Eos,Vol. 85, No. 36, 7 September 2004 forum Comment on “Coupling Semantics and Science in Earthquake Research” PAGES 339–340 Kelin Wang and Timothy Dixon (Eos, 85(18), 4 May 2004,p.180) thoughtfully advocate paying close attention to semantics in descriptions of fault zone properties and kinematics,an increasingly important issue given the distinct usages of terms such as “coupling” by separate disciplines involved in the multidisciplinary study of earthquake faulting.We are in full accord with their advocacy of unambiguous language, such as the description of a nonsliding fault segment as being “not slipping” rather than “strongly coupled” in the absence of any information about the frictional or stress state of that segment.While several of Wang and Dixon’s recommended “simple expressions”have clear merits, we feel that their advocacy of “locked” to equate to “not slipping” is not an improvement, and that their accompanying illustration of dislocation models of subduction zone megathrusts is potentially misleading. Wang and Dixon critique a simple,one-dimensional dislocation model for an interplate thrust event, for which conventional thinking is that the principle seismogenic zone is not sliding between earthquake ruptures but that there is steady sliding occurring along the shallow and deep extensions of the thrust plane.These stable sliding portions of the fault plane are assumed to be regions of velocity-strengthening frictional conditions; they accommodate relative plate motions without earthquake failure, although portions may be conditionally stable, driven to failure by the high strain rates (large changes in slip velocity) that accompany rupture of the main seismogenic zone [e.g., Scholz, 1998].Wang and Dixon argue that this model is “incorrect” and that the updip region is not slipping steadily, and should be viewed as “locked,” along with the unstable sliding region. They invoke an analogy involving a book on a level table with no shear stress being applied; and it is correctly asserted that this stable equilibrium state does not allow strength or nature of frictional coupling to be deduced. However, this analogy seems irrelevant to the situation of interplate thrust faults, which are not in a state of stable equilibrium and are being continuously loaded by forces associated with slab-pull, ridge-push, and lateral loading by slip of adjacent segments both along the strike and dip of the megathrust [e.g., Lay et al., 1989]. A more complex but more realistic visualization of the megathrust frictional environment is offered in Figure 1 [Lay and Bilek, 2004]. This cartoon adopts the frictional notions from Pacheco et al.[1993] and Scholz [1998],describing two-dimensional variations in friction on the fault contact as a distribution of stable, unstable, and conditionally stable domains.The shallowest part of the fault is viewed as primarily a region of velocity-strengthening material; shear stress applied to this zone will cause it to creep stably (possibly episodically) rather than rupture in an earthquake [e.g., Byrne et al., 1988].At greater depth the fault surface has patches with velocity-weakening material that fail unstably in stick-slip earthquakes. Regions around the unstable zones and possibly isolated portions of the fault contact are conditionally stable, capable of failing in earthquake rupture if driven by failure of nearby regions of unstable slip. In the generalized cartoon of Figure 1, the application of shear stress to the overall fault zone is not localized only to regions of unstable sliding potential, but is distributed across the entire fault surface as a result of loads applied to the system by slab-pull, ridge-push, and failure of adjacent portions of the megathrust. The notion of the updip region of stable sliding conditions being “locked” (weak but not slipping), as advanced in the “correct” model of Wang and Dixon,requires that there be no stress on the shallowest portion of the fault; essentially one requires a stress shadow caused by other “locked”(strong but not slipping) regions. This seems unlikely in general. In addition, the word “locked” carries with it the implication that it would resist motion were stress to be applied (one of those subtle semantic concerns that Wang and Dixon alert us to), but if stress is applied to a region of stable sliding frictional conditions, it will simply stably slide. Even if the region does slip following a deeper stick-slip event, it will not fail coseismically because its behavior is governed by different frictional conditions. Using the same terminology to describe regions of very different frictional properties is likely to engender confusion. While there may well be regions updip of seismogenic zones that are indeed completely buffered by surrounding locked regions of unstable friction and are not slipping, we feel it is at least premature, if not generally wrong, to assert that this is always the case. That assertion can be tested by fully characterizing deformation over the entire fault plane throughout the seismic cycle.This is a formidable challenge, but some progress is being made. For example, recent dislocation modeling of GPS data from the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica [Norabuena et al., 2004] is inconsistent with the assertion.The Nicoya Peninsula extends over the shallow portion of the Cocos/Caribbean-Panama Block plate boundary and is one of the only places in the world where land-based geodesy provides resolution of interseismic deformation of the shallow thrust interface. Geodetic modeling indicates a strong transition from slip at more than 60% to less than 25% of the plate rate 30–40 km from the trench (fault depth of 5–8 km).Although resolution falls off dramatically near the trench, the strong gradient in shallow slip, at the very least,requires modification of Wang and Dixon’s “correct” model of interseismic deformation. As coordinated efforts to carefully map the relationship between geodetically defined notslipping regions and seismicity distributions expand,complex relationships are being revealed, as is the case along the Nicoya Peninsula where the apparent seismic front defined by microseismicity is downdip of the region with the least slip [Norabuena et al., 2004]. It seems that much more work is needed before we can define end-member models of “incorrect” and “correct” slip distributions on both thrust and strike-slip faults,and this should not be done in the context of one-dimensional models or stable equilibrium analogs. Fig. 1. Cartoon notion of heterogeneous frictional conditions on the interplate thrust fault in a subduction zone.Thermal, hydrological, and material properties give rise to shallow regions beneath any accretionary wedge that are not observed to have earthquake slip and are inferred to be in a velocity-strengthening stable sliding regime.At greater depth an increasing percentage of the fault plane has velocity-weakening frictional conditions that give rise to unstable stick-slip failure. These may be associated with areas of bathymetric roughness such as seamounts and horst and graben structures on the subducting slab. Regions of conditional stability, which tend to stably slide unless driven by strong velocity increases, may surround unstable slip regions or exist in isolated patches. Modified from Bilek and Lay [2002]. Eos,Vol. 85, No. 36, 7 September 2004 References Bilek, S. L., and T. Lay (2002),Tsunami earthquakes possibly widespread manifestations of frictional conditional stability, Geophy. Res. Lett., 29(14), 1673, doi:10.1029/2002GL015215. Byrne, D., D. Davis, and L. Sykes (1988), Loci and maximum size of thrust earthquakes and the mechanics of the shallow region of subduction zones, Tectonics, 7, 833–857. Lay,T., and S. Bilek (2004),Anomalous earthquake Reply PAGE 340 We thank Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz for their comment on our Forum article (Eos, 85(18), 4 May 2004, p. 180).They agree with our main point that slip rates of a fault should not be confused with stress conditions or frictional properties, but they criticize our use of the word “locked” and the interseismic deformation model we used to illustrate a conceptual error.We agree with Lay and Schwartz that the term “locked”has connotations beyond purely kinematical and that “no slip” may be more appropriate.The present reply is to further discuss the meaning of the simple deformation model. In that 2-D (no along-strike variation) example, the segment updip of the locked zone of a subduction fault is assumed to be weak (and may have a stable frictional behavior). Our criticism was solely to the assumption that this updip segment could slip steadily at the plate convergence rate for a long time, not on other aspects of the model.We have no general disagreement with the more complex fault model presented in Lay and Schwartz’s Figure 1, but we feel that how a real subduction fault behaves is a separate issue (of course an important one!). Our choice of using the simple 2-D model was simply to clarify essential concepts. Lay and Schwartz mistakenly think the alternative model that we labeled “correct” was meant to be generally applicable.As clearly stated in our figure caption, the condition for this model being correct is “if the updip zone is not slipping.” Whether or when the segment could slip is a different issue, and is discussed separately in our article.The following two questions regarding this model need to be further addressed.To simplify discussion, here we ignore deformation of the subducting plate. 1.What forces drive the frontal wedge of the upper plate above the weak segment to move seaward relative to the lower plate? Since ruptures at shallow depths on subduction zone megathrusts, in Interplate Subduction Zone Seismogenesis, edited by.T. Dixon et al., Columbia Univ. Press, New York, in press. Lay,T., L.Astiz, H. Kanamori, and D. H. Christensen (1989),Temporal variation of large intraplate earthquakes in coupled subduction zones, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 54, 258–312. Norabuena, E., et al. (2004), Geodetic and seismic constraints on some seismogenic zone processes in Costa Rica, J. Geophys. Res., in press. basal traction (along the fault) can only resist slip, the driving force comes from the upper plate material landward of the wedge, that is, compressive stresses within the upper plate. Change of gravitational potential due to vertical deformation in earthquake cycles may also play a small role. Ridge push and slab pull, alluded to by Lay and Schwartz, are irrelevant here because they act only on the subducting plate. 2. Can this weak segment slip at all if the downdip zone is locked? As we stated in our Forum, it indeed can, but “slipping at the plate convergence rate, as often modeled, is unlikely to be sustained over the entire inter-seismic period.” If the locked zone slips, either as an earthquake or aseismic event, but the updip segment does not or slips more slowly, compressive stress is increased in the upper plate above the two segments.The relief of this incremental stress (release of strain energy) can cause the segment to slip in a transient fashion while the downdip segment is locked. But it cannot slip if the stress is relieved. It is not a surprise that, at a given point in time, we may see an updip segment slip faster than a downdip segment. Determining when, where, and why such transients occur is a key scientific goal. In most cases, land GPS data cannot uniquely resolve whether the far offshore part of the fault is slipping very slowly (e.g., at the plate convergence rate) or is not slipping. It is a common and possibly incorrect practice to assign a plate convergence rate (i.e., zero backslip) to the most seaward part of the plate interface when inverting GPS data to infer the state of fault locking.Using a different boundary condition (no slip or slipping at a lower rate) will change the results, especially for the offshore part. Direct near-trench observations are needed to resolve this issue. It is noteworthy that new seafloor geodetic data from the Peru subduction zone [Gagnon et al., 2004] supports the concept of a “no slip” condition on the plate interface all the way to the trench axis as portrayed by our “correct” model. Pacheco, J. F., L. R. Sykes, and C. H. Scholz (1993), Nature of seismic coupling along simple plate boundaries of the subduction type, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 14,133–14,159. Scholz, C. (1998), Earthquakes and friction laws, Nature, 391, 37–42. —THORNE LAY and SUSAN Y. SCHWARTZ, Earth Sciences Department and Center for the Study of Imaging and Dynamics of the Earth, University of California, Santa Cruz Lay and Schwartz quoted the result at the Nicoya Peninsula that microseismicity occurs downdip of the region with the least fault slip [Norabuena et al., 2004].This result and the many other more intriguing observations [e.g., Freymueller et al., 2000; Ozawa et al., 2002; Rogers and Dragert, 2003; Uchida et al., 2003; Yagi et al.,2003] reflect the heterogeneous and transient nature of fault motion in the real world, but in our view they do not negate simple models that are designed to explain basic concepts. References Freymueller, J.T., S. C. Cohen, and H. J. Fletcher (2000), Spatial variations in present-day deformation, Kenai Peninsula,Alaska, and their implications, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 8079–8101. Gagnon, K. L., D. Chadwell, and E. Norabuena (2004), Seafloor geodetic measurements of Nazca-South America plate stick-slip behavior, Eos Trans.AGU, 85(17), Jt.Assem. Suppl.,Abstract G21B-04. Norabuena, E., et al. (2004), Geodetic and seismic constraints on some seismogenic zone processes in Costa Rica, J. Geophys. Res., in press. Ozawa, S., M. Murakami, M. Kaidzu,T.Tada,T. Sagiya,Y. Hatanaka, H.Yarai, and T. Nishimura (2002), Detection and monitoring of ongoing aseismic slip in the Tokai region, central Japan, Science, 298, 1009–1012. Rogers, G. C., and H. Dragert (2003), Episodic tremor and slip on the Cascadia subduction zone: The chatter of silent slip, Science, 300, 1942–1943. Uchida, N.,T. Matsuzawa,A. Hasegawa, and T. Igarashi (2003), Interplate quasi-static slip off Sanriku, NE Japan, estimated from repeating earthquakes, Geophys.Res.Lett.,30(15),1801,doi:10.1029/2003 GL017452. Yagi,Y., M. Kikuchi, and T. Nishimura (2003), Co-seismic slip, post-seismic slip, and largest aftershock associated with the 1994 Sanriku-haruka-oki, Japan,earthquake,Geophys.Res.Lett.,30(22),2177, doi:10.1029/2003GL018189. —KELIN WANG, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney, British Columbia; and TIMOTHY DIXON, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz