3D mechanical modeling of the GPS velocity field along the North Anatolian fault

The North Anatolian fault (NAF) extends over 1500 km in a complex tectonic setting. In this region of the eastern Mediterranean, collision of the Arabian, African and Eurasian plates resulted in creation of mountain ranges (i.e. Zagros, Caucasus) and the westward extrusion of the Anatolian block. In this study we investigate the effects of crustal rheology on the long-term displacement rate along the NAF. Heat flow and geodetic data are used to constrain our mechanical model, built with the three-dimensional finite element code ADELI. The fault motion occurs on a material discontinuity of the model which is controlled by a Coulomb-type friction. The rheology of the lithosphere is composed of a frictional upper crust and a viscoelastic lower crust. The lithosphere is supported by a hydrostatic pressure at its base (representing the asthenospheric mantle). We model the long-term deformation of the surroundings of the NAF by adjusting the effective fault friction and also the geometry of the surface fault trace. To do so, we used a frictional range of 0.0–0.2 for the fault, and a viscosity varying between 1019 and 1021 Pa s. One of the most striking results of our rheological tests is that the upper part of the fault is locked if the friction exceeds 0.2. By comparing our results with geodetic measurements [McClusky et al., J. Geophys. Res. B 105 (2000) 5695–5719] and tectonic observations, we have defined a realistic model in which the displacement rate on the NAF reaches ∼17 mm/yr for a viscosity of 1019 Pa s and a fault friction of 0.05. This strongly suggests that the NAF is a weak fault like the San Andreas fault in California. Adding topography with its corresponding crustal root does not induce gravity flow of Anatolia. Rather, it has the counter-intuitive effect of decreasing the westward Anatolian escape. We find a poor agreement between our calculated velocity field and what is observed with GPS in the Marmara and the Aegean regions. We suspect that the simple lithosphere model is responsible for this discrepancy. Taking into account the weaknesses of these deforming regions should allow us to build a more realistic model that would match ground observations more appropriately. On the other hand, our results fit well GPS measurements in central Anatolia, setting the basis of modeling crustal strain in Turkey.