Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Authors: ||Pastori, Marina*|
|Title: ||crustal fracturing field and presence of fluid as revealed by seismic anisotropy: case-histories from seismogenic areas in the Apennines|
|Issue Date: ||17-Feb-2011|
|Keywords: ||seismic anisotropy|
stress and fracturing field
fluid in the seismogenic process
|Abstract: ||During the last decades, the study of seismic anisotropy has provided useful information for the interpretation and evaluation of the stress field and active crustal deformation. Seismic anisotropy can yield valuable information on upper crustal structure, fracture field, and presence of fluid-saturated rocks crossed by shear waves. Several studies worldwide demonstrate that seismic anisotropy is related to stress-aligned, filled-fluid micro-cracks (EDA model, Crampin et al., 1984b; Crampin, 1993).
The seismic anisotropy is an almost ubiquitous property of the Earth and the Shear Wave Splitting is the most unambiguous indicator of anisotropy, but the automatic estimation of the splitting parameters is difficult because the effect of the anisotropy on a seismogram is a second order, not easily detectable effect. Different researchers developed automated techniques aimed to study the Shear Wave Splitting: in this study, the results of different codes are compared in order to evaluate the best method for automatic anisotropy evaluation.
In the last three years, an automatic analysis code, “Anisomat+”, was developed, tested and improved to calculate the anisotropic parameters: fast polarization direction () and delay time (∂t). “Anisomat+” consists of a set of MatLab scripts able to retrieve automatically crustal anisotropy parameters from three-component seismic recordings of local earthquakes. It needs waveforms and hypocentral parameters in the format routinely archived by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV).
The code uses horizontal component cross-correlation method: a mathematical algorithm aimed to measure the similarity of the pulse shape between two shear waves.
Anisomat+ has been compared to other two automatic analysis codes (SPY and SHEBA) and tested on three zones of the Apennines (Val d’Agri, Tiber Valley and L’Aquila surroundings). It was observed that, if the number of measures is large enough, at each station the average values of the parameters (fast direction and delay time) are comparable.
The main goal in developing of an automatic code was to have tool able to work on a big amount of data, in a short time, by reducing the errors due to the subjectivity. These two acquirements are very useful and are the basis to develop a quasi real-time monitoring of the anisotropic parameters.
The anisotropic parameters, resulting from the automatic computation, have been interpreted to determine the fracture field geometries; for each area, I defined the dominant fast direction and the intensity of the anisotropy, interpreting these results in the light of the geological and structural setting and of two anisotropic interpretative models, proposed in the literature. In the first one, proposed by Zinke and Zoback (2000), the local stress field and cracks are aligned by tectonics phases and are not necessarily related to the presently active stress field. Therefore the anisotropic parameters variations are only space-dependent. In the second, EDA model (Crampin, 1993), and its development in the APE model (Zatsepin and Crampin, 1995) fluid-filled micro-cracks are aligned or ‘opened’ by the active stress field and the variation of the stress field might be related to the evolution of the pore pressure in time; therefore in this case the variation of the anisotropic parameters are both space- and time- dependent.
I recognized that the average of fast directions, in the three selected areas, are oriented NW-SE, in agreement with the orientation of the active stress field, as suggested by the EDA model, proposed by Crampin (1993), but also, by the proposed by Zinke and Zoback model; in fact, NW-SE direction corresponds also to the strike of the main fault structures in the three study regions. The mean values of the magnitude of the normalized delay time range from 0.005 s/km to 0.007 s/km and to 0.009 s/km, respectively for the L'Aquila (AQU) area, the High Tiber Valley (ATF) and the Val d'Agri (VA), suggesting a 3-4% of crustal anisotropy (Piccinini et al., 2006).
In each area are also examined the spatial and temporal distribution of anisotropic parameters, which lead to some innovative observations, listed below.
o The higher values of normalized delay times have been observed in those zones where most of the seismic events occur. This aspect was further investigated, by evaluating the average seismic rate, in a time period, between years 2005 and 2010, longer than the lapse of time, analyzed in the anisotropic studies. This comparison has highlighted that the value of the normalised delay time is larger where the seismicity rate is higher.
o In the Alto Tiberina Fault area the higher values of normalised delay time are not only related to the presence of a high seismicity rate but also to the presence of a tectonically doubled carbonate succession. Therefore, also the lithology, plays a important role in hosting and preserving the micro-fracture network responsible for the anisotropic field.
o The observed temporal variations of anisotropic parameters, have been observed and related to the fluctuation of pore fluid pressure at depth possibly induced by different mechanisms in the different regions, for instance, changes in the water table level in Val D’Agri (Valoroso et al., GJI submitted), occurrence of the April 6th Mw=6.1 earthquake in L’Aquila (Lucente et al., 2010).
Since these variations have been recognized, it is possible to affirm that the models that better fit my results, both in term of fast directions and of delay times, seems to be those proposed by Crampin (1993) and Zatsepin & Crampin (1995), respectively EDA and APE models.|
|Appears in Collections:||Theses|
04.02.99. General or miscellaneous
04.02.06. Seismic methods
04.02.07. Instruments and techniques
04.04.99. General or miscellaneous
04.04.06. Rheology, friction, and structure of fault zones
04.04.09. Structural geology
04.06.99. General or miscellaneous
04.06.01. Earthquake faults: properties and evolution
04.06.10. Instruments and techniques
04.07.99. General or miscellaneous
05.01.01. Data processing
Files in This Item:
|Appendix A.pdf||Appendix A ||31.8 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open
|Appendix B.pdf||Appendix B||91.48 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open
|Appendix C.pdf||Appendix C||60.47 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open
|Appendix D.pdf||Appendix D||151.58 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open
|PhD_Thesis_Pastori_2011.pdf||PhD Thesis||17.68 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.