. Depremselliğin izlenmesi, depremler arası gerilme etkileşimlerinin anlaşılması ve açığa çıkan sismik enerjinin nicel olarak takibi, güncel deprem tehlikesinin değerlendirilmesi açısından son derece kritik öneme sahiptir.

Abstract

Two moderate-sized earthquakes that occurred in the Central Marmara (M5.8 on September 26, 2019, and M6.2 on April 23, 2025) have reignited discussions regarding earthquake hazard in the Marmara, which is known as one of the most significant seismic gaps in the world. In this study, a brainstorming analysis based on five key discussion points that have been widely discussed among the earthquake scientists following the 2025 earthquake has been performed and obtained insights have been evaluated. Although the both earthquakes are not considered significant enough to alter the overall earthquake hazard in the Marmara, it has been emphasized that the stress changes imparted by them on adjacent fault segments that are expected to rupture in the future should not be overlooked. While the Main Marmara Fault (MMF) exhibits a segmented structure influenced by various factors including stress accumulation, seismicity patterns, orientations of stress axes, changes in focal mechanisms, fault geometry, and the crustal seismic velocity structures, the historical large earthquakes suggest that sufficiently stressed segmented fault system may have potential to generate M7+ earthquakes. The increasing number of on- and off-shore observation stations and 3D-crustal velocity structure studies and lowering of earthquake detection threshold values based on machine learning applications are considered highly valuable for data contribution in the Marmara. Monitoring of the seismicity, understanding of earthquake stress interactions and quantifying of the released seismic energy are all crucial for the up-to-date assessment of the earthquake hazard.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yalçınkaya, E., Utkucu, M., Görgün, E., Vardar, H. A. (2026). 26 Eylül 2019 (M5.8) ve 23 Nisan 2025 (M6.2) depremleri sonrasında Ana Marmara Fayı’nın sismik tehlikesinin yeniden değerlendirilmesi. Yerbilimleri, Cilt: 47 Sayı: 1, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.17824/yerbilimleri.1804662

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (57)

  1. Aksoy, M.E., Meghraoui, M., Vallée, M., Çakır, Z. 2010. Rupture characteristics of the AD 1912 Mürefte (Ganos) earthquake segment of the North Anatolian fault (western Turkey), Geology 38(11), 991-994. https://doi.org/10.1130/G31447.1
  2. Ambraseys, N. 2002. The seismic activity of the Marmara Sea region over the last 2000 years, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000843
  3. Armijo, R., Pondard, N., Meyer, B., Uçarkus, G., de Lépinay, B.M., Malavieille, J., Dominguez, S., ve diğ. 2005. Submarine fault scarps in the Sea of Marmara pull‐apart (north Anatolian fault): Implications for seismic hazard in Istanbul, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 6, Q06009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GC000896
  4. Bakun, W.H., Lindh, A.G. 1985. The Parkfield, California, Earthquake Prediction Experiment, Science, 229, 619-624. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.229.4714.619
  5. Barka, A. 1996. Slip distribution along the North Anatolian Fault associated with large earthquakes of the period 1939–1967, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86, 1238–1254. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860051238
  6. Bécel, A., Laigle, M., Voogd, B., Hirn, A., Taymaz, T., Galvé, A., Shimamura, H., Murai, Y., Lépine, J.C, Sapin, M., Özalaybey, S. 2009. Moho, crustal architecture and deep deformation under the North Marmara Trough, from the SEISMARMARA Leg 1 offshore–onshore reflection–refraction survey, Tectonophysics 467(1–4) 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.022.
  7. Becker, D., Martínez-Garzón, P., Wollin, C., Kılıç, T., Bohnhoff, M. 2023. Variation of fault creep along the overdue Istanbul-Marmara seismic gap in NW Türkiye, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2022GL101471. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL101471.
  8. Bohnhoff, M., Bulut, F., Dresen, G., Malin, P.E., Eken, T., Aktar, M. 2013. An earthquake gap south of Istanbul, Nat. Commun., 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2999
  9. Bulkan, S., Vannucchi, P., Gasperini, L., Polonia, A., Cavozzi, C. 2020. Modelling tectonic deformation along the North-Anatolian Fault in the Sea of Marmara, Tectonophysics 794, 228612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228612
  10. Bulut, F., Aktuğ, B., Yaltırak, C. ve diğ. 2019. Magnitudes of future large earthquakes near Istanbul quantified from 1500 years of historical earthquakes, present-day microseismicity and GPS slip rates, Tectonophysics 764:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2019.05.005
  11. Çakır, A., Akoglu, M., Belabbes, S., Ergintav, S., Meghraoui, M. 2005. Creeping along the Ismetpasa section of the North Anatolian fault (Western Turkey): Rate and extent from InSAR, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 238, 225–234, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.06.044.
  12. Çomoğlu, M. 2026. https://deprem.comoglu. com/afad-koeri/statistics.html. Son erişim tarihi: 10.02.2026. Diao, F., Walter, T.R., Solar,o G., Wang, R., Bonano, M., Manz, M. 2016. Fault locking near Istanbul: indication of earthquake potential from InSAR and GPSobservations, Geophys. J. Int. 205, 477–485. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggw048
  13. Eken, T., Taymaz, T., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S. et al. 2025. Source and rupture properties of the 23 April 2025 Mw 6.3 Silivri High-Kumburgaz basin earthquake threatening İstanbul, NW Türkiye. J Seismol 29, 1727–1755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-025-10342-8
  14. Ergintav, S., ve diğ. 2014. Istanbul’s earthquake hot spots: Geodetic con- straints on strain accumulation along faults in the Marmara seismic gap, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41 (16), 5783–5788. doi:10.1002/2014GL060985
  15. Flerit, F., Armijo, R., King, G., Meyer, B. 2004. The mechanical interaction between the propagating North Anatolian Fault and the back-arc extension in the Aegean, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224, 347-362. Doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.028
  16. Géli L., Henry P., Grall C., ve diğ. 2018. Gas and seismicity within the Istanbul seismic gap, Sci Rep 8, 6819. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23536-7
  17. Görgün, B., Yalçınkaya, E., Görgün, E., Bohnhoff, M., Martínez-Garzón, P., Alp, H., 2025. Investigation of fault zone head waves along the 1912 MW7.4 Şarköy–Mürefte (Ganos) earthquake rupture zone in NW Türkiye, Geophysical Journal International 242(1), 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf148
  18. Guvercin, S.E., Barbot, S. 2025. Persistent rupture segmentation of the Main Marmara Fault. Commun Earth Environ 6, 1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-03007-4
  19. Hergert, T., Heidbach, O. 2010. Slip-rate variability and distributed deformation in the Marmara Sea fault system. Nature Geoscience, 3(2), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo739
  20. Hergert, T., Heidbach, O., Bécel, A., Laigle, M. 2011. Geomechanical model of the Marmara Sea region—I. 3-D contemporary kinematics, Geophysical Journal International 185(3), 1073–1089, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04991.x
  21. Hergert, T., Heidbach, O. 2011. Geomechanical model of the Marmara Sea region—II. 3D contemporary background stress field, Geophysical Journal International 185(3), 1090-1102, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04992.x
  22. Hubert-Ferrari, A., Armijo, R., King, G., Meyer, B., Barka, A. 2002. Morphology, displacement, and slip rates along the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (B10), 2235. doi:10.1029/2001JB000393
  23. Karabulut, H., Roumelioti, Z., Benetatos, C., Mutlu, A.K., Özalaybey, S., Aktar, M., Kiratzi, A. 2006. A source study of the 6 July 2003 (M w 5.7) earthquake sequence in the Gulf of Saros (Northern Aegean Sea): Seismological evidence for the western continuation of the Ganos fault, Tectonophysics 412(3), 195-216. DOI:10.1016/J.TECTO.2005.09.009
  24. Karabulut, H., Güvercin, S.E., Eskiköy, F., Konca, A.Ö., Ergintav, S. 2021. The moderate size 2019 September Mw 5.8 Silivri earthquake unveils the complexity of the Main Marmara Fault shear zone, Geophysical Journal International 224(1) 377–388, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa469.
  25. Lange, D., Kopp, H., Royer, J.Y., Henry, P., Cakir, Z., Petersen, F., Geli, L. 2019. Interseismic strain build-up on the submarine North Anatolian Fault offshore Istanbul, Nat. Commun. 10(1), doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11016-z.
  26. Le Pichon, X., Sengor, A.M.C., Demirbag, E., Rangin, C., Imren, C., Armijo, R., Gorur, N., Cagatay N. 2001. The active Main Marmara Fault, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 192, 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00449-6
  27. Meade, B.J., Hager, B.H., McClusky, S.C., Reilinger, R.E., Ergintav, S., Lenk, O., ve diğ. 2002. Estimates of seismic potential in the Marmara Sea region from block models of secular deformation constrained by global positioning system measurements, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92, 208–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120000837
  28. Meghraoui, M., Aksoy, M.E., Akyüz, H.S., Ferry, M., Dikbaş, A., Altunel, E. 2012. Paleoseismology of the North Anatolian Fault at Güzelköy (Ganos segment, Turkey): Size and recurrence time of earthquake ruptures west of the Sea of Marmara, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q04005, https://doi:10.1029/2011GC003960
  29. Ohnaka, M. 2004. Earthquake cycles and physical modeling of the process leading up to a large earthquake, Earth Planets Space 56, 773–793. DOI:10.1186/BF03353085
  30. Öztürk, Y.K., Konca, A.Ö., Özel, N.M. 2025. 3D dynamic rupture simulations for the potential main Marmara fault earthquake in the sea of Marmara based on the inter-seismic strain accumulation, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 130, e2024JB029585. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JB029585
  31. Parsons, T. 2004. Recalculated probability of M ≥ 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey. J Geophys Res, 109. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002667
  32. Pınar, A., Kuge, K., Honkura, Y. 2003. Moment tensor inversion of recent small to moderate sized earthquakes: implications for seismic hazard and active tectonics beneath the Sea of Marmara, Geophysical Journal International 153, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01897.x
  33. Pınar, A., Coşkun, Z., Mert, A., ve diğ. 2016. Frictional strength of North Anatolian fault in eastern Marmara region. Earth Planets and Space 68:62, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0435-z
  34. Pondard, N., Armijo, R., King, G.C., Meyer, B., Flerit, F. 2007. Fault interactions in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North Anatolian Fault): earthquake clustering and propagating earthquake sequences, Geophysical Journal International 171(3), 1185-1197. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03580.x
  35. Rockwell, T., Barka, A., Dawson, T., Akyuz, S., Thorup, K. 2001. Paleoseismology of the Gazikoy-Saros segment of the North Anatolia fault, northwestern Turkey: Comparison of the historical and paleoseismic records, implications of regional seismic hazard, and models of earthquake recurrence, Journal of Seismology, 5(3), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011435927983
  36. Sakic, P., Piété, H., Ballu, V., Royer, J.‐Y., Kopp, H., Lange, D., ve diğ. 2016. No significant steady state surface creep along the North Anatolian fault offshore Istanbul: Results of 6 months of seafloor acoustic ranging, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 6817–6825. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069600
  37. Schmidt, D.A., Bürgmann, R., Nadeau, R.M., d'Alessio, M. 2005. Distribution of aseismic slip rate on the Hayward fault inferred from seismic and geodetic data, J. Geophys. Res., 110, B08406, doi:10.1029/2004JB003397.
  38. Schmittbuhl, J., Karabulut, H., Lengline, O., Bouchon, M. 2015. Seismicity distribution and locking depth along the Main Marmara Fault, Turkey, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 17, 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GC006120
  39. Schmittbuhl, J., Karabulut, H., Lengliné, O., Bouchon, M. (2016). Long‐lasting seismic repeaters in the Central Basin of the Main Marmara fault, Geophysical Research Letters 43, 9527–9534. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070505
  40. Sieh K. 1996. The repetition of large-earthquake ruptures, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93 (9), 3764-3771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.9.3764
  41. Stein, R.S., Sevilgen, V. 2025. A magnitude 6.2 quake strikes the Marmara Fault at site of large historic earthquakes near Istanbul, Temblor. http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.361
  42. Şahin, M., Yaltırak, C., Bulut, F., ve diğ. 2022. Stress change generated by the 2019 İstanbul–Silivri earthquakes along the complex structure of the North Anatolian Fault in the Marmara Sea, Earth Planets Space 74, 167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-022-01706-2
  43. Toda, S., Stein, R.S. 2002. Response of the San Andreas fault to the1983 Coalinga-Nunez earthquakes: An application of interaction-based probabilities for Parkfield, J. Geophys. Res., 107(B6), 2126, doi:10.1029/2001JB000172.
  44. Toda, S., Stein, R.S. 2019. Could the 26 Sept 2019 Marmara Sea earthquake trigger a much larger event closer to Istanbul?, Temblor. http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.046
  45. Turunçtur, B., Eken, T., Chen, Y., Taymaz, T., Houseman, G.A., Saygin, E. 2023. Crustal velocity images of northwestern Türkiye along the North Anatolian Fault Zone from transdimensional Bayesian ambient seismic noise tomography, Geophysical Journal International, 234(1),636–649, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad082
  46. Tüysüz, O., Barka, A.A., Yiğitbaş, E. 1998. Geology of the Saros Graben and its implications for the evolution of the North Anatolian fault in the Ganos-Saros region, northwestern Turkey, Tectonophysics 293, 103-126.Doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00085-7
  47. Utkucu, M., Kanbur, Z., Alptekin, Ö., Sünbül, F. 2009. Seismic behaviour of the North Anatolian fault beneath the sea of Marmara (NW Turkey): implications for earthquake recurrence times and future seismic hazard, Nat Hazard 50, 45–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-008-9317-4
  48. Utkucu, M., Budakoğlu, E., Durmuş, H. 2011. A discussion on the seismicity and seismic hazard of the Marmara region (NW Turkey), Hac Univ Bull Earth Sci 32, 141–168. https://doi.org/10.33793/acperpro.05.02.734
  49. Utkucu, M., Uzunca, F., Durmuş, H., ve diğ. 2024. The Mw = 5.8 2019 Silivri earthquake, NW Türkiye: is it a warning beacon for a big one?, Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) 113, 107–124. DOI:10.1007/s00531-023-02359-6
  50. Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84 (4): 974–1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0840040974
  51. Wesnousky, S., 2006. Predicting the endpoints of earthquake ruptures, Nature 444, 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05275
  52. Wollin, C., Bohnhoff, M., Martínez‐Garzón, P., Küperkoch, L., Raub, C. 2018. A unified earthquake catalogue for the Sea of Marmara region, Turkey, based on automatized phase picking and travel‐time inversion: Seismotectonic implications, Tectonophysics, 747‐748, 416–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.05.020
  53. Wollin, C., Bohnhoff, M., Vavryčuk, V. et al. 2019. Stress Inversion of Regional Seismicity in the Sea of Marmara Region, Turkey. Pure Appl. Geophys. 176, 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-1971-1 Yalçınkaya, E., Bonhoff, M., Görgün, E., Alp, H., Bentz, S., Pınar, A., Alver, F., Kılıçarslan, Ö., Tamtaş, B.D., Görgün, B. 2023. Evaluation of current earthquake activity on the Ganos Fault: MONGAN network test analysis, Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration 170, 99-116. https://doi.org/10.19111/bulletinofmre.1138208
  54. Yaltırak, C. 2015. Marmara Denizi ve Çevresinde Tarihsel Depremlerin Yerleri ve Anlamı. İTÜ Vakfı Dergisi 67, 51–58
  55. Yamamoto, Y., Takahashi, N., Pinar, A., Kalafat, D., Citak, S., Comoglu, M., ve diğ. 2017. Geometry and segmentation of the North Anatolian fault beneath the Marmara Sea, Turkey, deduced from long‐term ocean bottom seismographic observations, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 122, 2069–2084. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013608
  56. Yamamoto, R., Kido, M., Ohta, Y., Takahashi, N., Yamamoto, Y., Pinar, A., ve diğ. 2019. Seafloor geodesy revealed partial creep of the north Anatolian fault submerged in the sea of Marmara, Geophysical Research Letters 46, 1268–1275. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080984
  57. Yamamoto, Y., Kalafat, D., Pinar, A., Takahashi, T., Cosku,n Z., Polat, R., Kaneda, Y., Ozener, H. 2020. Fault geometry beneath the western and Central Marmara Sea, Turkey, based on ocean bottom seismographic observations: implications for future large earthquakes,