DEUNET (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sismolojik Gözlem Ağı): Batı Anadolu’da Yeni Bir Yerel Sismik Ağ ile İzmir ve Çevresinin Depremselliği

Öz

Yerel ve bölgesel sismik ağlar, Batı Anadolu gibi karmaşık tektonizmaya sahip bölgeleri daha iyi incelemek için gereklidir. Yerel sismik ağlar, hem bilim insanlarına hem de ilgili makamlara kritik veriler sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca, Batı Anadolu'nun en büyük şehri olan İzmir'de olması gereken erken uyarı sistemleri için bir temel olarak da değerlendirilmektedir. 15 Şubat 2019'da yeni bir yerel ağ olan DEUNET, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi ve Jeofizik Mühendisliği Bölümü'nde, büyük depremlerin yanı sıra mikro deprem aktivitelerini de gözlemlemek, İzmir ve çevresi hakkında yeni ve ayrıntılı bilgiler elde etmek için kuruldu. DEUNET deprem gözlem ağından elde edilen sonuçlar, bu dönemde meydana gelen yerel, bölgesel ve telesismik depremleri tespit etme ve konumlandırma yeteneğine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Yapılan değerlendirmelere göre DEUNET istasyon ağının kurulumundan günümüze, İzmir İl’inin özellikle kuzeydoğu ve güneybatısında yoğun bir sismik aktivite gözlenmiştir. Gözlemlediğimiz yoğun sismik aktivitenin nedeni de; Ege Denizi-Sisam ve Manisa depremlerinden dolayı meydana gelen yoğun artçı aktivitesidir. Bu depremler İzmir İl’i ve çevresini etkilemiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında istasyon ağı tarafından kaydedilen depremlerin odak mekanizması çözümleri de incelenmiştir. Ayrıca kaydedilen depremler kullanılarak istasyon lokasyonlarının zemin özellikleri araştırılmıştır. Batı Anadolu bölgesinde sismoloji eğitimi veren tek üniversite Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi olduğundan, bu ağın sismoloji eğitiminde de önemli katkıları olmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DEUNET
• sismik ağ
• deprem
• sismotektonik
• sismik aktivite

DEUNET (Dokuz Eylul University Seismological Observation Network): Seismicity of Izmir and Its Surroundings with A New Local Seismic Network in Western Anatolia

Öz

Local and regional networks are needed to better examine the regions with complex tectonism, such as western Anatolia. Local seismic networks may provide critical data to both scientists and local authorities. They are also required as a base for future early warning systems which Izmir, the largest city in the western Anatolia, does not have one. With the support of Dokuz Eylul University, Engineering Faculty and the Department of Geophysical Engineering the installation of a new local network DEUNET established on February 15, 2019, to obtain new and detailed information about Izmir and its surroundings by observing microearthquake activity as well as major and damaging earthquakes in the region. The obtained maps indicate that the network in this period has the capability to detect and locate local, regional and teleseismic earthquakes occurred. According to the results, an intense seismic activity was observed in the northeast and southwest of the station network from its establishment to the present. These recent active areas affected by two large earthquakes which one is called Aegean Sea – Samos earthquake and the other is Manisa earthquake occurred and affected Izmir City and its surroundings. We also examined the focal mechanism solutions of some recorded earthquakes in this paper. In addition, the ground characteristics of the station locations were examined using the recorded earthquakes. Since Dokuz Eylul University is the only university in Western Anatolia that offers seismology education, this network will also provide significant benefits for seismology education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• DEUNET
• seismic network
• earthquake
• seismotectonic
• seismic activity

Kaynakça

1. Sengor, A., Gorur, N., Saroglu, F. 1985. Strike-slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as case study. In: Bittle KT, Christe-Blick N (ed) Strike slip formation and sedimation, Soc. Economic Paleontologist and Mineralogists Special Publication , 37 pp 227-265.
2. Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., McKenzie, D. 1991. Active tectonics of the north and central Aegean Sea, Geophysical Journal International, 106: 433-490.
3. McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., et al. 2000. Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105:5695-5720.
4. Aktuğ, B., & Kiliçoğlu, A. 2006. Recent crustal deformation of İzmir, western Anatolia and surrounding regions as deduced from repeated GPS measurements and strain field, Journal of Geodynamics,41:471-484.
5. Sozbilir, H., Sümer, Ö., Uzel, B., Ersoy, Y., Erkül, F., İnci, U., Helvacı, C., Özkaymak, Ç. 2009. The seismic geomorphology of the Sığacık Gulf (Izmir) earthquakes of October 17 to 20, 2005 and their relationships with the stress field of their western Anatolian region, Geological Bulletin of Turkey, 52:217-238.
6. Papadimitriou, E., E., & Sykes, L.,R. 2001. Evolution of the stress field in the Northern Aegean Sea (Greece). Geophysical Journal International, 146:747-759.
7. Karakostas, V., G., Papadimitriou, E., E., Karakaisis, G.,F., Papazachos, C., B., Scordilis, E.,M., Vargemezis, G, Aidona, E. 2003. The 2001 Skyros, Northern Aegean, Greece, earthquake sequence: off–fault aftershocks, tectonic implications, and seismicity triggering, Geophys. Res. Lett.,30. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL15814.
8. Tan, O., Papadimitriou, E., E., Pabucçu, Z., Karakostas, V., Yörük, A., Leptokaropoulos, K. 2014. A detailed analysis of microseismicity in Samos and Kusadasi (Eastern Aegean Sea) areas, Acta Geophys, 62:1283-1309. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-013-0194-1.

9. Becker, T. W., and C. Faccenna 2011. Mantle conveyor beneath the Tethyan collisional belt, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 310(3), 453–461.
10. Shaw, B. and Jackson, J. 2010. Earthquake mechanisms and active tectonics of the Hellenic subduction zone. Geophysical Journal International, 181: 966-984.
11. Paradisopoulou et al. 2010 Paradisopoulou, P.M., Papadimitriou, E.E., Karakostas, V.G. et al. 2010. Seismic Hazard Evaluation in Western Turkey as Revealed by Stress Transfer and Time-dependent Probability Calculations. Pure Appl. Geophys. 167(8-9), 1013–1048.
12. Sayıl, N. 2013. Long-term earthquake prediction in western Anatolia with the time- and magnitude-predictable model. , 66(2), 809–834.
13. Papazachos, B.C., Karakaisis, G.F., Scordilis, E.M. 2014. Time dependent seismicity in the continental fracture system. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica e Applicata 55: 617-639.
14. Chorozoglou, D., Papadimitriou, E. 2019. Monitoring earthquake network measures between main shocks in Greece. J Seismol 23, 505–519 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09820-7.
15. Coban, K.H., Sayil, N. 2019. Evaluation of earthquake recurrences with different distribution models in western Anatolia. J Seismol 23, 1405–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09876-5.
16. Eyidogan, H. 1988. Rates of crustal deformation in western Turkey as deduced from major earthquakes. Tectonophysics, 148:83-92.
17. Polat, O., Gok, E., & Yılmaz, D. 2008. Earthquake hazard of Aegean Extension Region, Turkey, Turkish Journal of Earth Science, 17:593-614.
18. Gok, E., & Polat, O. 2014. An assessment of the microseismic activity and focal mechanisms of the Izmir (Smyrna) area from a new local network, IzmirNET, Tectonophysics, 635:154-164.
19. Emre, O., Duman, T.Y., Ozalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, S., & Saroglu, F. 2013. The Directorate General of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA). 1:250 000 scale active fault map of Turkey series, Ankara, Türkiye.
20. AFAD, 2020.Turkish Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency. Samos earthquake. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/
21. Bozkurt, E. 2003. Origin of NE-trending basins in western Turkey,Geodinamica Acta,16, 61-81.
22. Havskov, J., Voss, P., H., Ottemöller, L. 2020. Seismological observatory software: 30 yr of SEISAN, Seismological Research Letters, 91:1846-1852. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190313.
23. Helmholtz-Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences and gempa GmbH, The SeisComP seismological software package, GFZ Data Services, 2008, https://doi.org/ 10.5880/GFZ.2.4.2020.003.
24. Snoke, J., A., Munsey, J., W., Teague, A.,G., Bollinger, G.,A. 1984. A program for focal mechanism determination by combined use of polarity and SV-P amplitude ratio data. Earthq., Notes 55.
25. Wessel, P., Smith, W., H., F., Scharroo, R., Luis, J., and Wobbe, F. 2018. Generic Mapping Tools: Improved Version Released, EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, 94(45): 409-410.
26. Farr,T., G., Rosen, P., A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., et.al. 2007.The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, Reviews of Geophysics , 45(2), 19-20.
27. National Geophysical Data Center, Two-minute gridded global relief data (ETOPO2) v2, National Centers for Environmental Information 2006. https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ngdc.mgg.dem:301.Lermo, J., Chavez-Garcia, F.J., 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 83 (5), 1574-1594.
28. Styron, R., Pagani, M. 2020.The GEM Global Active Faults Database, Earthquake Spectra, 36, 1, pp. 160–180, doi:10.1177/8755293020944182.
29. Lermo, J., Chavez-Garcia, F.J., 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 83 (5), 1574-1594.
30. Özer, Ç. ve Polat, O. 2017. İzmir ve Çevresinin 1-B Sismik Hız Yapısının Belirlenmesi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi , 19 (55) , 147-168.