We just had a severe earthquake in south eastern Turkey, northwestern Syria. We call this the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/executive

Well, I learned tonight (14 Feb) that these M 7.8 and M 7.5 earthquakes have been named by the Turkey Minister of the Interior. The names are the Pazarcik (M7.7) and Elbistan (M7.5) earthquakes.

For AFAD, it is M7.7 Pazarcik and M7.5 Elbistan earthquakes. Both are towns of Kahramanmaras. Kandilli's naming is more complicated: https://t.co/4cTMPQyYMI

— Dr. Ezgi Karasozen (@ezgikarasozen) February 14, 2023

This earthquake is the largest magnitude event in Turkey since 1939 and it looks like there will be many many casualties.

Hopefully international aid can rapidly travel there to assist in rescue and recovery. The videos I have seen so far are terrifying.

This is the same magnitude as the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

There has already been an aftershock with a magnitude M 6.7. This size of an earthquake would be damaging on its own, let alone as it is an aftershock.

I will be updating this page over the next few days.

UPDATE 6 Feb ’23

The East Anatolia fault is a left-lateral strike-slip fault system composed of many faults and is subdivided into different branches and different segments.

The first thing to remember is that people created these names and organized these faults using these names. The faults don’t know this and don’t care. It is possible that the people that organized these faults did not fully understand the reason these faults are here, so they may have organized them incorrectly. It may be centuries to millenia before we really know the real answer to why faults are where they are and how they relate to each other.

The Arabia plate moves north towards the Eurasia plate, forming the Alpide belt (perhaps the longest convergent plate boundary on Earth, extending from Australia/Indonesia in the east to offshore Portugal in the west. This convergence helps form the European Alps and the Asian Himalaya. In the aftershock poster below, we see the Bitlis-Zagros fold and thrust belt, also part of this convergence.

Turkey is escaping this convergence westwards. This escape has developed the right-lateral strike-slip North Anatolia fault system along the northern boundary of Turkey and the left-lateral East Anatolia fault system in southern Turkey.

During the 20th century, there was a series of large, deadly, and damaging earthquakes along the North Anatolia fault (NAF), culminating (for now) with the 1999 M7.6 Izmit Earthquake. The remaining segment of the NAF that has yet to rupture in this series is the section of the NAF that extends near Istanbul and into the Marmara Sea.

The East Anatolia fault (EAF) has a long history of large earthquakes and I include maps that show this history in the posters and in the report below (I have more to add later this week).

Today, I woke up to learn that there was a magnitude M 7.5 earthquake that happened since I posted this report the night before. This was not an aftershock but a newly triggered earthquake on a different fault than that that slipped during the M 7.8. However, there will be some people who will call this an aftershock.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jlqa/executive

The aftershocks have been filling in to reveal what faults are involved and there are many faults involved in this sequence. I include a larger scale view of these faults in the updated aftershock interpretive poster below. >>>

This M 7.5 earthquake is on a different fault than the main part of the sequence (the Çardak fault). The main sequence appears to be on two segments of the main branch of the East Anatolia fault

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

• I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1922-2022 with magnitudes M ≥ 3.0 in one version.
• I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
• A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
• Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

• In the upper right corner is a map from Armijo et al. (1999) that shows the plate boundary faults and tectonic plates in the region. This M 6.7 earthquake, denoted by the blue star, is along the East Anatolia fault, a left-lateral strike-slip plate boundary fault.
• In the upper left corner is a comparison of the shaking intensity modeled by the USGS and the shaking intensity based on peoples’ “boots on the ground” observations. People felt intensities exceeding MMI 7.
• To the right of the intensity map is a figure from Duman and Emre (2013). This shows the historic earthquakes along the EAF.
• In the lower right corner is a map that shows the faults in the region. Note how the topography reflects the tectonics.
• In the lower center lerft is a plot that shows how the shaking intensity models and reports relate to each other. The horizontal axis is distance from the earthquake and the vertical axis is shaking intensity (using the MMI scale, just like in the map to the right: these are the same datasets).

• Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.




• Here is the map with a day’s seismicity plotted (prepared a few hours after the main shock).
• There are some additional inset figures here:
• The USGS Finite Fault Model (FFM) is shown on center right. This graphic shows how much the USGS model suggests that the fault slipped during this earthquake. Learn more about the USGS Finite Fault Models here.
• To the right of the legend are two maps that show (left) liquefaction susceptibility and (right) landslide probability. These are based on empirical models from the USGS that show the chance an area may have experienced these processes that may have happened as a result of the ground shaking from the earthquake. I spend more time explaining these types of models and what they represent in this Earthquake Report for the recent event in Albania.
• I include a plot of the tide gage data from Erdemli.




UPDATE: 6 February 2023

• Here is the map with about a day’s seismicity plotted.
• I plot the 2023 earthquakes in blue and the 2020 earthquakes in green.




UPDATE: 8 February 2023

• Here is the same two maps with about 3 day’s seismicity plotted. There are other modest changes.







UPDATE: 14 February 2023

I updated some of the content below including slip rate estimates, probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the EAF, stress modeling following the 2020 M 6.7 earthquake, and information about the Dead Sea fault.

UPDATE: 15 February 2023

• I updated the aftershock map that now includes about 2 weeks of aftershocks from CSEM-EMSC.
• This also includes the faults mapped by the USGS (Reitman et a., 2023).




• Below I also added a comparison of the USGS ground failure and intensity data between the ’20 M 6.7 and the ’22 M 7.5 & M 7.8 earthquakes.

UPDATE: 27 February 2023

• I updated the aftershock map that now includes about 3 weeks of aftershocks from CSEM-EMSC.
• This also includes the faults mapped by the USGS (Reitman et a., 2023).
• The USGS does not have a mechanism for the M 6.7, so I am using the INGV focal mechanism from here: https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=1218449

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

• This is the plate tectonic map from Armijo et al., 1999.




Tectonic setting of continental extrusion in eastern Mediterranean. Anatolia-Aegean block escapes westward from Arabia-Eurasia collision zone, toward Hellenic subduction zone. Current motion relative to Eurasia (GPS [Global Positioning System] and SLR [Satellite Laser Ranging] velocity vectors, in mm/yr, from Reilinger et al., 1997). In Aegean, two deformation regimes are superimposed (Armijo et al., 1996): widespread, slow extension starting earlier (orange stripes, white diverging arrows), and more localized, fast transtension associated with later, westward propagation of North Anatolian fault (NAF). EAF—East Anatolian fault, K—Karliova triple junction, DSF—Dead Sea fault,NAT—North Aegean Trough, CR—Corinth Rift.Box outlines Marmara pull-apart region, where North Anatolian fault enters Aegean.

• Here is the tectonic map from Dilek and Sandvol (2009).




Tectonic map of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean region showing the main plate boundaries, major suture zones, fault systems and tectonic units. Thick, white arrows depict the direction and magnitude (mm a21) of plate convergence; grey arrows mark the direction of extension (Miocene–Recent). Orange and purple delineate Eurasian and African plate affinities, respectively. Key to lettering: BF, Burdur fault; CACC, Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex; DKF, Datc¸a–Kale fault (part of the SW Anatolian Shear Zone); EAFZ, East Anatolian fault zone; EF, Ecemis fault; EKP, Erzurum–Kars Plateau; IASZ, Izmir–Ankara suture zone; IPS, Intra–Pontide suture zone; ITS, Inner–Tauride suture; KF, Kefalonia fault; KOTJ, Karliova triple junction; MM, Menderes massif; MS, Marmara Sea; MTR, Maras triple junction; NAFZ, North Anatolian fault zone; OF, Ovacik fault; PSF, Pampak–Sevan fault; TF, Tutak fault; TGF, Tuzgo¨lu¨ fault; TIP, Turkish–Iranian plateau (modified from Dilek 2006).

• This is the Woudloper (2009) tectonic map of the Mediterranean Sea. The yellow/orange band represents the Alpide Belt, a convergent plate boundary that extends from western Europe, through the Middle East, beneath northern India and Nepal (forming the Himalayas), through Indonesia, terminating east of Australia.




• Below is a series of figures from Jolivet et al. (2013). These show various data sets and analyses for Greece and Turkey.
• Upper Panel (A): This is a tectonic map showing the major faults and geologic terranes in the region. The fault possibly associated with today’s earthquake is labeled “Neo Tethys Suture” on the map, for the Eastern Anatolia fault.
• Lower Panel (B): This shows historic seismicity for the region. Note the general correlation with the faults in the upper panel.




A: Tectonic map of the Aegean and Anatolian region showing the main active structures
(black lines), the main sutures zones (thick violet or blue lines), the main thrusts in the Hellenides where they have not been reworked by later extension (thin blue lines), the North Cycladic Detachment (NCDS, in red) and its extension in the Simav Detachment (SD), the main metamorphic units and their contacts; AlW: Almyropotamos window; BD: Bey Daglari; CB: Cycladic Basement; CBBT: Cycladic Basement basal thrust; CBS: Cycladic Blueschists; CHSZ: Central Hellenic Shear Zone; CR: Corinth Rift; CRMC: Central Rhodope Metamorphic Complex; GT: Gavrovo–Tripolitza Nappe; KD: Kazdag dome; KeD: Kerdylion Detachment; KKD: Kesebir–Kardamos dome; KT: Kephalonia Transform Fault; LN: Lycian Nappes; LNBT: Lycian Nappes Basal Thrust; MCC: Metamorphic Core Complex; MG: Menderes Grabens; NAT: North Aegean Trough; NCDS: North Cycladic Detachment System; NSZ: Nestos Shear Zone; OlW: Olympos Window; OsW: Ossa Window; OSZ: Ören Shear Zone; Pel.: Peloponnese; ÖU: Ören Unit; PQN: Phyllite–Quartzite Nappe; SiD: Simav Detachment; SRCC: South Rhodope Core Complex; StD: Strymon Detachment; WCDS: West Cycladic Detachment System; ZD: Zaroukla Detachment. B: Seismicity. Earthquakes are taken from the USGS-NEIC database. Colour of symbols gives the depth (blue for shallow depths) and size gives the magnitude (from 4.5 to 7.6).

• Upper Panel (C): These red arrows are Global Positioning System (GPS) velocity vectors. The velocity scale vector is in the lower left corner. The main geodetic (study of plate motions and deformation of the earth) signal here is the westward motion of the North Anatolian fault system as it rotates southward as it traverses Greece. The motion trends almost south near the island of Crete, which is perpendicular to the subduction zone.
• Lower Panel (D): This map shows the region of mid-Cenozoic (Oligo-Miocene) extension (shaded orange). It just happens that there is still extension going on in parts of this prehistoric extension.




C: GPS velocity field with a fixed Eurasia after Reilinger et al. (2010) D: the domain affected by distributed post-orogenic extension in the Oligocene and the Miocene and the stretching lineations in the exhumed metamorphic complexes.

• Upper Panel (E): This map shows where the downgoing slab may be located (in blue), along with the volcanic centers associated with the subduction zone in the past.
• Lower Panel (F): This map shows the orientation of how seismic waves orient themselves differently in different places (anisotropy). We think seismic waves travel in ways that reflects how tectonic strain is stored in the earth. The blue lines show the direction of extension in the asthenosphere, green lines in the lithospheric mantle, and red lines for the crust.




E: The thick blue lines illustrate the schematized position of the slab at ~150 km according to the tomographic model of Piromallo and Morelli (2003), and show the disruption of the slab at three positions and possible ages of these tears discussed in the text. Velocity anomalies are displayed in percentages with respect to the reference model sp6 (Morelli and Dziewonski, 1993). Coloured symbols represent the volcanic centres between 0 and 3 Ma after Pe-Piper and Piper (2006). F: Seismic anisotropy obtained from SKS waves (blue bars, Paul et al., 2010) and Rayleigh waves (green and orange bars, Endrun et al., 2011). See also Sandvol et al. (2003). Blue lines show the direction of stretching in the asthenosphere, green bars represent the stretching in the lithospheric mantle and orange bars in the lower crust.

• Upper Panel (G): This is the map showing focal mechanisms in the poster above. Note the strike slip earthquakes associated with the North Anatolia and East Anatolia faults and the thrust/reverse mechanisms associated with the thrust faults.




G: Focal mechanisms of earthquakes over the Aegean Anatolian region.

• Here are some interesting seismicity plots from Bulut et al., 2012.
• The upper two panels show the faults, earthquake epicenters, depth profile locations, and the names of the EAF fault segments.
• The lower panels show the seismicity plotted relative to depth, for each of the 5 profiles.




Epicentral map and depth sectional views for seismicity along the EAFZ obtained in this study based on (a, c) absolute locations and (b, d) double-difference derived relative locations, respectively. Black dots represent earthquake locations and the gray lines are presently active faults. Selected NWSE trending transects indicated in Figures 6a and 6b and plotted as depth sections in Figures 6c and 6d.

Fault Mapping

• Here is a map showing tectonic domains (Taymaz et al., 2007).




Schematic map of the principal tectonic settings in the Eastern Mediterranean. Hatching shows areas of coherent motion and zones of distributed deformation. Large arrows designate generalized regional motion (in mm a21) and errors (recompiled after McClusky et al. (2000, 2003). NAF, North Anatolian Fault; EAF, East Anatolian Fault; DSF, Dead Sea Fault; NEAF, North East Anatolian Fault; EPF, Ezinepazarı Fault; CTF, Cephalonia Transform Fault; PTF, Paphos Transform Fault.

• Here is a tectonic overview figure from Duman and Emre, 2013.




The main fault systems of the AN–AR and TR–AF plate boundaries (modified from Sengor & Yılmaz 1981; Saroglu et al. 1992a, b; Westaway 2003; Emre et al. 2011a, b, c). Arrows indicate relative plate motions (McClusky et al. 2000). Abbreviations: AN, Anatolian microplate; AF, African plate; AR, Arabian plate; EU, Eurasian plate; NAFZ, North Anatolian Fault Zone; EAFZ, East Anatolian Fault Zone; DSFZ, Dead Sea Fault Zone; MF; Malatya Fault, TF, Tuzgo¨lu¨ fault; EF, Ecemis¸ fault; SATZ, Southeast Anatolian Thrust Zone; SS, southern strand of the EAFZ; NS, northern strand of the EAFZ.

• This is a map that shows the subdivisions of the EAF (Duman and Emre, 2013). Note Lake Hazar for reference.




Map of the East Anatolian strike-slip fault system showing strands, segments and fault jogs. Abbreviations: FS, fault Segment; RB, releasing bend; RS, releasing stepover; RDB, restraining double bend; RSB, restraining bend; PB, paired bend; (1) Du¨zic¸i–Osmaniye fault segment; (2) Erzin fault segment; (3) Payas fault segment; (4) Yakapınar fault segment; (5) C¸ okak fault segment; (6) Islahiye releasing bend; (7) Demrek restraining stepover; (8) Engizek fault zone; (9) Maras¸ fault zone.

• This map shows the fault mapping from Duman and Emre, 2013. Note Lake Hazar for reference. We can see some of the thrust faults mapped as part of the Southeast Anatolia fault zone.




Map of the (a) Palu and (b) Puturge segments of the East Anatolian fault. Abbreviations: LHRB, Lake Hazar releasing bend; PS, Palu segment; ES, Erkenek segment; H, hill; M, mountain; C, creek; (1) left lateral strike-slip fault; (2) normal fault; (3) reverse or thrust fault; (4) East Anatolian Fault; (5) Southeastern Anatolian Thrust Zone; (6) syncline;(7) anticline; (8) undifferentiated Holocene deposits; (9) undifferentiated Quaternary deposits; (10) landslide.

• This is the figure from Duman and Emre (2013) that shows the spatial extent for historic earthquakes on the EAF.




Surface ruptures produced by large earthquakes during the 19th and 20th centuries along the EAF. Data from Arpat (1971), Arpat and S¸arog˘lu (1972), Seymen and Aydın (1972), Ambraseys (1988), Ambraseys and Jackson (1998), Cetin et al. (2003), Herece (2008), Karabacak et al. (2011) and this study. Ruptured fault segments are highlighted.

Slip Rates

• Aktug et al. (2016) used GPS observations to evaluate the plate motion rates along the EAF.
• The following two figures show the plate motion vectors and profiles of the plate velocities across the fault zone in three locations (a, b, and c).
• They used GPS data from different studies, which is the reason the vectors have different colors.




The GPS observations employed in this study. The velocity error ellipses are at 95% confidence level. The dashed rectangles show the profiles for investigating the trade-off between the slip rate and the locking depth.

• These are the 3 GPS velocity profiles from Aktug et al. (2016) shown on the above map.
• The panels on the left represent their estimates for the slip rate of the EAF relative to the locking depth for the EAF.
• The panels on the right show how the GPS velocities change across the fault zone in these 3 areas. The velocities are measured parallel to the fault.
• Using profile a as an example, on the ight side of the fault, the velocity is held to be about 0 mm per year. As we cross the fault, the velocity jumps up to about 10 mm/year. So, the slip rate of the EAF zone across the profiles a, b, and c are about 10, 7, and 12 mm/year. As a reference, the San Andreas fault in California has a slip rate of about 25 mm/year.




The variability of the slip rates w.r.t. the locking depth (red) and the χ2 values of the estimation (black). The thick grey bands show 2-s error bounds of the slip rates for profiles a to c (left panel) and the velocity profiles with slip rate and locking depth estimated simultaneously (right panel). The red curve shows the model fit to the GPS data (open circles with error bars at 95% confidence level) and the blue curve is the fault parallel shear strain rate for the best fit model determined from the analysis shown in Figure 3 and described in the text.

• Ferry et al. (2011) used a 14,000 year long record of prehistoric earthquakes to evaluate the episodic behavior of the Dead Sea fault (DSF).
• This first map show the DSF, GPS site velocities, and geological slip rates in different locations. The DSF eventually turns into the EAF.




a) General map of the Dead Sea Transform system. Numbers are geological slip rates (in black) and geodetic strain rates (in white). Sources: Klinger et al. (2000); Niemi et al. (2001); Meghraoui et al. (2003); Reilinger et al. (2006); Ferry et al. (2007). Pull-apart basins: ab, Amik basin; gb, Ghab basin; hb, Hula basin; ds, Dead Sea. Major fault segments: EAF, East Anatolian fault; AF, Afrin fault; KF, Karasu fault; JSF, Jisr Shuggur fault; MF, Missyaf fault; YF, Yammouneh fault; ROF, Roum fault; RAF, Rachaya fault; SF, Serghaya fault; JVF, Jordan Valley fault; WAF, Wadi Araba fault. (b) Detailed map of the JVF segment between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The segment itself is organized as six 15-km to 30-km-long right-stepping subsegments limited by 2-km to 3-km-wide transpressive relay zones. The active trace of the JVF continues for a further ∼10 km northward into the Sea of Galilee (SG) and ∼20 km southward into the northern Dead Sea (DS). The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

• This map (Ferry et al., 2011) shows the historic seismicity for this region with earthquake mechanisms for some of the earthquakes.




Seismicity of the Dead Sea Transform system. Instrumental events with M ≥4 from 1964 to 2006 (IRIS Data Management Center; see Data and Resources section) in filled circles. Background seismicity is very scarce and mainly restricted to the Lebanese Bend and the Jordan Valley. The 1995 Mw 7.3 Aqaba earthquake and aftershock swarm dominate the seismicity of the Red Sea basin. Historical events with I0 ≥ VII (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1998; Sbeinati et al., 2005) in open circles. Apart from the 1927 Mw 6.2 Jericho earthquake, no significant event has occurred along the JVF since A.D. 1033 (see text for details).

Shaking Intensity

• Here is a figure that shows a more detailed comparison between the modeled intensity and the reported intensity. Both data use the same color scale, the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI). More about this can be found here. The colors and contours on the map are results from the USGS modeled intensity. The DYFI data are plotted as colored dots (color = MMI, diameter = number of reports). In addition to what I write below, the data on the left are from the M 7.5 and the data on the right are from the M 7.8.
• In the upper panel is the USGS Did You Feel It reports map, showing reports as colored dots using the MMI color scale. Underlain on this map are colored areas showing the USGS modeled estimate for shaking intensity (MMI scale).
• In the lower panel is a plot showing MMI intensity (vertical axis) relative to distance from the earthquake (horizontal axis). The models are represented by the green and orange lines. The DYFI data are plotted as light blue dots. The mean and median (different types of “average”) are plotted as orange and purple dots. Note how well the reports fit the green line, the orange line, or neither line. What reasons can you think that may be explain these real observation deviations from the models.
• Below the lower plot is the USGS MMI Intensity scale, which lists the level of damage for each level of intensity, along with approximate measures of how strongly the ground shakes at these intensities, showing levels in acceleration (Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA) and velocity (Peak Ground Velocity, PGV).




• Here is a comparison between these three earthquakes from 2020 and 2022.
• The scale and spatial extent for each map is the same.




Earthquake Triggered Landslides

• There are many different ways in which a landslide can be triggered. The first order relations behind slope failure (landslides) is that the “resisting” forces that are preventing slope failure (e.g. the strength of the bedrock or soil) are overcome by the “driving” forces that are pushing this land downwards (e.g. gravity). The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces is called the Factor of Safety (FOS). We can write this ratio like this:

  FOS = Resisting Force / Driving Force

• When FOS > 1, the slope is stable and when FOS < 1, the slope fails and we get a landslide. The illustration below shows these relations. Note how the slope angle α can take part in this ratio (the steeper the slope, the greater impact of the mass of the slope can contribute to driving forces). The real world is more complicated than the simplified illustration below.




• Landslide ground shaking can change the Factor of Safety in several ways that might increase the driving force or decrease the resisting force. Keefer (1984) studied a global data set of earthquake triggered landslides and found that larger earthquakes trigger larger and more numerous landslides across a larger area than do smaller earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause landslides because the seismic waves can cause the driving force to increase (the earthquake motions can “push” the land downwards), leading to a landslide. In addition, ground shaking can change the strength of these earth materials (a form of resisting force) with a process called liquefaction.
• Sediment or soil strength is based upon the ability for sediment particles to push against each other without moving. This is a combination of friction and the forces exerted between these particles. This is loosely what we call the “angle of internal friction.” Liquefaction is a process by which pore pressure increases cause water to push out against the sediment particles so that they are no longer touching.
• An analogy that some may be familiar with relates to a visit to the beach. When one is walking on the wet sand near the shoreline, the sand may hold the weight of our body generally pretty well. However, if we stop and vibrate our feet back and forth, this causes pore pressure to increase and we sink into the sand as the sand liquefies. Or, at least our feet sink into the sand.
• Below is a diagram showing how an increase in pore pressure can push against the sediment particles so that they are not touching any more. This allows the particles to move around and this is why our feet sink in the sand in the analogy above. This is also what changes the strength of earth materials such that a landslide can be triggered.




• Below is a diagram based upon a publication designed to educate the public about landslides and the processes that trigger them (USGS, 2004). Additional background information about landslide types can be found in Highland et al. (2008). There was a variety of landslide types that can be observed surrounding the earthquake region. So, this illustration can help people when they observing the landscape response to the earthquake whether they are using aerial imagery, photos in newspaper or website articles, or videos on social media. Will you be able to locate a landslide scarp or the toe of a landslide? This figure shows a rotational landslide, one where the land rotates along a curvilinear failure surface.




• Here is an excellent educational video from IRIS and a variety of organizations. The video helps us learn about how earthquake intensity gets smaller with distance from an earthquake. The concept of liquefaction is reviewed and we learn how different types of bedrock and underlying earth materials can affect the severity of ground shaking in a given location. The intensity map above is based on a model that relates intensity with distance to the earthquake, but does not incorporate changes in material properties as the video below mentions is an important factor that can increase intensity in places.
• If we look at the map at the top of this report, we might imagine that because the areas close to the fault shake more strongly, there may be more landslides in those areas. This is probably true at first order, but the variation in material properties and water content also control where landslides might occur.
• There are landslide slope stability and liquefaction susceptibility models based on empirical data from past earthquakes. The USGS has recently incorporated these types of analyses into their earthquake event pages. More about these USGS models can be found on this page.
• Below is a figure that shows both landslide probability and liquefaction susceptibility maps for this M 7.8 earthquake.




• Below is a figure that compares both landslide probability and liquefaction susceptibility maps for these three earthquakes.
• The scale for each map is the same.

Fault Scaling Relations

• There is a seminal paper (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994) where these geologists compiled the existing data from global earthquakes.
• They extracted different aspects of the physical size of these earthquakes so that they could develop relations between the earthquake size (e.g., length of the fault that ruptured the surface of the Earth) and earthquake magnitude. Since these relations are based on real data from real earthquakes, we call these empirical scaling relations (i.e., the size of the earthquake slip “scales” with the size of the magnitude).
• Their analyses also subdivided the earthquakes in ways to see if different types of earthquakes (strike-slip, normal, or thrust/reverse) had different scaling relations.
• Some have updated the database of earthquake observations. However, these updated scaling relations are not that much different than the original Wells and Coppersmith (1994) scaling relations. Perhaps there is sufficient variation in earthquake size that we have yet to deconvolve all the variation in fault ruptures?
• Below I present the Wells and Coppersmith (1994) scaling relations for subsurface earthquake slip length. I do this because it may be a while until we have a good estimate for other measures (like surface rupture length) but we can estimate the subsurface fault length in different ways with existing data (like the spatial extent of aftershocks).
• In the upper panel I list the rough length of three fault segments that are part of the East Anatolia fault system.
• I use the relations represented by the diagonal lines in the center panel to calculate the earthquake magnitude for faults of varying length (100-200km). Based on their relations, a magnitude M 7.8 earthquake may have ruptured a fault with a subsurface length of 200 km.

Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk

• These are the two seismic maps from the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) project, the GEM Seismic Hazard and the GEM Seismic Risk maps from Pagani et al. (2018) and Silva et al. (2018).

The GEM Seismic Hazard Map:




• The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Global Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1) depicts the geographic distribution of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, computed for reference rock conditions (shear wave velocity, VS30, of 760-800 m/s). The map was created by collating maps computed using national and regional probabilistic seismic hazard models developed by various institutions and projects, and by GEM Foundation scientists. The OpenQuake engine, an open-source seismic hazard and risk calculation software developed principally by the GEM Foundation, was used to calculate the hazard values. A smoothing methodology was applied to homogenise hazard values along the model borders. The map is based on a database of hazard models described using the OpenQuake engine data format (NRML). Due to possible model limitations, regions portrayed with low hazard may still experience potentially damaging earthquakes.
• Here is a view of the GEM seismic hazard map for Europe.




The USGS Seismic Hazard Map:

• Here is a map that displays an estimate of seismic hazard for the region (Jenkins et al., 2010). This comes from Giardini et al. (1999).




The Global Seismic Hazard Map. Peak ground acceleration (pga) with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years is depicted in m/s2. The site classification is rock everywhere except Canada and the United States, which assume rock/firm soil site classifications. White and green correspond to low seismicity hazard (0%-8%g), yellow and orange correspond to moderate seismic hazard (8%-24%g), pink and dark pink correspond to high seismicity hazard (24%-40%g), and red and brown correspond to very high seismic hazard (greater than 40%g).

The GEM Seismic Risk Map:




• The Global Seismic Risk Map (v2018.1) presents the geographic distribution of average annual loss (USD) normalised by the average construction costs of the respective country (USD/m²) due to ground shaking in the residential, commercial and industrial building stock, considering contents, structural and non-structural components. The normalised metric allows a direct comparison of the risk between countries with widely different construction costs. It does not consider the effects of tsunamis, liquefaction, landslides, and fires following earthquakes. The loss estimates are from direct physical damage to buildings due to shaking, and thus damage to infrastructure or indirect losses due to business interruption are not included. The average annual losses are presented on a hexagonal grid, with a spacing of 0.30 x 0.34 decimal degrees (approximately 1,000 km² at the equator). The average annual losses were computed using the event-based calculator of the OpenQuake engine, an open-source software for seismic hazard and risk analysis developed by the GEM Foundation. The seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability models employed in these calculations were provided by national institutions, or developed within the scope of regional programs or bilateral collaborations.
• Here is a view of the GEM seismic risk map for Europe.




Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment – East Anatolia fault

• Gülerce et al. (2017) conducted a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) for the EAF. I hope you are keeping up with all the acronyms in this report.
• A PSHA is basically a way of taking information about earthquake recurrence (from paleoseismology, seismicity rates, geodesy, etc.) for faults in a given region and using this information to make estimates of the likelihood (the chance) of a certain measure of ground shaking that might be exceeded over a period of time.
• The California Geological Survey has a website that provides an overview of what PSHA is and how it is conducted.
• A key part of PSHA is the incorporation of all possible and probable earthquakes for the faults in the analysis region. People conducting PSHA use a “logic tree” to organize this variation. Each branch of the logic tree is given a weight that the experts think that that branch is most likely to happen.
• Here is the logic tree presented by Gülerce et al. (2017).




• Of the many products that can come from a PSHA, the principal output are a series of maps that show the chance that ground shaking levels will be exceeded. E.g., a map that shows a 10% chance of being exceeded in 50 years (in other words, the chance that this ground shaking might happen in 475 years; aka the 475 year return period ground shaking map).
• There are lots of parameters that we use to calculate the ground shaking, such as the seismic velocity structure of the Earth (e.g., the Vs30, the seismic velocity of the upper 30 meters of the Earth).
• Here is the table showing the fault parameters for the faults used in this PSHA.




• These first maps are the 475 year return period maps (10% in 50 years) for Vs30 = 760 m/second (“softer” rock) and Vs30 = 1100 m/second (“harder” rock).




PSHA map for the 475-yr return period peak ground acceleration (PGA) for (a) VS30
760 m=s and (b) VS30
1100 m=s. Contour lines (for PGA
0:4g) represent the design value for the highest earthquake zone in Turkish Earthquake Code (2007). The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

• These maps are the 2475 year return period maps (2% in 50 years) for Vs30 = 760 m/second (“softer” rock) and Vs30 = 1100 m/second (“harder” rock).




PSHA map for the 2475-yr return period PGA for (a) VS30
760 m=s and (b) VS30
1100 m=s. Contour lines (for PGA
0:6g) represent the design value for special structures for the highest earthquake zone in Turkish Earthquake Code (2007). The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Stress Triggering

• When an earthquake fault slips, the crust surrounding the fault squishes and expands, deforming elastically (like in one’s underwear). These changes in shape of the crust cause earthquake fault stresses to change. These changes in stress can either increase or decrease the chance of another earthquake.
• I wrote more about this type of earthquake triggering for Temblor here. Head over there to learn more about “static coulomb stress triggering.”
• Lin et al. (2020) used the 24 January 2020 M 6.7 Doganyol Earthquake to investigate how the EAF slips before and after the M 6.7 mainshock.
• They also modeled the static coulomb stress changes along the EAF system following the 2020 M 6.7 earthquake.
• This map shows historic earthquakes and mechanisms, highlighting the 2020 M 6.7 event in red. (Lin et al., 2020).




Tectonic setting of the 2020 Doganyol earthquake. Red and black stars represent the epicenter of the 2020 earthquake and historical earthquakes, respectively. Black lines indicate the major active faults in this region, and the white box shows the projection of the fault plane. The locations of mainshock and historical earthquakes are from Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI; see Data and Resources) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (see Data and Resources), respectively. Focal mechanisms are also plotted (see Data and Resources). The inset
shows motions of major tectonic units (Armijo et al., 1999).

• This map shows the extent for some historic earthquakes and the inset shows the change in static coulomb stress on the EAF following the 2020 M 6.7 event.




Segments of the East Anatolian fault (EAF), distribution of historical earthquakes, and stress accumulation on the surrounding faults caused by the earthquake at a depth of 10 km (inset). The receiver fault is −246°=67°= − 9°. The geometry of each fault segment refers to the mechanism of the regional historical earthquake, and the effective friction coefficient is 0.4. The locations of historical earthquakes are from Ambraseys (1989), Ambraseys and Jackson (1998), Tan et al. (2008), and USGS (see Data and Resources). GCMT; Global Centroid Moment Tensor; KTJ, Karliova Triple Junction.

• Here are a suite of static coulomb stress changes given a range of fault parameters.




Stress accumulation caused by the earthquake on the surrounding faults calculated at a depth of 10 km; the dip angles are (a) 67°, (b) 47°, and (c) 87° with reference strikes fromDuman and Emre (2013). Stress accumulation caused by the earthquake on the surrounding faults calculated at (d) depths of 5 km; the geometry of each fault segment refers to the mechanism of the regional historical earthquake. The effective friction coefficient is 0.4.

• Dr. Shinji Toda worked with Ross Stein and others to calculate static coulomb stress changes related to the M 7.8 earthquake. Here is their article and below is a video from their report.

Europe

General Overview

Earthquake Reports

• 2022.02.06 M 7.8 Turkey/Syria
• 2022.11.23 M 6.1 Turkey
• 2020.12.30 M 6.4 Croatia
• 2020.10.30 M 7.0 Turkey
• 2020.05.02 M 6.6 Crete, Greece
• 2020.01.24 M 6.7 Turkey
• 2019.11.26 M 6.4 Albania
• 2018.10.25 M 6.8 Greece
• 2017.07.20 M 6.7 Turkey
• 2017.06.12 M 6.3 Turkey/Greece
• 2016.10.30 M 6.6 Italy
• 2016.10.30 M 6.6 Italy Update #1
• 2016.10.28 M 5.8 Tyrrhenian Sea
• 2016.10.26 M 6.1 Italy
• 2016.10.16 M 5.3 Greece/Albania
• 2016.08.23 M 6.2 Italy
• 2016.01.24 M 6.1 Mediterranean
• 2015.11.17 M 6.5 Greece
• 2015.04.16 M 6.0 Crete

Social Media

Original Thread:

#EarthquakeReport for M7.8 #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkey near #Syria

Felt intensity MMI 8
Sadly many will likely suffer

Read more abt regional tectonics here https://t.co/3vFCChWOo9https://t.co/g7OiqPRrKk pic.twitter.com/3wUMjXIXzl

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 6, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.8 #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkey near #Syria

largest magnitude earthquake in Turkey since 1939 M 7.8
southwest of 24 jan '20 M 6.7
small tsunami in Erdemli

report here (and will continue to update)https://t.co/HIrvdxepUn pic.twitter.com/H3f187sijL

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 6, 2023

Aftershock zone of today's M7.8 #earthquake in SE Turkey extend for ~250km along the East Anatolian Fault system. That left-lateral fault system bounds the Anatolian tectonic microplate to the east. pic.twitter.com/tsq5YqoWpa

— Robin Lacassin – @RobinLacassin@qoto.org (@RLacassin) February 6, 2023

Damaging M7.8 EQ hit southern Turkey near the Syrian border ~4am local time. PAGER is red for this event; extensive damage is probable. Our hearts go out to those affected. See @Kandilli_info for local info. https://t.co/dMyc6ZVrE1 https://t.co/0OxrznZf1v pic.twitter.com/eco071JqVm

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 6, 2023

The distance between the two blue markers in this map is ~330km. Some events to the SW could be on separate faults, events further to the NE may be triggered (???) or around the end of a (very long) main rupture (???). https://t.co/RHimY8B2g4 pic.twitter.com/DUROJZC6qd

— Anthony Lomax 😷🇪🇺🌍🇺🇦 (@ALomaxNet) February 6, 2023

Some tectonic background on today's M 7.8 #earthquake on (or just off?) the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) in #Turkey 🇹🇷. Figure updated from @Lea_Coromoto's recent GRL paper (https://t.co/xbMdGGyYoO). 🧵 pic.twitter.com/OY71CPvrVw

— Dr. Edwin Nissen (@faulty_data) February 6, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.8 #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkey near #Syria

reported intensities at least MMI 9!
hopefully international aid arrives soon!

report here (and will continue to update)https://t.co/HIrvdxepUn pic.twitter.com/m8gCVoelFH

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 6, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.8 #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkey and #Syria

the difference in global eq catalog and a more local one (56 vs. 285 events)https://t.co/rFzezAxn5mhttps://t.co/1Ujy0bsZZd

read about this sequence here (will keep updating this) https://t.co/HIrvdxepUn pic.twitter.com/voOC221T4R

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 6, 2023

#EarthquakeReport & #TsunamiReport for M7.8 #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkiye #Turkey #Syria

updated poster w/tide gage plot
aftershocks from 1 day compared w '20 M6.8
sequence
many faults involved in sequence

read more in report (will continue to update)https://t.co/HIrvdxepUn pic.twitter.com/Asq8YdNsJ4

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 7, 2023

#EarthquakeReport for M7.8/7.5 Pazarcik/Elbistan #Deprem #Earthquake in #Turkiye #Turkey #Syria

updated aftershock map w/@USGS_Quakes interp & AFEAD faults
ground failure & intensity comparison w/'20 M6.7

updated and continuing to update report https://t.co/HIrvdxepUn pic.twitter.com/Cf1592F1Oe

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) February 16, 2023

Coseismic displacements from GPS PPP @ResusScience results of February 6, 2023 Mw7.8 (red star and arrows) and Mw7.6 (blue star and arrows) earthquakes in Maraş Turkey @Tubitak @ProfHasanMandal @profugurdogan @sergintav @AktifTektonik @etayruk @ilayfarimaz @geodesist_a pic.twitter.com/vHticEw9N1

— Seda Özarpacı (@sedaozarpaci) February 8, 2023

On it! Azimuth offsets. pic.twitter.com/SfrGAXPx8T

— Danielle Lindsay (@DLindsay_EQ) February 9, 2023

Pixel tracking of @planet satellite images shows fault rupture of Mw 7.8 in Turkey extends through and past Kirikhan, not clear where southern rupture termination occurs. Displacement varies from 2-4 m (1/2).

You can access fault mapping from here https://t.co/1eOHTT4LsD

(1/2) pic.twitter.com/dRS1VuPUPa

— Dr. Chris Milliner (@Geo_GIF) February 9, 2023

Here's @temblor's preliminary Coulomb stress analysis for the 2023 Türkiye earthquakes that can help understand *where* aftershocks are most likely (but not when or how big).

Article by @EeWkKI8KqQLHUqz @rstein357 et al. https://t.co/Xed6yOyySU

— temblor (@temblor) February 9, 2023

Prelim. observations of fault rupture in Turkey EQ sequence using satellite images & radar data. This provides a first estimate of surface rupture length– over 300 km (~185 mi) from both EQs. We expect to see more of the rupture as data become available @USGS_HDDS @DisastersChart pic.twitter.com/A9xQ5nG27d

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 9, 2023

(1/2) Preliminary displacement maps from ALOS-2 descending track 78, acquired between 2022/04/06 and 2023/02/08 in radar line-of-sight, for the Mw 7.8 (February 6, 2023) main shock near the city of Nurdagi, Turkey, followed by Mw 7.5 aftershock within 9 hours. pic.twitter.com/lMcc8gn5YI

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) February 9, 2023

It appears half of the Mw 7.8 Turkey surface rupture has been imaged with satellite data. This shows surface motion combining Sentinel-2 optical offsets from @NERC_COMET with ALOS-2 radar from @aria_hazards projected into NNE direction. Rupture terminates south of Kirikhan pic.twitter.com/djmMFZ0ZFJ

— Dr. Chris Milliner (@Geo_GIF) February 9, 2023

The range offset map from Sentinel-1 shows the two ruptures clearly

Data available athttps://t.co/IzMLypaBF7

We should have complete coverage for this terrible event by tomorrow morning. The scale of the event is frightening and our thoughts go out to everyone in the area. pic.twitter.com/lCanGRFAZ4

— NERC COMET (@NERC_COMET) February 9, 2023

The same North-South displacement field with fault trace overlay (from MTA 250K fault maps) 2/2 pic.twitter.com/L7pTLLhIKj

— Sotiris Valkaniotis (@SotisValkan) February 9, 2023

#Sentinel-1 Descending interferogram/ ground range, LOS displacement maps, and 3D displacement views (exaggerated) of the 06.02.2023 #Kahramanmaras #TurkeySyriaEarthquake . #InSAR data obtained from @NERC_COMET / @COMET_database@ISIK_VEYSEL @caglayanayse @AnkaraUni #deprem pic.twitter.com/r1WGK2ZOy9

— Reza Saber (@Geo_Reza) February 12, 2023

Today's M7.8 earthquake in Turkey occurred in the East Anatolian Fault zone.

Although this fault is a known hazard, the quake is unusual. Today's M7.8 released >2x as much energy as the largest recorded quakes in the region (M7.4).

Image credit: Kyle Bradley

1/ pic.twitter.com/c7Kwt03Ivf

— Dr. Judith Hubbard (@JudithGeology) February 6, 2023

During the night, terrible M7.8 #earthquake along the East Anatolian Fault zone, in Turkey, near border with Syria, felt over a very wide area.
Death toll >300, possibly will increase.https://t.co/Pb79TMQE0lhttps://t.co/vtyMMQO8NO
As in 1114
👇https://t.co/ZpBPQz3ela pic.twitter.com/9gavMmVrG2

— José R. Ribeiro (@JoseRodRibeiro) February 6, 2023

Major M7.8, shallow, lateral slip #earthquake on S Anatolian Fault of European-Arabian convergence zone. Significant surface shaking with major surface and societal impact in densely populated area.#Turkey. https://t.co/qxeUaGEv6m pic.twitter.com/SSWH4n9aR8

— 🌎 Prof Ben van der Pluijm ⚒️ (@vdpluijm) February 6, 2023

The 6 February 2023 Mw=7.8 #earthquake near #Nurdağı in #Gaziantep, #Turkey is likely to have triggered substantial numbers of landslides:- https://t.co/6JNBwwEvkJ #TurkeyEarthquake pic.twitter.com/Z6HnYqwa69

— Dave Petley (@davepetley) February 6, 2023

Mw ~7.8 Nurdağı earthquake, Turkey aligns with a rapidly deforming mantle region compatible with left-lateral shear on the East Anatolian Fault. The fault broke in piecemeal ruptures in the past. Today's earthquake connected multiple segments https://t.co/oVXH18azgh pic.twitter.com/aMONEdrXBg

— Sylvain Barbot (@quakephysics) February 6, 2023

Artçı #deprem dağılımı ve segment uzunluğu esas alındığında, 06.02.2023, 04:17 Mw=7.8 depreminde 150 km uzunlukta bir yırtılma olduğu tahmin edilebilir.#Pazarcık#Maraş#Hatay#Antakya#nurdağı pic.twitter.com/QG5rGhLf2F

— Dr. Ramazan Demirtaş (@Paleosismolog) February 6, 2023

Türkei / Syrien: Opferzahl steigt auf 604 mit über 3000 Verletzten und einer unbekannten Anzahl an Vermissten.

Nachbeben und Feldbeobachtungen lassen auf eine Bruchlänge von über 300 Kilometern schließen. Aktualisierte ShakeMap pic.twitter.com/1MDnqH8CPa

— Erdbebennews (@Erdbebennews) February 6, 2023

This is a visualization of the waves from the M7.8 #earthquake in #Turkey rolling through most of North America. This events and the ones that followed caused an enormous amount of damage, please consider donating to relief efforts. #deprem @EarthScope_sci pic.twitter.com/xivO7ijZDP

— UMN Seismology (@UMNseismology) February 6, 2023

This seismic trace from a seismic station in Turkey (shown by the green triangle) shows the waves from the M7.8, M7.5 and numerous aftershocks. pic.twitter.com/ObB9FmrW0G

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) February 6, 2023

Automatic displacement scenario, expected #InSAR fringes and Sentinel-1 orbits & dates for the February 6 M 7.9 #Turkey #earthquake, based on USGS slip distribution.
Post-event images acquired 12 days after the pre-event.

With @antandre71
*** SCENARIOS ARE NOT REAL DATA *** pic.twitter.com/35T1EGk1a9

— Simone Atzori (@SimoneAtzori73) February 6, 2023

Early Photos from the Earthquake in Turkey and Syria – 28 images of the widespread damage and rescue efforts following last night's magnitude 7.8 earthquake, which claimed at least 2,100 lives. https://t.co/vxPybAqJmA pic.twitter.com/KlTu3ta0if

— The Atlantic Photo (@TheAtlPhoto) February 6, 2023

Clear cumulative left-lateral offsets of Quaternary markers on the Sürgü-Çartak Fault: here a river and alluvial terrace offset by several tens of meters (be careful, this is not the offset of today's rupture). Arrows outline fault trace. pic.twitter.com/fauhotfiDv

— Robin Lacassin – @RobinLacassin@qoto.org (@RLacassin) February 6, 2023

Seismic waves from the M7.8 (USGS) earthquake in Southern Turkey crossing Europe. Each dot is a seismic station. (GMV) https://t.co/6cY0RObbXv pic.twitter.com/SHbdkxQXzD

— Nahel Belgherze (@WxNB_) February 6, 2023

7.8 Mw #earthquake in #Turkey as recorded by the @GEO3BCN_CSIC SEP seismometer in Barcelona pic.twitter.com/8CoAzuTcEk

— Jordi Diaz Cusi (@JDiazCusi) February 6, 2023

This earthquake does not significantly change the possibility of an earthquake in Istanbul. This probability remains significant as a large earthquake is expected to hit the area anytime in the coming decades. So what is key is to be prepared! https://t.co/EtLJxGrnwC

— EMSC (@LastQuake) February 6, 2023

Today's M7.8 #earthquake in #Turkey also generated a #tsunami. The tsunami height is 30 cm in Erdemli (see the picture). We expect a maximum tsunami coastal runup of up to around 1.5 m (or 2 m) in some places near the epicenter. pic.twitter.com/pHTiasEroj

— Dr Mohammad Heidarzadeh (@Mo_Heidarzadeh) February 6, 2023

This TV crew was broadcasting live when a second magnitude 7.5 #earthquake hit #Turkey ⤵️

Follow @CBKNEWS #TurkeyEarthquake #Turkiye #PrayForTurkey pic.twitter.com/ebA1QmxgkA

— CBKNEWS (@CBKNEWS121) February 6, 2023

Just awoke to see there was a M7.5 earthquake a few hours ago in the same area as the earlier M7.8 quake. Looking at the epicenters it seems this might be a second (triggered?) fault (blue), not the East Anatolian FZ (yellow). This is devestating for this area. #Turkey #Syria pic.twitter.com/7Im5dx6jfb

— Brian Olson (@mrbrianolson) February 6, 2023

This animation shows how Anatolia (Turkey) is pushed to the west by the indentation of Arabia, during the last 10 million years or so. This is accommodated along the North and East Anatolian Faults, causing major earthquakes. @UUEarthSciences #Tectonics #GPlates pic.twitter.com/tBz3dwfqQn

— Douwe van Hinsbergen (@vanHinsbergen) May 15, 2021

🗒️Registros de máxima aceleración del suelo (PGA, en cm/s²) del sismo 7.8 Mw de Turquía🇹🇷.
Pazarcık: 1966
Adıyaman Merkez: 880
Antakya: 867
Hassa: 848
Kırıkhan: 749
Altınözü: 534
Belen: 484
Sivrice: 424
Onikişubat: 354
Türkoğlu: 353
Adaklı: 329
Bahçe: 305
Tut: 291
Fuente: AFAD pic.twitter.com/t48oGjIPZG

— ASISMET (@Asismet_IF) February 6, 2023

Taiwan has sent a search team to 🇹🇷 in response to the earthquake and donated

Previously, Turkey came to the aid of Taiwan in the 1999 and was the first team to depart their country. There was a Taiwanese search team in 🇹🇷 at the time in response to the 1999 Izmit earthquake. pic.twitter.com/f4Em2AB6GV

— 陳彥翰 Chen Yen-Han (@chen_yenhan) February 6, 2023

Part 2: pic.twitter.com/57tcAtX3CE

— Stephen Hicks 🇪🇺 (@seismo_steve) February 6, 2023

I wouldn't have been able to get through the last 24 hours of interviews without the online resources complied by this wonderful geoscience community including @Harold_Tobin @patton_cascadia @DrWendyRocks @SquigglyVolcano @JudithGeology @DrLucyJones @CPPGeophysics & many others🙏

— Adam Pascale (@SeisLOLogist) February 7, 2023

Refugees Drown in Shipwrecks Off Coasts of Greece, Italy https://t.co/Mdmh5YYDOk

— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) February 7, 2023

The Mw 7.5 aftershock in Turkey seems to have ruptured a splay fault that extends westward from the East Anatolian Fault. I attach a fault map from Bozkurt (2001) https://t.co/bUDHG3iDSI pic.twitter.com/Sk0P9ku005

— Sylvain Barbot (@quakephysics) February 6, 2023

Following the M7.8 EQ, a M7.5 aftershock struck at ~1:30 pm local time. Significant and widespread damage is likely. More aftershocks will occur. Follow @Kandilli_info for local information. https://t.co/KLLmXlfS70 https://t.co/8wyrVPRJ9J pic.twitter.com/Kh825PfB11

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 6, 2023

BBC News – Drone footage shows earthquake aftermath in Turkeyhttps://t.co/aZPGuU5UKl

— EMSC (@LastQuake) February 7, 2023

L’allerta tsunami per il terremoto in Turchia del 6 febbraio 2023 https://t.co/SP8KG1HvMB

— INGVterremoti (@INGVterremoti) February 6, 2023

Yes, I totally agree. Those doing preliminary fact finding are a massive part of the whole communication effort. Giving many interviews in a day is pretty stressful and time consuming so getting a clear picture and updates from Tweets is so valuable.

— Stephen Hicks 🇪🇺 (@seismo_steve) February 7, 2023

M7.8 Turkey (2023.02.06)
M7.5 Turkey (2023.02.06)https://t.co/mv8Zdvo2Hshttps://t.co/ZgIfrDhCPj

Range and azimuth offsets
ALOS-2 path 78, frame 2850-2890
Imagery courtesy of JAXA and facilitated by NASA pic.twitter.com/8tx5ySxInR

— gCent (@gCentBulletin) February 8, 2023

Molltrack in the east of Türkoglu. @AktifTektonik @CengizZabci @HNK390978941, Gürsel Sunal, Erdem Kırkan, Nurettin Yakupoğlu, Asen Sabuncu pic.twitter.com/mxveGjmzld

— H. Serdar Akyüz (@akyuz24) February 8, 2023

The death toll in the earthquake that struck Turkey and Syria on Monday has risen to at least 12,000, with an unknown number still missing. @JaneFerguson5 reports from Adana in Southern Turkey. https://t.co/x2wbLMyl6O pic.twitter.com/4JhthDEyYF

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) February 8, 2023

YIKIMIN RESMİ !!!!
5 Şubat (Öncesi) ve 6 Şubat 2023
İnsanlarımıza MEZAR olarak inşa edilen TABUT BİNALAR!
-Ciddi "CEZAİ YAPTIRIMLAR" getirilmeli
-Suçlu ne FAY, ne DEPREM.
-Ne de #deprem BÜYÜKLÜĞÜ
-Suçlu/Sorumlular BELLİ
-YAZIKTIR. GÜNAHTIR
-Bu büyük bir VEBAL
-YETER ARTIK !! pic.twitter.com/2ftyuTu6xT

— Dr. Ramazan Demirtaş (@Paleosismolog) February 8, 2023

In this episode, @NPRShortWave host @emilykwong1234 talks to geologist Wendy Bohon and @NPR science correspondent Geoff Brumfiel about why earthquake prediction is such a difficult problem, and the science behind detecting them in the first place.https://t.co/0XTOyhKmQV

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) February 8, 2023

NE-SW/N-S orientated fracture systems formed within the deformation zone of the #Malatya #Fault after the second #earthquake.#TurkeyEarthquake pic.twitter.com/3DWgq05aLT

— Taylan SANÇAR (@tsancar) February 8, 2023

A damage proxy map for the M7.8 and M7.5 #earthquake that struck #Türkiye (#Turkey) and #Syria on 6 Feb 2023. From #ALOS2 satellite #SAR data acquired 2 days after the earthquakes. We hope this map will support relief efforts. More maps and information at https://t.co/XEMyD6ztqv pic.twitter.com/61WnlPUiQy

— EOS Remote Sensing (@eos_rs) February 8, 2023

Scenario update of what we expect from #InSAR data, with Sentinel-1 coverage, for both M 7+ #Earthquaketurkeysyria events combined.
Thanks @dara_berg_ (USGS) for updating the M 7.9 solution.

SCENARIOS ARE PREDICTED AND NOT REAL DATA pic.twitter.com/UhiiIIgSdt

— Simone Atzori (@SimoneAtzori73) February 8, 2023

A Teachable Moment? https://t.co/hBDsTQwRmV

— Chris Goldfinger (@goldfinger300) February 9, 2023

Interesting look at how earthquake-resilient building codes are not enforced in Turkey and why we saw brand-new buildings that should've been compliant and safe crumple. https://t.co/aY4QXuMtGO

— Megan Sever (@MeganSever4) February 8, 2023

Sea level has risen in earthquake-hit city of Iskenderun, Turkey pic.twitter.com/0OS9uwANcJ

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) February 7, 2023

The local KOERI-RETMC seismic catalog from Boğaziçi University, Turkey, has recorded more than 1300 events since Monday – the vast majority associated with the M7.8 earthquake.

Zoom in and explore the seismic patterns here: https://t.co/DEzVNJzLoX pic.twitter.com/PkFxMDBxCx

— Dr. Judith Hubbard (@JudithGeology) February 8, 2023

Pixel offsets for Feb 6, 2023 M7.8 Turkey mainshock and M7.5 aftershock

ALOS-2 path 78, frame 2850, 2860
06/04/2022- 02/08/2023
Imagery courtesy of JAXA and facilitated by NASA pic.twitter.com/BmHoqfxTFP

— Danielle Lindsay (@DLindsay_EQ) February 8, 2023

Here is the updated map of aftershocks distribution @john_galetzka https://t.co/JD9D2flHtl pic.twitter.com/bXXglWqtSB

— Ziyadin Çakır (@ziyadin) February 9, 2023

This is the footage (and see Ian’s comment) https://t.co/iNZjtbxoXX

— Stéphane Baize (@Stef_EQ_Geology) February 9, 2023

Kırığın ilk İHA tabanlı SYM’leri / First UAV-based DSMs of the surface rupture(s) @AktifTektonik @akyuz24 @HNK390978941 Gürsel Sunal, Erdem Kırkan, Asen Sabuncu, Nurettin Yakupoğlu pic.twitter.com/bq1XjqyfIf

— Cengiz Zabcı (@CengizZabci) February 9, 2023

Kırığın güney devamı; Kırıkhan’ın 9 km kuzeyi; the southern extent of the surface rupture(s), 9 km to the north of Kırıkhan @AktifTektonik @akyuz24 @HNK390978941 Gürsel Sunal, Nurettin Yakupoğlu, Erdem Kırkan, Asen Sabuncu pic.twitter.com/JFm956JAFR

— Cengiz Zabcı (@CengizZabci) February 9, 2023

Some more heartwarming footage coming out of the Turkey earthquake zone, rescuers we able to free a little friend!
(https://t.co/04q4SYvMUs) pic.twitter.com/8xPUil5gJW

— 🥀_Imposter_🕸️ (@Imposter_Edits) February 8, 2023

An earthquake has only ONE magnitude, but can produce MANY different intensities of shaking.

The intensity of shaking in a given place depends on many things, including the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the quake, and the local geology. pic.twitter.com/N9mv8bkj7R

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) February 8, 2023

Almost 600 aftershocks reported by @lastquake
so far#Turkey #earthquake #matplotlib #cartopy pic.twitter.com/rrPJHHVeOO

— Gilles Mazet-Roux (@gmazet) February 8, 2023

Surface faulting in Hatay @earthquakeTurkey pic.twitter.com/0Cca6tSRX5

— pigall (@Pigall6) February 8, 2023

Looking a bit more closely and plotted a bit more fancily, the KOERI hypocenter (white star) plots right next to the blob along trend from that fringe, so it looks like a good call. Do we know what the first motion focal mechanism looks like? pic.twitter.com/o9wS8NpcPS

— Dr Gareth Funning (@gfun) February 9, 2023

Artçılar: AFAD, diri faylar: Emre 2013. pic.twitter.com/Mktsjh6xn8

— ATAG (@AktifTektonik) February 8, 2023

Updated @ResearchGate llink: https://t.co/9fRLqpYTTJ

Direct PDF link: https://t.co/mUxbqcHlU5 https://t.co/sY54g23UcQ

— iunio iervolino (@iuniervo) February 8, 2023

The amount of damage in the #Turkey–#Syria #earthquake towards #Hatay and Syria is not surprising.
More shaking in the first quake was directed towards the south, thus causing the large amount of damage of infrastructure.
(Dark red and red dots indicate generally more shaking) pic.twitter.com/rVLEJis9ce

— Risklayer (@risklayer) February 7, 2023

Here is another comparison pre/post-event near #Nurdagi#earthquake #deprem

Also take a look at the collapsed grain silos on the right hand side.

imagery from google-earth and maxar pic.twitter.com/2PHCAKrONR

— Andreas Schäfer (@DrAndreasS) February 9, 2023

Extended coverage of Turkey-Syria Earthquake displacement from pixel tracking with Sentinel-2 imagery. Data at: https://t.co/lZPKL5ZSB9 pic.twitter.com/x12RL1DxGg

— COMET Datasets & Services (@COMET_database) February 9, 2023

Corruption kills.

“This same (BBC Turkish) report cited the Environment and Urbanisation Ministry as stating in 2018 that over 50% of buildings in Turkey – equivalent to almost 13 million buildings – were constructed in violation of regulations.” https://t.co/W5vIm9EniM

— Beth Bartel (@EatTheCrust) February 9, 2023

6.7 meter offset!

Me and @KokumMehmet measured 6.7 m fence offset along the Sürgü-Çardak Fault. #earthquake #TurkeyEarthquake #TurkeyQuake #Elbistan #Kahramanmaras pic.twitter.com/kkhioL5MtV

— Taylan SANÇAR (@tsancar) February 9, 2023

We GSI detected coseismic deformation by the earthquake (M 7.8, M7.5, USGS) occurred in the Republic of Turkey on Feb. 6, 2023 (UTC) with InSAR/Pixel Offset analysis of JAXA ALOS2/PALSAR-2.https://t.co/vEiQJIYrca pic.twitter.com/eb52SSHKh5

— 国土地理院地理地殻活動研究センター (@GSI_Research) February 9, 2023

Here is the EKZ1 GNSS station, which is very close to epicenter of 06.02.2023 Elbistan Earthquake Mw7.6

There is approximately 4 meters coseismic displacement in EKZ1 after the second earthquake.@etayruk @akurt_74 @profugurdogan @AktifTektonik pic.twitter.com/F3HeQiprgZ

— Seda Özarpacı (@sedaozarpaci) February 9, 2023

Turkish Earthquake Scientist Turns Turkey-Syria Earthquake Into Real-Life Lesson for Students | CSUF News @csufcnsm Dr. Sinan Akçiz #TitanGeologyhttps://t.co/nSFqojsZOt

— CSUFullertonGeology (@CSUFGeology) February 9, 2023

My science friends: speed of discovery, research cooperation, data sharing — outstanding
But foremost, I am human, a father of 3, a husband.
I was interview by several Turkish journalists; some crushed while we spoke. 20'000 lives lost – 20'000 … and not over yet … pic.twitter.com/3CG1PNF7qB

— Martin Mai (@Prof_QuakeMod) February 9, 2023

Well done, Sentinel-1! Now the ball goes to the unwrapping algorithms: a very high fringe rate, but well shaped. Thanks @CrisTolomei (#INGV GeoSAR Lab) for this first image.#EarthquakeTurkeySyria pic.twitter.com/xd7rRtDQDO

— Simone Atzori (@SimoneAtzori73) February 9, 2023

(2/2) The ALOS-2/PALSAR-2 Data Products are provided by JAXA and analyzed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The area close to epicenter of the Mw 7.8 earthquake moved towards east and up. pic.twitter.com/5Jdo7knHxA

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) February 9, 2023

More fault crossing profiles north of the epicenter. Data from JAXA by agreement with NASA. #Earthquake #Turkey pic.twitter.com/sLJTMKthEH

— Danielle Lindsay (@DLindsay_EQ) February 9, 2023

#Kahramanmaraş #deprem #earthquake #surfacerupture #yüzeykırığı Hatay Kırıkhan @AynurDikbas DoğacanÖzcan @ProfHasanMandal @TUBITAK_MAM @paleoseismicity @DJIGlobal pic.twitter.com/XVR1qigfnO

— M. Korhan Erturaç (@mkorhanerturac) February 9, 2023

Giving media interviews about geohazard events is fairly simple if you're giving it in an unaffected country. Giving a live interview for the country most impacted is trickier. I just gave a live interview on Turkish TV & here are the #scicomm questions I first considered. pic.twitter.com/bD1keZYgFQ

— Stephen Hicks 🇪🇺 (@seismo_steve) February 7, 2023

UPDATE: 2023.02.12

Today I got caught up with embedding tweets.

The range offset map from Sentinel-1 shows the two ruptures clearly

Data available athttps://t.co/IzMLypaBF7

We should have complete coverage for this terrible event by tomorrow morning. The scale of the event is frightening and our thoughts go out to everyone in the area. pic.twitter.com/lCanGRFAZ4

— NERC COMET (@NERC_COMET) February 9, 2023

The same North-South displacement field with fault trace overlay (from MTA 250K fault maps) 2/2 pic.twitter.com/L7pTLLhIKj

— Sotiris Valkaniotis (@SotisValkan) February 9, 2023

Pixel tracking of the Mw 7.8 earthquake in Turkey using Sentinel-2 optical satellite images shows a very large fault rupture, with at least 250 km of fault motion reaching up to ~5 m.

Download fault traces and offsets here: https://t.co/IJRTggiB2h pic.twitter.com/yzjhx4RGTY

— Dr. Chris Milliner (@Geo_GIF) February 9, 2023

Full extent map. Note that processing is preliminary and the images contain linear artifacts. pic.twitter.com/qZvtIdsx0a

— COMET Datasets & Services (@COMET_database) February 9, 2023

Washington Post article this morning with contributions from @ezgikarasozen, @DrWendyRocks, and me, on the known risk of earthquakes in this region, and the inadequacy of our preparedness not only in Türkiye, but many places around the world. https://t.co/EVYRdqsHka

— Harold Tobin (@Harold_Tobin) February 9, 2023

5.20 m offset along the Surgu-Cardak Fault (February 6th, 2023, 13:23, M7.6). with @tsancar @firatresmihesap @fu_ogrenci @AktifTektonik @paleoseismicity @ProfGoktas @zekiakbiyik #TurkeySyriaEarthquake #earthquake pic.twitter.com/VDa4tE076R

— Mehmet Köküm (@KokumMehmet) February 9, 2023

Newly available Maxar satellite imagery shows several hundred meters long surface rupture with horizontal displacements up to 4m near Nurdağı, Gaziantep province, Turkey. pic.twitter.com/3JVZTTHrk1

— Nahel Belgherze (@WxNB_) February 9, 2023

Gövdesinde çatlaklar yarıklar oluşan ve sızıntı başlayan Malatya'daki Sultansuyu Barajı tahliye ediliyor… Diğer barajlarda çatlaklar olduğu bilgisi var. Bu barajlar çökerse bu su önüne gelen evi canlıyı alır götürür. Umarım önlem alınıyordur alınır!!! #cokusdonemi pic.twitter.com/ypPaxDuRqZ

— Who? (@who98408150) February 8, 2023

Compete picture of the two earthquake ruptures now available from the Sentinel-1 descending pass. @CopernicusEU @COMET_database
Image below is range offsets from pixel tracking. The two ruptures appear not to be connected.
Scale of event is horrific – the image is ~250 km across pic.twitter.com/kc7u3k6z3g

— NERC COMET (@NERC_COMET) February 10, 2023

6 Şubat 2023 Mw=7.8 depremi Amik ovasını doğudan sınırlayan ÖDFZ ve batıdan sınırlayan DAFZ (Amanos segmenti) üzerinde birçok segment üzerinde çoklu kırılmaya yol açmıştır. Tıpkı 12 fayda kırılmaya yol açan 14 Kasım 2016 Kaikoura depremi (Y.Zellanda) depremi (Mw=7.8) gibi#deprem pic.twitter.com/STEv8BsfyX

— Dr. Ramazan Demirtaş (@Paleosismolog) February 10, 2023

#Earthquake in #Türkiye 🇹🇷

Impressive image where you can see the horizontal displacement caused by the catastrophic earthquake. Situation before and after in #Nurdağı 25/01 – 09/02, 2023. @CopernicusEU #Sentinel2 🛰️ | h/t @syf_kync @Rainmaker1973 | 🧵1/n pic.twitter.com/sWDff2863i

— Iban Ameztoy (@i_ameztoy) February 10, 2023

Analisi preliminare delle registrazioni accelerometriche del terremoto in Turchia (Mw 7.9) del 6 febbraio 2023 – https://t.co/SyzWQK3xxr

— INGV presidente (@ingv_president) February 10, 2023

800 aftershocks in 4 days (data from @lastquake)#TurkeySyriaEarthquake pic.twitter.com/awlWmnjkKm

— Gilles Mazet-Roux (@gmazet) February 10, 2023

I posted an animation earlier this week about the westward motion of Anatolia (Turkey), pushed by Arabia. That was part of a larger reconstruction, of which this clip shows the last 100 million years (published in Gond. Res., 2020). #TurkeySyriaEarthquake @UUGeo #geology pic.twitter.com/GPUYzyIDvC

— Douwe van Hinsbergen (@vanHinsbergen) February 10, 2023

Next, the range offsets, which record the same deformation as the InSAR, but less sensitively. In this case, that may not be a bad thing, the deformation is large! The range pixel size is 2.3 m, so the largest offsets are around 5.5 m in range. Positive deformation is to the ENE. pic.twitter.com/c7umSsjK0Z

— Dr Gareth Funning (@gfun) February 10, 2023

2/2) Along-track (azimuth) and across-track (range) offset maps showing near-field deformation. Access our disaster response datasets via: https://t.co/WeaE2pihgX pic.twitter.com/Zk0ZM1JjQb

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) February 10, 2023

NASA and other agencies are using satellites to map damage caused by the 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes in southern Türkiye and western Syria on Feb. 6. https://t.co/C7jWcow5Gn

— NASA Earth (@NASAEarth) February 10, 2023

Bulunduğu sokaktaki tüm yapılar yıkılırken İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası depremde hiçbir zarar görmedi. (Kahramanmaraş) pic.twitter.com/wKRWVH9Rt8

— Etkili Haber (@etkilihaber) February 10, 2023

M7.8 and M7.5 Turkey earthquakes, as seen from space by radar (ESA Sentinel-1 sensor). To date, satellite images have been over the western half of the ruptures. Sentinel-1 will fly over the eastern half on Feb 10 and hopefully complete the rest of the picture. pic.twitter.com/RR1KhoISnb

— gCent (@gCentBulletin) February 9, 2023

Sentinel-1 descending interferogram and range pixel offsets over the Turkey earthquake. Epicentres shown by red stars pic.twitter.com/3qejCsJMaP

— COMET Datasets & Services (@COMET_database) February 10, 2023

Here is also the range offset map of des21 track. The fault triple junction is digitized almost exactly along the discontinuity. https://t.co/wjGYc0zKer pic.twitter.com/nmgFKMQljJ

— Zeyu Jin (@jzyjzy9) February 10, 2023

Surface displacement maps for the tragic M7.8 and M7.5 earthquakes in southern Turkey. There were several metres of slip which can be traced ~300 km on one fault and ~100 km on the second.

Calculated from Sentinel-2, I have uploaded the data for sharing: https://t.co/WayeuyMlUw pic.twitter.com/J6dzPVA08B

— Max Van Wyk de Vries (@Max_VWDV) February 9, 2023

Yıl 1996: Türkiye'de M>7.0 #deprem üretme potansiyeli yüksek 15 SİSMİK BOŞLUK olan fayları belirlemiştik. Bu boşluklardan 24 Ocak 2020 ve 6 Şubat 2023 depremler olmak üzere 7'si büyük deprem üretti (Demirtaş ve Yılmaz 1996).https://t.co/ABPIm7FpFVhttps://t.co/gOKV5Uw3A6 pic.twitter.com/3RpxDzWAbv

— Dr. Ramazan Demirtaş (@Paleosismolog) February 10, 2023

Rupture processes of the two Turkey major events. The M7.8 mainshck first ruptured NE direction for over 100km, then departed from hypocenter to the SW. The M7.6 event ruptured bilaterally, and its last subevent E4 activated a NE-trending subfault. Very complex ruptures. pic.twitter.com/5HFVbA9CSx

— Zhe Jia (@jiazhe868) February 10, 2023

NASA-NOAA's Suomi NPP satellite captured the power outages resulting from the massive 7.8 earthquake that struck southern Turkey and Syria. Look at all these cities plunged into darkness along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. pic.twitter.com/ubHpdmMwLe

— Nahel Belgherze (@WxNB_) February 10, 2023

The azimuth offsets, positive to the SSW, once again highlight the slip along the East Anatolian fault and are somewhat insensitive to the northern fault (which can be made out from the E-W trend of the later aftershocks, shown in black). pic.twitter.com/e1KZmpUM45

— Dr Gareth Funning (@gfun) February 10, 2023

This across-fault profile over the Mw 7.5 rupture and near its epicenter shows an offset of over 8 m. Red line is from result shown above, green is from @Max_VWDV. Location is Lat: 38.02, Long: 37.21. Note y-axis ranges from -4 to 4 m. pic.twitter.com/AfUCrPmUrF

— Dr. Chris Milliner (@Geo_GIF) February 10, 2023

Mr. Milliner, this video clearly shows the devastating surface movement during the first EQ that hit our country. pic.twitter.com/qVMwH1r2iJ

— UzAy&Dünya (@UzaydaBugun) February 10, 2023

With the last two large events on this fault segment occurring in 1509 and 1766, and a suggested recurrence interval of ~200-250 years, this part of the fault may produce an earthquake at any time.

2/ pic.twitter.com/aU4YgpBDov

— Dr. Judith Hubbard (@JudithGeology) February 10, 2023

On the Blog: Radar interferogram over Turkey & Syria using @CopernicusEU Sentinel-1 acquisitions of 9 Feb. & 28 Jan. 2023

+ link to the public data package (products generated with InSAR processor from @CNES & @TRE_ALTAMIRA hosted on GEP)https://t.co/gVnIR9mrHt

— Geohazards Exploitation Platform (@esa_gep) February 10, 2023

We've updated the report on the #earthquake #engineering aspects of the #Turkey #seismic sequence to V2.0. This versionis based on recently released data and also makes them available -> https://t.co/ImltvfnFjg@ConsorzioReLUIS @UninaIT @IussPavia @UniRCMedi pic.twitter.com/r0RrnNcckD

— iunio iervolino (@iuniervo) February 10, 2023

Here's the animation of the backprojection pic.twitter.com/63hePMCWRZ

— Claudio Satriano (@claudiodsf) February 10, 2023

Deprem bölgesinden bir bina komple temelden kalkmış… Uzmanı değilim ama bilenler yazsın, 5 kat binaya 1-2 metrelik temel atılması neredeyse cinayete teşebbüs değil mi?!pic.twitter.com/XWb6SWcS4k

— can gurses (@canitti) February 9, 2023

Short video that show obvious surface rupture along the Surgu-Cardak Fault with @tsancar @fu_ogrenci @ProfGoktas @AktifTektonik @paleoseismicity @firatresmihesap pic.twitter.com/I2uhEWVSVY

— Mehmet Köküm (@KokumMehmet) February 10, 2023

#surfacerupture #yüzeykırığı #deprem #earthquake #Kahramanmaraş #Hatay #KIRIKHAN @AynurDikbas DoğacanÖzcan pic.twitter.com/p6Um1Dgk0D

— M. Korhan Erturaç (@mkorhanerturac) February 10, 2023

Satellite mapping of earthquake faults has become a powerful tool, especially in the era of @CopernicusEU #Sentinel1a. (#Sentinel1c cannot get up quick enough!) Smart work here from @NERC_COMET – a UK institution making good use of an EU resource! https://t.co/6wRnempIvA pic.twitter.com/NZP0l8FvqF

— Jonathan Amos (@BBCAmos) February 10, 2023

The worst seismic event of 20st century in Turkey, 1939 #Erzincan #earthquake, happened on North Anatolian Fault. Its magnitude (M~7.8-7.9) and rupture length (~350km) compare well with the Mw7.8 of past Monday on East Anatolian Fault, the other major fault of the system. 1/n pic.twitter.com/7r2mRH3Zrc

— Robin Lacassin – @RobinLacassin@qoto.org (@RLacassin) February 10, 2023

Expanded coverage of Turkey earthquake displacement from pixel tracking on Sentinel-2 imagery. Data are noisy around topography. Data including KMZs for Google Earth overlay are at: https://t.co/RFsxdPZeEr pic.twitter.com/t6dC8of86L

— COMET Datasets & Services (@COMET_database) February 10, 2023

Many factors contributed to making this event so deadly. Some were foreseeable, others bad luck. What can we do to mitigate the impacts of the next earthquake?

Something I wrote for the Anadolu News Agency in Turkey.https://t.co/RziBaPgd3C

— Dr. Judith Hubbard (@JudithGeology) February 10, 2023

Journalists: don't. stop. talking. about. Syria. The silence around my country is deafening, it has been for the last few years. People were living in the most dire of circumstances even before the earthquake.

— Rachelle Bonja (@rachellebonja) February 9, 2023

“…although the earthquakes themselves were natural, the devastation is in part man-made.”

In other words, there are no natural disasters. There are natural hazards that occur near human cities and towns that are vulnerable to those hazards, thus creating disasters. https://t.co/6wnnoQvVR8

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) February 10, 2023

Now that we have a quite complete vision of the offsets by satellite imagery, the performance of the fast automated slipmaps can be appraised. Slipmaps from single plane SLIPNEAR method were obtained and published the day of the earthquakes. Here compared to offsets by COMET (1) pic.twitter.com/pBUVC1Jz1y

— Bertrand Delouis (@BertrandDelouis) February 10, 2023

Geodetic slip model for the Turkey earthquake, which combines both M7.8 and M7.5 events. Data are Sentinel-1 range offsets from ascending 14 and descending 21 tracks. The estimated geodetic slip moment is 7.9872. pic.twitter.com/iKIJKBZ96H

— Zeyu Jin (@jzyjzy9) February 11, 2023

#EMSR648 #Earthquake in #Türkiye🇹🇷

Our #RapidMappingTeam has delivered its Grading Monitoring Product for the #Kahramanmaraş AoI using VHR 🛰️ imagery

9⃣2⃣7⃣ affected buildings🏚️ have been detected:
🔴286 destroyed
🟠185 damaged
🟡456 possibly damaged

🔗https://t.co/Rxfhj84v3R pic.twitter.com/miPkl6QGFL

— Copernicus EMS (@CopernicusEMS) February 10, 2023

The earth is going to quake, and we need to build the things around us accordingly. Enforcement of modern building regulations will save lives when major earthquakes strike. pic.twitter.com/dmKrcjeXX7

— Adam Pascale (@SeisLOLogist) February 10, 2023

Ölü Deniz Fayı Narlı Segmenti üzerinde gelişmiş olan yüzey kırıklarını ilişkin MTA tarafindan bulunan ilk bulgular#atag #deprem #jeoloji pic.twitter.com/etLIf4JYR9

— Hasan Elmacı (@arduvaz06) February 10, 2023

Earthquake prediction has been called, by people including me, the holy grail of seismology.
In fact the holy grail is more prosaic, and more attainable: understanding how the ground will shake in future earthquakes so buildings and infrastructure can be built appropriately
A 🧵

— Dr. Susan Hough 🦖 (@SeismoSue) February 11, 2023

California faces threat from the type of back-to-back mega-earthquakes that devastated Turkey https://t.co/2yTmFpmkmQ

— Ron Lin (@ronlin) February 8, 2023

This is, and it even has a section for non engineers. https://t.co/MbLXOvZZBW https://t.co/AiSz0PJKYQ

— Forrest Lanning (@rabidmarmot) February 11, 2023

California hasn't seen a catastrophic earthquake recently. But ‘quiet’ period won’t last

“We’ve had 7.8 earthquakes in our historic past. We’ve had a great run without them, but it’s important to be prepared for these possibilities in the future.” https://t.co/of46rmi1h1

— Ron Lin (@ronlin) February 7, 2023

1-Bu Türkiye'nin gördüğü en büyük ivmeli depremi değerli arkadaşlar. Üstelik tek bir noktada değil, kırık boyunca çok yüksek değerler. Düşünün ki 200mG değerleri bile hasar vermek için yeterli iken, bu depremde hemen her yerde 400mG'nin üzerinde. #deprem #hatay #Turkey #MARAS pic.twitter.com/ikf4qyQiWh

— Eşref Yalçınkaya (@eyalcinka) February 11, 2023

#EMSR648

We have just published a 🆕 Information Bulletin!

It details #CEMS activities related to the damage assessments performed in the aftermath of the disastrous #earthquake that struck #Türkiye 🇹🇷 on 6 February

5⃣3⃣ maps delivered in ~100h

More👉 https://t.co/hAVwDgCV2G pic.twitter.com/9478AmUwEP

— Copernicus EMS (@CopernicusEMS) February 10, 2023

Additionally, as @DrLucyJones has said, knowing that people are working on the science behind the event can sometimes be comforting to those experiencing it, because it can help them feel like the cause is less out of control if it is known and understood.

— Wendy Bohon, PhD 🌏 (@DrWendyRocks) February 11, 2023

❝24 saatten kısa bir süre içinde bu kadar büyük iki deprem neredeyse eşi benzeri görülmemiş bir olay❞

ABD’li sismolog Tobin, Kahramanmaraş merkezli, 10 ili etkileyen depremlerin büyüklüğünü ve yapısını AA’ya anlattı https://t.co/zkDmUmjXXO pic.twitter.com/AUO4d3Y2KC

— ANADOLU AJANSI (@anadoluajansi) February 9, 2023

Why the Earthquake in Turkey Was So Damaging and Deadly – Scientific American https://t.co/GY4xH9dFhs

— M. Teresa Ramírez-H. (@TeresaRamirezH) February 11, 2023

Bulevar Azerbaycan esquina con Bulevar Hükümet 2022/2023 #GoogleMaps

Ciudad de #Kahramanmaraş, #Turquia. 🇹🇷 pic.twitter.com/7CcBev4vlC

— Alejandro S. Méndez ⚒️ (@asalmendez) February 11, 2023

Kandilli's Disaster Preparedness Education Unit used to have a great handbook/resource on this but it looks like it's no longer available https://t.co/NXsKzPiqRE

— elizabeth (@kitabet@zirk.us) (@kitabet) February 11, 2023

ARIA Displacement maps from Copernicus Sentinel-1 track D21 acquired on 10 Feb. 2023 for Türkiye (Turkey) earthquakes are now released. Along-track and across-track displacement maps cover full length of both magnitude 7.8 and 7.5 quake ruptures. Online: https://t.co/1W1sMtatQd pic.twitter.com/Fj4Q0CTjEQ

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) February 12, 2023

Türkoğlu’nda 6 Şubat #deprem inin yüzey kırığı / Surface rupture of the 6 Faburary Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş #Earthquake at Türkoğlu @AktifTektonik @akyuz24 @HNK390978941 @KirkanErdem @asensabuncu Gursel Sunal, Nurettin Yakupoglu pic.twitter.com/CocbSjNKUm

— Cengiz Zabcı (@CengizZabci) February 11, 2023

Yeşilyurt köyü/Islahiye zeytin bahçesinde meydana gelen sol yanal ötelenme./ Sinistral offset that take place in an olive garden at Yeşilyurt village,İslahiye#Gaziantep #Islahiye #deprem #earthquake #Türkiye #surfacerupture #leftlateral pic.twitter.com/Yi96WASpeM

— OzdemirAlpay (@geodesist_a) February 11, 2023

Böyle bir deprem bekleniyor muydu? #AçıkveNetDepremÖzel'de @kubrapc sordu; Prof. Dr. Ziyadin Çakır yanıtladı: "Böyle bir deprem bekleniyordu. Fakat yıkımların büyük kısmı binaların depreme dayanıklı olmamasından kaynaklanıyor. Zeminler de uygun değildi." pic.twitter.com/e1pgBB2KK4

— Habertürk TV (@HaberturkTV) February 6, 2023

To try this for yourself, click the link below, wait for it a sec, then click & drag the slider right & left. You’ll see cities lit up at night before (more lights on) [left side] the earthquakes and after (darker due to power outages) [right side]. Black Marble via @NASAEarth 🛰️ pic.twitter.com/RF0hnirlCI

— Ken Hudnut 🌎 (@HudnutKen) February 11, 2023

#Hatay’ın Altınözü ilçesinde deprem sonrası tarlada 30 metre derinliğinde yarık meydana geldi.
IG: asayisberkemal34_ pic.twitter.com/1Iot7OZdyR

— 🗨️ Haber Seyret (@haberseyret) February 11, 2023

ARIA Damage Proxy Map (DPM) calculated from Copernicus Sentinel-1 track 21 (10 Feb. 2023) shows likely damage in many cities and some other surface changes that could be snow cover, flooding, or liquefaction. Data online at https://t.co/tRn9fvUmQM pic.twitter.com/hWdAtVBv9D

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) February 12, 2023

Sentinel-1 Ascending T14 POT Results
Code: https://t.co/X8UKYgT6Bq
Data:https://t.co/nPnPdi8Dsl (use in your own risk)
(just want to present something when you improved a 10hours-process to 10mins) pic.twitter.com/9BURDRzc00

— Yunmeng Cao (@yunmengCao) February 12, 2023

Security camera footage of the ground shaking in Maras. @mrbrianolson https://t.co/EU9fy8BqJi #gazetesozcu via @gazetesozcu

— Sinan Akciz (@snnkcz) February 11, 2023

#Sentinel-1 Ascending interferogram/LOS, Slant range pixel offsets displacement maps, and 3D displacement view (exaggerated) of the 06.02.2023 #Kahramanmaras #TurkeySyriaEarthquake . #InSAR data obtained from @NERC_COMET
/ @COMET_database @caglayanayse @ISIK_VEYSEL pic.twitter.com/PGWAz5eTMY

— Reza Saber (@Geo_Reza) February 10, 2023

TÜBİTAK 1002-C projesi kapsamında Prof. Dr. Semih Ergintav’ın yürütücü olduğu @YildizEdu @itu1773 ve @Kandilli_info’nin birlikte yaptıkları çalışmada arazide GNSS ölçümleri yapılacak noktaların kontrolleri devam etmektedir. @ProfHasanMandal @profugurdogan @ziyadin @sergintav pic.twitter.com/A4EieKcjto

— OzdemirAlpay (@geodesist_a) February 11, 2023

Wow! "30-meter-deep rift formed" after the #earthquake in #Türkiye | You can see the before/after situation between the 25th of January and 9th of February 2023. h/t @Rainmaker1973 pic.twitter.com/kjmfkSqZY9

— Iban Ameztoy (@i_ameztoy) February 11, 2023

A joint EERI-GEER advance reconnaissance team will join colleagues in the field in Turkey early next week. For more information about EERI's response to the Turkey/Syria earthquake, view the news post here: https://t.co/5uDyE6CJkj

— EERI (@EERI_tweets) February 11, 2023

Unfortunately the Turkish media interviewed many seismologists, not to learn from them but to reinforce the narrative that "the earthquake was too big to handle", despite the fact that the experts also underlined the negligence in applying the earthquake regulations. Shameful. pic.twitter.com/7BnGvg1jni

— Tugrulcan Elmas (T.j.) (@tugrulcanelmas) February 11, 2023

Approximate 3-meter shift in Hatay from Maxar satellite image. #earthquaketurkey #Geology #Türkiye 🇹🇷 pic.twitter.com/OGNBZAJM6b

— Abdülhamit Doğanay (@abdulhamid_hoca) February 12, 2023

Here is the latest mapping status and priority for the #OpenStreetMap #TurkeySyriaEarthquake response. Urgent projects: 14226, 14232, 14235, 14245, 14246.

Urgent projects in Syria have so far received less mapping and can use your attention! pic.twitter.com/K4Tulax2Bj

— Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (@hotosm) February 12, 2023

Coseismic displacements near the two faults are asymmetric, in part due to opposing motion between the two faults. This prelim. result is from Sentinel-1&2 offsets by @JinhongLiu4 here at #KAUST as a part of the CDI and @CES_KAUST group efforts. @KAUST_PSE @ESA_EO 1/5 pic.twitter.com/2fMdCWbSos

— Sigurjón (Sjonni) Jónsson (@Sjonni_KAUST) February 12, 2023

YOL YERLE BİR OLDU

Adıyaman-Şanlıurfa-Gaziantep Otoyolu'nun üzerinden geçen Köşeli köyünün yolunun yerle bir olması ve oluşan devasa çatlaklar depremin büyüklüğünü bir kez daha gösterdi. pic.twitter.com/BLu2ADfTLE

— Sabah (@sabah) February 12, 2023

10-11 Şubat saha çalışmalarını incelemek için; https://t.co/MMrzZTgvDm pic.twitter.com/k7rP283a56

— MTA Genel Müdürlüğü (@MTAGenelMd) February 12, 2023

Initial images from the major Turkey-Syria earthquakes this week show #landslide damage to 🛣️ roadways, writes @davepetley in The Landslide Blog. #AGUblogshttps://t.co/aImRbESyzi

— AGU (American Geophysical Union) (@theAGU) February 12, 2023

İlk andan itibaren Van YYÜ ve Alperen ekibi olarak bölgeye vardık, tabi ilk amaç afetzede olduğu için yolda yüzey kırığı ile ilgili çok kısa gözlem yapabildik.Ötelenme yaklaşık 3.5 metre. Anca paylasabildim @saglamselcuk @M_t_h_n_O_z_d_g @vanlinihathoca #depremzede #kahramamaras pic.twitter.com/sho0AqroRb

— sacit mutlu (@sacitmutlu65) February 12, 2023

UPDATE 13 February 2023

Preliminary mapping of fault rupture in Turkey earthquakes. Red lines are simplified fault traces based on radar images. Blue lines are detailed surface rupture mapped from high-res satellite imagery. Will be updated as more data become available. https://t.co/X5qaQwlbud pic.twitter.com/dEohrosSdP

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 13, 2023

Rupture (!) velocity of second sub-event of M7.8 earthquake. It looks equal to the S wave velocity. May be causing high amplitudes to the SW.@ALomaxNet #seismology #earthquaketurkey @AGUSeismology @EGU_Seismo @ntv @halktvcomtr @HaberturkTV @FOXhaber pic.twitter.com/eRnhU0cuP7

— Eşref Yalçınkaya (@eyalcinka) February 13, 2023

House on a fault! Result is not surprising. @firatresmihesap @fu_muh_1967 @AktifTektonik @paleoseismicity #earthquakeinturkey #earthquake @tsancar pic.twitter.com/rwnfBm3165

— Mehmet Köküm (@KokumMehmet) February 13, 2023

Map of the seismic activity of February 6, 2023, near the Turkey –Syria border. Picture from @Prof_QuakeMod (CES Group) and @Sjonni_KAUST (CDI Group) professors of Earth Science and Engineering Program.

Read the full article here – https://t.co/EAWFPSVyMV pic.twitter.com/VtcMzgcFEg

— KAUST Earth Science and Engineering Program (ErSE) (@KAUST_ErSE) February 13, 2023

#CCMEO’s EGS team used #RADARSAT-2 imagery to assess displacement as a result of the #earthquake in Turkey and Syria. The map shows more than 3m displacement along the fault line. https://t.co/abvBZLhOkz. Follow @csa_asc and @DisastersChart for updates. pic.twitter.com/6gq218aTOt

— Eric Loubier (@LoubierEric) February 10, 2023

Well-constrained locations of the 2800+ aftershocks computed by @DepremDairesi. They delinate a complex faults system.#turkeyearthquake pic.twitter.com/YD3m3Dclsu

— Gilles Mazet-Roux (@gmazet) February 13, 2023

An interferogram showing the coseismic surface displacement in the area near #Gaziantep, generated from multiple @CopernicusEU #Sentinel1 scans – before & after the Türkiye–Syria earthquakes.
It reveals a large-scale deformation between Maras and Antakya: https://t.co/7fU1Zy6b6j pic.twitter.com/IoEefwvNYS

— ESA EarthObservation (@ESA_EO) February 13, 2023

On the Blog: Measuring horizontal ground deformations of the Turkey-Syria earthquakes with @CopernicusEU Sentinel-2 images from Jan 25 (pre-) & Feb 9 (post-) 2023

Products generated on GEP by CNRS/EOST & ESA/SAT using the @ForMaTerre service GDM-OPT-ETQhttps://t.co/YaUhK4gFDv

— Geohazards Exploitation Platform (@esa_gep) February 13, 2023

My first slip model of the #TurkeySyriaEarthquakes, from #Sentinel1 range and azimuth offsets. It is very preliminary, and needs considerable refinement. Slip is higher on the northern fault, as other models and data have shown. Dips/rakes from the @USGS_Quakes W-phase solution. pic.twitter.com/jucjdbqcyo

— Dr Gareth Funning (@gfun) February 13, 2023

https://t.co/gh6l3JVRKg

— Harold Tobin (@Harold_Tobin) February 13, 2023

Building codes need to be enforced and know they don’t address existing buildings, which makes up most cities. #retrofit #earthquake pic.twitter.com/AhWCRGSs2T

— Forrest Lanning (@rabidmarmot) February 13, 2023

With help from Prof. Ugur Sanli, #gnss data has been obtained from some @tusaga_actif network stations near the epicenters of the recent #TurkeySyriaEarthquakes. Solutions are available at https://t.co/dHMpWbkpQV. Coseismic displacements from 5 minute samples shown below. pic.twitter.com/ckBf9hzLx7

— Nevada Geodetic Laboratory (@NVGeodeticLab) February 13, 2023

We are moving from Türkoğlu towards Gölbaşı. Offset amount is increasing. S of Kahramanmaraş, nearly 5 m offset. @AktifTektonik @CengizZabci @gulsen_ucarkus @ersenma @KirkanErdem @HNK390978941 @asensabuncu Gursel Sunal, Nurettin Yakupoglu pic.twitter.com/FclrVPPrMS

— H. Serdar Akyüz (@akyuz24) February 12, 2023

This is crazy! 🤯 We used @ASFHyP3 and AutoRIFT, the ITS_LIVE glacier tracking software, to map the displacement from the #turkeyearthquake with incredible fidelity.

Graphic by Alex Gardner, @NASAJPL pic.twitter.com/iLhhk8s6r3

— Joseph H. Kennedy (@aJollyAdventure) February 11, 2023

Also, below are the peak ground accelerations (PGAs) measured from all available stations in Antakya during each of these three earthquakes.

Both spectral and PGAs are above design and maximum considered earthquake levels during the first quake. pic.twitter.com/dPETA8MmWW

— Osman E. Ozbulut (@OsmanEOzbulut) February 13, 2023

Saha incelemelerimiz devam etmektedir. 12-13 Şubat saha çalışmalarını incelemek için; https://t.co/MMrzZTgvDm pic.twitter.com/pXHQTzgqDd

— MTA Genel Müdürlüğü (@MTAGenelMd) February 13, 2023

UPDATE: 14 February 2023

The @Fault2SHA #POQER group is created for organizing further post-#earthquake response in Euro-Med region.
The goal is to promote international cooperation & achieve homogenized geological datasets useful to the Earth Sci and Seismic hazard communities.https://t.co/XF8yMiYtk0

— Stéphane Baize (@Stef_EQ_Geology) February 14, 2023

Fault scarp on the East Anatolian Fault.@tsancar @firatresmihesap @fu_muh_1967 @AktifTektonik @paleoseismicity #EarthquakeTurkeySyria pic.twitter.com/nB9P30jtzG

— Mehmet Köküm (@KokumMehmet) February 14, 2023

The 11-year-old Syrian girl Lina and her mother were rescued after spending 160 hours under the rubble. Turkish rescuers worked 10 hours until they were able to reach them. #earthquakeinturkey #earthquakeinsyria pic.twitter.com/t83GCQavUd

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) February 14, 2023

Preliminary mapping of fault rupture in #Türkiye earthquakes updated 13 February 2023. Red lines are simplified fault traces based on satellite radar data. Blue lines are detailed surface rupture mapped from high-res satellite images. https://t.co/X5qaQwlbud pic.twitter.com/BvQF2jzPvU

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 14, 2023

Coulomb stress change for #Turkeyquake using new finite fault model results from @USGS_Quakes. Stress change from all FFM slip resolved onto M7.5 sections (from FFM) receivers. As in earlier results, only the section where M7.5 nucleated has positive change. pic.twitter.com/1LIJxp6kv9

— Michael Bunds (@cataclasite) February 15, 2023

Satellite data show how close the Mw 6.8 that occurred back in 2020 (orange-purple colors) was with the recent Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.5 (red-blue) in Turkey. Only a ~55 km gap exists along the same fault between them. Was this unexpected?

N.B. difference in scale and disp. (1/n) 🧵 pic.twitter.com/NWCIYZZsK5

— Dr. Chris Milliner (@Geo_GIF) February 15, 2023

Updated finite fault models for #Türkiye M7.8 & M7.5 EQs now constrained by seismic & geodetic data https://t.co/hCAE6wtjtm, https://t.co/CK9bX6wo10. Fault geometries from surface rupture mapping of satellite images & radar pixel tracking.
More on FFMs: https://t.co/iPjLVbzyZt pic.twitter.com/ZRq8k30a4s

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) February 14, 2023

References:

Basic & General References

• Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
• Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
• Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
• Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
• Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
• Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
• Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
• Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
• Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
• Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
• Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
• Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

Specific References

• Aktug, B., Ozener, H., Dogru, A., Sabuncu, A., Turgut, B., Halicioglu, K., Yilmaz, O., Havazli, E.,Slip rates and seismic potential on the East Anatolian Fault System using an improved GPS velocity field, Journal of Geodynamics (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2016.01.001
• Armijo, R., Meyer, B., Hubert, A., and Barka, A., 1999. Westward propagation of the North Anatolian fault into the northern Aegean: Timing and kinematics in Geology, v. 27, no. 3, p. 267-270
• Basili R., G. Valensise, P. Vannoli, P. Burrato, U. Fracassi, S. Mariano, M.M. Tiberti, E. Boschi (2008), The Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), version 3: summarizing 20 years of research on Italy’s earthquake geology, Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.04.014
• Brun, J.-P., Sokoutis, D., 2012. 45 m.y. of Aegean crust and mantle flow driven by trench retreat. Geol. Soc. Am., v. 38, p. 815–818.
• Bulut, F., M. Bohnhoff, T. Eken, C. Janssen, T. Kılıç, and G. Dresen (2012), The East Anatolian Fault Zone: Seismotectonic setting and spatiotemporal characteristics of seismicity based on precise earthquake locations, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B07304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008966.
• Caputo, R., Chatzipetros, A., Pavlides, S., and Sboras, S., 2012. The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS): state-of-the-art for northern Greece in Annals of Geophysics, v. 55, no. 5, doi: 10.4401/ag-5168
• Dilek, Y., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
• Dilek, Y. and Sandvol, E., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
• DISS Working Group (2015). Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.2.0: A compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas. http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia; DOI:10.6092/INGV.IT-DISS3.2.0.
• Duman, T.Y. and Emre, O., 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics in Geological Society of London, Special Publications, v. 372, doi: 10.1144/SP372.14
• Ersoy, E.Y., Cemen, I., Helvaci, C., and Billor, Z., 2014. Tectono-stratigraphy of the Neogene basins in Western Turkey: Implications for tectonic evolution of the Aegean Extended Region in Tectonophysics v. 635, p. 33-58.
• Ferry, M., Meghraoui, M., Karaki, N.A., Al-Taj, M., Khalil, L., 2011. Episodic Behavior of the Jordan Valley Section of the Dead Sea Fault Inferred from a 14-ka-Long Integrated Catalog of Large Earthquakes in bSSA, v. 101, no. 1., p. 39-67, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100097
• Gülerce, Z., Shah, S.T., Menekşe, A, Menekşe, A.A., Kaymakci, N., and Çetin, K.Ö., 2017. Probabilistic Seismic‐Hazard Assessment for East Anatolian Fault Zone Using Planar Fault Source Models in BSSA, v. 107, no. 5, p. 2353-2366, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170009
• Jenkins, Jennifer, Turner, Bethan, Turner, Rebecca, Hayes, G.P., Sinclair, Alison, Davies, Sian, Parker, A.L., Dart, R.L., Tarr, A.C., Villaseñor, Antonio, and Benz, H.M., compilers, 2013, Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2010 Middle East and vicinity (ver 1.1, Jan. 28, 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1083-K, scale 1:7,000,000, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1083/k/.
• Jolivet, L., et al., 2013. Aegean tectonics: Strain localisation, slab tearing and trench retreat in Tectonophysics, v. 597-598, p. 1-33
• Kokkalas, S., et al., 2006. Postcollisional contractional and extensional deformation in the Aegean region in GSA Special Papers, v. 409, p. 97-123.
• Kurt, H., Demirbag, E., and Kuscu, I., 1999. Investigation of the submarine active tectonism in the Gulf of Gokova, southwest Anatolia–southeast Aegean Sea, by multi-channel seismic reflection data in Tectonophysics, v. 305, p. 477-496
• Lin, X., J. Hao, D.Wang, R. Chu, X. Zeng, J. Xie, B. Zhang, and Q. Bai (2020). Coseismic Slip Distribution of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 Doganyol Earthquake and in Relation to the Foreshock and Aftershock Activities, Seismol. Res. Lett. 92, 127–139, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200152
• Papazachos, B.C., Papadimitrious, E.E., Kiratzi, A.A., Papazachos, C.B., and Louvari, E.k., 1998. Fault Plane Solutions in the Aegean Sea and the Surrounding Area and their Tectonic Implication, in Bollettino Di Geofisica Terorica Ed Applicata, v. 39, no. 3, p. 199-218.
• Reitman, Nadine G, Richard W. Briggs, William D. Barnhart, Jessica A. Thompson Jobe, Christopher B. DuRoss, Alexandra E. Hatem, Ryan D. Gold, and John D. Mejstrik (2023) Preliminary fault rupture mapping of the 2023 M7.8 and M7.5 Türkiye Earthquakes. https://doi.org/10.5066/P985I7U2
• Taymaz, T., Yilmaz, Y., and Dilek, Y., 2007. The geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia: introduction in Geological Society Special Publications, v. 291, p. 1-16.
• Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Özbakir, A. D., Gonzalez-Huizar, H., Sevilgen, V., Lotto, G., and Sevilgen, S., 2023, Stress change calculations provide clues to aftershocks in 2023 Türkiye earthquakes, Temblor, http://doi.org/10.32858/temblor.295
• Wouldloper, 2009. Tectonic map of southern Europe and the Middle East, showing tectonic structures of the western Alpide mountain belt. Only Alpine (tertiary) structures are shown.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

• Sorted by Magnitude
• Sorted by Year
• Sorted by Day of the Year
• Sorted By Region