<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>D.J. Andrews</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1999</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;div id="130406838" class="article-section-wrapper js-article-section js-content-section  " data-section-parent-id="0"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tests of two fault boundary conditions show that each converges with second order accuracy as the finite-difference grid is refined. The first method uses split nodes so that there are disjoint grids that interact via surface traction. The 3D version described here is a generalization of a method I have used extensively in 2D; it is as accurate as the 2D version. The second method represents fault slip as inelastic strain in a fault zone. Offset of stress from its elastic value is seismic moment density. Implementation of this method is quite simple in a finite-difference scheme using velocity and stress as dependent variables.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1785/BSSA0890040931</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Seismological Society of America</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Test of two methods for faulting on finite-difference calculations</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>