NEOTECTONICS AND SEISMICITY OF

EASTERN SİMAV GRABEN, KÜTAHYA – TURKEY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

MUSTAFA KAPLAN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

SEPTEMBER 2014
 Approval of the thesis:

NEOTECTONICS AND SEISMICITY OF

EASTERN SİMAV GRABEN, KÜTAHYA – TURKEY

submitted by MUSTAFA KAPLAN in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Geological Engineering Department, Middle East
Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen _____________________

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Erdin Bozkurt _____________________

Head of Department, Geological Engineering

Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit _____________________

Supervisor, Geological Engineering Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Erdin Bozkurt _____________________

Geological Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit _____________________

Geological Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. F. Bora Rojay _____________________

Geological Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. Reşat Ulusay _____________________

Geological Engineering Dept., HÜ

Assist. Prof. Dr. A. Arda Özacar _____________________

Geological Engineering Dept., METU

Date: 03.09.2014
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Mustafa Kaplan

Signature:

iv
 ABSTRACT

NEOTECTONICS AND SEISMICITY OF

EASTERN SİMAV GRABEN, KÜTAHYA – TURKEY

Kaplan, Mustafa

M.S., Department of Geological Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit

September 2014, 121 pages

The Simav graben is an about 1-9 km wide, 50 km long and approximately WNW-
trending active depression. It is located along the western section of a seismogenic
belt with a depth of 10-15 km. It is the 10-30 km wide and approximately 500 km
long active fault system, namely the Akşehir-Simav fault system. The Simav graben
was developed on the northern Menderes Massif under the control of active faults
comprising the Simav section of the Akşehir-Simav fault system.

The Simav and Akdere grabens include two different fills separated by an
intervening angular unconformity: (a) Early Miocene-Middle Miocene deformed
graben fill, and (b) Quaternary modern and undeformed graben fill. Geological
structures and stratigraphic relationships reveal that there are four tectonic periods
differentiated in the study area: (a) N-S extension along the Simav detachment fault,
(b) E-W extension and formation of Demirci, Akdere and Selendi grabens, (c) NW-
SE compression period characterized by strike-slip faulting, deformation of older
graben fills, separation and displacement of the Akdere and Demirci grabens and
v
“non-deposition” in the region, (d) NNE-SSW extension controlled neotectonic
period that is characterized by normal faulting and development of both the modern
Simav and Akdere grabens.

The Simav County and a number of settlements in the size of town and villages are
located on and very close to the graben margin-bounding normal faults. Most of
them are active and have a capacity of creating destructive earthquakes. This was
proved once more by the occurrence of two recent earthquakes. These are the 17
February 2009 Naşa (Simav) (Mw = 5.3) and the 19 May 2011 Söğüt (Simav) (Mw
=5.9) earthquakes. The source of the Söğüt earthquake is the Nadarçamı or Seyirkaya
fault comprising the Simav fault zone. These faults are normal faults dipping towards
NNE. NNE extension and normal faulting mechanism is consistent with the focal
mechanism solutions, epicenter location and focus depth and GPS velocity analysis.
Simav and a number of settlements located around the active faults are under the
threat of earthquake hazard. For this reason, deterministic seismic hazard maps of the
study area were prepared to define the earthquake hazard in the Simav region by
using the available geological and seismological data as well as a reasonable
attenuation relationship for the region. PGA value for Simav city center soil site
condition is 0.398 g.

Keywords: neotectonic, seismicity, seismic hazard, Simav graben, Simav fault zone,
GPS, PGA, DSHA

vi
 ÖZ

SİMAV GRABENİ DOĞU KESİMİNİN NEOTEKTONİĞİ VE

DEPREMSELLİĞİ

KAPLAN, Mustafa

Yüksek Lisans, Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ali KOÇYİĞİT

Eylül 2014, 121 sayfa

Simav grabeni yaklaşık 1-9 km genişlikte, 50 km uzunlukta BKB uzanımlı aktif bir
çöküntü alanıdır.Simav grabeni 10-15 km derinlikteki bir sismik kuşağın batı
kesiminde yeralır. Bu sismik kuşak 10-30 km genişlikte ve 500 km uzunlukta olan
Akşehir-Simav fay sistemidir. Simav grabeni, Akşehir-Simav fay sisteminin Simav
kısmını oluşturan aktif fayların kontrolünde kuzey Menderes Masifinde gelişmiştir.

Simav ve Akdere grabenleri aradaki açısal uyumsuzlukla birbirinden ayrılan iki

farklı dolgu içerir. (a) Erken Miyosen-Orta Miyosen deforme olmuş dolgu, ve (b)
deforme olmamış Kuvaterner dolgu. Jeolojik yapılar ve stratigrafik ilişkiler bölgede
ayırılabilen 4 farklı tektonik dönem olduğunu göstermiştir. (a) Simav sıyrılma fayı
üzerinde K-G genişleme, (b) D-B genişleme ve Demirci, Akdere ve Selendi
grabenlerinin oluşması, (c) Doğrultu atımlı faylanma, eski graben dolgusunun
deforme olması, Akdere ve Demirci grabenlerinin ayrılması ve ötelenmesi, ve
bölgede çökelimin duraksamasıyla temsil edilen KB-GD sıkışma dönemi, ve (d)

vii
normal faylanma ve güncel Akdere ve Simav grabenlerin oluşumu ile karakterize
edilen, KKD-GGB genişleme kontrolündeki neotektonik dönem.

Simav ilçesi ve köy-kasaba büyüklüğündeki birçok yerleşim birimi Simav grabenini

sınırlayan normal fayların üzerinde ya da çok yakınında bulunmaktadır. Bu fayların
çoğu aktiftir ve yıkıcı deprem üretme potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu durum yakın
zamanda meydana gelen iki depremle birkez daha kanıtlanmıştır. Bu depremler 17
Şubat 2009 Naşa (Simav) (Mw=5.3) ve 19 Mayıs 2011 Söğüt (Simav) (Mw=5.9)
depremleridir. Söğüt depreminin kaynağı Simav fay kuşağını oluşturan Nadarçamı
ya da Seyirkaya faylarıdır. Bu faylar KKD eğimli normal faylardır. KKD genişleme
ve normal faylanma mekanizması, odak mekanizması çözümleri, episantır konumu,
odak derinliği ve GPS hızları analiziyle uyumludur. Aktif fayların çevresinde
bulunan Simav ve birçok yerleşke deprem tehlikesi tehdidi altındadır. Bu
nedenle,Simav bölgesindeki deprem tehlikesini ortaya koymak için, mevcut jeolojik
ve sismolojik verilerle birlikte bölge için uygun azalım ilişkileri kullanılarak
deterministik ve olasılıksal deprem tehlike haritaları hazırlanmıştır. Simav şehir
merkezi toprak zemin sınıfı için PGA değeri 0.398 g olarak bulunmuştur.

Anahtar kelimeler: neotektonik, depremsellik, deprem tehlikesi, Simav grabeni,

Simav fay zonu, GPS

viii
To my family,

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit for his clear
guidance, endless support, encouragement, sharing his knowledge and critically
editing of the manuscript. Studying under his supervision was a priceless experience
for me to learn about structural geology and tectonics. He is more than a supervisor
for me and words will never be enough to express my sincere gratefulness to him.

I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Erdin Bozkurt for fruitful discussions about the thesis and
giving valuable insight into the discussions on the views about extension in the
region. His attitude always inspired and encouraged me during the writing of this
thesis. I want to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Reşat Ulusay for the time he spent
reading the thesis without missing any typing mistake and inconsistency. I am
thankful to Prof. Dr. F. Bora Rojay who critically reviewed the thesis and shared his
knowledge about not only for the geology of the region but also for the geology of
Turkey. I would also thank to Assist. Prof. A. Arda Özacar for critically reviewing
the thesis and providing smart solutions whenever I was in despair.

I would like to M. Abdullah Kelam, Haydar Merdin, İlkay Mudun, Aydın Çiçek,
Hakan Tanyaş and Erhan Gülyüz for their valuable helps during different stages of
this work. Your helps and efforts made great effect on this study.

I also want to thank to my friends at the department, Okay Çimen, Mustafa Y. Kaya,
Yavuz Kaya, Felat Dursun, Faruk Berber, Arzu Arslan, Özge Ünlüce, Bülent Tokay
as well as other friends and staff for their friendship and support.

I am so glad I have my friends out of the department Erçin Savur, Niyazi Gürsoy,
Bahtiyar Yılmaz, Ebru Topsakal, Can Barış Agbay and others who always gave
support without questioning.

At last but not the least, I want to thank to my family for patience and encouragement
before and during my studies. Especially, I am grateful to my beloved, Hülya, for her
continuous support, love and confidence to me.

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. v

ÖZ ............................................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ x

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... xv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xvi

CHAPTERS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purposes and Scope........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Method of Study ............................................................................................ 2

1.3 Location ......................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Previous Works .............................................................................................. 3

1.5 Regional Tectonic Setting .............................................................................. 9

2. STRATIGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 15

2.1 Pre-Miocene Rocks ...................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 Menderes Crystalline Rocks ............................................................ 15

2.1.2 Simav Metamorphics ....................................................................... 17

2.1.3 Budağan Limestone .......................................................................... 19

2.1.4 Dağardı Mélange .............................................................................. 19

2.2 Miocene Units .............................................................................................. 20

2.2.1 Eğrigöz – Koyunoba Plutons ........................................................... 21

xi
 2.2.2 Taşbaşı Formation ............................................................................ 21

2.2.3 Kızılbük Formation .......................................................................... 23

2.2.4 Civanadağı Tuffs .............................................................................. 25

2.2.5 Naşa Basalt ....................................................................................... 28

2.3 Neotectonic Units ......................................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Toklargölü Formation ...................................................................... 29

2.3.2 Alluvial Deposits .............................................................................. 30

3. STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY .............................................................................. 31

3.1 Beds .............................................................................................................. 31

3.2 Unconformities............................................................................................. 32

3.3 Folds ............................................................................................................. 33

3.4 Faults ............................................................................................................ 35

3.4.1 Simav Fault Zone ............................................................................. 35

3.4.1.1 Öreyler fault ....................................................................... 36

3.4.1.2 Beyce fault ......................................................................... 37

3.4.1.3 Simav fault ......................................................................... 37

3.4.1.4 Hisarardı fault..................................................................... 38

3.4.1.5 Mamak fault ....................................................................... 38

3.4.1.6 Nadarçamı fault .................................................................. 38

3.4.1.7 Küçüktaştepe fault .............................................................. 41

3.4.1.8 Seyirkaya fault ................................................................... 42

3.4.1.9 Kocakırtepe fault ................................................................ 45

3.4.2 Naşa Fault Zone ............................................................................... 45

3.4.2.1 Güneyköy fault ................................................................... 46

3.4.2.2 Balıklar fault....................................................................... 46

xii
 3.4.2.3 Karaçayırbaşı fault ............................................................. 48

3.4.2.4 Naşa fault ........................................................................... 48

3.4.2.5 Bayram fault....................................................................... 48

3.4.2.6 Hüsüm fault ........................................................................ 49

3.4.2.7 Eynal fault .......................................................................... 50

3.4.2.8 Muradınlar fault ................................................................. 51

3.4.3 Akdere Fault Zone............................................................................ 51

3.4.3.1 Akdere fault ....................................................................... 51

3.4.3.2 Hamzabey fault .................................................................. 52

3.4.4 Other faults ....................................................................................... 52

3.4.4.1 Kıbletaştepe fault ............................................................... 52

3.4.4.2 Secondary normal fault ...................................................... 54

3.4.4.3 Faults with two overprinted sets of slickenlines ................ 55

3.4.4.4 Buried faults ....................................................................... 58

4. SEISMICITY AND GPS ANALYSIS ............................................................... 59

4.1 Historical Seismicity .................................................................................... 59

4.2 Recent Seismicity......................................................................................... 60

4.3 Focal Mechanism Solutions ......................................................................... 62

4.4 GPS Analysis of the region .......................................................................... 67

4.4.1 Theoretical Background of GPS ...................................................... 68

4.4.2 Usage of GPS in Active Tectonics ................................................... 69

4.4.3 GPS Analysis in Western Anatolia and Simav Graben ................... 70

5. DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE SIMAV AND

AKDERE GRABENS .......................................................................................... 75

6. SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF SİMAV REGION ............................. 81

xiii
 6.1 Theoretical Background ............................................................................... 81

6.2 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment of Simav Region ...................... 83

6.2.1 Source Characterization ................................................................... 83

6.2.2 Selecting Reasonable Attenuation Relationship .............................. 83

6.2.3 Calculating Ground Motion ............................................................. 87

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 91

REFERENCES…………...........................................................................................93

APPENDICES

A. TABLES AND PLATES…................................................................................105

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 4-1: Seismic parameters of the focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes
occurred in study area ................................................................................................ 65

Table 6-1: Earthquake and ground motion parameters of 24.05.2014 Gökçeada

earthquake and properties of accelerometer installed in Simav County (ERD, 2014a)
.................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 6-2: Accelerometer readings that are selected for attenuation relationship ..... 86

Table 6.3: Recorded PGA values and calculated PGA values from attenuation
relationships ............................................................................................................... 87

Table A-1: Seismic parameters of the earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 3.5
occurred in the period of 1944-2014. Epicenter distribution of the Simav graben
between 38.5-39.5N 28.5-29.5E coordinates. Data source: Earthquake Research
Institute (ERD, 2014b) ….........................................................................................105

xv
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: a. Simplified tectonic of Turkey and adjacent areas showing major
structural elements and plate boundaries.CAFS. Central Anatolian Fault System,
DSFS. Dead Sea Fault System, EAFS. East Anatolian Fault System, NAFS. North
Anatolian Fault System. b. Simplified neotectonic map showing the study area and
its regional geological setting (Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit). ........................... 4

Figure 1-2: Simplified map showing the location of the study area, major tectonic
structures and neotectonic domains in Turkey and surrounding areas (Different
colors represent different neotectonic domains that are numbered and explained on
the figure) (DFZ: Doğanbey Fault Zone; BFZ: Başkale Fault Zone; YFZ: Yüksekova
Fault Zone) (courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit). ...................................................... 10

Figure 2-1: Generalized tectono-stratigraphic column of the study area. E-K Gr.
Eğrigöz and Koyunoba granites ................................................................................. 16

Figure 2-2: Close-up view of migmatite (near 1km south of Akdağ town) ............... 17

Figure 2-3: Close-up view of schist-marble alternation (near Rahimler village) ...... 18

Figure 2-4: Close-up view of serpentinized rocks included in the Dağardı mélange
(along Samat-Hıdırdivanı road) ................................................................................. 20

Figure 2-5: Close-up view of reddish polygenetic boulder-block conglomerates of

Taşbaşı formation (near east of Kabaşlar Village) ..................................................... 22

Figure 2-6: General view of the unconformity between Budağan Limestone (JKb)
and Taşbaşı Formation (Tt) (near Sivrikır Hill between Koyunoba and Kabaşlar
villages, view to north) ............................................................................................... 23

Figure 2-7: Close-up view of sandstone-siltstone-mudsone alternation of Kızılbük

Formation (near south of Yeşilköy town) .................................................................. 24

xvi
Figure 2-8: Close-up view of internal structure of highly jointed rhyolitic dome in
Kızılbük Formation (quarry, along Simav-Karamanca road, 3km SW of Kalkan
Village)....................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 2-9: Geological map showing units exposed in the Akdere graben and line of
measured section. ....................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2-10: General view of Civanadağı Tuffs (Büyükgüney Hill, 2 km north of

Naşa, view to NW) ..................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2-11: Measured section of Civanadağı tuffs along the line on Figure 2.9 ...... 27

Figure 2-12: Close-up view of the vesicular Naşa Basalt (north of Eynal thermal
facility) ....................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 2-13: General view of a fault terrace included in Toklargölü Formation which
unconformably overlies Naşa Basalt (1 km NW of Eynal thermal facility, view to
NE) ............................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 3-1: Contour diagram of poles to bedding planes collected in Kızılbük

Formation on equal angle lower hemisphere stereonet. ............................................. 34

Figure 3-2: Contour diagram of poles to bedding planes collected in Civanadağı tuffs
on equal angle lower hemisphere stereonet. .............................................................. 34

Figure 3-3: Step like morphology resulted from the basinward dipping parallel faults
comprising the Simav Fault Zone. F1.Seyirkaya fault, F2. Küçüktaştepe fault, F3.
Nadarçamı fault (view to SW). .................................................................................. 36

Figure 3-4: Close-up view of the slickenside developed on the Hisarardı fault (S-4 in
Figure A-1 in Appendix, 670238E-4328471N). ........................................................ 39

Figure 3-5: Slip plane data taken from Hisarardı fault (S-4 in Figure A-1 in
Appendix) and kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on
Schmidt’s lower hemisphere. (black arrows show local extension direction) ........... 39

Figure 3-6: General view of the Nadarçamı fault scarp, trace (F-F) and the sudden
break in the slope amount along the Nadarçamı fault (near Nadarçamı Recreation
Area, view to East) ..................................................................................................... 40
xvii
Figure 3-7: A sketch block diagram illustrating a relay ramp resulted from the
transfer of movement along two overstepping normal fault segments dipping in the
same direction. (Ferrill & Morris, 2001). ................................................................... 41

Figure 3-8: General view of steeply sloping fault scarp of the Küçüktaştepe fault
(near north of Küçüktaştepe Hill, view to southwest) ................................................ 42

Figure 3-9: General view of the step-like morphology, the back-tilting and the total
throw amount of 250 m formed along the Seyirkaya fault (view to east) .................. 43

Figure 3-10: Close-up view of the Seyirkaya fault slickenside (S-6 in Figure A-1 in
Appendix). .................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 3-11 Slip plane data taken from Seyirkaya fault (S-6 in Figure A-1 in
Appendix) and kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on
Schmidt’s lower hemisphere. (black arrows show local extension direction) ........... 44

Figure 3-12: General view of the Güneyköy fault scarp and trace (F-F) (view to
north). ......................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 3-13: Close up view of the mesoscopic synthetic fault of the Güneyköy fault
(S-1 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) ............................................................................... 47

Figure 3-14 General view of the Balıklar fault scarp and trace (F-F) (view to north)
.................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 3-15: General view of Naşa fault scarp (F-F) (view from 1.5 km northwest of
Hüsüm District, view to northeast) ............................................................................ 49

Figure 3-16: General view of the suspended fault terrace along the Hüsüm fault
(view to north). ........................................................................................................... 50

Figure 3-17: Close-up view of a synthetic mesoscopic fault running parallel to the
Akdere fault (along the Eğirler road). ........................................................................ 52

Figure 3-18: Slip plane data taken from fault plane (S-2 in Figure A-1 in Appendix)
and kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower
hemisphere. (black arrows show local extension direction) ...................................... 53

xviii
Figure 3-19: Close-up view of a mesoscopic fault and its well-developed slickenlines
observed along Simav-Samat road (S-3 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) ........................ 54

Figure 3-20: Slip plane data taken from fault plane (S-3 in Figure A-1 in Appendix)
and kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower
hemisphere. (black arrows show local extension direction) ...................................... 55

Figure 3-21: a. Close-up view of the set of slickenlines depicting dextral faulting
(SL1), b. Close-up view of the set of slickenlines depicting normal faulting, c.
General view of the slip plane with two overprinted sets of slickenlines (SL1, SL2)
(See figure 3.24 for location). .................................................................................... 56

Figure 3-22: Kinematic analysis of the slip plane data by using the Angelier’s direct
inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere net; 1st phase of deformation
obtained from the overprinted older slickenlines (SL1 in Figure 3.22). (black arrows
show local extension and compression directions) .................................................... 56

Figure 3-23: Kinematic analysis of the slip plane data by using the Angelier’s direct
inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere net; 2nd phase of deformation
obtained from the overprinted older slickenlines (SL2 in Figure 3.21). (black arrows
show local extension and compression directions) .................................................... 57

Figure 3-24: Location map showing the site of overprinted slickenline measurement
(Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit) .......................................................................... 57

Figure 4-1: Cumulative number of earthquakes with magnitude M ≥ 3.5 recorded in

and near environ of the Simav graben (ERD,2014b) ................................................. 61

Figure 4-2: Seismotectonic map of the study area (Data is from ERD,2014b). ........ 63

Figure 4-3: Focal mechanism solutions and their distribution in the study area.
Seismic parameters are given in Table 4.1................................................................. 64

Figure 4-4: Schmidt lower hemisphere plot of Win Tensor rotational optimization
solution of available focal mechanisms (Delvaux et al., 2003) (Red arrows indicate
local extension direction of earthquake area)............................................................. 66

Figure 4-5: Stress field orientation derived from focal mechanisms (Görgün, 2014) 67

xix
Figure 4-6: GPS velocity field of Western Anatolia which is relative to Eurasia fixed
reference frame. Error elipses are at 95% confidence interval. Simav graben is shown
as black box inserted in the figure .............................................................................. 71

Figure 4-7: Maximum and minimum horizontal strain axes (black arrows),
Minumum horizontal stress (extension) direction taken from World Stress Map
project (red arrows) Heidbach et al., 2008 ................................................................. 72

Figure 4-8: Rigid body rotations in the study area according to GPS velocities. ...... 73

Figure 5-1: Sketch map wiev, cross-sections and major events depicting proposed
evolutionary history of Simav and Akdere grabens ................................................... 78

Figure 6-1: Correlations between earthquake magnitude values for Turkish

earthquake catalogue (r: correlation coefficient; S.D.: standard deviation) (Ulusay et
al., 2004). .................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 6-2: Deterministic seismic hazard map of Simav region prepared by using
Ulusay et al. (2004) attenuation relationship formula and Mw = 6.73 scenario
earthquake sourced from Simav fault zone. ............................................................... 88

Figure 6-3: Deterministic seismic hazard map of Simav region prepared by using
Ulusay et al. (2004) attenuation relationship formula and Mw = 5.34 scenario
earthquake sourced from Naşa fault zone. ................................................................. 89

Figure A-1: Geological map of the study area…......................................................117

Figure A-2: Geological cross sections along A-B and C-D lines (position of the lines
are shown in figure A-1). For details of the well logs readers are referred to see
(Güven et al., 1985) ….............................................................................................119

Figure A-3: Geological cross sections along A-B and C-D lines (sites of the lines are
shown in figure A-1). For details of the well logs readers are referred to see (Erkan et
al.,1977; Erkan, 1978; Erişen et al.,1985; Erişen et al.,1986; Erişen et al.,1989)
…...............................................................................................................................121

xx
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purposes and Scope

Western Anatolia is one of the most well-known regions under the effect of tensional
tectonics. This region is characterized by graben-horst systems and their nearly E-W
trending margin-boundary faults. One of the well-developed members of the graben-
horst system is the Simav graben. It is the study area located in the western part of
the 10-30 km wide and 500 km long Akşehir-Simav fault system, which comprises
the northern part of the western Anatolia extensional tectonic province. Both the
neotectonics and active tectonics of the grabens are still under debate due to
composite tectonic history. There are two main points that are still being discussed in
the region: commencement age and the cause of the extension. This discussion also
raised a disagreement about the onset of neotectonic regime. Neotectonic term is
used for tectonic periods that started anytime in the geologic past but not finished,
i.e. corresponding tectonic regime is still present. There are numerous studies in the
region in this scope proposing different views which will be introduced in detail in
the regional tectonic setting section; however, most of the time there is not enough
evidence given by one author to refute other views. Different authors interpret
similar geological data as evidences of different evolutionary models. Moreover
proposed driving mechanisms of the tectonic movements may have been operating
synchronously, therefore the resulting geological data of different mechanisms could
be formed at the same time in different places. Simav graben is a key location to
observe the field-based records of the tectonic periods. Part of the Akdere and
Selendi grabens with older and deformed units are included in the study area as well
1
as younger Simav modern graben. Therefore, the main aim is to test the coherence of
the views on the neotectonic regime in the Simav graben. Moreover, there is no a
common agreement about the source of the 19 May 2011 Söğüt earthquake, which
led to heavy damage in Simav County and its near environ. There are different views
about the geometry and the nature of the source fault, which will be determined by
detailed geological mapping. The nature of the active faults will also be key
evidences that will be used to understand the nature of neotectonic regime.
Moreover, the main shock and its aftershocks presented valuable seismological data
to analyze its source in terms of active tectonics. Consequently, in order to contribute
to the neotectonic characteristics and evolutionary history of the Simav graben, a
detailed geological map was prepared. Additionally, active fault parameters collected
from the field were evaluated together with the available seismological data. Finally,
deterministic seismic hazard map of the region was prepared as a guide for
quantitative assessment of the earthquake hazard for inhabiting and construction
processes.

1.2 Method of Study

The study has been carried out in three main stages which are preliminary works,
field studies and office works.

During the preliminary works, available literature was reviewed. The area was
analyzed using satellite images in order to plan the fieldwork.

Second stage of field work is mainly composed of geological mapping of the study
area at 1/25000 scale. During geological mapping, stratigraphic, igneous and tectonic
contacts were mapped and documented by taking photographs. Geological structures
such as folds and faults were mapped and documented in terms of their geometrical
properties. Also field observations performed by previous researchers were verified
and updated if new field data is available. Faults were identified by using the slip
plane data, geological offsets and geomorphological indicators. Sketch cross-sections
were drawn to show the important features, relationships of the rock units and the
structure of the Simav graben.

2
The last stage of the study is office work where preliminary work and fieldwork
results were evaluated. Office work includes kinematic analysis of the faults by using
slip-plane data. Kinematic analysis was performed to find out the paleostress
orientations by using “Tector” software developed by Angelier (1989). This method
is based on correct measurement and interpretation of slickensides of faults. The
method assumes the slip lines on the fault plane represent the plane having maximum
resolved shear stress. Resolved stress tensor of best fitting fault plane and relative
magnitudes of principal stresses are calculated. This program assumes pure shear and
homogenous deformation. The misfit of each slip vector with the reduced tensors is
calculated and some of the measurements are omitted by hand. Therefore,
orientations of local principal stress axes are found using fault plane slip data.
Seismological data, such as earthquake catalogue and available focal mechanism
solutions, were also collected to discuss the seismicity originated from the mapped
faults in the study area. Available GPS velocities were processed on the Velocity
Interpolation to Strain Rates v2.0 (VISR2) software (Shen et al., 1996) to present the
active deformation in the study area. The detail of this procedure will be explained in
relevant chapter. Lastly, deterministic seismic hazard map was prepared for the study
area by using geological and seismological data as well as a reasonable attenuation
relationship.

1.3 Location

Study area is located between 39.00 N - 39.25 N latitudes and 28.875 E – 29.125 E
longitudes in the eastern part of the Simav graben (Figure 1.1). It lies within J21c2,c3
and J22d1,d4 1/25000 topographical maps and covers an area around 200km2. The
whole area can be accessed in all seasons except for the mountainous parts with dirt
roads (Figure 1.1)

1.4 Previous Works

It is necessary to categorize previous studies carried out in and around the Simav
graben into two groups. The first group is about the general geology of the region as
well as paleotectonic and neotectonic evolution of the Simav graben. The studies,
3
4

Figure 1-1: a. Simplified tectonic of Turkey and adjacent areas showing major structural elements and plate boundaries.CAFS. Central
Anatolian Fault System, DSFS. Dead Sea Fault System, EAFS. East Anatolian Fault System, NAFS. North Anatolian Fault System. b.
Simplified neotectonic map showing the study area and its regional geological setting (Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit).
which are included in the first group and are relevant to the neotectonic evolution of
the region and the study area, will be discussed in the Regional Tectonic Setting part.
of this chapter. Second group is about the active tectonics of the Simav graben and
particularly the source mechanism of recent earthquakes such as the 19 May 2011
Söğüt earthquake. The studies belonging to the both groups will be summarized
respectively in a chronological order.

Simav graben is first named as a 100 km long depression by Zeschke (1954).

The rock units exposed in the southern margin of the Simav graben were firstly
studied in detail on a scale of 1/25000 by Akdeniz and Konak (1979), who worked in
the region covering Simav, Emet, Tavşanlı, Dursunbey and Demirci towns. They
proposed that basement rocks in the region are the Simav metamorphics and
Menderes Massif core rocks composed mostly of granitic gneiss-migmatites. They
are overlain with an angular unconformity (nonconformity) by the Sarıcasu
Formation and the low grade metamorphic cover rocks of the Menderes Massif. The
Jurassic-Cretaceous Budağan Limestone overlies unconformably older units. The
Upper Cretaceous Dağardı mélange has a tectonic contact with older units. The
Eğrigöz granite intruded into older units during Paleocene. Lower Miocene Taşbaşı
Formation, which is mainly composed of metamorphic rock fragments,
unconformably overlies the Eğrigöz granite and older units. The Kızılbük Formation
is overlain by Civandağı Tuffs and Akdağ Volcanics. Toklargölü Formation is cut by
“Quaternary” Naşa Basalt. Konak (1982) proposed that the Dağardı mélange was
thrusted towards south onto the Simav metamorphics in Late Cretaceous. He also
reported that there is a 5.5–6 km right lateral offset between the same metamorphic
rocks exposed on both the southern and northern margins of the Simav graben.

Öztunalı (1973) studied the Eğrigöz granite and reported that the Eğrigöz granite has
formed by the anatexis during the early Alpine phase. He also reported that the
granite has a calc-alkaline character and an age of 167 ± 17 Ma and 217 ± 33 Ma
based on the methods of Rb/Sr and K/Ar respectively.

Ercan et al. (1984) reported that the origin of volcanic activity, which first started in
Middle-Late Miocene in and around the Simav graben, is the anatexis of continental
5
lithosphere and emplacement of calc-alkaline Eğrigöz and Koyunoba plutons. This
first strong volcanism also produced pyroclastic flows of the Akdağ Volcanics made
up of thick tuff deposition, agglomerates and lava flows distributed over a large
region. The second volcanic activity took place in Middle-Late Pliocene. It was the
Payamtepe Volcanics resulted from an alkaline basaltic volcanism. They also stated
that the last volcanic activity occurred in Quaternary, and it resulted in thick and dark
colored basaltic flows of the Naşa Basalts. However, later on, the age of the Naşa
Basalts were determined as 15.2 ± 0.2 Ma and 15.8 ± 0.3 Ma (Middle Miocene)
based on K/Ar method by Ercan et al. (1996).

Oygür and Erler (2000) studied vein-type Pb-Zn-Cu mineralizations and proposed
that these mineralizations occurred along a fracture zone running parallel to the
WNW-trending “dextral Simav Fault Zone”. He also stated that the neotectonic
regime was changed from compressional to tensional character during early Pliocene,
and then the Simav fault started to behave like a normal fault as a natural response to
the N-S extension, i.e., the Simav Fault Zone is an originally compressional (strike-
slip) paleotectonic structure reactivated to be an extensional feature during the
tensional neotectonic period.

Işık et al. (2003) proposed that the extension in western Anatolia started at the
beginning of Tertiary. It produced south-dipping Büyükmenderes, north-diping
Alaşehir and the north-dipping Simav detachment faults. They also stated that this
resulted in formation and then exhumation of syn-tectonic granodioritic intrusions
such as the Eğrigöz and Koyunoba plutons. This process also resulted in ductile
deformation in the deeper part of crust, while it changes to a brittle deformation at
the top, at or near the ground surface. The Simav detachment fault seperates high-
grade metamorphics and syn-tectonic granodiorites in the footwall block from the
low-grade metamorphics and unmetamorphosed rock units at the top. They also
reported that the Simav detachment fault had been inactive 15 Ma before present and
then cut across and offset in vertical direction by the younger margin-boundary faults
of the Selendi and Demirci grabens. However, the Alaşehir detachment fault is still
active. These observations reveal that the Simav detachment fault is older than the

6
Alaşehir detachment fault. The intrusion of the Eğrigöz granodioritic pluton was
dated as 20-24 Ma based on the K/Ar in biotite (Bingöl et al., 1982), 20.19 ± 0.28
Ma based on 40Ar/39Ar in biotite (Tekeli et al., 2001) and 20 Ma based on U/Pb
zircon methods (Reischmann et al., 1991).

Akay (2009) studied a series of Oligo-Miocene granitic plutons such as the Ezine,
Evciler, Eybek, Kozak, Alaçam, Koyunoba, Eğrigöz and the Baklan plutons exposed
on the northern margin of the Menderes Massif, and then reported some similarities
among them based on the internal structures, emplacement mechanisms and
petrological characteristics. Akay (2009) argued that all these plutons show calc-
alkaline I-type and post-collisional characteristics. He also concluded that the
Eğrigöz and Koyunoba granites are shallow-seated and collisional in origin.

Hasözbek et al. (2010a; 2010b) carried out geochemical analysis and radiogenic age
determination on the Koyunoba and Eğrigöz granites and found out that they were
contaminated by Menderes Massif’s rocks by using U-Pb intercept ages. They also
concluded that emplacement of these granitic bodies are not related to a low-angle
detachment fault.

Bozkurt et al. (2011) sampled low-grade mylonites (foliated cataclasites) from the
exposed Simav detachment Fault Zone and obtained ages of 30 Ma for Rb-Sr on
muscovite, 17-13 Ma for brown biotite and 12-10 Ma for green biotite. They also
reported that ca. 46 Ma muscovite age obtained from the metamorphic rocks is also
the age of the regional main Menderes Massif metamorphism. They argued that these
ages probably correspond to the followings: (a) the extensional exhumation started
30 Ma ago, (b) a period of tectonic quiescence occurred between 18-12 Ma ago, (c)
reactivations of Simav detachment fault occurred between 12 Ma ago and 8 Ma ago
respectively. Lastly they concluded that these ages point out that the activity on the
Simav detachment fault is episodic not continuous.

The following studies also made some valuable contributions to the neotectonic
evolution of the Simav graben in respect of geometry and kinematics of faults in the
study area.

7
Koçyiğit (1984) mapped and named the Akşehir-Simav fault system (ASFS) at a
regional scale for the first time and reported that the ASFS is one of the most
seismically active zones characterized by the WNW-ESE-trending oblique-slip
normal faults. He focused on neotectonic evolution of the region and proposed an
initiation age (Late Miocene-Early Pliocene) for the neotectonic regime in this
region.

Eyidoğan and Jackson (1985) reported that the Simav graben is bounded by normal
faults. Their idea is based on the northward sloping of the graben floor and position
of streams on the northern side of the graben. However, Westaway (1990) argued
that Miocene sediments are dipping towards south, and therefore, the major fault is
on the southern side.

Seyitoğlu (1997) suggested that the Simav graben cuts NE-SW-trending Selendi,
Demirci and Akdere basins and is Plio(?)-Quaternary in age. He also reported that
the Simav fault has a listric geometry, and the 25 March 1969 Demirci earthquake of
Ms= 6.5 was originated from it.

There are a number of GPS studies carried out on the crustal deformation (Kahle et
al., 1998; McClusky et al., 2000; Reilinger et al., 2006). Based on both the regional
elastic and block-like behavior models, they proposed a current extension of NNE-
SSW direction in the Simav region.

Koçyiğit and Deveci (2005) studied the Akşehir-Simav fault system in detail. They
proposed that this fault system, located between Karaman in the SE and Sındırgı in
the NW, is an approximately 500 km long, 10 30 km wide zone of active
deformation characterized by normal faulting governed by a tensional neotectonic
regime. They also pointed out that there is a long-term seismic gap (Çobanlar-
Çukurören seismic gap) in the area between Çobanlar (Afyon) and Çukurköy
(Kütahya) settlements included in the ASFS.

Doğan and Emre (2006) used both the geomorphological features and the geological
offsets, proposed that the Simav fault is a segment of the Sındırgı-Sincanlı Fault
Zone, which they regard as a transition zone between Aegean graben system and the
North Anatolian Fault System. However, they did not prove whether the geological
8
offsets occurred in paleotectonic or neotectonic periods, and did not do a kinematic
analysis based on slip-plane data measured from the faults comprising the Simav
Fault Zone.

Yolsal-Çevikbilen et al. (2013) analyzed teleseismic long period 28 P and 3 SH

waveforms and concluded that the source of the 19 May 2011 Söğüt earthquake is a
normal fault with a minor amount of strike-slip component. They also concluded that
the probable source fault, along which a vertical displacements of 50-190 cm
occurred during the main shock, strikes 287°, dips at 58°N and has a rake of 86°E.

1.5 Regional Tectonic Setting

Turkey is located in the Alpine-Himalayan belt near the junction of Eurasian, African
and Arabian plates (Bozkurt and Mittwede, 2001). The relative motion and
interaction between these plates resulted in complex deformation patterns and high
seismic activity in different tectonic domains. African plate is subducting beneath the
Anatolian Platelet in north direction while the Arabian plate is colliding to Eurasia at
a rate faster than that of the African plate in eastern Anatolia. Resulting major
structures are the dextral North Anatolian Fault System (NAFS), the sinistral East
Anatolian Fault System (EAFS), the sinistral Dead Sea Fault System (DSFS) and the
South Aegean-Cyprus Subduction zone or Arc (SACA) (Figure 1.2).

Using the Eurasia fixed Global Positioning System (GPS) velocities, movement rate
of the Arabian plate is 8 mm/yr towards north near South Aegean-Cyprus Arc while
southwestward movement of western Anatolia is 35 mm/yr at the same place
(McClusky et al., 2000). This is resulted from retreating of trench due to roll-back
geometry of slab (Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979; Royden, 1993). Also the northward
movement rate of the Arabian plate with respect to Eurasia is 15 mm/yr (Kahle et al.,
1998). Differential velocities between African and Arabian plates make the nature of
the Dead Sea Fault System left lateral. In the same way, the collision of Arabia with

9
10

Figure 1-2: Simplified map showing the location of the study area, major tectonic structures and neotectonic domains in Turkey and surrounding
areas (Different colors represent different neotectonic domains that are numbered and explained on the figure) (DFZ: Doğanbey Fault Zone; BFZ:
Başkale Fault Zone; YFZ: Yüksekova Fault Zone) (courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit).
Eurasia makes the Anatolian platelet to escape from the collision zone towards west
at a rate of 20 mm/yr along both the dextral North Anatolian and the sinistral East
Anatolian fault systems (Şengör, 1979; Oral et al., 1992; Reilinger et al., 1997;
McClusky et al., 2000).

Based on the nature of governing tectonic regimes, Turkey and its near environ can
be divided into five neotectonic domains and related neotectonic regimes, that
operate side by side. These domains are the Black Sea-Caucasus contractional
neotectonic domain, Central-North Aegean strike-slip neotectonic domain, North-
East-Southeast Anatolian strike-slip neotectonic domain, Southwestern Turkey
extensional neotectonic domain and the Cyprus-South Aegean active subductional
neotectonic domain. The study area is located in the southwestern Turkey
extensional neotectonic domain (Figure 1.2). This neotectonic domain is mainly
characterized by the N-S extension and E-W trending graben-horst systems bounded
by active normal faults.

The cause and onset age of the neotectonic extension in western Anatolia has long
been subject of a debate. There are four different ideas: (a) Tectonic escape model
resulted from the westward extrusion of Anatolian plate due to Arabia-Eurasia
collision (Şengör et al., 1985; Dewey and Şengör, 1979; Şengör, 1987), (b) Back-arc
spreading model caused by southwestward migration of trench due to the slab roll-
back (McKenzie,1978; Meulenkamp et al., 1988, Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979), (c)
Orogenic collapse model which refers to spreading of overthickened crust (Seyitoğlu
and Scott, 1991, 1992) and (d) Episodic two stage graben model which is the
combination of both the orogenic collapse and tectonic escape model (Koçyiğit et al.,
1999; Koçyiğit et al., 2000; Bozkurt, 2002; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003; Koçyiğit,
2005; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2004; Bozkurt and Rojay, 2005)

Tectonic escape model is based on the squeezing and westward extrusion of the
wedge-shaped Anatolian platelet. This wedge-shape brings accommodation space in
further west, where effect of contractional neotectonic regime is relatively
diminished. It has been suggested that the Tectonic escape of Anatolian platelet
commenced in Tortonian due to the Arabia-Eurasia collision took place in Langhian-
11
Serravalian (Dewey and Şengör, 1979; Şengör et al., 1985). Seyitoğlu et al. (1996)
argues that this model cannot be the triggering mechanism of N-S extension of
western Anatolia, because the age of the rocks (ca. 20 Ma) which formed under the
control of the extensional tectonics, predates the Eurasia-Arabia collision. Later on
Koçyiğit et al. (1999) suggested that the North Anatolian and East Anatolian
intracontinental transform fault systems were formed in Early Quaternary and then
the escape of Anatolian platelet started.

Back-arc spreading model suggests that the cause of the southward migration of the
south Aegean Cyprus arc is the retreating of northward subducting slab and resulting
extension in western Anatolia. However, the age of subduction is being proposed
differently as 13 Ma (Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979), 5 Ma (McKenzie, 1988) and at
least 26 Ma (Meulenkamp et al., 1988).

Orogenic collapse model proposes that the cause of the spreading and thinning of
overthickened crust is the collision and tectonic uplift (Dewey, 1988). After the
removal of lateral forces, which buildups vertical stress and results in topographic
high, the isostatic and gravity forces took place and spread the overthickened crust as
a rebound. The closure of İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan ocean took place in latest
Paleocene to early Miocene. Immediately after the cessation of collision, the
orogenic collapse took place (Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1991, 1992). Şengör et al., (1985)
suggested that the crust in western Turkey was thickened up to 50-55 km. This model
is supported by extensive calc-alkaline magmatism sourced from the anatexis of
continental lithosphere and emplacement of granitic melt (Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1991;
Bozkurt and Park, 1994).

Fourth and more recent model was proposed by Koçyiğit et al. (1999). It is the
episodic two stage extension for the evolution of the west Anatolian graben-horst
systems. Based on this model, the evolution of the graben and horsts in southwestern
Anatolia is episodic, i.e., they evolved at two tensional periods interrupted by an
intervening short-term compressive episode. This model suggests that the early-
middle Miocene extension is the result of orogenic collapse occurred along the
İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan suture zone. It was interrupted by a short term contraction
12
presumably resulted from a change in the kinematics of Eurasian and Arabian plates.
The second phase of N-S extension resulted from the westward escape of Anatolian
plate as a natural response to the seafloor spreading of Red sea (Hempton, 1987).
Koçyiğit et al. (1999) reported that Early middle Miocene sedimentary rock
assemblage deposited in supradetachment basins and /or grabens intercalated with
calc-alkaline volcanics are intensely folded and is overlain with an angular
unconformity by the non-deformed (nearly flat-lying) early Quaternary sediments.
This angular unconformity between two graben fills is the most diagnostic
stratigraphic evidence for the episodic two stage extension model for the
evolutionary history of graben-horst systems in southwestern Turkey. This model is
also supported by the Early Quaternary age of both the NAFS and EAFS.

13
14
 CHAPTER 2

STRATIGRAPHY

The rock units exposed in the Simav region were first named and mapped by
Akdeniz and Konak (1979). These are, from oldest to youngest, the Menderes
crystalline rocks (Kalkan Formation), the Simav metamorphics, the Budağan
Limestone, the Dağardı Mélange, the Eğrigöz and Koyunoba granites, the Taşbaşı
Formation, the Kızılbük Formation, the Civanadağı tuffs, the Naşa basalt, the
Toklargölü Formation and Quaternary alluvium (Figure 2.1, Figure A-1 in
Appendix).

The main concern of this study is the neotectonic evolution of the Simav graben and
related fills. Hence, based on the graben fills and the tectonic regime, under which
they were deposited, the units can be divided into three categories: (a) Pre-Miocene
Rocks (basement rock units formed in previous paleotectonic periods), (b) Early
Miocene-Middle Miocene units (latest paleotectonic units), and (c) Neotectonic
units. These three categories of rock units are described briefly below.

2.1 Pre-Miocene Rocks

2.1.1 Menderes Crystalline Rocks

Menderes Crystalline Rocks are known as the lowermost basements units exposed in
a wide region around the Simav graben and its surroundings. It is a lithodemic rock
unit, therefore, it must be named as a lithodeme. The Menderes Crystalline Rocks
were first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979) as the “Kalkan Formation”. It
exposes in a wide region including southern, northwestern and eastern margins of the
Simav graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The bottom of the Kalkan Formation is not
15
z

Figure 2-1: Generalized tectono-stratigraphic column of the study area. E-K Gr. Eğrigöz and
Koyunoba granites

16
observed in the study area. It is overlain tectonically by the Simav Metamorphics.
There is a cataclastic zone between these units (Konak, 1982). The Kalkan
Formation is composed mainly of dark cream, brown, reddish colored and high-grade
metamorphic rocks of migmatite, gneiss, banded-gneiss, migmatitic gneiss, biotite
gneiss, aplite-pegmatoid veins, amphibolites and marble bands to lenses. Migmatites
and gneisses are roughly foliated, folded and banded (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2-2: Close-up view of migmatite (near 1km south of Akdağ town)

They experienced intense partial melting, therefore protolith cannot be determined.

Main mineral composition is quartz, orthoclase, plagioclase, biotite, sillimanite and
rarely garnet. Gneisses are augen-gneisses and banded gneisses. They are jointed
indicating deformation in cataclastic zone. Schists are also highly crushed and
deformed in cataclastic zone, for this reason their primary textures are not observed.
Marbles are 1-25 m thick, laminated to banded in structure.

2.1.2 Simav Metamorphics

This unit was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). They divided the Simav
Metamorphics into three sub-units, such as the Simav Metamorphics, the Sarıcasu

17
Formation and the Arıkaya Formation. Differentiation of these units is not in the
scope of this study. Hence they altogether will be referred as the Simav
Metamorphics. They are exposed near south of Simav town, in the area between
Koyunoba and Kabaşlar villages, along the Simav-Samat road, near Taşlık Village
and especially around the Koyunuba and Eğrigöz plutons (Figure A-1 in Appendix).
The Simav metamorphics have been metamorphosed in greenschist facies from the
rocks of different facies along an active continental margin (Konak, 1982). The
Simav Metamoropics are commonly referred as the “Menderes Massif cover rocks”
in the literature. It overlies tectonically the Menderes Crystalline Rocks while is
overlain with a nonconformity by the Upper Triassic- Jurassic Budağan lacustrine
limestone.

The Simav Metamorphics are composed of muscovite-albite-quartz-chlorite schists,

amphibolites, quartzite, calc-schist, bands and lenses of marble alternation with
metabasic-ultrabasic tectonic slices at the lower and middle parts. Towards the top,
the unit passes into recrystallized limestone-marble only (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2-3: Close-up view of schist-marble alternation (near Rahimler village)

18
Schists change in thickness from several centimeters to several meters. They are
highly jointed-brecciated and folded. The unit passes into white-gray, medium to
thick-bedded, folded, highly jointed and recrystallized limestone- marble-dolomite
alternation.

2.1.3 Budağan Limestone

The unit was first named by Kaya (1972) as the Budağandağ Limestone in the
Tavşanlı (Kütahya) area. The Budağan Limestone exposes along the Samat-
Hıdırdivanı road and in the west of Akdere graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The
unit overlies unconformably the Simav Metamorphics while it has a tectonic contact
with the overlying Dağardı Mélange.

The Budağan Limestone is characterized by the discontinuous and lense-shaped

siltstone-shale-limestone alternation at the bottom while it is composed of dolomitic
limestone to limestone towards the top of formation. It was deposited in shallow-
marine environment. Clastic levels are composed of quartz-rich and recrystallized
sandy limestone. Dolomitic limestones are light grey, grey, dark grey, and white
colored, partially recrystallized, massive and highly-jointed crossed frequently by the
calcite veins. Limestones are light grey, dark grey, white, beige colored, thick bedded
and folded. Dolomitized parts include thin chert bands. Based on the fossil
assemblage of Involunita sp., Trcholina sp. and Triasina sp., the age of the Budağan
Limestone is late Triassic and possibly Norian-Rhaetian (Konak, 1982). Total
thickness of the unit changes between 150-600m in the region.

2.1.4 Dağardı Mélange

Dağardı Mélange was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). It exposes between
Samat and Hıdırdivanı villages in the study area (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The
Dağardı Mélange overlies tectonically the Budağan Limestone while it is overlain
with an angular unconformity by Miocene sedimentary units (older graben fill).

Dağardı Mélange is composed of intensely sheared and altered (silicified,

carbonitized) chaotic mixture of listvenite, serpentinite, peridotite, diabase, gabbro,
radiolarite, pelagic limestone, massif lacustrine limestone, quartzite and schist blocks
19
set in an ophiolitic material-rich scaly matrix. Spaces between blocks are filled with
highly deformed sandstone, shale, and mudstone. Block sizes vary from several
meters to mappable dimensions (Figure 2.4). Observable thickness of the Dağardı
Mélange is about 200 m in the study area Akdeniz and Konak (1979).

Figure 2-4: Close-up view of serpentinized rocks included in the Dağardı mélange (along
Samat-Hıdırdivanı road)

Akdeniz (1980) reported that the Dağardı Mélange is overlain with an angular
unconformity by the Eocene basal conglomerates near Başlamış village in the
southwest of study area. Radiolarite-bearing red limestones of the Dağardı Mélange
taken from east of Şaphane Mountain consists of Globotruncana sp.
Praeglobotruncana sp. Rotalipora apenninica. Based on this fossil assemblage,
formation age of the Dağardı Mélange should be late Cretaceous.

2.2 Miocene Units

Miocene units in the study area are the Eğrigöz and Koyunoba granites, the Taşbaşı
Formation, the Kızılbük Formation, the Civanadağı Tuffs and the Naşa Basalt
(Figure A-1 in Appendix). Except for the intrusions, rest of units is the older graben
fill exposed along the margins of both the N-S-trending Akdere and the E-W-
trending Simav grabens.
20
2.2.1 Eğrigöz – Koyunoba Plutons

Eğrigöz granite exposes between Kalkan and Söğüt villages to the NE of the study
area, and covers an area of around 500 km2. The Koyunoba granite exposes around
Koyunoba village along the western margin of the Akdere graben, and covers an area
of around 100-150 km2. Stratigraphic position and mineralogical composition of both
granites are similar, therefore they will be described together. The Eğrigöz and
Koyunoba plutons have intrusive contact with the Menderes Crystalline Rocks and
the Simav Metamorphics in the study area while they are overlain unconformably by
the Middle Miocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks.

Both intrusions are composed of granodiorite, monzonite, granite, monzodiorite and

diorite (Işık et al., 2004). Their texture is holocrystalline and mineral sizes are
generally similar in each sample. Mineralogical composition is quartz, feldspar,
biotite, rarely muscovite and hornblende. Aplites are generally intruded into the
granite bodies in the form of dykes.

Hasözbek (2010a) reported that the Eğrigöz and Koyunoba granites are Early
Miocene in age, I-type in origin and calc-alkaline in chemical composition. Their
source magma has been contaminated by the Menderes Massif rocks during its
upwelling processes. Their emplacement and cooling ages are 22-19 Ma and 18.77 ±
0.19 Ma respectively based on the Rb/Sr biotite closure temperature. Also, U-Th-Pb
SIMS zircon dating of the Eğrigöz and Koyunoba syn-extensional granites gives
21±0.2 to 20.7±0.6 Ma (Ring and Collins, 2005)

2.2.2 Taşbaşı Formation

This unit was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979) in the Simav region. Its
type locality is the Taşbaşı Village in the Demirci graben. The Taşbaşı Formation is
the oldest graben fill deposited in the NNE-trending Selendi, Demirci and Akdere
grabens during their early evolutionary stage (Figures A-1, A-2 in Appendix).
Southern half of the Akdere graben is included in the study area while the rest two
grabens are outside of it.

21
The Taşbaşı Formation is characterized by the reddish-brownish-colored, loosely
packaged, weakly cemented and polygenetic boulder block conglomerates deposited
into alluvial fans by the high energy fluvial systems (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2-5: Close-up view of reddish polygenetic boulder-block conglomerates of Taşbaşı

formation (near east of Kabaşlar Village)

Bedding planes are generally unclear and it is very thick-bedded to massive. The
source of the pebbles are generally augen-gneiss, schist, quartz, calc-schist,
radiolarite, marble, recrystallized limestone, dolomite, serpentinite, peridotite and
andesite derived from older rock units except for the Koyunoba and Eğrigöz plutons.
Relative abundance of fragments depends on the proximity to source rock to the site
of deposition. Fragments are generally sub-angular to angular especially in the lower
parts and the unit. Overall, the unit is generally matrix-supported and unsorted. Grain
size is changing from millimeters to several meters (up to 5 m in diameter), which
gradually decreases towards the top of the formation. The Taşbaşı Formation is
exposed well between Kabaşlar and Güneyköy villages in the study area, where it
overlies with an angular unconformity all of the Pre-Miocene units (Figure 2.6).
22
Figure 2-6: General view of the unconformity between Budağan Limestone (JKb) and
Taşbaşı Formation (Tt) (near Sivrikır Hill between Koyunoba and Kabaşlar villages, view to
north)

The Taşbaşı Formation shows lateral and vertical gradations with the Kızılbük
Formation of Middle-Late Miocene age (Akdeniz and Konak, 1979). The total
thickness of the Taşbaşı Formation in the study area is around 200 m. Based on the
lithofacies and stratigraphical position, the Taşbaşı Formation can be correlated with
the Kurtköyü Formation exposed in the Selendi graben (Ercan et al., 1978).

2.2.3 Kızılbük Formation

This unit was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). It is composed of pale
yellowish, brownish sandstone, mudstone, marl and clayey limestone alternation
with tuff intercalations (Figure 2.7).

The Kızılbük formation is exposed in the northern tip of the Selendi graben in the
study area (Figures A-1, A-3 in Appendix). Sandstones are brown, pale yellow, grey
colored, thin bedded to thick-bedded, well sorted and graded. Sandstone grains are
subrounded in shape, and include quartz, feldspar and mica minerals. It is calcite
cemented and well-lithified. In addition, coal- and organic material- rich layers of

23
Figure 2-7: Close-up view of sandstone-siltstone-mudsone alternation of Kızılbük Formation
(near south of Yeşilköy town)

several meters in thickness are also seen as intercalations in this formation near
Karamanca in the eastern part of the study area. Marls are light green, light yellow,
pale yellow and thick -bedded. Clayey limestones are grey, beige, greenish in color,
and show alternation with marls. Tuff levels are lense-shaped, massive to thick-
bedded and rhyolitic to dacitic in composition. The topmost part of the Kızılbük
Formation consists of thick-bedded lacustrine limestone and shale alternation. Based
on both the lithofacies and syn-sedimentary features, the Kızılbük Formation might
have been deposited in a fluvio-lacustrine depositional setting. Sedimentary
structures observed in the Kızılbük Formation are graded bedding, cross-trough
bedding, lamination, ripple mark, flute mark, mudcracks, abandoned channels,
growth faults and bioturbation. The Kızılbük Formation has both the lateral and
vertical gradations with the the overlying Civanadağı Tuffs while it is cut across by
the rhyolitic dykes and domes (Figure 2.8). The rhyolitic domes are observed in the
northern side of Selendi graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The unit is light brown
colored and has aphanitic texture. It is highly jointed and displays blocky texture. It
cuts and deforms the surrounding rocks as anticlines and then overlies them as lava
flows. Stratigraphic position and the composition of rhyolitic domes and tuffs are
similar, therefore that are thought to have similar ages (Figure 2.1).

24
Figure 2-8: Close-up view of internal structure of highly jointed rhyolitic dome in Kızılbük
Formation (quarry, along Simav-Karamanca road, 3km SW of Kalkan Village)

2.2.4 Civanadağı Tuffs

Civanadağı Tuffs were first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). They are exposed
well along the Hamzaköy-Kabaşlar road and to the north-northwest of Efir village in
the Akdere graben (Figure 2.9).

The Civandağı Tuffs overly unconformably the Taşbaşı Formation at the bottom and
has a lateral and vertical gradations with the Kızılbük Formation at the top. It is
overlain conformly by the Middle Miocene Naşa basalts. The Civandağı Tuffs are
composed of agglomerate, tuff, tuffite, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, marl and
limestone alternation. Agglomerates are medium bedded to thick-bedded, deposited
by lahar flows and pyroclastic basal flows. They pinch out into tuff layers towards
east which implies to that its source is in western side. Pebbles in the agglomerate are
angular to sub-angular rhyolite, rhyodacite, dacite, andesite, schist, gneiss, marble
and ophiolitic fragments of all sizes up to 40 cm in diameters. Tuffs are white, beige,
light grey, greenish grey colored, medium bedded to very thick-bedded and rhyolitic,
dacitic to rhyodacitic in compositon. Plagioclase, biotite, quartz, hornblende and
other volcanic fragments are observed in the matrix. The Civandağı tuffs grade into
brown to yellow colored fluvio-lacustrine sequence towards the top of the unit. The
Koyunoba granite has been exposed just before the deposition of the fluvial section

25
Figure 2-9: Geological map showing units exposed in the Akdere graben and line of
measured section.

of the Civandağı Tuffs. Conglomerates and sandstones are light brown to light grey
colored, medium to thick-bedded, polygenetic, graded and well sorted. Mudstones
are light brown colored, thick- bedded to massive. The unit passes into marl and
limestone at the topmost part of the unit in the upper parts (Figures 2.10, 2.11).

Figure 2-10: General view of Civanadağı Tuffs (Büyükgüney Hill, 2 km north of Naşa, view
to NW)

26
Figure 2-11: Measured section of Civanadağı tuffs along the line on Figure 2.9
27
The Civanadağı Tuffs overly with an angular unconformity the Lower Miocene
Taşbaşı Formation, while they are overlain conformably by the Middle Miocene
Naşa Basalt (Ercan et al., 1996). Based on these contact relationships, the Civanadağı
Tuffs must be Middle Miocene in age.

2.2.5 Naşa Basalt

Naşa basalt was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). It exposes between Naşa,
Karacaören and Eğirler villages along the northern margin of the Akdere graben. The
Naşa Basalt overlies conformably the Civanadağı Tuffs while it displays a free
erosional top surface.

Appearance of the Naşa Basalt is black-dark brown, porphyritic and vesicular in

texture. Vesicles are sometimes filled with calcite. It is alkaline basalt with olivine
and plagioclase phenocrysts (Figure 2.12). The total thickness of the Naşa Basalt is
around 100 m and decreases towards the Simav graben based on the data obtained
from the Eynal thermal facility well logs (Figure A-3 in Appendix).

Figure 2-12: Close-up view of the vesicular Naşa Basalt (north of Eynal thermal facility)

28
Akdeniz and Konak (1979) first reported that the Naşa Basalt has same age with
Kula Basalt (1.1 Ma, Borsy et al., 1972) according to its stratigraphic position, and
then they assigned a Quaternary age for the Naşa Basalt. However later on, Ercan et
al. (1996) pointed out that the age of the Naşa Basalt is 15.2 Ma and 15.8 ± 0.3 Ma
(Middle Miocene) based on the K/Ar radiometric dating of samples taken from it.

2.3 Neotectonic Units

2.3.1 Toklargölü Formation

This unit was first named by Akdeniz and Konak (1979). It is the modern graben fill
deposited by the fluvial system under the control of the current tensional tectonic
regime (neotectonic regime). The Quaternary Toklargölü Formation overlies with an
angular unconformity whole of the Pre-Miocene rocks. The Toklargölü Formation
exposes as the fault terraces along the margins (Figure 2.13), while it is buried
beneath the recent alluvial sediments in the depocenters of both the Simav and
Akdere grabens. Terrace deposits occur particularly on both sides of the Mustafa
Kemalpaşa Çay, which drains the Akdere graben in N-S direction. Both the eastern
and the western fault-bounded margins of the modern Akdere graben and the north to
northeastern margin of the Simav graben are indicated by a series of uplifted (up to
30 m), dissected, discontinuous and fault-suspended fault terrace conglomerates
(Figure 2. 13). They are the stratigraphically lowermost facies of the modern graben
fill. Terrace conglomerates are composed of conglomerates and sandstone alternation
with red to brown mudstone intercalations. Conglomerates are unsorted, polygenetic,
weakly lithified to loose in nature. They consist of well-rounded augen gneiss,
quartzite, quartz, various schists, marble, various ophiolitic rocks, granite, andesite,
basalt, marl and lacustrine limestone clasts set in a sandy matrix. The Toklargölü
Formation ranges between a few meters to 30 m in the field but it is observed up to
200 m in thickness on a geothermal well (Erişen et al., 1989). Age of the unit is Early
Quaternary since it contains Late Pliocene limestone pebbles (Akdeniz and Konak,
1979).

29
Figure 2-13: General view of a fault terrace included in Toklargölü Formation which
unconformably overlies Naşa Basalt (1 km NW of Eynal thermal facility, view to NE)

2.3.2 Alluvial Deposits

These are the coarse-grained marginal and the finer-grained depocentral facies of
Late Quaternary age. Marginal deposits are represented by both the fan and fan-
apron facies surrounding fault-bounded margins of both the Akdere and Simav
modern grabens. In general, fan deposits occur at the mouths of transverse drainage
system flowing from the peaks of the fault bounded-graben margins into the grabens.
However, the fan-apron deposits form a blanket surrounding the graben margins.
They are produced by the coalescence of both the talus cones to slope scree deposits
with the alluvial fans deposits. Both the fan and fan-apron deposits are composed of
unconsolidated, unsorted to polygenetic boulder to blocks up to 1-2 m in diameters.
They have been transported and deposited into fans. Both the fan and fan-apron
deposits grade into finer grained depocentral deposits made up of red-brown
mudstone deposited in flood plain and the organic material-rich silt, clay and mud
alternation accumulated in swamp and stream beds. They range from tens of meters
up to 150 m in total thickness based on the data obtained from exploration wells
(Erişen et al., 1989).

30
 CHAPTER 3

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

This chapter deals with the description and tectonic meaning of the geological
structures such as beds, unconformities, folds and faults observed in the study area
and their kinematic analysis. According to tectonic periods during which these
structures formed, they can be classified into two categories: (a) Paleotectonic
structures, and (b) Neotectonic structures.

Since the aim of this study is to contribute to the neotectonic evolution of the Simav
graben, and there are some ideas arguing that the neotectonic regime started during
Miocene, the units deposited during Miocene and later will be analyzed. The data to
be analyzed were obtained in terms of the field geological mapping at 1/25000 scale
in the study area. Dip and strike measurements of beds were analyzed on stereonet to
describe the geometrical characteristic of folds. Slip plane data including dip, strike,
rake and sense of motion were analyzed by using a computer software programme
entitled “Tector” and its sub-programs “Tensor”, “Diagra” and “Mesure” (Angelier,
1989).

3.1 Beds

Based on both the tectonic regime and the deformation pattern, the units deposited in
study area can be divided into two groups: (a) Akdere and Selendi paleotectonic
graben fill and (b) Neotectonic Simav graben fill. The paleotectonic graben fill is
deformed (steeply-tilted to folded), while the neotectonic graben fill is nearly flat-
lying (undeformed). The Akdere and Selendi graben infill are composed of Lower
Miocene Taşbaşı Formation, Lower-Middle Miocene Kızılbük Formation and

31
Middle Miocene Civanadağı Tuffs. Taşbaşı Formation is characterized by loosely
packaged, weakly cemented and polygenetic boulder block conglomerates deposited
in alluvial fans by the high-energy fluvial systems. It is exposed well on the western
side of the Akdere graben. The bedding planes cannot be observed in the Taşbaşı
Formation.

The Kızılbük Formation is characterized by sandstone, mudstone, marl and clayey

limestone alternation with tuff intercalations. It is observed in the north of Selendi
graben. Thicknesses of the beds vary from centimeter to meters. It is intensely folded
unit. The predominant dip amount is about 30° for the Kızılbük Formation.

The Civanadağı Tuffs are characterized by volcano-sedimentary sequence of

agglomerate, tuff and sandstone passing into the fluvio-lacustrine sequence of
conglomerate, sandstone, marl and limestone alternation. It is observed well in the
Akdere graben. Its bed thickness changes between centimeters to several meters. The
unit has been deformed into a series of anticlines and synclines with the axes running
parallel to the general trend of the graben margins. Beds dip up to 38° while their
predominant dip amount is about 20°.

3.2 Unconformities

Based on both the age and the type of the rock units below and above the erosional
surface, the unconformities observed in the study area can be classified into three
categories. These are, from oldest to youngest, the nonconformity, an angular
unconformity-nonconformity and the angular unconformity. The nonconformity,
which is the oldest erosional surface in the study area, is observed between the
underlying pre-Lower Miocene units (Simav Metamorphics, Budağan Limestone,
Dağardı Mélange) and the overlying Lower Miocene Taşbaşı and the Lower-Middle
Miocene Kızılbük Formations (Figure A-1 in Appendix, Figure 2.6, A-B and E-F
geological cross-sections in Figures A-2, A-3 in Appendix respectively). This is the
oldest erosional gap in the study area. The second erosional gap is in the type of
partly nonconformity and partly angular unconformity. It is observed among the
bottom of Middle Miocene Civanadağı Tuffs, the Naşa Basalt, older basement rocks

32
and the Early Miocene Taşbaşı Formation. Earlier two rock units overly with an
angular unconformity both the Early Miocene Taşbaşı Formation and the Pre-
Miocene basement rocks such as the Simav Metamorphics ( Figure A-1 in Appendix
and geological cross-sections A-B- and G-H in Figures A-2, A-3 in Appendix
respectively). The third and youngest erosional gap observed in the study area lies
between the bottom of the Quaternary neotectonic fill (Toklargölü Formation and
alluvial sediments) and the underlying Pre-Quaternary rock units such as the
metamorphic rocks and the non-metamorphic but highly deformed (folded) Miocene
units (Taşbaşı and Kızılbük Formations, the Civanadağı Tuffs and the Naşa Basalt)
(Figure 13, Figure A-1 in Appendix and the G-H geological cross-section in Figure
A-3 in Appendix).

3.3 Folds

In general, folds are observed in the Early-Middle Miocene rocks, especially

Kızılbük Formation in north of Selendi graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). Drainage
pattern is parallel to dendritic in style and is dominantly oriented in N-S direction.
Therefore dip and strike measurements are collected along N-S traces along valleys
where outcrops are observed well. Along these valleys, there are numerous parallel
and sub-parallel folds which generally trend in WNW-ESE direction (Figure A-1 in
Appendix) and plunge towards WNW. Folds are asymmetric and moderately to
steeply plunging in type (Figure A-1 in Appendix, Figure 3.1). Dip and strike
measurements are plotted on a stereonet to illustrate general trend and geometry of
folds in the Kızılbük Formation (Figure 3.1). Although the folds are relatively small
and have high frequency, their mean orientation shows a general trend of
N79°W/88°NE axial plane and 27°/282°N fold axis. Mean fold envelope is open and
symmetric. Dip amounts vary between 10° and 55° in the Kızılbük Formation. Folds
observed in Akdere graben trends in N-S direction. Unlike the folds in Selendi
graben, Folds in Akdere graben are gentle. Mean orientation of the hinge plane is
N02°W/85NE and fold axis is 02°/357°N. They are parallel to the graben margins so
that they are considered to be formed under the control of the margins (Figure 3.2).
Although the ages of the folded units
33
Figure 3-1: Contour diagram of poles to bedding planes collected in Kızılbük Formation on
equal angle lower hemisphere stereonet.

Figure 3-2: Contour diagram of poles to bedding planes collected in Civanadağı tuffs on
equal angle lower hemisphere stereonet.

34
are similar, fold orientations are different, this could be resulted from either different
age of folding or different folding mechanism for folds observed Akdere and Selendi
grabens. However modern (neotectonic) graben fill is not deformed. This shows that
only the Early-Middle Miocene units were deformed into a series of anticlines and
synclines before the deposition of the modern graben infill.

3.4 Faults

3.4.1 Simav Fault Zone

Simav Fault Zone is an about 5 km wide, 80 km long WNW-ESE trending active

zone of deformation which determines and controls southern margin of the modern
Simav graben. It is located between Sındırgı Town in the northwest and Banaz Town
in the southeast (Figure 1.1). Most of the Simav Fault Zone is outside the study area.
It comprises a series of closely spaced, parallel to sub-parallel high-angle normal
faults with minor amount of strike slip components. Lengths of the fault segments
vary from 2 km to 10 km (Figure A-1 in Appendix). These fault segments cut,
displace and juxtapose various rocks of dissimilar age and type such as the Paleozoic
Simav Metamorphics, the Middle Miocene Kızılbük Formation with the Quaternary
neotectonic fill. Minimum total vertical offset of the faults included in the Simav
graben are approximately 800m (Figure A-2 in Appendix). Fault segments mapped
in the study area dip towards the depocenter of the Simav graben and display step-
like morphology (Figure 3.3; Figures A-1, A-2, A-3 in Appendix).

The most common morphotectonic to fault plane-related criteria observed and used
for the recognition of faults are the steeply sloping fault scarps, sudden break in the
slope amount, step-like morphology, linear alignment of hot and cold water springs,
deeply incised valleys, hanging valleys, deflected and offset streams, uplifted and
suspended terrace conglomerates, triangular facets, degraded alluvial fans, tectonic
juxtaposition of modern graben fill with different older rock units, extensional veins,
crushed to sheared strips of rocks and the slickensides. Faults comprising the Simav
Fault Zone are, from west to east, the Öreyler, Beyce, Simav, Mamak, Nadarçamı,

35
Figure 3-3: Step like morphology resulted from the basinward dipping parallel faults
comprising the Simav Fault Zone. F1.Seyirkaya fault, F2. Küçüktaştepe fault, F3. Nadarçamı
fault (view to SW).

Küçüktaştepe, Seyirkaya and the Kocakırtepe faults These faults are described
separately in more detail below.

3.4.1.1 Öreyler fault

It is a 6 km long and nearly WNW-ESE trending normal fault which dips around
60°-65° N-NE. It starts from near southwest of Öreyler Town which is outside of the
study area and continues eastwards up to the near southeast of Demirci Town (Figure
A-1 in Appendix). The Öreyler fault cuts and displaces in vertical direction the Pre-
Miocene basement rocks and the overlying pre-modern (neotectonic) graben fill. It
juxtaposes the modern graben fill with the Pre-Miocene basement rocks. Sudden
break in the slope, deeply incised valleys, deflected streams, almost perfectly linear
alignment of numerous water springs are common morphotectonic criteria observed
along the Öreyler fault. Öreyler fault also controls deposition of the Late Quaternary
alluvial fans composed of all-sized fragments derived from the basement rocks.
However, a slickenside couldn’t be observed along the Öreyler fault. A geological
cross-section passing through the Öreyler fault is drawn by using geological
observations and geothermal well data (Figure A-1 in Appendix). If the elevation of
36
the Simav Metamorphics in the graben and the margin are used as piercing points,
total vertical offset along the Öreyler fault and possible undifferentiated synthetic
faults are about 700 m (C-D geological cross-section in Figure A-2 in Appendix).

3.4.1.2 Beyce fault

It is a 2 km long, approximately WNW-ESE trending and northerly steeply dipping

normal fault. It starts from south of the Pazar district of the Demirci Town and
continues up to the Hürriyet district of Beyce village (Figure A-1 in Appendix). It
forms the tectonic contact between recent alluvial fans and the Pre-Miocene
basement rocks such as the Simav Metamorphics. Sudden break in the steep slope of
the basement rocks, incised to hanging valleys and the disappearance of intermittent
streams are diagnostic morphotectonic features used to recognize the Beyce fault.

3.4.1.3 Simav fault

It is a 7 km long, nearly WNW-ESE trending and steeply north-dipping normal fault.

The Simav fault starts from south of Beyce village, runs through Simav Counnty and
then ends in Kartal Hill located in the eastern of Simav Town (Figure A-1 in
Appendix). The Simav fault cuts and displaces the Simav Metamorphics and
tectonically juxtaposes them with the modern graben fill. Sudden break in the slope
amount, development of alluvial fan system, highly deformed and crushed to sheared
rocks are the morphotectonic indicators of the Simav fault. The source of the 17
February 2009 earthquake occurred in the Simav region (See Figure 4.3, Table 4.1 in
Chapter IV) is attributed to the faults bounding the northern margin of the Simav
graben. Whereas, the epicenter location, earthquake focal mechanism solution and
the site focus depth strongly reveal that the Simav fault is the most reasonable
candidate for the source of this earthquake. In addition, the epicenter of the
mainshock falls in a somewhere further north of the northern margin of the Simav
graben. If the northern margin-boundary faults were the sources, the epicenter site
would be in the south side of the faults, whereas the northern margin-boundary faults
dip southward. On the other hand, the Simav fault fits well with both the site of
epicenter and the depth of focus of the 17 February 2009 Simav earthquake.
37
Consequently, the Simav fault is the source of the 17 February 2009 earthquake and
is active as indicated by both the seismological and field data.

3.4.1.4 Hisarardı fault

It is an approximately 2.5 km long, north-easterly steeply dipping normal fault with

small amount of strike slip component. The Hisarardı fault starts from Karşıyaka
district in the southeast of Simav County, and then continues up to the near south-
southwest of Simav County along the southern margin of the Simav graben, lastly
joins with the Simav master fault near south of the Çavdır district (Figure A-1 in
Appendix). Hisarardı fault cuts and displaces the Pre-Miocene rocks in vertical
direction and forms the tectonic contact between the Quaternary modern graben fill
and the Simav Metamorphics. Sudden break in the slope amount, steep fault scarp
and crushed-sheared strips of rocks are common morphotectonic criteria observed
along this fault. Hisarardı fault also displays well-developed and preserved
slickenside (Figure 3.4).

Slip plane data analysis of the Hisarardı fault slickenside data by using the Angelier’s
direct inversion method (Angelier, 1994) indicates the NNE-SSW extension and
normal faulting in the Simav region (Figure 3.5). Also relative magnitudes of σ1 and
σ3 are higher than σ2 which reveals that this fault is being governed by the
combination of both the gravitational force and the regional tensional force.

3.4.1.5 Mamak fault

It is a 3 km long, WNW-ESE trending and northerly dipping normal fault. It cuts and
displaces the Middle Miocene Kızılbük Formation and the basement rocks, and
tectonically juxtaposes them with to each other (Figure A-1 in Appendix).

3.4.1.6 Nadarçamı fault

It is an 8 km long, WNW-ESE trending normal fault dipping towards north-

northeast. The Nadarçamı fault starts from 1 km west of the Nadarçamı recreation
area and continues up to the Gelincikkayası Hill (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The

38
Figure 3-4: Close-up view of the slickenside developed on the Hisarardı fault (S-4 in Figure
A-1 in Appendix, 670238E-4328471N).

No Strike Dip Rake Sense

(°N) (°) (°)
1 324 84N 70W Normal

2 310 73N 68W Normal

3 323 81N 70W Normal

4 312 78N 72W Normal

5 316 75N 68W Normal

6 310 80N 70W Normal

7 310 71N 80W Normal

Figure 3-5: Slip plane data taken from Hisarardı fault (S-4 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) and
kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere.
(black arrows show local extension direction)

39
Nadarçamı fault cuts and displaces in vertical direction the Simav Metamorphics.
Sudden break in the slope amount, steeply sloping fault scarp to triangular facets are
diagnostic morphotectonic indications of the Nadarçamı fault (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3-6: General view of the Nadarçamı fault scarp, trace (F-F) and the sudden break in
the slope amount along the Nadarçamı fault (near Nadarçamı Recreation Area, view to East)

In the western section, steep scarp disappears and the fault becomes morphologically
invisible. However, in the eastern part of the Nadarçamı fault both the displacement
along the fault and its morphotectonic reflection increase and fault becomes quite
clear, i.e., a relay ramp geometry forms between the Hisarardı and Nadarçamı faults.
In general, relay ramps occur between two parallel faults which dip in the same
direction and resulted from the transfer of displacement between synthetic faults
(Morley et al., 1990). It is illustrated in Figure 3.7.

Relay ramps occur when two synthetic normal faults are overstepped. During
progressive deformation along the faults, a relay ramp starts to form. In the same
way the transfer faults form along the upper and lower ramps to accommodate the
deformation in the relay ramp. The dips of the faults control the type of deformation
along the relay ramp. If the faults are steeply dipping, transfer faults are normal, if
40
 Figure 3-7: A sketch block diagram illustrating a relay ramp resulted
from the transfer of movement along two overstepping normal fault
segments dipping in the same direction. (Ferrill & Morris, 2001).

the dips of the faults are gentle, strike slip component of transfer faults increases. In
the case of steeply dipping Nadarçamı and Hisarardı faults, transfer fault should be
normal. However, transfer fault is not observed in the region (Figure A-1 in
Appendix).

3.4.1.7 Küçüktaştepe fault

It is a 3 km long normal fault which dips steeply towards north. This fault is exposed
well around Küçüktaştepe Hill located 3 km south of Yeşilköy. This fault cuts and
displaces vertically both the Kızılbük Formation and older units, and tectonically
juxtaposes the Simav Metamorphics with the Quaternary alluvial sediments. The
vertical offset (throw amount) along the Küçüktaştepe fault is about 150 m based on
the faulted bottom contacts of the Kızılbük Formation on both blocks of the
Küçüktaştepe fault (C-D geological cross-section in Figure A-1 in Appendix).
Sudden break in the steep slope amount of the fault scarp is a diagnostic
morphotectonic reflection for the Küçüktaştepe fault (Figures 3.3 and 3.8).

41
Figure 3-8: General view of steeply sloping fault scarp of the Küçüktaştepe fault (near north
of Küçüktaştepe Hill, view to southwest)

3.4.1.8 Seyirkaya fault

It is an 8 km long normal fault. It trends in WNW direction and dips at 70°-75°

towards north-northeast. The Seyirkaya fault starts from Çapkın Hill in the
northwest, runs towards southeast along Seyirkayası Hill and then ends in the area 1
km east of Kıbletas Hill (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The Seyirkaya fault is the
southernmost fault included in the step-like morphology shaping the southern margin
of the Simav graben (Figure 3.3). This fault cuts and displaces in vertical direction
the Simav Metamorphics, the Budağan Limestone, the Kızılbük Formation and
tectonically juxtaposes them with to each other. The deflected drainage pattern,
steeply sloping fault scarp, deeply incised valleys, waterfalls, extensional veins and
backtilting of rock units are common morphotectonic criteria observed and used to
recognize the Seyirkaya fault. The total throw amount accumulated on the Seyirkaya

42
fault is about 250 m (Figure 3.9) based on the comparison of the bottom contacts of
the Kızılbük Formation on both blocks of the fault (E-F geological cross-section in
Figure A-3 in Appendix).

Figure 3-9: General view of the step-like morphology, the back-tilting and the total throw
amount of 250 m formed along the Seyirkaya fault (view to east)

Seyirkaya fault also displays well-developed and preserved slickenlines (Figure

3.10). The stereographic plots of slip-plane data on the Schmidt’s lower hemisphere
net indicate that the Seyirkaya fault is an oblique-slip normal fault with minor
amount of dextral strike-slip component (Figure 3.11).

The slip-plane data analysis also reveals that relative magnitudes of the σ1 is higher
than σ2 and σ3 which indicate that this fault is being governed mainly by the
gravitational force. The epicenter of the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake of Mw = 5.7
is located near Söğüt settlement. The seismic data recorded by several stations
indicate that the source of this earthquake is a normal fault, focus depth is 24.4 km
and its epicenter is located in a somewhere further north of the northern margin of
the Simav graben (Figure 4.3, Table 4.1 in Chapter IV). According to catalogue data,

43
Figure 3-10: Close-up view of the Seyirkaya fault slickenside (S-6 in Figure A-1 in
Appendix).

No Strike Dip Rake Sense

(°N) (°) (°)
1 328 83E 85N Normal
2 321 86E 85N Normal
3 328 88E 77N Normal
4 316 88E 80N Normal
5 323 89E 60N Normal
6 325 85E 70N Normal
7 329 83E 85N Normal
8 328 84E 87N Normal
9 325 88E 75N Normal
10 324 77E 78N Normal
11 319 76E 80N Normal
12 342 84E 85N Normal
13 296 68N 75W Normal

Figure 3-11 Slip plane data taken from Seyirkaya fault (S-6 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) and
kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere.
(black arrows show local extension direction)
44
one of both the Seyirkaya and the Nadarçamı faults is the most reasonable candidate
for the source of the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake. Therefore those faults are
active based on both the seismic and field data. Focal mechanism solution data of
this earthquake also reveal a normal fault dipping at 40° at the focus of 24.4 km
depth. In contrast, dip amount of the fault measured at the surface is about 70°-75°
degrees. These values indicate that the source fault of the 19 May 2011 Simav
earthquake is listric in geometry. This is also supported by the back-tilting of blocks
along the source fault (Figure 3.9).

3.4.1.9 Kocakırtepe fault

It is a 4.5 km long and WNW-trending normal fault dipping towards southwest. It

starts from 1 km north of Yeşilköy settlement, runs for about 4.5 km distance and
then disappears near Gözet Hill (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The Kocakırtepe fault
cuts and displaces in vertical direction both the Miocene Kızılbük Formation and
older rock units and then tectonically juxtaposes them. Fault-parallel alignment of
springs and drainage system, back-tilting of the Selendi graben fill and the highly
deformed, crushed to sheared rock units are the common morphotectonic criteria
observed and used for the recognition of the Kocakırtepe fault. Slip plane data
couldn’t be obtained from the Kocakırtepe fault.

3.4.2 Naşa Fault Zone

The Naşa Fault Zone is an approximately 1 km wide 15 km long , in general NNW-

trending zone of deformation characterized by normal faulting. The Naşa Fault Zone
determines and controls both the north and northeast margin of the Simav graben
(Figure A-1 in Appendix). It is consists of a series of closely-spaced fault segments
of dissimilar trends and length. Some of the segments are different in orientation,
however they are included in Naşa fault zone. Lengths of the fault segments vary
from 2 to 7 km. These fault segments are, from north-northwest to south-southeast,
the Güneyköy, Balıklar, Karaçayırbaşı, Bayram, Naşa, Hüsüm, Eynal, Muradınlar,
and Kalkan faults respectively. They cut and displace different rock units and
tectonically juxtapose them with the modern graben fill.

45
3.4.2.1 Güneyköy fault

It is a 7 km long, WNW-trending and southwesterly dipping normal fault. It starts

from Örenli Town in the northwest and continues towards southeast up to the Naşa
fault and then terminates. It determines and controls the northern margin of the
Simav graben. Older basement rocks such as the Simav Metamorphics, the N-S-
trending Akdere graben and its older graben fills (the Taşbaşı Formation, the
Civanadağı Tuffs) are cut, displaced in vertical direction and then tectonically
juxtaposed with the Quaternary modern graben fill by the Güneyköy fault (Figure A-
1 in Appendix). Sudden break in the slope and deeply incised narrow valleys are
observed along the Güneyköy fault as morphotectonic criteria (Figure 3.12).

Figure 3-12: General view of the Güneyköy fault scarp and trace (F-F) (view to north).

Slickenside couldn’t be observed along the Güneyköy fault. However a well-develop

outcrop-scaled synthetic normal fault and its brecciated surface with the attitude of
N28°W/60°SW (Figure 3.13) reveal that the nature of the Güneyköy fault is also
normal.

3.4.2.2 Balıklar fault

It is an 1.5 km long and WNW- trending normal fault dipping towards north. It starts
from 1 km northwest of Güneyköy Village and continues eastwards up to Balıklar
Hill. The Balıklar fault is an also synthetic structure to the Güneyköy fault. It cuts
and displaces in vertical direction both the Akdere graben and its paleotectonic fill,
46
Figure 3-13: Close up view of the mesoscopic synthetic fault of the Güneyköy fault (S-1 in
Figure A-1 in Appendix)

and juxtaposes tectonically this older fill with the Quaternary modern fill of the
Simav graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The sudden break in slope amount and
alluvial fans accumulated at the foot of basinward-facing steep fault scarp are
common morphotectonic criteria observed and used to recognize the Balıklar fault
(3.14).

Figure 3-14 General view of the Balıklar fault scarp and trace (F-F) (view to north)
47
3.4.2.3 Karaçayırbaşı fault

It is a 3 km long, NW-trending and southwest dipping normal fault. It starts from

Karaçayırbaşı Hill located 1 km southwest of Naşa town and continues towards
Northwest until it joins with the margin-boundary faults of the N-S-trending Akdere
graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The Karaçayırbaşı fault cuts and displaces
vertically both the Naşa Basalt and the Civandağı Tuffs exposed along the
northeastern margin of the Simav graben. It also juxtaposes tectonically the Lower
Quaternary Toklargölü Formation (modern grabenfill) with the Middle Miocene
Naşa Basalt and Civanadağı Tuffs. Sudden break in the slope amount, crushed and
deformed basalts and the deeply incised and suspended narrow valley are common
morphotectonic criteria obserbed along the Karaçayırbaşı fault.

3.4.2.4 Naşa fault

It is a 5 km long, NNW-trending and southwesterly dipping normal fault. It starts

from the Hüsüm district in the southeast and continues in northwest direction up to 3
km north-northwest of Naşa town and then terminates (Figure A-1 in Appendix ).
The Naşa fault cuts and displaces vertically the Toklargölü Formation and the Naşa
Basalt and tectonically juxtaposes them with the Upper Quaternary Alluvial
sediments. Sudden break in the slope amount, a linear trace and crushed rocks and
the hot waters coming out of the earth’surface on the hanging block of the Naşa fault
are the characteristic morphotectonic criteria observed along the Naşa fault. In
addition, based on the field and borehole data, the total throw amount accumulated
along the Karaçayırbaşı, Naşa and the buried fault in the Simav graben is about 750
m (C-D geological cross-section in Figure A-2 in Appendix).

3.4.2.5 Bayram fault

It is a 2.5 km long and ENE- trending normal fault dipping towards southeast. It
starts from Naşa town and continues along a stream valley in ENE direction and then
terminates (Figure A-1 in Appendix) The Bayram fault cuts and displaces vertically
the Naşa Basalt and the underlying Civanadağı tuff.

48
Figure 3-15: General view of Naşa fault scarp (F-F) (view from 1.5 km northwest of Hüsüm
District, view to northeast)

3.4.2.6 Hüsüm fault

is a 5 km long, approximately E-W-trending and southerly dipping normal fault. It

starts from the Hüsüm district and continues towards east until 1 km south of
Kapıkaya Village, where it joins with the Eynal fault (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The
Hüsüm fault cuts and displaces vertically the Naşa Basalt, the underlying Simav
Metamorphics and the Lower Quaternary Toklargölü Formation and juxtaposes
tectonically them with to each other. Suspended fault terraces (Figure 3.16), crushed
and sheared rocks and step-like land shape are the common morphotectonic criteria
observed and used to recognize the Hüsüm fault.

The throw amount accumulated along the Hüsüm fault is about 50 m based on the
comparison of the bottom contacts of the Toklargölü Formation on both blocks of the
fault (G-H- geological cross-section in Figure A-3 in Appendix). Vertical

49
Figure 3-16: General view of the suspended fault terrace along the Hüsüm fault (view to
north).

displacement along Hüsüm fault is proven by geothermal wells opened by MTA

(Figure A-3 in Appendix).

3.4.2.7 Eynal fault

It is a 5 km long, E-W trending and southerly dipping normal fault. It starts from the
Hüsüm district and continues eastwards up to 2 km distance to the Kapıkaya Village
across the Eynal Thermal facility (Figure A-1 in Appendix). The Eynal fault cuts and
displaces vertically the Lower Quaternary Toklargölü Formation and the underlying
older rocks and juxtaposes them with the Upper Quaternary alluvial sediments
Sudden break in the slope amount, deeply incised narrow valley with steep slopes,
linear and fault- parallel drainage pattern and the occurrence of an artesian
geothermal wells are some diagnostic morphotectonic criteria for recognition of the
Eynal fault. Based on the field geological and the borehole data, the total throw
amount accumulated on the Eynal fault is about 70 m (G-H-geological cross-section
in Figure A-3 in Appendix). Both the field and seismic data reveal that the Eynal
fault is an active normal fault. This is proved by fault-parallel alignment of some
aftershocks occurred after the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake, during which the
Eynal Thermal Hotel was damaged and collapsed.
50
3.4.2.8 Muradınlar fault

It is a 2.5 km long and NW-trending normal fault dipping towards southwest. It cuts
and vertically displaces vertically both the Early Quaternary Toklargölü Formation
and the underlying Simav Metamorphics. It also juxtaposes them with the Upper
Quaternary alluvial sediments in the Simav graben. The basinward-facing step-like
fault scarp, crushed and sheared rocks, suspended fault terrace conglomerates and the
triangular facets are most common morphotectonic criteria observed and used to
recognize the Muradınlar fault.

3.4.3 Akdere Fault Zone

Indeed the Akdere graben is a superimposed basin dominated by two graben fills
such as the pre-Quaternary older fill and the Quaternary modern or neotectonic fill.
Older fill is deformed (folded) and separated from the overlying undeformed
neotectonic (modern) fill by an angular unconformity. The Akdere fault zone forms
the faulted-boundary between the older and uplifted older fill and the nearly flat-
lying modern fill exposing intervening narrow and linear depocenter of the graben
(Figure A-1 in Appendix). The Akdere fault zone a 2.5 km wide, 30 km long and N-
S-trending normal fault zone running along the central section of the N-S-trending
Akdere graben. It begins from the 2 km north-northwest of Naşa Town and then
continues northwards along both sides of the Akdere Stream, which drains the
graben, until the Köleler district in the further north and outside the study area. Only
southern 6 km long part of the Akdere fault zone is included in the study area (Figure
A-1 in Appendix). The mapped part of the Akdere fault zone consists of two faults.
These are the Akdere fault and the Hamzabey fault.

3.4.3.1 Akdere fault

It is a 7 km long, N-S trending and westerly dipping normal fault. It controls eastern
margin of the Akdere neotectonic graben. Akdere fault cuts and displaces the
Civanadağı Tuffs and tectonically juxtaposes them with the Quaternary alluvial
sediments. Sharp fault scarp, crushed and sheared rocks, synthetic mesoscopic faults

51
(Figure 3.17), sudden break in slope amount and triangular facets are common
morphotectonic criteria observed along the Akdere fault.

Figure 3-17: Close-up view of a synthetic mesoscopic fault running parallel to the Akdere
fault (along the Eğirler road).

3.4.3.2 Hamzabey fault

It is a 6 km long, N-S trending and easterly dipping normal fault. The Hamzabey
fault cuts and displaces vertically the Middle Miocene Civanadağı tuffs. It juxtaposes
tectonically Middle Miocene tuffs with the Quaternary alluvial sediments. The
Hamzabey fault starts from 1.5 km northeast of Güneyköy village and then continues
up to further north outside the study area. It controls western margin of the modern
Akdere graben (Figure A-1 in Appendix).

3.4.4 Other faults

3.4.4.1 Kıbletaştepe fault

Apart from the above-described faults, several outcrop-scaled to mapable faults were
also observed in the study area. One of them is exposed well along the Simav-Samat

52
road cut (S-2 in Figure A-1 in Appendix). It was here termed as the Kıbletaştepe
fault. It is a NNE-trending and easterly steeply (80°) dipping oblique-slip normal
fault, which determines and controls the western margin of the N-S-trending Selendi
graben. It cuts and displaces the Simav Metamorphics and tectonically juxtaposes
them with the Lower-Middle Miocene Kızılbük Formation. It displays a well-
developed and preserved fault slickenside. The stereographic plots of slip-plane data
taken from this slip plane on the Schmidt’s lower hemisphere net indicate that the
Kıbletaştepe fault is an oblique-slip normal fault with the local extension in WNW-
ESE direction (Figure 3.18).

No Strike Dip Rake Sense

(°N) (°) (°)
1 356 88E 60S Normal

2 357 81E 63S Normal

3 353 81E 62S Normal

4 003 86E 70S Normal

5 002 77E 74S Normal

6 357 85E 62S Normal

7 358 83E 56S Normal

Figure 3-18: Slip plane data taken from fault plane (S-2 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) and
kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere.
(black arrows show local extension direction)

In addition, the relative magnitude of σ3 is higher than σ1 and σ2 which indicates that
this fault was governed mainly by the tensional force. Since this fault controls the
tectonic contact between the Simavdağı Horst to the west and the Paleotectonic
graben infill of the N-S-trending Selendi graben, it should be related to the
paleotectonic regime operated during the early evolutionary history of Selendi
graben. Consequently there was an approximately E-W trending extension in the
Selendi graben during paleotectonic period.

53
3.4.4.2 Secondary normal fault

A small-scale oblique-slip secondary normal fault was observed in the Simav fault
zone along the southern margin of the Simav graben. It cut and deformed the Simav
Metamorphics (S-3 in Figure A-1 in Appendix). It displays well-developed and
preserved slickenside (Figure 3.19).

Figure 3-19: Close-up view of a mesoscopic fault and its well-developed slickenlines
observed along Simav-Samat road (S-3 in Figure A-1 in Appendix)

This fault is an antithetic structure to the Nadarçamı normal fault described in

foregoing sentences (Figure 3.6). Stereographic plots of slip-plane data on the
Schmidt’ lower hemisphere net reveals a NNE-SSW neotectonic extension (Figure
3.20).

54
 No Strike Dip Rake Sense
(°N) (°) (°)

1 136 81S 74E Normal

2 144 80S 73E Normal

3 135 78S 70E Normal

4 143 80S 65E Normal

5 131 77S 74E Normal

Figure 3-20: Slip plane data taken from fault plane (S-3 in Figure A-1 in Appendix) and
kinematic solution using Angelier’s direct inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere.
(black arrows show local extension direction)

3.4.4.3 Faults with two overprinted sets of slickenlines

A fault slickenside with two overprinted sets of slickenlines was observed along the
faulted contact between the Middle Miocene Civanadağı Tuffs and the Simav
Metamorphics 5 km west-northwest of Öreyler Town and outside the study area
(659008E, 4334127N) (Figure 3.21). Older set of slickenlines, which is crossed by
the younger set, is the record of dextral strike-slip faulting operated during the
compressive paleotectonic period. However younger set of slickenlines is the record
of normal faulting occurred in the Quaternary neotectonic period, i.e., this fault
formed originally to be a dextral strike-slip fault during the end of paleotectonic
period (possibly Late Pliocene) but later on (in the Quaternary neotectonic period) it
reactivated to be a normal fault. In addition, older set of slickenlines also represents
the short-term strike-slip faulting phase which interrupted the early evolutionary
history of the grabens in the Simav region. The kinematic analysis of slip-plane data
measured on this fault slickenside (Figure 3.21) by using the Angelier’s direct
inversion method (Angelier,1994) reveals a strike slip faulting that was replaced later
by the NE-SW extension during post-Miocene period (Figure 3.22 3.23).

55
Figure 3-21: a. Close-up view of the set of slickenlines depicting dextral faulting (SL1), b.
Close-up view of the set of slickenlines depicting normal faulting, c. General view of the slip
plane with two overprinted sets of slickenlines (SL1, SL2) (See figure 3.24 for location).

No Strike (°N) Dip (°) Rake (°) Sense

1 292 84N 15E Dextral

2 294 70N 11E Dextral

3 299 84N 8E Dextral

4 293 70N 12E Dextral

5 296 88N 11E Dextral

6 289 78N 13E Dextral

7 292 88N 13E Dextral

Figure 3-22: Kinematic analysis of the slip plane data by using the Angelier’s direct
inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere net; 1st phase of deformation obtained
from the overprinted older slickenlines (SL1 in Figure 3.22). (black arrows show local
extension and compression directions)
56
 Strike Dip Rake
No Sense
(°N) (°) (°)

1 287 78N 78E Normal

2 292 80N 77E Normal

3 300 86N 81E Normal

4 300 83N 80E Normal

5 292 84N 80E Normal

Figure 3-23: Kinematic analysis of the slip plane data by using the Angelier’s direct
inversion method on Schmidt’s lower hemisphere net; 2nd phase of deformation obtained
from the overprinted older slickenlines (SL2 in Figure 3.21). (black arrows show local
extension and compression directions)

Figure 3-24: Location map showing the site of overprinted

slickenline measurement (Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Ali Koçyiğit)

This phase is coeval with the compressive phases observed in the region (Gürboğa et
al., 2013). This compressive period may have been related to local block rotations
during the west, southwestern escape of the Anatolia platelet or a regional
57
compressive period that interrupts the regional extension (Koçyiğit et al., 1999;
Rojay et al., 2005). Resulting fault mechanism may differ in places where the
dominancy of synchronously operating different tectonic regimes change. That is, if
there is a compression in the east and extension in the west, the interface between
these regimes may strike slip regime and complex faulting patterns of same age.

3.4.4.4 Buried faults

As has been described in detail in the aforementioned sentences, the north-

northeastern margin of the Simav graben is bounded by a series of active fault
segments, which display basinward-facing and steeply sloping fault scarps. A thick
fan-apron sedimentary pile have been accumulated along the feet of these active fault
scarps owing to the high rate of transportation and sedimentation. For this reason
some of the faults are not exposed, but they are located beneath the overlying thick
sedimentary pile or modern graben fill. Three buried faults were determined beneath
the graben fill in terms of a series of boreholes drilled around Naşa and Eynal
thermals along northeastern margin of the Simav graben (Figure A-3 in Appendix).
The total throw amount accumulated along these buried faults is about 400 m based
on the offset boundaries of the Middle Miocene Civanadağı Tuffs and the Naşa
Basalt exposed on both the down-thrown and up-thrown blocks of these buried faults
(C-D and G-H-geological cross-sections in Figures A-2, A- 3 in Appendix).

58
 CHAPTER 4

SEISMICITY AND GPS ANALYSIS

Western Anatolia is one of the most seismically active regions in Turkey and the
surroundings. Particularly, Simav Fault Zone located in Akşehir Simav Fault System
is a major active seismic source displaying frequent earthquake activities in the
recent years and arousing the earthquake scientists’ interest. This earthquake activity
has also been proved by historical period destructive earthquakes (Öcal ,1968; Ergin
et.al, 1967; Pınar and Lahn,1952) and the ones in instrumental period recorded by
Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory and Disaster and Emergency Management
Presidency. To understand the long term activity, various characteristics of the
seismic sources (faults) in the Simav graben and the tectonic meaning of
seismological data will be described and discussed. Also the statistical and
descriptive parameters obtained from analysis of seismological data will be used as a
major input in the seismic hazard analysis which will be discussed in another
chapter.

4.1 Historical Seismicity

There are two well-documented and reported historical earthquake records in and
around Simav which occurred in 1875 and 1896. Other earthquakes have insufficient
information such as that either their epicenters and/or intensities are not given
properly. For example, according to Ambraseys (2009), an earthquake occurred on
16 September 1728, caused heavy damage in Simav, was felt in İzmir but its details
are missing. Among the well-documented earthquakes, first one (coordinates 39° N –
29° E) was reported that it occurred in 1875 and has an intensity of VIII (Öcal,
1968). Öcal (1968) also calculated the magnitude of this earthquake as 6.1. The
59
second earthquake occurred in Emet in 1896 near southeast of Simav County, and it
was felt within a circular area with a radius of 200 km. During this earthquake, it was
reported that numerous buildings have been were damaged, some minarets were
collapsed, hot waters came out of the Earths’ surface and discharge of some springs
were either decreased to dried up or increased (Pınar and Lahn, 1952).

4.2 Recent Seismicity

The 2009 Naşa and the 2011 Söğüt earthquakes occurred in the Simav region are the
most recent seismic events that attracted interest of researchers and lead to an
increase in the number of seismotectonic studies. Indeed, the earthquake activity and
the seismic potential of the region have been proved several times by damaging
earthquakes in the last century. These are 1928 (Ms = 6.1) Emet, 1944 (Ms = 6.0)
Şaphane, 1970 (Mw=7.2) Gediz, and 1970 (Ms=5.9) Çavdarhisar earthquakes
(Kalafat et. al., 2011). Particularly the 28 March 1970 Gediz earthquake caused a
significant damage and casualties such as 1260 people lost their lives, more than
10000 buildings were damaged and there were around 80000 homeless. Gediz
County was relocated to a new place after this earthquake. It was reported that 1086
of the damaged buildings were in villages of Simav County (Erinç et. al, 1970). The
28 March 1970 Gediz earthquake, which was sourced from an active fault segment
included in the ASFS, indicated that the damaging potential of the Akşehir-Simav
Fault System (ASFS) was quite high.

According to Kandilli Observatory Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI)

earthquake catalogues, 468 earthquakes occurred in and near environ of the Simav
Graben in the instrumental period covering a time slice between 1900 and 2014 years
(Table A-1 in Appendix). 454 of these earthquakes were recorded later than 1968
owing to the earthquake catalog completeness (Figure 4.1). It is clearly seen that
there are three jumps in the number of recorded earthquakes (Figure 4.1). First one is
in 1968 and due to installation of nearby seismograms that helped recording small-
sized earthquakes. Second one is in 1976 which reflects a number of small and
moderate-scale earthquake activities in the region. Third and the last one is in 2011

60
 Earthquakes of M>3.5 vs Years near
Simav
300
Cumulative number of Earthquakes

250

200

150

100

50

1950
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945

1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Years

Figure 4-1: Cumulative number of earthquakes with magnitude M ≥ 3.5 recorded

in and near environ of the Simav graben (ERD,2014b)

which is mainly due to aftershocks of the 19 May 2011 Söğüt earthquake. Therefore,
the earthquake catalog for this area should be considered as later than 1968.

The information available in earthquake catalogs is mainly origin time, epicenter

coordinates, depth and the magnitude. These are key instrumental parameters to
calculate earthquake activity. Since epicenter is the vertical projection of focus of an
earthquake, depth of the focus of each earthquake should be considered for relating
the earthquakes to the dipping faults. Epicenter location is calculated using crustal
velocity model and the duration for seismic wave to reach the seismogram. Origin
time and the crustal velocity model in a small region is not known precisely,
therefore, locating small earthquakes with global or regional models can be
misleading in small scales. This is called as the coupled hypocenter-velocity problem
(Thurber, 1992). This problem can be overcome to some extent by using more
number of seismograms. There are broadband stations in Simav, Tavşanlı and Gediz
Counties that help better epicenter distribution resolution. Spatial epicenter
distribution of the earthquakes occurred in the study area is available and plotted on a
map to illustrate their relationship with the known active faults (Figure 4.2).

61
Epicenter distributions of large earthquakes are more reliable in terms of both depth
and location compared to smaller earthquakes. Epicenter of the 19 May 2011
earthquake is located 1km north of Söğüt village and its focus depth is about 24.4
km. The focal mechanism solution indicates a normal faulting with very small
amount of strike-slip component. There are several hypotheses about the type of
source fault of this earthquake. These are the strike-slip (Doğan and Emre, 2006),
southerly dipping normal fault (Kalafat et al., 2012), and the northerly dipping
normal fault (the Simav Fault Zone) in this study. The focal mechanism solutions
prepared and published by all available sources show that the source fault should be
a nearly ENE-WSW striking normal fault. Hence strike-slip faulting mechanism is
not supported by seismological data. Southerly dipping normal fault hypothesis
seems to be compatible with the focal mechanism solution. In normal fault systems,
earthquakes and aftershocks occur on main fault, antithetic and synthetic faults. All
of these faults generate earthquakes with epicenter located in hanging-wall block.
Also the depth and epicenter of the 19 May 2011 earthquake mainshock and large
aftershocks altogether indicate that southerly dipping normal fault should be at least
20 km north of northern margin of the Simav Graben. However, there is no southerly
dipping active normal fault identified in the region which is on the northern side of
the earthquake cluster. Therefore, most probable source fault for the 19 May 2011
earthquake should be a northerly dipping normal fault segment included in the Simav
Fault Zone, which determines and controls the southern margin of the Simav graben.

4.3 Focal Mechanism Solutions

Focal mechanism solution of an earthquake is a diagram showing the direction of

radiating compressional and tensional seismic P-waves around the focus. These
directions are determined by using first P-wave arrivals to the seismograms located
in different directions. These first P-wave arrivals and their takeoff angles are plotted
on a stereogram. Resulting diagram is a beach ball plot with compressional white and
tensional black regions. Available focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes are
plotted with numbered epicenters on the study area (Figure 4.3).

62
63

Figure 4-2: Seismotectonic map of the study area (Data is from ERD,2014b).
64

Figure 4-3: Focal mechanism solutions and their distribution in the study area. Seismic parameters are given in
Table 4.1
 Table 4-1: Seismic parameters of the focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes occurred in study area

No Date Time (UTC) Latitude Longitude Depth Magnitude Strike Dip Rake Institute
1 17.2.2009 07:28 39,15 28,98 16,8 5,2 262 46 -128 HARVARD
2 25.9.2009 09:23 39,12 29,02 20 3,7 276 20 -121 ERD
3 8.11.2009 09:05 39,08 29,04 5 3,6 218 16 162 ERD
4 19.5.2011 20:15 39,13 29,08 24,4 5,8 264 60 -90 ERD
5 19.5.2011 21:21 39,11 29,03 4 4 294 64 -98 ERD
6 19.5.2011 21:33 39,13 29,12 3,9 8 299 70 -99 ERD
7 27.5.2011 07:43 39,14 29,12 4,1 6 279 63 -91 ERD
8 28.5.2011 05:47 39,12 29,03 4,8 20 144 58 -72 KOERI
9 29.5.2011 01:31 39,12 29,09 4 4,3 279 76 -88 ERD
10 27.6.2011 21:13 39,11 29,02 4,8 6 321 55 -60 ERD
65

11 27.6.2011 21:28 39,11 29,05 4,2 6 324 61 -74 ERD

12 26.4.2012 22:05 39,13 29,11 5 4,5 290 57 -78 ERD
13 3.5.2012 15:20 39,12 29,11 10 5,3 274 48 -86 ERD
14 3.5.2012 16:16 39,10 29,04 6 4 297 50 -90 ERD
15 3.5.2012 21:45 39,14 29,11 6 4,2 279 66 -93 ERD
16 9.5.2012 17:49 39,10 29,15 5 4,1 293 69 -73 ERD
ERD: Earthquake Research Department (Turkey), KOERI: Kandilli Observatory Earthquake Research Institute
There are 16 focal mechanism solutions illustrated in Figure 4.3 and listed in Table
4.1. Each of these focal mechanisms has compressional and tensional axes
calculated. Although focal mechanisms may give relatively varying nodal planes for
each earthquake, their magnitude weighted statistical mean is coherent within
acceptable error margins (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4-4: Schmidt lower hemisphere plot of Win Tensor rotational

optimization solution of available focal mechanisms (Delvaux et al.,
2003) (Red arrows indicate local extension direction of earthquake area).

Win Tensor is a free software that analyses fault slip and focal mechanism data
(Delvaux et al., 2003). Rotational optimization method is used for analysis. This
method makes a grid search to fing an orthogonal principle stress configuration
which has the minimum misfit to the overall dataset. This misfit is calculated using
the weighing factor of each slip data and slip line deviation from the mean slip line
that correspond to computed stress tensor. The measurements with angular deviation
larger than 30° are omitted and iterative search is continued (Delvaux et al., 2003).
Görgün (2014) calculated centroid moment tensors for 41 events with moment
magnitudes (Mw) between 3.5 and 6.0 applying waveform inversion method. He
suggested a stress field orientation from 41 focal mechanisms. This solution is also
compatible with our calculation (Figure 4.5).
66
The source of earthquakes is normal faulting not strike-slip faulting and the local
extension direction is NNE-SSW (Figure 4.4,4.5) .

Figure 4-5: Stress field orientation derived from focal

mechanisms (Görgün, 2014)

Based on these focal mechanisms solution diagrams, the source of the mainshock is
the Seyirkaya fault and/or Nadarçamı fault which were observed and mapped in the
field (Figure A-1 in Appendix) These are northerly steeply dipping (65°-75°) normal
faults located 10-12 km south of the epicenter. Besides focal mechanism solution
also gives a dip amount of an approximately 40° for the fault plane at the focus of
main shock. These seismological and geological data can be ascribed to that the
source of the 19 May 2011 Simav earthquake is a listric fault in nature.

4.4 GPS Analysis of the region

Geoscientists, who mainly focus on tectonics, deal with the deformational processes
and the resulting structures on the Earth through time. The ones that study active
tectonics are more interested in recent deformation. Active tectonics movements

67
deform the crust by means of folding and faulting. Folding is a permanent plastic
deformation process that occurs below and on the Earth surface where rocks behave
ductile. Faulting is a process of brittle deformation of the crust that causes rapid
ruptures and sudden release of energy termed to be earthquake. In either case, the
total deformation is relatively slow in a given time period. Additionally, deformation
is mostly compensated as sum of these two main processes in a region. Therefore,
extremely precise measurement on a long time span is needed to observe current
deformation of the Earth’s crust. At this point, using the recently advanced Global
Positioning System (GPS) comes into consideration.

4.4.1 Theoretical Background of GPS

Geodesy is a measurement and representation of the Earth in three dimensional time

varying space. Satellite technology is advanced dramatically in the last decades and
Global Positioning System is developed. GPS is a navigation system that provides
location of the point of interest using GPS satellites. Since the satellites have
relatively fixed orbits in a given reference frame, a GPS device can locate itself using
several satellites in different directions. A GPS device locates itself in three main
steps below: (a) GPS receiver reads the radio signals that are continuously
broadcasted by the satellites, (b) Using the patterns inside the radio signal, GPS
receiver calculates the distance to the satellite which is the source of the radio signal,
and (c) GPS receiver locates its position using each distances from several different
sources. Since the Earth is moving and rotating around the sun, the points on the
Earth surface are not fixed in the universe. Hence, a global position which is relative
to the Earth surface itself, i.e., has reference frame based on the Earth, cannot be
useful. This situation causes another problem; the crust of the Earth is deforming due
to plate tectonics movements and one cannot measure the deformation using already
deformed reference point. Therefore a fixed coordinate system independent from
Earth surface must be used. For this purpose, International Celestial Reference
System is defined by using: (a) Vernal equinox which is the intersection of equatorial
plane of the earth and its orbital plane, (b) The Earth’s rotation axis and, (c) The axis
90° towards east from vernal equinox along equatorial plane of the Earth. This

68
reference frame is later adapted to the rotation of the Earth and International
Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) is introduced. This reference frame uses: (a)
Greenwich meridian, (b) Mean pole between years 1900-1905 and, (c) Equatorial
plane of the Earth. Current GPS receivers use this ITRF reference frame for ease of
communication, this procedure involves conversion between ICRF and ITRF
systems.

GPS measurement can be affected by various factors. These factors are: (a) the
rotation of the earth can be affected by luni-solar tides, anisotropy of the earth,
variation of rotation speed, earthquakes and electromagnetic coupling. These
eventually change the rotation vector of the earth which is used to convert the
universally fixed positions of ICRF to earth based ITRF coordinates, (b) The position
of the satellite is changing from its predefined orbit because of gravitational forces
due to topography, attraction forces of the sun and moon, solar radiation pressure and
satellite maneuvers; these result in miscalculation of the position of the satellite
which results in GPS error, (c) Atmospheric effects which are ionospheric effect
resulted from ionospheric and tropospheric effects. These effects could change the
path of the radio signal due to ion content or weather conditions, and (d) the device
error; most of the handheld devices have more than 1-2 m positioning error due to
antenna structure of the receiver, clock error, multipath error which is related to
reflections from nearby surfaces, the stability of the GPS device setup and lastly the
electronic noises of the area. The deformation rate is generally around 4 cm/yr in
tectonically most active regions, therefore, the correction of these errors are
obligatory to use GPS data in active tectonics. The most common methods to
overcome errors are basically using better GPS devices, measuring positions for a
long time and taking the best fitting line on position-time graph, measuring on
different seasons, correcting the satellite orbit data from IGS, and using several GPS
devices at one time to double check measurements.

4.4.2 Usage of GPS in Active Tectonics

As mentioned above, GPS technology is recently developed one that is used to

measure the location of any point on the Earth at any time. If this measurement is

69
repeated through time, the change in the location of the point relative to reference
frame gives the displacement of the point. This displacement is converted to GPS
velocities later. Measuring a number of points in a region gives the GPS velocity
field of the region. Calculating differential velocities of points relative to each other
reflects the differential displacements and that consequently are used to determine
deformation rate of the region relative to given coordinate system.

In general, GPS satellites which are above an in 160° line of sight are used for
determining the position. This yields to higher precision in horizontal positioning
which generally gives around three times more precise results than vertical
positioning. Therefore it is a better application to use horizontal GPS velocities and
calculate deformation in horizontal plane which will give the orientation and the type
of horizontal strain axes and corresponding stress axes. For strike slip faulting
systems, the magnitude of calculated strain axis could be correlated with the total
magnitude of fault slip rate and shear strain rate. However, in the normal and reverse
faulting cases, the dip of the fault will be important and should be considered while
using horizontal strain magnitudes.

4.4.3 GPS Analysis in Western Anatolia and Simav Graben

GPS velocities used in this study are taken from McClusky et al. (2000), Reilinger et
al. (2006) and Aktuğ et al. (2009). These velocities are illustrated in Figure 4.6.

Before the GPS analysis, some of the velocities are excluded from the process
because: (a) the standart deviation is high, (b) duration of measurement is low, and
(c) problems related to combination algorithm of different velocity fields. These
velocities are processed on Velocity Interpolation to Strain Rates v2.0 (VISR2)
software (Shen et al., 1996). This program assumes homogenous strain in the crust
and uses the GPS velocities from points within a specified distance range and to
calculate deformation at a point as rotation, translation and strain rates. The program
uses a weighting algorithm that includes distance to the point, velocity uncertainties
and velocity co-variances. The area is gridded as rectangular areas with 0.25 degree
dimension. Maximum and minimum horizontal strain directions axes from the
analysis are shown in Figure 4.7.
70
Figure 4-6: GPS velocity field of Western Anatolia which is relative to Eurasia fixed
reference frame. Error elipses are at 95% confidence interval. Simav graben is shown as
black box inserted in the figure

These strain axes are compared to active faults map of Turkey (Emre et al., 2013)
and World Stress Map project (Heidbach et al., 2008). According to horizontal strain
axes, their type and relation to WSM project minimum horizontal stress orientations,
a well fit is observed. Also the extension directions are generally perpendicular to the

71
 Figure 4-7: Maximum and minimum horizontal strain axes (black arrows),
Minumum horizontal stress (extension) direction taken from World Stress
Map project (red arrows) Heidbach et al., 2008

faults; therefore, these faults should be working as normal faults with small amount
of strike slip components.

Rotation analysis of VISR2 assumes small rigid bodies bounded by the pre-defined
grids and calculates the rotation of the grids relative to nearby regions. That
shouldn’t be confused with the Euler rotation of the crust. The rotation rates are
calculated and illustrated in Figure 4.8.

Horizontal local rotations are observed generally near strike-slip and oblique-slip
faults. For right lateral strike-slip faults, rotation will be clockwise and for left lateral
strike-slip faults rotation will be counter-clockwise. For normal and reverse faults
rotation will be small. GPS sites near Simav graben are sparse and have relatively
higher uncertainty compared to GPS velocity differences. Therefore, a localized and
more precise GPS analysis is needed for better resolution in GPS velocity analysis.
Still, general trend of the deformation coming from GPS analysis can be compared
and discussed with other methods within around 50 km resolution according to

72
 Figure 4-8: Rigid body rotations in the study area according to GPS
velocities.

analysis results. According to GPS analysis, local extension direction in Simav

Graben and around 100 km vicinity is about N20°E while orientation of the its
margin-boundary fault is N80°W. This should result in small amount of right lateral
strike-slip component if the faults have normal sense of motion. This result is also
fitting well with the WSM results. Rotation amount is very small compared to its
uncertainty, hence it is omitted.

73
74
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE

SIMAV AND AKDERE GRABENS

The discussion on the neotectonics of the western Anatolia covers a wide range of
disciplines including tectonics, structural geology, stratigraphy, paleontology,
geochemistry, petrology and geochronology. In the scope of this thesis, field based
stratigraphic and structural evidences are obtained. Hence the discussion will be held
in the light of these evidences as well as the available literature data reported by
other authors.

The discussions on the neotectonics and evolution of the Southwest Anatolian

graben-horst system (SWAGHS) are focused on two points: a) cause and onset age
of extensional tectonic regime, b) corresponding evolutionary style of SWAGHS.
Even there are numerous studies in the Western Anatolia in this scope there is not
still a common agreement. Briefly, there are four views on the evolutionary model of
SWAGHS: (1) Tectonic escape (extrusion) model (Şengör et al., 1985; Dewey and
Şengör, 1979; Şengör, 1987) : the extension in SWAGHS is resulted from
compression and westward extrusion of wedge-shaped Anatolian Platelet along the
NAFS and EAFS after Tortonian due to Arabia-Eurasia collision took place in
Langhian-Serravalian. Present kinematics of Western Anatolia supports the role of
tectonic escape in the western Anatolian extension. However, the proposed age of the
model contradicts to the formation age of NAFS, EAFS and the Anatolian Platelet
which took place in Early Quaternary (Koçyiğit et al.,1999). Moreover, the Akdere
and Selendi grabens with older fills of Early Miocene age which predates Arabia-
Eurasia collision (Seyitoğlu et al., 1996); (2) Back-arc extension model

75
(McKenzie,1978; Meulenkamp et al., 1988, Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979): the
extension in SWAGHS is caused by southwestward migration of Hellenic arc due to
the roll-back of northward subducting slab. Based on this model, the commencement
age of extension is being proposed differently by different authors such as 13 Ma (Le
Pichon and Angelier, 1979), 5 Ma (McKenzie, 1978) and at least 26 Ma
(Meulenkamp et al., 1988); (3) Orogenic collapse model (Dewey, 1988; Seyitoğlu
and Scott, 1991,1992,1996): the extension in SWAGHS was resulted from thinning
and spreading of overthickened crust. Overthickening is due to collision and tectonic
uplift (Dewey, 1988). Since collision built up vertical stress and created topographic
high, after the lateral compressional force is removed, the isostatic and gravity forces
took place and spread the overthickened crust as a rebound. The closure of İzmir-
Ankara-Erzincan ocean took place in Latest Paleocene to Early Miocene.
Immediately after the cessation of collision, the orogenic collapse took place
(Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1991, 1992). Şengör et al. (1985) suggested that the crust in
western Turkey was thickened up to 50-55 km which supports this model, and (4)
Episodic two stage extension model with intervening contraction (Koçyiğit et al.,
1999; Koçyiğit et al., 2000; Bozkurt, 2002; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003; Koçyiğit,
2005; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2004; Bozkurt and Rojay, 2005): first phase (Early-
Middle Miocene) of the extension in SWAGHS is resulted from orogenic collapse
occurred along the İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan suture zone. Second (Early Quaternary to
recent) extension is characterized by combination of back-arc extension due to the
roll-back process and tectonic escape models. Intervening compression is due to the
change in the kinematics between Arabia and Eurasia or block rotations. This model
is supported mainly by field evidences such as intensely deformed (folded and thrust
to reverse faulted) Early Miocene-Lower Pliocene rock units deposited on
supradetachment basins, and the presence of an angular unconformity between the
deformed Early-Middle Miocene-Pliocene units and the undeformed modern graben
fill of Quaternary age. Additionally there are different models such as the pulsed
extension model (Purvis and Robertson, 2004, 2005) and two stage of extension
separated by erosional period (Yılmaz et al., 2000). These models are slightly
different from episodic extension model but they support it.

76
The field-based evidences allow commenting on evolutionary history of the Simav
and Akdere grabens and lead to differentiate several deformation phases. These are
from oldest to youngest: (a) N-S extensional phase and detachment faulting, (b) E-W
extensional phase and Demirci and Selendi graben formation, (c) NW-SE
compressional phase accommodated by NE-SW extension and deformation of older
grabens and related fills, and (d) NNE-SSW extension (neotectonic regime) that
forms the Simav graben (Figure 7.1).

During the first phase, a N-S extension was operating in the study area. The Simav
detachment fault was formed after the cessation of Paleogene shortening during the
closure of North Neotethys ocean (Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1992; Collins and Robertson,
1998; Koçyiğit et al., 1999). U-Th-Pb SIMS zircon dating of the Eğrigöz and
Koyunoba syn-extensional granites gives 21±0.2 to 20.7±0.6 Ma (Ring and Collins,
2005). The Simav detachment fault was active until 18 Ma (Gessner et al., 2001;
Ring et al, 2003; Işık et al., 2004; Bozkurt et al., 2011). Later on it must be locked
due to doming resulted from intrusion of I-type syn-extensional granitoids (Ring and
Collins, 2005). The Taşbaşı Formation was deposited on the top of exhumed footwall
block of the Simav detachment fault (Ersoy et al., 2010). The Taşbaşı Formation is
reddish colored, weakly cemented, poorly sorted and polygenetic boulder block
conglomerate that was deposited as alluvial fans by high energy fluvial systems.
Reddish color indicates terrestrial environment. Loose packaging and poorly sorting
indicate short transportation distance and shallow-burial after the deposition. An
angular unconformity between the Taşbaşı Formation and the Civanadağı Tuffs is
observed in the field. This erosion could be resulted from doming of migmatites at
the footwall block of the Simav detachment fault related to emplacement of granites
(Bozkurt et al., 2011).

In the second phase, an E-W extension along the margins of the Selendi graben and
syn-depositional faults were observed in the Akdere graben (Figures 3.18). The fill in
the Akdere graben starts with the boulder-block conglomerates alternated with tuff
and continues to tuff-sandstone dominated volcano-sedimentary sequence that passes
to fluvio-lacustrine sedimentary package. Overall, graben fill is fining upward

77
Figure 5-1: Sketch map wiev, cross-sections and major events depicting proposed
evolutionary history of Simav and Akdere grabens

78
in nature which indicates receding of depocenter from the source (extension). It is
also coherent with the stratigraphic relationships and the orientation of the units
(Figure A-3 in Appendix). Granite blocks observed in the middle levels of the
Civanadağı Tuffs indicate that the youngest exposure age of granites is Middle
Miocene. This granite is possibly Koyunoba granite since the fill of the Akdere
graben at that location is mainly derived from west according to the pinch-out
geometry of pyroclastic basal flows. Moreover extensional faults controlling the
Miocene sedimentation are proposed according to geothermal well logs (Section
3.4.4, C-D and G-H cross-sections in Figure A-2, A-3 in Appendix). The Naşa Basalt
has flowed over both the Akdere graben (depocenter) and the eastern Katrandağı
Horst. Since there is no deposition over the Middle Naşa Basalt, it is the time limit
between second and third phases.

Third deformational phase is characterized by strike-slip faulting along the Simav

fault zone, folding and uplift. The Demirci graben is cut, displaced up to 5.5-6 km in
dextral direction (Konak, 1982) and separated into two parts by the intervening E-W-
trending strike-slip fault zone (the ancestor of the present-day Simav fault zone of
tensional origin). The northern part is named as the Akdere graben. This
deformational phase was also recorded on the fault slickenside (Figures 3.21, 3.22,
3.23).

Fourth deformational phase (neotectonic regime) is governed by the NNE-SSW

extension. Modern Simav graben was formed and some of the strike-slip faults have
reactivated as normal faults (Figure 3.21). Also some of the faults inside the Akdere
graben have reactivated and controlled the Quaternary deposition along the Simav
modern graben (C-D and G-H cross-sections in Figure A-2, A-3 in Appendix). This
neotectonic regime is also supported by stress inversion of fault planes (Figures 3.5,
3.11). Moreover focal mechanism solutions of the 19 May 2011 Söğüt earthquake
and its aftershocks support the normal faulting character of active faults (Figures 4.2,
4.3). Furthermore, GPS analysis of the region gives NNE-SSW extension and normal
faulting with minor strike-slip component (Figures 4.7, 4.8).

79
Consequently, considering the field evidences, the evolutionary history of the Simav
and the Akdere grabens is episodic, not continuous.

80
 CHAPTER 6

SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF SİMAV REGION

Earthquakes have always been a big problem for humanity throughout history. Since
faults are suitable places for hot and/or cold water circulation and the areas near
faults are good places for farming and reaching water, there are numerous old cities
in western Anatolia built near active faults. Unfortunately, those cities were hit by
earthquakes and the residents had to abandon the city after they realized that
earthquakes damaged their cities because of location of the city. Now, developments
in the Earth sciences guided people to have enough knowledge about faults and
earthquakes. Still, in Turkey, earthquakes are the most important natural disasters
that people have to come across. Large settlements and facilities are built in cities
where there are a large number of people live and valuable economic activities are
carried out. These buildings require enough and more precise earthquake hazard
prediction studies in order to be more earthquake hazard safe. However, earthquake
occurrence cannot be predicted precisely in terms of time, location and magnitude.
Therefore, there is need for seismic hazard assessment studies that quantify the
uncertainty of these variables and calculate the amount of ground shaking that a
building should withstand in a given site.

6.1 Theoretical Background

Seismic hazard is the level of ground shaking and related effects of earthquake on a
given site. The outcomes of seismic hazard assessment are design ground motion
parameters which are peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, peak
displacement and spectral acceleration amounts for given spectral periods (SSHAC,
1997). Seismic hazard and risk terms are often misused instead of each other but they

81
are different. Seismic risk describes the amount of damage to a building or a site in
terms of structural, social, economic and environmental aspects. Basically seismic
risk is equal to seismic hazard multiplied by building vulnerability (Wang, 2009).

There are two main approaches for seismic hazard analyses which are Deterministic
Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(PSHA). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) includes all possible
earthquake scenarios that are determined from geological and seismological data
with all possible ground motion probabilities. Therefore, PSHA depends on good
knowledge of geology to be successful on prediction. On the other hand, DSHA
includes maximum credible earthquake (MCE) which is the largest earthquake that is
capable of occurring on a nearby earthquake source (Abrahamson, 2006). The
deterministic approach traditionally uses 0 or 1 standard deviation above the median
for the ground motion, however, in probabilistic approach; larger numbers of
standard deviations are used. The deterministic approach leads to a single ground
motion for each scenario considered, whereas, the probabilistic approach guide to a
hazard curve, giving the probability of exceeding various ground motion values
(Abrahamson, 2000). Therefore, ground motion calculated from PSHA sometimes
will be larger than DSHA but corresponding probability would be very small as low
as zero. Therefore, DSHA seems to be safer than PSHA but it is highly dependent to
expertise and may conclude expensive designs and must be applied for very
important and long-living buildings such as dams, bridges and power plants
(McGuire, 2001). The main idea of probabilistic approach is to provide a basis for
selecting a “reasonable” design ground motion that is generally less than the worst
case. In PSHA, maximum design earthquake (MDE) is defined that is expected to
produce the strongest ground motion in a given site. MCE and MDE are often
confused, MDE can be equal to MCE for critical structures but generally is less than
MCE. Both PSHA and DSHA require an attenuation relationship which provides a
means of predicting the level of ground shaking based on an earthquake magnitude,
distance to earthquake source, site conditions, etc. As a result, PSHA and DSHA
have pros and cons that should be considered according to the purpose and it is a

82
better practice to make both assessment studies for city-sized study areas. In the
scope of this study, only DSHA will be carried out.

6.2 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment of Simav Region

Deterministic approach includes individual earthquake scenarios as mentioned
above. Simav graben is an active depression in which Simav County and numerous
villages have been hit with large earthquakes recently. This provided up-to-date
seismological information to assess the earthquake hazard.

6.2.1 Source Characterization

Major earthquake sources in the area are Simav Fault Zone (SFZ) and Naşa Fault
Zone (NFZ). Due to short instrumental period, the seismic catalog shows maximum
Mw 5.9 earthquake in the region. However, geological data show that these faults are
capable of producing larger earthquakes. Therefore, MCE should be calculated using
following formula proposed by Aydan et al. (2002).

The SFZ is a totally 80 km long zone of deformation characterized by normal

faulting. It determines and controls the southern margin of the Simav graben. The
Simav Fault Zone can produce a peak earthquake of Ms 6.74. The NFZ is another
deformation zone of normal faulting bounding the northern margin of graben. It can
produce a peak earthquake of Ms 5.34. Next step is selecting the correct attenuation
relationship to be used throughout the analysis.

6.2.2 Selecting Reasonable Attenuation Relationship

While travelling in the ground, seismic waves lose their energy in terms of
displacement, velocity and acceleration. This is called attenuation of a seismic wave.
For this reason, earthquakes cannot be felt except from very sensitive recorders after
a long distance. Attenuation relationship is an empirical definition that generally has
log-normal distribution of different ground motion parameters that depend on
83
magnitude of the earthquake, distance to epicenter, faulting mechanism and site
conditions. There are a number of attenuation relationships and the ones that will be
discussed throughout this analysis are as follows: (a) Abrahamson and Silva (2008)
Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Model, (b) Boore and Atkinson (2008) NGA
Model, (c) Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) NGA Model, (d) Chiou and Youngs
(2008) NGA Model, (e) Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Model, (f) Aydan et al. (2001)
Model, (g) Ulusay et al. (2004) Model and (h) Kalkan and Gülkan (2004) Model.

It is essential to select correct attenuation relationship because they are developed

from the earthquakes of different regions and different mechanisms. For this purpose,
dataset of the attenuation relationship, comparison of PGA values calculated to
accelerometer recordings are used. An example of accelerometer reading that is used
for choosing attenuation relationships is seen on Table 6.1. In this example, resultant
PGA is calculated by taking product of the PGA vectors in N-S, E-W and U-D
directions.

Table 6-1: Earthquake and ground motion parameters of 24.05.2014 Gökçeada earthquake
and properties of accelerometer installed in Simav County (ERD, 2014a)

STRONG GROUND MOTION RECORDS OF TURKIYE

PLACE : KUTAHYA SIMAV HUKUMET KONAGI
EARTHQUAKE DATE : 2014/05/24 09:25:00 (GMT)
EPICENTER COORDINATES : 40.21080N-25.30730E
EARTHQUAKE DEPTH (km) : 25.02
EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE : 6.5 Mw
STATION ID : 4309
STATION COORDINATES : 39.09282N-28.97848E
STATION ALTITUDE (m) : 828
RECORDER TYPE : GeoSig gmsplus
RECORDER SERIAL NO : 101399
RECORD TIME : 24/05/2014 09:25:28.0000 (GMT)
NUMBER OF DATA : 27162
SAMPLING INTERVAL (sec) : 0.01
RAW PGA VALUES (gal) : (N-S) 9.990711 (E-W) 8.592053 (U-D) 3.241706

The corresponding PGA vales on accelerometer readings are listed for different sized
earthquakes from different sources and faulting mechanisms. Since the earthquake
84
parameters and site conditions of site of accelerometer should be known, they can be
input to the attenuation relationship equations to select the correct attenuation
relationship for the rest of the process. Some of the earthquakes are measured in local
magnitude (Ml) and some attenuation relationships are designed for moment
magnitude (Mw). Therefore a conversion is done by using the equations developed
by Ulusay et al. (2004) based on Turkish earthquake data (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6-1: Correlations between earthquake magnitude values for Turkish earthquake
catalogue (r: correlation coefficient; S.D.: standard deviation) (Ulusay et al., 2004).

The followings are the selected earthquakes of which accelerometer readings are
available in the Simav and adjacent areas (Table 6.2).

85
Table 6-2: Accelerometer readings that are selected for attenuation relationship

Magnitude Focal PGA records (gal) PGA Epicenter VS,30

Earthquake depth Location Distance
Ml Mw (km) N-S E-W U-D (gal) (km)
(m/s)
3.5.2012 5,4 5,8 10,9 Gediz 51 65 35 89,73 30 259
16.4.2012 4,7 5,2 6,9 Simav 31,5 19,79 14 39,75 13 259
19.5.2011 5,7 6,0 29 Gediz 91,83 104,6 67,1 154,5 11 343
15.9.2009 3,9 4,6 8,6 Simav 24,98 18,75 20,7 37,49 6,9 259
VS,30: Shear wave velocity for 30 m depth, PGA: Peak ground acceleration

After selecting the accelerometer data, applicable and available attenuation models
are employed to calculate peak ground acceleration (PGA) by using the parameters
listed in Table 6.2. Abrahamson and Silva (2008) NGA Model, Boore and Atkinson
(2008) NGA Model, Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) NGA Model and Chiou and
Youngs (2008) NGA Model PGA values are calculated by using the next generation
attenuation (NGA) ground motion prediction equation program (Bozorgnia, 2014).
Abrahamson & Silva (1997) Model PGA value is calculated by using attenuation
relationship plotter (OpenSHA, 2014). Aydan et al, (2001) Model PGA value is
calculated by using the formula below:

Kalkan and Gülkan (2004) is calculated using equation 6.3.

where b1, b2, b3, b5, h, bv, VA are the coefficients for attenuation relationship found
by regression, M is earthquake magnitude, Vs is the shear wave velocity and rcl is the
distance to the horizontal projection of the rupture. Lastly Ulusay et al. (2004) Model
PGA value is calculated by using the formula below:

86
In equation 6.4 Mw is earthquake magnitude, Re is the epicentral distance and S A to
SB are site condition parameters (SA= SB = 0 for rock sites, SA= 1 and SB = 0 for soil
sites, and SA=0 and SB = 1 for soft soil sites). Calculation results of PGA values for
each earthquake and accelerometer readings are listed on Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Recorded PGA values and calculated PGA values from attenuation relationships

Pearson’s

16.4.2012

19.5.2011

15.9.2009
3.5.2012
Correlation
Earthquake Coefficient (r)

Accelerometer PGA (g) 0.09 0.04 0.15 0.04

Abrahamson & Silva 2008 PGA (g) 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.13 0.47
Campbell & Bozorgnia 2008 PGA (g) 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.79
Boore & Atkinson 2008 PGA (g) 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.67
Chiou & Youngs 2008 PGA (g) 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.61
Kalkan and Gülkan 1996 PGA (g) 0.08 0.12 0.21 0.12 0.71
Ulusay et al. (2004) PGA (g) 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.05 0.94
Abrahamson & Silva (1997) PGA (g) 0.06 0.09 0.22 0.09 0.80
Aydan et al. (2001) PGA (g) 0,07 0,05 0,15 0,03 0,97

In order to make a proper selection, Pearson’s correlation coefficient is calculated.

The coefficients indicated that Aydan et al. (2004) and Ulusay et al. (2004)
attenuation relationships give the best fitting results. Since Ulusay et al. (2004)
attenuation relationship considers site conditions, it is selected for DSHA.

6.2.3 Calculating Ground Motion

After selecting the most suitable attenuation relationship, study area is gridded down
to 0.5x0.5 km grids. Each grid has been assigned with ground parameters described
in Ulusay et al. (2004). Granites, metamorphic rocks and basalt are assigned as
SA=SB=0. Older graben fills are assigned as SA=1 and SB=0. Simav modern graben
fill is assigned as SA=0 and SB=1. Maximum credible earthquakes were assigned to

87
SFZ and NFZ, using equation in Figure 6.1. Therefore, maximum Mw=6.73 for SFZ
and Mw=5.34 for NFZ. Distances of each grid to the faults were calculated. PGA
values calculated for each point were interpolated and then the deterministic seismic
hazard map was prepared for the Simav graben and its near environ (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6-2: Deterministic seismic hazard map of Simav region prepared by using Ulusay et
al. (2004) attenuation relationship formula and Mw = 6.73 scenario earthquake sourced from
Simav fault zone.

Figure 6.2 shows that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) changes from 0.208 g to
0.398 g in the study area according to the site conditions and distance.

88
Figure 6-3: Deterministic seismic hazard map of Simav region prepared by using Ulusay et
al. (2004) attenuation relationship formula and Mw = 5.34 scenario earthquake sourced from
Naşa fault zone.

Figure 6.3 shows that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) changes from 0.076 g to
0.145 g in the study area. The calculated ground motions resulting from rupture of
other fault segments are lower than the ones for Naşa fault zone. Therefore, apart
from earthquake scenario sourced from Simav fault zone, only the scenario sourced
from Naşa fault zone is included for comparison. For any calculation, major
controlling factor for seismic hazard is ground conditions. Maximum PGA value for
Simav County center is calculated 0.398g.

89
90
 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the analysis of data collected in the field and the literature, the
followings are concluded:

1) Three distinct paleostress orientations were found and ascribed to the

different phases of deformation.
2) The units in the Akdere and Selendi grabens show that those grabens were
active depocenters during the Latest Oligocene-Middle Miocene period. Later
this deposition was interrupted and this interruption is recorded by angular
unconformity between the deformed (folded) Miocene units and the
Quaternary undeformed sedimentary package (modern or neotectonic graben
fill).
3) Proposed tectonic evolution of the Akdere and Simav graben is episodic.
According to field-based data and literature data of other disciplines of earth
sciences, 1st phase is N-S extensional phase, 2nd phase is E-W extensional
phase controlling the graben formation along the Demirci and Selendi
paleobasins. 3rd phase is the NW-SE compressional phase, which deformed
both the Demirci and Selendi paleotectonic grabens and their older fills. The
4th phase is the NNE-SSW extensional (neotectonic) phase which is still
controlling the Simav graben formation and the reactivation of faults in the
Akdere graben.
4) Simav Fault Zone is an active deformation zone let to the occurrence of both
the historical and instrumental periods’ earthquakes. Epicenter distribution
and focus depths of the recent earthquakes indicate that their epicenters and
foci should extend towards the further north and outside the of the Simav
91
 graben, they are not located in the south of the Simav graben. This conclusion
contradicts with the strike slip-faulting mechanism for the origins of recent
earthquakes proposed by other authors.
5) Focal mechanism solutions of the 16 earthquakes occurred in the study area
display either pure normal faulting or normal faulting with small amount of
strike-slip component. Statistical mean of tension and pressure axes of the
focal mechanism shows NNE-SSW extension in the study area.
6) Epicenter location and focal mechanism solution of the 19 May 2011 Simav
earthquake indicate a normal faulting mechanism. Hence most reasonable
candidates for the earthquake sources are the Nadarçamı and/or the Seyirkaya
faults comprising the Simav Fault Zone. Since the dip of nodal plane of focal
mechanism around 40° whereas dip amounts of the faults at the surface are
around 75°, earthquakes might have been resulted from a normal fault with a
listric geometry. According to analysis of the GPS velocities by using VISR2
software, extension around the the Simav graben is in the NNE-SSW
direction. These results fit well with the World Stress Map project horizontal
stress directions.
7) Seismic hazard assessment of the Simav graben shows that there is a high
earthquake hazard potential. According to deterministic seismic hazard
analysis by using Ulusay et al. (2004),the maximum PGA in the study area is
0.40g in the soil site conditions. It should be noted that detailed in-situ
geotechnical tests are definitely required for site classification. The site
classification method used in this study is based on geological map and gives
a general idea about site specific ground motion.

92
 REFERENCES

Abrahamson, N.A., 2000. State of the practice of seismic hazard evaluation.

GEOENG 2000 Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia.

Abrahamson, N.A., (2006). Notes on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis – An

Overview. Rose School, Pavia, Italy.

Abrahamson, N. A., and W. J. Silva (1997), Empirical Response Spectral

Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Seismological Research
Letters, 68(1), 94-127.

Abrahamson, N., and W. Silva (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA
Ground-Motion Relations. Earthquake Spectra 24, 67--97. Atkinson, G. M., and D.
M. Boore (2011). Modifications to Existing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in
Light of New Data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101, 1121--
1135.

Akay, E., (2009). Geology and petrology of the Simav Magmatic Complex (NW
Anatolia) and its comparison with the Oligo-Miocene granitoids in NW Anatolia:
implications on Tertiary tectonic evolution of the region. Int Geol Rev 98: 1655–
1675.

Akdeniz, N., 1980, Başlamış Formasyonu, Jeoloji Mühendisliği, v. 10 s.39-47

Akdeniz, N., ve Konak, N. (1979). Simav-Emet-Tavşanlı-Dursunbey-Demirci

yörelerinin jeolojisi. yayınlanmamış MTA Raporu. No:6547.

Aktug, B., J. M. Nocquet, A. Cingoz, B. Parsons, Y. Ercan, P. C. England, O. Lenk,

M. A. Gurdal, A. Kilicoglu, H. Akdeniz, and A. Tekgul (2009), Deformation of
western Turkey from a combination of permanent and campaign GPS data: limits to
block-like behaviour, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, B10404.

93
Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a
multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press.

Angelier, J., (1989), Data base for tectonic orientations "Tector" Version 5.42,
aug87-oct88-dec88-aou89 Copyright 1987, 1988, 1989.

Angelier, J., (1994). Fault slip analysis and paleostress reconstruction. In: Hancock,
P.L. (Ed.), Continental Deformation. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 53–100.

Aydan, Ö., Sedaki, M., & Yarar, R. 1996. The seismic characteristics of Turkish
earthquakes. In: Proceedings of Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper no. 1270.

Aydan, Ö, H. Kumsar, R. Ulusay (2002): How to infer the possible mechanism and
characteristics of earthquakes from the strations and ground surface traces of existing
faults. JSCE, Earthquake and Structural Engineering Division, Vol. 19, No.2, 199-
208.

Bingöl, E., Delaloye, M., Ataman, G., 1982, Granitic intrusions in western Anatolia:
a contribution to the geodynamic study of this area, Eclogae Geologische Helvetica,
75,

Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2008). Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for

the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral
Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 24, 99--138.

Borsy, J., Ferrara, G., Innocenti, F. ve Mazzuoli, R., 1972. Geochronology and
petrology of recent volcanics in the eastern Aegean Sea (West Anatolia and Lesvos
Iceland). Bullettin of Volcanology, 36, 473-496.

Bozkurt, E., (2002) Discussion on the Extensional Folding in the Alaşehir (Gediz)
Graben, Western Turkey."Journal of Geological Society", 179, p.105-109.

Bozkurt, E. and Park, R. G., 1994. Southern Menderes Massif: an incipient

metamorphic core complex in western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of the Geological
Society, London 151, 213-216.

94
Bozkurt, E. and Mittwede, S. (2001) 'Introduction to the Geology of Turkey—A
Synthesis',International Geology Review, 43: 7, 578 — 594

Bozkurt, E. and Sözbilir, H., 2004. Tectonic Evolution of the Gediz Graben: Field
Evidence for an Episodic, Two-Stage Extension in Western Turkey. Geological
Magazine 141, 63–79.

Bozkurt, E. and Rojay, B., 2005. Episodic, Two-Stage Neogene Extension and Short-
Term Intervening Compression in Western Anatolia: Field Evidence from the Kiraz
Basin and Bozdağ Horst. Geodinamica Acta 18, 299-312.

Bozkurt, E., Satır, M. & Buğdaycıoğlu, Ç., (2011) Surprisingly young Rb/Sr ages
from the Simav extensional detachment fault zone, northern Menderes Massif,
Turkey. "Journal of Geodynamics", 52, p.406-431.

Bozorgnia, Y. (2014, July 15), Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models.

Retrieved from http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest/nga_models.html

Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2008). NGA Ground Motion Model for the
Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5% Damped
Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake
Spectra 24, 139--171.

Chiou, B. S.-J., and R. R. Youngs (2008). An NGA Model for the Average
Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra. Earthquake
Spectra 24, 173--215.

Collins, A., Robertson, A.H.F., 1998. Processes of Late Cretaceous to Late Miocene
episodic thrust-sheet translation in the Lycian Taurides, southwest Turkey. Journal of
the Geological Society (London) 155, 759 – 772

Çağlayan, A., (2012), Kütahya-Simav-Demirciköy KSD-2011/7 Jeotermal Enerji

Araştırma Sondajı Kuyu Bitirme Raporu, MTA Report. Compilation no:11527,
Ankara. (Unpublished)

Delvaux, D., Sperner, B., 2003, New aspects of tectonic stress inversion with
reference to the Tensor program. In: NIEUWLAND, D. A. (ed.) New Insights into

95
Structural Interpretation and Modelling, Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 212, 75-100

Dewey, J.F., 1988, Extensional collapse of orogens: Tectonics, v. 7, p. 1123-1139.

Dewey, J.F. and Sengor, A.M.C., 1979. Aegean and surrounding regions: complex
multiplate and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 90,
84-92.

Doğan, A. ve Emre, Ö., 2006, Ege Graben Sistemi’nin Kuzey Sınırı: Sındırgı-
Sincanlı Fay Zonu. 59. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı, 20-24 Mart 2006, Bildiri Özleri
Kitabı, s. 83-84, Ankara.

Ercan, E., Dinçel, A., Metin, S., Türkecan, A. ve Günay, A. 1978. Uşak yöresindeki
Neojen havzalarının jeolojisi. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Turkey, 21, 97–
106.

Ercan, E., Satır, M., Sevin, D., Türkecan, A., 1996. Some new radiometric ages from
Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic rocks from West Anatolia. Bulletin Mineral
Research and Exploration Institute (Turkey), 119, 103-112.

Ercan, T., Günay, E. ve Savaşçın, M.Y. (1984). Simav ve çevresindeki Senozoyik

yaşlı volkanizmanın bölgesel yorumlanması. MTA Dergisi, (97), 86-101.

ERD (Earthquake Research Department) (2014a, July 15), Strong-Motion Database.

Retrieved from http://kyh.deprem.gov.tr/ftpe.htm

ERD (Earthquake Research Department) (2014b, July 15), Earthquake catalogue.

Retrieved from http://www.deprem.gov.tr

Ergin, K., Güçlü, U., Uz, Z., 1967. Türkiye ve civarının Deprem Kataloğu (Milattan
sonra 11 yılından 1964 sonuna kadar). İ.T.Ü., Maden Fak. Arz Fiziği Yayınları 24,
169 s.

Erinç, T. Bilgin, M. Bener, K. Ata Sungur, S. Erer ve K. Göçmen, (1970) Gediz

Depremi. Tatbikî Jeomorfolojik Etüd: İstanbul Üniversitesi Coğrafya Enstitüsü
Yayınları, no. 60.

96
Erişen, B., Dokuz, İ., Taşkın, İ., Yıldırım, N., (1985), Simav Eynal Kütahya
Jeotermal Alanı Eynal-2 ve Eynal-3 Sondajları Kuyu Bitirme Raporu, MTA Report.
Compilation no:7916, Ankara. (Unpublished)

Erişen, B., Yıldırım, N., (1986), Simav Çitgöl Kütahya Jeotermal Alanı Çitgöl-1
Sondajı Kuyu Bitirme Raporu, MTA Report. Compilation no:8055, Ankara.
(Unpublished)

Erişen, B.,Can,A., Yıldırım, N., (1989), Simav Eynal Jeotermal Alanı EJ1 ve EJ2
Jeotermal Sondajları Kuyu Bitirme Raporu, MTA Report. Compilation no:8916,
Ankara. (Unpublished)

Erkan, B., (1978), Simav Eynal J2 Kuyusu Sondaj Bitirme Raporu, MTA Report.
Compilation no:8569, Ankara. (Unpublished)

Erkan, B., Arslan, S., Başıkara, M., (1977), Simav Eynal J1 Kuyusu Sondaj Bitirme
Raporu, MTA Report. Compilation no:8570, Ankara. (Unpublished)

Ersoy, E.Y., Helvacı, C., Sözbilir, H., 2010. Tectono-stratigraphic evolution of the
NE–SW-trending superimposed Selendi basin: implications for late Cenozoic crustal
extension in Western Anatolia, Turkey. Tectonophysics 488, 210–232.

Eyidoğan, H., and Jackson, J., A., 1985, A seismological study of normal faulting in
the Demirci, Alaşehir and Gediz earthquake of 1969-1970 in western Turkey:
implications for the nature and geometry of deformation in the continental crust,
Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomical Society, 81, 569-607.

Ferrill, D. A.& Morris,A. P. 2001. Displacement gradient and deformation in normal

fault systems. Journal of Structural Geology 23, 619–38.

Gessner, K., Ring, U., Johnson, C., Hetzel, R., Passchier, C.W., Güngör, T., 2001.
An active bivergent rolling-hinge detachment system: central Menderes metamorphic
core complex in western Turkey. Geology 29, 611–614.

Gürboğa, Ş., Koçyiğit A., and Ruffet, G., 2013. Episodic two-stage extensional
evolutionary model for southwestern Anatolian graben–horst system: New field data

97
from the Erdoğmuş-Yenigediz graben (Kütahya). Journal of Geodynamics, volume
65, p. 179-198.

Güven, M., Taşkın, İ., (1985), Simav Naşa Kütahya Sıcaksu Sondajı Kuyu Bitirme
Raporu MTA Report. Compilation no:7903, Ankara. (Unpublished)

Hasözbek, A., Akay, E., Erdoğan, B., Satır, M., Siebel, W., 2010a, Early Miocene
granite formation by detachment tectonics or not? A case study from the northern
Menderes Massif (Western Turkey). Journal of Geodynamics 50: 67-80

Hasözbek, Satır, M., Erdoğan, B., A., Akay, E., Siebel, W., 2010b Early Miocene
post-collisional magmatism in NW Turkey: geochemical and geochronological
constraints. International Geology Review DOI: 10.1080/00206810903579302

Heidbach, O., Tingay, M., Barth, A., Reinecker, J., Kurfeß, D., and Müller, B.,
(2008) The World Stress Map database release 2008

Hempton, M.R., 1987. Constraints on Arabian plate motion and extensional history
of the Red Sea. Tectonics 6, 687-705.

Işık, V., Seyitoğlu, G. & Cemen, I. 2003. Ductile-brittle transition along the Alasehir
shear zone and its structural relationship with the Simav detachment, Menderes
massif, western Turkey. Tectonophysics 374, 1-18

Işık, V., Tekeli, O., Seyitoğlu, G., 2004. The 40Ar/39Ar age of extensional ductile
deformation and granitoid intrusion in the northern Menderes core complex:
implications for the initiation of extensional tectonics in western Turkey. Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences 23, 555–566.

Kahle H.-G., Straub C., Reilinger R., McClusky S., King R., Hurst K., Veis G.,
Kastens K., Cross P. 1998, The strain rate field in the eastern Mediterranean region,
estimated by repeated GPS measurements. Tectonophysics; 294: 237-252.

Kalafat, D., Güneş, Y., Kekovalı, K., Kara, M., Deniz, P., Yılmazer, M. (2011)
Bütünleştirilmiş Homojen Türkiye Deprem Kataloğu (1900-2010; M>=4.0),
Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Kandilli Rasathanesi ve Deprem Araştırma Enstitüsü.

98
Kalafat, D., Polat, R., Poyraz , S., A. Kekovali K. and Akkoyunlu M.F., (2012). 19
May 2011 Simav Earthquake Sequence : Western Turkey, Geophysical Research
Abstracts Vol. 14, EGU 2012-13091, 2012, 33rd General Assembly of the European
Seismological Commission EGU General Assembly 2012, August 19-24, Moscow,
Russia

Kalkan E. and Gülkan, P. 2004, Site-Dependent Spectra Derived from Ground

motion Records in Turkey, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 20, No. 4, 1111-1138.

Kaya, O., 1972, Tavşanlı yöresi 'ofiyolit' sorununun ana-çizgileri: Türkiye Jeol. Kur.
Bült., 15. 26-100

Koçyiğit, A., 1984. Güneybatı Türkiye Ve Yakın Dolayında Levha Içi Yeni Tektonik
Gelişim, Geological Society of Turkey Bulletin 27, 1-16.

Koçyiğit, A., 2005. Denizli Graben-Horst System and the Eastern Limit of the West
Anatolian Continental Extension: Basin Fill, Structure, Deformational Mode, Throw
Amount and Episodic Evolutionary History, Sw Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 18, 167–
208.

Koçyiğit, A., Yusufoğlu, H. ve Bozkurt, E. 1999. Evidence from the Gediz graben
for episodic two-stage extension in western Turkey. Journal of the Geological
Society, London 156, 605-616.

Koçyiğit, A., Ünay, E. and Saraç, G., 2000. Episodic Graben Formation and
Extensional Neotectonic Regime in West Central Anatolia and the Isparta Angle: A
Key Study in the Akşehir-Afyon Graben, Turkey. In: Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A.
and Piper, J.D.A. (Eds), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding
Area. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 173, 405–421.

Koçyiğit, A. and Özacar, A., 2003. Extensional Neotectonic Regime through the NE
Edge of the Outer Isparta Angle, Sw Turkey: New Field and Seismic Data. Turkish
Journal of Earth Sciences 12, 67–90.

Koçyiğit, A., and Deveci, Ş., 2005. Akşehir-Simav Fault System: commencement
age of neotectonic regime and seismicity, SW Turkey. Deprem Sempozyumu,
Kocaeli 2005, Özler Kitabı, s.26.
99
Konak, N., 1982, Simav dolayının jeolojisi ve metamorf kayaçların evrimi. İstanbul
Yerbilimleri, 3, 313-337.

Le Pichon X. & Angelier, J., 1979, The Hellenic arc and Trench system: a key to the
neotectonic Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean Area: Tectonophysics, 60, 1-42.

McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S, Georgiev I, Gurkan O,

Hamburger M, Hurst K, Kahle H, Kastens K, Kekelidze G, King R, Kotzev V, Lenk
O, Mahmoud S, Mishin A, Nadariya M, Ouzounis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin
M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksoz MN, Veis G., 2000, Global
Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern
Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 105
(B3): 5695-5719.

McGuire, K., 2001, Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21/5 377-384

McKenzie, D. P., 1978. Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan belt: the Aegean
and surrounding regions. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 55,
217-254.

Meulenkamp, J.E., Wortel, M.J.R., Van Wamel, W.A., Spakman, W. & Stratıng,
E.H. 1988. On the Hellenic subduction zone and the geodynamic evolution of Crete
since the late Middle Miocene. Tectonophysics, 146, 203-215.

Morley, C. K., Nelson, R. A., Patton, T. L. & Munn, S. G. 1990. Transfer zones in
the East African rift system and their relevance to hydrocarbon exploration in rifts.
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 74, 1234–53.

OpenSHA. (2014, July 18), Attenuation Relationship Plotter. Retrieved from

http://www.opensha.org/apps-AttenuationRelationship

Oral, M.B., Reilinger, R., Toksoz, R., 1992. Deformation of the Anatolian block as
deduced from GPS measurements. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, EOS
73, 120.

100
Oygür, V. ve Erler, A. 2000. Simav grabeninin metalojenisi (İç-Batı Anadolu,
Türkiye). Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, 43(1), 7-19

Emre. Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş. ve Şaroğlu, F. 2013,
1/1.125.000 Ölçekli Türkiye Diri Fay Haritası, Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel
Müdürlüğü Özel Yayınlar Serisi-, Ankara, Türkiye

Öcal, N., 1968, 1938-1955 yılları arasında Anadolu’da vukubulan bazı şiddetli
zelzelelerde faylanma doğrultuları, M.E.H. Kandilli Rasathanesi , Sismoloji
Yayınları No:2, İstanbul

Öztunalı, Ö., 1973, Uludağ (Kuzeybatı Anadolu) ve Eğrigöz (Batı Anadolu)

Masiflerinin Petrolojileri ve Jeokronolojileri: İstanbul Üniv. Fen Fak. Monog., No
23, İstanbul, 115 s.

Pinar, N., Lahn, E., & Turkey. (1952).Tu¨rkiye depremleri izahli katalogˆu. Ankara:
AKIN Matbaacilik Ltd. Ortakligi.

Purvis, M. and Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. A pulsed extension model for the Neogene–
Recent E–W trending Alaşehir Graben and the NE–SW trending Selendi and Gördes
Basins, western Turkey. Tectonophysics 391, 171– 201.

Purvis, M. and Robertson, A.H.F., 2005. Miocene sedimentary evolution of the NE-
SW-trending Selendi and Gördes Basins, Western Turkey: implications for
extensional processes. Sedimentary Geology 174, 31-62.

Reilinger, R.E., McClusky, S.C., Oral, M.B., King, R.W., Toksoz, M.N., Barka,
A.A., Kinik, I., Lenk, O. and Sanli, I. (1997). Global Positioning System
measurements of present-day crustal movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasia plate
collision zone. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: doi: 10.1029/96JB03736. issn:
0148-0227.

Reilinger, R., et al., 2006. GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa–
Arabia–Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate
interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (B05411),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051.

101
Reischmann, T., Kröner, A., Todt, W., Dürr, S., Şengör, A.M.C., 1991, Episodes of
crustal growth in the Menderes Massif, W Turkey, inferred from zircon dating, Terra
Abstracts, 3, 34.

Ring, U., Johnson, C., Hetzel, R., Gessner, K., 2003. Tectonic denudation of a Late
Cretaceous–Tertiary collisional belt: regionally symmetric cooling patterns and their
relation to extensional faults in the Anatolide belt of western Turkey. Geological
Magazine 140, 421–441.

Ring, U. and Collins, A.S., 2005. U–Pb SIMS dating of syn-kinematic granites:
timing of core-complex formation in the northern Anatolide belt of western Turkey.
Journal of the Geological Society, London 162, 289–298.

Rojay, B., Toprak, V., Demirci, C. and Süzen, L., Plio-Quaternary evolution of the
Küçük Menderes Graben (Western Anatolia, Turkey). "Geodinamica Acta"18,
(2005), p.317-331.

Royden, L.H. (1993). Evolution of retreating subduction boundaries formed during

continental collision. Tectonics 12: doi: 10.1029/92TC02641. issn: 0278-7407.

Seyitoğlu, G., 1997, Late Cenozoic tectono-sedimentary development of the Selendi

and Uşak–Güre basins: a contribution to the discussion on the development of east–
west and north trending basins in western Turkey, Geological Magazine, 134, 163–
75.

Seyitoglu, G. & Scott, B. C., 1991. Late Cenozoic crustal extension and basin
formation in west Turkey. Geological Magazine, 128, 155-166.

Seyitoglu, G. & Scott, B. C., 1992. The age of Buyiik Menderes Graben (west
Turkey) and its tectonic implications. Geological Magazine, 129,239-242.

Seyitoğlu, G. & Scott, B. C., 1996. The cause of N-S extensional tectonics in western
Turkey: Tectonic escape vs. Back-arc spreading vs. Orogenic collapse. Journal of
Geodynamics, 22, 145 - 153.

102
Shen, Z.K., Jackson, D.D., and Ge, B.X., 1996, Crustal deformation across and
beyond the Los Angeles basin from geodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 101, p. 27 957–27 980.

SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee). (1997) Recommendations for

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts,
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission report CR-6372, Washington DC.

Şengör, A. M. C., 1979. The North Anatolian transform fault: its age, offset and
tectonic signifiance, Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond., 136, pp. 269-282.

Şengör, A. M. C., 1987, Cross-fault and differential stretching of hanging walls in

regions of low-angle normal faulting:examples from western Turkey, Continental
extensional tectonics, M. P Coward, J. F Deway, P. L Hancock, (Eds.), Geological
Society Special Publication, 28, 575-589.

Şengör, A. M. C., Görür, N. and Şaroğlu, F., 1985, Strike-slip faulting and related
basin formation in zones of tectonic escape: Turkey as a case study, Strike-slip
Deformation, Basin Formation, and Sedimentation, Soc. Econ. Paleont. Min. Spec.
Pub. 37 (in honor of J.C. Crowell), 227-264, 1985.

Tekeli, O., Işık, V.,Seyitoğlu, G. & Çemen, İ. 2001. The Ar40/ Ar39 age of ductile
extension and granitoid intrusions in the northern Menderes Massif, western Turkey.
4th Int. Turkish Geology Symposium. Abstract, p. 226.

Thurber, C.H. (1992), Hypocenter velocity structure coupling in local earthquake

tomography, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 75, 55-62.

Ulusay, R., Tuncay, E., Sönmez, H. and Gökçeoğlu, C., 2004. An attenuation
relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and isoacceleration map of Turkey.
Engineering Geology, 74(3-4), 265-291.

Wang, Z., (2009) Seismic hazard vs. seismic risk, Seismological Research Letters,
vol. 80, 5, 2009, p.673-674

Westaway, R. (1990). Block rotation in western Turkey . Observational evidence.

Journal of Geophysical Research 95: doi: 10.1029/90JB00700. issn: 0148-0227.

103
Yilmaz, Y., Genç, Ş.C., Gürer, F., Bozcu, M., Yilmaz, K., Karacik, Z., Altunkaynak,
Fi. and Elmas, A., 2000. When Did The Western Anatolian Grabens Begin To
Develop? In: Bozkurt, E., Wınchester, J.A. and Piper, J.D.A. (Eds), Tectonics and
Magmatism In Turkey and The Surrounding Area. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications 173, 353–384.

Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S. Taymaz, T., and Helvacı, C. (2013). Earthquake mechanisms

in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and the Simav Region (western Turkey):
Neotectonics, seismotectonics and geodynamic implications, Tectonophysics,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2014.05.001

Zeschke, G. (1954): Simav grabeni ve taşlan. TJ.K. Bült., c. V, sayı 1-2, s. 179-198,
Ankara.

104
 APPENDIX A

TABLES AND PLATES

Table A-1: Seismic parameters of the earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 3.5 occurred
in the period of 1944-2014. Epicenter distribution of the Simav graben between 38.5-39.5N
28.5-29.5E coordinates. Data source: Earthquake Research Institute (ERD, 2014b)

No Date Time Latitude Longitude Depth (km) Magnitude

1 10.10.1900 08:41 38.800 29.400 10 5.6
2 16.10.1900 17:30 38.800 29.400 10 4.8
3 11.3.1902 18:00 38.930 29.380 10 4.4
4 12.7.1902 00:00 38.800 29.300 10 4
5 30.4.1905 16:01 38.810 28.520 10 6.1
6 2.5.1905 00:00 38.800 28.500 10 5.4
7 4.6.1905 16:00 38.950 28.670 10 4.8
8 30.7.1905 23:16 38.950 28.670 10 4.8
9 31.10.1907 03:50 38.500 28.500 10 4.5
10 25.6.1944 04:16 38.790 29.310 40 6
11 25.3.1966 23:17 38.960 29.290 43 4.4
12 5.6.1966 09:14 39.070 29.340 36 4.4
13 3.11.1968 18:40 38.810 29.110 23 4.8
14 3.11.1968 18:44 38.600 28.700 56 4.5
15 22.3.1969 18:00 39.100 28.670 28 4.7
16 24.3.1969 01:59 39.110 28.510 30 5
17 24.3.1969 02:58 39.150 28.600 4 4.5
18 24.3.1969 11:23 38.900 28.600 53 4.5
19 24.3.1969 11:34 39.170 28.700 37 4.6
20 24.3.1969 12:13 39.080 28.650 20 4.7
21 25.3.1969 13:28 38.780 28.510 40 4.8
22 25.3.1969 14:40 39.020 28.900 25 4.6
23 17.4.1969 12:23 39.110 28.620 10 4.6
24 30.4.1969 20:20 39.120 28.520 8 5.2
25 3.5.1969 16:07 39.000 28.600 25 4.7
26 13.5.1969 17:48 39.030 28.570 35 4.6
27 19.5.1969 15:27 39.120 28.580 10 4
28 22.6.1969 17:27 39.120 28.600 10 4.5
29 27.6.1969 10:40 39.300 28.700 10 4.3
30 7.10.1969 18:49 39.160 28.540 49 4.9
31 28.3.1970 21:59 39.280 29.460 17 4.8
32 28.3.1970 22:40 39.020 29.430 43 4.2
33 28.3.1970 22:59 39.130 29.000 10 4.1
34 29.3.1970 01:47 39.000 29.400 13 4
35 29.3.1970 01:51 39.260 28.500 33 4.3

105
Table A-1 (continued)

36 29.3.1970 02:05 39.290 29.180 38 4.5

37 29.3.1970 03:34 39.000 29.100 10 4.2
38 29.3.1970 07:58 39.290 29.200 2 4.3
39 29.3.1970 09:52 39.160 29.410 47 4.3
40 29.3.1970 19:11 39.140 29.420 22 4.7
41 29.3.1970 22:12 39.200 29.200 10 4.4
42 30.3.1970 06:46 39.090 29.030 23 4.5
43 30.3.1970 06:49 39.430 29.400 33 4.6
44 30.3.1970 07:59 39.340 29.260 16 5
45 30.3.1970 08:35 39.290 29.240 36 4.7
46 30.3.1970 09:26 39.010 29.400 18 4.3
47 30.3.1970 13:48 39.340 29.130 21 4.3
48 30.3.1970 20:59 39.300 29.290 33 4.6
49 31.3.1970 00:51 39.330 29.410 18 4.6
50 31.3.1970 01:07 39.410 29.320 25 4
51 31.3.1970 04:10 39.010 29.200 9 4.2
52 31.3.1970 07:30 39.120 29.160 43 5
53 31.3.1970 08:30 38.930 29.300 55 4
54 31.3.1970 16:08 39.030 29.490 37 4.4
55 1.4.1970 03:46 39.300 28.700 25 4.4
56 1.4.1970 08:02 38.900 28.800 54 4.9
57 1.4.1970 15:56 39.320 29.270 35 4.8
58 2.4.1970 02:45 38.960 29.440 10 4.3
59 2.4.1970 13:05 39.040 29.200 15 4.2
60 5.4.1970 12:29 39.310 29.180 10 4.3
61 6.4.1970 08:12 39.190 28.540 33 5.1
62 7.4.1970 04:12 39.320 29.090 33 4.4
63 7.4.1970 17:05 39.340 29.320 33 5.1
64 9.4.1970 10:12 39.110 29.410 34 4.7
65 9.4.1970 20:43 39.210 29.350 30 4.2
66 10.4.1970 01:14 39.130 29.310 22 4.2
67 10.4.1970 23:13 39.130 29.310 10 4.3
68 11.4.1970 08:36 39.100 28.800 49 4.7
69 13.4.1970 05:16 39.320 29.030 15 4.4
70 15.4.1970 16:29 39.340 29.300 28 4.6
71 16.4.1970 01:07 39.210 29.130 17 4.2
72 18.4.1970 05:37 39.220 29.380 16 4.3
73 18.4.1970 05:52 39.370 29.300 10 4.4
74 19.4.1970 22:09 38.900 29.300 45 4.5
75 20.4.1970 03:47 38.860 29.400 67 4.5
76 20.4.1970 18:36 38.700 29.200 88 4.6
77 22.4.1970 18:38 39.080 29.430 48 4.6
78 23.4.1970 09:01 39.130 28.650 28 5.3
79 24.4.1970 02:40 39.060 28.600 21 4.2
80 24.4.1970 05:49 38.990 29.200 36 4.2
81 24.4.1970 16:54 39.120 28.740 37 4.2

106
Table A-1 (continued)

82 26.4.1970 18:24 39.370 28.790 46 4.1

83 27.4.1970 10:39 38.970 29.330 17 4
84 30.4.1970 14:58 39.310 29.310 25 4.6
85 30.4.1970 16:44 39.320 29.220 24 4.7
86 10.5.1970 16:07 39.000 29.100 33 4.7
87 11.5.1970 09:58 39.360 29.320 10 4.5
88 12.5.1970 07:41 38.600 29.300 33 5
89 12.5.1970 08:33 38.970 28.990 51 4.5
90 14.5.1970 07:56 39.020 29.100 38 5.1
91 24.5.1970 08:24 39.250 28.900 33 4.3
92 26.5.1970 05:51 38.920 29.440 59 4.4
93 30.5.1970 06:43 39.230 29.420 18 4.3
94 30.5.1970 19:49 39.400 28.800 10 4.3
95 10.6.1970 05:17 39.150 29.460 43 4.4
96 14.6.1970 00:58 39.250 29.170 23 4.4
97 10.7.1970 05:36 39.160 28.600 12 4.2
98 29.8.1970 18:03 39.010 29.360 34 4.3
99 1.9.1970 02:19 38.970 29.240 53 4.7
100 14.9.1970 07:10 39.240 29.320 37 4.2
101 9.11.1970 06:42 39.000 28.900 64 4.1
102 15.11.1970 03:14 39.320 29.280 10 4
103 17.12.1970 02:17 39.270 29.400 26 4.7
104 20.12.1970 11:01 39.360 29.240 26 4.8
105 21.12.1970 00:22 39.090 29.410 27 4.5
106 15.2.1971 08:19 39.195 29.361 32 4.9
107 10.4.1971 13:21 38.833 29.144 20 4.6
108 27.4.1971 17:19 38.906 29.057 13.5 4.4
109 30.4.1971 16:44 39.190 28.520 5 4.3
110 14.3.1972 14:05 39.320 29.470 38 5.5
111 23.6.1972 17:16 39.159 29.169 19.7 4.2
112 25.9.1972 22:34 39.110 29.210 51 4
113 4.10.1972 06:14 39.140 29.438 34.3 4.6
114 8.2.1973 14:33 39.247 28.728 38.3 4.2
115 25.2.1973 14:55 38.920 29.390 18 4
116 18.3.1973 18:08 39.249 29.145 18.4 4.1
117 12.5.1973 09:31 38.889 29.211 5.1 4.5
118 24.6.1973 00:15 38.784 29.250 10 4.1
119 5.7.1973 21:12 38.803 29.216 42.7 4.5
120 29.8.1974 08:02 38.845 29.284 18.8 4.2
121 29.9.1974 03:55 38.745 29.460 10 4.1
122 5.11.1974 07:00 39.163 29.300 15.8 4.1
123 12.2.1975 01:48 39.142 28.997 15.1 4.2
124 23.2.1976 10:13 39.096 28.667 17 4.3
125 8.5.1976 23:25 39.331 29.097 32.5 4.8
126 9.5.1976 02:55 39.256 28.761 10 4.2
127 9.5.1976 11:19 39.002 28.770 10 4.3

107
Table A-1 (continued)

128 9.5.1976 15:01 39.308 29.117 19.9 4.2

129 10.5.1976 12:01 39.277 29.166 26.5 4.4
130 10.5.1976 15:20 39.201 29.106 10 4.2
131 10.5.1976 23:54 39.258 29.171 33.2 4.4
132 11.5.1976 03:31 39.193 29.196 10 4.3
133 12.5.1976 05:11 39.333 29.162 21 4.3
134 14.5.1976 11:06 39.260 29.220 10 4
135 21.5.1976 09:37 39.277 29.165 23.9 4.5
136 22.5.1976 18:01 39.250 29.179 10 4.1
137 25.5.1976 18:43 39.308 29.089 14 4.6
138 28.5.1976 23:02 39.259 29.170 8 4.5
139 28.5.1976 23:09 39.350 29.364 5 4.2
140 29.5.1976 03:45 39.371 29.343 3 4.2
141 31.5.1976 05:10 39.477 29.136 39.5 4.9
142 9.6.1976 10:02 39.243 29.150 12 4.7
143 11.6.1976 00:52 39.182 29.002 11 4.1
144 11.6.1976 09:55 39.322 29.225 2 4.2
145 14.6.1976 06:52 39.339 29.275 22.7 4.7
146 15.7.1976 12:06 39.367 29.064 11 4.1
147 22.8.1976 13:28 39.347 29.029 23.2 4.8
148 24.8.1976 18:44 39.339 29.136 10 4.9
149 9.12.1977 20:36 39.362 29.131 10 4.3
150 4.10.1978 09:04 39.300 29.330 10 4.6
151 9.9.1979 16:10 39.320 28.830 8 4
152 14.2.1980 20:14 39.103 29.347 10 4.4
153 2.3.1980 05:32 39.255 29.387 6 4.6
154 27.4.1980 09:54 39.072 28.863 37.6 4.3
155 3.5.1980 04:26 39.141 28.985 34.8 4.1
156 4.5.1980 09:22 39.223 28.966 21.6 4.5
157 8.5.1980 22:06 39.198 28.904 10 4.5
158 11.7.1980 12:24 38.797 29.169 10 4.3
159 15.11.1980 16:11 39.202 28.896 10 4.3
160 28.12.1981 14:52 39.331 29.120 16.5 4.3
161 28.12.1981 14:53 39.389 29.056 10 4.5
162 8.2.1982 11:20 39.328 29.047 13 4
163 14.3.1982 14:14 39.271 29.060 10 4.2
164 15.2.1983 02:21 39.067 28.705 7.3 4.6
165 23.2.1983 16:53 39.168 29.295 2.8 4.1
166 6.3.1983 09:53 39.103 28.675 11.5 4.3
167 11.10.1983 12:08 38.850 29.215 10 4.2
168 6.11.1983 05:17 39.334 29.316 14 4.6
169 27.6.1984 18:16 39.246 28.790 7.7 4.1
170 12.6.1986 06:42 39.086 28.698 10 4.1
171 19.8.1986 06:03 39.038 28.786 10 4.7
172 14.11.1986 03:38 39.361 29.062 10 4.5
173 15.11.1986 21:52 39.372 28.905 10 4.5

108
Table A-1 (continued)

174 3.9.1990 14:16 39.050 28.510 11 3.9

175 27.2.1991 17:37 38.740 29.330 1 3.7
176 27.2.1991 18:02 39.090 29.380 1 3.8
177 22.4.1991 20:38 38.920 28.800 10 3.6
178 18.6.1991 14:38 39.210 29.410 11 3.7
179 11.7.1991 18:41 39.410 29.460 18 3.6
180 3.8.1991 18:11 39.120 28.600 20 3.5
181 1.4.1992 12:23 39.400 28.680 12 4
182 1.4.1992 12:36 39.430 28.710 10 3.7
183 6.4.1992 19:15 38.971 29.210 4.6 4.3
184 15.6.1992 04:21 39.110 29.420 11 3.9
185 22.12.1992 22:15 39.290 28.802 10 4
186 23.12.1992 23:02 39.330 28.800 9 3.7
187 24.12.1992 13:03 39.310 28.810 11 3.6
188 25.12.1992 22:36 39.220 28.820 10 3.9
189 9.3.1993 09:41 39.162 28.797 10 4.1
190 30.5.1993 15:42 39.293 29.115 4 4.1
191 18.2.1994 23:23 38.930 29.040 1 3.5
192 19.5.1994 11:46 38.610 28.510 1 3.8
193 21.5.1994 09:31 38.630 28.860 1 3.8
194 25.6.1994 18:45 39.295 29.178 6 4
195 8.7.1994 23:08 39.319 29.140 10 4
196 15.7.1994 23:54 39.333 29.198 1 4
197 8.8.1994 05:28 38.975 29.145 44 4
198 10.9.1994 06:50 39.250 28.860 1 3.5
199 29.10.1995 13:35 38.510 29.000 11 3.6
200 5.6.1998 22:31 38.960 28.780 10.8 3.5
201 29.9.1999 16:46 39.099 28.995 3.3 4.1
202 18.1.2002 21:15 39.250 29.470 1 3.5
203 5.9.2002 00:26 38.650 29.020 9.8 3.7
204 18.9.2002 21:40 39.340 29.160 5.2 3.5
205 14.1.2005 02:19 39.121 28.563 18.9 3.7
206 8.8.2005 02:05 39.122 28.854 20 3.5
207 23.4.2006 22:58 38.823 29.345 10 3.5
208 8.7.2007 12:39 39.373 28.783 6.95 3.6
209 18.7.2007 02:51 39.329 29.293 5.35 3.6
210 20.9.2007 06:18 39.220 29.420 5 4
211 5.10.2007 17:12 39.135 29.050 14.77 3.7
212 19.10.2008 10:54 39.130 29.434 10 4
213 20.1.2009 05:15 39.186 29.448 14.31 3.8
214 17.2.2009 05:28 39.149 29.045 7 5.2
215 17.2.2009 05:52 39.123 29.041 21.2 3.5
216 17.2.2009 09:37 39.131 29.062 17.9 3.7
217 17.2.2009 10:45 39.122 29.066 7.02 3.6
218 19.2.2009 22:25 39.124 29.030 10.28 4
219 20.2.2009 00:31 39.129 29.067 10.59 3.6

109
Table A-1 (continued)

220 24.2.2009 07:41 39.130 29.023 7 3.6

221 25.2.2009 13:27 39.120 29.070 10.3 3.6
222 28.2.2009 16:30 39.351 29.154 15.22 3.6
223 19.4.2009 20:48 39.088 29.043 7.69 3.5
224 20.4.2009 12:22 39.103 29.038 4.76 3.8
225 23.4.2009 02:56 39.135 29.060 7.69 3.6
226 27.4.2009 09:50 39.102 29.052 9.29 3.5
227 31.7.2009 13:24 39.118 29.033 17.57 3.9
228 12.8.2009 03:35 39.108 29.040 14.3 3.6
229 19.8.2009 22:36 39.116 29.021 10.13 3.9
230 11.9.2009 14:01 38.717 28.860 6.97 3.6
231 15.9.2009 09:23 39.090 29.050 11 4
232 23.10.2009 01:07 39.114 29.023 22.43 3.5
233 8.11.2009 09:05 39.081 29.036 6.99 3.8
234 2.3.2010 00:43 39.134 29.071 2.8 4.2
235 2.3.2010 00:59 39.140 29.100 7 4.3
236 2.3.2010 00:59 39.157 29.076 3.66 3.7
237 18.3.2010 08:03 39.285 29.069 9.94 3.7
238 14.9.2010 14:05 39.130 29.083 10.06 3.6
239 10.2.2011 03:56 39.141 29.039 5.31 3.5
240 29.3.2011 00:53 39.160 29.067 6.97 4.3
241 4.4.2011 03:44 39.128 29.089 7 3.5
242 5.4.2011 19:53 39.127 29.065 14.53 3.5
243 13.5.2011 12:52 39.108 29.059 6.98 3.7
244 19.5.2011 19:59 39.121 29.091 3.03 3.8
245 19.5.2011 20:15 39.133 29.082 24.46 5.9
246 19.5.2011 20:17 39.136 29.110 6.99 3.9
247 19.5.2011 20:25 39.144 29.108 7 4.6
248 19.5.2011 20:41 39.100 29.130 5 4
249 19.5.2011 20:43 39.120 29.090 2 4
250 19.5.2011 20:59 39.116 29.054 7.02 3.9
251 19.5.2011 21:01 39.096 29.090 7.06 3.5
252 19.5.2011 21:01 39.078 29.073 6.98 3.7
253 19.5.2011 21:05 39.109 29.001 7 3.9
254 19.5.2011 21:06 39.080 29.069 7.03 3.6
255 19.5.2011 21:06 39.132 29.112 7 3.8
256 19.5.2011 21:08 39.110 29.034 7.06 4.2
257 19.5.2011 21:09 39.127 29.013 7.14 3.6
258 19.5.2011 21:12 39.113 29.038 7.74 4.8
259 19.5.2011 21:20 39.202 29.068 7 3.7
260 19.5.2011 21:21 39.113 29.032 6.99 4.3
261 19.5.2011 21:24 39.106 29.025 33.85 3.9
262 19.5.2011 21:25 39.064 29.045 7 3.7
263 19.5.2011 21:33 39.131 29.124 20.83 4.3
264 19.5.2011 22:05 39.126 29.102 24.9 3.8
265 19.5.2011 22:19 39.115 28.989 6.95 4

110
Table A-1 (continued)

266 19.5.2011 23:27 39.146 29.138 7.01 3.7

267 20.5.2011 00:03 39.099 29.019 6.98 3.7
268 20.5.2011 00:13 39.141 29.107 16.92 4.1
269 20.5.2011 00:15 39.108 29.052 8.33 3.5
270 20.5.2011 00:23 39.120 29.110 15.76 3.8
271 20.5.2011 00:58 39.115 29.084 17.38 4.3
272 20.5.2011 02:10 39.116 29.025 14.66 3.9
273 20.5.2011 02:31 39.104 28.969 7.01 3.8
274 20.5.2011 03:32 39.104 29.068 6.99 3.5
275 20.5.2011 04:00 39.144 29.002 6.97 4
276 20.5.2011 04:16 39.164 29.112 2.33 3.5
277 20.5.2011 05:00 39.120 29.087 7.09 4.2
278 20.5.2011 05:20 39.122 29.019 6.85 3.9
279 20.5.2011 05:37 39.097 29.026 6.97 3.7
280 20.5.2011 06:07 39.127 29.111 6.75 3.5
281 20.5.2011 07:22 39.116 29.093 18.27 3.9
282 20.5.2011 07:35 39.134 29.108 11.44 3.7
283 20.5.2011 07:43 39.133 29.099 6.53 3.6
284 20.5.2011 08:03 39.093 29.030 4.83 3.9
285 20.5.2011 08:16 39.095 29.034 6.91 3.5
286 20.5.2011 10:14 39.108 29.075 5.5 3.5
287 20.5.2011 11:30 39.123 29.003 7 4
288 20.5.2011 11:50 39.104 29.004 12.42 3.8
289 20.5.2011 15:35 39.127 29.041 5.83 3.7
290 20.5.2011 20:13 39.109 29.012 4.8 3.5
291 20.5.2011 20:56 39.126 29.046 8.5 3.5
292 20.5.2011 22:01 39.183 29.111 5.95 3.5
293 21.5.2011 00:09 39.139 29.098 4.03 3.5
294 21.5.2011 03:38 39.108 28.997 7.42 3.5
295 21.5.2011 04:02 39.255 28.931 8.79 3.5
296 21.5.2011 04:43 39.112 29.008 9.89 3.5
297 21.5.2011 21:43 39.104 29.051 7 4
298 22.5.2011 07:04 39.089 29.056 7 3.5
299 22.5.2011 07:10 39.097 29.058 6.99 3.6
300 22.5.2011 09:14 39.099 29.045 7 3.6
301 22.5.2011 10:32 39.111 28.994 7 3.5
302 22.5.2011 16:49 39.116 29.021 1.89 3.9
303 23.5.2011 18:26 39.144 29.005 5.25 3.5
304 24.5.2011 02:55 39.101 29.022 16.8 4.2
305 24.5.2011 04:55 39.235 29.146 19.02 3.5
306 24.5.2011 08:57 39.100 29.015 3.1 3.6
307 24.5.2011 16:40 39.115 29.085 6.87 3.6
308 24.5.2011 16:54 39.135 29.145 11.5 3.6
309 24.5.2011 17:47 39.126 29.061 19.32 3.8
310 24.5.2011 19:47 39.137 29.109 2.33 3.5
311 24.5.2011 20:57 39.111 29.035 7.07 3.6

111
Table A-1 (continued)

312 24.5.2011 23:08 39.108 29.049 6.99 3.6

313 25.5.2011 10:48 39.140 29.003 6.45 3.6
314 25.5.2011 12:15 39.126 29.114 6.99 3.8
315 25.5.2011 17:55 39.135 28.998 3.05 3.5
316 26.5.2011 09:42 39.123 29.104 4.29 3.7
317 26.5.2011 10:10 39.109 29.113 6.61 3.6
318 26.5.2011 10:15 39.111 29.103 7.82 3.5
319 26.5.2011 17:34 39.108 29.067 11.08 3.5
320 26.5.2011 20:04 39.112 29.077 6.98 3.5
321 27.5.2011 07:43 39.139 29.124 19.42 4.4
322 28.5.2011 05:47 39.122 29.041 23.02 5.1
323 28.5.2011 07:06 39.095 29.048 7 3.5
324 28.5.2011 07:35 39.110 29.130 8 4
325 28.5.2011 09:28 39.112 29.026 13.8 3.6
326 28.5.2011 09:55 39.135 29.111 4.68 3.7
327 28.5.2011 10:23 39.115 29.015 10.3 3.6
328 28.5.2011 11:21 39.099 29.057 14.46 3.6
329 28.5.2011 13:26 39.113 29.016 8.09 3.5
330 28.5.2011 18:06 39.112 29.028 16.62 4
331 29.5.2011 01:31 39.143 29.085 5.04 4.5
332 29.5.2011 19:46 39.113 29.035 6.99 3.7
333 30.5.2011 08:52 39.099 29.062 11.49 3.8
334 30.5.2011 14:52 39.127 29.014 18.1 3.5
335 30.5.2011 17:57 39.137 29.011 7.62 3.8
336 30.5.2011 22:03 39.157 29.011 15.29 4
337 31.5.2011 04:27 39.114 28.981 17.79 3.9
338 31.5.2011 21:26 39.139 28.997 14.02 3.5
339 1.6.2011 13:55 39.136 29.030 2.13 3.7
340 2.6.2011 04:35 39.137 29.020 6.9 3.6
341 3.6.2011 16:38 39.124 29.131 6.78 3.9
342 4.6.2011 13:51 39.112 29.102 15.63 4.1
343 5.6.2011 19:06 39.132 29.013 5.45 3.7
344 5.6.2011 21:29 39.143 29.095 6.98 4
345 6.6.2011 22:24 39.126 29.039 8.14 3.5
346 7.6.2011 22:52 39.110 29.058 18.68 3.7
347 9.6.2011 13:26 39.122 29.028 6.82 3.5
348 11.6.2011 05:28 39.122 29.087 17.15 3.8
349 11.6.2011 10:17 39.073 29.058 6.98 3.9
350 21.6.2011 00:55 39.161 29.088 10.42 3.5
351 25.6.2011 18:23 39.169 29.068 5.93 3.6
352 25.6.2011 21:07 39.100 29.112 16.69 3.5
353 27.6.2011 21:13 39.120 29.020 9 5
354 27.6.2011 21:28 39.122 29.044 12.15 4.4
355 27.6.2011 21:45 39.122 29.010 8.33 3.5
356 27.6.2011 22:24 39.121 29.018 5 3.9
357 27.6.2011 22:25 39.117 29.002 11.19 3.7

112
Table A-1 (continued)

358 27.6.2011 22:41 39.113 29.021 3.09 3.5

359 27.6.2011 23:41 39.070 29.000 8 4
360 28.6.2011 00:13 39.053 29.068 7.08 3.5
361 28.6.2011 06:48 39.150 29.116 7 3.5
362 28.6.2011 08:21 39.150 29.008 7.3 3.6
363 29.6.2011 11:40 39.123 29.003 9.28 4
364 29.6.2011 12:10 39.108 29.006 6.99 3.5
365 30.6.2011 01:03 39.127 29.003 9.8 3.6
366 30.6.2011 19:06 39.117 29.072 9.64 3.8
367 3.7.2011 14:16 39.104 29.015 10.78 4.1
368 5.7.2011 15:43 39.133 29.095 6.63 3.6
369 5.7.2011 18:55 39.117 29.023 7.29 3.8
370 6.7.2011 06:22 39.097 29.008 8.75 3.8
371 6.7.2011 18:56 39.104 29.088 6.84 3.8
372 6.7.2011 20:00 39.080 29.011 10.2 3.8
373 13.7.2011 01:31 39.123 29.033 14.7 4.3
374 17.7.2011 19:51 39.064 29.124 13.84 4
375 18.7.2011 06:19 39.155 29.054 15.15 3.9
376 18.7.2011 10:57 39.127 29.082 5.03 3.5
377 19.7.2011 17:58 39.111 29.111 7.01 3.5
378 19.7.2011 21:16 39.105 29.093 17.66 4.1
379 19.7.2011 21:32 39.100 29.083 21.35 3.8
380 20.7.2011 01:53 39.100 29.081 15.95 3.7
381 20.7.2011 03:30 39.115 29.008 18.49 3.7
382 20.7.2011 17:51 39.114 29.025 16.71 3.8
383 18.8.2011 04:35 39.100 29.033 7 3.5
384 19.8.2011 02:05 39.111 29.059 7.16 3.9
385 22.8.2011 15:00 39.130 29.037 7.03 3.8
386 22.8.2011 20:21 39.131 28.984 6.96 3.8
387 23.8.2011 17:47 39.126 28.953 7.03 3.5
388 23.8.2011 19:20 39.122 28.988 7 3.8
389 25.8.2011 04:19 39.139 29.096 22.54 4.3
390 2.9.2011 03:30 39.130 29.057 7.02 3.6
391 6.9.2011 05:07 39.114 29.093 8.5 3.6
392 12.9.2011 06:16 39.086 29.100 5 3.6
393 20.9.2011 07:01 39.112 29.125 7.01 3.5
394 28.9.2011 05:07 39.100 29.032 2.51 3.5
395 8.11.2011 21:39 39.133 29.096 20.98 3.5
396 10.11.2011 13:11 39.154 29.110 21.19 3.7
397 11.11.2011 14:06 39.147 29.108 4.63 3.6
398 5.12.2011 21:15 39.074 29.099 7.01 3.8
399 8.12.2011 01:07 39.125 29.090 14.11 3.8
400 11.1.2012 03:44 39.123 29.141 20.85 3.7
401 29.2.2012 01:29 39.112 29.035 2.11 3.9
402 3.3.2012 21:05 39.129 29.130 6.26 3.7
403 14.3.2012 04:12 39.127 28.996 5.62 3.8

113
Table A-1 (continued)

404 16.4.2012 10:10 39.123 29.122 6.9 4.7

405 16.4.2012 10:11 39.110 29.136 7 4.6
406 16.4.2012 10:22 39.102 29.112 10.56 3.5
407 16.4.2012 12:19 39.114 29.123 6.99 3.9
408 17.4.2012 20:45 39.147 29.114 6.99 4.5
409 17.4.2012 21:02 39.079 29.126 4.4 3.5
410 17.4.2012 21:26 39.118 29.116 7 3.6
411 18.4.2012 12:46 39.119 29.129 7 3.5
412 19.4.2012 19:52 39.111 29.138 7.49 4.5
413 20.4.2012 02:43 39.108 29.096 8.11 3.6
414 20.4.2012 02:48 39.098 29.147 7 3.5
415 20.4.2012 02:54 39.092 29.109 7.26 3.5
416 20.4.2012 16:39 39.153 29.098 20.59 4.4
417 22.4.2012 07:01 39.113 29.120 6.96 3.5
418 23.4.2012 16:14 39.124 29.144 6.31 4.3
419 23.4.2012 16:14 39.055 29.149 6.96 4
420 23.4.2012 17:47 39.102 29.155 5 3.9
421 23.4.2012 18:52 39.126 29.113 5 3.9
422 23.4.2012 23:47 39.102 29.162 7 3.8
423 26.4.2012 22:02 39.103 29.160 7 3.5
424 26.4.2012 22:05 39.131 29.113 25.54 4.8
425 26.4.2012 23:46 39.106 29.121 10.35 3.5
426 3.5.2012 15:20 39.125 29.110 10.59 5.2
427 3.5.2012 15:24 39.100 29.149 6.99 3.7
428 3.5.2012 15:25 39.121 29.126 6.99 4
429 3.5.2012 15:28 39.066 29.104 7 3.6
430 3.5.2012 15:40 39.166 29.023 6.45 3.8
431 3.5.2012 16:07 39.125 29.123 7 3.5
432 3.5.2012 16:16 39.102 29.039 25.41 4.6
433 3.5.2012 17:10 39.136 29.097 23.7 4.4
434 3.5.2012 18:10 39.097 29.112 16.79 3.5
435 3.5.2012 18:32 39.123 29.135 7 3.7
436 3.5.2012 20:44 39.111 29.091 7.03 3.7
437 3.5.2012 21:45 39.135 29.106 14.22 4.7
438 4.5.2012 02:00 39.120 29.102 23.94 4.5
439 4.5.2012 05:30 39.105 29.124 6.59 3.5
440 5.5.2012 02:56 39.088 29.079 6.96 3.9
441 5.5.2012 10:23 39.109 29.167 2.07 3.5
442 8.5.2012 02:31 39.097 29.090 8.39 3.6
443 9.5.2012 17:49 39.097 29.146 10.33 3.6
444 9.5.2012 17:49 39.103 29.157 8.98 4.3
445 25.5.2012 20:44 39.095 29.111 7.09 3.6
446 11.6.2012 03:49 39.117 29.166 6.99 3.9
447 11.6.2012 03:51 39.105 29.164 6.99 3.6
448 13.6.2012 06:40 39.107 29.148 21.58 4.3
449 19.6.2012 01:46 39.117 29.159 25.91 4.9

114
Table A-1 (continued)

450 30.6.2012 03:11 39.116 29.135 7.11 3.7

451 5.8.2012 13:51 39.104 29.125 9.3 3.9
452 25.8.2012 23:33 39.113 29.074 8.4 3.5
453 16.9.2012 10:35 39.108 29.132 17.52 3.6
454 4.10.2012 01:07 39.125 29.090 7.13 3.6
455 5.10.2012 12:58 39.120 29.146 6.91 3.8
456 10.10.2012 16:48 39.099 29.161 6.99 3.6
457 10.10.2012 16:53 39.100 29.153 6.99 3.5
458 30.10.2012 00:12 39.139 29.179 21.35 4.1
459 4.3.2013 02:59 39.141 29.106 7 3.6
460 12.3.2013 20:47 39.120 29.058 12.81 4.1
461 29.5.2013 14:43 39.136 29.098 7 4
462 9.6.2013 14:18 39.139 29.022 15.61 4.1
463 9.7.2013 23:28 39.126 29.092 6.99 3.5
464 24.7.2013 11:49 39.340 29.022 12.08 3.6
465 28.7.2013 14:14 39.365 29.020 4.45 3.6
466 7.8.2013 05:20 39.209 29.416 20.86 4.4
467 23.9.2013 16:54 39.095 29.175 7.06 3.6
468 15.7.2014 12:25 39.130 29.004 9.92 4.1

115
116
 117
Figure A-1: Geological map of the study area
118
Figure A-2: Geological cross sections along A-B and C-D lines (position of the lines are shown in figure A-1). For details of the well logs readers are referred to see (Güven et al., 1985)

119
120
Figure A-3: Geological cross sections along A-B and C-D lines (sites of the lines are shown in figure A-1). For details of the well logs readers are referred to see (Erkan et al.,1977; Erkan, 1978; Erişen et al.,1985; Erişen et
al.,1986; Erişen et al.,1989)

121