Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Creeping subduction zones are weaker than locked subduction zones

Nature Geoscience volume 11, pages 60–64 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Faults that are fully or partially locked pose the greatest seismic hazard because they accumulate stress that can then be released in large earthquakes. In contrast, other faults continuously creep. The creeping versus locked behaviour is probably related to the frictional properties of the fault and the effective normal stress on the fault, but it is unclear whether locked faults are weaker or stronger than creeping faults. Here we use stress orientations in subduction zones from inversion of earthquake moment tensors, and find that geodetically determined creeping versus locked behaviour is correlated with the orientation of the subduction zone plate boundary fault relative to the principal stress axes. Globally, locked subduction zones appear well-oriented for failure, assuming a typical laboratory friction coefficient. Creeping subduction zones are more poorly oriented, implying a lower apparent friction coefficient, due to either low intrinsic friction or reduced effective normal stress. The spatial variations of stress orientation on the Japan Trench are similarly correlated with spatial variations in coupling, with creeping regions having a lower apparent friction coefficient than locked regions. The absolute strength of faults is influenced by the ambient fluid pressure, which is often elevated in subduction zones. This suggests low overall strength for locked subduction zone faults, and additional strength reduction in creeping zones that may be due to transient elevated fluid pressures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Correlation between average coupling and stress orientation for global subduction zones.
Fig. 2: Angle of maximum principal stress axis to plate interface versus geodetically determined coupling for Japanese subduction zones.
Fig. 3: New high-resolution stress model for the Japan Trench.
Fig. 4: Mohr circle plot of resolved shear and normal stress on the Japan Trench subduction interface within the three-dimensional stress field.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scholz, C. H. Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature 391, 37–42 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang, K. & Bilek, S. L. Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology 39, 819–822 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Scholz, C. H. & Campos, J. On the mechanism of seismic decoupling and back arc spreading at subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 22103–22115 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ikari, M. J., Marone, C. & Saffer, D. M. On the relation between fault strength and frictional stability. Geology 39, 83–86 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gao, X. & Wang, K. Strength of stick-slip and creeping subduction megathrusts from heat flow observations. Science 345, 1038–1041 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Byerlee, J. D. Friction of rocks. Pure Appl. Geophys. 116, 615–626 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hardebeck, J. L. Stress orientations in subduction zones and the strength of subduction megathrust faults. Science 349, 1213–1216 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loveless, J. P. & Meade, B. J. Geodetic imaging of plate motions, slip rates, and partitioning of deformation in Japan. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B02410 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Loveless, J. P. & Meade, B. J. Two decades of spatiotemporal variations in subduction zone coupling offshore Japan. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 436, 19–30 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scholz, C. H. & Campos, J. The seismic coupling of subduction zones revisited. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B05310 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao, D., Hasegawa, A. & Kanamori, H. Deep structure of Japan subduction zone as derived from local, regional, and teleseismic events. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 22313–22329 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hill, D. P. A note on ambient pore pressure, fault-confined pore pressure, and apparent friction. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 83, 583–586 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hasegawa, A., Yoshida, K. & Okada, T. Nearly complete stress drop in the 2011 M w 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planets Space 63, 703–707 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hardebeck, J. L. Coseismic and postseismic stress rotations due to great subduction zone earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L21313 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lamb, S. Shear stresses on megathrusts: Implications for mountain building behind subduction zones. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B07401 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Seno, T. Determination of the pore fluid pressure ratio at seismogenic megathrusts in subduction zones: Implications for strength of asperities and Andean-type mountain building. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B05405 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Suppe, J. Absolute fault and crustal strength from wedge tapers. Geology 35, 1127–1130 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang, Z., Zhao, D. & Wang, L. Seismic heterogeneity and anisotropy of the Honshu arc from the Japan Trench to the Japan Sea. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 1428–1444 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shelly, D. R., Beroza, G. C., Ide, S. & Nakamula, S. Low-frequency earthquakes in Shikoku, Japan, and their relationship to episodic tremor and slip. Nature 442, 188–191 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saffer, D. M. & Tobin, H. J. Hydrogeology and mechanics of subduction zone forearcs: Fluid flow and pore pressure. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 157–186 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rice, J. R. Heating and weakening of faults during earthquake slip. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B05311 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fulton, P. M. et al. Low coseismic friction on the Tohoku-Oki fault determined from temperature measurements. Science 342, 1214–1217 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris, R. A. Large earthquakes and creeping faults. Rev. Geophys. 55, 169–198 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mavrommatis, A. P., Segall, P., Uchida, N. & Johnson, K. M. Long-term acceleration of aseismic slip preceding the Mw 9 Tohoku-oki earthquake: Constraints from repeating earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 9717–9725 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bekins, B. A., McCaffrey, A. M. & Dreiss, S. J. Episodic and constant flow models for the origin of low-chloride waters in a modern accretionary complex. Water Resources Res. 31, 3205–3215 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saffer, D. M. & Bekins, B. A. Fluid budgets at convergent plate margins: Implications for the extent and duration of fault-zone dilation. Geology 27, 1095–1098 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sibson, R. H. Stress switching in subduction forearcs: implications for overpressure containment and strength cycling on megathrusts. Tectonophysics 600, 142–152 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCaffrey, R. Statistical significance of the seismic coupling coefficient. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 87, 1069–1073 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kubo, A., Fukuyama, E., Kawai, H. & Nonomura, K. NIED seismic moment tensor catalogue for regional earthquakes around Japan: quality test and application. Tectonophysics 356, 23–48 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ekström, G., Nettles, M. & Dziewonski, A. M. The Global CMT Project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 200–201, 1–9 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hardebeck, J. L. & Michael, A. J. Damped regional-scale stress inversions: Methodology and examples for southern California and the Coalinga aftershock sequence. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B11310 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vavryčuk, V. Iterative joint inversion for stress and fault orientations from focal mechanisms. Geophys. J. Int. 199, 69–77 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Michael, A. J. Spatial variations in stress within the 1987 Whittier Narrows, California, aftershock sequence: New techniques and results. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 6303–6320 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Frohlich, C. & Davis, S. D. How well constrained are well-constrained T, B, and P axes in moment tensor catalogs? J. Geophys. Res. 104, 4901–4910 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Meade, B. J. & Loveless, J. P. Block modeling with connected fault network geometries and a linear elastic coupling estimator in spherical coordinates. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 99, 3124–3139 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hashimoto, C., Noda, A., Sagiya, T. & Matsu’ura, M. Interplate seismogenic zones along the Kuril–Japan trench inferred from GPS data inversion. Nat. Geosci. 2, 141–144 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu, Z. et al. Integration of transient strain events with models of plate coupling and areas of great earthquakes in southwest Japan. Geophys. J. Int. 181, 1292–1312 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nishimura, T. et al. Temporal change of interplate coupling in northeastern Japan during 1995–2002 estimated from continuous GPS observations. Geophys. J. Int. 157, 901–916 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yokota, Y., Ishikawa, T., Watanabe, S. I., Tashiro, T. & Asada, A. Seafloor geodetic constraints on interplate coupling of the Nankai Trough megathrust zone. Nature 534, 374–377 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Uchida, N. & Matsuzawa, T. Pre-and postseismic slow slip surrounding the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake rupture. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 374, 81–91 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sato, M. et al. Displacement above the hypocenter of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Science 332, 1395–1395 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sato, M. et al. Interplate coupling off northeastern Japan before the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake, inferred from seafloor geodetic data. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 3860–3869 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Araki, E. et al. Recurring and triggered slow-slip events near the trench at the Nankai Trough subduction megathrust. Science 356, 1157–1160 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meade, B. J. Algorithms for the calculation of exact displacements, strains, and stresses for triangular dislocation elements in a uniform elastic half space. Comput. Geosci. 33, 1064–1075 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Obara, K. & Hirose, H. Non-volcanic deep low-frequency tremors accompanying slow slips in the southwest Japan subduction zone. Tectonophysics 417, 33–51 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to F. Pollitz, B. Bekins and R. Bürgmann for their constructive reviews of the manuscript. We thank the Global CMT Project and the NIED for making their earthquake moment tensor catalogues available, and G. Hayes for providing the Slab 1.0 model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Jeanne L. Hardebeck

  2. Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA

    John P. Loveless

Authors
  1. Jeanne L. Hardebeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John P. Loveless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.L.H. inverted moment tensors for stress orientation and performed the model comparisons. J.P.L. computed the coupling models and the stress field from the coupling models. J.L.H. and J.P.L. interpreted the results and prepared the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanne L. Hardebeck.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures and Tables.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hardebeck, J.L., Loveless, J.P. Creeping subduction zones are weaker than locked subduction zones. Nature Geosci 11, 60–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0032-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0032-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing