Laboratory Earthquake Rupture Interactions With a High Normal Stress Bump

Abstract

To better understand how normal stress heterogeneity affects earthquake rupture, we conducted laboratory experiments on a 760 mm poly (methyl‐mathacrylate) PMMA sample with a 25 mm “bump” of locally higher normal stress (∆σbt). We systematically varied the sample‐average normal stress () and bump prominence (). For bumps with lower prominence () the rupture simply propagated through the bump and produced regular sequences of periodic stick‐slip events. Bumps with higher prominence () produced complex rupture sequences with variable timing and ruptures sizes, and this complexity persisted for multiple stick‐slip supercycles. During some events, the bump remained locked and acted as a barrier that completely stopped rupture. In other events, a dynamic rupture front terminated at the locked bump, but rupture reinitiated on the other side of the bump after a brief pause of 0.3–1 ms. Only when stress on the bump was near critical did the bump slip and unload built up strain energy in one large event. Thus, a sufficiently prominent bump acted as a barrier (energy sink) when it was far from critically stressed and as an asperity (energy source) when it was near critically stressed. Similar to an earthquake gate, the bump never acted as a permanent barrier. In the experiments, we resolve the above rupture interactions with a bump as separate rupture phases; however, when observed through the lens of seismology, it may appear as one continuous rupture that speeds up and slows down. The complicated rupture‐bump interactions also produced enhanced high frequency seismic waves recorded with piezoelectric sensors.

Laboratory Earthquake Ruptures Contained by Velocity Strengthening Fault Patches

“…These values are consistent with Cebry et al. (2023) who conducted DIC analysis with similar parameters.…”

“…Assuming a minimum resolvable displacement of ±4.7 μm/pixel, we estimate a minimum resolvable normal stress and shear stress of ±0.6 and ±0.1 MPa, respectively (Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1). These values are consistent with Cebry et al (2023) who conducted DIC analysis with similar parameters.…”