Earthquake supercycle in subduction zones controlled by the width of the seismogenic zone

Journal name:
Nature Geoscience
Volume:
8,
Pages:
471–474
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/ngeo2427
Received
Accepted
Published online

A supercycle describes a long-term cluster of differently-sized megathrust earthquakes, leading up to the final complete failure of a subduction zone segment1, 2. The precise controls on supercycles are unclear, although structural and frictional heterogeneities are proposed1. We recognize that supercycles are suggested to occur in those regions1, 2, 3, 4 where the estimated downdip width of the seismogenic zone5, 6, 7 is larger than average. Here we investigate the link between supercycles and the seismogenic zone downdip width using a two-dimensional numerical model8. In our simulations, the first megathrust earthquakes in a supercycle generally rupture only the outermost parts of the seismogenic zone. These partial ruptures are stopped owing to a large excess of strength over stress, and transfer stresses towards the centre of the seismogenic zone. In addition to the continued tectonic loading, they thereby gradually reduce the strength excess so that the largest megathrust events finally rupture the entire seismogenic zone and release most of the accumulated stress. A greater width increases the average strength excess and thus favours supercycles over ordinary cycles of only similarly sized complete ruptures. Our results imply that larger than thus far observed earthquakes could conclude a supercycle where seismogenic zone widths are larger than average.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Downdip width of seismogenic zones and proposed supercycles.
    Figure 1: Downdip width of seismogenic zones and proposed supercycles.

    Downdip seismogenic zone width values averaged over estimates from refs 5, 6, 7 (Supplementary Table 1). The mean value of all estimates (111 km) is indicated. Dotted lines indicate those subduction zones where only one estimate is used. Subduction zones for which supercycles have been proposed are shown with black circles (for references see main text).

  2. Long-term and short-term characteristics of wide (LW) and narrow (SW) downdip width reference models.
    Figure 2: Long-term and short-term characteristics of wide (LW) and narrow (SW) downdip width reference models.

    ac, Functions and parameters, averaged over the downdip width of the respective seismogenic zone (Methods). Detrended, cumulative sum of displacements over time (a), evolution of strength excess (b) and S parameter (c). Colours of each event in c indicate the rupture style in model LW. Examples of each rupture style during one supercycle are shown in Fig. 3a–c, as indicated. Shown results are upscaled and events are selected according to a picking algorithm (Supplementary Methods).

  3. Rupture styles in wide downdip width reference model (LW).
    Figure 3: Rupture styles in wide downdip width reference model (LW).

    ac, Subcritical rupture (a), pulse-like rupture (b) and crack-like rupture (c) during one supercycle in model LW (Fig. 2c). Along interface profiles of initial second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor and strength (left column), final second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor and strength (central column) and spatiotemporal evolution of horizontal displacement velocity (right column). Shown results are upscaled (Supplementary Methods).

  4. Impact of the downdip seismogenic zone width and depth.
    Figure 4: Impact of the downdip seismogenic zone width and depth.

    a,b, Average number of events per supercycle (a) and median of the S parameter (b; see Supplementary Methods), indicating the dominance of different rupture styles. Dashed lines indicate the transition from ordinary cycles to supercycles (a) as well as from the dominance of crack-like to pulse-like and subcritical ruptures (b).

References

  1. Sieh, K. et al. Earthquake supercycles inferred from sea-level changes recorded in the corals of West Sumatra. Science 322, 16741678 (2008).
  2. Goldfinger, C., Ikeda, Y., Yeats, R. S. & Ren, J. Superquakes and supercycles. Seismol. Res. Lett. 84, 2432 (2013).
  3. Metois, M. et al. GPS-derived interseismic coupling on the subduction and seismic hazards in the Atacama region, Chile. Geophys. J. Int. 196, 644655 (2014).
  4. Chlieh, M. et al. Distribution of discrete seismic asperities and aseismic slip along the Ecuadorian megathrust. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 400, 292301 (2014).
  5. Heuret, A., Lallemand, S., Funiciello, F., Piromallo, C. & Faccenna, C. Physical characteristics of subduction interface type seismogenic zones revisited. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 12, Q01004 (2011).
  6. Hayes, G. P., Wald, D. J. & Johnson, R. L. Slab1.0: A three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B01302 (2012).
  7. Hayes, G. P., McNamara, D. E., L.Seidman, L. & Roger, J. Quantifying potential earthquake and tsunami hazard in the Lesser Antilles subduction zone of the Caribbean region. Geophys. J. Int. 196, 510521 (2013).
  8. van Dinther, Y. et al. The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: 2. Dynamic implications of geodynamic simulations validated with laboratory models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 15021525 (2013).
  9. Ando, M. Source mechanisms and tectonic significance of historical earthquakes along the Nankai trough, Japan. Tectonophysics 27, 119140 (1975).
  10. Kanamori, H. & McNally, K. C. Variable rupture mode of the subduction zone along the Ecuador–Colombia coast. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, 12411253 (1982).
  11. Thatcher, W. Order and diversity in the modes of circum-Pacific earthquake recurrence. Geophys. Res. 95, 26092623 (1990).
  12. Cisternas, M. et al. Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake. Nature 437, 404407 (2005).
  13. Hyndman, R. D. The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults 1540 (Columbia Univ. Press, 2007).
  14. McCaffrey, R. Global frequency of magnitude 9 earthquakes. Geology 36, 263266 (2008).
  15. Stein, S., Geller, R. J. & Liu, M. Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it. Tectonophysics 562-563, 125 (2012).
  16. Kagan, Y. Y. & Jackson, D. D. Tohoku Earthquake: A Surprise? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, 11811194 (2013).
  17. Hasegawa, A., Yoshida, K. & Okada, T. Nearly complete stress drop in the 2011 MW 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Earth Planets Space 63, 703707 (2011).
  18. Heaton, T. H. Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulses of slip in earthquake rupture. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 64, 120 (1990).
  19. Kostrov, B. V. Self-similar problems of propagation of shear cracks. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 28, 889898 (1964).
  20. Burridge, R. & Knopoff, L. Model and theoretical seismicity. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 57, 341371 (1967).
  21. Ben-Zion, Y., Eneva, M. & Liu, Y. Large earthquake cycles and intermittent criticality on heterogeneous faults due to evolving stress and seismicity. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2307 (2003).
  22. Gabriel, A-A., Ampuero, J-P., Dalguer, L. A. & Mai, P. M. The transition of dynamic rupture styles in elastic media under velocity-weakening friction. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B09311 (2012).
  23. Zheng, G. & Rice, J. R. Conditions under which velocity-weakening friction allows a self-healing versus a cracklike mode of rupture. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 14661483 (1998).
  24. Lykotrafitis, G., Rosakis, A. J. & Ravichandran, G. Self-healing pulse-like shear ruptures in the laboratory. Science 313, 17651768 (2006).
  25. Kaneko, Y., Avouac, J. P. & Lapusta, N. Towards inferring earthquake patterns from geodetic observations of interseismic coupling. Nature Geosci. 3, 363369 (2010).
  26. Gerya, T. V. & Yuen, D. A. Robust characteristics method for modelling multiphase visco-elasto-plastic thermo-mechanical problems. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 163, 83105 (2007).
  27. Drucker, D. C. & Prager, W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis of limit design. Q. Appl. Math. 10, 157165 (1952).
  28. Corbi, F. et al. The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: 1. Insights from laboratory models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 14831501 (2013).
  29. van Dinther, Y. et al. The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: Insights from seismo-thermo-mechanical models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 61836202 (2013).
  30. Thomas, M. Y., Lapusta, N., Noda, H. & Avouac, J-P. Quasi-dynamic versus fully dynamic simulations of earthquakes and aseismic slip with and without enhanced coseismic weakening. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 19862004 (2014).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

    • Robert Herrendörfer,
    • Ylona van Dinther &
    • Taras Gerya
  2. Swissnuclear, Aarauerstrasse 55, CH-4601 Olten, Switzerland

    • Luis Angel Dalguer

Contributions

All authors contributed in the design of the study. R.H. carried out, analysed and interpreted the numerical experiments, and conducted literature research. Y.v.D., T.G. and L.A.D. supervised this work. R.H. wrote the manuscript together with contributions from Y.v.D., T.G. and L.A.D. reviewed the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Information (1,500 KB)

    Supplementary Information

Additional data