<?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>Glenn Biasi</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Stephen J. Angster</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Stephen G. Wesnousky</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>John G. Anderson</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2021</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;We develop a self‐consistent scaling model relating magnitude&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;to surface rupture length (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;⁠L&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;), surface displacement&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and rupture width&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, for strike‐slip faults. Knowledge of the long‐term fault‐slip rate&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;F&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;improves magnitude estimates. Data are collected for 55 ground‐rupturing strike‐slip earthquakes that have geological estimates of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;L&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;F⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and geophysical estimates of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;. We begin with the model of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a class="link link-ref xref-bibr" data-modal-source-id="rf4"&gt;Anderson&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;et&amp;nbsp;al.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;(2017)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt;, which uses a closed form equation for the seismic moment of a surface‐rupturing strike‐slip fault of arbitrary aspect ratio and given stress drop,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;Δτ&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;. Using&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;estimates does not improve&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;M&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;estimates. However, measurements of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;plus the relationship between&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;Δτ&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;and surface slip provide an alternate approach to study&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;. A grid of plausible stress drop and width pairs were used to predict displacement and earthquake magnitude. A likelihood function was computed from within the uncertainty ranges of the corresponding observed&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;w&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;and&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;D&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;values. After maximizing likelihoods over earthquakes in length bins, we found the most likely values of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;for constant stress drop; these depend on the rupture length. The best‐fitting model has the surprising form&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;W&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;∝logL&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;—a gentle increase in width with rupture length. Residuals from this model are convincingly correlated to the fault‐slip rate and also show a weak correlation with the crustal thickness. The resulting model thus supports a constant stress drop for ruptures of all lengths, consistent with teleseismic observation. The approach can be extended to test other observable factors that might improve the predictability of magnitude from a mapped fault for seismic hazard analyses.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1785/0120210113</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Seismological Society of America</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Improved scaling relationships for seismic moment and average slip of strike-slip earthquakes incorporating fault slip rate, fault width and stress drop</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>