Determining the potential for future rupture along a
fault can be difficult because faults differ in their behaviors.
One fault may show no activity for many centuries and then
suddenly move 30 feet (9 m) or more, whereas another fault
may exhibit virtually continuous, gradual movement and
many small earthquakes. This variability in behavior means
that geologists cannot make accurate predictions of a fault’s
future activity merely by establishing that the fault is active.
Two selected faults, though both active, may move at greatly
different intervals and exhibit equally great differences in
rates of slip. Also, the rate of slip along an individual fault
may change. The slip rate along California’s San Jacinto
Fault Zone, for example, is believed to have fluctuated by
more than 1,200%.
Another source of uncertainty in determining slip rate
and history of activity is difficulty in estimating the ages of
offset deposits or other features along a fault. In the Los
Angeles area, for example, such estimates are unreliable in
many or most locations where faults are active. Yet another
problem in determining the true slip rate for a fault is the
partial nature of information on components of slip. Data
may be restricted to either the vertical or horizontal compo-
nent. Such limited data may yield an unreliable estimate of
slip along a fault, although the horizontal or vertical compo-
nent alone may prove useful if the ratio of vertical to hori-
zontal motion along a fault is known already. (In situations
involving a strike-slip fault, where motion along a fault
is primarily horizontal, the horizontal component alone may
provide a reasonably accurate measure of the slip rate. This is
the case along the San Andreas Fault in California. Vertical
component data reportedly have provided an approximation
of true slip rates along the reverse-slip faults in California’s
Transverse Ranges.) The best information that can be sup-
plied, in many cases, is an average figure for slip rate over a
long period of time. As a rule, however, the higher the aver-
age slip rate, the more active the fault and the more closely it
bears watching as a potential source of future earthquakes.
Only in a few areas—namely, boundaries between major
plates of Earth’s crust, as along the San Andreas Fault—do
faults show very high average slip rates, perhaps a half-inch
or more per year. Active faults in other areas generally show
less slip.
The future behavior of a fault may be inferred, to some
extent at least, from evidence including the rate of slip, the
size of earthquakes and intervals between them and the
amount of slip in each incidence of movement. No one set
of criteria exists, however, for determining how active a fault
may be in the future.
Complicating such analysis further is the fact that some
active faults do not extend to the surface of Earth and, on the
surface, may display only faint evidence of recurring seismic
activity. A highly damaging earthquake that struck Coalinga,
California, in 1983 involved such a blind fault similar to
the North Ridge earthquake of 1994. Moreover, simply
establishing that a fault is active does not allow geologists
to make accurate predictions of its future activity. Ongoing
measurements of seismic activity are useful tools for estimat-
ing the likelihood of earthquakes along a given fault in the
future. Seismic data may be misleading, however, because
ongoing earthquake activity, or the absence of it, along a
fault does not necessarily reflect the potential of that fault for
generating destructive earthquakes. An active fault may have
very little potential to cause destructive earthquakes because
it gradually releases its energy through creep, without actu-
ally generating earthquakes. Also, data on seismic activity
along a particular fault may span too short a time to provide
a useful means of predicting the behavior of earthquake-
generating faults over a long period. Even when historical
records are more extensive, as in parts of Asia, great uncer-
tainties remain in reconstructing the seismic history of a given
locality or region.
Despite these limitations, certain methods exist for estimat-
ing the size and frequency of possible future earthquakes along
a fault. These methods involve, but are not limited to, analyz-
ing the earthquake history of a region to find the biggest seis-
mic event linked to a given fault and comparing a given fault’s
history of earthquake activity with that of other faults similar
in structure and tectonic characteristics. Another approach is
to use empirically established relations between earthquake
magnitude and length of faults. It is assumed that the greater
the dimensions of the fault surface involved in an earthquake,
the greater magnitude the earthquake will have. One widely
used method for estimating the most powerful earthquake
that is likely to occur on a given fault rests on the assumption
that half the total length of the fault may rupture in a particu-
lar earthquake. This approach is not fully reliable, however,
because experience has shown that a major earthquake may
involve rupture of anywhere from only a small percentage to
almost the whole extent of a fault surface that existed prior to
the earthquake. Another drawback to this method is difficulty
in measuring the length of a given fault accurately. Much of
a particular fault may lie hidden under sediment and water.
In greater Los Angeles, the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake is
thought to represent about the most powerful earthquake that
might affect that area, although an earthquake of still greater
magnitude is possible in theory. It has been suggested that the
whole San Andreas Fault might rupture in southern California,
producing a single gigantic earthquake; but there are questions
about whether or not the geology of the region would allow
such a single catastrophic event.
Semeru volcano, Java, Indonesia One of the world’s
most active volcanoes, Semeru has erupted at least 55 times
since 1818. The typical eruption has a VEI = 2–3 and pro-
duce lava flows and
NUÉE ARDENTEs on several occa-
sions. Ten of the eruptions produced fatalities including
some 600 death from lahars during the 1909 and 1981
eruptions. The current eruptive period began in 1967 and
typically produces Vulcanian-type eruptions. To date
nearly 500 people have been killed by pyroclastic flows
and avalanches.
Semisopochnoi volcanic island, Alaska, United States Semi-
sopochnoi Island is located in the western Aleutian Island
arc and consists largely of a single volcano, Pochnoi. It is the
youngest volcanic island in the western Aleutians. It is com-
posed of an older shield volcano. The central portion col-
lapsed and formed a caldera following the eruption of a
Semisopochnoi 237