‘Triggering’ = a perturbation in the loading deformation that leads to a change in the probability of failure. Overview of Evidence for Dynamic Triggering.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Advertisements

Earthquake Dynamic Triggering and Ground Motion Scaling J. Gomberg, K. Felzer, E. Brodsky.

Statistical Physics Approach to Understanding the Multiscale Dynamics of Earthquake Fault Systems Theory.

Earthquake Seismology: The stress tensor Equation of motion

(Introduction to) Earthquake Energy Balance

1992 M=7.3 Landers shock increases stress at Big Bear Los Angeles Big Bear Landers First 3 hr of Landers aftershocks plotted from Stein (2003)

1 – Stress contributions 2 – Probabilistic approach 3 – Deformation transients Small earthquakes contribute as much as large earthquakes do to stress changes.

Using Induced Seismicity to Predict and Monitor Reservoir Permeability Pathways STRM LLC.

Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting Lecture 5, 12 Sep Fluids: Mechanical, Chemical Effective Stress Dilatancy.

Tidal triggering of earthquakes: Response to fault compliance? Elizabeth S. Cochran IGPP, Scripps.

Source parameters II Stress drop determination Energy balance Seismic energy and seismic efficiency The heat flow paradox Apparent stress drop.

Chapter 5: EARTHQUAKES &EARTH’S INTERIOR. Earthquakes & earthquake hazards Earthquake –Sudden release of energy Seismology –Scientific study of earthquakes.

Joan Gomberg, Bill Schulz, Paul Bodin, Aaron Wech, Roland Burgmann, Jason Kean, Patricia MacQueen, Katie Foster, Bob Nadeau, Chuck Wicks, Wes Thelen (from.

Lecture-15 1 Lecture #15- Seismic Wave Overview. Lecture-15 2 Seismograms F Seismograms are records of Earth’s motion as a function of time.

Stress, Strain, Elasticity and Faulting Lecture 11/23/2009 GE694 Earth Systems Seminar.

Summary of triggering of non- volcanic tremor in Cascadia Justin Rubinstein.

Earthquakes Chapter 16. What is an earthquake? An earthquake is the vibration of Earth produced by the rapid release of energy Energy radiates in all.

Earthquake interaction The domino effect Stress transfer and the Coulomb Failure Function Aftershocks Dynamic triggering Volcano-seismic coupling.

Low frequency coda decay: separating the different components of amplitude loss. Patrick Smith Supervisor: Jürgen Neuberg School of Earth and Environment,

Remote Seismicity following Landers Earthquake Steve Kidder.

Remote Earthquake Triggering: (Fault) Failure is Not Always an Option Heather Savage and Emily Brodsky UC Santa Cruz.

Ge277-Experimental Rock Friction implication for seismic faulting Some other references: Byerlee, 1978; Dieterich, 1979; Ruina, 1983; Tse and Rice, 1986;

Stress III The domino effect Stress transfer and the Coulomb Failure Function Aftershocks Dynamic triggering Volcano-seismic coupling.

IUGG 2007 An amplitude battle: attenuation in bubbly magma versus conduit resonance Patrick Smith and Jürgen Neuberg School of Earth and Environment, The.

Aftershocks tend to fall preferentially in area of static Coulomb stress increase but there are also earthquakes in area of decrease Coulomb stress Aftershocks.

Omori law The modified Omori law Omori law for foreshocks Aftershocks of aftershocks Physical aspects of temporal clustering.

The Spectrum of Fault Slip Behaviors 18 Sep. 2013, C. Marone, Geosc500 Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting Stick-slip dynamics and Instability. Introduction.

 ss=  * +(a-b) ln(V/V * ) a-b > 0 stable sliding a-b < 0 slip is potentially unstable Correspond to T~300 °C For Quartzo- Feldspathic rocks Stationary.

Analyses of tunnel stability under dynamic loads Behdeen Oraee; Navid Hosseini; Kazem Oraee 1.

Earthquake nucleation How do they begin? Are large and small ones begin similarly? Are the initial phases geodetically or seismically detectable? Related.

CAPTURING PHYSICAL PHENOMENA IN PARTICLE DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS OF GRANULAR GOUGE Effects of Contact Laws, Particle Size Distribution, and the 3 rd Dimension.

New earthquake category Nature 447, (3 May 2007) | doi: /nature05780; Received 8 December 2006; Accepted 26 March A scaling law for slow.

Induced Slip on a Large-Scale Frictional Discontinuity: Coupled Flow and Geomechanics Antonio Bobet Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Virginia Tech,

Earthquakes (Chapter 13). Lecture Outline What is an earthquake? Seismic waves Epicenter location Earthquake magnitude Tectonic setting Hazards.

Chapter 4 Earthquakes Map is from the United States Geological Survey and shows earthquake hazard for the fifty United States.

Agnès Helmstetter 1 and Bruce Shaw 2 1,2 LDEO, Columbia University 1 now at LGIT, Univ Grenoble, France Relation between stress heterogeneity and aftershock.

GAPSS Geothermal Area Passive Seismic Sources Sismicità associata allo sfruttamento del campo geotermico di Larderello-Travale G. Saccorotti, D. Piccinini.

A functional form for the spatial distribution of aftershocks Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena.

The Lithosphere There term lithosphere is in a variety of ways. The most general use is as: The lithosphere is the upper region of the crust and mantle.

Fault activation and microseismicity in laboratory experiments Thomas Göbel Danijel Schorlemmer, Sergei Stanchits, Erik Rybacki Georg Dresen, Thorsten.

Constraints on Seismogenesis of Small Earthquakes from the Natural Earthquake Laboratory in South African Mines (NELSAM) Margaret S. Boettcher (USGS Mendenhall.

A Large Block Test to Study the Energetic Failure of Rock – Application to Rock-Bursting and Earthquake Mechanics Maochen Ge, Eliza Richardson, Chris Marone,

How Faulting Keeps Crust Strong? J. Townend & M.D. Zoback, 2000 Geology.

Borehole Strainmeters: Instruments for Measuring Aseismic Deformation in Subduction Zones Evelyn Roeloffs U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, WA.

CRUSTAL DEFORMATION BREAKOUT Key Scientific Questions  How do magmatic systems evolve and how can we improve eruption forecasting?  How can we quantify.

Creep, compaction and the weak rheology of major faults Norman H. Sleep & Michael L. Blanpied Ge 277 – February 19, 2010.

Karen Felzer & Emily Brodsky Testing Stress Shadows.

GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 15 Oct 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Wed 22 Oct: T&S Last Time: RHEOLOGY Dislocation creep is sensitive to: Temperature.

What are Earthquakes? The shaking or trembling caused by the sudden release of energy Usually associated with faulting or breaking of rocks Continuing.

What can we learn about dynamic triggering in the the lab? Lockner and Beeler, 1999.

Models for Fault Behavior

Seismic and Aseismic Slip During Hydraulic Fracturing Stephen Perry.

Geodetic Deformation, Seismicity and Fault Friction Ge Sensitivity of seismicity to stress perturbations, implications for earthquakes nucleation.

Chapter 8 Section 1 Earthquakes: Vibration of Earth created when there is a rapid release of energy Caused by slippage along a fault Faults are fractures.

Aseismic deformation transients in subduction zone and the role of fault dilatancy -- Numerical simulation in the framework of rate and state friction.

A Post-Loma Prieta Progress Report on Earthquake Triggering by a Continuum of Deformations Presented By Joan Gomberg.

-Liu and Rice (2005), Aseismic slip transients emerge spontaneously in three-dimensional rate and state modeling of subduction earthquake sequences, JGR.

Slow/silent slip events in deeper seismogenic portion of subduction zones -- mechanism investigation from 3D modeling Yajing Liu [1], James R. Rice [1,2]

EART 118 Seismotectonics MWF D250 9:30-10:40 am; Th D250 2:00-4:00 pm Prof.: Thorne Lay, C382 E&MS, Office Hours 11:00-12:00 MWF TA: Lingling Ye, Office.

Creep, compaction and the weak rheology of major faults Sleep & Blanpied, 1992, Nature Segall & Rice, 1995 Seminar for Ge Jan. Shengji Wei.

Mechanical behavior and the degree of localization in large displacement faulting experiments N. M. Beeler and T. E. Tullis, Brown University, Providence,

Triggered tremor may simply be clock- advanced failure, which could make it useful as a widely available ambient tremor and perhaps slow slip ‘meter’.

Virtual Class Presentation

A possible mechanism of dynamic earthquake triggering

EARTHQUAKES AND EARTH’S INTERIOR

學生：林承恩(Cheng-en Lin) 指導老師：陳卉瑄(Kate Huihsuan Chen)

Earthquake Magnitude Ahmed Elgamal

Forms of seismic hazard

Presentation transcript:

‘Triggering’ = a perturbation in the loading deformation that leads to a change in the probability of failure. Overview of Evidence for Dynamic Triggering

‘Triggering’ = a perturbation in the loading deformation that leads to a change in the probability of failure. How do we know it happens?

‘Triggering’ = a perturbation in the loading deformation that leads to a change in the probability of failure. How do we know it happens? Measure or infer a loading perturbation, & observe a change in seismicity rate (fault population or single fault recurrence), possibly its spatial variation too.

The ‘Reference’ State Central California Ambient Seismicity

The Perturbation Coyote Lake Mainshock & Ambient Seismicity

The Perturbation & Response Coyote Lake Mainshock & Aftershocks

Dynamic loads: Seismic waves (oscillatory, transient)

Dynamic loads: Seismic waves (oscillatory, transient) Aseismic slip (not oscillatory, may be permanent)

Dynamic loads: Seismic waves (oscillatory, transient) Aseismic slip (not oscillatory, permanent) Solid earth tides and ocean loading (oscillatory, ongoing)

Dynamic loads: Seismic waves (oscillatory, transient) Aseismic slip (not oscillatory, permanent) Tides (oscillatory, ongoing) Surface/shallow: snow and ice, reservoir filling/draining, mining, ground water, fluid injection or withdrawal (localized) Magma movement (temperature, pressure, and chemical changes too)

What’s unique about dynamic loads?

They’re transient!

shear stress failure threshold time tt Static Load Change

shear stress failure threshold time Static Load Change tt tt

shear stress failure threshold time Dynamic Triggering

shear stress failure threshold time Dynamic Triggering tt

shear stress failure threshold time tt What’s unique about dynamic loads? They’re transient; the failure conditions must change!

What’s unique about dynamic loads? They’re transient; the failure conditions must change! They’re oscillatory, but they only enhance failure probability (ASSUMPTION); no stress shadows.

What’s unique about dynamic loads? They’re transient; the failure conditions must change! They only enhance failure probability (ASSUMPTION); no stress shadows. Slower distance decay than static stress changes.

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by load type) Seismic waves (transient, oscillatory) Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory Aseismic slip (slow, permanent) Tides (oscillatory, ongoing) Surface/Shallow: snow and ice, reservoir filling/draining, mining, ground water, fluid injection or withdrawal (localized)

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Seismicity rate increases following large earthquakes.

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Seismicity rate increases following large earthquakes.

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Seismicity rate increases following large earthquakes.

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Seismicity rate increases following large earthquakes. Missing? rate increases.

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Correlation of spatial rate increase with directivity.

Pollitz & Johnston, 2007 Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Correlation of spatial rate increase with directivity. Correlation of (no) rate change with co-located seismic & aseismic events.

Pollitz & Johnston, 2007 Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Correlation of spatial rate increase with directivity. Correlation of (no) rate change with co-located seismic & aseismic events.

Ma et al., 2005 Chi-Chi earthquake shadows start with 3-month rate increases. Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Correlation of spatial rate increase with directivity. Correlation of (no) rate change with co-located seismic & aseismic events. Early excess of aftershocks. Rate increases in stress shadows

“Observed seismicity rate decreases in the Santa Monica Bay and along parts of the San Andreas fault are correlated with the calculated stress decrease.” Stein, 1999

Time history of seismicity from Santa Monica Bay (Marsan, 2003).

“The [Stein, 1999] interpretation is made difficult by the fact that the transient activity modulation by the 1989 M5 Malibu earthquake was still ongoing….the quiescence observed after 1994 can be tracked back several months before Northridge, the latter main shock actually triggering seismicity in the region at the very short (i.e. days) timescale. Marsan, 2003

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Measured Linear Aftershock Densities Felzer & Brodsky, 2006

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities number of aftershocks at distance r number of potential nucleation sites per unit distance probability of nucleation  constant!

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities number of aftershocks at distance r number of potential nucleation sites per unit distance probability of nucleation  constant!

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view ‘Linear density’ = number of aftershocks within a volume defined by surface S everywhere at distance r and width  r D triggering fault

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities number of aftershocks at distance r number of potential nucleation sites per unit distance probability of nucleation  constant!

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Modeled Linear Aftershock Densities

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Are dynamic deformations consistent with these probabilities?

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Peak Velocities vs r, M Are dynamic deformations consistent with these probabilities?

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Peak Velocities vs r, M Peak Velocities vs r/D, M perhaps! Are dynamic deformations consistent with these probabilities?

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses ‘Low-frequency’ events Sumatra surface waves in Japan High-passed Sumatra surface waves in Japan Correlation with Rayleigh waves - Dilatation & Fluids Miyazawa & Mori, 2006

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses ‘Low-frequency’ events Sumatra surface waves in Japan High-passed Sumatra surface waves in Japan Correlation with Rayleigh waves - Dilatation & Fluids Denali surface waves in Japan, Correlation with Love waves - Shear Load! Miyazawa & Mori, 2006Rubinstein et al., 2007

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses ‘Low-frequency’ events Creep and tilt Response to Hector Mine waves on Imperial Fault (260 km) Glowacka et al., 2002 H H

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory “Our results predict that a transient dynamic normal load during creep can strengthen a fault…gouge particles become compacted into a lower energy configuration.” Richardson and Marone, 1999 Granular surface quasi-static experiments.

Sobolev et al., 1996 Granite surface stick-slip experiments. Dynamic Triggering Observations Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory delayed failure

Sobolev et al., 1996 Granite surface, shear vibration, stick-slip experiments. Dynamic Triggering Observations Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory delayed failure Vibration Clock-advances Failure

Dynamic Triggering Observations Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory Granular surface, acoustic vibration, stick-slip experiments.

Dynamic Triggering Observations Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory Granular surface, acoustic vibration, stick-slip experiments. acoustic transient triggered ‘new’ seismic events clock-delayed failure

Dynamic Triggering Observations Seismic waves Remote (many source dimensions) Near-field (few source dimensions) Distance-independent view Quasi-seismic responses Laboratory Granular surface, acoustic vibration, stick-slip experiments. acoustic transient triggered ‘new’ seismic events clock-delayed failure memory

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Aseismic slip Earthquakes Hawaii Slow Slip & Earthquakes Number of earthquakes & displacement

Dynamic Triggering Observations (by loading type) Seismic waves Aseismic slip Earthquakes Tremor Dragert et al., 2002 Cascadia Slow Slip & Tremor Geodetic Displacement (mm east) Tremor Activity (hrs in 10 days)

General features: apparent more commonly in areas of geothermal & Quaternary to recent volcanism, extensional regimes, high strain rates, seismic strains required ~  strains, sometimes instantaneous but also delayed.

Models Coulomb-Navier failure: no delays Frictional: traditional clock-advance models can’t explain long delays, require high (near lithostatic) pressures or critical conditions, changing frictional properties or stability regime. Subcritical crack growth: same behavior as rate-state friction. Dynamic nonlinear softening. Fluid and pore pressure mechanisms: decrease effective normal stress, local, fluid-driven deformation disruption of clogged fractures and hydraulic fracturing bubbles rectified diffusion (volatiles selectively pumped into bubbles during the dilatation) advective overpressure (rising of loosened bubbles within magma body )

Models Coulomb-Navier failure: no delays Frictional: traditional clock-advance models can’t explain long delays, require high (near lithostatic) pressures or critical conditions, changing frictional properties or stability regime. Subcritical crack growth: same behavior as rate-state friction. Dynamic nonlinear softening. Fluid and pore pressure mechanisms: decrease effective normal stress, local, fluid-driven deformation disruption of clogged fractures and hydraulic fracturing bubbles rectified diffusion (volatiles selectively pumped into bubbles during the dilatation) advective overpressure (rising of loosened bubbles within magma body )

Parsons, 2005 Power-law distribution of contact areas. Dynamically reduced contact area (i.e. critical slip distance)

Parsons, 2005 Power-law distribution of contact areas. Number of ‘events’ vs clock-advance for 10% reduction in critical slip distance. Dynamically reduced contact area (i.e. critical slip distance)

Parsons, 2005 Power-law distribution of contact areas. Number of ‘events’ vs clock-advance for 10% reduction in critical slip distance. Perturbed failure rate. Dynamically reduced contact area (i.e. critical slip distance)

Models Coulomb-Navier failure: no delays Frictional: traditional clock-advance models can’t explain long delays, require high (near lithostatic) pressures or critical conditions, changing frictional properties or stability regime. Subcritical crack growth: same behavior as rate-state friction. Dynamic nonlinear softening. Fluid and pore pressure mechanisms: decrease effective normal stress, local, fluid-driven deformation disruption of clogged fractures and hydraulic fracturing bubbles rectified diffusion (volatiles selectively pumped into bubbles during the dilatation) advective overpressure (rising of loosened bubbles within magma body )

Models Coulomb-Navier failure: no delays Frictional: traditional clock-advance models can’t explain long delays, require high (near lithostatic) pressures or critical conditions, changing frictional properties or stability regime. Subcritical crack growth: same behavior as rate-state friction. Dynamic nonlinear softening. Fluid and pore pressure mechanisms: decrease effective normal stress, local, fluid-driven deformation, disruption of clogged fractures and hydraulic fracturing, bubbles rectified diffusion (volatiles selectively pumped into bubbles during the dilatation) advective overpressure (rising of loosened bubbles within magma body).

Elastic moduli decrease (soften) with increasing dynamic load amplitude -> weakening mechanism? Relative Change in Modulus Pulse Experiments, Glass Beads

Elastic moduli decrease (soften) with increasing dynamic load amplitude -> weakening mechanism? Relative Change in Modulus % Relative Change in Resonant Frequency % Relative Change in Modulus sinusoid amplitude (strain) Pulse Experiments, Glass Beads Sinusoid Experiments, Rocks

Models Coulomb-Navier failure: no delays Frictional: traditional clock-advance models can’t explain long delays, require high (near lithostatic) pressures or critical conditions, changing frictional properties or stability regime. Subcritical crack growth: same behavior as rate-state friction. Dynamic nonlinear softening. Fluid and pore pressure mechanisms: decrease effective normal stress, local, fluid-driven deformation, disruption of clogged fractures and hydraulic fracturing, bubbles rectified diffusion (volatiles pumped into bubbles during the dilatation), advective overpressure (rising of loosened bubbles within magma body), liquefaction.

-Outstanding Questions- Is our sampling biased (e.g., best monitoring in high strain rate and/or geothermal areas)?

-Outstanding Questions- Is our sampling biased (e.g., best monitoring in high strain rate and/or geothermal areas)? How important are local conditions; are multiple mechanisms at work?

-Outstanding Questions- Is our sampling biased (e.g., best monitoring in high strain rate and/or geothermal areas)? How important are local conditions; are multiple mechanisms at work? What are the important characteristics of the dynamic field (frequency/rate, duration, max. value)?

Strain Rate (acceleration) Strain (velocity) Displacement

Theoretical Frequency Sensitivity Dynamically Induced Pore Pressure Change Velocity Strengthening, Slip Weakening Friction Non-Linear, Slip Weakening Friction

-Outstanding Questions- Is our sampling biased (e.g., best monitoring in high strain rate and/or geothermal areas)? How important are local conditions; are multiple mechanisms at work? What are the important characteristics of the dynamic field (frequency/rate, duration, max. value)? How does delayed failure happen?

Thanks! Comments?