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

doi:10.1007/s11707-017-0642-3

Front. Earth Sci.

2018, Vol. 12

Issue (1) : 215-236 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0642-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

S. ÖZTÜRK(

)

Gümüşhane University, Department of Geophysics, TR-29100, Gümüşhane, Turkey

Download: PDF(7695 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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 $D c = 2.55 − 0.39 * b$ 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

Corresponding Author(s): S. ÖZTÜRK

Online First Date: 24 April 2017 Issue Date: 23 January 2018

Cite this article:

S. ÖZTÜRK. Earthquake hazard potential in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey: seismotectonic b and Dc-values and precursory quiescence Z-value[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(1): 215-236.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-017-0642-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2018/V12/I1/215

Fig.1 (a) Simplified tectonic environments in and around Turkey demonstrating main neotectonic structures and provinces (replaced from Bozkurt, 2001). K: Karlıova, KM: Kahramanmaraş. (b) Major tectonic faults in the Eastern Anatolia area of Turkey. Some city locations are shown: AG: Ağrı, Ak: Aşkale, BN: Bingöl, BT: Bitlis, DB: Diyarbakır, ELZ: Elazığ, ERZ: Erzurum, EZN: Erzincan, HK: Hakkari, IR: Iğdır, K: Karlıova, KM: Kahramanmaraş, KR: Kars, Plm: Pülümür. Major structures were taken from Şaroğlu et al., (1992)and Bozkurt (2001). Names of the faults: AF: Ağrı fault, AKF: Aşkale fault, BF: Başkale fault, BFZ: Balıklıgölü Fault Zone, BZF: Bozova fault, ÇF: Çaldıran fault, ÇFZ: Çobandede Fault Zone, DFZ: Doğubeyazıt Fault Zone, DSFZ: Dead Sea Fault Zone, ERF: Erciş fault, EZF: Erzurum fault, GF: Genç fault, GFZ: Göynük Fault Zone, HTF: Hasan-Timur Fault, IF: Iğdır fault, KBF: Kavakbaşı Fault, KEZ: Karacadağ Extension Zone, KF: Kağızman fault, KKF: Karakoçan fault, MLF: Malatya fault, MF: Malazgirt fault, MTZ: Muş Thrust Zone, NEAFZ: North East Anatolian Fault Zone, OF: Ovacık fault, PF: Pülümür fault, SF: Süphan fault, SRF: Sürgü fault, SUFZ: Sancak-Uzunpınar Fault Zone, YŞFZ: Yüksekova-Şemdinli Fault Zone.

Fig.2 Seismic and tectonic sub-regions and the epicenters of 33,865 shallow (depth<70 km) earthquakes with M_D≥1.0 between 1970 and 2015.

Fig.3 Changes in magnitude completeness, Mc-value, from 1970 to 2015 in the Eastern Anatolian region of Turkey. Standard deviation (dMc) of the completeness is plotted with dashed line. Completeness is illustrated with overlapping samples and each sample contains 50 events.

Fig.4 Cumulative number of events as a function of time for the original catalog, including all earthquakes with M_D≥1.0, and for the declustered catalog, including the events of M_D≥2.9 in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey.

Fig.5 Gutenberg-Richter relationships and b-values. b-values and their standard deviations as well as the Mc-values are given.

Fig.6 Correlation integrals and Dc-values for all sub-regions. The slope of the black lines corresponds to Dc-values and dashed lines illustrate the standard errors.

Fig.7 Regional distribution of b-value for the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey. The declustered events with M_D≥2.9 are plotted in white dots.

Tab.1 Tectonic structures, earthquake numbers, Mc-values, b-values and Dc-values for different seismic source zones in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey

Fig.8 Regional distribution of Dc-value for the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey. The declustered events with M_D≥2.9 are marked in white dots.

Fig.9 Estimated orthogonal regression fit for the relationship between b-value and Dc-value. Resulting equation, correlation coefficient, and confidence interval of 95%, for the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey are also given. There are 12 events in the confidence interval of 95%.

Tab.2 Variations in the number of earthquakes, minimum (M_min) and maximum (M_max) magnitudes, Mc-values, a-value, b-value and Dc-value for the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey in time intervals between 1970 and 2015

Fig.10 Magnitude-time histogram for earthquake catalog of the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey between 1970 and 2015.

Fig.11 Changes in two fundamental parameters b and Dc-values from 1970 to 2015 in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey. Arrows show the starting times in decreasing b-values and increasing Dc-values. Standard errors are also shown.

Fig.12 Regional changes of standard deviate Z-value at the beginning of 2015 with T_W (iwl) equal to 5.5 years for the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey. White dots show the declustered events with M_D≥2.9. Significant quiescence anomalies detected at the beginning of 2015 are given as regions A (around NEAFZ, AKF and EZF), B and C (including PF and KKF), D (between MLF and EAFZ), E (around GF), and F (around YŞFZ). These regions with clear quiescence are important for estimating future seismic hazards and may show the locations of future earthquakes in the study region.

Fig.13 Annual regional changes of standard deviate Z-value between 2000 and 2015 using the declustered events (white dots) with M_D≥2.9. T_W (iwl)=5.5 years is selected as the length of time. Positive Z-value (gray color) represents the decrease in seismicity. “Cut at” times for Z-value distributions are considered for; (a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002, (d) 2003, (e) 2004, (f) 2005, (g) 2006, (h) 2007, (i) 2008, and (j) 2009.

1	Aki K (1965). Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log⁡N =a−bMand its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo, 43: 237–239
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: 566–574
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)
4	Barton D J, Foulger G R, Henderson J R, Julian B R (1999). Frequency-magnitude statistics and spatial correlation dimensions of earthquakes at Long Valley Caldera, California. Geophys J Int, 138(2): 563–570 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.1999.00898.x
5	Bayrak Y, Öztürk S, Çınar 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): 200–210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.004
6	Bozkurt E (2001). Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis. Geodin Acta, 14(1–3): 3–30 https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2001.11432432
7	Carrol R J, Ruppert D (1996). The use and misuse of orthogonal regression estimation in linear errors-in-variables models. Am Stat, 50: 1–6
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): 1215–1219 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03230.x
9	Console R, Montuori C, Murru M (2000). Statistical assessment of seismicity patterns in Italy: are they precursors of subsequent events? J Seismol, 4(4): 435–449 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026540018598
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): 847–859 https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352077
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: 1125–1138
12	Frohlich C, Davis S (1993). Teleseismic b-values: or, much ado about 1.0. J Geophys Res, 98(B1): 631–644 https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01891
13	Goltz C (1998). Fractal and chaotic properties of earthquakes (Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, 77). Springer-Verlag, 178 pp
14	Grassberger P, Procaccia I (1983). Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica, 9(D): 189–208
15	Gutenberg R, Richter C F (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 34: 185–188
16	Hempton M R (1987). Constraints on Arabian plate motion and extensional history of the Red Sea. Tectonics, 6(6): 687–705 https://doi.org/10.1029/TC006i006p00687
17	Hirabayashi T, Ito K, Yoshii T (1992). Multifractal analysis of earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys, 138(4): 591–610 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876340
18	Hirata T (1989a). Correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension of earthquakes. J Geophys Res, 94(B6): 7507–7514 https://doi.org/10.1029/JB094iB06p07507
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): 157–170 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874485
20	Kagan Y Y (2007). Earthquake spatial distribution: the correlation dimension. Geophys J Int, 168(3): 1175–1194 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03251.x
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): 443–470 https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050274
22	Kember G, Fowler A C (1992). Random sampling and the Grassberger-Procaccia algorithm. Phys Lett A, 161(5): 429–432 https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(92)90683-D
23	Mandelbrot B B (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman Press
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): 9–20 https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-7-9-2000
25	Mogi K (1967). Earthquakes and fractures. Tectonophysics, 5(1): 35–55 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(67)90043-1
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: 395–417
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): 15081–15090 https://doi.org/10.1029/97JB01356
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): 147–157 https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2-147-1995
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: 148–159
30	Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2002). Space-time correlations of seismotectonic parameters and examples from Japan and Turkey preceding the İzmit earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am, 92(1): 339–349 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000844
31	Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2004). Correlation of seismotectonic variables and GPS strain- measurements in western Turkey. J Geophys Res, 109(B11): B11306 https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003101
32	Öncel A O, Wilson T H (2007). Anomalous seismicity preceding the 1999 Izmit event, NW Turkey. Geophys J Int, 169(1): 259–270 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03298.x
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): 158–177 https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2-158-1995
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)
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): 209–238 https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-010-0050-5
36	Öztürk S (2012). Statistical correlation between b-value and fractal dimension regarding Turkish epicentre distribution. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 16(2): 103–108
37	Öztürk S (2013). A statistical assessment of current seismic quiescence along the North Anatolian Fault Zone: earthquake precursors.Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences, 106(2): 4–17
38	Öztürk S (2015). A study on the correlations between seismotectonic b-value and Dc-value, and seismic quiescence Z-value in the Western Anatolian region of Turkey. Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences, 108(2): 172–184 https://doi.org/10.17738/ajes.2015.0019
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): 92–118 https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-011-0035-z
40	Öztürk S, Bayrak Y, Çınar 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): 471–495 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9234-6
41	Polat O, Gok E, Yılmaz D (2008). Earthquake hazard of the Aegean Extension region (West Turkey). Turk J Earth Sci, 17: 593–614
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): 205–210
43	Reasenberg P A (1985). Second-order moment of Central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys Res, 90(B7): 5479–5495 https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479
44	Roy S, Ghosh U, Hazra S, Kayal J R (2011). Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone. Nat Hazards, 57(1): 27–37 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9667-6
45	Şaroğlu F, Emre O, Kuşcu O (1992). Active fault map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey
46	Şengör A M C, Yılmaz Y (1981). Tethyan evolution of Turkey: a plate tectonic approach. Tectonophysics, 75: 181–241 https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(81)90275-4
47	Smith L A (1988). Intrinsic limits on dimension calculations. Phys Lett A, 133(6): 283–288 https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(88)90445-8
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): 122–127
49	Wiemer S (2001). A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett, 72(3): 373–382 https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.72.3.373
50	Wiemer S, Katsumata K (1999). Spatial variability of seismicity parameters in aftershock zones. J Geophys Res, 104(B6): 13,135–13,151 https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900032
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): 900–916
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): 859–869 https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114
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): 684–698 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040007
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): 321–327 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050069
55	Wyss M, Burford R O (1987). Occurrences of predicted earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Nature, 329(6137): 323–325 https://doi.org/10.1038/329323a0
56	Wyss M, Klein F, Nagamine K, Wiemer S (2001). Anomalously high b-values 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): 23–37 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00263-8
57	Wyss M, Martirosyan A H (1998). Seismic quiescence before the M7, 1988, Spitak earthquake, Armenia. Geophys J Int, 134(2): 329–340 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00543.x
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): 725–740 https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03353081

[1]	Hongchun ZHU, Yipeng ZHAO, Haiying LIU. Scale characters analysis for gully structure in the watersheds of loess landforms based on digital elevation models[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(2): 431-443.
[2]	Haihai HOU, Longyi SHAO, Yonghong LI, Zhen LI, Wenlong ZHANG, Huaijun WEN. The pore structure and fractal characteristics of shales with low thermal maturity from the Yuqia Coalfield, northern Qaidam Basin, northwestern China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2018, 12(1): 148-159.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed