See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331947543

Coseismic boiling cannot seal faults: Implications for the seismic cycle

Article in Geology · March 2019

DOI: 10.1130/G45936.1

CITATIONS READS
7 491

1 author:

Randolph Williams
University of Wisconsin–Madison
36 PUBLICATIONS 289 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Randolph Williams on 26 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 https://doi.org/10.1130/G45936.1

Manuscript received 17 December 2018

Revised manuscript received 13 February 2019
Manuscript accepted 2 March 2019

© 2019 Geological Society of America. For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org.

Published online XX Month 2019

Coseismic boiling cannot seal faults: Implications for the

seismic cycle
Randolph T. Williams*
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0G4, Canada

ABSTRACT silica, preserved nanospherules, and low dis­loca­

Fracture sealing through the precipitation of hydrothermal cements is an important com‑ tion densities in fault-vein assemblages (e.g.,
ponent of some conceptual models describing the earthquake cycle. Within these models, Herrington and Wilkinson, 1993; Caine et al.,
coseismic boiling of pore fluids has been proposed as a mechanism for generating the fast 2010; Faber et al., 2014). The genetic associa-
cementation rates required to facilitate sealing over interseismic time scales. It remains tion of coseismic boiling with large earthquake
unknown, however, whether it is possible for coseismic boiling in the crust to proceed to the ruptures deep in the seismogenic crust makes it a
extent that fractures become sealed. In this contribution, I examined whether coseismic boiling particularly attractive mechanism for unifying the
can realistically provide a mechanism for fracture sealing using the thermodynamic proper‑ mechanical and geochemical processes thought to
ties of water. The results of my calculations demonstrate that coseismic boiling is self limiting mediate fracture sealing, and thereby the seismic
due to the establishment of equilibrium vapor pressure following earthquake rupture, and cycle, in some faults. It remains unknown, how-
it is not capable of facilitating sealing. More specifically, results indicate that the maximum ever, whether the extent of coseismic boiling in
amount of water that can undergo coseismic boiling decreases from ~115 kg per cubic meter the seismogenic crust could ever be sufficient to
of dilation at 350 °C down to ~3 kg per cubic meter at 150 °C. These temperatures span the result in fracture sealing during the seismic cycle.
approximate range of the seismogenic crust. Additional calculations show that these relatively In this study, I examine whether coseismic
small masses of fluid precipitate negligible volumes of hydrothermal cement during boiling, boiling can realistically provide a mechanism
enough to fill less than 0.005% of any dilational volume. These calculations suggest that for fracture sealing using simple calculations of
coseismic boiling is unlikely to play a major role in fracture sealing during the seismic cycle. the thermodynamic properties of water. These
calculations demonstrate that coseismic boiling
INTRODUCTION seismogenic faults and thereby the cyclicity of is self-limiting following fault slip, and that pre-
The processes by which faults and fractures large earthquakes. This proposed mechanism, cipitation associated with boiling cannot account
become sealed to fluid movement are of great however, rests on the implicit assumption that for the volumes of cement typically observed in
importance in fault mechanics (Blanpied et al., cementation rates within faults are fast enough to dilational fault structures. More specifically, I
1992; Sibson, 1992, 1995; Faulkner and Rutter, result in sealing of fractures between slip events. show that the amount of water that can undergo
2001; Gratier et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2008). At crustal depths typical of the nucleation coseismic boiling is less than ~115 kg per cubic
Low-permeability faults in the crust experience of large earthquakes (~10–15 km in continental meter of dilation formed during fault slip. These
decreased effective normal stress with increasing crust, but as deep as ~70 km in subduction zones; negligible amounts of fluid precipitate similarly
pore-fluid pressure, leading to fault weakening Sibson, 1982), quartz is arguably the most com- negligible volumes of cement upon vaporiza-
and eventual failure (e.g., Hubbert and Rubey, mon fault-zone cement. Kinetic considerations, tion, enough to seal <0.005% of any dilational
1959). Conversely, slip across geometric irregu­ however, suggest that quartz growth rates near volume. I conclude that coseismic boiling is
larities and dynamic changes in stress state dur- equilibrium (~1 µm/k.y. at temperatures ~350 °C; unlikely to be a widespread mechanism for frac-
ing earthquake rupture result in rock fracturing, Lander et al., 2008) are slow compared to the ture sealing in the seismogenic crust.
increasing permeability and facilitating coseis- recurrence intervals of many seismogenic faults,
mic fluid movement, pressure release, and fault which generally produce large earthquakes on MECHANISM OF COSEISMIC BOILING
strengthening (e.g., Sibson, 1992; Blenkinsop, cycles of 102 yr (McCalpin and Slemmons, 1998). The maximum depth of the seismogenic
2008; Melosh et al., 2014, 2016). Sealing of One potential mechanism used to explain this rate crust in quartzofeldspathic terrains is thought
fractures, often attributed to precipitation of discrepancy is coseismic boiling (alternatively to coincide with the onset of significant intra­
hydrothermal cements (quartz, calcite, etc.), “decompression boiling” or “flash vaporization”) crystalline plasticity of quartz at ~350 °C (Sib-
then allows for pore-fluid pressure (re)estab- of pore fluids. The solubility of quartz depends son, 1982). Water throughout the depth of the
lishment and fault (re)weakening. In this way, strongly on the pressure and density of a fluid, seismogenic crust should therefore be exclu-
hydrothermal cementation may be a fundamental and vaporization therefore increases the degree sively liquid in form (Fig. 1). Frictional heat-
process governing the effective strength of some of supersaturation by many orders of magnitude, ing during seismic slip or shallow magmatism
resulting in near-instantaneous precipitation of (e.g., epithermal deposits) may induce boiling
*Current address: Department of Geoscience, Uni- cements (Weatherley and Henley, 2013). Rock- in the shallow (<2 km) crust where fluid pres-
versity of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin record evidence for this process has been inferred sures are hydrostatic and low (e.g., Chen et al.,
53706, USA. on the basis of metastable and/or microcrystalline 2017). Heating alone, however, is unable to

CITATION: Williams, R.T., 2019, Coseismic boiling cannot seal faults: Implications for the seismic cycle: Geology, v. 47, p. 1–4, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1130​/G45936.1

Geological Society of America | GEOLOGY | Volume 47 | Number 5 | www.gsapubs.org 1

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/doi/10.1130/G45936.1/4664933/g45936.pdf

by University of Wisconsin Madison user
 T Pre-failure
102 l Fluid P
Crusta
Pressure (MPa)
Peq = 17 MPa @ 350 ºC
10 1
Liquid
Vapor
Peq = 0.5 MPa
100
@ 150 ºC
100 150 200 250
Temperature (ºC)
Figure 1. Phase diagram of pure water illus-
trating boundary between liquid and vapor
phases from 100 °C to 400 °C (Wagner and
Kretzschmar, 2008). Approximate pressure
and temperature (P-T ) conditions of crustal
fluids estimated between lithostatic (26.2
MPa/km) and hydrostatic (9.8 MPa/km) gra-
dients in a 30 °C/km geothermal gradient.
Conditions along equilibrium line between
liquid and vapor phases identify equilibrium
vapor pressure (Peq) at a given temperature.
induce boiling at depths greater than ~2 km,
as hydrostatic pressures greater than ~20 MPa
preclude the formation of water vapor regardless
of the magnitude of temperature rise (although
supercritical fluids may form if temperatures rise
above the critical point). Boiling in deeper sec-
tions of the crust (where large earthquakes are
more likely to nucleate) requires a decrease in
local fault-zone pressure on the order of 102 MPa
for typical crustal fluids (Fig. 1). Weatherley and
Henley (2013) demonstrated that such decreases
in pressure are possible where faults experience
significant coseismic dilational deformation,
provided that the surrounding wall rocks are
of sufficiently low permeability to prevent (or
at least delay) hydraulic equilibration with the
overlying hydrostatic crust. As such, transient
coseismic boiling and hydrothermal cementa-
tion deep in the low-permeability, often over-
pressured seismogenic crust is probable during
episodes of dilational deformation.
COSEISMIC BOILING:
A SELF‑LIMITING PROCESS
The extent to which fluids can boil as a result
of fault slip will be limited by two related, but
different, mechanisms. First, the large pressure
differentials between wall rock and subhydro-
static dilational structures required to induce
boiling will result in inflow of fluids from all
directions and eventual reestablishment of res-
ervoir pressure. Second, these large pressure
differentials will prevent the escape of vapor
formed during boiling, and internal pressures
will necessarily increase up to the equilibrium
vapor pressure as the newly formed gas expands
to fill the dilational volume (Fig. 2). Equilibrium
vapor pressure describes the pressure at which
liquid and vapor phases are in equilibrium for
a given temperature (pressures along the phase
boundary between liquid and vapor in Fig. 1).
2 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 47 | Number 5 | GEOLOGY | Geological Society of America
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/doi/10.1130/G45936.1/4664933/g45936.pdf
by University of Wisconsin Madison user
1) Dilation during
Critical
Super
slip reduces
pressure. Water 2) Liquid boils in low-
infiltrates from pressure volume
wall rock.
Pressure
3) Vapor accumulates due
to pressure gradient.
Pressure rebuilds.
300 350 400
Figure 2. A: Schematic diagram of dilational fault jog showing process of decompression and
fluid inflow, local boiling, and pressure reestablishment. B: Schematic pressure evolution for
sites of coseismic dilation at constant temperature (T ). Note discontinuous vertical axis. Num-
bered points correspond to text descriptions in A. Equilibrium vapor pressure (Peq) is a function
of temperature and denotes pressure below which boiling begins or above which boiling ends.
Once the equilibrium vapor pressure is achieved,
no additional boiling can occur. For pure water,
equilibrium vapor pressures are modest over the
temperature range of the seismogenic crust and
decrease from a maximum value of ~17 MPa at
350 °C to ~0.5 MPa at 150 °C (Fig. 1). These
pressures will necessarily be lower in crustal
brines, because the equilibrium vapor pressure
of a solution is a function of the equilibrium
vapor pressure of the pure solvent multiplied by
its mole fraction (Raoult’s law). As such, less
boiling is required to establish equilibrium vapor
pressure in brines when compared to pure water.
To provide an upper limit on the extent to which
coseismic boiling and associated cementation
can facilitate fault-zone sealing, calculations
presented here consider pure water only.
Constraints on the Extent of Fluid Boiling
An estimate of the extent to which fluids may
boil following slip can be made by calculating
the amount of water that must be converted to
steam to establish equilibrium vapor pressure
(e.g., Fig. 1) within dilational fault-zone struc-
tures. Following Weatherley and Henley (2013),
I assumed the initial postfailure pore pressure in
newly created dilational volumes is negligible
following large earthquakes; this assumption
describes the case that would be most efficient
in causing boiling. Temperatures from 150 to
350 °C are considered to approximate the range
of conditions typical of earthquake nucleation
(Sibson, 1982). Temperatures within dilational
sites are assumed to be isothermal given the
large thermal mass, conductivity, and surface
area of the surrounding wall rocks (Weatherley
and Henley, 2013). If local temperatures were
to decrease with vapor expansion in the dila-
tional volume, then the amount of water that
can undergo boiling before phase equilibrium is
achieved will necessarily be reduced, as equilib-
rium pressure scales with temperature (Fig. 1).
As mentioned already, coseismic boiling
following fault slip will proceed only until the
1
Depressurization
2 4
Peq = F(T)
on Boiling
la ti
cu
mu ends
Ac
po
r
Va
Boiling
begins
3
Time
pressure exerted by the expanding vapor phase is
large enough to establish phase equilibrium with
liquid water (Fig. 2B). This pressure increase
necessarily results in an increase in the density
of water vapor, which scales 1:1 with the mass
of liquid water boiled per unit volume of dilation
(i.e., boiling 1 kg of liquid water in a unit m3
volume produces a steam of density 1 kg/m3).
Thus, to calculate the mass of liquid water that
can be boiled before equilibrium conditions are
reached per unit volume of dilation, one can
simply calculate the density of water vapor as
a function of equilibrium vapor pressure at any
temperature. The polar nature of water, how-
ever, precludes use of the ideal gas law. The
density of water vapor can only be calculated
as a function of temperature and pressure via
“steam tables,” which provide empirical con-
straints on the thermodynamic properties of
water over a range of temperature and pres-
sure conditions. The XSteam Tables module
for MATLAB (Holm­gren, 2006) was used to
calculate the density of steam in equilibrium
with liquid water (i.e., at equilibrium vapor pres-
sure; Fig. 1) as a function of temperature via an
internationally standardized formulation (Wag-
ner and Kretzschmar, 2008). MATLAB scripts
used in this work are available in the GSA Data
Repository1. The results of these calculations
indicate that the maximum amount of fluid that
can undergo coseismic boiling decreases from
~115 kg per cubic meter of dilation at 350 °C
down to ~3 kg per cubic meter at 150 °C (Fig. 3).
Constraints on the Extent of
Fault‑Zone Cementation
The maximum volume of cement that may
precipitate due to coseismic boiling can be
estimated given the maximum amount of fluid
1
GSA Data Repository item 2019176, supple-
mental figure and MATLAB source code files for
numerical models, is available online at http://​www​
.geosociety​.org​/datarepository​/2019/, or on request
from editing@​geosociety​.org.
 kg H2O boiled / m3 of dilation
100
80
60
40
20
0 and Henley, 2013) will be limited in comparison
150 200 250 300
Temperature (ºC)
Figure 3. Plot illustrating amount of fluid that
can undergo coseismic boiling (expressed as
kilograms of fluid boiled per cubic meter of
dilation) as function of temperature of earth-
quake hypocenters in crust.
vaporized per unit volume of dilation. For these
calculations, I assumed that nearly the entire
dissolved concentration of SiO2 (mg) must pre-
cipitate per unit mass of fluid vaporized (kg).
This assumption is consistent with the negligible
solubility of SiO2 in water vapor (e.g., Dolejš
and Manning, 2010), and it describes the case
that is most efficient for causing cement pre-
cipitation. The fraction of any dilational volume
that can be sealed with quartz cements during
coseismic boiling can therefore be calculated
via the following equation:
mH2 O CSiO2
volume fraction sealed =
ρSiO2 Vdilation
where mH 2O is the mass of water vaporized,
CSiO2 is the concentration of the SiO2 in solu-
tion at the time of failure, ρSiO2 is the density of
solid quartz, and Vdilation is the dilational volume
formed during slip.
The equilibrium concentration of SiO2 in
aqueous fluids increases with temperature and
pressure (Dolejš and Manning, 2010). Quartz
cementation resulting from coseismic boiling
should therefore be at a maximum near the base
of the seismogenic crust, where solubilities are
comparatively high. Assuming that an overpres-
sured section of the crust at the base of the seis-
mogenic zone has a temperature of ~350 °C and
pressure of ~300 MPa, SiO2 solubilities should
be on the order of ~103 mg/kg (Dolejš and Man-
ning, 2010). Combining this constraint with
the amount of fluid that can undergo coseismic
boiling at the same temperature (~115 kg/m3
of dilation), Equation 1 reveals that the maxi-
mum volume of quartz cement that may precipi-
tate as a result of boiling is ~50 cm3 per cubic
meter of dilation, or 0.005% of the dilational
volume. These small volumes of cement corre-
spond to cement thicknesses of tens of microns
in dilational jogs with meter-scale apertures,
or sub-micron-thickness deposits in fractures
with millimeter-scale apertures, which will
have a negligible effect on porosity reduction
and fault/fracture sealing. Coseismic boiling
and cementation at lower temperatures and/or
shallower depths in the crust will necessarily
lead to even smaller cement accumulations, as
both SiO2 solubilities and the extent of coseismic
boiling decrease with temperature (Fig. 2; Fig.
DR1 in the Data Repository). Additional cement
precipitation from underpressured fluids mov-
ing into the dilational volume after equilibrium
vapor pressure is established (e.g., Weatherley
350
to that formed during boiling, because fluid-rock
ratios will be similarly low, while the maximum
amount of quartz that can precipitate per unit
mass of inflowing fluid will be smaller.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FAULT SEALING
AND THE SEISMIC CYCLE
These results indicate that coseismic boil-
ing alone is not a viable mechanism for sealing
faults/fractures over any time scale at depths
greater than ~2 km. This calculation is for the
end-member case most favorable to cemen-
tation, that is, where dissolved solids do not
diminish equilibrium vapor pressure, initial
pore pressure in seismically created dilational
space is negligible, and postfailure conditions
are isothermal.
In the absence of direct constraints on
rates of fracture sealing in faults at hypocen-
tral depths, the potential links between distinct
earthquakes and individual sealed fractures or
, (1) veins (or even specific growth increments within
those structures) in exhumed fault rocks remain
speculative. If cementation rates are sufficiently
fast such that these structures do indeed seal
within a single iteration of the seismic cycle,
then my results suggest that coseismic boiling
does not play a significant role in that process.
Other mechanisms, however, have been pro-
posed to argue for rapid quartz cementation
in faults. For example, it has been argued that
large SiO2 supersaturations induced by decreas-
ing temperatures as fluids move upward through
the crust along faults could drive quartz precipi-
tation at rates faster than would be predicted by
kinetic-rate law (e.g., Oliver and Bons, 2001;
Caine et al., 2010; Faber et al., 2014). Similarly,
some numerical models have suggested that
super­saturations generated by coseismic pres-
sure drops could result in sustained increases
in quartz precipitation rates when coupled with
continuous fluid advection into hydrostatic
regions of the crust (e.g., Saishu et al., 2017;
Ujiie et al., 2018). Pressure drops to subhydro-
static levels, however, preclude net-positive fluid
movement in any one direction (all flow will
proceed inward toward the underpressured vol-
ume). Thus, boiling cannot occur in conjunction
with upward fluid advection through the crust.
Finally, some work has suggested that fault-zone
cementation from such supersaturated solutions
may occur through precipitation of precursory
amorphous silica phases, which likely grow at
rates much faster than quartz due to their rela-
tively decreased reaction kinetics (e.g., Herring­
ton and Wilkinson, 1993). It is critical to recog-
nize, however, that most of the aforementioned
mechanisms are derived from extrapolation of
numerical models into time/temperature/pres-
sure ranges that are not constrained by empirical
data. Perhaps as a result, estimates on the ability
of these mechanisms to influence rates of quartz
cementation vary by over six orders of mag-
nitude (e.g., Renard et al., 2000; Saishu et al.,
2017; Faber et al., 2014; Ujiie et al., 2018). Our
understanding of the role of quartz cementation
in the seismic cycle is therefore fundamentally
incomplete, and it ultimately remains unknown
whether this process can facilitate fault/fracture
sealing over the 102 yr time scales typical of
large-earthquake recurrence.
The notion that our understanding of quartz
cementation processes in and around faults is
fundamentally incomplete is perhaps not surpris-
ing. Many previous efforts have demonstrated
anomalously large accumulations of quartz
cement in cataclastic fault rocks relative to their
protolith, suggesting substantial differences in
growth rate under presumably constant tem-
perature and pressure conditions (e.g., Milliken
et al., 2005; Eichhubl et al., 2010; Williams et al.,
2015). Other work has suggested a role of post-
seismic fracture collapse and pressure solution
as a mechanism for fault healing and strength
recovery (Nakatani and Scholz, 2004; Tenthorey
and Cox, 2006). These and other observations
provide examples of mechanical influences on
geochemical processes, which lead to emergent
behaviors in fault zones that are still not fully
understood. Although the above-cited examples
are specific to shear surfaces/zones (and may
be affected by cataclasis, wear, and frictional
heating) rather than dilational structures, they
illustrate the potential for the operation of as-
yet-unknown mechanisms of rapid cementation
in the seismic cycle. Given our current knowl-
edge of the relevant processes governing quartz
growth, however, it seems reasonable to at least
consider the possibility that fracture sealing
through hydrothermal cementation is not suf-
ficiently fast to be an important component in
the mechanics of many faults with earthquake
recurrence intervals on the order of 102 yr.
It is interesting to note that the original and
indeed most compelling rock-record evidence
of cyclic pore-fluid overpressure, seismic slip,
and hydrothermal resealing was documented in
high-angle reverse faults in continental interiors
(e.g., Sibson, 1989, 1992, 1995; Cox, 1995). In
these and other misoriented fault systems (e.g.,
low-angle normal faults), pore-fluid overpres-
sures are likely a requisite component of slip,
as has been suggested by previous work (e.g.,
Hubbert and Rubey, 1959; Sibson, 1990; Axen,
1992). Given that the recurrence intervals of
such misoriented faults are largely unknown

Geological Society of America | GEOLOGY | Volume 47 | Number 5 | www.gsapubs.org 3

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/doi/10.1130/G45936.1/4664933/g45936.pdf

by University of Wisconsin Madison user
 (but presumably long in intraplate settings), it is
possible that the structure and geochemistry of
their observed vein systems are indeed indica-
tive of a seismic cycle mediated by hydrothermal
cementation occurring over inordinately long
recurrence intervals (103–104 yr).
In summary, the ability of fault zones to seal
with hydrothermal cements over time scales
consistent with the seismic cycle has often been
assumed, despite the absence of direct constraints
on the rapidity of this process. My results indicate
that even one of the most compelling mechanisms
for rapid hydrothermal cementation, coseismic
boiling, cannot facilitate fracture sealing over any
time scale at depths greater than ~2 km. Under
the circumstances, I argue that renewed efforts
to provide a detailed, empirical, and quantitative
understanding of fracture sealing in the seismo­
genic crust are vital to the study of fault and earth-
quake mechanics. If viable mechanisms for rapid
sealing through hydrothermal cementation cannot
be confirmed through more direct and rigorous
examination, then a reassessment of the applica­
bility of this process to the mechanics of fast-
moving faults will be necessary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Noah Phillips, Christie Rowe, Jamie Kirk-
patrick, Jonathan Caine, Laurel Goodwin, and Nick
Roberts for helpful discussions. Ake Fagereng, Tom
Blenkinsop, Peter Eichhubl, and an anonymous
reviewer provided reviews that greatly improved the
quality of this work. I was supported by a Wares Fel-
lowship to Christie Rowe. Finally, thanks also go to
Lily Williams, who provided the thinking time that
gave rise to this paper via late nights and early morn-
ing wakeups too numerous to count.
REFERENCES CITED
Axen, G.J., 1992, Pore pressure, stress increase, and
fault weakening in low-angle normal faulting:
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
v. 97, B6, p. 8979–8991, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1029​
/92JB00517​.
Blanpied, M.L., Lockner, D.A., and Byerlee, J.D.,
1992, An earthquake mechanism based on rapid
sealing of faults: Nature, v. 358, p. 574–576,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1038​/358574a0​.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 2008, Relationships between faults,
extension fractures and veins, and stress: Journal
of Structural Geology, v. 30, p. 622–632, https://​
doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​.2008​.01​.008​.
Caine, J.S., Bruhn, R.L., and Forster, C.B., 2010, Inter-
nal structure, fault rocks, and inferences regard-
ing deformation, fluid flow, and mineralization
in the seismogenic Stillwater normal fault, Dixie
Valley, Nevada: Journal of Structural Geology,
v. 32, p. 1576–1589, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​
.2010​.03​.004​.
Chen, J., Niemeijer, A., Yao, L., and Ma, S., 2017,
­Water vaporization promotes coseismic fluid
pressurization and buffers temperature rise: Geo-
physical Research Letters, v. 44, p. 2177–2185,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1002​/2016GL071932​.
Cox, S.F., 1995, Faulting processes at high fluid
pressures: An example of fault valve behavior
from the Wattle Gully fault, Victoria, Australia:
Journal of Geophysical Research–Solid Earth,
v. 100, p. 12,841–12,859, https://d​ oi.​ org/​ 10.​ 1029​
/95JB00915​.
4 www.gsapubs.org | Volume 47 | Number 5 | GEOLOGY | Geological Society of America
Downloaded fromView
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-pdf/doi/10.1130/G45936.1/4664933/g45936.pdf
publication stats
by University of Wisconsin Madison user
Dolejš, D., and Manning, C.E., 2010, Thermodynamic
model for mineral solubility in aqueous fluids:
Theory, calibration and application to model
fluid-flow systems: Geofluids, v. 10, p. 20–40.
Eichhubl, P., Hooker, J.N., and Laubach, S.E., 2010,
Pure and shear-enhanced compaction bands in
Aztec Sandstone: Journal of Structural Geology,
v. 32, p. 1873–1886, https://d​ oi.​ org/​ 10.​ 1016/​ j.​ jsg​
.2010​.02​.004​.
Faber, C., Rowe, C.D., Miller, J.A., Fagereng, Å., and
Neethling, J.H., 2014, Silica gel in a fault slip
surface: Field evidence for palaeo-earthquakes?:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 69, p. 108–121,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​.2014​.09​.021​.
Faulkner, D.R., and Rutter, E.H., 2001, Can the main-
tenance of overpressured fluids in large strike-slip
fault zones explain their apparent weakness?: Geol­
ogy, v. 29, p. 503–506, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1130​
/0091​-7613​(2001)029​<0503:​CTMOOF>2​.0​.CO;2​.
Gratier, J.P., Favraeu, P., Renard, F., 2002, Fluid pres-
sure evolution during the earthquake cycle con-
trolled by fluid flow and pressure solution crack
sealing: Earth, Planets, and Space, v. 54, p. 1139–
1146, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1186​/BF03353315​.
Herrington, R.J., and Wilkinson, J.J., 1993, Colloidal
gold and silica in mesothermal vein systems: Geol­
ogy, v. 21, p. 539–542, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1130​
/0091​-7613​(1993)021​<0539:​CGASIM>2​.3​.CO;2​.
Holmgren, M., 2006, X Steam for Matlab: www​
.x-eng​.com, https://​www​.academia​.edu​/8313866​
/X_STEAM_FOR_MATLAB (​ accessed October
2018)​.
Hubbert, M.K., and Rubey, W.M., 1959, Role of fluid
pressure in mechanics of overthrust faulting: 1.
Mechanics of fluid-filled porous solids and its
application to overthrust faulting: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 70, p. 115–166,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1130​/0016​-7606​(1959)70​[115:​
ROFPIM]2​.0​.CO;2​.
Lander, R.H., Larese, R.E., and Bonnell, L.M., 2008,
Toward more accurate quartz cement models:
The importance of euhedral versus noneuhedral
growth rates: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 92, p. 1537–1563, https://​
doi​.org​/10​.1306​/07160808037​.
McCalpin, J.P., and Slemmons, D.B., 1998, Statistics
of Paleoseismic Data: U.S. Geological Survey
Final Technical Report, Contract 1434-HQ-
96-GR-02752, National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, 61 p.
Melosh, B.L., Rowe, C.D., Smit, L., Groenewald,
C., Lambert, C.W., and Macey, P., 2014, Snap,
crackle, pop: Dilational fault breccias record seis-
mic slip below the brittle-plastic transition: Earth
and Planetary Science Letters, v. 403, p. 432–445,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.epsl​.2014​.07​.002​.
Melosh, B.L., Rowe, C.D., Gerbi, C., Bate, C.E., and
Shulman, D., 2016, The spin zone: Transient mid-
crust permeability caused by coseismic breccia-
tion: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 87, p. 47–
63, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​.2016​.04​.003​.
Milliken, K.L., Reed, R.M., and Laubach, S.E., 2005,
Quantifying compaction and cementation in defor­
ma­tion bands in porous sandstones, in ­Sorkhabi,
R., and Tsuji, Y., eds., Faults, Fluid Flow, and
Petro­leum Traps: American Association of Petro­
leum Geologists Memoirs, v. 85, p. 237–249,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1306​/1033726M85252​.
Nakatani, M., and Scholz, C.H., 2004, Frictional heal-
ing of quartz gouge under hydrothermal condi-
tions: 1. Experimental evidence of solution trans-
fer healing mechanism: Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, v. 109, B07201, https://​
doi​.org​/10​.1029​/2001JB001522​.
Oliver, N.H.S., and Bons, P.D., 2001, Mechanisms
of fluid flow and fluid-rock interaction in fossil
metamorphic hydrothermal systems inferred from
vein-wallrock patterns, geometry and microstruc-
ture: Geofluids, v. 1, p. 137–162, https://​doi​.org​
/10​.1046​/j​.1468​-8123​.2001​.00013​.x​.
Renard, F., Gratier, L., Jamtveita, B., 2000, Kinetics
of crack-sealing, intergranular pressure solution,
and compaction around active faults: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 22, p. 1395–1407.
Saishu, H., Okamoto, A., and Otsubo, M., 2017,
Silica precipitation potentially controls earth-
quake recurrence in seismogenic zones: Scientific
Reports, v. 7, p. 13337, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1038​
/s41598​-017​-13597​-5​.
Sibson, R.H., 1982, Fault zone models, heat flow,
and the depth distribution of earthquakes in the
continental crust of the United States: Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, v. 72,
p. 151–163.
Sibson, R.H., 1989, Earthquake faulting as a struc-
tural process: Journal of Structural Geology,
v. 11, p. 1–14, https://d​ oi.​ org/​ 10.​ 1016​/0191​-8141​
(89)90032​-1​.
Sibson, R.H., 1990, Conditions for fault-valve be-
haviour, in Knipe, R.J., and Rutter, E.H., eds.,
Deformation Mechanisms, Rheology and Tec-
tonics: Geological Society of London Special
Publications, v. 54, p. 15–28, https://​doi​.org​/10​
.1144​/GSL​.SP​.1990​.054​.01​.02​.
Sibson, R.H., 1992, Implications of fault-valve be-
haviour for rupture nucleation and recurrence:
Tectonophysics, v. 211, p. 283–293, https://​doi​
.org​/10​.1016​/0040​-1951​(92)90065​-E​.
Sibson, R.H., 1995, Selective fault reactivation during
basin inversion: Potential for fluid redistribution
through fault-valve action, in Buchanan, J.G.,
and Buchanan, P.G., eds., Basin Inversion: Geo-
logical Society of London Special Publications,
v. 88, p. 3–19, https://​doi​.org​/10​.1144​/GSL​.SP​
.1995​.088​.01​.02​.
Smith, S.A.F., Collettini, C., and Holdsworth, R.E.,
2008, Recognizing the seismic cycle along an-
cient faults: CO2-induced fluidization of breccias
in the footwall of a sealing low-angle normal fault:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 30, p. 1034–1046,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​.2008​.04​.010​.
Tenthorey, E., and Cox, S.F., 2006, Cohesive strength-
ening of fault zones during the interseismic pe-
riod: An experimental study: Journal of Geo-
physical Research: Solid Earth, v. 111, B09202,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1029​/2005JB004122​.
Ujiie, K., Saishu, H., Fagereng, A., Nishiyama, N.,
Otsudo, M., Masuyama, H., and Kagi, H., 2018,
An explanation of episodic tremor and slow slip
constrained by crack-seal veins and viscous shear
in subduction mélange: Geophysical Research
Letters, v. 45, p. 5371–5379, https://​doi​.org​/10​
.1029​/2018GL078374​.
Wagner, W., and Kretzschmar, H.-J., 2008, Interna-
tional Steam Tables: Properties of Water and
Steam Based on the Industrial Formulation
IAPWS-IF97: International Association for the
Properties of Water and Steam, p. 7–150, https://​
doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-540​-74234​-0​.
Weatherley, D.K., and Henley, R.W., 2013, Flash va-
porization during earthquakes evidenced by gold
deposits: Nature Geoscience, v. 6, p. 294–298,
https://​doi​.org​/10​.1038​/ngeo1759​.
Williams, R.T., Farver, J.R., Onasch, C.M., and
­Winslow, D.F., 2015, An experimental investiga-
tion of the role of microfracture surfaces in con-
trolling quartz precipitation rate: Applications to
fault zone diagenesis: Journal of Structural Geol­
ogy, v. 74, p. 24–30, https://d​ oi.​ org​/10​.1016​/j​.jsg​
.2015​.02​.011​.
Printed in USA