| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Article |
1 Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences and Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences
224 Pierce Hall, 29
Oxford Street
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138
rice{at}esag.harvard.edu
(J.R.R.)
2 Department of Earth
Sciences
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
90089-0740
sammis{at}usc.edu
(C.G.S.)
3 Division of Engineering and Applied
Sciences
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138
rparsons{at}post.harvard.edu
(R.P.)
* Present address: Axiam, Inc., 1 Blackburn Center, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930.
We develop a 2D slip-weakening description of a self-healing slip pulse that
propagates dynamically in a steady-state configuration. The model is used to
estimate patterns of off-fault secondary failure induced by the rupture, and
also to infer fracture energies G for large earthquakes. This extends
an analysis for a semi-infinite rupture
(Poliakov et al.,
2002) to the case of a finite slipping zone length L of the
pulse. The dynamic stress drop, when divided by the drop from peak to residual
strength, determines the ratio of L to the slip-weakening zone length
R. Predicted off-fault damage is controlled by that scaled stress drop,
static and dynamic friction coefficients, rupture velocity, principal prestress
orientation, and poroelastic Skempton coefficient. All damage zone lengths can
be scaled by 
, which
is proportional G/(strength drop)2 and is the value of
R in the low-rupture-velocity, low-stress-drop, limit. In contrast to
the Poliakov et
al. (2002) case R/L = 0, the region
that supports Coulomb failure reaches a maximum size on the order of
when mode II
rupture speed approaches the Rayleigh speed. Analysis of slip pulses documented
by Heaton
(1990) leads to estimates of G, each with a factor-of-two
model uncertainty, from 0.1 to 9 MJ/m2 (including the factor),
averaging 2–4 MJ/m2; G tends to increase with the
amount of slip in the event. In most cases, secondary faulting should extend, at
high rupture speeds, to distances from the principal fault surface on the order
of 1 to 2 
1–80 m for a 100-MPa strength drop; that distance should vary with depth,
being larger near the surface. We also discuss gouge and damage processes.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Olsen-Kettle, H. Muhlhaus, and C. Baillard A study of localization limiters and mesh dependency in earthquake rupture Phil Trans R Soc A, January 13, 2010; 368(1910): 119 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Knopoff and Y.-T. Chen Single-Couple Component of Far-Field Radiation from Dynamical Fractures Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, May 1, 2009; 99(2B): 1091 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Dalguer, H. Miyake, S. M. Day, and K. Irikura Surface Rupturing and Buried Dynamic-Rupture Models Calibrated with Statistical Observations of Past Earthquakes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 2008; 98(3): 1147 - 1161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Klinger, X. Xu, P. Tapponnier, J. Van der Woerd, C. Lasserre, and G. King High-Resolution Satellite Imagery Mapping of the Surface Rupture and Slip Distribution of the Mw ~7.8, 14 November 2001 Kokoxili Earthquake, Kunlun Fault, Northern Tibet, China Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2005; 95(5): 1970 - 1987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
