Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Direct Estimation of Earthquake Source Properties from a Single CCTV Camera

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single CCTV camera directly measured a 1.4-second slip pulse in the 2025 Mandalay earthquake.

desk verdict A genuinely new on-fault slip-rate measurement from CCTV, with a solid 1.4 s pulse duration, but the stress and fracture-energy inversions are model-calibrated and should not be reported as point values. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15461 v3 pith:OF4SAHIH submitted 2025-05-21 physics.geo-ph

Soumaya Latour , Mathias Lebihain , Harsha S. Bhat , Cédric Twardzik , Quentin Bletery , Kenneth W. Hudnut , François Passelègue This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-ph
keywords coseismicslip-ratefunctionCCTVvideoanalysis2025Mandalayearthquakepulse-likeruptureelastodynamicstressinversionfractureenergysurfacedisplacement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that ordinary security-camera footage of a surface rupture can be turned into a direct, quantitative measurement of how fast a fault slips during an earthquake, and that footage of the 2025 Mw 7.7 Mandalay earthquake shows a localized, self-healing slip pulse. Measuring landmark displacements in 30-frames-per-second video, the authors obtain a local slip duration of 1.4 s, cumulative slip of about 3 m, and a peak surface slip rate near 3.5 m/s—values far higher and shorter than teleseismic inversions suggest. Feeding this slip-rate function into two-dimensional elastodynamic rupture models yields the slip-pulse length, shear-stress drop, slip-weakening distance, and a fracture-energy release rate of about 5.8 MJ/m2. If correct, the result provides a ground-truth benchmark for seismic source inversions and opens the possibility of using low-cost video cameras as earthquake-monitoring instruments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the slip-rate function v(t): relative pixel displacements of landmarks on either side of the fault, tracked through 30-frame-per-second footage, corrected for camera motion, resampled, smoothed, and scaled by a satellite-measured reference distance to a final slip near 3 m. The load-bearing identity is the elastodynamic equilibrium equation for a two-dimensional mode II slip pulse, $$\tau(x)=\tau_0-\frac{\bar{\mu}}{2\pi V_r}\,\mathrm{PV}\int_0^L\frac{v(\xi)}{x-\xi}\,d\xi,$$ which turns the spatial distribution of slip rate into shear stress along the fault. The stress inversion is computed by Chebyshev interpolation and quadrature; a separate classical steady-state slip-pulse model with a linear cohesive zone fixes the rupture velocity near 0.90 C_s and yields the energy release rate G = ∫$_0^{{D_c}}$ [τ_f(δ) − τ_r] dδ. Together these give the stress drop, slip-weakening distance, cohesive-zone size, breakdown work, and fracture energy reported in the paper.

What would settle it

A second, time-synchronized camera located a known distance along the same fault segment would allow the rupture front to be tracked between frames and fix the local rupture velocity; if that velocity is not near 0.90 C_s, the inferred stress drop, cohesive-zone size, and energy release rate of the paper would have to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At one point on the Sagaing fault, the paper finds, the ground did not keep sliding for the 100–120 s of the overall rupture: it slipped about 3 m in 1.4 s, with the slip rate rising to roughly 3.5 m/s before the fault healed. That short duration relative to the total rupture demonstrates, the authors argue, the pulse-like (self-healing) nature of the rupture at that location. From the measured slip-rate history and an assumed rupture velocity near 0.90 Cs, the elastodynamic inversion gives a strength drop of about 5 MPa, a stress drop of about 2 MPa, a slip-weakening distance Dc near 2.94 m, and an energy release rate of about 5.8 MJ/m2, consistent with the independent breakdown-work estimate of 7.7 MJ/m2. The paper presents this as a direct measurement of the complete local source properties of a natural earthquake—data previously available only through laboratory experiments or indirect inversions.

Load-bearing premise

All inferred stress and energy values depend on the local rupture velocity, which is not measured but constructed from a model with a supershear first segment and a deceleration 19.6 km north of the camera, and the paper concedes that more complex scenarios may fit the observed arrival times.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the local slip duration is 1.4 s against a 100–120 s total rupture, the earthquake's surface rupture at the camera site was a self-healing pulse, not a crack-like rupture.
  • The video-derived peak slip rate (~3.5 m/s) and duration differ strongly from the kinematic inversion's ~0.2 m/s and ~16 s, giving earthquake source inversions a rare on-fault ground truth to test against.
  • The inferred slip-weakening distance D_c ≈ 2.94 m and cohesive-zone size are stable over the tested ranges of slip-onset time and pulse duration, so they can be used to calibrate frictional weakening laws in dynamic rupture simulations.
  • The fracture-energy release rate of 5.8 MJ/m2, if equated to G_c, is compatible with expectations for a large earthquake and supports scale-dependent fracture energy rather than laboratory-sized values.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A network of inexpensive, pre-calibrated CCTV cameras along active faults could turn future surface-rupturing earthquakes into slip-history datasets, extending the method to slow aseismic slip and postseismic creep.
  • The 20% spatial-scaling uncertainty and the unmeasured local rupture velocity are the largest controls on the stress and energy numbers, so a co-located GPS or InSAR measurement of final displacement would sharpen every derived quantity.
  • The assumed rupture history matters: the supershear scenario considered in the supplement yields a fracture-energy estimate roughly six times larger than the preferred subshear one, so the energy release rate is not fixed by the video alone without independent constraints on rupture velocity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a CCTV video of surface rupture during the 2025 Mw 7.7 Mandalay earthquake, tracking landmarks on either side of the fault to measure relative slip as a function of time. It reports a local slip duration of about 1.4 s, a cumulative slip of about 3 m, and a peak slip rate near 3.5 m/s, and interprets the short duration relative to the total rupture duration as evidence for pulse-like rupture. The second half of the paper uses two elastodynamic models—a slip-rate-imposed inversion based on Eq. (1) and a steady-state cohesive-zone pulse model—to infer shear stress evolution, breakdown work Wb, and an energy release rate G that is then identified with fracture energy Gc, with headline values Wb = 7.7 MJ/m2 and Gc = 5.8 MJ/m2. Data and code are provided in a Zenodo archive.

Significance. If the image-derived slip history is robust, this is a valuable observational benchmark: direct, near-field, high-rate measurement of on-fault slip during a natural earthquake is extremely rare, and the 1.4 s slip duration is a useful constraint for kinematic and dynamic source models. The pulse-like inference is plausible, and the authors are appropriately cautious about the healing mechanism. The dynamic source parameters, however, are not direct measurements in the same sense: they depend on an unmeasured local rupture velocity, an assumed steady-state geometry, and an assumed friction law. The paper's scientific significance therefore lies mainly in the slip-rate observation and in the template it provides for video-based fault monitoring, rather than in the specific stress and energy values, which should be presented as model-dependent estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [§A.3, Eq. (1), Fig. 4, Fig. A6] The local rupture velocity Vr is the controlling parameter for all inferred stresses and energies, but it is not measured. Section A.3 constructs two end-member rupture histories from a first supershear segment, a transition 19.6 km north of the camera, and a sudden deceleration, and the text concedes that 'more complex scenarios... may also account for the observed arrival times.' With the same slip-rate input, Vr/Cs = 0.75 gives Wb = 38.2 MJ/m2 while Vr/Cs = 0.90 gives Wb = 7.7 MJ/m2, and Fig. A6 spans 3.8 to 64.5 MJ/m2. The abstract and Section 4 nevertheless report Wb = 7.7 MJ/m2 and Gc = 5.8 MJ/m2 as determinate point values. This is not an acceptable presentation for load-bearing quantities, especially because Eq. (1) also assumes steady-state propagation at constant Vr, an assumption that is questionable for the decelerating rupture history constructed in §A.3. The authors should either provide a direct constraint on Vr or report all stress and energy results as intervals, and should remove the 'complete mechanical properties' framing from the abstract unless the uncertainty is propagated.
  2. [§A.5, Eqs. (A4)-(A6), Fig. 5] The energy release rate is not obtained from the measured slip-rate function alone. The model imposes a linear cohesive-zone friction law with fp = 0.6, fr = 0.1, and σ0 = 10 MPa, then fits Xc/L and Vr/Cs against the measured slip-rate time series using an SSI criterion. Equation (A6) and the formula G = ∫[τf(δ) − τr]dδ therefore yield a model-calibrated quantity, and the identification G = Gc is an explicit assumption rather than a measurement. The value Gc = 5.8 MJ/m2 scales with the assumed normal stress and friction parameters, and no uncertainty in σ0 is propagated. The manuscript should label Gc as an inferred quantity conditional on the assumed friction law, normal stress, and steady-state rupture model, and should not describe it as a 'direct estimate of the local fracture energy' from the CCTV data.
  3. [§A.1, Fig. 3, Fig. A1] The absolute cumulative slip (≈3 m) and hence the absolute slip rate (≈3.5 m/s) rest on the single manual tracking result R0 and a ±20% spatial scaling from the video-to-satellite calibration of plant boxes P1 and P2. The additional landmarks R1 and R2 have missing onset or end segments, and R2 is shifted so that its first value matches R1 at t = 0.34 s; they therefore do not provide an independent absolute calibration. The road and alley offsets shown in Fig. A1 (2.8 ± 0.4 m and 2.9 ± 0.3 m) are not incorporated into the uncertainty budget. The robust result—the 1.4 s slip duration and the overall pulse shape—is independent of this scaling, but the absolute slip and slip-rate values are not. The paper should state this distinction explicitly and provide a sensitivity test in which the final-slip normalization is varied, ideally with the unscaled displacement history.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§A.5, Fig. 5] The text uses both 'Scaled Similarity Index' and 'Signal Similarity Index' for SSI; the two names should be reconciled and the normalization of the index should be defined explicitly.
  2. [§A.4.1] The sentence 'we impose continuity of the stress gradient at the trailing edge of the pulse' appears twice in the same paragraph; the duplication should be removed.
  3. [Fig. A5] Panel G is captioned 'Error on slip measurements' but appears to show a fitting error as a function of ti and Δt; the caption should specify which error metric is plotted.
  4. [Eq. (A2)] The symbol αd appears in the formula for the scaled shear modulus, but only αs and αp are defined in the surrounding text; this looks like a typographical error and should be corrected to αp.
  5. [§A.3] The phrase 'two possible rupture histories' in the Fig. A3 caption is slightly misleading because both models share the same supershear first segment and differ only in the post-deceleration behavior; the caption should describe the shared construction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The CCTV-derived slip history is an independent kinematic measurement, but the headline 'direct estimate of local fracture energy' reduces by construction to an assumed linear friction law with assumed strength and normal stress, fitted only in slip-weakening distance; the reported rupture velocity is likewise an assumed end-member of a constructed arrival-time scenario.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Evaluation of rupture velocity and energy release rate' (p. 7); model inputs in §A.5.]
    "we fitted a classical two-dimensional steady-state rupture pulse model... the friction linearly decreases from the peak to the residual frictional strength (fp = 0.6 and fr = 0.1, respectively)... We assumed a nominal normal traction of σ0 = 10 MPa... The inferred strength drop was τp − τr = 5 MPa... the energy release rate G was computed as R Dc 0 [τf (δ) − τr]dδ = 5.8 MJ/m2... Assuming that G = Gc, our analysis provides here a direct estimate of the local fracture energy Gc of a natural fault."

    By construction, τp − τr = (fp − fr)σ0 = (0.6 − 0.1) × 10 MPa = 5 MPa: the 'inferred' strength drop is an input assumption, not a result of the video measurement. With the imposed linear cohesive law, G = ∫0^Dc[τf(δ) − τr]dδ = ½(τp − τr)Dc; the only data-constrained quantity is Dc (≈2.5 m), obtained by fitting the model's slip-rate pulse to the measured one. Thus the headline 'direct estimate of local fracture energy Gc' reduces by construction to the assumed friction parameters times a fitted distance; the CCTV data determine slip kinematics, not the stress drop or fracture energy. The abstract's 'complete mechanical properties... including the energy release rate' is therefore a model-calibrated output, not a direct measurement.

full rationale

The first half of the paper is genuinely self-contained: landmark tracking and image scaling give an independent slip history (duration ≈1.4 s, cumulative slip ≈3 m, peak slip rate ≈3.5 m/s), and the pulse-like interpretation follows from comparing local to total rupture duration. The circularity is confined to the mechanical inversion. The elastodynamic inversion (Eq. 1) does compute stress from the measured slip-rate for a given rupture velocity, which is not circular; however, the main-text 'direct estimate' of Gc is obtained from a separate steady-state pulse model whose peak and residual strengths are assumed (fp=0.6, fr=0.1, σ0=10 MPa). The strength drop of 5 MPa is exactly (fp−fr)σ0, so the reported energy release rate of 5.8 MJ/m² is the area of the assumed linear cohesive law with a fitted Dc, not an independent estimate. In addition, the local rupture velocity used for the elastodynamic Wb=7.7 MJ/m² is taken from a constructed supershear-to-subshear arrival-time scenario, and the paper's own sensitivity analysis spans 3.8–64.5 MJ/m², yet the abstract and conclusions report point values. The kinematics are robust; the energetics are partially circular because they reduce to the assumed friction law. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 32, 34) are not load-bearing for this issue, since the Gc < Wb inequality is also supported by independent references. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central measurement is independent, but the headline energy release rate is a fitted/assumed quantity presented as a direct estimate.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement of slip duration is grounded in the video, but the stress and energy results depend on several assumed inputs: friction coefficients, normal stress, rupture velocity, and the constructed transition scenario. The reported Gc is essentially the area of a triangle defined by the assumed strength drop and a fitted slip-weakening distance.

free parameters (7)
  • final_slip_scaling = 3.0 m (relative uncertainty 20%)
    Pixel-to-meter conversion from satellite measurement of plant box spacing; slip curves scaled so final slip equals 3 m.
  • rupture_velocity_ratio = Vr/Cs = 0.903
    Grid-search optimum over [0.75, 0.90] Cs in the steady-state pulse model.
  • cohesive_zone_ratio = Xc/L = 0.71
    Grid-search fit parameter maximizing SSI with measured slip-rate.
  • friction_coefficients = fp = 0.6, fr = 0.1
    Assumed peak and residual friction; determines strength drop.
  • normal_stress = sigma0 = 10 MPa
    Assumed shallow normal traction.
  • smoothing_window = 0.33 s
    Moving average applied to slip-rate after 90 Hz resampling.
  • chebyshev_degree = P = 6
    Degree of Chebyshev interpolation basis; sensitivity tested.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Elastodynamic equilibrium equation (Eq. 1) relating shear stress to slip-rate for a 2D mode II rupture
    Used to convert measured slip-rate into stress; standard singular integral equation in dynamic fracture mechanics.
  • domain assumption Steady-state, 2D plane-strain mode II rupture with constant sub-Rayleigh velocity Vr
    Assumed for the inversion; the paper acknowledges rupture velocity is not measured and constructs scenarios to constrain it.
  • domain assumption Linear cohesive zone friction law with peak friction 0.6 and residual friction 0.1, and no healing within the pulse
    Imposed in the Rice-style pulse model; directly sets the inferred strength drop.
  • domain assumption Normal traction sigma0 = 10 MPa
    Assumed nominal shallow-crust normal stress; sets the absolute scale of all stress and energy values.
  • ad hoc to paper Equating energy release rate G to fracture energy Gc
    Required to report Gc; the paper assumes all released energy contributes to fracture.
  • ad hoc to paper Supershear-to-subshear transition rupture history
    Constructed to match wave arrivals; free parameters include transition distance and delay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Estimation of Earthquake Source Properties from a Single CCTV Camera." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OF4SAHIH

@misc{pith2026250515461,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Estimation of Earthquake Source Properties from a Single CCTV Camera},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OF4SAHIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15461}
}
abstract

We present a direct measurement of the slip-rate function from a natural coseismic rupture, recorded on March 28, 2025, during the $M_w$ 7.7 Mandalay earthquake (Myanmar). This measurement was made on video footage of the surface rupture captured by a security camera located only meters away from the fault trace. Using direct image analysis, we measured the relative slip at each time step and deduced the slip rate. Our results show a local slip duration of 1.4 s and cumulative slip of $\sim$3 m, during which surface slip velocity peaked at $\sim$3.5 m/s with passage of the rupture front. These findings demonstrate the pulse-like nature of the seismic rupture, at the location of the recording. Using slip-pulse elastodynamic rupture models, we obtain the complete mechanical properties of this pulse, including the energy release rate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Supershear-subshear-supershear rupture sequence during the 2025 Mandalay Earthquake in Myanmar

    physics.geo-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The 2025 Mandalay earthquake rupture went supershear (~6 km/s), slowed to subshear (~3 km/s) before the video site, then re-accelerated to supershear.

  2. Video-based Direct Time Series Measurement of Along-Strike Slip on the Coseismic Surface Rupture During the 2025 Mw7.7 Myanmar Earthquake

    physics.geo-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pixel tracking of a CCTV video yields a sub-second record of surface slip during the 2025 Myanmar earthquake, with an inferred slip-weakening distance near 1.7 m.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Avouac, From geodetic imaging of seismic and aseismic fault slip to dynamic modeling of the seismic cycle

    J.-P. Avouac, From geodetic imaging of seismic and aseismic fault slip to dynamic modeling of the seismic cycle. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 43 (1), 233–271 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Tarantola, B

    A. Tarantola, B. Valette, Generalized nonlinear inverse problems solved using the least squares crite- rion. Reviews of Geophysics 20 (2), 219–232 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Sarao, S

    A. Sarao, S. Das, P. Suhadolc, Effect of non-uniform station coverage on the inversion for earthquake rupture history for a Haskell-type source model. Journal of Seismology 2, 1–25 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    I. A. Beresnev, Uncertainties in finite-fault slip inversions: to what extent to believe? (a critical review). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93 (6), 2445–2458 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Hartzell, P

    S. Hartzell, P. Liu, C. Mendoza, C. Ji, K. M. Larson, Stability and uncertainty of finite-fault slip inver- sions: Application to the 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97 (6), 1911–1934 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    P. M. Mai, et al., The earthquake-source inversion validation (SIV) project. Seismological Research Letters 87 (3), 690–708 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Bertrand, C

    G. Bertrand, C. Rangin, Tectonics of the western margin of the Shan plateau (central Myanmar): im- plication for the India–Indochina oblique convergence since the Oligocene. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 21 (10), 1139–1157 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    N. G. Reitman, et al., ArcGIS Experience Builder – Web App (2025), https://experience. arcgis.com/experience/e40a6967c3ea42dd85bf44037e05482b, consulted on May 15, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    U.S. Geological Survey, Finite Fault – M 7.7 - 2025 Mandalay, Burma (Myanmar) Earthquake (2025), https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000pn9s/ finite-fault, consulted on May 16, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Vallee, J

    M. Vallee, J. Charl ´ety, A. M. Ferreira, B. Delouis, J. Vergoz, SCARDEC: a new technique for the rapid determination of seismic moment magnitude, focal mechanism and source time functions for large earthquakes using body-wave deconvolution. Geophysical Journal International 1...

    2011

  3. [11]

    Inoue, et al., A multiple asymmetric bilateral rupture sequence derived from the peculiar tele-seismic P-waves of the 2025 Myanmar earthquake (2025)

    N. Inoue, et al., A multiple asymmetric bilateral rupture sequence derived from the peculiar tele-seismic P-waves of the 2025 Myanmar earthquake (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Richter, Watch an earthquake split a hillside in two

    H. Richter, Watch an earthquake split a hillside in two. Science (2025), news article published on the Science website, doi:10.1126/science.zt83qxx

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    Kearse, Y

    J. Kearse, Y . Kaneko, Curved Fault Slip Captured by CCTV Video During the 2025 Mw 7.7 Myanmar Earthquake. The Seismic Record 5 (3), 281–288 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    T. H. Heaton, Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture.Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 64, 1–20 (1990)

    1990

  7. [15]

    Melgar, G

    D. Melgar, G. P. Hayes, Systematic Observations of the Slip Pulse Properties of Large Earthquake Ruptures. Geophysical Research Letters 44 (19), 9691–9698 (2017), doi:10.1002/2017GL074916. peer reviewed manuscript 12

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Lambert, N

    V . Lambert, N. Lapusta, S. Perry, Propagation of large earthquakes as self-healing pulses or mild cracks. Nature 591 (7849), 252–258 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Barras, E

    F. Barras, E. Aharonov, F. Renard, A minimal model illuminates the physics of pulse-like seismic rup- ture and oscillatory slip rates in damaged faults.Geophysical Research Letters 52 (4), e2024GL111189 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Weng, J.-P

    H. Weng, J.-P. Ampuero, The dynamics of elongated earthquake ruptures. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 124 (8), 8584–8610 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Weng, J.-P

    H. Weng, J.-P. Ampuero, Integrated rupture mechanics for slow slip events and earthquakes. Nature Communications 13 (1), 7327 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    J. R. Rice, Heating and weakening of faults during earthquake slip. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 111 (B5) (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    Gabriel, D

    A.-A. Gabriel, D. I. Garagash, K. H. Palgunadi, P. M. Mai, Fault size–dependent fracture energy ex- plains multiscale seismicity and cascading earthquakes. Science 385(6707), eadj9587 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Garagash, Seismic and aseismic slip pulses driven by thermal pressurization of pore fluid

    D. Garagash, Seismic and aseismic slip pulses driven by thermal pressurization of pore fluid. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 117 (B4) (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Minson, M

    S. Minson, M. Simons, J. Beck, Bayesian inversion for finite fault earthquake source models I Theory and algorithm. Geophysical Journal International 194 (3), 1701–1726 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    H. N. Razafindrakoto, P. M. Mai, Uncertainty in earthquake source imaging due to variations in source time function and earth structure. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104 (2), 855–874 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    I. A. Beresnev, Choices of slip function and simulated ground motions. Pure and Applied Geophysics 181 (6), 1859–1869 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Lykotrafitis, A

    G. Lykotrafitis, A. J. Rosakis, G. Ravichandran, Self-healing pulse-like shear ruptures in the laboratory. Science 313 (5794), 1765–1768 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Nielsen, R

    S. Nielsen, R. Madariaga, On the Self-Healing Fracture Mode. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93 (6), 2375–2388 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Tinti, E

    E. Tinti, E. Fukuyama, A. Piatanesi, M. Cocco, A Kinematic Source-Time Function Compatible with Earthquake Dynamics. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(4), 1211–1223 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    J. R. Rice, C. G. Sammis, R. Parsons, Off-Fault Secondary Failure Induced by a Dynamic Slip Pulse. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95 (1), 109–134 (2005), doi:10.1785/0120030166

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Brantut, D

    N. Brantut, D. I. Garagash, H. Noda, Stability of pulse-like earthquake ruptures.Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 124 (8), 8998–9020 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    E. M. Dunham, R. J. Archuleta, Evidence for a supershear transient during the 2002 Denali fault earth- quake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94 (6B), S256–S268 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Paglialunga, F

    F. Paglialunga, F. Passelegue, M. Lebihain, M. Violay, Frictional weakening leads to unconventional singularities during dynamic rupture propagation. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 626, 118550 (2024). peer reviewed manuscript 13

    2024

  25. [33]

    D. S. Kammer, et al., Earthquake energy dissipation in a fracture mechanics framework. Nature com- munications 15 (1), 4736 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fryer, M

    B. Fryer, M. Lebihain, C. Noel, F. Paglialunga, F. Passel `egue, The effect of stress barriers on unconventional-singularity-driven frictional rupture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 193, 105876 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Abercrombie, J.R

    R.E. Abercrombie, J.R. Rice, Can observations of earthquake scaling constrain slip weakening? Geo- physical Journal International 162 (2), 406–424 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Tinti, P

    E. Tinti, P. Spudich, M. Cocco, Earthquake fracture energy inferred from kinematic rupture models on extended faults. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 110 (B12) (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Nielsen, et al., G: Fracture energy, friction and dissipation in earthquakes

    S. Nielsen, et al., G: Fracture energy, friction and dissipation in earthquakes. J. Seismol. 20, 1187–1205 (2016), doi:10.1007/s10950-016-9560-1

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Cocco, et al., Fracture energy and breakdown work during earthquakes

    M. Cocco, et al., Fracture energy and breakdown work during earthquakes. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 51 (1), 217–252 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Svetlizky, J

    I. Svetlizky, J. Fineberg, Classical shear cracks drive the onset of dry frictional motion. Nature 509 (7499), 205–208 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Paglialunga, et al., On the scale dependence in the dynamics of frictional rupture: Constant frac- ture energy versus size-dependent breakdown work

    F. Paglialunga, et al., On the scale dependence in the dynamics of frictional rupture: Constant frac- ture energy versus size-dependent breakdown work. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 584, 117442 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    D. S. Kammer, G. C. McLaskey, Fracture energy estimates from large-scale laboratory earthquakes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 511, 36–43 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    S. Xu, E. Fukuyama, F. Yamashita, Robust estimation of rupture properties at propagating front of laboratory earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 124 (1), 766–787 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Tsutsumi, T

    A. Tsutsumi, T. Shimamoto, High-velocity frictional properties of gabbro. Geophysical Research Let- ters 24 (6), 699–702 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Hirose, T

    T. Hirose, T. Shimamoto, Growth of molten zone as a mechanism of slip weakening of simulated faults in gabbro during frictional melting. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 110 (B5) (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Di Toro, et al., Fault lubrication during earthquakes

    G. Di Toro, et al., Fault lubrication during earthquakes. Nature 471 (7339), 494–498 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Mikumo, K

    T. Mikumo, K. B. Olsen, E. Fukuyama, Y . Yagi, Stress-breakdown time and slip-weakening distance in- ferred from slip-velocity functions on earthquake faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer- ica 93 (1), 264–282 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks (2016), doi:10.7914/SN/MM

    Department of Meteorology and Hydrology - National Earthquake Data Center, Myanmar National Seismic Network [Data set]. International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks (2016), doi:10.7914/SN/MM

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    GFZ Data Services (1993), doi:10.14470/TR560404

    GEOFON Data Centre, GEOFON Seismic Network [Data set]. GFZ Data Services (1993), doi:10.14470/TR560404

    1993 doi

  41. [49]

    E. M. Dunham, R. J. Archuleta, Near-source ground motion from steady state dynamic rupture pulses. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3) (2005). peer reviewed manuscript 14

    2005

  42. [50]

    Gabrieli, Y

    T. Gabrieli, Y . Tal, Lab earthquakes reveal a wide range of rupture behaviors controlled by fault bends. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (17), e2425471122 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    D. I. Garagash, L. N. Germanovich, Nucleation and arrest of dynamic slip on a pressurized fault. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 117 (B10) (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    R. C. Viesca, D. I. Garagash, Numerical methods for coupled fracture problems. Journal of the Me- chanics and Physics of Solids 113, 13–34 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Passel `egue, F., Data and model for Direct Estimation of Earthquake Source Properties from a Single CCTV Camera. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.16785672 (2025)

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Sieh, Behavior of the Superstition Hills fault during the past 330 years

    Hudnut, K. Sieh, Behavior of the Superstition Hills fault during the past 330 years. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 79 (2), 304–329 (1989) peer reviewed manuscript 15

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.