Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic
The cumulative seismic moment is a robust measure of the earthquake response to fluid injection for injection volumes ranging from 3,100 to about 12 million m3. Over this range, the moment release is limited to twice the product of the shear modulus and the volume of injected fluid. This relation al...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Geophysical research letters 2018-06, Vol.45 (11), p.5344-5351 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 5351 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 5344 |
container_title | Geophysical research letters |
container_volume | 45 |
creator | McGarr, A. Barbour, Andrew J. |
description | The cumulative seismic moment is a robust measure of the earthquake response to fluid injection for injection volumes ranging from 3,100 to about 12 million m3. Over this range, the moment release is limited to twice the product of the shear modulus and the volume of injected fluid. This relation also applies at the much smaller injection volumes of the field experiment in France reported by Guglielmi et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0476) and laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing described by Goodfellow et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063093). In both of these studies, the relevant moment release for comparison with the fluid injection was aseismic and consistent with the scaling that applies to the much larger volumes associated with injection‐induced earthquakes with magnitudes extending up to 5.8. Neither the microearthquakes, at the site in France, nor the acoustic emission in the laboratory samples contributed significantly to the deformation due to fluid injection.
Plain Language Summary
Injection of fluid into the Earth's crust sometimes results in a sequence of earthquakes. The deformation associated with these earthquakes is proportional to the volume of injected fluid. This relationship between injected volume and induced earthquakes applies for volumes ranging from 3,100 m3 up to volumes exceeding 10 million m3, for induced earthquakes with magnitudes as high as 5.8. It turns out that this simple relationship is also useful at much smaller injected volumes. At a field experiment in southern France, injection of 0.95 m3 of water into a preexisting fault zone, cutting through a limestone terrain, caused a “slow earthquake” with a magnitude of 1.17. At a much smaller scale, laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing revealed that injection of approximately 1 ml of water into samples of granite resulted in slow sample expansion equivalent to the deformation of earthquakes with magnitudes of about minus 3.
Key Points
Crustal deformation in response to fluid injection can be seismic or aseismic
Cumulative moment release, a measure of deformation, varies linearly with injected volume
The range of linearity extends from volumes of 1 ml in the laboratory up to more than 10 million m3 for sequences of induced earthquakes |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2018GL078422 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2059127728</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2059127728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3672-31adeef9722103a1e33a6077ebed4b5adfc39184289c588f7aee230d40deb5ba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90M9KxDAQBvAgCtbVmw9Q8Gp1Mmmb5Lguui5UhEXPIW2m0NI_a9Mie_MRfEafxMp68ORp5vDjm-Fj7JLDDQfUtwhcrTOQKkY8YgHXcRwpAHnMAgA97yjTU3bmfQ0AAgQPmNx0NRVj1XdfH5-bzk0FufCpb6kbwy01ZD2FK9uFy8b34R2FS0-Vb6vinJ2UtvF08TsX7PXh_mX1GGXP681qmUVWpBIjwa0jKrVE5CAsJyFsClJSTi7OE-vKQmg-_6t0kShVSkuEAlwMjvIkt2LBrg65u6F_m8iPpu6noZtPGoREc5QS1ayuD6oYeu8HKs1uqFo77A0H81ON-VvNzPHA36uG9v9as95miUwAxTfxbGPV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2059127728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>McGarr, A. ; Barbour, Andrew J.</creator><creatorcontrib>McGarr, A. ; Barbour, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><description>The cumulative seismic moment is a robust measure of the earthquake response to fluid injection for injection volumes ranging from 3,100 to about 12 million m3. Over this range, the moment release is limited to twice the product of the shear modulus and the volume of injected fluid. This relation also applies at the much smaller injection volumes of the field experiment in France reported by Guglielmi et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0476) and laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing described by Goodfellow et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063093). In both of these studies, the relevant moment release for comparison with the fluid injection was aseismic and consistent with the scaling that applies to the much larger volumes associated with injection‐induced earthquakes with magnitudes extending up to 5.8. Neither the microearthquakes, at the site in France, nor the acoustic emission in the laboratory samples contributed significantly to the deformation due to fluid injection.
Plain Language Summary
Injection of fluid into the Earth's crust sometimes results in a sequence of earthquakes. The deformation associated with these earthquakes is proportional to the volume of injected fluid. This relationship between injected volume and induced earthquakes applies for volumes ranging from 3,100 m3 up to volumes exceeding 10 million m3, for induced earthquakes with magnitudes as high as 5.8. It turns out that this simple relationship is also useful at much smaller injected volumes. At a field experiment in southern France, injection of 0.95 m3 of water into a preexisting fault zone, cutting through a limestone terrain, caused a “slow earthquake” with a magnitude of 1.17. At a much smaller scale, laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing revealed that injection of approximately 1 ml of water into samples of granite resulted in slow sample expansion equivalent to the deformation of earthquakes with magnitudes of about minus 3.
Key Points
Crustal deformation in response to fluid injection can be seismic or aseismic
Cumulative moment release, a measure of deformation, varies linearly with injected volume
The range of linearity extends from volumes of 1 ml in the laboratory up to more than 10 million m3 for sequences of induced earthquakes</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-8276</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-8007</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2018GL078422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Acoustic emission ; Deformation ; Deformation mechanisms ; Earth ; Earth crust ; Earthquakes ; fault reactivation ; Fault zones ; Fluid injection ; Hydraulic fracturing ; induced earthquakes ; Injection ; Laboratories ; Laboratory experiments ; laboratory rock mechanics ; Limestone ; Microearthquakes ; moment release ; Scaling ; Seismic activity ; Seismic response ; Shear modulus</subject><ispartof>Geophysical research letters, 2018-06, Vol.45 (11), p.5344-5351</ispartof><rights>2018. The Authors.</rights><rights>2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3672-31adeef9722103a1e33a6077ebed4b5adfc39184289c588f7aee230d40deb5ba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3672-31adeef9722103a1e33a6077ebed4b5adfc39184289c588f7aee230d40deb5ba3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9769-4093 ; 0000-0002-6890-2452</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2018GL078422$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2018GL078422$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,11494,27903,27904,45553,45554,46388,46447,46812,46871</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGarr, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbour, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><title>Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic</title><title>Geophysical research letters</title><description>The cumulative seismic moment is a robust measure of the earthquake response to fluid injection for injection volumes ranging from 3,100 to about 12 million m3. Over this range, the moment release is limited to twice the product of the shear modulus and the volume of injected fluid. This relation also applies at the much smaller injection volumes of the field experiment in France reported by Guglielmi et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0476) and laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing described by Goodfellow et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063093). In both of these studies, the relevant moment release for comparison with the fluid injection was aseismic and consistent with the scaling that applies to the much larger volumes associated with injection‐induced earthquakes with magnitudes extending up to 5.8. Neither the microearthquakes, at the site in France, nor the acoustic emission in the laboratory samples contributed significantly to the deformation due to fluid injection.
Plain Language Summary
Injection of fluid into the Earth's crust sometimes results in a sequence of earthquakes. The deformation associated with these earthquakes is proportional to the volume of injected fluid. This relationship between injected volume and induced earthquakes applies for volumes ranging from 3,100 m3 up to volumes exceeding 10 million m3, for induced earthquakes with magnitudes as high as 5.8. It turns out that this simple relationship is also useful at much smaller injected volumes. At a field experiment in southern France, injection of 0.95 m3 of water into a preexisting fault zone, cutting through a limestone terrain, caused a “slow earthquake” with a magnitude of 1.17. At a much smaller scale, laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing revealed that injection of approximately 1 ml of water into samples of granite resulted in slow sample expansion equivalent to the deformation of earthquakes with magnitudes of about minus 3.
Key Points
Crustal deformation in response to fluid injection can be seismic or aseismic
Cumulative moment release, a measure of deformation, varies linearly with injected volume
The range of linearity extends from volumes of 1 ml in the laboratory up to more than 10 million m3 for sequences of induced earthquakes</description><subject>Acoustic emission</subject><subject>Deformation</subject><subject>Deformation mechanisms</subject><subject>Earth</subject><subject>Earth crust</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>fault reactivation</subject><subject>Fault zones</subject><subject>Fluid injection</subject><subject>Hydraulic fracturing</subject><subject>induced earthquakes</subject><subject>Injection</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Laboratory experiments</subject><subject>laboratory rock mechanics</subject><subject>Limestone</subject><subject>Microearthquakes</subject><subject>moment release</subject><subject>Scaling</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic response</subject><subject>Shear modulus</subject><issn>0094-8276</issn><issn>1944-8007</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp90M9KxDAQBvAgCtbVmw9Q8Gp1Mmmb5Lguui5UhEXPIW2m0NI_a9Mie_MRfEafxMp68ORp5vDjm-Fj7JLDDQfUtwhcrTOQKkY8YgHXcRwpAHnMAgA97yjTU3bmfQ0AAgQPmNx0NRVj1XdfH5-bzk0FufCpb6kbwy01ZD2FK9uFy8b34R2FS0-Vb6vinJ2UtvF08TsX7PXh_mX1GGXP681qmUVWpBIjwa0jKrVE5CAsJyFsClJSTi7OE-vKQmg-_6t0kShVSkuEAlwMjvIkt2LBrg65u6F_m8iPpu6noZtPGoREc5QS1ayuD6oYeu8HKs1uqFo77A0H81ON-VvNzPHA36uG9v9as95miUwAxTfxbGPV</recordid><startdate>20180616</startdate><enddate>20180616</enddate><creator>McGarr, A.</creator><creator>Barbour, Andrew J.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9769-4093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-2452</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180616</creationdate><title>Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic</title><author>McGarr, A. ; Barbour, Andrew J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3672-31adeef9722103a1e33a6077ebed4b5adfc39184289c588f7aee230d40deb5ba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Acoustic emission</topic><topic>Deformation</topic><topic>Deformation mechanisms</topic><topic>Earth</topic><topic>Earth crust</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>fault reactivation</topic><topic>Fault zones</topic><topic>Fluid injection</topic><topic>Hydraulic fracturing</topic><topic>induced earthquakes</topic><topic>Injection</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Laboratory experiments</topic><topic>laboratory rock mechanics</topic><topic>Limestone</topic><topic>Microearthquakes</topic><topic>moment release</topic><topic>Scaling</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic response</topic><topic>Shear modulus</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGarr, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbour, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Geophysical research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGarr, A.</au><au>Barbour, Andrew J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic</atitle><jtitle>Geophysical research letters</jtitle><date>2018-06-16</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>5344</spage><epage>5351</epage><pages>5344-5351</pages><issn>0094-8276</issn><eissn>1944-8007</eissn><abstract>The cumulative seismic moment is a robust measure of the earthquake response to fluid injection for injection volumes ranging from 3,100 to about 12 million m3. Over this range, the moment release is limited to twice the product of the shear modulus and the volume of injected fluid. This relation also applies at the much smaller injection volumes of the field experiment in France reported by Guglielmi et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0476) and laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing described by Goodfellow et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063093). In both of these studies, the relevant moment release for comparison with the fluid injection was aseismic and consistent with the scaling that applies to the much larger volumes associated with injection‐induced earthquakes with magnitudes extending up to 5.8. Neither the microearthquakes, at the site in France, nor the acoustic emission in the laboratory samples contributed significantly to the deformation due to fluid injection.
Plain Language Summary
Injection of fluid into the Earth's crust sometimes results in a sequence of earthquakes. The deformation associated with these earthquakes is proportional to the volume of injected fluid. This relationship between injected volume and induced earthquakes applies for volumes ranging from 3,100 m3 up to volumes exceeding 10 million m3, for induced earthquakes with magnitudes as high as 5.8. It turns out that this simple relationship is also useful at much smaller injected volumes. At a field experiment in southern France, injection of 0.95 m3 of water into a preexisting fault zone, cutting through a limestone terrain, caused a “slow earthquake” with a magnitude of 1.17. At a much smaller scale, laboratory experiments to simulate hydraulic fracturing revealed that injection of approximately 1 ml of water into samples of granite resulted in slow sample expansion equivalent to the deformation of earthquakes with magnitudes of about minus 3.
Key Points
Crustal deformation in response to fluid injection can be seismic or aseismic
Cumulative moment release, a measure of deformation, varies linearly with injected volume
The range of linearity extends from volumes of 1 ml in the laboratory up to more than 10 million m3 for sequences of induced earthquakes</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2018GL078422</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9769-4093</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-2452</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-8276 |
ispartof | Geophysical research letters, 2018-06, Vol.45 (11), p.5344-5351 |
issn | 0094-8276 1944-8007 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2059127728 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Free Content; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Acoustic emission Deformation Deformation mechanisms Earth Earth crust Earthquakes fault reactivation Fault zones Fluid injection Hydraulic fracturing induced earthquakes Injection Laboratories Laboratory experiments laboratory rock mechanics Limestone Microearthquakes moment release Scaling Seismic activity Seismic response Shear modulus |
title | Injection‐Induced Moment Release Can Also Be Aseismic |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T02%3A13%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Injection%E2%80%90Induced%20Moment%20Release%20Can%20Also%20Be%20Aseismic&rft.jtitle=Geophysical%20research%20letters&rft.au=McGarr,%20A.&rft.date=2018-06-16&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=5344&rft.epage=5351&rft.pages=5344-5351&rft.issn=0094-8276&rft.eissn=1944-8007&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2018GL078422&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2059127728%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2059127728&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |