Statistical analysis of small structures in rotated crustal blocks near the Húsavík-Flatey fault, northern Iceland
Natalie Hummel Senior Integrative Exercise
12 March 2020
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton College, Northfield, MN.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION……………………………...…………………………………..…1 GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND…………………..……………………………………3
Plate Configuration in Iceland……………………..………………………….4 Common Structural Patterns in Iceland……………………………..………...6 Block Rotation Near the Húsavík-Flatey Fault………………………..…...…8
STATISTICS ON DIRECTION AND ORIENTATION DATA…....………………10 The Mean…..………………………………………………………………...12 Inference on the Mean…………………………..………………………….. 13 Regressions…………………………………..………………………………14
Regression significance and confidence intervals……………….…..15 TYPES OF STRUCTURES……………………..…………………………………..16 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS………………………………………..…...…20
Patterns in Small Structures with Fault-Normal distance……………....……20 Far-Fault Structures……………………………..…………………………...20 Mid-Distance Structures………………………………………..……………24
Dike Regressions………………………………..…………………...24 Vein Zone Regression…………………………………..……………28
Predictions……………………………………..……………………………..30 Near-Fault Structures………………………………………..……………….32
MODELS OF ROTATION………………………………………………..…………34 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………..…………………38
Timing of Formation……………………………………………………..…..38 Vein Zones………………………………………………………..………….39 Strike-Slip Faulting………………………………………………………..…40 Normal Faulting………………………………………………………..…….41 Anisotropy……………………………………………………..…………….42 Limitations of Stress Inversion……………………………………..………..43
CONCLUSION………………………………………….…………………………..44 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………….………………………...45 APPENDIX …………………………………………..……………………..………46
A. MEANS TO FAR-FAULT STRUCTURES………………………..……46 B. USE OF DIKE POLES TO ESTIMATE ROTATION GRADIENT …....48 C. COMPARISON OF DIKE AND VEIN ZONE REGRESSIONS….….....50 D. TJORNES PENINSULA………………….....…………………….……..53
REFERENCES CITED………………………………………………..……...……..55
Statistical analysis of small structures in rotated crustal blocks near the Húsavík-Flatey fault, northern Iceland
Natalie Hummel Carleton College
Senior Integrative Exercise March 12, 2020
Advisor: Sarah J. Titus, Carleton College
ABSTRACT
The right lateral Húsavík-Flatey fault, in and just off the coast of northern Iceland, provides a unique opportunity to observe an oceanic transform fault on land. Structural and paleomagnetic measurements from lavas and dikes on Flateyjarskagi peninsula indicate that rocks adjacent to the fault have rotated clockwise more than 100°. I examine the effect of this rotation on the orientations of small faults and vein zones near the transform. I also use patterns in small-scale data to build on models of the style of deformation surrounding the fault. Previous studies provide constraints on the extent of rotation across Flateyjarskagi, which I use to estimate the expected orientations of rotated structures. The orientations of some small faults are consistent with expected rotations, but many structures appear to post-date rotation. Rotation of an older subset of the small faults on Flateyjarskagi accounts for patterns that have previously been attributed to variations in the stress field near the transform.
Keywords: block rotation, transform faults, directional statistics, Tjornes Fracture Zone, Iceland
1
INTRODUCTION
The Tjörnes Fracture Zone in northern Iceland accommodates right-lateral
transcurrent motion between two segments of the mid-Atlantic ridge (Fig. 1). A mantle
plume beneath Iceland has exposed portions of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone on land on the
peninsulas of Flateyjarskagi, Tjörnes, and Tröllaskagi (Wolfe et al, 1997; Hardarson et al,
1997). This presents an opportunity to study an active oceanic transform fault on land,
keeping in mind that Iceland tectonics are atypical of mid-ocean ridges due to the plume.
The Tjörnes Fracture Zone has been studied extensively to improve understanding of
tectonics in Iceland (Young et al, 1985; Fjader et al, 1994; Steffanson et al, 2006; Karson,
2017) and of transform faults in general (Bergerat et al. 2000, Angelier et al, 2000;
Garcia and Dhont, 2005; Garcia et al, 2002; Horst et al, 2018; Titus et al, 2018).
The Húsavík-Flatey fault is commonly identified as the best analogue in the
Tjörnes Fracture Zone for a mature oceanic transform and has likely accommodated tens
of kilometers of displacement (Young et al, 1985; Horst et al, 2018). Though most of the
Húsavík-Flatey fault itself is submerged, the damage zone south of the fault spans several
kilometers of northern Flateyjarskagi. Studies on stresses near the transform report
unusually complex patterns in the small faults in this damage zone (Angelier et al, 2000).
Structural and paleomagnetic measurements from lavas and dikes indicate that blocks of
crust within a couple of kilometers of the fault have rotated clockwise more than 100°
(Young et al, 1985; Horst et al, 2018; Titus et al. 2018; Young et al, 2018). Previous
workers have speculated about the complications that this rotation presents for
paleostress analysis (Young et al. 1985, Bergerat et al, 2000; Horst et al, 2018; Young et
al, 2018), but none have interpreted small-scale data with rotation in mind.
ÞH
EY
STA
RE
YK
IR
KR
AF
LA
H Ú S AV Í K - F L AT E Y FA U LT
KO
LB
EI N
SE
Y R
I DG
E
D A LV Í K L I N E A M E N T
G R Í M S E Y L I N E A M E N T
TJORNES FRACTURE ZONE
Akureyri
Húsavík
Dalvík
T R OL LASK
AG
I
FLATEYJARSKAG
I
T J Ö R NES
WVZ
TFZ
EVZ
200 km
N
SISZ
KR
Legend:
Extrusives and seds >11 Ma
Extrusives and seds 5.3-11 Ma
Extrusives and seds 2.6-5.3 Ma
Extrusives and seds 0.8-2.6 Ma
Extrusives < 0.8 Ma and hyaloclastites <1.2 Ma
Fissure swarms
Active central volcano
Inactive central volcano
Anticlinal bedding axis
Unconformity
Fault
Fault with normal displacement
City
Figure 1. Map if the Tjornes Fracture Zone . Rocks in blue predate 5.3 Ma, and rocks in brown were deposited from 5.3 to 0.8 Ma, after the ridge jump c. 8 Ma. The inset shows the location of the Tjornes Fracture Zone (TFZ) in Iceland, and the locations of the Northern Volcanic Zone (NVZ), the left lateral South Icelandic Seismic Zone (SISZ), the Western Volcanic Zone (WVZ), and the Eastern Volcanic Zone (EVZ). Modified from Titus et al (2018).
NV
Z
2
3
I present hundreds of new measurements of structures including small faults,
dikes and veins from around the Tjornes Fracture Zone. I analyze these data, in
combination with data from previous studies (Bergerat, 2000; Garcia and Dhont, 2005;
Fjader et al, 1994), to assess the effects of regional kinematics, crustal anisotropy, and
block rotation on small structures in highly deformed areas on Flateyjarskagi and
Tjörnes. I use spatial patterns in dikes to quantify rotation across Flateyjarskagi and to
predict the orientations of rotated faults and vein zones. Populations of faults broadly
match the expected orientations in several locations, but a significant amount of
deformation appears to post-date rotation. I also use the orientations of rotated and
unrotated small faults to build on models of the timing and geometry of rotation near the
Húsavík-Flatey fault.
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND
Plate Configuration in Iceland
A segment of the mid-Atlantic ridge--the Northern Volcanic Zone--strikes N-S
through east-central Iceland (Fig. 1), accommodating divergence between the North
American plate (western Iceland) and the European plate (eastern Iceland) (Palmason and
Saemundsson, 1974; Bodvarson and Walker, 1963). This ridge segment connects to
offshore ridges via partially-exposed zones of transcurrent motion, including the Tjörnes
Fracture Zone, a system of ESE-striking transform faults in and just off the coast of
northern Iceland. The Tjörnes Fracture Zone is composed of three sub-parallel transform
faults, as well as systems of cross-faults and zones of complex distributed deformation.
Relative plate motion in northern Iceland has an azimuth of ~102°, slightly oblique to the
4
three transforms, suggesting transtensional rather than pure transform motion (Árnadóttir
et al, 2008).
The plate boundary in Iceland is evolving due to the westward migration of the
mid-Atlantic ridge relative to the mantle plume beneath Iceland. In the last several
million years, the mantle plume passed east of the mid-Atlantic ridge. Between 9 and 7
Ma (Garcia et al, 2003), the ridge segment passing through Iceland jumped east to remain
above the hotspot, forming the Northern Volcanic Zone. Spreading was accommodated
on two parallel ridge segments for several million years as the Northern Volcanic Zone
developed (Garcia, 2003). The Tjörnes Fracture Zone, in the north, and the Mid Icelandic
Belt, in the south, formed to accommodate transform motion between the Northern
Volcanic Zone and the older ridge segments to the west. In northern Iceland, the ridge
jump created an unconformity between 12-8 Ma lavas produced at the spreading ridge to
the west and lavas younger than 5.3 Ma produced after the ridge jump (Fig. 1).
The Northern Volcanic Zone propagated to the north overtime, transferring
transform motion in the Tjörnes Fracture Zone onto more northerly structures. The
northernmost structure, the Grimsey lineament, is likely the youngest, and is currently the
most seismically active (Stefansson et al. 2008, Rögnvaldsson et al. 1998). The central
structure, the Húsavík-Flatey fault, shows evidence of significant displacement and
remains a source of seismic activity. There is little modern seismic activity along the
southernmost fault, the Dalvik lineament. However, seismicity diminishes significantly to
the south of the Dalvik lineament, indicating that the lineament might form a boundary
along which smaller faults terminate (Stefansson et al, 2008).
5
Common Structural Patterns in Iceland
Throughout Iceland, lavas are intruded by dikes and cut by both fissures and
normal faults that strike N-S, approximately perpendicular to plate motion. Normal
faulting is the dominant mode of faulting in most areas (Forslund and Gudmundsson,
1992). Normal faults commonly dip steeply--between 70° and 80°--indicating that they
may form by linking lava-perpendicular joints (Forslund and Gudmundsson, 1992).
Normal faults also commonly follow dike margins (Karson, 2017).
Iceland deviates from a typical mid-ocean ridge in several ways due to the
underlying mantle plume and the active evolution of the plate boundary. The mantle
beneath Iceland is hotter and less dense than average mantle beneath a spreading center,
and the crust is several kilometers thicker than most oceanic crust (Saemundsson, 1979).
Complicated structural patterns arise in regions between overlapping and propagating
ridge segments (Green et al, 2014; Karson, 2017). Motion also often takes place on
multiple structures, rather than on a single ridge or transform. For instance, spreading
takes place on the parallel Western and Eastern Volcanic Zones, and transform motion in
the Tjörnes Fracture Zone is accommodated on several major faults (Sheiber-Enslen et al,
2011).
Crustal block rotation is common in Iceland in bookshelf fault systems. Slip in the
left-lateral transform zone in southern Iceland, the South Icelandic Seismic Zone, takes
place almost exclusively along N-S-striking right-lateral faults, resulting in
counterclockwise block rotations (Fig. 2). Green et al. (2014) document smaller-scale
bookshelf faulting between overlapping ridge segments within the volcanic rift zone
Figure 2. Model of bookshelf faulting in the left lateral South Icelandic Seismic Zone from Sigmundsson et al. (1995). Overlapping ridge segments--the Reykjanes ridge to the west and Eastern Volcanic Zone to the east--are shown in dark grey. Slip occurs primarily along N-S-strik-ing right lateral faults, resulting in counterclockwise block rotations between the ridge segments.
6
7
southeast of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone. Karson (2017) also documents ridge-parallel
strike-slip faults throughout Iceland, independent of bookshelf systems (ie. without
regular sets of parallel faults). In most cases, ridge-parallel strike slip motion is attributed
to the anisotropy of oceanic crust (Karson, 2017; Green et al, 2014). Slip occurs on pre-
existing planes of weakness such as normal faults and dike margins, rather than on Riedel
shears or shear-parallel faults.
Block Rotation Near the Húsavík Flatey Fault
There is strong evidence to support significant clockwise block rotation near the
Húsavík-Flatey fault on the peninsula of Flateyjarskagi. Dikes deviate from the N-S
strikes observed elsewhere in northern Iceland and paleomagnetic data indicate that lavas
and dikes have rotated clockwise around a steep but non-vertical axis (Fig. 3). The extent
of clockwise rotation increases progressively approaching the fault, likely exceeding 100°
in the nearest on-land areas (Horst et al, 2017; Titus et al, 2018; Young et al, 2018).
Young et al. (1985) first documented a gradual change in dike strikes approaching
the Húsavík-Flatey fault in a detailed paper on the geology of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone.
They attributed this pattern to a rotation gradient caused by heterogeneous simple shear
(Fig. 4B). The deformation of exposed rocks is brittle but appears to approximate simple
shear on a large scale. This shear is heterogeneous due to the variation in rotation with
proximity to the fault. The authors propose that rotation took place as a result of broadly
distributed transcurrent deformation prior to the development of the fault, and that
rotation ceased after a major fault was established. The pattern in dike and lava rotation is
complicated by an anticline in east-central Flateyjarskagi (Fig. 1), which likely also
formed during the initiation of the Northern Volcanic Zone (Young et al, 1985).
Dik
e po
les
Lava
pol
es
Pale
omag
netic
dire
ctio
ns
N=
496
N =
70
Pale
omag
netic
dire
ctio
nsN
= 1
70
N=
270
Figu
re 3
. Map
s of
Fla
teyj
arsk
agi s
how
ing
the
rota
tion
grad
ient
in d
ikes
(le
ft) a
nd la
va b
eddi
ng (
right
) do
cum
ente
d by
You
ng e
t al.
(201
8) n
ear
the
Hus
avik
-Fla
tey
Faul
t. Th
e da
shed
line
rep
rese
nts
the
sout
hwes
tern
bou
ndar
y of
rot
atio
n, a
s de
fined
by
Youn
g et
al.
Ster
eone
ts s
how
stru
ctur
al a
nd p
aleo
mag
netic
mea
sure
men
ts fr
om T
itus
et a
l. (2
018)
. Po
ints
are
col
ored
by
dist
ance
from
the
Hus
av-
ik-F
late
y fa
ult,,
with
nea
r-fau
lt da
ta in
red
and
oran
ge a
nd fa
r-fau
lt (~
28 k
m) d
ata
in p
urpl
e. R
epre
sent
ativ
e di
kes a
re c
olor
ed a
ccor
ding
to
the
sam
e sc
ale
on th
e m
ap. R
otat
ion
axes
and
pre
dict
ions
fro
m c
onst
ant r
otat
ion
smal
l circ
le r
egre
ssio
ns o
f ea
ch d
atas
et a
gain
st
faul
t-nor
mal
dis
tanc
e ar
e pl
otte
d on
the
ster
eone
ts in
gre
y. F
igur
e m
odifi
ed fr
om T
itus e
t al.
(201
8).
,,
,,
8
increasing deformat
ion
tow
ard
HFF
N
R’
R’
HFF
B
1
2
3
4
5
66 4 2
C
HFF
2 km
3 2 1
AH
FF
3
2
1
HFF
NN
3 2 1
1
2
3
Figu
re 4
. (A
) A b
ooks
helf
faul
t sys
tem
, in
whi
ch b
lock
s of c
rust
rota
te c
lock
wis
e ab
out N
NE-
strik
ing
left
late
ral c
ross
-fau
lts in
a ri
ght l
ater
al sh
ear z
one.
Th
e H
FF is
show
n as
the
north
ern
boun
dary
faul
t in
this
syst
em. S
tere
onet
s on
the
right
show
the
pred
icte
d le
ft la
tera
l fau
lt pl
anes
at d
ista
nces
1, 2
, and
3
from
the
HFF
. Th
is m
odel
pre
dict
s th
e sa
me
amou
nt o
f rot
aton
of b
lock
s an
d bo
udin
g fa
ults
in a
ll ar
eas
with
in th
e bo
oksh
elf s
yste
m. T
his
figur
e is
ad
apte
d fr
om a
n ill
ustra
tion
of b
ooks
helf
faul
ting
in th
e So
uth
Icel
andi
c Se
ism
ic z
one
in S
igm
unds
son
et a
l. (1
995)
. (B
) The
blo
ck r
otat
ion
mod
el
prop
osed
by
Youn
g et
al (
1985
), sh
own
in m
ap v
iew
and
, in
the
inse
t, fa
cing
Fla
teyj
arsk
agi f
rom
nor
th o
f the
HFF
. Th
e de
form
atio
n gr
adie
nt in
spac
e is
use
d as
a p
roxy
for d
efor
mat
ion
over
tim
e. S
teps
1-5
out
line
a pr
oces
s of (
1) R
’ she
ar fo
rmat
ion,
(2) b
lock
rota
tion
on R
‘ fau
lts, a
nd (3
) act
ivat
ion
of
a ne
w se
t of R
’ she
ars o
nce
the
orig
inal
set h
as ro
tate
d ou
t of a
favo
rabl
e po
sitio
n. T
hese
step
s als
o ill
ustra
te p
rogr
essi
ve d
efor
mat
ion
near
ing
the
faul
t.
The
inse
t illu
stra
tes t
he n
orm
al c
ompo
nent
of t
he le
ft la
tera
l cro
ss-f
aults
, and
resu
lting
lava
tilti
ng.
Ster
eone
ts sh
ow th
e pr
edic
ted
faul
t pla
nes f
or e
ach
set o
f lef
t lat
eral
cro
ss-f
aults
in re
gion
s 2, 4
, and
6. (
C) A
mod
el o
f irr
egul
ar b
lock
rota
tions
use
d by
Hor
st e
t al.
(201
8) to
exp
lain
var
iabl
e pa
leom
agne
tic
data
from
Fla
teyj
arsk
agi.
Not
e th
e di
ffere
nces
in th
e ro
tatio
ns o
f diff
eren
t blo
cks e
quid
ista
nt fr
om th
e H
FF. S
tere
onet
s sho
w th
e pl
anes
to b
lock
-bou
nd-
increasing deform
ation
tow
ard
HFF
pred
icte
d fa
ults
pred
icte
d fa
ults
pred
icte
d fa
ults
9
10
Several recent studies (Horst et al, 2018, Titus et al, 2018, Young et al, 2018)
present paleomagnetic data confirming large-magnitude block rotations post-dating dike
emplacement. Paleomagnetic remanence directions preserved in lavas and dikes deviate
from the expected direction in Iceland. These deviations increase toward the fault and
suggest clockwise rotation about a steeply plunging axis (Fig. 3). For the most part, the
magnitudes of dike and lava rotations are statistically indistinguishable, suggesting that
the majority of dikes pre-date rotation (Titus et al; 2018).
Horst et al. (2018) interpret the variability in their paleomagnetic data as
evidence for rotation of irregular crustal blocks (Fig. 4C) with potential variation along
Húsavík-Flatey fault-strike, whereas Young et al (1985) and Titus et al (2018) assume
that a gradient with fault-normal distance is sufficient to characterize the pattern of
rotation in the field area. Titus et al. (2018) use regressions of structural and
paleomagnetic measurements from dikes and lavas to quantify rotation as a function of
fault-proximity, assuming no variability parallel to the fault. This assumption agrees with
maps of dikes published by Young et al. (Fig. 3) and the heterogeneous simple shear
rotation model for rocks on Flateyjarskagi west of the anticline and central volcano.
Though current paleomagnetic data are spatially variable, they do not provide
opportunities to compare between areas with the same fault-normal distance and different
locations along strike (excluding tilted rocks near the Flateyjarskagi anticline axis).
Therefore, there is not currently good evidence for variation in rotation along strike.
STATISTICS ON DIRECTIONS AND ORIENTATIONS
11
Statistics provides tools to rigorously compare populations and describe patterns
in scattered data sets. For this study, I used the geologyGeometry library in R studio for
statistical computations (Davis and Titus, 2017). This library contains statistical tools
developed specifically for the analysis of direction and orientation data (e.g.
measurements of strike and dip).
The data used in this study consist of planes (veins, faults, dikes) and plane-ray pairs
(faults with slickenside striae), which I will describe as directions and orientations,
respectively. An orientation is fully constrained in 3-D, whereas a plane (a direction) can
rotate around its pole and appear the same. An orientation therefore has one more degree
of freedom than a direction, and must be described with three numbers (strike, dip, rake)
instead of two (strike, dip).
The geologyGeometry library represents orientations (faults with slickensides) as
rotation matrices. A rotation matrix for a plane-ray pair has the form:
,
where is the pole to the fault plane and is a ray on the fault plane that is
perpendicular to the slip vector, called the fault “vorticity vector”. If slip on the fault
described by R is approximated as simple shear deformation of a block, this deformation
would rotate the boundary of the block about . Note that since and are three
dimensional vectors, R is a 3 by 3 matrix. This matrix rotates to the y-z plane and
to the y-axis. Rotation matrices of this form have a one-to-one correspondence with
orientations and can be averaged, regressed, and manipulated (Davis and Titus, 2017).
12
Most statistical techniques applied to scalar data sets--such as the mean, variance,
linear regression, etc.--are not directly applicable to directional data. The mean of a set of
n scalars is their sum divided by n. There is no directly analogous process for averaging n
planes because it is not clear what it means to add or divide planes. Planar geologic data
are often described by two scalars: a strike and a dip, which can be individually averaged.
However, averaging strikes and dips separately is not a reliable method for averaging a
group of planes. In general, the components of a multidimensional datum, like a plane,
should be treated together (Davis and Titus, 2017). We therefore use statistical techniques
developed specifically for direction and orientation data, such as the Bingham
distribution, the Frechet and projected arithmetic means, and small circle regressions.
The Mean
The projected arithmetic mean and the Frechet mean both describe the central
tendency of a set of directions or orientations, and are usually similar but not identical.
The arithmetic mean is the sum of the elements in a dataset divided by the number of
elements. For rotations, the resulting matrix is not always a rotation (special orthogonal)
matrix. The projected arithmetic mean is the rotation matrix closest to the arithmetic
mean (Davis and Titus, 2017).
The Frechet variance:
,
describes the variance of a set of n rotations, , around a mean, . The function
computes the magnitude of the rotation that takes to (Davis and Titus, 2017). The
13
Frechet mean is computed iteratively by finding the that minimizes . A similar
method is used to calculate the Frechet mean of a set of directions.
Inference on the Mean
The mean of a dataset reflects the true mean of the sampled population with some
uncertainty. Therefore, the mean of a set of measurements can deviate to some extent
from an expected mean, even if the two values are not statistically distinct. Confidence
regions for the mean of a set of directions can be computed using bootstrapping or
probability distributions, and compared to hypothesized means. If a hypothesized mean
plots outside of the 95% confidence region for the mean of a set of data, then the true
mean of the data is distinct from the predicted mean at the 95% confidence level (p <
0.05) (Tauxe, 2003).
The Bingham distribution is a probability distribution for directional data
presented by Bingham and Mardia (1978), which describes data that form an elliptical or
girdle-like cluster around a mean (Borradaile, 2003). The geologyGeometry library uses
the Bingham distribution to construct confidence regions for means, using the method
described by Tauxe (2003).
Bootstrapping can also be used to construct a confidence region for the mean of
directional data. This approach is computationally more intensive, but does not assume
that data are distributed according to the Bingham distribution. Means are computed for
multiple bootstrapped datasets of the same size as the original data set, each formed by
randomly sampling the original dataset with replacement. The Malhalanobis distance
14
describes the distance of each bootstrapped mean from the center of the resulting multi-
dimensional cloud of means. An ellipsoid that encompasses the 95th percentile of the
Malhalanobis distances serves as a 95% confidence region for the population mean
(Davis and Titus, 2017). Both methods of inference work best on reasonably large
datasets, but the minimum number of data points for which inference is effective is a
function of the scatter in the data (Davis and Titus, 2017).
Regressions
I use regressions to quantify the average change in the direction of geologic
structures with some scalar variable (e.g. northing, width, etc.). Direction regressions can
be considered functions that take a scalar as input and predict a direction, answering
questions of the form: “What is the average expected dike direction in areas with an
easting of 5000 m?” Regressions also provide information about the rate of change in a
direction with a scalar variable. A small-circle regression assumes rotation about a fixed
axis, which results in predicted directions that follow a small-circle path.
Regressions are useful when the average direction of a population changes
gradually with some property of the population. Regressions are best applied to unimodal
data sets. The regressions described here predict a single orientation for a given value of
the independent variable. Multiple modes will effectively be averaged, obscuring any
patterns in individual populations of the data. It is also preferable to have an even
distribution of observations across the range of the independent variable. A regression is
computed by minimizing the difference between predicted and observed data points. For
orientations, this minimized quantity can be written as:
15
,
where Ri is an observed orientation paired with scalar si, R(si) is the orientation
predicted given si (Davis and Titus, 2017). The square of this difference is summed over
all data points. Functions that compute regressions attempt to find the function for R(si)
that minimizes this sum.
The proportion of variability in the data that can be explained by the regression is
defined as:
,
where is the Frechet variance of the data: a measure of the total variability. An R2
value describes how closely the predictions from a regression match the observed data,
but does not provide a measure of statistical significance.
Regression significance and confidence intervals
The statistical significance of a regression is described by a p value, which can be
determined by running regressions on permutations of the data. I create permuted data
sets by reassigning each direction to a scalar from the data set randomly, with
replacement. I then run regressions on each of these permuted data sets. The p value is
the proportion of permuted regressions with a higher than the original regression. Low
p values indicate a low probability that the data are randomly distributed.
I use bootstrapping to create confidence intervals for the parameters output by the
regressions. I compute regressions on a sample of data selected randomly, with
replacement from the original data set. These regressions give a sense for the range of
regression outputs expected for a random sample of the total population of faults or veins.
16
A small circle regression produces a starting direction, an axis of rotation, and a rate of
rotation, which can be described by a rotation matrix with 5 degrees of freedom. The
95% confidence region for a regression is the 5-dimensional ellipsoid that encompasses
the 95th percentile of Mahalanobis distances of a cloud of bootstrapped regressions. This
5-dimensional ellipsoid can then be used to solve for a 95% confidence region for a
regression axis or rotation rate (Titus et al, 2018).
TYPES OF STRUCTURES
During the summer of 2018, I worked with Sarah Titus, Maxwell Brown, Paul
Ashwell, and Seth Waag-Swift to measure hundreds of brittle structures around the
subaerial regions of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone. These measurements supplement data
collected by Fjader et al. (1994), Bergerat et al. (2000), Titus et al. (2018), and
unpublished measurements taken by Dr. Titus, students, and collaborators in previous
years. Most of our data come from river valleys, road cuts, shorelines, and quarries due to
their relative accessibility. We classify structures into several categories: fractures, veins,
small faults with slickenside striae, vein zones, dikes, and large faults with gouge or
cataclasite (Fig. 5). The smallest veins and fractures represent millimeters of relative
motion, while the largest faults observed have likely accommodated tens to hundreds of
meters of slip.
Lava flows are identified by red paleosols between flows, or by bands of
amygdules aligned parallel to bedding. Most dikes are basaltic and stand out from the
host-rock due to baked margins or sets of margin-parallel fractures. Dikes in pre-
unconformity lavas tend to be several decimeters to several meters in width.
Figure 5. Images of structures in the field area. (A) a vein with red staining and multiple layers. (B) A planar vein zone. (C) A red-stained fault surface with slickenside striae and mineralizedsteps down in the direction of motion. (D) A large fault on Tjornes with bright red and orangegouge. (E) A dike margin. (F) A faulted dike margin in a quarry in Eyjafjordur.
..
17
18
Veins in the study area range in size from ~1 mm to several centimeters, are filled
with quartz, calcite, and/or zeolites, and are sometimes stained by iron oxides or other
colorful minerals. Veins frequently follow faults, fractures, and dike margins. Many large
veins contain multiple layers, indicating several episodes of opening (Fig 5A). Mineral
fibers in some veins suggest opening perpendicular to the plane of the vein, while
displacement across other veins suggests oblique opening. For the purposes of this study,
I do not distinguish between these categories because I do not use veins for kinematic
analyses, and because in most cases, it is not possible to determine the direction of
opening. An individual vein measurement does not carry much weight because veins
frequently bend, pinch, and swell, but there is often a dominant orientation in a large set
of vein measurements. Vein zones are cm-to-m scale planar regions of sub-parallel or
anastomosing veins. These structures can only be measured by sighting, introducing
some uncertainty. Even so, vein zone measurements tend to be less scattered than vein
measurements because the zones average out some of the variability in individual veins.
Sometimes the rock on one side of a fault plane is removed, exposing a plane with
slickenside striae indicative of the fault slip direction. Observations of fault surfaces with
slickenside striae are particularly valuable, both as kinematic indicators and as fully-
constrained orientations. The sense of slip on a fault is indicated by parallel score marks
or mineral fibers pointing in the direction of slip (Fig. 5C). A variety of features on fault
surfaces can be used to determine sense of motion (Petit, 1986). We most commonly
observed steps moving down in the direction of motion. These steps can cause fault
surfaces to feel smooth in the direction of motion of the missing block, and rough in the
opposite direction. We also occasionally interpreted features as Riedel shears or lunate
19
structures (Fig. 6). It is important to note that slip indicators can be subtle and subject to
misinterpretation. For instance, whether a feature is identified as a step or a Riedel shear
changes the inferred direction of motion on the fault. Whenever possible, multiple
indicators should be identified. Since this is not always an option, there is considerable
uncertainty associated with fault-slip direction.
Fractures are planar breaks that lack evidence of slip or opening. Some features
recorded as fractures, particularly the large fractures in hyaloclastites south of the
Húsavík-Flatey fault on Tjörnes, may have accommodated some slip, but lack
displacement markers. Larger faults in the study area contain up to several decimeters of
red, green, or tan gouge, and up to several meters of intense damage. Many such faults
create topographic lows. Some faults have damage zones with several slickenside
surfaces, which occasionally have inconsistent senses of slip.
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Patterns in small structures with fault-normal distance
When viewed together, the orientations of structures on Flateyjarskagi are
extremely scattered. Poles to dikes, veins, and small faults are distributed along
horizontal to NW-dipping girdles (Fig. 7). Local variations account for some of this
scatter. In order to parse spatial patterns in each type of structure, I divide data from
Flateyjarskagi west of the anticline into three regions based on distance from the
Húsavík-Flatey fault: far-fault (> 20 km), mid-distance (2-20 km), and near-fault (< 2
km). Structures from areas more than 20 km from the fault are well outside the rotation
gradient documented on Flateyjarskagi. I consider these far-fault structures to form
A B
Figure 6. Two examples of fault slip indicators with similar appearances that suggest opposite senses of motion. In A, reidel shears cause abrupt steps up and gradual steps down in the direction of slip, and in B, mineral fibers form an abrupt step down in the direction of slip. Figure adapted from Petit et al, 1986.
R shear
20
Approaching the HFF
Figu
re 7
. Pol
es t
o di
kes,
vein
zon
es, a
nd s
mal
l fa
ults
on
Flat
eyja
rska
gi a
nd T
rolls
kagi
wes
t of
the
Fla
teyk
arsk
agi
antic
line,
co
lore
d by
faul
t-nor
mal
dis
tanc
e, w
here
pur
ple
is n
ear-
faul
t and
yel
low
is 2
8 km
from
the
faul
t. Ye
llow
squ
ares
indi
cate
ave
rage
fa
r-fa
ult
orie
ntat
ions
and
gre
y sq
uare
s in
dica
te p
redi
cted
rot
ated
orie
ntat
ions
. B
lack
tria
ngle
s in
dica
te t
he s
trike
s of
fau
lts
pred
icte
d ba
sed
on le
ast c
ompr
essi
ve st
ress
with
an
azim
uth
of 1
02°.
Kam
b co
unto
urs a
re sh
own
for m
ultip
les o
f 3 si
gma.
21
dike
sle
ft la
tera
l fau
ltsno
rmal
faul
tsrig
ht la
tera
l fau
ltsve
in z
ones
2-5
km
10 k
m
>18
km
<2 k
m
22
“default” patterns--analogues for all locations in the study area before shearing near the
Húsavík-Flatey fault.
The orientations of most far-fault structures have unimodal distributions, which I
describe using the mean. Structures fewer than 20 km from the transform are potentially
affected by the rotation gradient. I describe patterns in mid-distance structures using
regressions against fault-normal distance and through comparisons to expected fully-
rotated orientations. Structures in the intensely deformed rocks less than 2 km from the
transform are numerous, scattered, and exhibit variable patterns along fault-strike.
Far-Fault Structures
At field stations more than 10-14 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault, lavas dip
shallowly to the SW. Far-fault rocks contain veins, fractures, dikes, and sometimes fault
surfaces with slickenside striae. Most dikes and strike-slip faults dip steeply and are
approximately perpendicular to lava bedding, as illustrated in Figure 8. Right-lateral
faults strike mostly SE. Most left lateral faults strike SSE-NNE. Normal faults mostly
strike NNE and dip between 60° and 80°, typical of normal faults in Iceland (Forslund
and Gudmundsson, 1992). Several faults recorded as right-lateral are approximately
parallel to the primary population of left lateral faults and vice versa, indicating that the
slip senses of some faults could have been misinterpreted (Fig. 7). Excluding potentially
misidentified faults and dike-parallel faults, most far-fault slickenside surfaces are
broadly kinematically consistent with the ENE-WSW directed extension in Iceland.
I use bootstrapping and the Bingham distribution to compute 95% confidence
intervals for the mean poles to right-lateral, left lateral, and normal faults farther than 20
km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault. These datasets are mostly unimodal (Fig. 7). I
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 25 50 75
Degrees from Lava
coun
t
0
100
200
0 25 50 75Degrees from Lava
coun
t
0
25
50
75
100
0 25 50 75
Degrees from Lava
coun
t
0
5
10
0 25 50 75
Degrees from Lava
coun
t
0
5
10
15
20
0 25 50 75
Degrees from Lava
coun
t
Figure 8. Histograms showing the number of degrees between structures and average local lava bedding, where 90° is perpendicular and 0° is parallel. Note that plots have different y-axes. Equal area plots show poles to each type of structure after being rotated such that local lava bedding is taken to horizontal. Kamb contours represent regions containing 3, 6, 9, and 12 standard deviations of the distribution. Points on ste-reonets are colored by fault-normal distance. Unrotated structures are nearly vertical at all distances from the HFF.
Dikes Veins Vein Zones
Right Lateral Faults Normal Faults
0
10
20
30
0 25 50 75
Degrees from Lava
coun
t
Left Lateral Faults
n=302n=1008n=97
n=123n=71 n=55
23
24
removed 2 outliers from the right-lateral fault data, out of a total of 33 data points.
I analyzed all of the 47 observed left lateral faults, and 25 observed normal faults. The
relatively small number of data points in each category puts bootstrapping on shaky
ground. Davis and Titus (2017) demonstrate that with fewer than approximately 100
observations, the 95% confidence region for a mean predicted by bootstrapping contains
the true population mean less than 95% of the time. This implies that the confidence
regions produced using bootstrapping are probably too small. The Bingham distribution
analysis produced wider confidence regions, likely more reflective of the true certainty of
the analysis. For this reason, I only discuss the results of the Bingham analysis, but the
results of the bootstrapping analysis are presented in Table 1.
I compare the means of observed fault poles to expectations based on local plate
motion. GPS data indicate that relative plate motion in northern Iceland has an azimuth
close to 102° (Árnadóttir et al, 2008). Laboratory experiments on isotropic rocks
demonstrate that faults form at angles close to 60° to the least compressive stress,
consistent with Andersonian fault mechanics applied to rocks with typical internal
friction coefficients (Scholtz, 1989). Therefore, extension towards 102° might be
accommodated on normal faults striking ~012° and/or on conjugate sets of right- and left-
lateral faults, striking ~162° and ~222°, respectively (Fig. 9). The right-lateral and normal
fault poles we observed in unrotated far-fault lavas do not deviate from this prediction
with statistical significance (p > 0.05). However, a vertical fault plane striking 222°--the
predicted left-lateral fault direction--plots outside of the 95% confidence region for the
mean of the observed left-lateral fault poles (Fig. 9).
Comparison of expected fault poles to the projected arithmetic means of small fault poles farther than 20 km from the Husavik-Flatey fault. Expected strike slip fault poles assume failure occurs on planes oriented 60° to a least compressive stress with an azimuth of 102°. Expected normal faults strike perpendicular to 102° and dip 70° in either direction. Normal faults are separated into two unimodal populations according to dip. The number of normal faults dipping in either direction is very small, so I also report a mean for the entire population of normal faults. Bootstrapping rejects the null hypothe-sis at a higher rate than Bingham inference.
Figure 9. General patterns in faults with slickenside striae from far-fault areas. (A) Equal area plots showing 95% confidence regions (computed using Bingham inference) for the projected arithmetic means of poles to right lateral, normal, and left lateral faults. The normal fault data are small and somewhat multi-modal, resulting in a large confience region. Data are presented in Figure 8. Colored squares indicate poles to faults predicted based on the direction of plate motion in Iceland. (B) A schematic representation of faulting, showing the discrepency between expected left lateral faults and observed left lateral faults, which are often parallel to dikes.
9
Table 1. Results of bootstrapping and Bingham inference comparing expected and observed fault poles.
26
Mid-distance Structures
North of the Gil Lautur line on Flateyjarskagi, lavas are visibly more deformed
and many structures do not follow patterns observed in far-fault areas. Previous studies
have established a rotation gradient in this area (Young et al, 1985, Young et al, 2018,
Titus et al, 2018). It is likely that some small structures have rotated with the lavas and
dikes. In this section, I explore the extent to which rotation on Flateyjarskagi has affected
patterns in structures between 2 and 20 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault.
Dike Regressions
I use a logarithmic small-circle regression of dike data from Flateyjarskagi and
Tröllaskagi to quantitatively describe the rotation gradient near the Húsavík-Flatey fault
(Appendix B). Figure 10 shows the results of two small circle regressions of dike poles
between 2 and 20 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault. Regression A assumes a constant
rate of rotation approaching the fault. Regression B fits a rotation rate that is proportional
to the natural logarithm of distance, predicting a steeper rotation gradient near the fault.
The logarithmic fit has a slightly better R2 (0.68 vs. 0.64) and is used in the rest of my
analyses. However, the logarithmic regression cannot be extrapolated to areas very near
the fault because rotation increases very rapidly at small distances. Both regressions
produce poles of rotation plunging steeply to the southwest.
These regressions are similar to regressions published by Titus et al. (2018),
except that they are computed from data from a more limited area. Titus et al. run
regressions on dikes from all of Flateyjarskagi west of the anticline, up to 28 km from the
fault. Only dikes within 10-15 km of the Húsavík-Flatey fault appear to have rotated due
5 km
Gil-
Látu
r lin
ean
ticlin
e ax
is
5 km
Gil-
Látu
r lin
ean
ticlin
e ax
is
Dik
esLa
vas
NN
distance from fault (km)
40
0
30
0
distance from fault (km)
180
30
Dik
e Re
gres
sion
sno
t inc
lude
d in
t
he re
gres
sion
s
Loga
rithm
ic
R =
0.6
78p-
valu
e <
0.01
2
Cons
tant
rota
tion
R =
0.6
36p-
valu
e <
0.01
2
HFF
20 k
m
Figu
re 1
0. (A
and
B) E
qual
are
a pl
ots
show
ing
smal
l circ
le re
gres
sion
s of
the
pole
s to
dik
es o
bser
ved
betw
een
2 an
d 20
km
from
the
Hus
avik
-Fla
tey
faul
t. Th
e ax
es o
f rot
atio
n ar
e pl
otte
d in
bla
ck. P
lane
s and
pol
es to
pre
dict
ed d
ikes
are
plo
tted
at 1
km
inte
rval
s bet
wee
n 2
and
20 k
m fr
om th
e fa
ult.
Pole
s ar
e co
lore
d by
faul
t nor
mal
dis
tanc
e, w
ith fa
r-fau
lt po
les
in g
reen
and
nea
r-fau
lt po
les
in p
urpl
e, a
s sh
own
on th
e m
ap o
f dik
e da
ta in
C. E
qual
are
a pl
ots i
n C
show
dat
a us
ed in
the
regr
essi
ons.
Dik
e st
rike
data
from
You
ng e
t al.
(198
5) a
re sh
own
on th
e m
ap.
The
map
in C
is a
dapt
ed fr
om T
itus e
t al.(
2018
).
N
27
28
to off-fault deformation, so the regressions presented here only use data up to 20 km from
the fault. This increases both regression R2 values and the apparent rate of rotation. Dikes
on eastern Flateyjarskagi do not follow the pattern well and were therefore excluded from
the regression. This is consistent with the map of dike strikes from Young et al. (1985)
shown in Figure 10. I also include several measurements from Tröllaskagi that seem
consistent with the pattern on Flateyjarskagi.
Dikes nearer than 2 km from the fault are also not included in the regression.
Dikes from this interval have extremely variable directions and make up a large
proportion of our observations (66 out of 108 dikes measured east of the anticline), so
including these data has a strong effect on the regressions. Regressions including dikes
from 0-2 km predict counterclockwise rotation, despite a clear clockwise pattern in the 2-
20 km distance interval. Excluding the 0-2 km range there are only 42 data points, but the
data are more evenly distributed in space, and R2 values for the regressions are improved.
Vein Zone Regression
Small circle regressions confirm a systematic change in the poles to vein zones
with proximity to the Húsavík-Flatey fault (p value < 0.01). The regression shown in
Figure 11 predicts a clockwise increase in vein zone strike with northeasting, similar to
the pattern observed in the dikes. In contrast to the dike regression, the axis of rotation
plunges shallowly to the southeast. The vein zone regression predicts 31° of rotation each
time distance to the Húsavík-Flatey fault is halved--similar to the 30.5° of rotation
predicted by the dike regression. However, the vein zone regression predicts an axis of
rotation closer to the small circle of predicted poles, so the predicted change in vein zone
direction is smaller overall. The vein zone regression predicts a 56° difference, measured
Freq
uenc
y
0 60 120
010
0020
00
Freq
uenc
y
20 50 80
010
0020
00
n=108
2-20 km13 sites
n= 42
2-20 km13 sites
R = 0.678p-value < 0.01
2R = 0.125p-value < 0.01
2
Vein Zones Dikes
Boot
stra
pped
Rot
atio
n Ra
tes
Rate of rotation (degrees) Rate of rotation (degrees)
Figure 6. (Top) Equal area plots showing vein zones and dikes observed east of the Flateyjarskagi anticline, colored by fault-normal distance. (Middle) Equal area plots showing the results of small circle regressions on these directional data against the natural logarithm of fault-normal distance. Colored plotted points indicate poles predicted at 1 km intervals between 2 and 20 km from the fault. Grey points are axes of rotation from 500 bootstrapped regressions, and grey regions indicate 95% confidence regions for the bootstrapped axes, derived from ellipsoids fit to higher-dimension-al bootstrapped regression outputs. Histograms show rates of rotation (degrees of rotation predicted each time distance to the Husavik-Flatey fault decreases by 1/e) from the bootstrapped regressions, with black lines indicating rates from the original regressions.
Mea
sure
men
tsRe
gres
sion
s
29
30
along a great circle, between vein zones 2 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault and vein
zones 20 km from the fault, compared to an 80° difference between the predictions for
dikes at 2 and 20 km.
In order to compare regressions of dikes and vein zones, I use bootstrapping to
construct confidence regions for the regression parameters (Appendix C). I compute
logarithmic small circle regressions on 500 bootstrapped datasets for each type of
structure. The p value for the null hypothesis that the dike and vein zone regressions are
identical is 0.07, indicating that the regressions are almost distinct to the 95% confidence
level.
If the regressions are in fact distinct, this may be due to differences in the rates of
rotation, axes of rotation, and/or the initial (> 20 km) directions of each structure. In order
to compare rates and axes of rotation, I fit a 95% confidence ellipsoid to the bootstrapped
regressions of each structure, then examined the ranges of each parameter within each
ellipsoid. Figure 11 shows projections of these ellipsoids on equal area plots, representing
95% confidence regions for the regression axes. Although the axes of rotation appear to
differ between vein zones and dikes, the confidence regions overlap significantly. This
implies that there is not a statistically significant difference between the axes of rotation
for the two regressions. The overlap between rotation rates shown in the histograms in
Figure 11 also do not support a significant difference between the rotation rates of the
two regression.
Predictions
I do not have enough measurements of small faults between 2 and 20 km from the
Húsavík-Flatey fault to run regressions of fault orientation against fault-normal distance.
31
Our dataset contains a total of 90 left-lateral faults in the 2-20 km range, but they are all
either 2-3.5 km, 10 km, or 19 km from the transform (Fig. 8). The right-lateral and
normal fault data are similarly sparse between 3 and 10 km. There has been little rotation
beyond 10 km, so without data in the 3-10 km range, I was unable to describe patterns in
the small faults with regressions. Additionally, at several stations, the left-lateral and
normal faults data have multiple modes, which are not well-treated by regressions.
Instead of using regressions, I look for evidence of rotated small faults by
estimating the expected orientation of each type of fault (left-lateral, normal, or right-
lateral) in each location, and comparing these expected orientations to the observed
faults. Predicted orientations assume that each type of fault initiates with an orientation
identical to the Frechet mean of the orientations observed in unrotated areas (> 20 km
from the transform). I then rotate these far-fault average orientations according to the
rotation predicted by the logarithmic small circle dike regression shown in Figure 10. The
resulting predictions are shown in Figure 8. Left-lateral faults greater than 20 km from
the Húsavík-Flatey fault have a bimodal distribution, which is not well described by the
Frechet mean. Far-fault left-lateral fault planes have a similar distribution to dike planes,
so I use the dike prediction for the left-lateral fault planes, instead of the Frechet mean.
In most areas, some but not all of the observed small faults are consistent with the
predicted orientations. Left-lateral faults mimic dikes at all distances between 2 and 20
km, with the exception of several SSE-striking faults in each area, which might be
misidentified right-lateral faults. The regression slightly overpredicts the amount of
rotation in a set of apparently unrotated right-lateral faults from a station 10 km from the
Húsavík-Flatey fault. Between 2 and 3 km, a population of right-lateral faults is well
32
predicted, and a population matches the far-fault right-lateral orientation. Normal faults
are not well predicted at any distance. Most normal faults throughout the study area strike
NNE and dip between 50 and 80 degrees, regardless of distance from the Húsavík-Flatey
fault. There is an anomalous SE-striking population of normal faults between 2 and 5 km
from the fault, but these faults do not match the predicted rotated orientations.
Near-fault Structures
Patterns in the orientations of structures nearer than 2 km from the Húsavík-Flatey
fault are more complex than patterns between 2 and 20 km from the fault, possibly due to
larger post-rotation populations. I analyze more than one thousand measurements from
numerous stations along the northern coast of Flateyjarskagi, very near the fault. There is
considerable variation along strike in this area, so I divide the coastal data into an eastern
bin, a central bin, and a western bin, and consider patterns in each bin separately.
Structures from within 2 km of the Húsavík-Flatey fault are presented on equal
area plots in Figure 12. For simplicity, only poles are plotted in Figure 12, rather than
fault orientations. Faults are binned by type (left-lateral, etc.), so there are some
constraints on the rakes of the faults on each equal area plot. Clockwise rotation about a
steep axis should not, for the most part, rotate left-lateral faults such that they appear to
be normal or right-lateral. I therefore categorize faults as right-lateral, left-lateral, or
normal based on rakes measured in the field, and assume these descriptions applied to the
faults when they initiated. Rakes are reported as degrees to the slip vector measured
clockwise from strike, along the fault plane. Rakes between 315° and 45° are classified as
B
HFF
5 km
Left
Lat
eral
Fau
ltsN
orm
al F
aults
Righ
t Lat
eral
Fau
ltsVe
in Z
ones
Dik
es
far-fault average pole
predicted rotated pole
Figure 12. (A) Map of the northern coast of central Flateyjarskagi very near the Husavik-Flatey Fault with field stations, binned and colored by distance along fault strike. (B) Equal area plots showing poles tostructures from each bin, colored as in A. Grey squared indicate poles to Frechet means of structures greater than 20 km from the HFF: the expected unrotated directions. Black squares indicate poles to structures predicted by rotating far-fault Frechet means to a fault-normal distance of 2 km according to the logarithmic small circle dike regression.
N = 18 N = 22 N = 21
N = 14 N = 78 N = 80
N = 60N = 18
N = 12 N = 62 N = 75
N = 76N = 67N = 61
A
N
33
34
left-lateral, between 45° and 135° are normal, and between 135° and 225° are right-
lateral. Thrust faults are not plotted in Figure 12. There are only 25 total recorded thrust
faults out of a total of 631 total faults with slickenside striae, and it is likely that some of
them are misidentified normal faults.
Poles to structures of all kinds largely follow girdles defined by NW-dipping
lavas. Dikes do not appear to vary systematically along strike. Most near-fault dikes are
well predicted by the small-circle dike regression, but all three bins appear to have a
second minor population striking NE rather than ESE. Most left-lateral faults in the west
and east strike NE, similar to left-lateral fault surfaces far from the Húsavík-Flatey fault.
A population of left-lateral faults is parallel to the dikes in all three bins. About half of
the left-lateral faults in the central region are slightly clockwise of a typical unrotated
left-lateral fault. Right-lateral faults vary dramatically along strike. In the east, they
match right-lateral faults in unrotated areas. In the central bin, all faults broadly match the
predicted rotated orientation. In the west, right-lateral faults appear partially rotated, with
poles similar to post-rotation normal faults. Normal faults strike NNE all along the
northern coast of Flateyjarskagi, though normal faults in the central bin are on average
slightly clockwise of faults in other bins. Most vein zones strike NE-ENE, slightly
counterclockwise of dikes on average. In the west, some vein zones strike NS, and in the
east, a minority of vein zones strike ESE, similar to the prediction for a fully-rotated vein
zone.
35
MODELS OF ROTATION
The style of rotation observed south of the Húsavík-Flatey fault is not consistent
with bookshelf fault systems documented in the South Iceland Seismic Zone and
elsewhere in Iceland. Similar to a bookshelf system, blocks likely rotate around left-
lateral faults that initiate approximately perpendicular to the transform, along N-S
striking weaknesses in the Icelandic crust. However, the >100° rotations observed within
several kilometers of the fault cannot be explained by a single set of left-lateral faults,
necessitating at least 2-3 generations of left-lateral faults, as illustrated in Figure 4B (Nur
et al, 1986), or a more irregular block geometry (Fig. 4C). Additionally, unlike a typical
bookshelf system, areas very near the Húsavík-Flatey fault have experienced more shear
than areas at mid-distances.
Previous workers have proposed several modified bookshelf-like models to
explain the block rotations on northern Flateyjarskagi. Here, I distinguish between three
models, illustrated in Figure 13. Young et al. (1985, 2018) believe that rotation took place
during the development of the Húsavík-Flatey fault, before strain concentrated along a
single transform fault (Figure 13A). They use sandbox models to demonstrate
development of a curved fabric in a transform zone prior to the development of discrete
shears at the center of the zone.
Karson (2017) attributes the rotation gradient to migration of the transform
through northern Flateyjarskagi. His rift propagation model is based on models used by
Hey et al. (1980) to show migration of a discrete transform along the Cocos-Nazca
spreading center. However, a discrete transform is not sufficient to explain rotation;
transform motion must be distributed over the rotating area. If ridge segments overlapped
A
HFF
Figu
re 1
3. T
hree
mod
els f
or th
e ge
omet
ry o
f rot
atio
n ne
ar th
e H
usav
ik-F
late
y fa
ult.
(A) R
otat
ion
in a
bro
ad sh
ear z
one
prio
r to
the
deve
lop-
men
t of t
he tr
ansf
orm
. Not
e tha
t rot
atio
n in
this
mod
el o
ccur
s mos
tly b
efor
e she
ar is
conc
entra
ted
on th
e Hus
avik
-Fla
tey
faul
t, an
d no
rota
tion
is p
redi
cted
in y
oung
er c
rust
(dar
ker g
ray)
. (B
) B
lock
s rot
ate
betw
een
prop
agat
ing
rift s
egm
ents
bef
ore
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
HFF
. A sh
ear
zone
dev
elop
s bet
wee
n ov
erla
ppin
g rif
t seg
men
ts a
fter t
he ri
dge
jum
p c.
8.5
Ma.
Ada
pted
from
a fi
gure
use
d by
Sig
mun
dsso
n et
al.
(199
5)
to i
llust
rate
boo
kshe
lf fa
ultin
g in
the
Sou
th I
cela
ndic
Sei
smic
Zon
e. T
he N
orth
ern
Volc
anic
Zon
e (N
VZ)
pro
paga
tes
north
, the
reg
ion
betw
een
over
lapp
ing
rifts
nar
row
s, an
d ro
tatio
n co
ntin
ues
in a
mor
e co
ncen
trate
d re
gion
nea
r th
e de
velo
ping
Hus
avik
-Fla
tey
faul
t. Th
is
mod
el d
oes n
ot im
ply
rota
tion
north
of t
he fa
ult.
(C) A
nti-J
styl
e ro
tatio
n du
e to
dra
g w
hen
the
trans
form
is lo
cked
. Thi
s mod
el in
volv
es ro
ta-
tion
durin
g th
e lif
etim
e of
the
Hus
avik
-Fla
tey
faul
t and
pre
dict
s som
e ro
tatio
n in
you
nger
lava
s.
BC
NVZ
KRKR
KR
NVZ
NVZ
HFF
HFF
36
during propagation, the resulting N-S gradient in the spreading rate along the Northern
Volcanic Zone would cause distributed transform motion between the overlapping ridges.
This distributed shear could result in clockwise rotation of the lavas between the ridges.
Sigmundsson et al. (1995) provide a similar explanation for block rotation in the South
Icelandic Seismic Zone. The greater magnitude rotations near the Húsavík-Flatey fault
could be the result of the zone between overlapping ridge segments in northern Iceland
narrowing overtime. A possible geometry is illustrated in Figure 13B. Notably, in this
case, shear would have taken place prior to the development of a mature transform fault,
consistent with the conclusions of Young et al. (1985). Unlike the model from Young et
al., the rift propagation model does not necessarily predict rotation north of the fault (i.e.
on Tjörnes).
Horst et al. (2017) and Stefansson et al. (2008) attribute the rotation to off-fault
deformation during periods of high coupling along the transform, likening the pattern to
anti-J shaped deflections of valleys near other mature oceanic transform faults (Fig 13C).
Anti-J-style rotation could occur simultaneously with slip on the Húsavík-Flatey fault and
could be on-going, unlike rotation caused by rift propagation or by heterogeneous simple
shear during development of the transform. Unlike the ridge-propagation model, anti-J
block rotation would likely affect areas north and south of the transform.
The three models are similar to one another in many respects, but differ in the
timing of rotation. Young et al. (1985) find that the amount of rotation is consistent with
shearing during a ~2 million year time interval. However, this analysis assumes that all of
the relative plate motion was accommodated in the shear zone on Flateyjarskagi during
this time, which would not have been the case if spreading was partitioned between two
37
38
parallel ridges, as suggested by Garcia (2003). Two million years is therefore an
underestimate of the duration of rotation, but it is possible that most rotation took place
during the first few million years of shearing along the Tjörnes Fracture Zone.
Paleomagnetic data from Tjörnes indicate little to no rotation of rocks younger than 5.3-
3.8 Ma (Titus et al, 2018).
My interpretation of the timing of small faults on northern Flateyjarskagi provides
weak evidence that rotation is not on-going. If the rate of rotation were constant overtime,
we might expect fault poles in rotated lavas to be evenly distributed along a girdle
representing a range from unrotated to fully-rotated, corresponding to a range in fault age
from young to old. Instead, to some extent, we observe distinct populations of fully-
rotated and unrotated faults. In fact, the majority of small faults less than 2 km from the
Húsavík-Flatey fault could easily have experienced no rotation. This might suggest that
there has been a long period of time after rotation stopped during which unrotated faults
could accumulate. This interpretation is more consistent with the heterogeneous simple
shear and rift-propagation models than the anti-J model.
The presence or absence of rotation north of the Húsavík-Flatey fault is critical to
distinguishing between the three rotation models. Unfortunately, much of this area is
submerged, with the exception of the Tjörnes Peninsula. Only portions of the exposed
lavas on Tjörnes are old enough to have recorded large-magnitude rotations, and it is
difficult to tell whether these pre-unconformity rocks have rotated like rocks on
Flateyjarskagi. We do not observe a rotation gradient in the dikes or small faults on
Tjörnes (Appendix D), but this does not rule out rotation because it is possible that initial
dike orientations were too scattered for rotation to be recorded.
39
Paleomagnetic data published by Titus et al. (2018) and Young et al. (2018) may
support clockwise rotation of rocks on Tjörnes north of the Húsavík-Flatey fault.
Paleomagnetic measurements from rocks near the fault on Tjörnes deviate from expected
unrotated directions in a similar manner to paleomagnetic measurements from northern
Flateyjarskagi. However, since paleomagnetic data are directions rather than orientations,
the rotation that caused this deviation is ambiguous. A clockwise rotation is not the
smallest rotation that could account for the observed deflections. The argument for
clockwise block rotation on Tjörnes would be much more compelling with evidence of a
rotation gradient. Data from Titus et al. (2018) span distances between approximately 2
and 6 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault, with no apparent gradient in rotation. This
makes it unclear whether there have been large-magnitude clockwise rotations of lavas on
Tjörnes. If pre-unconformity rocks on Tjörnes are interpreted as unrotated, northward
propagation of the Northern Volcanic Zone (Fig. 13B) is the most compelling
explanation for the rotation gradient on Flateyjarskagi. It is unclear why anti-J-style
rotations or the heterogeneous simple shear model would result in asymmetrical rotations
north and south of the fault.
DISCUSSION
Timing of formation
The amount of rotation apparent in each data set may relate to the ages of the
observed structures. The rotation gradient recorded in the dike data is close enough to the
gradient in the paleomagnetic data that most dikes in the study area likely pre-date
rotation (Titus et al, 2018). This is consistent with most of the 40Ar/39Ar ages determined
40
for dikes by Garcia et al. (2003), which range from 5 to 10 Ma. Dikes therefore have
recorded the full rotation history of the host-rock. By contrast, many near-fault vein
zones and small faults likely formed during or after rotation. Structures that match
predictions shown in Figures 8 and 12 may have formed prior to rotation and rotated with
the dikes, whereas near-fault structures that match far-fault orientations likely post-date
rotation. It is possible that the girdles followed by fault and vein poles in some areas
reflect continuous formation of these structures during rotation, as shown in Figure 4B.
Ideally, inferences about the relative ages of structures would be supported with cross-
cutting relationships, but we observed too few instances of cross-cutting to inform my
interpretations.
Vein Zones
Vein zones and dikes both rotate clockwise approaching the fault around
statistically indistinguishable poles of rotation. However, bootstrapping analysis shows
that it is unlikely that the regressions of veins zones and dikes 2-20 km from the HFF
record the same pattern (p = 0.07) (Fig. 11), suggesting that vein zones and dikes have
experienced different rotation histories. In general, vein zones appear to have rotated less
than dikes, which might indicate that vein zones are younger on average, though this is
not reflected in the rotation rates of the regressions. A N-S-striking vein zone that formed
after most off-fault deformation would bring the average direction of near-fault vein
zones closer to the average far-fault direction, diminishing rotation in the vein zone
regression. Vein zones between 2 and 5 km from the fault form a continuous arc between
apparently unrotated, NS-striking structures, and apparently fully-rotated, ENE-striking
structures, implying that vein zones in this area may have formed throughout rotation.
41
Most vein zones nearer than 2 km from the Húsavík-Flatey fault appear to have
experienced most but not all of the rotation. It is possible that several degrees of rotation
took place, then a large proportion of near-fault vein zones formed striking ~N-S, after
which the majority of rotation took place. However, there is no clear reason that most
near-fault vein zones would have formed during a relatively short interval like this.
Alternatively, it is possible that these vein zones pre- or post-date rotation and that
anisotropy in the crust or variation in stress caused them to form differently from far-fault
vein zones.
Strike-Slip Faulting
Figures 8 and 12 show distinct rotated and unrotated populations of strike slip
faults in several areas. Our data are too scattered to show evidence of three or more
distinct generations of left-lateral faults, as predicted by the model in Figure 4B. Near-
fault rocks have rotated such that unrotated left-lateral fault poles appear similar to
rotated right-lateral fault poles and vice versa. Therefore, an apparently rotated left-lateral
fault might in reality be a misidentified unrotated right-lateral fault. However, it is very
unlikely that all of the apparently rotated faults have been misidentified, due to the large
number of rotated faults and the significant spatial variations in the proportions of rotated
and unrotated faults.
Our fault data capture variation in the patterns of deformation from east to west
along the north-central Flateyjarskagi coast. Left and right-lateral faults appear younger
at eastern stations than central stations, suggesting more extensive post-rotation
deformation in the east. There is a glacial valley immediately adjacent to the eastern
stations, which might follow a zone of damage. Young et al. (1985) documented a denser
42
network of large normal faults following another topographic low in the western stations.
We did not observe a higher proportion of small normal faults in this area, but right- and
left-lateral fault planes are similar to normal fault planes and may have been influenced
by extensive normal faulting.
Normal Faulting
Young et al. (1985, 2018) suggest that most normal faulting occurred after
rotation south of the fault. Our data support this assertion; normal fault planes throughout
Flateyjarskagi appear mostly unrotated. The deviation between the far-fault average and
the near-fault normal fault poles seen in Figure 12 is more likely due to the difference in
lava bedding near the fault than due to rotation. A secondary population of far-fault
normal faults also appears to have affected the west-dipping far-fault average, which
otherwise might be more similar to the near-fault observations. Though it would seem
simplest for rotation and lava tilting to occur simultaneously, this finding suggests that
much of the tilting of near-fault lavas to the NW may have occurred on normal faults
after most of the clockwise block rotation.
Normal faults very near the Húsavík-Flatey fault preferentially dip to the east. It is
likely that this preferential dip reflects the tendency for small faults to form perpendicular
to lava bedding. Since lavas on northern Flateyjarskagi dip to the northwest, an
approximately NS-striking plane perpendicular to the lavas must dip to the east. The
normal faults we observed in shallowly-dipping far-fault lavas do not preferentially dip to
the east. Therefore, it seems likely that the NW-dip of near-fault lavas imparted a
preferred dip to the normal faults.
43
Slip on mostly east-dipping normal faults could explain the NW-tilting of the lava
pile on northern Flateyjarskagi. Whereas conjugate sets of E and W-dipping normal faults
can accommodate pure shear-style extension with no lava tilting, a set of parallel faults
will result in rotation of blocks and bounding faults. Rotation about a set of ESE-dipping
normal faults would result in west-side-down, east-side-up motion of fault-bounded
blocks, consistent with observed lava dips. So, are west-dipping lavas responsible for
east-dipping normal faults or vice versa? It is possible that a small tilt in the lavas
introduced, for instance, by loading at the fossil ridge to the west of the study area, would
result in a preferred normal-fault orientation that could then exacerbate the lava tilting.
Anisotropy
Throughout the study area, structures of every kind (veins, faults, etc.) form
nearly perpendicular to lavas (Fig. 7). On equal area plots, poles to structures consistently
form girdles following the local lava bedding plane. The simplest explanation for this
pattern is that structures are influenced by inhomogeneities in the lavas. Joints form
perpendicular to lava flows as they contract during cooling. This gives lavas an inherent
anisotropy, which appears to have a strong effect on almost every type of secondary
structure. Additionally, dikes are likely to intrude vertically (even in a homogeneous host
rock). Therefore, the margins and margin-parallel fractures in dikes that intrude prior to
lava tilting serve as further lava-perpendicular planes of weakness. Forslund and
Gunsdmunsson (1992) invoke cooling joints to explain the unusually steep (70-80°) dips
of normal faults elsewhere in Iceland. We also observed steeply dipping normal faults in
areas with shallowly dipping lavas. This pattern suggests a strong effect of local
weakness on the formation of small faults and veins.
44
Bingham distribution analyses of the small faults measured greater than 20 km
from the Húsavík-Flatey fault support that the mean right-lateral and normal fault
orientations are not significantly different from predictions based on WNW-directed
spreading in northern Iceland. However, observed left-lateral faults are on average about
30° clockwise of their predicted NE strikes. Despite the small number of far-fault data
points and the wide confidence region for the mean of the left-lateral fault poles, the
difference is statistically significant.
This discrepancy likely reflects the influence of dike margins and NS-striking
normal faults on the formation of the left-lateral faults. Figure 8 shows a strong
relationship between the directions of dikes and the directions of left-lateral fault planes
throughout the study area. Near the Húsavík-Flatey fault, dikes have rotated away from a
direction that could influence left-lateral fault planes. In these areas, most left-lateral
faults that I interpret to post-date rotation strike close to 222°, consistent with plate
motion (Fig. 8).
Limitations of Stress Inversion
Previous studies have attempted to calculate principal stresses using fault slip data
from the Tjörnes Fracture Zone (Garcia and Dhont, 2005; Bergerat et al, 2000, Garcia et
al. 2002, Angelier et al, 2000). These studies deal with multimodal datasets by grouping
faults into kinematically consistent sets and calculating a stress state for each. Bergerat et
al. (2000) and Angelier et al. (2000) identify eight distinct stress states on Flateykarskagi,
which they attribute to short term stress fluctuations caused by periodic locking on the
45
Húsavík-Flatey fault, variations in fluid pressure, and motion along block boundaries.
Garcia and Dhont (2005) identify two stress states near the fault on Tjörnes.
I do not interpret stresses from our fault slip data for a number of reasons. Rotated
faults are not useful for stress analysis. Bergerat et al. (2000) assign stress states to
populations of faults that I interpret as rotated and populations that may be misidentified
(right-lateral rather than left-lateral). In addition, previous studies calculated stresses from
kinematic indicators assuming a homogeneous and isotropic crust. However, the
orientations of small faults in our field area are significantly influenced by anisotropies in
the crust, as evidenced by faulting on dike margins, the perpendicularity of faults to
lavas, and observations of reactivated fault planes with multiple senses of slip. In addition
to systematic effects, like the apparent effect of dikes on left lateral faults, local
inhomogeneities are likely to introduce scatter that poses problems for binning faults into
many stress regimes.
Kinematic analysis is more justified, but not the most informative treatment of
data from northern Flateyjarskagi. As noted by Allmendinger (1989), kinematic axes (eg.
the direction of greatest extension) can be calculated from fault slip data without
assuming the mechanical properties of the crust. Without knowledge of the volume of
rock being deformed or the amount of slip on each fault, I could at best estimate the
relative magnitudes of kinematic axes at each field site. Many faults appear to have
rotated, so kinematic axes would not accurately reflect the direction of motion at the time
of faulting. They would merely reflect the cumulative change in the shape of the rocks in
each area. Additionally, kinematic axes vary from station to station and our spatial
46
coverage of Flateyjarskagi is limited, so it would be difficult to draw conclusions about
the kinematics of the region as a whole.
CONCLUSION
I present new measurements of small faults and vein zones from the Tjörnes
Fracture Zone in northern Iceland, which, in combination with data from previous
studies, provide insight into the style of deformation around a major oceanic transform
fault. The orientations of structures within several kilometers of the transform fault are
extremely variable. Many small faults do not match patterns observed in far-fault areas
and do not appear kinematically consistent with E-W directed extension in Iceland.
Previous workers have interpreted this variability as an indication of variable stress
regimes. However, other studies have documented a gradual change in dike strikes and
paleomagnetic directions that support large-magnitude rotations of crust near the
transform. Therefore, fault variability might instead reflect the presence of older, rotated
structures in addition to younger, unrotated structures. Some populations of small faults
near the transform appear similar to the orientations expected for structures that rotated in
the same manner as nearby dikes. Very near the Húsavík-Flatey fault, areas with a higher
proportion of apparently unrotated small faults coincide to some extent with topographic
lows, and may have experienced more deformation post-rotation. There is also a
significant change in the poles to planar vein zones with proximity to the transform fault.
Rotation of the vein zones is distinct from rotation of the dikes to the 90% confidence
level, but not the 95% confidence level, suggesting that the vein zones might post-date
the dikes, on average. The presence of apparently rotated vein zones and small faults is
47
consistent with proposed block rotations, and presents a problem for paleostress analysis
near the transform.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Sarah Titus for her support, her comments on my draft, and for providing
me with the opportunity to travel to Iceland and work on this project. I thank the other
faculty, staff, and students in the Carleton Geology Department for their help. I’m
grateful to my parents for their encouragement throughout the process. This project was
made possible by NSF grant T51G-0258.
APPENDIX A. MEANS OF FAR-FAULT STRUCTURES
I used the following code to calculate means and confidence regions for small faults measured by the research group of Sarah Titus, Bergerat et al. (2000), and Garcia and Dhont (2005).
#filter small faults by rake, distance from the fault, and remove outliers.
farLL <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense=="L", distance > 20000) farRL <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense=="R", distance > 20000) farRL <- farRL[-33,] #remove one outlier with a strike of 77 farRL <- farRL[-16,] #another outlier with a dip of 42 farN <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense == "N", distance > 20000) farN_1a <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense == "N", distance > 20000, strikeDeg <90) farN_1b <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense == "N", distance > 20000, strikeDeg >270) farN_2 <- filter(allSlicks, slipSense == "N", distance > 20000, strikeDeg > 90, strikeDeg < 270) farN_1 <- rbind(farN_1a, farN_1b) #south-dipping
#I cannot take the average of the left lateral fault orientations because they are bimodal, but the #poles to the left lateral faults are unimodal, so I will compute average poles for all faults:
#Right Lateral Fault Bootstrapping RLpoleInfer <- lineBootstrapInference(farRL$pole, 10000) lineEqualAreaPlot(farRL$pole, colors="yellow")
48
par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(RLpoleInfer$center)) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(162, 90))), colors="blue") RLpoleInfer$pvalueLine(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(162, 90))) geoStrikeDipDegFromCartesian(RLpoleInfer$center)
#Right Lateral Fault Bingham Inference pdf(paste("farRLBingCRandPred.pdf", sep = ""), useDingbats = FALSE, width = 10, height = 6) par(pty="s") par(mar=c(1,1,1,1)) RPoleBingInfer <- lineBinghamInference(farRL$pole, numPoints = 1000) lineEqualAreaPlot(RPoleBingInfer$points) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(162, 90))), colors="red") dev.off()
#Left Lateral Fault Bootstrapping LLpoleInfer <- lineBootstrapInference(farLL$pole, 10000) lineEqualAreaPlot(farLL$pole, colors="yellow") par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(LLpoleInfer$center)) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(222, 90))), colors="blue") LLpoleInfer$pvalueLine(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(222, 90))) geoStrikeDipDegFromCartesian(LLpoleInfer$center)
#Left Lateral Fault Bingham Inference LPoleBingInfer <- lineBinghamInference(farLL$pole, numPoints = 1000)
#Plot confidence region: lineEqualAreaPlot(LPoleBingInfer$points) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(222, 90))), colors="red")
#Normal Fault Bootstrapping Inference for the Mean
#All normal faults analyzed together: NpoleInfer <- lineBootstrapInference(farN$pole, 10000) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(NpoleInfer$center)) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 90))), colors="blue") NpoleInfer$pvalueLine(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 90))) geoStrikeDipDegFromCartesian(NpoleInfer$center)
49
#note that, treated together, normal faults are not unimodal
#Normal faults separated by dip direction: N1poleInfer <- lineBootstrapInference(farN_1$pole, 10000) #11 observations lineEqualAreaPlot(list(N1poleInfer$center)) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 70))), colors="blue") N1poleInfer$pvalueLine(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 70))) geoStrikeDipDegFromCartesian(N1poleInfer$center)
N2poleInfer <- lineBootstrapInference(farN_2$pole, 10000) #14 observations lineEqualAreaPlot(list(N2poleInfer$center)) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 90))), colors="blue") N2poleInfer$pvalueLine(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(192, 70))) geoStrikeDipDegFromCartesian(N2poleInfer$center)
#Note that there are not enough observations here to trust the bootstrapping confidence intervals
#Normal fault Bingham Inference:
#All normal faults treated together: NPoleBingInfer <- lineBinghamInference(farN$pole, numPoints = 1000)
#Plot confidence region: lineEqualAreaPlot(NPoleBingInfer$points) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 90))), colors="red")
#normal faults treated separately: N1PoleBingInfer <- lineBinghamInference(farN_1$pole, numPoints = 1000)
#Plot confidence region: lineEqualAreaPlot(N1PoleBingInfer$points) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(012, 70))), colors="red")
N2PoleBingInfer <- lineBinghamInference(farN_2$pole, numPoints = 1000) #Plot confidence region: lineEqualAreaPlot(N2PoleBingInfer$points) par(new=TRUE) lineEqualAreaPlot(list(geoCartesianFromStrikeDipDeg(c(192, 70))), colors="red")
50
APPENDIX B. USE OF DIKE POLES TO ESTIMATE ROTATION GRADIENT
Dike data are ideal for constraining the amount of rotation in the study area
because dike poles broadly follow a great circle around the apparent axis of rotation. The
lava poles and the steeply plunging ChRMs obtained from paleomagnetic analysis follow
small circles, nearer to the axis of rotation. As noted by Young et al. (2018), a given
rotation about this axis results in a larger change in dike direction than in ChRM or lava
direction, making dikes a more sensitive measure of rotation. In Figure 3, it is clear that
the dike poles follow a larger arc than the paleomagnetic directions, despite recording
similar rotations.
Instead of using a regression, I could have determined how much each field
station had rotated individually by finding a rotation that takes an average far-fault dike
to the average dike direction at that station. In some ways, this method requires fewer
assumptions: the rate of rotation does not need to be constant or logarithmic, and rotation
can vary along strike. However, an unrotated dike and a rotated dike do not provide
enough information to solve for a rotation because dikes are directions, not orientations.
There are an infinite number of rotations that take one dike pole to another. Using a
regression against fault-normal distance as a proxy for rotation over time eliminates this
ambiguity. There are many rotations that take a far-fault dike pole to a near-fault dike
pole, but there is only one path that best follows the gradient in the dike directions over a
range of distances. Dikes at intermediate distances constrain the rotation.
There are drawbacks to using the dike regression to quantify the “full rotation”
history of northern Flateyjarskagi. The spatial distribution of our dike data is limited. The
regression uses measurements from stations between 2 and 3 km from the fault and from
51
stations approximately 6, 10, 13, 18 and 19 km from the fault. This leaves significant
gaps in the sampled distances, particularly between 3 and 10 km, where the rotation
gradient is likely the steepest. The dike regression assumes that there is no change in the
extent of rotation along Húsavík-Flatey fault -strike. This assumption is difficult to
validate with our data because we have very limited sampling along fault strike within
each distance interval. Data from Young et al. (1985) have more spatial coverage and are
consistent with our measurements in areas of overlap. These data show little variation
along fault strike in the area described by our dike regressions. Unfortunately, these dike
data lack dips and therefore cannot be used in our regressions.
It is possible that regressions of dike data underestimate the amount of rotation
that has taken place. The rate of rotation predicted by the dike regression is lower than
the rate predicted by regressions of dike paleomagnetic data from Titus et al. (2018). The
dike regression also systematically underpredicts rotation in the paleomagnetic data
published by Horst et al. (2018). High scatter in the near-fault dike poles suggests that
either some near-fault dikes intruded later and did not experience the full rotation or that
some near-fault dikes did not intrude striking N-S. The paleomagnetic data provide no
evidence that dikes have systematically experienced less rotation than lavas (Titus et al
2018), possibly suggesting that the initial orientations of dikes were more variable near
the HFF. Regardless of the cause, near-fault scatter is likely to cause dike regressions to
underestimate rotation. Additionally, the sparse distribution of dike data at mid-distances
(between 5 and 18 km from the HFF) necessitate that I use data points from slightly
outside the likely range of the rotation gradient (beyond 12-14 km from the fault) to
constrain the far-fault end of the regression. Including points from less- or un-rotated
52
areas likely causes the regression to further underestimate the amount of rotation per
kilometer in near-fault areas. The logarithmic fit helps to diminish this effect.
APPENDIX C. COMPARISON OF DIKE AND VEIN ZONE REGRESSIONS
In order to compare the logarithmic small circle regressions of vein zones and
dikes, I compared each of the 500 bootstrapped vein zone regressions to one of the 500
bootstrapped dike regressions by multiplying the vein zone regression rotation matrix by
the transpose of the dike regression rotation matrix. If the two regressions were identical,
this multiplication would result in the identity matrix. The 95% confidence ellipsoid for
the resulting cloud of 500 rotations contains the identity matrix, but the 90% confidence
ellipsoid does not contain the identity matrix. This implies that the difference between the
vein zone and dike regressions is significant to the 90% confidence level, but not the 95%
confidence level.
dikeDF <- filter(dikes, distance > 2000, distance<20000, easting<641500) dikeDF$distance <- lapply(dikeDF$distance, function(x) x/1000) bzDF <- filter(bzs, distance > 2000, distance<20000, easting<641500) bzDF$distance <- lapply(bzDF$distance, function(x) x/1000) dikeDF$lndist <- lapply(dikeDF$distance, function(x) log(x)) bzDF$lndist <- lapply(bzDF$distance, function(x) log(x))
logDikeSCReg <- lineSmallCircleRegression(dikeDF$lndist, dikeDF$pole, numSeeds=10, numSteps=100, numPoints=0, angleBound=2) logBZSCReg <- lineSmallCircleRegression(bzDF$lndist, bzDF$pole, numSeeds=10, numSteps=100, numPoints=0, angleBound=2)
#Plot axes of rotation for the dike and breccia zone regressions: lineEqualAreaPlotTwo(list(logBZSCReg$pole), list(logDikeSCReg$pole), colorA = "red") #Plot predictions, shown in Figures 5 and 6
xs <- c(1:20) #hues <- hues(xs, c(0, 28000)) xs <- lapply(xs, log)
53
xs <- lapply(xs, function(x) x/10) poles <- lapply(xs, logDikeSCReg$prediction) curves <- lapply(poles, rayGreatCircle)
lineEqualAreaPlot(poles, curves=curves)
#Bootstrap regressions:
lineGeodesicRegressionBootstrap <- function(xs, ls, numSteps=1000, numPoints=0) { indices <- sample(1:length(ls), length(ls), replace=TRUE) lineRescaledGeodesicRegression(xs[indices], ls[indices], numSteps=1000, numPoints=0) }
lineGeodesicRegressionBootstraps <- function(xs, ls, numBoots, numSteps=1000, numPoints=0) { boots <- replicate( numBoots, lineGeodesicRegressionBootstrap(xs, ls, numSteps, numPoints), simplify=FALSE) } lineSmallCircleRegressionBootstrap <- function(xs, ls, numSteps=200, numPoints=0) { indices <- sample(1:length(ls), length(ls), replace=TRUE) lineSmallCircleRegression(xs[indices], ls[indices], numSeeds = 20, numSteps=200, angleBound=2, numPoints=0) } lineSmallCircleRegressionBootstraps <- function(xs, ls, numBoots, numSteps=200, numPoints=0) { boots <- replicate( numBoots, lineSmallCircleRegressionBootstrap(xs, ls, numSteps, numPoints), simplify=FALSE) }
f <- function(result) rotMatrixFromAxisAngle(c(result$pole, result$angle))
SCdikeBoots <- lineSmallCircleRegressionBootstraps(dikeDF$lndist, dikeDF$pole, 500, numSteps=100, numPoints=0) bzBoots <- lineSmallCircleRegressionBootstraps(bzDF$lndist, bzDF$pole, 500, numSteps=100, numPoints=0)
dikeRots <- lapply(SCdikeBoots, f) bzRots <- lapply(bzBoots, f)
#View bootstrapped regressions in rotation space:
54
rotEqualVolumePlot(dikeRots) fit <- rotMahalanobisPercentiles(dikeRots, rotProjectedMean(dikeRots)) fitTris <- rotEllipsoidTriangles( fit$center, fit$leftCovarInv, level=fit$q095^2, numNonAdapt=5) fitRs <- unlist(fitTris, recursive=FALSE) rotEqualVolumePlot(fitRs, simplePoints=TRUE)
# Obtain confidence regions for axes and rotation rates from the ellipsoid fit to the bootstrapped regressions:
fitAxes <- lapply(fitRs, function (r) rotAxisAngleFromMatrix(r)[1:3]) rayEqualAreaPlot(fitAxes) fitMags <- sapply(fitRs, function (r) rotAxisAngleFromMatrix(r)[[4]]) hist(fitMags / degree)
#Compare small circle dike and vein zone regressions:
rs <- dikeRots qs <- bzRots rotEqualVolumePlot(qs) rotEqualVolumePlot(rs)
# Find differences between bootstrapped regressions, pairwise:
f <- function(r, q) {r %*% t(q)} diffs <- thread(f, rs, qs) rotEqualVolumePlot(diffs) #the differences form an ellipsoid
fit <- rotMahalanobisPercentiles(diffs, rotProjectedMean(diffs)) #fits an ellipsoid in rotation space fitTris <- rotEllipsoidTriangles(fit$center, fit$leftCovarInv, level=fit$q095^2, numNonAdapt=5) fitDiffs <- unlist(fitTris, recursive=FALSE) rotEqualVolumePlot(fitDiffs, simplePoints=TRUE) #the 95% confidence ellipsoid just intersects the origin of the plot, implying that the regressions are not distinct to the 95% confidence level. fit$pvalue(diag(c(1, 1, 1))) # Note that the process used here to compute a p value is not extremely precise. # The process yielded a p value of 0.06 for a set of synthetic data designed to have a p-#value of 0.05
APPENDIX D. TJORNES PENINSULA
55
The majority of small faults on Tjörnes have similar orientations to far-fault
averages. A small number of faults at several stations are well-predicted by the
logarithmic small circle dike regression, assuming symmetrical rotation on either side of
the Husavik-Flatey fault. However, predictions could easily match these faults by chance
(Fig A1).
Normal Faults Right Lateral Faults Left Lateral Faults
3 km
Left Lateral Faults
Figure A1. Equal area plots showing small fault data from Tjornes Peninsula near the Husav-ik-Flatey fault. Fault slip vectors are colored by fault-normal distance. Predictions for fault orien-tations based on the logarithmic small circle dike regression are shown as bold, colored great circles with slip vectors. Predictions assume symmetrical rotation on either side of the transform, and are plotted for even kilometer distances (4, 2, and 1 kilometers from the fault). The fault is shown in bold. Pre-unconformity lavas are shown in blue.
N
56
57
REFERENCES CITED
Amos N., Hagai R., Oona S., 1986, Fault mechanics and the kinematics of block rotations: Geology, v. 14, p. 746–749. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.carleton.edu/10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<746:FMATKO>2.0.CO;2.
Angelier, J., Bergerat, F., Homberg, C., 2000, Variable coupling across weak oceanic transform fault: Flateyjarskagi, Iceland: Terra Nova, v. 12, p. 97-101.
Árnadóttir, T., Geirsson, H., and Jiang, W., 2008, Crustal deformation in Iceland: Plate spreading and earthquake deformation: Jökull, No. 58, p. 59-74.
Bergerat, F., Angelier, J., Homberg, C., 2000, Tectonic Analysis of the Husavik Flatey fault (northern Iceland) and mechanisms of an oceanic transform zone, the Tjornes Fracture Zone: Tectonics, v. 19, No. 6, p. 1161-1177.
Bingham, C., and Mardia, K. V., 1978, A small circle distribution on the sphere: Biometrika, v. 65, p. 379-389.
Bodvarsson, G., and Walker, G. P. L., 1963, Crustal drift in Iceland; Royal Astronomical Society, v. 8, p. 285-300.
Borradaile, G. J., 2003, Statistics of Earth science data; their distribution in time, space, and orientation: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York.
Davis, J. R., and Titus, S. J., 2017, Modern methods of analysis for three-dimensional orientational data: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 96 p. 65-89 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.01.002.
Fjader, K., Gudmundsson, A., Forslund, T., 1994, Dikes, minor faults and mineral veins associated with a transform fault in North Iceland: Structural Geology, v. 16, p. 109-119.
Forslund, T., and Gudmundsson, A., 1992, Structure of Tertiary and Pleistocene normal faults in Iceland: Tectonics, v. 11, p. 57-68.
Garcia, S., Angelier, J., Bergerat, F., and Homberg, C., 2002, Tectonic analysis of an oceanic transform fault zone based on fault-slip data and earthquake focal mechanisms: the Husavik-Flatey Fault zone, Iceland, Tectonophysics, v. 344, p. 157-174.
Garcia, S., Arnaud, N. O., Angelier, J., Bergerat, F., Homberg, C., 2003, Rift jump process in Northern Iceland since 10 Ma from 40Ar/30Ar geochronology: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 214, p. 529-544.
Garcia, S. and Dhont, D., 2005, Structural analysis of the Húsavík-Flatey Transform Fault and its relationships with the rift system in Northern Iceland: Geodinamica Acta, 18:1, 31-41, DOI: 10.3166/ga.18.31-41.
Green, R. G., White, R. S., and Greenfield, T., 2013, Motion in the north Iceland volcanic rift zone accommodated by bookshelf faulting: Nature Geoscience, v. 7, p. 29-33, doi:10.1038/NGEO2012.
Hardarson, B. S., Fitton, J. G., Ellam, R. M., Pringle, M. S., 1997, Rift relocation; a geochemical and geochronological investigation of a palaeo-rift in northwest Iceland: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 153, p. 181-196.
Horst, A., Karsen, J.A., Varga, J. A., 2018, Large Rotations of Crustal Blocks in the Tjörnes Fracture Zone of Northern Iceland: Tectonics, v. 37 p. 1607-1625.
Hey, R., Duennebier, F. K., and Morgan, W. J., 1980, Propagating rifts on midocean ridges; Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 85, p. 3647-3658.
58
Karson, J. A., 2017, The Iceland plate boundary zone: Propagating rifts, transforms, and rift-parallel strike-slip faults; Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 18, p. 4043-4054. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GC007045.
Marrett, R. A., and Allmendinger, R. W., 1990, Kinematic analysis of fault-slip data: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 973-986.
Nur, A., Ron, H., and Scotti, O., 1986, Fault mechanics and the kinematics of block rotations; Geology, v. 14, p. 746-749.
Palmason, G., and Saemundsson, K., 1974, Iceland in relation to the mid-Atlantic Ridge: Annual Reviews Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Petit, J. P., 1987, Criteria for the sense of movement on fault surfaces in brittle rocks: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 9, No. 5/6, pp. 597-608.
Rögnvaldsson, S., Gudmundsson, A., Slunda, R., 1998, Seismotectonic analysis of the Tjornes Fracture Zone, an active transform fault in north Iceland: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 103, p. 30,117-30,129.
Sigmundsson, F., Einarsson, P., Bilham, R., Sturkell, E., Rift transform kinematics in south Iceland: deformation from Global Positioning System measurements, 1986 to 1992, 1995: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 100, no. B4, p. 6235-6248.
Saemundsson, K., 1979, Outline of the geology of Iceland: Jokull, v. 29. Scheiber-Enslen, S. E., LaFemina, P. C., Sturkell, E., Hooper, A. J., and Webb, S. J.,
2011, Geodetic investigation of plate spreading along a propagating ridge: the Eastern Volcanic Zone, Iceland: Geophysical Journal International, v. 187, p. 1175-1194, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05243.x.
Scholz, C. H., 1989, Mechanics of faulting: Annual Reviews Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 17, p. 309-334.
Stefansson, R., Gudmundsson, G. B., Halldorsson, P., 2008, Tjornes fracture zone. New and old seismic evidences for the link between the North Iceland rift zone and the Mid-Atlantic ridge: Tectonophysics, v. 447, p. 117-126.
Tauxe, L., 2003, Paleomagnetic principles and practice: Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht.
Titus, S.J, Chapman, W., Horst, A.J., Brown, M., Davis, J.R., 2018, Distributed deformation in an oceanic transform system: Applying statistical tools to structural and paleomagnetic data Near the Húsavík-Flatey Fault, northern Iceland: Tectonics v. 37, doi: 10.1029/2018TC005096.
Wolfe, C. J., Bjarnason, I. T., Vandecar, J. C., Solomon, S. C., 1997, Seismic structure of the Iceland mantle plume: Nature, v. 385, p. 245. Young, K.D., Orkan, N., Jancin, M., Sæmundsson, K., Voight, B., 2018, Major tectonic rotation along an oceanic transform zone, northern Iceland: Evidence from field and paleomagnetic investigations: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2018.11.020. Young, K.D., Jancin, M., Voight, B., Orkan, Nebill, 1985, Transform deformation of Tertiary rocks along the Tjornes Fracture zone, north central Iceland: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 90, No. B12, p. 9986-10,010.
Top Related