Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Recent observations show that certain rupture phase can propagate backward relative to the earlier one during a single earthquake event. Such back‐propagating rupture (BPR) was not well considered by the conventional earthquake source studies and remains a mystery to the seismological community. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of BPR, by combining theoretical considerations, numerical simulations, and observational evidences. First, we argue that BPR in terms of back‐propagating stress wave is an intrinsic feature during dynamic ruptures; however, its signature can be easily masked by the destructive interference behind the primary rupture front. Then, we propose an idea that perturbation to an otherwise smooth rupture process may make some phases of BPR observable. We test and verify this idea by numerically simulating rupture propagation under a variety of perturbations, including a sudden change of stress, bulk or interfacial property and fault geometry along rupture propagation path. We further cross‐validate the numerical results by available observations from laboratory and natural earthquakes, and confirm that rupture “reflection” at free surface, rupture coalescence and breakage of prominent asperity are very efficient for exciting observable BPR. Based on the simulated and observed results, we classify BPR into two general types: interface wave and high‐order re‐rupture, depending on the stress recovery and drop before and after the arrival of BPR, respectively. Our work clarifies the nature and excitation of BPR, and can help improve the understanding of earthquake physics, the inference of fault property distribution and evolution, and the assessment of earthquake hazard.
Recent observations show that certain rupture phase can propagate backward relative to the earlier one during a single earthquake event. Such back‐propagating rupture (BPR) was not well considered by the conventional earthquake source studies and remains a mystery to the seismological community. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of BPR, by combining theoretical considerations, numerical simulations, and observational evidences. First, we argue that BPR in terms of back‐propagating stress wave is an intrinsic feature during dynamic ruptures; however, its signature can be easily masked by the destructive interference behind the primary rupture front. Then, we propose an idea that perturbation to an otherwise smooth rupture process may make some phases of BPR observable. We test and verify this idea by numerically simulating rupture propagation under a variety of perturbations, including a sudden change of stress, bulk or interfacial property and fault geometry along rupture propagation path. We further cross‐validate the numerical results by available observations from laboratory and natural earthquakes, and confirm that rupture “reflection” at free surface, rupture coalescence and breakage of prominent asperity are very efficient for exciting observable BPR. Based on the simulated and observed results, we classify BPR into two general types: interface wave and high‐order re‐rupture, depending on the stress recovery and drop before and after the arrival of BPR, respectively. Our work clarifies the nature and excitation of BPR, and can help improve the understanding of earthquake physics, the inference of fault property distribution and evolution, and the assessment of earthquake hazard.
Summary We investigate the impact of sediment layers on ground motion characteristics during subshear and supershear rupture growth. Our findings suggest that sediment layers may lead to local supershear propagation, affecting ground motion, especially in the fault parallel (FP) direction. In contrast to homogeneous material models, we find that in the presence of sediment layers, a larger fault normal (FN) compared to fault parallel (FP) particle velocity jump, reflects shear propagation at depth but does not rule out shallow supershear propagation. Conversely, a large fault parallel (FP) compared to fault normal (FN) particle velocity jump indicates supershear propagation at depth. In the presence of a shallow layer, we also uncover a non-monotonic behavior in the sediment’s influence on supershear transition and ground motion characteristics. During supershear propagation at depth we observe that sediment layers contribute to enhancing FP velocity pulses while minimally affecting the FN component. Furthermore, in the limit of global supershear propagation we identify local supersonic propagation within the sediment layers that significantly alters the velocity field around the rupture tip as observed on the free surface, creating both dilatational and shear Mach cones. In all our models with sediments we also find a significant enhancement in the fault vertical component of ground velocity. This could have particular implications for hazard assessments, such as in applications related to linear infrastructure, or a higher propensity to tsunami wave generation. Our research unravels the importance of considering heterogeneous subsurface material distribution in our physical models as they can have drastic implications on earthquake source physics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.