Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress
Understanding the temporal evolution of foreshocks and their relation to earthquake nucleation is important for earthquake early warning systems, earthquake hazard assessment, and earthquake physics. Laboratory experiments on intact rock and rough fractures have demonstrated that the number and size...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth 2021-11, Vol.126 (11), p.e2021JB022175-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e2021JB022175 |
container_title | Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth |
container_volume | 126 |
creator | Bolton, David C. Shreedharan, Srisharan Rivière, Jacques Marone, Chris |
description | Understanding the temporal evolution of foreshocks and their relation to earthquake nucleation is important for earthquake early warning systems, earthquake hazard assessment, and earthquake physics. Laboratory experiments on intact rock and rough fractures have demonstrated that the number and size of acoustic emission (AE) events increase and that the Gutenberg‐Richter b‐value decreases prior to coseismic failure. However, for lab fault zones of finite width, where shear occurs within gouge, the physical processes that dictate temporal variations in frequency‐magnitude (F/M) statistics of lab foreshocks are unclear. Here, we report on a series of laboratory experiments to illuminate the physical processes that govern temporal variations in b‐value and AE size. We record AE data continuously for hundreds of lab seismic cycles and report F/M statistics. Our foreshock catalogs include cases where F/M data are not exponentially distributed, but we retain the concept of b‐value for comparison with other works. We find that b‐value decreases as the fault approaches failure, consistent with previous works. We also find that b‐value scales inversely with shear velocity and fault slip rate, suggesting that fault slip acceleration during earthquake nucleation could impact foreshock F/M statistics. We propose that fault zone dilation and grain mobilization have a strong influence on foreshock magnitude. Fault dilation at higher shearing rates increases porosity and results in larger foreshocks and smaller b‐values. Our observations suggest that lab earthquakes are preceded by a preparatory nucleation phase with systematic variations in AE and fault zone properties.
Plain Language Summary
Understanding the nucleation phase of earthquakes is key for advancing earthquake hazard assessment and improving earthquake early warning systems. However, little progress has been made in this area due to a poor understanding of nucleation processes and incomplete seismic and fault zone measurements. The ability to integrate measured fault zone properties with seismic data could significantly improve our understanding of how earthquakes begin and whether there are systematic variations in seismic properties preceding failure. In this work, we use high‐resolution laboratory measurements of fault zone properties along with acoustic emission data to document temporal variations of foreshock properties. Our data show that foreshock size increases with shear stress, loading rate, and |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2021JB022175 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9286047</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2693769775</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5067-70c07e803d999d9630e73fa4fee3abff311a27606c84eddeea414c9c9e117dc23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1vEzEQhlcIRKvSG2dkwYVDAv5Y2-sLEq1IoQpCaqAcLcc723XZ2MH2tsqNn8Bv5JfgKiEqHPDFX8-8M_NOVT0l-BXBVL2mmJLzE0wpkfxBdUiJUFPFuHi4PxN2UB2ndI3LasoTqR9XB4w3ghPcHFbjLML3Ebzd_Prx86O58i6PLaBFNtml7GxCoUNzswzR5BA3aBYipD7YbwldmnL_6nKPFj2YiC5hCNblzQTNzDhktBjcGl2YDBNkfLuDFrnEpyfVo84MCY53-1H1Zfbu8-n76fzT2YfTt_Op4VjIqcQWS2gwa5VSrRIMg2SdqTsAZpZdxwgxVAosbFND2wKYmtRWWQWEyNZSdlS92equx-UKWgs-RzPodXSrUrwOxum_f7zr9VW40Yo2AteyCDzfCoRihk6lPbC9Dd6DzZo0jGB-l-XlLksMxcuU9colC8NgPIQxaSoUk0JJyQv64h_0OozRFw8KhQmTTElSqMmWsjGkFKHbV0ywvpu7vj_3gj-73-Ue_jPlArAtcOsG2PxXTJ-fXZxwThvJfgOWpLgm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2601373971</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Bolton, David C. ; Shreedharan, Srisharan ; Rivière, Jacques ; Marone, Chris</creator><creatorcontrib>Bolton, David C. ; Shreedharan, Srisharan ; Rivière, Jacques ; Marone, Chris ; Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding the temporal evolution of foreshocks and their relation to earthquake nucleation is important for earthquake early warning systems, earthquake hazard assessment, and earthquake physics. Laboratory experiments on intact rock and rough fractures have demonstrated that the number and size of acoustic emission (AE) events increase and that the Gutenberg‐Richter b‐value decreases prior to coseismic failure. However, for lab fault zones of finite width, where shear occurs within gouge, the physical processes that dictate temporal variations in frequency‐magnitude (F/M) statistics of lab foreshocks are unclear. Here, we report on a series of laboratory experiments to illuminate the physical processes that govern temporal variations in b‐value and AE size. We record AE data continuously for hundreds of lab seismic cycles and report F/M statistics. Our foreshock catalogs include cases where F/M data are not exponentially distributed, but we retain the concept of b‐value for comparison with other works. We find that b‐value decreases as the fault approaches failure, consistent with previous works. We also find that b‐value scales inversely with shear velocity and fault slip rate, suggesting that fault slip acceleration during earthquake nucleation could impact foreshock F/M statistics. We propose that fault zone dilation and grain mobilization have a strong influence on foreshock magnitude. Fault dilation at higher shearing rates increases porosity and results in larger foreshocks and smaller b‐values. Our observations suggest that lab earthquakes are preceded by a preparatory nucleation phase with systematic variations in AE and fault zone properties.
Plain Language Summary
Understanding the nucleation phase of earthquakes is key for advancing earthquake hazard assessment and improving earthquake early warning systems. However, little progress has been made in this area due to a poor understanding of nucleation processes and incomplete seismic and fault zone measurements. The ability to integrate measured fault zone properties with seismic data could significantly improve our understanding of how earthquakes begin and whether there are systematic variations in seismic properties preceding failure. In this work, we use high‐resolution laboratory measurements of fault zone properties along with acoustic emission data to document temporal variations of foreshock properties. Our data show that foreshock size increases with shear stress, loading rate, and fault slip rate. We propose that the preseismic fault slip rate and fault zone thickness (i.e., porosity) work in concert to modulate foreshock properties.
Key Points
Preseismic acoustic emissions represent foreshocks to lab earthquakes and evolve systematically during the lab seismic cycle
b‐value of lab foreshocks decreases with shear velocity, fault slip rate, and shear stress
Fault zone porosity and grain mobilization act in concert to produce larger foreshocks at higher shearing rates and fault slip rates</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9356</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2021JB022175</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35865108</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Acceleration ; Acoustic emission ; Acoustic emission testing ; Acoustic Properties ; Continental Crust ; Dilation ; Early warning systems ; Earthquake Dynamics ; Earthquake Interaction, Forecasting, and Prediction ; Earthquake Source Observations ; Earthquakes ; Emergency communications systems ; Estimation and Forecasting ; Exploration Geophysics ; Failure ; Fault lines ; Fault zones ; Forecasting ; Fractures ; Geodesy and Gravity ; Geological faults ; Geological hazards ; Geophysics ; GEOSCIENCES ; GEOTHERMAL ENERGY ; Gravity anomalies and Earth structure ; Gravity Methods ; Hazard assessment ; History of Geophysics ; Hydrology ; Informatics ; Interferometry ; Ionosphere ; Ionospheric Physics ; Laboratories ; Laboratory experiments ; Load distribution ; Loading rate ; Magnetospheric Physics ; Mathematical Geophysics ; Monitoring, Forecasting, Prediction ; Natural Hazards ; Nucleation ; Nucleation processes ; Ocean Predictability and Prediction ; Oceanography: General ; Physical Properties of Rocks ; Physics ; Planetology ; Policy ; Policy Sciences ; Porosity ; Precursors ; Prediction ; Probabilistic Forecasting ; Properties ; Radio Science ; Satellite Geodesy: Results ; Seismic activity ; Seismic Cycle Related Deformations ; Seismic data ; Seismic hazard ; Seismic properties ; Seismicity and Tectonics ; Seismological data ; Seismology ; Shear stress ; Shearing ; Slip ; Space Weather ; Statistical methods ; Statistics ; Subduction Zones ; Tectonic Deformation ; Tectonophysics ; Temporal variations ; Time Variable Gravity ; Transient Deformation ; Velocity ; Warning systems</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth, 2021-11, Vol.126 (11), p.e2021JB022175-n/a</ispartof><rights>2021. The Authors.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5067-70c07e803d999d9630e73fa4fee3abff311a27606c84eddeea414c9c9e117dc23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5067-70c07e803d999d9630e73fa4fee3abff311a27606c84eddeea414c9c9e117dc23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4515-4500 ; 0000-0003-2428-1743 ; 0000-0001-7052-2259 ; 0000-0002-5825-8739 ; 0000000245154500 ; 0000000258258739 ; 0000000324281743 ; 0000000170522259</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%2F2021JB022175$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2021JB022175$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,1412,1428,27905,27906,45555,45556,46390,46814</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35865108$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1831052$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bolton, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shreedharan, Srisharan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivière, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marone, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</title><addtitle>J Geophys Res Solid Earth</addtitle><description>Understanding the temporal evolution of foreshocks and their relation to earthquake nucleation is important for earthquake early warning systems, earthquake hazard assessment, and earthquake physics. Laboratory experiments on intact rock and rough fractures have demonstrated that the number and size of acoustic emission (AE) events increase and that the Gutenberg‐Richter b‐value decreases prior to coseismic failure. However, for lab fault zones of finite width, where shear occurs within gouge, the physical processes that dictate temporal variations in frequency‐magnitude (F/M) statistics of lab foreshocks are unclear. Here, we report on a series of laboratory experiments to illuminate the physical processes that govern temporal variations in b‐value and AE size. We record AE data continuously for hundreds of lab seismic cycles and report F/M statistics. Our foreshock catalogs include cases where F/M data are not exponentially distributed, but we retain the concept of b‐value for comparison with other works. We find that b‐value decreases as the fault approaches failure, consistent with previous works. We also find that b‐value scales inversely with shear velocity and fault slip rate, suggesting that fault slip acceleration during earthquake nucleation could impact foreshock F/M statistics. We propose that fault zone dilation and grain mobilization have a strong influence on foreshock magnitude. Fault dilation at higher shearing rates increases porosity and results in larger foreshocks and smaller b‐values. Our observations suggest that lab earthquakes are preceded by a preparatory nucleation phase with systematic variations in AE and fault zone properties.
Plain Language Summary
Understanding the nucleation phase of earthquakes is key for advancing earthquake hazard assessment and improving earthquake early warning systems. However, little progress has been made in this area due to a poor understanding of nucleation processes and incomplete seismic and fault zone measurements. The ability to integrate measured fault zone properties with seismic data could significantly improve our understanding of how earthquakes begin and whether there are systematic variations in seismic properties preceding failure. In this work, we use high‐resolution laboratory measurements of fault zone properties along with acoustic emission data to document temporal variations of foreshock properties. Our data show that foreshock size increases with shear stress, loading rate, and fault slip rate. We propose that the preseismic fault slip rate and fault zone thickness (i.e., porosity) work in concert to modulate foreshock properties.
Key Points
Preseismic acoustic emissions represent foreshocks to lab earthquakes and evolve systematically during the lab seismic cycle
b‐value of lab foreshocks decreases with shear velocity, fault slip rate, and shear stress
Fault zone porosity and grain mobilization act in concert to produce larger foreshocks at higher shearing rates and fault slip rates</description><subject>Acceleration</subject><subject>Acoustic emission</subject><subject>Acoustic emission testing</subject><subject>Acoustic Properties</subject><subject>Continental Crust</subject><subject>Dilation</subject><subject>Early warning systems</subject><subject>Earthquake Dynamics</subject><subject>Earthquake Interaction, Forecasting, and Prediction</subject><subject>Earthquake Source Observations</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>Emergency communications systems</subject><subject>Estimation and Forecasting</subject><subject>Exploration Geophysics</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Fault lines</subject><subject>Fault zones</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Geodesy and Gravity</subject><subject>Geological faults</subject><subject>Geological hazards</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>GEOSCIENCES</subject><subject>GEOTHERMAL ENERGY</subject><subject>Gravity anomalies and Earth structure</subject><subject>Gravity Methods</subject><subject>Hazard assessment</subject><subject>History of Geophysics</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Informatics</subject><subject>Interferometry</subject><subject>Ionosphere</subject><subject>Ionospheric Physics</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Laboratory experiments</subject><subject>Load distribution</subject><subject>Loading rate</subject><subject>Magnetospheric Physics</subject><subject>Mathematical Geophysics</subject><subject>Monitoring, Forecasting, Prediction</subject><subject>Natural Hazards</subject><subject>Nucleation</subject><subject>Nucleation processes</subject><subject>Ocean Predictability and Prediction</subject><subject>Oceanography: General</subject><subject>Physical Properties of Rocks</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Planetology</subject><subject>Policy</subject><subject>Policy Sciences</subject><subject>Porosity</subject><subject>Precursors</subject><subject>Prediction</subject><subject>Probabilistic Forecasting</subject><subject>Properties</subject><subject>Radio Science</subject><subject>Satellite Geodesy: Results</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic Cycle Related Deformations</subject><subject>Seismic data</subject><subject>Seismic hazard</subject><subject>Seismic properties</subject><subject>Seismicity and Tectonics</subject><subject>Seismological data</subject><subject>Seismology</subject><subject>Shear stress</subject><subject>Shearing</subject><subject>Slip</subject><subject>Space Weather</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Subduction Zones</subject><subject>Tectonic Deformation</subject><subject>Tectonophysics</subject><subject>Temporal variations</subject><subject>Time Variable Gravity</subject><subject>Transient Deformation</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><subject>Warning systems</subject><issn>2169-9313</issn><issn>2169-9356</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1vEzEQhlcIRKvSG2dkwYVDAv5Y2-sLEq1IoQpCaqAcLcc723XZ2MH2tsqNn8Bv5JfgKiEqHPDFX8-8M_NOVT0l-BXBVL2mmJLzE0wpkfxBdUiJUFPFuHi4PxN2UB2ndI3LasoTqR9XB4w3ghPcHFbjLML3Ebzd_Prx86O58i6PLaBFNtml7GxCoUNzswzR5BA3aBYipD7YbwldmnL_6nKPFj2YiC5hCNblzQTNzDhktBjcGl2YDBNkfLuDFrnEpyfVo84MCY53-1H1Zfbu8-n76fzT2YfTt_Op4VjIqcQWS2gwa5VSrRIMg2SdqTsAZpZdxwgxVAosbFND2wKYmtRWWQWEyNZSdlS92equx-UKWgs-RzPodXSrUrwOxum_f7zr9VW40Yo2AteyCDzfCoRihk6lPbC9Dd6DzZo0jGB-l-XlLksMxcuU9colC8NgPIQxaSoUk0JJyQv64h_0OozRFw8KhQmTTElSqMmWsjGkFKHbV0ywvpu7vj_3gj-73-Ue_jPlArAtcOsG2PxXTJ-fXZxwThvJfgOWpLgm</recordid><startdate>202111</startdate><enddate>202111</enddate><creator>Bolton, David C.</creator><creator>Shreedharan, Srisharan</creator><creator>Rivière, Jacques</creator><creator>Marone, Chris</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</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><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OIOZB</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-4500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2428-1743</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7052-2259</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5825-8739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000245154500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000258258739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000324281743</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000170522259</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202111</creationdate><title>Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress</title><author>Bolton, David C. ; Shreedharan, Srisharan ; Rivière, Jacques ; Marone, Chris</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a5067-70c07e803d999d9630e73fa4fee3abff311a27606c84eddeea414c9c9e117dc23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Acceleration</topic><topic>Acoustic emission</topic><topic>Acoustic emission testing</topic><topic>Acoustic Properties</topic><topic>Continental Crust</topic><topic>Dilation</topic><topic>Early warning systems</topic><topic>Earthquake Dynamics</topic><topic>Earthquake Interaction, Forecasting, and Prediction</topic><topic>Earthquake Source Observations</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>Emergency communications systems</topic><topic>Estimation and Forecasting</topic><topic>Exploration Geophysics</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Fault lines</topic><topic>Fault zones</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Geodesy and Gravity</topic><topic>Geological faults</topic><topic>Geological hazards</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>GEOSCIENCES</topic><topic>GEOTHERMAL ENERGY</topic><topic>Gravity anomalies and Earth structure</topic><topic>Gravity Methods</topic><topic>Hazard assessment</topic><topic>History of Geophysics</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Informatics</topic><topic>Interferometry</topic><topic>Ionosphere</topic><topic>Ionospheric Physics</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Laboratory experiments</topic><topic>Load distribution</topic><topic>Loading rate</topic><topic>Magnetospheric Physics</topic><topic>Mathematical Geophysics</topic><topic>Monitoring, Forecasting, Prediction</topic><topic>Natural Hazards</topic><topic>Nucleation</topic><topic>Nucleation processes</topic><topic>Ocean Predictability and Prediction</topic><topic>Oceanography: General</topic><topic>Physical Properties of Rocks</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Planetology</topic><topic>Policy</topic><topic>Policy Sciences</topic><topic>Porosity</topic><topic>Precursors</topic><topic>Prediction</topic><topic>Probabilistic Forecasting</topic><topic>Properties</topic><topic>Radio Science</topic><topic>Satellite Geodesy: Results</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic Cycle Related Deformations</topic><topic>Seismic data</topic><topic>Seismic hazard</topic><topic>Seismic properties</topic><topic>Seismicity and Tectonics</topic><topic>Seismological data</topic><topic>Seismology</topic><topic>Shear stress</topic><topic>Shearing</topic><topic>Slip</topic><topic>Space Weather</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Subduction Zones</topic><topic>Tectonic Deformation</topic><topic>Tectonophysics</topic><topic>Temporal variations</topic><topic>Time Variable Gravity</topic><topic>Transient Deformation</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><topic>Warning systems</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bolton, David C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shreedharan, Srisharan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivière, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marone, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</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><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV - Hybrid</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bolton, David C.</au><au>Shreedharan, Srisharan</au><au>Rivière, Jacques</au><au>Marone, Chris</au><aucorp>Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</jtitle><addtitle>J Geophys Res Solid Earth</addtitle><date>2021-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e2021JB022175</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e2021JB022175-n/a</pages><issn>2169-9313</issn><eissn>2169-9356</eissn><abstract>Understanding the temporal evolution of foreshocks and their relation to earthquake nucleation is important for earthquake early warning systems, earthquake hazard assessment, and earthquake physics. Laboratory experiments on intact rock and rough fractures have demonstrated that the number and size of acoustic emission (AE) events increase and that the Gutenberg‐Richter b‐value decreases prior to coseismic failure. However, for lab fault zones of finite width, where shear occurs within gouge, the physical processes that dictate temporal variations in frequency‐magnitude (F/M) statistics of lab foreshocks are unclear. Here, we report on a series of laboratory experiments to illuminate the physical processes that govern temporal variations in b‐value and AE size. We record AE data continuously for hundreds of lab seismic cycles and report F/M statistics. Our foreshock catalogs include cases where F/M data are not exponentially distributed, but we retain the concept of b‐value for comparison with other works. We find that b‐value decreases as the fault approaches failure, consistent with previous works. We also find that b‐value scales inversely with shear velocity and fault slip rate, suggesting that fault slip acceleration during earthquake nucleation could impact foreshock F/M statistics. We propose that fault zone dilation and grain mobilization have a strong influence on foreshock magnitude. Fault dilation at higher shearing rates increases porosity and results in larger foreshocks and smaller b‐values. Our observations suggest that lab earthquakes are preceded by a preparatory nucleation phase with systematic variations in AE and fault zone properties.
Plain Language Summary
Understanding the nucleation phase of earthquakes is key for advancing earthquake hazard assessment and improving earthquake early warning systems. However, little progress has been made in this area due to a poor understanding of nucleation processes and incomplete seismic and fault zone measurements. The ability to integrate measured fault zone properties with seismic data could significantly improve our understanding of how earthquakes begin and whether there are systematic variations in seismic properties preceding failure. In this work, we use high‐resolution laboratory measurements of fault zone properties along with acoustic emission data to document temporal variations of foreshock properties. Our data show that foreshock size increases with shear stress, loading rate, and fault slip rate. We propose that the preseismic fault slip rate and fault zone thickness (i.e., porosity) work in concert to modulate foreshock properties.
Key Points
Preseismic acoustic emissions represent foreshocks to lab earthquakes and evolve systematically during the lab seismic cycle
b‐value of lab foreshocks decreases with shear velocity, fault slip rate, and shear stress
Fault zone porosity and grain mobilization act in concert to produce larger foreshocks at higher shearing rates and fault slip rates</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>35865108</pmid><doi>10.1029/2021JB022175</doi><tpages>0</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-4500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2428-1743</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7052-2259</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5825-8739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000245154500</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000258258739</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000324281743</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000170522259</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2169-9313 |
ispartof | Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth, 2021-11, Vol.126 (11), p.e2021JB022175-n/a |
issn | 2169-9313 2169-9356 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9286047 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Free Content |
subjects | Acceleration Acoustic emission Acoustic emission testing Acoustic Properties Continental Crust Dilation Early warning systems Earthquake Dynamics Earthquake Interaction, Forecasting, and Prediction Earthquake Source Observations Earthquakes Emergency communications systems Estimation and Forecasting Exploration Geophysics Failure Fault lines Fault zones Forecasting Fractures Geodesy and Gravity Geological faults Geological hazards Geophysics GEOSCIENCES GEOTHERMAL ENERGY Gravity anomalies and Earth structure Gravity Methods Hazard assessment History of Geophysics Hydrology Informatics Interferometry Ionosphere Ionospheric Physics Laboratories Laboratory experiments Load distribution Loading rate Magnetospheric Physics Mathematical Geophysics Monitoring, Forecasting, Prediction Natural Hazards Nucleation Nucleation processes Ocean Predictability and Prediction Oceanography: General Physical Properties of Rocks Physics Planetology Policy Policy Sciences Porosity Precursors Prediction Probabilistic Forecasting Properties Radio Science Satellite Geodesy: Results Seismic activity Seismic Cycle Related Deformations Seismic data Seismic hazard Seismic properties Seismicity and Tectonics Seismological data Seismology Shear stress Shearing Slip Space Weather Statistical methods Statistics Subduction Zones Tectonic Deformation Tectonophysics Temporal variations Time Variable Gravity Transient Deformation Velocity Warning systems |
title | Frequency‐Magnitude Statistics of Laboratory Foreshocks Vary With Shear Velocity, Fault Slip Rate, and Shear Stress |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T04%3A50%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Frequency%E2%80%90Magnitude%20Statistics%20of%20Laboratory%20Foreshocks%20Vary%20With%20Shear%20Velocity,%20Fault%20Slip%20Rate,%20and%20Shear%20Stress&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Solid%20earth&rft.au=Bolton,%20David%20C.&rft.aucorp=Pennsylvania%20State%20Univ.,%20University%20Park,%20PA%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2021-11&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e2021JB022175&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e2021JB022175-n/a&rft.issn=2169-9313&rft.eissn=2169-9356&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2021JB022175&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2693769775%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2601373971&rft_id=info:pmid/35865108&rfr_iscdi=true |