Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70024889

The 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake: A 3D dynamic stress transfer model of intraearthquake triggering

Abstract

Before the August 1999 Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey, earthquake, theoretical studies of earthquake ruptures and geological observations had provided estimates of how far an earthquake might jump to get to a neighboring fault. Both numerical simulations and geological observations suggested that 5 km might be the upper limit if there were no transfer faults. The Izmit earthquake appears to have followed these expectations. It did not jump across any step-over wider than 5 km and was instead stopped by a narrower step-over at its eastern end and possibly by a stress shadow caused by a historic large earthquake at its western end. Our 3D spontaneous rupture simulations of the 1999 Izmit earthquake provide two new insights: (1) the west- to east-striking fault segments of this part of the North Anatolian fault are oriented so as to be low-stress faults and (2) the easternmost segment involved in the August 1999 rupture may be dipping. An interesting feature of the Izmit earthquake is that a 5-km-long gap in surface rupture and an adjacent 25° restraining bend in the fault zone did not stop the earthquake. The latter observation is a warning that significant fault bends in strike-slip faults may not arrest future earthquakes.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 40.736827° to 40.805401° latitude; 29.854168° to 30.014834° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R.A. Harris, J.F. Dolan, R. Hartleb, S.M. Day. 2002. The 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake: A 3D dynamic stress transfer model of intraearthquake triggering. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000825

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗