Recent tectonic features of the central part Bolu-Corum of the North Anatolian Fault

Year 2015, , 77 - 83, 01.07.2015

Hakan Yavasoglu Mehmet Nurullah Alkan Ibrahim Murat Ozulu Veli Ilci Fazli Engin Tombus Kayhan Aladogan Murat Sahin Ibrahim Tiryakioglu Serhat Oguzhan Kivrak

https://doi.org/10.17350/HJSE19030000011

Cited By: 3

Abstract

After the 1999 Izmit and Düzce earthquakes, the earth science studies increase on the NAF to better understand mechanism and to monitor the motion of it. Monitoring such motion can be achieved by the instrumental tools or techniques like GPS, InSAR, LIDAR, creep meter, etc. The GPS observations showed that while the NW-SE trending section of the NAF between Karlıova and Vezirköprü has nearly strike slip mechanism, the NE-SW trending section of the NAF between Vezirköprü and Bolu has transpressive character. While the fault-parallel velocities have been estimated from just a few GPS vectors available in the region, little is known about the fault-perpendicular component of the regional velocity. The rate of conversion and how it varies along strike are not known due to the sparsely distributed GPS benchmarks in the region. At the same time, the aseismic fault creep determined using InSAR has needed to proof and improve by other techniques and tools. For this propose the new project has been started to determine quantitatively the rate of convergence and its variation along segment of the NAF between Bolu and Çorum. In this study, we focus on the Bolu-Çorum segment of the NAFZ using GPS technique. The main aim of this study is determination of creep rate with geodetic measurements and combination of the data obtained from seismology, geodesy and geophysics to understand fault mechanism. Therefore, in this paper we discuss tectonic phenomena on the central part of the NAFZ and present the first results of the project

Keywords

Creep, GPS, Deformation, Nort Anatolian Fault, Earthquake.

References

• 1. Carpenter BM, Marone C, Saffer DM. Weakness of the San Andreas Fault revealed by samples from the active fault zone. Nature Geoscience 4 (2011) 251–254.
• 2. Cakir Z, Ergintav S., Ozener H, Dogan U, Akoglu AM, Meghraoui M,Reilinger R. Onset of aseismic creep on major strike-slip faults. Geology 40(12) (2012) 1115–1118.
• 3. Cetin E, Cakir Z, Meghraoui M, Ergintav S, Akoglu AM. Extent and distribution of aseismic slip on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) from Persistent Scatterer InSAR. Geochemistry Geophysics, Geosystems 15 (2014) 2883-2894.
• 4. Schmidt DA, Bürgmann R, Nadeau RM, d’Alessio M. Distribution of aseismic slip-rate on the Hayward fault inferred from seismic and geodetic data. Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (2005) B08406 doi:10.1029/2004JB003397.
• 5. Wei M, Sandwell D, Fialko Y. A silent M4.8 event of October 3-6, 2006, on the Superstition Hills Fault, Southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (2009) B07402, doi:10.1029/2008JB006135.
• 6. Thomas MY, Avouac JP, Champenois J, Lee JC, Kuo LC. Spatio-temporal evolution of seismic and aseismic slip on the Longitudinal Valley Fault, Taiwan. Journal of Geophysical Research 119 (2014) 5114-5139.
• 7. Ambraseys NN. Some characteristic features of the Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics 9 (1970) 143–165.
• 8. Cakir Z, Akoglu AM, Belabbes S, Ergintav S, Meghraoui M. Creeping along the Ismetpasa section of the North Anatolian Fault (Western Turkey): Rate and extent from InSAR. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 238 (2005) 225–234.
• 9. Karabacak V, Altunel E, Cakir Z. Monitoring aseismic creep along the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) using groundbased LIDAR. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 304 (2011) 64–70.
• 10. Deniz R, Aksoy A, Yalin D, Seeger H, Hirsch O, Bautsch P. Determination of crustal movement in Turkey by terrestrial geodetic methods. Journal of Geodynamics 18 (1993) 13–22.
• 11. Kutoglu HS, Akcin H. Determination of 30-year Creep on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault using an old geodetic network. Earth Planets Space 58 (2006) 937–942.
• 12. Aytun A. Creep measurements in the Ismetpasa region of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, in Multidisciplinary Approach to Earth-quake Prediction edited by Isikara AM and Vogel A vol. 2 (1982) 279–292 Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig Germany.
• 13. Eren K. Strain analysis along the North Anatolian fault by using geodetic surveys. Bulletin Géodésique 58 (1984) 137–149.
• 14. Kutoglu HS, Akcin H, Kemaldere H, Gormus KS. Triggered creep rate on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault. Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences 8 (2008) 1369–1373.
• 15. Kutoglu HS, Akcin H, Gundogdu O, Gormus KS, Koksal E. Relaxation on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault after Golcuk Mw 5 7.4 and Duzce Mw 5 7.2 shocks. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences 10 (2010) 2653–2657.
• 16. Ozener H, Dogru A, Turgut B. Quantifying aseismic creep on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (Turkey) by 6 years of GPS observations. Journal of Geodynamics 67 (2012) 72–77.
• 17. Kaneko Y, Fialko Y, Sandwell DT, Tong X, Furuya M.Interseismic deformation and creep along the central section of the North Anatolian fault (Turkey): InSAR observations and implications for rate-and-state friction properties. Journal of Geophysical Research 118(1) (2013) 316–331.
• 18. Savage JC., Svarc JL., and Yu SB. Postseismic relaxation and transient creep. Journal of Geophysical Research 110(B11) (2005) doi:10.1029/2005JB003687.
• 19. Yavasoglu H, Tari E, Tuysuz O, Cakir Z, Ergintav S. Determining and modelling tectonic movements along the central part of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) using geodetic measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 51(5) (2011) 339–343.
• 20. Peyret M, Masson F, Yavasoglu H, Ergintav S, Reilinger R. Present-day strain distribution across a segment of the central bend of the North Anatolian Fault Zone from a Persistent-Scatterers InSAR analysis of the ERS and Envisat archives. Geophysical Journal International 192(3) (2013) 929-945.
• 21. McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S, Georgiev I, Gurkan O, Hamburger M, Hurst K, Kahle H, Kastens K, Kekelidze G, King R, Kotzev V, Lenk O, Mahmoud S, Mishin A, Nadriya M, Ouzounis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksoz MN, Veis G. Global Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Geophysical Research 105 (2000) 5695–5719.
• 22. Reilinger R, McClusky S, Vernant P, Lawrence S, Ergintav S, Cakmak R, Ozener H, Kadirov F, Guliev I, Stepanyan R, Nadariya M, Hahubia G, Mahmoud S, Sakr K, ArRajehi A, Paradissis D, Al-Aydrus A, Prilepin M, Guseva T, Evren E, Dmitrotsa A, Filikov SV, Gomez F, Al-Ghazzi R, Karam G. GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa–Arabia, Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research Earth 111 (2006) doi: 10.1029/2005JB004051.
• 23. King RW, Bock Y. Documentation for the GAMIT GPS Analysis Software Release 10.1 (2003) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, USA.
• 24. Titus SJ, DeMets C, Tikoff B. Thirty-Five-Year Creep Rates for the Creeping Segment of the San Andreas Fault and the Effects of the 2004 Parkfield Earthquake: Constraints from Alignment Arrays, Continuous Global Positioning System, and Creepmeters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96(4B) (2006) 250-268.
• 25. Wessel P, Smith WHF. New improved version of Generic Mapping Tools released. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 79(47) (1998) 579.
• 26. http://earthquake.usgs.gov (Last viewed: 17.06.2015)