1887
Volume 20, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The Menderes Massif, located at Western Anatolia, Turkey, is a wide area that is under an extensional regime, resulting in the area having large grabens along with many faults and being geothermally rich. Due to having a large number of linear structures, the Menderes Massif has been a popular area for boundary analysis studies using gravity and magnetic prospecting. Since both prospecting methods result in potential field anomalies that are directly related to the positions of the anomaly sources, boundary analyses prove useful to mark the location of linear subsurface features. In this study, we have examined the Menderes Massif with a different boundary analysis approach that we call moving average differences. We have briefly introduced the method via synthetic gravity anomalies and carried out a tests to show that the algorithm is effective. Next, we have applied the moving average differences method to the actual Bouguer gravity data from the Menderes Massif and interpreted the results, briefly. Finally, we have compared our results with the already‐known faults and two other boundary analysis studies’ results from the area. The moving average differences results revealed new lineaments spread all around the Menderes Massif, which are possibly contacts/faults that are yet to be mapped. Our results also indicate that the moving average differences algorithm we have implemented provides useful information about the lineaments within the gravity anomalies, sufficient for it to be acknowledged as a boundary analysis method.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12225
2022-07-13
2022-08-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altınoğlu, F.F., Sarı, M. and Aydın, A. (2018) Shallow crust structure of the Büyük Menderes graben through an analysis of gravity data. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 27, 421–431.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arısoy, M.O. and Dikmen, U. (2015) Edge enhancement of magnetic data using fractional‐order‐derivative filters. Geophysics, 80(1), J7–J17. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013‐0473.1
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aydın, N.G. (2021) Moving average differences (MAD) boundary analysis method. Mendeley Data, 6. https://doi.org/10.17632/h3zjkp8698.1.
  4. Bilim, F. and Koşaroğlu, S. (2013) Investigation of the tectonic structures of Menderes Massive (Western Anatolia, Turkey) by means of Bouguer gravity analysis. Cumhuriyet Earth Sciences Journal, 30(2), 71–86. (in Turkish with English Abstract).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakely, R.J. and Simpson, R.W. (1986) Approximating edges of source bodies from magnetic or gravity anomalies. Geophysics, 51, 1494–1498.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bucha, B. and Janák, J. (2013) A MATLAB‐based graphical user interface program for computing functionals of the geopotential up to ultra‐high degrees and orders. Computers & Geosciences56, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.03.012.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cordell, L. and Grauch, V.J.S. (1985) Mapping basement magnetization zones from aeromagnetic data in the San Juan Basin. New Mexico. In: Hinze, W. (Ed.) The Utility of Regional Gravity and Magnetic Anomaly Maps. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 181–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cordell, L. and Henderson, R.G. (1968) Iterative three‐dimensional solution of gravity anomaly data using a digital computer. Geophysics, 33, 596‐601.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Doğru, F., Pamukçu, O.A., (2019) Analysis of gravity disturbance for boundary structures in the Aegean Sea and Western Anatolia. Geofizika, 36, 53–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dwivedi, D. and Chamoli, A. (2021) A source edge detection of potential field data using wavelet decomposition. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 178, 919–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024‐021‐02675‐5
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eyidoğan, H. and Jackson, J. (1985) A seismological study of normal faulting in the Demirci, Alasehir and Gediz earthquakes of 1969‐70 in western Turkey: implications for the nature and geometry of deformation in the continental crust. Geophysical Journal International, 81(3), 569–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.1985.tb06423.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hidalgo‐Gato, M.C. and Barbosa, V.C.F. (2015) Edge detection of potential‐field sources using scale‐space monogenic signal: fundamental principles. Geophysics, 80(5), J27–36. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015‐0025.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Miller, H.G. and Singh, V. (1994) Potential field tilt – a new concept for location of potential field sources. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 32, 213–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MTA (General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey) , (2006) Bouguer gravity anomaly map of Turkey (scale: 1/2.000.000).Ankara, Turkey: MTA Pub.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nabighian, M.N. (1972) The analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross section: its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics, 37, 507–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Öksüm, E., Dolmaz, M.N., Demir, M., Pham, L.T. (2021) Evaluation of magnetic data of an emery bearing ore field by edge detection methods: Muğla, Türkiye example. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 9(1), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.796074.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Öner, Z. and Dilek, Y. (2013) Fault kinematics in supradetachment basin formation, Menderes core complex of Western Turkey. Tectonophysics, 608, 1394–1412.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Oruç, B. (2014) Structural interpretation of southern part of western Anatolian using analytic signal of the second order gravity gradients and discrete wavelet transform analysis. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 103, 82–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Perlin, K. (1985) An image synthesizer. ACM SIGGRAPH. Computer Graphics, 19(3), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1145/325165.325247
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rojay, B., Toprak, V., Demirci, C. and Süzen, L. (2005) Plio–Quaternary evolution of the Küçük Menderes Graben, Southwestern Anatolia, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta, 18(3–4), 317–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Seyitoğlu, G. and Scott, B. (1991) Late Cenozoic crustal extension and basin formation in west Turkey. Geological Magazine, 128, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800018343.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Spector, A. and Grant, F.S. (1970) Statistical models for interpreting aeromagnetic data. Geophysics, 35, 293–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Üge, M.A. and Albora, A.M. (2018) Determination of the tectonic lines of the map of gravity anomaly of the Western Anatolian region by the cellular neural network (CNN) method. Conference Paper (Oral): New Trends in Geophysics and Engineering.
  24. Westaway, R. (1994) Evidence for dynamic coupling of surface processes with isostatic compensation in the lower crust during active extension of Western Turkey. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(B10), 20203–20223. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JB01054.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wijns, J., Perez, C. and Kowalczyk, P. (2005) Theta map edge detection in magnetic data. Geophysics, 70, 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Yılmaz, Y. (1997) Geology of Western Anatolia. In: Schindler, C. and Fister, P. (Eds.) Active Tectonics of NW Anatolia: The Marmara Poly‐Project. M. Zurich: VDF, ETH, pp. 31–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Yılmaz, Y., Genç, Ş.C., Gürer, F., Bozcu, M., Yılmaz, K., Karacık, Z. et al. (2000) When did the Western Anatolian Grabens begin to develop?Geological Society, London, Special Publications., 173(1), 353–384. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.173.01.17.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12225
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12225
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Faults; Gravity; Interpretation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error