2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2016.11.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking Defmod, an open source FEM code for modeling episodic fault rupture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Defmod 19 , an open source finite element code for modeling crustal deformation, was benchmarked and validated by Meng 31 and has been successfully used to model earthquakes induced by fluid withdrawal and/or injection 31 and to investigate deformation in a geothermal field 32 . In this study, we used the poroelastic module of Defmod to model the surface uplift due to wastewater injection.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Defmod 19 , an open source finite element code for modeling crustal deformation, was benchmarked and validated by Meng 31 and has been successfully used to model earthquakes induced by fluid withdrawal and/or injection 31 and to investigate deformation in a geothermal field 32 . In this study, we used the poroelastic module of Defmod to model the surface uplift due to wastewater injection.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numerical part in this study is derived from an open source finite element code Defmod, https://bitbucket.org/stali/defmod, introduced by Ali (). The domain truncation effect is discussed by Meng (, Appendix C).…”
Section: Traction Cancellation To Obtain Half Space Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In quasi-static simulations [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], wave propagation is ignored and the solution is a time series of solutions to static problems with potentially time-varying physical properties and boundary conditions. Such quasi-static simulations cannot accurately model dynamic stress changes resulting from an earthquake, whether they are natural [25] or induced [26,27]. This often means poor accuracy in the predicted event magnitude or the post-earthquake stress state of the fault and the surrounding rock, which in turn means poor prediction of the timing and location of subsequent events.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important fallout of the quasi-static assumption in the context of induced seismicity modeling is that we do not fully understand the impact of pressure field variations on the seismic velocity and stress changes. Some of the prior studies [26,27] attempted to address this by combining a quasi-static formulation for the fault loading period with an elastodynamic formulation for the coseismic period. However, this required an ad-hoc definition of a transition time between the two formulations and sharp changes in the numerical solution of the problem, which can create numerical oscillations and affect the velocity of stress waves.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%