Deformation rates and localization of an active fault system in relation with

rheological and frictional slip properties: The Corinth Rift case

S.El Arem, H. Lyon-Caen, P. Bernard, J-D. Garaud, F. Rolandone, P. Briole
Ecole Normale Suprieure, laboratory of geology, PARIS, FRANCE
Contacts: elarem@geologie.ens.fr

I. INTRODUCTION
The rift of corinth is a site with major
importance in Europe giving its intense
tectonic activity. It is a 100 km long basin that
divides central Greece from the Peloponesse.
It is among the world's most rapidly extending
continental
region having the heighest
a
seismicity in the Euro-medeterranian area.
GPS studies indicate extension rates of 10-15
mm/yr; among the highest in the
medeterranian area. An elasto-visco-plastic
d strain-rate
model
is considered with
dependent rheology: Elasticity (E, ),
Drucker-prager plasticity, Norton viscoplasticity, Contact conditions with Coulomb
friction.

II. CONTEXT AND AIM OF THE STUDY

Some description of the region faulting b
Microseismicity
Major active faults
Last recorded earthquakes characteristics

d
Figure 2. sketchofthemajoractivefaults
oftheCRLarea

Figure 1. Rheologicalmodel

Figure 2. Activity

Our purpose with these simple 2D models is:

1.

III. Rheology
Differents
rheological models:
Tensile
tester

To explore the rheology effects

d
deformation (UpLift and Opening rates)
2. GPS versus numerical mechanics
3. Seismic cycle models
b

on

the

rift

Figure 2. Differentialstress/Rheology

IV. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Drucker-Prager : F=qPtan ()d

Finite element mesh: linear elements, the finest resolution of 300 m is in the fault area and it

P=1 /3trace(); q=(1/ 2S: S)

S=1/ 3trace ()I

Friction angle

d: cohesion

G=qPtan ()
Associated Flow : =
Flow potential :

decreases to 2~3 km along the mesh boundaries.

Loading: gravity, extention 1.3cm/yr.
Mechanical modelling: finite strain, contact with Coulomb constant friction on the fault lips.
Dislocation creep: viscous power-law rheology v = A q n exp(Q/ RT) t

n=3.1 A=2.10

21

Pa

n 1

R=8.314

Figure4.FEModel,loadingandBC(b)linearverticalTgradient(c)Verticaldifferentialstressq
Figure 2. Yieldsurfaceandflowdirection

SOFTWARE:Zebulon http://www.zset-software.com

V. MAIN RESULTS
1. Differential stress

2. GPS DATA and PREDICTION of OUR MODEL

Fig 6. Differential stress as a function of Q (left). Distribution of DS (right)

2. Surface Deformation rates

Fig. 8 GPS data for interseismic velocities and
the prediction of our model

4.
Fig. 7. Cumulated plastic deformation

3. Vertical Deformation

Fig. 11 Comparison of different viscosities in LVW

We find that at the end of seismic cycle the viscosities of the order
of 1018 Pas and 1017 Pas don't gave significant difference,
however the proper viscosity can be derived from the velocities in
the beginning of the cycle (for different viscosities they are
different)
5.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the horizontal(left) and vertical(right) velocities for the models with
LVW, LVCh 2 years after the earthquakes

So the Low Viscosity Wedge seems favored

Fig. 12. Comparison of viscoelastic model with LVW, elastic unifrom

model and elastic PREM model

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

- Rheology: paisseur de la zone fragile
- geometrie des failles: profondeur et pendage
- 3D