Seismic and aseismic fault growth lead to different fault orientations

Orientations of natural fault systems are subject to large variations. They often contradict classical Coulomb failure theory as they are misoriented relative to the regional Andersonian stress field. This is ascribed to local effects of structural or stress heterogeneities and reorientations of structures or stresses on the long term. To better understand the relation between fault orientation and regional stresses, we simulate spontaneous fault growth and its effect on the stress field. Our approach incorporates earthquake rupture dynamics, viscoelastoplastic brittle deformation and a rate‐ and state‐dependent friction formulation in a continuum mechanics framework. We investigate how strike‐slip faults orient according to local and far‐field stresses during their growth. We identify two modes of fault growth, seismic and aseismic, distinguished by different fault angles and slip velocities. Seismic fault growth causes a significant elevation of dynamic stresses and friction values ahead of the propagating fault tip. These elevated quantities result in a greater strike angle relative to the maximum principal regional stress than that of a fault segment formed aseismically. When compared to the near‐tip time‐dependent stress field the fault orientations produced by both growth modes follow the classical failure theory. We demonstrate how the two types of fault growth may be distinguished in natural faults by comparing their angles relative to the original regional maximum principal stress. A stress field analysis of the Landers‐Kickapoo fault suggests that an angle greater than ∼25° between two faults indicates seismic fault growth.