Characterizing and Locating Very Weak (−2.2 ≥ M L ≥ −3.4) Induced Seismicity in Unstable Sandstone Cliffs by Nanoseismic Monitoring

Abstract

Unloaded natural rock masses are known to generate seismic signals (GREEN et al., 2006;HAINZL et al., 2006;HUSEN et al., 2007;KRAFT et al., 2006). Following a 1,000 m 3 mass failure into the Mediterranean Sea, centimeter-wide tensile cracks were observed to have developed on top of an unstable segment of the coastal cliff. Nanoseismic monitoring techniques JOSWIG, 2008), which function as a seismic microscope for extremely weak seismic events, were applied to verify whether brittle failure is still generated within this unconsolidated sandstone mass and to determine whether it can be detected. Sixteen days after the initial mass failure, three small-aperture sparse arrays (Seismic Navigation Systems-SNS) were deployed on top of this 40-m high shoreline cliff. This paper analyzes dozens of spiky nanoseismic (-2.2 C M L C -3.4) signals recorded over one night in continuous mode (at 200 Hz) at very short slant distances (3-67 m). Waveform characterization by sonogram analysis (JOSWIG, 2008) shows that these spiky signals are all short in duration ([0.5 s). Most of their signal energy is concentrated in the 10-75 Hz frequency range and the waveforms display high signal similarity. The detection threshold of the data set reaches M L -3.4 at 15 m and M L -2.7 at 67 m. The spatial distribution of source signals shows 3-D clustering within 10 m from the cliff edge. The time distribution of M L magnitude does not display any decay pattern of M L over time. This corroborates an unusual event decay over time (modified Omori's law), whereby an initial quiet period is followed by regained activity, which then fades again. The polarization of maximal waveform amplitude was used to estimate spatial stress distribution. The orientation of ellipses displaying maximal signal energy is consistent with that of tensile cracks observed in the field and agrees with rock mechanics predictions. The M L -surface rupture length relationship displayed by our data fits a constant-slope extrapolation of empirical data collected by WELLS and COPPERSMITH (1994) for normal fault features at much larger scale. Signal characterization and location as well as the absence of direct anthropogenic noise sources near the monitoring site, all indicate that these nanoseismic signals are generated by brittle failure within the top section of the cliff. The atypical event decay over time that was observed suggests that the cliff material is undergoing post-collapse bulk strain accommodation. This feasibility study demonstrates the potential of nanoseismic monitoring in rapidly detecting, locating and analyzing brittle failure generated within unconsolidated material before total collapse occurs.

Microseismicity illuminates open fractures in the shallow crust

“…Microseismicity is a well‐known consequence of CO 2 injection [ Zhou et al , 2010], and in radioactive waste disposal, long‐term borehole injection tests are common. Hence in both cases, detailed microseismic (or nanoseismic [ Wust‐Bloch , 2010]) monitoring could be deployed over long time‐scales.…”

Analysis of sea cliff slope stability integrating traditional geomechanical surveys and remote sensing

“…Moreover, remote sensing devices installed on sea cliffs could be efficiently associated to direct precursor monitoring systems (Amitrano et al, 2005;Senfaute et al, 2009;Wust-Block, 2010;Lenti et al, 2012) to detect the temporal evolution of instability processes in order to frame the integrated operating systems within alert strategy for real-time prevention.…”

Seismic monitoring system for landslide hazard assessment and risk management at the drainage plant of the Peschiera Springs (Central Italy)

“…Starting from the original purpose of nuclear explosion detection, in the last ten years, nanoseismic monitoring was tested to characterise microseismic events related to gravity-induced instability processes involving rock cliffs (Wust-Bloch and Joswig, 2006;Wust-Bloch, 2010;Fiorucci et al, 2016a;Hakes et al, 2018;Iannucci et al, 2020) and soil slopes (Walter et al, 2012a(Walter et al, , 2012bTonnellier, et al 2013).…”