Proceso tecnificado

The theories of fault-bend and fault-propagation folding are powerful end-member models, which can be modified to produce a variety of complex fold shapes. A few examples of such modifications are described below:

• Breakthrough structures in fault-propagation folding: In the fault-propagation folding model, the fault may propagate self similarly all the way to the surface or it can be halted at any instant depending on the rock properties. In the latter case, the folding ceases and the fault may break through in a fracture mode. The

"breakthrough" thrust may propagate in several ways, e.g., along a décollement surface, synclinal axial surface, steep forelimb of the anticline and anticlinal axial surface (Mitra 1990; Suppe and Medwedeff 1990). Few examples of fault-propagation breakthrough structures are shown in Fig. 13.9.

Decollement breakthrough Anticlinal breakthrough Synclinal breakthrough

slip slip slip

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 13.9. Examples of breakthrough structures associated with fault-propagation folding (after Suppe and Medwedeff 1990)

• Multi-bend fault-bend folding: If a thrust has sufficiently large slip, the beds may slip past more than one bend in the fault producing "multi-bend fault-bend"

folds (Suppe 1983; Medwedeff and Suppe 1997). Examples of multi-bend fault-bend folding with two fault-bends in the ramp portion are shown in Fig. 13.10.

Medwedeff and Suppe (1997) show that multiple fault bends give rise to complex fold shapes by a combination of two processes: a process of kink-band interference, and a set of processes associated with the generation of new dip panels and axial surfaces as hangingwall cut-offs are displaced past successive fault bends in the footwall. In theory, curved faults can be approximated by an arbitrary number of straight segments. In practice, a small number of straight segments generate a high degree of complexity and adequately models fold geometry. Consequently, a curved ramp can be modeled as a quasi-curved ramp. Also multi-segment ramps lead to proliferation of non-parallel axial surfaces that produce quasi-curved fold shapes.

Bend 1 Bend 2

Bend 3

a b _{Bend 1}

Bend 2 Bend 3

Figure 13.10. Multi-bend fault-bend fold (after Medwedeff and Suppe 1997). (a) Synclinal bend. (b) Anticlinal bend.

• Simple shear in the faulted layers: In the ideal models of fault-related folding there is no layer-parallel simple shear within the hangingwall block. Consequently, the beds do not undergo layer-parallel shear until they enter the fault-bend fold and the fault surface is always the "active slip surface". If this condition is relaxed, i.e., if layer-parallel simple shear within the thrust sheet is allowed, then the fold shape can be modified in many different ways. The ideal theoretical shape of a fault-bend fold associated with a simple step in décollement is a flat-crested anticline (Fig. 13.5). Suppe (1983) shows that if the thrust sheet undergoes pervasive layer parallel simple shear, the two axial

a new axial surface resulting in a sharp-crested fold (Fig. 13.11). The annihilation involves locking of the fault surface and migration of the active slip surface progressively to higher bedding surfaces, resulting in a simple shear in the hangingwall of the thrust sheet above the lower décollement. The active slip surface is always in the bed in contact with the branch in the axial surface. All the slip is absorbed in the annihilation and the thrust sheet is immobile along the lower décollement, beyond the anticlinal axial surface.

Active slip s urface

Active slip surface

a

α

b

Figure 13.11. Development of sharp-crested anticlinal fault-bend fold through annihilation of flat-crest. Annihilation takes place as active slip surface migrates up section from the ramp (After Suppe 1983).

• Combined propagation and bend folding: In the model of fault-propagation folding, the folding initiates as soon as the ramp begins to step up from the décollement (Fig. 13.12). The fold acquires its basic geometry at this stage and continues to grow self similarly with the propagation of the fault.

Also all the beds in the hangingwall cut by the fault are folded through the anticlinal axial surface. Chester and Chester (1990) made an interesting modification to this model wherein they suggest the existence of a pre-existing ramp (or fracture) (Fig. 13.12). Folding is initiated when the pre-existing ramp is activated without any change in dip. In a way, it is similar to fault-bend folding where fracture forms first followed by folding. The difference is that in Chester and Chester's (1990) model there is no upper flat and the ramp continues to propagate without change in orientation. The fold above the fault tip is a fault-propagation fold whereas the fold at the ramp-flat intersection is a fault-bend fold. These two folds are separated by an unfolded region. Another important

geometric difference is that in this model some of the lower layers in the hangingwall cut by the fault are not folded through the anticlinal axial surface.

fault/fold initiation point

a b

fault tip

c

slip

d

No deformation Fault-propagation fold

Fault-bend fold

Figure 13.12. Progressive development of a fault-related fold, which combines fault-propagation and fault-bend folding models (after Chester and Chester 1990).

• Forelimb thinning/thickening: Jamison (1987) noted that interlimb angle and forelimb dip in many natural fault-bend or fault-propagation folds are different from values that are predicted from simple models with constant layer thickness. Forelimb thinning/thickening was suggested to be a solution to this problem (Fig. 13.13).

residual

a b

Figure 13.13. Forelimb thinning and thickening model of Jamison (1987)

Forelimb thickening leads to larger interlimb angle and smaller forelimb dip than the predicted values. For a given value of θ, forelimb thinning leads to folds with smaller interlimb angle and larger forelimb dip but forelimb thickening leads to folds with larger interlimb angle and smaller forelimb dip. The thickening/thinning occurs only in the forelimb, the thickness remains constant in the remainder part of the beds.

Also, the basic geometry of the fold is acquired at the time of inception. However, the shape of a fold-propagation fold can be modified in the case of a décollement breakthrough; the part of the fold that retains the original geometry is called the residual. Jamison (1987) also demonstrated that simple shear parallel to the thrust sheet thins the forelimb and reduces the interlimb angle and thus changes the fold shape. In their detailed modelling of fault-propagation folding, Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) developed a theory, called the "fixed front anticlinal axial surface" theory, in which forelimb thinning/thickening was considered as a possible variable.