Comparing Earthquake Cycles on Normal and Reverse Faults Based on Simulations With a Dynamic Elasto‐Plastic Model

Abstract Shear stress levels on reverse faults are anticipated to be several times higher than on normal faults with the same pore pressure ratio. In addition, ruptures on normal faults release gravitational potential energy, whereas earthquakes on reverse faults expend work in uplifting rocks. In this study, I investigate the significance of these differences for earthquake cycles and I question whether the source of energy driving earthquakes is the same on reverse and normal faults. Based on the assumption that normal and reverse faults have the same background frictional properties and pore pressure states, I use numerical simulations with a two‐dimensional dynamic elastic‐plastic model to show that due to stress differences, earthquakes on reverse faults tend to occur less frequently, produce more coseismic slip and stress drop and involve higher slip rates than ruptures on normal faults with equivalent dimensions. The analysis also shows differences in the energy changes associated with earthquake cycles on reverse and normal faults. However, the earthquakes on both fault types result from abrupt release of elastic strain energy, which proceed and essentially drive variations in gravitational potential energy. Thus, ruptures on both normal and reverse faults are consistent with elastic rebound theory.