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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Near-field evidence for early supershear rupture of the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake in Turkey

Nature Geoscience volume 18, pages 534–541 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş/Pazarcik earthquake was larger and more destructive than was expected based on historical seismicity in southeastern Turkey in the past few centuries, raising questions about the nature of rupture initiation and propagation. Here we analyse near-field ground velocity records from seismometers to constrain the rupture propagation speed along the Narli splay fault, which hosted the initial rupture that eventually reached the main East Anatolian Fault. The measured particle velocities provide evidence for an early transition of the rupture from sub-Rayleigh to supershear behaviour, whereby the rupture speed exceeds that of the seismic shear waves. The near-in-situ field observational evidence is consistent with mechanistic understanding of supershear rupture. We estimate the instantaneous supershear rupture propagation speed to have been 1.55 times that of the shear wave speed and the sub-Rayleigh-to-supershear transition length to have been around 19.45 km. This work reveals the value of near-field instrumentation in characterizing the initiation of earthquakes along major faults.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Map of the EAF zone, highlighting the estimated location and focal mechanism of the hypocentre of the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake.
Fig. 2: Supershear characteristics of near-field records at stations TK:NAR and KO:KHMN.
Fig. 3: The transition from sub-Rayleigh to supershear rupture propagation was captured by the TK:4615 station.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The mapped surface rupture data are from ref. 22. All of the ground motion records used in this study were obtained from AFAD2 and the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute23 and processed using ObsPy79. Figure 1 was produced using QGIS based on map data from Natural Earth.

References

  1. M 7.8 - Pazarcik Earthquake, Kahramanmaras Earthquake Sequence (USGS, 2023); https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/executive

  2. AFAD. Turkish National Strong Motion Network (Department of Earthquake, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, 1973); https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/TK

  3. Melgar, D. et al. Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica 2, 1–10 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbot, S. et al. Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault zone. Seismica 2, 1–17 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Okuwaki, R., Yagi, Y., Taymaz, T. & Hicks, S. P. Multi-scale rupture growth with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 south-eastern Turkiye and Syria earthquake doublet. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL103480 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zahradnik, J., Turhan, F., Sokos, E. & Gallovifç, F. Asperity-like (segmented) structure of the 6 February 2023 Turkish earthquakes. Preprint at EarthArXiv https://doi.org/10.31223/X5T666 (2023).

  7. Delouis, B., van den Ende, M. & Ampuero, J.-P. Kinematic rupture model of the 6 February 2023 7.8 Türkiye earthquake from a large set of near‐source strong‐motion records combined with GNSS offsets reveals intermittent supershear rupture. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 114, 726–740 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kartal, R. F., Kadirioğlu, F. T. & Zünbül, S. Kinematic of East Anatolian Fault and Dead Sea Fault. In Proc. 17th Active Tectonic Research Group Workshop (ATAG 17) (Akdeniz University, 2013); https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271852091

  9. Ambraseys, N. N. Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophys. J. Int. 96, 311–331 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ambraseys, N. N. & Jackson, J. A. Seismicity of the Sea of Marmara (Turkey) since 1500. Geophys. J. Int. 141, F1–F6 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Emre, O. et al. Active fault database of Turkey. Bull. Earthq. Eng 16, 3229–3275 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Melgar, D. et al. Rupture kinematics of 2020 January 24 Mw 6.7 Dofüanyol-Sivrice, Turkey earthquake on the East Anatolian Fault Zone imaged by space geodesy. Geophys. J. Int. 223, 862–874 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Taymaz, T., Eyidogãn, H. & Jackson, J. Source parameters of large earthquakes in the East Anatolian Fault zone (Turkey). Geophys. J. Int. 106, 537–550 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Taymaz, T. et al. Source mechanism and rupture process of the 24 January 2020 Mw 6.7 Doğanyol-Sivrice earthquake obtained from seismological waveform analysis and space geodetic observations on the East Anatolian Fault zone (Turkey). Tectonophysics 804, 228745 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu, C. et al. Rapid source inversions of the 2023 SE Türkiye earthquakes with teleseismic and strong-motion data. Earthq. Sci. 36, 316–327 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wani, F. M., Vemuri, J. & Rajaram, C. Strong ground motion characteristics observed in the February 6, 2023 Mw 7. 7 Türkiye earthquake. Earthq. Sci. 37, 241–262 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mai, P. et al. The destructive earthquake doublet of 6 February 2023 in south-central Turkiye and northwestern Syria: initial observations and analyses. Seism. Rec. 3, 105–115 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldberg, D. E. et al. Rapid characterization of the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, earthquake sequence. Seism. Rec. 3, 156–167 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jia, Z. et al. The complex dynamics of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, Mw 7.8–7.7 earthquake doublet. Science 381, 985–990 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, C. et al. Complex multi-fault rupture and triggering during the 2023 earthquake doublet in southeastern Turkiye. Nat. Commun. 14, 5564 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu, L. et al. The overall-subshear and multi-segment rupture of the 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake in millennia supercycle. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 379 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reitman, N. G. et al. Rapid surface rupture mapping from satellite data: the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey (Türkiye), earthquake sequence. Seism. Rec. 3, 289–298 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kandilli Observatory & Earthquake Research Institute, Boğaziçi University. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) (International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks, 1971); https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/KO

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bouchon, M. et al. How fast is rupture during an earthquake? New insights from the 1999 Turkey earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2723–2726 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mello, M., Bhat, H. S. & Rosakis, A. J. Spatiotemporal properties of sub-Rayleigh and supershear rupture velocity fields: theory and experiments. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 93, 153–181 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mello, M., Bhat, H. S., Rosakis, A. J. & Kanamori, H. Reproducing the supershear portion of the 2002 Denali earthquake rupture in laboratory. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 387, 89–96 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu, X., Rosakis, A. J. & Lapusta, N. Rupture modes in laboratory earthquakes: effect of fault prestress and nucleation conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 115, 1–25 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dunham, E. M. & Archuleta, R. J. Evidence for a supershear transient during the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 256–268 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zeng, H., Wei, S. & Rosakis, A. A travel-time path calibration strategy for back-projection of large earthquakes and its application and validation through the segmented super-shear rupture imaging of the 2002 Mw 7.9 Denali earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127, e2022JB024359 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ellsworth, W. et al. Near-field ground motion of the 2002 Denali Fault, Alaska, earthquake recorded at pump station 10. Earthq. Spectra 20, 597–615 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mello, M., Bhat, H. S., Rosakis, A. J. & Kanamori, H. Identifying the unique ground motion signatures of supershear earthquakes: theory and experiments. Tectonophysics 493, 297–326 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dunham, E. M. & Bhat, H. S. Attenuation of radiated ground motion and stresses from three-dimensional supershear ruptures. J. Geophys. Res. 113, 1–17 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hu, F., Oglesby, D. D. & Chen, X. The near-fault ground motion characteristics of sustained and unsustained free surface-induced supershear rupture on strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2019JB019039 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu, J., Chen, X., Liu, P. & Zhang, Z. Ground motion signatures of supershear ruptures in the Burridge-Andrews and free-surface-induced mechanisms. Tectonophysics 791, 228570 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vyas, J. C., Mai, P. M., Galis, M., Dunham, E. M. & Imperatori, W. Mach wave properties in the presence of source and medium heterogeneity. Geophys. J. Int. 214, 2035–2052 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaneko, Y. & Lapusta, N. Supershear transition due to a free surface in 3-D simulations of spontaneous dynamic rupture on vertical strike-slip faults. Tectonophysics 493, 272–284 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W. & Abrahamson, N. A. Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol. Res. Lett. 68, 199–222 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bray, J. D. & Rodriguez-Marek, A. Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 24, 815–828 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang, Y. & Day, S. M. Effects of off-fault inelasticity on near-fault directivity pulses. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, 1–29 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kearse, J. et al. Strong asymmetry in near-fault ground velocity during an oblique strike-slip earthquake revealed by waveform particle motions and dynamic rupture simulations. Seismica 3, 1–12 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Abdelmeguid, M., Elbanna, A. & Rosakis, A. Ground motion characteristics of subshear and supershear ruptures in the presence of sediment layers. Geophys. J. Int. 240, 967–987 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hu, F., Oglesby, D. D. & Chen, X. The effect of depth-dependent stress in controlling free-surface-induced supershear rupture on strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB021459 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dunham, E. M. & Archuleta, R. J. Near-source ground motion from steady state dynamic rupture pulses. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03302 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ellsworth, W. L. et al. Near-field ground motion of the 2002 Denali Fault, Alaska, earthquake recorded at pump station 10. Earthq. Spectra 20, 597–615 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Amlani, F. et al. Supershear shock front contribution to the tsunami from the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu, Indonesia earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 230, 2089–2097 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rubino, V., Rosakis, A. J. & Lapusta, N. Spatiotemporal properties of sub-Rayleigh and supershear ruptures inferred from full-field dynamic imaging of laboratory experiments. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, 1–25 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Aagaard, B. T. & Heaton, T. H. Near-source ground motions from simulations of sustained intersonic and supersonic fault ruptures. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 2064–2078 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bernard, P. & Baumont, D. Shear Mach wave characterization for kinematic fault rupture models with constant supershear rupture velocity. Geophys. J. Int. 162, 431–447 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Güvercin, S. E., Karabulut, H., Konca, A. O., Doßan, U. & Ergintav, S. Active seismotectonics of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophys. J. Int. 230, 50–69 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pousse-Beltran, L. et al. The 2020 Mw-6.8 Elazığ (Turkey) earthquake reveals rupture behavior of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e88136 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Archuleta, R. J. & Hartzell, S. H. Effects of fault finiteness on near-source ground motion. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 939–957 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hall, J. F., Heaton, T. H., Halling, M. W. & Wald, D. J. Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq. Spectra 11, 569–605 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Freund, L. B. The mechanics of dynamic shear crack propagation. J. Geophys. Res. 84, 2199–2209 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Abdelmeguid, M. et al. Dynamics of episodic supershear in the 2023 M7.8 Kahramanmaraş/Pazarcik earthquake, revealed by near-field records and computational modeling. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 456 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ben-Zion, Y. A critical data gap in earthquake physics. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 1721–1722 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Das, S. The need to study speed. Science 317, 905–906 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Harris, R. A. & Day, S. M. Dynamics of fault interaction: parallel strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 4461–4472 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Templeton, E. L. et al. Finite element simulations of dynamic shear rupture experiments and dynamic path selection along kinked and branched faults. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B08304 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rousseau, C.-E. & Rosakis, A. J. On the influence of fault bends on the growth of sub-Rayleigh and intersonic dynamic shear ruptures. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2411 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rousseau, C. E. & Rosakis, A. J. Dynamic path selection along branched faults: experiments involving sub-Rayleigh and supershear ruptures. J. Geophys. Res. 114, 1–15 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bhat, H. S., Dmowska, R., Rice, J. R. & Kame, N. Dynamic slip transfer from the Denali to Totschunda Faults, Alaska: testing theory for fault branching. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, S202–S213 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ma, X. & Elbanna, A. Dynamic rupture propagation on fault planes with explicit representation of short branches. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 523, 115702 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Yao, S. & Yang, H. Rupture phases reveal geometry-related rupture propagation in a natural earthquake. Sci. Adv. 11, 0154 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang, Z. et al. Dynamic rupture process of the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake (SE Türkiye): variable rupture speed and implications for seismic hazard. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104787 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Gabriel, A.-A., Ulrich, T., Marchandon, M., Biemiller, J. & Rekoske, J. 3D dynamic rupture modeling of the 6 February 2023, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey Mw7.8 and 7.7 earthquake doublet using early observations. Seism. Rec. 3, 342–356 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Dunham, E. M., Favreau, P. & Carlson, J. M. A supershear transition mechanism for cracks. Science 299, 1557–1559 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Liu, Y. & Lapusta, N. Transition of mode 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 

  70. Huang, Y. & Ampuero, J.-P. Pulse-like ruptures induced by low-velocity fault zones. J. Geophys. Res. 116, 12307 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ma, X. & Elbanna, A. E. Effect of off-fault low-velocity elastic inclusions on supershear rupture dynamics. Geophys. J. Int. 203, 664–677 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Das, S. & Aki, K. A numerical study of two-dimensional spontaneous rupture propagation. Geophys. J. Int. 50, 643–668 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ren, C. et al. Supershear triggering and cascading fault ruptures of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, earthquake doublet. Science 383, 305–311 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Liu, C. et al. Complex multi-fault rupture and triggering during the 2023 earthquake doublet in southeastern Türkiye. Nat. Commun. 14, 5564 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Okuwaki, R., Yagi, Y., Taymaz, T. & Hicks, S. P. Multi-scale rupture growth with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 south-eastern Türkiye and Syria earthquake doublet. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL103480 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Bizzarri, A., Dunham, E. M. & Spudich, P. Coherence of Mach fronts during heterogeneous supershear earthquake rupture propagation: simulations and comparison with observations. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B08301 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wu, F. et al. Pulse-like ground motion observed during the 6 February 2023 Mw7.8 Pazarcík earthquake (Kahramanmaraş, SE Türkiye). Earthq. Sci. 36, 328–339 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Beyreuther, M. et al. ObsPy: a Python toolbox for seismology. Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, 530–533 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ground motion data used in this study can be obtained from AFAD, USGS and the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. We thank AFAD for setting up dense near-fault observatories and immediately publishing openly accessible data from a huge number of accelerometers during these trying times for Turkey. A.R. acknowledges support from the Caltech/Mechanical and Civil Engineering Big Ideas Fund and Caltech Terrestrial Hazard Observation and Reporting Center. He also acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation (grants EAR-1651235 and EAR-1651235). A.E. acknowledges support from the Southern California Earthquake Center, through a collaborative agreement between the National Science Foundation (grant EAR0529922) and USGS (grant 07HQAG0008), and National Science Foundation CAREER award 1753249 for modelling complex fault zone structures.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Mohamed Abdelmeguid, Ahmed Elbanna.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Aerospace Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Ares Rosakis & Mohamed Abdelmeguid

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Ahmed Elbanna

  3. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Ahmed Elbanna

Authors
  1. Ares Rosakis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Abdelmeguid
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed Elbanna
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.R. conceived of and supervised the study. All authors contributed to analysis of the ground motion data, drafted the paper and participated in its revision and finalization.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ares Rosakis, Mohamed Abdelmeguid or Ahmed Elbanna.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Alice Gabriel and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Tamara Goldin, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Geometric characteristics of sub-shear and supershear (super-Eshelby) propagation.

(a) Shear wavelets emitted by a shear dislocation form. Superposition of shear wavelets leads to the formation of (b) sub-Rayleigh rupture and (c) shear Mach front of a supershear rupture. Figure reproduced with permission from ref. 32, Elsevier.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The dependency of the ratio of the FP to FN component on the strike angle of the Narli fault.

The ratio of the FP to FN component is greater than 1 at a strike angle of 16∘ and increases further as the angle increases.

Extended Data Fig. 3 The arrival of shock front at TK:4614.

(a) A to-scale schematic of the location of the TK:4614 station relative to station TK:NAR and the epicenter. Green triangles indicate the location of the stations. The epicenter is marked by a yellow star. The red front indicates the shear wave propagation front while the straight black lines represent the shock fronts (Mach lines) associated with supershear speeds. Station TK:4614 is located further away from the Narli fault relative to TK:NAR or TK:4615 rendering theoretical estimates of local rupture speed using ground motion record complex. (b) The strong ground motion at stationS TK:NAR and TK:4614 shows the phase arrival times between the two stations. (c) The strong ground motion (FN and FP) at TK:4614 shows a clear separation between the arrival of the initial peak of the FP and FN components.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Supporting evidence of supershear transition on the Narli fault.

(a) The strong ground motion records showing the E-W component of velocity at both stations TK:NAR (one of the twin stations) and TK:4611. Points A and B highlight the first arrival of shear waves to the respective stations. (b) A map highlighting the location and distance of the two stations with respect to one another. (c) The strong ground motion records showing the FP and FN components of velocity at station TK:4611. Basemap data from OpenStreetMap contributors, 2024.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosakis, A., Abdelmeguid, M. & Elbanna, A. Near-field evidence for early supershear rupture of the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake in Turkey. Nat. Geosci. 18, 534–541 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01707-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01707-2

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