Abstract:Back-projection uses the time-reversal property of the seismic wavefield recorded at large aperture dense seismic arrays. Seismic energy radiation is imaged by applying array beam-forming techniques. The spatio-temporal rupture complexity of large earthquakes can be imaged simply and rapidly with a limited number of assumptions, which makes back-projection techniques an important tool of modern seismology. However, back-projection analyses exhibit frequency and array dependency (e.g. Wu et al., AGU19). In addition, the method relies on station network geometry and data quality and can suffer from imaging artifacts (e.g., Fan and Shearer, 2017) and back-projection results may not be consistently interpreted.The Mw7.5 Palu, Sulawesi earthquake that occurred on September 28, 2018, ruptured a 180 km long section of the Palu-Koro fault. The earthquake triggered a localized but powerful tsunami within Palu Bay, which swept away houses and buildings. The supershear earthquake and unexpected tsunami led to more than 4000 fatalities. Ulrich et al. (2019) propose a physics-based, coupled earthquake-tsunami scenario of the event, tightly constrained by observations. The model matches key observed earthquake characteristics, including moment magnitude, rupture duration, fault plane solution, teleseismic waveforms, and inferred horizontal ground displacements. It suggests that time-dependent earthquake-induced uplift and subsidence could have sourced the observed tsunami within Palu Bay.Back-projection has been used to track the rupture propagation of the Palu earthquake. Bao et al. (2019) image unilateral rupture traveling at a supershear rupture speed. Their results show array dependent ruptures, from a rather relatively linear rupture using the Australian array, to a spatio-temporally more scattered image using the seismic array in Turkey. In addition, they do not resolve any portion of the rupture as traveling at sub-Rayleigh speeds, while Wei et al. (AGU19) suggest a gradually accelerating rupture.In this study, we build upon the dynamic rupture model of Ulrich et al. (2019) to investigate the reliability of standard back-projection techniques using a realistic and perfectly known earthquake model. In particular, we investigate whether or not rupture transfers across the segmented fault system, and the effect of specific geometric features of the fault system, such as fault bends, on rupture dynamics, leave a clear signal on the inferred beam power. Also, we investigate the effect of secondary phases, such as reflections from the free-surface or from fault segment boundaries, naturally captured by dynamic rupture modeling. In addition, we study the effect of small-scale source heterogeneities on the back-projection results by including different levels of fault roughness in the dynamic rupture simulations. Finally, we investigate the array dependence of back-projection results.Overall, this study should help to better understand which features of rupture dynamics back-projection can capture. Our results are a first step towards fundamental analysis to better understand which features can be captured by back-projection and to provide guidelines for back-projection interpretation.

Multi‐array rupture imaging of the devastating 2015 gorkha, nepal earthquake sequence

Depth Varying Rupture Properties During the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha (nepal) Earthquake

Improving back projection imaging with a novel physics‐based aftershock calibration approach: A case study of the 2015 Gorkha earthquake

Frequency-Dependent Rupture Process, Stress Change, and Seismogenic Mechanism of the 25 April 2015 Nepal Gorkha M-W 7.8 Earthquake

The 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake: Simultaneous Rupture of the Subduction Interface and Overlying Faults

Rupture imaging of the 2010 Mw 8.8 great chilean earthquake using relative back-projection method

Imaging the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikoura, New Zealand, Earthquake with Teleseismic P Waves: A Cascading Rupture Across Multiple Faults

Seismic structure of the 2015 Mw7.8 Gorkha earthquake revealed by ambient seismic noise and teleseismic surface wave tomography

Backprojection Imaging Based on a 3D Model: Method and Applications on the 2017 Mww8.1 Mexico Earthquake and Mw7.7 Russia Earthquake

Utilizing a 3D Global P‐Wave Tomography Model to Improve Backprojection Imaging: A Case Study of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake

Multi-Array Multi-Phase Back-Projection: Improving the imaging of earthquake rupture complexities

Tracking the Rupture of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake by Using the Relative Back-Projection Method

Validation of the 3-D Phase-Weighted Relative Back Projection Technique and Its Application to the 2016mw 7.8 Kaikōura Earthquake

A Decade of Short‐Period Earthquake Rupture Histories From Multi‐Array Back‐Projection

3D Simulation of Ground Motion for the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal, Based on the Spectral Element Method

The aftershock sequence of the 2015 April 25 Gorkha–Nepal earthquake

Imaging of rupture process of 2005 Mw 7.6 Kashmir earthquake using back projection techniques

Matched-filter Detection of the Missing Pre-Mainshock Events and Aftershocks in the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal Earthquake Sequence

Synthetic analysis of seismic back-projection using 3D dynamic rupture simulations of the 2018, Palu Sulawesi earthquake

Geometry-dependent Rupture Process of the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake Determined Using a Dip-Varying Inversion Approach with Teleseismic, High-Rate GPS, Static GPS and InSAR Data

Complex multifault rupture during the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake, New Zealand