# Statistical correlation between b-value and fractal dimension regarding Turkish epicentre distribution.

IntroductionSince fractal description was developed for the geometry of natural objects (Mandelbrot B.B., 1982), it has been recognised that many complex space-time phenomena, such as seismicity, may be described and interpreted in terms of fractal distributions with power-law scaling (e.g. Hirata T., 1989; Oncel A.O. et al., 1995; Caneva A., Smirnov V., 2004; Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H., 2007; Roy S. et al., 2011). However, studies of possible correlation between seismicity and fault distribution are limited. Applying seismic hazard assessment to fractal association between seismotectonic variables requires distinguishing normal and anomalous correlations between such data sets' fractal attributes. Since the statistical behaviour of seismicity may potentially represent sensitive short-term predictors of major earthquakes, this study's main aim was to find an empirical relationship between seismic b-values and the fractal distribution of epicentres for Turkish earthquakes.

Data regarding earthquakes and tectonic zoning

Several earthquake catalogues are available for Turkey from both national and international sources. Earthquakes occurring between 1970 and 2006 were taken from Ozturk's catalogue of instrumental data (2009), including duration magnitude ([M.sub.D]) for 73,530 earthquakes occurring in Turkey between 1970 and 2006; Ozturk used empirical relationships to compile a homogenous and complete earthquake catalogue (1970 to 2006). The Bogazici University's Kandilli Observatory and Research Institute (KOERI) catalogue was also used for 2006 to 2011; KOERI usually gives local magnitudes ([M.sub.L]) for local earthquakes having missing [M.sub.D]. If an [M.sub.D] was unknown in the KOERI catalogue for 2006 to 2011, then [M.sub.D] were calculated using the relationships given in Ozturk (2009). 26,207 earthquakes in and around Turkey were thus selected for the aforementioned period. This earthquake catalogue was homogeneous for [M.sub.D] and contained 99,737 earthquakes occurring between 1970 and 2011.

Many authors have suggested tectonic zoning as a widely-used methodology for evaluating the hazard of an earthquake occurring (e.g. Erdik M. et al., 1999; Jimenez M. et al., 2001; Bayrak Y. et al., 2009). The present study's new seismic source zones for Turkey and its adjacent areas were based on tectonic zoning studies by Erdik (1999) and Bayrak (2009), the existing tectonic structure and earthquake epicentre distribution (Figure 1). Turkey was divided into 55 different zones, as shown in Figure 1. New smaller zones were selected to compare such tectonic zoning in detail, in the same regions. Figure 1 shows Turkey's active tectonics and many details regarding Turkey's tectonic structure can be found in Saroglu (1992), McClusky (2000) and Bozkurt (2001). The numbers of earthquakes occurring in each zone were sufficient for analysis; Table 1 shows the seismic zones in this study (numbered 1 to 55) with their tectonic environments.

Earthquakes' frequency-magnitude distribution (seismic b-value)

Earthquakes' magnitude distribution (Md) is usually parameterised using Gutenberg-Richter's (G-R) power law relationship (Gutenberg B., Richter C.F., 1944); such frequency-magnitude relationship has been found to be applicable (in simplified form) as follows:

[log.sub.10] N(M) = a - bM (1)

where N(M) is the cumulative number of events having a magnitude greater than M, b describes the slope of the size distribution of events and a is proportional to the productivity of a volume, or the seismicity rate.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The b-value is one of the most important statistical parameters for describing the size scaling properties of seismicity; b-values change roughly in the range of 0.3 to 2.0, depending on the different regions. However, average regional scale estimates of b-value are usually equal to 1 (Frohlich C., Davis S., 1993). Many factors can cause perturbation of average b-value (b~1.0); regions having lower b-values are probably regions subjected to higher applied shear stress after the main shock, whereas regions having higher b-values are areas which have experienced slip. High b-values are reported from areas having increased geological complexity, indicating the importance of multi-fracture areas; a low b-value is thus related to a low degree of heterogeneity of cracked medium, large stress and strain, high deformation speed and large faults (Bayrak Y., Ozturk S., 2004).

Many methods can be used for calculating any region's b-value but the maximum likelihood method is the most robust and widely-accepted method for estimating b-values (Aki K., 1965):

b = 2.303 /([bar.M] + [M.sub.MIN] + 0.005) (2)

where [bar.M] is average magnitude value and [M.sub.min] is minimum magnitude value. 0.05 in equation (2) is a correction constant. If b=1 and [M.sub.min] =1 is used, [M.sub.average] =3.25 will be obtained. However, this is an extreme [M.sub.min] value. [M.sub.min] = 1 did not occur in previous Turkish earthquake catalogues; [M.sub.min] in Turkish earthquake catalogues was around 3.0 until the beginning of the 2000s. Many stations have been built in Turkey, especially after two destructive earthquakes in 1999, minimum earthquake magnitude now being seen to be around 1.5 (average value may sometimes be higher than 3.25 which is not high value for Turkish earthquakes). The standard deviation of seismic b-value (95% confidence limit) may be determined using the equation suggested by Aki (1965) as [+ or -] 1.96b / [square root of n], where n is the number of earthquakes used to make the estimate. This would yield [+ or -] 0.1-0.2 confidence limits regarding b-value for a typical sample consisting of n=100 earthquakes. Such sample consisting of n=100 events represents a specific calculation. The number of earthquakes in this study was 97,737; Table 1 shows that sometimes 110 earthquakes were used (in region 13) or 10,328 earthquakes on other occasions (in region 34). This value for n=100 earthquakes is thus a typical sample for the aforementioned calculation.

Fractal dimension (correlation dimension, Dc) of epicentres' spatial distribution

Earthquake distribution spatial patterns and temporal patterns of occurrence were demonstrated to be fractal using a two-point correlation dimension (De). Analysing correlation dimension is a powerful tool for quantifying a geometrical object's self-similarity. Grassberger and Procaccia (1983) defined De and correlation sum C(r) as follows:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (3)

C(r) = 2[N.sub.R<r] / N(N - 1) (4)

where C(r) is the correlation function, r is the distance between two epicentres and N is the number of pairs of events separated by distance R<r. If the epicentre distribution has a fractal structure, the following relationship would be obtained:

C(r) ~ [r.sup.Dc] (5)

where De is the fractal dimension (more strictly, the correlation dimension). Distance r between two earthquakes would be calculated (in degrees) from:

r = [cos.sup.-1] (cos[[theta].sub.i] cos[[theta].sub.j] + sin[[theta].sub.i] sin[[theta].sub.j] cos ([[phi].sub.i] - [[phi].sub.j])) (6)

where ([[theta].sub.i],[[phi].sub.i]) and ([[theta].sub.j],[[phi].sub.j]) are the latitudes and longitudes of the ith and jth events, respectively (Hirata T., 1989). By plotting C(r) against r on a double logarithmic coordinate, fractal dimension De would be obtained from the slope of the graph.

Fractal analysis is often used to quantify size scaling attributes and seismotectonic variables' clustering properties. Fractal dimension De can be calculated to determine possible unbroken sites and such unbroken sites have been suggested as being potential seismic gaps to be broken in the future. Variations in fractal correlation dimension mainly depend on the complexity or quantitative measurement of the degree of heterogeneity of seismic activity in a fault system. In areas of increased complexity in an active fault system (higher De) associated with lower b-value, stress release occurs on fault planes having smaller surface area (Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H., 2002).

Results and Discussion

An investigation of seismotectonic parameters in and around Turkey involved using the b-value of the G-R relationship (Equation 1) and fractal correlation dimension Dc-value of Turkish earthquake distribution from 1970 to 2011; Turkey was divided into 55 seismic source zones in an attempt to find an empirical relationship between b-value and Dc-value. ZMAP software was used for calculating b and Dc-values for each region (Wiemer S., 2001). The b-values were calculated by using the maximum likelihood method (95% confidence limit) because it yields a more robust estimate than the least-square regression method (Aki K., 1965). The Devalues for all Turkish areas were obtained with 95% confidence limits by linear regression. Table 1 shows the results for two seismotectonic parameters with their standard deviations as well as the number of earthquakes for entire tectonic areas.

The first seismic parameter b-value ranged from 0.62 to 1.93 for 55 Turkish areas. b-values smaller than 0.8 were found in regions 1, 4, 9 and 11, including the north-eastern Anatolian fault zone (NEAFZ) including the Dumlu and Cobandede fault zones, Igdir, Dogubeyazit and Caldiran faults (IDCF) and two parts of the Bitlis-Zagros thrust zone (BZTZ). Such low values may have depended on the position of these regions neighbouring the easternmost part of the north Anatolian fault and the BZTZ. The conjugate strike-slip fault system related to these areas dominates eastern Anatolia's active tectonics and thrust faults can produce destructive earthquakes in the Bitlis thrust which forms a complex continent-continent and continent-ocean collision boundary (Bozkurt E, 2001). These systems generate major earthquakes, such as Patnos in 1903 ([M.sub.S]=6.3), Pasinler in 1924 ([M.sub.S]=6.8), Lice-Diyarbakir in 1975 ([M.sub.S]=6.6), Caldiran in 1976 ([M.sub.S]=7.5) and Horasan in 1983 ([M.sub.S]=6.8). Global positioning system (GPS) data gives 10 [+ or -] 2 mm/yr for total shortening between the strike slip faults in eastern Turkey and thrusting along the Caucasus. The BZTZ's north-western motion is 18 [+ or -] 2 mm/yr and such motion is related to that of Eurasia (McClusky S. et al., 2000); small b-values in these regions are thus related to a low degree of heterogeneity and large faults resulting in strong earthquakes.

The other small b-values changing between 0.8 and 1.0 were observed in regions 3, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 50 covering the Agri, Tutak, Balikligol and Kagizman faults (ATBKF), the Baskale, Ercis, Muradiye and Suphan faults (BEMSF) and the Hasan Timur fault zone (HTFZ), the western part of BZTZ, the east Anatolian fault zone (EAFZ), the junction of a part of the Dead Sea fault and EAFZ, the eastern part of the north Anatolian fault zone (ENAFZ) including the Bingol-Karakocan and Sancak-Uzunpinar fault zones. Table 1 shows that regions 15, 16 and 17 are connected with the east EAFZ which is not as seismically active as the NAFZ. Unlike NAFZ, the EAFZ in region 15 has been relatively quiescent in the instrumental period compared to the historical period (McClusky S. et al., 2000). The data used in this study only included the instrumental period for earthquakes occurring from 1970 to 2011. According to the fault slip rate and observed seismicity during recent years, relatively larger b-values were observed in these regions than in regions 1, 4, 9 and 11. According to Scholz (1968), low b-values indicate that the state of stress is high. Special interest should thus be given to whole regions where low b-values have been observed, especially after the occurrence of the [M.sub.W]=6.0 Elazig earthquake (in region 15) on 8th March 2010 and the [M.sub.W]=7.2 Van Lake earthquake (in region 6) on 23rd September 2011.

Regions such as 2, 8, 21, 27, 46, 48, 49 and 52 have almost the similar b-values (very close to 1.0); these regions are related to the NEAFZ, the eastern part of BZTZ, the western part of the Cyprus Arc, the Burdur fault zone (BFZ), the Duzce fault (DF), the Yagmurlu-Ezinepazari fault zone (YEFZ) the another part of the ENAFZ and Surgu fault. The maximum b-value was estimated as being 1.93 in region 36, such region lying around the Soma and Bakircay grabens. Other largest b-values greater than 1.5 were calculated in regions 18, 24, 35, 37 and 42; these zones were covered by the northern part of Cyprus, the Mugla and Rhodes region, the Kutahya and Simav grabens (KSG) and the Etili fault (EF). The b-values obtained for the rest of the zones were between 1.1 and 1.5. The NAFZ is a very active structure and, according to geodesy, accommodates 24[+ or -]2 mm/ yr of dextral motion (McClusky S. et al., 2000). Two large earthquakes occurred in regions 44 and 46 during August and November 1999 and, of course, the stress level in these regions would thus not have been so high in recent years. The regions characterised by large b-values had a greater proportion of low magnitude earthquakes whereas regions having low b-values represented areas in which large magnitude earthquakes occurred. b-values estimated using the maximum likelihood approach for the G-R method seemed to have a good relationship to the tectonics and level of seismicity.

The second seismotectonic parameter Dc-value ranged from 1.922.31 for the 55 tectonic source regions in Turkey and the surrounding areas. Dc-values smaller than 2.0 were estimated in regions 14, 20, 24, 25, 36, 39, 42 and 53. These zones were related to the Karacadag extension zone (KEZ), the southern part of Cyprus including the eastern part of the Cyprus Arc, the Mugla and Rhodes region, the SBG, the Eskisehir, Inonu-Dodurga and Kaymaz faults (EIDKF), the EF, the central Anatolian fault zone (CAFZ) including the Yildizeli fault zone. Dc-values greater than 2.2 were observed in regions 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 16, 26 and 50 which were related to the NEAFZ including the Dumlu and Cobandede fault zones, the ATBKF, the IDCF, the BZTZ, the junction of part of the Dead Sea fault and the EAFZ, the Aegean Arc and the ENAFZ. Dc-values ranged from 2.0 to 2.2 in the rest of the seismic source areas. The results obtained from analysis of data along the NAFZ (regions 43-49) suggested that epicentre distribution became less clustered (higher De) as the probability of larger magnitude earthquakes became smaller (larger b-value). This implied greater fracture toughness in the central portions of the NAFZ. As stated in Oncel and Wilson (2002), stress becomes released on fault planes having smaller surface area in regions of increased complexity in an active fault system (higher De) associated with lower b-values. This means that areas in a fault network characterised by higher Dc-values would be associated with greater complexity in a fault pattern and the persistence of such complexity on smaller scales. Higher order fractal dimension (especially greater than 2.0) is increasingly sensitive to heterogeneity in magnitude distribution, suggesting that seismicity is more clustered at larger scales (or in smaller areas) in these fault zones. It may also be related to the number of events to a certain extent. Since the uniform distribution of earthquakes decreases with an increase in the clustering of events, it is reasonable to assume that higher De values ([greater than or equal to] 2.2) and lower b-values (0.8 [less than or equal to]) are the dominant structural feature in the study area and may have arisen due to clusters.

Correlation between b and Dc-value

This study was aimed at determining a statistical relationship between seismic b-values and fractal dimension Dc-value for Turkish epicentres. The orthogonal regression (OR) method (e.g, Carroll R.J., Ruppert D., 1996) was used to find the most suitable correlation between both seismotectonic parameters selected here. As the standard least squares method is based on the assumption that horizontal axis values are estimated without error (Carroll R.J., Ruppert D., 1996), OR was applied in fitting the relationship. Figure 2 gives a graphical representations of OR fit between b and Dc-values for Turkish earthquake epicentres. Figure 2 shows that the correlation coefficient of regression fit was very strong (r=-0.82). Linear fit was used for regression and the following equation was derived:

Dc = 2.44 - 0.30*b (7)

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The correlation between fractal dimension and b-value has been studied in several parts of the world (e.g. Aki K., 1981; Hirata T., 1989; Henderson J. et al., 1992; Caneva A., Smirnov V., 2004; Roy S. et al., 2011) and particularly the Turkish region (e.g. Oncel A.O. et al., 1995 and 1996; Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H., 2002 and 2007). Since Aki (1981) proposed a simple relationship between b-value and fractal dimension having D=2b positive co-relationship, both positive (e.g. Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H., 2004; Roy S. et al., 2011) and negative co-relationships (e.g. Hirata T., 1989; Henderson J. et al., 1992; Oncel A.O. et al., 1995 and 1996) between these two scaling exponents have been reported and debated in the pertinent literature. Such co-relationships could even change from negative to positive (e.g. Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H., 2002 and 2007).

Hirata's results (1989) did not support Aki's assumption that D=2b but showed, on the contrary, a negative co-relationship Dc=2.3-0.73*b (r=-0.77) between b and fractal dimension of epicentres in the Tohoku region of Japan. Henderson (1992) obtained a similar result for the Riverside catalogue in southern California. Similarly, a study of seismicity in the NAFZ, Turkey, revealed a long-term negative co-relationship between b and De (Oncel A.O. et al., 1995). The b-value was found to be weakly negatively correlated with fractal dimension Dc=2.74-1.52*b (r=-0.56) for the NAFZ (including the northern Aegean sea) by Oncel (1995). Oncel (1996) has also observed a strong negative correlation (r=0.85) between De and b-values as Dc=2.32-1.09*b was associated with the NAFZ. By contrast, Oncel and Wilson (2002) found weak positive correlation (r=0.48) between variations in b and De in the western NAFZ. However, variability between b and De along the length of the fault zone in this study revealed divergence between b and De in the central NAFZ and spatial variation yielded a strong negative correlation (r=-0.85) between b and De. Analysis presented in Oncel and Wilson (2004) revealed a strong positive correlation (r=0.81) between De and b-values along the NAFZ preceding the 1999 Izmit earthquake. Oncel and Wilson (2007) observed a strong positive co-relationship between De and b-value during 1992-1994 (r=0.84) and 1996-1998 (r=0.94) and negative correlation (r=-0.71) extending from mid-1994 to mid-1996 in north-western Turkey. Table 2 gives previous studies on the b-value and Dc-value relationship.

Conclusions

This study tried to estimate a suitable and reliable correlation between two seismotectonic parameters: b and Dc-values for Turkish earthquakes. Statistical analysis of the available data included 99,737 earthquakes from 1970 to 2011. The maximum likelihood method was used for calculating b-values and the linear regression technique for obtaining Dc-values (95% confidence limit). It was observed that the largest events were associated with low b and high Dc-values, respectively, implying relatively high stress intensity and stronger epicentre clustering.

Orthogonal regression was used for correlating the chosen seismotectonic parameters. The results showed strong negative correlation between b-value and fractal dimension Dc-value for Turkish earthquakes Dc = 2.44 -0.30*b (r=-0.82) given by OR. The results had good agreement with previous studies for different parts of Turkey and the rest of the world.

Manuscript received: 13/02/2012

Accepted for publications: 06/05/2012

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Stefan Weimer for providing ZMAAP software and anonymous reviewers for their useful and constructive suggestions in improving this paper. I am grateful to Dr. Dogan Kalafat (KOERI) for providing us with the earthquake catalogue. I would also like to thank KOERI for providing an earthquake database via internet.

References

Aki K. (1965): "Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a-bM and its confidence limits". BullEarthq Res Inst Tokyo Univ. 43, 237-239.

Aki K. (1981): "Earthquake prediction". Am Geophys Union. vol 4. Washington, pp 566-574.

Bozkurt E. (2001): "Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis". Geodinamiea Aeta. 14, 3-30.

Bayrak Y., Ozturk S. (2004): "Spatial and temporal variations of the aftershock sequences of the 1999 Izmit and Duzce earthquake". Earth Planets Spaee. 56, 933-944.

Bayrak Y., Ozturk S., Cinar H., Kalafat D., Tsapanos T.M., Koravos G.Ch., Leventakis G.A. (2009): "Estimating earthquake hazard parameters from instrumental data for different regions in and around Turkey". Eng Geol. 105, 200-210,

Carrol R.J., Ruppert D. (1996): "The use and misuse of orthogonal regression estimation in linear errors-in-variables models". The American Statistician. 50, 1-6.

Caneva A., Smirnov V. (2004): "Using the Fractal Dimension of Earthquake Distributions and Slope of the Reccurence Curve to Forecast Earthquakes in Colombia". Earth Sei Res J. 8(1), 3-9.

Erdik M., Alpay B.Y., Onur T., Sesetyan K., Birgoren G. (1999): "Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring regions". Annali di Geofisiea. 42, 1125-1138.

Frohlich C., Davis S. (1993): "Teleseismic b-values: Or, much ado about 1.0". Journal of Geophysieal Researeh 98 (B1), 631-644.

Grassberger P., Procaccia I. (1983): "Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors". Physica 9(D), 189-208.

Gutenberg R., Richter C.F. (1944): "Frequency of earthquakes in California". Bull Seismol Soc Am. 34, 185-188.

Henderson J., Main I.G., Meredith P.G., Sammonds P.R. (1992): "The evolution of seismicity-observation, experiment and a fracture-mechanical interpretation". J Struet Geol. 14, 905-913.

Hirata T. (1989): "Correlation between the b-value and the fractal dimension of earthquakes". J Geophys Res. 94, 7507-7514.

Jimenez M.J., Giardini D., Grunthal G., Sesame Working Group (Erdik M., Garcia- Fernandez M., Lapajne J., Makropoulos K., Muson R., Papaioannou Ch., Rebez A., Riad S., Sellami S., Shapira A., Slejko D., Van Eck T., El Sayed A.) (2001): "Unified seismic hazard modelling throughout the Mediterranean region1. Bolletino Di Geophysica Teorica Ed Applicata. 42, (1-2), 3-18.

Mandelbrot B.B. (1982): "The fractal Geometry of Nature". Freeman Press, San Francisco.

McClusky S., Balassanian S., Barka A., Demir C., Ergintav S., Georgiev I., Gurkan O., Hamburger M., Kahle K.H.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 M.N., Veis G. (2000): "Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus". J Geophys Res. 105 (B3), 5695-5719.

Oncel A.O., Alptekin O., Main I.G. (1995): "Temporal variations of the fractal properties of seismicity in the western part of the North Anatolian fault zone: possible artifacts due to improvements in station coverage". Nonlinear Processes Geophys. 2, 147-157.

Oncel A.O., Main I.G., Alptekin O. Cowie P.A. (1996): "Temporal variations of the fractal properties of seismicity in the north Anatolian fault zone between 31[degrees]E and 41[degrees]E". Pure Appl Geophys. 146, 148-159.

Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H. (2002): "Space-time correlations of seismotectonic parameters: Examples from Japan and from Turkey preceding the Izmit earthquake". Bull Seism Soe Am. 92(1), 339-349.

Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H. (2004): "Correlation of seismotectonic variables and GPS strain-measurements in western Turkey". J Geophys Res. 109 (B11), B11306.

Oncel A.O., Wilson T.H. (2007): "Anomalous seismicity preceding the 1999 Izmit event, NW Turkey". Ggeophys J Int. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365246X.2006.03298.x.

Ozturk S. (2009): "An application of the earthquake hazard and aftershock probability evaluation methods to Turkey earthquakes". Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey (in Turkish with English abstract).

Roy S., Ghosh U., Hazra S., Kayal J.R. (2011): "Fractal dimension and b-value mapping in the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone". Nat Hazards. 57, 27-37.

Saroglu F., Emre O., Kujcu I. (1992): "Active fault map of Turkey". General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey.

Scholz C.H. (1968): "The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes". Bull Seism Soe Am. 58, 399-415.

Wiemer S. (2001): "A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP". Seis-mol Res Lett. 72(3), 373-382.

Serkan Ozturk

Gumujhane University. Turkey. E-mail: seko6134@gmail.com

Table 1. Seismotectonic parameters b and De-values as well as the number of earthquakes for entire seismic zones of Turkey Region Tectonics Earthquake Number 1 North East Anatolian Fault Zone (NEAFZ) 338 2 (Horosan Fault, Dumlu and 1234 Gobandede Fault Zones) 3 Agri, Tutak, Balikligol and 219 Kagizman Faults (ATBKF) 4 Igdir, Dogubeyazit and Caldiran 268 Faults (ID(F) 5 Baskale, Ercis, Muradiye and 159 Suphan Faults (BEMSF) 6 and Hasan Timur Fault Zone (HTFZ) 350 7 Malazgirt and Bulanik Faults (MBF) 320 8 Bitlis-Zagros Sture Zone (BZSZ) 442 9 (Kavakbasi Faulut, Mus Thrust Zone 238 10 and Yuksekova-Semdinli 116 11 Fault Zone) 254 12 251 13 Karacadag Extension Zone 110 14 (KEZ) 510 15 East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) 2272 16 Junction of A part of Dead Sea 298 17 Fault and EAFZ 1118 18 Northern part of Cyprus 179 19 Southern part of Cyprus, including 369 20 Eastern part of Cyprus Arc 340 21 Western part of Cyprus Arc 350 22 1161 23 Acigol, Dinar and (ivril Faults (AD(F) 2154 24 Mugla and Rhodes Region 1534 25 5392 26 Aegean Arc 1914 27 Burdur Fault Zone (BFZ) 1787 28 Buyuk and Kuguk Menderes 3428 29 Grabens (BKMG) 1408 30 Aliaga and Dumlupinar Faults (ADF) and 926 31 Zeytindag-Bergama Faults (ZBF) 3770 32 Alasehir and Gediz Grabens (AGG) 1782 33 Sultandagi, Beysehir and Tatarli 3252 Faults (SBTF) 34 Kutahya and Simav Grabens 10328 35 (KSG) 8036 36 6422 37 Soma and Bakirgay Grabens(SBG) 1710 38 1168 39 Eskisehir, Inonu-Dodurga and 2527 Kaymaz Faults (EIDKF) 40 Manyas and Ulubat Faults (MUF) 1432 41 Yenice-Gonen and Sarikoy Faults (YGSF) 4220 42 Etili Faults (EF) 1398 43 Marmara part of North 1378 44 Anatolian Fault Zone 7859 45 (MNAFZ) 1430 46 Duzce Fault (DF) 2011 47 Ismetpasa Segment (IS) 1684 48 Yagmurlu-Ezinepazari Fault Zone (YEFZ) 1369 49 Eastern part of North Anatolian 794 Fault Zone (ENAFZ) 50 (Bingol-Karakogan, Sancak-Uzunpinar 2236 Fault Zones) Region Tectonics b-value 1 North East Anatolian Fault Zone (NEAFZ) 0.62 [+ or -] 0.03 2 (Horosan Fault, Dumlu and 1.05 [+ or -] 0.03 Gobandede Fault Zones) 3 Agri, Tutak, Balikligol and 0.86 [+ or -] 0.06 Kagizman Faults (ATBKF) 4 Igdir, Dogubeyazit and Caldiran 0.63 [+ or -] 0.03 Faults (ID(F) 5 Baskale, Ercis, Muradiye and 0.98 [+ or -] 0.09 Suphan Faults (BEMSF) 6 and Hasan Timur Fault Zone (HTFZ) 0.95 [+ or -] 0.05 7 Malazgirt and Bulanik Faults (MBF) 1.13 [+ or -] 0.07 8 Bitlis-Zagros Sture Zone (BZSZ) 1.05 [+ or -] 0.06 9 (Kavakbasi Faulut, Mus Thrust Zone 0.77 [+ or -] 0.05 10 and Yuksekova-Semdinli 1.21 [+ or -] 0.10 11 Fault Zone) 0.63 [+ or -] 0.04 12 0.83 [+ or -] 0.06 13 Karacadag Extension Zone 1.17 [+ or -] 0.04 14 (KEZ) 1.49 [+ or -] 0.08 15 East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) 0.96 [+ or -] 0.02 16 Junction of A part of Dead Sea 0.84 [+ or -] 0.05 17 Fault and EAFZ 0.93 [+ or -] 0.04 18 Northern part of Cyprus 1.61 [+ or -] 0.05 19 Southern part of Cyprus, including 1.20 [+ or -] 0.07 20 Eastern part of Cyprus Arc 1.28 [+ or -] 0.05 21 Western part of Cyprus Arc 1.05 [+ or -] 0.07 22 1.15 [+ or -] 0.05 23 Acigol, Dinar and (ivril Faults (AD(F) 1.36 [+ or -] 0.09 24 Mugla and Rhodes Region 1.64 [+ or -] 0.09 25 1.38 [+ or -] 0.09 26 Aegean Arc 1.38 [+ or -] 0.09 27 Burdur Fault Zone (BFZ) 1.01 [+ or -] 0.02 28 Buyuk and Kuguk Menderes 1.24 [+ or -] 0.08 29 Grabens (BKMG) 1.34 [+ or -] 0.07 30 Aliaga and Dumlupinar Faults (ADF) and 1.30 [+ or -] 0.07 31 Zeytindag-Bergama Faults (ZBF) 1.13 [+ or -] 0.02 32 Alasehir and Gediz Grabens (AGG) 1.24 [+ or -] 0.06 33 Sultandagi, Beysehir and Tatarli 1.35 [+ or -] 0.05 Faults (SBTF) 34 Kutahya and Simav Grabens 1.15 [+ or -] 0.01 35 (KSG) 1.62 [+ or -] 0.04 36 1.93 [+ or -] 0.05 37 Soma and Bakirgay Grabens(SBG) 1.65 [+ or -] 0.08 38 1.18 [+ or -] 0.04 39 Eskisehir, Inonu-Dodurga and 1.41 [+ or -] 0.03 Kaymaz Faults (EIDKF) 40 Manyas and Ulubat Faults (MUF) 1.44 [+ or -] 0.03 41 Yenice-Gonen and Sarikoy Faults (YGSF) 1.41 [+ or -] 0.04 42 Etili Faults (EF) 1.65 [+ or -] 0.07 43 Marmara part of North 1.10 [+ or -] 0.07 44 Anatolian Fault Zone 1.26 [+ or -] 0.02 45 (MNAFZ) 1.35 [+ or -] 0.07 46 Duzce Fault (DF) 1.02 [+ or -] 0.03 47 Ismetpasa Segment (IS) 1.38 [+ or -] 0.09 48 Yagmurlu-Ezinepazari Fault Zone (YEFZ) 1.04 [+ or -] 0.03 49 Eastern part of North Anatolian 1.03 [+ or -] 0.05 Fault Zone (ENAFZ) 50 (Bingol-Karakogan, Sancak-Uzunpinar 0.87 [+ or -] 0.07 Fault Zones) Region Tectonics Dc-value 1 North East Anatolian Fault Zone (NEAFZ) 2.26 [+ or -] 0.09 2 (Horosan Fault, Dumlu and 2.08 [+ or -] 0.07 Gobandede Fault Zones) 3 Agri, Tutak, Balikligol and 2.30 [+ or -] 0.04 Kagizman Faults (ATBKF) 4 Igdir, Dogubeyazit and Caldiran 2.23 [+ or -] 0.02 Faults (ID(F) 5 Baskale, Ercis, Muradiye and 2.09 [+ or -] 0.03 Suphan Faults (BEMSF) 6 and Hasan Timur Fault Zone (HTFZ) 2.12 [+ or -] 0.03 7 Malazgirt and Bulanik Faults (MBF) 2.08 [+ or -] 0.04 8 Bitlis-Zagros Sture Zone (BZSZ) 2.08 [+ or -] 0.04 9 (Kavakbasi Faulut, Mus Thrust Zone 2.28 [+ or -] 0.01 10 and Yuksekova-Semdinli 2.03 [+ or -] 0.01 11 Fault Zone) 2.28 [+ or -] 0.05 12 2.25 [+ or -] 0.05 13 Karacadag Extension Zone 2.00 [+ or -] 0.03 14 (KEZ) 1.94 [+ or -] 0.04 15 East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) 2.11 [+ or -] 0.06 16 Junction of A part of Dead Sea 2.31 [+ or -] 0.06 17 Fault and EAFZ 2.12 [+ or -] 0.03 18 Northern part of Cyprus 2.00 [+ or -] 0.03 19 Southern part of Cyprus, including 2.07 [+ or -] 0.02 20 Eastern part of Cyprus Arc 1.99 [+ or -] 0.04 21 Western part of Cyprus Arc 2.10 [+ or -] 0.03 22 2.10 [+ or -] 0.02 23 Acigol, Dinar and (ivril Faults (AD(F) 2.06 [+ or -] 0.04 24 Mugla and Rhodes Region 1.94 [+ or -] 0.04 25 1.97 [+ or -] 0.03 26 Aegean Arc 2.21 [+ or -] 0.03 27 Burdur Fault Zone (BFZ) 2.15 [+ or -] 0.05 28 Buyuk and Kuguk Menderes 2.02 [+ or -] 0.04 29 Grabens (BKMG) 2.08 [+ or -] 0.04 30 Aliaga and Dumlupinar Faults (ADF) and 2.08 [+ or -] 0.04 31 Zeytindag-Bergama Faults (ZBF) 2.10 [+ or -] 0.07 32 Alasehir and Gediz Grabens (AGG) 2.03 [+ or -] 0.02 33 Sultandagi, Beysehir and Tatarli 2.05 [+ or -] 0.04 Faults (SBTF) 34 Kutahya and Simav Grabens 2.08 [+ or -] 0.05 35 (KSG) 2.03 [+ or -] 0.05 36 1.95 [+ or -] 0.07 37 Soma and Bakirgay Grabens(SBG) 2.04 [+ or -] 0.05 38 2.06 [+ or -] 0.05 39 Eskisehir, Inonu-Dodurga and 1.98 [+ or -] 0.05 Kaymaz Faults (EIDKF) 40 Manyas and Ulubat Faults (MUF) 2.04 [+ or -] 0.04 41 Yenice-Gonen and Sarikoy Faults (YGSF) 2.03 [+ or -] 0.04 42 Etili Faults (EF) 1.92 [+ or -] 0.04 43 Marmara part of North 2.10 [+ or -] 0.06 44 Anatolian Fault Zone 2.05 [+ or -] 0.03 45 (MNAFZ) 2.05 [+ or -] 0.03 46 Duzce Fault (DF) 2.14 [+ or -] 0.05 47 Ismetpasa Segment (IS) 2.04 [+ or -] 0.05 48 Yagmurlu-Ezinepazari Fault Zone (YEFZ) 2.10 [+ or -] 0.04 49 Eastern part of North Anatolian 2.13 [+ or -] 0.03 Fault Zone (ENAFZ) 50 (Bingol-Karakogan, Sancak-Uzunpinar 2.28 [+ or -] 0.06 Fault Zones)

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Title Annotation: | SEISMOLOGY |
---|---|

Author: | Ozturk, Serkan |

Publication: | Earth Sciences Research Journal |

Date: | Dec 1, 2012 |

Words: | 5339 |

Previous Article: | Surfactant modified clays' consistency limits and contact angles. |

Next Article: | The impacts of alkaline mine drainage on Ba, Cr, Ni, Pb and Zn concentration in the water resources of the Takht coal mine, Iran. |

Topics: |