Fault friction and seismic nucleation phases Jean-Paul Ampuero Princeton University J.P. Vilotte (IPGP), F.J. Sánchez-Sesma (UNAM) Data from: W. Ellsworth,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Asymptotic Ray Theory
Advertisements

Seismic energy radiation from dynamic faulting Raúl Madariaga Ecole Normale Supérieure Laboratoire de Géologie (from Aochi and Madariaga, BSSA 2003)
Imaging fault geometry to learn about earthquake mechanics Phillip G Resor Wesleyan University Vanessa Meer, Giulio Di Toro, Ashley Griffith.
(Introduction to) Earthquake Energy Balance
Predictive Modeling of Seismicity Sequences in Southern California Julia Clark David D. Bowman California State University, Fullerton.
Open questions in earthquake physics and the contribution of array seismology J.-P. Ampuero Caltech Seismolab Acknowledgements: Lingsen Meng (now at UC.
Identification of seismic phases
16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop RSQSim Jim Dieterich Keith Richards-Dinger UC Riverside Funding: USGS NEHRP SCEC.
Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting Lecture 5, 12 Sep Fluids: Mechanical, Chemical Effective Stress Dilatancy.
10/09/2007CIG/SPICE/IRIS/USAF1 Broadband Ground Motion Simulations for a Mw 7.8 Southern San Andreas Earthquake: ShakeOut Robert W. Graves (URS Corporation)
Friction Why friction? Because slip on faults is resisted by frictional forces. In the coming weeks we shall discuss the implications of the friction law.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
Source parameters II Stress drop determination Energy balance Seismic energy and seismic efficiency The heat flow paradox Apparent stress drop.
Numerical simulation of seismic cycles at a subduction zone with a laboratory-derived friction law Naoyuki Kato (1), Kazuro Hirahara (2), and Mikio Iizuka.
A DECADE OF PROGRESS : FROM EARTHQUAKE KINEMATICS TO DYNAMICS Raúl Madariaga Laboratoire de Géologie, Ecole Normale Supérieure.
Earthquake dynamics at the crossroads between seismology, mechanics and geometry Raúl Madariaga, Mokhtar Adda-Bedia ENS Paris, Jean-Paul Ampuero, ETH Zürich,
The seismic cycle The elastic rebound theory.
March 7, 2008NGA-East 2nd Workshop1 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRONG MOTION SIMULATIONS FOR CEUS Paul Somerville and Robert Graves URS Pasadena MOTIVATION:
Earthquake Energy Balance
Réunion PARIS 29/06/2006 QSHA WP2 Status report 1 WP2 - Source characterization and Determination of earthquake scenarios WP-2-1: Seismo-tectonic investigation.
COMPLEXITY OF EARTHQUAKES: LEARNING FROM SIMPLE MECHANICAL MODELS Elbanna, Ahmed and Thomas Heaton Civil Engineering.
Ge277-Experimental Rock Friction implication for seismic faulting Some other references: Byerlee, 1978; Dieterich, 1979; Ruina, 1983; Tse and Rice, 1986;
Chaos, Fractals and Solitons in A Model for Earthquake Ruptures Elbanna, Ahmed and Thomas Heaton
Aftershocks tend to fall preferentially in area of static Coulomb stress increase but there are also earthquakes in area of decrease Coulomb stress Aftershocks.
Friction Why friction? Because slip on faults is resisted by frictional forces. We first describe the results of laboratory friction experiments, and then.
Roland Burgmann and Georg Dresen
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.
Earthquake nucleation How do they begin? Are large and small ones begin similarly? Are the initial phases geodetically or seismically detectable? Related.
Earthquakes.
Evidence on non-self-similarity source scaling in cluster earthquakes Yen-Yu Lin 1, Kuo -Fong Ma 1, Hiroo Kanamori 2, Teh-Ru Song 3, Nadia Lapusta 2, Victor.
CAPTURING PHYSICAL PHENOMENA IN PARTICLE DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS OF GRANULAR GOUGE Effects of Contact Laws, Particle Size Distribution, and the 3 rd Dimension.
The global seismic energy to moment ratio: a tool for basic research and real-time identification of “Tsunami Earthquakes” Jaime Andres Convers Dr. Andrew.
Earthquakes (Chapter 13). Lecture Outline What is an earthquake? Seismic waves Epicenter location Earthquake magnitude Tectonic setting Hazards.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.
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.
The kinematic representation of seismic source. The double-couple solution double-couple solution in an infinite, homogeneous isotropic medium. Radiation.
Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network MARTIN GÁLIS.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited, P.O. Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Ph: Russell Robinson & Rafael Benites Synthetic.
Constraints on Seismogenesis of Small Earthquakes from the Natural Earthquake Laboratory in South African Mines (NELSAM) Margaret S. Boettcher (USGS Mendenhall.
Disputable non-DC components of several strong earthquakes Petra Adamová Jan Šílený.
Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network Local scale.
Massimo Cocco INGV Rome INGV The First EarthScope Institute on the Spectrum of Fault Slip Behaviors October 11-14, 2010, Portland, Oregon.
Large Earthquake Rapid Finite Rupture Model Products Thorne Lay (UCSC) USGS/IRIS/NSF International Workshop on the Utilization of Seismographic Networks.
Inherent Mechanism Determining Scaling Properties of Fault Constitutive Laws Mitsuhiro Matsu’ura Department of Earth and Planetary Science Graduate School.
Stress- and State-Dependence of Earthquake Occurrence Jim Dieterich, UC Riverside.
Modelling Postseismic Deformation: Examples from Manyi, Tibet and L’Aquila, Italy Marcus Bell COMET Student Meeting 2010 Supervisors: B. Parsons and P.
What can we learn about dynamic triggering in the the lab? Lockner and Beeler, 1999.
SPICE Research and Training Workshop III, July 22-28, Kinsale, Ireland Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European.
Near-Source Observations of Earthquakes:
1994 Bolivian Earthquake Eric Kiser Bolivian Earthquake Moment Magnitude (Mw): 8.3 Epicenter: 13.84°S and °W Depth: 631km.
Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network JEAN-PAUL.
The rupture process of great subduction earthquakes: the concept of the barrier and asperity models Yoshihiro Kaneko (Presentation based on Aki, 1984;
California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.
Slow Slip: An Ubiquitous yet Poorly Understood Mode of Strain Release Susan Y. Schwartz Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences UC Santa Cruz.
Chapter Four Friction.
Dynamic Issues in Fault- to-Fault Jumping David Oglesby UC Riverside UCERF3 Workshop June 11, 2011.
Role of Grain Shape and Inter-Particle Friction on the Strength of Simulated Fault Gouge – Results, Questions, Directions D. Place, P. Mora, and S. Abe.
GeoFEM Kinematic Earthquake Cycle Modeling in the Japanese Islands Hirahara, K. (1), H. Suito (1), M. Hyodo (1) M. Iizuka (2) and H. Okuda (3) (1) Nagoya.
SPICE Research and Training Workshop III, July 22-28, Kinsale, Ireland DEM Simulation of dynamic Slip on a rough Fault Steffen Abe, Ivan.
On constraining dynamic parameters from finite-source rupture models of past earthquakes Mathieu Causse (ISTerre) Luis Dalguer (ETHZ) and Martin Mai (KAUST)
Future Directions and Capabilities of Simulators Jim Dieterich
A possible mechanism of dynamic earthquake triggering
Presented by Chris Rollins and Voonhui Lai Ge 277 Winter 2016
(Introduction to) Earthquake Energy Balance
Friction: The rate-and-state constitutive law
Václav Vavryčuk Institute of Geophysics, Prague
Southern California Earthquake Center
Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra
R. Console, M. Murru, F. Catalli
Presentation transcript:

Fault friction and seismic nucleation phases Jean-Paul Ampuero Princeton University J.P. Vilotte (IPGP), F.J. Sánchez-Sesma (UNAM) Data from: W. Ellsworth, B. Shibazaki, H. Ito

Outline Seismic nucleation phase: Seismic nucleation phase: –Definition –Observations –Open questions A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation: A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation: –Ingredients –Characterization by numerical simulation –Analytic arguments Applications: Applications: –Kobe earthquake –Broad magnitude range observations Implications: Implications: –Scale-dependent or non-linear friction ? –Nucleation size / earthquake size ?

Outline Seismic nucleation phases : Seismic nucleation phases : –Definition –Observations –Open questions A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation Applications Applications Implications Implications

Definition of a seismic nucleation phase Progressive onset of a seismogram, inconsistent with classical self-similar source model (constant rupture velocity) Progressive onset of a seismogram, inconsistent with classical self-similar source model (constant rupture velocity) Iio (1992)

How to observe them ? Needs high quality data: high sampling rate, low attenuation, high S/N, high gain … Needs high quality data: high sampling rate, low attenuation, high S/N, high gain … Proper instrument response deconvolution Proper instrument response deconvolution Avoid azimuth effect on STF Avoid azimuth effect on STF EGF appreciated to avoid path/site effects EGF appreciated to avoid path/site effects What to measure ? Duration is ill-defined (onset time depends on S/N) Duration is ill-defined (onset time depends on S/N) Measures of the shape are preferred (t n,…) Measures of the shape are preferred (t n,…)

Observed properties Not always observed source effect / recording conditions? Not always observed source effect / recording conditions? Shape is not universal from smooth to bumpy Shape is not universal from smooth to bumpy Scaling duration 3 / M 0 Scaling duration 3 / M 0 Nucleation M 0 / total M 0 Nucleation M 0 / total M 0 Open questions:  Nucleation size mechanically related to earthquake size ?  How to objectively define measurable properties ?  How to relate them to fault friction ?

Why focus on the nucleation phase ? Once started earthquakes are increasingly complex: Once started earthquakes are increasingly complex: multiple radiation zonesmultiple radiation zones rupture path depends on details of the initial stressrupture path depends on details of the initial stress On their initial stage earthquakes are simpler ? On their initial stage earthquakes are simpler ? a single radiation zone (the nucleation zone)a single radiation zone (the nucleation zone) controlled by intrinsic properties of the faultcontrolled by intrinsic properties of the fault Laboratory observations Laboratory observations

A brief history of fault friction Coulomb friction: strength Coulomb friction: strength SLIP STRESSSTRESS STRENGTH

A brief history of fault friction Coulomb friction: strength Coulomb friction: strength Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Static/dynamic friction: stress drop SLIP STRESSSTRESS Static Dynamic Stress drop

A brief history of fault friction Coulomb friction: strength Coulomb friction: strength Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Cohesion models: fracture energy G c Cohesion models: fracture energy G c Nucleation size L c ~  G c /   SLIP STRESSSTRESS Fracture energy GcGc

A brief history of fault friction Coulomb friction: strength Coulomb friction: strength Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Cohesion models: fracture energy Gc Cohesion models: fracture energy Gc Slip weakening friction: critical slip Dc, weakening rate W Slip weakening friction: critical slip Dc, weakening rate W Lc ~  / W SLIP STRESSSTRESS W = weakening rate DcDc

A brief history of fault friction Coulomb friction: strength Coulomb friction: strength Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Static/dynamic friction: stress drop Cohesion models: fracture energy Gc Cohesion models: fracture energy Gc Slip weakening friction: critical slip Dc, weakening rate W Slip weakening friction: critical slip Dc, weakening rate W Rate-and-state friction: healing, velocity weakening (a,b) Rate-and-state friction: healing, velocity weakening (a,b) SLIP RATE STRESSSTRESS STATE

Seismological constraints on fault friction Smaller earthquakes: macroscopic quantities, radiated energy/moment scalings Smaller earthquakes: macroscopic quantities, radiated energy/moment scalings Are these dynamic properties relevant for nucleation ? Are these dynamic properties relevant for nucleation ? OUR GOAL: get the slope W of the friction law during the nucleation phase OUR GOAL: get the slope W of the friction law during the nucleation phase Importance: gives nucleation size (…?) Importance: gives nucleation size (…?) Large earthquakes: strong motion data (band-limited < 1Hz) Large earthquakes: strong motion data (band-limited < 1Hz) → estimates of Gc but poorly resolved strength and Dc ( > lab)

Outline Seismic nucleation phases Seismic nucleation phases A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation: A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation: –Ingredients –Characterization by numerical simulation –Analytic arguments Applications Applications Implications Implications

A dynamic nucleation model: ingredients Planar fault in elastic medium Planar fault in elastic medium Linear slip weakening friction Linear slip weakening friction Heterogeneous initial stress + uniform tectonic load Heterogeneous initial stress + uniform tectonic load SLIP STRESSSTRESS W

Numerical simulation We characterize the nucleation phase using a simplified boundary element method We characterize the nucleation phase using a simplified boundary element method Exponential shape of the seismic nucleation phase: M 0 (t) ~ exp(S m t)

Characteristics of the nucleation phase I. Quasi-static nucleation: stable slip in a slowly expanding zone, up to a critical size Lc ~  /W II. Dynamic nucleation: a.Early stage dominated by lateral growth b.Late stage dominated by exponential slip acceleration Phase IIb leads to an observable quantity, the growth rate s m, related to an effective property, the weakening rate W. I IIa IIb

Elastodynamics: Fault stress = Fault stress =  ½  V S × slip rate  ½  V S × slip rate + dynamic interactions Analytical arguments: case of infinite nucleation zone Friction: Fault stress = - W×slip Fault stress = - W×slip radiation damping = - fault impedance × slip rate When integrated over the whole fault plane: Fault impedance ×  slip rate  = W ×  slip  Moment  exp(S m t) where S m = weakening rate / fault impedance

Analytic arguments: case of growing nucleation zone When L = L(t), M 0 rate = s(L) × M 0 Where: S(L) ~ S m (1-L c 2 /L 2 ) ½ Rapidly S(L) → S m → The result is asymptotically preserved

Outline Seismic nucleation phase Seismic nucleation phase A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation Applications: Applications: –Kobe earthquake –Broad magnitude range observations Implications Implications

An example: the nucleation of the Kobe earthquake M 7.2 Shibazaki et al. (2002) EGF + short term kinematic inversion (the first 0.7 secs) Δ=103 km. Observed nucleation phase ≈ 0.6 s

Measure of the growth rate S m of the Kobe earthquake Observed S m ≈ 5 Hz Observed S m ≈ 5 Hz → D c ≈ 10 cm : huge compared to lab values ! → D c ≈ 10 cm : huge compared to lab values ! Transition lab/geo scales ? Transition lab/geo scales ?  ≈ 100 km  ≈ 30 km, EGF deconvolved

Effect of the fault zone ? The structure of the damaged fault zone can have an effect on dynamic nucleation (speed-up) The structure of the damaged fault zone can have an effect on dynamic nucleation (speed-up) Highly damaged core zone is needed to match W≈ 3 MPa/m estimated from strong motion data Highly damaged core zone is needed to match W≈ 3 MPa/m estimated from strong motion data

Broad magnitude range observations S m ~ M 0 -1/3 Sm From Ellsworth and Beroza (1994) catalog of nucleation phases (50):  A selected subset (7) shows exponential nucleation.  Large events are more complex → S m is an effective (average) property  Small events are harder to analyse: slow sampling, attenuation …

Very short time scale observations: M 0 (t) ~ t n with n=4~5 (self-similar is n=3) M 0 (t) ~ t n with n=4~5 (self-similar is n=3) No systematic M dependence No systematic M dependence Similar observation: Ito (1992) for M<3 Similar observation: Ito (1992) for M<3 Is this phase IIa ? Is this phase IIa ? … but attenuation ! … but attenuation !

Outline Seismic nucleation phase Seismic nucleation phase A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation A mechanical model for dynamic nucleation Applications Applications Implications: Implications: –Scale-dependent or non-linear friction ? –Nucleation size / earthquake size ?

Scale-dependent friction? Moment ~ size 3 W ~ 1/size In the lab, effect of fault roughness on friction: W ~ 1/scale Ohnaka et al.

Non-linear friction ? Moment ~ slip 3 W ~ 1/slip  Support from lab (Chambon et al.)  Support from apparent stress/moment scaling (Abercrombie-Rice)  Enhances complexity in continuum models of seismic cycle (Shaw and Rice) Chambon et al.

Conclusions: We explored the implications of a linear slip weakening model of dynamic nucleation. We explored the implications of a linear slip weakening model of dynamic nucleation. Robust properties of the seismic nucleation phase can be related to mechanical properties of the fault. Robust properties of the seismic nucleation phase can be related to mechanical properties of the fault. The seismic nucleation phase is a late dynamic stage. The seismic nucleation phase is a late dynamic stage. A single weakening rate is not compatible with seismological observations. A single weakening rate is not compatible with seismological observations. The observed properties of a single earhquake cannot lead to a universal nucleation size. The observed properties of a single earhquake cannot lead to a universal nucleation size.

Nucleation size / earthquake size scaling ? Still an open question … Still an open question … … but our results point towards a new paradigm: multi-scale/non-linear friction. … but our results point towards a new paradigm: multi-scale/non-linear friction. Ongoing work: simulations of nucleation with steep power law friction Ongoing work: simulations of nucleation with steep power law friction More observations: improving EGF analysis More observations: improving EGF analysis