Türkiye’de Jeodezik ve Sismik Yamulma Hızlarının Karşılaştırılması

Bir bölgenin sismik potansiyeli, çoğunlukla, modern jeodezik yöntemlerle gözlemlenen deformasyon hızları ve kataloglardaki aletsel dönem deprem kayıtları ile karakterize edilir. Birbiri ile ilişkili olmasına rağmen, zaman ve uzamda eksiklikler içeren sismik kataloglar, sismik yamulma hızlarının parametrizasyonu, sismik alanın ayrıklaştırılması ve sismik hacmin tanımlanmasındaki zorluk nedeniyle birbirleriyle doğrudan karşılaştırılmaları kolay değildir. Bu çalışmada, jeodezik ve sismik hızları elde etmek ve karşılaştırmak için en eksiksiz ve güncel kataloglar ve GNSS hızları kullanılmış, jeodezik ve sismik yamulma hızları ile gerilme azalımı ve ısı akısı arasındaki farklar karşılaştırılarak, bunların olası sonuçları ve korelasyonları analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, bazı bölgelerin diğerlerinden daha fazla deprem potansiyeline sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

A Comparison of Geodetic and Seismic Strain Rates in Turkey

The seismic potential of a region is often characterized by the deformation rates observed by the modern geodetic methods and seismic history during the instrumental period compiled in catalogues. While both are related, a direct comparison is not straightforward due to the various factors including the incomplete catalogues both in time and space, parameterization of seismic strain rates, discretization of seismic domain, and the difficulty in the definition of seismic volume. In this study, using the most complete seismic catalogue available for Turkey, GNSS velocities were employed to derive the geodetic strain rates and were compared with the seismic strain rates, the possible implications and correlation of the difference between geodetic and seismic rates with the static stress drop and heat flow were analyzed. The results show that several zones can be identified as having more seismic potential with respect to the others. © Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi

PDF

___

Alptekin, Ö., 1978. Türkiye ve çevresindeki depremlerde manyitüd-frekans bağıntıları ve deformasyon boşalımı, Doçentlik tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, 107.
Bayrak, Y., Öztürk, S., Çınar, H., Kalafat, D., Tsapanos, T. M., Koravos, G.Ch. and Leventakis, G-A., 2009.
Estimating Earthquake Hazard Parameters from Instrumental Data for Different Regions in and around Turkey. Engineering Geology, 105, 200-210. Bayrak, Y., Yılmaztürk, A. and Öztürk, S., 2005.
Relationships between fundamental seismic hazard parameters for the different source regions in Turkey. Natural Hazards, 36, 445–462.
Caporali, A., Barba, S., Carafa, M.M.C., Devoti, R., Pietrantonio, G. and Riguzzi, F., 2011. Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, B02410.
Erdik, M., Alpay, B.Y., Onur, T., Sesetyan, K. and Birgoren, G., 1999. Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions. Annali di Geofisica, 42, 1125–1138.
Erdik, M., Doyuran, V., Akkaş, N. and Gülkan, P., 1985. A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey. Tectonophysics, 117, 295–344.
Jiménez, M.J., Giardini, D., Grünthal, G. and Sesame Working Group (Erdik, M., García- Fernández, M., Lapajne, J., Makropoulos, K., Muson, R., Papaioannou, Ch., Rebez, A., Riad, S., Sellami, S., Shapira, A., Slejko, D., Van Eck, T., El Sayed, A.), 2001. Unified seismic hazard modelling throughout the Mediterranean region. Bolletino Di Geophysica Teorica Ed Applicata, 42, 1-2, 3-18.
Kalafat, D., Kekovalı, K. and Pınar, A., 2008. A Cataloque of Sources Parameters of Moderate and Strong Earthquakes for Turkey and Surrounding Area.
Geophysical Research Abstracts, 10, EGU2008-A07256, 2008, EGU General Assembly 2008, 13-18 April 2008, Vienna, Austria.
Kayabalı, K., 2002. Modeling of seismic hazard for Turkey using the recent neotectonic data. Engineering Geology, 63, 221–232.
Kostrov, B.V., and Das, S., 1988. Principles of Earthquake Source Mechanics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 286 pp.
Kreemer, C., Blewitt, G., and Klein, E.C., 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 15, 3849- 3889.
Shen, Z.K., Jackson, D.D. and Ge, X.B., 1996. Crustal deformation across and beyond the Los Angeles basin from geodetic measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, B12, 27957-27980.
Tezcan, A.K., 1995. Geothermal explorations and heat flow in Turkey, in: M. Yamano (Ed.), Terrestrial Heat Flow and Geothermal Energy in Asia, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 23-42.
Wells, D.L. and 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, 974–1002.
Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F., 1991. Free software helps map and display data. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 72, 441.
Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F., 1995 New version of the Generic Mapping Tools released. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 76, 329.
Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F., 1998. New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools released. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 79, 579.
Wessel, P., Smith, W.H.F., Scharroo, R., Luis, J.F. and Wobbe, F., 2013. Generic Mapping Tools: Improved version released. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 94, 409-410.
Yaltırak, C., Alpar, B., Yüce, H., 1998. Tectonic elements controlling the evolution of the Gulf of Saros (Northeastern Aegean Sea, Turkey). Tectonophysics, 300, 227–24