MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551254733 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggw439

Asperity generation and its relationship to seismicity on a planar fault: a laboratory simulation

2016· article· en· W2551254733 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul Antony Selvadurai, Steven D. Glaser

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsperity (geotechnical engineering)GeologySurface finishFault (geology)NucleationWavelengthSeismologyInduced seismicityStress (linguistics)Surface roughnessMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthquake faults, and all frictional surfaces, establish contact through asperities. A detailed knowledge of how asperities form will enable a better understanding of the manner in which they communicate during foreshock failure sequences that are observed, leading to the larger main shock. We present results of experiments where a pressure sensitive film was used to map, size and measure the magnitudes of the normal stresses at asperities along a seismogenic section of a laboratory simulated fault. We measured seismicity acoustically and foreshocks were found to be the result of localized asperity failure during the nucleation phase of gross fault rupture. Since surface roughness plays an important role in how asperities are formed, two Hurst exponents were measured to characterize a highly worn interface using roughness profiles: (i) long wavelength estimates (H ∼ 0.45) and (ii) short wavelength estimates (H ∼ 0.8–1.2). The short wavelength roughness estimates were computed at the scale of single asperity junction points. Macroscopically, the number of asperities and real contact area increased with additional application of normal force while the mean normal stress remained constant. The ratio of real to nominal contact area was low – ranging from 0.02 < Ar/A0 < 0.05—predicting that the asperities should be elastically independent of each other. Results from the pressure sensitive film showed that asperities were closely spaced and could not be treated as mechanically independent. Larger asperities carried both higher levels of average normal stress and higher levels of normal stress heterogeneity than smaller ones. Using linear stability theorem, the critical slip distance on foreshocking asperities was estimated to be d0 ∼ 0.65–3 μm. The critical slip distance d0 was ∼1.8–11.5 per cent of the premonitory slip needed to initiate gross fault rupture of the interface (20–40 μm) and the overall slip necessary to initiate gross fault rupture was on the order of the average asperity diameter (52 μm). Foreshocks may be due to a change in the critical slip distance, at localized sections of the fault, caused by the two distinct roughness profiles measured at short and long length scales.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207