An official website of the United States government
Low-frequency earthquakes, atypical seismic events distinct from regular earthquakes, occur downdip of the seismogenic megathrust where an aseismic rheology dominates the subduction plate boundary. Well situated to provide clues on the slip regime of this unique faulting environment, their distinctive waveforms reflect either an unusual rupture process or unusually strong attenuation in their source zone. We take advantage of the unique geometry of seismicity in the Nankai Trough to isolate the spectral signature of low-frequency earthquakes after correcting for empirically derived attenuation. We observe that low-frequency earthquake spectra are consistent with the classical earthquake model, yet their rupture duration and stress drop are orders of magnitude different from ordinary earthquakes. We conclude their low-frequency nature primarily results from an atypical seismic rupture process rather than near-source attenuation.
more »
« less
Impact of Upper‐Plate Faulting on Megathrust Foreshocks: Insights From the 2014 Iquique Earthquake
Abstract The role of upper‐plate faulting in the seismic cycle of large megathrust earthquakes remains poorly understood. We use quasi‐dynamic numerical simulations of seismic cycles to analyze the interaction between crustal faulting and the foreshock sequence of the 2014 Iquique (Mw 8.2) earthquake in Northern Chile. Multi‐cycle models incorporating upper‐plate faulting align better with coseismic displacements, replicating events akin to the Iquique earthquake. Upper‐plate faulting significantly influences foreshock seismicity and deformation patterns. By calibrating the average hydraulic state—varying the effective normal stress—along the megathrust with pre‐earthquake seismicity, we find that lower pore pressure ratios result in more seismicity before the mainshock. This implies that the hydraulic state of the megathrust is critical for foreshock activity. This comprehensive modeling approach underscores the importance of the mechanical interplay between the megathrust and upper‐plate faults in precursory sequences of large subduction zone earthquakes.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1848192
- PAR ID:
- 10571256
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Volume:
- 52
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 0094-8276
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Slow slip events (SSEs) have been observed in spatial and temporal proximity to megathrust earthquakes in various subduction zones, including the 2014Mw7.3 Guerrero, Mexico earthquake which was preceded by aMw7.6 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 2014Mw7.6 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.more » « less
-
Megathrust earthquakes release and transfer stress that has accumulated over hundreds of years, leading to large aftershocks that can be highly destructive. Understanding the spatiotemporal pattern of megathrust aftershocks is key to mitigating the seismic hazard. However, conflicting observations show aftershocks concentrated either along the rupture surface itself, along its periphery or well beyond it, and they can persist for a few years to decades. Here we present aftershock data following the four largest megathrust earthquakes since 1960, focusing on the change in seismicity rate following the best-recorded 2011 Tohoku earthquake, which shows an initially high aftershock rate on the rupture surface that quickly shuts down, while a zone up to ten times larger forms a ring of enhanced seismicity around it. We find that the aftershock pattern of Tohoku and the three other megathrusts can be explained by rate and state Coulomb stress transfer. We suggest that the shutdown in seismicity in the rupture zone may persist for centuries, leaving seismicity gaps that can be used to identify prehistoric megathrust events. In contrast, the seismicity of the surrounding area decays over 4-6 decades, increasing the seismic hazard after a megathrust earthquake.more » « less
-
Abstract Most great earthquakes on subduction zone plate boundaries have large coseismic slip concentrated along the contact between the subducting slab and the upper plate crust. On 4 March 2021, a magnitude 7.4 foreshock struck 1 hr 47 min before a magnitude 8.1 earthquake along the northern Kermadec island arc. The mainshock is the largest well‐documented underthrusting event along the ∼2,500‐km long Tonga‐Kermadec subduction zone. Using teleseismic, geodetic, and tsunami data, we find that all substantial coseismic slip in the mainshock is located along the mantle/slab interface at depths from 20 to 55 km, with the large foreshock nucleating near the down‐dip edge. Smaller foreshocks and most aftershocks are located up‐dip of the mainshock, where substantial prior moderate thrust earthquake activity had occurred. The upper plate crust is ∼17 km thick in northern Kermadec with only moderate‐size events along the crust/slab interface. A 1976 sequence withMWvalues of 7.9, 7.8, 7.3, 7.0, and 7.0 that spanned the 2021 rupture zone also involved deep megathrust rupture along the mantle/slab contact, but distinct waveforms exclude repeating ruptures. Variable waveforms for eight deep M6.9+ thrusting earthquakes since 1990 suggest discrete slip patches distributed throughout the region. The ∼300‐km long plate boundary in northern Kermadec is the only documented subduction zone region where the largest modeled interplate earthquakes have ruptured along the mantle/slab interface, suggesting that local frictional properties of the putatively hydrated mantle wedge may involve a dense distribution of Antigorite‐rich patches with high slip rate velocity weakening behavior in this locale.more » « less
-
Abstract The Alaska Peninsula section of the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone shows significant along-strike variations in seismic activity and interseismic plate coupling. This region experienced the 2020 Mw 7.8 Simeonof megathrust, Mw 7.6 Sand Point strike-slip, and 2021 Mw 8.2 Chignik megathrust earthquakes. This study, utilizing deep learning techniques, presents a high-precision earthquake catalog, providing insights into background seismicity, aftershocks, and slab geometry. An abrupt change in the slab dip angle at 30–40 km depths in the Shumagin segment acted as a barrier to the Simeonof and Sand Point earthquake ruptures. The Simeonof event triggered more aftershocks in the overriding plate than the Chignik event, suggesting the overriding plate is more deformed and hydrated in the Shumagin segment. The Sand Point earthquake triggered numerous aftershocks in the overriding plate, delineating a fault in the overriding plate with similar geometry as the intraslab mainshock fault, but activated around seven days after the mainshock.more » « less
