Earthquake nucleation on rate and state faults - Aging and slip laws

By Jean-Paul Ampuero, A. Rubin. 2008

411 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f9cb073846ca64b3a59f40cacf2f80fdfa63a09

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geophysics

Citations in the corpus

Earthquake Initiation From Laboratory Observations and Implications for Foreshocks (2019, methodology): “When modeled using the rate and state frameworks, this “kick”‐dependent phenomena is likely sensitive to the “aging law” versus “slip law” formulation (Ampuero & Rubin, 2008; Bhattacharya & Rubin, 2014).”
Spectral element modeling of spontaneous earthquake rupture on rate and state faults: Effect of velocity‐strengthening friction at shallow depths (2008, methodology): “rate of stress decrease with slip) is much more variable for the slip law, with the maximum eectiv e slip-weakening rate larger in simulations with the slip law than with the aging law for the same RS parameters (Figure 6B) by a logarithmic factor of peak slip velocity [ Ampuero and Rubin, 2007 ].”
Statistical physics of fracture, friction, and earthquakes (2011, background): “Such a nucleation process has also been observed and extensively studied in the continuum model: See, e.g., (Ampuero and Rubin, 2008).”
Afterslip and aftershocks in the rate‐and‐state friction law (2007, background): “The slip law may be more adapted to study the nucleation phase, while the aging law may be better for the interseismic phase [Ampuero and Rubin, 2008].”
Does fault strengthening in laboratory rock friction experiments really depend primarily upon time and not slip? (2017, methodology): “These two end-member views, though asymptotically equivalent near steady state, produce very different responses when the sliding surface experiences large velocity perturbations from steady state sliding [Ruina, 1983; Ampuero and Rubin, 2008; Marone, 1998; Bhattacharya et al., 2015].”
From Geodetic Imaging of Seismic and Aseismic Fault Slip to Dynamic Modeling of the Seismic Cycle (2015, background): “…afterslip should increase as a logarithmic function of time (Marone et al. 1991); it also predicts that earthquakes initiate with a phase of nucleation, as a sliding crack needs to reach a critical size before sliding becomes unstable (Ampuero & Rubin 2008, Dieterich 1987, Rubin & Ampuero 2005).”
Scaling of small repeating earthquakes explained by interaction of seismic and aseismic slip in a rate and state fault model (2009, background): “Different state evolution laws cause differences in the process of earthquake nucleation [ Ampuero and Rubin, 2008 ] and hence it would be important to examine the behavior of our model with other state evolution laws.”
Dynamics of a velocity strengthening fault region: Implications for slow earthquakes and postseismic slip (2008, positive): “The condition for quasi-static motion, V (cid:13) V dyn , is valid when W (cid:13) 1 and, as shown by Ampuero and Rubin [2008], is more stringent than the condition V prop (cid:13) c s .”