Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T02:53:39.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fault gouge dating: history and evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Peter Vrolijk*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801, USA 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389, USA
David Pevear
Affiliation:
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389, USA 14777 Presilla Drive, Jamul, CA 91935, USA
Michael Covey
Affiliation:
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389, USA 4115 Crondall Drive, Sacremento, CA 95864, USA
Allan LaRiviere
Affiliation:
ExxonMobil Canada, PO Box 2480, Station M, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3M9, Canada
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiometric dating of fault gouges has become a useful tool for regional tectonics studies and for exploring and understanding fault and earthquake processes. Methods to define the absolute age of faults achieved a solid scientific foundation almost 25 years ago when the development and application of illite age analysis for investigating sedimentary burial and thermal histories found a new potential application – defining the age of fold-and-thrust development. Since then, the methods have benefitted from further development and incorporation of the 40Ar/39Ar micro-encapsulation method and quantitative clay mineral evaluation to distinguish polytypes (Wildfire). These refinements to the methods have improved their application in fold-and-thrust terrains and have opened up applications in normal and strike-slip fault environments. Another important development is the use of absolute dating methods in retrograde clay gouges in which clays in a fault develop from igneous or metamorphic wall rocks that contain no clays. In addition, the method has also been shown to be useful at dating folds in fold-and-thrust belts. We think the method is now an established part of the geological toolkit, look forward to future fault structural and tectonic studies that incorporate fault ages and hope that researchers continue to probe and discover ways that the method can assist fault process studies, including earthquake fault studies.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2018 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. McConnell thrust exposed at Mt Yamnuska with initial fault (thrust gouge) and shale (Belly River shale) age data below. (a) Field outcrop photo. Outcrop height ≈ 6 m (b) Age–size distributions for fine-, medium- and coarse-sized fractions between gouge sample (above) and shale sample (below). Note the significant difference in distribution of ages and absolute age values, especially when referenced against depositional age. (c) IAA authigenic age regression for undeformed Belly River shale. Note that no comparable IAA plot was possible for the gouge sample because each size fraction contained only discrete illite, and at the time of the original interpretation, there existed no method (e.g. Wildfire) to distinguish diagenetic from detrital clays.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. XRD patterns of glycolated fine (<0.02 µm) size fraction comparing gouge and shale samples from Mt Yamnuska. Note the vast advancement of smectite–illite reaction progress in the gouge sample.

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary of fault outcrop age results.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Photomicrograph of sample KKF-1a, Rundle thrust, Mt Kidd, cross-polarized light. Note distinct, strongly preferred alignment of clay minerals from upper-right to lower-left, sometimes bending around detrital quartz (Q) and rock fragment (RF) silt grains, and weaker texture trending upper-left to lower-right. Such fabrics often associated with shear zones in clay-rich rocks and help confirm the pre- to syn-tectonic origin of clay minerals.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Transmission electron photomicrograph of coarse (2.0–0.2 µm) size fraction of the Lewis thrust, Gould Dome. Note abundance of lath morphologies in the sample.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Replicate K/Ar ages for two samples collected from the Sulphur Mountain thrust. Note the significant age differences in fine and medium fractions. Subsequent work led to the inference that the amount of 2M1 mica differs between samples.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Interpreted K/Ar ages for a series of five thrust faults that young progressively towards the foreland, consistent with the structural geometric and kinematic interpretation of in-sequence thrusting.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Compilation of available (~1992) stratigraphic and geological age constraints for thrust faults in southern Alberta with interpreted fault ages posted. Note that all fault ages fall within the span of available age constraints, although in some instances constraints remain broad. Kananaskis Transect includes (left to right; hinterland to foreland): Sulphur Mountain thrust, Rundle thrust, Lewis thrust, McConnell Thrust and Prairie Mountain thrust. Two fault outcrops were analysed in Crowsnest Pass area where the Lewis thrust is geometrically out of sequence.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Two types of clay gouge. (a) Prograde fault zone in which mixed-layer I-S in wall rock becomes more illitic in fault. (b) Retrograde fault in which low-temperature 1Md illite in fault contrasts with crystalline 2M1 mica (muscovite) in wall rock. From Haines & van der Pluijm (2008).

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Comparison of K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar ages for splits from same sample preparations. Note systematic bias of older K/Ar ages. Source of bias was never addressed or resolved.

Supplementary material: File

Vrolijk et al. supplementary material

Vrolijk et al. supplementary material 1

Download Vrolijk et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13.2 KB