Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Wallace (1951) and Bott (1959) were the first to introduce the idea that the slip on each fault surface has the same direction and sense as the maximum shear stress resolved on that surface. However, this simplified hypothesis is questionable since fault mechanical interactions may induce slip reorientations. Earlier numerical geomechanical models confirmed that the slickenlines (slip vectors) are not necessarily parallel to the maximum resolved shear stress but are consistent with local stress perturbations. This leads us to ask as to what extent the Wallace and Bott simplifications are reliable as a basis hypothesis for stress inversion from fault slip data. Here, a geomechanical multi-parametric study using a 3D boundary element method, covering (i) fault geometries such as intersected faults or corrugated fault surfaces, (ii) the full range of Andersonian state of stress, (iii) fault friction, (iv) fault fluid pressure, (v) half space effect and (vi), rock properties, is performed in order to understand the effect of each parameter on the misfit angle between geomechanical slip vectors and the resolved shear stresses. It is shown that significant misfit angles can be found under specific configurations invalidating the Wallace and Bott assumptions, even though fault friction tends to minimize the misfit. We therefore conclude that in such cases, stress inversions based on fault slip data should be interpreted with care.
ISSN: 0040-1951

hal-01218418
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01218418
DOI : 10.1016/j.tecto.2015.06.030

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Four decades after their introduction, the validity of fault slip inversion methods based on Wallace (1951) and Bott (1959) hypothesis, which states that the slip on each fault surface has the same direction and sense as the maximum resolved shear stress, is still a subject of debate. According to some authors, this hypothesis is questionable since fault mechanical interactions induce slip reorientations as confirmed by geomechanical models. This leads us to ask as to what extent the Wallace-Bott simplifications are reliable as a basis hypothesis for stress inversion from fault slip data. In this paper, we compare two inversion methods; the first is based on the Wallace-Bott hypothesis, and the second relies on geomechanics and mechanical effects on fault heterogeneous slip distribution. In that context, a multi-parametric stress inversion study covering (i) the friction coefficients (μ), (ii) the full range of Andersonian state of stress and (iii) slip data sampling along the faults is performed. For each tested parameter, the results of the mechanical stress inversion and the Wallace-Bott (WB) based stress inversion for slip are compared in order to understand their respective effects. The predicted discrepancy between the solutions of both stress inversion methods (based on WB and mechanics) will then be used to explain the stress inversions results for the chimney Rock case study. It is shown that a high solution discrepancy is not always correlated with the misfit angle (ω ) and can be found under specific configurations (View the MathML sourceR−, θ, μ, geometry) invalidating the WB solutions. We conclude that in most cases the mechanical stress inversion and the WB based stress inversion are both valid and complementary depending on the fault friction. Some exceptions (i.e. low fault friction, simple fault geometry and pure regimes) that may lead to wrong WB based stress inversion solutions are highlighted.
ISSN: 0040-1951

hal-01467165
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467165
DOI : 10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.039