3 ms·
It's possible. Seismicity has been associated with reservoirs[1] (the most well known is probably an earthquake in Egypt following the construction of the Aswan
by cossatot 3y ago
It's possible. Seismicity has been associated with reservoirs[1] (the most well known is probably an earthquake in Egypt following the construction of the Aswan High Dam) and even rainfall[2]. There are both potential triggers from the increase in the stress on the fault, as you state, due to the weight of the water; and (probably more important) the increase in pore fluid pressure along the fault.
It's a bit complicated, because the increase in stress on the fault from the weight of the reservoir can actually be primarily an increase in normal stress, i.e. an increase in the clamping force preventing the fault from slipping (i.e. the crust on either side of the fault sliding, i.e. the earthquake), so the weight of the reservoir can actually impede, rather than promote, seismicity. However if the geometry of the system is just right such that the increase in shear stress from the weight of the reservoir can increase on the fault, then the reservoir could really trigger the earthquake. Typically, though, the increase in pore fluid pressure is the most likely trigger as it's not geometry dependent--pumping a fracture with fluids will always promote failure. This is what happens with the seismicity associated with natural gas fracking and subsequent wastewater fluid injection.
The thing that is hard to grapple with all of this is that changes in stress and fluid pressure on the fault are really, really small compared with the ambient stress and fluid pressure. These are tiny changes, but there is good reason to believe that many faults, especially those in seismically active areas, are very close to frictional failure (i.e., slipping and producing an earthquake) all the time. So therefore little things can perturb the system. However, it's worth keeping in mind that most of these small changes slightly increase or decrease the time to failure (as the primary loading that is causing the stress on the fault is probably continually happening at very low rates), rather than being the ultimate cause of the earthquake.
[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=dam+impoundment+seismicity&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=dam...
[2]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027642 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200...
- joecool1029 3y agoGood shit, this is the kind of answer I hoped for posting on HN. I don't know too much about earthquake seismology, but I am curious and know where to pull random data. So I thought, if the ground is moving the aquifer levels might change (no clue whether they would go up or down). I just pulled the ground water levels for Readington Township's well (in which whitehouse station is a place). Sure enough can clearly see when the earthquake hit: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/403517074452501/#parameterCode=72019&period=P7D&showMedian=true https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/4035170744525... So is this expected? Is this a thing that normally happens with earthquakes? EDIT: Japan paper was cool https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003192018690035X https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... apparently they measure increased seismicity at times of high inflow. Also just had a big aftershock approx 22:00UTC. sounded like a bomb (I am in whitehouse station now)