The estimation of seismic hazards in Eastern

Turkey and its surrounding area by statistical

approaches
Fatma Figen Altınoğlu (  faltinoglu@pau.edu.tr )
Pamukkale University
Gulten Polat
Yeditepe University

Research Article

Keywords: Seismicity, Generalized Poisson Regression Model, Generalized Negative Binomial Regression
Model, b-value, Eastern Anatolia

Posted Date: July 14th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3149349/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Page 1/29
Abstract
In this study, a complete set of 19933 earthquake data in the depth range from 1 to 30 km from 12
December 1905 to 30 September 2022 was collected and analysed by using the Gutenberg–Richter (GR)
earthquake frequency magnitude relationship approach to determine b-value and completeness
magnitude (Mc). The size scaling b- and a-values for the overall catalogue were estimated as 0.82 ± 0.01
and 5.452, respectively. The Mc for the entire investigated region was estimated to be equal to 1.9. The
observed low b-values were most likely related to differential crustal stress and strain produced by large
faults located in the study region. It means that the region is prone to destructive and massive earth-
quakes with high magnitudes. Statistical seismic hazard analysis methods including Gutenberg-Richter
Law (GR) and Generalized Poisson Regression (GPR) were also used to detect earthquake occurrence
intervals and recurrence periods. The results indicated that the GPR model is consistent with the GR
model for intermediate-magnitude earthquakes. However, this coherence between the models is not valid
for big earthquakes (Mw ≥ 7). According to the GR and GPR models, the return period of a magnitude 7
earthquake is 106.83 and 94.0347 years, respectively. The models used in the study confirm the expected
and Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes on 6 February, 2023 because this region had not produced a
magnitude 7 earthquake since 1893.

Introduction
The tectonic structure and seismicity of the area are of great importance in determining suitable
settlement areas for cities. Throughout history, Turkey has experienced many devastating earthquakes,
such as the August 17, 1999 earthquake. Especially in regions with high seismic activity, it is important to
determine the seismic risk of the region based on earthquake data that occurred in the region. In addition,
the number of possible earthquakes in the future and the risk of their occurrence should be determined in
determining the seismic risk when selecting safety residential areas. On February 6, 2023, catastrophic
earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 and 7.6 struck the regions of southern and central Turkey and the north
and west of Syria. These earthquakes destroyed 10 major cities in Turkey. More than 49 thousand people
died as a result of these earthquakes.

As mentioned before, such devastating earthquakes are mainly produced by the North Anatolian Fault
Zone (NAFZ) and the Eastern Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) in Turkey. The EAFZ is a NE-directed, left-
lateral strike-slip fault system extending for approximately 450 km between Karlıova District and Hatay
(Fig. 1a). It is the largest tectonic member after the NAFZ in the Anatolian plate. The EAFZ forms the
border of the Anatolian plate with the Arabian plate, which is moving to the northeast at a speed of about
10–11 mm/year (Cetin et al. 2003; Reilinger et al. 2006) and its total offset is about 15–30 km (Moreno
et al. 2011). Since 1868 this region has not experienced serious earthquake with magnitudes greater than
7. It indicates that the fault has been relatively quiet seismically in the long time. As a result of this, it has
mostly been overlooked. This long silence may be a manifestation of future seismic activity (e.g., Duman
and Emre 2013).

Page 2/29
As mentioned earlier, such devastating earthquakes are mainly caused by the North Anatolian Fault Zone
(NAFZ) and the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) in Turkey. The EAFZ is a NE -directed, left-lateral strike-
slip fault system that extends for about 450 km between the Karlıova district and Hatay (Fig. 1a). It is the
largest tectonic unit of the Anatolian plate after the NAFZ. The EAFZ forms the boundary between the
Anatolian plate and the Arabian plate, which moves north-eastward at a rate of about 10–11 mm/year
(Cetin et al. 2003; Reilinger et al. 2006), and its total offset is about 15–30 km (Moreno et al. 2011). Since
1868, there has not been a major earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7 in this region, indicating
that the fault has been relatively seismically quiet for a long period of time. This long silence could be an
indication of future seismic activity (e.g., Duman and Emre 2013).

The actual seismic potential of the EAFZ has been seriously discussed in many studies after the Elazığ
magnitude 6.8 earthquake in 2020 (e.g., Pousse-Beltran et al. 2020; Ragon et al. 2020; Tatar et al. 2020;
Akguen and İnceoez 2021). The EAFZ, which forms the southern boundary of the Anatolian Plate with the
Arabian Plate, joins the NAFZ at Bingöl-Karlıova. The faults are mainly formed by the collision of the
Arabian and Eurasian plates along the Bitlis-Zagros suture zone. The collision system strongly dominated
the neotectonic evolution of the eastern Anatolian region (Fig. 1a). However, the deep Arabian lithosphere
does not underlie Anatolia, as indicated by a study using an S-wave receiver (Angus et al. 2006). Rather,
according to GPS data collected by Reilinger et al. (2006), this fault zone is associated with a
predominantly leftward strike-slip motion. It appears that the Arabian and Anatolian plates meet at the
left-lateral eastern Anatolian fault. Although the fault is associated with discontinuities, there are locally
transtensional and compressional deformations. Furthermore, Kind et al. (2015) used S-receiver function
method to investigate variations of lithospheric thickness below the entire region of Turkey and
surrounding areas. They did not observe changes in the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary depths
between 80 and 100 km depths across the North and East Anatolian faults. To the east of Cyprus, we see
indications of the Arabian lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary. The African plate is observed down to
about 150 km depth subducting to the north and east between the Aegean and Cyprus with a tear at
Cyprus. We also observed the discontinuity at 410 km depth and a negative discontinuity above the 410,
which might indicate a zone of partial melt above this discontinuity.

The Bitlis-Pütürge thrust zone and the eastern Anatolian high plateau are parts of the oceanic and
continental crust that were compressed and shortened by the interaction of the Arabian and Eurasian
plates. Strong strike-slip faults on the right-lateral NAFZ and the left-lateral EAFZ, which intersect at
Karlıova, contribute to the westward tectonic escape of the Anatolian plate in conjunction with this
collision and contraction zone (Elitok and Dolmaz 2011). The region where these two tectonic belts meet
is the area of greatest stress in relation to plate movements in Turkey. The strain originating from the
Arabian plate, which intrudes from the south, and the Anatolian plate, which moves westward along the
NAFZ and EAFZ boundaries, generate the greatest stresses at this location (Allen et al. 2004). In this
sense, the EAFZ and NAFZ together form the other boundary of the Anatolian plate.

Before the instrumental period, the study area and its surroundings were subjected to numerous
destructive earthquakes. The historical earthquakes with magnitude greater than 7 are listed in Table 1.
Page 3/29
This high seismic activity continues to this day. The best evidence of this high seismic activity is that the
Pazarcık and the Elbistan earthquakes that occurred in the districts of the Kahramanmaraş on 6 February
2023. These earthquakes caused the death of more than 49 thousand people and destroyed thousands
of houses. In the instrumental period, the 1971 Bingöl and 2020 Elazığ - Sivrice earthquakes occurred
with a magnitude of 6.5 (Ms) in the EAFZ, which borders the Anatolian Plate from the south (Fig. 1b).
Demirtaş and Erkmen (2019) propounded that an earthquake ought to be expected on the parts of Sivrice
that continued in the NE or SW of the EAFZ.

Page 4/29
 Table 1
Major earthquakes which occurred in the study region and the surrounding area (from
https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/event-historical)
Time Latitude Longitude Magnitude Historical Place
(yyyy.mm.dd) (deg) (deg) Magnitude

0240-01-01 38.32 38.25 9 IX Kayseri, Malatya,

Sivas

0679-04-03 36.37 37.51 9 IX Şanlıurfa

0817-08-01 38.31 39.03 7 VII Malatya)

1003-03-21 36.37 37.51 8 VIII Urfa

1037-12-18 36.37 37.51 7 VII Urfa

1045-04-05 39.75 39.5 9 IX Erzincan

1046-07-08 39 40 10 X Diyarbakir, Elazığ

1068-01-01 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1137-11-01 36.2 37.15 9 X Mezapotamya

1161-01-01 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1168-01-01 39.7 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1236-01-01 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1254-10-11 40 39 8 VIII Erzincan, Sivas-

1287-05-06 39.75 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1289-01-01 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1374-12-08 39.74 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1419-03-26 39.75 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1457-04-23 39.75 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1482-11-01 39.75 39.5 9 IX Erzincan, Erzurum

1535-01-01 39.8 39.31 7 VII Erzincan

1544-01-22 38 37 8 VIII Zeytun,Elbistan -

Maraş

1575-11-05 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1579-01-01 39.75 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1583-06-27 39.75 39.5 8 VII-VIII Erzincan

1584-06-17 39.75 39.5 9 IX Erzincan, Erzurum

Page 5/29
 Time Latitude Longitude Magnitude Historical Place
(yyyy.mm.dd) (deg) (deg) Magnitude

1666-11-24 39.75 39.5 8 VIII Erzincan

1754-09-01 39.23 37.39 7 VII Kangal

1779-03-14 38.35 38.3 8 VIII Malatya

1789-05-28 38.7 39.9 8 VIII Palu

1856-01-16 39.35 39.21 8 VIII Ovacık-Tunceli

1866-07-22 38.4 39.4 8 VIII Hazar Lake,

Elazığ

1874-05-03 38.5 39.5 8 X Elazığ, Diyarbakır

1888-06-21 39.75 39.5 7 VII Erzincan

1890-05-26 39.9 38.8 9 IX Refahiye-

Erzincan

1893-03-02 37.03 37.24 9 IX Malatya

The very last seismic gaps probably formed between the Elazığ and Bingöl. It is critical to determine
where gaps comprise and what type of earthquake behaviour the zone will exhibit in the near future to
ensure the seismic safety of cities and key infrastructure along the EAFZ. The seismic velocity change
along the zone will help define the earthquake behaviour (Jordan et al. 2011; Şahin and Öksüm 2021).
One of the most important earthquakes that have occurred in the EAFZ in the past is the Antakya
earthquake of 1822 (Ms = 7.5), which caused a surface rupture about 200 km long (Demirtaş and Erkmen
2019). The Karlıova-Bingöl earthquake of 1866 (Ms = 7.2) had a surface rupture of about 45 km. The
Bingöl earthquake of May 22, 1971 (Ms = 6.8) occurred on the same fault.

The historical periods of the earthquakes are respectively; the 1872 Amik Lake Earthquake (Ms = 7.2, with
approximately 20 km surface rupture) the 1874 and 1875 Hazar Lake Earthquakes (Ms = 7.1 and Ms = 6.7
with 45 and 20 km surface ruptures, respectively) and the 1893 Malatya Earthquake (Ms = 7.1) (Kartal
and Kadiroğlu 2013; Demirtaş and Erkmen 2019). The EAFZ, which has a deeper seismogenic zone
compared to the NAFZ, produces earthquakes reaching depths of approximately 26 km (Bulut et al. 2012)
which started from the NE end of the EAFZ and continued towards SW. Considering the ongoing
earthquake activity on the EAFZ and final the 2010 Kovancılar - Elazığ earthquake (Mw = 6.1).

The historical time periods of the earthquakes are the Amik Lake earthquake of 1872 (Ms = 7.2, with a
surface rupture of about 20 km), the Hazar Lake earthquakes of 1874 and 1875 (Ms = 7.1 and Ms = 6.7
with surface ruptures of 45 and 20 km, respectively), and the Malatya earthquake of 1893 (Ms = 7.1)
(Kartal and Kadiroğlu 2013; Demirtaş and Erkmen 2019). The EAFZ, which has a deeper seismogenic
zone compared to the NAFZ, generates earthquakes that reach a depth of about 26 km (Bulut et al. 2012),
originating from the NE end of the EAFZ and continuing toward SW. Considering the ongoing earthquake
Page 6/29
activity in the EAFZ and the last earthquake was the Kovancılar-Elazığ earthquake with a magnitude of
Mw = 6.1) on 2010

The catastrophic earthquakes of February 6, 2023 show that the EAFZ has a great potential for
devastating earthquakes, similar to the NAFZ. Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon; we must learn to
live in such regions with seismic activity. All geoscientists currently agree that it is impossible to
accurately determine the time and location of earthquakes. However, it is possible to minimise the
economic consequences of a devastating earthquake and reduce the earthquake hazard to the
population and residential areas if the seismic hazard of a region is correctly assessed. To accurately
estimate the seismic hazard of a region, statistical methods are generally useful because they provide
valuable information about the frequency and recurrence of earthquakes. The objective of this study is to
estimate the seismic hazard risk of the Eastern Anatolia region using statistical methods. Statistical
methods of seismic hazard analysis, including Gutenberg-Richter law (GR) and generalized Poisson
regression (GPR), were used to estimate the intervals of earthquake occurrence and return periods. In this
way, the probability and return period of a large earthquake can be estimated and provide valuable
information for the earthquake hazard reduction program applied by local authorities.

Data
Throughout history, many serious earthquakes occurred in the study region located in 360-400 E
longitudes and 370-400 N latitudes (Fig. 2). Therefore, seismic hazard analysis for the region becomes
important to reduce earthquake hazards. For the seismic hazard analysis, a complete data set of 28536
earthquakes in the depth range from 1 to 160 km (Fig. 2) from 12 December 1905 to 30 September 2022
were collected from the Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute,
Regional Earthquake-Tsunami Monitoring Center (KOERI-RETMC). The events were confined in the depth
range between 1 and 30 km (Fig. 3a). Therefore, 8603 suspicious events, such as artificial events caused
by mines, were removed from this catalogue. Events with magnitude changes from greater than 1 to 3
can be seen in Fig. 3b. From 1905 to 2000, only magnitude 4 or greater earthquakes appear in the
catalogue (Fig. 3c) due to the lack of sufficient recording seismic stations in the study area. In this time
span, the depth range of the events mostly varied from 5 to 20 km. The number of lower magnitude
events varying from greater than 1 and smaller than 4 gradually increased since 2000 due to the increase
in the number of seismic stations deployed in the study region (Fig. 3c). This indicates that the region is
seismically very active in the present.

In order to express the paths followed in this study more clearly, it was shown over the flow diagram
(Fig. 4). To construct a homogeneous and complete earthquake catalogue for this study region,
conversion equations between moment magnitude and the other magnitude scales (md: Duration
magnitude, ML: Local (Richter) magnitude, mb: Body wave magnitude, Ms: Surface wave magnitude, and
M: General magnitude (unreported type)) were created by using the general orthogonal regression (GOR)
method (e.g., Tan 2021). Number of seismic events with magnitudes with zero and non-zero values are
listed in Table 2.
Page 7/29
 Table 2
The number of seismic events with magnitudes with zero and non-zero
values for the raw catalogue.
(a) Number of magnitudes with zero and non-zero values in the catalogue

Md ML mb Ms Mw M

=0 20379 8121 28284 28434 27579 0

≠0 8167 20415 252 102 957 28536

(b) Number of magnitude pairs with non-zero values

Md, Mw ML, Mw Mb, Mw Ms, Mw M, Mw

≠0 83 954 83 84 83

In the equation form of y = a · x + b, the slope (a) and intercept (b) of the GOR model defined are
calculated as follows:

2 2 2 2 2
(S − ηS + √(S − ηS ) + 4ηS
Y X Y X XY

a =
2S XY

(2)
b = mean (Y ) − a ∗ mean (X)

2 (3)
η = ( σϵX
)
σϵY

In Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), the covariances of dependent (Y), independent (X) variables and between the
2 2 2
variables are denoted with SY , SX and SXY (i.e., Castellaro et al., 2006; Das et al. 2014; Tan 2021),
respectively. The error variance ratio η of s is given in Eq. 3.

In Eq. 3, η (error variance ratio) was calculated by the square of the ratio between the dependent (σεY)
and independent variables (σεX). In this study, η was taken as 1 due to squared Euclidean distance (Tan

Page 8/29
2021). The results obtained from the GOR model are listed in Table 3. The conversion relation between
ML and Mw pair was determined by the GOR model (Fig. 5).

Table 3
Equivalent moment magnitude (Mw∗) relations acquired from different magnitude scales.
Relation Amount of Data Magnitude Range 2
a b R

0.011814 + 1.04156Md 83 4-7.2 0.972

M w∗ = a. M d + b

-0.171511 + 1.061679ML 954 2.-7.2 0.957

M w∗ = a. M L + b

-0.541248 + 1.151877mb 83 4-7.1 0.961

M w∗ = a. mb + b

1.116053 + 0.814498Ms 84 3.6–7.9 0.963

M w∗ = a. M s + b

0.011814 + 1.041560M 83 2.1–7.9 0.972

M w∗ = a. M + b

The number of earthquakes with magnitude ML-Mw pairs is larger than other pairs as seen in Table 3.
Therefore, for making the event catalogue homogeneous, the conversion equation Mw*=-0.171511 +
1.061679ML, acquired from the pairs was used. Then, the homogenous catalogue was analyzed with the
Gutenberg–Richter law to determine seismic parameters consisting of b-values and magnitude of
completeness (Mc). The Gutenberg-Richer law is the relationship between frequency of earthquake
occurrences and magnitude distributions (FMD). This relationship is defined with this formula:

LogN (Mmin) = a-bM (4)

where a- and b -values refer to the level of seismic activity and the slope of the frequency magnitude
distribution, respectively. The cumulative number of earthquakes with a magnitude of Mw* is represented
with N in the formula. A fractal relation between frequency of occurrence and the radiated energy
approaches were considered as determining the Gutenberg-Richter b value because of a general ‘fractal’
dimension of earthquake magnitude (e.g., Aki 1981) in spite of being a Haussdorff dimension. The a-
value varies depending on the region because it depends on some parameters including the seismic
activity level, the period of observation, the size of the earthquake, and the size and stress level of the
area (Gutenberg and Richter 1944; Allen 1986). However, b-value changes as a function of differential
stress caused by the study region. This relationship between the b-value and stress is not proportional
(Scholz 1968; Imoto 1991).

Page 9/29
Before applying the GR model, seismicity declustering (Reasenberg 1985) was applied to remove
foreshocks and aftershocks from the mainshocks. This approach is widely used for seismic hazard
assessment and in earthquake prediction models to keep earthquakes that are independent of all
preceding earthquakes. To estimate the mentioned seismic parameters (Mc, b- and a-values), the ZMAP
software package (Wiemer 2001) was applied to the final seismic event catalogue comprised of 12770
events because 7163 events including only foreshocks and aftershocks were removed from the complete
seismicity catalogue including 19933 events.

The maximum likelihood method based on Aki (1965) was used to estimate b-value in the study.
According to the Frequency-Magnitude Distribution, Gutenberg-Richter relation was found logN = 5.452–
0.82M. The size scaling b- and a-values for the declustering catalogue were estimated as 0.82 and 5.452,
respectively (Fig. 5). In addition, the completeness magnitude (Mc) from this analysis was determined as
1.9 (Fig. 6).

The Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude relation states that the b-value is another power-law
distribution of earthquakes (Gutenberg and Richter 1944). By calculating the b-value, it is possible to offer
a fractal correlation between earthquake frequency and seismic energy, moment, or fault length. The b-
values can be related to the properties of the seismogenic structures and the stress changes in space,
time, and depth in addition to reflecting the relative proportion of minor and major earthquakes (Mogi
1967; Mori and Abercrombie 1997; Wyss et al. 2001). An earthquake that is severe or massive is likely to
happen if the b-value in that area is trending downward (Prasad and Singh 2015). As a result, the b-value,
which represents the size distribution of seismic waves, is one of the most well-known seismicity
characteristics. The b values were also spatially mapped to provide detailed information about the
seismotectonic situation in the investigated region. The mapping of b values was performed in a 2km ×
2km grid, selecting the nearest 150 events in each node and 50 events of the minimum number and Mc
correction factor to be 0.2 (Fig. 6a) because the standard deviation of the mapped values averaged
between 0.15 and 0.2 (Sagar and Leonard 2007).

Thus, b-values were computed at every grid node within a radius containing a constant number of events.
By using the method, the radius changing as a function of the earthquake density in space was provided.
Such studies, the density of seismic events and the grid nodes strongly influence resolution of b-value
maps. For this, a small grid node spacing was preferred.

The Seismic Hazard Analysis

Generally, seismic hazard analysis is required for some regions which have high seismic activity. For a
seismic hazard analysis, statistical methods are usually preferred because they are useful for earthquake
occurrence intervals and recurrence periods. In this study, two methods were also used for this purpose.
One of the methods is the Gutenberg–Richter law given in Eq. (1). This method was successfully used for
such studies (e.g., Kara and Durukan 2017). For the method’s application, a new data set was constructed
from the final catalogue. Only 223 earthquake records with a magnitude of Mw ≥ 4.0 (this magnitude

Page 10/29
values acquired from the KOERI catalogue) were selected in the time span from 1905 to 30 September
2022. The selected events are listed in Table 4.

The GR model represented in Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

(𝑀min) = 10𝑎-𝑏𝑀 (5)

Up to now, studies related to seismic hazard analysis indicated that the Eq. 5 is used to determine the
annual average number of earthquakes at a given time (i.e., (𝑀≥𝑀min) (e.g., Alptekin 1978; Euis 2018).
In addition to the GR model, Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) (De Jong and Heller 2008) consisting of
Generalized Poisson Regression was used for the seismic hazard analysis. This method was
successfully applied to studies about seismic hazard analysis (Kalyoncuoğlu et al. 2006; Ünal et al. 2014;
Kara and Durukan 2017). Detailed information about the applicability of the model in this type of study is
available in Kara and Durukan (2017). Therefore, the statistical tests (e.g., the dispersion parameters and
model selection criteria) of the applicability of the methods were not per-formed again here. In the GR
modelling, normal distribution is preferred because it is suitable to 𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑁 frequency data. In the GPR
modelling, the Poisson distribution was used due to the fact that the Poisson distribution is suitable to
𝐿𝑛𝑁 frequency data. Earthquake parameters consisting of 𝑎, 𝑎′, 𝑎1 and 𝑎1′ for the three models were
calculated. The equations for the calculations are given in Table 5

Table 5
Earthquake parameter equations used in the two models.
Gutenberg–Richter (GR) Generalized Poisson Regression (GPR)

′ ′
a = a − Log (bLn10) a = a − Ln (bLn10)

a1 = a − Log (t) a1 = a − Ln (t)

′ ′
a1 = a′ − Log (t) a1 = a′ − Ln (t)

In these equations, the investigated time period is represented with t (year) and a' indicating the
relationship between normal and cumulative frequency. In this study, due to data covering the time span
from 1905 to 2022, the time span was taken as 117 years. The maps of magnitude-frequency relation
estimated by the GP and the GPR models are indicated in Fig. 8. The relationship for the GR was found
LogN = 7.406–1.0M. The estimated b- and a-values for the GR method were 1.0 and 7.406, respectively.
Moreover, the relationship for the GPR was found LnN = 15.430–1.959M. The estimated b- and a-values
for the GPR method were 1.959 and 15.430, respectively (Fig. 8). The obtained results from the
calculations for the two models are listed in Table 6.
Page 11/29
 Table 6
Earthquake parameters for the study area obtained from the
GR and GPR models.
Models a b a
′ a1 ′
a1

GR 7.406 1.0 7.0437 5.338 4.976

GPR 15.430 1.959 13.924 10.668 9.162

For the GR and GPR models, the probability of occurrence of earthquakes R(𝑀) and recurrence period
Q(𝑇) for 𝑇 years (Ünal et al. 2014) were estimated in the study. In the models, seismic activities were
assumed as independent events. The Eq. (6) and Eq. (7) given below were used for the GR and GPR
models as calculating R(M) and Q(T), respectively.
′
(a1 −bM )
n (M ) = 10

6
and
′
(a1 −bM )
n (M ) = e

7
The seismic hazard of an investigated region with a magnitude 𝑀 within 𝑇 years for a t-year observation
interval is calculated by the given equation (Bayrak et al. 2005) below:

−n(M )T
R (M ) = 1 − e

8
To calculate Q(T), the equation defined by Öztürk et al. (2008) was used in this study.

The equation was defined as:

1
Q (T ) =
n (M )

9
To calculate R(M) and Q(M) for GR and GPR models, t-year observation was taken as 117 years. The
calculated results of seismic hazard values and recurrence periods for each method are listed in Table 7.

Table 7. Earthquake hazard analysis results obtained by using the GR and the GPR models created with
respect to the Normal and the Poisson distributions, respectively
Page 12/29
Results
As seen in Fig. 7a, the change in b-value was 0.4 to 2.2. This variation was probably caused by the
combination of high seismicity and complicated stress patterns within the region. It was clearly observed
that low b-values are strongly dominant in the whole study region even though relatively higher b-values
were noticeable in and around the region among the Malatya fault, Ovacık fault and Sürgü fault shown in
Fig. 1b. Standard deviation map of b values indicated that standard deviations in b-value vary from 0.04
to slightly more than 0.4 (Fig. 7b). Where the error rate of b-value is low, b- values are also low. This
ensures the accuracy of the predicted b values. Taking into account the whole region, relative higher b-
values as well as relative higher error rate of b-value were observed in the region between 39.50–40.000
longitude and 370 -37.50 latitude.

Possibilities of exceeding the earthquake magnitudes in the given periods (10-year, 20-year, 30-year, 50-
year and 100-year) for GR and GPR models are shown in Fig. 9. In addition to this, the return periods of
the earthquake magnitudes listed in Table 6 for the GR and the GPR methods are shown in Fig. 10.

According to the GR model, the occurrence possibility of an earthquake with 𝑀= 6 within 20 years is
84.66% and return period is 10.6684 years. Furthermore, the occurrence probability of an earthquake with
𝑀=6 within 20 years is 77.84% and the recurrence period is 13.2726 years according to the GPR model.
When the GR model was compared with the GPR model with respect to recurrence periods, it was clearly
observed that recurrence periods within earthquakes with magnitude 7 or more than 7 calculated by the
GPR model were notably decreased. For example, occurrence probabilities and return periods in 20 years
for 7.0 magnitude earthquake was found to be 17.07% and 106.8321 years for the GR model and 19.16%

Page 13/29
and 94.0347 years for the GPR model, respectively (Table 7). How-ever, occurrence probabilities and
return periods in 20 years for 7.4 magnitude earthquake were 7.18% and 268.4992 years for the GR and
9.26% and 205.7886 years for the GPR method, respectively (Table 7 and Fig. 9 and Fig. 10). Variations in
occurrence probabilities and return periods calculated by using both the methods are particularly not big
for some earthquakes with intermediate magnitudes. For earthquakes with intermediate magnitudes, the
return period found by the GR model was slightly smaller than the results obtained from the GPR model.
However, this observation is not valid for more than seismic events with magnitudes greater than 6.5. It
was observed that whereas magnitude values for each model are increasing, corresponding earthquake
occurrence possibilities are strongly decreasing. On the other hand, as earthquake magnitudes increase,
the recurrence periods increase for each model. The results indicated that the GPR model is consistent
with the GR model for intermediate magnitude earthquakes. However, this coherence between the models
is not valid for big earthquakes (M ≥ 7).

Discussion
In this study, the frequency-magnitude distribution of Eastern Turkey was investigated to determine b-
value and Mc parameters. The coordinate range of the region is 360-400 E longitudes and 370-400 N
latitudes. In addition, the probabilistic seismic hazard of this region was investigated using the GR and
the GPR models and the obtained results were compared. With the use of these models, information
about potential earthquakes in this region can be acquired by estimating seismic hazard parameters
comprising of return periods and possibilities of their occurrence. For these analyses, a homogeneous
and completeness catalogue was used. In order to create a homogeneous catalogue only for this study,
the conversion equations between the size of the moment and the other scales (md, ML, mb, Ms and M)
were defined by using the general method of orthogonal regression. The established conversion
equations were then used to calculate the equivalent moment magnitudes (Mw*) for the entire catalogue.
The homogeneous catalogue was also declustered (Reasenberg 1985) for a time-independent seismic
hazard assessment (e.g., Arroyo-Solórzano and Linkimer 2021). Therefore, swarms, aftershocks and
foreshocks were removed from the homogeneous earthquake catalogue (e.g. Peláez et al. 2007; Amaro-
Mellado et al. 2017; Arroyo-Solórzano and Linkimer 2021). This separation between aftershocks and
mainshocks done provide to reveal the strength of the faults which is highly influenced by the mode, or
style, of faulting (e.g., Simão et al., 2010)

The declustering catalogue was then modelled using the Gutenberg-Richter model to estimate seismic
parameters. From this analysis, the seismic parameters of the magnitude scale, consisting of b, a and
magnitude of completeness, were estimated at 0.82 ± 0.01, 5.452 and 1.9, respectively. The estimated b-
value in the study is similar to the b-value determined by Afegbua1 et al. (2018) in the Middle- Atlantic
Ridge (MAR) in the West African region. The estimated b-value was 0.4 to 2.2 (Fig. 7a). An estimated high
b-value indicates that small earthquakes predominate over the large ones (e.g., Arroyo-Solorzano and
Linkimer 2021). However, in most of the research area, the b-value varying from nearly 0.6 to nearly 0.9
was low to intermediate, which indicates that this study region is one of the seismically active tectonic

Page 14/29
regions (Mogi 1967; Frohlich and Davis 1993; El-Isa and Eaton 2014; Polat 2022). The observed changes
in the b-values measured in this study give information about the differential stress change in the region
because it acts as a stress meter. In addition to this, variations in b-values are used to identify the type of
faults developed in the study region. There is an inverse relation between b-value and differential stress
(e.g. Schorlemmer et al. 2005; Scholz 2015). In the light of the information, b-values are interpreted here.

In addition, the finding from this study seems compatible with the dominant strike-slip system (Paiboon
2006) existing in the region. Furthermore, spatial variations of b values in the whole of Eastern Anatolia
provide to find out locally effective stress (Scholz 1968) because variations in b-values depend on
tectonic regimes. For example, such study areas have similar underground mines (Urbancic et al. 1992), a
subduction slab (Wyss et al. 2001), and fault zones (Wiemer and Wyss 1997) which result in
inhomogeneous variations in b-values. The findings are very compatible with the previous studies done in
the city of Elazığ and the surrounding area (Polat 2022). In the small part of the region, a relative high b-
value was observed between 39.50–400 longitude and 370-37.50 (Fig. 6a). This variation in the estimated
b-value from the region to region may be related to a convergence zone between the Arabian and the
Anatolian plates. The estimated b-value from this study is also consistent with the b-value calculated by
Bayrak et al. (2013) for Ağrı and the surrounding area by using the earthquakes which have occurred
between 1900 and 2014. However, the b-value, the a-value and the Mc for this region were quite smaller
than the b-value, a-value and Mc to be 1.1, 7.86 and 2.7 for the whole of Turkey (Kalafat 2016),
respectively.

The b values lower than 0.8 (Fig. 7a) are related to the area with high-stress regions including the region
between the Savrun Fault and the Amonos segment of the EAFZ. However, b-values varying from 1 to
slightly smaller than 1.2 were observed in and around the region among the Malatya, Sürgü, Pütürge and
Ovacık Faults shown in Fig. 1b. This study clearly reveals that the spatial b-value map for the entire
region was not fully homogeneous, while intermediate b-values were mostly dominant in the region
except for a few local areas (Fig. 7a). Some main factors consisting of a low degree of heterogeneity,
large stress and strain, large velocity of deformation and large faults generally cause a low b value
(Manakou and Tsapanos 2000; Hussain et al. 2020). The observed b-low values (Fig. 7a) are probably
related to differential crustal stress and strain produced by large faults exhibited in Fig. 1 located in the
study region. It means that the region is prone to destructive and massive earthquakes with high
magnitudes. In contrast, if a region has high b-values, it indicates that the area is prone to small
earthquakes in the near future.

Considering all findings, it can be said that the investigated region has a strong seismic hazard potential.
Our study, which shows that the region has a high earthquake risk, is evidenced by recent earthquakes
and historical records. Therefore, the seismic hazard analysis for such regions become important. To
improve our knowledge about the region with respect to the seismic hazard, statistical methods including
the GR and the GPR were also used to calculate occurrence intervals and recurrence periods. As choosing
these methods, we considered that previous studies indicated that the GPR mode can be used for seismic
risk modelling in Turkey (Kara and Durukan, 2017).
Page 15/29
During the seismic hazard analysis, 189 earthquake records with a magnitude of Mw ≥ 4.0 in the time
interval of 1905-30 September 2022 years were selected from the complete data set of 28536
earthquakes. For the GR model, a- and b- values were estimated to be equal to 7.406 and 1 for this time
period (Fig. 8), respectively. The Poisson relationship for the GPR was found as LnN = 15.430–1.959M.
The estimated b- and a-values for the GPR method were 1.959M and 15.430 (Fig. 8), respectively. As seen
in Table 4, the seismic parameters of the GPR were slightly more than twice that of the GR method. The
probabilities of an earthquake were estimated for the next 10, 20, 30, 50, and 100 years in the study
region (Table 7 and Fig. 9). Return period results of both methods were also mapped as shown in Fig. 9
and listed in Table 7. The return periods in the study area were estimated between 0.1064 and 338.0673
years for magnitudes of 4.0-7.5 according to the GR model (Table 7 and Fig. 10). For the model, the
probabilities of an earthquake with M = 6.0, 6.5 and 7.0 in the next 100 years were computed as 99.99%,
94.83% and 60.78%, respectively. In terms of the model, the probability of the largest earthquake
occurring in the studied area is 25.61% in the next 100 years. On the other hand, the return periods for the
GPR model were calculated between 0.26448 and 250.2964 years for magnitudes of 4.0-7.5 (Table 7 and
Fig. 10). According to the GPR model (Fig. 9), the probabilities of an earthquake with M = 6.0, 6.5 and 7.0
in the next 100 years were computed as 99.95%, 94.10% and 65.47%, respectively. Return periods for the
earthquakes were 13.2726, 35.3282 and 94.0347 years. In the next 100 years, the occurrence probability
of the largest earthquake in the region is 32.94%.

As seen in Table 7, the return periods and the occurrence possibility of an earthquake according to the
GPR are less than twice than that of the GR method. Finally, taking into account all findings acquired
from the analysis, it can be said that the region has the potential for an earthquake larger than 6.0
because the faults developed in the region are very active. The models prove that the occurrence
probability of such an event with a magnitude greater than 6 is high and this finding is strongly
consistent with the tectonic units. Findings from the study indicated that probabilities of exceedance and
return periods calculated for the selected years significantly depend on yearly average occurrence number
of earthquakes.

Looking at such studies done in the region, in a recent study carried out by Isik et al. (2021), the
earthquake parameters were determined using the earthquake ground motion levels with some
probabilities of exceedance. The study indicated that some cities such as Erzincan Malatya are in the
first-degree earthquake hazard zone, while other cities such Elazığ and Tunceli are in the second-degree
earthquake hazard zone. The findings means that seismic parameters calculated from the frequency-
magnitude distribution seem compatible with the earthquake parameters determined using the
earthquake ground motion levels with some probabilities of exceedance.

Although this region is not in a ridge region, it shows similar characteristics in terms of producing
earthquakes. Although the earthquakes are relating to dyke intrusions and propagation along the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge, the orientation of the Arabian plate towards the Anatolian plate and the Dead Sea fault in
the Anatolian region play significant role in an increase in the seismic activity of the region. This shows

Page 16/29
that the cause of seismic activity in both regions is different from each other. It is not correct to make a
comparison in terms of seismicity and tectonic structure

Conclusion
The frequency-magnitude distribution of Eastern Turkey was analyzed in this study to estimate the b-
value, a-value and Mc parameters by using the homogenous and declustering catalogue. Also, using the
GR and GPR models, the probabilistic seismic hazard of this region was evaluated, and the results were
evaluated.

Findings from this study are listed as follows:

1. a. For the whole study region, the b-value was 0.82 ± 0.01. For the tectonic earth-quakes, the b-value
varied from 0.5 to 1.5. It is more frequently around 1.0 (Mogi 1967). It is the same as observed in the
investigated region.
2. b. The spatial mapping of the b-value indicates that low b-values are spatially dominant in all the
region. This implies that the regions may have a possible devastating earthquake risk in the future.
3. c. In addition to this analysis, the frequency magnitude relationship of the earthquake data of the
investigated region was modelled with the GR and the GPR. For the GR, the estimated a- and b-values
from the modelling were 7.406 and 1, respectively. The GPR was found as LnN = 15.430–1.959M.
The estimated b- and a-values for the GPR method were 1.959 and 15.430, respectively.
4. d. This study suggests that the probability of earthquake occurrence produced by both the models is
close to each other for earthquakes with a magnitude smaller than 6.5. In the GR model, the
probability of earthquake occurrence of one earthquake of magnitude 7.0 in the next 20 years is
17.7%. In the GPR model, the probability of earthquake occurrence of an earthquake of magnitude
7.0 in the next 20 years is 19.16%.
5. e. The last devastating earthquakes with M = 8 occurred in Ovacık-Tunceli and the south of the Hazar
Lake, Elazığ, in 1856 and 1866, respectively). This region has not produced a magnitude 7
earthquake for about 158 years. The region has long accumulated stress with moderate to small
earthquake activity. In particular, the Mw 6.8 earthquake in Elazığ, which occurred on January 24,
2022, increased the stress accumulated in the region (Polat 2022). According to the GR and GPR
models, the return period of a magnitude 7 earthquake is 106.83 and 94.0347 years. The models
used in the study confirm the expected and occurring earthquakes. According to the GR and GPR
models, the return time of an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 is 338.0673 and 250.2964 years.
Although the models are compatible with the magnitude 7 earthquake, they do not show the same
compatibility for the magnitude 7.5 earthquake. It is thought that it is necessary to propose this as a
subject of further research and reveal the cause.
6. f. Taking into account all findings from this study based on the estimated probability of an
earthquake occurrence and return period calculated from a set of earthquake data of the Eastern
Anatolia region, we can say that such a study is very important to describe the seismic hazard.

Page 17/29
References
1. Afegbua KU, Ezomo FO, Osahon OD, Kijko A, Smit A Dimas V (2018) Tectonic Activities of the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge and Implication of Seismicity in West African Region. J Sci Res Rep 18 (4):1–17.
2. Akgün E, İnceöz M (2021) Tectonic evolution of the central part of the East Anatolian Fault Zone,
Eastern Turkey. T J Earth Sci 30 (7):928–947.
3. Aki K (1965) A note on the use of microseisms in determining the shallow structures of the earth’s
crust. Geophys 30 (4):665–666.
4. Aki K (1981) A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena. Earthquake prediction: an
international review 4:566–574.
5. Allen JRL (1986) Earthquake magnitude-frequency, epicentral distance, and soft-sediment
deformation in sedimentary basins. Sediment Geol 46 (1–2):67–75.
6. AllenM, Jackson J, Walker R (2004) Late Cenozoic reorganization of the Arabia-Eurasia collision and
the comparison of short‐term and long‐term deformation rates. Tectonics 23 (2).
7. Alptekin O (1978) Magnitude–frequency relationships and deformation release for the earthquakes
in and around Turkey, Thesis for Promoting to Associate Professor Level, Karadeniz Technical
University p. 107 (in Turkish)
8. Amaro-Mellado JL, Morales-Esteban A, Asencio-Cortés G, Martínez-Álvarez F (2017) Comparing
seismic parameters for different source zone models in the Iberian Peninsula. Tectonophysics
717:449–472.
9. Angus DA, Wilson DC, Sandvol E, Ni JF (2006) Lithospheric structure of the Arabian and Eurasian
collision zone in eastern Turkey from S-wave receiver functions. Geophys J Int166 (3):335–1346.
10. Arroyo-Solórzano M, Linkimer L (2021) Spatial variability of the b-value and seismic potential in
Costa Ri-ca. Tectonophysics 814:228951.
11. Barka AA, Kadinsky-Cade K (1988) Strike‐slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on
earthquake activi-ty. Tectonics 7 (3):663–684.
12. Bayrak Y, Yilmaztürk A, Öztürk S (2005) Relationships between fundamental seismic hazard
parameters for the different source regions in Turkey. Nat Hazards 36 (3):445–462.
13. Bayrak Y, Atmiş AN, Mohammadi H, Bayrak E, Yilmaz Ş, Türker T (2013) An Evaluation of Earthquake
Hazard Parameters in and around Ağrı. Eastern Anatolian Journal of Science 1 (1):1–9.
14. Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkey-a synthesis. Geodin Acta 14 (1–3):3–30
15. Bulut F, Bohnhoff M, Eken T, Janssen C, Kılıç T, Dresen G (2012) The East Anatolian Fault Zone:
Seismotectonic setting and spatiotemporal characteristics of seismicity based on precise earthquake
locations. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 117(B7).
16. Cetin H, Güneyli H, Mayer L (2003) Paleoseismology of the Palu–Lake Hazar segment of the East
Anatolian fault zone, Turkey. Tectonophysics 374(3–4):163–197.
17. De Jong P, Heller GZ (2008) Generalized linear models for insurance data. Cambridge Books.

Page 18/29
18. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma ML (2014) Unbiased estimation of moment magnitude from body-and
surface‐wave magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1802–1811.
19. Demirtaş R, Erkmen C (2019) Doğu Anadolu Fay Sistemi Deprem Etkinliği, Gelecek Deprem
Potansiyeli, Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/ RG.2.2.24235.49449
20. Duman TY, Emre Ö (2013) The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics.
Geol Soc London Spe Pub 372(1): 495–529.
21. Elitok Ö, Dolmaz MN (2011) Tectonic Escape Mechanism in the Crustal Evolution of Eastern
Anatolian Region (Turkey). New Frontiers in Tectonic Research - At the Midst of Plate Convergence,
Dr. Uri Schattner (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-594-5, InTech
22. El-Isa ZH, Eaton DW (2014) Spatiotemporal variations in the b-value of earthquake magnitude–
frequency distributions: Classification and causes. Tectonophysics 615:1–11.
23. Euis EA (2018) Gutenberg-richter recurrence law analysis of RDE site at Serpong.
24. Frohlich C, Davis SD (1993) Teleseismic b values; or, much ado about 1.0. J Geophys Res Solid Earth
98(B1):631–644.
25. Garcia Moreno D, Hubert A, Moernaut J, Fraser J, Boes X, Van Daele M, … De Batist M (2011)
Structure and evolution of Lake Hazar pull-apart Basin along the East Anatolian Fault. Basin Res 23.
26. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am
34(4):185–188.
27. Jordan T, Chen Y, Gasparani P, Madariaga R, Main I, Marzocchi W, Papadopoulos G, Sobolev G,
Yamaoka K, Zcchau J (2011) Operational earthquake forecasting: State of knowledge and guidelines
for utilization. Ann Geophys 54: 4.
28. Hussain H, Shuangxi Z, Usman M, Abid M (2020) Spatial Variation of b-values and their relationship
with the fault blocks in the Western Part of the Tibetan Plateau and its surrounding areas. Entropy
22(9):1016.
29. Imoto M (1991) Changes in the magnitude-frequency b-value prior to large (M⩾ 6.0) earthquakes in
Japan. Tectonophysics 193(4):311–325.
30. Isik V, Saber R, Caglayan A (2021) November 08, 2019 Turkmanchay earthquake (Mw: 5.9) in NW
Iran: an assessment of the earthquake using DInSAR time-series and field evidence. Nat Hazards
105(3):3013–3037.
31. Kalafat D (2016) Statistical Evaluation of Turkey Earthquake Data (1900–2015), A Case study.
Eastern Anatolian Journal of Science 2(1):14–36.
32. Kalyoncuoğlu ÜY, Uyanık O, Altuncu S, Geçim E (2006) Gutenberg Ritcher Bağıntısındaki b Değerinin
Belirlenmesi için Alternatif Bir Metot ve Güneybatı Türkiyede Bir Uygulaması. DEÜ. Mühendislik
Fakültesi, Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi 8(2):67–78.
33. Kara EK, Durukan K (2017) The statistical analysis of the earthquake hazard for Turkey by
generalized linear models. Gazi Univ J Sci 30(4):584–597.

Page 19/29
34. Kartal RF, Kadiroğlu FT (2013) Doğu Anadolu Fayının sismotektoniği ve bu fay üzerindeki son beş
yıllık deprem aktivitesinin istatistiksel analizi. 66. TJK 01–05.
35. Manakou MV, Tsapanos TM (2000) Seismicity and seismic hazard parameters evaluation in the
island of Crete and the sur-rounding area inferred from mixed data files. Tectonophysics
321(1):157–178.
36. Mogi K (1967) Earthquakes and fractures. Tectonophysics 5(1):35–55.
37. Mori J, Abercrombie RE (1997) Depth dependence of earthquake frequency-magnitude distributions
in California: Implications for rupture initiation. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102(B7):15081–15090.
38. Moreno DG, Hubert-Ferrari A, Moernaut J, Fraser JG, Boes X, Van Daele M, … De Batist M (2011)
Structure and recent evolution of the Hazar basin: A strike‐slip basin on the East Anatolian fault,
eastern Turkey. Basin Res 23(2):191–207.
39. Öztürk S, Bayrak Y, Çınar H, Koravos GC, Tsapanos TM (2008) A quantitative appraisal of earthquake
hazard parameters computed from Gumbel I method for different regions in and around Turkey. Nat
hazards 47(3):471–495.
40. Öztürk S (2018) Earthquake hazard potential in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey:
seismotectonic b and Dc-values and precursory quiescence Z-value. Front Earth Sci 12(1): 215–236.
41. Paiboon N (2006) The potential of b Value Variation as Earthquake Precursors for Small and Large
Events. Digital comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from the faculty of science and
technology 183.
42. Pamukçu O, Gönenç T, Uyanık O, Sözbilir H, Çakmak O (2014) A microgravity model for the city of
İzmir Western Anatolia and its tectonic implementations. Acta Geophysica 62(4):849–871. Doi:
10.2478/s11600-014-0203-z
43. Peláez JA, Chourak M, Tadili BA, Brahim LA, Hamdache M, Casado CL, Solares JM (2007) A catalog
of main Moroccan earthquakes from 1045 to 2005. Seismol Res Lett 78(6):614–621.
44. Polat G (2022) Spatial analysis of b-value variability in Elazığ city and the surrounding area (Eastern
Turkey). Acta Geophys 70:15–25.
45. Pousse-Beltran L, Nissen E, Bergman EA, Cambaz MD, Gaudreau É, Karasözen E, … Tan F (2020) The
2020 M w 6.8 Elazığ (Turkey) earthquake reveals rupture behavior of the East Anatolian Fault.
Geophys Res Lett 47(13):e2020GL088136.
46. Prasad S, Singh C (2015) Evolution of b-values before large earthquakes of mb ≥ 6.0 in the
Andaman region. Geolog Acta 13(3):205–210.
47. Ragon T, Simons M, Bletery Q, Cavalié O, Fielding E (2021) A stochastic view of the 2020 Elazığ Mw
6.8 earthquake (Turkey). Geophys Res Lett 48(3):e2020GL090704.
48. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J Geophys
Res Solid Earth 90(B7):5479–5495.
49. Reilinger R, McClusky S, Vernant P, Lawrence S, Ergintav S, Cakmak R, …Karam G (2006) GPS
constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia‐Eurasia continental collision zone and

Page 20/29
 implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111(B5).
50. Sagar S, Leonard M (2007) Mapping the magnitude of completeness of the Australian earthquake
catalogue Proc of AEES, Wollongong.
51. Scholz CH (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to
earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(1):399–415.
52. Scholz CH (2015) On the stress dependence of the earthquake b value. Geophys Res Lett
42(5):1399–1402.
53. Schorlemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M (2005) Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different
stress regimes. Nature 437(7058):539–542.
54. Simão NM, Nalbant SS, Sunbul F, Mutlu AK (2016) Central and eastern Anatolian crustal deformation
rate and velocity fields derived from GPS and earthquake data. Earth Planet Sci Lett 433:89–98.
55. Şahin Ş, Öksüm E (2021) The relation of seismic velocity and attenuation pattern in the East
Anatolian Fault zone with earthquake occurrence: example of January 24, 2020 Sivrice Earthquake.
Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 164(164):1–26.
56. Tan O (2021) A homogeneous earthquake catalogue for Turkey. Nat Hazard Earth Sys Sci
21(7):2059–2073.
57. Tatar O, Sözbilir H, Koçbulut F, Bozkurt E, Aksoy E, Eski S, … Metin Y (2020) Surface deformations of
24 January 2020 Sivrice (Elazığ)–Doğanyol (Malatya) earthquake (Mw = 6.8) along the Pütürge
segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone and its comparison with Turkey’s 100-year-surface
ruptures. Mediter Geosci Rev 2:385–410.
58. Urbancic TI, Trifu CI, Long JM, Young RP (1992) Space-time correlations ofb values with stress
release. Pure Appl Geophys 139(3):449–462.
59. Ünal S, Çelebioğlu S, Özmen B (2014) Seismic hazard assessment of Turkey by statistical
approaches, T J Earth Sci 23:350–60.
60. Westaway R (2003) Kinematics of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean updated. Turkish J
Earth Sci 12(1):5–46.
61. Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: ZMAP. Seismol Res Lett 72(3):373–382.
62. Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency-magnitude distribution in asperities: An improved
technique to calculate recurrence times?. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102(B7):15115–15128.
63. Wyss M, Klein F, Nagamine K, Wiemer S (2001) Anomalously high b-values in the South Flank of
Kilauea volcano, Hawaii: evidence for the distribution of magma below Kilauea's East rift zone. J
Volcanol Geotherm Res 106(1–2):23–37.

Table 4
Table 4 is not available with this version.

Figures
Page 21/29
Figure 1

(a) Simplified tectonic environments in and around Turkey demonstrating main neo-tectonic structures
and provinces (replaced from Bozkurt, 2001). (b) Tectonic map of the study area. Main fault zones in the
region are NAFZ: North Anatolian Fault Zone, EAFZ: East Anatolian Fault Zone, KTJ: Karlıova Triple
Junction, MOFZ: Malatya-Ovacık Fault Zone.

Page 22/29
Figure 2

Earthquake map for the study region in time span from 1905 to 30.9.2022. The red circle mark indicates
an earthquake with magnitudes greater than 7.

Page 23/29
Figure 3

(a) Local depth (km) versus Time in year. (b) Magnitude earthquake histogram. (c) Magnitude versus
time in year.

Page 24/29
Figure 4

Flow chart showing followed steps in this study.

Figure 5

Magnitude relations between Mw and the other scales. The dot red and dot blue lines show the best linear
fit of the orthogonal regression and 95 % confidence intervals, respectively.

Page 25/29
Figure 6

Relationship between magnitude and earthquake frequency. The cumulative and non-cumulative forms
are denoted with squares filled in white and squares filled in grey, respectively.

Page 26/29
Figure 7

(a) b-value distribution map for Gutenberg-Richter. (b) Standard deviation of b-value, for the investigated
region.

Figure 8

Magnitude-frequency relations estimated by the (a) GR model based on the Normal distribution and (b)
GPR model based on the Poisson distribution.

Page 27/29
Figure 9

The probability of exceedance graphs for (a) GR model and (b) GPR model.

Page 28/29
Figure 10

The return period graphs for GR and GPR models.

Page 29/29