4.7 Article

Fault on-off versus strain rate and earthquakes energy

期刊

GEOSCIENCE FRONTIERS
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 265-276

出版社

CHINA UNIV GEOSCIENCES, BEIJING
DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose that the brittle-ductile transition (BDT) controls the seismic cycle. In particular, the movements detected by space geodesy record the steady state deformation in the ductile lower crust, whereas the stick-slip behavior of the brittle upper crust is constrained by its larger friction. GPS data allow analyzing the strain rate along active plate boundaries. In all tectonic settings, we propose that earthquakes primarily occur along active fault segments characterized by relative minima of strain rate, segments which are locked or slowly creeping. We discuss regional examples where large earthquakes happened in areas of relative low strain rate. Regardless the tectonic style, the interseismic stress and strain pattern inverts during the coseismic stage. Where a dilated band formed during the interseismic stage, this will be shortened at the coseismic stage, and vice-versa what was previously shortened, it will be dilated. The interseismic energy accumulation and the coseismic expenditure rather depend on the tectonic setting (extensional, contractional, or strike-slip). The gravitational potential energy dominates along normal faults, whereas the elastic energy prevails for thrust earthquakes and performs work against the gravity force. The energy budget in strike-slip tectonic setting is also primarily due elastic energy. Therefore, precursors may be different as a function of the tectonic setting. In this model, with a given displacement, the magnitude of an earthquake results from the coseismic slip of the deformed volume above the BDT rather than only on the fault length, and it also depends on the fault kinematics. (c) 2015, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据