MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

How fault creep makes its way!

2020· article· en· W3110247118 on OpenAlexaff
Sohom Ray, Dmitry Garagash

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepSlip (aerodynamics)Penetration (warfare)Materials scienceMechanicsFault (geology)GeologyThermodynamicsComposite materialEngineeringPhysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We model mechanics of an aseismic fault creep propagation and conditions when it may lead to the initiation of seismic slip. We do so by considering fault bounding medium to be elastically deformable and fault's interfacial strength to be slip rate- and state-dependent characterized by the steady-state rate-weakening. The fault is considered to be initially locked: a state of slip when interfacial slip velocity is considerably low and arbitrarily less than the steady-state sliding rate for given uniformly distributed prestress. We find solutions for creep penetration into the fault under geologically relevant loading scenarios (e.g., that of a plate-bounding strike-slip faulting driven by the slip at depth, or that of a rate-weakening patch of a fault loaded by a creep on an adjacent rate-strengthening part due to, e.g., anthropogenic fluid injection). In all the cases, the creep makes its way as a self-similar traveling front characterized by high stress owed to the direct effect; however, the remaining creep profile exhibits a near steady-state sliding. This may imply that a choice from a set of rules for the evolution of state variable—with identical linearizations about steady-state sliding—has no bearing on the creep penetration. Further, we find that the prestress, close to or far from steady-state sliding stress, controls the rate and manner of the creep penetration. We study slip propagation from an imposed dislocation accrued at a constant rate at one end of a homogeneous fault with the other end either at (1) the free surface of an elastic half-space or (2) strictly locked (buried) in the elastic full space. In both scenarios, no slip instability takes place over aseismic creep propagation distances relatable to the usual elasto-frictional nucleation lengthscale (e.g. Rubin & Ampuero 2005). Instead, in the first case creep propagation leads to the nucleation of the first and all subsequent dynamic events of the emerging cycle at/near the free surface after the creep traversed the entire length of the fault. In the second case, the creep front traverses nearly the entire length of the fault, but, instead of nucleating a dynamic event, the front arrests at some distance from the buried fault end, followed by the continual accumulation of aseismic slip without ever nucleating a dynamic event. These results may be owed to the physical and geometrical invariance of the considered homogeneous fault and may signal the essential role of fault strength heterogeneity, either that of the normal stress and/or frictional properties (Ray & Viesca, 2017, 2019), in defining its seismogenic character, i.e. under which conditions and where on the fault the earthquake slip instability can take place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→