An official website of the United States government
Abstract The 2023 Turkey earthquake sequence involved unexpected ruptures across numerous fault segments. We present 3D dynamic rupture simulations to illuminate the complex dynamics of the earthquake doublet. Our models are constrained by observations available within days of the sequence and deliver timely, mechanically consistent explanations of the unforeseen rupture paths, diverse rupture speeds, multiple slip episodes, heterogeneous fault offsets, locally strong shaking, and fault system interactions. Our simulations link both earthquakes, matching geodetic and seismic observations and reconciling regional seismotectonics, rupture dynamics, and ground motions of a fault system represented by 10 curved dipping segments and embedded in a heterogeneous stress field. The Mw 7.8 earthquake features delayed backward branching from a steeply branching splay fault, not requiring supershear speeds. The asymmetrical dynamics of the distinct, bilateral Mw 7.7 earthquake are explained by heterogeneous fault strength, prestress orientation, fracture energy, and static stress changes from the previous earthquake. Our models explain the northward deviation of its eastern rupture and the minimal slip observed on the Sürgü fault. 3D dynamic rupture scenarios can elucidate unexpected observations shortly after major earthquakes, providing timely insights for data-driven analysis and hazard assessment toward a comprehensive, physically consistent understanding of the mechanics of multifault systems.
more »
« less
The complex dynamics of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, M w 7.8-7.7 earthquake doublet
The destructive 2023 moment magnitude ( M w ) 7.8-7.7 earthquake doublet ruptured multiple segments of the East Anatolian Fault system in Turkey. We integrate multi-scale seismic and space-geodetic observations with multi-fault kinematic inversions and dynamic rupture modeling to unravel the events’ complex rupture history and stress-mediated fault interactions. Our analysis reveals three sub-shear slip episodes during the initial M w 7.8 earthquake with delayed rupture initiation to the southwest. The M w 7.7 event occurred 9 hours later with larger slip and supershear rupture on its western branch. Mechanically consistent dynamic models accounting for fault interactions can explain the unexpected rupture paths, and require a heterogeneous background stress. Our results highlight the importance of combining near- and far-field observations with data-driven and physics-based models for seismic hazard assessment.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10447782
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Science
- ISSN:
- 0036-8075
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Slow slip events (SSEs) have been observed in spatial and temporal proximity to megathrust earthquakes in various subduction zones, including the 2014Mw7.3 Guerrero, Mexico earthquake which was preceded by aMw7.6 SSE. However, the underlying physics connecting SSEs to earthquakes remains elusive. Here, we link 3D slow‐slip cycle models with dynamic rupture simulations across the geometrically complex flat‐slab Cocos plate boundary. Our physics‐based models reproduce key regional geodetic and teleseismic fault slip observations on timescales from decades to seconds. We find that accelerating SSE fronts transiently increase shear stress at the down‐dip end of the seismogenic zone, modulated by the complex geometry beneath the Guerrero segment. The shear stresses cast by the migrating fronts of the 2014Mw7.6 SSE are significantly larger than those during the three previous episodic SSEs that occurred along the same portion of the megathrust. We show that the SSE transient stresses are large enough to nucleate earthquake dynamic rupture and affect rupture dynamics. However, additional frictional asperities in the seismogenic part of the megathrust are required to explain the observed complexities in the coseismic energy release and static surface displacements of the Guerrero earthquake. We conclude that it is crucial to jointly analyze the long‐ and short‐term interactions and complexities of SSEs and megathrust earthquakes across several (a)seismic cycles accounting for megathrust geometry. Our study has important implications for identifying earthquake precursors and understanding the link between transient and sudden megathrust faulting processes.more » « less
-
Abstract Two major earthquakes (MW7.8 and MW7.7) ruptured left-lateral strike-slip faults of the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ) on February 6, 2023, causing >59,000 fatalities and ~$119B in damage in southeastern Türkiye and northwestern Syria. Here we derived kinematic rupture models for the two events by inverting extensive seismic and geodetic observations using complex 5-6 segment fault models constrained by satellite observations and relocated aftershocks. The larger event nucleated on a splay fault, and then propagated bilaterally ~350 km along the main EAFZ strand. The rupture speed varied from 2.5-4.5 km/s, and peak slip was ~8.1 m. 9-h later, the second event ruptured ~160 km along the curved northern EAFZ strand, with early bilateral supershear rupture velocity (>4 km/s) followed by a slower rupture speed (~3 km/s). Coulomb Failure stress increase imparted by the first event indicates plausible triggering of the doublet aftershock, along with loading of neighboring faults.more » « less
-
Abstract The eastern portion of the Shumagin gap along the Alaska Peninsula ruptured in anMW7.8 thrust earthquake on 22 July 2020. The megathrust fault space‐time slip history is determined by joint inversion of regional and teleseismic waveform data along with co‐seismic static Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) displacements. The rupture expanded westward and along‐dip from the hypocenter, located adjacent to the 1938MW8.2 Alaska earthquake, with slip and aftershocks extending into the gap about 180 to 205 km, respectively, at depths from 15 to 40 km. The deeper half of ~75% of the Shumagin gap experienced faulting. However, the patchy slip is significantly less than possible accumulated slip since the region's last major rupture in 1917, compatible with geodetic seismic‐coupling estimates of 10‐40% beneath the Shumagin Islands. The rupture terminated in the western region of very low seismic coupling. There was a regional decade‐scale decrease in b‐value prior to the 2020 event.more » « less
-
Abstract The Shumagin seismic gap along the Alaska Peninsula experienced a major,MW7.8, interplate thrust earthquake on 22 July 2020. Several available finite‐fault inversions indicate patchy slip of up to 4 m at 8–48 km depth. There are differences among the models in peak slip and absolute placement of slip on the plate boundary, resulting from differences in data distributions, model parameterizations, and inversion algorithms. Two representative slip models obtained from inversions of large seismic and geodetic data sets produce very different tsunami predictions at tide gauges and deep‐water pressure sensors (DART stations), despite having only secondary differences in slip distribution. This is found to be the result of the acute sensitivity of the tsunami excitation for rupture below the continental shelf in proximity to an abrupt shelf break. Iteratively perturbing seismic and geodetic inversions by constraining fault model extent along dip and strike, we obtain an optimal rupture model compatible with teleseismicPandSHwaves, regional three‐component broadband and strong‐motion seismic recordings, hr‐GNSS time series and static offsets, as well as tsunami recordings at DART stations and regional and remote tide gauges. Slip is tightly bounded between 25 and 40 km depth, the up‐dip limit of slip in the earthquake is resolved to be well‐inland of the shelf break, and the rupture extent along strike is well‐constrained. The coseismic slip increased Coulomb stress on the shallow plate boundary extending to the trench, but the frictional behavior of the megathrust below the continental slope remains uncertain.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0685
