Joint development normal to regional compression during flexural-flow folding: the Lilstock buttress anticline, Somerset, England
Introduction
An old paradigm is that outer-arc stretching leads to fold-related jointing (Van Hise, 1896). Outer-arc stretching is associated with tangential longitudinal strain folds that develop when a homogeneous, isotropic layer is buckled (Price and Cosgrove, 1990). The tangential longitudinal strain fold is divided by a neutral surface beyond which the inner arc of the fold is compressed. Joints that initiate in the outer arc of anticlines propagate down to but do not cross the neutral surface. When fold-related jointing penetrates the entire thickness of a bed, the tangential longitudinal strain model is less useful as a mechanism to explain the strain that may have caused jointing. This is also true when jointing is well developed in the limbs of folds or at inflection points where strain goes to zero in a tangential longitudinal strain fold. To understand the development of jointing in the limbs of folds, we must look to another model. Flexural flow folds have maximum strains at the inflection points and zero strain at the hinges (Price and Cosgrove, 1990).
We consider the possibility that one or more sets of unfilled joints of the Bristol Channel were contemporaneous with flexural-flow folding during Alpine shortening. Here, we describe field data gathered to test this hypothesis. We presume that the joint geometries interpreted to date from the Alpine inversion reflect the superposition of local and remote (i.e. regional) stress conditions. We also use the orientation of systematic joints in carbonate beds to constrain a mechanical model for stress distribution during flexural-flow folding in interlayered limestone–shale beds. With the help of this mechanical model, we propose a new mechanism for the joint driving stress. This mechanism does not rely on outer-arc extension commonly cited as the conventional fold-related jointing mechanism. Under this new mechanism, fold-related joints are driven completely through beds without arrest at a neutral surface.
Section snippets
The regional picture
The Bristol Channel Basin is an E–W striking Mesozoic rift basin (Fig. 1). Normal faults dip either north or south to divide the basin into fault blocks (Dart et al., 1995). The basin was inverted in the Eocene and Oligocene during a period of N–S compression associated with Alpine tectonics (Holloway and Chadwick, 1986; Arthur, 1989; Dart et al., 1995; Nemcok et al., 1995). Alpine deformation was accommodated by reverse-reactivation of normal faults, new thrust faults, new strike-slip faults,
Data collection
Our field approach at Lilstock Beach was to sample systematic joints in a volume of the Blue Lias measuring 40 m thick by 200 m long (E–W). The repetition of the section by high angle faults permitted sampling up to 50 m in the third dimension (i.e. N–S) of some beds. In sampling the volume, we were particularly interested in the affect of Alpine inversion on joint development. Our premise is that if joints propagated during Alpine inversion, they are likely to be found in the south-dipping
Identification of joint sets
A joint set is a collection of systematic parallel joints (Hodgson, 1961). Poles to joints of a systematic set fall, however, in a cluster several degrees wide because individual joints are never perfectly planar and there are measurement errors (Fig. 5). Because of these variations, joint sets separated by <10° in orientation may have overlapping clusters of poles in a stereographic plot. In this case, placing an individual joint into one set or the other is impossible during post-fieldwork
The association between J3 joints and the Lilstock buttress anticline
Six observations lead us to conclude that J3 joints in the south-dipping beds at Lilstock Beach propagated during the development of the Lilstock buttress anticline reflecting Alpine inversion:
- 1.
J3 joints are rare in the subhorizontal beds of Lilstock Beach but are the most common set in the steep limb of the Lilstock buttress anticline. The mechanism driving J3 jointing must involve higher strain on the limbs of folds and little strain in the hinge area.
- 2.
J3 joints are most common in the vicinity
Other examples of fracture development during flexural-flow folding
Flexural-flow appears to be a common process in folds (e.g. Ramsay, 1962, Ramsay, 1967). Our model predicts fanning joint patterns that are similar to the strongly-convergent dip isogons shown by class 1A folds of Ramsay (1967; fig. 724). Similar patterns of joints within flexural-flow folds are shown by Hills (1963; fig. VIII-14B) and by Whitten (1966; fig. 140). Balk (1937) describes similar fanning patterns of joints developed in country rocks above plutons.
The literature also contains
Conclusions
At Lilstock Beach, a number of joint sets in the limestones beds of the Jurassic Blue Lias cluster about the strike of the axes of the Lilstock buttress anticline, including J1 (330°–310°), J2 (310°–295°), J3 (295°–285°), J4 (285°–275°), J5 (275°–265°), and J6 (< 265°). In subhorizontal beds, including those near the hinge surface of the Lilstock buttress anticline, J3 joints are rare, whereas J2, J4, J5, and J6 abut to indicate an anticlockwise sequence of development. In the south-dipping
Acknowledgements
Paul Hancock first introduced TE to the wonderful Lilstock outcrop more than 15 years ago. This trip was the beginning of a fruitful collaboration that lead to our work on neotectonic joints (Hancock and Engelder, 1989). Our collaboration reached its zenith when Paul and his wife, Ann, hosted Jan Engelder and TE in their lovely Georgian row house in Bristol after our field campaign at Lilstock during the summer of 1997. We only wish that Paul could have seen the fruits of our work at Lilstock.
References (55)
- et al.
Unweaving the joints in Entrada Sandstone, Arches National Park, Utah, USA
Journal of Structural Geology
(1995) Using joint interactions to estimate paleostress ratios
Journal of Structural Geology
(1988)- et al.
Loading configurations and driving mechanisms for joints based on the Griffith energy-balance concept
Tectonophysics
(1996) Jointing in the Jurassic limestones of the Cotswold Hills
Proceedings of the Geological Association
(1969)Brittle microtectonics: principles and practice
Journal of Structural Geology
(1985)- et al.
Joint spacing in sedimentary rocks
Journal of Structural Geology
(1991) - et al.
Joint development in perturbed stress fields near faults
Journal of Structural Geology
(1992) - et al.
Joints in the Mesozoic sediments around the Bristol Channel Basin
Journal of Structural Geology
(1998) - et al.
Interactive finite element analysis of fracture processes: an integrated approach
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics
(1987) - et al.
Formation of regional cross-fold joints in the northern Appalachian Plateau
Journal of Structural Geology
(1997)
The Cenozoic evolution of the Lundy pull-apart basin into the Lundy rhomb horst
Geological Magazine
On the nature of buttressing in margin-parallel strike-slip fault systems
Geology
Stress fields in the European platform at the time of Africa–Eurasia collision
Tectonics
A late Cenozoic regional mesofracture system in southern England and northern France
Journal of the Geological Society, London
3D analysis of inverted extensional fault systems, southern Bristol Channel basin, UK
Folds and folding
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America
On the use of regional joint sets as trajectories of paleostress fields during the development of the Appalachian Plateau, New York
Journal of Geophysical Research
Natural hydraulic fracturing
Structural Geology: Fundamentals and Modern Developments
Factors controlling joint spacing in interbedded sedimentary rocks: Integrating numerical models with field observations from the Monterey Formation, USA
Origin of “reverse drag” on the downthrow side of normal faults
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America
Neotectonic Joints
Geological Society of America Bulletin
Cited by (74)
Deep and ultra-deep basin brittle deformation with focus on China
2023, Journal of Structural GeologyAnalogue sandbox modeling of orogenic wedge front faulting: Roles of inherited fault zones and topographic loading
2022, Journal of Structural GeologyLarge-scale natural fracture network patterns: Insights from automated mapping in the Lilstock (Bristol Channel) limestone outcrops
2021, Journal of Structural GeologyThe joint sets on the Lilstock Benches, UK. Observations based on mapping a full resolution UAV-based image
2021, Journal of Structural GeologyMechanical insights into the development of fracture corridors in layered rocks
2021, Journal of Structural GeologyCitation Excerpt :In this study, we use the fracture code Franc 2D developed by the Cornell Fracture Group (Wawrzynek and Ingraffea, 1987). This finite element code has been used in many studies to compute stress fields (Fisher et al., 1995; Gross et al., 1995; Bai and Pollard, 2000a; Bai et al., 2000a; Engelder and Peacock, 2001; McConaughy and Engelder, 2001; de Joussineau and Petit, 2006, 2007), to calculate fracture apertures (Bai et al., 2000b; Bai and Pollard, 2001; de Joussineau and Petit, 2006) and evaluate stress intensity factors and energy release rates at the tips of fractures, allowing studying quasi-static fracture propagation from initial seeds (Bai and Pollard, 2000b; de Joussineau, 2003a,b; de Joussineau and Petit, 2004). Our models are rectangles containing five bonded layers (Fig. 3a) with contrasts in the Young's modulus and a common Poisson's ratio equal to 0.25, which is the value commonly used for modeling layered sedimentary rocks (Bai and Pollard, 2000b; Bai et al., 2000a,b; de Joussineau and Petit, 2007; Li et al., 2012).