Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

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

T0 review · 4 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 The 2025 Mandalay earthquake's rupture began supershear, dropped to subshear, then became supershear again.

desk verdict The qualitative supershear-subshear-supershear sequence is robust and worth knowing; the specific deceleration point and barrier story rest on a post hoc parameter choice that the data do not prefer. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09652 v3 pith:IRDNSL7H submitted 2025-06-11 physics.geo-ph

Shiro Hirano , Ryosuke Doke , Takuto Maeda This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-ph
keywords MandalayearthquakeSagaingfaultsupershearrupturesubsheardecelerationCCTVvideokinematicsimulationsatelliteslipdistribution
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

The paper argues that the Mw7.7 Mandalay earthquake of 28 March 2025 did not rupture at one uniform speed. It claims that the rupture started at supershear speed near the epicenter, slowed to about 3 km/s before passing a site 124 km to the south, and then re-accelerated to supershear, reaching a seismic station 246 km away roughly 50 seconds after initiation. The evidence combines a CCTV video showing S-waves arriving about two seconds before surface slip, kinematic simulations that reproduce the observed ground acceleration only with a deceleration, and a satellite-derived slip minimum 40–60 km from the epicenter interpreted as a low-stress-drop barrier. If correct, this documents a complete supershear-to-subshear-to-supershear rupture sequence and ties the speed change to a geological segment boundary. It also shows that a single security camera can provide rupture-timing data where no seismometers exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a rupture-front timing diagram. The P-wave, S-wave, and rupture-front arrivals read from the video fix the order at $r = 124$ km (P by $T = 30$ s, S at $T \approx 33$ s, slip at $T \approx 35$ s), and the condition that the rupture must reach NPW at $t = 50$ s enforces the speed history. From these, with $V_P = 6.0$ km/s and $V_S = 3.5$ km/s, the deceleration point and subshear speed are solved geometrically ($r_d = 65$–$99$ km, $V_{sub} = 2.7$–$3.1$ km/s). The paper validates this with kinematic simulations: a two-second sine-squared slip pulse with the deceleration scenario produces an eastward acceleration pulse before slip onset in both 2-D and 3-D models, while a constant 4.92 km/s supershear pulse does not. The interpretation also uses a spectral relation between slip and stress drop to connect the observed slip minimum to a low-stress-drop barrier.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a second near-fault record between the deceleration band and NPW: if its rupture-arrival time requires a sustained subshear segment or a much earlier recovery, the inferred re-acceleration fails. More immediately, re-reading the CCTV frames with sub-pixel image correlation to fix the exact P, S, and slip times would distinguish the two end-members (deceleration near 99 km versus near 65 km); if the S-wave does not consistently lead the rupture by about two seconds, the deceleration claim loses its quantitative anchor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 28 March 2025, the Mw7.7 Mandalay earthquake ruptured a roughly 450 km stretch of the Sagaing fault. Combining a CCTV video taken 124 km south of the hypocenter with the near-fault seismic record at Naypyidaw (246 km away) and satellite-measured surface slip, the paper reconstructs the rupture's along-fault speed. Its central claim: the rupture left the epicenter at supershear speed, decelerated to about 2.7–3.1 km/s in the band 65–99 km from the hypocenter, and then re-accelerated to supershear, reaching the southern station about 50 s after initiation. The deceleration is signaled in the video by an S-wave arriving roughly two seconds before the rupture front, and in the ground-motion pattern by an eastward fault-normal acceleration that kinematic simulations reproduce only if the rupture slows down. The paper ties the slowdown to a low-slip (2–3 m) segment at 40–60 km, interpreted as a low-stress-drop barrier near 21.5N, and proposes that the energy-release-rate feedback of unstable rupture speeds explains the temporary return to subshear.

Load-bearing premise

All derived speeds depend on the reading that the CCTV video shows the P-wave by $T = 30$ s, the S-wave at about $T = 33$ s, and surface slip at about $T = 35$ s at the camera site, together with assumed wave speeds $V_P = 6.0$ km/s and $V_S = 3.5$ km/s and the 50 s rupture arrival at NPW; if that timing or those values are wrong, the deceleration and its location lose their quantitative support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Average rupture speeds can hide dramatic along-fault speed changes; for this earthquake, the mean 4.92 km/s to NPW is a mix of roughly 6 km/s, about 3 km/s, and then supershear again.
  • Low-slip, low-stress-drop segments on strike-slip faults can act as barriers that temporarily drop a supershear rupture below the S-wave speed.
  • Fault-normal ground motion near a fault carries a fingerprint of the rupture speed regime: the sign and timing of the pre-slip acceleration pulse changes between subshear and supershear propagation.
  • A single CCTV camera can serve as a de facto seismic station, and with one waveform record plus an origin time it can constrain rupture-velocity changes.
  • Satellite slip maps can help locate where rupture speed changes are expected by revealing stress-drop minima.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The timing data alone allow two end-member deceleration points, roughly 99 km for a 3 s P-wave duration and roughly 65 km for the latest case the paper simulates; matching the satellite slip minimum at 40–60 km is what selects the nearer point, so the barrier link is not uniquely determined by the timing itself.
  • If the inferred sequence is typical, large strike-slip ruptures crossing segment boundaries should frequently show speed drops, and dynamic rupture models with heterogeneous stress drop could predict where and whether the rupture recovers to supershear.
  • Near-fault strong-motion hazard may depend on where a rupture switches regime, since particle motion and radiation patterns differ between subshear and supershear segments; this suggests that mapping low-slip barriers before an earthquake matters for hazard estimation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the 2025 M_w7.7 Mandalay, Myanmar earthquake and claims, from a CCTV video of surface rupture, the GEOFON station NPW record, kinematic wavefield simulations, and Sentinel-2 pixel-offset slip estimates, that the southward rupture initially propagated at supershear speed (~6 km/s), decelerated to subshear speed (~2.7–3.1 km/s) before reaching the camera at 124 km from the hypocenter, and then re-accelerated to supershear speed to reach NPW at t_N = 50 s. The deceleration is inferred from an S-wave observed ~2 s before rupture onset in the video combined with the NPW arrival time. The authors further associate the inferred deceleration point (rd = 65–99 km) with a Sentinel-2 slip minimum at 40–60 km south of the epicenter and propose a low-stress-drop segment boundary as the cause of the temporary deceleration. The paper includes 2-D BEM and 3-D FDM simulations of fault-normal acceleration to argue that the observed eastward acceleration before rupture is consistent with the deceleration scenario but not with a constant supershear scenario.

Significance. If the central inference holds, this is a rare direct observation of a supershear-to-subshear-to-supershear rupture sequence, and the paper combines a unique video dataset, near-field seismic data, and satellite geodesy. The kinematic-constraint argument in Section 2.1 and Supplementary A.2 is internally consistent and does not, by itself, depend on the barrier-causation story: the S-before-rupture timing at CCTV and the t_N = 50 s arrival at NPW force a subshear segment somewhere between the hypocenter and NPW. The paper also provides open code and data links, and the two independent simulation approaches (BEM and FDM) reproduce the qualitative fault-normal acceleration pattern. However, the quantitative deceleration point and the causal link to the slip minimum rest on a parameter choice (the 'latest case' τP ≈ 7 s) that the authors select because it places rd near the Sentinel-2 slip minimum. The video-derived τP ≈ 3 s gives rd ≈ 99 km, well away from the 40–60 km slip low.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Material A.2] The choice of the 'latest case' (τP ≈ 7 s, rd = 65.2 km, Vsub = 3.13 km/s) for the numerical simulations is explicitly justified by the statement that 'rd = 65.2 is more comparable to the local minimum of the surface slip.' This is a post hoc selection: the video's own observed P-to-S interval gives τP ≈ 3 s and rd ≈ 98.8 km, whereas τP is only constrained as a lower bound. The data therefore do not prefer rd = 65 km over rd = 99 km, and the claimed spatial coincidence between the deceleration point and the 40–60 km slip minimum is largely produced by the parameter choice. Since the barrier-causation narrative in Sections 3 and 4 rests entirely on this coincidence, the paper must either provide a rigorous treatment of τP uncertainty (e.g., a range of rd and Vsub with a likelihood or posterior) or explicitly refrain from claiming that the low-slip segment caused the deceleration.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Supplementary A.2] The entire quantitative framework depends on t_N = 50 s, but this value is read from a figure in Lai et al. (2025) and corrected by 2 s because of an assumed origin-time difference. The paper provides no uncertainty or alternative values for t_N. If t_N were 48 s or 52 s, the allowed τP range, rd, and Vsub would all shift by several kilometers and by up to ~0.2 km/s. The authors should show the sensitivity of rd and Vsub to t_N and to the assumed V_P = 6.0 km/s and V_S = 3.5 km/s before presenting 65–99 km and 2.7–3.1 km/s as definitive ranges.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Figure 3] The kinematic simulations are presented as strong support for the deceleration scenario, but the 'decelerating' input uses exactly the rd = 65.2 km and Vsub = 3.13 km/s values that were selected in Supplementary A.2 because they match the slip minimum. The comparison therefore demonstrates that a model built to reproduce the video's S-before-rupture timing also produces an eastward acceleration pulse before rupture, not that the data uniquely require that specific deceleration point. The paper should frame this as a consistency check rather than independent confirmation, and should test whether the acceleration polarity remains eastward for the earliest case (rd ≈ 99 km, Vsub ≈ 2.74 km/s) over the full allowed range.
  4. [Section 3 and Figure 2b] The Sentinel-2 slip minimum at 40–60 km is estimated from north-component pixel offsets with an 80 m posting, a 320 m correlation window, and exclusion of 160 m on each side of the fault. The paper does not report formal uncertainties, a resolution test, or an assessment of possible atmospheric and orbital artifacts for this particular local minimum. Because this slip low is the only independent evidence for the low-stress-drop barrier invoked in the causal explanation, its robustness should be quantified before it is used to explain the rupture deceleration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The earthquake magnitude notation appears as 'Mw7.7' in several places; it should be typeset as M_w7.7 for consistency with seismological convention.
  2. [Section 2.2] The description of the gate displacement is confusing: the paper states that the ground accelerated east (left side of the video frames) and that the sliding gate was 'displaced apparently westward due to inertia.' Please define the mapping between video-left and geographic east explicitly and reconcile this with the sign convention used for the eastward acceleration in Figure 3.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The sentence 'The authors thank Dr. Ryo Okuwaki for their helpful comments' uses a plural pronoun for a singular named individual; this should be rephrased.
  4. [References] The reference list contains garbled characters, for example 'Kahramanmara¸ s' in the METU-EERC entry; these need to be corrected.
  5. [Figure 3] The caption says 'All units are arbitrary,' which is fine, but the text in Section 2.2 refers to 'significant eastward acceleration' without specifying the normalization used for the two simulations; please state whether the amplitudes are normalized separately in each panel.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The deceleration inference is independently constrained, but the barrier-causation claim is weakened by selecting the 'latest case' deceleration point to match the Sentinel-2 slip minimum.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Material A.2, last sentence (invoked in Discussion, Section 3)]
    "For numerical simulations, the latest case was employed because rd = 65.2 is more comparable to the local minimum of the surface slip as in Discussion section."

    The video timing alone leaves tau_P uncertain, giving a range of deceleration points from rd = 98.8 km (tau_P = 3 s) to rd = 65.2 km (the equality in inequality S.1). The authors choose the endpoint rd = 65.2 km for their simulations explicitly because it is closer to the 40-60 km surface-slip minimum. The later causal claim that this slip minimum represents a low-stress-drop barrier that 'likely caused the temporary deceleration' is then supported partly by the proximity of the modeled deceleration point to that same slip minimum. That proximity was imposed by the scenario choice, not independently predicted, so the spatial correlation between the modeled deceleration point and the slip minimum is partly circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claim of a supershear-to-subshear-to-supershear rupture sequence is not circular overall. It is derived from independent constraints: the video's S-wave arrival roughly 2 seconds before visible fault slip at the CCTV site, the rupture arrival at station NPW near t = 50 s, and the medium velocities VP = 6.0 km/s and VS = 3.5 km/s. The subsequent 2-D and 3-D kinematic simulations produce a fault-normal eastward acceleration prior to slip only for the deceleration scenario, which is a genuinely independent consistency check not used to determine the timing parameters. The circular element is confined to the causal interpretation: the paper admits the P-wave onset is uncertain, computes a range of deceleration points, and then selects the 'latest case' (rd = 65.2 km) for simulation because it is more comparable to the Sentinel-2 slip minimum at 40-60 km. The claimed spatial correlation between the deceleration point and the low-slip barrier is therefore partly imposed by construction rather than predicted. Because the qualitative rupture-speed change retains independent support, this is partial circularity rather than a wholesale collapse of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on two observational lynchpins (video phase timing at CCTV and the single-station NPW arrival reading), three chosen parameters (tau_P, V_sup, the 2 s slip-pulse duration), standard medium assumptions (V_P = 6.0, V_S = 3.5 km/s, homogeneous), and textbook fracture mechanics. No new physical entities are postulated. The main epistemic cost is the post hoc selection of the latest case (tau_P ~ 7 s) to align the deceleration point with the slip minimum, which couples the causal explanation to the parameter choice.

free parameters (4)
  • P-wave duration at CCTV (tau_P) = 3 s (earliest case) to ~7 s (latest case, used in primary simulation)
    The S-wave arrival at CCTV is defined as t_S_C = V_P^-1 r_C + tau_P. The paper states tau_P >= 3 s and selects the latest case (tau_P ~ 7 s) so that r_d = 65.2 km aligns with the inferred slip minimum (Supp A.2). Post hoc selection of a free timing parameter.
  • Initial supershear speed (V_sup) = 6.0 km/s in the primary simulation (range 3.5-6.0 km/s considered)
    V_sup is bounded between V_S and V_P; the quoted (r_d, V_sub) values and the Fig 3b simulation use V_sup = V_P = 6.0 km/s. Fig S.2b shows V_sup <= 5 km/s gives very low V_sub, and V_sup < sqrt(2) V_S is deemed unstable (Supp A.2).
  • Rupture arrival time at NPW (t_N) = 50 s (USGS origin time); 48 s under Lai et al. origin time
    Read from a single near-fault waveform at NPW, 'likely associated with the passage of the rupture front'. The 2 s origin-time ambiguity shifts all derived parameters; the paper adopts 50 s without propagating the 48 s alternative (Section 2.1, Supp A.2).
  • Slip pulse duration in kinematic models = 2 s
    The sin^2 slip-rate pulse with two-second duration is assumed in both scenarios based on the video's observed slip duration; the paper acknowledges slip durations can exceed 10 s elsewhere (Section 2.2).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Constant medium velocities V_P = 6.0 km/s and V_S = 3.5 km/s along the entire path
    Used in all arrival-time calculations and in the 3D model, which assumes a homogeneous viscoelastic half-space (Supp A.2, A.4).
  • standard math Rupture speed cannot exceed the P-wave speed
    Defines the forbidden region in Fig 2a and the inequality in Eq. S.1.
  • domain assumption The shakings seen in the video (onset by T=30, intense at T=33, slip at T=35) correspond to P-wave, S-wave, and rupture arrivals
    The entire timing derivation depends on this phase identification (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The observed S-wave at CCTV is radiated at the rupture deceleration point
    Interpretation required to derive r_d as the intersection of the S-wave front and the supershear rupture line (Supp A.2).
  • standard math Slip and stress drop are related by D(k) ~ -2/(mu|k|) tau(k)
    Cited to Andrews (1980); used to infer a low stress-drop region from the slip minimum (Section 3).
  • standard math Energy release rate scales with stress drop via the stress intensity factor, and the Rayleigh-to-sqrt(2)V_S speed range is unstable
    Cited to Freund (1990); used to argue deceleration feedback and re-acceleration (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The gate displacement direction in the video indicates eastward ground acceleration
    Inference from the video used to discriminate rupture scenarios (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supershear-subshear-supershear rupture sequence during the 2025 Mandalay Earthquake in Myanmar." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRDNSL7H

@misc{pith2026250609652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supershear-subshear-supershear rupture sequence during the 2025 Mandalay Earthquake in Myanmar},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRDNSL7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09652}
}
abstract

We investigated the rupture dynamics of the 2025 $M_w$7.7 Mandalay, Myanmar earthquake, using a video recording of surface rupture, strong motion recordings, waveform simulation, and satellite imagery. Our assessment, based on the S-wave observation in the video and rupture arrival time at a seismic station 246 km south of the hypocenter, suggests that rupture decelerated to subshear speeds ($\sim$3 km/s) from initial supershear propagation ($\sim$6 km/s) before reaching the camera location. This deceleration is also supported by comparison between the fault-normal acceleration patterns seen in the video and that simulated by kinematic rupture modeling. Additionally, satellite imagery indicated a local minimum in slip (2$-$3 m) approximately 40$-$60 km south of the epicenter, suggesting a region of reduced stress drop that likely caused the temporary deceleration. Beyond this point, the rupture appears to have re-established supershear propagation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09652 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The upper part of the original video frame. The white line between the two horizontal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) A potential rupture scenario illustrating supershear-subshear-supershear propagation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The assumed slip history (dashed black) and the calculated fault-normal acceleration (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aati, S., Avouac, J.-P., Rupnik, E., & Deseilligny, M.-P. (2022a). Potential and limitation of planetscope images for 2-d and 3-d earth surface monitoring with example of applications to glaciers and earthquakes. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 60, 1--19. https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2022.3215821

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Aati, S., Milliner, C., & Avouac, J.-P. (2022b). A new approach for 2-d and 3-d precise measurements of ground deformation from optimized registration and correlation of optical images and ica-based filtering of image geometry artifacts. Remote Sensing of Environment , 277, 113038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113038

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Abdelmeguid, M., Elbanna, A., & Rosakis, A. (2024). Ground motion characteristics of subshear and supershear ruptures in the presence of sediment layers. Geophysical Journal International , 240(2), 967–987. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae422

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggae422 2024

  4. [4]

    Andrews, D. J. (1980). A stochastic fault model: 1. static case. J. Geophys. Res. , 85(B7), 3867--3877

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Andrews, D. J. & Barall, M. (2011). Specifying initial stress for dynamic heterogeneous earthquake source models. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. , 101(5), 2408--2417

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Coutant, O., Virieux, J., & Zollo, A. (1995). Numerical source implementation in a 2d finite difference scheme for wave propagation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 85(5), 1507--1512. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0850051507

    work page doi:10.1785/bssa0850051507 1995

  7. [7]

    Dunham, E. M. & Archuleta, R. J. (2005). Near-source ground motion from steady state dynamic rupture pulses. Geophysical Research Letters , 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl021793

    work page doi:10.1029/2004gl021793 2005

  8. [8]

    Freund, L. B. (1990). Dynamic Fracture Mechanics . Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1990

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    & Mikumo, T

    Fukuyama, E. & Mikumo, T. (2007). Slip-weakening distance estimated at near-fault stations. Geophysical Research Letters , 34(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL029203

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Gao, J., Zheng, F., Wang, C., & Meng, H. (2025). Video-based direct time series measurement of along-strike slip on the coseismic surface rupture during the 2025 mw7.7 myanmar earthquake . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.20494

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    I analyzed the distance between two edges in the video during surface rupture due to the M7.7 Myanmar earthquake

    Hirano, S. (2025). @Bimaterial. “I analyzed the distance between two edges in the video during surface rupture due to the M7.7 Myanmar earthquake.” X. https://x.com/Bimaterial/status/1922157655641952512, posted on May 13, 2025, 5:11 pm, archived at https://archive.md/GJKdo

    2025

  4. [12]

    & Maung Maung, P

    Hurukawa, N. & Maung Maung, P. (2011). Two seismic gaps on the sagaing fault, myanmar, derived from relocation of historical earthquakes since 1918. Geophysical Research Letters , 38(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046099

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Inoue, N., Yamaguchi, R., Yagi, Y., Okuwaki, R., Bogdan, E., & Tadapansawut, T. (2025). A multiple asymmetric bilateral rupture sequence derived from the peculiar tele-seismic p-waves of the 2025 Mandalay, Myanmar earthquake. Seismica , 4(1). https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica....

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    & Kaneko, Y

    Kearse, J. & Kaneko, Y. (2025). Curved fault slip captured by CCTV video during the 2025 mw 7.7 Myanmar earthquake. The Seismic Record , 5(3), 281--288. https://doi.org/10.1785/0320250024

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Htwe, Y

    Lai, S.-T., Oo, K. M., Htwe, Y. M. M., Yi, T., Than, H. H., Than, O., Min, Z., Oo, T. M., Maung, P. M., Bindi, D., Cotton, F., Evans, P. L., Heinloo, A., Hillmann, L., Saul, J., Sens-Schoenfelder, C., Strollo, A., Tilmann, F., Weatherill, G., Yen, M.-H., Zaccarelli, R., Zieke,...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Twardzik, C., Bletery, Q., Hudnut, K

    Latour, S., Lebihain, M., Bhat, H. S., Twardzik, C., Bletery, Q., Hudnut, K. W., & Passelègue, F. (2025). Direct estimation of earthquake source properties from a single CCTV camera . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.15461

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Maeda, T. (2025). Openswpc/openswpc: Version 25.05.2 . https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.16264099

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Maeda, T., Takemura, S., & Furumura, T. (2017). OpenSWPC : an open-source integrated parallel simulation code for modeling seismic wave propagation in 3D heterogeneous viscoelastic media. Earth, Planets and Space , 69(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0687-2

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Preliminary report on the Pazarcık ( Kahramanmaraş ) mw 7.7 and Elbistan ( Kahramanmaraş ) mw 7.6 earthquakes

    METU-EERC (2023). Preliminary report on the Pazarcık ( Kahramanmaraş ) mw 7.7 and Elbistan ( Kahramanmaraş ) mw 7.6 earthquakes. Technical report. https://eerc.metu.edu.tr/en/announcement/metu-eerc-preliminary-report-pazarcik-kahramanmaras-mw-77-and-elbistan-kahramanmaras-mw

    2023

  12. [20]

    Nakamura, T., Takenaka, H., Okamoto, T., & Kaneda, Y. (2012). FDM simulation of seismic-wave propagation for an aftershock of the 2009 Suruga Bay earthquake: Effects of ocean-bottom topography and seawater layer. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 102(6), 2420-...

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Pitarka, A. (1999). 3D elastic finite-difference modeling of seismic motion using staggered grids with nonuniform spacing. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 89(1), 54--68. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0890010054

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    & Pagani, M

    Styron, R. & Pagani, M. (2020). The GEM global active faults database. Earthquake Spectra , 36(1\_suppl), 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020944182

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    & Madariaga, R

    Tada, T. & Madariaga, R. (2000). Dynamic modelling of the flat 2-D crack by a semi-analytic BIEM scheme. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , 50, 227--251. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0207(20010110)50:1<227::AID-NME166>3.0.CO;2-5

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    O., Aung, L

    Tha Zin Htet Tin , Nishimura, T., Hashimoto, M., Lindsey, E. O., Aung, L. T., Min, S. M., & Thant, M. (2022). Present-day crustal deformation and slip rate along the southern Sagaing fault in myanmar by GNSS observation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences , 228, 105125. https://d...

    2022

  17. [25]

    M7.7--2025 mandalay, burma (myanmar) earthquake

    USGS (2025). M7.7--2025 mandalay, burma (myanmar) earthquake . https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000pn9s/executive

    2025

  18. [26]

    & Shen, Y

    Zhang, W. & Shen, Y. (2010). Unsplit complex frequency-shifted PML implementation using auxiliary differential equations for seismic wave modeling. GEOPHYSICS , 75(4), T141--T154. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3463431

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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