| 2003 Seattle Annual Meeting (November 2–5, 2003) | |
| Paper No. 241-1 | |
| Presentation Time: 1:30 PM-1:45 PM | ||
STRUCTURAL FABRIC OF THE PALISADES MONOCLINE: A STUDY OF POSITIVE INVERSION | ||
|
OROFINO, James C.1, CHESTER, Judith S.1, FINN, Martin D.1, GRAFF, Mitchell C.1, and MCGUIRE, James B.2, (1) Center for Tectonophysics, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, jco6560@neo.tamu.edu, (2) Department of Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78741 This study investigates the structural fabric of the Precambrian Dox Formation across the underlying fault of the Palisades Monocline, Grand Canyon, AZ. Previous studies of the Grand Canyon region, and specifically the Palisades Monocline, document stratigraphic evidence for fault inversion in the Precambrian Grand Canyon Supergroup. These studies indicate normal faulting occurred during and after Precambrian deposition, followed by Paleozoic deposition and subsequent Laramide reverse-reactivation. Orientations of faults, fractures, joints, veins and slip lineations in the Dox Formation across the fault indicate multiple deformation phases, however, comparison of these measurements with previous study by Reches (1978) of the overlying Paleozoic units allows Precambrian structural fabrics to be distinguished from Laramide deformation. Preliminary interpretation indicates a strong Precambrian extensional fabric, including vertical joint and vein sets striking N55W, and conjugate normal faults striking N58W and dipping 60 degrees NE and SW respectively. The structural fabric suggests a subhorizontal, least compressive stress trending N35E during Precambrian deformation. Previous study by Reches (1978) reports a similar axis for the greatest compressive stress during Laramide deformation, which supports coaxial, positive stress inversion. Positive inversion or fault reactivation of a pre-existing structural weakness is commonly proposed to explain the high angle reverse faults common in Laramide structures, however, poor structural control, incomplete stratigraphic exposure, and structural overprinting obscure evidence of inversion. This natural example of coaxial inversion provides for more controlled comparison with physical models that suggest preservation of structural and microfracture fabrics through inversion processes. | ||
|
2003 Seattle Annual Meeting (November 2–5, 2003)
| ||
| Session No. 241 Structural Geology II: Deformation Processes Washington State Convention and Trade Center: 615/616/617 1:30 PM-5:30 PM, Wednesday, November 5, 2003 Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 35, No. 6, September 2003, p. 603 | ||
© Copyright 2003 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions. | ||