THE EFFECT OF THE AEGEAN SEA EARTHQUAKE, OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 30, 2020, ON TUSAGA STATIONS

Year 2023, , 1096 - 1105, 01.12.2023

Tunahan Gündoğan , Sercan Bülbül , Cevat İnal

https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1368573

Abstract

GNSS is used to determine the point positions on the earth with high accuracy. The accuracy that can be achieved with GNSS depends on the satellite system, processing software, logging interval, observation time, etc. varies depending on the effects.
In the study, the impact of the Aegean Sea Earthquake that occurred on November 30, 2020, on TUSAGA was investigated. For this purpose, 7 TUSAGA stations located in the earthquake-affected area were selected. The 24-hour RINEX data for these stations were obtained both 15 days before and after the earthquake. The 24-hour RINEX data of 7 TUSAGA were processed using the GAMIT/GLOBK, based on 14 IGS stations. Furthermore, the evaluations were repeated by dividing the 24-hour RINEX data into 2, 4, and 12-hour intervals. In the evaluation, the GPS+GLONASS+Galileo (MIX) satellite configuration was utilized. The daily solutions obtained to reveal the effect of the earthquake are divided into two parts as before/after the earthquake. For each of TUSAGA stations, pre- and post-earthquake coordinates and RMSE were calculated. With statistical tests, whether the changes in the points are significant or not, the amount and direction of the changes were determined with 95% statistical confidence. As a result, it was concluded that the changes before/after the earthquake were mostly in the MNTS, which is the closest to the earthquake base, the changes in the points generally decrease as you move away from the earthquake center, and the evaluation before/after the earthquake can be made more healthy as the observation time increases. In addition, 30-day coordinates were examined through time series, and only the graph of the change in MNTS was given since it was the closest station to the epicenter of the earthquake.

Keywords

The Aegean Sea Earthquake, Galileo, GLONASS, GPS

References

• A. Kürçer, H. Elmacı, F. Savaş, Ö. Kayadibi, “30 Ekim 2020 Ege Denizi Depremi (Mw 6,9) üzerine bir değerlendirme,” MTA Doğal Kaynaklar ve Ekonomi Bülteni, vol. 30, pp. 57–75, 2020.
• Y. Yılmaz, “Ege Bölgesinin Aktif Tektoniği,” in Batı Anadolu’nun Depremselliği Sempozyumu, 2000, pp. 3–14.
• S. Yaprak, O. Yildirim, and C. Inal, “Determination of 2011 Van/Turkey earthquake (M = 7.2) effects from measurements of CORS-TR network,” Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 132–144, 2014, doi: 10.1080/19475705.2013.789453.
• C. Satirapod, W. J. F. Simons, and C. Promthong, “Monitoring Deformation of Thai Geodetic Network due to the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman and 2005 Nias Earthquakes by GPS,” Journal of Surveying Engineering, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 83–88, 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9453(2008)134:3(83).
• G. Wang and T. Soler, “Using OPUS for Measuring Vertical Displacements in Houston, Texas,” Journal of Surveying Engineering, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 126–134, 2013, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000103.
• M. Li, W. Li, R. Fang, C. Shi, and Q. Zhao, “Real-time high-precision earthquake monitoring using single-frequency GPS receivers,” GPS Solutions, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 27–35, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10291-013-0362-4.
• G. Wang, Y. Bao, Y. Cuddus, X. Jia, J. Serna, and Q. Jing, “A methodology to derive precise landslide displacement time series from continuous GPS observations in tectonically active and cold regions: a case study in Alaska,” Natural Hazards, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 1939–1961, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1684-z.
• A. Richter et al., “Crustal deformation across the Southern Patagonian Icefield observed by GNSS,” Earth Planet Sci Lett, vol. 452, pp. 206–215, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.07.042.
• E. Gunawan, S. Widiyantoro, Zulfakriza, I. Meilano, and C. Pratama, “Postseismic deformation following the 2 July 2013 Mw 6.1 Aceh, Indonesia, earthquake estimated using GPS data,” J Asian Earth Sci, vol. 177, pp. 146–151, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2019.03.020.
• F. Jouanne et al., “Postseismic deformation following the April 25, 2015 Gorkha earthquake (Nepal): Afterslip versus viscous relaxation,” J Asian Earth Sci, vol. 176, pp. 105–119, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2019.02.009.
• D. Baysal, B. Aktuğ, and A. Koçyiğit, “GPS Nokta Koordinatlarındaki Zamana Bağlı Değişimlerin Analizi ve Yorumu: İzmir Bölgesinde Uygulama,” Harita Dergisi, vol. 144, pp. 29–39, Jul. 2010.
• T. Gündoğan, “Galileo Uydu sisteminin Nokta Konumlamaya Etkisi,” Graduate Education Institute, Konya, 2023.
• R. M. Parameswaran, R. Grapenthin, M. E. West, and A. Fozkos, “Interchangeable Use of GNSS and Seismic Data for Rapid Earthquake Characterization: 2021 Chignik, Alaska, Earthquake,” Seismological Research Letters, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 1367–1378, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1785/0220220357.
• S. Baselga and J. Najder, “Automated detection of discontinuities in EUREF permanent GNSS network stations due to earthquake events,” Survey Review, vol. 54, no. 386, pp. 420–428, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00396265.2021.1964230.
• S. A. Younes, “Study of crustal deformation in Egypt based on GNSS measurements,” Survey Review, vol. 55, no. 391, pp. 338–349, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/00396265.2022.2099690.
• H.-U. Kim and T.-S. Bae, “Monitoring of Possible Activities of Yangsan Fault Zone Using GNSS,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13031862.
• S. Joshi, S. Kannaujiya, and U. Joshi, “Analysis of GNSS Data for Earthquake Precursor Studies Using IONOLAB-TEC in the Himalayan Region,” Quaternary, vol. 6, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.3390/quat6020027.
• M. J. Fuchs, M. Rexer, and F. Schaider, “Detection and analysis of seismic induced GNSS station motion in a North American network following the 2017 Chiapas earthquake,” J Geodyn, vol. 149, p. 101881, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2021.101881.