Chinnery 1966 Faults

SECONDARY FAULTING
11. GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS
M. A. CHINNERY'
Department of Geophysics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Received June 25, 1965
Can. J. Earth Sci. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV CALGARY on 04/15/13
ABSTRACT
A secondary fault is defined a s a fracture which arises a3 a direct result of
movement on a master transcurrent fault. Some previous approaches to the study
of secondarv faulting are discussed, and fallacies in the argirments of McIiinstry
(1953) and7M&y and Hill (ln5F) are pointed out. The effect c)f movement o n
a fault i s to reduce the initial shew stress everywhere except i n the vicinity of
the ends of the fault, where it causes complcv additional stresses (see first paper
i t ) this series on the theoretical aspects of secondary faulting). Thus it is proposed
that secondary faulting is an end effect of a master shear movement, and on this
basis six major modes of secondary faulting, labelled types A to F, are described.
'The uscfulriess of these results in the analysis of fault systems is illustrated by
applying them to the Alpine, San Andreas, and hlacrlanald faults. In each case it
is possible to predict or explain the curvature, location, and sense of the secondary
faults in t h e area. In addition, the development of the master fault may I,e traced
by locating the ends of the shear zone at v a r i o ~ times
~ s in the past.
INTRODUCTION
For personal use only.
The presence of groups of apparently related transcurrent faults has been

noted in many parts of the world. For the purposes of this discussion, we shall
assume that a typical fault system of this type consists of three main com-
ponents. T h e first is a major large-scale fracture called the "master fauIt",
which is normally long, straight, and approximately vertical. From this we
conclude that the overall tectonic stress in the region is two dimensional, and
horizontal (Anderson 1951). The depth extent of master faults was once thought
to be quite large, but more recent depth estimates by Kasahara (1958), Byerly
and De Noyer (1958), Chinnery (1961), and others usually lie within the range
10-15 km, or less. This is not surprising, because frictional effects a t these
depths are comparable to the strength of crustal material, and if movement
occurs a t deeper levels i t requires a different mechanism, perhaps the plastic
instability described by Orowan (1960).
Around, and presumably associated with the master fault are numerous
smaller faults, and two basic mechanisms have been proposed to account for
their formation. They may have occurred under the action of the same tectonic
stress that caused the master fault, in which case they are called "comple-
mentary faults", or they may have arisen as a direct result of the redistribution
of stress that accompanied the movement on the master fault. Since these two
mechanisms give rise to different types of faults, it is necessary to distinguish
clearly between them.
Complementary faults have been described in detail by Anderson (1951) and
others. For any stress distribution there are, a t each point, two orthogonal
'New address: Department of Geology and Geophysics, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. Volume 3 (1966)
175
planes over which the shearing stress is a maximum. These planes bisect the
angles between the maximum and minimum principal stresses. However, a s
Anderson points out (p. lo), these are not necessarily the planes along which
shear fracture is most likely. Only in the case of a pure shear stress, where the
pressure across the planes of maximum shear stress is zero, do laboratory
experiments suggest that fracture will occur on these planes (Fig. la). When
FIG.1. Complementary shear directions, (a) for faulting under a pure shear stress, and (b)
for faulting under the action of a uniaxial compressive stress.
frictional effects are important, breakage tends to occur on planes that make an
angle 0 (less than 45") with the maximum principal axis of compression.
Estimates for 0 average about 30" (Anderson 1951; Hafner 1951), so that the
complementary directions of shearing are a t 60" t o one another (see Fig. lb).
I t seems that many geologists assume that all strike-slip faults occur under
the action of a uniaxial compression inclined a t 30" to the fault plane (see, for
example, Lensen 1960). Although this is almost certainly the mechanism of some
faults, i t is perhaps unreasonable to apply it in all cases. Strike-slip movement
will occur much more easily in regions of pure shear or tension, and recent
theories of orogenesis suggest that such regions may exist. In the discussion
that follows we shall consider two mechanisms for the formation of the master
fault, namely pure shear and uniaxial compression. I t turns out that these
give rise to slightly different fault patterns.
The third component of the typical fault system is a fairly large number of
smaller fractures that, because of their sense or direction, cannot be classed as
complementary faults, but which appear to be contemporaneous with the
master fault. Many of these fractures are curved and they usually have a
smaller movement and depth extent than the main fault. Since they cannot
have been formed under the action of the overall tectonic stress, they must be
supposed to be of a secondary nature, and in some way related to the movement
on the master fault. We shall call all such fractures "secondary faults". The
CHINNERY: GEOLOGY OF SECONDARY FAULTING 177
purpose of this paper is to analyze these faults, and to categorize the various
modes in which they occur, using the theoretical results described in the first
paper in this series.
PREVIOUS WORK ON SECONDARY FAULTING

In his well-known book on faulting, Anderson (1951) included a short dis-
cussion of secondary faulting. However, his conclusions were severely limited

by the mathematical model that he used. He based his caiculations on the work
of Inglis (1913), and dealt only with a two-dimensional fault, which he assumed
corresponded to a fault of infinite depth. I t is true that this model satisfies
the boundary condition of zero stress across the surface of the earth, but he
did not mention that i t also implies no vertical movement of the ground sur-
face, and this is a serious limitation (the same criticism may be made of the
model used by Knopoff 19.58).
Anderson (1951) knew that his fault model, with a n infinite depth, was only
approximate, but it seems that he did not realize how shallow many strike-slip
faults are, and how much this would affect his calculations. This point is
clearly illustrated by the diagrams in Chinnery (1861,1963). ).Ie did make two
important conclusions, however, which we shall see are of very general validity.
Firstly, he found that the "general effect of the development of a fault is to

ease the stress and prevent further faulting in the area". Secondly, he showed
t h a t a t the end of a fault the stress, instead of being released, is actually
increased, theoretically becoming infinite a t the end of the fracture. Physically
this is to be interpreted as showing that all faults have a strong tendency t o
extend themselves.
As a result of his calculations he gave a qualitative explanation for "splay"
faults (Fig. 2a), placing them in the first and third quadrants. His reason for
FIG. 2. (a) "Splay faults" according to Anderson (1951), and (b) "second-order shears"
according to McKinstry (1953). In each case there are complementary shear directions which
are not shown.
178 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES. VOL. 3. I066
doing this is not clear, since the symmetry of his formulae suggest that they
should also occur in the remaining quadrants. Also he did not give any reason
why most faults of this type are found to be curved.
McKinstry (1953) attempted to account for a slightly different type of
secondary fault, which he called a "second-order shear". This is illustrated in
Fig. 2b, and has in fact the same sense of motion as Anderson's (1951) splay
faults in the second and fourth quadrants, although McKinstry suggested

that they occur along the entire length of a fault. He argued that the effects of a
"compressive load" inclined a t an angle t o an incipient fault plane may be
completely represented by two "stress components", one parallel and one
perpendicular to the plane. He supposed that strike-slip movement relieves
the parallel component, leaving a stress whose principal axis of compression is
roughly perpendicular to the fault plane.
Moody and Hill (1956) presented an identical argument. They assumed that
strike-slip movement, caused by a uniaxial compressive stress P a t 30' to the
fault (Fig. 3a), relieves most of the component of P parallel to the fault. They
then supposed that, after faulting, a compressive stress P'remains in the ground,
with an orientation a t about 75O t o the fault plane (Fig. 3 b ) , and that P' is now
free to cause "second-order" fractures. In an exactly similar way they suggested
that movement on the second-order shears produces a reorientation of P'

so that "third-order" fractures may be formed, and they even extended this
idea to "fourth-order" fractures.
fouit
FIG.3. Moody and Hill (1956) base their discussions o n the assumption that anJitlitial
compressive stress P at 30" to the fault line (a) is reoriented by strike-slip movement into a
new com~ressivestress P' at about 75" to the fault line (6). Simple calculation (see text)?shows
that, in iact, the strike-slip movement gives rise to a more complex stress distrihution whose
maximum axis of compression is a t an angle of less than 30" to the fault line. The diagrams c and
d show the new principal axes when the coefficient of friction is zero and one. respectively.
The basic fallacy in this argument is that a compressive stress within an

elastic solid has, in fact, threecomponents a t any point, not twoas theseauthors
assumed. Let us consider what actually happens close to a strike-slip fault.
We suppose, before the fault occurred, the presence of a uniaxial compressive
stress P a t 30' to the incipient fault plane (Fig. 3a). If the x l and xz axes are
parallel and perpendicular to the fault plane, respectively, then the com-
ponents of the stress tensor before fracture were

-
(Since P is a dompression it is numerically negative.)

Now strike-slip movement on the fault will relieve only the 7 1 2 component.
The other components will be unchanged. The final value of 7 1 2 will depend on
the frictional stress opposing the motion of the two sides of the fault. If there
is no frictional stress, strike-slip movement will continue until the 7 1 2 component
is reduced to zero. In this case the components of the stress tensor after fracture
are
The principal axes of this distribution are parallel to the coordinate axes, and
the maximum axis of compression is parallel to the fault plane (Fig. 36).
If, on the other hand, the coefficient of sliding friction is p, the stress opposing
motion will be p 7 2 2 = (L1/4)P.Hence the 7 1 2 component will be reduced by the
movement until it has the value - ( P / ~ ) Pand , the final stress distribution will
be
The principal axes of this distribution are inclined to the coordinate axes.
I n particular the maximum axis of compression has a magnitude
-
P
4 (2 +d m ) ,
and it makes an angle 4 with the fault plane where
tan 4 = (I - d-)/p.
The directions and magnitudes of the principal axes for the case p = 1
are shown in Fig. 3d.
Notice how completely these results differ from those of both McKinstry
(1953) and Moody and Hill (1956). These authors committed the cardinal sin
of resolving a principal axis of stress as if it were a force vector. I t can hardly
be emphasized enough that this is not possible. The stress distribution a t a point
in a solid is a tensor quantity, and cannot be discussed in terms of vectors. The
principal axes of stress, which are the eigenvectors of the stress tensor, are only
convenient representations of the state of stress, and are not true force vectors.
We can state, therefore, that there is no mechanical basis for the arguments of
Moody and Hill (1956). In fact it is easy to show that the shearing stress on
180 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES. VOL. 3. 1966
their "second-order" planes is either unaltered or reduced by the movement on

the master fault. They also assumed (like a number of other authors) that the
effects of a major strike-slip movement are significant at a great distance from
the fault. I t is perhaps surprising that this is not the case for the long shalIow
fractures that occur in the earth's crust, but that i t is not is clearly demonstrated
by the diagrams in Chinnery (1963) and the first paper in thisseries.
SECONDARY FAULTING PREDICTED BY THEORY

The theoretical basis of the results that follow was presented in the first
paper in this series. Briefly, the arguments given there are as follows. Using
dislocation theory it is possible to calculate the change in stress which is caused
by the occurrence of a strike-slip fault. If, then, we can postulate a reasonable
initial stress distribution, by adding to it the calculated change, we can obtain
the state of stress in the ground after fracture has taken place. Two initial stress
patterns are used, corresponding to the formation of the master fault by pure
shear, and by the action of a uniaxial compressive stress (see Fig. 1). The
magnitudes of both are chosen so that the final shear stress a t the center of the
surface trace of the fault is zero (see Chinnery 1964). This is equivalent to
assuming that the coefficient of friction a t this point is zero. Even if it is not
zero, the results given below are affected very little.

Having obtained the stress distribution after fault movement, the next step
is to determine where new faulting is likely to occur. To do this, we use the
arguments of Anderson (1951), which suggest that fracturing is closely related
to the magnitude and directions of maximum shear stress. The initial maximum
shear stress provides a measure of the "strength" of the ground, and we must
expect secondary faulting to occur in those regions where the final value of this
quantity is larger than the strength.
The principal conclusion of this analysis is that the final maximum shear
stress is quite small in the vicinity of the fault over most of its length. Only
near the ends of the fault are the stresses large enough to suggest that secondary
faulting may occur. The importance of this result is obvious. Both McKinstry
(1953) and Moody and Hill (1956) supposed that after the initial shear fracture,
enough stress remains in the ground to give rise to new faults. The present
analysis shows clearly that, if we omit the regions close to the ends of the fault,
the shear stress on any plane is, in fact, reduced considerably by the movement
on the master fault. Thus not only secondary faulting, but also complementary
shearing, will be inhibited.
The pattern of stresses around the end of the fault is complex, and to some
extent dependent on the variation in net displacement of the two sides of the
fault. The present model has a displacement which is constant, which is equiv-
alent to assuming that the displacement falls off quite rapidly near the end of
the fault (this assumption has been discussed in some detail in Chinnery 1963).
Our main justification for this model in the present discussion is that it accentu-
ates certain types of secondary faults which appear to occur in nature. If the
displacement decays slowly along a fault, secondary faulting is found to be
much less likely.
The calculations, then, allow us to locate those regions where the final
shear stress is high, and we may immediately determine the most likely direc-
tions for secondary faulting. In all a total of six different types or modes of
secondary faults can be separated out (three with left-lateral, and three with
right-lateral sense). These have been labelled alphabetically types A-F, and
typical examples of each mode are shown in Fig. 4. Notice the slight differences
between the secondary faults produced, when the master fault forms under
pure shear and under uniaxial compression. In this diagram, the master fault
is assumed to'be right-lateral, and only a portion of the master fault is shown.
If the main fracture is left-lateral, each type of secondary fault occurs on the
opposite side of the master fault. The extent of "influence" of the master
fault (i.e. the scale of these diagrams) is very dependent on the depth of the
fault. A deep fault gives stress changes a t much larger distances from the fault
plane than a shallow fault (see Chinnery 1961,1963).
The different modes of secondary faulting are shown, approximately, in
order of likelihood. Thus types A and B occur in regions of high shear stress,
and are commonly found in practice. On the other hand types E and F occur
.where the shear stress is quite high, but also where the hydrostatic compressive
stress is high, and we must expect frictional effects to inhibit their formation .
in many cases. Notice that types C and D faults occur in a region of overall
tension, and are therefore much more likely than the E and F modes.
The type A mode represents the basic tendency for a strike-slip fault to
extend itself (compare Anderson 1951), and includes the "splay" or "horsetail"
faults commonly found. When the master fault occurs as a result of a uniaxial
compression there is a curious asymmetry in the maximum shear stress curves
(see first paper in this series) that indicate the A1 mode is more likely than the
A2 mode. This suggests that strike-slip faults formed in this way may tend to
extend themselves along curving paths, as shown in Fig. 5. There are some well-
known examples of this effect (see the discussion of the San Andreas fault in
the next section).
Type B fractures are complementary to type A, and occur quite frequently.
The ~nclinedfaults formed under the uniaxial compression arise from the com-
plementary directions of likely shearing associated with the initial stress
distribution (Fig. 1). The type C fracture is roughly equivalent to McKinstryls
(1953) "second-order shear" (Fig. 2). Geological examples of each mode of
secondary faulting are given in the next section.
I t should be noted a t this stage that the theoretical results assume that the
ground behaves as an elastic solid, and they are really only applicable on a
short time scale, i.e. to a single movement on a fault. On the other hand a real
fault system is the result of an accumulation of small movements over a long
period of time. When we compare the two together we are disregarding the
effects of plastic flow, which are poorly understood and difficult to estimate. In
all probability these effects will be largely limited t o reducing the stress where
i t is large, and giving rise t o folding in certain regions. However, our main
purpose a t present is to categorize secondary faults, and the theory of elasticity
should suffice to do this.
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES. VOL. 3. 1066
A
TYPE
I 'I I
I
'
TYPE B
-------
---+
TYPE C
I I
I
TYPE D
TYPE E
TYPE F
FIG.4. Modes of secondary faulting, deduced from the results described in the first paper in
this series. For each mode, the left-hand pattern corresponds to formation of the master fault
under conditions of pure shear, and the right-hand pattern results from a uniaxial compression. .
I CHINNERY: GEOLOGY OF SECONDARY FAULTING 183
FIG.5. The asymmetry of the maximum shear stress curves for the case of uniaxial com-
pression suggests that the A1 mode is more likely than the A2 mode. Hence a fault that once
ended a t the point marked by a cross will tend to extend itself along a curve as shown.
Another difficulty that is due to the accumulation of movement on a real

fault is that its length is likely to change with time, and that individual move-
ments or sets of movements may not occupy the total length of the fault zone.
As we shall see, it is often possible to interpret a fault system by assuming that
the master fault "ended" a t a certain point for, in some instances, a long period
of time, before sufficient stress was built up for it to extend itself further,
usually along a type A fracture. Thus a fault with the shape shown in Fig. 5
may be interpreted as having ended a t certain times in the past a t each of the
points marked by a cross. This could be verified by measuring the amount of
slip on each section of the fault, since the slip should be largest on the straight
section, and successively less along each curved trace. Unfortunately the geo-
Iogical information in cases such as this is usually much disputed, and of
questionable value. However, in the next section we shall try where possible
to locate previous ends to a fault since this will suggest a temporal relationship
between the various components of the fault system.
Finally, we must remember that we are dealing only with the initiation of
secondary faulting. Once a secondary fault has occurred the stress distribution
in its vicinity will be changed into a rather complex form. A l a r ~ esecondary
fault may well give rise to new subsidiary faults, though there are very few
cases where these are clear. Usually it seems that when a secondary fault
propagates out of the region of influence of the master fault it is controlled
by the initial stress distribution, and curves around until it is parallel to the
appropriate complementary shear direction.
SOME GEOLOGICAL EXAMPLES OF SECONDARY FAULTING

We give below a brief discussion of three fault systems as examples of the
concepts developed above. Our purpose here is not to give a detailed inter-
pretation for each system, and certainly not to give the impression that all
geological problems may be explained by an oversimplified mathematical
model. However, the theory does suggest certain new spatial and temporal
relationships between the components of the systems, and, if these are sub-
stantiated, i t could lead to a new tool for the structural geologist.
The Alpine Fault System, New Z e u h d
The great system of strike-slip faults that occurs in New Zealand is shown
in Fig. 6, which is abstracted from Lensen (1960). Details of this system are to
be found, for example, in publications by Wellman (1952,1955).
The master fault in this case is the Alpine fault, which parallels part of the
1% CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES. VOL. 3. 1966
-
O 40 80
Miles
FIG.6. The Alpine fault system, New Zealand (after Lensen 1960).
northwest coast of the South Island, and may be traced as a moderately active
seismic belt southwestward a t least to the vicinity of Macquarie Island
(Richter 1958). Toward the north end of the South Island the fault splays out
into a series of curving fractures that extend well into the North Island. These
I fractures are clearly secondary to the master fault, and we therefore suggest
that the Alpine fault "ends" in some sense where they occur. Presumably
there was some resistance to the propagation of the master fault, and stresses
were accumulated that gave rise to the splay faults. Notice how these faults
have the predicted shape for types A and C fractures (see Fig. 4: the distinction
between the two types is not too clear in this case), and also how the fracturing
occurs principally in the tension region to the southeast of the main fault. This
is to be expected from the calculations in the first paper of this series.
In the southern part of the South Island are a number of smaller left-lateral
faults that are very good examples of the type D secondary fault. Again these
fractures have the curvature to be expected for this type.
There is a noticeable lack of the type B fracture in this system. This may well
be because the type A fractures have succeeded in relieving the accumulated
stress a t the end of the fault zone. The only possible location for the B mode is
in Cook Strait, between the North and South Islands, and a t first sight the
shape of the Islands in this region suggests right-lateral movement along a
line roughly perpendicular to the Alpine fault. However, a type B fracture

must in this case have a left-lateral sense, and we must conclude that the shape
I of the Islands is misleading. In fact, Eiby has suggested that there is some evi-
dence for left-lateral motion in the Strait (Richter 1958, p. 446).
The Sun Andreas Fault System, California
The system of faults that lies in the vicinity of the San Andreas fauIt is shown
in a simplified form in Fig. 7. This diagram is taken from Tiill and Dibblee
(1953). A more complete description of the zones of faulting, and a compre-
hensive set of references are t o be found, for example, in a paper by Crowell
(1962).
In view of the amount of work that has been done on this system, it is per-
haps surprising how little unambiguous information on displacements has
been obtained. This is probably largely due to the fact that the overall develop-
ment of this system is not understood. Using the approach we have described
it is possibIe to make some new suggestions about the history of the system
that may eventually produce some coherence in the field observations.
On comparing the map in Fig. 7 with our earlier results, we are immediately
led to suspect that the San Andreas fault may have been shorter in the past,
and that the amount of slip may vary significantly along the fault. In particuIar ,
noting the resemblance between the form of the San Andreas fault and the
curve in Fig. 5, we suggest that a t certain times the master fault ended first
in the vicinity of the Tremblor Range, and later in the general region of the
Soledad Pass. These "end points" are marked by crosses in Fig. 7. We choose
to have the fault extending itself southward since there is some evidence of
FIG.7. The San Andreas fault system, California in simplified form (after Hill and Dibblee
1953).
movements in the Jurassic and Cretaceous on the northern section (Hill and
Dibblee 1953).
This suggestion is consistent with the large number of faults, clearly of a
secondary nature, that are found near each of the end points, particularly on
the tension side of the fault (to the east). The Garlock fault was probably
initiated as a type B fracture for the first section of the master fault. More
recent movements on the Garlock and neighboring faults have probably arisen
as a result of stresses created a t the bend in the San Andreas. The Big Pine
fault, for example, may be a very recent extension of the Garlock fault under
the action of these stresses, as Hill and Dibblee (1953) suggested.
I t is worth remarking that this model implies that there were obstructions
to the progress of the main fault close to the postulated end points. These may
have been due to particularly strong rock types, or to increased frictional
stresses, or to other mechanisms. However, although the master fault eventu-
ally overcame these barriers, they may still be partially effective, and it would
not be surprising if the overall displacements on the fault were quite small in
these regions.
A great number of the lesser faults in California may be categorized into
the various modes of secondary faulting shown in Fig. 4, if we accept the above
starting point, though the justification for doing this a t the present time is not
very strong. However, the concepts we have mentioned should be borne in

mind. For example, the San Gabriel fault, which puzzled Crowell (1962), may
well be due to two segments, the one to the north being a right-lateral type A
mode, and the southeast curve being a left-lateral type D mode.
The MacDonuld Fault System, N. W.T.
One of the best examples of the secondary effects around the end of a master
shear fault is to be found in the Mackenzie District of the Northwest Territories
(Fig. 8). The master fault in this case is the MacDonald fault, which extends
northeastward from the Great Slave Lake for a t least 300 mi. At its western
end it is marked by a steep fault scarp, which is the southern boundary of the
sedimentary formations that occur within the East Arm of Great Slave Lake.
The sense of movement on the fault has been established as right-lateral.
In addition to the MacDonald fault, Fig. 8 shows a number of smaller
faults which have been compiled from the reports of Brown (1955) and Douglas
(1959) and the tectonic map of Canada (1950). The diagram is not necessarily
complete, and there is considerable doubt about some of the faults indicated
by broken lines, though the directions of faulting shown are probably repre-
sentative of those in the area. The pattern shows several points of resemblance
to the secondary faults predicted in Fig. 4, and we immediately suspect that
the master fault must have "ended" in the general region of the East Arm for
much of its active history. This is also suggested by the East Arm itself, which
shows all the features of a tension region close to the end of a transcurrent
fault, including subsidence and basalt intrusions (the very interesting form of
this structure will be discussed in more detail in a later paper on the vertical
movements associated with shear faulting).
188 CANADIAN JOURNAL O F EARTH SCIENCES. VOL. 3. 1966
-KNOWN
----- WSSlsCE
mar
FAULT
___-------
II
FIG.8. The MacDonald fault system, Northwest Territories. Compiled from the reports of
Brown (1955) and Douglas (1959) and the tectonic map of Canada, 1950.
If the smaller faults shown in Fig. 8 are indeed secondary effects that are due
to movement on the MacDonald fault they should be contemporaneous with it.
Geological evidence, while not conclusive, suggests this may be so (J. V. Ross,
personal communication). With the exception of the fault (marked by a broken
line a t the left edge of Fig. 8) that crosses the mouth of the Slave River, which
appears to displace Devonian strata (Douglas and Duffell 1962), all of the
faults shown are of late Precambrian age.
Our model therefore leads to the following interpretation for this area: the
MacDonald fault, having extended itself westward to the vicinity of the East
Arm of the Great Slave Lake, reached some kind of barrier to its progress.
Further movements on the fault built up stresses in this region that were
relieved by the formation of secondary faults. At its western end a series of
splay faults were formed, which are associated with a series of elongated
islands. These are clearly typical type A fractures. In all probability these
were not able to relieve much of the accumulated stress, and the well-known
West Bay and Hay Duck faults were formed. These are very good examples of
type B faults, and probably extend out into the main body of the Lake. Notice
how the theoretical results predict both the curvature and the sense (left-
lateral) of these faults.
The remaining faults to the east of the Lake are clearly explainable as
secondary fau.lts of types C, D, and E, as shown. Notice that we can predict,

with some confidence, that these are strike-slip fractures, and that their sense
must agree with Fig. 4. For example, the curving fault that follows Artillery
Lake should be left-lateral.
In all probability, the extension of the type A fracture to the west occurred
in the Pa1aet)zoic. This may have occurred either as a result of continual
movement on the master fault, or more likely from a reactivation of the area.
Further west. faults with a similar trend appear to have been active until the
Lower Cretaceous or later (Douglas and Duffel1 1962).
CONCLUSIONS
The three systems described above are typical examples of situations where
the location of the "end" of a fault zone can suggest new relationships between
the various components of the system. This is a new concept and one worthy
of some attention. In the past the implicit assumption seems to have been
made that the displacement along a transcurrent fault does not die out rapidly,
hut slowly fades away. This may be so in some instances, but the conclusions
of the first paper in this series make it very difficult to see why any secondary
faulting should occur in this case. bC7e have reversed this argument, and assume
that the presence of numerous secondary faults must indicate a region of
accumulation of stress, and this in turn suggests we must be close t o a point

a t which the master fault ended quite abruptly for a certain length of time.
The problem of the barrier that impedes the grov;th of a fault zone is an
interesting one. Almost certainly the primary mechanism of this barrier is
friction. As we have mentioned earlier (Chinnery 1964), once broken, the two
sides of a fault will move relative to one another until the stress remaining in
the ground is cancelled by the frictional stress. Thus a barrier may consist of a
region where either the coefficient of friction or the hydrostatic pressure in the
ground is anomalously high. I t nlay be therefore to look for a
geological explanation for this phenomenon.
Once we have accepted the presence of end points in a fault zone, the location,
identification, and classification of the secondary faults is straightforward.
?Ve have chosen, on the basis of our theoretical model, t o select six major
modes labelled types ,4 to F (Fig. 4). Because of possible shortcomings in the
model, these should be regarded as qualitative examples, and some latitude in
the direction (but not the sense) of secondary faults is allowable.
One important aspect of this discussion is that we may with some confidence
isolate the primary and secondary structures within a fault system. Any
investigation of the nature of the stresses in the earth's crust is very dependent
on this separation, and elimination of the secondary effects can produce a
considerable simplification in the necessary tectonic stresses (compare Lensen
1960).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is indebted to Dr. J . V. Ross for some helpful information on the
geological structure of the Mackenzie District, N.W.T. This research was
partly supported by Defence Research Board grant number 9511-43.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON,E. M. 1951. Thedynamics of faultin .2od ed. Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh.
BROW, I. C. 1955. Late faults in the yellowknifearea. P m . MI..4swc. Can. 7, 123.
BYERLY,P. and D E ~ O Y E R . 1958. Energy in earthquakes as computed from geodetic
observations. In Contri utions in geophysics in honor of Beno Gutenberg. The Pergamon
Press, Ltd., New York.
C ~ K YM. ,A. 1961. The deformation of the ground around strrface faults. BuII. Seismol.
Sac. Am. 51,355.
1963. The stress changes that accompany strike-slip faulting. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
-- .
-53- , Q21
-Res.1064. The strength of the earth's crust under horizontal shear stress. J. Geophys.
69,2085.
CROWELL,J. C. 1962. Displacement along t h e San Andreas fault, California. Geol. Soc.
Am. Spec. Paper 71.
DOUGLAS,
R. J. W. 1959. Great Slave and Trout River map-areas, Northwest Territories.
Can. Dept. Mines Tech. Surv. Geol. Surv. Can. Paper W l l .
DOUGLAS,
R. J. W. and DUFFFLL,S. 1962. Some aspects of phanerozoic epeirogenic and
orogenic events that involve Precambrian rocks. I n The tectonics of the Cariadian
Shield. E~%ted by J. S. Stevensori. I!niv. of Toronto Press, Toronto.
HAPNER.\V. 19.41. Stress distribtitions and faulting. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 62,373,
HILL, M. L. and DIBBLEE,T. 13'. 1953. San ~lndreas,Garlock, and Big Pine faults, Cali-
fornia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 64, a 3 .
INGLIS, C. E. 1913. Stresses in a plate due t o the presence of cracks and sharp corners.
Proc. Inst. Naval~lrch.55,210.
KASAHARA, K. 19aW. Physical conditions of earthquake faults a s deduced from geodetic
data. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ. 36,455.
KNOPOFF, L. 1958. Energy release id earthquakes. k p h y s . J. 1,M.
LENSEN, G. J. 1960. Principal horizontal stress directtons as a n aid t o the study of crustal
deformation. In A symposium on earthquake mechanism. Puhl. Dominion Obs. Ottawa,

24,389.
Y ,E. 1953. Shearsof the second order. Am. J. Sci. 251,401.
M C I ~ S T R H.
L~OODY, J. D. and HILL, M. J. 1956. Wrench-fault tectonicq. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 67,1207.
OROWAN, E. 1960. Mechanism of seismic faulting. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 78,323.
RICHTER, C . F. 1958. Elementary seismology. Freeman, 15'. I-I. and Co.. San Francisco.
WELLMAN, H.W. 1952. The Alpine fault in detail. New Zealand J. Sci. Technol. B. 33,409.
- 1955. New Zealand Quaternary tectonics. Geol. Rundschau, 43,345.

Chinnery 1966 Faults

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chinnery 1966 Faults

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SECONDARY FAULTING

11. GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

The presence of groups of apparently related transcurrent faults has been

PREVIOUS WORK ON SECONDARY FAULTING

cussion of secondary faulting. However, his conclusions were severely limited

Firstly, he found that the "general effect of the development of a fault is to

faults in the second and fourth quadrants, although McKinstry suggested

that movement on the second-order shears produces a reorientation of P'

The basic fallacy in this argument is that a compressive stress within an

ponents of the stress tensor before fracture were

(Since P is a dompression it is numerically negative.)

their "second-order" planes is either unaltered or reduced by the movement on

SECONDARY FAULTING PREDICTED BY THEORY

zero, the results given below are affected very little.

Another difficulty that is due to the accumulation of movement on a real

SOME GEOLOGICAL EXAMPLES OF SECONDARY FAULTING

line roughly perpendicular to the Alpine fault. However, a type B fracture

very strong. However, the concepts we have mentioned should be borne in

secondary fau.lts of types C, D, and E, as shown. Notice that we can predict,

accumulation of stress, and this in turn suggests we must be close t o a point

deformation. In A symposium on earthquake mechanism. Puhl. Dominion Obs. Ottawa,

Potrebbero piacerti anche