<p>Your assumption is wrong (Lathrop et al., 2022).</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/8AR5B.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/8AR5B.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The image is coming from Lathrop et al (2022) <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2022.907543/full" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Displacement/Length Scaling Relationships for Normal Faults; a Review, Critique, and Revised Compilation&quot;</a> which I invite you to read, for a review on the topic.</p>
<p>Said this, it is likely that extraterrestrial fault will have &quot;similar&quot; behavior.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-02T04:14:36.050Z
It sure looks like 0.03 is a reasonable estimate for the typical ratio of D/L in figure A?  There's certainly a range, but still a real clear consistency to D/L from small lengths to large?  So you may want to explain more how the OP is supposed to be wrong with his assumption so people get a rough idea without reading the paper, as otherwise I don't think there's anything convincing from what you say (said as someone with only very limited geological background)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-02T20:57:59.173Z
@JeopardyTempest r^2 = 0.85, for D/L=0.3 ... I will addthe  excerpt from the publication. Please note the plot is log-log, so the spread is huuuuuge.
EarlGrey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-31T20:01:07.633Z
I think you mean .03, yes?  As .3 would be above the second line down, which would seem to be rather off center?
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-01T11:01:40.403Z
@JeopardyTempest yes, sure, typo, r^2=0.85 for D/L 0.03 ... cannot correct anymore and did not find the time to expand my answer.
EarlGrey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-01T17:14:48.807Z
2023-05-01T17:14:48.807Z
EarlGrey
<p>Faults on Earth share a similar displacement/length ratio of around 0.03 which scales from very small faults to very large faults. Would this apply to faults on other planets and if so, are there any examples?</p>

<planetary-science><structural-geology><crust>
Displacement-Length scaling relationship on extraterrestrial faults
Andykins 
# Displacement-Length scaling relationship on extraterrestrial faults

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-01)

Faults on Earth share a similar displacement/length ratio of around 0.03 which scales from very small faults to very large faults. Would this apply to faults on other planets and if so, are there any examples?

**Tags:** planetary-science, structural-geology, crust


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-05-01. Score: -2

Your assumption is wrong (Lathrop et al., 2022).

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/8AR5B.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/8AR5B.jpg)

The image is coming from Lathrop et al (2022) ["Displacement/Length Scaling Relationships for Normal Faults; a Review, Critique, and Revised Compilation"](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2022.907543/full) which I invite you to read, for a review on the topic.

Said this, it is likely that extraterrestrial fault will have "similar" behavior.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: It sure looks like 0.03 is a reasonable estimate for the typical ratio of D/L in figure A?  There's certainly a range, but still a real clear consistency to D/L from small lengths to large?  So you may want to explain more how the OP is supposed to be wrong with his assumption so people get a rough idea without reading the paper, as otherwise I don't think there's anything convincing from what you say (said as someone with only very limited geological background)  
> **username_1**: @username_2 r^2 = 0.85, for D/L=0.3 ... I will addthe  excerpt from the publication. Please note the plot is log-log, so the spread is huuuuuge.  
> **username_2**: I think you mean .03, yes?  As .3 would be above the second line down, which would seem to be rather off center?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 yes, sure, typo, r^2=0.85 for D/L 0.03 ... cannot correct anymore and did not find the time to expand my answer.  

---

