Coupled Evolution of Deformation, Pore Fluid Pressure, and Fluid Flow in Shallow Subduction Forearcs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deformation and fluid flow in subduction zone forearcs are dynamically coupled, but our quantitative understanding of their coupling is incomplete. In this work, we investigate the hydrological and mechanical coupling in shallow forearcs, using a Lagrangian‐Eulerian finite element model that incorporates constitutive and transport properties of sediments and faults constrained by laboratory and field measurements. Wide‐ranging observations show that sediment thickness and composition, plate convergence rate, basement strength and roughness, and subducting slab dip angle vary between subduction zones. We therefore systematically study their effects on forearc stress and pore fluid pressure states, consolidation and dewatering patterns, and margin morphology. Our models, with the incorporation of a simple description of permeability enhancement along fault damage zones, yield a range of fault permeability (10−13–10−17 m2) consistent with previous estimates and describe the important role of upper plate splay faults in causing heterogeneous dewatering and consolidation patterns and in modulating effective normal stress on the plate interface. Spatial variations in tectonic loading and sediment consolidation can also be caused by subducting basement roughness such as a horst‐and‐graben structure. For typically observed relief and spacing, our models predict locally enhanced porosity reduction by up to 50% at the downdip edge of the horsts and anomalously high sediment porosity above the geometrical highs. At the margin scale, our results demonstrate that sediment permeability and thickness are dominant controls on fluid overpressure, sediment compaction, and megathrust strength. Rough and frictionally strong megathrusts produce similar effects in driving high wedge tapers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".