Advertisement

Inverting gravity anomalies over the Burdur sedimentary basin, SW Turkey

  • Erdinc OksumEmail author
  • Mustafa Nuri Dolmaz
  • Luan Thanh Pham
Original Study
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

The study area comprises the NE–SW trending Burdur Basin situated at the tectonically active northeastern part of the Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone (FBFZ), SW Turkey. The basin demonstrates a half graben geometry hosting lacustrine sedimentary deposits from the Late Miocene onward and is bounded by normal faults on its southern side namely the Burdur Fault Zone. In this study, gravity anomalies over the Burdur sedimentary basin were inverted for the first time in terms of mapping its basement relief. The algorithm used for inverting the gravity anomalies provides accuracy depth estimates by incorporating an exponential increase in density with depth at its inversion procedure. Thus the obtained depth configuration yields also a major improvement on the results of depth content of the sedimentary infill reported previously by other studies that used a constant density contrast in their interpretation. Along the east of Burdur Fault from south to north, the basement depth to the southern end of Burdur Basin is ca 1.8 km and gets shallower to ca 0.6 km towards the north around the Burdur city. The deepest section of the basin is ca 3.2 km to the western side of the Burdur Fault close the southern end of the Burdur Lake. Towards north, out of the depression area of the Burdur Basin, the sedimentary infill is about in range of 0.4–1.2 km. The lateral limits of the basin structure have also been outlined by a recent edge detection method based on the logistic function of the total horizontal gradient (LTHG). The LTHG map related to the Burdur Basin shows maximal amplitudes trending NE–SW as two major lines that clearly delineates the segments of the Burdur Fault Zone to the S-SE of Burdur Lake. The inverted basin depth model by a cross-section perpendicular to the regional strike of the basin represents two-step depositional area of the sedimentary fills confirming a geometry of a half graben structure.

Keywords

Bouguer gravity anomaly Gravity inversion Burdur sedimentary basin Basement depth Edge detection Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors record with pleasure their sincere thanks to the editor Viktor Wesztergom and the two anonymous reviewers for their very constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript. We also thank the General Directorate of the Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) Turkey for use of the gravity data.

References

  1. Alçiçek MC (2007) Tectonic development of an orogen-top rift recorded by its terrestrial sedimentation pattern: the Neogene Eşen Basin of southwestern Anatolia, Turkey. Sediment Geol 200:117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alçiçek MC, Brogi A, Capezzuoli E, Liotta D, Meccheri M (2013) Superimposed basin formation during Neogene–Quaternary extensional tectonics in SW-Anatolia (Turkey): insights from the kinematics of the Dinar Fault Zone. Tectonophysics 608:713–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JG, Zeng Y, Sucuoglu H (2001) Analysis of accelerations from the 1 October 1995 Dinar, Turkey, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(6):1433–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelier J, Lybéris N, Le Pichon X, Barrier E, Huchon P (1982) The tectonic development of the Hellenic Arc and the Sea of Crete: a synthesis. Tectonophysics 86(1–3):159–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ates A, Kearey P, Tufan S (1999) New gravity and magnetic maps of Turkey. Geophys J Int 136:499–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Athy LF (1930) Density, porosity and compaction of sedimentary rocks. Bull Assoc Pet Geol 14:1–24Google Scholar
  7. Barbosa VCF, Silva JBC, Medeiros WE (1997) Gravity inversion of basement relief using approximate equality constraints on depths. Geophysics 62(6):1745–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbosa VCF, Silva JBC, Medeiros WE (1999) Gravity inversion of a discontinuous relief stabilized by weighted smoothness constraints on depth. Geophysics 64(5):1429–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbosa VCF, Menezes PTL, Silva JBC (2007) Gravity data as a tool for detecting faults: in-depth enhancement of subtle Almada’s basement faults, Brazil. Geophysics 72(3):B59–B68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barka A, Reilinger R, Saroglu F, Sengor AMC (1995) The Isparta Angle: its importance in the neotectonics of the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Proc Int Earth Sci Colloq Aegean Region (IESCA) 1:3–18Google Scholar
  11. Beyhan G, Keskinsezer A (2016) Investigation of the gravity data from Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone using the Euler deconvolution technique. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour 2:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blumenthal M (1963) Le système structural du Taurus sud-anatolien. In Livre à mémoire du Professeur P. Fallot, Mémoire de la Société. Géol France 2:611–662Google Scholar
  13. Bott MHP (1960) The use of rapid digital computing methods for direct gravity interpretation of sedimentary basins. Geophys J R Astron Soc 3:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozcu M, Yağmurlu F, Şenttürk M (2007) Some neotectonic and paleosismological features of the Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone, SW Anatolia. CGET J Geol Eng 31(1):25–48Google Scholar
  15. Chai Y, Hinze WJ (1988) Gravity inversion of an interface above which the density contrast varies exponentially with depth. Geophysics 53:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chakravarthi V, Sundararajan N (2005) Gravity modeling of 2.5-D sedimentary basins—a case of variable density. Comput Geosci 31:820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chakravarthi V, Sundararajan N (2007) 3D gravity inversion of basement relief—a depth dependent density approach. Geophysics 72(2):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chakravarthi V, Ramamma B, Venkat Reddy T (2013a) Gravity anomaly modeling of sedimentary basins by means of multiple structures and exponential density contrastdepth variations: a space domain approach. J Geol Soc India 82(5):561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chakravarthi V, Rajeswara Sastry S, Ramamma B (2013b) MODTOHAFSD—a GUI based JAVA code for gravity analysis of strike limited sedimentary basins by means of growing bodies with exponential density contrast–depth variation: a space domain approach. Comput Geosci 56:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chakravarthi V, Pramod Kumar M, Ramamma B, Rajeswara Sastry S (2016) Automatic gravity modeling of sedimentary basins by means of polygonal source geometry and exponential density contrast variation: two space domain based algorithms. J Appl Geophys 124:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen AG, Zhou TF, Liu DJ, Zhang S (2017) Application of an enhanced theta-based flter for potential feld edge detection: a case study of the luzong ore district. Chin J Geophys 60(2):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper GRJ, Cowan DR (2006) Enhancing potential feld data using flters based on the local phase. Comput Geosci 32:1585–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cordell L (1973) Gravity anomalies using an exponential density-depth function—San Jacinto Graben, California. Geophysics 38:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cordell L, Henderson RG (1968) Iterative three-dimensional solution of gravity anomaly data using a digital computer. Geophysics 33:596–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dolmaz MN (2007) An aspect of the subsurface structure of the Burdur–Isparta area, SW Anatolia, based on gravity and aeromagnetic data and some tectonic implications. Earth Planets Space 59(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dolmaz MN, Hisarlı ZM, Orbay N (2003) Interpretation of Bouguer gravity data of Burdur Basin. Istanb Earth Sci Rev 16(1):23–32Google Scholar
  27. Eyidogan H, Barka A (1996) The 1 October 1995 Dinar earthquake, SW Turkey. Terra Nova 8:479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferreira FJF, Souza J, Bongiolo ABS, Castro LG (2013) Enhancement of the total horizontal gradient of magnetic anomalies using the tilt angle. Geophysics 78(3):J33–J41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Granser H (1987) Three-dimensional interpretation of gravity data from sedimentary basins using an exponential density-depth function. Geophys Prospect 35:1030–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayward AB (1984) Miocene clastic sedimentation related to the emplacement of the Lycian Nappes and the Antalya Complex, S.W. Turkey. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 17(1):287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howell LG, Heintz KO, Barry A (1966) The development and use of a high precision downhole gravity meter. Geophysics 31:764–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalyoncuoğlu ÜY, Elitok Ö, Dolmaz MN, Anadolu NC (2011) Geophysical and geological imprints of southern Neotethyan subduction between Cyprus and the Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. J Geodyn 52(1):70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaymakcı N, Langereis C, Özkaptan M, Özacar AA, Gülyüz E, Uzel B, Sözbilir H (2018) Paleomagnetic evidence for upper plate response to a STEP fault, SW Anatolia. Earth Planet Sci Lett 498:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koçyiğit A (1984) Intra-plate neotectonic development in Southwestern Turkey and adjacent areas. Bull Geol Soc Turk 27:1–16Google Scholar
  35. Le Pichon X, Angelier J (1979) The Hellenic arc and trench system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics 60:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Litinsky VA (1989) Concept of effective density: key to gravity depth de-terminations for sedimentary basins. Geophysics 54:1474–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, Nadariya M, Ouzounis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksoz MN, Veis G (2000) Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. J Geophys Res 105:5695–5719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mendonca CA (2004) Inversion of gravity field inclination to map the basement relief of sedimentary basins. Geophysics 69:1240–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller HG, Singh V (1994) Potential field tilt a new concept for location of potential field sources. J Appl Geophys 32:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murthy IVR, Rao DB (1979) Gravity anomalies of two-dimensional bodies of irregular cross-section with density contrast varying with depth. Geophysics 44:1525–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murthy IVR, Rao SJ (1989) A Fortran 77 program for inverting gravity anomalies of two-dimensional basement structures. Comput Geosci 15:1149–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Över S, Yılmaz H, Pınar A, Özden S, Ünlügenç UC, Kamacı Z (2013) Plio-quaternary stress state in the Burdur Basin, SW-Turkey. Tectonophysics 588:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ozcelik M (2016) Evaluation of soft sediment deformation structures along the Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone, SW Turkey. J Earth Syst Sci 125(2):343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özkaptan M, Kaymakci N, Langereis CG, Gülyüz E, Özacar AA, Uzel B, Sözbilir H (2018) Age and kinematics of the Burdur Basin: inferences for the existence of the Fethiye Burdur Fault Zone in SW Anatolia (Turkey). Tectonophysics 744:256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pallero JLG, Fernandez-Martinez JL, Bonvalot S, Fudym O (2015) Gravity inversion and uncertainty assessment of basement relief via particle swarm optimization. J Appl Geophys 116:180–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Penck W (1918) Die Tectonische Grundzüge Westkleinasiens. Engelhorns Nachf., StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  47. Pham LT, Oksum E, Do TD (2018) GCH_gravinv: a MATLAB-based program for inverting gravity anomalies over sedimentary basins. Comput Geosci 120:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pham LT, Oksum E, Do TD (2019) Edge enhancement of potential feld data using the logistic function and the total horizontal gradient. Acta Geod Geophys 54:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pınar A (1998) Source inversion of the 1 October, 1995, Dinar earthquake (Ms = 6.1): a rupture model with implications for seismotectonics in SW Turkey. Tectonophysics 292:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Price SP (1989) Sedimentation and neotectonics of the Burdur region, SW Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  51. Price SP, Scott B (1991) Pliocene Burdur Basin, SW Turkey; tectonics, seismicity and sedimentation. J Geol Soc Lond 148:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Price SP, Scott B (1994) Fault block rotations at the edge of a zone of continental extension: southwest Turkey. J Struct Geol 16:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rao DB (1986) Modeling of sedimentary basins from gravity anomalies with variable density contrast. Geophys J R Astron Soc 84:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rao DB (1990) Analysis of gravity anomalies of sedimentary basins by an asymmetrical trapezoidal model with quadratic density function. Geophysics 55:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rao DB, Prakash MJ, Ramesh Babu N (1990) 3-D and 2 1/2-D modeling of gravity anomalies with variable density contrast. Geophys Prospect 38:411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sahin S (2004) Distribution of stress in southwest Anatolia and its influence on the Burdur Fault. Istanb Earth Sci Rev 17(1):1–9Google Scholar
  57. Silva JBC, Santos DF (2017) Efficient gravity inversion of basement relief using a versatile modeling algorithm. Geophysics 82:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Silva JBC, Costa DCL, Barbosa VCF (2006) Gravity inversion of basement relief and estimation of density contrast variation with depth. Geophysics 71:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silva JBC, Oliveira AS, Barbosa VCF (2010) Gravity inversion of 2D basement relief using entropic regularization. Geophysics 75(3):29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silva JBC, Santos DF, Gomes KP (2014) Fast basement relief inversion. Geophysics 79(5):79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spector A, Grant FS (1970) Statistical models for interpreting aeromagnetic data. Geophysics 35:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Talwani M, Worzel J, Ladisman M (1959) Rapid gravity computations for two dimensional bodies with application to the Mendocino submarine fracture zone. J Geophys Res 64:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taymaz T, Price SP (1992) The 12.05.1971. Burdur earthquake sequence: a synthesis of seismological and geological observations. Geophys J Int 108:589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taymaz T, Jackson J, McKenzie D (1991) Active tectonics of the north and central Aegean Sea. Geophys J Int 106:433–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Temiz H, Poisson A, Andireux J, Barka A (1997) Kinematics of the plio-quaternary Burdur–Dinar cross-fault system in SW Anatolia (Turkey). Ann Tecton XI 1–2:102–113Google Scholar
  66. Ten Veen HJ, Woodside JM, Zitter TAC, Dumond JF, Mascle J, Volkonskaia A (2004) Neotectonic evolution of the Anaximander Mountain at the junction of the Hellenic and Cyprus arcs. Tectonophysics 391:35–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Hinsbergen DJJ, Kaymakci N, Spakman W, Torsvik TH (2010) Reconciling the geological history of western Turkey with plate circuits and mantle tomography. Earth Planet Sci Lett 297:674–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Verduzco B, Fairhead JD, Green CM, MacKenzie C (2004) New insights into magnetic derivatives for structural mapping. Lead Edge 23(2):116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yagmurlu F, Savascin Y, Ergun M (1997) Relation of alkaline volcanism and active tectonism within the evolution of the Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. J Geol 105:717–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhou X (2009) 3D vector gravity potential and line integrals for the gravity anomaly of a rectangular prism with 3D variable density contrast. Geophysics 74(6):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhou X (2013) Gravity inversion of 2D bedrock topography for heterogeneous sedimentary basins based on line integral and maximum difference reduction methods. Geophys Prospect 61(1):220–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical Engineering, Engineering FacultySüleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of PhysicsVNU University of ScienceHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations