Untangling the dynamics of the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence by integrated dynamic rupture and Coulomb stress modeling across an immature 3D conjugate fault network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present combined 3D dynamic rupture scenarios of the 2019 Mw6.4 Searles Valley and Mw7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes closely constrained by observations, incorporating complex subsurface material properties, high-resolution topography and off-fault plastic deformation empowered by supercomputing. A detailed 3D non-vertical fault model of the active quasi-orthogonal intersecting fault network is built by integrating relocated aftershocks and surface ruptures constrained by space geodesy and field observations. All faults are exposed to a 3D SCEC community stress model as well as long- and short-term static and dynamic stress transfers, which impact rupture dynamics, particularly in the vicinity of complexities in fault geometry. By assuming apparently weak faults due to the effect of rapid velocity-weakening friction and elevated fluid pressure, we determine initial stresses and fault strength. Multi-fault rupture directivity and velocity of both events are constrained by aftershock calibrated back-projection. In the presented scenario two conjugate faults simultaneously rupture in the Mw6.4 event, while only the SW-segment breaks the surface. The Mw7.1 event experiences the full final state of stress (dynamic plus static effects) of the Searles Valley scenario, leading to complex rupture including re-activation of the conjugate Mw6.4 segment, mixed crack and pulse-like propagation, tunneling beneath the fault intersection and choosing one Southern branch only. Both events exhibit a high dynamic stress drop reflecting the immature fault system. The foreshock induces a considerable Coulomb stress change in the Mw7.1 hypocentral region; however, not enough to trigger rupture across the stress-shadowed main fault. Both scenarios match key observations including magnitude, rupture speed, directivity, off-fault damage, slip distribution from kinematic inversion, teleseismic waveforms, GPS, and InSAR ground deformation; while shedding light on geometric, strength and stress factors governing the complex rupture evolution and interaction of the Ridgecrest sequence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".