The Role of Background Stress State in Fluid-Induced Aseismic Slip and Dynamic Rupture on a 3-meter Laboratory Fault

Cebry, S. B. L.; Ke, Chun‐Yu; McLaskey, Gregory C.

doi:10.1002/essoar.10510828.1

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These regimes are observed for both slip-weakening and rate-and-state friction laws. Our observations are in good agreement with a range of phenomena described in the literature, both in simulations and experiments [39][40][41][42][43], and provide a unifying framework for nucleation of frictional sliding.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Nucleation of frictional slip: A yielding or a fracture process?

Castellano¹,

Flavio²,

Kammer³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Nucleation of frictional slip: A yielding or a fracture process?

Castellano¹,

Flavio²,

Kammer³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data is available at Cebry et al. (2023) and through Cornell eCommons at https://doi.org/10.7298/0bdb-t883.…”

Section: Data Availability Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Earthquake Rupture Interactions With a High Normal Stress Bump

Cebry,

Sorhaindo,

McLaskey

2023

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…3D-F), resulting in aseismic loading being the dominant mechanism. This threshold distance at which aseismic loading becomes the dominant triggering mechanism is controlled by both the initial closeness to failure of the fault 45,46 and the injection history. For constant rate injection, the degree by which the slip front outpaces the pressure front is dictated by the dimensionless aseismic slip amplification number, 10,38 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hindcasting injection-induced aseismic slip and microseismicity at the Cooper Basin Enhanced Geothermal Systems Project

Wang

Dunham

2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ($$k = 10^{-13} - 10^{-12}$$ k = 10 - 13 - 10 - 12 $$\hbox {m}{^2}$$ 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.

show abstract

The Role of Background Stress State in Fluid-Induced Aseismic Slip and Dynamic Rupture on a 3-meter Laboratory Fault

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Nucleation of frictional slip: A yielding or a fracture process?

Nucleation of frictional slip: A yielding or a fracture process?

Laboratory Earthquake Rupture Interactions With a High Normal Stress Bump

Hindcasting injection-induced aseismic slip and microseismicity at the Cooper Basin Enhanced Geothermal Systems Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About