Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 251–267 | Cite as

Tectonic phase separation applied to the Sudetic Marginal Fault Zone (NE part of the Czech Republic)

  • Lucie NovakovaEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study emphasizes the advantage of tectonic phase separation in determination of a tectonic evolution of complicated fault zones. The research focused on the Sudetic Marginal Fault Zone (SMFZ) −a 250 km long active fault zone with documented intraplate seismicity situated on the NE margin of the Bohemian Massif (the Czech Republic). The tectonic history of the SMFZ as well as its kinematic development has been rather complicated and not quite understood. A field structural investigation was carried out in extensive surroundings of the fault zone. The fault-slip data were collected in a number of natural outcrops and quarries with the aim at establishing a robust and field-constrained model for local brittle structural evolution of the studied area. A paleostress analysis was calculated using the collected fault-slip data inversion. The T-Tecto software was utilized for semiautomatic separation of the paleostress phases. Simultaneously three methods of data separation were employed: (1) the Gauss inverse method, (2) the Visualization of Gauss object Function, and (3) the frequency analysis. Within the fault zone multiphase movements were observed on various types of faults as well as wide range of the kinematic indicators orientations. The frequency analysis confirmed the multiphase history of the SMFZ. The calculated tectonic phases were divided according to their relative age as constrained by cross cutting relationships and, where observed, multiple striations on a single fault plane and classified from the oldest to the younger. Data separation and inversion using T-Tecto software with the Gauss inverse method revealed four different stress phases which are 3 strike-slip stress regimes and one compressional regime. The strike-slip regimes are characterized by σ1 trending NW-SE (43), NNE-SSW (18), ENE-WSW (76) and the compressional one by σ1 trending W-E (26). First, compression occurred parallel to the SMFZ supposedly during the Variscan period. Second, compression at an angle of 60° to general direction of the SMFZ yielded right-lateral movement along the fault zone. This is considered to have occurred during the late-Variscan and post-Variscan period. Third, compression in the W-E direction with almost vertical extension led to reverse movement along the fault zone. This is considered to have occurred during Cenozoic. Fourth, compression almost perpendicular to the SMFZ led to left-lateral transpression along the SMFZ. This is considered to have occurred during Quaternary.

Keywords

Sudetic Marginal Fault Zone Paleostress reconstruction Active tectonics Frequency analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelier A, Mechler P (1977) On a graphical method of research of main constraints also usable in seismology: the Right dihedra method. Bulletin Geological Society of France 19: 1309–1318. (In French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrowski P, Kryza R, Mazur S, et al. (1997) Kinematic data on major Variscan strike-slip faults and shear zones in the Polish Sudetes, northeast Bohemian Massif. Geological Magazine 134: 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexandrowski P (1998) The Intra-Sudetic Fault Zone and the Variscan strike-slip tectonics in the West Sudetes. Geolines 6: 6–8.Google Scholar
  4. Angelier J. (1979) Tectonic analysis of fault slip data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research 89,B7: 5835–5848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelier J (1984) Determination of the mean principle directions of stresses for a given fault population. Tectonophysics 56: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelier J (1994) Fault Slip Analysis and Paleostress Reconstruction. In: Hancock PL (ed.), Continental Deformation. Pergamon Press, Oxford, Great Britain. pp 53–100.Google Scholar
  7. Badura J, Zuchiewicz W, Górecki A, et al. (2003a) Morphotectonic properties of the Sudetic Marginal Fault, SW Poland. Acta Montana A 24 131: 21–49.Google Scholar
  8. Badura J, Zuchiewicz W, Górecki A, et al. (2003b) The Sudetic Marginal Fault, SW Poland, in the light of morphometric studies. Geolines 16: 13–14.Google Scholar
  9. Badura J, Zuchiewicz W, Przybylski B (2004) The Sudetic Marginal Fault, SW Poland: a reactivated sinistral-normal fault. Geolines 17: 17–18.Google Scholar
  10. Badura J, Zuchiewicz W, Stepancikova P, et al. (2007) The Sudetic Marginal Fault: A young morphotectonic feature at the NE margin of the Bohemian Massif, Central Europe. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 148: 7–29.Google Scholar
  11. Bellahsen N, Daniel JM (2005) Fault reactivation control on normal fault growth: an experimental study. Journal of Structural Geology 27: 769–780. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2004.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bott MHP (1959) The mechanisms of oblique slip faulting. Geological Magazine 96: 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buday T, Ďurica D, Opletal M, et al. (1995) Significance of the Bělský and Klepáčovský fault system and its continuation to the Carpathian Mts. Geologický průzkum 2(9): 275–281. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  14. Célérier B (2007) Tectonic regime and slip orientation of reactivated faults. Geophysical Journal International 121: 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coubal M, Málek J (1999) Analysis of movements in brittle shear zones. Acta Montana 114: 141–158.Google Scholar
  16. Cymerman Z, Piasecki MAJ, Seston R (1997) Terranes and terrane boundaries in the Sudetes, northeast Bohemian Massif. Geological Magazine 134: 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Čabla V (1969) Age of the Žulová granite pluton. Geological Survey 4: 117–118. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  18. Danišík M, Stepancikova P, Evans NJ (2012) Constraining longterm denudation and faulting history in intraplate regions by multisystem thermochronology: An example of the Sudetic Marginal Fault (Bohemian Massif, central Europe). Tectonics 31: 1–19. DOI: 10.1029/2011TC003012Google Scholar
  19. Davis GH, Reynolds SJ (1996) Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions. Willey, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Delvaux D, Sperner B (2003) New aspects of tectonic stress inversion with reference to the TENSOR program. In: Nieuwland DA (ed.), New Insides into Structural Interpretation and Modelling. The Geological Society, London, Great Britain 212. pp 75–100.Google Scholar
  21. Doblas M (1998) Slickenside kinematic indicators. Tectonophysics 295: 187–197. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00120-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Di Domenica A, Petricca P, Trippeta F, et al. (2014) Investigating fault reactivation during multiple tectonic inversions through mechanical and numerical modeling: An application to the Central-Northern Apennines of Italy. Journal of Structural Geology 67: 167–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2014.07.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dyjor S (1995) Young Quaternary and recent crustal movements in Lower Silesia, SW Poland. Folia Quaternaria 66: 51–58.Google Scholar
  24. Grygar R (1991) Structural-kinematic analysis of the NE part of the Bohemian Massif. Final report. MS Archive, Ostrava, Czech Republic. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  25. Grygar R, Vávro M (1995) Evolution of Lugosilesian orocline (north-eastern periphery of the Bohemian Massif): kinematics of Variscan deformation. Journal of the Czech Geological Society 40: 65–90.Google Scholar
  26. Grygar R, Jelínek J (2000) Sudetic faults framework in West and East Sudetes and its recent geodynamic significance — comparative structure and geomorphologic studies. Reports on Geodesy 7(53): 77–79.Google Scholar
  27. Grygar R, Jelínek J (2003) The Upper Morava and Nysa pullapart grabens — the evidence of neotectonic dextral transtension on the Sudetic fault system. Acta Montana 24,131: 51–59.Google Scholar
  28. Grygar R (2004) Structural-tectonic analysis of the map sheets 1:25 000, map sheet Žulová 14-221, map sheet Lipová 14-223, and map sheet Branná 14-241 with special alignment to brittle tectonics. Final report, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. p 25. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  29. Guterch B, Lewandowska-Marciniak H (2002) Seismicity and seismic hazard in Poland. Folia Quaternaria 73: 85–99.Google Scholar
  30. Hancock PL (1985) Brittle microtectonics: principles and practise. Journal of Structural Geology 7: 437–457. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8141(85)90048-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Havíř J (1995) Preliminary results of deformation and paleostress analysis in the eastern part of Nízký Jeseník. Geological survey of Moravia and Silezia in 1994. Brno, Czech Republic. pp 42–43. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  32. Havíř J (2004) Orientations of recent principal stress axes in the Jeseníky region. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 135: 49–57.Google Scholar
  33. Havíř J, Špaček P (2004) Recent tectonic activity and orientations of the principal stresses in the Jeseníky region. Geolines 17: 38–39.Google Scholar
  34. Hrouda F, Aichler J, Chlupáčová M, et al. (2001) The magnetic fabric in the Žulová pluton and its tectonic implications. Geolines 13: 62–63.Google Scholar
  35. Chlupáč I, Brzobohatý R, Kovanda J, et al. (2002) Geological history of the Czech Republic. Academia, Prague, Czech Republic. p 436. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  36. Jelínek J, Grygar R (2005) Neotectonic rejuvenation of Variscan structures in relation to tracing of methane escape: preliminary note (Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Moravosilesian Area, Bohemian Massif). Geolines 19: 57–59.Google Scholar
  37. Kernstocková M, Melichar R (2006) Do you separate sets of reactivated faults manually? Geolines 20: 66.Google Scholar
  38. Kontny B (2004) Is the Sudetic Marginal Fault still active? Results of the GPS monitoring 1996–2002. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 135: 34–39.Google Scholar
  39. Krzyszkowski D, Migoń P, Sroka W (1995) Neotectonic Quaternary history of the Sudetic Marginal Fault, SW Poland. Folia Quaternaria 66: 73–98.Google Scholar
  40. Lisle RJ, Vandycke S (1996) Separation of multiple stress events by fault striation analysis: an example from Variscan and younger structures at Ogmore, South Wales. Journal of Geological Society of London 153: 945–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lisle RJ, Orife T, Arlegui LE (2001) A stress inversion method requiring only fault slip sense. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(B2): 2281–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maierova P (2012) Evolution of the Bohemian Massif: Insights from numerical modeling. PhD Thesis, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. p152.Google Scholar
  43. Melichar R, Kernstocková M (2008) 9D Space — The best way to understand paleostress analysis. Programme & Extended Abstracts. International Meeting of Young Researchers in Structural Geology and Tectonics, YORSGET-08, 1–3 July 2008, Universidad de Oviedo (Spain): 327–331.Google Scholar
  44. Mísař Z (1983) Geology of the Czech Republic. Pedagogical Publishing, Prague, Czech Republic. p 333. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  45. Nemcok M, Lisle RJ (1995) A stress inversion procedure for polyphase fault/slip data sets. Journal of Structural Geology 17: 1445–1453. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8141(95)00040-KCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nováková L (2008) Main directions of the fractures in the limestone and granite quarries along the Sudetic Marginal Fault near Vápenná village, NE Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 149: 49–55.Google Scholar
  47. Nováková L, Schenk V (2008) Recent tectonic movements in the NE part of the Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic, indicated by the brittle tectonic approach. Geophysical Research Abstracts 10: 07801.Google Scholar
  48. Nováková L (2010) Detailed brittle tectonic analysis of the limestones in the quarries near Vápenná village. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 58: 1–8.Google Scholar
  49. Novakova L (2014) Evolution of paleostress fields and brittle deformation in Hronov-Porici Fault Zone,Bohemian Massif. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 58: 269–288. DOI: 10.1007/s11200-013-1167-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oberc J (1967) Sudetic marginal flexure and tectonics of the Rychleby Mts. Journal of Mineralogy and Geology 12: 2–12. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  51. Oberc J, Dyjor S (1969) Sudetic marginal fault. Buletyn Instytutu Geologicznego 236: 41–142. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  52. Oberc J (1977) The Late Alpine Epoch in south-west Poland. In: Pozaryski W (ed.), Geology of Poland IV, Tectonics. Wydawna Geologika, Warszawa: 451–475.Google Scholar
  53. Opletal M (2009) A note about the problem of the Staroměstské pásmo and Velkovrbenská klenba areas. In: Faměra M, Dolníček Z, Lhotský T (eds.), Moravskoslezské Paleozoikum 2009. Sborník abstraktů, XIII. Ročník: 9–12. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  54. Pešková I, Hók J, Stepancikova P, et al. (2008) Stress analysis of the brittle structure in Žulová region. Abstracts of the 9th Czech-Polish Workshop on Recent Geodynamics of the Sudety Mts. and Adjacent Areas: 17.Google Scholar
  55. Petit JP (1987) Criteria for the sense of movement on fault surfaces in brittle rocks. Journal of Structural Geology 9,5/6: 597–608. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8141(87)90145-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pouba Z, Mísař Z, Dvořák J, et al. (1962) Explanatory notes to uncovered geological map of the ČSSR, Map Sheet Jeseník, M-33-XVIII. scale 1:200,000. Publishing of Academy of Science, Geological Institute, Prague, Czech Republic. (In Czech).Google Scholar
  57. Roberts GP (1996) Variation in fault-slip directions along active and segmented normal fault systems. Journal of Structural Geology 18: 835–845. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80016-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberts GP, Michetti AM (2004) Spatial and temporal variations in growth rates along active normal fault systems: an example from Lazio-Abruzzo, central Italy. Journal of Structural Geology 26: 683–686. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8141(03)00103-2Google Scholar
  59. Salvini F, Billi A, Wise DU (1999) Strike-slip fault-propagation cleavage in carbonate rocks: the Mattinata fault zone, Southern Apennines, Italy. Journal of Structural Geology 21: 1731–1749. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8141(99)00120-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schenk V, Schenková Z, Cacoń S, et al. (2003) The geodynamic interpretation of the GPS data monitored at the East Sudeten network. Acta Montana 131: 87–97.Google Scholar
  61. Schenk V, Kaláb Z, Grygar R, et al. (2004) Fundamental mobility trends in the northern part of the Moravo-Silesian Zone (the Bohemian Massif) — a complex geodynamic analysis. Acta Research Reports 13: 75–90.Google Scholar
  62. Schenk V, Schenková Z (2006) Geodynamics of the NE part of the Bohemian Massif. Geophysical Research Abstracts 8: 06472.Google Scholar
  63. Schenková Z, Kottnauer P, Schenk V, et al. (2009) Investigation of the recent crustal movements of the eastern part of the Bohemian Massif using GPS technology. Acta Research Reports 18: 17–25.Google Scholar
  64. Schulmann K, Gayer R (2000) A model for a continental accretionary wedge developed by oblique collision: the NE Bohemian Massif. Journal of the Geological Society 157: 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schulmann K, Konopásek J, Janoušek V, et al. (2009) An Andean type Palaeozoic convergence in the Bohemian Massif. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 341: 266–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.crte.2008.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skácel J (1989) Crossing of the Sudetic Marginal Fault and Nýznerov overthrust between town of Vápenná and toen of Javorník in Silesia. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  67. Skácel J (2004) The Sudetic Marginal Fault between town of Bílá voda and town of Lipová Lázně. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 135: 31–33.Google Scholar
  68. Spacek P, Sykorova Z, Pazdirkova J, et al. (2006) Present-day seismicity of the south-eastern Elbe Fault System (NE Bohemian Massif). Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 50: 233–258. DOI: 10.1007/s11200-006-0014-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Staš L, Rakowski J, Hortvík K (1996) Some results of horizontal stress measurements by hydrofracturing method in underground mines of Karviná part of “OKR” coalfield. Acta Montana A 9,100: 237–243.Google Scholar
  70. Stemberk J, Stepancikova P (2003) Tectonic setting and newly organised monitoring of recent tectonic deformation in the Rychleby Hory Mts. Acta Montana A 24,131: 153–161.Google Scholar
  71. Stepančcikova P, Stemberk J, Vilimek V, et al. (2008) Neotectonic movements in the East Sudeten Mountains and monitoring of recent fault displacements (Czech Republic). Geomorphology 102: 68–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.06.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stepancikova P, Hok J, Nyvlt D, et al. (2010) Active tectonics research using trenching technique on the south-eastern section of the Sudetic Marginal Fault (NE Bohemian Massif, central Europe). Tectonophysics 485: 269–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stepancikova P, Dohnal J, Panek T, et al. (2011) The application of electrical resistivity tomography and gravimetric survey as useful tools in an active tectonics study of the Sudetic Marginal Fault (Bohemian Massif, central Europe). Journal of Applied Geophysics 74: 69–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Storti F, Rossetti F, Salvini F (2001) Structural architecture and displacement accommodation mechanisms at the termination of the Priestley Fault, northern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Tectonophysics 341: 141–161. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-1951 (01)00198-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Storti F, Rossetti F, Laufer AL, et al. (2006) Consistent kinematic architecture in the damaged zones of intraplate strike-slip fault systems in North Victoria Land, Antarctica and implications for fault zone evolution. Journal of Structural Geology 28: 50–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2005.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Suess FE (1912) The Moravian windows and their relationship of the basement and high forging die. Academy of Sciences and Math. Naturwissenschaft 12: 541–631. (In German)Google Scholar
  77. Štěpančíková P (2005) Selected analyses of the morphostructure of the NE part of the Rychleby hory Mts. (Czech Republic). Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia 137: 59–67.Google Scholar
  78. Toy VG, Prior DJ, Norris RJ, et al. (2012) Relationships between kinematicindicators and strain during syn-deformational exhumation of an oblique slip, transpressive, plate boundary shear zone: The Alpine Fault, New Zealand. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 333: 282–292. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.04.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiprut D, Zoback DM (2000) Fault reactivation and fluid flow along a previously dormant normal fault in the northern North Sea. Geology 28: 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Woodcock NH, Schubert C (1994) Continental strike-slip tectonics. In: Hancock PL (ed.), Continental Tectonics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, Great Britain. pp 251–263.Google Scholar
  81. Yamaji A (2000) The multiple inverse method: a new technique to separate stresses from heterogeneous fault-slip data. Journal of Structural Geology 22: 441–452. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8141(99)00163-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yamaji A (2003) Are the solutions of stress inversion correct? Visualization of their reliability and the separation of stresses from heterogeneous fault-slip data. Journal of Structural Geology 25: 241–252. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8141(02)00021-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhang J, Li JY, Ma ZJ, et al. (2011) Structural Traces of Secondary Faults (Fractures) along the Main Faults and Their Reliability as Kinematic Indicators. Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition 85: 1137–1149. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-6724.2011.00246.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zuchiewicz W, Badura J, Jarosiński M (2007) Neotectonics of Poland: An overview of active faulting. Studia Quaternaria 24: 5–20.Google Scholar
  85. Žáček V, Sekyra J, Opletal M (1995) Geological map of the Czech Republic, Map Sheet 14–22 Jeseník [in Czech]. Czech Geological Survey, 1:50,000.Google Scholar
  86. Žalohar J, Vrabec M (2007) Paleostress analysis of heterogeneous fault-slip data: The Gauss method. Journal of Structural Geology 29: 1798–1810. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2007.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Žalohar J (2008) T-TECTO 2.0 Professional Integrated Software for Structural Analysis of Fault-Slip Data, Introductory Tutorial 46.Google Scholar
  88. Žalohar J (2009) T-TECTO 3.0 Professional Integrated Software for Structural Analysis of Fault-Slip Data, Introductory Tutorial 56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Seismotectonics, Institute of Rock Structure and MechanicsAcademy of Sciences, v.v.i.Prague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations