Surface Rupture and Fissuring
Surface ruptures and fissures are localized ground displacements that develop in response to tensional, compressional, and shear stresses, most commonly in unconsolidated sediment, but also in rock (Arizona Geological Survey, 2020). Surface ruptures represent the upward continuation of fault slip at depth, while fissures are smaller displacements, or more distributed deformation in and around the rupture area (adapted from USGS, no date and PNSN, no date).
Primary reference(s)
Arizona Geological Survey, 2020. Earth Fissures and Ground Subsidence. Accessed 8 April 2025.
PNSN, no date. Surface rupture. Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). Accessed 8 April 2025.
USGS, no date. Surface faulting. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Accessed 8 April 2025.
Annotations
Additional scientific description
Most earthquakes are caused by displacement (sliding) of the Earth's crust along a fault. The relative motion of the crust on either side of the fault results in persistent or permanent deformation of the Earth's surface, in addition to the ground shaking resulting from the sudden release of energy during the earthquake. Surface ruptures and fissures are manifestations of this longer-term deformation, and although less dramatic, may all pose hazards during and after earthquakes (Styron, 2019).
Natural or anthropogenic ground desiccation associated with subsidence can lead to ground fissuring. Tunnelling or mining can lead to subsidence and surface rupture and /or fissuring. Ground fissures may also form as incipient indicators of land sliding, ground spreading or cambering, for example, induced by mining or karst subsidence.
Ayalew et al. (2004) suggested that ground fissures in the Ethiopian rift valley may be related to aseismic tectonic strain, piping and hydraulic compaction.
Surface ruptures and fissures can also occur in volcanic environments associated with volcanic earthquakes and ground deformation. For example, in November 2023, intense seismic swarms coupled with ground deformation associated with a magmatic intrusion on the Reykjanes Peninsula, Iceland, led to surface rupture and fissuring in the town of Grindavík, damaging infrastructure including roads and pipelines (Icelandic Meteorological Office, 2023; De Pascale et al., 2024).
Metrics and numeric limits
The size and spatial extent of surface ruptures and fissures depend on the type, magnitude and depth of the earthquake, as well as the distance from the earthquake and local geological conditions.
Surface ruptures are expected in about half of continental magnitude 6 earthquakes, with an expectation that increases to 100% for continental earthquakes with magnitude 8 and larger (Biasi and Weldon, 2006). Displacements vary from a few centimeters for earthquakes at the low end of this range, up to 15-20 m for the largest possible continental earthquakes (Biasi and Weldon, 2006). Fissures are generally much smaller and more spatially distributed than surface ruptures.
Surface rupture and fissuring will extend along the length of the earthquake fault, which can extend from a few kilometres for magnitude 6 earthquakes to over 1000 km for magnitude 9 earthquakes.
In Arizona, fissures range from discontinuous hairline fractures to open ground cracks that exceed 3 km in length, up to 7 m wide, and tens of meters deep. In this context, fissure depth is likely to reflect the depth to the groundwater (Arizona Geological Survey, 2020).
Key relevant UN convention / multilateral treaty
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
Drivers
Earthquake surface ruptures and fissures are caused by earthquakes of sufficient magnitude and proximity to the Earth’s surface to cause permanent ground deformation. Surface ruptures and fissures are generally limited to the area near the causative fault’s intersection with the Earth’s surface (Styron, 2019). Drivers of ground fissuring also include land sliding, ground spreading or cambering, for example, related to groundwater extraction or induced by mining or karst subsidence.
Impacts
Surface ruptures and fissures can cause loss of agricultural land, damage to buildings, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure (e.g., gas and water lines). In addition to the immediate, local risk posed by collapsing infrastructure, this damage may hamper rescue and rebuilding efforts by impeding transportation and utility delivery. In the worst cases, damage to lifelines may cause local flooding (e.g., water lines), environmental impacts (e.g., oil pipelines) and even highly destructive fires (gas lines) that may be more damaging than the initial earthquake. There is also potential for disruption due to flooding or re-routing of rivers, if the river channel is sufficiently modified (Holbrook and Schumm, 1999). Livestock and wildlife injury or death have been reported as well as impacts on humans (Arizona Geological Survey, 2020).
Multi-hazard context
The figure below summarises common interactions between surface ruptures and fissuring and other hazards. This information should be used with caution and not be solely relied upon in Disaster Risk Management, particularly as some interactions may not have been included. Note that hazardous events occurring together or locally in space or time may not necessarily cause, amplify or be otherwise related to each other. Specific examples of multi-hazard context can be found in the ‘Hazard drivers’ and ‘Impacts’ sections above.
Multi-hazard diagram
Risk Management
Suggested remedial measures include reducing the dependence on groundwater by using alternative sources; planning to avoid fissures when constructing infrastructure or buildings; manage drainage to avoid losses into fissures and monitor water infrastructure for flow reversal (Arizona Geological Survey, 2020).
While no technology exists for reducing these or other earthquake hazards, the risk to infrastructure posed by surface rupture and fissures can be partly mitigated by not building on known fault traces, seismic retrofitting of existing buildings, and engineering of pipelines with enough flexibility to absorb the displacement by bending and shearing, rather than breaking (e.g., USGS, 2003).
There are no specific early warning systems for surface ruptures or fissuring. However, there are early warning systems for earthquake ground shaking. These systems can be useful to mitigate the impact of surface ruptures and fissuring, by allowing the population to take protective measures (the so-called duck, cover and hold on - DCHO), or to evacuate vulnerable buildings. See profile for Earthquakes (GH0101) for additional information.
Monitoring
The section and the table below offer an overview of surface ruptures and fissuring. This information can be used for forecasting within a national early warning system (EWS). Since EWS capacities and processes differ across countries, the most current and specific information regarding EWS should be obtained from the appropriate national or regional agency/authority responsible for disaster management.
| Which institution(s) produce(s) Disaster Risk Data/Information? | Early warning systems for the main triggering hazard of surface ruptures or fissuring (i.e., earthquakes) are typically maintained by the national organizations with the remit to monitor seismic activity (e.g., USGS for the United States). |
| How is the Hazard Observed/Monitored/ Forecast? | To monitor and activate alerts for the main triggering hazard of surface ruptures or fissuring (i.e., earthquakes), a network of seismic stations/sensors is required, ideally close to the regions where earthquakes are more likely to occur. Satellite-based monitoring tools (e.g., InSAR) have become increasingly valuable in detecting surface rupture before, during, and after seismic events. |
References
Arizona Geological Survey, 2020. Earth Fissures and Ground Subsidence. Arizona Geological Survey. Accessed 16 August 2024
Biasi, G.P. and R.J. Weldon, 2006. Estimating surface rupture length and magnitude of paleoearthquakes from point measurements of rupture displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96:1612-1623.
De Pascale, G.P., Fischer, T.J., Moreland, W.M., Geirsson, H., Hrubcová, P., Drouin, V., Forester, D., Payet‐‐Clerc, M., da Silveira, D.B., Vlček, J. and Ófeigsson, B.G., 2024. On the move: 2023 observations on real time graben formation, Grindavík, Iceland. Geophysical Research Letters, 51(14), p.e2024GL110150.
Holbrook, J. and S.A. Schumm, 1999. Geomorphic and sedimentary response of rivers to tectonic deformation: a brief review and critique of a tool for recognizing subtle epeirogenic deformation in modern and ancient settings. Tectonophysics, 305:287-306.
Icelandic Meteorological Office, 2023. Reykjanes Peninsula. Icelandic Meteorological Office. News & Alerts. Accessed 31 July 2024.
Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN), no date. Surface rupture. Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN). Accessed 16 August 2024.
Styron, R., 2019. Coseismic uplift and subsidence: An underappreciated seismic threat. Global Earthquake Model Foundation (GEM) Hazard Blog. Accessed 16 August 2024.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2003. The Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline survives the quake – A triumph of science and engineering. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Accessed 16 August 2024.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), no date. Surface faulting. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Accessed 16 August 2024.