Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 215–236 | Cite as

Earthquake hazard potential in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey: seismotectonic b and Dc-values and precursory quiescence Z-value

Research Article

Abstract

The Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey is one of the most seismically and tectonically active regions due to the frequent occurrence of earthquakes. Thus, the main goal of this study is to analyze the regional and temporal characteristics of seismicity in the Eastern Anatolia in terms of the seismotectonic b-value, fractal dimension Dc-value, precursory seismic quiescence Z-value, and their interrelationships. This study also seeks to obtain a reliable empirical relation between b and Dc-values and to evaluate the temporal changes of these parameters as they relate to the earthquake potential of the region. A more up-to-date relation of Dc = 2:55–0:39*b is found with a very strong negative correlation coefficient (r =–0.95) by using the orthogonal regression method. The b-values less than 1.0 and the Dc-values greater than 2.2 are observed in the Northeast Anatolian Fault Zone, Aşkale, Erzurum, Iğdır and Çaldıran Faults, Doğubeyazıt Fault Zone, around the Genç Fault, the western part of the Bitlis-Zagros Thrust Zone, Pülümür and Karakoçan Faults, and the Sancak- Uzunpınar Fault Zone. In addition, the regions having small b-values and large Z-values are calculated around the Genç, Pülümür and Karakoçan Faults as well as the Sancak-Uzunpınar Fault Zone. Remarkably, the combinations of these seismotectonic parameters could reveal the earthquake hazard potential in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey, thus creating an increased interest in these anomaly regions.

Keywords

Eastern Anatolia b-value fractal dimension precursory seismic quiescence earthquake hazard 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Stefan Wiemer for providing ZMAP software and the anonymous reviewers for their useful and constructive suggestions to improve this paper. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Dogan Kalafat (KOERI) for providing the earthquake catalog.

References

  1. Aki K (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula logN = a–bM and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo, 43: 237–239Google Scholar
  2. Aki K (1981). A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. In: Simpson D W, Richards P G, eds. Earthquake Prediction: An International Review. Maurice Ewing Series. AGU,Washington, DC, 4: 566–574Google Scholar
  3. Arabasz W J, Hill S J (1996). Applying Reasenberg’s cluster analysis algorithm to regional earthquake catalogs outside California. Seismol Res Lett, 67(2): 30 (abstract)Google Scholar
  4. Barton D J, Foulger G R, Henderson J R, Julian B R (1999). Frequencymagnitude statistics and spatial correlation dimensions of earthquakes at Long Valley Caldera, California. Geophys J Int, 138(2): 563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayrak Y, öztürk S, Çinar H, Kalafat D, Tsapanos T M, Koravos G Ch, Leventakis G A (2009). Estimating earthquake hazard parameters from instrumental data for different regions in and around Turkey. Eng Geol, 105(3–4): 200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozkurt E (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis. Geodin Acta, 14 (1–3): 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrol R J, Ruppert D (1996). The use and misuse of orthogonal regression estimation in linear errors-in-variables models. Am Stat, 50: 1–6Google Scholar
  8. Chen C C, Wang W C, Chang Y F, Wu Y M, Lee Y H (2006). A correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension from the aftershock sequence of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Geophys J Int, 167(3): 1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Console R, Montuori C, Murru M (2000). Statistical assessment of seismicity patterns in Italy: are they precursors of subsequent events? Earth Planets Space, 4(4): 435–449Google Scholar
  10. Enescu B, Ito K (2002). Spatial analysis of the frequency-magnitude distribution and decay rate of aftershock activity of the 2000 Western Tottori earthquake. Earth Planets Space, 54(8): 847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdik M, Alpay B Y, Onur T, Sesetyan K, Birgoren G (1999). Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Ann Geofis, 42: 1125–1138Google Scholar
  12. Frohlich C, Davis S (1993). Teleseismic b-values: or, much ado about 1.0. J Geophys Res, 98(B1): 631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goltz C (1998). Fractal and chaotic properties of earthquakes (Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, 77). Springer-Verlag, 178 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Grassberger P, Procaccia I (1983). Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica, 9(D): 189–208Google Scholar
  15. Gutenberg R, Richter C F (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 34: 185–188Google Scholar
  16. Hempton M R (1987). Constraints on Arabian plate motion and extensional history of the Red Sea. Tectonics, 6(6): 687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirabayashi T, Ito K, Yoshii T (1992). Multifractal analysis of earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys, 138(4): 591–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirata T (1989a). Correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension of earthquakes. J Geophys Res, 94(B6): 7507–7514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirata T (1989b). Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan: fractal structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales. Pure Appl Geophys, 131(1–2): 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kagan Y Y (2007). Earthquake spatial distribution: the correlation dimension. Geophys J Int, 168(3): 1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katsumata K, Kasahara M (1999). Precursory seismic quiescence before the 1994 Kurile Earthquake (Mw = 8.3) revealed by three independent seismic catalogs. Pure Appl Geophys, 155(2–4): 443–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kember G, Fowler A C (1992). Random sampling and the Grassberger-Procaccia algorithm. Phys Lett A, 161(5): 429–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mandelbrot B B (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Matcharashvili T, Chelidze T, Javakhishvili Z (2000). Nonlinear analysis of magnitude and interevent time interval sequences for earthquakes of Caucasian region. Nonlinear Process Geophys, 7(1/2): 9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mogi K (1967). Earthquakes and fractures. Tectonophysics, 5(1): 35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mogi K (1969). Some features of recent seismic activity in and near Japan. 2. Activity before and after great earthquakes. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo, 47: 395–417Google Scholar
  27. Mori J, Abercrombie R E (1997). Depth dependence of earthquake frequency-magnitude distribution in California: implications for the rupture initiation. J Geophys Res, 102(B7): 15081–15090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. öncel A O, Alptekin Ö, Main I G (1995). Temporal variations of the fractal properties of seismicity in the western part of the North Anatolian fault zone: possible artifacts due to improvements in station coverage. Nonlinear Process Geophys, 2(3/4): 147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Öncel A O, Main I G, Alptekin Ö, Cowie P A (1996). Temporal variations of the fractal properties of seismicity in the north Anatolian fault zone between 31°E and 41°E. Pure Appl Geophys, 146: 148–159Google Scholar
  30. Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2002). Space-time correlations of seismotectonic parameters and examples from Japan and Turkey preceding the Izmit earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 92(1): 339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2004). Correlation of seismotectonic variables and GPS strain- measurements in western Turkey. J Geophys Res, 109(B11): B11306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2007). Anomalous seismicity preceding the 1999 Izmit event, NW Turkey. Geophys J Int, 169(1): 259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ouillon G, Sornette D, Castaing C (1995). Organisation of joints and faults from 1-cm to 100-km scales revealed by optimized anisotropic wavelet coefficient method and multifractal analysis. Nonlinear Process Geophys, 2(3/4): 158–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Öztürk S (2009). An application of the earthquake hazard and aftershock probability evaluation methods to Turkey earthquakes. Dissertation for PhD degree. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey (in Turkish with English abstract)Google Scholar
  35. Öztürk S (2011). Characteristics of seismic activity in the western, central and eastern parts of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey: temporal and spatial analysis. Acta Geophysica, 59(2): 209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Öztürk S (2012). Statistical correlation between b-value and fractal dimension regarding Turkish epicentre distribution. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 16(2): 103–108Google Scholar
  37. Öztürk S (2013). A statistical assessment of current seismic quiescence along the North Anatolian Fault Zone: earthquake precursors. Mitt Osterr Geol Ges, 106(2): 4–17Google Scholar
  38. Öztürk S (2015). A study on the correlations between seismotectonic bvalue and Dc-value, and seismic quiescence Z-value in the Western Anatolian region of Turkey. Mitt Osterr Geol Ges, 108(2): 172–184Google Scholar
  39. Öztürk S, Bayrak Y (2012). Spatial variations of precursory seismic quiescence observed in recent years in the eastern part of Turkey. Acta Geophysica, 60(1): 92–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Öztürk S, Bayrak Y, Çinar H, Koravos G Ch, Tsapanos T M (2008). A quantitative appraisal of earthquake hazard parameters computed from Gumbel I method for different regions in and around Turkey. Nat Hazards, 47(3): 471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Polat O, Gok E, Yilmaz D (2008). Earthquake hazard of the Aegean Extension region (West Turkey). Turk J Earth Sci, 17: 593–614Google Scholar
  42. Prasad S, Singh C (2015). Evolution of b-values before large earthquakes of mb=6.0 in the Andaman region. Geol Acta, 13(3): 205–210Google Scholar
  43. Reasenberg P A (1985). Second-order moment of Central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res, 90(B7): 5479–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roy S, Ghosh U, Hazra S, Kayal J R (2011). Fractal dimension and bvalue mapping in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone. Nat Hazards, 57(1): 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saroglu F, Emre O, Kuscu O (1992). Active fault map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  46. Sengör A M C, Yilmaz Y (1981). Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics, 75: 181–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith L A (1988). Intrinsic limits on dimension calculations. Phys Lett A, 133(6): 283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teotia S S, Kumar D (2007). The Great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004 was predictable even from seismicity data of mb>4.5: a lesson to learn from natüre. Indian J Mar Sci, 36(2): 122–127Google Scholar
  49. Wiemer S (2001). A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett, 72(3): 373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wiemer S, Katsumata K (1999). Spatial variability of seismicity parameters in aftershock zones. J Geophys Res, 104(B6): 13,135–13,151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiemer S, Wyss M (1994). Seismic quiescence before the Landers (M = 7.5) and Big Bear (6.5) 1992 earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 84(3): 900–916Google Scholar
  52. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000). Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 90(4): 859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woessner J, Wiemer S (2005). Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogs: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 95(2): 684–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu Y M, Chiao Y L (2006). Seismic quiescence before the 1999 Chi- Chi, Taiwan, MW7.6 Earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 96(1): 321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wyss M, Burford R O (1987). Occurrences of predicted earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Nature, 329(6137): 323–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wyss M, Klein F, Nagamine K, Wiemer S (2001). Anomalously high bvalues in the south flank of Kilauea volcano: evidence for the distribution of magma below Kilauea’s East Rift Zone. J Volcanol Geotherm Res, 106(1–2): 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wyss M, Martirosyan A H (1998). Seismic quiescence before the M7, 1988, Spitak earthquake, Armenia. Geophys J Int, 134(2): 329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wyss M, Sobolev G A, Clippard J D (2004). Seismic quiescence precursors to two M7 earthquakes on Sakhalin Island, measured by two methods. Earth Planets Space, 56(8): 725–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeophysicsGümüşhane UniversityGümüşhaneTurkey

Personalised recommendations