Exploring complex normal faulting systems through

physics-based dynamic rupture modeling.

1 1 1 2 2
H.-S. Sánchez-Reyes , O. Scotti , S. Hok , A.-A. Gabriel and C. Uphoff
Bureau d’Évaluation des Risques Sismiques pour la Sûreté des Installations, IRSN, 92260 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, 80333 Munchen, Germany B hugo.sanchezreyes@irsn.fr hugo.geofisica@gmail.com

1. Introduction 3. Pre-stress levels 5. Discussion & conclusion

Geological context: As seen for strike-slip faults [4, 6, 7], the main parameters (so far) controlling
30
The Apennine seismic belt in
0 . 6 the critical jump distance for this normal faulting configuration are:
Italy is an extensional province = • Pre-stress state of the faults (main and secondary)

τ (MPa)
20
characterized by multi-fault µs • Burial depth: free-surface reflected waves and other free-surface effects
normal-faulting seismic activity.
10
Earthquakes and/or seismic
0 . 4 • Distance between faults
sequences ocurring across multi-
µ = • Hanging/Foot wall asymmetry for stepover jumps
fault segments during a single 0 d
event (e.g. 1980 Ms 6.9 Irpinia[1]) 0 20 40 60 80 100
σ (MPa)
or sequences spanning a period n
of days (e.g. 2009 Mw 6.1 We explore different pre-stress levels. Both faults share the same homegeneous 6. Perspectives
L’Aquila [2]) to months (e.g. pre-stress level. S parameters varying as: 0.1 (critical) 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9 Our future exploration has to include:
2016 Amatrice-Visso-Norcia
(low level). σzz is fixed to 100 MPa. No weak or highly-stressed regions are
[3]), are controlled by physical + Plasticity
prescribed on the second fault.
complexities of the active normal
+ Roughness
fault system.
+ Listricity
Understanding rupture propaga-
4. Results
+ Heterogeneous (medium/fault) properties
tion across step overs, breaking 72 simulations were performed using this configuration. In some cases, the
multiple fault segments during rupture did not fully break both faults, mainly due to the pre-stress level of
For a given geometry:
a single earthquake, is crucial the faults.
to enhance the current seismic It is necessary to correctly identify the critical nucleation region and its potential
hazard assessment [4]. Gap 1.0 km, Offset -5.0 km
S = 0.9 S = 0.1 to trigger a self-sustainable rupture
2.0 ∆s(t) = µs |τn0 + ∆τn (t)| − |τ0 + ∆τ (t)|

Final slip (m)

Goal: Explore dynamic rupture parameters to better understand
1.0 Gap 1.0 km, Offset -5.0 km
the physical condition promoting rupture jumps across step overs
S = 0.4 S = 0.4
MPa
0.0
0.0
2. Model
2nd fault

Δs(t)
Physics-based rupture simulations are performed using SeisSol[5] using the Only 1 fault Both faults -0.5
following configuration: is broken partially broken are broken
Gap 1.0 km Gap 0.5 km Yes, No,
0 FH FH FH 0 FH FH FH -1
S (pre-stress)

S (pre-stress)
it is it isn't
depth
2 km

0.5 0.5 t = 4.4 s Is the triggered rupture self-sustainable?

10 km
0
Gap
10 km

-1 1 1
Parameters explored: -4 -2 0 -4 -2 0
Overlap (km) Overlap (km) References
Hanging Foot 6.3 6.35 6.4 6.45 6.5 6.55 6.6
1. P. Bernard et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 94, 1631–
wall wall 72 Simulations Mw
}
}

1647 (1989).
-5 0 5
Gap: -1.0, -0.5, 0.5, 1.0 km Hanging/foot wall asymmetry: 2. L. Valoroso et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 118, 1156–
O set O set: -5.0, -2.5, 1.0 km 1176 (2013).
S (parameter): 0.1 - 0.9 A small asymmetry regarding the triggering potential of the secondary fault 3. L. Improta et al., Scientific reports 9, 1–13 (2019).
related to its location with respect to the main fault (hanging or foot wall) is 4. K. Bai et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 122, 10–280
Parameters: observed. When the secondary fault is on the hanging wall the dynamically (2017).
triggered rupture on the secondary fault is self-sustainalbe. 5. C. Uphoff et al., presented at the Proceedings of the international conference
• Homogeneous half-space Vp = 6.3, Vs = 3.6 km/s and ρ = 2800 kg/m3
• Optimally oriented Andersonian configuration (dip=60o for both faults) for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, pp. 1–
Stress shadow: 16.
• Linear Slip Weakening (LSW): µs = 0.6, µd = 0.4 and dc =0.15
The final energy released (estimated magnitude) increases/decreases according 6. G. Li et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 125,
• Slow rupture initiation (µs −−−→ µd ) inside a 4×4 km2 patch e2020JB020059 (2020).
t→1 to the distance between faults (i.e. offset and gap). The stress shadow, due to
• σzz = 100 MPa (≈3.64 km burial depth with ρ = 2800 kg/m ) 3 the fault proximity, inhibits a large stress drop on the secondary fault. 7. F. Hu et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 121, 994–1006
(2016).