4.8 Article

The Parkfield tremors reveal slow and fast ruptures on the same asperity

期刊

NATURE
卷 532, 期 7599, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/nature17190

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation Singapore under its Singapore NRF Fellowship scheme [NRF-NRFF2013-04]
  2. Earth Observatory of Singapore
  3. National Research Foundation Singapore
  4. Singapore Ministry of Education under the Research Centres of Excellence initiative
  5. Directorate For Geosciences
  6. Division Of Earth Sciences [1261833] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The deep extension of the San Andreas Fault is believed to be creeping, but the recent observations of tectonic tremors from these depths indicate a complex deformation style1. In particular, an isolated tremor source near Parkfield has been producing a sequence of low-frequency earthquakes2 that indicates an uncommon mechanism of stress accumulation and release. The tremor pattern regularly oscillated between three and six days from mid-2003 until it was disrupted by the 2004 magnitude 6.0 Parkfield earthquake. After that event, the tremor source ruptured only about every three days, but over the next two years it gradually returned to its initial alternating recurrence pattern. The mechanism that drives this recurrence pattern is unknown. Here we use physics-based models to show that the same tremor asperity-the region from which the low-frequency earthquakes radiate-can regularly slip in slow and fast ruptures, naturally resulting in recurrence intervals alternating between three and six days. This unusual slip behaviour occurs when the tremor asperity size is close to the critical nucleation size of earthquakes. We also show that changes in pore pressure following the Parkfield earthquake can explain the sudden change and gradual recovery of the recurrence intervals. Our findings suggest a framework for fault deformation in which the same asperity can release tectonic stress through both slow and fast ruptures.

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

4.8
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