See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284122077

Definition and classification of fault damage zones: A review and a new

methodological approach

Article  in  Earth-Science Reviews · November 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.11.006

CITATIONS READS

129 8,851

4 authors:

Jin-Hyuck Choi Paul Edwards

Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources Pukyong National University
36 PUBLICATIONS   284 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kyoungtae Ko Young-Seog Kim

Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources Pukyong National University
23 PUBLICATIONS   274 CITATIONS    385 PUBLICATIONS   4,818 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nuclear Power Plant Site Investigation View project

Disruption of the Sino-Korean Peninsula View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Young-Seog Kim on 03 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth-Science Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev

Definition and classification of fault damage zones: A review and a new

methodological approach
Jin-Hyuck Choi a,b, Paul Edwards a, Kyoungtae Ko a,c, Young-Seog Kim a,⁎
a
Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Pukyong National University, Yongso-ro 45, Nam-gu, Busan 608-737, Republic of Korea
b
Lithosphere Tectonics and Mechanics, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 1 rue Jussieu, Paris 75005, France
c
Geologic Research Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Gwahang-no 124, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-350, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although the widths of fault damage zones commonly show a positive correlation with displacements, these re-
Received 30 May 2014 lationships also show a somewhat scattered distribution. We believe that one of the fundamental reasons for this
Received in revised form 6 November 2015 problem is strongly related to subjective definitions and inconsistent uses of the term ‘damage zone’. Thus, firstly
Accepted 7 November 2015
we classify damage zones into along-fault, around-tip and cross-fault damage zones based on descriptive views of
Available online 10 November 2015
an arbitrary fault exposure as well as their tridimensional locations around a segmented fault system. Secondly,
Keywords:
we propose an advanced field technique and data acquisition method to more accurately define a damage zone
Fault scaling relationship using the distribution of cumulative fracture frequency. We tested this method on new field and borehole obser-
Fault damage zone vations as well as previously published data to identify damage zone boundaries, and express them as a change in
Damage zone classification slope gradients of the cumulative distribution of deformation structures. The results show how this slope change
Damage zone width can be a useful criterion in accurately defining the width of damage zones and some internal properties of fault
Cumulative fracture frequency zones. We argue that this damage zone classification and definition method should be adopted and used to pre-
vent discrepancies in field data. This will help us to gain a better understanding of fault damage zone properties
and their scaling with fault displacement.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2. Previous studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.1. Fault zone architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.2. Scaling relationships between damage zone width and displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.3. Limitation 1: subjective definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.4. Limitation 2: complexity in 3-D damage zone architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3. Classification of fault damage zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.1. Along-fault damage zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.2. Around-tip damage zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3. Cross-fault damage zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4. Estimation of damage zone width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.1. Research method based on cumulative fracture frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2. Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2.1. A segment of the Moab fault, SE Utah, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2.2. Field and borehole observations at the Gyeongsang Basin, SE Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.3. Reanalysis of the Pajarito fault system, New Mexico, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1. Uncertainties of displacement measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2. Defining damage zone and estimating its width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3. Asymmetry of fault damage zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ysk7909@pknu.ac.kr (Y.-S. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.11.006
0012-8252/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Brittle faults were traditionally considered to be single planar struc-
tures, but more recently they are described as complex volumetric
zones composed of a variety of internal structures, such as slip surfaces,
fault rock assemblages, and subsidiary deformation structures. Over the
last few decades, a number of studies have focused on the fault zone
architecture to understand fault evolution as well as its impact on
fluid flow and mechanical behavior of the Earth's crust (Chester and
Logan, 1986; Aydin and Schultz, 1990; McGrath and Davison, 1995;
Caine et al., 1996; Childs et al., 1996, 2009; Peacock, 2002; Walsh
et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2004; Shipton et al., 2006; Faulkner et al., 2010;
Smith et al., 2013). In particular, it is well known that the damage
zones, consisting of subsidiary structures through relatively large
volume of rock surrounding the fault core, are associated with fault ini-
tiation, propagation and termination as well as its long-term evolution
(Segall and Pollard, 1980; Cowie and Shipton, 1998; Peacock et al.,
2000; Scholz, 2002; Pachell and Evans, 2002; Kim et al., 2003; Fossen,
2010; Gudmundsson et al., 2010). Damage zones are regarded as a
key factor in a variety of geologic fields, such as the deformation pro-
cesses associated with faulting (e.g. Chester et al., 1993; Schulz and
Evans, 1998; Wilson et al., 2003), strain distribution and deformation
history in a region (e.g. Scholz and Cowie, 1990; Walsh et al., 1991;
Marrett and Allmendinger, 1992), earthquake rupture propagation
and related seismic hazards (e.g. Sibson, 1989; Kim and Sanderson,
2008; Choi et al., 2012), and fluid permeability in the crust (Caine
et al., 1996; Zhang and Sanderson, 1996; Childs et al., 1997; Evans
et al., 1997; Townend and Zoback, 2000; Jourde et al., 2002; Shipton
et al., 2002; Faulkner et al., 2003; Geraud et al., 2006; Kim and
Sanderson, 2010). The last one is particularly important as it is used in
practical applications to ground water (e.g. Lopez and Smith, 1995;
Bense et al., 2008; Cilona et al., 2015), hydrocarbon reservoirs and
ore-deposits (e.g. Aydin, 2000; Brogi, 2011; Rotevatn and Fossen,
2011), and the underground storage of CO2 (e.g. Shipton et al., 2004;
Dockrill and Shipton, 2010).
Damage zones have been described in terms of architecture and geo-
metrical dimensions based on structural maps, field observations, and
microstructural analysis (Chester et al., 1993, 2004; Antonellini and
Aydin, 1994; Bruhn et al., 1994; McGrath and Davison, 1995; Schulz
and Evans, 1998; Vermilye and Scholz, 1998; Storti et al., 2003; Billi
et al., 2003; Micarelli et al., 2003; Di Toro and Pennacchioni, 2005;
Agosta and Aydin, 2006; Johansen and Fossen, 2008; Riley et al., 2010;
Bistacchi et al., 2011; Hausegger and Kurz, 2013; Lin and Yamashita,
2013; Smith et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2013). Damage zone architecture
has been linked to slip accumulation and used in order to understand
fault growth and evolution (Cowie and Shipton, 1998; Shipton and
Cowie, 2001, 2003; Kim et al., 2003; Fossen et al., 2005; de Joussineau
and Aydin, 2007; Childs et al., 2009). Numerous studies proposed fault
evolution models using the scaling relationship between damage zone
width and displacement (Evans, 1990; Scholz et al., 1993; Childs et al.,
1996; Knott et al., 1996; Vermilye and Scholz, 1998; Beach et al.,
1999; Fossen and Hesthammer, 2000; Shipton et al., 2006; Mitchell
and Faulkner, 2009; Faulkner et al., 2011; Savage and Brodsky, 2011;
Torabi and Berg, 2011). Although there is generally a broad positive
correlation in this relationship, the collected data show a relatively
scattered distribution. Several parameters, such as lithology and associ-
ated diagenesis, depth of faulting, tectonic environment, and deforma-
tion mechanism, have been suggested as responsible of the scattering
(Evans, 1990; Childs et al., 1997; Fossen and Hesthammer, 2000;
Shipton and Cowie, 2001; Di Toro and Pennacchioni, 2005; Shipton
71
84
84
85
et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2010; Savage and Brodsky, 2011; Torabi and
Berg, 2011). Whilst the suggested parameters could account for some
factors in the data scattering, the fundamental reasons of data scattering
are still poorly understood (e.g. Blenkinsop, 1989; Evans, 1990; Shipton
et al., 2006; Faulkner et al., 2010).
In quantitative fault studies, variations in damage zone width may
be induced by genetic and evolutionary properties of the damage
zones. These properties include gradual, not drastic, changes in frequen-
cy of deformation structures (e.g. Shipton et al., 2006; Savage and
Brodsky, 2011), the asymmetry between the hanging-wall and the foot-
wall damage zone volumes (e.g. White et al., 1986; Knott et al., 1996;
Aarland and Skjerven, 1998; Berg and Skar, 2005; de Joussineau and
Aydin, 2007), and complex architectures related to multi-strands or
braided fault cores (e.g. Childs et al., 1997; Faulkner et al., 2003, 2008,
2010). Uncertainties underlying this analysis may be more common
on the large-scale faults, which are generally composed of a number
of fault segments, because the above-mentioned factors can affect the
geometric complexity of the fault zones in multiple ways.
Damage zone width, in general, has been defined by the frequency
distribution of damage structures, such as cracks, fractures and defor-
mation bands, which commonly decreases with distance from fault
core (e.g. Chester and Logan, 1986; Smith et al., 1990; Scholz and
Anders, 1994; Goddard and Evans, 1995). In other words, the external
edge of the damage zones is generally displayed as the point at which
the frequency of damage structures drops to a minimum or background
level (Beach et al., 1999; Cello et al., 2001; Agosta and Kirschner, 2003;
Berg and Skar, 2005; Faulkner et al., 2006; de Joussineau and Aydin,
2007; Mitchell and Faulkner, 2009; Gudmundsson et al., 2010; Riley
et al., 2010). This method offers a useful tool for identifying damage
zones, and hence has been broadly used in most of previous studies deal-
ing with damage zone width. However, the criteria used to define the
damage zone boundary have been varied in each field-measurement
study, and these will be discussed in detail on Section 2. Inconsistent
calculations of damage zone width, therefore, may in part come from
ambiguity and/or subjectivity of the definition and measurement of
damage zone, regardless of its genetic properties.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, as faults are rarely
completely exposed in 3-D, interpreting the 3-D distribution of damage
zones is always challenging. These incomplete observations of fault
zones have led to two slightly different uses of the term ‘damage zone’
in modern structural geology (e.g. Schultz and Fossen, 2008; Kim and
Sanderson, 2010). The first, which is the more extensively used in a
cross-section of the fault zone, is referring to a highly deformed zone
on both sides of the fault core (Chester and Logan, 1986; Ben-Zion
and Malin, 1991; Caine et al., 1996; Billi et al., 2003; Odling et al.,
2004; Bullock et al., 2014). The other use is for local clusters of sub-
sidiary structures along fault traces, especially at fault step-overs
and tips (Peacock and Sanderson, 1994; McGrath and Davison,
1995; Kim et al., 2000, 2003, 2004; Flodin and Aydin, 2004; Zhang
et al., 2008). Note that these different uses are only related to the dif-
ferences in descriptive views of a fault zone, not physical and/or me-
chanical characteristics of damage structures, and can cause an
uncertainty to conduct a comprehensive and/or comparative study
of the damage zones. Some researchers have mentioned that these
terminological inconsistencies on estimating damage zone width
could be a major cause of data uncertainty in scaling relationships
between damage zone width and displacement (e.g. Shipton et al.,
2006; Childs et al., 2009).
We argue that damage zone terminology should be clearly defined
and classified based on clear criteria to help improve our understanding
72 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
and application of fault damage zones. For this purpose, we firstly exam-
ine previous studies on damage zones and their scaling relationships
with displacement, and discuss the limitations as well as the necessity
of improved research methods. Next, we propose a conceptual model
showing a new classification of damage zones with three main catego-
ries; along-fault, around-tip and cross-fault damage zones, to avoid ter-
minological ambiguity and to reduce data uncertainty. Then we
describe, in quantitative ways, damage structures and their frequency
distributions from outcrop and borehole data. In particular, we focus
on changes in the gradient of cumulative frequency as a function of
the distance from fault core in order to define the critical boundaries
of a damage zone. In this stage, variations in damage zone width are
also examined based on the above-suggested damage zone classifica-
tion. Finally, we discuss some advantages of the suggested methodolog-
ical approach as well as some other related issues; e.g. uncertainties in
displacement measurement, complexity of the 3-D fault zone architec-
ture, and asymmetry of damage zones, which can supply limitations of
field-based data.
2. Previous studies
2.1. Fault zone architectures
Brittle faults are mainly classified into two structural domains
(Fig. 1); a central core and its enveloping damage zones, which can be
distinguished from the surrounding wall rock containing background
deformation (e.g. Chester and Logan, 1986; Chester et al., 1993; Caine
et al., 1996; Cello et al., 2001). The fault core is the result of highly local-
ized strain and intense shearing that accommodates the majority of the
displacement within the fault zone, and generally consists of a number
of recurring slip surfaces and fault rocks such as gouges, cataclasites, and
breccias (e.g. Sibson, 1977; Bruhn et al., 1994; Childs et al., 1996;
Wibberley et al., 2008; Bastesen et al., 2009; Bastesen and Braathen,
2010). Damage zones are characterized by relatively low strain and
less intense deformation compared to the fault core, and these zones
generally exhibit several second-order structures such as subsidiary
faults, fractures, and veins as well as fault-related folds and/or drag
folds in some cases (e.g. Bruhn et al., 1994; Billi et al., 2003; Odling
et al., 2004; Berg and Skar, 2005; Faulkner et al., 2010). In porous
rocks, strain localization commonly occurs through the formation of
deformation bands, and these low-displacement bands are also known
Fig. 1. Conceptual block-diagram of fault zone across a fault (modified from Caine et al., 1996; Faulkner et al., 2003). This diagram shows main components of fault zone architecture
(i.e. fault core, damage zone) and structural elements and features in each component. Note that transitional (or mixed) zone is characterized by alterations of fault elements from
fault core and damage zones.
as a type of damage zones (e.g. Aydin and Johnson, 1978; Underhill
and Woodcock, 1987; Mair et al., 2000; Fossen et al., 2007; Schultz
and Fossen, 2008; Rotevatn and Fossen, 2011; Tondi et al., 2012;
Schueller et al., 2013). Damage zones composed mainly of deformation
bands are characterized by some reduction in rock permeability unlike
those where fractures are dominant.
In some cases, particularly in large-scale faults, it is not easy to define
structural domains based on the simple description of fault zones due
to geometrical complexity (e.g. Schulz and Evans, 2000; Shipton and
Cowie, 2001). Consequently, some researchers have suggested a need
to classify in detail the first-order fault zone model, which can vary
due to different lithologies and tectonic settings (e.g. Gabrielsen and
Aarland, 1990; Jones and Knipe, 1996; Braathen and Gabrielsen, 1998;
Clausen et al., 2003). Most of them have proposed further subdivisions
of the fault core and/or the damage zone respectively, such as central
and distal cores and/or inner and outer damage zones (Jones and Knipe,
1996; Braathen and Gabrielsen, 1998; Heynekamp et al., 1999; Clausen
et al., 2003; Micarelli et al., 2003; Berg and Skar, 2005). In some cases,
transitional or mixed zones are observed on both borders of the damage
zones and these are characterized by the combination or repetition of
deformational features of different structural domains across a fault
zone (e.g. Evans and Bradbury, 2004).
2.2. Scaling relationships between damage zone width and displacement
Although damage zone width is commonly proportional to displace-
ment (Knott, 1994; Knott et al., 1996; Beach et al., 1999; Fossen and
Hesthammer, 2000; Shipton and Cowie, 2001; Childs et al., 2009), sever-
al researchers have reported that the relationships are scattered over
several orders of magnitude on power-law distributions (e.g. Hull,
1988; Knott, 1994; Shipton et al., 2006; Childs et al., 2009). In this sec-
tion, we review previous studies and examine the reasons of scattering
focusing on the various criteria used to define the damage zone. To re-
duce the effects of other factors, we reanalyzed previous data only
from normal faults. Also the data were classified into two groups; defor-
mation bands in porous sandstones and fractures in other tight rocks
(Fig. 2a). Furthermore, when possible, we subdivided the data into
hanging-wall and footwall damage zones (Fig. 2b, c), and separately
analyzed the widths of them to take into account the well-known strain
asymmetry between both fault blocks of dip-slip faults (e.g. Mandl,
1988, 2000; Knott et al., 1996). The collected dataset, therefore, may
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87 73

Fig. 2. Log–log plots of damage zone width against displacement from the previous studies. Damage zone widths measured using joints/fractures and deformation bands are separately
denoted by open and closed circles, respectively; (a) total damage zone width, (b) hanging-wall damage zone (HWDZ) width, and (c) footwall damage zone (FWDZ) width vs. displace-
ment data. (d) Total damage zone width estimated by deformation bands (DB) are plotted separately based on their different criteria in defining damage zone.

represent a reliable scaling relationship unaffected by different tectonic
settings, lithologies, damage structures, and by asymmetric damage
patterns between both fault blocks.
The datasets display scattering around three orders of magnitude for
a certain value of displacement (Fig. 2a), and this scattering seems to be
independent of the type of deformation structure and lithology. When
the datasets are separated into hanging-wall and footwall damage
zones, the results are characterized by slightly different distributions,
such as different gradients or magnitudes for a given displacement
(Fig. 2b, c). However, the scatter is still evident.
Fig. 2d shows several relationships between displacement and dam-
age zone width, on which the width was estimated by the frequency
distribution of deformation bands but with different criteria of the dam-
age zone boundary. Each different criterion is introduced in Fig. 2d.
There are two remarkable characteristics; the first one is that the rela-
tionships have slightly different distributions, for example, different
gradients of best-fit trends or different magnitudes with about one or
two order-ranges for a given displacement. This indicates that the data
scattering of the relationships between damage zone width and dis-
placement may be controlled by the subjective definition of the damage
zone. Second one is that data scattering still exists in each relationship
although the scattering is greatly reduced. This means that there is an-
other fundamental reason which may result in data scattering indepen-
dent on lithology, deformation element, and strain asymmetry between
both faulted blocks as well as subjective definition.
2.3. Limitation 1: subjective definitions
To estimate the damage zone width, two boundaries of damage
zones with fault core and wall rock should be carefully defined (see
Fig. 1). In field observations, the greatest difference between fault core
and damage zone is the existence of original texture and/or fabric
of wall rock. In damage zones, even if deformational structures have
developed, they do not remove the original lithological properties of
the deformed wall rock (e.g. Gudmundsson et al., 2010). This remark-
able difference makes it easy to detect the inner boundary of damage
zones. However, it is relatively difficult to detect precisely the outer
boundary of damage zone, because all physical properties change grad-
ually (e.g. Gudmundsson et al., 2010; Schueller et al., 2013).
To identify the outer boundary of damage zone, in general, the
changes in fracture/deformation band frequency are examined based
on scanline survey normal to fault strike. In most of the cases, the
boundary is determined as the distance at which an abrupt decrease
or falloff of the frequency occurs (e.g. Du Bernard et al., 2002; Micarelli
et al., 2003; Savage and Brodsky, 2011; Reyer et al., 2012). Due to the
lack of an accepted method to define the boundary, several researchers
defined the outer damage zone boundary using their own criteria as
follows: 1) frequency of structures equal to a value of background fre-
quency measured at a location far away from the fault (Knott et al.,
1996; Beach et al., 1999; Mitchell and Faulkner, 2009; Riley et al.,
2010), 2) the first occurrence of an unit interval of no damage structures
74 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
along a scanline (Schueller et al., 2013), 3) the edges of clusters of defor-
mation bands (Fossen and Hesthammer, 2000; Shipton and Cowie,
2001), 4) the farthest deformation band, even if it is an occasional isolat-
ed structure beyond its clusters (Berg and Skar, 2005), and 5) the edges
of drag folds (Berg and Skar, 2005).
These different criteria for defining the outer boundary of a damage
zone have been applied in each study, and this difference results in a
variation of damage zone width. Furthermore, using the same criteria,
results can vary greatly depending on the chosen unit interval of the
scanline survey and the background level of damage structures used
in each study (Du Bernard et al., 2002). This is well displayed in
Fig. 2d, and therefore, we argue that subjectivity underlying this analy-
sis is one of the main factors of data uncertainty on the relationship be-
tween damage zone width and displacement.
2.4. Limitation 2: complexity in 3-D damage zone architectures
There are a few different approaches to the study of fault zone archi-
tecture; focusing on subsidiary structures around tips of fault segments,
as fault linkage is an important mechanisms of fault growth and evolu-
tion (e.g. Peacock, 1991; Pachell and Evans, 2002; Kim et al., 2003;
Kim and Sanderson, 2005). A number of studies have commented that
the damage structures are concentrated around fault tips, or process
zones, and can be used to interpret the kinematics and dynamics of
faults (e.g. Peacock and Sanderson, 1994; McGrath and Davison, 1995;
Kim et al., 2000, 2003; Flodin and Aydin, 2004; Myers and Aydin,
2004; Zhang et al., 2008). Note that these observations may be
completely opposite to the general relationship between damage zone
width and displacement, as fault tips are generally characterized by
a tapering out of fault displacement. Also, several researchers have
commented that damage zones in fault branch points and linkage
zones tend to be wider than the damage zone of isolated, straight or
simple fault segments (Shipton and Cowie, 2001; Shipton et al., 2006;
Childs et al., 2009; Bastesen and Braathen, 2010; Lin and Yamashita,
2013; Schueller et al., 2013). Similarly, Knott et al. (1996) pointed out
that the width of damage zone, measured normal to the fault plane, is
greatest in the extensional quadrant of a given fault. Thus, the variations
in damage zone width along the fault are also strongly influenced by the
spatial evolution and its related complexity of fault zone architectures
(Childs et al., 2009; Gudmundsson et al., 2010).
Fig. 3. Simple 3-D schematic illustration of the fault damage zones around a segmented left-lateral fault (modified from Kim et al., 2003, 2004). Damage zones can be classified into along-
fault, around-tip, and cross-fault damage zones based on different exposures, concerns, and descriptive concepts. C indicates contractional zone and D indicates dilational zone.
Much of the previous data for damage zones, meanwhile, has come
from traverses across faults (1 or 2-D measurements) without the con-
sideration of fault exposure location around a 3-D fault volume. Howev-
er, Kim et al. (2004) summarized various patterns of locally
concentrated damage structures along faults, and suggested a 3-D
model of fault damage zones showing the variety of damage patterns
resulted from 1) different tip modes of propagating fault segments,
2) different stages in the evolution of fault systems, and 3) the locations
of viewed exposure around the fault. Therefore, it is worth to consider
that clusters of deformation structures, in the absence of interpreting
3-D fault geometry, may create variations in damage zone width for
quantitative analysis of complex fault systems. In short, we argue that
complex damage zone architecture around faults, particularly com-
posed of a number of fault segments, is another fundamental reason
for data scattering in the relationship between damage zone width
and displacement.
3. Classification of fault damage zones
A clear recognition of limitations on data collection, that is the esti-
mation of damage zone width in one or two dimensions, can help to
reduce some error and confusion during damage zone analysis. An ad-
vanced subdivision of damage zones, based on 3-D fault zone architec-
ture and its effect on strain distribution, should be carefully considered
when we estimate damage zone width for quantitative analysis of com-
plex fault systems. Here we suggest, therefore, that damage zones can be
classified into three categories; along-fault, around-tip and cross-fault,
mainly focusing on the concerns and observations of fault exposures in
terms of the complex 3-D fault zone architecture (Fig. 3).
3.1. Along-fault damage zone
The first category for fault damage zones, along-fault damage zone
(AL-FDZ), is used to describe variations in damage structure along
fault traces (Fig. 3). The AL-FDZ can be further subdivided into tip-,
linking-, and wall-damage zones with each zone named using the termi-
nology by Kim et al. (2004) (Figs. 3, 4a). Tip damage zones are charac-
terized by concentration of damage structures at the ends of a fault
trace (e.g. Segall and Pollard, 1983; McGrath and Davison, 1995; Kim
et al., 2003, 2004). It has been proposed that tip damage structures are
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
generated by stress concentrations or large displacement gradients
(Cowie and Scholz, 1992; Cowie and Shipton, 1998; Kim et al., 2003;
Shipton and Cowie, 2003). Linking damage zones are developed by sec-
ondary deformation between two fault segments through their interac-
tion and linkage (e.g. Martel et al., 1988; Peacock and Sanderson, 1991,
1995; Kim et al., 2004; Myers and Aydin, 2004). On slip-parallel fault
traces, there are two main categories: dilational and contractional jogs,
depending on the direction of fault step-over and slip sense, that is,
the stress conditions in the linkages (Pakiser, 1960; Clayton, 1966;
Crowell, 1974; Suppe, 1985; Kim et al., 2000; Kim and Sanderson,
2010). Wall damage zones are the secondary fractures developed in
the wall along a fault trace, and may have developed by the abandon-
ment of tip damage zone or newly generated damage structures associ-
ated with fault evolution (Kim et al., 2004).
Note that the AL-FDZ has typical patterns, which are dependent on
their location along a segmented fault and on the stage of the evolution
of a fault (see Kim et al., 2004). Although the AL-FDZ has been generally
described for slip-parallel fault traces based on outcrop-scale faults
(Peacock and Sanderson, 1994; McGrath and Davison, 1995; Kim et al.,
2000, 2003; Flodin and Aydin, 2004; Zhang et al., 2008), its geometric
and kinematic characteristics were also presented on map-scale faults
(Storti et al., 2003; Kim and Sanderson, 2006) and on earthquake surface
ruptures (Ambraseys and Tchalenko, 1969; Lin et al., 2001, 2004;
Choi et al., 2012). Note that the suggested descriptions belonging to
the AL-FDZ can be used regardless of the angular relationships between
fault trace and slip mode, and this is the main difference from the
around-tip damage zones, which are introduced in the next section.
3.2. Around-tip damage zone
Although the concept of AL-FDZ is useful to describe various types
of damage structures, there are some limitations for description of tip
Fig. 4. Examples of along-fault damage zones. (a) Left-lateral fault system developed on a granitic rock in Uljin area, Korea. Along-fault damage zone can be subdivided into tip-, linking-,
and wall-damage zones depending on the locations of damage structures along fault traces (Kim et al., 2004). (b) Relay ramp formed at a linking damage zone between two normal fault
segments in Arches National Park, Utah, USA.
75
damage structures all around the faults. Therefore, we adapted a new
descriptive concept, around-tip damage zone (AR-FDZ), to describe
slightly different geometries and kinematics of tip damage structures
depending on slip sense and related tip mode (e.g. Kim et al., 2003,
2004; Dor et al., 2006). For example, fault traces on horizontal surfaces
can be parallel (strike-slip sense) or perpendicular (dip-slip sense)
to the main slip sense, so their tips can belong to mode II or mode III, re-
spectively (see Fig. 3). Note that mode II and mode III tips are two end-
members of slip mode around a fault, and the majority of tip mode
around a fault would be mixed slip modes (Fig. 3).
Mode II tip damage zones are defined as secondary deformations at
slip-perpendicular tips, and have been generally described in outcrop-
scale normal faults in cross-section (Peacock and Sanderson, 1994)
and strike-slip faults in map-view as in Figs. 4a and 5 (e.g. McGrath
and Davison, 1995; Kim et al., 2000, 2003; Flodin and Aydin, 2004;
Zhang et al., 2008). Whereas, mode III tip damage zones can be repre-
sented by a zone where secondary structures develop, often without a
through-going main fault trace, around a slip-parallel fault tip (Fig. 5).
Linking damage zones can be regarded as the combinations of the
two tips of previously isolated fault segments, which can occur at the
mode II, mode III or mixed mode tips of each fault segment (Walsh
et al., 1999). In some cases, therefore, linking damage zones also can
be described as mode II and mode III end-member linkages, and the
most well-known example of the latter case is a relay ramp along nor-
mal faults (see Fig. 4b).
Tridimensional tip damage structures can provide useful informa-
tion on fault evolution, and their linkage is also regarded as an impor-
tant factor in fault growth (Peacock, 1991; Childs et al., 1995; Kim
et al., 2004; Soliva and Schultz, 2008). For example, fault evolution
studies based on scaling relationships between fault trace length and
displacement can vary depending on dominant slip components; dip-
and strike-slips, because different tip modes at fault discontinuities
76 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
Fig. 5. Right-lateral fault system developed on a granitic rock in Tondosa-temple area, Korea. Damage patterns are various depend on their locations along the segmented fault as well as tip
modes.
may result in different linkage-related extension of fault length. We
suggest that when damage zones are described as AL-FDZ (tip-, linking-,
and wall-damage zones), it is useful to consider their relationships
with slip mode and location around the main fault, based on the AR-
FDZ concept, because we could easily understand tridimensional dam-
age patterns and their kinematics.
3.3. Cross-fault damage zone
When we study across a fault, it is not easy to recognize the entire
3-D fault zone architecture in a given fault exposure. In other words,
particularly in large-scale faults, it is very hard to classify damage
zones into the previously suggested categories (i.e. AL- and AR-FDZs).
Thus, in fact, most of the studies on damage zones have generally de-
scribed damage structures in sections orthogonal to fault strike with-
out considerations of 3-D fault zone geometry. It could actually be an
important reference to understand the deformation and fluid flow
characteristics across a fault zone away from the main slip surface.
Here we suggest, therefore, that the data acquired in fault-cross sections
should be introduced as another category of fault damage zones, cross-
fault damage zone (CR-FDZ) to avoid terminological confusions (Fig. 3).
Based on the CR-FDZ concept, several models have been suggested
with a further subdivision of the damage zone into different domains,
such as transition zone, mixed zone, intensely deformed zone, and
inner/outer damage zones depending on local strain distribution (Jones
and Knipe, 1996; Heynekamp et al., 1999; Micarelli et al., 2003; Berg
and Skar, 2005). We argue that although damage zone width under
the CR-FDZ concept is the most easily accessible quantitative data, its
further classification should be, if possible, carefully examined based
on the 3-D model of fault damage zones to reduce variations and uncer-
tainty of data.
4. Estimation of damage zone width
4.1. Research method based on cumulative fracture frequency
To reduce data uncertainty associated with measuring damage zone
width, methodological limitations related to various criteria for the
boundary of damage zones should be mitigated by consistent use of
damage zone definitions in future studies. An analytical method,
which is most commonly used to define damage zone using the number
of damage structures per unit length along traverses across the fault
zone, is schematically represented in Fig. 6a, b. This is a hypothetical dis-
tribution of damage structures across a fault zone, where the density is
~2 m−1 outside the damage zone and increases from ~4 m−1 to ~8 m−1
through the damage zone. Fracture frequency is shown by bar diagrams
on Fig. 6b, and damage zones can induce different widths; ~8 and ~9 m
respectively, depending on the bin size. Fig. 6c showing the damage
structures around 9 m indicates that the damage zone boundary can
also be in the range of 8.8–9.3 m. As a result, bar diagrams can involve
two limitations; resolution of any frequency change and noise for ran-
dom fluctuation due to small change depending on location of an indi-
vidual fracture, producing uncertainty in the damage zone width.
Analysis using the cumulative frequency of damage structures across
fault zone was plotted in Fig. 6d. Each structure is plotted at its true
distance along the traverse and the slope of the cumulative frequency indi-
cates changes in the density of damage structures (Fig. 6d). It preserves
the individual location of each fracture and often allows a more accurate
determination of similar density zones in frequency. In this example,
the density in the wall rock is ~ 2.4 m−1 and that in the damage zone
is ~ 6 m− 1, and their boundary locates at distance of 6.7 m from the
fault core. These results come from the intersection point of the two
slopes with different gradients, and we suggest that this method can
reduce inconsistency in definition of damage zones.
A curve of cumulative frequency as well as its shape and gradient can
be very useful to represent and to define different degrees of deforma-
tion across the fault zone (Genter et al., 1997; Berg and Skar, 2005).
We believe that the cumulative fracture frequency method can be
used at all scales; micro fractures, field observations, and lineament
analysis, but it is necessary to clearly define fracture resolution in each
study.
4.2. Case studies
We carried out a comparison analysis of the ‘classic’ interval and
‘newly suggested’ cumulative fracture frequency methods on field and
borehole data. Furthermore, if possible, we examined the measurement
location along a fault trace to consider the effect of 3-D fault zone
architecture.
4.2.1. A segment of the Moab fault, SE Utah, USA
The Moab fault is a well exposed normal fault, with a 45 km long
trace and maximum throw of about 960 m, which runs approximately
NW–SE in SE Utah (Fig. 7a). The northern part of the Moab fault is com-
posed of numerous splay faults, and one of these splays, the Bartlett
fault, is the focus of this study (Fig. 7b). A sedimentary sequence of
Jurassic to Cretaceous age is cut by this fault segment, and the estimated
throw are in the range between 250 m and 285 m (e.g. Davatzes and
Aydin, 2005). The Bartlett fault is well exposed in several canyons
(Fig. 7c), and this has led a number of studies into fault zone architec-
ture at this location to understand fault zone properties and the effect
of lithology on fault growth (e.g. Foxford et al., 1998; Davatzes and
Aydin, 2005; Fossen et al., 2005, 2007).
Here, we carried out scanline analysis at five sites along the Bartlett
fault to estimate damage zone width and to investigate its variations
along fault strike (Fig. 7b). To reduce several factors of data uncertainty
related to damage zone width, such as lithology and strain asymmetry
between both fault blocks, we focused only on the distribution of defor-
mation bands in the uppermost layer of the footwall; an eolian sand-
stone belonging to the Jurassic Moab Member (Fig. 7b, c).
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
Fig. 6. Schematic diagrams comparing different analytical methods to estimate the damage zone width. (a) Images showing the fracture distribution across a hypothetical section. (b) Bar
diagrams showing the fracture frequency based on unit intervals of 2 and 1 m. (c) Inset for fracture distribution around the estimated damage zone boundary. Note that different damage
zone widths can be measured by different unit intervals as well as researchers. (d) Plots of the cumulative fracture frequency and a distribution of its slope gradients. The intersection point
between two different gradients indicates outer boundary of damage zone.
The cumulative frequency of deformation bands is plotted as a dot,
and these results are compared to the normal frequency distribution
of 1-m-interval, which are displayed as bar diagrams (Fig. 8). Along
a 20 m long scanline at Site.1, deformation bands are developed in-
tensely within 4 m from the fault core, although frequency data are
collected from three partially exposed parts (Fig. 8a). It is, however,
not easy to accurately define a damage zone boundary based on bar
diagrams because incomplete data indicates the minimum frequency
of developed deformation bands. This limitation can be overcome
using slope gradients of cumulative frequency, that is, frequency data
for the unexposed parts can be inferred using surrounding slope gradi-
ents. Corrected data of cumulative frequency indicates that three sec-
tions with different slope gradients have two intersection boundaries
at 4.63 and 8.73 m.
It is relatively hard to determine damage zone width using a bar
diagram along a 17 m long scanline at Site.2 due to its irregular changes
as well as partial exposures (Fig. 8b). However, the slope profile of
corrected data using cumulative frequency is characterized by two dis-
tinctive sections with different slope gradients. Thus, the damage zone
boundary can be determined to be at 10.96 m where the two slopes in-
tersect. The damage zone boundaries at Sites.3 and 4 can be determined
in the same way at 14.37 and 2.57 m, respectively (Fig. 8c, d). Note that,
at Site.3, the result is based on reanalysis of previous data from Berg and
Skar (2005), that is, the cumulative frequency is replotted based on the
unit interval data (Fig. 8c). Along the longest scanline of 40 m at Site.5
(Fig. 8e), the bar diagram shows an abrupt decrease in frequency at
13 m and a convex pattern from 20 to 25 m. Similarly, the most visible
change in slope gradient on the cumulative frequency distribution
is marked at 12.52 m, other intersection points are also observed at
21.25 and 26.84 m.
Although the bar diagrams show a general decrease in deformation
band frequency away from the fault core, these changes are not always
systematic; e.g. Sites.2 and 5 (Fig. 8b, e). These local variations can result
from missing data due to partially covered outcrops or the effects
of clustering. The cumulative frequency plots display a broken-line-
graph pattern at all sites (Fig. 8). The frequency distribution at each
site can be classified into two (or more than two) sections depending
77
on slope gradient, and this difference indicates a different strain distri-
bution depending on the distance from the fault core.
One of the most interesting points is that the slope gradients in the
outermost sections of each site are similar; the density of deformation
bands in the range of between 1.5 and 3 m− 1. We suggest that this
value represents background level of deformation band frequency in
this study area. Consequently, this value can be used to determine the
damage zone boundary where a single slope fitting for the damage
zone is inappropriate, such as Sites.1 and 5 (Fig. 8a, e). In the case
of Site.1, damage zone boundary can be determined as 8.73 m based
on the outermost background density. As an abrupt change in slope gra-
dient is visible at the distance of 4.63 m from fault core, we argue that
the inner section near the fault core can be regarded as intensely de-
formed zone and the outer section as transition zone between damage
zone and wall rock. In a similar way, at Site.5, although the damage
zone boundary can be determined as 26.84 m, the density of deforma-
tion bands from 12.52 m to 21.25 m is almost the same with the inferred
background density. Thus, we argue that the damage zone width can be
estimated as 12.52 m. Note that the local steep gradient may result from
other controlling factors such as the effects of a subsidiary fault and its
related deformation band clustering outside of the first-order damage
zone.
Based on the cumulative frequency of deformation bands, the esti-
mated damage zone widths are in the range of between 2.57 and
14.37 m along the Bartlett fault (Fig. 8). Berg and Skar (2005) have ex-
amined the frequency of deformation bands within footwall damage
zone at the same locations; Sites.1–3, and their results also show that
the density of damage structures varies in a range of between 3.3 and
8.9 m− 1. These variations are very marked because the estimated
throws are almost the same at the five sites (e.g. Foxford et al., 1998;
Davatzes and Aydin, 2005). The difference in damage zone width, in
particular, is visible at Site.4 which is part of a relay zone near Bartlett
Wash (see location of the Site.4 on Fig. 7b). Note that the stress field
around a relay zone can be perturbed by relay geometry and evolutional
stage (Segall and Pollard, 1980; Crider and Pollard, 1998; Long and
Imber, 2011). On the other hand, in general, the wider the damage
zone, the lower the slope gradient, and thus the variations in damage
78 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
Fig. 7. (a) Simplified structural and locality map showing the Moab fault system. (b) Local geology and fault geometry around the study area. (c) Cross-sectional view of the fault zone at
Bartlett Wash (Site.3). Deformation band frequencies are counted based on scanline analysis at five sites in Moab Member sedimentary layer. Collected data to estimate damage zone
width came from the top layer in footwall side of the fault.
zone width may be related to differential localization of deformation in
each damage zone. Thus, we argue that the variation of damage zone
width along the Bartlett fault may result from fault linkage or irregular-
ity in deformation concentration around faults.
4.2.2. Field and borehole observations at the Gyeongsang Basin, SE Korea
The Gyeongsang Basin in southeast Korea contains a Cretaceous se-
ries of mainly lacustrine siliciclastic and volcanic rocks (e.g. Chough
and Shon, 2010). The basement rocks have been intruded by Creta-
ceous and Tertiary igneous rocks; mainly granite batholiths and both
mafic and felsic dikes (Fig. 9). The NNE–SSW trending Yangsan Fault
and NNW–SSE trending Ulsan Fault are the major structural features
in the Gyeongsang Basin, and several Tertiary basins are locally devel-
oped within the eastern block of the Yangsan–Ulsan fault system.
In this study, we focus on fracture distributions on a road-cut slope
and two borehole samples in the western part of the Yangsan fault
(Fig. 9).
4.2.2.1. Field observation at a road-cut slope in Daegu. Due to rapid expan-
sion of the road network in South Korea, some of numerous road-cut
slopes have been exposed on well-bedded Cretaceous sedimentary
rocks in the Daegu area (see location in Fig. 9). Although there is no doc-
umented large-scale fault around the study area, a number of fracture
zones and fault-lineaments are reported from a slope stability analysis
(Ko et al., 2012). Here, we focused on an E–W trending road-cut slope,
which is highly unstable due to exposed dense vertical fractures with
several minor faults and dykes (Fig. 10a). Sedimentary strata on this
slope belong to Chilgok Formation, which is composed of tens-of-
meter-thick massive tuffaceous sandstones intercalated with mostly
reddish and purplish mudstones. The distribution of fracture frequency
is analyzed to examine the scale of damage zone associated with neigh-
boring fault zones or fault-lineaments.
To investigate the fracture distribution, the number of fractures per
meter as well as their cumulative frequency was measured along a
93 m long scanline. About 1100 fractures traversing the scanline from
the east to the west were plotted (Fig. 10b). The results show that frac-
ture density as well as gradient of cumulative distribution generally in-
creases towards the east along the slope. Thus, numerous second-order
structures, such as minor faults and fractures, on this slope may belong
to a portion of a fault damage zone (Ko et al., 2012).
We argue that although the general trend of fracture frequency is
easily recognized on interval plots, two section boundaries of the frac-
ture frequency (17.7 and 39.3 m) can be more clearly defined by slope
changes in cumulative distribution (Fig. 10). In this outcrop scale, there-
fore, the lowest slope gradient on the farthest west section may indicate
a background level of the fractures around the study area. Note that the
minimum width of the damage zone can be estimated as 39.3 m, and
two distinguishable sections based on slope gradient within damage
zone may indicate a different strain distribution depending on the dis-
tance from the fault core (e.g. inner and outer damage zones).
Local clusters of fractures are remarkable on the bar diagram, and
this variation is mainly observed around minor faults and individual
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87 79

Fig. 8. Deformation band distributions; normal frequency as bar diagrams and cumulative frequency as dots, against distance from the fault core at each site. Note that it is relatively easy to
detect the outer boundary of damage zone using the slope gradients of cumulative frequency data. At Site.3, the slope is drawn by cumulative numbers of previously sampled data based on
interval frequency from Berg and Skar (2005).

dykes (Fig. 10). This means that strain distribution within a damage
zone is controlled by local lithological or structural variations. One inter-
esting point is that this variation is also displayed as a step-like pattern
in the cumulative frequency distribution. However, it is relatively hard
to detect these local variations because of the smooth changes in slope
gradient (Fig. 10). In other words, interferences of local effects can be re-
moved when describing fracture frequency related to a main fault.
Therefore, this case study demonstrates another advantage of cumula-
tive frequency as an analytical method for, particularly large-scale,
fault damage zone.
80 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87

Fig. 9. Simplified regional geologic map of the Gyeongsang Basin, SE Korea (modified from Chough and Shon, 2010), and locations of field and borehole sites.

4.2.2.2. Borehole observations. Fractures create zones of high permeabil-
ity within a rock mass, and hence their spatial distributions at depth
have been analyzed by borehole analysis for petroleum, geothermal res-
ervoirs, and carbon capture and storages (e.g. Genter et al., 1997). In re-
cent years, as drilling technologies are advanced, it is possible to take
borehole samples across a whole fault zone with high core recovery,
and to observe fault zone architecture in detail (e.g. Hung et al., 2009;
Li et al., 2013; Olierook et al., 2014). In this study, we carried out fault
zone analysis based on fracture frequency from two borehole samples
around map-scale faults in the Gyeongsang Basin, SE Korea (Fig. 9).
Firstly, we analyzed a 1200 m deep vertical borehole data showing
a total core recovery of 99.8% (data from Geotech Consultant Co., Ltd.).
Core sample is acquired at the northern part of the Gaeum fault sys-
tem, which is characterized by WNW–ESE trending left-lateral faults,
around the Euiseong area (Fig. 9). It is composed mainly of alternating
layers of mudstone and sandstone, with numerous subvertical frac-
tures observed through the core, even though the borehole is vertical
(Fig. 11a).
The number of fractures within each interval of 3 m is plotted against
depth as bars (Fig. 11b), and the cumulative number of fractures is also
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87 81

Fig. 10. (a) Road-cut section characterized by the existence of minor faults, dyke, and dense factures in Daegu area, SE Korea. (b) Distribution of fracture frequency based on both interval
and cumulative methods. The results indicate that the damage zone extent is at least 39.3 m based on the intersection point of different slope gradients.

drawn as dots (Fig. 11c). The depths of fault and fracture zones, which
are confirmed based on ATV (Acoustic Tele-Viewer) observation, are
marked as cross bars to compare with fracture density distribution.
Although changes in fracture density with depth are visible on the
bar graph, evaluating the boundaries of each sections using fracture
distributions is relatively arbitrary. We argue that this problem can be
solved by using gradient changes in the slopes of cumulative distribu-
tion. Thus, each section that shows different fracture characteristics
can be classified and defined by the same cumulative distribution gradi-
ent. The boundary between each section can also be clearly detected by

Fig. 11. Borehole observation focusing on fracture distributions with depth in Euiseong area, SE Korea. (a) Examples of subvertical fault and fracture zones in core sample, with white ar-
rows indicating traces of fault gouge zones. (b) Bar diagrams showing fracture frequency per unit interval of 3 m. (c) Slope distribution based on cumulative fracture frequency. At least
four damage zones and their apparent thicknesses can be defined based on cumulative frequency data of fractures.
82 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87

the intersection points between two different slope gradients (see
dashed cross-lines in Fig. 11c).
We recognized four sections that can be defined as fault damage
zones, which are detected on both ATV observation and cumulative
fracture frequency (Fig. 11c). Note that we excluded the upper part
with an extremely high fracture density as it is most likely associated
with drilling induced fracturing. One interesting point is that the
lower two damage zones show about 100 m of thickness in the bore-
hole sample. We argue that this can be associated with a lithological
variation or due to the effect of the Gaeum fault. Although there are
analytical limitations since the borehole sample is effectively 1-D
data, this case study clearly shows that changes in fracture distribu-
tion can be more clearly displayed by the cumulative distribution of
fractures.
Secondly, a similar approach is examined on 300 m deep vertical
borehole data sampled near the southern Yangsan Fault, one of the
major right-lateral faults with a total displacement of about 30 km, in
the Eonyang area (Fig. 9). The Yangsan Fault is geometrically character-
ized by pull-apart basin in a right step of the fault at the study area, and
its damage zone is mainly composed of second-order normal faults and
extensional fractures (Choi et al., 2009). The drilling site is located with-
in Cretaceous granite, and hence we assume that fracture frequency is
not controlled by variations in lithology or structural discontinuities
such as bedding. Fracture frequency is measured along the borehole
sample, and the locations of fault and fracture zone are marked by
cross bars (Fig. 12). Here, fault zones are defined by the existence of a
slip surface and/or fault gouge, and fracture zones mean sections com-
posed of rock fragments due to dense fracturing.
The number of fractures within a unit depth of 1 m is plotted as bars
and the cumulative distribution is plotted as dots (Fig. 12a). About 1200
fractures were measured and the average fracture density is 3.6 m−1 for
the entire borehole. Note that some sections that show high fracture
density, which is marked by gentle gradients of cumulative fracture fre-
quency, are relatively well matched with the locations of fault and
fracture zones. Next, all fractures are classified into four sets depending
on the dip angle of fractures; Set.1 for sub-horizontal, Set.2 for low
angle, Set.3 for high angle, and Set.4 for sub-vertical fractures. The
step-like pattern on cumulative distribution is much clearer from the
data of Sets.2 and 3, whereas a straight-line pattern is shown from the
data Set.1. Note that the number of data for Set.4 is very small due to
both vertical borehole and fractures. Consequently, we can assume
that the fractures with sub-horizontal dip angle (Set.1) may be devel-
oped due to artificial effects related to drilling and that these should
be removed to evaluate the distribution of natural fractures. Eventually,
all data except Set.1 are plotted again for interval and cumulative distri-
butions (Fig. 12b).
The result shows that slope gradient is much more gradual (i.e.
higher fracture density) at the five sections (damage zones), and their
depths are very similar to the locations of the fault and fracture zones.
We argue, therefore, that at least five damage zones exist within the
borehole of 300 m depth, and this may indicate that the studied site
probably belongs to the western damage zone of the Yangsan Fault
(see location in Fig. 9). One other interesting point is that some damage
zones are characterized by a slightly curved pattern in the cumulative
distribution (see FDZs 1 and 5 on Fig. 12b). This implies that the number
of fractures gradually increases downward in the damage zones, and
abruptly decreases beyond the density peak. In fact, this feature is
more visible in the bar diagram as an asymmetric pattern (Fig. 12b).
As plotted data are almost inclined fractures, one possible interpretation
for this result is asymmetric distribution of fault-related fractures be-
tween the hanging wall and footwall. This result is consistent with
other studies where the width of the hanging wall damage zone is
wider than that of the footwall (Knott et al., 1996; Mandl, 2000; Berg
and Skar, 2005).
4.2.3. Reanalysis of the Pajarito fault system, New Mexico, USA
Riley et al. (2010) studied the Bandelier Tuff cut by the Pajarito
normal fault system to estimate damage zone width and to

Fig. 12. Fracture distributions; normal frequency as bar diagrams and cumulative frequency as dots, with depth on a borehole into granitic bedrock in Eonyang area, SE Korea. (a) Four
fracture sets are classified by dip angle of fracture and their cumulative frequencies are separately plotted with depth. Note that there is no variation in slope gradient for sub-horizontal
fractures (Set.1). (b) Replotting of the fractures except Set.1, and the result shows that at least five sections are related with fault damage zones (FDZ).
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
understand its controlling factors. They examined the influence of li-
thology, pre-existing structures (or anisotropy), and strain asymmetry
between the hanging-wall and the footwall on damage zone properties.
These authors displayed fracture distribution using the interval fre-
quency method and suggested more than 10 fractures/10 m to be the
lower limit of the damage zone related with faulting. Here, we
reanalyzed the same data using the cumulative frequency method to
examine the advantages of each method by comparing the results of
the different analytical methods.
The Pajarito fault system was mapped by Lewis et al. (2009), and they
estimated throw profiles along segmented fault traces (Fig. 13a, b).
In this study, we focus on only the fracture data distributed on the
hanging-wall block in welded ignimbrites to reduce the influence of
other controlling factors (see section 4.1 on Riley et al., 2010). These
data were measured at three exposures along the canyon perpendicular
to the fault trace; Sawyer, Bland and Frijoles (Fig. 13a), which show dif-
ferent fault throws in three canyons; 30 m, 115 m and at least 160 m,
respectively (Fig. 13b). In terms of fault geometry, Bland and Frijoles
Canyons are located around branch points of the main fault traces.
Also, Frijoles and Sowyer Canyons are located near a linking damage
zone between the MPF (Main Pajarito Fault) and NPF (Northern Pajarito
Fault) segments.
Riley et al. (2010) have estimated the damage zone width to be 80 m
at Sawyer Canyon and 160–170 m at Bland and Frijoles Canyons (see
the bar diagrams on Fig. 13c). We used the total number of fractures
within each 10 m transect to draw the slope of cumulative fracture fre-
quency. This alternative method can be applied for previously reported
data based on interval frequency analysis. In this stage, sections with no
data are corrected based on the slope gradient around them, and we de-
fined the damage zone width using the intersection points of different
slope gradients (Fig. 13c). As a result, the damage zone boundaries
based on the intersection points of different slope gradients can be de-
termined as 202.2, 179.1 and 135.4 m, respectively. Our estimated dam-
age zone boundaries are slightly different from the results of Riley et al.
(2010), and the differences reach up to 42.2 m at Bland Canyon and
55.4 m at Sawyer Canyon.
Fig. 13. Reanalysis of fracture distributions at three canyons across the Pajarito fault system. (a) Overview map showing detailed geometry of the Pajarito fault system around the study
area (Lewis et al., 2009). (b) Throw variations along the segmented fault traces (Lewis et al., 2009). (c) Comparison analysis for the distributions of fracture frequency between interval and
cumulative methods. Fracture data is collected against distance from the fault core to the hanging-wall side at three sites. Note that the estimated damage zone widths are slightly different
depending on the research methods. See the text for further description.
83
Here, the reanalyzed data show that the cumulative frequency
distributions from different sites have almost consistent points. Firstly,
in all cases, they can be subdivided into three sections based on slope
gradient. Secondly, although each innermost section has a different
width, their slope gradients are almost the same; fracture densities
of 1.98, 2.16, and 2.15 m−1, respectively. This may imply that the defor-
mation mechanisms (or strain localization) associated with faulting
is almost the same along the fault. Lastly, the slope gradients of the out-
most sections are similar; fracture densities of 0.58, 0.63 and 0.61 m−1,
respectively. This is associated with the degree of background fracturing
within the wall rock. We argue that, therefore, cumulative fracture fre-
quency method can also be used to define damage zones and measure
their widths using previous data with some modification. Note that
the part with a relatively lower slope gradient than inner damage
zone may be related with differential strain distribution within the
damage zone, identified as a transition zone between the damage
zone and the wall rock (Micarelli et al., 2003). The estimated damage
zone widths are not directly proportional to the fault throw, and this
may result from the complex 3-D geometry of the Pajarito fault system,
such as fault branches and step-overs (Fig. 13). In fact, the variation in
damage zone width due to fault zone complexity can be a good target
for further studies, and we believe that the new damage zone categories
must be helpful to improve future research results.
5. Discussion
5.1. Uncertainties of displacement measurement
In many cases of fault scaling relationships, variations in data uncer-
tainties related to displacement have been considered as one of the main
sources in comparing different data sets (e.g. Walsh and Watterson,
1988; Kim and Sanderson, 2005). The most common factor affecting
data uncertainties may be 1 or 2-D measurements of apparent displace-
ment along a fault trace, i.e. separation (e.g. Walsh and Watterson,
1988). Fault ‘throw (or vertical separation)’, which we discussed in
two case studies for normal faults, can be one example of data
84 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
limitations related to displacement measurements. Furthermore, the
estimated displacement near fault linkage zones can be various and/
or abruptly change depending on different evolutional stages of seg-
ment linkage (e.g. Kim and Sanderson, 2005). For example, displace-
ment can be almost zero near early fault segment linkage, when two
fault tips begin to interact. However, more hard linked segments
tend to accumulate greater displacement around the linkage zone as
the two segments are acting as one through-going fault.
5.2. Defining damage zone and estimating its width
In all case studies, we have tried to compare analyzed results of both
interval and cumulative distributions of fracture frequency to define the
damage zones across a fault. Firstly, the analytical method using interval
frequency is more representative to variation in the data. For instance, it
may be useful to detect the local effects, such as the existence of second-
order faults or asymmetric damage patterns, within the first-order dam-
age zones (see Figs. 10b, 12b). However, it is relatively difficult to detect
the boundary of the damage zone, and this problem mainly results from
largely inconsistent criteria for defining the limit of the damage zone
depending on the authors' criteria in each study. We argue that this
limitation can be partly overcome by a unification of unit intervals and
by the establishment of damage zone criterion using background frac-
ture density based on cumulative frequency in a given study area.
We have confirmed several advantages of using the cumulative
fracture frequency and its slope gradients to define damage zone
boundaries; 1) obvious detection for the outer edges of the damage
zones based on the intersection point between different slope gradients,
2) less influence of local lithological and structural effects on general
distribution, and 3) correlation of the unexposed parts based on sur-
rounding slope gradients. We suggest, therefore, that cumulative fre-
quency method can be used to reduce some uncertainty, which can be
derived by subjectivity and inconsistent research methods, in damage
zone analysis. Furthermore, it is possible to subdivide the estimated
damage zones depending on the steepness of slope gradient, that is, in-
tensity of deformation. Eventually, we argue that a combination of both
interval and cumulative frequency methods can be a critical tool in
defining damage zone and estimating its width, and can reduce data
scattering in scaling relationships between damage zone width and
fault displacement.
5.3. Asymmetry of fault damage zones
Generally, two separate damage zones develop on both sides across
a fault and asymmetric widths of these pairs has frequently been
reported in many previous publications (Aydin and Johnson, 1978;
Koestler and Ehrman, 1991; Antonellini and Aydin, 1994; Knott et al.,
1996; Aarland and Skjerven, 1998; Braathen and Gabrielsen, 1998;
Nelson et al., 1999; Mitra and Ismat, 2001; Clausen et al., 2003;
Doughty, 2003; Berg and Skar, 2005; Dor et al., 2006; Mitchell et al.,
2011). Asymmetric damage zone widths are partly related to different
rock properties across the fault (e.g. Berg and Skar, 2005). For dip-slip
faults, in general, asymmetric patterns also result from different stress
conditions in both the hanging-wall and the footwall during faulting
(Mandl, 1988, 2000; Knott et al., 1996).
Asymmetric patterns are also observed in along-fault damage zones,
and this has been reported in many previous studies (e.g. Pollard
and Segall, 1987; Kim et al., 2003; Flodin and Aydin, 2004; Kim and
Sanderson, 2008; de Joussineau and Aydin, 2007; Molli et al., 2010).
Damage structures are commonly more dominant in dilational quad-
rants rather than contractional ones especially at linking and tip
zones of faults. Kim et al. (2000) suggested that this difference is relat-
ed to the different slip nature on both sides of a fault tip associated with
rock behavior to stress (in general, brittle rocks are broken more easily
under tension than compression at shallow depth). Asymmetric tip
damage patterns can also be developed by dynamic rupture
propagation associated with earthquakes (e.g. Di Toro et al., 2005;
Griffith et al., 2009; Bhat et al., 2010) and unilateral fault/rupture prop-
agation (e.g. Kim and Sanderson, 2008; Choi et al., 2012). Note that as
these asymmetric damage zones can be a considerable variation in sta-
tistical analysis related to cross-fault damage zone width, it is necessary
to take into account the details of the 3-D fault zone architectures and
related asymmetries.
6. Conclusions
Although fault damage zone is one of the most important issues
in modern structural geology, the term has been used in a variety of
ways depending on the concerns of researchers. This has led to inconsis-
tencies in summarizing several data sets from different researchers. In
this paper, therefore, we classified the broad terminology ‘damage zone’
into three main categories; along-fault, around-tip, and cross-fault dam-
age zones, and suggested an advanced method to define the boundary
of cross-fault damage zone using the distribution of cumulative fracture
density. The following main conclusive points can be drawn from our
study.
(1) In general, damage zone widths have been estimated based on
the distribution of fracture frequency per unit interval across a
given fault, and this method is suitable to detect data variations,
such as local effects by second-order faults. Data uncertainties
related to this analytical tool, however, can occur due to incon-
sistent unit intervals as well as subjectivity of researchers in de-
fining background fracture density and/or damage zone width.
(2) The outer boundary of damage zones can be detected by the
intersection points of different slope gradients on cumulative
fracture distribution. Sampling constraints related to partly un-
exposed outcrops can be covered based on neighboring slope
gradients, and the damage zone can easily be subdivided into
subsections showing different deformation intensities.
(3) In this study, we have suggested an analytical method for defin-
ing the widths of CR-FDZ because the data from many previous
studied faults are inconsistently collected without a clear defini-
tion of the damage zone boundary and a classification of 3-D
fault zone architecture. As a result, the estimated damage zone
widths vary depending on not only well-known fundamental fac-
tors, such as displacement, but also complex fault geometry, such
as fault branches and linkages. We firmly believe, therefore, that
further classification of the damage zone, into along-fault and
around-tip damage zones based on the interpretation of the 3-D
fault zone geometry, will be helpful to reduce data scattering on
the relationship between cross-fault damage zone width and dis-
placement.
(4) Damage zone width is commonly asymmetric between the
hanging-wall and the footwall, as well as on both tips along a
fault trace and both sides of a fault tip. Therefore, complexity
and asymmetry of damage zones should be carefully considered
when applying different sets of data to scaling relationships of
fault attributes.
Acknowledgments
We thank Antonino Cilona, Michele Fondriest, and Giulio Di Toro for
their constructive reviews that greatly improved the manuscript. We
also thank David J. Sanderson for reviewing an early version of this
paper, and members of GSGR Lab. in Pukyong National University
for their help with data analysis and fruitful discussions. This work
was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-
2013R1A1A2010910).
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
References
Aarland, R.K., Skjerven, J., 1998. Fault and fracture characteristics of a major fault zone in
the northern North Sea: analysis of 3D seismic and oriented cores in the Brage Field
(Block 31/4). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 127, 209–229.
Agosta, F., Aydin, A., 2006. Architecture and deformation mechanism of a basin-bounding
normal fault in Mesozoic platform carbonates, central Italy. J. Struct. Geol. 28,
1445–1467.
Agosta, F., Kirschner, D.L., 2003. Fluid conduits in carbonate-hosted seismogenic
normal faults of central Italy. J. Geophys. Res. 108, B4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2002JB002013.
Ambraseys, N.N., Tchalenko, J.S., 1969. The Dasht-e Bayaz (Iran) earthquake of August 31,
1968: a field report. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 59, 1751–1792.
Antonellini, M., Aydin, A., 1994. Effect of faulting on fluid flow in porous sandstones:
petrophysical properties. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 78, 355–377.
Aydin, A., 2000. Fractures, faults and hydrocarbon entrapment, migration and flow. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 17, 797–814.
Aydin, A., Johnson, A.M., 1978. Development of faults as zones of deformation bands and
as slip surfaces in sandstone. Pure Appl. Geophys. 11b, 931–942.
Aydin, A., Schultz, R.A., 1990. Effect of mechanical interaction on the development of
strike-slip faults with echelon patterns. J. Struct. Geol. 12, 123–129.
Bastesen, E., Braathen, A., 2010. Extensional faults in fine grained carbonates — analysis of
fault core lithology and thickness–displacement relationships. J. Struct. Geol. 32,
1609–1628.
Bastesen, E., Braathen, A., Nøttveit, H., Gabrielsen, R.H., Skar, T., 2009. Extensional fault
cores in micritic carbonates, a case study from Gulf of Corinth, Greece. J. Struct.
Geol. 31, 403–420.
Beach, A., Welbon, A.I., Brockbank, P.J., McCallum, J.E., 1999. Reservoir damage around
faults: outcrop examples from the Suez Rift. Pet. Geosci. 5, 109–116.
Bense, V., Person, M., Chaudhary, K., You, Y., Cremer, N., Simon, S., 2008. Thermal anom-
alies indicate preferential flow along faults in unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036017.
Ben-Zion, Y., Malin, P., 1991. San Andreas fault zone head waves near Parkfield, California.
Science 251, 1592–1594.
Berg, S.S., Skar, T., 2005. Controls on damage zone asymmetry of a normal fault zone: out-
crop analyses of a segment of the Moab fault, SE Utah. J. Struct. Geol. 27, 1803–1822.
Bhat, H.S., Biegel, R.L., Rosakis, A.J., Sammis, C.G., 2010. The effect of asymmetric dam-
age on dynamic shear rupture propagation II: with mismatch in bulk elasticity.
Tectonophysics 493, 263–271.
Billi, A., Salvini, F., Storti, F., 2003. The damage zone–fault core transition in carbonate
rocks: implications for fault growth, structure and permeability. J. Struct. Geol. 25,
1779–1794.
Bistacchi, A., Griffith, W.A., Smith, S.A.F., Di Toro, G., Jones, R., Nielsen, S., 2011. Fault
roughness at seismogenic depths from LIDAR and photogrammetric analysis. Pure
Appl. Geophys. 168, 2345–2363.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 1989. Thickness–displacement relationships for deformation zones:
discussion. J. Struct. Geol. 11, 1051–1054.
Braathen, A., Gabrielsen, R.H., 1998. Lineament Architecture and Fracture Distribution
in Metamorphic and Sedimentary Rocks, With Application to Norway. Geological
Survey of Norway, Trondheim, p. 78.
Brogi, A., 2011. Bowl-shaped basin related to low-angle detachment during continental
extension: the case of the controversial Neogene Siena Basin (central Italy, Northern
Apennines). Tectonophysics 499, 131–148.
Bruhn, R.L., Parry, W.T., Yonkee, W.A., Thompson, T., 1994. Fracturing and hydrothermal
alteration in normal fault zones. Pure Appl. Geophys. 142, 609–644.
Bullock, R.J., De Paola, N., Holdsworth, R.E., Trabucho-Alexandre, J., 2014. Lithological
controls on the deformation mechanisms operating within carbonate-hosted faults
during the seismic cycle. J. Struct. Geol. 58, 22–42.
Caine, J.S., Evans, J.P., Forster, C.B., 1996. Fault zone architecture and permeability struc-
ture. Geology 24, 1025–1028.
Cello, G., Tondi, E., Micarelli, L., Invernizzi, C., 2001. Fault zone fabrics and geofluid proper-
ties as indicators of rock deformation modes. J. Geodyn. 32, 543–565.
Chester, F.M., Logan, J.M., 1986. Composite planar fabric of gouge from the Punchbowl
fault zone, California. J. Struct. Geol. 9, 621–634.
Chester, F.M., Evans, J.P., Biegel, R.L., 1993. Internal structure and weakening mechanisms
of the San-Andreas fault. J. Geophys. Res. 98 (B1), 771–786.
Chester, F.M., Chester, J.S., Kirschner, D.L., Schulz, S.E., Evans, J.P., 2004. Structure of large-
displacement, strike-slip fault zones. In: Karner, G.D., Taylor, B., Driscoll, N.W.,
Kohlstedt, D.L. (Eds.), Rheology and Deformation in the Lithosphere at Continental
Margins. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
Childs, C., Watterson, J., Walsh, J.J., 1995. Fault overlap zones within developing normal
fault systems. J. Geol. Soc. 152, 535–549.
Childs, C., Nicol, A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1996. Growth of vertically segmented normal
faults. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 1389–1397.
Childs, C., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1997. Complexity in fault zone structure and implica-
tions for fault seal prediction. In: Møller-Pedersen, P., Koestler, A.G. (Eds.), Hydrocar-
bon Seals: Importance for Exploration and Production. Norwegian Petroleum Society
(NPF), Special Publication 7, pp. 61–72.
Childs, C., Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J., Bonson, C.G., Nicol, A., Schopfer, M.P.J., 2009. A geo-
metric model of fault zone and fault rock thickness variations. J. Struct. Geol. 31,
117–127.
Choi, J.-H., Yang, S.-J., Kim, Y.-S., 2009. Fault zone classification and structural characteris-
tics of the southern Yangsan fault in the Sangcheon-ri area, SE Korea. J. Geol. Soc.
Korea 45, 9–28 (in Korean with English abstract).
Choi, J.-H., Jin, K., Enkhbayar, D., Davvasambuu, B., Bayasgalan, A., Kim, Y.-S., 2012. Rup-
ture propagation based on damage patterns, slip distribution, and fault segmentation
85
of the 1957 MW 8.1 Gobi–Altay earthquake rupture along the Bogd fault, Mongolia.
J. Geophys. Res. 117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008676.
Chough, S.K., Shon, Y.K., 2010. Tectonic and sedimentary evolution of a Cretaceous conti-
nental arc–backarc system in the Korean peninsula: new view. Earth Sci. Rev. 101,
225–249.
Cilona, A., Aydin, A., Johnson, N.M., 2015. Permeability of a fault zone crosscutting a
sequence of sandstones and shales and its influence on hydraulic head distribution
in the Chatsworth Formation, California, USA. Hydrogeol. J. 23, 405–419.
Clausen, J.A., Gabrielsen, R.H., Johnsen, E., Korstgard, J.A., 2003. Fault architecture and clay
smear distribution. Examples from field studies and drained ring-shear experiments.
Nor. J. Geol. 83, 131–146.
Clayton, L., 1966. Tectonic depressions along the Hope fault, a transcurrent fault in North
Canterbury, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 9, 95–104.
Cowie, P.A., Scholz, C.H., 1992. Physical explanation for the displacement–length relation-
ship of faults, using a post-yield fracture mechanics model. J. Struct. Geol. 14,
1133–1148.
Cowie, P.A., Shipton, Z.K., 1998. Fault tip displacement gradients and process zone dimen-
sions. J. Struct. Geol. 20, 983–997.
Crider, J.G., Pollard, D.D., 1998. Fault linkage: three-dimensional mechanical interaction
between echelon normal faults. J. Geophys. Res. 103 (B10), 24373–24391.
Crowell, J.C., 1974. Origin of Late Cenozoic basins in southern California. In: Dickinson,
W.R. (Ed.), Tectonics and Sedimentation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists, Special Publication 22, pp. 109–204.
Davatzes, N.C., Aydin, A., 2005. Distribution and nature of fault architecture in a layered sand-
stone and shale sequence: an example from the Moab Fault, Utah. In: Sorkhabi, R., Tsuji,
Y. (Eds.), Faults, Fluid Flow, and Petroleum Traps. AAPG Memoir 85, pp. 153–180.
De Joussineau, G., Aydin, A., 2007. The evolution of damage zone with fault growth in
sandstone and its multiscale characteristics. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B12401. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004711.
Di Toro, G., Pennacchioni, G., 2005. Fault plane processes and mesoscopic structures of a
strong-type seismogenic fault in tonalities (Adamello batholith, Southern Alps).
Tectonophysics 402, 55–80.
Di Toro, G., Han, R., Hirose, T., De Paola, N., Nielsen, S., Mizoguchi, K., Ferri, F., Cocco, M.,
Shimamoto, T., 2005. Fault lubrication during earthquake. Nature 471, 494–498.
Dockrill, B., Shipton, Z.K., 2010. Structural controls on leakage from a natural CO2 geologic
storage site: Central Utah, U.S.A. J. Struct. Geol. 32, 1768–1782.
Dor, O., Ben-Zion, Y., Rockwell, T.K., Brune, J., 2006. Pulverized rocks in the Mojave section
of the San Andreas Fault Zone. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 245, 642–654.
Doughty, P.T., 2003. Clay smear seals and fault sealing potential of an exhumed growth
fault, Rio Grande Rift, New Mexico. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 87, 427–444.
Du Bernard, X., Labaume, P., Darcel, C., Davy, P., Bour, O., 2002. Cataclastic slip band distri-
bution in normal fault damage zones, Nubian sandstones, Suez rift. J. Geophys. Res.
107 (B7), 2141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000493.
Evans, J.P., 1990. Thickness-displacement relationships for fault zones. J. Struct. Geol. 12,
1061–1065.
Evans, J.P., Bradbury, K.K., 2004. Faulting and fracturing of nonwelded Bishop tuff, eastern
California deformation mechanisms in very porous materials in the Vadose zone.
Vadose Zone J. 3, 602–623.
Evans, J.P., Forster, C.B., Goddard, J.V., 1997. Permeability of fault-related rocks, and impli-
cations for hydraulic structure of fault zones. J. Struct. Geol. 19, 1393–1404.
Faulkner, D.R., Lewis, A.C., Rutter, E.H., 2003. On the internal structure and mechanics of
large strike-slip fault zones: field observations of the Carboneras fault in southeastern
Spain. Tectonophysics 367, 147–156.
Faulkner, D.R., Mitchell, T.M., Healy, D., Heap, M.J., 2006. Slip on ‘weak’ faults by the rota-
tion of regional stress in the fracture damage zone. Nature 444, 922–925.
Faulkner, D.R., Mitchell, T.M., Rutter, E.H., Cembrano, J., 2008. On the structure and me-
chanical properties of large strike-slip faults. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 299, 139–150.
Faulkner, D.R., Jackson, C.A.L., Lunn, R.J., Schlische, R.W., Shipton, Z.K., Wibberley, C.A.J.,
Withjack, M.O., 2010. A review of recent developments concerning the structure,
mechanics and fluid flow properties of fault zones. J. Struct. Geol. 32, 1557–1575.
Faulkner, D.R., Mitchell, T.M., Jensen, E., Cembrano, J., 2011. Scaling of fault damage zones
with displacement and the implications for fault growth processes. J. Geophys. Res.
116, B05403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007788.
Flodin, E., Aydin, A., 2004. Faults with asymmetric damage zones in sandstone, Valley of
Fire State Park, southern Nevada. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 983–988.
Fossen, H., 2010. Structural Geology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fossen, H., Hesthammer, J., 2000. Possible absence of small faults in the Gullfaks Field,
northern North Sea: implications for downscaling of faults in some porous sandstone.
J. Struct. Geol. 22, 851–863.
Fossen, H., Johansen, S.E., Hesthammer, J., Rotevatn, A., 2005. Fault interaction in porous
sandstone and implications for reservoir management; examples from southern
Utah. AAPG Bull. 89, 1593–1606.
Fossen, H., Schultz, R.A., Shipton, Z.K., Mair, K., 2007. Deformation bands in sandstone: a
review. J. Geol. Soc. 164, 1–15.
Foxford, K.A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Garden, I.R., Guscott, S.C., Burley, S.D., 1998. Struc-
ture and content of the Moab Fault Zone, Utah, USA, and its implications for fault seal
prediction. In: Jones, G., Fisher, Q.J., Knipe, R.J. (Eds.), Faulting, Fault Sealing, and Fluid
Flow in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. Geological Society of London, Special Publications
147, pp. 87–103.
Gabrielsen, R.H., Aarland, R.-K., 1990. Characteristics of pre- and syn-consolidation struc-
tures and tectonic joints and microfaults in fine to medium-grained sandstone. In:
Stephansson, B. (Ed.), Rock Joints. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 45–50.
Genter, A., Castaing, C., Dezayes, C., Tenzer, H., Traineau, H., Villemin, T., 1997. Compara-
tive analysis of direct (core) and indirect (borehole imaging tools) collection of frac-
ture data in the Hot Dry Rock Soultz reservoir (France). J. Geophys. Res. 102 (B7),
15419–15431.
86 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
Geraud, Y., Diraison, M., Orellana, N., 2006. Fault zone geometry of a mature active normal
fault: a potential high permeability channel (Pirgaki fault, Corinth rift, Greece).
Tectonophysics 246, 61–76.
Goddard, J.V., Evans, J.P., 1995. Chemical changes and fluid–rock interaction in faults of
crystalline thrust sheets, northwestern Wyoming, U.S.A. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 533–547.
Griffith, W.A., Rosakis, A., Pollard, D.D., Ko, C.W., 2009. Dynamic rupture experiments elu-
cidate tensile crack development during propagating earthquake ruptures. Geology
37, 795–798.
Gudmundsson, A., Simmenes, T.H., Larsen, B., Philipp, S.L., 2010. Effects of internal struc-
ture and local stresses on fracture propagation, deflection, and arrest in fault zones.
J. Struct. Geol. 32, 1643–1655.
Hausegger, S., Kurz, W., 2013. Cataclastic faults along the SEMP fault system (Eastern Alps,
Austria) — a contribution to fault zone evolution, internal structure and paleo-
stresses. Tectonophysics 608, 237–251.
Heynekamp, M.R., Goodwin, L.B., Mozley, P.S., Haneberg, W.C., 1999. Controls on fault-
zone architecture in poorly lithified sediments, Rio Grande Rift, New Mexico: implica-
tions for fault-zone permeability and fluid flow. In: Goodwin, L.B., Mozley, P.S., Moore,
J.M., Haneberg, W.C. (Eds.), Faults and Subsurface Fluid Flow in the Shallow Crust
Geophysical Monograph 113. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp. 27–49.
Hull, J., 1988. Thickness–displacement relationships for deformation zones. J. Struct. Geol.
10, 431–435.
Hung, J.-H., Ma, K.-F., Wang, C.-Y., Ito, H., Lin, W., Yeh, E.-C., 2009. Subsurface structure,
physical properties, fault-zone characteristics and stress state in scientific drill holes
of Taiwan Chelungpu Fault Drilling Project. Tectonophysics 466, 307–321.
Johansen, S.E., Fossen, H., 2008. Internal geometry of fault damage zones in siliclastic rocks.
In: Kurz, W., Wibberley, C.A.J., Imber, J., Collettini, C., Holdsworth, R.E. (Eds.), The Inter-
nal Structure of Fault Zones: Fluid Flow and Mechanical Properties. Geological Society
of London, Special Publications 299, pp. 35–56.
Jones, M.A., Knipe, R.J., 1996. Seismic attribute maps; application to structural interpreta-
tion and fault seal analysis in the North Sea Basin. First Break 14, 449–461.
Jourde, H., Flodin, E.A., Aydin, A., Durlofsky, L.J., Wen, X.-H., 2002. Computing permeability
of fault zones in eolian sandstone from outcrop measurements. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.
Bull. 86, 1187–1200.
Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D.J., 2005. The relationship between displacement and length of
faults: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 68, 317–334.
Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D.J., 2006. Structural similarity and variety at the tips in a wide
range of strike-slip faults: a review. Terra Nova 18, 330–344.
Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D.J., 2008. Earthquake and fault propagation, displacement and
damage zones. In: Landowe, S.J., Hammler, G.M. (Eds.), Structural Geology: New
Research. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, New York, pp. 99–117.
Kim, Y.-S., Sanderson, D.J., 2010. Inferred fluid flow through fault damage zones
based on the observation of stalactites in carbonate caves. J. Struct. Geol. 32,
1305–1316.
Kim, Y.-S., Andrews, J.R., Sanderson, D.J., 2000. Damage zones around strike-slip fault sys-
tems and strike-slip fault evolution, Carckington Haven, southwest England. Geosci. J.
4, 53–72.
Kim, Y.-S., Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 2003. Mesoscale strike-slip faults and damage
zones at Marsalforn, Gozo Island, Malta. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 793–812.
Kim, Y.-S., Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 2004. Fault damage zones. J. Struct. Geol. 26,
503–517.
Knott, S.D., 1994. Fault zone thickness versus displacement in the Permo-Triassic
sandsones of NW England. J. Geol. Soc. 151, 17–25.
Knott, S.D., Beach, A., Brockbank, P.J., Brown, J.L., McCallum, J.E., Welbon, A.I., 1996. Spatial
and mechanical controls on normal fault populations. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 359–372.
Ko, K., Choi, J.-H., Kim, Y.-S., 2012. Effects of geological structures on slope stability: an ex-
ample from the northwestern part of Daegu, Korea. J. Eng. Geol. 22, 1–13 (in Korean
with English abstract).
Koestler, A.G., Ehrman, W., 1991. Description of brittle extensional features in chalk
on the crest of a salt ridge (NW Germany). In: Roberts, A., Yielding, G., Freeman, B.
(Eds.), The Geometry of Normal Faults. Geological Society of London, Special Publica-
tions 56, pp. 113–123.
Lewis, C.J., Gardner, J.N., Schultz-Fellenz, E.S., Lavine, A., Reneau, S.L., Olig, S., 2009. Fault
interaction and along-strike variation in throw in the Pajarito fault system, Rio
Grande rift, New Mexico. Geosphere 5, 252–269.
Li, H., Wang, H., Xu, Z., Si, J., Pei, J., Li, T., Huang, Y., Song, S.-R., Kuo, L.-W., Sun, Z., Chevalier,
M.-L., Liu, D., 2013. Characteristics of the fault-related rocks, fault zones and the prin-
cipal slip zone in the Wenchuan Earthquake Fault Scientific Drilling Project Hole-1
(WFSD-1). Tectonophysics 584, 23–42.
Lin, A., Yamashita, K., 2013. Spatial variations in damage zone width along strike-slip
faults: an example from active faults in southwest Japan. J. Struct. Geol. 57, 1–15.
Lin, A., Ouchi, T., Chen, A., Maruyama, T., 2001. Co-seismic displacements, folding and
shortening structures along the Chelungpu surface rupture zone occurred during
the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake. Tectonophysics 330, 225–244.
Lin, A., Guo, J., Fu, B., 2004. Co-seismic mole track structures produced by the 2001 Ms 8.1
Central Kunlun earthquake, China. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 1511–1519.
Long, J.J., Imber, J., 2011. Geological controls on fault relay zone scaling. J. Struct. Geol. 33,
1790–1800.
Lopez, D.L., Smith, L., 1995. Fluid flow in fault zones: analysis of the interplay of convec-
tive circulation and topographically driven groundwater flow. Water Resour. Res.
31, 1489–1503.
Mair, K., Main, I., Elphick, S., 2000. Sequential growth of deformation bands in the labora-
tory. J. Struct. Geol. 22, 25–42.
Mandl, G., 1988. Mechanics of Tectonic Faulting. Models and Basic Concepts. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Mandl, G., 2000. Faulting in Brittle Rocks. An Introduction to the Mechanics of Tectonic
Faults. Springer, Berlin.
Marrett, R., Allmendinger, R.W., 1992. Amount of extension on “small” faults: an example
from the Viking graben. Geology 20, 47–50.
Martel, S.J., Pollard, D.D., Segall, P., 1988. Development of simple strikeslip fault
zones, Mount Abbot quadrangle, Sierra Nevada, California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 100,
1451–1465.
McGrath, A.G., Davison, I., 1995. Damage zone geometry around fault tips. J. Struct. Geol.
17, 1011–1024.
Micarelli, L., Moretti, I., Daniel, J.M., 2003. Structural properties of rift-related normal
faults: the case study of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece. J. Geodyn. 36, 275–303.
Mitchell, T.M., Faulkner, D.R., 2009. The nature and origin of off-fault damage surrounding
strike-slip fault zones with a wide range of displacements: a field study from the
Atacama fault system, northern Chile. J. Struct. Geol. 31, 802–816.
Mitchell, T.M., Ben-Zion, Y., Shimamoto, T., 2011. Pulverized fault rocks and damage
asymmetry along the Arima-Takatsuki Tectonic Line, Japan. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
308, 284–297.
Mitra, G., Ismat, Z., 2001. Microfracturing associated with reactivated fault zones and
shear zones: what can it tell us about deformation history? In: Holdsworth, R.E.,
Strachan, R.A., Magloughlin, J.F., Knipe, R.J. (Eds.), The Nature and Tectonic Signifi-
cance of Fault Zone Weakening. Geological Society of London, Special Publications
186, pp. 113–140
Molli, G., Cortecci, G., Vaselli, L., Ottria, G., Cortopassi, A., Dinelli, E., Mussi, M., Barbieri, M.,
2010. Fault zone structure and fluid–rock interaction of a high angle normal fault in
Carrara marble (NW Tuscany, Italy). J. Struct. Geol. 32, 1334–1348.
Myers, R., Aydin, A., 2004. The evolution of faults formed by shearing across joint zones in
sandstone. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 947–966.
Nelson, E.P., Kullman, A.J., Gardner, M.H., 1999. Fault-fracture networks and related fluid
flow and sealing, Brushy Canyon Formation, West Texas. In: Goodwin, L.B., Mozley,
P.S., Moore, J.M., Haneberg, W.C. (Eds.), Faults and Subsurface Fluid Flow in the Shal-
low Crust Geophysical Monograph 113. American Geophysical Union, Washington,
pp. 69–81.
Odling, N.E., Harris, S.D., Knipe, R.J., 2004. Permeability scaling properties of fault damage
zones in siliclastic rocks. J. Struct. Geol. 26, 1727–1747.
Olierook, H.K.H., Piane, C.D., Timms, N.E., Esteban, L., Rezaee, R., Mory, A.J., Hancock, d.L.,
2014. Facies-based rock properties characterization for CO2 sequestration: GSWA
Harvey 1 well, Western Australia. Mar. Pet. Geol. 50, 83–102.
Pachell, M.A., Evans, J.P., 2002. Growth, linkage, and termination processes of a 10-km-long
strike-slip fault in jointed granite: the Gemini fault zone, Sierra Nevada, California.
J. Struct. Geol. 24, 1903–1924.
Pakiser, L.C., 1960. Transcurrent fault and volcanism in Owens Valley. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
71, 153–160.
Peacock, D.C.P., 1991. Displacements and segment linkage in strike-slip fault zones.
J. Struct. Geol. 13, 1025–1035.
Peacock, D.C.P., 2002. Propagation, interaction and linkage in normal fault systems. Earth
Sci. Rev. 58, 121–142.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1991. Displacement, segment linkage and relay ramps in
normal fault zones. J. Struct. Geol. 13, 721–733.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1994. Geometry and development of relay ramps in nor-
mal fault systems. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 78, 147–165.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1995. Strike-slip relay ramps. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 1351–1360.
Peacock, D.C.P., Knipe, R.J., Sanserson, D.J., 2000. Glossary of normal faults. J. Struct. Geol.
22, 291–305.
Pollard, D.D., Segall, P., 1987. Theoretical displacements and stresses near fractures in rock:
with applications to faults, joints, veins, dykes and solution surfaces. In: Atkinson, B.K.
(Ed.), Fracture Mechanics of Rock. Academic Press, London, pp. 277–349.
Reyer, D., Bauer, J.F., Philipp, S.L., 2012. Fracture systems in normal fault zones crosscut-
ting sedimentary rocks, Northwest German Basin. J. Struct. Geol. 45, 38–51.
Riley, P.R., Goodwin, L.B., Lewis, C.J., 2010. Controls on fault damage zone width, structure,
and symmetry in the Bandelier Tuff, New Mexico. J. Struct. Geol. 32, 766–780.
Rotevatn, A., Fossen, H., 2011. Simulating the effect of subseismic fault tails and process
zones in a siliciclastic reservoir analogue: implications for aquifer support and trap
definition. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 1648–1662.
Savage, H.M., Brodsky, E.E., 2011. Collateral damage: evolution with displacement of
fracture distribution and secondary fault strands in fault damage zones. J. Geophys.
Res. 116, B03405.
Scholz, C.H., 2002. The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Scholz, C.H., Anders, M.H., 1994. The permeability of faults: in the mechanical involve-
ment of fluids in faulting. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 94-228, 247–253.
Scholz, C.H., Cowie, P.A., 1990. Determination of total strain from faulting using slip mea-
surements. Nature 346, 837–839.
Scholz, C.H., Dawers, N.H., Yu, J.Z., Anders, M.H., Cowie, P., 1993. Fault growth and fault
scaling laws: preliminary results. J. Geophys. Res. 98 (B12), 21951–21961. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1029/93JB01008.
Schueller, S., Braathen, A., Fossen, H., Tveranger, J., 2013. Spatial distribution of deforma-
tion bands in damage zones of extensional faults in porous sandstones: statistical
analysis of field data. J. Struct. Geol. 52, 148–162.
Schultz, R.A., Fossen, H., 2008. Terminology for structural discontinuities. Am. Assoc. Pet.
Geol. Bull. 92, 853–867.
Schulz, S.E., Evans, J.P., 1998. Spatial variability in microscopic deformation and composi-
tion of the Punchbowl fault, southern California: implications for mechanisms, fluid–
rock interaction, and fault morphology. Tectonophysics 295, 223–244.
Schulz, S.E., Evans, J.P., 2000. Mesoscopic structure of the Punchbowl Fault, Southern
California and the geologic and geophysical structure of active strike-slip faults.
J. Struct. Geol. 22, 913–930.
Segall, P., Pollard, D.D., 1980. Mechanics of discontinuous faults. J. Geophys. Res. 85,
4337–4350.
 J.-H. Choi et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 152 (2016) 70–87
Segall, P., Pollard, D.D., 1983. Nucleation and growth of strike slip faults in granite.
J. Geophys. Res. 88, 555–568.
Shipton, Z.K., Cowie, P.A., 2001. Damage zone and slip-surface evolution over mm to km
scales in high-porosity Navajo sandstone, Utah. J. Struct. Geol. 23, 1825–1844.
Shipton, Z.K., Cowie, P.A., 2003. A conceptual model for the origin of fault damage zone
structures in high-porosity sandstone. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 333–344.
Shipton, Z.K., Evans, J.P., Robeson, K.R., Forster, C.B., Snelgrove, S., 2002. Structural hetero-
geneity and permeability in eolian sandstone: implications for subsurface modeling
of faults. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 86, 863–883.
Shipton, Z., Evans, J., Kirchner, D., Kolesar, P., Williams, A., Heath, J., 2004. Analysis of CO2
leakage through low-permeability faults from natural reservoirs in the Colorado
Plateau, southern Utah. In: Baines, S., Worden, R. (Eds.), Geological Storage of Carbon
Dioxide. Geological Society of London, Special Publications 233, pp. 43–58.
Shipton, Z.K., Soden, A.M., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Bright, A.M., Lunn, R.J., 2006. How thick is
a fault? Fault displacement-thickness scaling revisited. In: Abercrombie, R. (Ed.),
Earthquake: Radiated Energy and the Physics of Faulting, pp. 193–198.
Sibson, R.H., 1977. Fault rocks and fault mechanisms. J. Geol. Soc. 133, 191–213.
Sibson, R.H., 1989. Earthquake faulting as a structural process. J. Struct. Geol. 11, 1–14.
Smith, L., Porster, C.B., Evans, J.P., 1990. Interaction of fault zones, fluid flow, and heat
transfer at the basin scale: in hydrogeology of permeability environments. Int.
Assoc. Hydrogeol. 2, 41–67.
Smith, S.A.F., Bistacchi, A., Mitchell, T.M., Mittempergher, S., Di Toro, G., 2013. The structure
of an exhumed intraplate seismogenic fault in crystalline basement. Tectonophysics
599, 29–44.
Soliva, R., Schultz, R.A., 2008. Distributed and localized faulting in extensional settings:
insights from the North Ethiopian Rift–Afar transition area. Tectonics 27, TC2003.
Storti, F., Holdsworth, R.E., Salvini, F., 2003. Intraplate strike-slip deformation belts. In:
Storti, F., Holdsworth, R.E., Salvini, F. (Eds.), Intraplate Strike-slip Deformation Belts.
Geological Society of London, Special Publication 210, pp. 1–14.
Suppe, J., 1985. Principles of Structural Geology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey (280 pp.).
Tondi, E., Cilona, A., Agosta, F., Aydin, A., Rustichelli, A., Renda, P., Giunta, G., 2012. Growth
processes, dimensional parameters and scaling relationships of two conjugate sets of
compactive shear bands in porous carbonate grainstones, Favignana Island, Italy.
J. Struct. Geol. 37, 53–64.
Torabi, A., Berg, S.S., 2011. Scaling of fault attributes: a review. Mar. Pet. Geol. 28, 1444–1460.
Townend, J., Zoback, M.D., 2000. How faulting keeps the crust strong. Geology 28,
399–402.
View publication stats
87
Underhill, J.R., Woodcock, N.H., 1987. Faulting mechanisms in high-porosity sand-stones:
New Red Sandstone, Arran, Scotland. In: Jones, M.E., Preston, R.M.F. (Eds.), Deforma-
tion of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks. Geological Society of London, Special
Publications 29, pp. 91–105.
Vermilye, J.M., Scholz, C.H., 1998. The process zone: a microstructural view. J. Geophys.
Res. 103, 12223–12237.
Walker, R.J., Holdsworth, R.E., Imber, J., Faulkner, D.R., Armitage, P.J., 2013. Fault zone ar-
chitecture and fluid flow in interlayered basaltic volcaniclastic–crystalline sequences.
J. Struct. Geol. 51, 92–104.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1988. Analysis of the relationship between the displacements
and dimensions of faults. J. Struct. Geol. 10, 239–247.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Yielding, G., 1991. The importance of small-scale faulting in
regional extension. Nature 351, 391–393.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Bailey, W.R., Childs, C., 1999. Fault relays, bends and branch-lines.
J. Struct. Geol. 21, 1019–1026.
Walsh, J.J., Bailey, W.R., Childs, C., Nicol, A., Bonson, C.G., 2003. Formation of segmented
normal faults: a 3-D perspective. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 1251–1262.
White, S.H., Bretan, P.G., Rutter, E.H., 1986. Fault-zone reactivation: kinematics and mech-
anisms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 317, 81–97.
Wibberley, C.A.J., Yielding, G., Di Toro, G., 2008. Recent advances in the under-standing of
fault zone internal structure: a review. In: Wibberley, C.A.J., Kurz, W., Imber, J.,
Holdsworth, R.E., Collettini, C. (Eds.), The Internal Structure of Fault Zones: Implica-
tions for Mechanical and Fluid-flow Properties. Geological Society of London, Special
Publication 299, pp. 5–33.
Wilson, J.E., Chester, J.S., Chester, F.M., 2003. Microfracture analysis of fault growth and
wear processes, Punchbowl fault, San Andreas system, California. J. Struct. Geol. 25,
1855–1873.
Zhang, X., Sanderson, D.J., 1996. Numerical modelling of the effects of fault slip on fluid
flow around extensional faults. J. Struct. Geol. 18, 109–119.
Zhang, Y., Schaubs, P.M., Zhao, C., Ord, A., Hobbs, B.E., Barnicoat, A.C., 2008. Fault related
dilation, permeability enhancement, fluid flow and mineral precipitation patterns:
numerical models. In: Wibberley, C.A.J., Kurz, W., Imber, J., Holdsworth, R.E.,
Collettini, C. (Eds.), The Internal Structure of Fault Zones: Implications for Mechanical
and Fluid-flow Properties. Geological Society of London, Special Publication 299,
pp. 225–239.