seismic monitoring of volcano processes
DESCRIPTION
Seismic monitoring of volcano processes. Paola Traversa , Jean-Robert Grasso. Chambery, 17 octobre, 2008. Main objective. To study the seismic response of a volcano to different magmatic processes. Work axes. To identify the portion of seismicity directly related to volcano processes - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Chambery, 17 octobre, 2008
Seismic monitoring of
volcano processes
Paola Traversa, Jean-Robert Grasso
2
Main objective• To study the seismic response of a volcano To study the seismic response of a volcano
to different magmatic processesto different magmatic processes
Work axes• To identify the portion of seismicity directly related to volcano
processes
• To detect specific patterns of volcano tectonic seismicity with respect to tectonic seismicity and for different phases of volcanic activity, in particular during dyke propagation
• Mechanical implications for basaltic intrusion dynamics:
• Laboratory experiments• Numerical modeling
• Monitoring of the stress history created by the dyke intrusion responsible for the nucleated seismicity
3
1. Volcano vs Tectonic seismicity
itt
i tN )(0
Uncorrelated Seismicity
Correlated Seismicity
Modified Omori’s law[Utsu et al., 1995; Helmstetter and Sornette, 2002]
• Background activity, modeled by a homogeneous Poisson process
• Generated by an external loading
• Tectonic case: driven by plate-tectonic loading
• Volcanic case: driven by a volcanic process (pressure change, mass transfer...)
• Sequence of events following a “mainshock” (“Aftershock Cascade”)
• Triggered by earthquake interactions
• Average patterns reproducible by ETAS model
Model of earthquake occurrence
4
Volcano vs tectonic seismicity
• Observations:
• Tectonic case and quiescent volcanoes:
EQ occurrence => = and • During magma intrusions:
Magma rising => and
itt
i tN )(0
itt
i tN )(0
Most portion of volcano seismicity
during intrusion is related to volcano
process (little noise)
5
Volcano vs Tectonic seismicity
UncorrelatedCorrelated
Vesuvius –dormant (Feb. 1972 – Aug. 2006)
t0 ≡ mainshock occurrence, defined as any event (independently of its magnitude) not preceded by another one within a time equal to the median of the Δt.t > t0 seismicity following the mainshock (aftershock cascade)
Tectonic seismicity / ETAS model:
Power law decrease of the seismicity rate following a “mainshock”,
Go back to the background rate.
Quiescent volcano:Volcano seismicity = Typical tectonic
seismicity pattern
6
Volcano vs Tectonic Seismicity
During dyke intrusions: Piton de la Fournaise 1988-1992 (7 intrusions) – Etna 2002 intrusion – Miyakejima 2000 intrusion
Piton de la Fournaise
Etna intrusion
Miyakejima Etna non-intrusion
Peculiar dyke seismicity patterns:
weak, if any, Omori’s law pattern
following mainshocks.
7
Volcano vs Tectonic seismicity• Why seismicity during dyke injection looses
its capacity of producing aftershocks?
HP: Forcing rate generated by the intruding dyke is too high to allow for stress redistribution and full aftershock development within the solid matrix
Analysis of the seismicity related to the 2000 Miyakejima dyke injection (the largest seismic swarm ever recorded)
8
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Coulomb stress loading:
nSCFS '
The overall change in normal stress
generated by the dyke opening
explains 80% of the total swarm seismicity (the near-dyke one)
Seismic swarm accompanying the intrusion: June 26 – August 29
9
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Toda et al., [2002] explains the overall seismicity by the total change in shear stressing rate generated by the intrusion and a magma chamber inflation.
( stressing rate ↔ relaxation time)
10
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Time monitoring of the stressing history generating the 2000 seismicity
Deterministic approach:
RATE- and STATE-dependent friction law
[Dieterich, 1994]
Non-linear relationship between the stress state and
the seismicity rate.
We follow the evolution of the earthquake nucleation
sources subjected to some stressing history.
dddt
Ad
1 γ is a state variable evolving with time and stressing history. It determines the distribution of slip speeds preceding instabilities
Magmatic intrusion
11
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Time monitoring of the characteristics of the seismic swarm accompanying the magmatic intrusion
Stochastic approach:
Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence
modeling (ETAS)
tt
mcmp
ii
iectt
tKttN 0
0
Seismicity driven by magma movement -->
Background activity and earthquake-interaction driven activity are non-
stationary.
Non-stationary ETAS formulation in λ0(t) and K0
12
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Aftershock productivity
HIGHER stressing rate
higher component of events generated by the dyke intrusion
lower component generated by earthquake interaction.
Background fraction
Stressing rate
13
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusionPower law relaxation of seismicity following the last eruption --> eruption
behaves as a mainshock in generating the seismicity.
Result confirmed by the seismicity pattern
following the Etna 2002 eruption.
14
Intrusion Data
• Piton de la Fournaise (1988-1992), 7 seismic crises (durations: 0.5-4.5 h), 6 of them ending up into an eruption. Temporal histories extracted from analog signals (time, Md, no location).
• Etna (2002), crisis preceding the 2002-2003 eruption, duration: 6.3 h
• Miyakejima (2000), seismic swarm accompanying the June-July 2000 intrusion, duration: 281.2h
15
58153199
345044
97
Seismic activity during intrusion• No clear accelerating/decelerating patterns
of seismicity
Fluctuations dues to the undersampling of the Poisson process
Constant occurrence rate is repruducible by a homogeneous Poisson process (constant mean)
Random draws with the same dimension as seismic series
!)(
x
exP
x
N (m≥mc)70
2145
N(m≥mc)
16
Energy rate during intrusion
• Fluctuating around a mean value, without any accelerating/decelerating pattern.
Fluctuations compatibles with those of a Gutenberg-Richter law with constant b value.
Start injection End injection
17
Seismicity during dyke intrusion
• Stationary seismicity rate
• Stationary energy rate
Independently of:
• Intrusion duration (0.5 h to 11 days)• Maximum magnitude (1.6 to 5.6)• Dyke size (~1km to 15 km)• Emitted lava volume
DYKE INTRUSION: SCALE INDEPENDENT STATIONARY PROCESS
SMALL SCALE HETEROGENEITIES, STEP-WISE PROPAGATION (lab simulations), AND TWO-PHASES
INTRUSION NOT SOLVEDConstant damage rate ~ Constant injection flux
Seismicity during dyke intrusion is a response of the edifice on its all
18
Generic model for the intrusion• Dyke propagation: STATIONARY
• At lab scales: stationarity reproducible by strain driven experiments variable loading:
Tesile mode I on paper• Strain driven peeling• Strain driven tensile (mode I)• Secondary creep
Secondary creep on rocks
Sec. CreepDYKE PROPAGATION ~ STRAIN-DRIVEN PROCESS (VARIABLE LOADING) → SECONDARY
CREEP
19
Dynamics of magma injection• Observed stationary seismicity prevent from distinguishing the recurrently observed two-phase intrusions → HP: constant magma flux at the dyke entry
• Verify that the constant flux model is compatible with the observations. vertical injection → effect of a lithological discontinuity (?) → change to a horizontal magma injection near the surface
- Same flux injection as the vertical “conduit”
- ¿ Can we recover the observed velocity scaling between vertical and horizontal dyke propagation?
- ¿ How to model the change in direction?
z
Magma reservoir
Dyke
Volcanic edificeh
20
Numerical model of stationary volumetric magma flux into a dyke rising vertically from a superficial reservoir (test on Piton de la Fournaise, input data from previous studies):
- Rising time
- Volume of magma injected into the dyke
- Average propagation velocity
RESULTS COMPATIBLE
WITH OBSERVATIONS
Vertical magma rising from a superficial reservoir. Processes:
- Buoyancy
- Varying pressure at the dyke inlet
- Lithostatic loading
Horizontal migration. Processes
- Effect of a density discontinuity
- Topography
- Flux at the entry
Dynamics of magma injection
z
Magma reservoir
Dyke
Volcanic edifice
h
21
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
¿Any correlation between the dyke propagation velocity and the observed seismicity rate?
Dyke propagation period: June 26 to July 8 [Ueda et al., 2005]
Migration of hypocenters
Time since June 26
22
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Migration of earthquake center of mass during dyke propagation
~ propagation velocity of the dyke.
200 event (m ≥ mc) non-overlapping
windows.
23
2000 Miyakejima dyke intrusion
Correlation between the dyke propagation velocity and the observed seismicity
~ constant propagation
velocity
correlation between the
observed seismicity rate.
Cumulative seismicity
Dyke propagation speed
Inversion of sense
24
Conclusions• On volcanoes, ↑ in seismicity are primarily due to
background seismicity rate changes (strongest during dyke intrusions).
• Dyke intrusions: external forcing rate > tectonic loading rate. This prevents earthquakes interactions (Omori’s law) to fully develop.
• Magma intrusions can be modeled as “silent” or “slow” earthquakes in terms of stress history.
• Constant seismicity rate → Dyke intrusion is a stationary process → Constant volumetric flux at the dyke inlet
• Stationarity → Dyke intrusion ~ strain driven process with variable loading (i.e. secondary creep) → ¿ pressure decrease at the base of the dyke? → FINITE SIZE OF THE RESERVOIR