Caractérisation géodésique de la déformation active du point triple d

Caractérisation géodésique de la déformation active du point triple d

Université de Strasbourg
Ecole et Observatoire des Science de la Terre
Institut de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg - UMR 7516
Ecole doctorale des Science de la Terre, de l’Univers et de l’Environnement
Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Strasbourg
Présentée par
Yasser MAHMOUD
Caractérisation géodésique de la déformation active du point triple d’Hatay
(Syrie-Turquie)
Geodetic characterization of the active deformation at the Hatay triple
junction (Syria-Turkey)
Thèse présentée devant le jury composé de :
M. Pierre BRIOLE ……………..........
M. Ziyadin CAKIR ……………..........
M. Jacques HINDERER ………….…
M. Frédéric MASSON ……………..
M. Mustapha MEGHRAOUI …..…
M. Philippe VERNANT ………........
Rapporteur
Examinateur
Rapporteur
Directeur de thèse
Co-Directeur de thèse
Rapporteur
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Geodynamics of Eastern Mediterranean
Fault mapping is from (Dilek, 2010). Movement rates are from (McClusky et al., 2003; Reilinger 2006)
2/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
The Hatay region (SE Turkey and NW Syria)
The Hatay Triple junction region. Fault mapping from
Westaway, (2003) and Meghraoui et al., (2011)
3/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Outline
 Introduction
 Tectonic setting of Hatay triple junction.
 The GPS network in Hatay Region
 GPS Installation, measurements, and processing strategy (GAMIT/GLOBK).
 GPS velocity field in different reference frames.
 Block modeling of the Hatay triple junction
 Method (DEFNODE) and GPS data.
 Different geological configurations (models).
 Results and discussion
 Slip rate and locking depth.
 Blocks rotation and Euler poles.
 Implication to the seismic hazard of the region.
 Conclusions and perspectives
4/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Dead Sea Fault (DSF)
 Transform fault (Wilson, 1965).

DSF
~ 1000 km with N-S trending.
 Two different parts with restraining bend in
between.
 5 main segments with difference in geometry,
geology geomorphology and seismicity. (Khair et al.,
2000; Nemer et al., 2006).
 Long term (Geological, Geomorphology)
Meghraoui et al. 2003; Sbeinati et al. 2010)
slip rate
(e.g.
4.0 – 10 mm/yr
 Short term (Geodetic) (e.g. Reilinger et al. 2006:
Alchalbi et al. 2010).
slip rate
1.8 – 4.9 mm/yr
Segmentation of DSF is after (Khair et al., 2000; Nemer et al., 2006)
5/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
rate
Dead Sea Slip
Fault
(DSF)
mm/yr
Fault segment
DSF (general)
Amik basin
Block modeling
Conclusion
Authors
~ 8.7
4–6
9–15
Westaway et al., 2001
Freund et al., 1970
Steinitz et al., 1978
7–10
1.5–3.5
3.5–6
4.94±0.13
6.07
6.07
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Freund et al., 1968
Karabacak 2009
Altunel et al., 2009
Altunel et al., 2009
Missyaf & Al- 6.9±0.1
Ghab
4.9-6.3
Yammuneh
5.1 ± 1.3b
5–10
5–10
5.1±1.3
Roum
0.86 – 1.05
Serghaya
1.4±0.2
Hula Basin
~ 2.5
Jordan valley
4.7 to 5.1
5
3–4
10
0.5
Wadi Araba
3.4–4.9
4.3–6.0
3.9
4±2
3–7.5
6.4
10
5–10
7.5
Results and discussion
Meghraoui et al., 2003
Sbeinati et all., 2010
Daëron et al., 2004
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Daeron et al., 2004
Nemer et al., 2006
Gomez et al., 2003
Marco et al., 1997
Ferry et al., 2007
Ferry et al., 2011
Marco et al., 2005
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Hamiel et al., 2009
Niemi et al., 2001
Klinger et al., 1999
Ginat et al., 1998
El-Isa et al., 1986
Galli 1999
Garfunkel et al., 1981
Zak and Freund., 1966
Segmentation of DSF is after (Khair et al., 2000; Nemer et al., 2006)
5/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Dead Sea Fault (DSF)
Fault segment
locking depth
Slip rate mm/yr
(km)
DSF (general)
Missyaf & Al- 5-16 km
Ghab
15 km
Yammuneh
13 km
15 km
13 km
Serghaya
South DSF
South DSF
Hula Basin
15 km
Jordan valley 15 km
Wadi Araba
12 km
13 km
8 ± 5 km
~12 km
13 km
~15 km
15 ± 5 km
~ 8.0
4.5 – 4.8 ± 1
5.6 – 7.5 ± 1
1.8-3.3
4.2 ± 0.3
4.8 ± 0.3
4.7 ± 0.4
3.9 ± 0.3
3.5 ± 0.4
3.4 ± 0.4
1.7 - 2.8
3.7 ± 0.4
4.5 – 4.7 ± 0.2
3.0 ± 0.3
4.0 ± 0.3
4.4 ± 0.3
3.7 ± 0.4
4.3 ± 0.3
4.7 ± 0.4
4.9 ± 1.4
4.5 ± 0.3
4.4 ± 0.3
2.6 ± 0.3
4.9 ± 0.4
~ 4.9
Authors
Reilinger et al., 2006
McClusky et al., 2003
Alchalbi et al., 2010
Gomez et al., 2007
Reilinger et al., 2006
Mahmoud et al., 2005
Gomez et al., 2007
Reilinger et al., 2006
Mahmoud et al., 2005
Wdowinski et al., 2004
Wdowinski et al., 2004
ArRajehi et al., 2010
Gomez et al., 2007
Gomez et al., 2007
Reilinger et al., 2006
Wdowinski et al., 2004
Mahmoud et al., 2005
Al-Tarazi et al., 2011
Le Béon et al., 2008
Reilinger et al., 2006
Mahmoud et al., 2005
Pe’eri et al., 2002
Al-Tarazi et al., 2011
Masson et al., 2012
Segmentation of DSF is after (Khair et al., 2000; Nemer et al., 2006)
5/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Historical seismicity around the triple junction
- Large historical seismic events: M > 7.4 along DSF.
Ms = 7.7
Ms = 7.7
Ms = 7.6
Ms = 7.5
1114 AD
1170 AD
1202 AD
847 AD
Ms = 7.4
Ms = 7.4
Ms = 7.4
Ms = 7.4
1759 AD
859 AD
1157 AD
1408 AD
Historical seismicity in Lebanon and Syria from 37 A.D. to
1900 A.D. Ms > 5, from (Sbeinati et al., 2005)
- Large historical seismicity along the EAF.
Historical earthquakes along and around the East Anatolian fault
before 1900, Ms ≥ 6.5, from (Ambraseys, 2009).
Ms = 7.4
Ms = 7.4
Ms = 7.8
Ms = 7.1
1513 AD
1822 AD
1114 AD
1893 AD
Ms = 6.8 1905 AD
Ms = 6.7 1875 AD
Ms = 6.8 1685 AD
7.0 <Ms< 7.8 1759AD
6/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Instrumental Seismicity, DSF
Instrumental seismicity between 1964 and 2011, M>3.
Data are from: IRIS , ISC, NEIC.
Global CMT solution between 1976 and 2011, M>4.5.
- DSF has low instrumental seismic activity.
- Mw = 7.2 1995, in the golf of Aqaba
- Most events have magnitude < 5.
- Focal mechanisms show left lateral strike-slip
7/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Instrumental Seismicity, EAF
Instrumental seismicity between 1964 and 2011, M>3.
Data are from: IRIS , ISC, NEIC.
Global CMT solution between 1976 and 2011, M>4.5.
- The EAF has relatively higher instrumental seismic
activity between 1964 and 2011.
- Focal mechanisms refer to left lateral strike-slip
with some exceptions
- Most of seismic activity is concentrated around
the Karliova triple junction between the EAF and
NAF.
- Two large events near Karliova triple junction:
Mw = 6.8 22 May, 1971
Mw = 6.4
1 May, 2003
8/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
The GPS network in NW Syria and SE Turkey
Conclusion
9/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion 10/40
Motivations and objectives:

Densify the existing GPS networks in the region by installing a new regional
GPS network.

Have a better assessment of slip rate and fault locking parameters of the
major faults, as well as, of the small fault segments.

Develop a block model to explain the local kinematics and deformation at
the Hatay Triple junction using the GPS velocity field.

Determine and validate the relative motions of different blocks around the
Hatay triple junction and have a new assessment of strain accumulation
along the active faults.
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Previous GPS solutions
Dislocation model (Savage and Burford, 1973)
Faults Slip rate from previous studies:
EAF
NDSF
SDSF
KOF
KF
CA
10 mm/yr
1.8 – 4.8 mm/yr
4.0 – 4.9 mm/yr
3.5 – 5.5 mm/yr
2.5 – 6.4 mm/yr
0.4 – 2.0 mm/yr
5.5 – 7.0 mm/yr
3.5 – 7.0 mm/yr
strike-slip
normal-slip
strike-slip
normal-slip
Previous GPS solutions in the Eastern Mediterranean
in the Eurasia reference frame.
Results and discussion
Conclusion 11/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
GPS Installation and measuring
57 GPS sites
14 GPS sites
33 (Syria)
24 (Turkey)
6 (Syria)
8 (Turkey)

Installed in September 2009.

4 main profiles perpendicular
to most of the faults related to
the Hatay triple junction.
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
12/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
13/40
 3 GPS campaigns in Turkey 2009, 2010, and 2011.
 24 hours of measurement >> 2 sessions of 12 hours.
 30 seconds of sampling rate.
 Thales Z-Max receivers
 Thales Z-Max Ashtech antenna
GPS measurement on point PT24 in Turkey.
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
 2 GPS campaigns in Syria 2009 and 2010.
 24 hours of measurement >> 1 sessions.
 30 seconds of sampling rate.
 Thales DSNP 6502MK receivers
 Leica AT504 Choke Ring Antenna
GPS measurement on point BB02 in Syria.
14/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Stabilization network
We
processed
data
from
International GPS Service (IGS)
between 1998 – 2012 to stabilize our
solution and to perform different
reference frames.

Coordinates and velocities are
well constrained in the ITRF
2005.

Measurements: 1998 – 2012.
(at least 7 years)

Good network geometry:
Distribution of points over
Eurasia, Africa, Arabia.
Permanent IGS points whose data between 1998 and 2012 are processed to
perform the stabilization frame.
15/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Processing strategy with GAMIT/GLOBK
Results and discussion
Conclusion
(Dong et al., 1998; King & Bock, 1998)
Raw data of IGS sites
Raw data from Hatay network
1
GAMIT
Raw data from Regional CGPS
Daily solutions: station coordinates, atmospheric zenith delay, orbit and
earth orientation parameters
Random walk 2 mm/√yr
GLOBK
Apply Kalman filter
2
Final solution: consistent set of coordinates and velocities
Put in reference frame
Constraint
Present the final solution in different reference frames:
Eurasia and Arabia reference frames
3
16/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Calculated GPS time series
of permanent stations
Conclusion
17/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Calculated GPS time series
of stations in Syria and Turkey
Conclusion
18/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
GPS velocity field
Lon
17.07
4.36
30.50
14.79
6.92
15.49
21.03
11.93
13.07
1.48
6.61
12.88
41.57
Lat
52.28
50.80
50.36
49.91
43.76
47.07
52.10
57.40
52.38
43.56
52.92
49.14
43.79
ITRF 2005
Ve
Vn
18.79 14.06
16.56 15.01
21.69 11.85
18.56 14.99
19.77 15.59
20.50 15.09
19.41 13.79
15.90 14.00
17.83 14.66
18.44 15.30
16.51 15.74
19.09 14.83
24.13 11.18
Eurasia
Ve
Vn
-0.07 -0.19
-0.15 -0.15
-0.09 -0.69
-0.47
0.52
0.69
0.55
0.64
0.68
-0.27 -0.03
-0.45 -0.71
-0.21
0.04
0.30
0.03
-0.04
0.69
0.23
0.20
-0.48
0.58
Sig. E
Sig. N
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.27
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.25
0.30
0.23
0.30
0.24
0.40
0.34
0.36
0.29
0.38
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.27
0.31
0.27
0.30
0.29
Sigma E < 0.33 mm/yr
Sigma N < 0.40 mm/yr
Corr
Site
-0.002
0.004
0.006
-0.005
0.022
0.010
-0.035
-0.015
-0.009
0.023
0.005
0.001
0.016
BOR1
BRUS
GLSV
GOPE
GRAS
GRAZ
JOZE
ONSA
POTS
TLSE
WSRT
WTZR
ZECK
Calculated GPS velocity field from the permanent GPS sites in
ITRF2005 reference frame.
19/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Eurasia Reference frame
Lon
Lat
17.07
4.36
30.50
14.79
6.92
15.49
21.03
11.93
13.07
1.48
6.61
12.88
41.57
52.28
50.80
50.36
49.91
43.76
47.07
52.10
57.40
52.38
43.56
52.92
49.14
43.79
ITRF 2005
Ve
Vn
18.79 14.06
16.56 15.01
21.69 11.85
18.56 14.99
19.77 15.59
20.50 15.09
19.41 13.79
15.90 14.00
17.83 14.66
18.44 15.30
16.51 15.74
19.09 14.83
24.13 11.18
Eurasia
Ve
Vn
-0.07 -0.19
-0.15 -0.15
-0.09 -0.69
-0.47
0.52
0.69
0.55
0.64
0.68
-0.27 -0.03
-0.45 -0.71
-0.21
0.04
0.30
0.03
-0.04
0.69
0.23
0.20
-0.48
0.58
Sig. E
Sig. N
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.27
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.25
0.30
0.23
0.30
0.24
0.40
0.34
0.36
0.29
0.38
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.27
0.31
0.27
0.30
0.29
Corr
Site
-0.002
0.004
0.006
-0.005
0.022
0.010
-0.035
-0.015
-0.009
0.023
0.005
0.001
0.016
BOR1
BRUS
GLSV
GOPE
GRAS
GRAZ
JOZE
ONSA
POTS
TLSE
WSRT
WTZR
ZECK
Eurasia Euler pole : 57.351±0.7 °N, -93.045±0.8 °E
ω = 0.255±0.004 °/Myr.
WRMS total = 0.42 mm/yr
Calculated GPS velocity field from the permanent GPS sites in
Eurasia reference frame.
20/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
21/40
Arabia reference frame
Lon
Lat
ITRF 2005
Arabia
Sig. E
Sig. N
Corr
Site
-0.34
0.67
0.78
-0.025
ALWJ
-0.34
0.09
0.52
0.52
0.001
BHR1
23.38
0.60
-0.49
0.46
0.53
-0.033
HALY
31.78
25.54
0.76
0.10
0.55
0.65
-0.041
JEDD
27.91
29.23
0.62
0.45
0.82
0.93
0.001
KUWT
42.045 19.211
33.29
26.79
0.47
0.32
0.56
0.58
-0.009
NAMA
46.401 24.911
30.44
28.61
0.54
0.42
0.52
0.52
-0.016
SOLA
56.112 22.186
33.58
30.96
0.00
-0.48
0.57
0.63
-0.013
YIBL
Ve
Vn
Ve
Vn
36.378 26.458
27.33
23.65
0.50
50.608 26.209
29.64
29.80
36.100 29.139
25.35
39.631 21.369
47.972 29.325
Sigma E < 0.82 mm/yr
Sigma N < 0.93 mm/yr
Arabian Euler pole: 50.645±0.51 °N, -5.662±1.24 °E
ω = 0.507±0.014 °/Myr
WRMS total = 0.62 mm/yr
Calculated GPS velocity field from the permanent GPS
sites in Arabia plate and around in Arabia reference
frame.
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Velocity uncertainties of the Hatay GPS network
2.42 mm/yr in Syria
1.92 mm/yr in Turkey
GPS velocity field of the regional GPS network in NW Syria and
SE Turkey in Arabia reference frame.
22/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
GPS profiles
Regional GPS velocity field in Arabia reference frame.
23/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
3D-Block modeling of the HTJ using GPS measurements
24/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Why block model ?

Direct interpretation of velocity field does not satisfy
deformation pattern.

The simple 2-D models do not provide accurate estimations in tectonically complex
regions where multiple faults segments of different strike and kinematics are
present.
the understanding of
DEFNODE software (McCaffrey, 2002)


Calculate co-seismic and inter-seismic deformation using different types of data.
Use finite number of rotating elastic blocks and the elastic deformation accumulated at
their boundaries (faults).

Plates and faults are represented in 3 dimensions.

All faults coincide with the blocks boundaries.
25/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
26/40
Block modeling Approach
Conditions:
 Rigid blocks: each point rotate with same angular velocity.
 The model boundaries are considered as fully creeping faults.
 Blocks and faults are represented by nodes in 3D on a sphere.
Methodology
We estimated parameters of the blocks rotations and the faults
locking by applying an elastic dislocation model (Savage, 1983) in
an elastic and homogeneous half-space (Okada, 1985) and rigid
body rotation.
Minimize data misfit using the reduced chi-square statistic.
𝜒𝑛2 = (∑r2/s2) / DOF
r
the residual
s
the standard deviation
DOF
the Degree of Freedom.
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Kinematic quantity
ɸ = 1 – (Vc / V)
Vc Near-field creep vector
V Far-field slip vector
Transition between Z1 & Z2 According to Wang et al., (2003)
 ( z )  1.0 : Z  Z1
exp( Z ' / G ' )  exp(1 / G ' )
 ( z) 
1  exp(1 / G ' )
 ( z )  0.0 : Z  Z 2
Where :
Z1 > 7 km
G '  G (0.0  G  10
D = 30 km
Z1 ≤ Z2 ≤ 30 km
G '  20  G (10  G  20)
Z '  ( Z  Z1 ) /( Z 2  Z1 )
Depth < 7 km
Fully locked
27/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
GPS data used in the modeling
Combination of different GPS solutions
GPS solution
time span
Common sites RMS mm/yr
NRMS
Reilinger et al., 2006
17 years
---
---
---
Le Béon et al., 2008
6 years
12
0.48
24.21
Alchalbi et al., 2010
8 years
12
0.66
17.84
Al-Tarazi et al., 2011
5 years
16
0.14
32.11
This study
3 years
10
0.36
7.2
High uncertainties
GPS solution from Hatay network
Results and discussion
Conclusion
28/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Different models configurations
Model A:
Blocks: Arabia, Anatolia, Sinai
Faults: EAF, DSF, CA, KF
Model B:
Blocks: Arabia, Anatolia, Sinai, Iskenderun
Faults: EAF, DSF, CA, KF, KOF
Model C:
Blocks: Arabia, Anatolia, Sinai, Iskenderun,
Lebanon.
Faults: EAF, DSF, CA, KF, KOF
Model D:
Blocks: Arabia, Anatolia, Sinai, Iskenderun,
Amanous.
Faults: EAF, DSF, CA, KF, KOF
Results and discussion
Conclusion
29/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Modeling results
Block modeling
Model
Observation

135 GPS vectors inverted for the models A, B,
C, D.

Models with more blocks and faults fit better
to the GPS data.

Model D with the Amanous micro block gives
the best fit .

Model D:
Arabia ……..… 64 GPS
Anatolia …….. 28 GPS
Sinai ……..….. 28 GPS
Amanous …….. 9 GPS
Iskenderun ….. 6 GPS
Model WRMS
#
mm/yr
NRMS
Red chi**2
DOF
Data
Free
parameter
Total ch**2
A
1.16
1.83
3.63
253
272
19
918.08
B
1.09
1.70
3.26
246
272
26
801.44
C
1.07
1.66
3.10
259
288
29
803.06
D
1.04
1.64
3.13
235
270
35
735.83
Results and discussion
Conclusion
30/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
31/40
Residuals
Overall Model
Model #
RMS E
RMS N
A
B
C
D
2.26
1.87
1.88
1.67
1.59
1.59
1.61
1.51
RMS Total
1.95
1.74
1.74
1.59
Around HTJ
RMS E
RMS N
3.47
4.24
4.46
2.40
2.32
3.18
2.89
2.34
RMS Total
2.95
3.75
3.76
2.37
Introduction
Profiles
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
32/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
33/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Slip rates and blocks rotations
Fixd
Movg
Long.
Lat.
Omega SigOme
Arabia
Anatolia
45.127
27.610
0.391
0.056
Arabia
Iskenderun
37.946
35.070
1.099
0.243
Arabia
Sinai
46.494
31.012
0.202
0.067
Arabia
Amanous
41.220
37.313
0.638
0.927
Euler poles for the different blocks in model D relative to Arabia.
Results and discussion
Conclusion
34/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
Fault locking and ɸ values of model D
ɸ = 1 – (Vc / V)
ɸ = 1 >> full locking
ɸ = 0 >> full creeping
Fault locking depth:
EAF 15 km
> 30 km
DSF 11 km
25 km
KOF 9 km
17-22 km
CA 9 km
20 km
KF
15 km
8 km
Scalar of phi (ɸ) parameter for the different faults (DSF, EAF, CF, CA and
KOF) from the inversion of model D
35/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
36/40
Seismic Hazard around the Hatay triple junction
M ~ 7.4
1513 AD
Anderson et al., (1996)
𝑴𝒘 = 𝟓. 𝟏𝟐 + 𝟏. 𝟏𝟔 ∗ 𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝑳) − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟎 𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝑺)
M > 7.8
1114 AD
𝐿 : Length of fault segment.
S : Fault slip rate.
Ms ~ 7.4
1822 AD
Mw 7.3-7.5
1170 AD
Fault
segment
Slip rate
EQ
DSF (Missyaf)
1.0 - 2.0 mm/yr 1170 AD
EAF (SW)
9.0 mm/yr
KOF
3.6 - 4.5 mm/yr 1513 AD
KF
4.0 ± 1 mm/yr
1114 AD
1822 AD
Ref
Meghraoui et al.,
2003
Ambraseys and
Jackson, 1998
L
Predicted
Magnitude
70 km
7 - 7.2
90 km
7.5 - 7.7
Ambraseys, 2009
75 km
7.1 - 7.2
Sbeinati et al., 2005
50 km
6.8 - 7
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusions

Fault slip rates obtained for the Hatay GPS network confirm the
low level of strain accumulation along the northern DSF
documented by the recent geodetic studies, and that the
southern DSF has a slip rate 2-3 times greater than the northern
DSF.

The slip rate estimations from GPS still significantly different
from most long-term estimations.
Conclusion
37/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusions

Fault slip rates obtained for the Hatay GPS network confirm the
low level of strain accumulation along the northern DSF
documented by the recent geodetic studies, and that the
southern DSF has a slip rate 2-3 times greater than the northern
DSF.

The slip rate estimations from GPS still significantly different
from most long-term estimations.

The EAF have a constant slip rate of
9.0 mm/yr along all its segments
between the 2 triple junctions
(Karliova and Hatay) with no
significant extension or compression.
Conclusion
37/40
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
38/40

The Karasu fault shows a slip rate (sinistral and
compressional) clearly different from EAF or DSF,
therefore it has to be identified as an individual
fault and not as an extension or a continuation of
the DSF or the EAF.

The Amanous micro block or other block
between the KF and the KOF is important for the
understanding of strain accumulation in the
Hatay triple junction.

All the faults related to the Hatay triple junction
are now accumulating strain and taking into
account the Historical seismicity, large
earthquakes with magnitude > 7 can be produced
in the Hatay region.
Introduction
GPS network in Hatay
Block modeling
Results and discussion
Conclusion
39/40
Perspectives

Repeated GPS measurements on our dense network are needed in the next coming
years to improve the uncertainty of the GPS velocity field.

The block model inversions can be improved by including different types of data such
as earthquake-derived fault slip vector azimuths.

The block model proposed in this thesis can be improved by adding other small
tectonic features and accounting for their contribution of strain accumulation.

Further geophysical and geological investigations are fundamental to map the fault of
Iskenderun to better constrain the Amanous block.
Thank you for your attention
Photo of point PT26, NW of Antakya.