Advertisement

Shear-Wave Splitting Indicates Non-Linear Dynamic Deformation in the Crust and Upper Mantle

  • Stuart CrampinEmail author
  • Gulten Polat
  • Yuan Gao
  • David B. Taylor
  • Nurcan Meral Ozel
Chapter

Abstract

We demonstrate that non-linear dynamic deformation exists throughout the crust and upper mantle of the Earth. Stress-aligned shear-wave splitting, seismic birefringence, is widely observed in the Earth’s upper crust, lower-crust, and uppermost ∼400 km of the mantle. Attributed to the effects of pervasive distributions of stress-aligned fluid-saturated microcracks in the crust (and controversially intergranular films of hydrated melt in the mantle), the degree splitting indicates that ‘microcracks’ are so closely spaced that they verge on failure in fracturing and earthquakes if there is any disturbance. Phenomena that verge on failure are critical systems with non-linear dynamics that impose a range of new properties on conventional sub-critical geophysics that we suggest is a New Geophysics. Consequently, shear-wave splitting provides directly interpretable information about the progress of non-linear dynamic deformation in the deep otherwise-inaccessible interior of the microcracked Earth. Possibly uniquely for non-linear dynamic phenomena, observation of shear-wave splitting allows the progress towards singularities to be monitored in deep in situ rock, so that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can be predicted (we prefer stress-forecast). The response to other processes, such as hydraulic fracking, can be monitored, and in some cases calculated and effects predicted. Here, we review shear-wave splitting and demonstrate the prevalence of non-linear dynamic deformation of the New Geophysics in the crust and uppermost ∼400 km of the mantle.

Keywords

Monitoring fracking New Geophysics Non-linear dynamics Shear-wave splitting Stress-aligned microcracks Stress-forecasting earthquakes Stress-forecasting volcanic eruptions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Sheila Peacock and Peter Leary for their comments. Yuan Gao was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Project 41174042. We thank the Director of Science and Technology of the British Geological Survey (NERC) for approval to publish this paper.

References

  1. Ando, M., Y. Ishikawa, and H. Wada. 1980. S-wave anisotropy in the upper mantle under a volcanic area in Japan. Nature 286: 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angerer, E., S. Crampin, X.-Y. Li, and T.L. Davis. 2002. Processing, modelling, and predicting time-lapse effects of overpressured fluid-injection in a fractured reservoir. Geophysical Journal International 149: 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth, D.C., and S. Crampin. 1985. Shear-wave polarizations on a curved wavefront at an isotropi free-surface. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 83: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crampin, S. 1981. A review of wave motion in anisotropic and cracked elastic-media. Wave Motion 3: 343–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 1994. The fracture criticality of crustal rocks. Geophysical Journal International 118: 428–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 1999. Calculable fluid-rock interactions. Journal of the Geological Society 156: 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2003. Aligned cracks not LPO as the cause of mantle anisotropy, EGS-AGU-EUG Joint Ass., Nice, 2003. Geophysical Research Abstract 5: 00205; with up-dated notes in online version.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2006. The New Geophysics: a new understanding of fluid-rock deformation. In Eurock 2006: multiphysics coupling and long term behaviour in rock mechanics, ed. A. Van Cotthem, R. Charlier, J.-F. Thimus, and J.-P. Tshibangu, 539–544. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crampin, S., R. Evans, B. Üçer, M. Doyle, J.P. Davis, G.V. Yegorkina, and A. Miller. 1980. Observations of dilatancy-induced polarization anomalies and earthquake prediction. Nature 286: 874–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crampin, S., and Y. Gao. 2012. Plate-wide deformation before the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 46: 61–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2011.1015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2013. The New Geophysics. Terra Nova 25: 173–180. doi: 10.1111/ter.12030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2015. The physics underlying Gutenberg-Richter in the Earth and in the Moon. Journal of Earth Science 26: 134–139. doi: 10.1007/s12583-015-0523-3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2016. Borehole Stress-Monitoring Sites (SMSs) for monitoring stress accumulation and predicting (stress-forecasting) impending earthquakes and eruptions. In Workshop on earthquakes in North Iceland: proceedings WENI2 workshop, Hüsavík Academic Center, Iceland, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Crampin, S., Y. Gao, and A. De Santis. 2013. A few earthquake conundrums resolved. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 62: 501–509. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.1012.10.036,.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crampin, S., Y. Gao, and S. Peacock. 2008. Stress-forecasting (not predicting) earthquakes: a paradigm shift. Geology 36: 427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crampin, S., and S.C. Kirkwood. 1981. Velocity variations in systems of anisotropic symmetry. Journal of Geophysics 49: 35–42.Google Scholar
  17. Crampin, S., and S. Peacock. 2005. A review of shear-wave splitting in the compliant crack-critical anisotropic Earth. Wave Motion 41: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2008. A review of the current understanding of shear-wave splitting and common fallacies in interpretation. Wave Motion 45: 675–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crampin, S., S. Peacock, Y. Gao, and S. Chastin. 2004b. The scatter of time-delays in shear-wave splitting above small earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International 156: 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crampin, S., T. Volti, S. Chastin, A. Gudmundsson, and R. Stefánsson. 2002. Indication of high pore fluid pressures in a seismically-active fault zone. Geophysical Journal International 151: F1–F5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crampin, S., T. Volti, and R. Stefánsson. 1999. A successfully stress-forecast earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 138: F1–F5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2004a. Response to “A statistical evaluation of a ‘stress forecast’ earthquake” by T. Seher & I. G. Main. Geophysical Journal International 157: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crampin, S., and S.V. Zatsepin. 1997a. Changes of strain before earthquakes: the possibility of routine monitoring of both long-term and short-term precursors. Journal of Physics of the Earth 45: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 1997b. Modelling the compliance of crustal rock: II – response to temporal changes before earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International 129: 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gao, Y., and S. Crampin. 2004. Observations of stress relaxation before earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International 157: 578–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutenberg, B., and C.F. Richter. 1956. Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Annali di Geofisica 9: 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Hao, P., Y. Gao, and S. Crampin. 2008. An expert system for measuring shear-wave splitting above small earthquakes. Computeres & Geosciences 34: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hudson, J.A. 1981. Wave speeds and attenuation of elastic waves in material containing cracks. Geophysical Journal International 64: 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, Y., S. Crampin, and I. Main. 1997. Shear-wave anisotropy: spatial and temporal variations in time delays at Parkfield, Central California. Geophysical Journal International 130: 771–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roche, S.L., T.L. Davis, and R.D. Benson. 1997. 4-D, 3-C seismic study at vacuum field, New Mexico. In 66th Annual international SEG meeting, expanded abstracts, 886–889.Google Scholar
  31. Savage, M.K. 1999. Seismic anisotropy and mantle deformation: what have we learned from shear wave splitting? Reviews of Geophysics 37: 65–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silver, P.G. 1996. Seismic anisotropy beneath the continents: probing the depths of geology. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 24: 385–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Volti, T., and S. Crampin. 2003a. A four-year study of shear-wave splitting in Iceland: 1. Background and preliminary analysis. In New insights into structural interpretation and modelling, ed. D.A. Nieuwland, vol. 212, 117–133. London: Geological Society, Special Publications.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2003b. A four-year study of shear-wave splitting in Iceland: 2. Temporal changes before earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In New insights into structural interpretation and modelling, ed. D.A. Nieuwland, vol. 212, 135–149. London: Geological Society, Special Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Wu, J., S. Crampin, Y. Gao, P. Hao, and Y.-T. Chen. 2006. Smaller source earthquakes and improved measuring techniques allow the largest earthquakes in Iceland to be stress-forecast (with hindsight). Geophysical Journal International 166: 1293–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Crampin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gulten Polat
    • 1
  • Yuan Gao
    • 1
  • David B. Taylor
    • 1
  • Nurcan Meral Ozel
    • 1
  1. 1.British Geological SurveyThe Lyell CentreEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations