Capacity Building Enables Unique Near-Fault Observations of the destructive 2025 <em>M<sub>w</sub></em> 7.7 Myanmar Earthquake

Lai, Ssu-Ting; Oo, Kyaw Moe; Htwe, Yin Myo Min; Yi, Tin; Than, Htay Htay; Than, Oo; Min, Zaw; Oo, Tun Minn; Maung, Phyo Maung; Bindi, Dino; Cotton, Fabrice; Evans, Peter L.; Heinloo, Andres; Hillmann, Laura; Saul, Joachim; Sens-Schoenfelder, Christoph; Strollo, Angelo; Tilmann, Frederik; Weatherill, Graeme; Yen, Ming-Hsuan; Zaccarelli, Riccardo; Zieke, Thomas; Milkereit, Claus

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216

Preprints

29 Apr 2025

| 29 Apr 2025

Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.

Capacity Building Enables Unique Near-Fault Observations of the destructive 2025 M_w 7.7 Myanmar Earthquake

Ssu-Ting Lai, Kyaw Moe Oo, Yin Myo Min Htwe, Tin Yi, Htay Htay Than, Oo Than, Zaw Min, Tun Minn Oo, Phyo Maung Maung, Dino Bindi, Fabrice Cotton, Peter L. Evans, Andres Heinloo, Laura Hillmann, Joachim Saul, Christoph Sens-Schoenfelder, Angelo Strollo, Frederik Tilmann, Graeme Weatherill, Ming-Hsuan Yen, Riccardo Zaccarelli, Thomas Zieke, and Claus Milkereit

Abstract. We present an overview of station NPW, installed in Naypyitaw, Myanmar. The station is equipped with both strong-motion and broadband sensors and is situated 2.6 km from the Sagaing Fault, providing an exceptional near-fault recording of the M_w 7.7 earthquake that occurred on March 28, 2025. The installation and ongoing maintenance of NPW are the result of a collaborative effort between the Department of Meteorology and Hydrology in Naypyitaw and the GFZ Helmholtz Center for Geosciences (GFZ) prompted by the GFZ International Training Course on seismology and seismic hazard assessment (ITC) in 2016. In this study, we provide background information about the collaborative effort that led to the installation of the only local station that provides on-scale measurements of the 2025, Myanmar earthquake. Given the widespread interest for data recorded by station, we describe the instrumental settings in detail, and how to access data and metadata for station NPW, which is part of the GEOFON (GE) network. Given the relevance of the near-fault recordings at NPW not only for constraining the rupture process of the mainshock but also for engineering seismology applications, we analyze key features of the mainshock from an engineering seismology perspective. This includes an examination of ground motion amplitudes, frequency content, and response spectra, and near-fault effects such as fling effect and pulse-like motion. The high-quality near field data at NPW provide valuable information for seismic hazard assessment in the region and offer useful constraints for studies investigating the rupture characteristics of the mainshock, which preliminary findings suggest to have propagated at supershear speed.

How to cite. Lai, S.-T., Oo, K. M., Htwe, Y. M. M., Yi, T., Than, H. H., Than, O., Min, Z., Oo, T. M., Maung, P. M., Bindi, D., Cotton, F., Evans, P. L., Heinloo, A., Hillmann, L., Saul, J., Sens-Schoenfelder, C., Strollo, A., Tilmann, F., Weatherill, G., Yen, M.-H., Zaccarelli, R., Zieke, T., and Milkereit, C.: Capacity Building Enables Unique Near-Fault Observations of the destructive 2025 M_w 7.7 Myanmar Earthquake, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216, in review, 2025.

Received: 14 Apr 2025 – Discussion started: 29 Apr 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Status: open (until 10 Jul 2025)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

CC1:
'Comment on essd-2025-216', Susan Hough, 05 May 2025 reply

It was good to know that the DMH successfully recorded some strong-motion data for the devastating Mandalay earthquake. Processed data for engineering applications, including three stations from the MM network (YGN, NGU, and KTN) are available at https://www.strongmotioncenter.org/cgi-bin/CESMD/iqr_dist_DM2.pl?IQRID=us7000pn9s&SFlag=0&Flag=2
Susan Hough, US Geological Survey (hough@usgs.gov)

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC1
- CC3:
  'Reply on CC1', Dino Bindi, 06 May 2025 reply
  
  Dear Susan Hough,
  Thank you for adding the link to the CESMD service.
  Unfortunately, permanent seismic monitoring in Myanmar remains limited. To the best of my knowledge, NPW is currently the only near-fault, on-scale recording available for both the M7.7 mainshock and the M6.7 early aftershock. Based on the preliminary USGS ShakeMap rupture model (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000pn9s/finite-fault, updated on 2025-04-02 at 14:19:57), the rupture distances for the MM network stations you mentioned are as follows: NGU, Rrup = 114.121 km; YGN, Rrup = 136.746 km; KTN, Rrup = 367.610 km, whereas the rupture distance for station CHTO of IU network is Rrup = 268.712 km.
  Please note that CESMD disseminates processed data with the disclaimer: “USGS Automated Strong Motion Processing-Preliminary and Subject to Revision, Plotted: 04/04/25 15:03:35”. Therefore, when using CESMD data, it is important to specify the revision timestamp, and particular caution should be exercised when interpreting automatically processed displacement traces, especially for near-source recordings.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize the two main objectives of the article. The first is to share the GE.NPW records of the 2025 Myanmar sequence, including instrumental settings and the characteristics of the recordings. Equally important, if not more so, is to recognize and credit the collaboration between DMH and GFZ, which enabled the installation and ongoing maintenance of the NPW station. Often, when using data from repositories, we tend to overlook the significance of such international partnerships in supporting capacity-building initiatives and the development of seismic monitoring networks in regions of high seismic hazard.
  Best regards, Dino Bindi (dino.bindi@gfz.de)
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC3
  - CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Susan Hough, 06 May 2025 reply
    
    " Often, when using data from repositories, we tend to overlook the significance of such international partnerships in supporting capacity-building initiatives and the development of seismic monitoring networks in regions of high seismic hazard."
    
    Yes, no question. Thiam et al. (2017) describes the partnership that culminated with the upgrade of the national MM network. Once the network hub was established, additional stations were added, including NGU. I believe the network was up to 10-12 stations at one point. It was disheartening that geopolitical events in 2019 were so enormously disruptive. But the DMH continued to operate and maintain the MM network, and the NPW station, in the face of many challenges. The fact that the Myanmar earthquake was recorded by three MM stations (YGN, HKA, NGU) is a testimony to the enormous talent and dedication of the DMH.
    Susan Hough, US Geological Survey
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC4
  - CC5: 'Reply on CC3', Susan Hough, 06 May 2025 reply
    
    " Often, when using data from repositories, we tend to overlook the significance of such international partnerships in supporting capacity-building initiatives and the development of seismic monitoring networks in regions of high seismic hazard."
    
    Yes, no question. Thiam et al. (2017) describes the partnership that culminated with the upgrade of the national MM network. Once the network hub was established, additional stations were added, including NGU. I believe the network was up to 10-12 stations at one point. It was disheartening that geopolitical events in 2019 were so enormously disruptive. But the DMH continued to operate and maintain the MM network, and the NPW station, in the face of many challenges. The fact that the Myanmar earthquake was recorded by three MM stations (YGN, HKA, NGU) is a testimony to the enormous talent and dedication of the DMH.
    Susan Hough, US Geological Survey
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC5
    
    CC6: 'Reply on CC5', Frederik Tilmann, 06 May 2025 reply
    
    Susan, thank you for highlighting the MM network, which is another example of the great cooperation with DMH and the value of capacity building. I am not sure if you scanned the whole article, but we lost the GPS signal at NPW even before the Mandalay earthquake and the cross-correlation with MM.NGU was critical for determining the necessary time correction, so even for this paper there was a very direct benefit. Of course, also in the scientific analysis of the earthquake we appreciate very much the MM stations very much. There have also been a number of structural seismology works benefitting from the MM network.
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC6
CC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-216', Tin Yi, 06 May 2025 reply

I agreed it and I have no comments for that.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC2
CC7: 'Comment on essd-2025-216', Htay Than, 06 May 2025 reply

I have no comment.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-CC7
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-216', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2025 reply

Useful and timely paper, good to publish as is. I only have one technical note, that is, the referece to Luzi et al. (2020) in Figure 10 is not correct in my opinion. Please note:
- The reference to the ESM is the paper by Lanzano et al. (SRL 2021) [doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200398];
- The data are those of the seismic networks TK (https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/TK) and KO (https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/KO), to be cited;
- The data were originally donloaded from https://tdvms.afad.gov.tr/, to be mentioned/ acknowledged.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on essd-2025-216', Brad Aagaard, 03 Jul 2025 reply
Manuscript
General comments
This is a unique and useful dataset. The manuscript could be improved by reorganizing the content so that the details are presented soon after the topic is introduced.
It would be helpful to provide more information about the Myanmar seismic network and any other seismic networks in the country to give more context to this record. For example, what is the density of the instrumentation? How many were operating at the time of the mainshock? Are there any other strong-motion instruments? Is this record leading to consideration of the installation of additional strong-motion instrumentation?
Additionally, more information about the site and site response would be useful. For example, HVSR analysis using ambient field data would help discriminate between features of the record coming from the free-field response versus the response of the structure housing the instrumentation. Is the fundamental frequency from the ambient field HVSR consistent with the assumed Vs30?
In terms of capacity building, it would be useful to know the rationale beyond making this station part of the GE network and not the MM network. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Please provide the data accessed for each URL.

Hyperlinks spanning multiple lines did not work for me (the links only include text on each line).

Abstract
Mention network (and network code) in addition to station code in first sentence.

What is meant by "local station"? I suggest rephrasing in terms of distance from the fault rupture.

Introduction
Line 16: Provide a reference for moment magnitude.
Lines 17-18: Provide a reference for the shaking intensity and number of fatalities.
Line 23: Please elaborate and quantify the "sparse" seismic instrumentation. For example, what is the average station density? What is the distribution between strong-motion and broadband instruments?
Line 26: Provide FDSN network code for GEOFON and the URL of the data center. This information is included later, but it is helpful to include it early on in the manuscript.
Line 27: How many other stations are in the vicinity (within 100 km of the rupture)? I assume these are all broadband sensors and were clipped.

Background collaboration
Line 62: Why was NPW created as part of the GE network and not integrated into the MM network? Were any other stations installed that are part of the GE network and not the MM network?
Figure 1: For panel (a), please explain the colors (add color bar) and how the coherence image is associated with the photograph.

Instrumental settings
Line 96: Please quantify "reasonable noise levels".
Line 98: Please rephrase to clarify what is meant by "conditions in which the station operates".
Line 101: Please elaborate on what adaptations were necessary or clarify the adaptations being referred to.
Line 104: What factors are limiting data availability?
Figure 2: In panels (a) and (b) indicate the meaning of the blue and green color bars. The annotation is too small to read in panels (c) and (d).
Line 115: What are the distances to these neighboring stations?
Line 122: Consider reorganizing this section so that the discussion of noise level is closer to its first mention.
Line 133: "In April 2025, immediately following the 28 March 2025 ..." Please replace "immediately" with a more quantitative term. This sentence is confusing as the communication seems to be lost on March 28, but the sentence mentions April 2025.
Line 146: This statement repeats points made earlier in the manuscript.

Data quality and parameters of engineering interest
Line 151: This statement repeats points made earlier in the manuscript.
Line 160: Please specify which method and parameters were used to estimate the time of the P arrival.
Line 167: It would be helpful to illustrate the baseline corrections applied in the double integration. Baseline correction that preserves static offsets is an active research area, especially as the number of records with static offsets increases. It would be helpful to include a brief discussion of the methods considered and why the chosen method was selected. Were there deficiencies in the other methods?
Line 178: How were the corner frequencies in the bandpass filtering chosen?
Line 187: Mention the damping used in the acceleration response spectra. Is this acceleration response spectra or pseudoacceleration response spectra?
Line 197: GMPM -> GMPE. The community now often uses "ground-motion model" (GMM) instead of "ground-motion prediction equation" (GMPE).
Figures 6 and 10: Why is the CY14 GMM used in Figure 6, whereas the BSSA14 GMM is used in Figure 10? Comparisons to multiple GMMs would be ideal, but I think it would be better to be consistent if the analysis uses only one GMM.
Figure 7: Could any of these peaks be associated with the response of the structure in which the instrumentation is located?
Line 198: The finite-fault model is used by ShakeMap, but it is a separate product on the USGS event page.
Line 200: How was Vs30 estimated?
Figure 9: Consider using the same symbol or color for earthquakes with likely supershear rupture.
Line 227: Rephrase "no significant anomalies are observed" to be more quantitative.
Line 231: Move mention of topography-estimate of Vs30 to Line 200 and add citation.
Figure 11: Annotation in the right panels is too small to read.
Line 254: Is the peak in the V/H ratio shown in Figure 7 consistent with the resonance?

Code and data availability
Line 270: Indicate the date(s) when the metadata were updated.

Zenodo archive
Add README.txt with a description of each of the files.

Add units to the headers in the time history and spectral acceleration files.

Consider combining the time history files so that all three components are in a single file, and name the file in a way that is self-explanatory when downloaded (for example, include the event name, station, and acceleration).

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-216-RC2

Data sets

NPW station data availability GEOFON Data Centre https://doi.org/10.14470/TR560404

Example of NPW waveform access GEOFON Data Centre https://doi.org/10.14470/TR560404

Example of NPW power spectral density GEOFON Data Centre https://doi.org/10.14470/TR560404

Software and data products for &amp;quot;Capacity Building Enables Unique Near-Fault Observations of the destructive 2025 Mw 7.7 Myanmar Earthquake&amp;quot; D. Bindi et al. https://zenodo.org/records/15228691?preview=1&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6ImFiMDYxYmU2LTlkNjMtNGU3Yi05Y2Y3LTE0MWMzMzdkNmZkOCIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiIwM2EwNmMyYjU1ZmEwOGI4ZDQzZTAzYWI4Y2QxNjhkMCJ9.WO0RZWUObLCoOI5jCH1U6jkQ6LX_Ikt5APGUbwukcl25FJSGt3WAaf_Dzu8DFvLfCBr-ohKuPl_-etWawSxKFA

Viewed

Total article views: 1,249 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
981	246	22	1,249	13	11

HTML: 981
PDF: 246
XML: 22
Total: 1,249
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 11

Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Apr 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2025	236	29	1	266
May 2025	595	150	12	757
Jun 2025	142	64	9	215
Jul 2025	8	3	0	11

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Apr 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2025	236	29	1	266
May 2025	595	150	12	757
Jun 2025	142	64	9	215
Jul 2025	8	3	0	11

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,229 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,229 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 03 Jul 2025

Short summary

On March 28, 2025, Myanmar was struck by a destructive M_w 7.7 earthquake. We present detailed information on the data and metadata availability for station NPW, the only local strong-motion station located near the Sagaing Fault that recorded the mainshock without saturation. We also highlight the collaborative effort that made the installation of NPW possible. The high-quality recordings from NPW offer critical insights for seismic hazard assessment in the region.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0