Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T01:48:23.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fracture stratigraphy of Mesozoic platform carbonates, Agri Valley, southern Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2022

C Manniello*
Affiliation:
Department of Science, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
F Agosta
Affiliation:
Department of Science, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
S Todaro
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Marine Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
F Cavalcante
Affiliation:
Institute of Methodologies for Environmental Analyses – CNR, Tito Scalo (PZ), Italy
G Prosser
Affiliation:
Department of Science, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: C. Manniello, Email: c.manniello@unibas.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Viggiano Mt. platform carbonates form a layered succession cross-cut by a dense array of pressure solution seams, and five sets of fractures and veins, which together form a sub-seismic structural network associated with polyphasic tectonic evolution. To assess the influence exerted by depositional and diagenetic heterogeneities on fracture geometry, distribution and multiscale properties, we present the results of stratigraphic, petrographic, mineralogical and mesoscale structural analyses conducted at the Viggiano Mountain, southern Italy. Based on rock textures and fossil associations, we documented that the Sinemurian–Pleinsbachian carbonates were deposited in a low-energy open lagoon, the Toarcian carbonates in a ramp setting rimmed by sand shoals, and the Cenomanian carbonates in a medium- to high-energy, lagoonal–tidal setting. Fracture-density (P20) and intensity (P21) values computed after circular scanline measurements show similar trends in both Sinemurian–Pleinsbachian and Toarcian carbonates, consistent with the bed and bed-package heterogeneities acting as efficient mechanical interfaces during incipient faulting. On the other hand, P20 and P21 do not show very similar variations throughout the Cenomanian carbonates due to pronounced bed amalgamation. Throughout the study area, the aforementioned parameters do not vary in proportion to the bed thickness, and show higher values within the coarse-grained carbonate beds. This conclusion is confirmed by results of linear scanline measurements, which focus on the P10 properties of the most common diffuse fracture set. The original results reported in this work are consistent with burial-related, physical–chemical compaction and cementation processes affecting the fracture stratigraphy of the Mesozoic platform carbonates.

Information

Type
FRACTURE OCCURRENCE, PATTERNS AND PROPERTIES
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Simplified structural map of the southern Apennines fold-and-thrust belt, Italy (modified after Piedilato & Prosser, 2005). (b) Geological map of the High Agri Valley, southern Italy. The white square represents the location of the Viggiano Mountain study area. (c) Geological cross-section of the southern Apennines along the A–A′ transect (modified after Prosser et al.2021).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Geological map of the Viggiano Mountain area, located along the northern edge of the High Agri Valley (G Palladino et al. in prep.). Location of both Scarrone la macchia and Il monte study sites is reported. (b, c) Schematic stratigraphic logs of (b) Scarrone la macchia and (v) Il monte areas (modified after Lechler et al. 2012).

Figure 2

Table 1. Sample code, lithology, components and fractions determined by XRPD on samples collected from the Scarrone la Macchia stratigraphic section

Figure 3

Fig. 3. (a) Panoramic view of the Scarrone la macchia site. Bedding surfaces (yellow lines), bed package interfaces (orange lines) and sedimentary unit interfaces (magenta line) are reported. (b) Stratigraphic log of the Scarrone la macchia site. The aforementioned interfaces are also reported. (c) Lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of bedding planes measured in well-layered carbonates and oolithic carbonates. (d) Panoramic view of the Il monte site. Bedding surfaces (yellow dashed lines), bed package interfaces (orange lines) and sedimentary unit interfaces (magenta line) are highlighted. (e) Stratigraphic section of Il monte site. The aforementioned interfaces are also reported. (f) Lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of bedding planes measured in the massive carbonates.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Microfacies of the Scarrone la macchia: (a–e) well-layered carbonates, (f–h) oolithic carbonates. (a) Packstone with Thaumatoporella parvovesiculifera. (b) Grainstone–packstone with Siphovalvulina sp. (c) Grainstone–packstone with benthic foraminifera (Siphovalvulina sp., Haurania deserta, Lituosepta sp.). (d) Palaeodasycladus mediterraneus. (e) Bacinella–Lithocodium agregatum. (f) Oolithic grainstone. (g) Open fractures partially occluded by dolomitic cements. (h) Intergranular porosity.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Microfacies of the Il monte section. (a–c) Grainstone to rudstone with fragments of rudists shell, orbitolinids. (d) Stromatolitic laminae with peloids. (e) Meniscus cements connecting the grains and isopacous cements rims around the rudists fragments. Barren silt filled the residual cavities. (f) Meniscus cements connecting the grains. The residual cavity is filled by a silt rich in ostracods.

Figure 6

Table 2. Mineralogical assemblages of the study samples

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Representative XRD patterns of selected samples. (a) Bulk samples and (b) terrigenous components. Cal = calcite; Qtz = quartz; Fs = feldspars; Gt = goethite; Ill = illite; I/S = mixed layers illite/smectite; Chl = chlorite; Kao = kaolinite; Σ Clay minerals = sum clay minerals.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Representative XRD patterns of ethylene glycol solvated clay fraction powders of selected samples. On the left (a–d) decomposition at low angles; on the right (e–h) decomposition at higher angles. Ill = illite; I/S = mixed layers illite/smectite; Chl = chlorite.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Cumulative lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of fracture poles (a) after field measurements and (b) after bedding restoration. Fracture data restored considering the attitude of single beds from which data were gathered.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Lower-hemisphere equal-area stereographic projection of fracture poles after field measurements (left) and after bedding restoration (right), subdivided into three subsets, according to the related carbonate units: (a) well-layered carbonates; (b) oolithic carbonates; (c) massive carbonates.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Fracture density (P20) and intensity (P21) logs after field circular scanline measurements conducted across (a) well-layered and oolithic carbonates, and (b) massive carbonates.

Figure 12

Fig. 11. Outcrop images of the investigated carbonate beds by means of circular scanlines: (a, b) well-layered carbonates; (c, d) oolithic carbonates; (e, f) massive carbonates. The right column (a, c, e) shows the beds characterized by high fracture density and intensity; the left column (b, d, f) shows the beds with high fracture density and intensity.

Figure 13

Table 3. P10 variations for the JV1 fracture set

Figure 14

Fig. 12. Outcrop images of the (a) S1, (b) S2 and (c) S3 linear scanlines.

Figure 15

Fig. 13. Multiscale fracture spacing distribution. (a) Lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of fracture poles of the S1 scanline; (b) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N292 striking set; (c) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N300 striking set; (d) lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of fracture poles of the S2 scanline; (e) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N252 striking set; (f) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N284 striking set; (g) lower-hemisphere, equal-area stereographic projection of fracture poles of the S3 scanline; (h) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N180 striking set; (i) log cumulative number vs spacing and best fit relative to the N206 striking set.

Figure 16

Fig. 14. (a, d, e) Bed thickness vs P20 and P21 values for (a) well-layered carbonates; (d) oolithic carbonates; (e) massive carbonates. (b) Bed thickness vs P20 for the mud-supported carbonate, in which the grain-supported and the mud-supported beds are highlighted; (c) bed thickness vs P21 for the mud-supported carbonate, in which the grain-supported and the mud-supported beds are highlighted; (f) bed thickness vs P20 for the massive carbonate, in which the grain-supported and the mud-supported beds are highlighted; (g) bed thickness vs P21 for the massive carbonate, in which the grain-supported and the mud-supported beds are highlighted.

Figure 17

Fig. 15. Bed thickness vs P10 values calculated through significant beds in the three carbonate units. The grain-supported lithofacies and the mud-supported lithofacies are highlighted.