# The 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake rupture increases potential failure along the northern Dead Sea Fault

Mustapha Meghraoui, Ziyadin Cakir, Jugurtha Kariche, Renaud Toussaint, Floriane Provost, Volkan Karabacak, Reda Mohamed Sbeinati, Erhan Altunel, Tony Nemer

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Mustapha Meghraoui, Ziyadin Cakir, Jugurtha Kariche, Renaud Toussaint, Floriane Provost, et al. The 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake rupture increases potential failure along the northern Dead Sea Fault. Tectonophysics, 2025, 910, pp.230799. 10.1016/j.tecto.2025.230799. hal-05115392

HAL Id: hal-05115392

https://hal.science/hal-05115392v1

Submitted on 16 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Several field investigations on surface faulting, combined with
remote sensing and seismological data and seismotectonic studies on the
2023 earthquake sequence have been published since the 6 February
mainshocks, analysing the seismological and earthquake geology char-
acteristics of the sequence (see also Table S1). Among them, Karabulut
et al. (2023), Yildirim et al. (2023), and Zabci et al. (2023) present a
detailed field account of the Mw 7.8 surface faulting. Provost et al.
(2024) show the surface faulting and related fault slip using data from
Sentinel 2 image correlation. Mai et al. (2023), Melgar et al. (2023), and
Okuwaki et al. (2023) treat the seismic source and rupture propagation
of the earthquake doublet. Barbot et al. (2023) and Delouis et al. (2024)
detail the coseismic slip distribution from teleseismic, strong motion,
and GNSS data. Karabulut et al. (2023) consider the seismic gap of the
Hatay region using the seismicity distribution, remote sensing image
correlation, and modelling of stress transfer interaction between the
sources of the two mainshocks. Using the dense three-component accel-
erometer network and the P-wave polarities, Palo and Zollo (2024)
detail the 2023 Mw7.8 rupture initiation, propagation and termination.
Provost et al. (2024) and Altunel et al. (2024) observe on the SW
termination of the 2023 earthquake rupture, ~3.5 km width en-echelon
pattern across the ~10-km-wide stepover at Amik Basin making the
transition between the Amanos-Karasu fault branch of the EAF and the
northern tip of the DSF. In a synthesis of previous studies in arche-
oseismology and paleoseismology (conducted during the EC-Funded
Project APAME, 2007), Meghraoui (2015) show a southern migration
of major historical earthquakes with more than 900 years seismic gap on

the northern DSF segments.

Recent dense GPS networks in the eastern Mediterranean display accurate slip rates along major continental faults and allow the characterization of the active deformation at the triple junction plate boundary (Reilinger et al., 2006; Gomez et al., 2007; Mahmoud et al., 2013; Aktug et al., 2016). Repeated GPS measurements from 1991 to 2022 provide horizontal velocities of 46 stations located at the triple junction of the EAF, the DSF, and the Cyprus Arc outer front in southern Türkiye (Ozkan et al., 2023; Fig. 2 and Fig. S1a). By using a simple locked fault model at 15 km depth (Savage and Simpson, 1997), we estimate that the relative left-lateral plate motion across the EAF is 8.1 ± 0.9 mm/yr, and 5.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr across the Karasu Fault (Fig. Sup-1b). According to recent faulting and GPS results, the active deformation along the EAF undergoes a partition between the WSW trending Osmaniye fault section to the north and the SSW trending Karasu Fault to the south (see also inset of Fig. 2).

In this paper, we study the characteristics of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake along the southwest segments of the EAF and consider a possible interaction with the northern DSF. The damage distribution and coseismic faulting of the 2023 Mw 7.8 large earthquake is compared to the distribution of historical seismicity along both the southwestern EAF and northern DSF. The regional historical seismicity, active tectonic faulting, paleoseismological data and long-term active deformation with GPS results are incorporated to characterize the active deformation along the EAF and DSF. Historical seismicity, showing a southward migration of large earthquakes along the northern DSF suggest stress

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** The 6 February 2023 earthquake sequence, including the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş and Mw 7.6 Narlı largest seismic events (blue mechanisms from Harvard CMT catalog and fault segments at the junction between the East Anatolian Fault, the Dead Sea Fault and the Cyprus Arc, superimposed on topography and bathymetry (SRTM 3"arc and ETOPO2 data, respectively). Fault traces are from Duman and Emre (2013) for the East Anatolian Fault, and Meghraoui (2015) for the Dead Sea Fault. Epicentral location of major historical earthquakes (yellow boxes) and associated fault segments are from Ambraseys (1989); Ambraseys and Melville (1988); Guidoboni et al. (2004a, 2004b); Sbeinati et al. (2005); Ambraseys (2009); Meghraoui, 2015; Stucchi et al. (2024). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Earthquake faulting and major historical earthquakes (stars) along the southwestern segments of the East Anatolian Fault, and the northern segments of the Dead Sea Fault (data in Table 2; Ambraseys, 1989; Guidobon et al., 2004a, 2004b; Sbeinati et al., 2005; Meghraoui, 2015). The active fault database (represented by grey lines) is from AFEAD (Zelenin et al., 2022), and mapped active faults solid black lines are from APAME Project (APAME, 2007). Inset is the GPS velocities across southern Turkiye, Syria and Lebanon (see also Fig. S1 in supplementary material; Ozkan et al., 2023; Aktug et al., 2016. Mahmoud et al., 2013; Alchalbi et al., 2010; Reilinger et al., 2006).</figcaption></figure>

transfer and fault interaction. The pre-2023 seismic gap along the EAF and slip deficit that extends along the northern DSF since the medieval time, mark the potential for a high seismic hazard and risk in southern Turkiye and northern Syria regions.

## 2. Historical earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş and its vicinity

The historical seismicity catalog of southern Türkiye and northern Syria benefits from a rich corpus of archives and documents in Syriac (relative to the Byzantine civilization), Arabic (Islamic civilization) and Latin (Western Christian civilization associated mainly with the Crusade period). The original textual documents, reports, and letters provide a wealth of details on the areal extent of seismic damage, number of victims, and sometimes even the duration of seismic events and number of aftershocks. The occurrence of the 2023 seismic sequence accompanied by surface faulting called for a reappraisal of the level and extent of damage of the largest historical earthquakes.

From the investigation of the major medieval earthquakes (1114, 1269, 1513 and 1544) and related historical data, Stucchi and co-authors conclude that the 1114 earthquake can be considered as the predecessor of the Mw 7.8, 2023 seismic event. Indeed, according to contemporaneous chroniclers and historians, the 29 November 1114 severely affected a large area extending from the Armenian and Turkish

states (Adiyaman and Edessa-Sanlurfa) in the north, to Christian and Muslim states in Marash (Kahramanmaraş, Germanicea), to Aleppo and Antakya in the south and south-southwest (Sbeinati et al., 2005; Ambraseys, 2009; Stucchi et al., 2024; Table 1). The earthquake occurred at night with extensive damage accounts from three different, but agreeing sources in Syriac, Arabic and Latin that indicate the devastated city of “Marash” and regions with about 24,000 to 40,000 victims (Ambraseys, 2009). Christian and Muslim contemporaneous chroniclers report the occurrence of two large seismic events, and liquefaction phenomena near Antakya, a comparable situation with the one observed during the 2023 events. Other cities, monasteries, mosques, and small localities such as Edessa-Sanlurfa, Samosata (Sumsat), Elbistan (Ablastha), Mamistra, Kaysun, Raban (Araban), Tell Khalid (Trihaleth), Aintab (Gaziantep), Adiyaman, and Antakya experienced severe damage associated with the 1114 earthquake (Fig. 3; Sbeinati et al., 2005; Ambraseys, 2009; APAME, 2007). The mesoseismic area, severity and damage distribution suggest that the 1114 earthquake is comparable with the 2023 Mw 7.8 seismic event by estimated location and Mw.

Other significant earthquakes are reported in 1408 CE, 1513, 1822 and 1872. According to historical accounts, the first seismic event was relatively moderate and based on the extent of seismic damage some authors attributed an M 6.5 magnitude (Ambraseys, 2009; Sbeinati et al., 2005). The 1513 earthquake affected predominantly the area of Adana and Suleymanya (i.e., the southwestern end of the EAF; Ambraseys, 2009). Recent damage distribution based on new original contemporary sources correlates the 1822 earthquake to the Afrin (or Saint Simeon) Fault west of the city of Aleppo (Darawcheh et al., 2022). The 1872 earthquake whose epicenter is located west of Antakya city, generated damage mainly in the Antakya region and triggered a tsunami along the coastline (Sbeinati et al., 2005; Ambraseys, 2009). From the analysis of the seismic parameters (fault length, timing of aftershock sequence, field observations), Stucchi et al. (2024) suggested that the four earthquakes did not exceed Mw 7.5.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Damage distribution of the 29 November 1114 earthquake (see Fig. 3 for site location and text for details with references herein).

<table><thead><tr><th>Locality</th><th>Long.</th><th>Lat.</th><th>Intensity (MSK)</th><th>Comment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Er Raha - Edessa Sanlurfa</td><td>38.794</td><td>37.160</td><td>IX</td><td>Great damage, bank of Euphrates (liquefaction)</td></tr><tr><td>Samosata</td><td>38.46</td><td>37.57</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Badly destroyed</td></tr><tr><td>Mamistra</td><td>35.66</td><td>36.95</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Badly destroyed</td></tr><tr><td>Mopsuestia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>« Completely prostrated »</td></tr><tr><td>Sis - Kozan</td><td>35.810</td><td>37.444</td><td>VIII</td><td>Strong shaking, damage and repairs</td></tr><tr><td>Suleymanie</td><td>36.83</td><td>37.87</td><td>VII</td><td>Moderately damaged</td></tr><tr><td>Elbistan</td><td>37.183</td><td>38.20</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Badly destroyed</td></tr><tr><td>Ablastha</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kaysun</td><td>37.85</td><td>37.57</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Ravaged</td></tr><tr><td>Raban (Araban)</td><td>37.68</td><td>37.42</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Badly destroyed</td></tr><tr><td>Tell Khalid</td><td>37.62</td><td>36.76</td><td>VIII - IX</td><td>Badly destroyed</td></tr><tr><td>Trihaleth</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kahramanmaraş Germanicea</td><td>36.935</td><td>37.576</td><td>X - XI</td><td>Terrible, devastated</td></tr><tr><td>Gaziantep</td><td>37.368</td><td>37.070</td><td>IX - X</td><td>40,000 victims</td></tr><tr><td>Adiyaman</td><td>38.263</td><td>37.768</td><td>X</td><td>Great damage</td></tr><tr><td>Antakya</td><td>36.149</td><td>36.205</td><td>IX</td><td>Great damage</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Liquefaction</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Earth opened in suburb.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Cracks swallowed houses</td></tr><tr><td>Latakia</td><td>35.793</td><td>35.525</td><td>VIII</td><td>Strong shaking, damage and repairs</td></tr><tr><td>Azaz</td><td>37.044</td><td>36.584</td><td>VIII</td><td>Badly damaged fortress</td></tr><tr><td>Athareb</td><td>36.824</td><td>36.138</td><td>VIII</td><td>Badly damaged</td></tr><tr><td>Aleppo</td><td>37.162</td><td>36.20</td><td>VII</td><td>Moderately damaged</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Isoseismal distribution of the 29 November 1114 earthquake obtained from the damage description as reported in historical accounts of contemporaneous chroniclers (Ambraseys, 1989; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Sbeinati et al., 2005; Ambraseys, 2009; Stucchi et al., 2024). The affected Hatay region (southern Turkiye and northern Syria) is comparable to the damage area of the 6 February 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake.</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Southward migration of historical large earthquakes in northern Dead Sea fault

Rightly indicated well before the 2023 earthquake sequence, a temporary seismic quiescence was observed by Ambraseys (1989) during the 20th century along the southwestern section of the EAF. Providing that the locations of epicentres of historical earthquakes are well estimated by authors from contemporary documents and paleoseismic investigations (Ambraseys and Melville, 1988; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Ambraseys and Jackson, 1998; Meghraoui et al., 2003, Sbeinati et al., 2010; Sbeinati et al., 2005; Daëron et al., 2007; Nemer et al., 2008; Ambraseys, 2009; Darawcheh et al., 2022), a comparable seismic gap was pointed out by Meghraoui (2015) since the 12th century along the northern DSF. The detailed account of each large historical events shows that a significant seismic activity was generated along the DSF following the 1114 large seismic event. The occurrence of the 1138, 1156, 1170, and 1202 earthquakes with Mw > 7.0 on juxtaposed fault segments (Table 2, Fig. 3) points out the southward migration of large earthquakes along the DSF since the 1114 earthquake (Meghraoui, 2015). The succession of large earthquakes with southward progression from one fault segment to another following the 1114 major seismic event is not unique as it looks like an analogue to the westward migration of large earthquakes along the North Anatolian Fault (Stein et al., 1997).

Prior to the recent seismic sequence, our field investigations allowed the identification of cumulative stream offset along the EAF and Karasu Valley fault (KVF) (Altunel et al., 2009; Karabacak et al., 2010). The detailed mapping of the EAF from Golbaşî to Antakia show long term active faulting with 4.3 m to 1300 m left-lateral slip of stream channels and a ca 0.7 km-wide positive flower structure system arallel to the fault

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Characteristics of historical earthquakes occurred along the SW East Anatolian Fault and northern Dead Sea Fault (see also Fig. 2). Earthquake parameters of the 1114 CE seismic event are considered as similar to those of the 6 February 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake.

<table><thead><tr><th>Earthquakes</th><th>Long. Lat.</th><th>Io (MSK)</th><th>Fault length (max., km)</th><th>Max. left-lateral slip (m)</th><th>References.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>29 Nov. 1114 potential predecessor to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake</td><td>37.029<br>37.418</td><td>X - XI<br>Mw<br>7.8</td><td>Estimated 330 km, two segments<br>171 km<br>NE<br>165 km<br>SW</td><td>~ 7.30 m (if comparable to 2023)</td><td>Stucchi et al., 2024<br>Ambraseys (2009)<br>Sbeinati et al. (2005)</td></tr><tr><td>11 Oct. 1138</td><td>36.294<br>35.878</td><td>X - Mw<br>7.4</td><td>87 km</td><td>~ 5.5 m</td><td>Ambraseys (2009)<br>Sbeinati et al. (2005)<br>Guidoboni et al., (2004)<br>Guidoboni et al., (2004)<br>Sbeinati et al. (2005)<br>Ambraseys (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>13 Oct. 1156</td><td>36.404<br>35.546</td><td>X - Mw<br>7.4</td><td>99 km</td><td>~ 5.5 m</td><td>Meghraoui et al., 2003<br>Guidoboni et al., (2004)<br>Sbeinati et al. (2005)<br>Ambraseys (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>29 June 1170</td><td>36.336<br>34.795</td><td>X - Mw<br>7.3</td><td>82 km</td><td>4.5 m (archeosism)</td><td>Ambraseys (1988)<br>Daëron et al. (2005)<br>Nemer et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>20 May 1202</td><td>36.020<br>34.067</td><td>XI - Mw<br>7.6</td><td>164 km</td><td>6.3 m (paleosism)</td><td>Ambraseys (1988)<br>Daëron et al. (2005)<br>Nemer et al. (2008)</td></tr></tbody></table>

visible immediately south of Kahramanmaraş (Bertrand, 2006; APAME European project, scientific report, 2007). Field investigations in active faulting and paleoseismology indicate that the major EAF, KVF and DSF govern the complex tectonic background at the Hatay triple junction.

The 6 February 2023, Mw 7.8 earthquake and its afershocks show shallow hypocentres (<15 km), and predominantly strike-slip mechanisms with NE-SW trending Golbaşî-Kahramanmaraş -Karasu fault segments reaching ~350 km (Fig. 1; Karabulut et al., 2023). Using teleseismic P-waves records, the potency-density tensor inversion of seismic events associated with the Mw 7.8 event suggests four distinct space-time rupture episodes, with bilateral rupture and a final SSW trending rupture propagation that represents 43 % of the total seismic moment release in the Karasu Valley (Okuwaki et al., 2023).

### 4. Slip distribution of the Mw 7.82023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake

We model the coseismic deformation of the 6 February 2023, Mw 7.8 earthquake using a 3D displacement field constructed from ALOS-2 SCANSAR data by Kobayashi et al. (2024) (Fig. 4) and a 2D nearfield displacement field calculated from Sentinel-2 optical data by Provost et al. (2024). The data sets contain a combined surface deformation of the two Mw 7.8 and 7.6 mains hocks because surface deformation of each earthquake could not be captured separately due to the absence of SAR image acquisition during the 9-h time interval between the two earthquakes.

Our modelling consists of a 3D-boundary element method with
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Results of the elastic dislocation modelling for the Mw 7.8 and 7.6 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Left, mid and right raw respectively show the observed, modelled and residuals coseismic surface displacements in east-west, north-south and vertical direction (bottom, mid and top row, respectively). White lines are surface ruptures of the two earthquakes whose epicentres are shown with red stars. Active faults (black lines) are from Emre et al., 2013; Meghraoui, 2015). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>

triangular dislocations in a linear elastic and homogeneous half-space (Thomas, 1993). Inversions are carried out with Poly3Dinv software that uses a damped least square minimization and a scale-dependent umbrella smoothing operator to avoid any nonphysical oscillatory slip distribution (Maerten et al., 2005). Usage of triangular elements allows to generate a more realistic 3D fault surface and avoid gaps encountered in modelling fault ruptures with varying strike and dip when rectangular dislocations are used. We construct fault meshes, each coinciding with

the traces of the earthquake ruptures from surface down to 22 km of depth with a northward dip of about 80° for the Çardak fault and near vertical for the East Anatolian fault (Fig. 5). Size of the triangular patches increase from ~2.5 to ~20 km from surface to the bottom of the faults to avoid unrealistic high slip patches due to down dip decrease in slip resolution.

Coseismic slip inversions are carried out with varying smoothing factors and 0.25 is selected as an optimum solution based on the model
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Coseismic slip distribution along the East Anatolian and Karasu faults that ruptured during the February 6, Kahramanmaraş earthquake (MW 7.8) inverted from pixel offset data (Provost et al., 2024) and InSAR data (Koboyashi et al., 2024). Blue curve shows variation of coseismic slip at the surface along segments and predicted at depth by the model. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>

roughness and misfit (Fig. S2). In the inversions, nearfield pixel offset data set is used with a lower weighing due to its increasing uncertainties with increasing distance from the fault (Fig. S3).

In addition to the main ruptures of the two earthquakes on the East Anatolian and Cardak faults, the modelled faults include two subsidiary faults that splay from the EAF including the Narlı fault where the first event nucleated, and one splay fault towards the western termination of the second event (Fig. S4). Fig. 5 shows distribution of coseismic strike slip on the fault rupture of the first earthquake obtained from the inversion of 3D displacement field calculated from ALOS-2 and Sentinel-2 datasets with a smoothing factor of 0.25 that explains well the observed surface displacements (Fig. 4) and is similar to those previously estimated (Barbot et al., 2023; Chen and Zhou, 2024; Kobayashi et al., 2024). Reaching up to 8 m along the Pazarcık segment, the coseismic slip shows highly heterogeneous distribution along the fault strike and reveals the segmented nature of the EAF and its extension along the Çelikhan, Islahiye and Kirikhan fault segments of the Karasu Valley (Fig. 5).

The modelling of the Mw 7.82023 slip distribution along the southwest EAF segments (including the Karasu fault) is critical to both the calculation of Coulomb Friction Failure and subsequently to the estimate of slip deficit along the DSF. The Kirikhan segment at the southwestern most EAF and Karasu rupture zone indicates a large slip distribution reaching ~8 m at 10 to 20 km-depth (for strike-slip component Fig. S4 a, for dip-slip component Fig. S4 b) obtained from the modelling of surface deformation (InSAR and image correlation). The southern termination of the 2023 earthquake rupture is in an enechelon pattern, visible east of Antakya and at the junction between the EAF and the DSF extends across the 3.5 km width of the approximately 10-km-wide stepover in the Amik Basin. The step-over extends towards the northern tip of the Hacıpaşa Fault segment, which constitutes the main northern segment of the DSF (Altunel et al., 2024). The inferred large coseismic slip at ~10 to 20 km depth favors the EAF-DSF

interaction and related modelling of stress transfer following the Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake.

## 5. Fault interaction and Coulomb failure modelling

The static stress along a major continental strike-slip fault may increase with several bars after an earthquake and hence raises the occurrence of earthquakes on neighbouring fault segments. As along the North Anatolian Fault, the transient stress transfer promotes the migration of large earthquakes and fault interaction increasing their probability of occurrence (Stein et al., 1997; Hudnut et al., 1989; Kariche, 2022). The Hatay region experienced a seismic sequence with two large earthquakes that suggests earthquake triggering, fault interaction, and stress transfer that may include the neighbouring Dead Sea Fault segments. The geometry and kinematics of rupture segments along the EAF and further on along the DSF segments as receiver faults, results from our detailed field investigations of active faulting, seismotectonics and paleoseismology (see Fig. 2 and our publications herein). Therefore, the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 incorporated in the CFF modelling allow the analysis of stress transfer.

In our case-study of interaction between the EAF and DSF we use fault parameters of Table 3 and applied stress change calculated as Coulomb Failure Function (ΔCFF; Reasenberg and Simpson, 1992) expressed by:

$$ \Delta \text{CFF} = \Delta \tau - \mu ( \Delta \sigma_n - \Delta P ) \qquad (1) $$

where τ is the shear stress, σn is the normal stress (compression positive), P is the pore fluid pressure, μ is the coefficient of internal friction and Δ refers to changes during the earthquake.

The second term in eq. (1), defining the Terzaghi effective normal stress, may be replaced by the notion of effective friction coefficient as:
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Rupture parameters for the significant large earthquake used as input for the Coulomb Stress Transfer modelling (see also Figs. 1, 2 and 6). Longitude and latitude indicate the center of each principal dislocation, with the strike and dip considered as average values. It is important to highlight that the final 1114 CE model is constrained as a non-uniform slip model, comprising 57 dislocation patches, comparable to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake parameters.

<table><thead><tr><th>Earthquake</th><th>Long. (°)</th><th>Lat. (°)</th><th>Top Depth (km)</th><th>Bot Depth (km)</th><th>L (km)</th><th>W (km)</th><th>Strike (°)</th><th>Dip (°)</th><th>Reverse (m)</th><th>Left-lateral (m)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">1114</td><td>38.20</td><td>38.70</td><td>0.00</td><td>20.00</td><td>202</td><td>20</td><td>60</td><td>90</td><td>0.000</td><td>2.450</td></tr><tr><td>36.91</td><td>37.33</td><td>0.00</td><td>20.00</td><td>162</td><td>20</td><td>28</td><td>90</td><td>0.000</td><td>2.260</td></tr><tr><td>1138</td><td>36.294</td><td>35.878</td><td>0.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>91</td><td>10</td><td>190.76</td><td>90</td><td>0.384</td><td>5.487</td></tr><tr><td>1156</td><td>36.404</td><td>35.546</td><td>0.65</td><td>15.65</td><td>99</td><td>15</td><td>185.80</td><td>90</td><td>0.000</td><td>5.500</td></tr><tr><td>1170</td><td>36.336</td><td>34.795</td><td>0.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>82.94</td><td>10</td><td>7.270</td><td>90</td><td>0.000</td><td>4.000</td></tr><tr><td>1202</td><td>36.020</td><td>34.067</td><td>0.00</td><td>15.00</td><td>80.56</td><td>15</td><td>6.17</td><td>90</td><td>0.000</td><td>6.300</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Delta CFF = \Delta \tau - \mu' \Delta \sigma_n \quad (2) $$

The effective (or apparent) friction coefficient μ' is given by Reasenberg and Simpson (1992) as follows:

$$ \mu' = \mu (1 - B) \quad (3) $$

where μ is the friction coefficient and B is the Skempton coefficient that defines the relationship between the stress change and pore pressure change, expressed as (Rice and Cleary, 1976; Beeler et al., 2000):

$$ B = \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta \sigma_m} = 3 \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta \sigma_{kk}} \quad (4) $$

Here Δσm is the mean stress change and Δσkk is the sum over the diagonal elements of the stress tensor.

For an isotropic model, the apparent friction coefficient used in triggering seismicity is defined by the combination of pore pressure and friction coefficient, as follows:

$$ \mu' = \mu \left( 1 - \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta \sigma_n} \right) \quad (5) $$

Substituting (5) and (4) in (2), we obtain

$$ \Delta CFF = \Delta \tau - \mu (\Delta \sigma_n - B \Delta \sigma_m) \quad (6) $$

Eq. 6 represents the isotropic poroelastic solution of the Coulomb failure function, as formulated by Beeler et al. (2000).

By combining eqs. 3 and 4 we obtain an expression of effective friction coefficient as (Beeler et al., 2000):

$$ \mu' = \mu \left( 1 - B \frac{\Delta \sigma_m}{\Delta \sigma_n} \right) \quad (7) $$

This equation indicates that the effective friction coefficient varies with changes in both pore pressure and fault orientation, denoted as Δσm and Δσn changes, respectively.

In the scenario of fixed fault planes with related parameters (Table 3) and according to the poroelastic model proposed by Rice (1992), the representation of mean stress can be substituted with the component of normal stress. This substitution implies a conventional formulation for the effective friction coefficient, connecting stress change to pore pressure change as delineated in eq. 5.

In this study, we employ an isotropic poroelastic medium to model fault-rupture interactions on predetermined, fixed fault planes. Other works on the 2023 earthquake sequence document the earthquake triggering using the Coulomb stress modelling (e.g., Liu et al., 2023). The geometries of the receiver fault-ruptures are deduced from analyses of historical seismicity, paleoseismological data, and tectonic field studies (Meghraoui et al., 2003; APAME, 2007; Altunel et al., 2009; Karabacak et al., 2010; Meghraoui, 2015). For the modelling process, we assume a Poisson ratio (ν) of 0.25, with Young's Modulus set at 80 GPa and a shear modulus of 33 GPa in the seismogenic layer (15–20 thickness).

The internal friction coefficient μ = 0.4 initially used in our computing also corresponds to the static stress change modelling throughout the entire seismic sequence. The stress transfer modelling is

conducted using a high effective friction coefficient (μ' ranging between 0.6 and 0.75), that corresponds to a low Skempton effect that indicates a negligible pore-fluid contribution on earthquakes triggering.

In our ΔCFF modelling, the slip distribution of the 1114 earthquake is assumed to be identical to the Mw 7.8 February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake. Modelling results for the earthquake sequence between 1114 and 1202 is shown in Fig. 6. The correlation between loading lobes and aftershock distribution suggests a close fault interaction between the 1114, 1138, 1156, 1170, and 1202 earthquakes (Fig. 6). The Depth-Coulomb stress change computed directly on the receiver faults using low and high effective friction coefficient is indicated in the cross-section in Fig. S9 (for the stress transfer of 1114 earthquake on the 1138 fault plane) and in the cross-section in Fig. S10 (for the stress transfer of 1114 and 1138 earthquakes on the 1156 fault plane). The cumulative ΔCFF from 1114 to 1202 correspond to the area of seismic slip deficit shown in Fig. 7. The Coulomb stress drop for each earthquake is in good agreement with the fault segments distribution and related seismic parameters as deduced from historical earthquakes (see Figs. 1, 3 and Table S1).

The estimated return period of 760 ± 150 years and ~ 6 mm/yr along a single fault segment of northern DSF obtained from paleoseismology suggests temporary seismic quiescence (Meghraoui, 2015). Hence, the southward migration of large earthquakes with fault interaction and stress transfer implies the existence of a seismic gap with slip deficit along the northern DSF segments.

The ΔCFF modelling reveals a significantly higher stress contribution during the coseismic phase compared to the viscoelastic postseismic phase (see Figs. S11 A, B and C. The stress transfer induced by the 1114 earthquake on the fault responsible for the 1138 earthquake shows that stress loading during the coseismic phase is ten times larger than that accumulated over 20 years of postseismic deformation (Fig. S11A). A similar pattern is observed for the stress transfer caused by the 1114 and 1138 earthquakes on the fault presumed to have ruptured in the 1156 earthquake, where the coseismic contribution far exceeds the stress redistribution occurring during the postseismic phase (Fig. S11B).

Due to viscoelastic effects, we consider that the loading rate tends to decrease across the fault zone during the postseismic deformation phase. However, we observe a renewal of stress redistribution in the long-term postseismic phase (~42 years) along the 1156 fault rupture, corresponding to the gradual accumulation of postseismic stress caused by both the 1114 and 1138 earthquakes (Fig. S11B). A similar pattern emerges in the two scenarios: 1) where the 1114, 1138 and 1156 earthquakes are considered as a source of stress and the 1170 earthquake fault as a receiver, and 2) where the 114, 1138, 1156 and 1170 are considered as a source of stress and the 1202 as a receiver.

## 6. Discussion and conclusion

The 2023 earthquake sequence that affected the continental section of the Hatay triple junction reveals new characteristics of active deformation at the junction of the EAF and DSF. We analyze the fault interaction of this active zone with 1) the study of coseismic slip inversion
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Models of stress change and Coulomb Friction Failure modelled according to the 1114 to 1202 earthquake sequence with interaction between the southwestern segments of the East Anatolian Fault and northern segments of the Dead Sea Fault. a) Static stress change (ΔCFF) resulting from the 1114 (Mw 7.8) earthquake on fixed fault planes in relation to the 1138 (Mw 7.4) earthquake, b) Cumulative ΔCFF resulting from the 1114 (Mw 7.8) and the 1138 (Mw 7.4) earthquakes on the 1157 (Mw 7.4) event considered as a receiver quake, c) Cumulative ΔCFF resulting from the 1114, 1138, and 1157 earthquakes on the 1170 event considered as a receiver quake (Mw 7.3), d) Cumulative ΔCFF resulting from the 1114, 1138, 1175, and 1170 earthquakes on the 1202 (Mw 7.6) event considered as a receiver quake. The inset of figures provides a representation of the receiver fault geometry. ΔCFF calculations are performed on a horizontal grid at a fixed depth of 7 km (~half of the seismogenic layer). The variation of shear and normal stress on selected grid are made using the Coulomb 3.4 software (Toda et al., 2011). The 3D illustrations of the static stress change are shown in Fig. S5 to Fig. S8.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Moment deficit along the DSF obtained from active tectonics (based on paleoseismic data and seismicity database) and geodetic database (Meghraoui, 2015; Meghraoui et al., 2021).</figcaption></figure>

obtained from field investigations and remote sensing data (image correlation and InSAR), 2) the calculation of Coulomb stress changes linked to the southward migration of large earthquakes along the DSF, and 3) the moment deficit estimate obtained from the comparison between the long-term seismotectonic – paleoseismic results (straddling the late Pleistocene – Holocene) and the geodetic rate accumulation.

The evidence of fault interaction may come from the southward migration of large earthquakes (1138 CE, 1156, 1170, and 1202) associated with the background active tectonics of major fault zones (EAF, Karasu Valley Fault, DSF) that may reduce the uncertainties of earthquake location along the northern DSF. As predicted, the fault interaction scenario clearly supports the southward earthquake migration from the 1114 large earthquake, in agreement with the location of the historical seismic sequence along the DSF. The ΔCFF model confirms the initial hypothesis, i.e. that the fracture mechanics appear similar to those of the Mw7.8 earthquake (with primary off/major segment fracture planes, especially for the 1138 and 1156 fracture cases). The used coefficient of friction μ' = 0.6–0.75 shows that the optimal static stress loads occur without a direct effect of fluid pressure on faults.

Previous studies in the frame of the APAME Project (APAME, 2007) provide a database in historical seismology with damage distribution, paleoseismology, active tectonics, GNSS and timing of past earthquakes that contribute to the accurate earthquake location in southern Türkiye and northern Syria (Meghraoui et al., 2003; APAME, 2007; Altunel et al., 2009; Karabacak et al., 2010; Alchalbi et al., 2010; Mahmoud et al., 2013). Field investigations combined with the Sentinel 2 imagery provide an accurate mapping of the Kahramanmaraş and Karasu Vally fault showing and estimated ~8 m to ~4 m left-lateral slip along strike, respectively (Li et al., 2023; Provost et al., 2024). Repeated GPS measurements from 1991 to 2023 allowed us to determine horizontal velocities of 46 stations located across the EAF in southern Türkiye and

DSF in northern Syria (Fig. 1, and Fig. S1b; Ozkan et al., 2023). By using a simple locked fault model, we estimate that the relative left-lateral plate motion across the EAF is 8.1 ± 0.6 mm/yr., and 5.3 ± 0.8 mm/yr across the Karasu fault. The ~900 year of interseismic relative quiescence and ~ 8.1 mm/yr left-lateral block velocity, surface faulting geomorphology, and paleoseismic results along the EAF may explain the occurrence of the recent Mw 7.8 seismic event as an analogue to 1114 CE (Mw 7.8) seismic event. As it is attested by the application of the of empirical equations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994), the historical earthquake parameters are no different than the present-day characteristics of seismic events. These empirical equations are expressed by:

$$ 
\begin{aligned}
M_w &= 5.08 + 1.16 \log (\text{Surface Rupture Length}) \\
    &= 8.03 \text{ for } 350 \text{ km fault length}
\end{aligned}
 $$

Mw 7.9 for 300 km fault length

$$ \log (\text{Max.U}) = -5.46 + 0.82 M_w $$

$$ \text{Max U} = 7.3 \text{ m Mw} = 7.7 $$

Where U (the maximum coseismic displacement) and Mw are in agreement and directly dependent on fault length.

Although the seismic strain release may vary in time by a factor of three with regards to the present-day plate motion, the interseismic rate and related fault slip rate are considered as constant over a long period (Nalbant et al., 2002; Chery et al., 2001; Meghraoui, 2015). In their paleoseismic study, Lefevre et al. (2018) estimate a slip deficit by comparing the cumulated seismic faulting slip with long-term tectonic loading along the southern DSF over the last 1600 years. Other works based on already published data and observations also emphasize the slip deficit along the northern DSF (Carena et al., 2023). Estimates of moment rate accumulation on major fault zones of China, compared with the seismic moment released on each fault zone using a 2000-yr long historical earthquake catalog also show slip deficit (Wang et al., 2011). The missing of repeated seismic ruptures in historical catalog (Ambraseys, 2009) and paleoseismic investigations (Meghraoui, 2015) being unlikely along the northern DSF, the seismic slip deficit can be justified by the ~760 years quiescent period. The complex tectonic system at the three-plate junction is dominated by the EAF, KVF and DSF major tectonic structures that show prominent coseismic slip offset. Hence, the fault interaction and stress transfer at the three-plate junction are likely to occur along the three major fault structures.

## 6.1. The slip deficit along the northern DSF

In an attempt to determine and quantify the seismic gap along the DSF, we use a similar method of Meghraoui et al. (2021) applied along the North Anatolian Fault in the Marmara region. Here, we use simultaneously the seismic activity (long-term, 4000 years) and the geodetic moment rate along the northern DSF to determine the deficit moment rate for different time intervals (Ti) (Eqs. 8, 9).

$$ \dot{M}_d = \mu \iint_s (\dot{U}_\infty - \dot{U}) ds \qquad (8) $$

where $\dot{M}_d$ is the deficit moment rate; μ the rigidity modulus (= 3.3*10¹⁰ N.m²); $\dot{U}_\infty$ the geodetic deformation rate, and $\dot{U}$ the coseismic slip rate on fault (Murray and Segall, 2002). Eq. (8) leads to:

$$ \text{Ti} = \text{Mo} / \dot{M}_d \qquad (9) $$

where Ti is the return period of large earthquakes, and Mo is the cumulative seismic moment over the considered time interval. The deficit moment rate $\dot{M}_d$ corresponds to the difference between the deformation rate far-field, due to the tectonic plate motion and the deformation near-
fault due to repeated coseismic slip.

The slip deficit is represented through the development of models showing the calculations on a regular 0.3° cell. We first use seismic and paleoseismological data to determine the distribution of the seismic moment rate along the DSF (Meghraoui, 2015). We consider the seismic moment of each event and the total energy released on a simple fault plane to calculate the cumulative seismic moment per segment (ΣM₀) and infer the seismic strain velocity for about 4000 years of the seismicity catalog (Eq. 10; Kostrov, 1974):

$$ \dot{u} = \frac{1}{\mu AT} \sum_{k=1}^{n} M_{0}^{(k)} \quad (10) $$

where T is the time interval considered. This approach allows to take into account physical rupture parameters (Aki and Richards, 2002) such as the rigidity modulus (μ = 3.3*10¹⁰ N.m²), the coseismic displacement (u) and the slip area (A = W*L with W: seismogenic width; L: rupture length). Secondly, we observe the far field deformation along the DSF, from the 1138 to 1202 earthquake rupture segments and by the calculation of the geodetic moment rate. To do so, we use the method by Savage and Simpson (1997) method formalizes the deformation in the volume across the fault trace. We take into consideration the regular grid to interpolate GPS data in less covered area and calculate the deformation for each cell. This method considers the diagonalized deformation tensor (see eq. 1 in Supplementary Material) and the double-couple mechanism of the fault, which in our case combines the strike-slip and dip-slip mechanisms (see eq. 2 in Supplementary Material). The DSF exhibits a principal left-lateral strike-slip motion, but the presence of geometrical discontinuities, leading to pull-apart bassins, and step-overs, locally gives room to transtensional and transpressional slip components.

The deficit moment rate $\dot{M}$ is basically obtained from the difference between the deformation rate far from the fault due to the tectonic plate motion (given by the GPS data), and the seismic deformation along the fault due to repeated large earthquake slip. We compute on a regular 0.3° cell the slip deficit by means of a Matlab program (Meghraoui et al., 2021) and incorporate 1) the moment summation calculated from the long-term earthquake catalog (i.e., seismic and paleoseismological data) along the southwest EAF and northern DSF as we suggested here above in eq. 10, and 2) the far field deformation obtained using the method by Savage and Simpson (1997) to describe the deformation in the volume across active faults. To obtain the geodetic moment rate, the method also considers the diagonalized deformation tensor (eq. 1 in Supplementary Material), the double-couple mechanism of the fault, and in our case combining the strike-slip and dip-slip mechanisms (eq. 2).

Both the EAF and DSF have principal left-lateral strike-slip mechanisms, but the presence of geometrical discontinuities (pull-apart, step-over) implies the existence of transtension and transpression tectonic deformation. The integration of GNSS results with instrumental, historical and paleoseismic data is a real challenge as their uncertainties are difficult to evaluate. Calculating an uncertainty associated to the moment deficit along the northern DSF is problematic due to the access to past coseismic slip records and related fault-rupture geometries. The resulting moment rate deficit for strike slip components shown in Fig. 7 indicates a significant increase reaching a cumulative rate of 10²⁷ dyne. cm along the rupture segments of the northern DSF. The coupled fault section coincides with the area of seismic slip deficit and with the seismic gap along the fault segments (Figs. 2 and 7). It is then possible to estimate, for different time intervals (see eq. 2 in Supplementary Material) and from the cumulative seismic moment, the associated magnitude Mw (Kanamori, 1977) according to the recurrence interval on the DSF (ranging from ~760 years along the northern DSF, to ~950 years on the Jordan Valley segment; Meghraoui, 2015).

The strain distribution and rate across the Hatay triple junction, obtained from the combined analysis of fault kinematics, seismicity distribution, and GPS results may constrain the tectonic pattern and

fault interaction. A physical basis for the modelling of the seismic slip deficit and ~ 1 bar stress transfer shows that postseismic stress increases the coseismic stress and plays a major role in fault interaction during the seismic cycle (Chery et al., 2001). A triggered earthquake sequence may be inferred from the clock time advance given by

$$ \Delta t = \frac{\Delta \tau}{\sigma} $$

where Δτ is the shear stress change and σ the rate of secular stress accumulation onto the fault. Our model of stress transfer considers the paleoseismic results that document the time clustering of large earthquakes in the last 3000 years along the northern DSF (Meghraoui, 2015). The large earthquake cluster between 1114 and 1202 seems to obey to a stress coupling with an average return period of 21 years (and this topic worth further research) along the DSF segments. If a similar earthquake cluster generation may take place following the 2023 Mw 7.8 seismic event, the northern DSF is at a preseismic stage that could pose serious seismic hazard and ensuing risk (Gülen et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2023). Hence, the need for a realistic fault-based seismic hazard assessment is decisive along the northern Dead Sea Fault.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Mustapha Meghraoui:** Writing – original draft, Validation, Super-vision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Ziyadin Cakir:** Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Jugurtha Kariche:** Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Renaud Toussaint:** Writing – original draft, Validation, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Floriane Provost:** Formal analysis, Data curation. **Volkan Karabacak:** Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. **Reda Sbeini:** Formal analysis, Data curation. **Erhan Altunel:** Formal analysis, Data curation. **Tony Nemer:** Formal analysis, Data curation.

### Declaration of competing interest

Mustapha MEGHRAOUI reports financial support, administrative support, article publishing charges, and travel were provided by Earth and Environment Institute of Strasbourg. MEGHRAOUI reports a relationship with Earth and Environment Institute of Strasbourg that includes: employment, funding grants, and travel reimbursement. MEGHRAOUI has patent ITEStrasbourg pending to MEGHRAOUI. There is no conflict of interest to be cited for the submitted manuscript. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to AFAD and Prof. Orhan Tatar for access to the 2023 earthquake area in Hatay, southern Turkiye. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewer that helped to improve an early version of our manuscript. This research is funded by the CNRS – ITES-UMR 7063.

### Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2025.230799.

### Data availability

Data will be made available on request.
## References

Aki, K., Richards, P.G., 2002. *Quantitative seismology*. University Science. Books, Mill Valley California, p. 670.

Aktug, B., Ozener, H., Dogru, A., Sabuncu, A., Turgut, B., Halicioglu, K., Havazli, E., 2016. Slip rates and seismic potential on the East Anatolian Fault System using an improved GPS velocity field. J. Geodyn. 94, 1–12.

Alchalbi, A., Daoud, M., Gomez, F., McClusky, S., Reilinger, R., Romeyeh, M.A., Barazangi, M., 2010. Crustal deformation in northwestern Arabia from GPS measurements in Syria: Slow slip rate along the northern Dead Sea Fault. Geophys. J. Int. 180 (1), 125–135.

Altunel, E., Meghraoui, M., Karabacak, V., Akyüz, S.H., Ferry, M., Yalçiner, C., Munschy, M., 2009. Archaeological sites (tell and road) offset by the dead sea fault in the Amik Basin, southern Turkey. Geophys. J. Int. 179 (3), 1313–1329.

Altunel, E., Kozaci, Ö., Yıldırım, C., Sbeinati, R.M., Meghraoui, M., 2024. Potential domino effect of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake on the centuries-long seismic quiescence of the Dead Sea fault: inferences from the North Anatolian fault. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 15440.

Ambraseys, N.N., 1989. Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophys. J. Int. 96 (2), 311–331.

Ambraseys, N., 2009. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, p. 947.

Ambraseys, N., Melville, C.P., 1988. Historical evidence of faulting in Eastern Anatolia and northern Syria. Ann. Geophys. 28, 337–343.

APAME, 2007. Archeoseismology and Paleoseismology for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and Archeological Sites in the Middle East: The Impact of Large Earthquakes on the Archaeological Sites and Cultural Heritage in the Middle East (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, APAME EC project – ICA-CT-2002-10024 – Coordinator Mustapha Meghraoui, DG XII Brussels). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/ICA3-CT-2002-10024.

Barbot, S., Luo, H., Wang, T., Hamiel, Y., Piatibratova, O., Javed, M. M. T., et al., 2023. 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(3). Doi:10.2644/3/seismica.v2i3.502.

Beeler, N.M., Simpson, R.W., Hickman, S.H., Lockner, D.A., 2000. Pore fluid pressure, apparent friction, and Coulomb failure. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105 (B11), 25533–25542.

Bertrand, S., 2006. Active Tectonics at the Junction between Frica, Arabia and Anatolia (Southern Turkeyi) Tectonic Plates: Fault Characterisation and Analysis of the Active Deformation by a Dense GPS Network. PhD dissertation. Université de Strasbourg, p. 432. https://theses.fr/2006STR1GEO8.

Carena, S., Friedrich, A.M., Verdecchia, A., Kahle, B., Rieger, S., Kübler, S., 2023. Identification of source faults of large earthquakes in the Turkey-Syria border region between 1000 CE and the present, and their relevance for the 2023 Mw 7.8 Pazarcik earthquake. Tectonics 42. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023TC007890.

Chen, J., Zhou, Y., 2024. Coseismic slip distribution of the 2023 earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria from joint inversion of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data: an iterative modelling method for mapping large earthquake deformation. Geophys. J. Int. 237 (1), 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/jgi/gga066.

Chery, J., Merkel, S., Bouissou, S., 2001. A physical basis for time clustering of large earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91 (6), 1685–1693.

Daëron, M., Klinger, Y., Tapponnier, P., Elias, A., Jacques, E., Sursock, A., 2007. 12,000-year-long record of 10 to 13 paleoearthquakes on the Yammouneh fault, Levant fault system, Lebanon. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97 (3), 749–771.

Darawcheh, R., Abdul-Wahed, M.-K., Hasan, A., 2022. The Great 1822 Aleppo Earthquake: New Historical sources and strong Ground Motion simulation. Geofis. Int. 2022 (61–3), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.22201/igeof.00167169p.2022.61.3.2198.

Delouis, B., Van den Ende, M., Ampuero, J.-P., 2024. Kinematic rupture model of the February 6th, 2023, Mw7.8 Turkey earthquake from a large set of near-source strong motion records combined by GNSS offsets reveals intermittent supershear rupture. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 114 (2), 726–740.

Duman, T.Y., Emre, Ö., 2013. The East Anatolian Fault: Geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 372 (1), 495–529. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP372.14.

Gomez, F., Karam, G., Khawlie, M., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Reilinger, R., Jaafar, R., Tabet, C., Khair, K., Barazangi, M., 2007. Global positioning system measurements of strain accumulation and slip transfer through the restraining bend along the Dead Sea fault system in Lebanon. Geophys. J. Int. 168, 1021–1028.

Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A., Traina, G., 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to 10th Century. Ist. Naz. Di Geofis. e Vulcanol., Storia Geofis. Ambiente, Bologna, Italy.

Guidoboni, E., Bernardini, F., Comastri, A., 2004a. The 1138–1139 and 1156–1159 destructive seismic crises in Syria, South-Eastern Turkey and northern Lebanon. J. Seismol. 8, 105–127.

Guidoboni, E., Bernardini, F., Comastri, A., Boschi, E., 2004b. The large earthquake on 29 June 1170 (Syria, Lebanon, and central southern Turkey). J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 109 (B7).

Gülen, L., et al., 2014. Earthquake Model of the Middle East (Emme) Project: Active Faults and Seismic Sources Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 2ECEES, 24–29 August 2014, Istanbul, Turkey.

Hudnut, K.W., Seeger, L., Pacheco, J., 1989. Cross-fault triggering in the November 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake sequence, southern California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 16 (2), 199–202.

Kanamori, H., 1977. The energy release in great earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 82 (20), 2981–2987.

Karabacak, V., Altunel, E., Meghraoui, M., Akyüz, H.S., 2010. Field evidence from northern Dead Sea Fault Zone (South Turkey): new findings for the initiation age and slip rate. Tectonophysics 480 (1–4), 172–182.

Karabulut, K., Güvercin, S.E., Hollingsworth, J., Konca, A.O., 2023. Long silence on the East Anatolian Fault Zone (Southern Turkey) ends with devastating double earthquakes (6 February 2023) over a seismic gap: implications for the seismic potential in the Eastern Mediterranean region. J. Geol. Soc. London. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2023-021 | Vol. 180.

Kariche, J., 2022. The 2020 Monte Cristo (Nevada) earthquake sequence: stress transfer in the context of conjugate strike-slip faults. Tectonics 41. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020TC006506 e2020TC006506.

Kobayashi, T., Munekane, H., Kuwahara, M., Furui, H., 2024. Insights on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake, Turkey, from INSAR: fault locations, rupture styles and induced deformation. Geophys. J. Int. 236 (2), 1068–1088. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad464.

Kostrov, V.V., 1974. Seismic moment and energy of earthquakes, and the seismic flow of rock. Izv. Acad. Sci. USSR. Phys. Solid Earth 1, 23–44.

Lefevre, M., Klinger, Y., Al-Qaryouti, M., Le Béon, M., Moumani, K., 2018. Slip deficit and temporal clustering along the Dead Sea fault from paleoseismological investigations. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 4511.

Li, S., Wang, X., Tao, T., Zhu, Y., Qu, X., Li, Z., Song, S., 2023. Source Model of the 2023 Turkey Earthquake Sequence Imaged by Sentinel-1 and GPS Measurements: Implications for Heterogeneous Fault Behavior along the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Remote Sens. (Basel) 15 (10), 2618.

Liu, C., Lay, T., Wang, R., Taymaz, T., Xie, Z., Xiong, X., Erman, C., 2023. Complex multi-fault rupture and triggering during the 2023 earthquake doublet in southeastern Türkiye. Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 5564.

Maarten, F., Resor, P., Pollard, D., Maertens, L., 2005. Inverting for slip on three-dimensional fault surfaces using angular dislocations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 (5), 1654–1665.

Mahmoud, Y., Masson, F., Meghraoui, M., Cakir, Z., Alchalbi, A., Yavasoglu, H., Yönlu, O., Daoud, M., Ergintav, S., Inan, S., 2013. Kinematic study at the junction of the East Anatolian fault and the Dead Sea fault from GPS measurements. J. Geodyn. 67, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2012.05.006.

Mai, P.M., Aspiotis, T., Aquib, T.A., Cano, E.V., Castro-Cruz, D., Espindola-Carmona, A., et al., 2023. The destructive earthquake doublet of 6 February 2023 in South-Central Türkiye and Northwestern Syria: initial observations and analyses. The Seismic Record 3 (2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1785/0320230007.

Meghraoui, M., 2015. Paleoseismic history of the Dead Sea Fault Zone. In: Beer, M., Kougoumtzoglou, I., Patelli, E., Au, I.K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5.

Meghraoui, M., et al., 2003. Evidence for 830 years of seismic quiescence from paleoseismology, archaeoseismology, and historical seismicity along the Dead Sea fault in Syria. Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 210, 35–52.

Meghraoui, M., Toussaint, R., Aksoy, M.E., 2021. The slip deficit on the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey) in the Marmara Sea: insights from paleoseismicity, seismicity and geodetic data. Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews 3 (1), 45–56.

Melgar, D., Taymaz, T., Ganas, A., Crowell, B., Öcalan, T., Kahraman, M., Tsironi, V., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Valkaniotis, S., Irmak, T.S., et al., 2023. Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387.

Murray, J., Segall, P., 2002. Testing time-predictable earthquake recurrence by direct measurement of strain accumulation and release. Nature 419 (6904), 287–291.

Nalbant, S.S., McCloskey, J., Steacy, S., Barka, A., 2002. Stress accumulation and increased seismic risk in Eastern Turkey. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 291–298.

Nemer, T., Gomez, F., Al Haddad, S., Tabet, C., 2008. Coseismic growth of sedimentary basins along the Yammouneh strike-slip fault (Lebanon). Geophys. J. Int. 175 (3), 1023–1039.

Okuwaki, R., Yagi, Y., Taymaz, T., Hicks, S.P., 2023. Multi-scale rupture sequence with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 South-Eastern Türkiye and Syria earthquake doublet. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL0130480 e2023GL0130480.

Ozkan, A., Yavasoglu, H.H., Masson, F., 2023. 2023. Present-day strain accumulations and fault kinematics at the Hatay Triple Junction using new geodetic constraints. Tectonophysics 854, 229819.

Palo, M., Zollo, A., 2024. Small-scale segmented fault rupture along the East Anatolian fault during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake. Communications Earth & Environment 5 (1), 431.

Provost, F., Karabacak, V., Malet, J.P., Van der Woerd, J., Meghraoui, M., Masson, F., Ferry, M., Pointal, E., 2024. High-resolution co-seismic fault offsets of the 2023 Türkiye earthquake ruptures using satellite imagery. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 6834.

Reasenberg, P.A., Simpson, R.W., 1992. Response of regional seismicity to the static stress change produced by the Loma Prieta earthquake. Science 255, 1687–1690.

Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., Karam, G., 2006. GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasian continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 111 (B5).

Rice, J.R., 1992. Fault stress states, pore pressure distributions, and the weakness of the San Andreas fault. In: International Geophysics, vol. 51. Academic Press, pp. 475–503.

Rice, J.R., Cleary, M.P., 1976. Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid-saturated elastic porous media with compressible constituents. Rev. Geophys. 14 (2), 227–241.
Savage, J.C., Simpson, R.W., 1997. Surface strain accumulation and the seismic moment tensor. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87 (5), 1345-1353.

Sbeinati, M.R., Darawcheh, R., Mouty, M., 2005. The historical earthquakes of Syria: an analysis of large and moderate earthquakes from 1365 BC to 1900 AD. *Annals of Geophysics* 48 (3).

Stein, R.S., Barka, A.A., Dieterich, J.H., 1997. Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering. *Geophys. J. Int.* 128 (3), 594-604.

Stucchi, M., Şeşetyan, K., Castelli, V., Gomez Capera, A.A., Meletti, C., Sbeinati, M.R., 2024. About the Predecessors of the 2023 February Earthquakes in Eastern Anatolia. *Seismica in press*.

Thomas, A.L., 1993. Poly3D: three-dimensional. Polygonal Element, Displacement Discontinuity Boundary Element Computer Program with applications to Fractures, Faults, and Cavities in the Earth's Crust. Ph. D. Thesis. Stanford University.

Toda, S., Stein, R.S., Sevilgen, V., Lin, J., 2011. 2011. Coulomb 3.3 Graphic-rich deformation and stress-change software for earthquake, tectonic, and volcano research and teaching—user guide. *US Geological Survey open-file report 1060*, 63.

Sbeinati, M.R., Meghraoui, M., Suleyman, G., Gomez, F., Grootes, P., Nadeau, M.-J., Al Najjar, H., Al-Ghazzi, R., 2010a. Timing of earthquake ruptures at the Al Harif Roman aqueduct (Dead Sea fault, Syria) from archaeoseismology and paleoseismology, in. In: Sintubin, M., Stewart, I.S., Niemi, T.M., Altunel, E. (Eds.),

Ancient Earthquakes: Geological Society of America Special Paper, 471,
pp. 243-267. https://doi.org/10.1130/2010.2471(20).

Wang, H., Liu, M., Cao, J., Shen, X., Zhang, G., 2011. Slip rates and seismic moment deficits on major active faults in mainland China. *J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth* 116 (B2).

Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. *Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.* 84 (4), 974-1002.

Yildirim, C., et al., 2023. Surface ruptures and earthquake geomorphology seen by optical and thermal drone survey: Some features of the 2023 earthquake faulting in Southern Turkiye (in preparation).

Zabci, C., Sancçar, T., Kıray, H.N., Akyüz, H.S., Akciz, S.O., Battogtokh, D., Kırkan, E., Uçarkuş, G., Sunal, G., Aksoy, M.E., Yakupoğlu, A., Balkaya, M., Köküm, M., 2023. February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 Pazarcık (Kahramanmarai Turkey) earthquake: A supercycle event within a complex tectonic setting. In: T2B-06, AGU Fall Meeting 11-15 December 2023, San Fransisco USA.

Zelenin, E., Bachmanov, D., Garipova, S., Trifonov, V., Kozhurin, A., 2022. The active Faults of Eurasia Database (AFEAD): the ontology and design behind the continental-scale dataset. *Earth System Science Data* 14 (10), 4489-4503.