Modeling the seismic cycle in subduction zones: The role and spatiotemporal occurrence of off‐megathrust earthquakes

Dinther, Ylona van; Martin, P.; Dalguer, L. A.; Gerya, Taras

doi:10.1002/2013gl058886

Cited by 58 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recently developed seismo‐thermomechanical modeling framework (van Dinther, Gerya, Dalguer, Mai, et al, , van Dinther, Gerya, Dalguer, Corbi, et al, ) with adaptive time stepping and an invariant continuum‐based rate‐ and state‐dependent friction formulation (STM‐RSF) offers the full combined spectrum of the needed ingredients (Herrendörfer et al, ). This 2‐D STM‐RSF code is in line with the geodynamic modeling approach as it allows for large deformation simulations of self‐consistently evolving fault zones on geological timescales (Gerya & Yuen, ; van Dinther et al, ). STM‐RSF additionally resolves all stages of an earthquake cycle with realistic rupture properties in a viscoelastoplastic compressible continuum that allows for fault growth along spontaneous rupture paths.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Seismic and Aseismic Fault Growth Lead to Different Fault Orientations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientations of natural fault systems are subject to large variations. They often contradict classical Coulomb failure theory as they are misoriented relative to the regional Andersonian stress field. This is ascribed to local effects of structural or stress heterogeneities and reorientations of structures or stresses on the long term. To better understand the relation between fault orientation and regional stresses, we simulate spontaneous fault growth and its effect on the stress field. Our approach incorporates earthquake rupture dynamics, viscoelastoplastic brittle deformation and a rate‐ and state‐dependent friction formulation in a continuum mechanics framework. We investigate how strike‐slip faults orient according to local and far‐field stresses during their growth. We identify two modes of fault growth, seismic and aseismic, distinguished by different fault angles and slip velocities. Seismic fault growth causes a significant elevation of dynamic stresses and friction values ahead of the propagating fault tip. These elevated quantities result in a greater strike angle relative to the maximum principal regional stress than that of a fault segment formed aseismically. When compared to the near‐tip time‐dependent stress field the fault orientations produced by both growth modes follow the classical failure theory. We demonstrate how the two types of fault growth may be distinguished in natural faults by comparing their angles relative to the original regional maximum principal stress. A stress field analysis of the Landers‐Kickapoo fault suggests that an angle greater than ∼25° between two faults indicates seismic fault growth.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Seismic and Aseismic Fault Growth Lead to Different Fault Orientations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Presently, modeling of the long-term (millions of years' time scale) deformation at plate boundaries (e.g., Baes et al, 2016;Burov et al, 2014;Gerya, 2011;Popov et al, 2012;Quinteros & Sobolev, 2013) and modeling of earthquakes and their seismic cycles (e.g., Barbot et al, 2012;Lambert & Barbot, 2016;Liu & Rice, 2007;Rice, 1993;Rice & Ben-Zion, 1996) are independent. A few models (Sobolev & Babeyko, 2004;van Dinther et al, 2013avan Dinther et al, , 2013bvan Dinther et al, , 2014 attempted to close the gap between these temporal scales, but these studies were limited to a minimum time resolution of several years. In particular, van Dinther et al (2013b) complemented a long-term geodynamic model of subduction by the rate-weakening friction law at the subduction plate interface, which allowed simulation of seismic cycles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Seismic Cycles of Great Megathrust Earthquakes Across the Scales With Focus at Postseismic Phase

Sobolev

Muldashev

2017

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subduction is substantially multiscale process where the stresses are built by long‐term tectonic motions, modified by sudden jerky deformations during earthquakes, and then restored by following multiple relaxation processes. Here we develop a cross‐scale thermomechanical model aimed to simulate the subduction process from 1 min to million years' time scale. The model employs elasticity, nonlinear transient viscous rheology, and rate‐and‐state friction. It generates spontaneous earthquake sequences and by using an adaptive time step algorithm, recreates the deformation process as observed naturally during the seismic cycle and multiple seismic cycles. The model predicts that viscosity in the mantle wedge drops by more than three orders of magnitude during the great earthquake with a magnitude above 9. As a result, the surface velocities just an hour or day after the earthquake are controlled by viscoelastic relaxation in the several hundred km of mantle landward of the trench and not by the afterslip localized at the fault as is currently believed. Our model replicates centuries‐long seismic cycles exhibited by the greatest earthquakes and is consistent with the postseismic surface displacements recorded after the Great Tohoku Earthquake. We demonstrate that there is no contradiction between extremely low mechanical coupling at the subduction megathrust in South Chile inferred from long‐term geodynamic models and appearance of the largest earthquakes, like the Great Chile 1960 Earthquake.

show abstract

“…Our long-term hydromechanical numerical models of the subduction interface are based on a poro-viscoplastic two-phase flow approach [Dymkova and Gerya, 2013], which define the coupling between the bulk rock deformation (solid) and the pore fluid percolation [Stevenson and Scott, 1991].…”

Section: Governing Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where ζ is the bulk viscosity of the solid. The bulk viscosity is parameterized via [Stevenson and Scott, 1991]…”

Section: Governing Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, there is a recent trend to apply a complete geodynamic two-phase flow theory within fully hydromechanically coupled numerical models using a realistic visco-(elasto)-(plastic) rock rheology [Dymkova and Gerya, 2013;Keller et al, 2013;Wilson et al, 2014]. The governing equations for the coupled hydromechanical system were derived in the 1980s [McKenzie, 1984;Stevenson and Scott, 1991]; however, in the context of subduction modeling, they have not been implemented in their full complexity due to the methodological and hardware limitations. Recent studies from hydromechanically coupled models [Dymkova and Gerya, 2013;Wilson et al, 2014] provide a more self-consistent description of fluid and melt migration in subduction zones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fluid‐assisted deformation of the subduction interface: Coupled and decoupled regimes from 2‐D hydromechanical modeling

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shear deformation, accompanied with fluid activity inside the subduction interface, is related to many tectonic energy‐releasing events, including regular and slow earthquakes. We have numerically examined the fluid‐rock interactions inside a deforming subduction interface using state‐of‐the‐art 2‐D hydromechanical numerical models, which incorporate the rock fracturing behavior as a plastic rheology which is dependent on the pore fluid pressure. Our modeling results suggest that two typical dynamical regimes of the deforming subduction interface exist, namely, a “coupled” and a “decoupled” regime. In the coupled regime the subduction interface is subdivided into multiple rigid blocks, each separated by a narrow shear zone inclined at an angle of 15–20° with respect to the slab surface. In contrast, in the decoupled regime the subduction interface is divided into two distinct layers moving relative to each other along a pervasive slab surface‐parallel shear zone. Through a systematic parameter study, we observe that the tensile strength (cohesion) of the material within the subduction interface dictates the resulting style of deformation within the interface: high cohesion (~60 MPa) results in the coupled regime, while low cohesion (~10 MPa) leads to the decoupled regime. We also demonstrate that the lithostatic pressure and inflow/outflow fluid fluxes (i.e., fluid‐fluxed boundary condition) influence the location and orientation of faults. Predictions from our numerical models are supported by experimental laboratory studies, geological data, and geophysical observations from modern subduction settings.

show abstract

Modeling the seismic cycle in subduction zones: The role and spatiotemporal occurrence of off‐megathrust earthquakes

Cited by 58 publications

References 37 publications

Seismic and Aseismic Fault Growth Lead to Different Fault Orientations

Seismic and Aseismic Fault Growth Lead to Different Fault Orientations

Modeling Seismic Cycles of Great Megathrust Earthquakes Across the Scales With Focus at Postseismic Phase

Fluid‐assisted deformation of the subduction interface: Coupled and decoupled regimes from 2‐D hydromechanical modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About