<?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:contributor>Eileen Evans</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Phoebe M. R. Devries</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;A central goal of observing and modeling the earthquake cycle is to forecast when a particular fault may generate an earthquake: a fault late in its earthquake cycle may be more likely to generate an earthquake than a fault early in its earthquake cycle. Models that can explain geodetic observations throughout the entire earthquake cycle may be required to gain a more complete understanding of relevant physics and phenomenology. Previous efforts to develop unified earthquake models for strike-slip faults have largely focused on explaining both preseismic and postseismic geodetic observations available across a few faults in California, Turkey, and Tibet. An alternative approach leverages the global distribution of geodetic and geologic slip rate estimates on strike-slip faults worldwide. Here we use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for similarity of distributions to infer, in a statistically rigorous manner, viscoelastic earthquake cycle models that are inconsistent with 15 sets of observations across major strike-slip faults. We reject a large subset of two-layer models incorporating Burgers rheologies at a significance level of &lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;α&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.05 (those with long-term Maxwell viscosities &lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;η&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;M&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; &amp;lt;~ 4.0 × 10&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt; Pa s and &lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;η&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;M&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt; &amp;gt;~ 4.6 × 10&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt; Pa s) but cannot reject models on the basis of transient Kelvin viscosity &lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;η&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;K&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;. Finally, we examine the implications of these results for the predicted earthquake cycle timing of the 15 faults considered and compare these predictions to the geologic and historical record.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/2016GL070681</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Geophysical Union</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Statistical tests of simple earthquake cycle models</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>