A review of methods for determining stress fields from earthquakes focal mechanisms; Application to the Sierentz 1980 seismic crisis (Upper Rhine graben)

2013 ◽  
Vol 184 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 319-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Maury ◽  
François H. Cornet ◽  
Louis Dorbath

Abstract The inversion of earthquake focal mechanisms is one of the few tools available for determining principal stress directions at seismogenic depths. Various methods have been proposed for performing such inversions. For three of the most commonly used methods, including one that has been proposed by Jacques Angelier, we discuss the physical assumptions and the error determination and then we propose an extension for one of the methods. All four methods are then applied for evaluating the stress field in the Upper Rhine graben. They are applied to seismic data recorded with a temporary monitoring network that was deployed 12 hours after the magnitude Mw = 4.4 Sierentz earthquake, which occurred on July 15, 1980. While differences in principal stress directions can be as much as 28° depending on the method used for the principal stress direction determination (orientation of the minimum principal stress has been found to range from N051°E with a 27° plunge to N090° E with a 20° plunge), the 90% confidence level associated with each method varies from 11° to 27°. Moreover, these various methods yield fairly diverse values for the R factor that characterizes relative differences between principal stress magnitudes (from R = 0.7 with a 0.2 90% confidence level to R = 0.3 with a 0.2 90% confidence level). Furthermore all three methods leave some focal mechanisms unexplained. These are then declared to be the result of heterogeneity and are not considered for the inversion. It is concluded that earthquake focal mechanisms inversions lack resolution for stress field evaluation at depth if no proper attention is given to the event independence hypothesis. When proper attention is given to this hypothesis, a resolution of the order of 15° may be achieved. The minimum principal stress orientation derived with these various focal mechanisms inversions differs by 4 to 36° from the orientation determined from borehole breakouts observed in Basel, in a 5 km deep well (N054°E ± 14°), located some 20 km from Sierentz. The solution that fits best borehole breakout observations is that which satisfies the minimum number (three) of prerequisite physical assumptions.

2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valère Lambert ◽  
Victor C. Tsai

Abstract Over recent decades, it has become clear that the extraction of fluids from underground reservoirs can be linked to seismicity and aseismic deformation around producing fields. Using a simple model with uniform fluid extraction from a reservoir, Segall (1989, “Earthquakes Triggered by Fluid Extraction,” Geology, 17(10), pp. 942–946) illustrated how poroelastic stresses resulting from fluid withdrawal may be consistent with earthquake focal mechanisms surrounding some producing fields. Since these stress fields depend on the spatial gradient of the change in pore fluid content within the reservoir, both quantitative and qualitative predictions of the stress changes surrounding a reservoir may be considerably affected by assumptions in the geometry and hydraulic properties of the producing zone. Here, we expand upon the work of Segall (1989, “Earthquakes Triggered by Fluid Extraction,” Geology, 17, pp. 942–946 and 1985, “Stress and Subsidence Resulting From Subsurface Fluid Withdrawal in the Epicentral Region of the 1983 Coalinga Earthquake,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 90, pp. 6801–6816) to provide a quantitative analysis of the surrounding stresses resulting from fluid extraction and diffusion in a horizontal reservoir. In particular, when considering the diffusion of fluids, the spatial pattern and magnitude of imposed stresses is controlled by the ratio between the volumetric rate of fluid extraction and the reservoir diffusivity. Moreover, the effective reservoir length expands over time along with the diffusion front, predicting a time-dependent rotation of the induced principal stresses from relative tension to compression along the ends of the producing zone. This reversal in perturbed principal stress directions may manifest as a rotation in earthquake focal mechanisms or varied sensitivity to poroelastic triggering, depending upon the criticality of the pre-existing stress state and fault orientations, which may explain inferred rotations in principal stress directions associated with some induced seismicity.


2015 ◽  
Vol 203 (1) ◽  
pp. 614-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Fuhrmann ◽  
M. Caro Cuenca ◽  
A. Knöpfler ◽  
F.J. van Leijen ◽  
M. Mayer ◽  
...  

PalZ ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Reichenbacher München ◽  
Jean Gaudant Paris ◽  
Thomas W. Griessemer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document