Computer determinations for the fault-plane solutions in and near Anatolia

Canitez, Nezi̇hi̇; Üçer, S. Balamir

doi:10.1016/0040-1951(67)90032-7

Cited by 68 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seismicity along the NAFZ is characterized by frequent moderate to large earthquakes (M>7) with focal mechanism solutions that show 4 essentially pure right-lateral strike-slip motion (Canitez and Ucer, 1967;McKenzie, 1972;Reinecker et al, 2004). The number of large historical earthquakes occurred along the NAFZ during the last centuries places this fault among the most active strike-slip structures worldwide (Ambraseys, 1970;Ambraseys and Finkel, 1995;Ambraseys, 2002).…”

Section: The North Anatolian Fault Zone (Nafz)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary slip rate estimates for the Düzce segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone from offset geomorphic markers

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The North Anatolian Fault Zone (Nafz)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary slip rate estimates for the Düzce segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone from offset geomorphic markers

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This choice is supported by the overall structural data presented in Figure 13b. Canıtez and Üçer's (1967) solution has an unusually low dip angle for a strike-slip fault in the region, however, and it can therefore be speculated that this solution might have a similar dip angle as the fault plane obtained from overall structural data ( Figure 13). …”

Section: Relocation Of the 20021956 (M = 65) Eskişehir Earthquakementioning

confidence: 88%

“…Around Eskişehir, the most significant seismic event in the instrumental period was the 20.02.1956 (M: 6.5) Eskişehir earthquake (Öcal, 1959;Canıtez and Üçer, 1967;McKenzie, 1972;Kiratzi, 2002) (Figure 13). Unfortunately, no immediate field study was performed to determine the fault responsible for this earthquake, and the isoseismal map of the event prepared based on questionnaires completed by science teachers was not adequate (Öcal, 1959).…”

Section: Seismicity Of the Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Öcal (1959) reported 2 epicenter locations from macroand microseismic studies (Figure 13). Canıtez and Üçer (1967) and McKenzie (1972) provided focal mechanism solutions to the earthquake with epicenter locations to the north of Eskişehir (Figure 13). Altunel and Barka (1998) combined the epicenter location of Öcal (1959) with the focal mechanism solution of McKenzie (1972) and suggested that the Oklubalı-Turgutlar segment was responsible for the earthquake, unlike Şaroğlu et al (2005), who suggested the E-W-trending İnönü segment.…”

Section: Seismicity Of the Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The black fault segments are from Altunel and Barka (1998) and Ocakoğlu (2007). (b) The overall evaluation of structural data, except for locations 5, 11, and 13, is given for comparison with the focal mechanism solution of Canıtez and Üçer (1967). FaultKin software was used for kinematic analysis of fault-slip data (Marrett and Allmendinger, 1990;Allmendinger et al, 2012). assist in suggesting that the Çukurhisar-Sultandere fault segment was responsible for the 1956 Eskişehir earthquake.…”

Section: The Distribution Of Buildings Damaged During the 1956 Eskişementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determining the main strand of the Eskişehir strike-slip fault zone using subsidiary structures and seismicity: a hypothesis tested by seismic reflection studies

Seyítoğlu¹,

ECEVİTOĞLU²,

Kaypak³

et al. 2015

Turkish J Earth Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although these fault zones are considered to be secondary structures, their roles in the internal deformation of the Anatolian plate are very important for seismic hazard assessment, such as, for example the Eldivan-Elmadağ pinched crustal wedge (Seyitoğlu et al., 2000(Seyitoğlu et al., , 2009. One of these subordinate structures, the Eskişehir Fault Zone, which extends from İnegöl (Bursa) to Cihanbeyli (Konya) (Figure 1), is a relatively well-studied example; however, there is no consensus about its age or its role in the deformation of the Anatolian plate.The Eskişehir Fault Zone was drawn on the regional geological maps of Ketin (1968), Şengör et al. (1985), and Şaroğlu et al. (1987). Later, Şaroğlu et al. (2005) presented its subdivisions as the Dodurga, Kandilli, İnönü, Osmangazi, and Kaymaz segments.A regional significance has been attributed to the Eskişehir Fault Zone. Barka and Reilinger (1997) suggest that this fault zone, together with the Fethiye-Burdur Fault, constitutes the border between central and west Anatolian neotectonic subdivisions. Koçyiğit and Özacar (2003) also proposed the Eskişehir Fault Zone as a border of the West Anatolian extensional province. The evaluation of Yaltırak ( 2002) is quite different, as according to that study, the Eskişehir Fault Zone extended from Thrace to Central Anatolia and the North Anatolian Fault Zone cuts the Eskişehir Fault Zone in the Sea of Marmara.

show abstract

Regional Stresses Along the Eurasia-Africa Plate Boundary Derived from Focal Mechanisms of Large Earthquakes

Udías¹,

Buforn²

1991

Source Mechanism and Seismotectonics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer determinations for the fault-plane solutions in and near Anatolia

Cited by 68 publications

References 2 publications

Preliminary slip rate estimates for the Düzce segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone from offset geomorphic markers

Preliminary slip rate estimates for the Düzce segment of the North Anatolian Fault Zone from offset geomorphic markers

Determining the main strand of the Eskişehir strike-slip fault zone using subsidiary structures and seismicity: a hypothesis tested by seismic reflection studies

Regional Stresses Along the Eurasia-Africa Plate Boundary Derived from Focal Mechanisms of Large Earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About