Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle
Seismic prediction was considered impossible, however, there are no reasons in theoretical physics that explicitly prevent this possibility. Therefore, it is quite likely that prediction is made stubbornly complicated by practical difficulties such as the quality of catalogs and data analysis. Earth...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/20/9596 |
| _version_ | 1797515377486331904 |
|---|---|
| author | Davide Zaccagnino Luciano Telesca Carlo Doglioni |
| author_facet | Davide Zaccagnino Luciano Telesca Carlo Doglioni |
| author_sort | Davide Zaccagnino |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Seismic prediction was considered impossible, however, there are no reasons in theoretical physics that explicitly prevent this possibility. Therefore, it is quite likely that prediction is made stubbornly complicated by practical difficulties such as the quality of catalogs and data analysis. Earthquakes are sometimes forewarned by precursors, and other times they come unexpectedly; moreover, since no unique mechanism for nucleation was proven to exist, it is unlikely that single classical precursors (e.g., increasing seismicity, geochemical anomalies, geoelectric potentials) may ever be effective in predicting impending earthquakes. For this reason, understanding the physics driving the evolution of fault systems is a crucial task to fine-tune seismic prediction methods and for the mitigation of seismic risk. In this work, an innovative idea is inspected to establish the proximity to the critical breaking point. It is based on the mechanical response of faults to tidal perturbations, which is observed to change during the “seismic cycle”. This technique allows to identify different seismic patterns marking the fingerprints of progressive crustal weakening. Destabilization seems to arise from two different possible mechanisms compatible with the so called <i>preslip patch</i>, <i>cascade</i> models and with seismic quiescence. The first is featured by a decreasing susceptibility to stress perturbation, anomalous geodetic deformation, and seismic activity, while on the other hand, the second shows seismic quiescence and increasing responsiveness. The novelty of this article consists in highlighting not only the variations in responsiveness of faults to stress while reaching the critical point, but also how seismic occurrence changes over time as a function of instability. Temporal swings of correlation between tides and nucleated seismic energy reveal a complex mechanism for modulation of energy dissipation driven by stress variations, above all in the upper brittle crust. Some case studies taken from recent Greek seismicity are investigated. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:44:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bb8f901c6df742c1971217034b93e6c3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3417 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:44:38Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-bb8f901c6df742c1971217034b93e6c32023-11-22T17:21:13ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172021-10-011120959610.3390/app11209596Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic CycleDavide Zaccagnino0Luciano Telesca1Carlo Doglioni2Department of Physics, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, ItalyIstituto di Metodologie per l’ Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), 85050 Tito Scalo, ItalyDepartment of Earth Science, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, ItalySeismic prediction was considered impossible, however, there are no reasons in theoretical physics that explicitly prevent this possibility. Therefore, it is quite likely that prediction is made stubbornly complicated by practical difficulties such as the quality of catalogs and data analysis. Earthquakes are sometimes forewarned by precursors, and other times they come unexpectedly; moreover, since no unique mechanism for nucleation was proven to exist, it is unlikely that single classical precursors (e.g., increasing seismicity, geochemical anomalies, geoelectric potentials) may ever be effective in predicting impending earthquakes. For this reason, understanding the physics driving the evolution of fault systems is a crucial task to fine-tune seismic prediction methods and for the mitigation of seismic risk. In this work, an innovative idea is inspected to establish the proximity to the critical breaking point. It is based on the mechanical response of faults to tidal perturbations, which is observed to change during the “seismic cycle”. This technique allows to identify different seismic patterns marking the fingerprints of progressive crustal weakening. Destabilization seems to arise from two different possible mechanisms compatible with the so called <i>preslip patch</i>, <i>cascade</i> models and with seismic quiescence. The first is featured by a decreasing susceptibility to stress perturbation, anomalous geodetic deformation, and seismic activity, while on the other hand, the second shows seismic quiescence and increasing responsiveness. The novelty of this article consists in highlighting not only the variations in responsiveness of faults to stress while reaching the critical point, but also how seismic occurrence changes over time as a function of instability. Temporal swings of correlation between tides and nucleated seismic energy reveal a complex mechanism for modulation of energy dissipation driven by stress variations, above all in the upper brittle crust. Some case studies taken from recent Greek seismicity are investigated.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/20/9596tidal triggering of earthquakesseismic cyclecoulomb failure stresspreparatory phaseseismic prediction |
| spellingShingle | Davide Zaccagnino Luciano Telesca Carlo Doglioni Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle Applied Sciences tidal triggering of earthquakes seismic cycle coulomb failure stress preparatory phase seismic prediction |
| title | Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle |
| title_full | Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle |
| title_fullStr | Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle |
| title_full_unstemmed | Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle |
| title_short | Different Fault Response to Stress during the Seismic Cycle |
| title_sort | different fault response to stress during the seismic cycle |
| topic | tidal triggering of earthquakes seismic cycle coulomb failure stress preparatory phase seismic prediction |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/20/9596 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT davidezaccagnino differentfaultresponsetostressduringtheseismiccycle AT lucianotelesca differentfaultresponsetostressduringtheseismiccycle AT carlodoglioni differentfaultresponsetostressduringtheseismiccycle |