Petrophysical, Geochemical, and Hydrological Evidence for Extensive Fracture‐Mediated Fluid and Heat Transport in the Alpine Fault's Hanging‐Wall Damage Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fault rock assemblages reflect interaction between deformation, stress, temperature, fluid, and chemical regimes on distinct spatial and temporal scales at various positions in the crust. Here we interpret measurements made in the hanging‐wall of the Alpine Fault during the second stage of the Deep Fault Drilling Project (DFDP‐2). We present observational evidence for extensive fracturing and high hanging‐wall hydraulic conductivity (∼10 −9 to 10 −7 m/s, corresponding to permeability of ∼10 −16 to 10 −14 m 2 ) extending several hundred meters from the fault's principal slip zone. Mud losses, gas chemistry anomalies, and petrophysical data indicate that a subset of fractures intersected by the borehole are capable of transmitting fluid volumes of several cubic meters on time scales of hours. DFDP‐2 observations and other data suggest that this hydrogeologically active portion of the fault zone in the hanging‐wall is several kilometers wide in the uppermost crust. This finding is consistent with numerical models of earthquake rupture and off‐fault damage. We conclude that the mechanically and hydrogeologically active part of the Alpine Fault is a more dynamic and extensive feature than commonly described in models based on exhumed faults. We propose that the hydrogeologically active damage zone of the Alpine Fault and other large active faults in areas of high topographic relief can be subdivided into an inner zone in which damage is controlled principally by earthquake rupture processes and an outer zone in which damage reflects coseismic shaking, strain accumulation and release on interseismic timescales, and inherited fracturing related to exhumation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".