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:

Diverse slip behaviour of velocity-weakening fault barriers

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 1200–1207 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Seismic barriers are fault portions that promote earthquake rupture arrest and fault segmentation. Despite their fundamental role in controlling the maximum magnitude of earthquakes, the nature of seismic barriers is still uncertain. A common interpretation of barriers as having velocity-strengthening friction—steady-state friction that increases with increasing slip velocity—is only partially consistent with the thermal control of friction observed in laboratory experiments, which implies that most relevant materials in subduction channels are velocity-weakening at seismogenic depths. Here we examine the possibility of velocity-weakening barriers by conducting earthquake cycle simulations along a velocity-weakening megathrust segmented by lateral variations of frictional properties and normal stress. We show that velocity-weakening fault segments display a wide range of behaviours, including permanent barrier behaviour. They can be locked during long periods and release their slip deficit either seismically or aseismically. We quantify the efficiency of velocity-weakening barriers in arresting ruptures using a non-dimensional parameter based on fracture mechanics theory that can be constrained by observations on natural faults. Our results provide a theoretical framework that could improve physics-based seismic hazard assessment.

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: Conceptual model and numerical simulation set-up.
Fig. 2: Results of seismic cycle simulations producing a permanent barrier.
Fig. 3: The diversity of slip behaviours in VW barriers.
Fig. 4: Rupture arrest conditions and barrier efficiency based on fracture mechanics.
Fig. 5: Long-term interseismic coupling in the central patch.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The raw data coming from simulation results of figures in the main text (Figs. 3–5) are available through the Source data provided on the repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8329497.

Code availability

The rate-and-state earthquake simulator (QDYN) used in this work is free, and it is freely available at https://github.com/ydluo/qdyn. Plots of figures were performed in Python using the package Matplotlib65.

References

  1. Aki, K. Characterization of barriers on an earthquake fault. J. Geophys. Res. 84, 6140 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lay, T. & Kanamori, H. in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review Vol. 4 (eds Simpson, D. W. & Richards, P. G.) 579–592 (AGU, 1981).

  3. Philibosian, B. & Meltzner, A. J. Segmentation and supercycles: a catalog of earthquake rupture patterns from the Sumatran Sunda megathrust and other well-studied faults worldwide. Quat. Sci. Rev. 241, 106390 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Konca, A. et al. Partial rupture of a locked patch of the Sumatra megathrust during the 2007 earthquake sequence. Nature 456, 631–635 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, K. & Bilek, S. L. Invited review paper: fault creep caused by subduction of rough seafloor relief. Tectonophysics 610, 1–24 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wesnousky, S. Predicting the endpoints of earthquake ruptures. Nature 444, 358–360 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Contreras-Reyes, E. & Carrizo, D. Control of high oceanic features and subduction channel on earthquake ruptures along the Chile–Peru subduction zone. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 186, 49–58 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sparkes, R., Tilmann, F., Hovius, N. & Hillier, J. Subducted seafloor relief stops rupture in South American great earthquakes: implications for rupture behavior in the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 298, 89–94 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jara-Muñoz, J., Melnick, D., Brill, D. & Strecker, M. R. Segmentation of the 2010 Maule Chile earthquake rupture from a joint analysis of uplifted marine terraces and seismic-cycle deformation patterns. Quat. Sci. Rev. 113, 171–192 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Saillard, M. et al. From the seismic cycle to long-term deformation: linking seismic coupling and Quaternary coastal geomorphology along the Andean megathrust. Tectonics 36, 241–256 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Collot, J.-Y. et al. Are rupture zone limits of great subduction earthquakes controlled by upper plate structures? Evidence from multichannel seismic reflection data acquired across the northern Ecuador–southwest Colombia margin. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B11103 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Melnick, D., Bookhagen, B., Strecker, M. R. & Echtler, H. P. Segmentation of megathrust rupture zones from fore-arc deformation patterns over hundreds to millions of years, Arauco Peninsula, Chile. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B01407 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bassett, D. & Watts, A. B. Gravity anomalies, crustal structure, and seismicity at subduction zones: 2. Interrelationships between forearc structure and seismogenic behavior. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 1541–1576 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tassara, A. Control of forearc density structure on megathrust shear strength along the Chilean subduction zone. Tectonophysics 495, 34–47 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Molina, D., Tassara, A., Abarca, R., Melnick, D. & Madella, A. Frictional segmentation of the Chilean megathrust from a multivariate analysis of geophysical, geological, and geodetic data. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB020647 (2010). (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Plata-Martinez, R. et al. Shallow slow earthquakes to decipher future catastrophic earthquakes in the Guerrero seismic gap. Nat. Commun. 12, 3976 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bassett, D. & Watts, A. B. Gravity anomalies, crustal structure, and seismicity at subduction zones: 1. Seafloor roughness and subducting relief. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 1508–1540 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ojeda, J., Ruiz, S., del Campo, F. & Carvajal, M. The 21 May 1960 Mw 8.1 Concepción earthquake: a deep megathrust foreshock that started the 1960 Central-South Chilean seismic sequence. Seismol. Res. Lett. 91, 1617–1627 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Horowitz, FranklinG. & Ruina, Andy Slip patterns in a spatially homogeneous fault model. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 94, 10279–10298 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cattania, C. Complex earthquake sequences on simple faults. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 10384–10393 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dieterich, J. H. Time-dependent friction and the mechanics of stick-slip. J. Geophys. Res. 116, 790–806 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marone, C. Laboratory-derived friction laws and their application to seismic faulting. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 26, 643–646 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lui, S. & Lapusta, N. Repeating microearthquake sequences interact predominantly through postseismic slip. Nat. Commun. 7, 13020 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wei, M. & Pengcheng, S. Synchronization of earthquake cycles of adjacent segments on oceanic transform faults revealed by numerical simulation in the framework of rate-and-state friction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB020231 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lambert, V. & Lapusta, N. Resolving simulated sequences of earthquakes and fault interactions: implications for physics-based seismic hazard assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2021JB022193 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaneko, Y., Avouac, J. P. & Lapusta, N. Towards inferring earthquake patterns from geodetic observations of interseismic coupling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 363–369 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Michel, S., Jolivet, R., Rollins, C., Jara, J. & Dal Zilio, L. Seismogenic potential of the main Himalayan thrust constrained by coupling segmentation and earthquake scaling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL093106 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oleskevich, D. A., Hyndman, R. D. & Wang, K. The updip and downdip limits to great subduction earthquakes: thermal and structural models of Cascadia, south Alaska, SW Japan, and Chile. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 14965–14991 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hippchen, S. & Hyndman, R. D. Thermal and structural models of the Sumatra subduction zone: implications for the megathrust seismogenic zone. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B12103 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saffer, D. M. & Marone, C. Comparison of smectite- and illite-rich gouge frictional properties: application to the updip limit of the seismogenic zone along subduction megathrusts. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 215, 219–235 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Okamoto, A. S. et al. Frictional properties of simulated chlorite gouge at hydrothermal conditions: implications for subduction megathrusts. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 4545–4565 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu, Y. & Rice, J. R. Slow slip predictions based on granite and gabbro friction data compared to GPS measurements in northern Cascadia. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B09407 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Phillips, N. J., Belzer, B., French, M. E., Rowe, C. D. & Ujiie, K. Frictional strengths of subduction thrust rocks in the region of shallow slow earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2019JB018888 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. den Hartog, S. A. M., Niemeijer, A. R. & Spiers, C. J. New constraints on megathrust slip stability under subduction zone P–T conditions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 353–354, 240–252 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Métois, M., Vigny, C. & Socquet, A. Interseismic coupling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic swarms along the Chilean subduction zone (38°–18°S). Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 1431–1449 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moreno, M., Rosenau, M. & Oncken, O. 2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre-seismic locking of Andean subduction zone. Nature 467, 198–202 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hetland, E. A. & Simons, M. Post-seismic and interseismic fault creep II: transient creep and interseismic stress shadows on megathrusts. Geophys. J. Int. 181, 99–112 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hori, T. & Miyazaki, S. A possible mechanism of M 9 earthquake generation cycles in the area of repeating M 7∼8 earthquakes surrounded by aseismic sliding. Earth Planet Space 63, 773–777 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Boatwright, J. & Cocco, M. Frictional constraints on crustal faulting. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 13895–13909 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin, A. M. & Ampuero, J.-P. Earthquake nucleation on (aging) rate and state faults. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B11312 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Weng, H. & Ampuero, J. P. Continuum of earthquake rupture speeds enabled by oblique slip. Nat. Geosci. 13, 817–821 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meltzner, A. J. et al. Time-varying interseismic strain rates and similar seismic ruptures on the Nias–Simeulue patch of the Sunda megathrust. Quat. Sci. Rev. 122, 258–281 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tsang, L. L. H., Meltzner, A. J., Hill, E. M., Freymueller, J. T. & Sieh, K. A paleogeodetic record of variable interseismic rates and megathrust coupling at Simeulue Island, Sumatra. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10585–10594 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Prawirodirdjo, L., McCaffrey, R., Chadwell, C. D., Bock, Y. & Subarya, C. Geodetic observations of an earthquake cycle at the Sumatra subduction zone; role of interseismic strain segmentation. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B03414 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rubin, A. M. Episodic slow slip events and rate-and-state friction. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B11414 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Barbot, S. Slow-slip, slow earthquakes, period-two cycles, full and partial ruptures, and deterministic chaos in a single asperity fault. Tectonophysics 768, 228171 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Li, D. & Liu, Y. Modeling slow-slip segmentation in Cascadia subduction zone constrained by tremor locations and gravity anomalies. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 3138–3157 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Liu, Y., McGuire, J. J. & Behn, M. D. Aseismic transient slip on the Gofar transform fault, East Pacific Rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 10188–10194 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Brantut, N. Dilatancy-induced fluid pressure drop during dynamic rupture: direct experimental evidence and consequences for earthquake dynamics. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 538, 116179 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Blanpied, M. L., Lockner, D. A. & Byerlee, J. D. Frictional slip of granite at hydrothermal conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 13045–13064 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang, B. & Barbot, S. Pulse-like ruptures, seismic swarms, and tremorgenic slow-slip events with thermally activated friction. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 603, 117983 (2023). 2023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Barbot, S. A rate‐, state‐, and temperature‐dependent friction law with competing healing mechanisms. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127, e2022JB025106 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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. Solid Earth 119, 1986–2004 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Luo, Y. & Ampuero, J.-P. Stability of faults with heterogeneous friction properties and effective normal stress. Tectonophysics 733, 257–272 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ohnaka, M. A constitutive scaling law and a unified comprehension for frictional slip failure, shear fracture of intact rock, and earthquake rupture. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2080 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Brantut, Nicholas et al. High‐velocity frictional properties of a clay‐bearing fault gouge and implications for earthquake mechanics. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B10401 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fukuyama, E., Mikumo, T. & Olsen, B. Estimation of the critical slip-weakening distance: theoretical background. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1835–1840 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Perfettini, H. & Ampuero, J. ‐P. Dynamics of a velocity strengthening fault region: implications for slow earthquakes and postseismic slip. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B09411 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Barbot, S., Lapusta, N. & Avouac, J.-P. Under the hood of the earthquake machine: toward predictive modeling of the seismic cycle. Science 336, 707–710 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Noda, H. & Lapusta, N. Stable creeping fault segments can become destructive as a result of dynamic weakening. Nature 493, 518–521 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Beall, A., van den Ende, M., Ampuero, J.-P., Capitanio, F. A. & Fagereng, Å. Linking earthquake magnitude–frequency statistics and stress in visco-frictional fault zone models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, 20 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rice, J. R. The mechanics of earthquake rupture. In Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Proc. Int. School of Physics ’Enrico Fermi’ (eds Dziewonski, A. M. & Boschi, E.) 555–649. (Italian Physical Society and North-Holland, 1980).

  63. Luo, Y. & Ampuero, J.-P. Stability of faults with heterogeneous friction properties and effective normal stress. Tectonophysics 733, 257–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Dieterich, J. H. Earthquake nucleation on faults with rate- and state-dependent strength. Tectonophysics 211, 115–134 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Allen, T. I. & Hayes, G. P. Alternative rupture–scaling relationships for subduction interface and other offshore environments. Bull. Seismol. Soc. America 3, 1240–1253 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID)/Scholarship Program/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2017—21171169 to D.M.-O. We also acknowledge partial support by the Millennium Scientific Initiative (ICM) of the Chilean government through grant NCN19_167 ‘Millennium Nucleus CYCLO The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones’ to D.M.-O. and A.T. We are also thankful to the Geoazur Seismes team, which also partially funded the work. J.-P.A. has been supported by the French government through the UCAJEDI Investments in the Future project (ANR-15-IDEX-01) managed by the National Research Agency (ANR).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Diego Molina-Ormazabal

    Present address: Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, ISTerre, Grenoble, France

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento Ciencias de la Tierra, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

    Diego Molina-Ormazabal & Andrés Tassara

  2. Millennium Nucleus, The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones CYCLO, Valdivia, Chile

    Diego Molina-Ormazabal & Andrés Tassara

  3. Université Côte d’Azur, IRD, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Géoazur, Valbonne, France

    Jean-Paul Ampuero

Authors
  1. Diego Molina-Ormazabal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Paul Ampuero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrés Tassara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.M.-O. designed and carried out the numerical simulations. J.-P.A. analysed the numerical experiments. J.-P.A. and D.M.-O. developed the theoretical model and wrote the main text. A.T. provided the technical motivation and contributed to writing the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Molina-Ormazabal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Tom Richardson, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Comparison of source scalings between numerical slip models and natural observations.

Rupture maximum slip (b) and length (a) versus earthquake magnitude. Stars depict results of numerical models. Solid lines show the empirical scaling relations for subduction earthquakes66, dashed lines their uncertainty (standard deviation). The magnitude has been calculated considering \({M}_{o}=\mu A\Delta S\), where \(A={LxW}\) (Rupture length and constant seismogenic depth of 200 km respectively). \(\Delta S\) correspond to the rupture averaged slip.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Results of seismic cycle simulations producing a frequent barrier.

Frequent barrier characterized by \({\sigma }_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}{\boldsymbol{=}}{\boldsymbol{100}}\,{\boldsymbol{MPa}}\). The barrier size is \({{\boldsymbol{L}}}_{{\boldsymbol{B}}}{\boldsymbol{=}}{\boldsymbol{45}}\) km. a) Accumulated slip (y-axis) along the fault (x-axis) during interseismic periods (blue, every 2 years) and during earthquakes (red, every 5 seconds); Black lines depict the start and end of earthquakes. Vertical lines display the edges of the barrier. b) Temporal evolution (y-axis) of the instantaneous interseismic coupling (ISC, calculated as explained in the Methods) along the simulated fault (x-axis). Blue solid lines show the extent of earthquake ruptures and green stars their epicenters. Dashed white lines indicate the edges of the central patch. c) Maximum slip rate across the barrier (black solid lines, log scale) as a function of time. The horizontal red line indicates our chosen threshold to define seismic slip rates, 1 cm/s. Aseismic transients are those that do not reach this threshold. d) Instantaneous ISC averaged along the barrier (red dashed lines). ISC in the central patch varies throughout the seismic cycle, although the values are most often near 1 (fully locked).

Extended Data Fig. 3 The diversity of slip behavior in VW barrier types.

P as a function of the percentage of rapid creep slip (stars and squares) and slow creep slip (diamonds and circles) relative to the total accumulated slip (Methods). A large transient slip relative to the total accumulated slip means an increase in the amount of aseismic slip hosted by the central patch (x-axis). As \({D}_{c}\) is increased, the aseismic slip increases too. The same is observed in simulation with normal stress contrast (with values up to twice the asperity \({\sigma }_{n}\)), but when \({\sigma }_{n}\) exceeds three times the asperities’ value, the transient slip decreases, implying an increment in the seismic slip within the barrier. Further, a smaller ratio between transient and total accumulated slip means major seismic slip within the barrier. Vertical gray solid lines display barrier type depending on probability P. For permament barrier with \({D}_{c}\) constrast, there is a bifurcation between rapid and slow creep. This is reflected as a rapid afterslip entering in barrier with high \({D}_{c}\), which occur more slowly in barriers with \({D}_{c}\) contrast no that high (frequent barriers).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Seismic cycle simulations of barriers with Dc contrast.

a,b,c, The barrier has a length of 45 km and is defined by very high \({D}_{c}=0.3{m}\). d,e,f, The barrier has a length of 45 km and is defined by high \({D}_{c}=0.07{m}\). g,h,i, The barrier has a length of 45 km and is defined by small \({D}_{c}=0.04{m}\). a,d,g): Accumulated slip profiles along the fault during interseismic periods (blue, every 2 years) and during earthquakes (red, every 5 seconds); Black lines depict the start and ending of earthquakes. Solid black lines display the edges of the CVWP. b,e,f): space-time distribution of instantaneous ISC (Methods). Blue solid lines and green stars show the rupture length and epicenter of earthquakes, respectively. Dashed white lines indicate the edges of the barrier. c,f,i): Instantaneous ISC averaged across the central patch (red dashed lines) and slip rate averaged across the whole barrier (black solid lines) as a function of time. ISC varies throughout the seismic cycle, although the values are most often close to 1 (fully locked).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Seismic cycle simulations of barriers with σn contrast.

a,b, The barrier is defined by high \({\sigma }_{n}=350{MPa}\). c,d, The barrier is defined by high \({\sigma }_{n}=140{MPa}\). e,f, The barrier is defined by small \({\sigma }_{n}=70{MPa}\). All cases depict barrier length of 30 km. a,c,e): Accumulated slip profiles along the fault during interseismic periods (blue, every 2 years) and during earthquakes (red, every 5 seconds); Black lines depict the start and ending of earthquakes. Solid black lines display the edges of the central patch. b,d,f): space-time distribution of instantaneous ISC (Methods). Blue solid lines and green stars show the rupture length and epicenter of earthquakes, respectively. Dashed white lines indicate the edges of the barrier.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Probability of ruptures crossing the barrier as a function of ratio LB/LCB.

Squares and dots represent simulations with variable \({D}_{c}\) and \({\sigma }_{n}\) respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 7 The typical slip rate evolution across seismic cycle.

a) The barrier has a length of 40 km and is defined by high \({D}_{c}=0.15m\). b) The barrier has a length of 40 km and is defined by \({\sigma }_{n}=100{MPa}\). Maximum slip rate across the whole barrier (black solid line) and seismic asperities (right and left asperities, blue and red line respectively). The horizontal light green line indicates our chosen threshold for seismic slip rates, 1 cm/s.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Reference seismic cycle simulation.

Cumulative slip profiles along the fault during interseismic periods (blue, every 2 years) and during earthquakes (red, every 5 seconds); Black lines depict the start and ending of earthquakes. Reference model with uniform \({{\boldsymbol{D}}}_{{\boldsymbol{c}}}{\boldsymbol{=}}{\boldsymbol{0}}{\boldsymbol{.}}{\boldsymbol{02}}\,{\boldsymbol{m}}\) and \({\sigma }_{{\boldsymbol{n}}}{\boldsymbol{=}}{\boldsymbol{40}}\,{\boldsymbol{MPa}}\) (there is a small increase of \(a\) in a 45 km-long central patch).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and description of method to estimate barrier efficiency proxy on natural faults.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molina-Ormazabal, D., Ampuero, JP. & Tassara, A. Diverse slip behaviour of velocity-weakening fault barriers. Nat. Geosci. 16, 1200–1207 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01312-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01312-1

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