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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Geophysical research letters 2018-06, Vol.45 (11), p.5344-5351
Hauptverfasser: McGarr, A., Barbour, Andrew J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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 &amp; 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