JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, B05403, doi:10.

1029/2010JB007788, 2011

Scaling of fault damage zones with displacement

and the implications for fault growth processes
D. R. Faulkner,1 T. M. Mitchell,2 E. Jensen,3 and J. Cembrano4
Received 15 June 2010; revised 17 February 2011; accepted 7 March 2011; published 28 May 2011.
[1] Knowledge of the spatial extent of damage surrounding fault zones is important for
understanding crustal fluid flow and also for understanding the physical processes and
mechanics by which fault zones develop with slip. There are few data available on
the scaling of the fault damage zone with fault displacement, and of those that exist,
deriving scaling relationships is hampered by comparing faults that run through different
lithologies, have formed at different crustal depths or tectonic regimes (e.g., normal versus
strike‐slip movement). We describe new data on the microfracture damage zone width
from small displacement fault zones within the Atacama fault zone in northern Chile that
formed at ∼6 km depth within a dioritic protolith. The microfracture damage zone is shown
by an alteration halo surrounding the faults in which the density of the microfractures
is much greater than background levels in the undeformed protolith. The data show that
damage zone width increases with fault displacement and there appears to be a zero
intercept to this relationship, meaning that at zero displacement, there is no microfracture
damage zone. This is supported by field observations at fault tips that show a tapering
out of fault damage zones. These data, combined with data from the literature, indicate that
this same relationship might hold for much larger displacement faults. There is also a
distinct asymmetry to the fracture damage. Several processes for the development of the
observed scaling are discussed. The widely accepted theory of a process zone predicts
that fault damage zone width increases with fault length and thus should always be largest
at a propagating fault tip where displacement is lowest. This prediction is opposite to that
seen in the current data set, leading to suggestion that other processes, such as damage
zone growth with increasing displacement due to geometric irregularities or coseismic
damage formation might better explain the spatial extent of damage surrounding even
low‐displacement faults.
Citation: Faulkner, D. R., T. M. Mitchell, E. Jensen, and J. Cembrano (2011), Scaling of fault damage zones with displacement
and the implications for fault growth processes, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B05403, doi:10.1029/2010JB007788.

1. Introduction understanding how the damage zone scales with various fault
parameters, such as displacement or fault length, helps to
[2] Faults are composed of a high‐strain zone typically
understand the physical processes associated with fault growth
containing cataclasite, ultracataclasite, and/or gouge, sur-
or the earthquake process.
rounded by a zone of fractured rock [Chester and Logan,
[3] There are few data on the nature of the damage zone.
1986; Faulkner et al., 2010]. The damage zone has received
Studies show that, at least for low‐porosity rocks, there is
a lot of attention recently, as it is important for the flow an exponential decay of microfracture density with distance
of fluids in the crust [Townend and Zoback, 2000] and also
from a fault [Anders and Wiltschko, 1994; Vermilye and
is a key component in the energy balance of earthquakes
Scholz, 1998; Wilson et al., 2003; Mitchell and Faulkner,
[Rice et al., 2005; Kanamori and Rivera, 2006]. Furthermore, 2009]. For faults developed in higher‐porosity rocks, the
1
picture is less clear, with some studies [e.g., Anders and
Rock Deformation Laboratory, Department of Earth and Ocean Wiltschko, 1994] showing an exponential decrease in micro-
Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
2
Experimental Geophysics Laboratory, Institute for Geology, fracture density with distance from the fault core in Navajo
Mineralogy, and Geophysics, Ruhr‐University Bochum, Bochum, sandstone, whereas others have found no clear relationship
Germany. [Shipton and Cowie, 2001]. The exponential decay of micro-
3
Departamento de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Católica del fracture density with distance appears to fit with the idea of a
Norte, Antofagasta, Chile.
4
Departamento de Ingeniería Estructural y Geotécnica, Pontificia
decaying stress field with distance as is predicted by fracture
Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. mechanics models [Scholz et al., 1993].
[4] Cowie and Scholz [1992] developed a model for the
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. growth of faults based on postyield fracture mechanics. This
0148‐0227/11/2010JB007788

B05403 1 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 1. Location of the Bolfín fault within the Atacama fault system [after Cembrano et al., 2005].

made a number of predictions of the scaling relations of
faults including the fault length with displacement and the
distribution of displacement along the fault length. Many of
these relations have support from subsequent field data
[Vermilye and Scholz, 1998; Manighetti et al., 2004; Scholz
and Lawler, 2004]. Scholz et al. [1993] also made predic-
tions regarding the scaling of the damage zone width with
fault length. They predicted that the fault damage zone
width should scale linearly with the fault length at the point
where the fault tip passed by. They also noted that there was
a lack of data on the damage zone width and how it scaled
with either fault length or displacement [see Scholz et al.,
1993, Table 1]. Since the time that Scholz et al. published
their work, there have been very few studies that define the
relationship of damage zone width to fault length or dis-
placement. Part of the problem in collecting field data to
derive such a relationship is that factors such as the nature
of the protolith, depth of faulting, and tectonic environment
(e.g., normal, strike‐slip or reverse faulting) are likely to
affect the damage zone width. Consequently, it is difficult to
find a field area where faults can be studied that have a large
range in displacement magnitude, run through a single rock
type, and have formed at approximately the same depth.
[5] Vermilye and Scholz [1998] presented some data from
low‐displacement faults that showed the microfracture
damage zone width does appear to scale with fault length.
Mitchell and Faulkner [2009] showed the relationship
between microfracture damage zone and fault displacement
for faults contained within a single granodioritic protolith.
These data showed a positive correlation that also hinted at
a maximum fault damage zone width on the order of 200 m
at fault displacements ∼5 km. Mitchell and Faulkner fitted
these data with a hyperbolic function. However, the data set
only included six faults in total, owing to the lack of large
displacement structures and time constraints, as collecting
oriented samples at various distances from the fault core,
sectioning these and performing microfracture counts is very
time‐consuming.
[6] A laboratory study by Zang et al. [2000] recorded the
growth of the microfracture damage zone during quasi‐static
uniaxial deformation in Aue granite using the location of
acoustic emissions (AE) and microstructural analysis. They

2 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 2. Map of the study area. The study area is in the termination of the Bolfín fault where the defor-
mation is represented by a distributed network of low‐displacement strike‐slip faults that cut through a
single low porosity crystalline lithology, the Bolfín metadiorites. The data reported were collected along
the trace of the Parulo fault (marked) that consists of multiple small faults.

found that the cloud of AEs ahead of the fracture tip
increased in size as the length fracture increased, supporting
the process zone model.
[7] Recently, Savage and Brodsky [2011] compiled data
from a number of faults from the published literature that
give the fault damage width, defined by macrofractures,
as a function of the displacement. There is inherent scatter
in these data, owing to the problems of comparing faults
that cut through different lithologies and formed at various
depths; however, they again show a positive correlation
and also a slowing of the rate of increase of fault damage
zone width with displacement. Hence in the few studies
that have been made to date, both microfracture and
macrofracture density appear to show the same first‐
order characteristics.
[8] In this work, new field data relating fault damage zone
width with displacement are presented. The data were
collected from low‐displacement strike‐slip faults in the
Atacama desert of northern Chile and developed in low‐
porosity crystalline rocks. A key feature of the new data
set is that it was collected from faults developed at a
particular depth within a single large batholith, thereby
removing the complication of comparing faults that cut
through various dissimilar rock types and formed at differ-
ent crustal depths.
[9] The paper first describes the location and nature of the
field study area. The faults studied are then described and
the measurements presented. The implications of the data
set recorded for scaling and also fault growth processes are
then discussed.
2. Bolfín Fault Termination, Northern Chile
[10] The faults studied are part of the Atacama fault
system (AFS), which is a 1000 km long sinistral strike‐slip
structure running between Iquique (21°S) and La Serena
(30°S) (Figure 1a). The AFS formed during the Early
Cretaceous (∼125 Ma), toward the end of a magmatic arc
that dominated most of the present‐day Coastal Cordillera area.
[11] The Atacama fault system in the study area is made
of NS‐striking master faults and subsidiary NW‐striking
splay faults are organized into strike‐slip duplexes that occur
at various scales from meters to tens of kilometers. The
Coloso Duplex (Figure 1b) is one such structure [González,
1996; Cembrano et al., 2005]. The strike‐slip fault system is
excellently exposed at the surface due to the hyperarid

3 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES
Figure 3. A field photograph showing the development of
alteration “halos” surrounding faults. The halos are marked
by a light‐colored altered zone surrounding them, while
the host rock is weathered a rusty orange/brown color.
Three faults with associated halo zones are indicated to
act as examples.
environment of the Atacama desert. The fault has been
passively exhumed from depths greater than 3 km, and hence
the structures preserved at the surface are representative
of those that formed at depth. Minor recent reactivation of
the AFS has been attributed to passive responses of the AFS
to large subduction earthquakes [González et al., 2003],
but this late deformation is easily distinguishable from the
deeper‐seated one.
[12] In more detail, the Coloso duplex is flanked by two,
NNW striking, subvertical master faults (Jorgillo Fault,
Bolfin Fault) that splay off the Coloso Fault [Cembrano
et al., 2005]. These faults are in turn joined by a set of
second‐order NW‐striking and third‐order EW‐striking
imbricate splay faults (Figure 1b). Both master and subsidiary
faults of the Coloso Duplex host spatially and temporally
related epidote–chlorite–quartz–calcite veins suggesting a
strong link between fluid transport and duplex development.
[13] The study area is in the southern termination of
the Bolfín fault (Figures 1b and 2). Here, the fault terminates
in a distributed network of low‐displacement strike‐slip
fault zones in a horsetail‐type structure. A similar type
structure was described in the Sierra Nevada in California
by Kirkpatrick et al. [2008]. The faults cut through meta-
diorites that, although deformed in an earlier and higher
temperature (plastic) regime, are relatively isotropic because
they have been annealed by a late static recrystallization event
[González, 1996]. The metadiorites host meter‐wide, amphi-
4 of 11
B05403
bolitic, subvertical dykes that lie at a high angle to the later
faults and therefore form excellent displacement markers.
3. Faults Studied
[14] The faults studied are part of a population of low‐
displacement features (less than 3.5 m strike‐slip displace-
ment) surrounding the termination of a larger fault. In the
field, they are surrounded by a “halo” marked by differential
weathering, where immediately adjacent to the fault, the
dioritic protolith forms a zone that appears altered in com-
parison to the surrounding material (Figure 3). In the area,
there are a number of fractures with halo zones, and some
fractures show no offset. We interpret these as mode I
fractures. However, we made measurements on a subset
of the fractures with a strike between 120° and 160°. This
subset shows subhorizontal slickenlines, strike‐slip dis-
placements, and well‐developed halo zones. The strike‐slip
nature of the faults studied has the added advantage that the
rocks were more or less at the same crustal level during
formation and hence any depth dependency of the damage
zone formation will be minimized.
[15] Microstructural investigations show that these halo
zones appear to be related to the microfracture damage zone
that surrounds the faults (Figure 4). Figure 4a shows a thin
section scan of one of the faults, displaying the fault core
and associated halo/damage zone. Propylitic alteration of
biotite and feldspars to chlorite give the halo zone its overall
green color. Figures 4b–4f clearly show chlorite preferen-
tially forming along microfractures, which indicate an
interconnected network of microfractures along which fluid
was able to flow. Alteration is most extensive in areas where
larger intergranular microfractures crosscut many grains,
as seen in Figure 4b, where such fractures can be seen in
blue where the resin using for thin sample preparation has
infiltrated. Presumably such fractures had higher perme-
ability and provided a relatively larger flow of fluids to the
surrounding rock mass. Figures 4g and 4h show scanning
electron microprobe images of the same sample, where
extensive alteration to chlorite can be clearly seen in both
the fault core and damage zone. Figure 4h shows a good
example of alteration preferentially occurring surrounding
a microcrack. The halo zone appears to be related to a
higher incidence of microfracturing (e.g., Figure 4c which is
an example of damage close to the fault core) that has
subsequently been sealed by the chlorite mineralization
(Figures 4b–4f). This has resulted in preservation of the
microfracture damage zone during exhumation and weath-
ering of the faults at the surface (Figure 3).
[16] Engvik et al. [2005] noted similar features in higher‐
grade rocks during mode I fracturing when magma was
emplaced in dykes. They noted that microfracture densities
were an order of magnitude greater within the halo zone
than outside of it. In order to verify that the halo zone was a
product of the microfracture damage zone, we measured the
microfracture density as a function of distance from the fault
using a similar methodology as Mitchell and Faulkner
[2009] for two of our faults (Figure 5).
[17] In Figure 5 the microfracture densities as a function
of perpendicular distance for two faults that were studied
microstructurally are presented. Unlike other studies, where
quartz has been used as a proxy for the total amount of
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 4. Photomicrographs and SEM images showing the internal structure of the halo zones. (a) Pho-
tomicrograph showing the internal structure of a fault core and halo zone. The black boxes highlight the
locations of subsequent thin section images. (b) Example of more intensive chlorite alteration surrounding
intergranular microfractures. Two such cracks are highlighted here in blue where epoxy resin has pene-
trated. (c) Example of more intensive microcracking located close to the fault core. (d) Microfracture net-
work showing interconnected cracks with chlorite precipitation. (e) Expanded view of chlorite in
microcracks from Figure 4d. (f) Example of more extensive zone of chlorite alteration in a fractured feld-
spar grain. (g) Scanning electron microscope image showing the extent of chlorite alteration in both the
fault core and damage zone. Chl, Chlorite; F, Feldspar. (h) SEM image showing an example of alteration
preferentially occurring surrounding a microcrack.

microfracture damage due to its low fracture anisotropy
[Anders and Wiltschko, 1994], the microfractures were
counted in all minerals present, as no quartz was present in
the diorite protolith. The microfracture density measured is
a linear density. The fractures measured by this method are
intragranular fractures and the vast majority of them cut
right across the grain. Whether or not these fractures con-
tinue and cut other adjacent grains is not determined by this
method. The rock was composed of relatively equant grains
of amphibole and feldspar (15% quartz, 50% plagioclase,
30% amphibole, and 5% biotite). Both these minerals pos-
sess a significant fracture anisotropy but, as the rock is
isotropic and hence the minerals are randomly oriented, we
hoped that any increase in fracture density due to a favorable
orientation of the cleavage planes to the stress field would
be negligible if enough grains were included in the analysis.
Although the results do show scatter, they indicate a clear
relationship between the microfractures and the faults, sup-
porting the validity of the approach.
[18] The width of the halo zone measured in the field
compares very favorably with the width of the microfracture
damage zone measured microstructurally. For fault 2, the
halo zone width on one side of the fracture in the field was
measured at 70 mm and Figure 5 indicates that this fracture
has a microfracture damage zone width of 62 mm. A similar
correlation is found for fault 1, where the halo zone width of
23 mm compares with a microfracture damage zone width
of 25 mm.
[19] At each measurement locality, the width of the
halo zone was measured directly, together with the hori-
zontal displacement of the fault marked by an offset marker,
usually a thin leucocratic or amphibolitic dyke. The fill of
the fault was noted, as was the orientation of the fault and
any slickenlines developed. In all cases where slickenlines
were observed, they were subhorizontal (+/− 10°), indicat-
ing strike‐slip movement. Hence the horizontal offset of the
displacement markers were taken to represent the total offset
on the faults measured.
[20] Two representative measurement localities are shown
in Figure 6. They show the displacement recorded by an
offset marker and also the associated halo zone. Note that
subsidiary fractures can been seen either side of the fault,
commonly defining an asymmetric pattern that may indicate
the direction of fault propagation [see Scholz et al., 1993].

5 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 5. Microfracture densities as a function of perpendicular distance from the fault. Microfracture
counts for two faults are shown. The data show an exponential decrease in microfracture density with
distance. The microfracture damage zone width is assumed to be where the microfracture density falls
below the regional background microfracture density.

This asymmetric fracturing is often accompanied by asym-
metric damage zone widths (Figure 7). The asymmetry was
calculated by dividing the width of the halo on the side of
the fault showing the smallest damage zone by the width of
the damage zone on the opposite side. This leads to an
asymmetry of 1 if the damage is distributed evenly on each
side of the fault and zero if the damage is completely
asymmetric (i.e., a halo only appears on one side of the
fault). The positive numbers correspond to faults that
have the widest damage zone on their southwestern side,
whereas negative numbers indicate the widest zone on the
northeast side.
[21] Figure 8 shows the relationship between the halo
zone width with fault displacement. Fault displacement
varied from 12 mm to 1.5 m. There is a clear positive cor-
relation. Note the data is plotted on linear axes, as logarithmic
axes often appear to show a more clustered relationship.
Although the data show some scatter, there may be two
relationships in the data, one below ∼0.4 m displacement
(with a gradient ∼1) and one above this, where the rate of
increase of damage zone width with displacement is lower.
Additionally, the intercept of the data goes through the
origin, indicating that at the fault tip, where there is zero
displacement, the fault damage zone width would also fall
to zero. This inference from the data is also supported by
field observations; where fault tips were observed, the halo
zone pinches out (Figure 9).
4. Discussion
4.1. Scaling of the Damage Zone With Displacement
[22] The data presented are for low‐displacement (<3.5 m)
faults developed in a crystalline rock. The problem of
making comparisons of the data set with other data is that

Figure 6. Representative examples of a number of measurement sites. Note the displacement given by
the offset of a marker and the asymmetric fracture patterns shown in Figure 6b.

6 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES
Figure 7. A bar chart showing the asymmetry of the damage
development around the faults. An asymmetry of zero indi-
cates the damage is evenly distributed around the fault. An
asymmetry of 1 or −1 shows that the damage is limited to
one side of the fault only. Positive numbers indicate the widest
zone of damage is to the southwest, implying northwest prop-
agation (if a process zone model is assumed), and negative
numbers indicate the widest zone on the northeast side of
the fault, indicating southeast propagation.
other factors such as rock type, depth of faulting, tectonic
environment (e.g., strike‐slip versus extensional), and fluid
flow control the nature of the fault damage zone; hence
different data sets may not be comparable [Faulkner et al.,
2010]. Scholz et al. [1993] note that the development of
the process zone from a theoretical perspective will be rock‐
type dependent. One strength of the data set presented in this
work is that all the faults are contained within a single
lithology and hence direct comparisons may be made. The
data may also be reasonably compared with that of Mitchell
and Faulkner [2009] as their data was collected in the same
region as the present study. The depth of faulting is the
same, and the lithology through which the faults cut in the
Mitchell and Faulkner study, although different, is compa-
rable (granodiorite versus diorite). The comparison with
the Mitchell and Faulkner data set is shown in Figure 10. The
data sets are complimentary and appear to show that
the relationship shown in this work for low‐displacement
fractures holds for faults with much larger displacements
(up to 5 km).
[23] For comparison, we also show in Figure 10 the dis-
tribution of a compilation of data by Savage and Brodsky
[2011] for macrofracture damage zone width versus dis-
placement (shaded area in Figure 10). Although these data
are macrofracture damage zone widths rather than micro-
fracture damage zone widths and are collected from a wide
range of faults from various lithologies, depths, and tectonic
environments, they do show a clear relationship. There is a
fair degree of scatter in the data, and we note that the data in
Figure 10 are presented on a log‐log plot. However, the data
show the same trend as the data presented in this study and
also that of Mitchell and Faulkner [2009] and we tentatively
suggest that increasing damage zone width with displace-
ment may be universal.
7 of 11
B05403
4.2. Implications for Fault Growth Models
[24] There have been a number of suggestions made for
processes responsible for the development of off‐fault
damage [Wilson et al., 2003; Blenkinsop, 2008; Mitchell and
Faulkner, 2009]. These include damage from the coales-
cence of microfractures, damage from linking of structures
[Childs et al., 2009], damage from fault growth involving a
process zone [Cowie and Scholz, 1992], damage from con-
tinued displacement on “wavy” faults [Chester and Chester,
2000], and coseismic fracture damage [e.g., Rice et al., 2005].
Of these models, we require a damage zone width that
increases with increasing fault displacement. The asymmetry
of the damage seen (Figure 7) are best explained by the
dynamic or quasi‐static process zone models detailed below,
which would suggest the faults (or increments of move-
ment on existing faults) predominantly propagated from the
southeast toward the northwest. This would imply the low‐
displacement faults appear to have formed at some distance
from the termination of the larger Bolfín fault to the north-
west. This pattern of development of splay faults has been
suggested for areas in California and New Zealand [Scholz
et al., 2010]. Scholz et al. [2010] explained this “distal
hypothesis” by the stress shadow of the primary fault
inhibiting the development of splay faults, thereby forcing
the nucleation and growth of these faults at some distance
from the primary fault’s termination.
4.2.1. Process Zone Model
[25] The process zone model for fault growth has been
widely adopted since it was first suggested by Cowie and
Scholz [1992]. The stress at a crack tip is inversely pro-
portional to the radius of curvature of a crack tip; thus in
linear elastic fracture mechanics where a mathematically
“flat” crack is assumed, the stress is infinite. Clearly, this is
an unreasonable assumption, and some yielding of the
material around the crack tip must occur in order to limit the
stress at the crack tip to the strength of the material and
the stress intensity factor to that of the fracture toughness, a
material property [Lawn, 1993]. Cowie and Scholz [1992]
utilized a postyield fracture mechanics approach along the
Figure 8. A graph of halo zone width versus fault displace-
ment showing the data collected in this study. The data show
a positive correlation that appears as if it would go through
the origin. It appears that a different scaling might be appro-
priate above and below ∼0.4 m displacement, with a gradi-
ent ∼0.9 below 0.4 m displacement (indicated).
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 9. The nature of the halo zone at fracture terminations. The halo zone reduces to zero as the frac-
ture tips out. The arrows indicate the approximate position of the fault tip, as this is very difficult to pin-
point exactly.

lines of Dugdale [1960] to provide a physical explanation of Figure 12 shows two scenarios where faults might be
a number fault zone scaling relations. expected to grow in two different ways.
[26] In the model, the process zone is the region where [28] First, faults may grow unilaterally, that is, they
subcritical yielding of the rock occurs. The reduction of nucleate then grow in one direction only away from the
stress from the fault tip to background levels should be nucleation point (Figure 12). In this case, the damage zone
governed largely by the elastic properties of the material width where the fault nucleated, and hence had a very small
and are described by the Irwin stress functions, modified length, will be correspondingly small. The damage zone
to account for the yielding of material around the fault tip width increases toward the other fault tip. In this case, the
[Lawn, 1993]. It is well‐established that microfracture damage zone width should vary with displacement as
damage accumulates in rock at stresses well below the shown. Three different length faults are shown in Figure 12,
failure stress [Scholz, 1968; Mitchell and Faulkner, 2008] and it can be envisaged how the relationship between
and hence the decay of stress surrounding the fault tip may process zone width and displacement will look if a single
readily be associated with a decay of microfracture damage
that is often observed surrounding faults [Anders and
Wiltschko, 1994; Vermilye and Scholz, 1998; Wilson et al.,
2003; Mitchell and Faulkner, 2009]. In a linear elastic
fracture mechanics model such as that described above, the
size of damage zone around the fault tip should be constant
and not scale with either fault length or displacement.
However, the zone of “cohesion” behind the crack tip in a
postyield fracture mechanics model will scale with fault
length [Dugdale, 1960], leading to the prediction that the
zone of damage associated with this cohesion zone will
scale with fault length (Figure 11). This assumption appears
to be supported by some field data [Vermilye and Scholz,
1998]. Furthermore, the orientation of microfractures sur-
rounding low‐displacement faults has been shown to fit with
those predicted for the propagation of a mode II crack
[Vermilye and Scholz, 1998], although the picture is less
clear for larger displacement faults [Wilson et al., 2003].
[27] It might be assumed that, as fault length scales with
Figure 10. A compilation of all data for damage zone
displacement, damage zone width might also scale with
width versus displacement. Microfracture data from
displacement. However, displacement varies along the length
Mitchell and Faulkner [2009] and this work and macro-
of a fault, diminishing to zero at the fault tips (Figure 11).
fracture data (shown by the shaded area) compiled by
Hence for damage zone width scaling with displacement
Savage and Brodsky [2011].
rather than length, the picture is somewhat more complex.

8 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES
Figure 11. A schematic summary of the process zone
model for a propagating fault tip, illustrating how the dam-
age zone width scales with displacement. D1, D2, and D3
indicate the displacement of the longest fault as the tip is
approached. The length of the fault as during fault propaga-
tion is shown by L1, L2, and L3. The damage zone width
scales with the length of the fault but not necessarily with
the fault displacement, which continues to increase away
from the fault tip as the fault grows.
fault is sampled at various points along its length, or if a
population of faults is sampled, with a range of lengths and
maximum displacements. The tapering of halos at the fault
tips shown in Figure 9 could be explained by unilateral
growth if the fault nucleated at the fault tips shown and
propagated away from them. The unilateral growth model
could explain the entire data set if all the measurements
made were collected on the half of the fault length from
the nucleation site (now one fault tip) to the point (but no
further) where the maximum displacement accumulated.
Although possible, this seems very unlikely.
[29] Second, faults may grow bilaterally, where the fault
tips both migrate away from the point of nucleation of the
fault. In this case, the damage zone width will increase
toward the fault tips, where the displacement is the smallest.
In the center of the fault near to where the fault originally
nucleated, maximum displacement is expected but with a
very small damage zone width.
[30] Given that the data set presented in this paper was
derived from a population of faults and that more than one
measurement may have been made on a single fault within
that population, Figure 12 shows that it is highly unlikely
that the process zone model can account for the relationships
shown. Moreover, the data combined with the larger data set
from other faults (Figure 10) suggests the process zone
model cannot explain development of the damage zone,
even for low‐displacement faults.
4.2.2. Fault Wear Model
[31] The interaction of asperities along wavy faults such
as restraining or releasing bends could produce the scaling
9 of 11
B05403
of fault damage zones if a fractal distribution of asperities
were present along a fault. In the early history of a fault,
only the small‐scale asperities would interact, producing
small damage zone widths. As displacement accumulated,
then progressively larger asperities would interact, produc-
ing wider damage zone widths. In this model, interacting
asperities can result in stresses much greater than the fric-
tional strength of the fault. Hence the extent of the damage
zone could be significant. The orientation of microfractures
surrounding the Punchbowl fault in California were inter-
preted to best support a fault wear model for their produc-
tion [Wilson et al., 2003]. One problem with using the wavy
fault model to explain the damage zone development
observed is that it does not predict any damage asymmetry,
whereas it is observed in the data (Figure 7).
4.2.3. Coseismic Damage Models
[32] Off‐fault damage produced by the passing of a
dynamic rupture pulse might explain the scaling of damage
observed. There are several factors that will influence the
damage zone width. These include mode of rupture (e.g.,
crack‐like or as a slip pulse) and the rupture velocity.
[33] For earthquakes on preexisting faults, the ratio of slip
to length is about 10−4, as opposed to 10−2 for faults, with a
proportionately lower stress drop [Scholz, 2002]. Conse-
quently, the damage zone formed by the passage of earth-
quakes along a fault should be much narrower than that
formed by the passage of the fault tip through intact rock.
Hence, although progressively larger earthquakes on pro-
gressively longer faults might result in a positive correlation
between fault displacement and dynamic process zone
width, the extent of damage should not extend past that
formed during fault growth. Note, however, that if fault
growth itself occurs by a single seismic event or a series of
earthquakes, then coseismic damage will be significant. In
this case the stress drop and the dynamic process zone width
will be much larger. However, it seems unlikely that each
fault represents one earthquake event; the calculated mag-
nitudes from the displacements on the faults here, if each
fault formed in one event, range from M5.4 to M7.0 (using
relations from Wells and Coppersmith [1994]).
[34] If each of the faults hosted multiple earthquakes, the
zone immediately adjacent to the fault should show the
superimposed damage from several ruptures. If a significant
number of earthquakes occurred, then the smoothly varying,
exponentially decreasing microfracture densities shown in
Figure 5 could be explained, as population of earthquakes
will follow a Gutenberg‐Richter relationship. However,
if these relatively low‐displacement faults only hosted
one or two ruptures with varying magnitudes, then the
smoothly varying relationship in Figure 5 might not be
expected to result.
[35] If earthquake rupture propagates in a crack‐like
manner, then, as the rupture length grows, the damage zone
width will correspondingly increase at the propagating rup-
ture tip. Like the process zone model, the pattern of damage
will be affected by unilateral or bilateral growth. The same
patterns of damage zone width with displacement are
expected as with the process zone model (Figure 12). Early
small earthquakes will produce narrow damage zones, and
subsequent earthquake slip will increase total displacement
on the same section of the fault but will produce much nar-
rower zones of damage for the reasons stated above.
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES B05403

Figure 12. The damage patterns expected surrounding faults that propagate either unilaterally or bilat-
erally. In each case, a “population” of three faults of varying length are shown, as well as the damage
pattern surrounding them. The graphs on the right illustrate how the damage zone width would scale with
displacement for each of these faults. The red dots on the graphs represent the displacement–damage zone
width at the fault tips, with the red line connecting them illustrating how the relationship varies along the
length of the fault.

[36] It is possible that earthquake ruptures propagate as a
slip pulse rather than an expanding crack [Heaton, 1990]. In
this case, the rupture pulse will reach a maximum length that
will limit the damage zone width. This mode of rupture has
only been recognized for large ruptures [Heaton, 1990] and
it is not presently clear if low‐displacement faults such as
those measured in this study might be subject to ruptures
that reach a steady state length.
[37] During an earthquake, the damage zone width is a
function of the fracture energy, the strength drop and the
rupture velocity of an earthquake [Rice et al., 2005]. If
the fracture energy and the strength drop stay constant,
the damage zone width might be expected to scale with
rupture velocity [Engvik et al., 2005]. This process of
damage production would fit the scaling of the data pre-
sented here if earthquake damage resulted from an acceler-
ating, unilaterally propagating rupture that reaches a peak
velocity, then decelerates before arrest. Similarly, for a
bilaterally propagating rupture, if peak velocity is reached
very rapidly followed by deceleration, the damage zone
width would, in general, reduce toward the fault tip.
[38] In summary, earthquake rupture could result in the
damage zone scaling observed by some combination of uni-
lateral or bilateral propagation, rupture mode, or rupture
velocity variations. If formed by coseismic damage, it appears,
from the measured fracture density variations, most likely
that the faults formed by a single earthquake, although the
slip displacements would imply quite large earthquakes.
However, it is very difficult to constrain any of these param-
eters from the field data and consequently it is very diffi-
cult to assess whether there is some consistent combination
of coseismic processes that result in the observed scaling.
[39] In summary, it is clear that all the models discussed
above have predictions that are either in conflict with the
data or seem physically unlikely. Additional, more detailed,
field studies, such as the one presented here, are required to
expand the data sets and resolve these issues.
5. Conclusions
[40] We present new data on the scaling of fracture damage
zones with fault displacement. The data are derived from
faults that run through the same lithology and were formed
at approximately the same depth. Fault displacements range
from 12 mm to 1.5 m. There is a clear positive relationship
between displacement and fault damage zone width, which
for these faults is shown by a halo zone of microfracture
damage surrounding the fault core. The intercept of this
relationship is approximately through the origin. The data
imply that fault damage zone width increases with fault
displacement. These data are compared with other fault data
from the region of study where displacements up to 5 km
occur and also with a data set for fault damage zone width
defined by macrofractures compiled from the literature for
a variety of faults by Savage and Brodsky [Savage and
Brodsky, 2011]. The same general relationship is observed

10 of 11
B05403 FAULKNER ET AL.: SCALING OF FAULT DAMAGE ZONES
at all scales, in spite of the inherent problems associated with
comparisons of faults from a variety country rocks, depths,
and tectonic regimes.
[41] The data are not well explained by a process zone
model for fault growth. They can be explained by faults
accruing damage through the interaction of asperities with
displacement, although a coseismic origin cannot be ruled
out. A fractal distribution of asperities is required, with
smaller asperities producing damage early in the faults’ his-
tory, and the interaction of progressively larger asperities
producing wider damage zones at higher fault displacements.
[42] Acknowledgments. D.R.F.’s travel to Chile was supported by
Royal Society Short Visit Program. We thank the Universidad Católica
del Norte for hospitality and provision of field support. J.C. acknowledges
support from Fondecyt grant 1100464.
References
Anders, M. H., and D. V. Wiltschko (1994), Microfracturing, paleostress
and the growth of faults, J. Struct. Geol., 16(6), 795–815, doi:10.1016/
0191-8141(94)90146-5.
Blenkinsop, T. G. (2008), Relationships between faults, extension fractures
and veins, and stress, J. Struct. Geol., 30(5), 622–632, doi:10.1016/j.
jsg.2008.01.008.
Cembrano, J., G. Gonzalez, G. Arancibia, I. Ahumada, V. Olivares, and
V. Herrera (2005), Fault zone development and strain partitioning in
an extensional strike‐slip duplex: A case study from the Mesozoic Atacama
fault system, Northern Chile, Tectonophysics, 400(1–4), 105–125,
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2005.02.012.
Chester, F. M., and J. S. Chester (2000), Stress and deformation along
wavy frictional faults, J. Geophys. Res., 105(B10), 23,421–23,430,
doi:10.1029/2000JB900241.
Chester, F. M., and J. M. Logan (1986), Implications for mechanical‐prop-
erties of brittle faults from observations of the Punchbowl Fault Zone,
California, Pure Appl. Geophys., 124(1–2), 79–106, doi:10.1007/
BF00875720.
Childs, C., T. Manzocchi, J. J. Walsh, C. G. Bonson, A. Nicol, and M. P. J.
Schopfer (2009), A geometric model of fault zone and fault rock thick-
ness variations, J. Struct. Geol., 31(2), 117–127, doi:10.1016/j.
jsg.2008.08.009.
Cowie, P. A., and C. H. Scholz (1992), Physical explanation for the dis-
placement length relationship of faults using a post‐yield fracture‐
mechanics model, J. Struct. Geol., 14(10), 1133–1148, doi:10.1016/
0191-8141(92)90065-5.
Dugdale, D. S. (1960), Yielding of steel sheets containing slits, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, 8(2), 100–104, doi:10.1016/0022-5096(60)90013-2.
Engvik, A. K., A. Bertram, J. F. Kalthoff, B. Stockhert, H. Austrheim, and
S. Elvevold (2005), Magma‐driven hydraulic fracturing and infiltration
of fluids into the damaged host rock, an example from Dronning Maud
Land, Antarctica, J. Struct. Geol., 27(5), 839–854, doi:10.1016/j.
jsg.2005.01.009.
Faulkner, D. R., C. A. L. Jackson, R. J. Lunn, R. W. Schlische, Z. K. Shipton,
C. A. J. Wibberley, and M. O. Withjack (2010), A review of recent devel-
opments concerning the structure, mechanics and fluid flow properties of
fault zones, J. Struct. Geol., 32(11), 1557–1575, doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2010.
06.009.
González, G. (1996), Evolución tectónica de la Cordillera de la Costa de
Antofagasta (Chile): Especial referencia las deformaciones sinmagmáti-
cas del Jurásico Cretácico inferior, Berl. Geowiss. Abh., Reihe A, 181,
1–111.
González, G., J. Cembrano, D. Carrizo, A. Macci, and H. Schneider (2003),
The link between forearc tectonics and Pliocene‐Quaternary deformation
of the Coastal Cordillera, northern Chile, J. S. Am. Earth Sci., 16(5),
321–342, doi:10.1016/S0895-9811(03)00100-7.
Heaton, T. H. (1990), Evidence for and implications of self‐healing pulses
of slip in earthquake rupture, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 64(1), 1–20,
doi:10.1016/0031-9201(90)90002-F.
Kanamori, H., and L. Rivera (2006), Energy partitioning during an earth-
quake, in Earthquakes: Radiated Energy and the Physics of Faulting,
11 of 11
B05403
Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 170, edited by R. Abercrombie et al.,
pp. 3–15, AGU, Washington, D. C.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., Z. K. Shipton, J. P. Evans, S. Micklethwaite, S. J. Lim,
and P. McKillop (2008), Strike‐slip fault terminations at seismogenic
depths: The structure and kinematics of the Glacier Lakes fault, Sierra
Nevada United States, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B04304, doi:10.1029/
2007JB005311.
Lawn, B. (1993), Fracture of Brittle Solids, 378 pp., Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, U. K., doi:10.1017/CBO9780511623127.
Manighetti, I., G. King, and C. G. Sammis (2004), The role of off‐fault
damage in the evolution of normal faults, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 217
(3–4), 399–408, doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00601-0.
Mitchell, T. M., and D. R. Faulkner (2008), Experimental measurements of
permeability evolution during triaxial compression of initially intact crys-
talline rocks and implications for fluid flow in fault zones, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, B11412, doi:10.1029/2008JB005588.
Mitchell, T. M., and D. R. Faulkner (2009), The nature and origin of off‐
fault damage surrounding strike‐slip fault zones with a wide range of dis-
placements: A field study from the Atacama fault zone, northern Chile,
J. Struct. Geol., 31(8), 802–816, doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2009.05.002.
Rice, J. R., C. G. Sammis, and R. Parsons (2005), Off‐fault secondary
failure induced by a dynamic slip pulse, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95(1),
109–134, doi:10.1785/0120030166.
Savage, H. M., and E. E. Brodsky (2011), Collateral damage: Evolution
with displacement of fracture distribution and secondary fault strands
in fault damage zones, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B03405, doi:10.1029/
2010JB007665.
Scholz, C. H. (1968), Microfracturing and inelastic deformation of rock in
compression, J. Geophys. Res., 73(4), 1417–1432, doi:10.1029/
JB073i004p01417.
Scholz, C. H. (2002), The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Scholz, C. H., and T. M. Lawler (2004), Slip tapers at the tips of faults and
earthquake ruptures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L21609, doi:10.1029/
2004GL021030.
Scholz, C. H., N. H. Dawers, J. Z. Yu, M. H. Anders, and P. Cowie (1993),
Fault growth and fault scaling laws: Preliminary results, J. Geophys.
Res., 98(B12), 21,951–21,961, doi:10.1029/93JB01008.
Scholz, C. H., R. Ando, and B. E. Shaw (2010), The mechanics of first
order splay faulting: The strike‐slip case, J. Struct. Geol., 32(1), 118–126,
doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2009.10.007.
Shipton, Z. K., and P. A. Cowie (2001), Damage zone and slip‐surface evo-
lution over mm to km scales in high‐porosity Navajo sandstone, Utah,
J. Struct. Geol., 23(12), 1825–1844, doi:10.1016/S0191-8141(01)00035-9.
Townend, J., and M. D. Zoback (2000), How faulting keeps the crust
strong, Geology, 28(5), 399–402, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2000)
28<399:HFKTCS>2.0.CO;2.
Vermilye, J. M., and C. H. Scholz (1998), The process zone: A microstruc-
tural view of fault growth, J. Geophys. Res., 103(B6), 12,223–12,237,
doi:10.1029/98JB00957.
Wells, D. L., and K. J. Coppersmith (1994), New empirical relationships
among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and sur-
face displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84(4), 974–1002.
Wilson, J. E., J. S. Chester, and F. M. Chester (2003), Microfracture anal-
ysis of fault growth and wear processes, Punchbowl Fault, San Andreas
System, California, J. Struct. Geol., 25(11), 1855–1873, doi:10.1016/
S0191-8141(03)00036-1.
Zang, A., F. C. Wagner, S. Stanchits, C. Janssen, and G. Dresen (2000), Frac-
ture process zone in granite, J. Geophys. Res., 105(B10), 23,651–23,661,
doi:10.1029/2000JB900239.
J. Cembrano, Departamento de Ingeniería Estructural y Geotécnica,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860,
Santiago, Chile.
D. R. Faulkner, Rock Deformation Laboratory, Department of Earth and
Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK.
(faulkner@liv.ac.uk)
E. Jensen, Departamento de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Católica
del Norte, Avenida Angamos 0610, Antofagasta, Chile.
T. M. Mitchell, Experimental Geophysics Laboratory, Institute for
Geology, Mineralogy, and Geophysics, Ruhr‐University Bochum, D‐44780,
Bochum, Germany.