Numerical modelling of post-seismic rupture propagation after the Sumatra 26.12.2004 earthquake constrained by GRACE gravity data

In the last decades, the development of the surface and satellite geodetic and geophysical observations brought a new insights into the seismic cycle, documenting new features of inter-, co-, and post-seismic processes. In particular since 2002 satellite mission GRACE provides monthly models of the global gravity field with unprecedented accuracy showing temporal variations of the Earth's gravity field, including those caused by mass redistribution associated with earthquake processes. When combined with GPS measurements, these new data have allowed to assess the relative importance of afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation after the Sumatra 26.12.2004 earthquake. Indeed the observed post-seismic crustal displacements were fitted well by a viscoelastic relaxation model assuming Burgers body rheology for the asthenosphere (60–220 km deep) with a transient viscosity as low as 4 × 10^17 Pas and constant ~ 10^19 Pas steady state viscosity in the 60–660-km depth range. However, even the low-viscosity asthenosphere provides the amplitude of strain which gravity effect does not exceed 50 per cent of the GRACE gravity variations, thus additional localized slip of about 1 m was suggested at downdip extension of the coseismic rupture. Post-seismic slip at coseismic rupture or its downdip extension has been suggested by several authors but the mechanism of the post-seismic fault propagation has never been investigated numerically. Depth and size of localized slip area as well as rate and time decay during the post-seismic stage were either assigned a priory or estimated by fitting real geodesy or gravity data. In this paper we investigate post-seismic rupture propagation by modelling two consequent stages. First, we run a long-term, geodynamic simulation to self-consistently produce the initial stress and temperature distribution. At the second stage, we simulate a seismic cycle using results of the first step as initial conditions. The second short-term simulation involves three substeps, including additional stress accumulation after part of the subduction channel was locked; spontaneous coseismic slip; formation and development of damage zones producing afterslip. During the last substep post-seismic stress leads to gradual ~1 m slip localized at three faults around ~100-km downdip extension of the coseismic rupture. We used the displacement field caused by the slip to calculate pressure and density variations and to simulate gravity field variations. Wavelength of calculated gravity anomaly fits well to that of the real data and its amplitude provides about 60 per cent of the observed GRACE anomaly. Importantly, the surface displacements caused by the estimated afterslip are much smaller than those registered by GPS networks. As a result cumulative effect of Burgers rheology viscoelastic relaxation (which explains measured GPS displacements and about a half of gravity variations) plus post-seismic slip predicted by damage rheology model (which causes much smaller surface displacements but provides another half of the GRACE gravity variations) fits well to both sets of the real data. Hence, the presented numerical modelling based on damage rheology supports the process of post-seismic downdip rupture propagation previously hypothesized from the GRACE gravity data.

[1]  Feng Xia,et al.  Introduction to , 2015, ACM Trans. Multim. Comput. Commun. Appl..

[2]  P. Mai,et al.  The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: 2. Dynamic implications of geodynamic simulations validated with laboratory models , 2013 .

[3]  Kelin Wang,et al.  Spherical‐Earth finite element model of short‐term postseismic deformation following the 2004 Sumatra earthquake , 2012 .

[4]  A. Lowry,et al.  Andaman Postseismic Deformation Observations: Still Slipping after All These Years? , 2012 .

[5]  Vladimir Lyakhovsky,et al.  Deformation and seismicity associated with continental rift zones propagating toward continental margins , 2012 .

[6]  T. Gerya Future directions in subduction modeling , 2011 .

[7]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  A non-local visco-elastic damage model and dynamic fracturing , 2011 .

[8]  M. Lindenfeld,et al.  Detection of mantle earthquakes beneath the East African Rift , 2011 .

[9]  T. Gerya,et al.  Geodynamic regimes of subduction under an active margin: effects of rheological weakening by fluids and melts , 2011 .

[10]  C. Faccenna,et al.  Physical characteristics of subduction interface type seismogenic zones revisited , 2011 .

[11]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Upper mantle rheology from GRACE and GPS postseismic deformation after the 2004 Sumatra‐Andaman earthquake , 2010 .

[12]  N. G. Val’es,et al.  CNES/GRGS 10-day gravity field models (release 2) and their evaluation , 2010 .

[13]  M. Gutscher,et al.  Limits of the seismogenic zone in the epicentral region of the 26 December 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake: Results from seismic refraction and wide-angle reflection surveys and thermal modeling , 2010, 1002.1548.

[14]  Taras Gerya,et al.  Introduction to Numerical Geodynamic Modelling , 2010 .

[15]  Jeffrey T. Freymueller,et al.  A viscoelastic and afterslip postseismic deformation model for the 1964 Alaska earthquake , 2009 .

[16]  Yehuda Ben-Zion,et al.  Evolving geometrical and material properties of fault zones in a damage rheology model , 2009 .

[17]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  Structural Properties and Deformation Patterns of Evolving Strike-slip Faults: Numerical Simulations Incorporating Damage Rheology , 2009 .

[18]  Richard Biancale,et al.  Separation of coseismic and postseismic gravity changes for the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake from 4.6 yr of GRACE observations and modelling of the coseismic change by normal-modes summation , 2009 .

[19]  Chen Ji,et al.  Implications of postseismic gravity change following the great 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from the regional harmonic analysis of GRACE intersatellite tracking data , 2008 .

[20]  M. Camp,et al.  Retrieving earthquake signature in grace gravity solutions , 2008 .

[21]  F. Pollitz,et al.  Effect of 3-D viscoelastic structure on post-seismic relaxation from the 2004 M= 9.2 Sumatra earthquake , 2008 .

[22]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  Scaling relations of earthquakes and aseismic deformation in a damage rheology model , 2008 .

[23]  Matthias Holschneider,et al.  Coseismic and post-seismic signatures of the Sumatra 2004 December and 2005 March earthquakes in GRACE satellite gravity , 2007 .

[24]  David A. Yuen,et al.  Robust characteristics method for modelling multiphase visco-elasto-plastic thermo-mechanical problems , 2007 .

[25]  T. Gerya,et al.  Physical controls of magmatic productivity at Pacific-type convergent margins: Numerical modelling , 2007 .

[26]  Byron D. Tapley,et al.  GRACE detects coseismic and postseismic deformation from the Sumatra‐Andaman earthquake , 2007 .

[27]  K. Heki,et al.  Slow postseismic recovery of geoid depression formed by the 2004 Sumatra‐Andaman Earthquake by mantle water diffusion , 2007 .

[28]  Y. Fialko,et al.  Stable and unstable damage evolution in rocks with implications to fracturing of granite , 2006 .

[29]  F. Pollitz,et al.  Post-seismic relaxation following the great 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake on a compressible self-gravitating Earth , 2006 .

[30]  Yehuda Ben-Zion,et al.  Analysis of aftershocks in a lithospheric model with seismogenic zone governed by damage rheology , 2006 .

[31]  Yehuda Bock,et al.  Plate-boundary deformation associated with the great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake , 2006, Nature.

[32]  Hiroshi Takiguchi,et al.  Crustal deformations associated with the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake deduced from continuous GPS observation , 2005 .

[33]  Chalermchon Satirapod,et al.  Insight into the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake from GPS measurements in southeast Asia , 2005, Nature.

[34]  Isabelle Panet,et al.  Can tectonic processes be recovered from new gravity satellite data , 2004 .

[35]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  A viscoelastic damage model with applications to stable and unstable fracturing , 2004 .

[36]  Pierre Henry,et al.  The Sumatra subduction zone: A case for a locked fault zone extending into the mantle , 2004 .

[37]  Simon M. Peacock,et al.  Serpentinization of the forearc mantle , 2003 .

[38]  C. Demets,et al.  Homogeneous vs heterogeneous subduction zone models: Coseismic and postseismic deformation , 2001 .

[39]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  Distributed damage, faulting, and friction , 1997 .

[40]  R. Dietmar Müller,et al.  Digital isochrons of the world's ocean floor , 1997 .

[41]  Vladimir Lyakhovsky,et al.  A rheological model of a fractured solid , 1993 .

[42]  M. Diament,et al.  Evidence for a seismogenic upper mantle and lower crust in the Baikal rift , 1991 .

[43]  P. Cundall Numerical experiments on localization in frictional materials , 1989 .

[44]  S. R. Holdahl,et al.  Postseismic crustal uplift near Anchorage, Alaska , 1977 .

[45]  D. L. Anderson,et al.  Theoretical Basis of Some Empirical Relations in Seismology by Hiroo Kanamori And , 1975 .

[46]  Chen Ji,et al.  Coseismic Slip and Afterslip of the Great Mw 9.15 Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 2004 , 2007 .

[47]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Coseismic Slip Distributions of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra–Andaman and 28 March 2005 Nias Earthquakes from gps Static Offsets , 2007 .

[48]  Jean-Charles Marty,et al.  Temporal gravity field models inferred from GRACE data , 2007 .

[49]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Teleseismic Relocation and Assessment of Seismicity (1918–2005) in the Region of the 2004 Mw 9.0 Sumatra–Andaman and 2005 Mw 8.6 Nias Island Great Earthquakes , 2007 .

[50]  P. A. Cundall,et al.  An Explicit Inertial Method for the Simulation of Viscoelastic Flow: An Evaluation of Elastic Effects on Diapiric Flow in Two- and Three- Layers Models , 1993 .

[51]  P Cundall,et al.  A MICROCOMPUTER PROGRAM FOR MODELLING LARGE-STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NUMERICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS, 11-15 APRIL 1988, INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA. VOLUMES 1 - 3 , 1988 .