<?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>Aaron G. Wech</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Kenneth Creager</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>K. Obara</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Duncan Agnew</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Joan S. Gomberg</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;The relationship (scaling) between scalar moment,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and duration,&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;T&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;, potentially provides key constraints on the physics governing fault slip. The prevailing interpretation of&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;T&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;observations proposes different scaling for fast (earthquakes) and slow (mostly aseismic) slip populations and thus fundamentally different driving mechanisms. We show that a single model of slip events within bounded slip zones may explain nearly all fast and slow slip&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;T&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;observations, and both slip populations have a change in scaling, where the slip area growth changes from 2-D when too small to sense the boundaries to 1-D when large enough to be bounded. We present new fast and slow slip&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;T&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;observations that sample the change in scaling in each population, which are consistent with our interpretation. We suggest that a continuous but bimodal distribution of slip modes exists and&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;T&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;observations alone may not imply a fundamental difference between fast and slow slip.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/2016GL069967</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Geophysical Union</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Reconsidering earthquake scaling</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>