An official website of the United States government
Abstract It is widely recognized that fluid injection can trigger aseismic fault slip. However, the processes by which the fluid‐rock interactions facilitate or inhibit slip are poorly understood and some are oversimplified in most models of injection‐induced slip. In this study, we perform a 2D anti‐plane shear investigation of aseismic slip that occurs in response to fluid injection into a permeable fault governed by rate‐and‐state friction. We account for porosity and permeability changes that accompany slip, including dilatancy, and quantify how these processes affect pore pressure diffusion, which couples to aseismic slip. Fault response to injection has two phases. In the first phase, slip is negligible and pore pressure closely follows the standard linear diffusion model. Pressurization eventually triggers aseismic slip close to the injection site. In the second phase, aseismic slip front expands outward and dilatancy causes pore pressure to depart from the linear diffusion model. We quantify how prestress, injection rate, permeability and other fluid transport properties affect the slip front migration rate, finding rates ranging from 10 to 1,000 m/day for typical parameters. The migration rate is strongly influenced by the fault's closeness to failure and injection rate. The total slip on the fault, on the other hand, is primarily determined by the injected volume, with minimal sensitivity to injection rate. Additionally, we show that when dilatancy is neglected, slip front migration rate and total slip can be several times higher. Our modeling demonstrates that porosity and permeability evolution, especially dilatancy, fundamentally alters how faults respond to fluid injection.
more »
« less
Constraining Fault Friction and Stability With Fluid‐Injection Field Experiments
Abstract While the notion that injecting fluids into the subsurface can reactivate faults by reducing frictional resistance is well established, the ensuing evolution of the slip is still poorly understood. What controls whether the induced slip remains stable and confined to the fluid‐affected zone or accelerates into a runaway earthquake? Are there observable indicators of the propensity to earthquakes before they happen? Here, we investigate these questions by modeling a unique fluid‐injection experiment on a natural fault with laboratory‐derived friction laws. We show that a range of fault models with diverging stability with sustained injection reproduce the slip measured during pressurization. Upon depressurization, however, the most unstable scenario departs from the observations, suggesting that the fault is relatively stable. The models could be further distinguished with optimized depressurization tests or spatially distributed monitoring. Our findings indicate that avoiding injection near low‐residual‐friction faults and depressurizing during slip acceleration could help prevent large‐scale earthquakes.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1822214
- PAR ID:
- 10370399
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Volume:
- 48
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 0094-8276
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Fault-zone fluids control effective normal stress and fault strength. While most earthquake models assume a fixed pore fluid pressure distribution, geologists have documented fault valving behavior, that is, cyclic changes in pressure and unsteady fluid migration along faults. Here we quantify fault valving through 2-D antiplane shear simulations of earthquake sequences on a strike-slip fault with rate-and-state friction, upward Darcy flow along a permeable fault zone, and permeability evolution. Fluid overpressure develops during the interseismic period, when healing/sealing reduces fault permeability, and is released after earthquakes enhance permeability. Coupling between fluid flow, permeability and pressure evolution, and slip produces fluid-driven aseismic slip near the base of the seismogenic zone and earthquake swarms within the seismogenic zone, as ascending fluids pressurize and weaken the fault. This model might explain observations of late interseismic fault unlocking, slow slip and creep transients, swarm seismicity, and rapid pressure/stress transmission in induced seismicity sequences.more » « less
-
Earthquake swarms attributed to subsurface fluid injection are usually assumed to occur on faults destabilized by increased pore-fluid pressures. However, fluid injection could also activate aseismic slip, which might outpace pore-fluid migration and transmit earthquake-triggering stress changes beyond the fluid-pressurized region. We tested this theoretical prediction against data derived from fluid-injection experiments that activated and measured slow, aseismic slip on preexisting, shallow faults. We found that the pore pressure and slip history imply a fault whose strength is the product of a slip-weakening friction coefficient and the local effective normal stress. Using a coupled shear-rupture model, we derived constraints on the hydromechanical parameters of the actively deforming fault. The inferred aseismic rupture front propagates faster and to larger distances than the diffusion of pressurized pore fluid.more » « less
-
Abstract There is a growing recognition that subsurface fluid injection can produce not only earthquakes, but also aseismic slip on faults. A major challenge in understanding interactions between injection-related aseismic and seismic slip on faults is identifying aseismic slip on the field scale, given that most monitored fields are only equipped with seismic arrays. We present a modeling workflow for evaluating the possibility of aseismic slip, given observational constraints on the spatial-temporal distribution of microseismicity, injection rate, and wellhead pressure. Our numerical model simultaneously simulates discrete off-fault microseismic events and aseismic slip on a main fault during fluid injection. We apply the workflow to the 2012 Enhanced Geothermal System injection episode at Cooper Basin, Australia, which aimed to stimulate a water-saturated granitic reservoir containing a highly permeable ($$k = 10^{-13} - 10^{-12}$$ $$\hbox {m}{^2}$$ ) fault zone. We find that aseismic slip likely contributed to half of the total moment release. In addition, fault weakening from pore pressure changes, not elastic stress transfer from aseismic slip, induces the majority of observed microseismic events, given the inferred stress state. We derive a theoretical model to better estimate the time-dependent spatial extent of seismicity triggered by increases in pore pressure. To our knowledge, this is the first time injection-induced aseismic slip in a granitic reservoir has been inferred, suggesting that aseismic slip could be widespread across a range of lithologies.more » « less
-
Abstract The five Mw≥7.8 continental transform earthquakes since 2000 all nucleated on branch faults. This includes the 2001 Mw 7.8 Kokoxili, 2002 Mw 7.9 Denali, 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan, 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura, and 2023 Mw 7.8 Pazarcık events. A branch or splay is typically an immature fault that connects to the transform at an oblique angle and can have a different rake and dip than the transform. The branch faults ruptured for at least 25 km before they joined the transforms, which then ruptured an additional 250–450 km, in all but one case (Pazarcık) unilaterally. Branch fault nucleation is also likely for the 1939 M 7.8 Erzincan earthquake, possible for the 1906 Mw∼7.8 and 1857 Mw∼7.9 San Andreas earthquakes, but not for the 1990 Mw 7.7 Luzon, 2013 Mw 7.7 Balochistan, and 2023 Mw 7.7 Elbistan events. Here, we argue that because fault continuity and cataclastite within the fault damage zone develop through cumulative fault slip, mature transforms are pathways for dynamic rupture. Once a rupture enters the transform from the branch fault, flash shear heating causes pore fluid pressurization and sudden weakening in the cataclastite, resulting in very low dynamic friction. But the static friction on transforms is high, and so they are usually far from failure, which could be why they tend to be aseismic between, or at least for centuries after, great events. This could explain why the largest continental transform earthquakes either begin on a branch fault or nucleate along the transform at locations where the damage zone is absent or the fault continuity is disrupted by bends or echelons, as in the 1999 Mw 7.6 İzmit earthquake. Recognition of branch fault nucleation could be used to strengthen earthquake early warning in regions such as California, New Zealand, and Türkiye with transform faults.more » « less
