Topological analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the interactions, age relationships and kinematics of faults, and, hence,their role in making predictions about seismic hazard and subsurface fluid flow. Its application, however, requires caution. This paper examines what fault maps can reveal about the underlying topology of fault networks, highlighting the limitations imposed by data quality, mapping techniques and resolution. Three fault maps from central and southern Germany, representing different scales, are analysed to illustrate how topological methods can be used to assess map quality and resolution. Variations in geometry and topology, including differing proportions of I-, Y-, and X-nodes, are evident across maps of varying scale and resolution. The apparent connectivity of fault networks increases with resolution, as demonstrated using published maps clipped according to fault throw. Topology provides a means to assess, validate and compare fault maps, helping to identify issues such as improbable fault intersections and inconsistent abutting relationships. A high proportion of X-nodes, for example, may indicate problems with mapping or digitisation. Differences in network topology across adjacent areas may reflect variations in mapping techniques or strategies. Caution is advised when extrapolating fault network topology across scales or regions, particularly without accounting for differences in geological settings, lithologies and mapping methods. • Fault map topology is highly sensitive to resolution and interpretation style. • Higher resolution maps show greater fault connectivity and range of orientations. • Node type proportions (I, Y, X) reflect map resolution and mapping techniques. • Topological analysis can identify mapping inconsistencies and errors. • Fault maps must be critically evaluated before use in hazard or flow models.
Peacock et al. (Sun,) studied this question.