Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Deformation Due to Non-planar Fault Movement in Fractional Maxwell Medium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper derives analytical expressions for displacement, stress, and strain around a three-segment non-planar strike-slip fault in a fractional Maxwell viscoelastic half-space, linking fault-bend geometry to surface deformation and…

desk verdict Novel geometry-rheology combination, but the post-fault stress formula is wrong and the stress-release figures rest on that error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04257 v2 pith:4A2GAT7E submitted 2025-06-02 physics.geo-ph

Pabita Mahato , Seema Sarkar (Mondal) , Subhash Chandra (Mondal) This is my paper
classification physics.geo-ph MSC 74D0586A1526A33
keywords non-planarfaultstrike-slipfractionalMaxwellmodelviscoelastichalf-spaceMittag-LefflerfunctionGreen'stechniquestressaccumulationLaplacetransform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that a three-segment, non-planar strike-slip fault in a fractional Maxwell viscoelastic half-space has an analytically tractable deformation field, with stress building quasi-statically until a critical time $T$ and then relaxing once fault creep begins. It derives explicit formulas for displacement $u_1$, shear stresses $\tau_{12}$ and $\tau_{13}$, and shear strains $e_{12}$ and $e_{13}$ by combining Laplace transforms, fractional calculus, the correspondence principle, and Green's functions for dislocations on the fault surface. The claimed result is that fault-bend geometry, creep velocity, and the fractional order $\alpha$ all leave measurable signatures in surface deformation and in the rate of stress accumulation and release. If the solutions hold, geodetic observations of creep rate and strain near a bent fault could be mapped back to fault geometry and rheology.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a boundary-value problem for a quasi-static strike-slip dislocation. The constitutive law is the fractional Maxwell relation $(1/\eta)\tau + (1/\mu) D^{\alpha}_t \tau = D^{\alpha}_t(\partial u_1/\partial y_2)$, with an analogous equation for $\tau_{13}$, using the Caputo fractional derivative of order $0<\alpha\le 1$. The fault is a surface of displacement discontinuity split into three planar segments with local coordinate rotations; Green's functions $G_{12}$ and $G_{13}$ give the displacement response to a point dislocation, and the correspondence principle converts the viscoelastic problem into an elastic one in the Laplace domain. The inverse Laplace transform of the resulting $s$-domain stress is what produces the time-dependent Mittag-Leffler factors in the final solution, and therefore carries the rheological content of the paper.

What would settle it

Directly verify equation (24) by evaluating the inverse Laplace transform of $\mu s^{\alpha}/(s^{\alpha}+\mu/\eta) \cdot V/(2\pi s^2) \Phi_2$. Standard Mittag-Leffler identities give $\mu V/(2\pi)\, t_1 E_{\alpha,2}(-\mu t_1^{\alpha}/\eta)\,\Phi_2$, and for $\alpha=1$ this equals $(\eta V/(2\pi))(1-e^{-\mu t_1/\eta})\Phi_2$, with no linear $t_1$ term; the paper's formula (40) contains an extra $V t_1$ term. Checking whether the two agree at $\alpha=1$ settles the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complete inter-seismic and post-fault solution is $u_1 = (u_1)_1 + (u_1)_2$, $\tau_{12} = (\tau_{12})_1 + (\tau_{12})_2$, $\tau_{13} = (\tau_{13})_1 + (\tau_{13})_2$, $e_{12} = (e_{12})_1 + (e_{12})_2$, $e_{13} = (e_{13})_1 + (e_{13})_2$, where the pre-fault part relaxes through the Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha}(-\mu t^{\alpha}/\eta)$ while tectonic loading grows linearly, and the post-fault part is obtained from a dislocation $U(t_1)=V t_1$ on the fault starting at $t_1=t-T$. The paper asserts, in particular, that the post-fault shear stress has the form $(\tau_{12})_2 = \mu V H(t_1)/(2\pi) [ t_1 + (\eta/\mu)(1 - E_{\alpha}(-\mu t_1^{\alpha}/\eta)) ] (\Phi_2 + \Psi_2 + \chi_2)$. The geometry enters through the integrals $\Phi_1, \Psi_1, \chi_1$ built from the three planar segments inclined at $\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3$, and their derivatives $\Phi_2, \Psi_2, \chi_2, \Phi_3, \Psi_3, \chi_3$. The claimed effect is that higher creep velocity produces stronger and wider stress and strain peaks near the fault, lower $\alpha$ produces slower stress relaxation, and non-planarity creates asymmetric surface displacement compared with a planar fault.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the inverse Laplace transform that converts the post-fault stress from the Laplace domain into the time-domain formula (40); if that transform is incorrect, the stress-release curves in Figures 4–6 and the final solution (42) do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Before fault movement, the stress $\tau_{12}$ approaches the linearly growing tectonic value $\tau_{\infty}(0)(1+kt)$, with the transient term $((\tau_{12})_0-\tau_{\infty}(0))E_{\alpha}(-\mu t^{\alpha}/\eta)$ decaying according to the fractional order; lower $\alpha$ delays the approach and shifts the critical time $T$.
  • After fault creep begins at $T$, the displacement grows linearly as $V t_1 H(t_1)$ times the geometry factors, so surface creep rate is predicted to be proportional to $V$ and concentrated near the fault trace.
  • The post-fault stress release is larger for larger creep velocity $V$ and for $\alpha$ closer to 1, giving a testable ordering of relaxation rates across fractional orders.
  • Non-planar faulting produces an asymmetric surface-displacement profile and sharper peaks near the fault; comparing such profiles to planar-fault solutions isolates the geometric contribution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same additive Green's-function decomposition could be applied to bent faults with more than three segments, so the method generalizes to arbitrary piecewise-planar fault traces.
  • The predicted surface-displacement asymmetry could be tested with GPS or InSAR profiles across a known stepped or bent strike-slip fault, where the model's peak location and scale would be compared directly.
  • If the fractional Maxwell rheology is replaced by a more complex two-stage fractional rheology, the correspondence-principle structure should remain, but the Mittag-Leffler relaxation factors would change into combinations of two relaxation functions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a two-dimensional model of an infinitely long, surface-breaking, non-planar strike-slip fault with three planar segments, embedded in a fractional Maxwell viscoelastic half-space representing the lithosphere-asthenosphere system. The authors use the Laplace transform, the correspondence principle, and Green's function techniques to obtain expressions for displacement, stress, and strain before and after fault movement. The pre-fault solution accumulates stress until a critical time T, after which the fault creeps with constant velocity V. Analytical results are presented in Eqs. (19), (39)-(42) and are illustrated graphically for various creep velocities and fractional orders α. The central claim is that the model captures the influence of fault geometry and fractional rheology on displacement, stress accumulation, and stress release.

Significance. If the derivations were correct, the paper would offer a useful extension of earlier non-planar fault models (Mondal and Debsarma 2023) to fractional Maxwell rheology, providing closed-form field expressions that could serve as benchmarks for numerical geophysical simulations. The use of standard Green's functions and the correspondence principle is appropriate, and the explicit handling of three tilted fault segments is a worthwhile generalization. However, a central mathematical error in the post-fault stress inversion invalidates the paper's primary new results, and additional inconsistencies in the numerical treatment of the critical time undermine the graphical comparisons. As submitted, the paper does not establish its main conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (40) and Eq. (42)] The inverse Laplace transform used for the post-fault stress is incorrect. From Eqs. (24) and (38), the transformed post-fault stress is (τ̄12)_2 = (μV/2π) s^{α-2}/(s^α + μ/η) [Φ2+Ψ2+χ2]. The standard Laplace pair L{t E_{α,2}(-a t)} = s^{α-2}/(s^α + a) shows that the correct inverse is (μV/2π) t1 E_{α,2}(-μ t1^α/η) [Φ2+Ψ2+χ2]. For α=1 this reduces to (ηV/2π)(1 - e^{-μ t1/η}) [Φ2+Ψ2+χ2]. The paper's expression contains an extra factor t1 in the bracket, yielding t1 + (η/μ)(1 - E_α(-μ t1^α/η)). This spurious linear term causes the post-fault stress to grow without bound rather than relax to a finite value, and it directly shapes the stress-release curves in Figs. 4-6. Equation (42) inherits the error for both τ12 and τ13, so the paper's central claim that the model describes stress accumulation and release after fault movement is unsupported.
  2. [Section 4, after Eq. (43)] The critical time T is computed only for α=0.5, where T=114.01 years, but Figures 4b and 5b plot time series for α=0.1, 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0 with apparent onset of stress release at the same T. Since the pre-fault stress in Eq. (19) depends explicitly on α through t^α terms, the time at which τ12 reaches the critical stress τc must differ for each α. If T is not recomputed per α, the comparison is physically inconsistent because the initial condition for the post-fault phase is wrong; if T is recomputed, the values should be stated. The authors' remark that 'This critical time can be different for different values of critical stress and for different values of α' does not resolve how the figures were generated.
  3. [Eq. (14)] Equation (14) for the Laplace transform of the τ13 constitutive relation has ∂/∂y2 on the right-hand side, but by symmetry with Eq. (13) it should be ∂/∂y3. As written, the expression contradicts the stress-equilibrium equation (15) and the subsequent derivation that the coefficient B in the trial solution is zero. The final τ13 result may be correct, but the typo obscures the derivation and should be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, heading] The statement 'Omitting the first and higher-order derivatives of u1, as their magnitudes are negligible for 0 < α ≤ 1' is vague; please specify which approximation is being made and why the omitted terms are negligible.
  2. [Eq. (19) and Fig. 2] The solution u1 in Eq. (19) has dimensions that depend on fractional powers of time unless time is implicitly dimensionless. The figures label the vertical axis 'Displacement (meter/year)' though the derived quantity appears to be a displacement (meters) or a rate; please clarify the units and the relationship between the plotted quantity and u1.
  3. [References] The reference list jumps from item 23 to item 25; reference 24 appears to be missing. Please renumber the bibliography.
  4. [Fig. 3] The comparison with a planar fault uses only segment AB of the model; this choice should be stated explicitly in the text, as the length and orientation of the planar counterpart affect the comparison.
  5. [Section 2.5, Eq. (20)] The notation U(t1) is used both for the trial solution in Eq. (12) and for the dislocation amplitude in Eq. (20); please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the post-fault deformation is derived from the correspondence principle and Green's functions, not from a fitted target; the skeptical issue is a Laplace-inversion error, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is the standard correspondence-principle route: the pre-fault fields (19) are obtained by Laplace transforming the fractional Maxwell constitutive equations (4)-(5) and the boundary condition (7); the post-fault fields are obtained from a dislocation boundary condition (20) with U(t1)=V t1, the Green's function representation (28), and the Laplace-domain constitutive relations (24)-(25). The load-bearing inputs (fault geometry, f(ξ), V, τc, μ, η) are either stated model parameters or are borrowed from prior work (Mondal and Debsarma 2023), but no step in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to one of these inputs by construction. The critical time T=114.01 years is not fitted to reproduce a known critical time; it is computed from the model's own pre-fault stress formula and the input τc, and the post-fault behavior is then evaluated for t>T. The cited prior papers (Mahato et al. 2022; Mondal and Debsarma 2023) supply parameter values and the shape function f(ξ), but these are modeling assumptions, and the central output — the spatial and temporal stress/displacement fields (39)-(42) — follows from the stated PDEs and transforms rather than from those citations. The skeptic's concern is a mathematical correctness defect: the inverse Laplace transform in (40) is not the inverse of (24) (the correct pair is t1 E_{α,2}(-μt1^α/η), not t1 + (η/μ)(1 - E_α(-μt1^α/η)), giving a spurious linear-in-t1 term that drives the growing 'stress release' curves in Figures 4-6). An incorrect transform is not circularity: the erroneous result does not reduce to its inputs; it is simply not the correct inverse. Accordingly, the circularity score reflects only one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation (the f(ξ) and τc values taken from the authors' companion work), and no step merits a circularity flag under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on a set of standard viscoelasticity tools plus several domain-specific inputs. The most consequential 'axiom' is the unproven and incorrect Laplace inversion used for post-fault stress, which is not a legitimate mathematical lemma.

free parameters (5)
  • fractional order α = 0.1, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0 (varied)
    Controls the memory strength of the fractional Maxwell rheology; not fitted to data in this paper, but its value changes the stress relaxation rate and critical time.
  • critical stress τc = 200 bar (input)
    Chosen from prior work (Mondal and Debsarma 2023); determines the critical time T when fault movement begins.
  • fault segment angles θ1, θ2, θ3 = 140°, 60°, 30°
    Chosen by hand for the numerical example; geometry is the paper's focus but these values are not constrained by data.
  • dislocation shape functions f(ξ) = polynomials in Eq. (43)
    Borrowed from Mondal and Debsarma (2023) to satisfy boundedness; no independent derivation in this paper.
  • tectonic stress rate k = 10^-9
    Small positive constant in τ∞(t); chosen arbitrarily as 'very small'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lithosphere-asthenosphere system is a homogeneous viscoelastic half-space obeying the fractional Maxwell constitutive equations (4)-(5).
    Introduced in Section 2.2; if real rheology is not fractional Maxwell, the model does not apply.
  • domain assumption The fault is an infinite, surface-breaking strike-slip fault consisting of three planar segments, with creep velocity V constant after the critical time.
    Section 2; a major geometric simplification that controls the entire solution.
  • standard math The Laplace transform, correspondence principle, and the Green's function representation (28) for a screw dislocation in an elastic half-space apply to the fractional Maxwell problem.
    Section 3.2; the Green's functions (29)-(30) are taken from Maruyama (1966) without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The inverse Laplace transform of µ s^α/(s^α + a) * 1/s^2 is the bracket in Eq. (40).
    This is the erroneous step; the correct transform is t E_{α,2}(-a t^α). The paper gives no derivation of the transform, and the result is incorrect.
  • standard math Initial stress, displacement, and strain fields satisfy the equilibrium and constitutive equations at t=0.
    Needed to obtain ∇²U = 0; stated in Section 2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformation Due to Non-planar Fault Movement in Fractional Maxwell Medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4A2GAT7E

@misc{pith2026250604257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformation Due to Non-planar Fault Movement in Fractional Maxwell Medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4A2GAT7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04257}
}
read the original abstract

In earthquake-prone regions, the accumulation of geophysical stress during the aseismic period plays a critical role in determining which faults are more likely to be reactivated in future seismic events. In this model, we consider an infinite non-planar fault located in a viscoelastic half-space of a fractional Maxwell medium representing the lithosphere-asthenosphere system comprising three interconnected planar sections. The problem is formulated as a two-dimensional boundary value problem with discontinuities along the fault surface. A numerical solution is obtained using a Laplace transformation, fractional derivative, correspondence principle and Green's function technique. The outcomes are demonstrated graphically using appropriate model parameters. The computational findings highlight the significant influence of fault motion and geometry in shaping the displacement, stress and strain fields in the vicinity of the fault zone. A study has been carried out to investigate how non-planar faults influence displacement and the accumulation of stress and strain. Analysis of these results can provide insights into subsurface deformation and its impact on fault movement, which may contribute to the study of earthquake activity.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pure and Applied Geophysics 15 7:2003-2027

    Aochi H, Eiichi F, Matsu’ura M (2000) Spontaneous rupture pro pagation on a non-planar fault in 3-D elastic medium. Pure and Applied Geophysics 15 7:2003-2027

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Nature communications 9(1 ):4952

    Bischoff SH, Flesch LM (2018) Normal faulting and viscous buckling in the Tibetan Plateau induced by a weak lower-crust. Nature communications 9(1 ):4952

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Geophysical Journal Internat ional 158(3):939-954

    Cruz-Atienza VM, Virieux J (2004) Dynamic rupture simulation of n on-planar faults with a finite-difference approach. Geophysical Journal Internat ional 158(3):939-954

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Mathematics and Mathema tical Sciences 2003(54):3413–3442

    Debnath L (2003) Recent applications of fractional calculus to s cience and engineering. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathema tical Sciences 2003(54):3413–3442

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Geophysics 83(6):345–352

    Deng W, Morozov IB (2018) Mechanical interpretation and gene ralization of the Cole–Cole model in viscoelasticity. Geophysics 83(6):345–352

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Applied mathematics and computation 178(2):207-2 11

    El-Misiery AEM, Ahmed A (2006) On a fractional model for earthquakes. Applied mathematics and computation 178(2):207-2 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.10.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2005.10.011 2006

  7. [7]

    Scient ific Reports 14(1):12182

    Folesky J (2024) Different earthquake nucleation conditions rev ealed by stress drop and b-value mapping in the northern Chilean subduction zone. Scient ific Reports 14(1):12182

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 127:e2022JB024216

    Ge W, Shen Z, Molnar P, Wang M, Zhang P, Yuan D (2022) GPS deter mined asymmetric deformation across central Altyn Tagh fault reveals rheological structure of northern Tibet. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 127:e2022JB024216. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024216

    work page doi:10.1029/2022jb024216 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Earth and P lanetary Science Letters 301(1-2):52-64

    Gold RD, Cowgill E (2011) Deriving fault-slip histories to test for se cular variation in slip, with examples from the Kunlun and Awatere faults. Earth and P lanetary Science Letters 301(1-2):52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eps l.2010.10.011

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Earth, Planets and Space

    Hisakawa T, Ando R, Yano TE, Matsubara, M (2020) Dynamic rup ture simulation of 2018, Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake: role of non-planar geometry. Earth, Planets and Space. 72:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-02 0-01160-y

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineer ing 16(8):976–989

    Khatir A, Capozucca R, Khatir S, Magagnini E (2022) Vibration- based crack prediction on a beam model using hybrid butterfly optimization algorit hm with arti- ficial neural network. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineer ing 16(8):976–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0840-2

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Composite Structures 311:11 6803

    Khatir A, Capozucca R, Khatir S, Magagnini E, Benaissa B, Than h CL, Wahab MA (2023) A new hybrid PSO-YUKI for double cracks identification in CFRP cantilever beam. Composite Structures 311:11 6803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116803

    2023

  5. [13]

    Wave Motion 16 (4):339–366

    Koller MG, Bonnet M, Madariaga R (1992) Modeling of dynamical cr ack propaga- tion using time-domain boundary integral equations. Wave Motion 16 (4):339–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2125(92)90022-T

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    Geophysical Journal Internationa l 176(1):293-306

    Li Q, Liu M, Zhang H (2009) A 3-D viscoelastoplastic model for sim ulating long- term slip on non-planar faults. Geophysical Journal Internationa l 176(1):293-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03962.x

    2009

  7. [15]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 108(B1)

    Lyons S, Sandwell D (2003) Fault creep along the southern San Andreas from inter- ferometric synthetic aperture radar, permanent scatterers, and stacking. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 108(B1). https://doi.org/10.1 029/2002JB001831 19

    2003

  8. [16]

    Physica Scripta 97(12):125015

    Mahato P, Mondal D, Sarkar (Mondal) S (2022) Determination o f effect of the movement of an infinite fault in viscoelastic half space of standard line ar solid using fractional calculus. Physica Scripta 97(12):125015. https://doi.o rg/10.1088/1402- 4896/ac9caa

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics 16(1):5

    Mahato P, Sarkar Mondal S (2025) Effect on surface deforma tion due to inter- acting fault in fractional standard linear solid. GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics 16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13137-025- 00264-5

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    International Journal of A pplied Mathematics 34(5):873

    Mondal D, Debnath P (2021) An application of fractional calculu s to geophysics: effect of a strike-slip fault on displacement, stresses and strains in a fractional order Maxwell type visco-elastic half space. International Journal of A pplied Mathematics 34(5):873. https://doi...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics 14(1):15

    Mondal SC, Debsarma S (2023) Numerical modelling of a nonplana r strike slip fault and associated stress distribution in lithosphere ast heno- sphere system. GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics 14(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13137-023-00222-z

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Bulletin Society of Earthquake Technology 17(1):1–10

    Mukhopadhyay A, Sen S, Pal BP (1980) On stress accumulating in a viscoelastic lithosphere containing a continuously slipping fault. Bulletin Society of Earthquake Technology 17(1):1–10

    1980

  13. [21]

    Geophysical Journal International 188(3) :1071–1087

    Oglesby DD, Mai PM (2012) Fault geometry, rupture dynamics a nd ground motion from potential earthquakes on the North Anatolian Fault un der the Sea of Marmara. Geophysical Journal International 188(3) :1071–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05289.x

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Journal of Geophysics and E ngineering 15(4):1673–1687

    Pelap FB, Tanekou GB, Fogang CF, Kengne R (2018) Fractional- order sta- bility analysis of earthquake dynamics. Journal of Geophysics and E ngineering 15(4):1673–1687. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aabe61

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Journal of Geophysical Re search: Solid Earth 117:B02309

    Pelties C, Puente J, Ampuero JP, Brietzke GB, Kaser M (2012) T hree-dimensional dynamic rupture simulation with a high-order discontinuous Galerkin m ethod on unstructured tetrahedral meshes. Journal of Geophysical Re search: Solid Earth 117:B02309. https://doi.org/10.1029/201...

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    Natural Hazards

    Rafie MT, Sahara DP, Cummins PR, Triyoso W, Widiyantoro S (2023 ) Stress accu- mulation and earthquake activity on the Great Sumatran Fault, Ind onesia. Natural Hazards. 116(3):3401–3425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069- 023-05816-2

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    Geophysical Journal International 239(3):1664-1693

    Romanet P, Saito T, Fukuyama E (2024) The mechanics of static non-planar faults in infinitesimal strain theory. Geophysical Journal International 239(3):1664-1693. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae337

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    CRC, New York (1993)

    Samko SG, Kilbas AA, Marichev OI (1993) Fractional Integrals a nd Derivatives: Theory and Applications. CRC, New York (1993)

    1993

  19. [28]

    International Journ al of Solids and Structures 34(17):2087–2103 (1997)

    Seelig Th, Gross D (1997) Analysis of dynamic crack propagation using a time- domain boundary integral equation method. International Journ al of Solids and Structures 34(17):2087–2103 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016 /S0020-7683(96)00133- 3

    1997

  20. [29]

    Earthq uake and Volcano Deformation, Princeton University Press 20

    Segall P (2010) Earthquake and Volcano Deformation. Earthq uake and Volcano Deformation, Princeton University Press 20

    2010

  21. [30]

    Geophysical Journa l International 127(3):795–800

    Tada T, Yamashita T (1996) The paradox of smooth and abrupt bends in two- dimensional in-plane shear-crack mechanics. Geophysical Journa l International 127(3):795–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb0 4058.x

    1996 doi

  22. [31]

    Geophysical Journal International 208 (2):973–991 (2017)

    Takagi Y, Okubo S (2017) Internal deformation caused by a p oint dislocation in a uniform elastic sphere. Geophysical Journal International 208 (2):973–991 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw424

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    The European Physical Journal Plus 1 35(7):1-26

    Tanekou GB, Fogang CF, Pelap FB, Kengne R, Fozin TF, Nbendjo BRN (2020) Complex dynamics in the two spring-block model for earthqu akes with fractional viscous damping. The European Physical Journal Plus 1 35(7):1-26. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00558-7

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96(4B ):S250–S268

    Titus SJ, DeMets C, Tikoff B (2006) Thirty-five-year creep rat es for the creeping segment of the San Andreas fault and the effects of the 2004 Park field earth- quake: constraints from alignment arrays, continuous global pos itioning system, and creepmeters. Bulletin of the Seism...

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cam- bridge

    Turcotte DL, Gerald S (2002) Geodynamics. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cam- bridge

    2002

  26. [35]

    Journal of Energy Storage 67:107606

    Wu F, Ji C, Liu J, Gao R, Li C, Zou Q, Chen J (2023) Study on visco -elastoplastic fractional creep model of surrounding rock of salt cavern gas st orage. Journal of Energy Storage 67:107606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.1 07606

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    Bulletin of the Seismologica l Society of America 115(2):399–415

    Zielke O, Mai PM (2025) Does Subsurface Fault Geometry Affect Aleatory Vari- ability in Modeled Strike-Slip Fault Behavior?. Bulletin of the Seismologica l Society of America 115(2):399–415. https://doi.org/10.1785/012024015 2 21

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.