TY - JOUR
T1 - Origin of fault domains and fault-domain boundaries (transfer zones and accommodation zones) in extensional provinces
T2 - Result of random nucleation and self-organized fault growth
AU - Schlische, Roy W.
AU - Withjack, Martha Oliver
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank our colleagues Rolf Ackermann, Mark Baum, Roger Buck, Amy Clifton, Dan Davis, Jennifer Elder Brady, Amber Granger, Alissa Henza, and Thorsten Nagel for many valuable discussions and insights; Charlie Wall, Frank Roof, Hemal Vora, and Brian Buckman for their excellent support in the laboratory; and Nancye Dawers and David Ferrill for their constructive reviews. We also thank the Petroleum Research Fund and the National Science Foundation for their financial support of this research. Bill Chapple and Rick Groshong have had a significant influence on this research. Bill firmly believed in understanding the mechanics of geologic processes, and he passed this belief onto all of his students (including Rick and MOW). Rick valued the importance of experimental modeling, and he revived the interest of the structural-geology community (including MOW) in experimental work. We appreciate their research contributions, their leadership in the structural-geology community, and their mentorship of their students and colleagues.
PY - 2009/9
Y1 - 2009/9
N2 - In many extensional provinces, large normal faults dip in the same direction forming fault domains. Features variously named transfer faults, transfer zones, and accommodation zones (hereafter non-genetically referred to as fault-domain boundaries) separate adjacent fault domains. Experimental modeling of distributed extension provides insights on the origin, geometry, and evolution of these fault domains and fault-domain boundaries. In our scaled models, a homogeneous layer of wet clay or dry sand overlies a latex sheet that is stretched orthogonally or obliquely between two rigid sheets. Fault domains and fault-domain boundaries develop in all models in both map view and cross-section. The number, size, and arrangement of fault domains as well as the number and orientation of fault-domain boundaries are variable, even for models with identical boundary conditions. The fault-domain boundaries in our models differ profoundly from those in many published conceptual models of transfer/accommodation zones. In our models, fault-domain boundaries are broad zones of deformation (not discrete strike-slip or oblique-slip faults), their orientations are not systematically related to the extension direction, and they can form spontaneously without any prescribed pre-existing zones of weakness. We propose that fault domains develop because early-formed faults perturb the stress field, causing new nearby faults to dip in the same direction (self-organized growth). As extension continues, faults from adjacent fault domains propagate toward each another. Because opposite-dipping faults interfere with one another in the zone of overlap, the faults stop propagating. In this case, the geometry of the domain boundaries depends on the spatial arrangement of the earliest formed faults, a result of the random distribution of the largest flaws at which the faults nucleate.
AB - In many extensional provinces, large normal faults dip in the same direction forming fault domains. Features variously named transfer faults, transfer zones, and accommodation zones (hereafter non-genetically referred to as fault-domain boundaries) separate adjacent fault domains. Experimental modeling of distributed extension provides insights on the origin, geometry, and evolution of these fault domains and fault-domain boundaries. In our scaled models, a homogeneous layer of wet clay or dry sand overlies a latex sheet that is stretched orthogonally or obliquely between two rigid sheets. Fault domains and fault-domain boundaries develop in all models in both map view and cross-section. The number, size, and arrangement of fault domains as well as the number and orientation of fault-domain boundaries are variable, even for models with identical boundary conditions. The fault-domain boundaries in our models differ profoundly from those in many published conceptual models of transfer/accommodation zones. In our models, fault-domain boundaries are broad zones of deformation (not discrete strike-slip or oblique-slip faults), their orientations are not systematically related to the extension direction, and they can form spontaneously without any prescribed pre-existing zones of weakness. We propose that fault domains develop because early-formed faults perturb the stress field, causing new nearby faults to dip in the same direction (self-organized growth). As extension continues, faults from adjacent fault domains propagate toward each another. Because opposite-dipping faults interfere with one another in the zone of overlap, the faults stop propagating. In this case, the geometry of the domain boundaries depends on the spatial arrangement of the earliest formed faults, a result of the random distribution of the largest flaws at which the faults nucleate.
KW - Experimental modeling
KW - Extension
KW - Fault growth
KW - Normal faults
KW - Transfer zones/accommodation zones
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69949084379&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69949084379&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jsg.2008.09.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jsg.2008.09.005
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:69949084379
SN - 0191-8141
VL - 31
SP - 910
EP - 925
JO - Journal of Structural Geology
JF - Journal of Structural Geology
IS - 9
ER -