Acta Geophysica

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 209–238 | Cite as

Characteristics of seismic activity in the Western, Central and Eastern parts of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey: Temporal and spatial analysis



Characteristics of seismic activity along the North Anatolian Fault Zone are analyzed between 1970 and 2010. Magnitude completeness changes between 2.7 and 2.9 in the North Anatolian Fault Zone. The frequency-magnitude distribution of earthquakes is well represented with a b-value typically close to 1. A clear decrease in temporal distribution of b-value is observed before the strong main shocks. Correlation dimension values are relatively large and the seismic activity is more clustered at larger scales in the North Anatolian Fault Zone.

A statistical assessment is made in order to detect the current seismic quiescence anomalies in the beginning of 2010. Eight significant anomalous zones throughout the North Anatolian Fault Zone are detected. These are centered at: (1) 41.08°N–28.58°E (around Silivri), (2) 41.47°N–29.51°E (in the Black Sea), (3) 40.69°N–29.78°E (including Izmit), (4) 40.26°N–26.46°E (around Gelibolu, Canakkale), (5) 40.59°N–31.03°E (including Duzce fault), (6) 40.86°N–35.30°E (around Amasya), (7) 39.48°N–39.74°E (around Erzincan), and (8) 39.06°N–40.50°E (around Bingol).

Key words

North Anatolian Fault Zone seismic activity fractal analysis decluster seismic quiescence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aki, K. (1965), Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = abM and its confidence limits, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ. 43, 237–239.Google Scholar
  2. Ambraseys, N.N. (1988a), Engineering seismology: Part I, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 17,1, 1–50, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290170101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambraseys, N.N. (1988b), Engineering seismology: Part II, Earthq. Eng. Struc. Dyn. 17,1, 51–105, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290170102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys, N.N. (2002), The seismic activity of the Marmara Sea Region over the last 2000 years, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92,1, 1–18, DOI: 10.1785/0120000843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambraseys, N.N., and A. Zátopek (1968), The Varto Üstükran (Anatolia) earthquake of 19 August 1966 summary of a field report, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 58,1, 47–102.Google Scholar
  6. Awad, H., M. Mekkawi, G. Hassib, and M. Elbohoty (2005), Temporal and three dimensional spatial analysis of seismicity in the Lake Aswan area, Egypt, Acta Geophys. Pol. 53,2, 153–166.Google Scholar
  7. Barka, A. (1996), Slip distribution along the North Anatolian fault associated with the large earthquakes of the period 1939 to 1967, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 86,5, 1238–1254.Google Scholar
  8. Barka, A., H.S. Akyüz, E. Altunel, G. Sunal, Z. Çakır, A. Dikbaş, B. Yerli, R. Armijo, B. Meyer, J.B. de Chabalier, T. Rockwell, J.R. Dolan, R. Hartleb, T. Dawson, S. Christofferson, A. Tucker, T. Fumal, R. Langridge, H. Stenner, W. Lettis, J. Bachhuber, and W. Page (2002), The surface rupture and slip distribution of the 17 August 1999 İzmit earthquake (M 7.4), North Anatolian fault, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92,1, 43–60, DOI: 10.1785/0120000841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayrak, Y., S. Öztürk, H. Çinar, D. Kalafat, T.M. Tsapanos, G.Ch. Koravos, and G.A. Leventakis (2009), Estimating earthquake hazard parameters from instrumental data for different regions in and around Turkey, Eng. Geol. 105,3–4, 200–210, DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bozkurt, E. (2001), Neotectonics of Turkey — a synthesis, Geodin. Acta 14,1–3, 3–30, DOI: 10.1016/S0985-3111(01)01066-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bürgmann, R., M.E. Ayhan, E.J. Fielding, T.J. Wright, S. McClusky, B. Aktuğ, C. Demir, O. Lenk, and A. Türkezer (2002), Deformation during the 12 November 1999 Düzce, Turkey, earthquake, from GPS and InSAR data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92,1, 161–171, DOI: 10.1785/0120000834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frohlich, C., and S.D. Davis (1993), Teleseismic b values; or, much ado about 1.0, J. Geophys. Res. 98,B1, 631–644, DOI: 10.1029/92JB01891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grassberger, P., and I. Procaccia (1983), Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors, Physica 9,D, 189–208.Google Scholar
  14. Gutenberg, R., and C.F. Richter (1944), Frequency of earthquakes in California, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 34, 185–188.Google Scholar
  15. Habermann, R.E. (1983), Teleseismic detection in the Aleutian Island arc, J. Geophys. Res. 88,B6, 5056–5064, DOI: 10.1029/JB088iB06p05056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang, Q., A.O. Öncel, and G.A. Sobolev (2002), Precursory seismicity changes associated with the M W = 7.4 1999 August 17 Izmit (Turkey) earthquake, Geophys. J. Int. 151, 235–242, DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01762.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kagan, Y.Y. (2007), Earthquake spatial distribution: the correlation dimension, Geophys. J. Int. 168, 1175–1194, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03251.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kutoglu, H.S., and H. Akcin (2006), Determination of the 30-year creep trend on the Ismetpaşa segment of the North Anatolian Fault using an old geodetic network, Earth Planets Space 58, 937–942.Google Scholar
  19. Kutoglu, H.S., H. Akcin, H. Kemaldere and K.S. Gormus (2008), Triggered creep rate on the Ismetpasa segment of the North Anatolian Fault, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 8,6, 1369–1373, DOI: 10.5194/nhess-8-1369-2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Öncel, A.O., and T.H. Wilson (2002), Space-time correlations of seismotectonic parameters: examples from Japan and from Turkey preceding the İzmit earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92,1, 339–349, DOI: 10.1785/0120000844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Özacar, A.A., C.B. Biryol, H. Tok, C.R. Gans, G. Zandt, S.L. Beck, L.M. Warren, and T. Taymaz (2009), Passive Seismic Experiment for the North Anatolian Fault: Preliminary Reports, 62nd Geological Kurultai of Turkey, 13–17 April 2009, MTA-Ankara, Turkey, p. 828.Google Scholar
  22. Öztürk, S. (2009), Deprem Tehlikesi ve Artçı Şok Olasılığı Değerlendirme Yöntemlerinin Türkiye”deki Depremlere Bir Uygulaması (An Application of the Earthquake Hazard and Aftershock Probability Evaluation Methods to Turkey Earthquakes), Ph.D. Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey (in Turkish with English abstract), Scholar
  23. Öztürk, S., Y. Bayrak, H. Çinar, G.Ch. Koravos, and T.M. Tsapanos (2008), A quantitative appraisal of earthquake hazard parameters computed from Gumbel I method for different regions in and around Turkey, Nat. Hazards 47,3, 471–495, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-008-9234-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polat, O., E. Gök, and D. Yılmaz (2008), Earthquake hazard of the Aegean extension region (West Turkey), Turk. J. Earth Sci. 17,3, 593–614.Google Scholar
  25. Reasenberg, P. (1985), Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982, J. Geophys. Res. 90,B7, 5479–5495, DOI: 10.1029/JB090iB07 p05479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reilinger, R.E., S.C. McClusky, M.B. Oral, R.W. King, M.N. Toksöz, A.A. Barka, I. Kinik, O. Lenk, and I. Sanli (1997), Global Positioning System measurements of present-day crustal movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasia plate collision zone, J. Geophys. Res. 102,B5, 9983–9999, DOI: 10.1029/96JB03736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Şaroğlu, F., Ö. Emre, and I. Kuşcu (1992), Active Fault Map of Turkey, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  28. Şengör, A.M.C., O. Tüysüz, C. İmren, M. Sakınç, H. Eyidoğan, N. Görür, X.L. Pichon, and C. Rangin (2004), The North Anatolian Fault: A New Look, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 33, 37–112.Google Scholar
  29. Toksöz, M.N., A.F. Shakal, and A.J. Michael (1979), Space-time migration of earthquakes along the North Anatolian Fault Zone and seismic gaps, Pure Appl. Geophys. 117, 1258–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turcotte, D.L. (1990), Fractals and Chaos in Gelogy and Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Utsu, T. (1971), Aftershocks and earthquake statistics (III): Analyses of the distribution of earthquakes in magnitude, time and space with special consideration to clustering characteristics of earthquake occurrence (1), J. Faculty Sci., Hokkaido University, Ser. VII (Geophys.) 3, 379–441.Google Scholar
  32. Wiemer, S. (2001), A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP, Seismol. Res. Lett. 72,2, 373–382.Google Scholar
  33. Wiemer, S., and K. Katsumata (1999), Spatial variability of seismicity parameters in aftershock zones, J. Geophys. Res. 104,B6, 13135–13151, DOI: 10.1029/1999JB900032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiemer, S., and M. Wyss (1994), Seismic quiescence before the Landers (M = 7.5) and Big Bear (M = 6.5) 1992 earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 84,3, 900–916.Google Scholar
  35. Wiemer, S., and M. Wyss (2000), Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90,4, 859–869, DOI: 10.1785/0119990114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yılmaz, V., M. Erişoğlu, and H.E. Çelik (2004), Probabilistic prediction of the next earthquake in the NAFZ (North Anatolian Fault Zone), Turkey, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 5,2, 243–250 (in English with Turkish abstract).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeophysicsGümüşhane UniversityGüm]:uşhaneTurkey

Personalised recommendations