michele cooke department of geosciences 1. work budget 2. boundary element method 3. grow
TRANSCRIPT
Michele CookeDepartment of Geosciences
1. Work Budget2. Boundary Element
Method3. GROW
2
Work min = limit analysis ?
Civil structures• Attention to the most efficient
mode of failure• Efficient = least load at failure
= min max load
Geologic structures• Is the Earth lazy?• Most efficient fault grows… or
doesn’t
Photo by Mike Gross
3
4
Fault Evolution: San Gorgonio Knot
Modified from Matti et al, 1992
Up to ~500 kyMission Creek Strand
500 ky -> ~120 kyMill Creek StrandReactivate San Gorgonio
120 ky -> Present DaySan Bernardino Strand Garnet Hill FaultReactivate Banning
5
Work min = limit analysis ?
Civil structures• Attention to the most efficient
mode of failure• Efficient = least load at failure
= min max load
Geologic structures• Is the Earth lazy?• Most efficient fault grows… or
doesn’t
Photo by Mike Gross
6
Ways to understand fault growth
Field Evidence:• Secondary fractures
reveal fault history Empirical Criterion:
• Laboratory tests on intact rock
Theory:• Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics
Corona fault, San Francisco
7
Ways to understand fault growth
Field Evidence:• Secondary fractures
reveal fault history Empirical Criterion:
• Laboratory tests on intact rock
Theory:• Linear Elastic Fracture
MechanicsValley of Fire, NV
Myers and Aydin, 2004, JSG
Normal faults in Moab, UT
8
Ways to understand fault growth
Field Evidence:• Secondary fractures
reveal fault history Empirical Criterion:
• Laboratory tests on intact rock
Theory:• Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics• Measure strength at different confining
pressures -> Mohr-Coulomb Criterion
= c +
Image from EP solutions
9
Ways to understand fault growth
Field Evidence:• Secondary fractures
reveal fault history Empirical Criterion:
• Laboratory tests on intact rock
Theory:• Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics
• Faults grow by coalescence of cracks• For faults Gc not well-constrained
• Micromechanics• Seismologic
€
G =(1−ν 2)
EK I
2 +(1−ν 2)
EK II
2 +(1+ ν )
EK III
2
Failure when G >= Gc
10
How do faults grow and evolve?
Is the Earth Lazy?
whatever
Active faults of southern California (from Southern California Earthquake Center)
Minimization of work considers the behavior of the entire fault system
11
How does the Earth know that it is lazy?
A ball rolling downhill doesn’t know that it is lazy but still follows the path of least resistance.
12
Evidence of Work Minimization
Geometry of spreading centers [Sleep, 1979] and mudcracks reflects work minimization accommodate shrinkage with minimum new fracture surface
Faults become more smooth with greater slip
Strike-slip traces [e.g. Wesnousky, 1988], extensional fault traces [Gupta et al., 1998], and lab [Scholz, 1990].
Rymer, 2000
13
Applications of Work Minimization: Normal fault arrays
Antithetic faults are favored over synthetic faults [Melosh & Williams, 1989]
Photo by Marli Miller
Antithetic
Synthetic
14
Applications of Minimum Work: fabric evolution Code Elle uses minimization
of average local work rate to simulate the evolution of microstructures during deformation and metamorphism [ e.g. Lebensohn et al., 2008, Griera et al, 2011]
Griera et al., 2011
15
Applications of Minimum Work: fold and thrust belts Growth of critical tapered wedges
[e.g. Masek and Duncan, 1998], duplexes [Mitra and Boyer, 1986] and folds [Ismat, 2009]
Burbidge and Braun [2002]: use work analysis to explain the accretion-underthrust cycle
Work minimization to predict fault evolution [Maillot & Leroy, 2003; Souloumiac et al., 2008; Cubas et al, 2008]
from Dahlen, et al., 1984
From Cubas et al., 2008
16
Mechanical work: Force * Distance
Deformation – stored work ½ stress * strain
Potential Energyweight * distance
Frictional HeatShear stress * slip
Acoustic/Seismic EnergyShear stress drop * slip
Fracture energyGibb’s free energy * surface area
reversible
irreversible
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
17
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
tectonic
18
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
deformation
€
W int =1
2σ ijε ijdV∫∫∫
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
tectonic
19
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
uplift againstgravity
deformation
€
Wgrav = ρgdz (z)dV∫∫∫
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
tectonic
20
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
uplift againstgravity
deformation
heat
€
W fric = ∫ τ ε a( )slip ε a( )dε adS∫∫
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
tectonic
21
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
uplift againstgravity
ground shakingdeformation
heat
€
Wseis = ∫ Δτ (ε a )slip(ε a )dε adS∫∫
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
tectonic
22
Work terms associated with weakening
Seismologists divide as EF, G and ER
Cooke & Murphy, 2004Savage & Cooke, 2010
23
Work Budget: Wint + Wgrav + Wfric + Wseis + Wprop = Wext
uplift againstgravity
ground shakingdeformation
new faultsurfaces
heattectonic
W prop (1 2)
EK Ic
2 S
W prop S
Lab:10-104 J/m2 (Wong, 1982, 1986; Cox & Scholz, 1988; Lockner et al., 1992).Field: 105-106 J/m2 (Wilson et al 2005; Pittarello et al, 2008).
Cooke & Murphy, 2004
24
Fric2D
Two-dimensional Boundary Element Method code• Continuum mechanics• Discretize boundaries and faults
into linear dislocation elements Crack/fault propagation via
addition of elements Static friction along faults
• Non-linear behavior requires iterative convergence
Other features not presented here• Growth of fault damage (e.g.
Savage & Cooke, 2010)
25
Analog models provide direct observation of fault growth
from Ask & Morgan, 2010
from Adam et al., 2005
from Cubas et al., 2010
26
New faults grow during accretion
a) Accretion: new forethrust
b) UnderthrustingWedge thickening
c) Accretion: new forethrust
27
Sandbox experiments
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) records the development of accreting forethrust with 2.2 cm of contraction
Adam et al. 2005Henry Cadell ~1880
28
Model Set-Up
Boundary Element Method (Fric2d) Simulate %0.5 cm of contraction Frictional slip along faults Medium sand
• E = 10 MPa; = 1732 kg/m3
Forethrust
29
Thrust Sheet Growth
Total work increases during underthrusting
With addition of the forethrust, work decreases
Increased Wint is offset by decreased Wfric
Del Castello and Cooke, 2007
30
Energy of Fault Growth
Wint
+ Wfric
+ Wgrav
Wprop
+ Wseis
Del Castello and Cooke, 2007
31
Location and vergence of most efficient thrust
Test a suite of locations and vergence
30˚ dipping forethrusts ahead of the wedge are more efficient than 40˚ dipping backthrusts
The preferred location and dip match the sandbox
Del Castello and Cooke, 2007
32
Force drop with fault growth observed in sandbox
From Cubas et al., 2008
Nieuwland et al, 2001
33
Evolution of force during accretion
sandbox experiment from Université de Cergy-
Pontoise
sandbox experiment at Stanford (Cruz et al, 2010)
3434
½ ΔF Δd = ΔW ΔW = γΔS + Wseis + Wfric
Cost of fault growth
80 mJ/m2 We can use the observed
change in work per unit fault area to predict fault growth
Measuring Wprop+Wseis
35
Calibration
Stiff model approximates first 4 cm
Soft model matches past 6 cm
Basal friction0.5 static0.35 dynamic
within range of Souloumiac et al. ( 2012, EGU and JSG)
36
36
Timing of fault growth
Work Minimization Analog Experiments Numerical Simulations Conclusions
Hypothesis: The development of faults is more productive at peak loading than prior to peak
The addition of a fault to the stiffer sand produces greater change in work than the softer sand.
Early compaction of the sand facilitates the development of faults.
37
What does this mean for fault growth?
Lazy?
Can we use the energy of fault growth to predict timing of fault development in the sandbox?
How much energy does it take to grow a fault in the crust?• Lab:10-104 J/m2 (Wong, 1982,
1986; Cox & Scholz, 1988; Lockner et al., 1992).
• Field: 105-106 J/m2 (Wilson et al 2005; Pittarello et al, 2008).
• Need more constraints
• If Wprop were negligible then faults would not be long-lived.