Advertisement

Evaluation of the GPS Precise Point Positioning technique during the 21 July 2017 Kos-Bodrum (East Aegean Sea) Mw 6.6 earthquake

  • Ali Hasan DoganEmail author
  • Nursu Tunalioglu
  • Bahattin Erdogan
  • Taylan Ocalan
Original Paper
  • 126 Downloads

Abstract

Precise Point Positioning (PPP) algorithms have been widely used in the Global Positioning System (GPS)-based applications. A PPP technique with a single receiver provides effective solutions where accurate absolute positioning is required. This paper provides the performance assessment of GPS PPP for detecting the displacements caused by an earthquake. For this purpose, the earthquake that occurred on 21 July 2017 at Kos-Bodrum with the impact of Mw 6.6 was investigated by analyzing the data of the permanent GPS stations located around the related region with the PPP technique. The location distances of these GPS stations range from 10 to 89 km to the epicenter of this earthquake. GPS data provided from seven permanent stations from the Continuously Operating Reference Stations-Turkey (CORS-TR) and local Bodrum CORS networks were processed to determine the co-seismic displacements during the earthquake. The data of these stations for days of year (DOYs) 200, 201, 202, and 203 were analyzed with post-process static PPP and kinematic PPP methods. GIPSY-OASIS II v6.4 was used for processing the data and all of the solutions were performed in the ITRF2008 reference frame. Two strategies were followed on the post-process static solutions. In the first strategy, 4-day data with 24-h observations were separately analyzed day by day. In the second strategy, the 24-h data were divided into 3-h duration, which is the minimum duration for optimum PPP solutions, and then the analyses were performed. When the displacements between DOYs 200 and 203 are considered in the 24-h data analysis, significant displacements have been observed through northwest direction in the northern stations whereas MUG1 is excluded. Moreover, there is significant displacement through the southeast direction in the station DATC located in the south of the epicenter. When the 3-h solutions are examined, displacements, especially on n and e directions, are observed starting from the solutions, which include Mw 6.6 earthquake. According to the kinematic PPP solutions, the effects of the Mw 6.6 earthquake can be seen clearly in the stations DATC, ORTA, TRKB, and YALI. Considering all outcomes, the PPP technique with both static and kinematic solutions provides effective results for detecting the displacements during the earthquake.

Keywords

GPS Static PPP Kinematic PPP Kos-Bodrum earthquake Displacement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Republic of Turkey General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre (TKGM), GEOTEKNIK-Geodesy and Electronic Instruments Ltd., Co., and The Association of Bodrum Geomatic Engineers for providing the GNSS/CORS data used in this study. We thank NASA JPL for the GIPSY-OASIS II software and precise GPS orbit products and IGS for TEC maps. The maps in this paper were produced using the public domain Generic Mapping Tools (GMT) software (Weissel and Smith 1995).

References

  1. Aktug B, Lenk O (2010) Yeni Gelişmeler Işığında Ağ Hiyerarşisi. Ölçü Süreleri ve Duyarlık Ölçütlerinin İncelenmesi Harita Dergisi 135:40–50Google Scholar
  2. Altiner Y, Söhne W, Güney C, Perlt J, Wang R, Muzli M (2013) A geodetic study of the 23 October 2011 Van, Turkey earthquake. Tectonophysics 588:118–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avallone A, Marzario M, Cirella A, Piatanesi A, Rovelli A, Di Alessandro C, D’Anastasio E, D’Agostino N, Giuliani R, Mattone M (2011) Very high rate (10 Hz) GPS seismology for moderate-magnitude earthquakes: the case of the Mw 6.3 L’Aquila (central Italy) event J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 116Google Scholar
  4. Calais E, Han J, DeMets C, Nocquet J (2006) Deformation of the North American plate interior from a decade of continuous GPS measurements. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111Google Scholar
  5. Cubuk-Sabuncu Y, Taymaz T, Fichtner A (2017) 3-D crustal velocity structure of western Turkey: constraints from full-waveform tomography. Phys Earth Planet Inter 270:90–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demir D, Dogan U (2014) Determination of crustal deformations based on GPS observing-session duration in Marmara region, Turkey. Adv Space Res 53:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ebner R (2008) Validation and application of free-online and commercial post-processing PPP packages. Master of Science, Graz University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. Ergintav S, Dogan U, Gerstenecker C, Cakmak R, Belgen A, Demirel H, Aydin C, Reilinger R (2007) A snapshot (2003–2005) of the 3D postseismic deformation for the 1999, M w= 7.4 İzmit earthquake in the Marmara Region, Turkey, by first results of joint gravity and GPS monitoring. J Geodyn 44:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gao Y, Shen X (2001) Improving convergence speed of carrier phase based Precise Point Positioning. Salt Lack City,Google Scholar
  10. Hammond WC, Thatcher W (2005) Northwest basin and range tectonic deformation observed with the Global Positioning System, 1999–2003. J Geophysic Res: Solid Earth 110Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman-Wellenhof B, Lichtenegger H, Wasle E (2008) GNSS—global navigation satellite systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and more Wien: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahveci M (2010) GPS/GNSS Gözlemlerini Değerlendirme Yöntemlerinde Son Gelişmeler HKM Jeodezi. Jeoinformasyon ve Arazi Yönetimi Dergisi 1:3–10Google Scholar
  13. Karasözen E, Nissen E, Buyukpınar P, Cambaz MD, Kahraman M, Kalkan Ertan E, Abgarmi B, Bergman E, Ghods A, Ozacar AA (2018) The 2017 July 20 M w 6.6 Bodrum–Kos earthquake illuminates active faulting in the Gulf of Gökova, SW Turkey. Geophys J Int 214:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kedar S, Hajj G.A, Wilson B.D, Heflin M.B (2003) The effect of the second order GPS ionospheric correction on receiver positions, Geophys Res Lett, 30Google Scholar
  15. Kouba J (2003) Measuring seismic waves induced by large earthquakes with GPS. Stud Geophys Geod 47:741–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kouba J, Héroux P (2001) Precise point positioning using IGS orbit and clock products. GPS Solutions 5:12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kreemer C, Blewitt G, Klein EC (2014) A geodetic plate motion and global strain rate model. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 15:3849–3889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson KM (2009) GPS seismology. J Geod 83:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larson KM, Miyazaki S (2008) Resolving static offsets from high-rate GPS data: the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake. Earth Planets and Space 60:801–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li T, Wang J, Laurichesse D (2014) Modeling and quality control for reliable precise point positioning integer ambiguity resolution with GNSS modernization. GPS Solutions 18:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martín A, Anquela A, Dimas-Pagés A, Cos-Gayón F (2015) Validation of performance of real-time kinematic PPP. A possible tool for deformation monitoring. Measurement 69:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohta Y, Meilano I, Sagiya T, Kimata F, Hirahara K (2006) Large surface wave of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake captured by the very long baseline kinematic analysis of 1-Hz GPS data. Earth Planets and Space 58:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohta Y, Ohzono M., Miura S, Iinuma T, Tachibana K, Takatsuka K, Miyao K, Sato T, Umino N (2008) Coseismic fault model of the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake deduced by a dense GPS network Earth, planets and space 60:1197–1201Google Scholar
  24. Reilinger R, McClusky S, Paradissis D, Ergintav S, Vernant P (2010) Geodetic constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Aegean region and strain accumulation along the Hellenic subduction zone. Tectonophysics 488:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rizos C, Janssen V, Roberts C, Grinter T (2012) Precise Point Positioning: is the era of differential GNSS positioning drawing to an end?Google Scholar
  26. Saltogianni V, Gianniou M, Taymaz T, Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Stiros S (2015) Fault slip source models for the 2014 Mw 6.9 Samothraki-Gökçeada earthquake (North Aegean trough) combining geodetic and seismological observations. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120:8610–8622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Savage J, Gan W, Prescott W, Svarc J (2004) Strain accumulation across the coast ranges at the latitude of San Francisco, 1994–2000 J Geophysic Res: Solid Earth 109Google Scholar
  28. Shi C, Lou Y, Zhang H, Zhao Q, Geng J, Wang R, Fang R, Liu J (2010) Seismic deformation of the M w 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake from high-rate GPS observations. Adv Space Res 46:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiryakioglu I (2015) Geodetic aspects of the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake in Turkey. Geomatics Nat Hazards and Risk 6:76–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tiryakioglu I, Floyd M, Erdogan S, Gulal E, Ergintav S, McClusky S, Reilinger R (2013) GPS constraints on active deformation in the Isparta Angle region of SW Turkey. Geophys J Int 195:1455–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiryakioglu I, Yigit CO, Yavasoglu H, Saka MH, Alkan RM (2017) The determination of interseismic, coseismic and postseismic deformations caused by the Gökçeada-Samothraki earthquake (2014, Mw: 6.9) based on GNSS data. J Afr Earth Sci 133:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tiryakioglu I, Akug B, Yigit CO, Yavasoglu HH, Sozbilir H, Ozkaymak C, Poyraz F, Taneli E, Bulut F, Dogru A, Ozener H (2018) Slip distribution and source parameters of the 20 July 2017 Bodrum-Kos earthquake (Mw6. 6) from GPS observations. Geodin Acta 30:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weissel P, Smith W (1995) New version of the generic mapping tools released. EOS Trans Am Geophys Un 76:329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu P, Shi C, Fang R, Liu J, Niu X, Zhang Q, Yanagidani T (2013) High-rate precise point positioning (PPP) to measure seismic wave motions: an experimental comparison of GPS PPP with inertial measurement units. J Geod 87:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yavasoğlu H, Tarı E, Tuysuz O, Cakir Z, Ergintav S (2011) Determining and modeling tectonic movements along the central part of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) using geodetic measurements. J Geodyn 51:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yigit CO (2016) Experimental assessment of post-processed kinematic Precise Point Positioning method for structural health monitoring. Geomatics Nat Hazards and Risk 7:360–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yolsal-Cevikbilen S, Taymaz T, Helvacı C (2014) Earthquake mechanisms in the gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and the Simav Region (western Turkey): neotectonics, seismotectonics and geodynamic implications. Tectonophysics 635:100–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zumberge J, Heflin M, Jefferson D, Watkins M, Webb FH (1997) Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102:5005–5017CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Geomatic EngineeringYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations