Comparison of finite difference and boundary integral solutions to three‐dimensional spontaneous rupture

By Steven M. Day, L. Dalguer, N. Lapusta, Yi Liu. 2005

355 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d02fc50eab57138e5f79ec13f7c5018e91c1a345

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

The finite-difference and finite-element modeling of seismic wave propagation and earthquake motion (2007, methodology): “05 solution by Day et al. (2005) as the reference solution.”
A support-operator method for viscoelastic wave modelling in 3-D heterogeneous media (2008, methodology): “They found that the growth of the hourglass modes in 2D grids was eectively resisted with a stiness of this form, and numerical experiments ( Day et al., 2005; Ma & Liu, 2006, e.g.) demonstrate that the same stiness works well to suppress growth of the corresponding 3D modes, especially in combinat”
Scaling of small repeating earthquakes explained by interaction of seismic and aseismic slip in a rate and state fault model (2009, background): “processes and the cohesive zone at the rupture tip as discussed by Day et al. [2005] and Lapusta and Liu (submitted manuscript, 2008).”
Dynamics, Radiation, and Overall Energy Budget of Earthquake Rupture With Coseismic Off‐Fault Damage (2019, methodology): “We chose the finite different method (FDM), the spectral element method (SEM) and the boundary integral equation method (BIEM) as comparison basis as they have been verified in previous studies (e.g. Koller et al., 1992; Day et al., 2005; Kaneko et al., 2008).”
Three‐dimensional earthquake sequence simulations with evolving temperature and pore pressure due to shear heating: Effect of heterogeneous hydraulic diffusivity (2010, background): “R0 has to be discretized by at least three to five grid points for adequate numerical resolution [Day et al., 2005].”
Towards inferring earthquake patterns from geodetic observations of interseismic coupling (2010, background): “2, which gives marginal but acceptable discretization (Day et al., 2005; Kaneko et al., 2008).”
Precursory Slow Slip and Foreshocks on Rough Faults (2020, result): “Erickson et al. (2020) found that a suite of planar fault models, including FDRA , produced well resolved simulations with Λ 0 / ∆ x ≥ 3, with Λ 0 = µ (cid:48) d c /bσ (Rubin, 2008), in agreement with previous studies (Day et al., 2005).”
Rupture dynamics and ground motion from 3‐D rough‐fault simulations (2013, background): “…high-frequency radiation by downscaling the cohesive zone dimension, but that in turn induces more near-fault inelastic deformation that limits the contraction of the cohesive zone [Day et al., 2005; Duan and Day, 2008; Hok et al., 2010], and thus counteracts the associated increase of fmax.”
A domain decomposition approach to implementing fault slip in finite‐element models of quasi‐static and dynamic crustal deformation (2013, methodology): “To reduce the introduction of deformation at such short length scales we add artiﬁcial damping via Kelvin-Voigt viscosity [ Day et al. , 2005; Kaneko et al. , 2008] to the computation of the strain, where η ∗ is a nondimensional viscosity on the order of 0.1– 1.0.”
Three‐dimensional boundary integral modeling of spontaneous earthquake sequences and aseismic slip (2009, methodology): “The dynamic part of our 3-D methodology has been validated through the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) code comparison exercise and additional studies [Day et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2008].”