Anderson’s theory of faulting Goals: 1) To understand Anderson’s theory of faulting and its...
-
Upload
kristen-beadles -
Category
Documents
-
view
239 -
download
1
Transcript of Anderson’s theory of faulting Goals: 1) To understand Anderson’s theory of faulting and its...
Anderson’s theory of faulting
Goals: 1) To understand Anderson’s theory of faulting and its implications. 2) To outline some obvious exceptions to Anderson’s theory and some possible explanations for how these exceptions work.
Primary assumptions
• Surface of the earth is not confined, and not acted on by shear stresses.
• Also, tectonic plates move parallel with Earth’s surface (unknown in 1951)
• Homogenous rocks
• Coulomb behavior
Three possible stress combinations
Hypothetically requires 2 of the 3 principal stresses to be parallel with the surface of the earth
What are they?
What kind of faults would you expect at each?
• σ1 horizontal, σ3 vertical — reverse faults
• σ1 vertical, σ3 horizontal — normal faults
• σ1 horizontal, σ3 horizontal — strike-slip
faults
Most rocks have an angle of internal friction ≈ 30°
What dip angles does Anderson’s theory predict for
– σ1 horizontal, σ3 vertical — reverse faults?
– σ1 vertical, σ3 horizontal — normal faults?
– σ1 horizontal, σ3 horizontal — strike-slip faults?
Hypothetically
Reverse faults: should form at ~30° dip
Normal faults: should form at ~60° dip
Strike-slip faults: should form at ~90° dip
Can you think of any exceptions??
Common exceptions
• Thrust faults — mechanically unfavorable
• Low-angle normal faults — mechanically very unfavorable
Possible explanations
1. Elevated pore fluid pressure
2. Pre-existing weaknesses
3. Rolling-hinge model for low-angle normal faults
1. Elevated pore fluid pressure (Pf)
High Pf can lower effective stress
σs
σn
σ1
σ3
σ1eff
σ3eff
This can activate slip on a low-angle fault
σs
σnσ1effσ3eff
However, if cohesive strength is sufficiently low...
σs
σnσ1effσ3eff
Pore-fluid-pressure mechanism requires low
σeff on fault, but high σeff in surrounding
rocks
It also doesn’t work well for low-angle normal faults
σs
σnσ1effσ3eff
2. Pre-existing anisotropy
• Bedding
• Weak layer (salt, shale)
• Foliation
Donath (1961) produced shear fractures at very low angles to σ1 in anisotropic rock
3. Rolling-hinge model for low-angle normal faults
Cartoon cross section illustrating the rolling-hinge model
RubyMountains
East HumboldtRange
Geologic map of the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range
Cross section of a low-angle normal-fault system
Cartoon cross section illustrating the rolling-hinge model