Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Natural Hazards Research

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/natural-hazards-research

Advances on the avoidance zone and buffer zone of active faults

Xiangli He a, b, Chong Xu a, b, c, *, Xiwei Xu a, b, **, Yuchen Yang d
a
National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China
b
Key Laboratory of Compound and Chained Natural Hazards Dynamics (Under Construction), Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China
c
Key Laboratory of Landslide Risk Early-warning and Control, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Chengdu, 610059, China
d
School of Earth Sciences, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, 163318, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Most destructive earthquakes occur along active faults. Abrupt dislocation of active faults in an earthquake and
Active fault long-term creep during the interseismic period can cause serious damage to buildings and public facilities.
Rupture zone Avoiding active faults from a certain distance is the most effective method to mitigate or prevent destruction
Setback distance
induced by such disasters. In this paper, we summarize domestic and foreign research progresses on the avoidance
Fault dip angle
Buffer zone
zone of active faults and clarify the definition of fault avoidance zone composed of fault rupture zone and setback
Co-seismic landslide distance on two sides of the fault. The width of the avoidance zone varies with fault characteristics, geological
setting, and building features. Due to different geological backgrounds and risk resistance capacity of buildings,
various countries or regions have different regulations, but common point is that at least 15-m setback distance
from Holocene active faults is required. The seismogenic fault dip angles of 17 historic earthquakes with different
focal depths and earthquake magnitudes are compiled to further analyze their effects on the width of rupture
zones. Statistically liner and trigonometric models fail to explain their correlation, although the fault dip
geometrically affects the width of the rupture zone and setback distance. In order to prevent some special and
important buildings from being influenced by earthquake disasters, a wider buffer zone should be considered. The
distribution of co-seismic landslides along active faults in 20 records validates the rationality that the half buffer
zone on one side of the faults for important buildings should at least be 3 km or 5 km. To more scientifically
confirm the reasonable avoidance zone of active faults, we suggest that the width of seismic rupture zone and the
damage situation of buildings should be investigated in a unified standard, and more cases and factors are
required to build a more effective model of avoidance zone.

1. Introduction earthquake protection and disaster reduction, avoiding active faults

Earthquakes are one of the main destructive natural hazards and may
lead to severe threats to human lives and property, which are the direct
result of failure and abrupt dislocation of an active fault. The two main
factors inducing earthquake disasters are the strong ground motion
produced by the release of elastic strain in the rock near faults (i.e.,
seismic waves) and the surface co-seismic dislocation and rupture along
active faults (Scholz, 2002; Xu et al., 2002a, 2011; Guo et al., 2017). The
building damage and casualties during an earthquake are the most
serious near the corresponding active fault (Hart, 1974; Xu et al., 1996,
2011). However, current seismic fortification measures cannot effec-
tively prevent the direct building damage associated with earthquake
fault ruptures. Therefore, according to the experience and research of
appropriately is the most feasible and effective method to reduce
destruction. The detailed mapping of co-seismic surface ruptures thus
becomes an important step to determine the avoidance zones of active
faults.
According to a large number of field investigations, seismic rupture
mechanism studies and fault extension experiments, the earthquakes
producing surface rupture zones commonly have a magnitude greater
than 6.5 (Yeats et al., 1997; Xu et al., 2015). At the worldwide scale, the
surface ruptures generated by low-moderate magnitude of earthquakes
are rare, but the 2019 Le Teil, France (Mw 4.9) and the 2020 Sparta
earthquakes, USA (Mw 5.1) ruptured the surface with extremely shallow
hypocenters (Ritz et al., 2020; Figueiredo et al., 2022). Such earthquakes
are able to produce tens of centimeters to several meters of surface

* Corresponding author. National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China.
** Corresponding author. National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing, 100085, China.
E-mail addresses: chongxu@ninhm.ac.cn (C. Xu), xiweixu@vip.sina.com (X. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2022.05.001
Received 29 January 2022; Received in revised form 7 May 2022; Accepted 24 May 2022
Available online 28 May 2022
2666-5921/© 2022 National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
X. He et al.
Table 1
Statistical table of regulations about active fault avoidance in different regions of the world.
National or regional institutions
State government of California
Natural Resources Department
of Utah
Earthquake Safety Council of
Nevada, USA
European Standards Committee
European Technical Committee
Geological Atomic Energy
Agency of New Zealand
Environment Department of
New Zealand
Japan
Construction Department of
Taiwan, China
Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Rural Development of China
Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Rural Development of China
Name of the regulation
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
Guidelines for Evaluating Potential Fault
Surface Rupture in Utah
Guidelines for Evaluating Potential
Surface Fault Rupture in Nevada
EC8-part5: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance
Geotechnical Evaluation and Application
of the Seismic Eurocode EC8
Defining the Wellington Fault within the
Urban area
Interim Guidelines on planning for
development of land on, or close to
active faults
Active Fault Zones Act
Measures for the Administration of
Hillside Land Development and
Construction
Code for geotechnical engineering
investigation
Code for seismic design of buildings
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
Issue time Standards for setback distance
1972, Generally, except for the wooden frame structure of single-family houses, the
1999 (Revised), steel frame structure of houses no more than two floors, and the houses jointly
2007 (Revised) constructed by more than 4 property developers, other buildings are not
allowed to be built within 15 m on each side of the fault trace. All new projects
in fault rupture zones must be investigated, evaluated and reported in
accordance with procedures.
2003 All the key facilities and residential buildings on the Holocene active faults and
the key facilities on the late Quaternary active faults must be specially studied
on site and other faults are also suggested to be analyzed. For known faults, the
study width in footwall is 150 m and that in hanging wall is 75 m. For hidden
faults or roughly located faults, the study width is 300 m for each wall.
Additionally, the guidelines specify the fault identification, classification of
architecture, risk factors and risk coefficient, and give suggestions and methods
for avoidance. The formula for the setback distance calculation is expressed as:
Hanging wall S¼U [2D þ (F/tan θ)], footwall S¼U(2D), where F is the buried
depth of building foundation, D is the maximum vertical displacement of fault
activity, S is setback distance, U is the risk coefficient, θ is the fault dip angle.
The general results are not much different from California's 15 m. (Christenson
et al., 2003)
1996, The setback distance is in accordance with national, other state or local
1998 (Revised) minimum standards. If there is no reference value, the setback distance from
Holocene active fault is 15 m, and the key facilities should not be directly built
on the late Quaternary fault trace. The setback distances from late Quaternary
and Quaternary active faults should be provided by qualified experts when
necessary. Disaster mitigation measures should be given, and further studies
and observations should be conducted if the buildings have to be built across
faults. (Jonathan, 1998)
1994, The buildings with grade II, III and Ⅳ in the code should avoid active faults. For
1998 (Revised) the area with strong seismic activity and potential active faulting, special
geotechnical investigations should be carried out in urban planning and
important building construction to determine the risk of surface rupture and the
severity of ground motion.
2006 The setback distance from strike-slip faults is 30 m in both hanging and foot
walls. For normal and reverse faults, the setback distance on hanging wall is 3 m
and that on footwall of normal fault and reverse fault is (30 þ 1.5H) m and (30
þ 2H) m, respectively, where H is the thickness from soil layer to bedrock.
(Bouckovalas, 2006)
2003 The standard provides the current-level method for active fault positioning
(grading, precision) and disaster avoidance and reduction. The width of
potential fault surface rupture zone is 10–50 m. Due to the uncertainty of
positioning, a 20 m buffer zone should be added to the outside of the potential
zone to form the recommended hazardous zone with a width of 50–90 m.
(Perrin and Wood, 2003)
2003 Because of the limited precision of the location and rupture complexity of faults,
avoidance zones along all faults range in width from 40 to 300 m are defined.
The greater importance of life safety in the building, the greater setback
distance. (Van and Heron, 2003)
2003 Construction is not allowed within a certain distance from the fault trace; if not,
certain measures must be taken during construction. Especially, for nuclear
power station, large reservoirs and other public buildings, fragile dangerous
buildings cannot be constructed on both sides of the active fault zones within
the 100 m range (Nakana and Kumamoto, 2003).
1998 Construction is not allowed in the places where the geological structure is
unstable, the stratum is broken, or active faults or dip slope is sliding. Public
buildings including schools, hospitals, police stations, fire station and large
public business sites are not allowed to be built within 15 m on both sides of
active faults with clear trace and some faults with unclear trace. Private
construction sites are limited to possess no more than two floors (Xu et al.,
2002a; Guo et al., 2017).
1994, According to fault activity and earthquake intensity, for the strong active faults,
2010 (Revised) constructions should avoid the fault zone about 3000 m and 1000–2000m when
fortification intensity reaches 9 and 8, respectively. For moderate active faults,
constructions should avoid the fault zone for 500–1000 m. Additionally,
buildings are suggested to be constructed on the footwall of the faults in above
situations. Buildings are not allowed to be constructed across the fault zone
with weak active faults.
1989, According to the double index of building seismic fortification category and
2008 (Revised) fortification intensity, for the intensity of 8 and 9, the architecture of category A
2010 (Revised) should be specially probed, and that of category B should avoid the fault zone
for more than 200 m and 400 m, and that of category C should avoid the fault
zone for more than 100 m and 200 m. When it is necessary to build a dispersed
architecture of category C or D with less than 3 floors within the setback
distance, aseismatic measures should be taken to improve the integrity of the
foundation and superstructures, and it is not allowed to construct buildings
across the fault trace.
(continued on next page)
63
X. He et al.
Table 1 (continued )
National or regional institutions Name of the regulation
Standing Committee of the Law on Earthquake Prevention and
Eighth National People's Mitigation of China
Congress
China Earthquake National Standard for Setback distance
Administration from active fault (submitted for review)
dislocation and form thousands of meters to hundreds of kilometers of
surface rupture zones, resulting in massive building destruction and mass
casualties (Lawson, 1908; Pollitz et al., 2005; Guo and Zhao, 2018;
Reilinger et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2001; Guo et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2012;
Li et al., 2009, 2018; Robb et al., 2015). However, accurate quantifica-
tion of near-field deformation along earthquake surface ruptures can be
difficult due to the inherent complexity of the rupture geometry (Vallage
et al., 2015; Klinger et al., 2005; Milliner et al., 2015). The earthquake
rupture variations often correlate with geometries of active faults (Klin-
ger et al., 2006; Klinger, 2010; Wei et al., 2011), earthquake magnitude
(Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), fault maturity and local sediment
thickness (Fialko et al., 2005; Dolan and Haravitch, 2014; Zinke et al.,
2014).
Previous post-earthquake investigation results show that the vast
majority of the death toll and building collapses occur along faults within
a narrow range, and the disaster degree gradually reduces with the in-
crease of distance (Midorigawa, 1995; Li et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 2008a;
Guo et al., 2010). Therefore, in addition to the measurement of the width
of the rupture zone, statistical analysis of the housing damage near the
rupture zone is also important in the determination of the avoidance zone
of a fault, which relates the criterion of setback distance from the active
fault zone. The criterion is constrained by the movement feature, fault
geometry, buried depth of the faults and so forth (Xu et al., 2002a, 2016;
Guo et al., 2017). Some major architectures require a wider buffer zone
for prevention of earthquake disasters, which are even affected by the
distribution of coseismic secondary geological disasters.
In order to reduce casualties and losses caused by earthquakes, au-
thorities of different countries have issued a list of relevant laws;
meanwhile, scholars have made unremitting efforts to correctly regulate
the setback distance from active faults (Xu et al., 2002a, 2016; Guo et al.,
2013, 2017; Xu and Chen, 2018). In this paper, we summarize the do-
mestic and foreign research results regarding the setback distance from
active faults and collect several seismic cases to further discuss the in-
fluences of fault dip angle and hypocenter depth on the width of avoid-
ance zone and the constraints of distribution range of co-seismic
geological disasters on buffer zone of active faults. Furthermore, we
optimize the avoiding schemes and suggest future improvements, which
provide scientific reference for the plan and design department and
emergency rescue workers, thus improving the basic capacity of earth-
quake protection and disaster reduction in our country.
2. Research progress of the setback distance from active faults
2.1. History and development of relevant regulations
Since the occurrence of the Mw 8.3 San Francisco earthquake in 1906,
investigations regarding active faults have become closely related to
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
Issue time Standards for setback distance
1997, The site selection of new towns and villages in the earthquake-stricken areas
2008 (Revised) and the site selection of post-earthquake reconstruction projects should comply
with the post-earthquake reconstruction planning and the requirements for
earthquake fortification and disaster prevention and mitigation. The selected
new sites should avoid seismic active faults, ecologically fragile regions and
areas likely to suffer from floods, landslides and collapses, debris flows and
ground collapses, etc. In addition, areas with possible natural epidemic foci of
infectious diseases should be avoided.
2021 The setback distance from Holocene and late Pleistocene faults for general
architecture should be determined according to basic fault category, dip angle
(α), fault scarp height and foundation depth, etc. Specific calculation methods
are shown in Fig. 1. The setback distance of special buildings from active fault
trace or the vertical projection line of the hidden active fault up-breakpoint
(VPL of HAFU) on the surface is 3000 m (category B) or 5000 m (category A).
The setback distance of C-category buildings from Holocene and late
Pleistocene fault trace or the VPL of HAFU is 575 m (hanging wall) and 265 m
(footwall), and 290 m (hanging wall) and 135 m (footwall), respectively.
seismic research. After more than 100 years of continuous exploration,
studies on active faults have been relatively mature in many places,
especially in California. In recent years, research on active faults has been
promoted from qualitative research to more quantitative and practical
research stage. Major research issues include the evaluation of the
seismic risk of active faults and corresponding engineering stability,
recurrence period of large earthquakes, fault segmentation and the dis-
tribution of active faults in various regions (Jenning, 1975; Japanese
Association of Active Faults, 1980; Deng, 1991). Regarding the issue of
setback distance from active faults, relevant authorities in the USA,
Japan, New Zealand, China, and some European countries have succes-
sively promulgated relevant laws and regulations, as shown in Table 1.
These policies have also been constantly improved and updated with the
increasing understanding of earthquakes and active faults.
Among them, due to the frequently occurred active faults and related
earthquake disasters, California has a long history of earthquake safety
legislation, which is usually enacted and updated after destructive
earthquakes. The “Special Studio Zones” act was enacted by the Cali-
fornia legislature in 1972 in the wake of the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake. Bonilla et al. (1971) report that about 80% of the buildings exhibit
moderate to severe damage in the surface rupture zone, while in the
adjacent areas, only 30% of the buildings show moderate to severe
damage during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act provides
information of earthquake risk and requires state geologists to provide
maps that define regulatory areas including potentially dangerous faults
or seismic fault zones, for the primary purpose of prohibiting most
buildings from being built on active fault traces and thus reducing the
risk of fault rupture (Cluff et al., 1976; Hart and Bryant, 1999; Sexton,
2008). The act was amended to the Earthquake Fault Zoning Act after the
Northridge earthquake in 1994, which explicitly stipulates that the
general residential structure can only be built by retreating 15 m on
either side of the active fault; however, the rule focuses on the steeply
dipping strike-slip faults that are predominant in California. The 11th
revision, published in 2007, provides indexed maps in an electronic
format, including digital raster graphics (PDF), geographic Information
System (GIS) file of seismic fault zone maps, to respond to different user
requests for maps and reports. In this version, the “avoidance zone”
width of active faults was not revised. It demands that the geologists
should describe all potential and lately activated faulting traces in
appropriate width of earthquake fault zone to determine fault activity
and the possibility of the surface rupture or fault creep damage.
Furthermore, they were requested to document the earthquake fault zone
map and give it to the influenced cities, counties and state institutions for
review and comments. New geological and seismic data also need to be
constantly examined for the modification of seismic faults or other zones
(Bryant and Hart, 2007). According to this act, the first active fault maps
of California were published in 1974, and these maps were subsequently
64
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

Table 2 Xu et al. (2002a) employ the statistical analysis method and deter-
Statistical table of revised seismic fault map in California, USA (Singh, 2019). mine that the width of the active fault avoidance zone is 30 m for a single
The release date New map/ Revised map/ Delete map/ fault. This study is based on observations and measurements of the
number number number widths of the surface rupture zone of various active faults and strong
July 1, 1974 175 deformation zone on the geological section of exploratory trench across
January 1, 1976 81 5 the fault, in combination with the relationship between ground building
January 1, 1977 4 3 damage zone and spatial location of active faults. Zhou et al. (2008b)
January 1, 1978 1 observe that all the houses built on the surface rupture zone in Pingtong
July 26, 1978 2
January 1, 1979 4 7
town have entirely collapsed during the Wenchuan earthquake, while
January 1, 1980 21 9 those only 30–50 m away from the surface rupture zone have been
January 1, 1982 13 27 2 seriously or moderately damaged without collapses. In addition, based
July 1, 1983 18 12 on the surface rupture zone information collected from the on-the-spot
January 1, 1985 33 10
investigation of the Wenchuan earthquake, Zhou et al. (2008a) suggest
July 1, 1986 18 14
March 1, 1988 58 4 that the width of both the central section of the Longmenshan fault and
January 1, 1990 60 25 the surface rupture zone of the Qianshan fault is generally less than 40 m
November 1, 1991 46 8 from north to south. Further, combined with the width statistics of pre-
July 1, 1993 1 10 2 vious historical earthquake surface rupture zones, they propose that
June 1, 1995 8 13
May 1, 1998 2 1
during the post-earthquake reconstruction, the fault “avoidance zone”
May 1, 1999 3 1 width should be at least 25 m on both sides of the faults in the meizo-
May 1, 2003 3 11 seismal area. Zhao et al. (2009) take advantage of the earthquake damage
August 16, 2007 1 assessment results of 1699 buildings around the rupture zone of the
September 21, 7 6
Wenchuan earthquake, and finally suggest that the collapse rate of
2012
November 6, 2014 1 1 buildings within 0–50 m distance from the surface rupture trace is
December 4, 2015 0 5 prominent, and the rate beyond this area is relatively moderate. The
June 10, 2016 2 5 avoidance distance of reconstructed buildings within the range of the
The data comes from the California Geological Survey. surface rupture trace of the Wenchuan earthquake is 15 m. After the L
0
Aquila (Mw ¼ 6.3) earthquake in Italy occurred in 2009, scholars have
quantified the seismic fault zone and avoidance width of the normal
revised and supplemented. A total of 24 versions have been published
faults in Apennine Mountain. In detail, if there is a clear fault trace, the
until 2016 (Table 2, Singh, 2019).
avoidance distance of the corresponding hanging wall and footwall is 40
In China, after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, increasing attention has
m and 15 m, respectively. Conversely, the avoidance distance cannot be
been paid to the issue of setback distance from active faults. Since then,
given without a clear trace (Zhang et al., 2012; Paolo and Paolo, 2010).
China's national standards, laws and regulations, such as “the Code for
With the assistance of the centrifuge physical test simulation method, Hu
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (GB50021-2001)”, “Code for
et al. (2013) obtain the co-seismic fault movement characteristics in the
Seismic Design of Buildings (GB50011-2010)” and “The Law on Earthquake
Quaternary strata. Their experiments show that when the boundary
Prevention and Disaster Mitigation of China”, have supplemented new
constraint reaches the minimum value, the main failure still occurs near
provisions on setback distance from active faults. In addition, based on years
the intersecting line of the fault plane extension and the surface, while
of related investigations, China Earthquake Administration submitted the
the developed secondary rupture occurs within about 30 m from this line.
national standard for the setback distance from active faults in 2021,
Lei et al. (2015) employ the seismic geological mapping approach,
providing the standard and calculation method for the setback distance of
combined with the geomorphic survey method that is based on the width
general buildings in detail. Three basic types of active faults, including
of fault belts and scarps in the trench profile for estimating avoidance
strike-slip fault, normal fault and reverse fault, as well as corresponding
distance and suggest that the 15 m avoidance distance from previous
parameters such as fault dip angle (ɑ), fault scarp height, foundation depth,
statistics is suitable for the Helan mountain fracture and hidden fault in
and fault age, were taken into account (Fig. 1). Meanwhile, the types of
Yinchuan. As a result, with the consideration of the maximum posi-
special constructions are also divided in detail, and the setback distance on
tioning error, the avoidance distance of the Yinchuan hidden fault is 40
the hanging wall or footwall of the fault is recommended.
m.
With the improvement of the relevant acts of active fault avoidance,
However, the above statistics have not considered the hanging wall
the public awareness of environmental hazards has gradually increased.
effect of the inclined slip fault. Because the strike-slip fault and the dip-
The analyses and investigations on seismic hazards and active faults
slip fault (normal fault or reverse fault) have obvious differences in ki-
provide valuable information for earthquake engineering, public
nematic properties and deformation characteristics, the minimum
awareness, insurance industry, and the development of the regulations
avoidance distance of the dip-slip fault needs to be estimated differently.
sketched out by the government near each fault zone. Public awareness
Yang and Beeson (2001) evaluate the relationship between earthquake
and regulation of environmental hazards have thus become an important
damage and fault distance by analyzing the relationship between ground
factor affecting urban development and layout (Tok
e et al., 2014; Singh,
deformation, fault rupture line and building damage observed inside and
2019).
outside the avoidance zone of the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake and indicate
that the 15 m avoidance distance of the footwall is sufficient. However, it
2.2. Theoretical study on setback distance from active faults is necessary to extend the avoidance distance to 50 m away from the
upthrown side of the fault. Through systematic statistics and geophysical
The setback distance from active faults suggests that buildings are prospecting, Zhang et al. (2010a) verify part of the influencing zone
prohibited to be constructed within a reasonable distance on both sides of width, arguing that the width of the Wenchuan earthquake surface
the fault, for the purpose of minimizing damage to buildings and loss of rupture zone is mainly concentrated in a range of 16–60 m. Moreover,
human lives induced by the fault ruptures in an earthquake (Yang and with the support of previous experience, they propose that the avoidance
Beeson, 2001; Xu et al., 2002a). However, the setback distance is affected width of the hanging wall and footwall should not be less than 15 m and
by fault geometry, fault rupture distribution, fault type, foundation 10 m, respectively. Guo et al. (2013) synthesize substantial data of sur-
depth, etc. How to regulate the setback distance scientifically? Scholars face rupture zone widths of the Wenchuan earthquake and other his-
have studied it in different ways. torical thrust earthquakes and propose that the avoidance width of the

65
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for the calculation method of the setback distance in the National Standard for setback distance from active fault (submitted for review). (a)
Strike-slip fault with a dip angle of about 90 ; (b) Strike-slip fault with a dip angle less than 90 in flat terrain; (c) Normal fault in flat terrain; (d) Normal fault with
fault scarp; (e) Thrust fault in flat terrain; (f) Thrust fault with fault scarp (Hb < Hfs-Hs); (g) Thrust fault with fault scarp (Hb > Hfs-Hs and Hb < Hfs); (h) Thrust fault
with fault scarp (Hb > Hfs-Hs and Hb > Hfs). D0: basic setback distance refers to the distance under the situation that no fault scarps exist and the fault dip angle is
close to 90 ; for Holocene strike-slip fault, D0 ¼ 15 m, for late Pleistocene strike-slip fault, D0 ¼ 8 m. Du: the setback distance of buildings on the hanging wall of the
fault. Dd: the setback distance of buildings on the footwall of the fault. Hb: foundation depth of the building. Hfs: fault scarp height; Hs: height of the outcrop point of
active fault deformation zone; D: width of deformation zone; W: total width of avoidance zone; ɑ: fault dip angle. β: fault scarp dip angle.

hanging wall of a reverse fault may reach about 20–22.5 m, and that of
the footwall may reach 7.5–10 m. According to previous field in-
vestigations and case study results, Xu et al. (2016) show that due to the
fact that the hanging wall deformation amount is larger than that of the
footwall of normal and reverse faults, an obvious ‘hanging wall effect’
could be observed whether the regional surface ruptures exist or not, or
the buildings above are destroyed by co-seismic dislocation or not.
Specifically, the serious disaster zone width of the hanging wall is 2–3
times than that of the footwall. Therefore, the minimum avoidance dis-
tance of footwall is 15 m outward the boundary of geological deforma-
tion zone, while the distance of hanging wall should be 30–45 m outward
the boundary. Considering that the near-surface inclination of normal
faults is generally 50 –60 , it is recommended that the minimum
avoidance distance of the hanging wall should be 30 m outward the
boundary of geological deformation zone. For reverse faults that typically
have dip angles steeper than 30 , the minimum avoidance distance of the
hanging wall is recommended to be 45 m outward the boundary of the
geological deformation zone.
In addition to active fault types (strike-slip, normal and thrust) and
the hanging wall effect, several other factors are also considered when
analyzing the influence of avoidance distance. For example, Christenson
et al. (2003) conducts correlation calculation of normal fault avoidance
distance (S) with buried depth of building foundation (F), maximum
vertical displacement of fault activity (D), risk coefficient (U) and dip
angle of fault (θ) in Utah surface fault rupture assessment guide. The
corresponding formulas are S– – U [2Dþ(F/Tan θ)] for the hanging wall,
and S– – U(2D) for the footwall. According to the sample data of the Yushu
earthquake and other previous results, Zhang et al. (2010b) suggest that
the distance between the main rupture zone of frame structure and ma-
sonry (hollow brick) is greater than 15 m in the 8-degree zone, and the
distance between the main rupture zone of masonry (hollow brick) is
greater than 30 m, basically eliminating the possibility of serious col-
lapses. The formula of the typical building earthquake damage index (I)
of the distance (D) from the main rupture of the surface is expressed as I
¼ 0.7699–0.00231D. Zhang et al. (2010a) systematically investigate the
vertical and horizontal displacement of surface rupture in the central

66
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

fault zone of Longmenshan and the width of the affected zone of the fault dip angle in an ideal model system. However, in fact, there are
earthquake-induced surface ruptures, suggesting that the affected zone many complicated factors affecting the width, such as earthquake
width (D) has a good linear relationship with the vertical displacement magnitude, focal depth, fault properties, etc. Therefore, we explore the
(H), which is expressed as D ¼ 10.11H þ 16.0. Yu et al. (2009) quanti- correlation between the fault rupture zone width and fault dip angle with
tatively discuss the relationship between the gradient of surface defor- hypocenter depth by statistical methods.
mation and the degree of building damage. The most direct factor of Firstly, we collect the total width of surface rupture zone and single
building damage is the gradient of surface deformation at the location fault rupture width in different locations with various dip angles along
(the ratio of vertical deformation to the width of the corresponding the fault in the 2001 Hoh Sai Hu (Kunlunshan) earthquake (Mw ¼ 8.1),
surface deformation zone): Buildings with the gradient of surface as shown in Table 4 obtained from Xu et al. (2002b). The earthquake
deformation ＞1 completely collapse; Buildings with the surface defor- occurs on the Kusaihu segment of the East Kunlun fault zone in the
mation gradient of 0.07–0.1 are severely damaged, resulting in tilting northern Tibetan Plateau. The seismogenic fault is a typical sinistral
and strong deformation. Buildings with the surface deformation gradient strike-slip fault, but there are some differences in regional dip angles. We
of 0.03–0.07 are moderately damaged or inclined, and basically no also conduct scatter mapping for the surface rupture zone width and the
buildings after seismic fortification collapse. In the section with surface single fault width with the measured dip angle, respectively (Fig. 2).
deformation gradient <0.03, the buildings (structures) with earthquake According to Fig. 2, no obvious linear relationship is observed for them;
resistance capability are slightly damaged. Namely, the average width of namely, the total width of surface rupture zone and single fault rupture
the destroyed zone of ground buildings obviously controlled by width vary irregularly with fault dip angle.
co-seismic dislocation or deformation is generally 10–30 m (Yu et al., Secondly, we catalog 17 earthquake cases with different types, dip
2009). Japanese geoscientist Konagai summarizes previous data and angle, magnitude, focal depth, the total width of surface rupture zone,
proposes the hazard assessment method of buildings near active faults and single fault rupture width. In this set of data, it is obvious that there is
based on the parameters of limited grade (ζ). In detail: (1) when ζ > 1, no apparent correlation between the total width of surface rupture zone
buildings with shallow buried rigid foundation can be built on faults with or single fault rupture width and earthquake magnitude, such as linearity
unknown trace lines; (2) when ζ > 1, if the fault is determined, the (Table 5). Therefore, we analyze the relationship between the surface
building is at least α  ζ  H away from the fault trace. ζ ¼ D/γyH, where rupture zone width or the single fault width and the fault dip angle by
H is the overburden thickness, D denotes bedrock dislocation, γy repre- scatter diagram using the average values (Fig. 3a). Considering that the
sents soil shear strain, and α is the fault type (normal, reverse, strike-slip)
coefficient (Konagai, 2003; Zhang et al., 2012).
Table 4
3. The effects of fault dip angle and focal depth in width of active Statistics of the surface rupture width and dip angle of the Kusaihu earthquake
fault rupture zone (Mw ¼ 8.1) in Kunlun Mountains in 2001 (Xu et al., 2002b).
The longitude latitude Width of Single Measured
The width of the active fault avoidance zone is mainly determined by serial surface fault fracture
the width of the surface rupture deformation zone and setback distance number rupture rupture dip/
zone/m width/m
on two sides of the fault. In particular, based on the theoretical hypoth-
esis, future earthquake surface ruptures are most likely to occur along the 1 94 08.707 35 38.971 21 9.5 74
active fault that has undergone seismic rupture in the past (Xu et al., 2 94 02.991 35 40.357 7.9 – 78
3 93 38.534 35 43.771 19.5 9 60
2016). Previous studies have respectively probed the avoidance widths of
4 93 36.368 35 44.070 90 9.4 75
strike-slip faults, normal faults, reverse faults and even hidden faults 5 93 08.509 35 47.000 74 12.65 73
(Guo et al., 2013, 2017; Xu et al., 2002a, 2016; Zhang et al., 2012; Yang 6 93 05.384 35 47.623 – 12.5 87.5
and Beeson, 2001; Caglayan et al., 2018; Villamor et al., 2015; Langridge 7 92 51.019 35 49.137 68.3 18.15 90
8 92 47.182 35 49.365 – 13 90
et al., 2011). As shown in Fig. 1 and Table 3, the setback distance on
9 92 28.772 35 51.081 – 6.5 90
hanging wall and width of deformation zone is geometrically subject to

Table 3
Equations of setback distances for different types of faults with a single linear trace or a wider deformation zone.
Fault Dip Terrain Comparison between Equations for setback Equations for setback Total width of avoidance Total width of avoidance zone
type angle α Hb and differences of distance on hanging wall distance on footwall zone (Ws ¼ Du þ Dd) (Wd) with a deformation zone
( ) Hfs and Hs (Du) with single linear (Dd) with single linear with a single linear trace
trace trace

strike- ~90 flat – Du ¼ D0 Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0 Wd ¼ Ws þ D ¼ 2D0þD

slip <90 flat – Du ¼ D0þHb  ctgα Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0þHb  ctgα Wd ¼ Ws þ D/sinα ¼
fault 2D0þHb  ctgαþD/sinα
nomal <90 flat – Du ¼ D0þHb  ctgα Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0þHb  ctgα Wd ¼ Ws þ D/sinα ¼
fault 2D0þHb  ctgαþD/sinα
with – Du ¼ D0þ(Hb þ Hs)  Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0þ(Hb þ Hs)  Wd ¼ Ws þ D  cosβ/sin(α-β)
fault ctgα ctgα ¼ 2D0þ(Hb þ Hs)  ctgαþD
scarp  cosβ/sin(α-β)
thrust <90 flat – Du ¼ D0þHb  ctgα Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0þHb  ctgα Wd ¼ Ws þ D/sinα ¼
fault 2D0þHb  ctgαþD/sinα
with Hb < Hfs-Hs Du ¼ D0 Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0 Wd ¼ Ws þ D  cosβ/sin(180-
fault α-β) ¼ 2D0þD  cosβ/
scarp sin(180-α-β)
with Hb > Hfs-Hs Du ¼ D0þ(Hs þ Hb-Hfs) Dd ¼ D0 Ws ¼ 2D0þ(Hs þ Hb- Wd ¼ Ws þ D  cosβ/sin(180-
fault  ctgα Hfs)  ctgα α-β) ¼ 2D0þ(Hs þ Hb-Hfs) 
scarp ctgαþD  cosβ/sin(180-α-β)

Hb: foundation depth of the building; Hfs: fault scarp height; Hs: height of the outcrop point of active fault deformation zone; β: fault scarp dip angle; D: width of
deformation zone; D0: basic setback distance refers to the distance under the situation that no fault scarps exist and the fault dip angle is close to 90 ; for Holocene strike-
slip fault, D0 ¼ 15 m, for late Pleistocene strike-slip fault, D0 ¼ 8 m.

67
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

mechanism is special due to the fact that it simultaneously produced

three rupture zones: Yingxiu-Beichuan, Guanxian-Anxian (Hanwang-
Bailu), and Xiaoyudong (Li et al., 2008a). The dip angles of the three
rupture zones are different, which are respectively 70 , 40 and 30 in
the Yingxiu-Beichuan fault, Hanwang-Bailu fault and Xiaoyudong fault
according to the post-earthquake surface survey (Li et al., 2008a; Wang
et al., 2013). We calculate the total width of three faults as the total
rupture zone width in the Wenchuan earthquake. As shown in Fig. 3,
neither fault dip nor H/tanα have correlation with the total width of
surface rupture zone or single fault rupture width. Nevertheless, we can
obtain some information based on all statistical data. Except for the 2013
Balochistan earthquake and the 2019 Le Teil earthquake, the average
width of most other single fault ruptures is approximately no more than
100 m and a majority of values are 5–54 m (Fig. 3). In terms of the total
width of deformation zone, most of the average values are no more than
2000 m (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Analysis diagram of relationship between fault rupture width and

4. Buffer zone of active faults based on distribution of co-seismic
measured fault dip angle.
landslides

focal depth and fault dip angle may affect the rupture width jointly, we
A moderately strong earthquake can trigger hundreds to tens of
set the abscissa (independent variable) to the depth divided by the
thousands of geological disasters, and the direct loss of people's lives and
tangent of the dip angle (H/tanα, Fig. 3b). Among 17 earthquake events,
property can account for one-third of the entire earthquake-induced loss,
the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Mw ¼ 7.9) with thrust and strike-slip
or even more. For example, the 1920 Haiyuan earthquake (Ms ¼ 8.5) is

Table 5
Average width of rupture zone and dip angle of fault of several seismic events.
Number magnitude Nature of Single surface Deformation Depth Fault Reference
the fault rupture zone zone width (m) (km) dip ( )
width (m)

1 1515 Yongsheng earthquake, Ms ¼ 8 Normal and 3–40 8000 – 65 Zhang and Huangfu, 1988; Guo et al.
China strike-slip (1988)
2 1932 Changma earthquake, Ms ¼ 7.6 Reverse 2–60 8000 15 64 Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, China
China and strike- Earthquake Administration, 1992; Shi
slip et al. (1974)
3 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Ms ¼ 7.6 Reverse 20–35 1500 7 35 Lee et al. (2001); Kelson et al. (2001);
China Chen et al. (2002)
4 2001 Hoh Sai Hu Mw ¼ 7.9 Strike-slip 7.9–100.6 2000 15 85 Xu et al. (2002b)
(Kunlunshan) earthquake,
China
5 Beichuan-Yingxiu surface Mw ¼ 7.9 Thrust with 4.5–100 30,000 19 70- Xu et al. (2008); Chen et al. (2008); Li
rupture zone during the 2008 dextral et al. (2008b); Li and Wei (2009);
Wenchuan earthquake Zheng et al. (2008); Li et al. (2008a)
6 Hanwang-Bailu surface Mw ¼ 7.9 Thrust 8.4–25.8 30,000 19 40 Chen et al. (2008); Zhou et al. (2008a);
rupture zone during the 2008 Li et al. (2009); Li et al. (2008a)
Wenchuan earthquake
7 Surface rupture zone of Mw ¼ 7.9 Thrust with 3–200 30,000 19 30 Xu et al. (2008); Wang et al. (2013)
Xiaoyudong in 2008 sinistral
Wenchuan earthquake
8 1992 Suusamyr earthquake, (Mw ¼ Reverse 5–180 180 18 55 Ainscoe et al. (2018); Mellors et al.
Kyrgyzstan 7.2) (1997)
9 1999 Düzce earthquake, (M ¼ 7.1) Right- 0.5–5 50 9 62 Akyuz et al., 2002; Hearn et al. (2002);
Turkey lateral Tibi et al. (2001)
10 1999 Izmit earthquake, (Mw ¼ Right- 2–8 400 17 83 Hartleb et al. (2002); Bouchon et al.
Turkey 7.5) lateral (2021); Tibi et al. (2001)
11 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake, Mw ¼ 6.4 Left-lateral 19  41 180 10 66 DuRoss et al. (2020)
USA
12 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake, Mw ¼ 7.1 Right- 44  81 500 10 81 DuRoss et al. (2020)
USA lateral
13 2020 Sparta earthquake, USA Mw ¼ 5.1 Reverse 25 600 1–3 40 Figueiredo et al. (2022); Wicks Jr and
Chiu (2022)
14 2018 Palu earthquake, Mw ¼ 7.5 Left-lateral 2.9–20 1600 20 80 Jaya et al. (2019); Wu et al. (2021);
Indonesia
15 2013 Bohol earthquake, Mw ¼ 7.2 Reverse 5-150 (profile) 12,000 12 45 Rimando et al. (2019)
Philippines
16 2012 Negros earthquake, Mw ¼ 6.7 Reverse- 2-7 (profile) 50 5 60 Rimando et al. (2020)
Philippines slip
17 2013 Balochistan earthquake, Mw ¼ 7.7 Left-lateral 100–1000 35,000 20 60 Vallage et al. (2015); Barnhart et al.
Pakistan (2014)
18 2005 Kashmir Earthquake, Mw ¼ 7.6 Thrust 20–30 200 12 30 Kaneda et al. (2008); Pathier et al.
Pakistan (2006)
19 2019 Le Teil earthquake, Mw ¼ 4.9 Reverse 50-400, 400-800 800 1–3 48 Ritz et al. (2020)
France

68
X. He et al.
Fig. 3. Analysis diagram of the relationship between the average width of single
fault rupture zone blue, left axis) or total deformation zone width (orange, right
axis) and dip angle α or hypocenter depth H. (a) Fault dip angle α; (b) Value
resulting from hypocenter depth divided by the tangent of the dip angle.
the largest seismic event ever recorded in China, killing more than
220,000 people (Yuan, 2005; Zhuang et al., 2018), with about 100,000
people die as a direct result of earthquake-induced landslides (Close and
McCormick, 1922). The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Ms ¼ 8.0) results in
a total of 69,197 deaths and 18,341 missing people, of which one third of
the deaths and missing people are associated with earthquake-induced
landslides (Wang et al., 2009; Tang and Westen, 2018). In addition,
the focus of moderately strong tectonic earthquakes is often associated
with a linear seismogenic structure, and earthquake-induced landslides
are often linearly distributed along the seismogenic structure (Meunier
et al., 2013; Gorum et al., 2014; Xu, 2015). Therefore, the determination
of the buffer zone of active faults cannot be separated from the study of
co-seismic landslide distribution.
In this paper, we compile the statistics of 14 earthquakes, summarize
the relationship between 20 groups of co-seismic landslide distributions
and the corresponding seismogenic faults (Table 6), and subsequently
extract the distance between the faults and the areas of the most land-
slides occurrence in each seismic event. As shown in Fig. 4, 16 groups of
the distance of landslide peaks from seismogenic fault are within 5 km,
including 13 peaks within 3 km. These results are consistent with those
proposed by Xu et al. (2016), which show that the buffer distance of
active faults should be at least 3 km for some key organizations whose
functions cannot be terminated, such as the emergency command center,
lifeline engineering junction station, and hospitals, etc. In addition, the
value is suggested to be 5 km for buildings that are used for production,
experiment, and the storage of inflammable and explosive materials and
precise instruments. The aforementioned buffer distances also conform
to the requirement that there is no active fault within the near site range
of nuclear power plant or major projects proposed by the national stan-
dard GB17741-2005 seismic Safety Evaluation of Engineering Sites. This
result contributes to determine buffer zone of active faults that is
necessary to protect safety of lives and property and reduce loss and
damage in earthquake disasters.
69
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
5. Discussion
5.1. The interpretation for the avoidance zone of active faults
In the early studies, scholars defined active fault “avoidance zone” as
avoiding future co-seismic dislocation or slip surface that could produce
surface ruptures, which implies that the width of the “avoidance zone” is
equivalent to the width of the co-seismic surface rupture zone or defor-
mation zone (Xu et al., 2002a; Guo et al., 2013). Through substantial
statistical analyses of surface ruptures, they determine that the width of
the avoidance zone of active faults is approximately 30 m. However, Xu
et al. (2016) further explain that the minimum setback distance for
nearly vertical faults is 15 m from the boundary line of the deformation
zone including the main fault slip surface. In addition, for some specific
areas including the oblique step area of active faults, the confining area of
parallel secondary faults, and the strike-bending areas, the width of the
avoidance zone is the sum of the width of these regions (deformation
zone) and 15 m of setback distance on both sides (Fig. 5, Xu et al., 2016;
Xu and Chen, 2018). It should be noted that the setback distance of 15 m
here is not determined by the approximately 30-m width of the rupture
zone in the previous statistics; the width of the rupture zone includes the
other special deformation zone but does not include the setback distance.
The value of setback distance should be obtained by a large number of
investigations and statistical analyses on the damage of buildings on both
sides of fault after the earthquake (Li et al., 2000). It thus does not have to
be 15, and it can vary depending on numerous factors such as fault type,
regional geology, topography, fault age, fault geometry, and even the
earthquake resistance of a building. As a result of geological background,
building earthquake resistance and other factors may be different, and
various countries have different policies for setback distance of active
faults. Nevertheless, the setback distance required by most countries and
regions is not much different and commonly set as ~15 m, such as Cal-
ifornia, Utah, New Zealand, and China (Table 1). The Chinese National
Standard for setback distance from active fault (submitted for review)
shows several cases of setback distance in consideration of fault type,
topography, fault age and fault geometry (Fig. 1 and Table 3), which is
currently a scheme considering the most comprehensive factors.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the rupture zone is generally a
wide deformation zone rather than a single line trace. However, the
definition of seismic rupture zone width is controversial in whether it
refers to the width of a single fault rupture or a whole rupture zone that
includes special areas such as the oblique step area of active faults, the
confining area of parallel secondary faults, and the strike bending areas.
Additionally, researchers mainly focus on the measurement of rupture
length and dislocation of fault and overlook the width of surface rupture
zone. Due to the geometric complexity of the fault, it is difficult to
measure and calculate the rupture width accurately (Vallage et al., 2015).
It is also equivocal whether it only refers to the rupture area of the surface
or includes some other geological deformation areas. These unclear
definitions can lead to different meanings of the values of the rupture
zone widths recorded in previous investigations. For instance, some large
earthquakes are described to have a few to tens of meters-wide single
rupture zone (Xu et al., 2002a; Guo et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2008a,
2008b; Zhao et al., 2009; Lei et al., 2015), whereas the moderate-low
magnitude earthquakes such as the 2019 Mw 4.9 Le Teil earthquake is
recorded to have a single rupture width of hundreds of meters (Ritz et al.,
2020). This paradox results from the shallow focal depth, but the 2020
Sparta earthquake with similar magnitude and focal depth has only been
recorded at 25-m-wide single rupture zone. In the statistics of our
research, we try to fathom the significance of the recorded widths in
previous literature of each case and identify whether it is a single rupture
width or a total rupture zone width. The results of statistics analyses
show that either a single rupture width or a total rupture zone width has
an irregular relationship with fault dip, magnitude, and focal depth
(Table 4, Figs. 2 and 3). However, the factors mentioned above are
currently unavoidable and lead to some errors in statistical research. The
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

Table 6
Statistical table of distance between coseismic landslide distribution peak value and fault.
The serial The date Name of the magnitude Seismogenic faults Nature of the Total number of Distance between peak Reference
number earthquake fault landslides number or area of
interpreted landslide and fault
（km)

1 1999-09-20 Chi-Chi 7.7(Mw) Chelungpu fault Thrust fault 10,100 5–10 Wang et al.
(Taiwan, (2002)
China)
2 2002-11-03 Denali Alaska 7.9(Mw) Denali Fault Strike-slip 1579 2–3 Gorum et al.
(USA) with thrust (2014)
fault
3 2005-10-08 Kashmir 7.6(Mw) Balakot–Garhi fault Thrust with 2424 0–0.5 Sato et al.
(Pakistan) dextral fault (2007)
4 2008-05-12 Wenchuan 7.9(Mw) Yingxiu-Beichuan fault Thrust with 43,866 0–5 Li (2019); Dai
(China) strike-slip et al. (2011)
fault
5 2008-05-12 Wenchuan 7.9(Mw) Yingxiu-Beichuan fault Thrust with 197,481 0–1 Xu et al.
(China) strike-slip (2014a)
fault
6 2010-04-14 Yushu (China) 6.9(Mw) Ganzi-Yushu fault Sinistral 2036 0–0.5 Xu et al.
strike-slip (2013a)
fault
7 2010-01-12 Haiti(Haiti) 7.0(Mw) Enriquillo-Plantain fault Thrust with 30,828 0–1 Xu et al.
Garden fault sinistral fault (2014b)
8 2013-04-20 Lushan 6.6(Mw) Shuangshi-Dachuan fault Thrust fault 2062 0–5 Li (2019)
(China)
9 2013-04-20 Lushan 6.6(Mw) Shuangshi-Dachuan fault Thrust fault 1013 0–3 Chang et al.
(China) (2021)
10 2013-04-20 Lushan 6.6(Mw) Shuangshi-Dachuan fault Thrust fault 688 3–4 Xu and Xiao
(China) (2013)
11 2013-07-22 Minxian 6.6(Ms) Lintan- Dangchang fault Thrust with 2330 6–7 Xu et al.
(China) sinistral fault (2013b)
12 2013-07-22 Minxian 6.6(Ms) Lintan- Dangchang fault Thrust with 6478 0–1 Tian (2017)
(China) sinistral fault
13 2014-08-03 Ludian 6.2(Mw) Xiaohe-Baogunao fault Sinistral 1052 0–2 Li (2019);
(China) strike-slip Tian et al.
fault (2015)
14 2014-08-03 Ludian 6.2(Mw) Xiaohe-Baogunao fault Sinistral 1826 0-1(NE) 5–6(SW) Zhou et al.
(China) strike-slip (2016)
fault
15 2017-08-08 Jiuzhaigou 6.5(Mw) Shuzheng fault (Ji et al., 2017) Sinistral 5655 0–2 Li (2019)
(China) strike-slip
fault
16 2017-08-08 Jiuzhaigou 6.5(Mw) The southern branch of Tazang Sinistral 821 0–3 Chang et al.
(China) fault and the northern segment strike-slip (2021)
of Huya fault fault
17 2017-11-18 Mirin (China) 6.4(Mw) Xixingla fault Thrust fault 1844 0–2 Li (2019)
18 2018-09-06 Hokkaido 6.6(Mw) Ishikari-Teichi-Toen fault Thrust fault 5258 8–10 Li (2019)
(Japan)
19 2018-09-28 Palu 7.5(Mw) Palu-Koro fault Sinistral 7632 5–10 Li (2019)
(Indonesia) strike-slip
fault
20 2020-05-18 Qiaojia 5.1(Mw) Xiaohe-Baogunao fault Sinistral 167 0–2 He et al.
(China) strike-slip (2021)
fault

most reliable method is compiling and analyzing the values of different
seismic rupture widths measured with uniform standards.
5.2. Prospect in avoiding active fault
The influence range of seismic hazards should be considered in the
policy formulation of disaster prevention and reduction. The range is
undoubtedly associated with the corresponding seismic parameters,
including magnitude, focal depth, and intensity, etc. However, since
these parameters are unpredictable, it is more common to investigate the
effect of movement types of existing active faults on the range of rupture
zone or setback distance (Xu et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2013; Zhang et al.,
2012). In this paper, we consider several parameters including earth-
quake magnitude, focal depth, and dip angle into influence factors of the
rupture zone width by statistics study. Although the data shown in
Table 5 and Fig. 3 have not shown obvious regulation yet, there is no
doubt that these parameters contribute to fault rupture. The result is
limited not only by geometric heterogeneity of faults, but also by accu-
racy and richness of statistical data. More seismic cases, more accurate
data, and more comprehensive factors are required to obtain available
models calculating avoidance zone width of various active faults.
For special construction, it is necessary to require a wider buffer zone
in avoiding active faults. According to the relationship between the
distribution of co-seismic landslides and seismogenic faults combined
with the destructiveness of landslides (Fig. 4), the distribution range of
co-seismic landslides is required to be considered for the determination
of active fault buffer zone. The statistical result indicates that a 3-km or 5-
km width of half buffer zone on one side of the fault is available, which is
consistent with the regulation of some countries or regions for some
important buildings, such as schools, hospitals, nuclear power plants,
nuclear waste disposal sites, etc. However, due to the restriction of land
area utilization rate, this relatively wide buffer zone is not available to all
ordinary residential buildings. Nevertheless, the richness and uniformity
of statistical samples still need to be improved in this aspect of study.

70
X. He et al. Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74

In addition to the impact of earthquake disasters, the damage of creep

faults should also be taken into account in avoiding active faults. Previ-
ous studies show that creep faults can also cause serious damage to
buildings and are potentially risky (Harris, 2017; He et al., 2018). For
example, it is common to see urban buildings twisted by the slowly
creeping Hayward fault in California, including abandoned schools and
the stone embankment in Hayward city park (Fig. 6; Stoffer, 2008;
Harris, 2017).
Constrained by the complexity of active faults, in addition to the
establishment of reasonable laws and regulations that is necessary for the
prevention and reduction of earthquake disasters, it is also important to
determine the activities and accurate location of faults from geologists.
Avoidance zone not only depends on the development characteristics of
active faults but is also subject to the estimated risk resistance capacity of
proposed buildings. Furthermore, the area with hospitals, high-rise build-
ings and other specific architectural structures should be investigated in
more detail, while the requirements could be loosened for structures with
lower occupancy rates, such as relatively safe timber structures.

6. Conclusions

Earthquake disaster threatens the safety of people's life and property,

Fig. 4. Statistical diagram of distance between co-seismic landslide occurrence
peak and seismogenic fault.
so avoiding seismic structure is the most effective method of disaster
prevention and mitigation. We aim to summarize the current situation
and research the progress of active fault avoidance regulations at home
and abroad and clarify the definition of avoidance zone. Additionally, we
explore the influence of fault dip angle on the width of seismic rupture
zone by statistical seismic event data and determine buffer zone by dis-
tribution of co-seismic landslides. The conclusions are as following.

Fig. 5. Special connection among the deformation zone (seismic rupture zone), setback distance and the active fault “avoidance zone” (modified from Xu et al., 2016).

Fig. 6. Building damage caused by the creep of the Hayward fault in California (Stoffer, 2008; Harris, 2017). The red line indicates the location of the Hayward fault,
and the red arrow indicates the moving direction of the right-lateral strike-slip fault.

71
X. He et al.
(1) The active fault avoidance law of California is the first to be
formulated and it is constantly updated. Many regions refer to this
set of laws and determine at least 15-m setback distance, but ac-
cording to the actual geological and housing conditions, the
avoidance zone width is different in other regions. At present, the
latest plan to be reviewed in China considers various fault pa-
rameters, which is a relatively perfect plan.
(2) No linear or trigonometric relationship between the fault dip
angle and the rupture zone width is shown in the data from
different locations of single seismic event or from 17 seismic data
with different magnitudes and focal depths. The results may also
be limited by inconsistent measurement standards for the width of
the rupture zone. Data richness and uniformity should be further
improved, and other model can also be tried in the future.
(3) In the prevention and mitigation of earthquake disasters, a wider
buffer zone of active faults is required for some important build-
ings. Based on the distance of the areas with the most co-seismic
landslides from faults, the half buffer zone on one side of faults
should be at least 3 or 5 km, which is consistent with the existing
requirements.
Conflicts of interest
There is no any conflict of interest or competing interest.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant number 42002225), the research project of Key Labo-
ratory of Deep-Earth Dynamics of Ministry of Natural Resources, (grant
number J1901). The Lhasa National Geophysical Observation and
Research Station (NORSLS20-07).
References
Ainscoe, E.A., Abdrakhmatov, K.E., Baikulov, S., Carr, A.S., Elliott, A.J., Grützner, C.,
Walker, R.T., 2018. Variability in surface rupture between successive earthquakes on
the Suusamyr Fault, Kyrgyz Tien Shan: implications for palaeoseismology. Geophys.
J. Int. 216 (1), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy457.
Akyuz, H.S., Hartleb, R., Barka, A., Altunel, E.R.H.A.N., Sunal, G., Meyer, B., Armijo, V.R.,
2002. Surface rupture and slip distribution of the 12 November 1999 Duzce
earthquake (M 7.1), north Anatolian fault, Bolu, Turkey. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92
(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000840.
Barnhart, W.D., Hayes, G.P., Briggs, R.W., Gold, R.D., Bilham, R., 2014. Ball-and-socket
tectonic rotation during the 2013 Mw7. 7 Balochistan earthquake. Earth Planet Sci.
Lett. 403, 210–216.
€
Bouchon, M., Karabulut, H., Aktar, M., Ozalaybey, S., Schmittbuhl, J., Bouin, M.P.,
Marsan, D., 2021. The nucleation of the Izmit and Düzce earthquakes: some
mechanical logic on where and how ruptures began. Geophys. J. Int. 225 (3),
1510–1517.
Bouckovalas, 2006. G. ETC-12: Geothchnical evaluation and application of the seismic
Eurocode EC8. National Technical University, Greece, pp. 55–64.
Bonilla, M.G., Buchanan, J.M., Castle, R.O., Clark, M.M., Frizzell, V.A., Gulliver, R.M.,
Miller, F.K., Pinkerton, J.P., Ross, D.C., Sharp, R.V., Yerkes, R.F., Ziony, J.I., 1971.
Surface faulting. In: The San Fernando, California, earthquake of February 9, 1971,
vol. 733. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, pp. 55–79.
Bryant, W.A., Hart, E.W., 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California. Special
Publication, vol. 42. California Department of Conservation California Geological
Survey.
Caglayan, A., Isik, V., Saber, R., 2018. Mapping active faults and establishing fault
avoidance zones: applications for disaster risk reduction in urban planning in Turkey.
The 36th National and the 3rd International Geosciences Congress.
Chang, M., Cui, P., Xu, L., Zhou, Y., 2021. The spatial distribution characteristics of
coseismic landslides triggered by the Ms7.0 Lushan earthquake and Ms7.0 Jiuzhaigou
earthquake in southwest China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (16),
20549–20569.
Chen, G.H., Li, F., Zheng, R.Z., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., Wen, X.Z., An, Y.F., Li, C.X., 2008.
Several issues in the quantitative analysis of co-seismic surface rupture produced by
reverse faults: a case study from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Seismol. Geol. 30
(3), 674–682.
Chen, Y.G., Chen, W.S., Lee, J.C., et al., 2001. Surface rupture of the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake yields insights on active tectonics of Central Taiwan. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 91 (5), 977–985.
72
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
Chen, Y.G., Chen, W.S., Wang, Y., Lo, P.W., Liu, T.K., Lee, J.C., 2002. Geomorphic
evidence for prior earthquakes: lessons from the 1999 Chichi earthquake in central
Taiwan. Geology 30 (2), 171–174.
Christenson, G.E., Batatian, L.D., Nelson, C.V., 2003. Guidelines for evaluating surface -
fault - rupture in Utah. Geological Survey, Utah, pp. 5–23.
Close, U., McCormick, E., 1922. Where the mountain walked. An account of the recent
earthquake in Gansu Province, China, which destroyed 100,000 lives. National
Geographic Maazine XLI (5), 445–464.
Cluff, L.S., Niccum, M.R., Brogan, G.E., et al., 1976. Surface fault hazard zoning: method
for regional planning and for specific site investigations. Accession Number:
00142672, Serial: Engineering Geology ＆ Soils Engineering Symp Proc. Idaho
Department of Highways, Publisher.
Dai, F.C., Xu, C., Yao, X., Xu, L., Tu, X.B., Gong, Q.M., 2011. Spatial distribution of
landslides triggered by the 2008 Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake, China. J. Asian Earth
Sci. 40 (3), 883–895.
Deng, Q.D., 1991. Progresses and frontiers in active fault research. Institute of geology,
State Seismological Bureau. In: Active Fault Research. Seismological Press, Beijing,
pp. 1–6.
Dolan, J.F., Haravitch, B.D., 2014. How well do surface slip measurements track slip at
depth in large strike-slip earthquakes? The importance of fault structural maturity in
controlling on-fault slip versus off-fault surface deformation. Earth Planet Sci. Lett.
388, 38–47 doi: 10.1016/j. epsl. 2013 .11.043.
DuRoss, C.B., Gold, R.D., Dawson, T.E., Scharer, K.M., Kendrick, K.J., Akciz, S.O.,
Zinke, R., 2020. Surface displacement distributions for the July 2019 Ridgecrest,
California, earthquake ruptures. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 110 (4), 1400–1418.
Fialko, Y., Sandwell, D., Simons, M., Rosen, P., 2005. Three-dimensional deformation
caused by the Bam, Iran, earthquake and the origin of shallow slip deficit. Nature
435, 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03425.
Figueiredo, P., Hill, J., Merschat, A., Scheip, C., Stewart, K., Owen, L., Wooten, R.,
Carter, M., Szymanski, E., Horton, S., Wegmann, K., Bohnenstiehl, D., Thompson, G.,
Witt, A., Cattanach, B., 2022. The Mw 5.1, 9 August 2020, Sparta earthquake, North
Carolina: the first documented seismic surface rupture in the eastern United States.
GSA Today (Geol. Soc. Am.) 32, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG517A.1.
Gorum, T., Koru, p O., van Westen, C.J., et al., 2014. Why so few? Landslides triggered by
the 2002 Denali earthquake, Alaska. Quat. Sci. Rev. 95, 80–94.
Guo, S.M., Xiang, H.F., Zhang, J., Hu, R.Q., Zhang, G.W., 1988. Discussion on the
deformation band and magnitude of the 1515 Yongsheng earthquake in Yunnan
Province. J. Seismol. Res. 11 (2), 43–52.
Guo, T.T., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., Yuan, R.M., Chen, G.H., 2017. Research history and current
situation of active faults and their avoidance zone width. Prog. Geophys. 32 (5),
1893–1900.
Guo, T.T., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., 2013. Research on width of surface rupture zone of thrust
earthquake and “avoiding belt” of active fault. J. Seismol. Res. 36 (3), 352–357.
Guo, T.T., Yu, G.H., Xu, X.W., 2010. Characteristics of Wenchuan earthquake disasters
and discussion on causes of buildings damage. Earthq. Resist. Eng. Retrofit. 32 (4),
125–133.
Guo, T.T., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., 2012. Disasters characteristics of 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake and analysis of buildings destruction. Appl. Mech. Mater. 204 – 208,
2505–2513.
Guo, H., Zhao, J., 2018. The surface rupture zone and paleoseismic evidence on the
seismogenic fault of the 1976 Ms 7.8 Tangshan earthquake, China. Geomorphology
327.
Harris, R.A., 2017. Large earthquakes and creeping faults. Rev. Geophys. 55, 169–198.
Hart, E.W., Bryant, W.A., 1999. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: Alquist-Priolo
earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps, vol. 42.
Division of Mines and Geology: Special Publication, California, pp. 1–38.
Hartleb, R.D., Dolan, J.F., Akyuz, H.S., Dawson, T.E., Tucker, A.Z., Yerli, B., et al., 2002.
Surface rupture and slip distribution along the Karadere segment of the 17 August
1999 Izmit and the western section of the 12 November 1999 Duzce, Turkey,
earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 (1), 67–78.
Hart, E.W., 1974. Zoning for surface fault hazards in California: the new special studies
zones maps. Calif. Geol. 27 (10), 227—230.
Hearn, E.H., Bürgmann, R., Reilinger, R.E., 2002. Dynamics of Izmit earthquake
postseismic deformation and loading of the Duzce earthquake hypocenter. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 92 (1), 172–193.
He, X.L., Li, H.B., Wang, H., Zhang, L., Xu, Z.Q., Si, J.L., 2018. Creeping along the
guanxian-anxian fault of the 2008 Mw 7.9 wenchuan earthquake in the longmen
Shan, China. Tectonics 37 (7), 2124–2141.
He, X.L., Xu, C., Qi, W.W., et al., 2021. Landslides triggered by the 2020 Qiaojia Mw5.1
earthquake, Yunnan, China: distribution, influence factors and tectonic significance.
J. Earth Sci. 32 (5), 1056–1068.
Hu, P., Ding, Y.H., Wu, H.W., Cai, Q.P., Paul Van Laak, 2013. Investigation of boundary
conditions for centrifuge modeling on the behavior of co-seismic fault dislocation.
Prog. Geophys. 28 (5), 2294–2299.
Japanese Association of Active Faults, 1980. Active faults in Japan. Tokyo University
Publishing Society, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Jaya, A., Nishikawa, O., Jumadil, S., 2019. Distribution and morphology of the surface
ruptures of the 2018 Donggala-Palu earthquake, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Earth
Planets Space 71 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1126-3.
Jenning, C.W., 1975. Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs
and thermal wells (1B750000). Colifornia Geologic Data Map Series, California
Division of Mines and Geology.
Ji, L.Y., Liu, C.J., Xu, J., Liu, L., Long, F., Zhang, Z.W., 2017. InSAR observation and
inversion of the seismogenic fault for the 2017 Jiuzhaigou Ms7.0 earthquake in
China. Chin. J. Geophys. 60 (10), 4069–4082.
X. He et al.
Jonathan, G., 1998. Guidelines for evaluating potential surface fault rupture/land
subsidence hazards in Nevada [EB/OL]. [2010-09-17]. http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/
nesc/guidelines.htm.
Kelson, K.I., Bray, J., Cluff, L., et al., 2001. Fault-related surface deformation. Earthq.
Spectra 17 (S1), 19–36.
Kaneda, H., Nakata, T., Tsutsumi, H., Kondo, H., Sugito, N., Awata, Y., et al., 2008.
Surface rupture of the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake and its active tectonic
implications. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98 (2), 521–557. https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120070073.
Klinger, Y., Michel, R., King, G.C.P., 2006. Evidence for an earthquake barrier model from
Mw similar to 7.8 Kokoxili (Tibet) earthquake slip-distribution. Earth Planet Sci. Lett.
242, 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2005.12.003.
Klinger, Y., Xu, X.W., Tapponnier, P., Van der Woerd, J., Lasserre, C., King, G., 2005.
High-resolution satellite imagery mapping of the surface rupture and slip distribution
of the Mw 7.8, 14 November 2001 Kokoxili earthquake, Kunlun Fault, Northern
Tibet, China, vol. 95. Seismological Society of America Bulletin, pp. 1970–1987 doi:
10.1785/0120040233.
Klinger, Y., 2010. Relation between continental strike slip earthquake segmentation and
thickness of the crust. J. Geophys. Res. 15, B07306. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2009JB006550.
Konagai, K., 2003. An assumed scenario for seismic fault zoning, vol. 4. Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, pp. 1–10.
Langridge, R.M., Trayes, M., Ries, W., 2011. Designing and implementing a fault
avoidance zone strategy for the Alpine fault in the West Coast region. In: Building an
Earthquake-Resilient Society. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference of
Earthquake Engineering, pp. 14–16.
Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, State Seismological Bureau, 1992. The Changma active
fault zone. Seismological Press, Beijing, p. 207 (in Chinese).
Lawson, A.C., 1908. The California earthquake of April 18, 1906. Report of the state
earthquake investigation commission. Parts 1 and 2. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication 87, 451.
Lee, C.T., Kelson, K.I., Kang, K.H., 2001. Hanging-wall deformation and its effect to
building and structures as learned from the Chelungpu faulting in the 1999 Chi-Chi,
Taiwan. In: earthquakekLohan, C.-H., Kangaroo, K.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of
International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake,18 - 20
September 2000, Taibei, Taiwan.
Lei, Q.Y., Chai, C.Z., Meng, G.K., Du, P., Wang, Y., 2015. Tectonic activity history based
method for engineering safety distance to active fault. J. Eng. Geol. 23 (1), 161–169.
Li, C.Y., Wei, Z.Y., 2009. Representative patterns of coseismic deformation along surface
rupture north to Beichuan city of 2008 Wenchuan Ms8.0 earthquake. Quat. Sci. 29
(3), 416–425.
Li, C.Y., Ye, J.Q., Xie, F.R., Zheng, W.J., Han, Y.B., Liu, Y.F., Wang, W.T., Wei, Z.Y.,
Zhao, D., Ma, B.Q., Ren, J.J., 2008b. Characteristics of the surface rupture zone of the
Ms8.0 Wenchuan earthquake, China along the segment north to Beichuan. Seismol.
Geol. 30 (3), 683–696.
Li, H.B., Wang, Z.X., Fu, X.F., Hou, L.W., Si, J.L., Qiu, Z.L., Li, N., Wu, F.Y., 2008a. The
surface rupture zone distribution of the Wenchuan earthquake (Ms 8.0) happened on
May 12th, 2008. Chin. Geol. 35 (5), 803–813.
Li, W.L., 2019. Distribution pattern and post-earthquake effect of coseismic landslides of
strong earthquakes. Chengdu University of Technology, PhD thesis (in Chinese).
Li, X.D., Zheng, J.T., Liao, Q.W., 2000. Ground deformation of the Chi-Chi Earthquake
and problems of no or limited construction on active faults. In: Collection Papers of
the 8th Taiwan Geophysics Meeting. Taibei, pp. 669–675 (in Chinese).
Li, X., Xu, X.W., Zhang, J.G., Xie, Y.Q., Yu, J., Zang, Y.Q., 2018. Surface rupture
characteristics of the seismogenic structure of the Ludian Ms 6.5 earthquake and
identification and dating of related paleoearthquakes. Earth Sci. Front. 25 (1),
227–239.
Li, Y., Huang, R.Q., Zhou, R.J., Densmore, A.L., Ellis, M.A., Yan, L., Dong, S.L.,
Richardson, N., Zhang, Y., He, Y.L., Chen, H., Qiao, B.C., Ma, B.L., 2009. Geological
background of Longmen Shan seismic belt and surface ruptures in Wenchuan
earthquake. J. Eng. Geol. 17 (1), 3–18.
Mellors, R.J., Vernon, F.L., Pavlis, G.L., Abers, G.A., Hamburger, M.W., Ghose, S.,
Iliasov, B., 1997. The Ms¼ 7.3 1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, earthquake: 1.
Constraints on fault geometry and source parameters based on aftershocks and body-
wave modeling. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87 (1), 11–22.
Meunier, P., Uchida, T., Hovius, N., 2013. Landslide patterns reveal the sources of large
earthquakes. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 363, 27–33.
Midorigawa, S., 1995. Formation mechanism and in-situ tracing of successive disasters.
Science Asahi (Urgent Supplement) 15–18 (in Japanese).
Milliner, C.W.D., Dolan, J.F., Hollingsworth, J., Leprince, S., Ayoub, F., Sammis, C.G.,
2015. Quantifying near-field and off-fault deformation patterns of the 1992 Mw7.3
Landers earthquake. G-cubed 16, 1577–1598. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014GC005693.
Nakana, T., Kumamoto, T., 2003. Land use issues against potential danger of active fault,
and active fault zones act. Active Fault Research 23, 13–18 (in Japanese).
Pathier, E., Fielding, E.J., Wright, T.J., Walker, R., Parsons, B.E., Hensley, S., 2006.
Displacement field and slip distribution of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake from SAR
imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (20).
Paolo, B., Paolo, G., 2010. Surface fault rupture hazard zoning: insights from the L'Aquila
2009 earthquake. Il Contributo Della Geologia Alla Comprensione Dei Terremoti 22
(3), 8–9.
Perrin, N.D., Wood, P.R., 2003. Defining the Wellington fault within the Urban area of
Wellington city. Institute of Geological ＆ Nuclear Science Client Report, Wellington,
pp. 6–49.
Pollitz, F.F., Nyst, M., Nishimura, T., Thatcher, W., 2005. Coseismic slip distribution of
the 1923 Kanto earthquake, Japan. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 110. B11408.
73
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
Reilinger, R.E., Ergintav, S., Buergmann, R., Mcclusky, S., Lenk, O., Barka, A., et al., 2000.
Coseismic and postseismic fault slip for the 17 August 1999, M¼7.5, Izmit, Turkey
earthquake. Science 289 (5484), 1519–1524.
Rimando, J.M., Aurelio, M.A., Dianala, J.D.B., Taguibao, K.J.L., Agustin, K.M.C.,
Berador, A.E.G., Vasquez, A.A., 2019. Coseismic ground rupture of the 15 October
2013 magnitude (Mw) 7.2 Bohol earthquake, Bohol Island, central Philippines.
Tectonics 38 (8), 2558–2580. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005503.
Rimando, R.E., Rimando, J.M., Lim, R.B., 2020. Complex shear partitioning involving the
6 February 2012 Mw 6.7 negros earthquake ground rupture in Central Philippines.
Geosciences 10 (11), 460. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10110460.
Ritz, J.F., Baize, S., Ferry, M., Larroque, C., Audin, L., Delouis, B., Mathot, E., 2020.
Surface rupture and shallow fault reactivation during the 2019 Mw 4.9 Le Teil
earthquake, France. Communications Earth & Environment 1 (1), 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-0012-z.
Robb, M.E.S., Thompson, E.M., Kieffer, D.S., et al., 2015. Geotechnical effects of the 2015
Magnitude 7. 8 Gorkha,Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks. Seismol Res. Lett. 86 (6),
1514–1523.
Sato, H.P., Hasegawa, H., Fujiwara, S., Tobita, M., Koarai, M., Une, H., et al., 2007.
Interpretation of landslide distribution triggered by the 2005 northern Pakistan
earthquake using spot 5 imagery. Landslides 4 (2), 113–122.
Scholz, C.H., 2002. The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, second ed., vol. 504.
Cambridge University Press.
Sexton, C.J., 2008. Implementing the California earthquake fault zoning act: a proposal
for change. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 14 (1), 43–51.
Shi, Z.L., Huan, W.L., Yao, G.G., Xie, Y.D., 1974. On the fracture zones of Changma
earthquake of 1932 and their causes. Acta Geophysica Sinica 17 (4), 272–290.
Singh, R., 2019. Seismic risk and house prices: evidence from earthquake fault zoning.
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 75 (MAR.), 187–209.
Stoffer, P.W., 2008. Where's the Hayward fault? A green guide to the fault. U.S. Geol.
Surv. Open File Rep. 2008–1135, 88.
Sun, X.Z., Xu, X.W., Chen, L.C., Tan, X.B., Yu, G.H., Li, Z.M., Su, G.W., Wang, J.,
Zhang, X.Q., 2012. Surface rupture features of the 2010 Yushu earthquake and its
tectonic implication. Chin. J. Geophys. 55 (1), 155–170.
Tang, C., Westen, C.J., 2018. Atlas of Wenchuan-earthquake geohazards. Science Press,
Beijing.
Tian, Y.Y., Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Wu, S.E., Chen, J., 2015. Spatial distribution analysis of
coseismic and pre-earthquake landslides triggered by the 2014 Ludian Ms6.5
earthquake. Seismology and geology. Geol. 37 (1), 291–306.
Tian, Y.Y., 2017. Spatial distribution and geometrical characteristic of landslides related
to the 2013 Minxian earthquake of Gansu Province. China University of Geosciences,
Beijing, Master’s thesis.
Tibi, R., Bock, G., Xia, Y., Baumbach, M., Grosser, H., Milkereit, C., Zschau, J., 2001.
Rupture processes of the 1999 August 17 Izmit and November 12 Düzce (Turkey)
earthquakes. Geophys. J. Int. 144 (2), F1–F7.
Tok
e, N.A., Boone, C.G., Arrowsmith, J.R., 2014. Fault zone regulation, seismic hazard,
and social vulnerability in Los Angeles, California: hazard or urban amenity? Earth\"s
Future 2 (9), 440–457.
Van, D.R., Heron, D., 2003. Earthquake fault trace survey – Kapiti Coast District. GNS
client report 2003/77.
Vallage, A., Klinger, Y., Grandin, R., Bhat, H.S., Pierrot-Deseilligny, M., 2015. Inelastic
surface deformation during the 2013 Mw 7.7 Balochistan, Pakistan, earthquake.
Geology 43 (12), 1079–1082. https://doi.org/10.1130/G37290.1.
Villamor, P., Clark, K., Watson, M., Rosenberg, M., Lukovic, B., Ries, W., Sepulveda, F.,
2015. New Zealand geothermal power plants as critical facilities: an active fault
avoidance study in the Wairakei Geothermal Field, New Zealand. In: World
Geothermal Congress 2015. International Geothermal Association.
Wang, F.W., Cheng, Q.G., Highland, L., Miyajima, M., Wang, H.B., Yan, C.G., 2009.
Preliminary investigation of some large landslides triggered by the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake, Sichuan Province, China. Landslides 6 (1), 47–54.
Wang, P., Liu, J., Sun, J., Zhang, Z.H., Xu, Q., Wen, L., Meng, Q.L., 2013. Detailed
mapping of the Xiaoyudong coseismic surface rupture of Wenchuan earthquake.
Geological Bulletin of China 32 (4), 538–562.
Wang, W.N., Hiroyuki, N., Satoshi, T., Chen, C.C., 2002. Distributions of landslides
triggered by the Chi-Chi earthquake in central Taiwan on September 21, 1999.
Journal of the Japan Landslide Society 38 (4), 318–326.
Wei, S., et al., 2011. Surficial simplicity of the 2010 el mayor–cucapah earthquake of baja
California in Mexico. Nature Geoscience 4, 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ngeo1213.
Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude,
rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Seismological
Society of America Bulletin 84, 974–1002.
Wicks Jr., C.W., Chiu, J.M., 2022. Surface rupture on a secondary fault associated with
the 8 August 2020 Mw 5.1 Sparta North Carolina earthquake. The Seismic Record 2
(1), 59–67.
Wu, D., Ren, Z., Liu, J., Chen, J., Guo, P., Yin, G., Ran, H., Li, C., Yang, X., 2021. Coseismic
surface rupture during the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu earthquake, Sulawesi Island, Indonesia.
Bulletin 133 (5–6), 1157–1166. https://doi.org/10.1130/B35597.1.
Xu, C., Xiao, J.Z., 2013. Spatial analysis of landslides triggered by the 2013 Ms7.0 Lushan
earthquake: a case study of a typical rectangle area in the northeast of Taiping town.
Seismology and Geology 35 (2), 436–451.
Xu, C., Xu, X.W., Zheng, W.J., 2013b. Compiling inventory of landslides triggered by
Minxian-Zhangxian earthquake of July 22, 2013 and their spatial distribution
analysis. Journal of Engineering Geology 21 (5), 736–749.
Xu, C., Xu, X., Yao, X., et al., 2014a. Three (nearly) complete inventories of landslides
triggered by the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Mw 7. 9 earthquake of China and their
spatial distribution statistical analysis. Landslides 11 (3), 441–461.
X. He et al.
Xu, C., 2015. Utilizing coseismic landslides to analyze the source and rupturing process of
the 2014 Ludian earthquake. Journal of Engineering Geology 23 (4), 755–759.
Xu, C., Shyu, J.B.H., Xu, X.W., 2014b. Landslides triggered by the 12 January 2010 Mw
7.0 Port-au-Prince, Haiti, earthquake: visual interpretation, inventory compiling and
spatial distribution statistical analysis. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Discussions 2 (2).
Xu, C., Xu, X., Yu, G., 2013a. Landslides triggered by slipping-fault-generated earthquake
on a plateau: an example of the 14 April 2010, Ms 7.1, Yushu, China earthquake.
Landslides 10 (4), 421–431.
Xu, X.W., Chen, G.H., 2018. Discussion and suggestion on active fault avoidance. City and
Disaster Reduction 1, 8–13.
Xu, X.W., Guo, T.T., Liu, S.Z., Yu, G.H., Chen, G.H., Wu, X.Y., 2016. Discussion on issues
associated with setback distance from active fault. Seismology and Geology 38 (3),
477–502.
Xu, X.W., Xu, C., Yu, G., Wu, X., Li, X., Zhang, J., 2015. Primary surface ruptures of the
Ludian Mw 6.2 earthquake, southeastern Tibetan plateau, China. Seismological
Research Letters 86 (6), 1622–1635.
Xu, X.W., Wen, X.Z., Ye, J.Q., Ma, B.Q., Chen, J., Zhou, R.J., He, H.L., Tian, Q.J., He, Y.L.,
Wang, Z.C., Sun, Z.M., Feng, X.J., Yu, G.H., Chen, L.C., Chen, G.H., Yu, S.E., Ran, Y.K.,
Li, X.G., Li, C.X., An, Y.F., 2008. The Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake surface ruptures
and its seismogenic structure. Seismology and Geology 30 (3), 597–629.
Xu, X.W., Yang, X.P., Yang, Z.D., 1996. Preliminary discussion on urban seismic
geological hazards and their prediction. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology 23 (3),
32–35.
Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., Ma, W.T., Ran, Y.K., Chen, G.H., Han, Z.J., Zhang, L.F., 2002a.
Evidence and methods for determining the safety distance from the potential
earthquake surface rupture on active fault (in Chinese). Seismology and Geology 24
(4), 470–483.
Xu, X.W., Zhao, B.M., Ma, S.L., Han, Z.J., Zhang, L.M., Yu, G.H., 2011. Earthquake hazard
prediction method and its application in active faults. Science Press, Beijing,
pp. 1–305.
Xu, X.W., Chen, W.B., Yu, G.H., Ma, W.T., Dai, H.G., Zhang, Z.J., Chen, Y.M., He, W.G.,
Wang, Z.J., Dang, G.M., 2002b. Characteristic features of the surface ruptures of the
Hoh Sai Hu (kunlunshan) earthquake (Ms8.1), northern Tibetan plateau, China.
Seismology and Geology 24 (1), 1–13.
Yang, H.W., Beeson, J., 2001. The setback distance concept and 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan)
earthquakekinternational conferences on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics. Paper 29.
Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K., Allen, C.R., 1997. The geology of earthquakes. Oxford University
Press, New York, New York, pp. 1–568.
Yu, G.H., Xu, X.W., Chen, G.H., Guo, T.T., Tan, X.B., Yang, H., An, Y.F., Yuan, R.M.,
Gao, X., 2009. Relationship between the localization of earthquake surface ruptures
74
Natural Hazards Research 2 (2022) 62–74
and building damages associated with the Wenchuan 8.0 earthquake. Chinese
Journal of Geophysics 52 (12), 3027–3041.
Yuan, L.X., 2005. The mechanism of loess landslide caused by earthquake in Haiyuan of
Ningxia. Northwest University, Xi’an, Doctoral thesis.
Zhang, J.Y., Bo, J.S., Yuan, Y.F., Huang, J.Y., 2012. Review of research on active fault and
its setback (in Chinese). Journal of Natural Disasters 21 (2), 9–18.
Zhang, J.Y., Bo, J.S., Li, P., Li, J.W., 2010b. Influence of surface ruptures on buildings
during Ms 7.1 Yushu earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
30 (6), 24–31.
Zhang, S.S., Huangfu, G., 1988. Study on rupture zone of 1833 Ms 8 Songming
earthquake in Yunnan province. Seismic fault research in China. Urumchi,
Volksverlag Xinjiang 25–31.
Zhang, Y.S., Sun, P., Shi, J.S., Yao, X., Xiong, T.Y., 2010a. Investigation of rupture
influenced zones and their corresponding safe distances for reconstruction after 5.12
Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Engineering Geology 18 (3), 312–319.
Zhao, J.S., Wu, J.F., Shi, L.J., Wang, W., 2009. Setback distance determination in
reconstruction along the trace of surface rupture caused by Ms8.0 Wenchuan
earthquake. Journal Of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 29 (6),
96–101.
Zheng, W.J., Li, C.Y., Wang, W.T., Yin, J.H., Wei, Z.Y., 2008. Trench logs of earthquake
scarp of the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake in the segment north of Beichuan.
Seismology and Geology 30 (3), 697–709.
Zhou, Q., Xu, X.W., Yu, G.H., Chen, X.C., He, H.L., Yin, G.M., 2008a. Investigation on
widths of surface rupture zones of the m8.0 Wenchuan earthquake, Sichuan province,
China. Seismology and Geology 30 (3), 778–787.
Zhou, R.J., Huang, R.Q., Lei, J.C., He, Y.L., Li, X.G., Wang, S.Y., Ye, Y.Q., Liu, Y.F.,
Kang, C.C., Liang, M.J., Ge, T.Y., He, Q., Huang, W., 2008b. Surface rupture and
hazard characteristics of Wenchuan earthquake with magnitude 8.0 in Sichuan
province. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics And Engineering 27 (11), 2172–2183.
Zhou, S.H., Chen, G.Q., Fang, Li, G., 2016. Distribution pattern of landslides triggered by
the 2014 Ludian earthquake of China: implications for regional threshold topography
and the seismogenic fault identification. International Journal of Geo-Information 5,
46.
Zhuang, J.Q., Peng, J.B., Xu, C., Li, Z.H., Densmore, A., Milledeg, D., Iqbal, J., Cui, Y.F.,
2018. Distribution and characteristics of loess landslides triggered by the 1920
Haiyuan earthquake, Northwest of China. Geomorphology 314, 1–12.
Zinke, R., Hollingsworth, J., Dolan, J.F., 2014. Surface slip and off-fault deformation
patterns in the 2013 Mw7.7 Balochistan, Pakistan earthquake: implications for
controls on the distribution of near-surface coseismic slip. Geochemistry, Geophysics,
Geosystems 15, 5034–5050. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005538.