Normal faulting in the Simav graben of western Turkey reassessed with calibrated earthquake relocations

Abstract

Western Turkey has a long history of large earthquakes, but the responsible faults are poorly characterized. Here we reassess the past half century of instrumental earthquakes in the Simav‐Gediz region, starting with the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake (Mw 5.9), which we image using interferometric synthetic aperture radar and regional and teleseismic waveforms. This event ruptured a steep, planar normal fault centered at 7–9 km depth but failed to break the surface. However, relocated main shock and aftershock hypocenters occurred beneath the main slip plane at 10–22 km depth, implying rupture initiation in areas of low coseismic slip. These calibrated modern earthquakes provide the impetus to relocate and reassess older instrumental events in the region. Aftershocks of the 1970 Gediz earthquake (Mw 7.1) form a narrow band, inconsistent with source models that invoke low‐angle detachment faulting, and may include events triggered dynamically by the unilateral main shock rupture. Epicenters of the 1969 Demirci earthquakes (Mw 5.9, 6.0) are more consistent with slip on the south dipping Akdağ fault than the larger, north dipping Simav fault. A counterintuitive aspect of recent seismicity across our study area is that the largest event (Mw 7.1) occurred in an area of slower extension and indistinct surface faulting, yet ruptured the surface, while recent earthquakes in the well‐defined and more rapidly extending Simav graben are smaller (Mw <6.0) and failed to produce surface breaks. Though our study area bounds a major metamorphic core complex, there is no evidence for involvement of low‐angle normal faulting in any of the recent large earthquakes.

The August 2018 Kaktovik Earthquakes: Active Tectonics in Northeastern Alaska Revealed With InSAR and Seismology

“…The mainshock centroid depth of 2.2 km is much shallower than both the relocated focal depth of 11 km and most of the slip in the InSAR model (Figure 2b). The hypocenter depth is located near the bottom of the rupture, as is often the case (Karasözen et al, 2016). We interpret that this discrepancy reflects uncertainties of ∼5 km in RMT centroid depths (Herman et al, 2014).…”

The 12 November 2017 Mw 7.3 Ezgeleh‐Sarpolzahab (Iran) Earthquake and Active Tectonics of the Lurestan Arc

“…First, it solves for the cluster vectors that connect each event hypocenter to the hypocentroid—defined as the geometric mean of all hypocenters—using all available data at any epicentral distance. Second, it calculates the absolute location of the hypocentroid and updates the absolute hypocenter coordinate of every event in the cluster, using either phase picks at close‐in stations that record direct Pg and Sg arrivals (termed direct calibration ), or ground truth locations of one or more events in the cluster determined by independent means ( indirect calibration ; e.g., Ghods et al, , ; Karasözen et al, , ; Walker et al, ).…”

Seismotectonics of the Zagros (Iran) From Orogen‐Wide, Calibrated Earthquake Relocations

“…This technique has been applied to several individual earthquake sequences in the Zagros and elsewhere in Iran (e.g., Aziz Zanjani et al, 2013;Elliott et al, 2015;Ghods et al, 2012;Nissen et al, 2010;Walker et al, 2011) but never before to seismicity across an entire orogen. Early instrumental events can be relocated if there is enough connectivity between them and modern events in the cluster; preferably, at least ∼10 shared readings from the same stations (e.g., Karasözen et al, 2016;Walker et al, 2011).…”