Longer Migration and Spontaneous Decay of Aseismic Slip Pulse Caused by Fault Roughness

Abstract Various geophysical observations show that seismic and aseismic slip on a fault may occur concurrently. We analyze microseismicity recordings from a temporary near-fault seismic network and borehole strainmeter data from the eastern Marmara region in northwest Turkey to track seismic and aseismic deformation around the hypocentral region of an Mw 4.5 earthquake in 2018. A slow transient is observed that lasted about 30 days starting at the time of the Mw 4.5 event. We study about 1200 microseismic events that occurred during 417 days after the Mw 4.5 event around the mainshock fault rupture. The seismicity reveals a strong temporal clustering, including four episodic seismic sequences, each containing more than 30 events per day. Seismicity from the first two sequences displayed typical characteristics driven by aseismic slip and/or fluids, such as the activation of a broader region around the mainshock and swarm-like topology. The third and fourth sequences correspond to typical mainshock–aftershock sequences. These observations suggest that slow slip and potentially fluid diffusion along the fault plane could have controlled the seismicity during the initial 150 days following the Mw 4.5 event. In contrast, stress redistribution and breaking of remaining asperities may have caused the activity after the initial 150 days. Our observation from a newly installed combined dense seismic and borehole strainmeter network follows an earlier observation of a slow transient occurring in conjunction with enhanced local seismic moment release in the same region. This suggests a frequent interaction of seismic and aseismic slip in the Istanbul–Marmara seismic gap.

Download Full-text

High-frequency ground-motion variability for rough-fault ruptures

10.5194/egusphere-egu21-11998 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jagdish Chandra Vyas ◽

Martin Galis ◽

Paul Martin Mai

Keyword(s):

Ground Motion ◽

Large Scale ◽

Earthquake Ground Motion ◽

Small Scale ◽

Dynamic Rupture ◽

Roughness Effects ◽

Ground Shaking ◽

Fault Surface ◽

Fault Roughness ◽

Ground Motion Variability

Geological observations show variations in fault-surface topography not only at large scale (segmentation) but also at small scale (roughness). These geometrical complexities strongly affect the stress distribution and frictional strength of the fault, and therefore control the earthquake rupture process and resulting ground-shaking. Previous studies examined fault-segmentation effects on ground-shaking, but our understanding of fault-roughness effects on seismic wavefield radiation and earthquake ground-motion is still limited.&#160;&#160;In this study we examine the effects of fault roughness on ground-shaking variability as a function of distance based on 3D dynamic rupture simulations. We consider linear slip-weakening friction, variations of fault-roughness parametrizations, and alternative nucleation positions (unilateral and bilateral ruptures). We use generalized finite difference method to compute synthetic waveforms (max. resolved frequency 5.75 Hz) at numerous surface sites&#160; to carry out statistical analysis.&#160;&#160;Our simulations reveal that ground-motion variability from unilateral ruptures is almost independent of&#160; distance from the fault, with comparable or higher values than estimates from ground-motion prediction equations (e.g., Boore and Atkinson, 2008; Campbell and Bozornia, 2008). However, ground-motion variability from bilateral ruptures decreases with increasing distance, in contrast to previous studies (e.g., Imtiaz et. al., 2015) who observe an increasing trend with distance. Ground-shaking variability from unilateral ruptures is higher than for bilateral ruptures, a feature due to intricate seismic radiation patterns related to fault roughness and hypocenter location. Moreover, ground-shaking variability for rougher faults is lower than for smoother faults. As fault roughness increases the difference in ground-shaking variabilities between unilateral and bilateral ruptures increases. In summary, our simulations help develop a fundamental understanding of ground-motion variability at high frequencies (~ 6 Hz) due small-scale geometrical fault-surface variations.

Download Full-text

Repeating earthquakes follow afterslip gradient in the aftermath of the 16th April 2016 M7.8 Pedernales earthquake in Ecuador

10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2918 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Caroline Chalumeau ◽

Keyword(s):

Template Matching ◽

Earthquake Forecasting ◽

Double Difference ◽

Recurrence Time ◽

Fault Mechanics ◽

Aseismic Slip ◽

Earthquake Triggering ◽

Repeating Earthquakes ◽

Waveform Cross Correlation ◽

One Year

Repeating earthquakes are earthquakes that repeatedly break a single, time-invariant fault patch. They are generally associated with aseismic slip, which is thought to load asperities, leading to repeated rupture. Repeating earthquakes are therefore useful tools to study aseismic slip and fault mechanics, with possible applications to earthquake triggering, loading rates and earthquake forecasting.In this study, we analyze one year of aftershocks following the 16th April 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales earthquake in Ecuador to find repeating families, using data recorded by permanent and temporary seismological stations. In our area, seismicity during both the inter-seismic and post-seismic periods has been previously linked to aseismic slip. We calculate waveform cross-correlation coefficients (CC) on all available catalogue events, which we use to sort events into preliminary families, using a minimum CC of 0.95. These events were then stacked and used to perform template-matching on the continuous data. In total, 376 earthquakes were classified into 62 families of 4 to 15 earthquakes, including 8 from the one-year period before the mainshock. We later relocated these earthquakes using a double-difference method, which confirmed that most of them did have overlapping sources.Repeating earthquakes seem to concentrate largely around the areas of largest afterslip release, where afterslip gradient is the highest. We also find an increase in the recurrence time of repeating events with time after the mainshock, over the first year of the postseismic period, which highlights a possible timeframe for the afterslip&#8217;s deceleration. Our results suggest that while most repeating aftershocks are linked to afterslip release, the afterslip gradient may play a bigger role in determining their location than previously thought.

Download Full-text