The 2014 Mw 6.9 North Aegean Trough (Nat) Earthquake: Seismological and Geodetic Evidence

Saltogianni, Vasso; Gianniou, M.; Taymaz, Tuncay; Yolsal‐Çevikbilen, Seda; Stiros, Stathis C.

doi:10.12681/bgsg.11877

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All studies (e.g. Ganas et al, 2019;Karaso ¨zen et al, 2018;Konca et al, 2019;Papadopoulos et al, 2019;Saltogianni et al, 2017;Tiryakiog ˘lu et al, 2018), combining tectonic, structural, seismic and geodetic data, state that the source of the earthquake is a normal, east-west striking fault located south of the Karaada Island. However, they diverge on the dipazimuth of the plane.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The July 20, 2017 Mw = 6.6 Bodrum-Kos Earthquake, Southeast Aegean Sea: Contribution of the Tsunami Modeling to the Assessment of the Fault Parameters

Cordrie

Gailler

Heinrich

et al. 2021

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The South East Aegean Sea is seismically active with crustal and intermediate-depth earthquakes of magnitude that can exceed the magnitude M w = 7. On July 20, 2017, a shallow normal faulting M w = 6.6 earthquake occurred in the Gulf of Go ¨kova, 10 km away from the cities of Kos and Bodrum. A tsunami hit the coasts of Turkey and Kos Island with waves of up to 2 m that damaged several harbors. Based on the field surveys and the tide-gauge records of Bodrum, Syros and Kos harbors, we performed tsunami simulations to constrain the source and analyze the North v/s South-dipping solutions for the fault plane. Depending on the source model, the simulations show different height distributions which provide complementary constrains on the source parameters, helping the characterization of the fault plane. The comparison between our maximum wave heights models and the field data favor the North-dipping fault scenario. When using only the constraint of the Bodrum tide-gauge, our models lead to a source with a 0.7 m fault slip, incompatible with the slip inferred from geodesy. When using the constrain from neighboring coastal wave heights and run-up recovered during field surveys, the best fit is obtained with a 2 m fault slip scenario consistent with the geodetic models. There is a 0.25 m mean difference between observed and synthetic water heights that could be due to the unaccuracy of the bathymetry data.

show abstract