Smoothing of Fault Slip Surfaces by Scale‐Invariant Wear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous field observations suggest that fault slip surface roughness may decrease with slip. However, measurements have yet to confidently isolate the effect of slip from other possible controls, such as lithology or tectonic setting. We describe the evolution of slip surfaces in normal faults in SE Utah that cut well‐sorted, high‐porosity sandstones and accommodated regional extension at 1‐ to 4‐km depth. Tight controls on fault offset and uniform tectonic history allowed us to isolate the effect of slip during early stages of faulting (0‐ to 55‐m slip). Slip surfaces progress from rough joints and deformation bands toward smooth, continuous, and mirror‐like surfaces with increasing slip. We collected 123 scans of pristine slip surfaces, which measure surface geometry from micrometers to meters in length scale. Results indicate that slip surface roughness is systematically smoother than joint surfaces and deformation band edges. Over the best resolved length scales (0.1–10 mm), we observe roughness decreases with slip according to a power law with exponent −1 in the slip direction. Slip‐perpendicular profiles, though rougher, exhibit the same smoothing trend. The Hurst scaling exponent does not change with slip. These observations require wear to be multiscale. Boundary element method models suggest that mechanical wear of completely mated surfaces occurs by asperity failure and that the wear rate depends on the aspect ratio of asperities. These results indicate that at large slip, asperity failure at all length scales can cause slip surfaces to smooth while maintaining the fractal geometry characteristic of faults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".