Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation:

Defining the Hazard

JEROME A. TREIMAN
California Geological Survey, 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 475, Los Angeles,
CA 90017
Key Terms: Fault, Surface Rupture, Secondary Faults,
Site Investigation, Setback
ABSTRACT
Surface fault rupture can be a complex phenomenon
involving brittle fracture and closely associated defor-
mation. In order to characterize the hazard to
structures from surface rupture it is the task of the
geologist to identify where rupture and related defor-
mation have occurred as well as the style and magnitude
of past displacements and to interpret these data so as
to anticipate future fault rupture. To extrapolate this
information from the data that are preserved or
discovered in investigations requires an appreciation
of the variety of surface rupture processes and
expression. This paper looks at the problem in terms
of three questions one must ask: 1) Where should fault
rupture and deformation be anticipated?; 2) How much
slip, and in what sense, should be anticipated?; and 3)
How should the hazard be addressed when data are
incomplete? It is concluded that there will remain a
number of uncertainties in the assessment of future
fault rupture and that mitigation strategies must
include a sufficient margin of safety to accommodate
these uncertainties.
INTRODUCTION
Simply put, a strict interpretation of Californias
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (the
Act) and related policies dictates that one may not
build structures for human occupancy across the trace
of any fault that has had surface rupture during the
Holocene epoch, regardless of the amount or
probability of future displacement. This interpreta-
tion is based on the introductory wording of the Act,
which states that its purpose is to assist local
government in their responsibility to prohibit
the location of developments and structures for
human occupancy across the trace of active faults.
This purpose is further interpreted in Section 3603(a)
of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which
states the following: No structure for human
occupancy shall be permitted to be placed across
the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, as the area
within fifty (50) feet of such active faults shall be
presumed to be underlain by active branches of that
fault unless proven otherwise , no such structures
shall be permitted in this area. In California
regulatory language an active fault is one that
has had surface displacement within Holocene time
[CCR, Title14, 13601(a)].
The consulting and development community, and
some local government agencies, have recently asked
for flexibility in mitigating minor fault rupture that
would not be a hazard to structures if properly
mitigated by design (for example, Sexton [2008]). On
its face this would appear to be a reasonable request.
However, addressing this request calls up the sage
warning to Be careful what you ask for , for the
answer places a large burden of responsibility on
those who would seek to define, identify, and quantify
minor fault rupture. Fault-related deformation can
span an entire spectrum of surface features across a
continuum of scales and magnitudes. Somewhere
within this range of phenomena there are thresholds
that differentiate deformation that would be of
significance to structures from a lesser or broader,
non-hazardous degree of deformation. The actual
values that might be assigned to these thresholds,
which will vary with the state of engineering design,
engineering practice, and societal concerns regarding
acceptable risk, are not a part of this paper. I intend
to show that quantifying potential future rupture on
individual fault traces and providing assurance that
such rupture will be minor are not simple tasks.
Considering the cost, or even the likelihood of success
of the necessary investigations, mitigation by design
may not be appropriate or practical for many, if not
most, faults.
This paper is derived from a talk given at the AEG-
Shlemon Specialty Conference held February 1920,
2009, in Palm Desert, California. The conference
examined fault hazards with respect to site-specific
engineering projects, and, hence, this paper focuses on
issues that will face the consultant who is trying to
assess the hazard for a proposed structure. In order
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 19
for the engineering community to even begin to
discuss whether displacement can be mitigated or
must be avoided at any particular site, a geologists
characterization of the style, distribution, and mag-
nitude of potential displacements is needed. Such
characterization requires an appreciation of the
variability (both spatial and temporal) of expression
of faults of different styles and activity. The issues
involved in the characterization of fault rupture and
related surface deformation define a varied landscape
of readily observable and more subtle phenomena,
hypothesis and fact, data and processes, all viewed
through the eyes of experience. It is not the purpose
of this brief paper to provide any answers, or even the
methodologies, but rather to provide a reconnais-
sance map of that terrain. Although there is a decided
California bias toward strike-slip faulting in this
paper, most of the observations are readily applicable
to other faulting styles.
WHERE SHOULD FAULT RUPTURE AND
DEFORMATION BE ANTICIPATED?
To anticipate where fault rupture and related
deformation may occur requires an understanding
of both general faulting characteristics and the
specific geologic and tectonic characteristics of the
project site. Faults, in their simplest configurations
(Figure 1), encompass some combination of three
basic styles of faulting: (a) strike slipin response to
shear; (b) normalin response to extension; and (c)
reverse or thrustin response to compression. Fault
rupture is commonly more complex than the single
traces and mechanisms shown in these block dia-
grams as a result of the variety of stresses along a
fault zone, variability in fault geometry, displacement
history, and varying earth materials. Anticipating
where fault rupture may develop requires a familiarity
with the variety of expression that may occur, which
itself is a product of the fault type, fault dip, amount
of displacement, and the material being faulted. Some
good references related to various expressions of fault
rupture include Gordon (1971), Johnson et al. (1997),
Kelson et al. (2001), Lawson (1908), McCalpin
(1996), Tchalenko (1970), and Yeats et al. (1997).
One might ask why the determination of fault
location should be such a difficult task. Dont we
have maps showing where the faults are? Consider a
map of the Homestead Valley and Emerson Faults
prior to the 1992 Landers earthquake (Figure 2a). It
shows the main traces of the faults, but a look at the
post-earthquake rupture map (Figure 2b) shows that
the actual pattern of historic fault rupture is much
more complex. Although some earthquake rupture
may be simple, it may not be easy to predict that
simplicity beforehand. Because minor faults are not
as well preserved at the surface, unless there has been
a historic surface rupture on the fault we are not
likely to appreciate the full extent of related faulting
and deformation. It is this full distribution of strain
that has to be characterized if we want to design
structures to either avoid or safely withstand distrib-
uted fault displacement.
If prior mapping is not adequate, can we trench to
find all of the rupture traces? Again, consider an
example. In the following hypothetical trenches
(Figure 3a) several significant and minor faults are
exposed (short lines across trench outlines). Some
Figure 1. The three principal styles of faulting: (a) strike slip, (b)
normal, and (c) reverse (block diagrams modified from figure 4 in
Clark and Hauge [1971]).
Treiman
20 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930
faults can only be seen on one side of the trench with
no apparent continuity. A reasonable interpretation
of the fault pattern is shown. However, the faults
selected for this example are part of an actual fault
pattern from the Hector Mine earthquake (Fig-
ure 3b). As can be seen, the actual breadth and
complexity of faulting might not have been well
projected or anticipated based solely on the trench
exposures. Furthermore, a step back to look at the
broader pattern of faulting (Figure 3c) shows that
this is still an evolving en echelon fault system, and
future rupture (indicated by the heavy dashed line)
may well strike obliquely across the prior surface
rupture.
We may also misjudge the potential distribution of
surface faulting if a trench was not deep enough or
extensive enough to observe all active splays or if
some faulting was not visible in the trench. Bonilla
Figure 2. Mapped fault traces of the Homestead Valley and Emerson Faults in the Melville Lake 7.5-minute quadrangle. (a) Shows
mapped fault traces prior to the 1992 Landers earthquake. (b) Shows actual rupture pattern mapped after the earthquake [(a) modified from
CDMG, 1988; (b) mapping compiled by California Geological Survey (CGS)].
Figure 3. Fault rupture may only be incompletely exposed in trenches, as illustrated in this example. (a) Three hypothetical trenches expose
multiple small and larger shears (heavy and thin lines at trench outline) that might be used to construct two simple principal fault traces
(dashed lines). The observed faults in (a) are modeled on historic surface rupture along the Lavic Lake Fault during the 1999 Hector Mine
earthquake, plotted in (b), which shows a more complex fault pattern than might be constructed from minimal data exposed only in
trenches. (c) Shows this fault segment in the context of the larger fault pattern (thin linework), revealing that it is within a still-developing
right-lateral shear zone that will likely produce more aligned and continuous faults with future displacement (heavy dashed line).
Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 21
and Lienkaemper (1991) identified three different
categories of non-visibility of faults in trench
investigations. Obscure fault traces (traces not visible
in some geologic units) occurred in 14 percent of the
trenches that they reviewed. In 45 percent of the
trenches faults appeared to die out upward, where
other data showed that surface displacement had
occurred. Upward die-out was found in as many as 70
percent of trenches where strike-slip faulting was
involved. In 30 percent of the trenches there were
faults that appeared to die out downward. The study
of Bonilla and Lienkaemper (1991) pointed out that
just because fault rupture is not visible in a trench
does not mean it did not occur. Their findings
highlighted the importance of having multiple fault
exposures in order to properly characterize a fault.
Complex fault rupture commonly occurs where
there are changes in fault geometry. Changes in strike
or stepovers along a strike-slip fault can yield both
compression and extension with resultant vertical
movements. Figure 4 shows examples of transten-
sional and transpressional deformation along a strike-
slip fault where the trace is slightly oblique to the
principal stress. Figure 5 shows examples of com-
pressional uplift at a fault stepover. Changes in the
dip of normal or reverse faults can cause secondary
normal or thrust faults in the hanging wall of the fault
(Figure 6). A fault that steepens toward the surface
will cause compression above a reverse or thrust fault
(Figure 6d) but extension in a normal fault. In
contrast, a reverse fault that shallows toward the
surface will cause extension in the hanging wall
(Figure 6c).
Rupture complexity can involve splays, closely
spaced parallel faults, and warping. Tchalenko (1970)
demonstrated how complexity within a strike-slip
fault zone may develop from an initial pattern of en
Figure 4. Examples of surface rupture with a component of
displacement that is oblique to the fault. In (a) there is a
component of extension, with a resultant down-dropped area
within the shear zone (Lavic Lake Fault, 1999). The inset shows a
negative flower structure. (b) Shows a fault with a component of
compression and consequent uplift of a sliver within the fault zone
(Emerson Fault, 1992). The inset shows a positive flower structure
[(a) photo by J. Treiman, CGS; (b) photo by W. Bryant, CGS].
Figure 5. (a) Vertical aerial view of thrust-faulting and uplift at a
compressional stepover along the Lavic Lake Fault, 1999 Hector
Mine earthquake (photo by I. K. Curtis, portion of frame 812);
(b) uplifted playa sediments at a compressional stepover along the
Lavic Lake Fault (photo by K. Hudnut, U.S. Geological Survey).
Treiman
22 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930
echelon faults (Figure 7). Although they have been
developed at laboratory scales, these fault patterns
repeat in nature at all scales, from the microscopic to
examples like the Lavic Lake Fault (Figure 3c) to
fault zones that are several kilometers wide. If a fault
strand seems to be dying out in a series of trenches,
consider looking for a stepover. Just as fault patterns
may evolve in strike-slip faulting, surface rupture
along evolving thrust or reverse faults may be
preceded by folding and then by shifts of location
for the locus of most-active faulting (Figures 8 and 9).
Multiple parallel fault strands are also observed
and may occur in all types of faulting. Examples are
shown from strike-slip, normal, and reverse fault
situations (Figure 10ac). Vertical fault displacements
often involve multiple hanging wall faults accompa-
nied by localized folding (Figure 6). Warping may be
just as damaging to a foundation as a discrete fault
rupture (Figure 11).
Figure 12af illustrates some of the potential
variation in surface expression of faults. Although
this figure shows vertical displacements and defor-
mation, similar variations may occur in strike-slip
displacement. Figure 12a shows a simple displace-
ment of a presumed significant amount. Thresholds
of mitigable displacement, as mentioned in the
introduction to this paper, may be in the form of a
Figure 6. Variable expression (schematic) of thrust fault tips, as
observed in the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Note the effect
of changes in dip of the fault plane (modified from Kelson et al.,
2001; their figure 26).
Figure 7. Results of Reidel shear experiment in laboratory
demonstrate integration of en echelon shears in a developing
strike-slip fault zone; D-value is displacement across the fault at
each stage of the experiment (from Tchalenko, 1970; their figure
4).
Figure 8. Reconstruction of fault and scarp development dem-
onstrating variable age and location of active fault traces. (a)
Shows earlier trace and (c) shows latest evolution of the scarp.
Note how the location of active slip can shift from one event to the
next (from Meghraoui et al., 1988; their figure 12).
Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 23
certain maximum displacement, and avoidance may
be the best approach if the displacement is large. But
what if this maximum is distributed across several
faults or a tightly constrained fold? Figure 12b shows
the same total displacement across two faults, and
Figure 12c shows the same total displacement dis-
tributed across a series of individually minor faults.
Figure 13 shows an example of distributed faulting
across a zone of folding (Ventura Fault). If this
faulting is confined to a narrow zone a structures
foundation may still respond as if it were a single
brittle rupture. The geologist needs to anticipate how
much displacement might occur and over how broad
of a zone. Only with this information can the engineer
begin to consider design recommendations.
Figure 9. Progression of a blind thrust fault into a surface fault.
In (a) the fault has created an antiformal hill or ridge. In (b) the
thrust fault is plowing underneath a shallow sediment layer with
an active backthrust reaching the surface up the left slope of the
ridge. In (c) the primary fault has broken through to the surface,
essentially deactivating the original backthrust. The example is
modeled from the Springville Fault in Ventura County,
California (Whitney and Gath, 1991).
Figure 10. Multiple parallel faults: (a) parallel and sub-parallel
strike-slip faults in the Homestead Valley Fault Zone (Johnson et al.,
1997; plate 4); (b) small parallel fractures in the hanging wall of a
normal fault, Dixie Valley earthquake (Steinbrugge collection,
courtesy of the National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley); (c) northward view
of strands of the Cucamonga Fault zoneyoungest strand (south-
ernmost) marked by shafted arrows and oldest marked by solid white
arrowheads (photo by D. Morton, U.S. Geological Survey).
Treiman
24 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930
Figure 12d illustrates the same fault-caused defor-
mation as in Figure 12c, but without the brittle
rupture extending to the surface. Figure 12e, with a
narrower zone of folding, is similar in effect to
Figure 12a. The comparability of these situations for
design considerations should be evident and illus-
trates the shortcomings of strictly interpreting regu-
lations, such as the Alquist-Priolo Act, to apply only
to surface rupture. As mentioned earlier, fault rupture
and related deformation occur within a continuum,
extending to the more distributed deformation in
Figure 12c or 12f, and raise the question What is a
surface fault? This question can really be asked in
two ways: (1) How close can faults be to each other
before they are no longer considered as individual
faults?; and (2) How close to the surface must a fault
be to be considered a surface rupture hazard? The
former question is raised by situations such as that
shown in Figure 10a or Figure 12c. The second
question arises in situations such as that depicted in
Figure 12f or as illustrated in a trench exposure of a
branch of the San Jacinto Fault in San Bernardino,
California (Figure 14). Although this example in-
cludes fairly shallow faulting, one can imagine
incrementally increasing this depth until some geol-
ogists no longer will consider it a surface fault. As
described earlier, faulting may also progressively
approach the surface with successive rupture events,
and it may be up to the geologist to propose whether
the next event will be the one to break the surface. It
will be a challenge for geologists, engineers, reviewers,
and regulators to apply rules and thresholds to
differentiate how these situations should be treated.
HOW MUCH SLIP SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED?
Once we have established where past rupture has
occurred and inferred the likely distribution of future
faulting we still need to evaluate how significant that
rupture might be to a structure. This will depend on
both the style and magnitude of the displacement.
Just as with fault location, we often judge the nature
of potential displacement based on evidence of past
displacements. That evidence, however, may be
incomplete. Incomplete data result in part from gaps
in the geologic record, but also from our limited
ability to observe and interpret the data that remain.
Even where slip data are preserved and recorded they
may be misleading because of variability in the
magnitude of fault displacement. Variations in fault
style also need to be considered to understand how
slip may be distributed at the ground surface.
Incomplete Data
Problems with characterizing potential displace-
ments and fault hazard first arise with the necessarily
limited nature of a site investigation. Geographically
Figure 11. Complex fold, backthrusts, and uplift at the leading
edge of the Chelungpu Fault (thrust) during the Chi-Chi
earthquake (Lee et al., 2001).
Figure 12. Diagrams of relationships between fault displacement
and surface displacement (scale intentionally is indeterminate). (a)
Simple single fault offsets ground surface; (b) two close simple
faults create same total vertical separation as in (a); (c) multiple
closely spaced faults create same vertical separation within same
distance as in (b); (d) buried fault creates same surface
deformation as multiple surface faults in (c); (e) buried fault with
narrower zone of folding more closely mimics single surface fault;
(f) deeper buried fault causes broader warp of surface.
Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 25
limited investigations, and particularly trenches, give
us a very narrow view of the past earthquake history
and, consequently, of the future potential for fault-
related deformation. Each exposure is a snapshot, if
you will, of the fault expression in one very limited
location and usually within a relatively restricted time
frame, which means there is a possibility that we are
not seeing the maximum displacement possible. Even
multiple exposures allow for varying interpretations
and likely do not give us a complete picture of the
breadth and variability of faulting (as shown in
Figure 3). Furthermore, most trenches only expose
the geometry of the fault in two dimensions. We may
see vertical separations (given favorable stratigraphy),
but it is much more difficult to judge the lateral
component of slip, or the total slip, from these
vertical exposures. Additional trenches and/or three-
dimensional trenches are needed if we even hope to
elucidate the true slip potential at a site, unless the
investigation site is undisturbed and retains geomor-
phic indicators of past displacement. As discussed
earlier, the study of Bonilla and Lienkaemper (1991)
showed that trench exposures often provide only an
incomplete record of past displacement, and evidence
of individual rupture events is not always visible in
every trench. Without the ability to see all of the past
faults it will be extremely difficult to characterize the
displacement potential.
Temporal Variation
At any point along a fault the amount of slip per
event may vary from one earthquake to the next,
meaning that the slip observed from a prior event
may not necessarily be characteristic of that fault. A
recent example of different slip distributions along
nearly identical rupture segments occurred along the
Parkfield segment of the San Andreas Fault in 1966
and 2004 (Lienkaemper et al., 2006). The 2004 event
had less slip at almost all locations than did the 1966
event (Figure 15). The slip difference from one
earthquake to the next may result from a wide range
of factors, including variation in accrued strain (due
to variable time intervals between ruptures), incom-
plete release of strain in the last event (or the next
one), changing strain thresholds for rupture, irregular
transfer of slip across stepovers, strain accommoda-
tion through folding, evolving fault geometry, posi-
tion along the fault rupture, and total rupture length.
Figure 13. Multiple extensional faults with normal separation lie within the scarp of the Ventura Fault (modified from Sarna-Wojcicki et
al., 1976).
Figure 14. Shallow faulting within the flank of uplift along the
San Jacinto Fault zone, San Bernardino, California (modified
from Leighton & Associates, 1996).
Treiman
26 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930
If a fault is being loaded (or relieved) by interaction
with other nearby or regional faults, then even the
strain rate on a fault may vary with time. If there have
been physical changes that affect fault propagation
since the prior rupture, such as sedimentation, erosion
(or grading), or changes in saturation or consolida-
tion, the next surface rupture may also be more
constrained or diffuse than a past event.
Differing length of rupture and overlap of rupture
segments is indicated for the southern San Andreas
Fault (Weldon et al., 2004; Biasi and Weldon, 2009).
The observations of these authors led to the conclusion
that at some specific locations there have been different
amounts of slip during different events. This may be
particularly relevant where a study site is near the end
of one rupture event but in the middle of another. An
extreme example of temporal variation is documented
by historic rupture in Californias Mojave Desert. In
1979 there was a small earthquake swarm between the
Johnson Valley Fault and the Homestead Valley Fault.
The swarm was accompanied by very minor strike-slip
shear (10 cm maximum, but commonly ,4 cm) along
the two fault zones (Hill et al., 1980). A trench in 1980
might have exposed minor fracturing to the surface,
with perhaps a few centimeters of vertical separation
on only the most prominent fractures. However, in
1992 the same area experienced 1 m to 2 m of right-
lateral displacement that might not have been char-
acterizable prior to that event.
Spatial Variation
In any given earthquake slip is commonly variable
along the strike. Such variation, across a variety of
fault styles, is evident in the survey of a number of
historic ruptures by Wesnousky (2008). In this data
we see a considerable variation in surface displace-
ment magnitude along strike-slip, normal, reverse,
and thrust rupture events. If a fault study is only
looking at paleoseismic data for a short section of a
fault, or over a short time frame, the variability, and
particularly the maximum potential displacement,
may not be recognized. As just one example, consider
the slip distribution from the 1999 Duzce earthquake
(Figure 16). A conservative approach (in hindsight)
would be to construct the upper curve to model
design displacements for a similar rupture. However,
without benefit of historic rupture or more complete
paleoseismic data, a trench at the location indicated
by the arrow might have led to the lower slip
distribution curve for that fault segment. Slip
magnitude will also vary in a more general sense
based on where you are within a rupture segment. As
in the Duzce earthquake example, displacement must
diminish to zero at the ends of the rupture, with one
or more slip maxima distributed along the rupture. If
your site is near the end of a segment, the slip from
the last event may not be an accurate indication of
slip potential elsewhere along the segment (or at that
location in a different rupture event). Thus, it is
imperative to have data from more than one site to
try to characterize the displacement potential of an
active fault.
Variations in Style
There may also be variation in fault style within an
event that can affect slip geometry and magnitude.
Inflections in the fault geometry may lead to various
local areas of compression or extension (as shown in
Figures 4 and 6). Strain partitioning may yield both
thrust faulting and strike-slip faulting on separate
Figure 15. Comparison of fault displacement associated with the
1966 and 2004 Parkfield earthquakes. The 1966 event ruptured
,37 km and the 2004 earthquake ruptured ,32 km of the fault;
both were ,M6.0 (modified from Lienkaemper et al., 2006).
Figure 16. Plot of displacement values along the fault rupture
from the 1999 Duzce earthquake. Upper curve added to plot is
conservative envelope of rupture magnitudes for that earthquake.
Lower dotted curve (also added) is what might be constructed for
the same segment in the absence of historical data and based on a
single trench at the arrow (modified from Wesnousky, 2008;
electronic supplement, section 1).
Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 27
faults within a single site (Figure 17). Careful
consideration of overall fault style and geometry is
required to interpret slip style and displacement
magnitudes within a complex zone of multiple traces
when your only data comes from trenches. In order to
reasonably assess the displacement potential of a fault
one must have data from several past events and also
must understand the style of faulting and interactions
with other faults. Where we dont have a clear surface
rupture we need to anticipate the locus of maximum
deformation based on a reasonable model of the fault
style and past displacements.
HOW DO WE ADDRESS THE HAZARD BASED
ON INCOMPLETE DATA?
Having recognized that even a very competent
investigation may not identify every potential fault
trace and may not be able to forecast the maximum
displacement, a reasonable approach to the problem
of such incomplete data is the judicious application of
buffers around the uncertainty. The classic approach
is the spatial buffera structural setback zone wide
enough to contain the possible distribution of brittle
rupture and associated deformation. A second
approach, now being explored by the State Mining
& Geology Board and addressed at the recent AEG-
Shlemon Specialty Conference, is the design buffer
structural accommodation of minor displacement
with a sufficient factor of safety to encompass a
realistic margin of error. Both of these approaches are
essentially deterministic, and the latter approach is
predicated upon the ability of the geologist to
understand and characterize the displacement poten-
tial within a fault zone.
Probabilistic approaches to fault displacement and
fault distribution are also currently being explored,
but primarily with respect to lifelines, which may not
have the luxury of fault avoidance (PEER, 2009). If
society or local communities can agree on what is an
acceptable risk for occupied structures, then proba-
bilistic analyses (when better developed) may provide
a third approach to the fault rupture hazard problem
for structures. Classic displacement-magnitude rela-
tionships have been put forth by Wells and Copper-
smith (1994) and may be useful for estimating the
magnitude of displacement along the primary fault
based on rupture length or earthquake magnitude (if
known). The distribution of slip across secondary
faults is still being evaluated (Coppersmith and
Youngs, 2000; Youngs et al., 2003; and Petersen et
al., 2006). These studies have been primarily for
normal and strike-slip faulting, and circumstances
may require a fallback to deterministic approaches if
one intends to design for such rupture, especially
where a reverse or thrust displacement component is
involved. Without an adequate characterization of
the distributed ruptures structural setbacks will
remain the primary mitigation.
CLOSING
In this paper I have catalogued some of the reasons
for the uncertainty associated with assessing the
Figure 17. Mapped traces of the Simi Fault within a regulatory zone (CDMG, 1999) include a high-angle left-lateral trace and lower-angle
thrust faults. Strain on this left-oblique fault may be partitioned between these different traces in this area of the Simi Valley East 7.5-minute
quadrangle (Treiman, 1998).
Treiman
28 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930
potential location, style, and magnitude of future
rupture. The point of dwelling on these uncertainties
is to provide the consultant with a sense of what
might not be evident in a typical fault investigation
and, in fact, what might not be discovered in even a
more thorough study. Yet these very factors are
critical in the attempt to design a structure to
withstand such deformation. One part of the solution
lies, of course, in careful investigation and analysis.
Another part comes from experience and exposure to
the various possibilities. In that regard, consider this
an armchair adventure. The geologist who would
characterize fault rupture for design purposes must
think beyond the walls of his trenches to the bigger
picture that encompasses the full complexity of the
fault zone.
REFERENCES
BIASI, G. P. AND WELDON, R. J., II, 2009, San Andreas fault
rupture scenarios from multiple paleoseismic records: String-
ing pearls: Bulletin Seismological Society America, Vol. 99,
pp. 471498.
BONILLA, M. G. AND LIENKAEMPER, J. J., 1991, Factors Affecting
the Recognition of Faults Exposed in Exploratory Trenches:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1947, 54 p.
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (CDMG), 1988,
Special Studies Zones, Melville Lake Quadrangle, Official
Map: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000, 1
March 1988 [note: this is an archived obsolete version of the
Official Map].
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY (CDMG), 1999,
Earthquake Fault Zones, Simi Valley East Quadrangle,
Official Map: California Division of Mines and Geology,
1:24,000, 1 May 1999.
CLARK, W. B. AND HAUGE, C. J., 1971, When the earth quakes
you can reduce the danger: California Geology, Vol. 24,
No. 11, pp. 203216.
COPPERSMITH, K. J. AND YOUNGS, R. R., 2000, Data needs for
probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis: Journal
Geodynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 329343.
GORDON, F. R., 1971, Faulting during the earthquake at
Meckering, western Australia14 October 1968: Bulletin
Royal Society New Zealand, Vol. 9, pp. 9596.
HILL, R. L.; PECHMAN, J. C.; TREIMAN, J. A.; MCMILLAN, J. R.;
GIVEN, J. W.; AND EBEL, J. E., 1980, Geologic study of the
Homestead Valley earthquake swarm of March 15, 1979:
California Geology, Vol. 33, pp. 6067.
JOHNSON, A. M.; FLEMING, R. W.; CRUIKSHANK, K. M.; MARTO-
SUDARMO, S. Y.; JOHNSON, N. A.; JOHNSON, K. M.; AND WEI,
W., 1997, Analecta of Structures Formed during the 28 June
1992 LandersBig Bear, California, Earthquake Sequence:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-94, 59 p.
KELSON, K. I.; KANG, K.-H.; PAGE, W. D.; LEE, C.-T.; AND CLUFF,
L. S., 2001, Representative styles of deformation along the
Chelungpu Fault from the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earth-
quake, geomorphic characteristics and responses of man-
made structures: Bulletin Seismological Society America,
Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 930952.
LAWSON, A. C., 1908, The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906,
Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission:
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 87,
Vol. 1, Part 1, 451 p.
LEE, J.-C.; CHEN, Y.-G.; SIEH, K.; MUELLER, K.; CHEN, W.-S.;
CHU, H.-T.; CHAN, Y.-C.; RUBIN, C.; AND YEATS, R., 2001, A
vertical exposure of the 1999 surface rupture of the
Chelungpu Fault at Wufeng, western Taiwan; Structural
and paleoseismic implications for an active thrust fault:
Bulletin Seismological Society America, Vol. 91, No. 5,
pp. 914930.
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1996, Seismic Hazard Assessment of the
San Bernardino Valley College Campus, San Bernardino,
California: unpublished consultant report, Leighton &
Associates, 30 August 1996.
LIENKAEMPER, J. J.; BAKER, B.; AND MCFARLAND, F. S., 2006,
Surface slip associated with the 2004 Parkfield, California,
earthquake measured on alignment arrays: Bulletin Seismo-
logical Society America, Vol. 96, No. 4B, pp. S239S249.
MCCALPIN, J., 1996, Paleoseismology: Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, 588 p.
MEGHRAOUI, M.; PHILIP, H.; ALBAREDE, F.; AND CISTERNAS, A.,
1988, Trench investigations through the trace of the 1980 El
Asnam thrust fault; Evidence for paleoseismicity: Bulletin
Seismological Society America, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 979999.
PEER, 2009, Surface Fault Displacement Hazard Workshop:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, May 20
21, 2009: Electronic document, available at http://peer.
berkeley.edu/events/2009/sfdc_workshop/
PETERSEN, M.; CAO, T.; DAWSON, T.; WILLS, C.; AND SCHWARTZ, D.,
2006, Estimating fault displacement hazard for strike-slip
faults: Seismological Society of America, Abstracts of the
Annual Meeting: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 77,
No. 2, p. 277.
SARNA-WOJCICKI, A. M.; WILLIAMS, K. M.; AND YERKES, R. F.,
1976, Geology of the Ventura Fault, Ventura County,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-781, 3 sheets, 1:6000.
SEXTON, C. J., 2008, Implementing the California Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, a proposal for change: Environmental
Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 4351.
TCHALENKO, J. S., 1970, Similarities between shear zones of
different magnitudes: Geological Society America Bulletin,
Vol. 81, pp. 16251640.
TREIMAN, J. A., 1998, SimiSanta Rosa Fault Zone in the
Moorpark, Newbury Park, Simi Valley East, Simi Valley
West, and Thousand Oaks Quadrangles, Ventura County,
California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault
Evaluation Report FER-244, 5 October 1998, 21 p., tables,
maps (1:24,000).
WELDON, R.; SCHARER, K.; FUMAL, T.; AND BIASI, G., 2004,
Wrightwood and the earthquake cycle; What a long
recurrence record tells us about how faults work: GSA
Today, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 410.
WELLS, D. L. AND COPPERSMITH, K. J., 1994, New empirical
relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture
width, rupture area, and surface displacement: Bulletin
Seismological Society America, Vol. 84, pp. 9741002.
WESNOUSKY, S. G., 2008, Displacement and geometrical charac-
teristics of earthquake surface ruptures: Issues and implica-
tions for seismic-hazard analysis and the process of earth-
quake rupture: Bulletin Seismological Society America,
Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 16091632 & online electronic supple-
ments.
WHITNEY, R. A. AND GATH, E. M., 1991, Structure, tectonics, and
surface rupture hazard at the Las Posas anticline, Ventura
County, California. In Blake, T. F. and Larson, R. A.
(Editors), Engineering Geology along the SimiSanta Rosa
Fault Rupture and Surface Deformation
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930 29
Fault System and Adjacent Areas, Simi Valley to Camarillo,
Ventura County, California: Association of Engineering
Geologists, Southern California Section Field Trip Guide-
book, Vol. 2, pp. 164182.
YEATS, R. S.; SIEH, K.; AND ALLEN, C. R., 1997, The Geology of
Earthquakes: Oxford University Press, New York, 568 p.
YOUNGS, R. R.; ARABASZ, W. J.; ANDERSON, R. E.; RAMELLI, A. R.;
AKE, J. P.; SLEMMONS, D. B.; MCCALPIN, J. P.; DOSER, D. I.;
FRIDRICH, C. J.; SWAN, F. H., III; ROGERS, A. M.; YOUNT, J.
C.; ANDERSON, L. W.; SMITH, K. D.; BRUHN, R. L.; KNUEPFER,
L. K.; SMITH, R. B.; DEPOLO, C. M.; OLEARY, K. W.;
COPPERSMITH, K. J.; PEZZOPANE, S. K.; SCHWARTZ, D. P.;
WHITNEY, J. W.; OLIG, S. S.; AND TORO, G. R., 2003, A
methodology for probabilistic fault displacement hazard
analysis (PFDHA): Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 1,
pp. 191219.
Treiman
30 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVI, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1930