The San Andreas Fault (SAF) is demonstrably weaker than the surrounding crust, but the cause of its weakness has been debated for decades. Laboratory friction measurements on material from the actively creeping fault zone at 2.7 km depth (San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth, SAFOD) initially gave a friction coefficient of about 0.21 on remoulded cuttings - low relative to wall rock, yet still about twice the value implied for the fault as a whole by the absence of a frictional-heating anomaly in heat-flow data and by regional stress orientations. Later intact-core experiments closed this gap at the sampled depth, attributing the local weakness to saponite- and smectite-rich gouge with a friction coefficient near 0.10. What remains unresolved is the original question at its full scale: whether this mineralogical weakness, mineral fabric, authigenic mineral growth, or sustained and transiently elevated pore-fluid pressure accounts for the fault's very low average strength throughout the seismogenic depth range - where smectite is thermally unstable, where no in-situ pore pressure has ever been measured, and where the locked, earthquake-generating segments have never been sampled.

Background

The friction coefficient μ\mu is the ratio of shear stress to effective normal stress (normal stress minus pore-fluid pressure) at which a fault slips; Byerlee's empirical rule holds that most rocks slide at μ≈0.6\mu \approx 0.6–0.850.85. Two long-standing geophysical observations indicate that the San Andreas Fault (SAF), the plate-boundary strike-slip fault through California, violates this rule. First, heat-flow measurements across the fault show no local thermal anomaly from frictional heating, which bounds the depth-averaged shear stress on the fault to less than roughly 20 MPa - corresponding, under hydrostatic pore pressure, to μ≈0.1\mu \approx 0.1 rather than Byerlee values. Second, the regional maximum compressive stress is oriented nearly perpendicular to the fault trace, which is mechanically difficult unless the fault is very weak relative to the surrounding crust. Together these form the classic SAF weakness (heat-flow) paradox.

Drilling for the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) near Parkfield, California, crossed the actively creeping fault at about 2.7 km vertical depth and recovered material from the two active creeping strands - the Southwest and Central Deforming Zones (SDZ and CDZ) - and the adjacent wall rock. Carpenter, Marone and Saffer (2011) measured a friction coefficient of μ=0.21\mu = 0.21 on remoulded (powdered and reconstituted) cuttings from the active fault zone in double-direct-shear experiments (a laboratory configuration in which a gouge layer is sheared simultaneously between two stationary forcing blocks), together with velocity-strengthening behavior (slip stabilizes rather than accelerates at higher sliding speed) and essentially no frictional healing (no time-dependent restrengthening during hold periods). The gouge is rich in smectite, a weak swelling clay; saponite, an Mg-rich smectite, is one of the weakest phyllosilicate minerals known. The authors identified five unresolved issues: (i) μ=0.21\mu = 0.21 is still about double the ∼0.1\sim 0.1 implied by heat flow and stress orientations, so intact-surface fabric, localized smectite enrichment, authigenic mineral growth, or elevated pore pressure must supply further weakening; (ii) pure smectite is thermally unstable above roughly 120–150 ∘^\circC (it transforms to illite), so its capacity to control friction through the full seismogenic depth range (the roughly 3–15 km interval in which earthquakes nucleate) is uncertain; (iii) the magnitude and temporal evolution of pore-fluid pressure at depth are unmeasured; (iv) remoulded cuttings destroy natural fabric, so intact core, in-situ stress paths and scale effects remain to be tested; and (v) cuttings provenance and spatial heterogeneity leave the representativeness of the samples for the most slip-localized surfaces uncertain.

Immediately afterwards, recovery of intact Phase-3 core allowed direct tests: Lockner, Morrow, Moore and Hickman (2011) sheared powdered gouge from the two creeping strands at in-situ effective normal stresses (40–200 MPa) and found the material profoundly weak (μ\mu mean near 0.10), attributing the creeping portions' weakness to saponite rather than high fluid pressure; Carpenter, Saffer and Marone (2012, 2015) confirmed on intact core at in-situ conditions that the creeping strands have μ≈0.1\mu \approx 0.1, velocity-strengthening friction and near-zero healing, with weakness localized in the CDZ; Coble et al. (2014) and French et al. (2014, 2015) characterized the creep micromechanics of CDZ gouge at in-situ strain rates. On the mineral-stability question, Schleicher, Warr and van der Pluijm (2009) and Schleicher, van der Pluijm and Warr (2012) showed that the smectite in the fault zone is authigenic - newly formed in place by fluid-rock reaction at depth - so weak clay is being generated, not merely inherited. On the pore-pressure question, however, the picture remains divided: Fulton, Saffer, Harris and Bekins (2004) re-evaluated the heat-flow data and confirmed the weak-fault inference; Fulton and Saffer (2009) concluded from hydrothermal modeling that supra-hydrostatic pore pressure cannot be maintained at shallow (<3 km) depth near SAFOD; Morrow, Lockner, Moore and Hickman (2014) measured low and heterogeneous permeability in the core (making pressure compartmentalization possible); Wang (2011) framed the issue as 'high pore pressure, or its absence'; and Khoshmanesh and Shirzaei (2018) inferred from satellite geodesy and rate-and-state friction modeling that compaction-driven pore-pressure transients in hydraulically isolated compartments drive episodic creep. Reviews by Collettini et al. (2019) and Fabbri, Raimbourg and Leclère (2024) treat fluid-assisted reaction softening as a general weakening mechanism but state that SAFOD drilling did not encounter supra-hydrostatic pore pressure and that the role of deep pore pressure below drilling depth remains open. No in-situ pore-pressure or stress measurement exists for the SAF at true seismogenic depth (roughly 3–15 km), and the locked segments that produce great earthquakes have never been sampled at all.

Problem Statement

Determine what sets the absolute strength of the San Andreas Fault at seismogenic depth and account quantitatively for its apparent very low average strength. Specifically: (1) quantify the contributions of weak smectite-bearing gouge (measured at μ≈0.1\mu \approx 0.1 on intact core from the creeping strands at 2.7 km), mineral fabric and localization, authigenic mineral growth, and elevated or transient pore-fluid pressure to the effective fault strength, in a way that reconciles the laboratory friction data with the constraints from the absence of a frictional heat-flow anomaly and from regional stress orientations; (2) establish whether smectite-controlled (or equivalent reaction-softening) weakness persists through the full seismogenic depth range, given that pure smectite is thermally unstable above roughly 120–150 ∘^\circC and that direct sampling exists only at ∼2.7\sim 2.7 km depth on the creeping section at Parkfield; and (3) determine the in-situ pore-fluid pressure - its magnitude, spatial distribution and temporal evolution - at seismogenic depth, including whether sustained or episodic pressures high enough to reduce effective normal stress are generated and maintained within the fault zone. The overarching objective is a self-consistent account of the fault's depth-dependent strength that explains both the aseismic creep (steady slip that produces no earthquakes) of the central section and the fault-wide heat-flow and stress-orientation observations, and that is testable against observations at scales from laboratory samples to the whole fault system.

The three lines of inquiry are jointly posed and mutually constraining: the resulting depth-dependent strength budget - with the pore-fluid pressure (or effective normal stress) stated wherever it enters - must be consistent with the laboratory friction data, the heat-flow bound and the regional stress orientations across the seismogenic depth range.

References

  1. Carpenter, B. M.; Marone, C.; Saffer, D. M. (2011). Weakness of the San Andreas Fault revealed by samples from the active fault zone. Nature Geoscience 4(4), 251–254. DOI 10.1038/ngeo1089. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1089
  2. Lockner, D. A.; Morrow, C.; Moore, D.; Hickman, S. (2011). Low strength of deep San Andreas fault gouge from SAFOD core. Nature 472, 82–85. DOI 10.1038/nature09927. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09927
  3. Carpenter, B. M.; Saffer, D. M.; Marone, C. (2012). Frictional properties and sliding stability of the San Andreas fault from deep drill core. Geology 40(8), 759–762. DOI 10.1130/G33007.1. https://doi.org/10.1130/G33007.1
  4. Carpenter, B. M.; Saffer, D. M.; Marone, C. (2015). Frictional properties of the active San Andreas Fault at SAFOD: Implications for fault strength and slip behavior. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 120, 5273–5289. DOI 10.1002/2015JB011963. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB011963
  5. Coble, C. G.; French, M. E.; Chester, F. M.; Chester, J. S.; Kitajima, H. (2014). In situ frictional properties of San Andreas Fault gouge at SAFOD. Geophysical Journal International 199, 956–967. DOI 10.1093/gji/ggu306. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu306
  6. French, M. E.; Kitajima, H.; Chester, J. S.; Chester, F. M.; Hirose, T. (2014). Displacement and dynamic weakening processes in smectite-rich gouge from the Central Deforming Zone of the San Andreas Fault. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119, 1777–1802. DOI 10.1002/2013JB010757. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010757
  7. French, M. E.; Chester, F. M.; Chester, J. S. (2015). Micromechanisms of creep in clay-rich gouge from the Central Deforming Zone of the San Andreas Fault. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 120, 827–849. DOI 10.1002/2014JB011496. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011496
  8. Schleicher, A. M.; Warr, L. N.; van der Pluijm, B. A. (2009). On the origin of mixed-layered clay minerals from the San Andreas Fault at 2.5–3 km vertical depth (SAFOD drillhole at Parkfield, California). Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 157, 173–187. DOI 10.1007/s00410-008-0328-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410-008-0328-7
  9. Schleicher, A. M.; van der Pluijm, B. A.; Warr, L. N. (2012). Chlorite-smectite clay minerals and fault behavior: New evidence from the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) core. Lithosphere 4(3), 209–220. DOI 10.1130/L158.1. https://doi.org/10.1130/L158.1
  10. Ikari, M. J.; Carpenter, B. M.; Vogt, C.; Kopf, A. J. (2016). Elevated time-dependent strengthening rates observed in San Andreas Fault drilling samples. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 450, 164–172. DOI 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.06.036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.06.036
  11. Morrow, C. A.; Lockner, D. A.; Moore, D. E.; Hickman, S. (2014). Deep permeability of the San Andreas Fault from San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) core samples. Journal of Structural Geology 64, 99–114. DOI 10.1016/j.jsg.2013.09.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2013.09.009
  12. Wang, C.-y. (2011). High pore pressure, or its absence, in the San Andreas Fault. Geology 39(11), 1047–1050. DOI 10.1130/G32294.1. https://doi.org/10.1130/G32294.1
  13. Fulton, P. M.; Saffer, D. M.; Harris, R. N.; Bekins, B. A. (2004). Re-evaluation of heat flow data near Parkfield, CA: Evidence for a weak San Andreas Fault. Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019378. DOI 10.1029/2003GL019378. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL019378
  14. Fulton, P. M.; Saffer, D. M. (2009). Effect of thermal refraction on heat flow near the San Andreas Fault, Parkfield, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 114, B06407. DOI 10.1029/2008JB005796. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005796
  15. Tembe, S.; Lockner, D. A.; Wong, T.-f. (2009). Constraints on the stress state of the San Andreas Fault with analysis based on core and cuttings from San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) drilling phases 1 and 2. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 114, B11401. DOI 10.1029/2008JB005883. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005883
  16. Khoshmanesh, M.; Shirzaei, M. (2018). Episodic creep events on the San Andreas Fault caused by pore pressure variations. Nature Geoscience 11, 610–614. DOI 10.1038/s41561-018-0160-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0160-2
  17. Collettini, C.; Tesei, T.; Scuderi, M. M.; Carpenter, B. M.; Viti, C. (2019). Beyond Byerlee friction, weak faults and implications for slip behavior. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 519, 245–263. DOI 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.05.011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.05.011
  18. Fabbri, O.; Raimbourg, H.; Leclère, H. (2024). Fluids, faulting and earthquakes in the brittle crust: recent advances and new challenges. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience 356(S2), 423–466. DOI 10.5802/crgeos.259. https://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.259