Stress State Reconstruction and Tectonic Evolution of the ... · 259 ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics,...

259

ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics, 2017, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 259–278. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2017.Original Russian Text © A.N. Moskalenko, A.K. Khudoley, R.R. Khusnitdinov, 2017, published in Geotektonika, 2017, No. 3, pp. 61–82.

Stress State Reconstruction and Tectonic Evolutionof the Northern Slope of the Baikit Anteclise, Siberian Craton,

Based on 3D Seismic DataA. N. Moskalenkoa, *, A. K. Khudoleya, and R. R. Khusnitdinovb

aSt. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, 199034, RussiabLLC GAZPROMNEFT STC, St. Petersburg, ul. Naberezhnaya reki Moiki 75–79, 190000, Russia

*e-mail: [email protected] November 20, 2016

Abstract⎯In this work, we consider application of an original method for determining the indicators of thetectonic stress fields in the northern Baikit anteclise based on 3D seismic data for further reconstruction ofthe stress state parameters when analyzing structural maps of seismic horizons and corresponded faults. Thestress state parameters are determined by the orientations of the main stress axes and shape of the stress ellip-soid. To calculate the stress state parameters from data on the spatial orientations of faults and slip vectors,we used the algorithms from quasiprimary stress computation methods and cataclastic analysis, implementedin the software products FaultKinWin and StressGeol, respectively. The results of this work show that kine-matic characteristics of faults regularly change toward the top of succession and that the stress state parame-ters are characterized by different values of the Lode–Nadai coefficient. Faults are presented as strike-slipfaults with normal or reverse component of displacement. Three stages of formation of the faults are revealed:(1) partial inversion of ancient normal faults, (2) the most intense stage with the predominance of thrust andstrike-slip faults at north-northeast orientation of an axis of the main compression, and (3) strike-slip faultsat the west-northwest orientation of an axis of the main compression. The second and third stages are pre-Vendian in age and correlate to tectonic events that took place during the evolution of the active southwesternmargin of the Siberian Craton.

Keywords: local stress state, stress fields, slip vector, seismic horizon, southwestern Siberian CratonDOI: 10.1134/S0016852117030086

INTRODUCTIONStudies of stress state parameters is an important

problem in paleotectonic reconstructions and simula-tions of regional evolutions (see [2, 8, 9, 17, 21, 22, 34–37, 39, 45], etc.). Methods for reconstructing stress stateparameters are based on the principles of transitionfrom structural–kinematic data on faults and fracturesto the parameters of stress tensors [15, 16].

Traditionally, field methods for reconstructingstress state parameters are based on distinguishingconjugate fractures, fault planes with slickensides andslickenlines, joints, or a combination of these featureswith the employment of additional data on other smallstructural forms (see [4–7, 12, 14, 16, 19, 29, 31–33,41], etc.). The present-day stress field is reconstructedby methods based on information about earthquakefocal mechanisms (see [1] and overview of methods in[16, 43]).

However, studies devoted to the methods of inves-tigating the stress state of the Earth’s crust from indi-rect data are sparse. These methods are most applica-ble to territories characterized by an absence of natural

outcrops and/or located in zones of low seismic activ-ity. These methods are, first of all, the deciphering oftopographic maps of various scales (see, e.g., [18, 20])and the method of determining the stress state fromdisplacements identified on surfaces of seismic hori-zons via reconstruction of the prefaulting positions ofseismic boundaries relative to each other [34]. In thiswork, we used a structural geological method of deter-mining the stress state parameters based on analysis ofstructural maps of 3D seismic horizons obtained bythe seismic reflection method with a common depthpoint, where the tectonic stress indicator is the vectorof slip (displacement) along a fault. This is a refine-ment of the method proposed by A.P. Gartrell [34]and was developed by the authors; it has already beenapplied when studying the Urman-Archa oil produc-tion area in Western Siberia [11]. The main aim of thiswork was to apply this method for stress state recon-struction for an object with a different tectonic settingwith dominant oblique reverse faulting slips, in con-trast to oblique normal faulting slips revealed for theUrman-Archa oil production area [11]. As an exam-

260

GEOTECTONICS Vol. 51 No. 3 2017

MOSKALENKO et al.

ple, we used the data on the Riphean complex in thenorthern limb of the Baikit anteclise. It should be notedthat similar approaches were also proposed in [40, 42],but the former only used the method for determiningthe slip vector without subsequent interpretation andthe latter mainly focused on strain analysis from theamplitudes of displacements along fault planes.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The study area is located in the southwestern Sibe-rian Craton, in the interfluve of Podkamennaya Tun-guska River. In terms of tectonics, it is located in the

northeastern Baikit anteclise and southern Kureikasyneclise (Fig. 1).

The sedimentary cover in the study area overlay theArchean–Lower Proterozoic basement and is repre-sented by Riphean–Cambrian deposits. In this work,we will mainly consider the Riphean complex.

Based on the interpretation of deep seismic transectsSB-1 (“Batholith”) and SB-3 (“Altay–Severnaya Zem-lya”), the Baikit anteclise is a gently sloping weaklyasymmetric NW-oriented structure [27]. The largestregional structure is the Kamo dome, whose structurechanges along its course from nearly symmetric gentlysloped anticline to a rise confined by steeply dipping

Fig. 1. Tectonic scheme of study area, after [26], with modifications by authors. (1) Siberian Craton boundary; (2) boundaries ofmain structures; (3) Kuyumba dome boundary; (4) study area. Location of studied region is shown in the inset map.

1 2 3 4

64°N

56°

96° 102°90° 108° 114° E

60°

K u r e i k a s y n e c l i s e

Nep

a -B

o tu o

b a a

n te c

l is e

Ne p

a -B

o tu o

b a a

n te c

l is e

Ne p

a -B

o tu o

b a a

n te c

l is e

Fore

-Pat

om tr

ough

Fore

-Pat

om tr

ough

Fore

-Pat

om tr

ough

A n g a r a - L e n a s t e pA n g a r a - L e n a s t e pA n g a r a - L e n a s t e p

Near-

Sayan–

Yenise

i

synecl

iseNear-

Sayan–

Yenise

i

synecl

iseNear-

Sayan–

Yenise

i

synecl

ise

B a i k i t a n t e c l i s e



Ba i

k al -

Pa t

om

z on

e

Ba i

k al -

Pa t

om

z on

e

Ba i

k al -

Pa t

om

z on

eYen i s e i R

a n g e

Yen i s e i Ra n g e

Yen i s e i Ra n g e

Western

Siber ian

bas in

Ka t ang a

s add l eK

a tanga

s add l eK

a tanga

s add l e

KARA SEA LAPTEV SEA

Lake Baikal

Khata

nga

Lena

Yeni

sei

ObAngara

Aldan

Niznnyaya Tunguska


STRESS STATE RECONSTRUCTION AND TECTONIC EVOLUTION 261

faults. In the central part of the Kamo dome, theKuyumba (near-dome) ENE-oriented rift and theBaikit and Engida marginal outliers (rift branches) areidentified [26]. In the sedimentary cover cross section,several large seismic megacomplexes are distin-guished; they correspond to the sedimentation cycles,marking the gradual filling of grabens and widening ofthe sedimentation basin beyond their limits. During theRiphean, sedimentation in the Baikit anteclise tookplace under the setting of consedimentation slopes pro-grading southwards and northeastwards [27].

We assumed the scheme of stratigraphic subdivisionof Riphean deposits in the Baikit anteclise (Fig. 2),which is based mainly on the data by E.M. Khabarov[24, 25], V.V. Kharakhinov, and S.I. Shlenkin [26].The age of the cross section is determined by presenceof basic-rock sills with an Ar–Ar age of around 1500 Mawhich cut Zelendukon sandstones and by the factthat the carbonate part of the cross section is referredto the Middle Riphean based on the strontium andcarbon isotope characteristics [24–26]. A consider-able number of hiatuses and unconformities arerevealed, with the most significant being the discor-dant beddings at the bases of the Yurubchen, Kop-chera, Vingol’da, and Tokur strata. Judging from thedata provided by E.M. Khabarov [25], the largestsedimentation hiatuses (at least 100 Ma long) fall inthe periods when the pre-Yurubchen and pre-Kop-chera unconformities formed.

Vendian strata are characterized by subhorizontallyposition and, at their base, overlap different Ripheanstrata (locally, also crystalline basement rocks) with anangular unconformity. Although the dip angles ofRiphean rocks are generally insignificant, they are upto 30°–50° in the near-fault zones [25, 26]. The Riph-ean complex is partitioned by faults with displacementamplitudes of more than 1 km and which are alsooverlain by Vendian rocks. In the Vendian complexes,these faults are not observed. The deformation time islimited to the age of the youngest Riphean rocks(about 1000 Ma) and to Vendian age. Taking intoaccount the common distribution of thrusts, thesedeformations were most likely associated with accre-tionary and collisional events that took place on theadjacent margin of the Siberian Craton exposed in theYenisei Range. Here, transformation of the passivemargin into active one occurred at ca. 800 Ma and,judging by the ages of collisional granites and meta-morphism, the most intense deformations occurred atca. 760–750 and 685–600 Ma [3].

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODWhen studying the stress state parameters for the

Riphean complex in the study area, we used themethod of determining the kinematic characteristicsof faults from analyzing the 3D seismic data (Fig. 3).In the structural map of the reflecting horizon, weselected a characteristic landform (positive for anti-

cline or negative for anticline) identified both in thehanging and foot wall of the fault. For the chosenstructure, the trace of its axial surface was outlined inthe map (this trace is pierced when the fault crossesthis structure). We determined the coordinates for thepoints where the axial surface trace is pierced, whereasthe vector joining the separated fragments of the struc-ture is the slip vector (displacement). Using the avail-able software tools, we determined the occurrence ele-ments of the fault fragment within which the slip vec-tor is located; this eventually determined both the totalkinematic characteristics of the fault and the amplitudeof displacement along it (see Fig. 3). In this case, therespective fragment of the fault and the slip vectorlocated on it can be considered as analogs of slickensidesurfaces and slickenlines on the fault planes, so theirfurther processing can use similar methods.

Reconstruction of stress state parameters in thisapproach implies the following four stages:

(1) selection of structural maps of seismic horizonsfor further structural–geological reconstructions;

(2) determination of the kinematic characteristicsof faults from analysis of the structural maps of seismichorizons;

(3) creation of a database containing the character-istics of faults and slip vectors;

(4) reconstruction of the stress state parameters.

Initial DataThe main data source for calculating the stress state

parameters involves structural maps of seismic hori-zons obtained by the 3D SRM–CDP method andcontaining the faults interpreted in them. Structuralmaps were chosen in association with LLC GAZ-PROMNEFT STC. For further interpretation, weselected three seismic horizons which are interpretedwith highest confidence (upsection): R4 (at the base ofthe Madra stratum), R3 (near the top of the Kopcherastratum), and R2, (near the base of the Tokur stratum)(see Fig. 2). These horizons contain faults with deter-minable kinematic characteristics that is necessary forfurther reconstruction of stress fields.

Determination of the Fault KinematicsThe slip vectors were determined from structural

maps of the R4, R3, and R2 seismic horizons inter-preted in the Riphean cross section (Figs. 4–6). Itshould be noted that this method of slip vectors deter-mination is largely subjective, because anticline andsyncline structures that could be unambiguously iden-tified and correlated on both fault walls are quite rare.In order to increase the reliability of their identifica-tion, surface maps of the seismic horizons were ana-lyzed by two ways: (a) manual drawing of the axial sur-face trace on an isoline map of differences in altitude;(b) on a map showing the surface curvature of the seis-

262


MOSKALENKO et al.

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic section of northern Baikit anteclise, after [24–26], with additions by authors. (1) Sandstones, (2) siltstones,(3) organic-rich mudstones, (4) mudstones, (5) limestones, (6) dolomites, (7) sandy dolomites, (8) silty dolomites, (9) stromat-olite dolomites, (10) crystalline basement, (11) unconformity.

Rip

hean

(RF

)

Low

er (R

F1)

Mid

dle

(RF

2)

Kam

o

Zel

endu

-ko

nVe

dres

heM

adra

Yuru

bche

n

Dol-gokto

Kuy

umba

Kop

-ch

era

Yukt

eR

asso

lka

Vin

gol’d

aTo

kur

Irem

eken

>20

0up

to 3

00ab

out 3

0050

0–55

010

0– 120

500–

600

110– 120

400–

420

120–

180

up to

600

120– 130

mor

eth

an 2

00

AR-(PR1?) >28

0

R4

R3

R2E

onot

hem

,eo

n

Era

them

,er

a

Seri

es

Form

atio

n

Thi

ckne

ss,

m Lithology Sei smichor izons

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11



Fig. 3. Scheme of slip vector determination from fault parameters. Angle α is acute angle between slip vector and direction of faultplane dipping; its determines the ratio between normal or reverse faulting and strike-slip components.

Boundaries of fault fragmentfor which occurrence

elements are determined

Fault plane

Slip vector

Trace of axial surfaceof anticline fold

Piercing pointsof axial surface trace

(x1, y1, z1)(x2, y2, z2)

z

yx

αα

mic horizon. The more rigourous method of drawingthe axial surface trace implies visual analysis of themorphology of seismic horizons and tracking of simi-lar structures in both the hanging wall and footwall ofthe fault. The difference in depth between adjacentisolines is 50 m, so in many cases, fold structures arenot very clearly identified. In order to obtain a clearerdrawing of the structure from whose displacement it ispossible to determine the slip vector, the intervalbetween isolines was reduced to 30 m, because resolv-ing power of the seismic data is 25–30 m. Sometimes,for more accurate location of piercing points in theaxial surface trace, fragments of the seismic horizonsurface were considered at some angle to the horizon-tal plane, with the vertical scale increased relative tothe horizontal (Fig. 7a). However, the second drawingmethod mathematically calculates the curvature coef-ficient for the seismic horizon surface, where the max-imum values of the surface curvature coefficient cor-respond to the case of the axial surface trace of an anti-cline in a syncline structure. Importantly, the use ofdisplacement of the axial surface trace to infer thekinematic characteristics of a fault is possible only ifthis fault had cut the already formed folds. Faults cutfold structures whose orientations are close to perpen-dicular relative to these faults; the fault surfacesremain unchanged and did not undego folded defor-mations (see Fig. 7). These considerations help us toconclude that in the selected examples faults formedafter folds.

After all slip vectors are determined, the observa-tion points and vectors proper are drawn on the mapwith subsequent checking of the reliability of dataaccording to two main criteria: (1) a similar kinematics

should be observed at different horizons for the samefault or a segment of it (e.g., fault segments whereright-lateral strike-slip was identified at the R3 hori-zon, while left-lateral strike-slip at the R2 and R4 hori-zons were excluded from further consideration);(2) the kinematic characteristics should not changefrequently within the limits of one fault (in particular,we excluded from further consideration faults andfragments within whose limits right- and left-lateralstrike-slip alternated in an irregular manner). Never-theless, we took into consideration the fact that oppo-sitely directed strike-slip could be a response to thrust-ing for curvilinear faults [44].

Creation of DatabasesAfter sorting out the insufficiently reliable slip vec-

tors, the data on the kinematic characteristics of faultswere summarized in a database (Table 1), which con-tained the following measurement characteristics usedfor stress state reconstruction:

(1) number of measurement on the map;(2) occurrence elements of a fault fragment;(3) occurrence elements of a slip vector;(4) orientation of a slip vector in the fault plane

(rake);(5) angle α showing the deviation of a slip vector

from the fault plane, i.e., indicating the value of shearcomponent (see Fig. 2);

(6) fault type (right-lateral strike-slip, normal fault,etc.);

(7) characteristics of the value of a slip vector (ver-tical, horizontal, and total displacement).

264


MOSKALENKO et al.

Fig.

4. S

eism

ic h

oriz

on R

4 with

indi

cate

d lo

catio

ns o

f mea

sure

men

ts a

nd n

umbe

rs o

f slip

vec

tors

. Fau

lts a

re re

pres

ente

d as

bla

ck li

nes.

Slip

vec

tor n

umbe

rs c

orre

spon

d to

thos

ein

Tab

le 1

.

N

50 k

m

–30

00

–350

0

–400

0–450

0–

5000

–55

00

–450

0

–3000

–35

00

–3500 –

4000

–300

0

–2500 –

3000

–25

00

–25

00

–2500

–200

0

–300

0–2

500

–350

0

–400

0

–30

00 –35

00

–40

00

–45

00

–400

0–4

500

–350

0

–45

00

–500

0

–550

0

–60

00–

6500

–60

00

–5500

–55

00

–500

0

–600

0

–650

0

–60

00

–400

0

–5000

–550

0–

5500

–50

00–4

500

–500

0

–40

00

–4000

–4500

–45

00

–45

00–

4500

–4000

–45

00–

4500

–40

00

–45

00–

4000

–3500

–3000 –30

00

–30

00

–30

00

–25

00

–45

00

–50

00

–5000

–35

00

–30

00

–25

00

–3000

–250

0

–3000

–250

0

–250

0

–3000

–2500

–3500

–3500

–3500

–35

00

–3000

–250

0

–20

00

–550

0

–50

00

–450

0–

4000

–35

001122

151515

20 2020

272727303030

39 3939

434343

47 4747

99

34 3434

36 3636

37 3737383838

353535

484848

3344

88

55

101010

12121216 1616

191919

22 2222

232323242424

28 2828

292929

313131

333333

40 4040414141

424242

44 4444 46464645 4545

66

11 1111131313

14 1414

18 1818

21 2121

323232

25 2525

77

262626

171717



Fig. 5. Seismic horizon R3 with indicated locations of measurements and numbers of slip vectors. Faults are represented as blacklines. Slip vector numbers correspond to those in Table 1.

50 k

m50

km

50 k

m

NN–2

500

–250

0–2

500

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–3000

–3000

–3000

–35

00–

3500

–35

00

–40

00–

4000

–40

00

–45

00–

4500

–45

00

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–35

00–

3500

–35

00

–35

00–

3500

–35

00

–40

00–

4000

–40

00

–250

0–2

500

–250

0

–300

0–3

000

–300

0 –35

00–3

500

–350

0

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–400

0–4

000

–400

0

–4500

–4500

–4500

–50

00–

5000

–50

00

–450

0–4

500

–450

0

–50

00–

5000

–50

00

–5000–5000–5000

–450

0–4

500

–450

0

–45

00–

4500

–45

00

–4000

–4000

–4000

–450

0–4

500

–450

0

–3000

–3000

–3000

–250

0–2

500

–250

0

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–35

00–

3500

–35

00

–40

00–

4000

–40

00–4

500

–450

0–4

500

–400

0–4

000

–400

0–

4000

–40

00–

4000

–40

00–

4000

–40

00

–350

0–3

500

–350

0

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–35

00–

3500

–35

00–

3500

–35

00–

3500 –30

00–

3000

–30

00

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–350

0–3

500

–350

0

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–350

0–3

500

–350

0

–3000–3000–3000

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–30

00–

3000

–30

00–3

500

–350

0–3

500

–250

0–2

500

–250

0

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–200

0–2

000

–200

0

–3000–3000–3000

–3500

–3500

–3500

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–250

0–2

500

–250

0

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–35

00–

3500

–35

00

–40

00–

4000

–40

00

–45

00–

4500

–45

00

–200

0–2

000

–200

0

–2000–2000–2000

–2100

–2100

–2100

–21

00–

2100

–21

00

–210

0–2

100

–210

0

4455

6677

14 1414

292929161616

18 1818222222

212121

242424232323

252525262626

27 2727

22

88

28 2828

11

33

99

10101011 1111

131313151515

12 1212

171717

20 2020191919

Reconstruction of Stress State ParametersTo calculate the stress state parameters from the data

on spatial orientation of fault and slip vectors, we usedcalculation algorithms from quasiprimary stresses and

cataclastic analysis methods. Since there are compres-sive stresses almost everywhere at crustal depths due tothe effect of mass forces, we used the following indicesand names for main stress axes: axis of maximum stress

266


MOSKALENKO et al.

Fig.

6. S

eism

ic h

oriz

on R

2 with

indi

cate

d lo

catio

ns o

f mea

sure

men

ts a

nd n

umbe

rs o

f slip

vec

tors

. Fau

lts a

re re

pres

ente

d as

bla

ck li

nes.

Slip

vec

tor n

umbe

rs c

orre

spon

d to

thos

ein

Tab

le 1

.

50 k

m50

km

50 k

m

NN–

2500

–25

00–

2500

–27

50–

2750

–27

50 –25

00–

2500

–25

00

–27

50–

2750

–27

50

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–325

0–3

250

–325

0–2

500

–250

0–2

500

–27

50–

2750

–27

50

–250

0–2

500

–250

0

–2750 –2750 –2750

–3000 –3000 –3000

–300

0–3

000

–300

0

–325

0–3

250

–325

0

–300

0–3

000

–300

0–3

000

–300

0–3

000 –27

50–

2750

–27

50

–250

0–2

500

–250

0–

2500

–25

00–

2500

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–200

0–2

000

–200

0

–200

0–2

000

–200

0 –22

50–

2250

–22

50

–2500–2500–2500

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–2250

–2250

–2250

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–200

0–2

000

–200

0

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–30

00–

3000

–30

00

–27

50–

2750

–27

50

–25

00–

2500

–25

00

–22

50–

2250

–22

50

1133

8822

44

99

11 1111

5577

101010

171717

151515

131313

161616181818

191919

66

121212

14 1414



or compression (σ1), intermediate axis (σ2), and axis ofminimum stress or deviatoric tension (σ3).

The quasiprimary stresses method is based on theregularities of destruction of fractured rocks and onthe criteria of strength on the largest tangential stresses[14, 16, 29]. The essence of this method is that eachslip vector (disregarding whether it was a slickenline ata crack or a documented displacement along a largefault) corresponds to a local stress state where the axesof maximum stress and deviatoric tension are in oneplane running through the slip vector perpendicular tothe fault plane and are oriented at an angle of 45° tothe slip vector. After this information is collected on allavailable slip vectors, it is processed by statisticalmethods to obtain the orientations of the main stressaxes. This method was developed independently byV.D. Parfenov [14] and J. Angelier [32]; however,implementation of the method in a form of simple-to-use software (FaultKinWin) was proposed only byR. Allmendinger et al. [31, 41]. A shortcoming of thismethod is the assumption that the compression anddeviatoric tension axes are always oriented at 45° to theslip vector. Such a condition is satisfied only on aver-age, whereas individual measurements show anglesdiffering from this value; as well, this is not alwaysvalid in the case when faults with similar orientationdominate. For example, if only a sole fracture systemis clearly identified in the strike-slip zone due to somereasons (e.g., Riedel fractures or coupled Riedel frac-tures), then the error in determining the orientations

of the compression and deviatoric tension axes can beup to 15°–20°. This is why it is important to have bothfaults of various orientations and slip vectors and aconsiderable database for calculations by the Fault-KinWin software.

Cataclastic analysis was developed by Yu.L. Rebe-tsky [16]; it uses common energy statements of con-temporary plasticity theory and makes it possible tocalculate in one mode both the parameters of stresstensor and augmentation tensor of quasiplastic strain.The obtained stress tensor in every studied volumecharacterizes the stress field at a given point (localstress state). Using cataclastic analysis, we find thestress state for which every shear from the samplingleads to a decrease in elastic energy (the slip vector anddirection of tangential stress on the shear plane shouldform an acute angle), whereas the maximum release ofelastic energy is attained on the aggregate shears of thesampling. Based on these mechanical statements, thesoftware subdivides the available database into homo-geneous samplings of shear cracks to enable us to dis-tinguish several stress states from the one initial popu-lation of data (formation of two and more homoge-neous samplings of cracks). The important differenceof the cataclastic analysis from the method of quasi-primary stresses is that (a) tensor of increase of qua-siplastic deformation is simultaneously calculated and(b) orientations of main axes of stress tensor are found.Another advantage of cataclastic analysis is that we cancalculate the Lode–Nadai coefficient from reducedstresses characterizing the ratio between the main val-

Fig. 7. Determination of slip vector from seismic horizon R2: (a) view at angle to seismic horizon with fault plane shown in gray;(b) view from above. Numbers of measurements correspond to analogous ones in Fig. 6. Dashed line indicates trace of axial sur-face; black arrow denotes slip vector.

888

99

101010

2000 m

N

–2500 m–2600 m

–2700 m

–2800 m

–2700 m

–2800 m

(b)

88

–2800 m

–2850 m

99

–250

0 m

–255

0 m

3100 m

(a)

268


MOSKALENKO et al.Ta

ble

1.K

inem

atic

cha

ract

eris

tics o

f fau

lts

Dat

a po

int

Faul

t pla

neSl

ip v

ecto

r

Ang

le α

Sens

e of

Slip

Mov

emen

t am

plitu

de, m

dip

azim

uth

dip

angl

etr

end

plun

geve

rtic

al

disp

lace

men

tho

rizo

ntal

di

spla

cem

ent

tota

l di

spla

cem

ent

Hor

izon

R2

116

180

728

82T

R25

030

039

1

215

289

622

88T

R50

1003

1004

329

589

205

685

TR

120

1125

1131

426

988

359

1080

TL

6034

434

95

286

8019

62

88T

R70

1612

1613

628

385

147

83N

R11

088

789

37

166

8976

387

NL

5092

292

38

282

7219

45

85N

L10

012

4712

519

276

7218

63

87N

L50

863

864

1012

688

368

82N

L25

017

1117

2911

179

8690

2070

TR

330

896

955

1217

083

258

1674

TL

160

559

581

1317

083

259

981

TL

140

871

882

1419

388

283

387

TL

6011

0811

1015

214

8730

514

76N

R12

047

248

716

163

8725

36

84T

L90

919

923

1713

289

222

1674

TL

140

481

501

1815

189

241

1079

TL

8043

544

219

6286

333

1575

TR

210

763

792

Hor

izon

R3

131

181

417

83T

L12

093

394

1

216

359

766

83T

R20

019

4019

50

332

478

139

2366

TL

260

620

672

436

087

271

2763

TR

500

385

631

528

8811

860

29T

L60

033

668

7



624

8210

932

57T

L26

041

949

3

728

272

192

1080

NL

120

664

675

827

672

188

783

NL

4030

030

3

912

488

3413

77N

L11

049

550

7

1027

785

188

1377

TR

8034

135

0

1180

8816

917

73N

R19

061

464

2

1220

789

297

1872

NR

280

859

903

1321

087

120

1575

TR

150

545

566

1419

380

282

884

TR

8054

555

1

1517

888

358

1080

TL

450

2603

2642

1615

180

6521

69T

R40

077

487

1

1714

471

225

2465

TL

360

808

885

1817

485

8733

57T

R86

094

712

80

1916

486

7624

66T

R68

015

4716

90

2013

473

216

2266

TL

510

1271

1370

2116

588

7626

64T

R27

059

064

9

2218

572

104

2663

TR

580

1166

1302

2312

173

3720

69T

R14

038

340

8

2411

573

3015

74T

R11

040

241

7

2520

488

114

783

NL

170

1415

1425

2619

688

107

3357

TR

370

565

675

2734

282

254

1773

TR

250

815

853

2815

679

240

2763

TR

190

331

382

2931

8912

11

89N

R50

1455

1456

Dat

a po

int

Faul

t pla

neSl

ip v

ecto

r

Ang

le α

Sens

e of

Slip

Mov

emen

t am

plitu

de, m

dip

azim

uth

dip

angl

etr

end

plun

geve

rtic

al

disp

lace

men

tho

rizo

ntal

di

spla

cem

ent

tota

l di

spla

cem

ent

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontd

.)

270


MOSKALENKO et al.

Hor

izon

R4

115

661

708

81T

R35

025

1725

412

156

6168

485

TR

220

3581

3588

315

661

672

88T

L60

3433

3434

415

661

245

189

TL

8029

6029

615

312

8240

1773

TL

160

580

602

633

082

597

83T

L30

025

1425

327

330

8259

585

TL

250

3450

3459

829

482

237

83T

L60

482

486

917

374

248

4245

NR

950

1048

1414

1027

986

727

63T

R31

011

3911

8011

177

8288

1080

NL

350

2040

2070

1214

774

5119

70T

L53

015

5216

4013

160

5324

39

78T

L25

015

6815

8814

102

5818

68

80T

L10

063

664

415

1483

100

3258

TL

450

719

848

1632

083

4723

67T

L55

012

9814

1017

366

280

1673

TR

450

1320

1395

1821

689

103

1872

TR

270

820

863

1919

281

103

882

TR

200

1273

1289

2019

679

282

1773

TL

300

927

974

2118

471

105

2260

TL

350

837

907

2213

683

5151

52T

L83

094

912

61

2328

384

194

1575

NL

9033

134

3

2412

389

335

85N

L10

011

0011

05

2516

889

258

387

TL

5096

997

0

2617

988

9044

46T

R85

089

912

37

2711

689

2623

67T

L25

058

063

1

Dat

a po

int

Faul

t pla

neSl

ip v

ecto

r

Ang

le α

Sens

e of

Slip

Mov

emen

t am

plitu

de, m

dip

azim

uth

dip

angl

etr

end

plun

geve

rtic

al

disp

lace

men

tho

rizo

ntal

di

spla

cem

ent

tota

l di

spla

cem

ent

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontd

.)



Ang

le α

is a

cute

ang

le b

etw

een

slip

vec

tor

and

dire

ctio

n of

fau

lt pl

ane

dipp

ing

(see

Fig

. 3).

Abb

revi

atio

ns o

f sl

ip t

ypes

: TR

, re

vers

e fa

ult

with

rig

ht-l

ater

al s

trik

e-sl

ip c

ompo

nent

;T

L,r

ever

se fa

ult w

ith le

ft-la

tera

l str

ike-

slip

com

pone

nt; N

R, n

orm

al fa

ult w

ith ri

ght-

late

ral s

trik

e-sl

ip c

ompo

nent

; NL

, nor

mal

faul

t with

left-

late

ral s

trik

e-sl

ip c

ompo

nent

.

2829

986

211

2763

NL

200

392

440

2915

486

242

2763

TL

1480

2861

3221

3032

288

232

981

TL

230

1420

1439

3135

883

8145

45T

L11

8011

9016

76

3234

183

251

288

TL

5014

6414

65

3331

8930

110

44T

R18

098

199

7

3414

787

236

1575

NR

750

2856

2953

3514

787

235

1970

NR

950

1428

1715

3633

072

5029

60N

R25

045

151

6

3733

173

5227

61N

R35

066

575

1

3833

274

5521

69N

R20

051

655

3

3920

078

110

288

TL

9021

4221

44

4033

989

6912

78T

L70

343

350

4133

468

615

85T

L90

1006

1010

4211

588

2512

86N

L11

050

351

5

4330

689

216

1575

TR

270

1012

1047

4457

8932

712

78T

R70

328

336

4511

589

204

882

TR

100

721

728

4612

089

209

288

TR

3097

097

0

4733

8912

216

74T

L65

019

8320

87

4842

8813

119

69T

L50

014

1615

02

Dat

a po

int

Faul

t pla

neSl

ip v

ecto

r

Ang

le α

Sens

e of

Slip

Mov

emen

t am

plitu

de, m

dip

azim

uth

dip

angl

etr

end

plun

geve

rtic

al

disp

lace

men

tho

rizo

ntal

di

spla

cem

ent

tota

l di

spla

cem

ent

Tabl

e 1.

(C

ontd

.)

272


MOSKALENKO et al.

ues of tensor and axes of the stress ellipsoid; this ratiois used to subdivide the initial data sampling into gen-erations of different orders. For simple shear, theLode–Nadai coefficient is 0; as its value approaches+1, the shape of the stress ellipsoid becomes similar toan oblate spheroid (uniaxial compression), whereas ifits value approaches –1, the shape of the stress ellip-soid becomes similar to an oblong ellipsoid (uniaxialextension). Cataclastic analysis has been successfullyimplemented in the StressGeol software developed atthe Laboratory of Tectonophysics, Institute of Phys-ics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, byYu.L. Rebetsky [16]. It should be noted that theStressGeol program works with a set of measure-ments whose kinematic characteristics agree witheach other according to different criteria, whereas theFaultKinWin program utilizes singular measure-ments. Joint application of these two programs,which are based on different theoretical methods,makes it possible to control the quality of the initialdatabase. In particular, similar orientations of the stressaxes obtained by data processing in the FaultKinWinand StressGeol programs give grounds to believe thatthe sampling does not contain any dominant system ofparallel cracks (e.g., Riedel shears related to the samefault) and any internal irregularities.

RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL DATA PROCESSING

Kinematic Characteristics of Faults

Based on the analysis of structural maps of seismichorizons and related faults within the study area, themost commonly developed are faults of ENE–WSWand NNE–SSW trends. The faults in the study areacontain both normal and reverse faulting components.A strike-slip component is observed in the majority offaults, but there are no consistent distribution patternsfor left- and right-lateral strike-slips. In general, faultsare identified as steeply dipping planes with anglesfrom 70° to 90°, but there are also faults with moregentle dipping angles of 50° to 60°.

Analysis of the kinematic characteristics of faultshas shown that the number of folded structures fromwhose displacements we could measure slip vectorsdecreases upsection: 48 for the R4 horizon, 29 for theR3 horizon, and 19 for the R2 horizon. A similar trendis obtained from comparison of the total motionamplitudes from faults (Fig. 8a), which change fromapproximately 350 to 1730 m for the R2 horizon,whereas the largest motion amplitudes for the R3 andR4 horizons are 2640 and 3590 m, respectively. Withthe overall approximate character of calculating theaverage values, average values of total displacements

Fig. 8. Characteristics of slip vector on R4, R3, and R2 seismic horizons: (a) column charts showing distribution of total displace-ment amplitudes; (b) column charts showing distribution of angle α.

(b)

(a)

Displacment amplitude, m

Num

ber o

f mea

sure

men

ts

R24

3

2

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Num

ber o

f mea

sure

men

ts

R38

6

4

2

0 500 1000 2000 3000 35001500 2500 4000

R46

5

1

4

3

2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

R2987654321

0 15 30 45 9060 75Angle α

R387654321

0 15 30 45 9060 75

R410

8

6

4

2

0 15 30 45 9060 75



for faults identified at different seismic horizons areabout 885 m for the R2 horizon, 903 m for R3, and1412 m for R4, which also indicates an increase in themotion amplitudes downsection. A similar correlationis obtained from the average values of the vertical dis-placement components: approximately 130 m for R2,290 m for R3, and 345 m for R4. The characteristics ofthe relationship between the strike-slip and reversefaulting components of faults (α angle in the faultplane) identified at the R2, R3, and R4 seismic hori-zons (see Fig. 8b) makes it possible to identify twostages of their formation. For all faults, except for oneat the R3 horizon and one at the R4 horizon, the strike-slip component is predominant, but the quantitativeratio between strike-slip and either normal or reversefaulting component significantly differs depending onthe particular seismic horizon. For the faults identifiedat the R3 and R4 seismic horizons, reverse faultingcomponent is quite significant, whereas the faultsidentified at the R2 horizon have a dominant strike-slip component and for the majority of faults, the ori-entation of the slip vector in the fault plane differsfrom the horizontal by less than 10°. Thus, in the timeinterval after the accumulation of the layers limited bythe R3 seismic horizon, but before the accumulation ofthe layers limited by the R2 seismic horizon, the essen-tial change in kinematic characteristics of the faultsoccurred, so we can distinguish two stages of evolutionof the faults: (1) predominantly oblique reverse fault-ing, which occurred earlier and was clearly manifestedin the kinematic characteristics of faults at the R3 andR4 seismic horizons, and the (2) strike-slip stage,which occurred later and was dominant for the faultsidentified at the R2 seismic horizon. It should be notedthat the average total amplitudes of displacementsalong the faults for the R3 and R2 seismic horizons areclose to each other (885 and 903 m, respectively),indicating that the most intense deformations tookplace after accumulation of the rocks confined to theR2 seismic horizon, whereas the new identified tec-tonic event occurred only in small reverse and/or nor-mal displacements along the faults. Taking intoaccount the noticeable predominance of reverse faultsover normal faults, the identified tectonic event wasmost likely related to compressional strains.

Orientations of the Main Stress Axes and Shapeof the Stress Ellipsoid

From the initial database, the orientations of themain stress axes were calculated by the StressGeolprogram, which can distinguish several generationsthat correspond to different formation stages of faults.For comparison, the orientations of the main stressaxes for each generation were also calculated by theFaultKinWin program. As data processing by theStressGeol program shows, all faults identified at theR2, R3, and R4 seismic horizon demonstrate the pres-

ence of two generations of faults. The first-generationfaults at all seismic horizons have similar stress stateparameters, with the axis of compression character-ized by subhorizontal occurrence and submeridionalorientation at the R3 and R4 seismic horizons, whilethere is a NNE orientation at the R2 horizon. The axisof deviatoric tension is also subhorizontal and orientedperpendicular to the axis of compression. The sec-ond-generation faults for all seismic horizons are alsocharacterized by subhorizontal occurrence of theaxes of compression and axes of deviatoric tension,but with inversed orientations of these axes at the R2and R4 seismic horizons; an inversion and a smallrotation is also observed for the R3 seismic horizon(Fig. 9). Thus, on the surfaces of all seismic horizons,the main stress axes have similar orientations in eachgeneration, where the intermediate axes (σ2) are sub-vertical and the axes of deviatoric tension (σ3) andcompression (σ1) are subhorizontal, which are allindications of a strike-slip setting [4, 23]. A settingsimilar to a strike-slip setting is indicated by Lode–Nadai coefficient values close to 0, although weaklypositive values characterizing stress states calculatedfor the first-generation faults at the R3 and R4 seismichorizons also indicate the presence of a thrustingcomponent in the stress field (Table 2).

Taking into consideration that 54% of measure-ments show stress states with a submeridionally ori-ented axis of compression (first generation), whereas46% of measurements show a field with a sublatitudi-nal axis of compression (second generation), the firstgeneration seemingly corresponds to the major defor-mation stage, whereas the second generation reflects aminor deformation stage, with manifestation of lessintense deformations. Note that there are no reliabledata on the age relationships between the major andminor stages of pre-Vendian deformations. Neverthe-less, their relative age can be inferred based on the fol-lowing speculations. All information about the stressstate parameters is obtained from the fault kinematicsdata (i.e., on the directions of displacments along faultplanes). If the most intense deformations were theyoungest, then the displacements corresponding tothis stage would be identified on all faults and maskdisplacements corresponding to the less intense defor-mations. In the considered examples (see Fig. 9), wecan distinguish with high confidence two generationsof stress states, and this gives grounds to believe thatthe less intense deformations (second generation, 46%of measurements) overlapped more intense ones (firstgeneration, 54% of measurements). Thus, we can dis-tinguish two deformation stages in pre-Vendian time:the earlier and more intense stage is characterized by asubmeridional axis of compression, whereas deforma-tions of the younger and less intense stage have aWNW-oriented axis of compression.

274


MOSKALENKO et al.

Fig. 9. Stress state parameters on R4, R3, and R2 seismic horizons. Column charts in top panel show distribution of populationof slip vectors between generations by StressGeol program; column length denotes probability of reference to respective genera-tion for a given vector. Circles in bottom panel show orientations of main stress axes for two generations of slip vectors n R4, R3,and R2 seismic horizons. (1) Axis of compression (σ1), (2) intermediate axis (σ2), (3) axis of deviatoric tension (σ3). White seg-ment shows the compression, dark shows the extension. Lower hemisphere, Schmidt net.: SG, calculation in StressGeol soft-ware; FKW, in FaultKinWin software.

Generation 1

Generation 2

FKW

FKW

SG

SG

FKW

FKW

SG

SG

FKW

FKW

SG

SG

1 2 3

R2 R3 R4

Generation 1

Generation 2

GEODYNAMIC INTERPRETATIONOF THE OBTAINED RESULTS

Our study on evaluation of the stress state and tak-ing into consideration data on regional stratigraphyallows us to reconstruct the main tectonic events of thepre-Vendian evolution of the study area (Fig. 10).

The earlest interpreted tectonic event is related tothe basement of the Kuyumba rift and the trough ofRiphean age related to it (see Fig. 10a). This stage cor-responds to intrusion of sills with Ar–Ar ages varyingfrom 1430 ± 14 to 1513 ± 27 Ma [25, 26]. Among thesedimentary rocks, the dominant ones are sandstonesand organic-enriched argillites of the Zelendukon,Verdshe, and Madra strata (see Fig. 2), which is typi-cal pf rift sedimentary basins [28]. During this event,the frameworks of faults were formed; these faults

control the further evolution of the region. Orienta-tions of the major faults are from northeast to sublati-tudinal [26].

The evolutionary stage following rifting covers aconsiderable part of the Middle Riphean and is char-acterized by predominantly carbonate sedimentation,which indicates relatively quiescent tectonic settings(this is verified by the similarity of the kinematic char-acteristics of faults identified at the R3 and R4 seismichorizons). The sedimentary basin widened beyond thelimits of grabens to gradually prograde northeast andsouth [27]. The quiet evolution of the sedimentarybasin was interrupted by a short-term deformationphase when small-amplitude faults formed (Fig. 10b),as indicated by the difference in the fault kinematics atthe R3 and R4 horizons compared to the R2 horizon(see Fig. 8). The common presence of reverse faults



indicates that the normal faults that have been formedat the rifting stage underwent partial inversion. Interms of stratigraphy, this event was marked by pre-Vingol’da washing. According to the correlationscheme proposed by E.M. Khabarov [24, 25], its agevaries from 1080 to 1000 Ma, which is noticeably olderthan the tectonic events revealed in the Yenisei Range,and its geodynamic nature remains disputable.

The most intense tectonic events in the study areaoccurred after the accumulation of Riphean rocks (seeFig. 2) but before deposition of Vendian sedimentaryrocks. In this period, the onset of the main structuralelements observed at the pre-Vendian surface tookplace (in particular, those at the R2, R3, and R4 seismichorizons). As follows from the analysis given above,the per-Vendian tectonic event consists of two stages(see Figs. 10c and 10d). The earlier and the moreintense first stage of deformations was characterizedby the submeridionally oriented axis of compressionand by the predominance of strike-slip displacements(see Fig. 10c). However, as is seen from the values ofLode–Nadai coefficient (see Table 2), a reverse fault-ing component is also present, indicating probableinversion of pre-existing normal faults. At the secondstage of pre-Vendian deformation, strike-slip tectonicsplayed a leading role. The axis of compression is ori-ented sublatitudinally, which demonstrates inversion ofstrike-slip displacements along faults (Fig. 10d).Although the ages of deformation stages were notrevealed, taking into account the age of tectonic eventsin the Yenisei Range, we can suggest that the first stageof pre-Vendian deformations in the study area could bea response to the earliest collisional events and about760–750 Ma in age, whereas the second stage of pre-Vendian deformations corresponds to the final stages ofevolution of the active margin ca. 685–600 Ma ago.

The cause of stress field inversion in the study areawas not revealed. Analogous stress field inversionsaccompanied by a change in direction of displacementsalong faults to the opposite have been documented invarious regions (see, e.g., [2, 10, 22, 30, 38, 45]).

Stress field inversion is usually attributed tochanges in plate kinematics; however, the availablepaleomagnetic data [3, 13] are too ambiguous to makeany reliable conclusion about Siberian Plate kinemat-ics during the existence of an active margin on itssouthwest (present-day coordinates) ca. 900–600 Maago. Additionally, it must be emphasized that bothstages of deformation in the study area are character-ized by a strike-slip setting, whereas the role of strike-slip in the Yenisei Range tectonics remains vague.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, studies of the stress state parameters ofclosed territories have relatively few methods to deter-mine the indicators of tectonic stress fields for furthercalculation of stress tensor. Our research shows the reli-able applicability of the method of stress state recon-struction from 3D seismic data, where the indicator oftectonic stresses is the vector of displacement alongfaults, with the spatial orientation of this slip (e.g., slick-ensides or slickenlines) used to calculate the orientationof the main stress axes and shape of the stress ellipsoid.The main results of this method are as follows:

(1) Analysis of the kinematic characteristics offaults identified in the structural maps of the R2, R3,and R4 seismic horizons shows that components ofdisplacements in both lateral (strike-slip) and vertical(reverse or normal faults) directions are presented.The earliest change in the kinematic characteristics of

Table 2. Results of calculating stress state parameters for R2, R3, and R4 seismic horizons in FaultKinWin program

μs is the Lode–Nadai coefficient.

Seismic horizon

Generation 1

deviatoric tension axis σ3 intermediate axis, σ2 compression axis σ1μs

trend plunge trend plunge trend plunge

R2 296 8 135 82 27 3 –0.05

R3 97 4 270 86 7 0 0.16R4 269 2 131 87 359 2 0.2

Seismic horizon

Generation 2

deviatoric tension axis σ3 intermediate axis, σ2 compression axis σ1μs

trend plunge trend plunge trend plunge

R2 35 14 232 76 125 4 0R3 34 20 248 66 128 12 0.05R4 189 2 319 87 99 2 0.1

276


MOSKALENKO et al.

faults is associated with an event that occurred in thepre-Vingol’da time.

(2) Two stages of deformations during the pre-Vendian folding have been revealed in the region: themost intensive stage with prevalence of thrust andstrike-slip faults at north-northeast orientation of anaxis of the main compression, and second stage withprevalence of strike-slip faults at the west-northwestorientation of an axis of the main compression. Thesestages are correlated with the tectonic events which

were taking place during evolution of the activesouthwest margin of the Siberian platform.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The initial seismic data were provided by LLCGAZPROMNEFT STC. The authors are grateful toYu.L. Rebetsky and L.A. Sim (both at the Institute ofPhysics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences,Moscow) for advice on the developed method and

Fig. 10. Tectonic evolution of northern slope of Baikit anteclise. Stages: (a) nucleation of rift; (b) inversion of displacements alongfaults in pre-Vingol’da time; (c) first stage of pre-Vendian deformations; (d) second stage of pre-Vendian deformations. (1) Axis ofcompression (σ1); (2) axis of deviatoric tension(σ3); (3) directions of slips along faults; (4) basic-rock intrusions of ca. 1500 Ma inage; (5) Siberian Craton basement.

σ1

σ3

685–600 Ma

(d)

σ1

σ3

760–750 Ma

(c)

Pre-Ingol’daunconformity

(b)

~1500 Ma B.P.

Pre-Yurubchenunconformity

(a)

1

2

3

4

σ1

σ3

5



discussion of the stress state reconstruction methods.The authors also thank the reviewer for valuableremarks that improved the publication.

REFERENCES1. L. M. Balakina, A. V. Vvedenskaya, I. V. Golubeva,

L. A. Misharina, and E. I. Shirokova, Elastic StressField in the Solid Earth and Earthquake Focal Mecha-nisms (Nauka, Moscow, 1972) [in Russian].

2. V. E. Verzhbitsky, S. D. Sokolov, and M. I. Tuchkova,“Present-day structure and stages of tectonic evolutionof Wrangel Island, Russian Eastern Arctic region,”Geotectonics 49, 165–192 (2015).

3. V. A. Vernikovsky, A. Yu. Kazansky, N. Yu. Matushkin,D. V. Metelkin, and J. K. Sovetov, “The geodynamicevolution of the folded framing and the western marginof the Siberian craton in the Neoproterozoic: Geologi-cal, structural, sedimentological, geochronological,and paleomagnetic data,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 48,502–519 (2009).

4. M. V. Gzovsky, Fundamentals of Tectonophysics (Nauka,Moscow, 1975) [in Russian].

5. A. S. Gladkov and O. V. Lunina, “Fractures in LateCenozoic sediments: New possibilities for structuralanalysis,” Dokl. Earth Sci. 399, 1071–1073 (2004).

6. O. I. Gushchenko, “Analysis of orientations of sheartectonic displacements and their tectonic displace-ments: Tectonophysical interpretation when paleost-ress reconstruction,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 210,331–334 (1973).

7. O. I. Gushchenko, “Method of kinematic analysis ofdestruction-related structures when reconstructing tec-tonic stress fields,” in Stress Fields in the Lithosphere,Ed. by A. S. Grigor’ev and D. N. Osokina (Nauka,Moscow, 1979), pp. 7–25.

8. O. V. Lunina, A. S. Gladkov, I. S. Novikov, A. R. Aga-tova, E. M. Vysotsky, and A. A. Emanov, “Seismotec-tonic deformations and stress fields in the fault zone ofthe 2003 Chuya earthquake, Ms = 7.5, Gorny Altai,”Geotectonics 40, 208–224 (2006).

9. A. V. Marinin and L. A. Sim, “The contemporary stateof stress and strain at the western pericline of theGreater Caucasus,” Geotectonics 49, 411–424 (2015).

10. Yu. A. Morozov, “Cyclicity of kinematic inversions inmobile belts in the light of lunar–terrestrial interac-tion,” Geotectonics 38, 17–42 (2004).

11. A. N. Moskalenko, A. K. Khudoley, V. V. Zhukov,V. Yu. Demin, and A. V. Verin, “Reconstruction ofkinematic characteristics of faults and paleostress fieldfor the Urman-Archa area,” Neftegaz. Geol. Teor.Prakt., No. 5, 1–16 (2015).

12. P. N. Nikolaev, “The technique of statistical analysis offractures and the reconstruction of tectonic stressfields,” Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Geol. Razved.,No. 12, 103–115 (1977).

13. V. E. Pavlov, A. V. Shatsillo, and P. Yu. Petrov, “Paleo-magnetism of the Upper Riphean deposits in theTurukhansk and Olenek uplifts and Uda pre-Sayanregion and the Neoproterozoic drift of the SiberianPlatform,” Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 51, 716–747 (2015).

14. V. D. Parfenov, “On the technique of tectonophysicalanalysis of geological structures,” Geotektonika, No. 1,60–72 (1984).

15. Yu. L. Rebetsky, “Review of methods for reconstruct-ing tectonic stresses and seismotectonic deformations,”in Tectonophysics Today, Ed. by V. N. Strakhov andYu. G. Leonov (Ob”ed. Inst. Fiz. Zemli Ross. Akad.Nauk, Moscow, 2002), pp. 227–243.

16. Yu. L. Rebetsky, Tectonic Stresses and Rigidity of Natu-ral Rock Massifs (Akademkniga, Moscow, 2007) [inRussian].

17. Yu. L. Rebetsky, O. A. Kuchai, and A. V. Marinin,“Stress state and deformation of the Earth’s crust in theAltai–Sayan mountain region,” Russ. Geol. Geophys.54, 206–222 (2013).

18. L. A. Sim, “Determination of the regional stress fieldfrom local stress fields in particular sites: Case study ofthe junction area between the Mezen syeclise and Mid-dle Timan Range,” Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Geol.Razved., No. 4, 35–40 (1982).

19. L. A. Sim, “Studying of tectonic stresses from geologi-cal indicators (methods, results, recommendations),”Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Geol. Razved., No. 10, 3–22 (1991).

20. L. A. Sim, “Influence of global tectogenesis on therecent stress state of European platforms,” inM. V. Gzovsky and Advances in Geophysics, Ed. byYu. G. Leonov (Nauka, Moscow, 2000), pp. 326–350.

21. L. A. Sim, N. A. Sycheva, V. N. Sychev, and A. V. Mari-nin, “The pattern of the paleo- and present-day stressesof Northern Tien Shan,” Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 50,378–392 (2014).

22. S. N. Sychev and K. V. Kulikova, “Structural evolutionof the Main Ural Fault Zone in the western frameworkof the Voikar–Synya ophiolite massif,” Geotectonics46, 427–434 (2012).

23. T. Uemura and S. Mizutani, Geological Structures(Wiley, New York, 1984).

24. E. M. Khabarov, “Carbonate sedintation in the Meso-Neoproterozoic basins in southern East Siberia andsome problems of evolution of reef formation in the Pre-cambrian,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 52, 1140–1153 (2011).

25. E. M. Khabarov, V. A. Ponomarchuk, I. P. Morozova,I. V. Varaksina, and S. V. Saraev, “Variations in the sealevel and isotopic composition of carbonate carbon inthe Riphean basin at the western margin of the SiberianCraton (Baikit anteclise),” Geol. Geofiz., No. 3, 211–239 (2002).

26. V. V. Kharakhinov and S. I. Shlenkin, Petroleum-Bear-ing Potential of Precambrian Sequences in East Siberia:Case Study of the Kuyumba-Yurubchen-Tokhoma Petro-leum Accumulation Areal (Nauchn. Mir, Moscow, 2011)[in Russian].

27. T. N. Kheraskova, S. A. Kaplan, and V. I. Galuev,“Structure of the Siberian Platform and its westernmargin in the Riphean–Early Paleozoic,” Geotecton-ics 43, 115–132 (2009).

28. A. K. Khudoley, Continental Rifting and Passive Mar-gins: Tectonics and Evolution of Sedimentary Basins(St. Petersburg Gos. Univ., St. Petersburg, 2004) [inRussian].

278


MOSKALENKO et al.

29. S. I. Sherman and Yu. I. Dneprovskii, Stress Fields inthe Crust and Geological-Structural Methods of TheirStudy (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1989) [in Russian].

30. D. V. Alexeiev, H. E. Cook, V. M. Buvtyshkin, andL. Y. Golub, “Structural evolution of the Ural–TienShan junction: A view from Karatau ridge, SouthKazakhstan,” C.R. Geosci. 341, 287–297 (2009).

31. R. W. Allmendinger, N. C. Cardozo, and D. Fisher,Structural Geology Algorithms: Vectors & Tensors (Cam-bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2012).

32. J. Angelier, “Tectonic analysis of fault slip data sets,”J. Geophys. Res., B 89, 5835–5848 (1984).

33. T. Engelder and P. A. Geiser, “On the use of regionaljoint sets as trajectories of paleostress fields during thedevelopment of the Appalachian Plateau, New York,”J. Geophys. Res., B 94, 6319–6341 (1980).

34. A. P. Gartrell and M. Lisk, “Potential new method forpaleostress estimation by combining three-dimensionalfault restoration and fault slip inversion techniques:First test on the Skua Field, Timor Sea,” in EvaluatingFault and Cap Rock Seals, Vol. 2 of AAPG HedbergSeries, Ed. by P. Boult and J. Kaldi (AAPG, 2005),pp. 23–36.

35. M. Gharbi, O. Bellier, A. Masrouhi, and N. Espurt,“Recent spatial and temporal changes in the stressregime along the southern Tunisian Atlas front and theGulf of Gabes: New insights from fault kinematicsanalysis and seismic profiles,” Tectonophysics 626,120–136 (2014).

36. Y. Hashimoto, M. Eida, and Y. Ueda, “Changes inpaleostress state along a subduction zone preserved inan on-land accretionary complex, the Yokonamimélange in the Cretaceous Shimanto Belt, Kochi,southwest Japan,” Tectonics 33, 2045–2058 (2014).

37. H. A. Khair, D. Cooke, and M. Hand, “Paleo stresscontribution to fault and natural fracture distribution inthe Cooper Basin,” J. Struct. Geol. 79, 31–41 (2015).

38. A. K. Khudoley and S. D. Sokolov, “Structural evolu-tion of the northeast Asia continental margin: Anexample from the western Koryak fold and thrust belt(northeast Russia),” Geol. Mag. 135, 311–330 (1998).

39. G. G. Lash and T. Engelder, “Tracking the burial andtectonic history of Devonian shale of the AppalachianBasin by analysis of joint intersection style,” Geol. Soc.Am. Bull. 121, 265–277 (2009).

40. R. J. Lisle and R. J. Walker, “The estimation of faultslip from map data: The separation-pitch diagram,”Tectonophysics 583, 158–163 (2013).

41. R. Marrett and R. Allmendinger, “Kinematic analysisof fault-slip data,” J. Struct. Geol. 12, 973–986 (1990).

42. A. P. Morris, R. N. McGinnis, and D. A. Ferrill, “Faultdisplacement gradients on normal faults and associateddeformation,” AAPG Bull. 98, 1161–1184 (2014).

43. Yu. L. Rebetsky, A. Yu. Polets, and T. K. Zlobin, “Thestate of stress in the Earth’s crust along the northwest-ern f lank of the Pacific seismic focal zone before theTohoku earthquake of 11 March 2011,” Tectonophysics685, 60–86 (2016).

44. B. A. van der Pluijm and S. Marshak, Earth Structures:An Introduction to Structural Geology and Tectonics,2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004).

45. X. Xu, S. Tang, and S. Lin, “Paleostress inversion offault-slip data from the Jurassic to Cretaceous Huang-shan Basin and implications for the tectonic evolutionof southeastern China,” J. Geodyn. 98, 31–52 (2016).

Reviewer: T.N. KheraskovaTranslated by N. Astafiev

Stress State Reconstruction and Tectonic Evolution of the ... · 259 ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics,...

Documents

Transcript of Stress State Reconstruction and Tectonic Evolution of the ... · 259 ISSN 0016-8521, Geotectonics,...