Geology topics

Sylvain Barbot

Publications and source records attributed to Sylvain Barbot.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

2022 Crustal Deformation Modeling Workshop Report

The 2022 Crustal Deformation Modeling Workshop was held June 20–24 at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. The workshop included two days of tutorials on the use of the open-source software PyLith for crustal deformation modeling followed by three days of science talks and discussions. The workshop focused on three primary themes: (1) Earthquake cycle modeling; (2) Inversions for fault slip; and (3) Faulting, fluids, and surface loading. The talks highlighted how computational models provide insight into intriguing observations of Earth and planetary behavior. These included (1) earthquake synchronization of rupture patches due to their close proximity to each other, (2) the influence of fault geometry and damage zones on hypocenter depth and rupture propagation, (3) a lack of steady-state faulting behavior due to long time scales for grain size evolution in the mid-crust, (4) crustal deformation due to tidal, hydrological, and atmospheric loads, and (5) plumes of gas and icy particles due to tidal driven faulting on Enceladus (one of Saturn’s moons). The talks also described new computational modeling capabilities for incorporating complex geologic structure into Bayesian inversions for fault slip and efficient implementation of earthquake cycle models using a symmetric interior discontinuous Galerkin method. The complete agenda is available on the Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamic (CIG) website.

Report↗

USGS2020

The community code verification exercise for simulating sequences of earthquakes and aseismic slip (SEAS)

Numerical simulations of sequences of earthquakes and aseismic slip (SEAS) have made great progress over past decades to address important questions in earthquake physics. However, significant challenges in SEAS modeling remain in resolving multiscale interactions between earthquake nucleation, dynamic rupture, and aseismic slip, and understanding physical factors controlling observables such as seismicity and ground deformation. The increasing complexity of SEAS modeling calls for extensive efforts to verify codes and advance these simulations with rigor, reproducibility, and broadened impact. In 2018, we initiated a community code-verification exercise for SEAS simulations, supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center. Here, we report the findings from our first two benchmark problems (BP1 and BP2), designed to verify different computational methods in solving a mathematically well-defined, basic faulting problem. We consider a 2D antiplane problem, with a 1D planar vertical strike-slip fault obeying rate-and-state friction, embedded in a 2D homogeneous, linear elastic halfspace. Sequences of quasi-dynamic earthquakes with periodic occurrences (BP1) or bimodal sizes (BP2) and their interactions with aseismic slip are simulated. The comparison of results from 11 groups using different numerical methods show excellent agreements in long-term and coseismic fault behavior. In BP1, we found that truncated domain boundaries influence interseismic stressing, earthquake recurrence, and coseismic rupture, and that model agreement is only achieved with sufficiently large domain sizes. In BP2, we found that complexity of fault behavior depends on how well physical length scales related to spontaneous nucleation and rupture propagation are resolved. Poor numerical resolution can result in artificial complexity, impacting simulation results that are of potential interest for characterizing seismic hazard such as earthquake size distributions, moment release, and recurrence times. These results inform the development of more advanced SEAS models, contributing to our further understanding of earthquake system dynamics.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2019

Illuminating subduction zone rheological properties in the wake of a giant earthquake

Deformation associated with plate convergence at subduction zones is accommodated by a complex system involving fault slip and viscoelastic flow. These processes have proven difficult to disentangle. The 2010 M w 8.8 Maule earthquake occurred close to the Chilean coast within a dense network of continuously recording Global Positioning System stations, which provide a comprehensive history of surface strain. We use these data to assemble a detailed picture of a structurally controlled megathrust fault frictional patchwork and the three-dimensional rheological and time-dependent viscosity structure of the lower crust and upper mantle, all of which control the relative importance of afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation during postseismic deformation. These results enhance our understanding of subduction dynamics including the interplay of localized and distributed deformation during the subduction zone earthquake cycle.

Science Advances↗

USGS2015

The 2014 Mw6.1 South Napa Earthquake: A unilateral rupture with shallow asperity and rapid afterslip

The M w 6.1 South Napa earthquake occurred near Napa, California on August 24, 2014 (UTC), and was the largest inland earthquake in Northern California since the 1989 M w 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake. The first report of the earthquake from the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC) indicates a hypocentral depth of 11.0km with longitude and latitude of (122.3105°W, 38.217°N). Surface rupture was documented by field observations and Lidar imaging (Brooks et al. 2014; Hudnut et al. 2014; Brocher et al., 2015), with about 12 km of continuous rupture starting near the epicenter and extending to the northwest. The southern part of the rupture is relatively straight, but the strike changes by about 15° at the northern end over a 6-km segment. The peak dextral offset was observed near the Buhman residence with right-.‐lateral motion of 46 cm, near the location where the strike of fault begins to rotate clock-.‐wise (Hudnut et al., 2014). The earthquake was well recorded by the strong motion network operated by the NCEDC, the California Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). There are about 12 sites within an epicentral distance of 15km, with relatively good azimuthal coverage (Fig.1). The largest peak-ground-velocity (PGV) of nearly 100 cm/s was observed on station 1765, which is the closest station to the rupture and lies about 3 km east of the northern segment (Fig. 1). The ground deformation associated with the earthquake was also well recorded by the high-resolution COSMO-SkyMed satellite and Sentinel-1A satellite, providing independent static observations.

California↗