Slow slip events (SSEs) have been observed in spatial and temporal proximity to megathrust earthquakes in various subduction zones, including the 2014
We study the effects of pore fluid pressure (
- Award ID(s):
- 2121568
- PAR ID:
- 10369466
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
- Volume:
- 127
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2169-9313
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract M w7.3 Guerrero, Mexico earthquake which was preceded by aM w7.6 SSE. However, the underlying physics connecting SSEs to earthquakes remains elusive. Here, we link 3D slow‐slip cycle models with dynamic rupture simulations across the geometrically complex flat‐slab Cocos plate boundary. Our physics‐based models reproduce key regional geodetic and teleseismic fault slip observations on timescales from decades to seconds. We find that accelerating SSE fronts transiently increase shear stress at the down‐dip end of the seismogenic zone, modulated by the complex geometry beneath the Guerrero segment. The shear stresses cast by the migrating fronts of the 2014M w7.6 SSE are significantly larger than those during the three previous episodic SSEs that occurred along the same portion of the megathrust. We show that the SSE transient stresses are large enough to nucleate earthquake dynamic rupture and affect rupture dynamics. However, additional frictional asperities in the seismogenic part of the megathrust are required to explain the observed complexities in the coseismic energy release and static surface displacements of the Guerrero earthquake. We conclude that it is crucial to jointly analyze the long‐ and short‐term interactions and complexities of SSEs and megathrust earthquakes across several (a)seismic cycles accounting for megathrust geometry. Our study has important implications for identifying earthquake precursors and understanding the link between transient and sudden megathrust faulting processes. -
Abstract On 29 July 2021, an
M W 8.2 thrust‐faulting earthquake ruptured offshore of the Alaska Peninsula within the rupture zone of the 1938M W 8.2 earthquake. The spatiotemporal distribution of megathrust slip is resolved by jointly inverting regional and teleseismic broadband waveforms along with co‐seismic static and high‐rate GNSS displacements. The primarily unilateral rupture expanded northeastward, away from the rupture zone of the 22 July 2020M W 7.8 Shumagin earthquake. Large slip extends along approximately 175 km, spanning about two third of the estimated 1938 aftershock zone, with well‐bounded depth from 20 to 40 km, and up to 8.6 m slip near the hypocenter. The rupture terminated in the eastern portion of the 1938 aftershock zone in a region of very large geodetic slip deficit where peak slip appears to have occurred in the 1938 rupture. The 2021 and 1938 events do not have similar slip distributions and do not indicate persistent asperities. -
Abstract There is a strong need to model potential rupture behaviors for the next Cascadia megathrust earthquake. However, there exists significant uncertainty regarding the extent of downdip rupture and rupture speed. To address this problem, we study how the transition region (i.e., the gap), which separates the locked from slow‐slip regions, influences coseismic rupture propagation using 2‐D dynamic rupture simulations governed by a slip‐weakening friction law. We show that rupture propagation through the gap is strongly controlled by the amount of accumulated tectonic initial shear stress and gap friction level. A large amplitude negative dynamic stress drop is needed to arrest downdip rupture. We also observe downdip supershear rupture when the gradient in effective normal stress from the locked to slow‐slip regions is dramatic. Our results justify kinematic rupture models that extend below the gap and suggests the possibility of high‐frequency energy radiation during the next Cascadia megathrust earthquake.
-
Abstract A vigorous shallow earthquake sequence along the southern coast of Puerto Rico commenced on 28 December 2019 in a region with little prior large seismicity. The largest event in the sequence (
M W = 6.4), struck on 7 January 2020 and involved normal faulting. It produced extensive damage in southern Puerto Rico and power disruption across the island. Nearby strong ground motions and static offsets from GPS stations along with teleseismic recordings are inverted for the kinematic rupture process of the mainshock. The ~15‐km‐long rupture is spatially concentrated, with most slip between 3 and 13 km deep and peak slip of ~1.6 m. The static stress drop is high, ~19 MPa, with the rupture locating in the eastern section of a ~30‐km‐long band of seismicity bisected by a near‐orthogonal lineation. Complex faulting and high stress in the intraplate region appears to be responsible for the high earthquake productivity. -
Abstract To better quantify how injection, prior seismicity, and fault properties control rupture growth and propagation of induced earthquakes, we perform a finite‐fault slip inversion on a
M w4.0 earthquake that occurred in April 2015, the largest earthquake in an induced sequence near Guthrie, Oklahoma. The slip inversion reveals a rupture with slip patches that are anti‐correlated to the locations of prior seismicity. The prior seismicity driven by low pore pressure changes and static stress changes occurred on weaker portions of the fault, while theM w4.0 earthquake likely ruptured relatively stronger portions of the fault. To resolve if pore pressure changes or the initial underlying stress distribution and fault strength controlled the final slip distribution of the GuthrieM w4.0 earthquake, we compare strike‐slip events of similar magnitude from tectonically active regions and previously inactive regions. Earthquakes on reactivated faults exhibit different slip distributions than active regions, they have more prominent and well separated slip patches, a behavior often associated with faults of lower fault maturity. Pore pressure shows little effect on the distributions. These observations suggest that the initial underlying stress distribution and fault strength of reactivated faults in low deformation regions is the primary controlling factor of the slip distribution with pore pressure perturbations and earthquake interactions being secondary. Therefore, GuthrieM w4.0 earthquakes slip distribution was enhanced by pore‐pressure perturbations and earthquake interactions by creating an optimal stress state for its failure, but the slip distribution itself is controlled by its fault's initial stress and strength state.