Post on 01-Jun-2020
transcript
Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting
www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc508
Lecture 26, 31 Oct. 2019
• Faulting types, stress polygons• Wear and fault roughness• Thermo-mechanics of faulting• Moment, Magnitude and scaling laws for earthquake source parameters• Brune Stress Drop• Seismic Spectra & Earthquake Scaling laws.
Adhesive and Abrasive Wear: Fault gouge is wear material
Chester et al., 2005
where T is gouge zone thickness, κ is a wear coefficient, D is slip, and h is material hardness
This describes steady-state wear. But wear rate is generally higher during a ‘run-in’ period.
And what happens when the gouge zone thickness exceeds the surface roughness?
We’ll come back to this when we talk about fault growth and evolution.
Fault Growth and Development Fault gouge is wear material
Fault offset, D
Goug
e Zo
ne T
hick
ness
, T
‘run in’ and steady-state wear rate
This describes steady-state wear. But wear rate is generally higher during a ‘run-in’ period.
Fault Growth and Development Fault gouge is wear material
Fault offset, D
Goug
e Zo
ne T
hick
ness
, T
‘run in’ and steady-state wear rate
This describes steady-state wear. But wear rate is generally higher during a ‘run-in’ period.
σ1
σ2 > σ1
Fault Growth and Development Fault gouge is wear material
Fault offset, D
Goug
e Zo
ne T
hick
ness
, T ‘run in’ and steady-state wear rate
And what happens when the gouge zone thickness exceeds the surface roughness?
?
This describes steady-state wear. But wear rate is generally higher during a ‘run-in’ period.
Fault Growth and Development Fault gouge is wear material
Scholz, 1987
‘run in’ and steady-state wear rate
Fault offset, D
Goug
e Zo
ne T
hick
ness
, T
?
• Fault Growth and Development• Fault Roughness
Scholz, 1990
Fault Growth and Development
Scholz, 1990
Cox and Scholz, JSG, 1988
Fault Growth and Development
Tchalenko, GSA Bull., 1970
Fault Growth and Development Fault zone width
Scholz, 1990
Fault zone roughness
Ground (lab) surface
Thermo-mechanics of faulting II
• San Andreas fault strength, heat flow. • Consider: Wf = τ v ≥ q
• If τ ~ 100 MPa and v is ~ 30 mm/year, then q is:• 1e8 (N /m2) 3e-2 (m/3e7s) = 1e-2 (J/s m2 ) ~ 100 mW/m2.
• Problem of finding very low strength materials.
• Relates to the very broad question of the state of stress in the lithosphere? • Byerlee’s Law, Rangley experiments, Bore hole stress measurements, bore hole breakouts, earthquake focal mechanisms.
• Seismic stress drop vs. fault strength.
Fault Strength, State of Stress in the Lithosphere, and Earthquake Physics
• Thermo-mechanics of faulting…
• Fault strength, heat flow.
• Consider shear heating: Wf = τ v ≥ q
• If τ ~ 100 MPa and v is ~ 30 mm/year, then q is:• 1e8 (N /m2) 3e-2 (m/3e7s) = 1e-1 (J/s m2 ) ≈ 100 mW/m2
Average Shear Stress
Average slip velocity
e.g. Townend & Zoback, 2004;; Hickman & Zoback, 2004
• SAF
Data from Lachenbruch and Sass, 1980
Fault Strength and State of Stress
• Heat flow
• Stress orientations
Predicted Observed
σ1σ1
• Inferred stress directions
e.g. Townend & Zoback, 2004;; Hickman & Zoback, 2004
• SAF
• SAF
Data from Lachenbruch and Sass, 1980
Fault Strength and State of Stress• Heat flow
• Stress orientations
Have been used to imply that the SAF is weak, µ ≈ 0.1.
• Is the San Andreas anomalously weak?
SAFOD The San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth
SAF -‐ Geology
Based on Zoback et al., EOS, 2010
Frictional Strength, SAFOD Phase III Core
Carpenter, Marone, and Saffer, NatureGeoscience, 2011
Carpenter, Saffer and Marone, Geology, 2012
Weak Fault in a Strong Crust
Carpenter, Saffer, and Marone. Geology, 2012
Magnitude and Seismic Moment. Moment is a most robust measure of earthquake size because magnitude is a measure of size at only one frequency.
Mo = µ A u, where µ is shear modulus, A is fault Area and u is mean slip.
Relation to magnitude: Mw = 2/3 log Mo – 6 or Mo = 3/2 Mw +9 (for Mo in N-m)
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
Earthquakes represent failure on geologic faults. The rupture occurs on a pre-existing surface.
Faults are finite features –the Earth does not break in half every time there is an earthquake.
Earthquakes represent failure of a limited part of a fault. Most earthquakes within the crust are shallow
Definitions of Focus, Epicenter NOTE: Epicenter is also the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes’ stadium –they are single-A team of the Anaheim (LA) Angles: http://www.rcquakes.com/ _____________________________________Earthquake Size (Source Properties)
Measures of earthquake size: Fault Area, Ground Shaking, Radiated Energy
Fault dimensions for some large earthquakes:L (km) W (km) U (m) Mw
Chile 1960 1000 100 >10 9.7Landers, CA 1992 70 15 5 7.3San Fran 1906 500 15 10 8.5Alaska 1964 750 180 ~12 9.3
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
Wave resulting from the interaction of P and S waves with the free surface.
Their wave motion is confined to and propagating along the surface of the body
Magnitude is a measure of earthquake size base on:• Ground shaking• Seismic wave amplitude at a given frequency
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
Magnitude is a measure of earthquake size base on:
• Ground shaking• Seismic wave
amplitude at a given frequency
Magnitude accounts for three key aspects:• Huge range of ground observed displacements --due to very
large range of earthquake sizes• Distance correction –to account for attenuation of elastic
disturbance during propagation• Site, station correction –small empirical correction to account
for local effects at source or receiver
ML = log10uT! "
# $ + q (Δ,h ) + a
Magnitude is a measure of earthquake size base on:• Ground shaking• Seismic wave amplitude at a given frequency
ML = log10uT! "
# $ + q (Δ,h ) + a
Systematic differences between Ms and Mb --due to use of different periods.
Source Spectra isn’t flat. Saturation occurs for large events, particularly saturation of Ms.
e.g: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/nrg/bb_processing.html
ML (Richter --local-- Magnitude) & MS, based on 20-s surface wave
MB, Body-wave mag. Is based on 1-s wave p-waveMW, Moment mag. (see Hanks and Kanamori, JGR, 1979)
Magnitude and Seismic Moment. Moment is a most robust measure of earthquake size because magnitude is a measure of size at only one frequency.
Mo = µ A u, where µ is shear modulus, A is fault Area and u is mean slip.
Moment and Moment Magnitude (Hanks and Kanamori, JGR, 1979): Mw = 2/3 log Mo – 6 or Mo = 3/2 Mw +9 (for Mo in N-m)
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
Brune Stress drop
Some Topics in the Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting
•What determines the size of an earthquake? •What physical features and factors of faulting control the extent of dynamic earthquake rupture? --Fault Area, Seismic Moment•What is the role of fault geometry (offsets, roughness, thickness) versus rupture dynamics ?•What controls the amount of slip in an earthquake? Average Slip, Slip at a point•What controls whether fault slip occurs dynamically or quasi-statically? •Nucleation: How does the earthquake process get going? •What is the size of a nucleation patch at the time that slip becomes dynamic? How do we define dynamic versus quasi-dynamic and quasi-static? Nucleation patch: physical size, seismic signature•What controls dynamic rupture velocity? •How do faults grow and evolve with time?
N
Rupturearea, A
Slipcontours, u
W
L
Brune Stress drop
Seismic Spectra & Earthquake Scaling laws.Aki, Scaling law of seismic spectrum, JGR, 72, 1217-1231, 1967.Hanks, b Values and ω-γ seismic source models: implications for tectonic stress variations along
active crustal fault zones and the estimation of high-frequency strong ground motion, JGR, 84, 2235-2242, 1979.
Scaling and Self-Similarity of Earthquake Rupture: Implications for Rupture Dynamics and the Mode of Rupture Propagation
0 Self-similar: Are small earthquakes ‘the same’ as large ones? Do small ones become large ones or are large eq’s different from the start?
1 Geometric self-similarity: aspect ratio of rupture area2 Physical self-similarity: stress drop, seismic strain, scaling of slip with rupture dimension3 Observation of constant b-value over a wide range of inferred source dimension.4 Same physical processes operate during shear rupture of very small (lab scale, mining induced
seismicity) and very large earthquakes?5 Expectation of scaling break if rupture physics/dynamics change in at a critical size (or slip
velocity, etc.). Shimazaki result. (Fig. 4.12). Length-Moment scaling and transition at L≈60km (Romanowicz, 1992; Scholz, 1994).
6 Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling, b-values. 7 G-R scaling, b-value data. Single-fault versus fault population. G-R versus characteristic
earthquake model. 8 Crack vs. slip-pulse models
Source spectra for two events of equal stress drop: omega square model
Large and Small Eq
log
u at
R ω-2
log freq. (ω)
ωοS
ωοL
L
S
High-freq. spectral properties: produced by rupture growth, represent nucleation and enlargement
log
a at
R
log freq. (ω)
fmax
fmax
ωοL
ωοS
L
S
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Displacement and acceleration source spectra. Spectra: zero-frequency intercept (Mo), corner frequency (ωo or fc), high frequency decay (ω−γ), maximum (observed, emitted) frequency fmax
log
u at
R
ω-n
ωο
log freq. (ω)
ω-square model, ω-2
ω-cube model, ω-3
Far-field body-wave spectra and relation to source slip function
Displacement waveform for P & S waves:
In general, very complex. Ω(x, t) and Ω(ω) depend on slip function, azimuth to observer and relative importance of nucleation and stopping phases
Aki, 1967
Circular ruptures (small)
Scaling and Self-SimilarityAre small earthquakes ‘the same’ as large ones? 1 Geometric self-similarity: rupture aspect ratio 2 Physical self-similarity: stress drop, seismic strain,
scaling of slip with rupture dimension
Hanks, 1977 Abercrombie & Leary, 1993
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity lo
g u
at R
ω-3
ωο
log freq. (ω)
ω-cube model, ω-3
Similarity condition Mo α L3
ωo α L-1
Ω(0) α ωo-3
This defines a scaling law. Spectral curves differ by a constant factor at a given period (e.g., 20 s), but they have the same high-freq. asymptote
This behavior is expected when the nucleation phase is responsible for the high-freq. asymptote --but consider problem of time domain implication for amplitude (Mb decreases with Mo)
Seismic Source Spectra.
Saturation occurs for large events, particularly saturation of Ms (T=20 s)
Aki, 1967
Corner frequency, Brune Stress drop.
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity lo
g u
at R
ω-2
ωο
log freq. (ω)
ω-square model, ω-2
Two possible explanations
1) !Similarity condition (not-similarity)Mo α L2
ωo α L-1
Ω(0) α ωo-2
2) Have similarity condition in terms of nucleation, but high-freq. asymptote is produced by “stopping phase” if rupture stops very abruptly
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Displacement and acceleration source spectra. Spectra: zero-frequency intercept (Mo), corner frequency (ωo or fc), high frequency decay (ω−γ), maximum (observed, emitted) frequency fmax
log
u at
R
ω-n
ωο
log freq. (ω)
log
a at
R
ωο
log freq. (ω)
fmax
Aki, Scaling law of seismic spectrum, JGR, 72, 1217-1231, 1967.Hanks, b Values and ω-γ seismic source models: implications for tectonic stress variations along active crustal fault zones and the
estimation of high-frequency strong ground motion, JGR, 84, 2235-2242, 1979.
Source spectra for two events of equal stress drop: omega cube model
Large and Small Eq
log
u at
R ω-3
log freq. (ω)
ωοS
ωοL
L
S
High-freq. spectral properties: produced by rupture growth, represent nucleation and enlargement
log
a at
R
log freq. (ω)
fmax
ωοL
ωοS
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Relation between source (a) displacement (b) velocity(c) acceleration history and asymptotic behavior of spectrum
Aki, 1967
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity Hanks (1979)0. Consider two events that differ in size by 10x and assume self-similarity of rupture so that their moments differ by a factor of 103 and durations differ by a factor of 10 (rupture velocity is the same and constant for each event.) Take the events to be large enough so that their corner frequency is well below 1 sec.1. Four cases for time-domain interpretation of spectral source models, 2 for each model.ω-square (spectral amplitude at 1 sec period is 10x greater for larger event)a) If: 1-s. energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same and Mb is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
b) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is 10x larger for the larger event Mb scales directly with Mo.
ω-cube (spectral amplitude at T=1 sec is the same for each event)c) If: 1-s energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is smaller for the larger event Mb scales inversely with Mo.
d) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Hanks (1979)0. Consider two events that differ in size by 10x and assume self-similarity of rupture so that their moments differ by a factor of 103 and durations differ by a factor of 10 (rupture velocity is the same and constant for each event.) Take the events to be large enough so that their corner frequency is well below 1 sec.1. Four cases for time-domain interpretation of spectral source models, 2 for each model.ω-square (spectral amplitude at 1 sec period is 10x greater for larger event)a) If: 1-s. energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same and Mb is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
b) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is 10x larger for the larger event Mb scales directly with Mo.
ω-cube (spectral amplitude at T=1 sec is the same for each event)c) If: 1-s energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is smaller for the larger event Mb scales inversely with Mo.
d) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
From data: cases (c) and (b) are clearly wrong: Mb does not decrease with Mo and Mb does not increase beyond about 6.5. Either (a) or (d) could be right, but very simplified approach. Data tend to support ω-square model (See Boatwright and Choy 1989) but also see ω-5/2 and lots of scatter. Propagation effects very hard to remove in practice.
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Hanks (1979)0. Consider two events that differ in size by 10x and assume self-similarity of rupture so that their moments differ by a factor of 103 and durations differ by a factor of 10 (rupture velocity is the same and constant for each event.) Take the events to be large enough so that their corner frequency is well below 1 sec.1. Four cases for time-domain interpretation of spectral source models, 2 for each model.ω-square (spectral amplitude at 1 sec period is 10x greater for larger event)a) If: 1-s. energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same and Mb is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
b) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is 10x larger for the larger event Mb scales directly with Mo.
log
u at
R ω-2
log freq. (ω)
ωοS
ωοL
Earthquake Source Properties, Spectra, Scaling, Self-similarity
Hanks (1979)0. Consider two events that differ in size by 10x and assume self-similarity of rupture so that their moments differ by a factor of 103 and durations differ by a factor of 10 (rupture velocity is the same and constant for each event.) Take the events to be large enough so that their corner frequency is well below 1 sec.1. Four cases for time-domain interpretation of spectral source models, 2 for each model.ω-cube (spectral amplitude at T=1 sec is the same for each event)c) If: 1-s energy arrives continuously over the complete faulting duration.
Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is smaller for the larger event Mb scales inversely with Mo.
d) If: all 1-s energy radiated at the same time (arrives at the same time)Then: 1-s time domain amplitude is the same for both eventsMb is independent of Mo.
log
u at
R ω-3
log freq. (ω)
ωοS
ωοL
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling.
Earthquake Scaling: Size-frequency of occurrence
Ms
log Nb
GR scaling, with constant b implies self-similarity of earthquakes (rupture physics, fracture process, fault roughness, etc.)
b ~ 1
B ~ 2/3
Observed for the world-wide eq catalog
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling.
Earthquake Scaling: Size-frequency of occurrence
b ~ 1
B ~ 2/3Observed for the world-wide eq catalog
Scholz, 1990
Cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
Earthquake Scaling: Size-frequency of occurrence
Scholz, 1990
Cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
note dimensions
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling.
What about scaling breaks?
Ms
log N
Scaling break
It could imply that stress drop is not independent of size orIt could imply a preferred or characteristic size
note dimensions
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling.
What about scaling breaks?
Ms
log N
Scaling break
It could imply that stress drop is not independent of size orIt could imply a preferred or characteristic size
Ms = 7.3
Ms = 7.3Characteristic Earthquake model
Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling.
Ms = 7.3
Characteristic Earthquake model
Scholz, 1990
Cum
ulat
ive
num
ber
What about scaling breaks?
It could imply that stress drop is not independent of size orIt could imply a preferred or characteristic size
Circular ruptures (small)
Scaling and Self-SimilarityAre small earthquakes ‘the same’ as large ones? 1 Geometric self-similarity: rupture aspect ratio 2 Physical self-similarity: stress drop, seismic strain,
scaling of slip with rupture dimension
Read Scholz, BSSA 1982andPacheco, J. F. Scholz, C. H. Sykes, L. R. (1992). Changes in frequency-size relationship from small to large earthquakes, Nature 355, 71- 73.
Circular ruptures (small)
Scaling and Self-SimilarityAre small earthquakes ‘the same’ as large ones? 1 Geometric self-similarity: rupture aspect ratio 2 Physical self-similarity: stress drop, seismic strain,
scaling of slip with rupture dimension
Hanks, 1977 Abercrombie & Leary, 1993
note dimensions
Circular ruptures (small)
Rectangular ruptures (large)
Slip determined by W:
Slip determined by L
Circular ruptures (small)
Rectangular ruptures (large)
Slip determined by W:
Slip determined by L
Shimazaki, 1986
Transition from small to large eq’s
Scholz, 1982, 1994Romanowicz, 1992, 1994
Rectangular ruptures (large)
Slip determined by W:
Slip determined by L
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/annual_report/ar01_02/node22.html
Scaling of Large Earthquakes: Is slip determined (limited) by W or L?
Rectangular ruptures (large)
Slip determined by W:
Slip determined by L
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/annual_report/ar01_02/node22.html
Scaling of Large Earthquakes: Is slip determined (limited) by W or L?
Rectangular ruptures (large)
Slip determined by W:
Slip determined by L
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/annual_report/ar01_02/node22.html
Scaling of Large Earthquakes: Is slip determined (limited) by W or L?