Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 697–724 | Cite as

A Fault Model with Two Asperities of Different Areas and Strengths

  • Emanuele Lorenzano
  • Michele Dragoni
Article
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

A fault with two asperities with different areas and strengths is considered. The fault is treated as a dynamical system with two state variables (the slip deficits of the asperities) and four dynamic modes, for which complete analytical solutions are provided. The seismic events generated by the fault can be discriminated in terms of a variable related with the difference between the slip deficits of the asperities at the beginning of the interseismic interval preceding the event. The effect of the difference between the asperity areas on several features of the model, such as the force rates on the asperities, the slip duration and amplitude, the occurrence of events involving the simultaneous motion of the asperities and the radiation of elastic waves, is discussed. As an application, the \(M_w\) 8.0 2007 Pisco, Peru, earthquake is considered: it is modelled as a two-mode event due to the consecutive failure of two asperities, one almost twice as large as the other. The source function and final seismic moment predicted by the model are found to be in good agreement with observations.

Keywords

Fault model Asperity model Asperity size 2007 Pisco earthquake 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the editor Roussos Dimitrakopoulos and to two anonymous referees for their useful comments on the first version of the paper.

References

  1. Amendola A, Dragoni M (2013) Dynamics of a two-fault system with viscoelastic coupling. Nonlinear Processes Geophys 20:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-20-1-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen T, Lapusta N (2009) Scaling of small repeating earthquakes explained by interaction of seismic and aseismic slip in a rate and state fault model. J Geophys Res 114:B01311.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005749 Google Scholar
  3. Di Bernardo M, Budd CJ, Champneys AR, Kowalczyk P (2008) Piecewise-smooth dynamical systems-theory and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Dragoni M, Lorenzano E (2015) Stress states and moment rates of a two-asperity fault in the presence of viscoelastic relaxation. Nonlinear Processes Geophys 22:349–359.  https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-349-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dragoni M, Lorenzano E (2017) Dynamics of a fault model with two mechanically different regions. Earth Planets Sp 69:145.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0731-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dragoni M, Piombo A (2015) Effect of stress perturbations on the dynamics of a complex fault. Pure Appl Geophys 172(10):2571–2583.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1046-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dragoni M, Santini S (2012) Long-term dynamics of a fault with two asperities of different strengths. Geophys J Int 191:1457–1467.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05701.x Google Scholar
  8. Dragoni M, Santini S (2014) Source functions of a two-asperity fault model. Geophys J Int 196:1803–1812.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dragoni M, Santini S (2015) A two-asperity fault model with wave radiation. Phys Earth Planet Inter 248:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dragoni M, Tallarico A (2016) Complex events in a fault model with interacting asperities. Phys Earth Planet Inter 257:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang J, Turcotte DL (1990) Are earthquakes an example of deterministic chaos? Geophys Res Lett 17:223–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaeger JC, Cook NGW (1976) Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Lay T, Kanamori H, Ruff L (1982) The asperity model and the nature of large subduction zone earthquakes. Earthq Pred Res 1:3–71Google Scholar
  14. Lay T, Ammon CJ, Hutko AR, Kanamori H (2010) Effects of kinematic constraints on teleseismic finite-source rupture inversions: great Peruvian earthquakes of 23 June 2001 and 15 August 2007. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(3):969–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luo Y, Ampuero JP (2017) Stability of faults with heterogeneous friction properties and effective normal stress. Tectonophysics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.11.006 Google Scholar
  16. McCloskey J, Bean CJ (1992) Time and magnitude predictions in shocks due to chaotic fault interactions. Geophys Res Lett 19:119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nussbaum J, Ruina A (1987) A two degree-of-freedom earthquake model with static/dynamic friction. Pure Appl Geophys 125:629–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rice JR (1993) Spatio-temporal complexity of slip on a fault. J Geophys Res 98:9885–9907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruff LJ (1983) Fault asperities inferred from seismic body waves. In: Kanamori H, Boschi E (eds) Earthquakes: observation, theory and interpretation. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 251–276Google Scholar
  20. Ruff LJ (1992) Asperity distributions and large earthquake occurrence in subduction zones. Tectonophysics 211:61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scholz CH (1990) The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Skarbek RM, Rempel AW, Schmidt DA (2012) Geologic heterogeneity can produce aseismic slip transients. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053762 Google Scholar
  23. Sladen A, Tavera H, Simons M, Avouac JP, Konca AO, Perfettini H, Audin L, Fielding EJ, Ortega F, Cavagnoud R (2010) Source model of the 2007 Mw 8.0 Pisco, Peru earthquake: implications for seismogenic behavior of subduction megathrusts. J Geophys Res 115(B2):2156–2202.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turcotte DL (1997) Fractals and chaos in geology and geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Fisica e AstronomiaAlma Mater Studiorum Università di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations