Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Early and persistent supershear rupture of the 2018 magnitude 7.5 Palu earthquake

Nature Geoscience volume 12, pages 200–205 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The speed at which an earthquake rupture propagates affects its energy balance and ground shaking impact. Dynamic models of supershear earthquakes, which are faster than the speed of shear waves, often start at subshear speed and later run faster than Eshelby’s speed. Here we present robust evidence of an early and persistent supershear rupture at the sub-Eshelby speed of the 2018 magnitude 7.5 Palu, Indonesia, earthquake. Slowness-enhanced back-projection of teleseismic data provides a sharp image of the rupture process, along a path consistent with the surface rupture trace inferred by subpixel correlation of synthetic-aperture radar and satellite optical images. The rupture propagated at a sustained velocity of 4.1 km s–1 from its initiation to its end, despite large fault bends. The persistent supershear speed is further validated by seismological evidence of far-field Rayleigh Mach waves. The unusual features of this earthquake probe the connections between the rupture dynamics and fault structure. An early supershear transition could be promoted by fault roughness near the hypocentre. Steady rupture propagation at a speed unexpected in homogeneous media could result from the presence of a low-velocity damaged fault zone.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Surface rupture trace and supershear speed of the Palu earthquake.
Fig. 2: Calibration of back-projection based on aftershock data.
Fig. 3: Evidence of a far-field Rayleigh-wave Mach cone.
Fig. 4: Evidence of Rayleigh Mach waves.

Data availability

The ALOS-2 original data can be obtained from JAXA. Derived pixel offset maps can be obtained from the authors. Copernicus Sentinel images are available at no cost from the Copernicus Open Access Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/). PlanetScope images are available from Planet Labs (https://www.planet.com/). The broadband seismograms are accessed from IRIS (www.iris.edu) data centres for the Australian and Alaskan networks, from ORFEUS (www.orfeus-eu.org) for the Turkish network, from GEONET (www.geonet.org.nz) for the New Zealand network and from Hi-net (http://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp) for the Japan network. The earthquake catalogues are obtained from the USGS NEIC (http://earthquake.usgs.gov). The background topography and bathymetry used in our figures are provided by the NOAA National Center for Environmental Information (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1sources.html). The USGS W-phase solution can be accessed at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us1000h3p4/moment-tensor. The computer code for back-projection is available upon request to L.M.

References

  1. Burridge, R. Admissible speeds for plane‐strain self‐similar shear cracks with friction but lacking cohesion. Geophys. J. R. Astronom. Soc. 35, 439–455 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews, D. J. Rupture velocity of plane strain shear cracks. J. Geophys. Res. 81, 5679–5687 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xia, K., Rosakis, A. J. & Kanamori, H. Laboratory earthquakes: the sub-Rayleigh-to-supershear rupture transition. Science 303, 1859–1861 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Das, S. in Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Vol. 2 (ed. Ansall, A.) 1–20 (Springer, Cham, 2015).

  5. Bouchon, M. et al. Faulting characteristics of supershear earthquakes. Tectonophysics 493, 244–253 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang, Y., Ampuero, J. P. & Helmberger, D. V. The potential for supershear earthquakes in damaged fault zones—theory and observations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 433, 109–115 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Perrin, C., Manighetti, I., Ampuero, J. P., Cappa, F. & Gaudemer, Y. Location of largest earthquake slip and fast rupture controlled by along‐strike change in fault structural maturity due to fault growth. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 3666–3685 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruhat, L., Fang, Z. & Dunham, E. M. Rupture complexity and the supershear transition on rough faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 210–224 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Socquet, A. et al. India and Sunda plates motion and deformation along their boundary in Myanmar determined by GPS. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 111, B05406 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Watkinson, I. M. & Hall, R. in Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction (eds Cummins, P. R. & Meilano, I.) 71–120 (Geological Society Special Publications Vol. 441, Geological Society, London, 2017).

  11. Cipta, A et al. in Geohazards in Indonesia: Earth Science for Disaster Risk Reduction (eds Cummins, P. R. & Meilano, I.) 133–152 (Geological Society Special Publications Vol. 441, Geological Society, London, 2017).

  12. Kiser, E. & Ishii, M. Back-projection imaging of earthquakes. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 45, 271–299 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meng, L., Zhang, A. & Yagi, Y. Improving back projection imaging with a novel physics‐based aftershock calibration approach: A case study of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 628–636 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meng, L., Inbal, A. & Ampuero, J. P. A window into the complexity of the dynamic rupture of the 2011 M w 9 Tohoku‐Oki earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L00G07 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meng, L. et al. Earthquake in a maze: compressional rupture branching during the 2012 M w 8.6 Sumatra earthquake. Science 337, 724–726 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Laske, G., Masters, G., Ma, Z. & Pasyanos, M. Update on CRUST1. 0—a 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 15, 2658 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fialko, Y., Sandwell, D., Simons, M. & Rosen, P. Three-dimensional deformation caused by the Bam, Iran, earthquake and the origin of shallow slip deficit. Nature 435, 295–299 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu, X. et al. Refining the shallow slip deficit. Geophys. J. Int. 204, 1867–1886 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vallée, M., Landès, M., Shapiro, N. M. & Klinger, Y. The 14 November 2001 Kokoxili (Tibet) earthquake: high‐frequency seismic radiation originating from the transitions between sub‐Rayleigh and supershear rupture velocity regimes. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B07305 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang, D., Mori, J. & Koketsu, K. Fast rupture propagation for large strike-slip earthquakes. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 440, 115–126 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huang, Y., Ampuero, J. P. & Helmberger, D. V. Earthquake ruptures modulated by waves in damaged fault zones. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 3133–3154 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vallée, M. & Dunham, E. M. Observation of far‐field Mach waves generated by the 2001 Kokoxili supershear earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett 39, L05311 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunham, E. M. & Bhat, H. S. Attenuation of radiated ground motion and stresses from three-dimensional supershear ruptures. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B08319 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ekström, G. A global model of Love and Rayleigh surface wave dispersion and anisotropy, 25-250 s. Geophys. J. Int. 187, 1668–1686 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dunham, E. M. Conditions governing the occurrence of supershear ruptures under slip‐weakening friction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 112, B07302 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, Y. & Lapusta, N. Transition of model II cracks from sub-Rayleigh to intersonic speeds in the presence of favorable heterogeneity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 56, 25–50 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dieterich, J. H. & Smith, D. E. in Mechanics, Structure and Evolution of Fault Zones (eds Ben-Zion, Y. & Sammis, C.) 1799–1815 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2009).

  28. Burridge, R., Conn, G. & Freund, L. B. The stability of a rapid mode II shear crack with finite cohesive traction. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 2210–2222 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosakis, A. J., Samudrala, O. & Coker, C. Cracks faster than the shear wave speed. Science 284, 1337–1340 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thomas, M. Y. & Bhat, H. S. Dynamic evolution of off-fault medium during an earthquake: a micromechanics based model. Geophys. J. Int. 214, 1267–1280 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gabriel, A. A., Ampuero, J. P., Dalguer, L. A. & Mai, P. M. Source properties of dynamic rupture pulses with off‐fault plasticity. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 4117–4126 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pathier, E. et al. Displacement field and slip distribution of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake from SAR imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L20310 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosen, P. A., Gurrola, E., Sacco, G. F. & Zebker, H. in EUSAR 2012: 9th European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar 730–733 (IEEE, 2012).

  34. Liang, C. & Fielding, E. J. Interferometry with ALOS-2 full-aperture ScanSAR data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 55, 2739–2750 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Planet Team Planet Application Program Interface: In Space for Life on Earth (Planet, San Francisco, 2017).

  36. Debella-Gilo, M. & Kääb, A. Sub-pixel precision image matching for measuring surface displacements on mass movements using normalized cross-correlation. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 130–142 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Leprince, S., Ayoub, F., Klinger, Y. & Avouac, J. P. in Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2007 1943–1946 (IEEE, 2007).

  38. Ishii, M., Shearer, P. M., Houston, H. & Vidale, J. E. Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435, 933–936 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ishii, M., Shearer, P. M., Houston, H. & Vidale, J. E. Teleseismic P wave imaging of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra‐Andaman and 28 March 2005 Sumatra earthquake ruptures using the Hi‐net array. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 112, B11307 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fan, W. & Shearer, P. M. Investigation of backprojection uncertainties with M 6 earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 7966–7986 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Meng, L. et al. Double pincer movement: encircling rupture splitting during the 2015 M w 8.3 Illapel earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 495, 164–173 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Avouac, J. P. et al. The 2013, M w 7.7 Balochistan earthquake, energetic strike-slip reactivation of a thrust fault. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 391, 128–134 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Meng, L., Allen, R. M. & Ampuero, J. P. Application of seismic array processing to earthquake early warning. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 104, 2553–2561 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. An, C. & Meng, L. Application of array backprojection to tsunami prediction and early warning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3677–3685 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Feng, T. & Meng, L. A high-frequency distance metric in ground-motion prediction equations based on seismic array back-projections. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11612–11621 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

H.B. and L.M. were supported by NSF Earthscope grant no. EAR-1614609, NSF Geophysics grant no. EAR-1723192, and by the Leon and Joanne V.C. Knopoff Foundation. J.-P.A. acknowledges funding from the UCA-JEDI Investments in the Future project managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR, grant no. ANR-15-IDEX-01) and from ANR grant no. ANR-17-CE31-0008-01. Part of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the Earth Surface and Interior focus area and NISAR Science Team. The ALOS-2 original data are copyright JAXA and provided under JAXA ALOS RA6 PI projects P3278 and P3360. Sentinel-2 images used in our analysis contain modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2018), processed by the European Space Agency. We thank Planet Labs for access to their PlanetScope imagery. Funding for C.W.D.M. was provided under a NASA Postdoctoral Program fellowship administered by the Universities Space and Research Association through a contract with NASA. H.B. acknowledges that the Python software package ObSpy was used for data requesting, waveform filtering and cross-correlations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Han Bao, Lingsen Meng, Tian Feng & Hui Huang

  2. Université Côte d’Azur, IRD, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Géoazur, France

    Jean-Paul Ampuero

  3. California Institute of Technology, Seismological Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Jean-Paul Ampuero & Cunren Liang

  4. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Eric J. Fielding & Christopher W. D. Milliner

Authors
  1. Han Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Paul Ampuero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lingsen Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric J. Fielding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cunren Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher W. D. Milliner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tian Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hui Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.-P.A. conceived and led the study. H.B. and L.M. performed the SEBP. H.B. performed the Rayleigh Mach wave analysis. C.L. and E.J.F. carried out the SAR image analysis. C.W.D.M. conducted the optical image analysis. J.-P.A., H.B., L.M., E.J.F. and C.W.D.M. wrote the paper and participated in the interpretation of the results. T.F. conducted a preliminary back-projection analysis. H.H. performed the aftershocks relocation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Paul Ampuero.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figures

Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Tables, Supplementary Text

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bao, H., Ampuero, JP., Meng, L. et al. Early and persistent supershear rupture of the 2018 magnitude 7.5 Palu earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 12, 200–205 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0297-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0297-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing