Overlapping regions of coseismic and transient slow slip on the Hawaiian décollement

Geodetic Coupling Models as Constraints on Stochastic Earthquake Ruptures: An Example Application to PTHA in Cascadia

“…An example in recent is the July 2020 M 7.8 earthquake off the Alaskan‐Aleutian arc is believed to have ruptured in the eastern portion of the previously assumed, seismically uncoupled Shumagin Gap (Crowell & Melgar, 2020). Observational studies have also shown potential overlap between regions with slow slip and regions with coseismic slip (e.g., Lin et al., 2020). However, since the dynamic effects and their influences in rupture propagation into transition zones are not yet well understood in terms of what controls them and how to quantify their likelihood of occurrence, we do not include them in the rupture modeling process.…”

Inherited State of Stress as a Key Factor Controlling Slip and Slip Mode: Inference From the Study of a Slow Slip Event in the Longitudinal Valley, Taiwan

“…Since insignificant coseismic slip is inferred in the transient region (Figure 4 and ), the latter may have acted as a barrier, limiting the rupture propagation northeastward. Rupture penetration in transient regions being mainly controlled by effective stress differences between “fast” and “slow” slip regions (J. T. Lin et al., 2020), further analysis are needed to decipher whether a dominant aseismic slip mode prevails throughout the earthquake cycle for the transient slow slip zone (e.g., Perfettini et al., 2010; Rolandone et al., 2018) (i.e., a permanent barrier), or if seismic ruptures can partially or completely penetrate it (e.g., J. T. Lin et al., 2020). Finally, the SSE region also lies in an area of moderate afterslip, suggesting that sections of the LVF experiencing afterslip can also host SSEs (Rolandone et al., 2018; Yarai & Ozawa, 2013).…”

Megathrust Modeling Workshop Report

“…However, recent observations have proven that the two do not always coincide. Earthquakes can sometimes rupture a fraction of previous ruptures or locked areas (e.g., Avouac et al, 2015;Schurr et al, 2014;Melgar et al, 2017) or break through regions that had been assumed to be creeping or experiencing slow slip (e.g., Simons et al, 2011;Noda & Lapusta, 2013, Lin et al 2020. Moreover, locking patterns are not always stationary: geodetic studies in Japan (Johnson et al, 2016) and Kamchatka (Bürgmann et al, 2005) have inferred a reduction of the locked area with time.…”

“…Regions hosting slow slip and tremor often abut those known to slip coseismically (e.g., Nishikawa et al, 2019), possibly suggesting fixed rheological, frictional, and/or geometric controls on deformation style. However, there is some evidence of regions that host slow slip overlapping with regions that slip coseismically (Lin et al 2020). Other examples of spatial interactions include model predictions and/or observations of stress transfer from repeated slow slip events onto regions capable of hosting large megathrust earthquakes (e.g., Uchida et al, 2016, Cruz-Atienza et al, 2020, slow slip events evolving into megathrust earthquakes (Segall & Bradley, 2012), and coseismic slip penetrating into regions known to host slow slip (Noda & Lapusta, 2013;Ramos & Huang, 2019;Lin et al 2020).…”

“…However, there is some evidence of regions that host slow slip overlapping with regions that slip coseismically (Lin et al 2020). Other examples of spatial interactions include model predictions and/or observations of stress transfer from repeated slow slip events onto regions capable of hosting large megathrust earthquakes (e.g., Uchida et al, 2016, Cruz-Atienza et al, 2020, slow slip events evolving into megathrust earthquakes (Segall & Bradley, 2012), and coseismic slip penetrating into regions known to host slow slip (Noda & Lapusta, 2013;Ramos & Huang, 2019;Lin et al 2020). Slip behaviors also have temporal relationships that vary throughout the seismic cycle.…”