45
IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5 Dynamic models

IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

IV. The seismic cycle

IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models

IV.2 Comparison with observations

IV.3 Interseismic strain

IV.4 Postseismic deformation

IV.5 Dynamic models

Page 2: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Source Model of Nias Earthquake

Source duration: 100s,

Rupture velocity: 2-2.5 km/s;

Rise time: 15 sec

(Konca et al, 2007)

Page 3: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Postseismic deformationPostseismic deformationover 11 monthsover 11 months

Page 4: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Time evolution of postseismic slipTime evolution of postseismic slip

AFt taUtU /ln.)( 0

-The spatial distribution of afterslip is approximately stationary.- Slip increases in proportion to the logarithm of time

~ (Hsu et al, 2006)

Page 5: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

1995 Antofagasta earthquake, N. Chile (Mw = 8.0)

1993-95 Displacements (dominated by co-seismic)

1996-97 Velocities (2 years after earthquake)

Data from Klotz et al. (1999) and Khazaradze and Klotz (2003)

(From Kelin Wang, SEIZE meeting, 2008)

Page 6: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Alaska: ~ 40 years after a great earthquake

M = 9.2, 1964

Freymueller et al. (2008)

The plate interface has partially or completely relocked in the rupture area.Some stations on land still move seaward!

Page 7: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

GPS data:

Green: Klotz et al. (2001)Red: Wang et al. (2007)

Chile: ~ 40 years after a great earthquake

M = 9.5, 1960

(From Kelin Wang, SEIZE meeting, 2008; Wang, 2007)

Page 8: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Cascadia: ~ 300 years after a great earthquake

Wells and Simpson (2001)

(From Kelin Wang, SEIZE meeting, 2008; Wang, 2007)

Page 9: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Rupture

Stress relaxation

Stress relaxation

Afterslip

Locking

Afterslip and transient slow slip: short-lived, fault frictionStress relaxation: long-lived, mantle rheology

(From Kelin Wang, SEIZE meeting, 2008; Wang, 2007)

Page 10: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Inter-seismic (Cascadia)

Post-seismic 2(Alaska, Chile)

Co-seismic

Coast line

Coast line

Post-seismic1 (Sumatra)

Page 11: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

References

Hsu, Y. J., M. Simons, J. P. Avouac, J. Galetzka, K. Sieh, M. Chlieh, D. Natawidjaja, L. Prawirodirdjo, and Y. Bock (2006), Frictional afterslip following the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake, Sumatra, Science, 312(5782), 1921-1926.

Wang, K, Elastic and Viscoelastic Models of Crustal Deformation in Subduction Earthquake Cycles, In The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults, edited by T. Dixon and J. C. Moore, Columbia University Press, 2007 .

Page 12: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

IV. The seismic cycle

IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models

IV.2 Comparison with EQ observations

IV.3 Learning from interseismic strain

IV.4 Dynamic models

Page 13: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

• Kinematic model : the model is parametrised in term of the slip history on the fault (earthquakes, interseismic defornation, postseismic deformation….)

• Dynamic model: Deformation, including slip history on faults is deduced from the rheology and boundary conditions.

Page 14: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Is this model consistent with our understanding of the mechanics of crustal deformation?

What is the reason for transition to the Locked Fault one to the Creeping zone?

Page 15: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Crustal Rheology

(Kohlstedt et al., 1995)

‘brittle’

‘ductile’

Page 16: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(Mackwell et al., 1998)

In all plots solid lines are linear least squares fit to the data. Dotted lines represent fit to data of the flow-law at the bottom of each plot

Page 17: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Static Friction is generally of the order of 0.6 for most rock types(Byerlee, 1978)

The shear stress at frictional yield depends linearly on normal stress

Page 18: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

-unstable slip is possible if the decrease of friction is more rapid than elastic unloading during slip (‘slip weakening’)

- The fault needs to restrength with time afetr slip event (‘healing’).

Condition for ‘stick-slip’ sliding

Stick-slip motion requires weakening during seismic sliding, hencestatic friction > dynamic friction

(Scholz, 1990)

Page 19: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(Marone, 1998)

Dc

Dynamic friction decreases with slip rate

Static friction depends on hold time

Page 20: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Rate-and-State Friction

=*(T)+a ln(V/V*)+b ln(*)

d/dt=1-V /Dc

(Dieterich 1981; Ruina 1983)

(Scholz, 1990)

Generally a and b are of the order of ~ 10-3-10-2 (e.g., Blanpied et al, 1998; Marone, 1998)

Page 21: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Rate-and-State Friction

=*(T)+a ln(V/V*)+b ln(*)

d/dt=1-V /Dc

(Dieterich 1981; Ruina 1983)

(Scholz, 1990)

At steady state: ss= Dc /V ss*+(a-b) ln(V/V*)

Page 22: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Effect of temperature and normal stress on friction

A, Dependence of (a - b) on temperature for granite . B, Dependence of (a - b) on pressure for granulated granite. This effect, due to lithification, should be augmented with temperature.

Laboratory experiments show that stable frictional sliding is promoted at temperatures higher than about 300°C, and possibly at low

temperatures.

Page 23: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

• Rate strengthening (a-b>0) : – quartzo-feldspathic rocks :T<100C or T>300C – poorly cohesive fault-gouge– Some clays at low temperature (T<100C), – serpentine (T<400C).

(Marone, 1998)

Page 24: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Condition for ‘stick-slip’

Stick-slip motion requires weakening during seismic sliding, hencestatic friction > dynamic friction

- unstable slip is possible if the decrease of friction is more rapid than elastic unloading during slip (‘slip weakening’)

Page 25: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Condition for ‘stick-slip’

• At steady state:

• The system is rate-strengthening if a-b>0, only stable sliding is permitted

• The system is rate-weakening if a-b<0,

ss*+(a-b) ln(V/V*)

F/u>K, i.e. (s-d) σn/Dc>K

- stick-slip slip is possible if the decrease of friction is more rapid than elastic unloading during slip:

- The system undergoes stable frictional sliding (conditional stability) if

(Rice and Ruina 1983; Sholz, 1990)

F/u<K, i.e. (s-d) σn/Dc<K

Page 26: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

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 State Frictional Sliding

(Blanpied et al, 1991)

(Rice and Ruina 1983)

a-b

Page 27: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Tinter= 96.2 ans

Seismic Cycle Modeling

(Perfettini et al, 2003)

Slip as a function of depth. Each line representsthe slip distribution at a given time. Every 5 yr in the interseismic period. For velocity change of 10% durin dynamic rupture.

Maximum sliding velocity on the fault as afunction of time.

Page 28: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Slip as a function of depth over the seismic cycle of a strike–slip fault, using a frictional model containing a transition from unstable to stable friction at 11 km depth

(Tse and Rice, 1981; Shloz, 1992)

Page 29: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Aseismic stable frictional becomes dominant for temperatures above ~ 300°C-400°C.

This is consistent with laboratory experiments which show that stable frictional sliding (a-b>0) is promoted at temperatures higher than about 300°C for Quartzo-felspathic rocks.Fluids may play a role too (cf MT results).

From Blanpied et al, (1991)

(Avouac, 2003)

Page 30: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Frictional sliding (rate-and-state friction)=*+a ln(V/V*)+b ln(*)

d/dt=1-V /Dc

Ductile Flowdε/dt = A fH2O

m σ n ℮-Q/RT

Constitutive laws used to model crustal deformation and the seismic cycle

Page 31: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

FEM code: ADELI (Hassani, Jongmans and Chery 1997)

Rheology: Brittle failure (Drucker-Prager criterion) Non linear, temperature dependent creep law

Surface processes: Linear diffusion + flat deposition in the foreland

Boundary conditions: Hydrostatic fundation, 20 mm/yr horizontal shortening

(Cattin and Avouac, JGR, 2000)

Page 32: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(Cattin and Avouac, JGR, 2000)

Mechanical model

- FEM ADELI (Hassani, Jongmans and Chery 1997)

- Rheology: Coulomb brittle failure + Non linear creep law depending on local temperature.

- Surface processes: linear diffusion and flat deposition in the foreland

- Boundary conditions: Hydrostatic fundation, 18mm/yr horizontal shortening

Page 33: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(Cattin and Avouac, JGR, 2000)

Due to the thermally activated flow law the model predicts a localized ductile shear zone that coincides with the creeping zone of the MHT.

Page 34: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

21 +/-1.5 mm/yr

The effective friction on the MHT needs to be low (<0.1)

Page 35: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

• Provided that effective friction on MHT is low (<0.1), the model reconciles geodetic and holocene deformation

• Seismicity falls in the zone of enhanced Coulomb stress in the interseismic period

Modeling InterseismicDeformation

(Cattin and Avouac, 2000)

Page 36: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Modeling postseismic Deformation

Page 37: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Modeling postseismic Deformation

Page 38: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Viscoelastic stress relaxation model for Chile, viscosity 2.5 1019 Pa s

(c)

(Hu et al, 2004)

Page 39: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(hu et

Earthquake followed by

locking

(Hu et al, 2004)

Page 40: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Different along-strike rupture lengths and slip magnitudes(surface velocities 35 years after an earthquake;

mantle viscosity 2.5 x 1019 Pa s)

(Hu et al, 2004)

Page 41: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

A simple Fault Model

Locked Fault Zone

Brittle Creeping Fault Zone:

Ductile Shear Zone

Page 42: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Frictional sliding Ductile Shear

F: Driving Force (assumed constant)Ffr : Frictional resistanceF: Viscous resistance to

A simplified springs and sliders model

F

F = Ffr + F

F < Ffr No slip

F > Ffr Stick-slip

a-b<0

(Perfettini and Avouac, 2004b)

a-b>0

Page 43: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

Stress transfer during the seismic cycle

F : Driving Force (assumed constant)Ffr : Co-seismic drop of frictional resistanceF: Viscous resistance

F >> Ffr

F Ffr

(Perfettini and Avouac, 2004b)

Two characteristic times are governing the temporal evolution of deformation

- Brittle creep relaxation time tr- Maxell time TM

Page 44: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

(Perfettini et al, 2005)

Interseismic displacement at AREQ relative to stable South America is landward.

The persistent seaward motion of AREQ after the earthquake is due to postseismic relaxation.

The modeling suggest that may be interseismic is never really stationary

Displacement at AREQ relative to stable South America before and after the Mw 8.1, 2001, Arequipa earthquake.

Page 45: IV. The seismic cycle IV. 1 Conceptual and kinematic models IV.2 Comparison with observations IV.3 Interseismic strain IV.4 Postseismic deformation IV.5

References

Cohen, S. C. (1999), Numerical models of crustal deformation in seismic zones, Adv. Geophys., 41, 134-231.

Wang, K, Elastic and Viscoelastic Models of Crustal Deformation in Subduction Earthquake Cycles, In The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults, edited by T. Dixon and J. C. Moore, Columbia University Press, 2007 .

Cattin, R., and J. P. Avouac (2000), Modeling mountain building and the seismic cycle in the Himalaya of Nepal, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 105(B6), 13389-13407.

Wang, K. L., J. H. He, H. Dragert, and T. S. James (2001), Three-dimensional viscoelastic interseismic deformation model for the Cascadia subduction zone, Earth Planets and Space, 53(4), 295-306.

Hu, Y., K. Wang, J. He, J. Klotz, and G. Khazaradze (2004), Three-dimensional viscoelastic finite element model for postseismic deformation of the great 1960 Chile earthquake, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 109(B12).

Perfettini, H., and J. P. Avouac (2004), Stress transfer and strain rate variations during the seismic cycle, Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 109(B6).