Comparing poroelastostatics and poroelastodynamics: Numerics, solvers and algorithms
Understanding the causality between the events leading upto and post fault slip and the earthquake recording is important for seismic design and monitoring of underground structures, bridges and reinforced concrete buildings as well as climate mitigation projects like carbon sequestration and energy technologies like enhanced geothermal systems or oilfield wastewater disposal. While the events leading upto fault slip are typically governed by poroelastostatics, the events post fault slip can easily transition into poroelastodynamics territory due to runaway fault slip velocities. There are marked differences in the numerics of poroelastostatics and poroelastodynamics, and a simple switch from one algorithm to another based on fault slip velocities is not trivial. In fact, an understanding of expected fault slip velocities is critical apriori, as an algorithm which can seamlessly transition from time marching in poroelastostatics realm to poroelastodynamics realm and vice-versa is extremely difficult to achieve. We present the numerics of both physics and point out the differences between the two in this work.