Do Graviquakes exist?

Abstract

The “Graviquake” model, proposed in 2015 as an alternative to the elastic dislocation model, posits that normal faults are passive features dominated by coseismic gravitational collapse into a dilated crustal wedge, and that normal faulting is fundamentally distinct from strike‐slip and reverse faulting. Developed using finite‐element modeling before the 2016 central Apennines earthquake sequence, the model was revamped based on interpreted Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data from these events and used as evidence for a gravitational collapse episode. However, this interpretation relies on miscalculated elevation changes and is not corroborated by independent geophysical and seismological observations. Our analysis exposes fundamental flaws in the Graviquake model. By assuming that faults are passive players, it underrepresents the dynamic role of strain accumulation and release in rocks adjacent to faults. The hypothesized rapid expulsion of overpressurized fluids appears inconsistent with observed diffusion rates and lacks supporting seismological evidence. Part of the uplifted–subsided volume imbalance is likely an artifact arising from data processing, and in part is a transient effect due to the delayed response of the lower crust. Moment tensor analyses detect no isotropic components indicative of gravitational collapse, and observed ground motion and stress‐drop levels remain fully consistent with elastic dislocation theory. In addition, finite‐element modeling of normal faulting replicates observed surface deformation without invoking a collapsing wedge. The Graviquake model proposes a representation of normal‐faulting mechanics that differs significantly from established models and observations. Gravity does play a role in normal faulting, but the elastic dislocation theory remains the definitive framework of fault mechanics. Reinterpreting the 2016 earthquakes as a cascade of gravitational episodes, based on incorrect data processing and modeling, fails to substantiate the Graviquake hypothesis. Persistence in advocating this model could mislead seismic hazard assessment and undermine our understanding of normal faulting.