Sheared granular matter and the empirical relations of seismicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frictional instability associated with earthquake initiation and earthquake dynamics is believed to be mainly controlled by the dynamics of fragmented rocks within the fault gauge. Principal features of the emerging seismicity (e.g., intermittent dynamics and broad time and/or energy scales) have been replicated by simple experimental setups, which involve a slowly driven slider on top of granular matter, for example. Yet these setups are often physically limited and might not allow one to determine the underlying nature of specific features and, hence, the universality and generality of the experimental observations. Here, we address this challenge by a numerical study of a spring-slider experiment based on two-dimensional discrete element method simulations, which allows us to control the properties of the granular matter and of the surface of the slider, for example. Upon quasistatic loading, stick-slip-type behavior emerges which is contrasted by a stable sliding regime at finite driving rates, in agreement with experimental observations. Across large parameter ranges for damping, interparticle friction, particle polydispersity, etc., the earthquake-like dynamics associated with the former regime results in several robust scale-free statistical features also observed in experiments. At first sight, these closely resemble the main empirical relations of tectonic seismicity at geological scales. This includes the Gutenberg-Richter distribution of event sizes, the Omori-Utsu-type decay of aftershock rates, as well as the aftershock productivity relation and broad recurrence time distributions. Yet, we show that the correlations associated with tectonic aftershocks are absent such that the origin of the Omori-Utsu relation, the aftershock productivity relation, and Båth's relation in the simulations is fundamentally different from the case of tectonic seismicity. This, we believe, is mainly due to a lack of macroscale relaxation processes that are closely tied to the generation of real aftershocks. We argue that the same is true for previous laboratory experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".