## 3 Results  
In order to investigate the accuracy of the tectonic models using different mesh types in ANSYS software, _tetrahedron_, _sweep_, and _multizone_ mesh methods have been used. The 3D geometry could not be discretized using the _hex-dominant_ and _layered tetrahedron_ mesh methods. Although discretizing could be performed using the _cartesian method_, the model result could not be obtained due to the distorted geometry formed on the contact surfaces in the static structural analysis. Therefore, the model results have been obtained using _tetrahedron_, _sweep_, and _multizone_ mesh methods. In the sweep method, there are _quad/tri_, _all tri_, and _all quad_ options in the _free mesh type_ section. Of these, _quad/tri_ and _all tri_ have been used. Although _all quad_ has been selected, some elements were created as _tri_, therefore, this method is considered unnecessary for analysis. In the _multizone_ method, there are the _hex/prism_, _hexa_, and _prism_ options under mapped mesh type. The analysis could be performed using all of these options. In order to reveal the effect of the mesh type on the results, all inputs have not been changed except for the mesh type in all scenarios. As a result, the RMSE values have been calculated using Equation (10) and are given in Table 2.  
According to the RMSE values, the best result has been obtained with the _tetrahedron_ mesh method. The mesh method with the lowest accuracy is the _multizone with prism mapped mesh type_. However, the difference between them is only one tenth of a millimeter. In order to reveal the effect of these differences on the earthquake magnitude to be calculated, slip deficit values on the fault have been calculated for one year. Considering that seismic gapin this region is about 250 years [50; 51; 52; 16; 18; 53; 51; 12], in order to calculate the magnitude of the earthquake, the total slip deficit should be calculated through multiplying the annual slip deficit by 250. The a and b coefficients and equation given in the study by [PERSON] [28] have been used to reveal the possible rupture magnitude (Equation (11)). \[\mathrm{M_{w}=a+b\times log(MD)} \tag{11}\]  
The a and b coefficients were obtained as a result of the regression analysis between the moment magnitudes (\(\mathrm{M_{w}}\)) of the earthquakes and the resulting displacement (MD in meters). The coefficients were obtained as 6.81 and 0.78, respectively, for strike-slip faults. Equation (11) gives the relationship between earthquake magnitudes and observed displacements after the earthquakes. This equation can be used to calculate the moment \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mesh Type** & **Face Mesh Type** & **Mapped Mesh Type** & **Number of Nodes** & **East RMSE** & **North RMSE** \\  & & & & **(mm)** & **(mm)** \\ \hline Tetrahedron & - & - & 487,279 & 1.53 & 1.09 \\ Sweep & Quad/Tri & - & 407,106 & 1.61 & 1.11 \\ Sweep & All Tri & - & 516,457 & 1.57 & 1.11 \\ Multizone & - & Hexa/Prism & 452,636 & 1.60 & 1.14 \\ Multizone & - & Hexa & 457,776 & 1.61 & 1.13 \\ Multizone & - & Prism & 614,995 & 1.65 & 1.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: RMSE of different mesh type scenarios. magnitude of possible earthquakes. Here, instead of displacement, the slip deficit obtained as a result of the model analysis was used. These magnitudes have only been calculated for the _tetrahedron_ and _multizone-prism_ methods, which have the lowest and highest east RMSE values, respectively. According to the model results, two fault zones have high strain values. One of them is GF and the other is the intersection of IF and CiS. The annual slip deficit value in GF was the same in the results obtained from both mesh types. At the intersection of IF and CiS, the difference in the slip deficit values obtained is approximately 0.5 mm. In Equation (11), there is a logarithmic equation between moment magnitude and displacement.