Do Injection‐Induced Earthquakes Rupture Away from Injection Wells due to Fluid Pressure Change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| January 08, 2019 Do Injection‐Induced Earthquakes Rupture Away from Injection Wells due to Fluid Pressure Change? Semechah K. Y. Lui; Semechah K. Y. Lui aDepartment of Chemical and Physical Sciences, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, DV 4041, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1C3, semechah.lui@utoronto.cacAlso at Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B1. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Yihe Huang Yihe Huang bDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, 1100 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Semechah K. Y. Lui aDepartment of Chemical and Physical Sciences, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, DV 4041, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1C3, semechah.lui@utoronto.cacAlso at Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B1. Yihe Huang bDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, 1100 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 08 Jan 2019 Online Issn: 1943-3573 Print Issn: 0037-1106 © Seismological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2019) 109 (1): 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180233 Article history First Online: 08 Jan 2019 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Semechah K. Y. Lui, Yihe Huang; Do Injection‐Induced Earthquakes Rupture Away from Injection Wells due to Fluid Pressure Change?. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2019;; 109 (1): 358–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180233 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract Understanding the relationship between earthquake rupture processes and injection locations can shed lights on the underlying triggering mechanisms of induced seismicity. Rupture directivity, in particular, has strong effects on the resulting ground motions. Here, we constrain rupture directivity of four major induced earthquakes (Mw≥5.0) in the central United States that occurred between 2011 and 2016. We utilize the rich pool of broadband and strong‐motion seismic data and select smaller earthquake recordings as empirical Green’s functions (EGFs) to forward‐model the rupture directions of the target events assuming the 1D Haskell model. The typical notion is that rupture tends to propagate away from the injection site where fluid pressure is the highest. Our analysis of four target earthquakes indicates various rupture styles with respect to the location of injection wells. The 2011 Mw 5.7 Prague and 2016 Mw 5.0 Cushing earthquakes ruptured away from the injection wells, whereas the 2016 Mw 5.1 Fairview earthquake ruptured toward the injection. The 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee earthquake, potentially due to a downward initial rupture, shows weak to no bias of rupture directivity relative to the injection source in our analysis. In light of theoretical models of induced earthquake rupture, we find that high‐pressure injection and low initial shear stress on the fault, which are well suited to describe the Fairview region, may favor rupture toward the injection well if earthquakes are primarily induced by pore‐pressure change on the fault. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".