Relaxing the Separation Between On-Fault and Off-Fault Seismicity Using an Empirical Mw–Deformed Area Relation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v5i1.2179Keywords:
probabilistic seismic hazard model, earthquake rupture forecast, distributed seismicityAbstract
Integrating fault‐based and distributed seismicity in earthquake rupture forecasts (ERFs) is one of the challenges in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Traditional approaches impose a sharp distinction between on-fault and off-fault earthquakes, even though real seismicity systematically violates this separation. Moreover, combining fault and distributed sources often introduces double counting in the overlapping magnitude range and produces discontinuities in spatial earthquake rates. Here we propose a physically motivated method to relax the boundary between fault and off-fault seismicity by exploiting an empirical relation between moment magnitude (Mw) and the areal extent of permanent ground deformation derived from interferometric synthetic aperture radar observations. Using a published global dataset of 96 earthquakes, we recompute log-linear regressions between Mw and deformed area for different faulting styles and use the resulting footprint as a deformation-based buffer around each modeled seismogenic structure. Within this buffer, distributed seismicity rates for magnitudes above the minimum magnitude of the fault source are reduced using a distance-dependent power-law taper and removed entirely for points lying within the surface projection of the fault. The method produces a smooth, physically interpretable transition between fault and off-fault activity, avoids double counting, and naturally accounts for overlapping influence zones of nearby faults. This deformation-based taper provides a reproducible and easily implementable framework for improving ERFs in regions where both fault sources and distributed seismicity contribute to the overall hazard.
References
Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58(5), 1583–1606. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0580051583
Cowie, P. A., Vanneste, C., & Sornette, D. (1993). Statistical physics model for the spatiotemporal evolution of faults. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 98(B12), 21809–21821. https://doi.org/10.1029/93jb02223
Field, E. H., Arrowsmith, R. J., Biasi, G. P., Bird, P., Dawson, T. E., Felzer, K. R., Jackson, D. D., Johnson, K. M., Jordan, T. H., Madden, C., Michael, A. J., Milner, K. R., Page, M. T., Parsons, T., Powers, P. M., Shaw, B. E., Thatcher, W. R., Weldon, R. J., & Zeng, Y. (2014). Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)–The Time-Independent Model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(3), 1122–1180. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130164
Gerstenberger, M. C., Bora, S., Bradley, B. A., DiCaprio, C., Kaiser, A., Manea, E. F., Nicol, A., Rollins, C., Stirling, M. W., Thingbaijam, K. K. S., Van Dissen, R. J., Abbott, E. R., Atkinson, G. M., Chamberlain, C., Christophersen, A., Clark, K., Coffey, G. L., de la Torre, C. A., Ellis, S. M., … Wotherspoon, L. M. (2023). The 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model: Process, Overview, and Results. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 114(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230182
Gómez-Novell, O., Chartier, T., García-Mayordomo, J., Ortuño, M., Masana, E., Insua-Arévalo, J. M., & Scotti, O. (2020). Modelling earthquake rupture rates in fault systems for seismic hazard assessment: The Eastern Betics Shear Zone. Engineering Geology, 265, 105452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105452
Gürpinar, A., Serva, L., Livio, F., & Rizzo, P. C. (2017). Earthquake-induced crustal deformation and consequences for fault displacement hazard analysis of nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 311, 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.11.007
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Contribution of Palaeoseismology to Seismic Hazard Assessment in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations. TECDOC Series 1767, IAEA.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2022). Seismic hazards in site evaluation for nuclear installations, Specific Safety Guides SSG‐9. International Atomic Energy Agency.
Leonard, M. (2010). Earthquake Fault Scaling: Self-Consistent Relating of Rupture Length, Width, Average Displacement, and Moment Release. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A), 1971–1988. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090189
Livio, F., & Ferrario, M. F. (2024). Empirical relation among earthquake magnitude (Mw) and deformed area as imaged by InSAR [Dataset]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11030647
Livio, F., Serva, L., & Gürpinar, A. (2017). Locating distributed faulting: Contributions from InSAR imaging to Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis (PFDHA). Quaternary International, 451, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.034
McGuire, R. K. (1995). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(5), 1275–1284. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0850051275
Meletti, C., Marzocchi, W., D’Amico, V., Lanzano, G., Luzi, L., Martinelli, F., Pace, B., Rovida, A., Taroni, M., Visini, F., Akinci, A., MPS Working Group: Anzidei, M., Avallone, A., Azzaro, R., Barani, S., Barberi, G., Barreca, G., Basili, R., Bird, P., … Zuccolo, E. (2021). The new Italian seismic hazard model (MPS19). Annals of Geophysics, 64(1), SE112. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-8579
Petersen, M. D., Shumway, A. M., Powers, P. M., Field, E. H., Moschetti, M. P., Jaiswal, K. S., Milner, K. R., Rezaeian, S., Frankel, A. D., Llenos, A. L., Michael, A. J., Altekruse, J. M., Ahdi, S. K., Withers, K. B., Mueller, C. S., Zeng, Y., Chase, R. E., Salditch, L. M., Luco, N., … Witter, R. C. (2024). The 2023 US 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications. Earthquake Spectra, 40(1), 5–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231215428
Serva, L., Livio, F. A., Bonadeo, L., & Colombo, M. (2025). The use of the area deformed by earthquakes (deformed area method) for potential fault capability assessment. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 444, 114380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2025.114380
Serva, L., Livio, F. A., & Gürpinar, A. (2019). Surface Faulting and Ground Deformation: Considerations on Their Lower Detectable Limit and on FDHA for Nuclear Installations. Earthquake Spectra, 35(4), 1821–1843. https://doi.org/10.1193/110718eqs253m
Stirling, M., McVerry, G., Gerstenberger, M., Litchfield, N., Van Dissen, R., Berryman, K., Barnes, P., Wallace, L., Villamor, P., Langridge, R., Lamarche, G., Nodder, S., Reyners, M., Bradley, B., Rhoades, D., Smith, W., Nicol, A., Pettinga, J., Clark, K., & Jacobs, K. (2012). National Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand: 2010 Update. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1514–1542. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110170
Stirling, M. W., Verry, G. H. M., & Berryman, K. R. (2002). A New Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(5), 1878–1903. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010156
Thingbaijam, K. K. S., Martin Mai, P., & Goda, K. (2017). New Empirical Earthquake Source‐Scaling Laws. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(5), 2225–2246. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170017 Valentini, A. (2020). Allowing multi-fault earthquakes and relaxing fault segmentation in Central Apennines (Italy): Hints for fault-based PSHA. Bulletin of Geophysics and Oceanography, 62(4), 647–688. https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0339
Valentini, A., Visini, F., & Pace, B. (2017). Integrating faults and past earthquakes into a probabilistic seismic hazard model for peninsular Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(11), 2017–2039. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2017-2017
Walters, R. J., Elliott, J. R., D’Agostino, N., England, P. C., Hunstad, I., Jackson, J. A., Parsons, B., Phillips, R. J., & Roberts, G. (2009). The 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (central Italy): A source mechanism and implications for seismic hazard. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(17). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009gl039337
Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84(4), 974–1002. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0840040974
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alessandro Valentini

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Funding data
-
Austrian Science Fund
Grant numbers Grant-DOI: 10.55776/PAT2160424

