Hydraulic Stimulation Experiments Attempting to Enhance Induced Seismicity for Earthquake Physics Research

Read full text
Authors: Valentin Samuel Gischig, Men‐Andrin Meier, Aurora Lambiase, Danyang Jiang, Marian Hertrich, Nima Gholizadeh Doonechaly, Mohammadreza Jalali, Antonio Pio Rinaldi, Stefano Aretusini, Kathrin Behnen, Kai Bröker, Alberto Ceccato
+39 more Victor Clasen Repollés, John Clinton, Luca Dal Zilio, Pascal Edme, Thomas Haag, Rébecca Hochreutener, Alexandra Lightfoot, Cara Magnabosco, Frédérick Massin, Hansruedi Maurer, Maria Mesimeri, Leila Mizrahi, Francesco Mosconi, Anne Christine Obermann, Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi, Edoardo Pezzulli, Giulio Poggiali, Giacomo Pozzi, Martina Rosskopf, Luca Scarabello, Ryan Schultz, Miriam Schwarz, Paul Antony Selvadurai, Alexis Shakas, Elena Spagnuolo, Mariano Supino, Lu Tian, Elisa Tinti, Katinka Tuinstra, Liliana Vargas‐Meleza, Linus Villiger, Zhe Wang, Alba Zappone, Eric Zimmermann, Jordan Aaron, Florian Amann, Massimo Cocco, Stefan Wiemer, Domenico Giardini
Cited by: 1
References: 70

Abstract

Abstract Improving our understanding of induced and natural earthquakes benefits from controlled experiments in insitu laboratories. To investigate the processes during an Mw∼0 earthquake, we performed the “ Mzero ” experiments in a densely instrumented testbed of the Bedretto Underground Laboratory. These multi‐day hydraulic stimulation experiments went the opposite direction to typical induced seismicity research in that they were designed to enhance seismic rupture. In the first experiment, MzeroA, the rock mass was preconditioned by injecting water for 4 days at a pressure just below fracture reactivation pressure followed by a hydraulic stimulation above reactivation pressure. This strategy aimed at increasing the fractures area near critical stress conditions for shear failure, thus facilitating larger ruptures. During MzeroA, an event with Mw–0.54 was induced, followed by a distinct aftershock sequence. This event was one magnitude unit larger than any preceding event. In the second experiment, MzeroB, stimulation was initiated directly, without preconditioning. Compared to MzeroA, MzeroB exhibited higher seismicity rates, a larger seismicity cloud, and a pronounced migrating seismicity front. Combining seismological and hydromechanical observations, we discuss mechanisms that may have influenced the contrasting seismicity responses. In addition to fluid preconditiong, stress transfer from the Mw–0.54 mainshock, and natural seasonal pressure changes, may have contributed to modulating the seismogenic response. However, the relative importance of these processes remains uncertain given experimental limitations. Our results highlight both the potential and challenge of designing hydraulic stimulations to enhance or suppress seismic rupture, with implications for earthquake physics and induced seismicity.

Fields of Study & Subjects

earthquake and tectonic studies Seismology and Earthquake Studies CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions

Publication details

Journal / source
Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Volume
131
Issue
7
Publication date
1 July 2026
Language
EN