资源环境科技发展态势分析平台

Despite widely recognized importance of viscoelasticity in the evolution of crustal stress/strain, interpretation of interseismic geodetic measurements for assessing earthquake potential is still based overwhelmingly on elastic models. Reasons for this disparity include conflating deformation rates with deformation itself and the lack of a succinct representation of the seismic readiness of a locked fault in a viscoelastic Earth. Using a classical viscoelastic model for strike‐slip faults, we reiterate the commonly overlooked message that, if the recurrence interval is long, most of the strain energy for the next earthquake accrues early in the cycle, and low strain rates later in the cycle by no means indicate diminished rupture potential. Fault stress stays near failure for much of the late interseismic period, which may explain why slow slip‐rate faults have more variable recurrence intervals than fast slip‐rate faults. We propose to use displacement deficit instead of slip deficit to represent seismic readiness.