Field and laboratory observations show that seismicity has non-trivial period-dependent response to periodic stress perturbations. In Nepal, seismicity shows significant variations in response to annual monsoon-induced stress variations but not to semidiurnal tidal stresses of the same magnitude. Such period dependence cannot be explained by the Coulomb failure model and spring-slider rate-and-state model (SRM). Here, we study seismicity response to periodic stress perturbations in a 2-D continuum model of a rate-and-state fault (that is, a finite rate-and-state fault). We find that the resulting seismicity indeed exhibits nearly periodic variations. Their amplitude is maximum at a certain period, Ta, and decreases with smaller and larger periods to the SRM predictions, remaining much larger than the SRM predictions for a wide range of periods around Ta. We attribute the higher sensitivity of finite faults to their finite nucleation zones which vary in space and have a different slip-velocity evolution than that of the SRM. At periods T ≫ Ta and T ≪ Ta, the seismicity-rate variations are in phase with the stress-rate and stress variations, respectively, consistent with the SRM, although a gradual phase shift appears as T increases towards Ta. Based on the similarities with the SRM and our simulations, we propose a semi-analytical expression for Ta. Plausible sets of model parameters make Ta equal to 1 yr, potentially explaining Nepal observations and constraining the fault properties. Our finite-fault findings indicate that aσ, where a is a rate-and-state parameter and σ is the effective normal stress, can be severely underestimated based on the SRM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ader et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: