4.7 Article

Syncing fault rock clocks: Direct comparison of U-Pb carbonate and K-Ar illite fault dating methods

期刊

GEOLOGY
卷 48, 期 12, 页码 1179-1183

出版社

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC
DOI: 10.1130/G47778.1

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Geo-mapping for Energy and Minerals program of the Geological Survey of Canada
  2. U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Arctic Office UK-Canada Bursary scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The timing of slip on brittle faults in Earth's upper crust is difficult to constrain, and direct radiometric dating of fault-generated materials is the most explicit approach. Here we make a direct comparison between K-Ar dating of fault gouge clay (authigenic illite) and U-Pb dating of carbonate slickenfibers and veins from the same fault. We have dated fault generated materials from the Big Creek fault, a northwest-striking, dextral strike-slip fault system in Yukon Territory, Canadian Cordillera. Both methods yielded dates at ca. 73 Ma and ca. 60-57 Ma, representing at least two periods of fault slip that form part of a complex fault and fluid-flow history. The Cretaceous result lies within previous indirect estimates for major slip on the fault. The Paleocene-Eocene result coincides with the estimated timing of slip of the nearby Tintina and Denali faults, which are crustal-scale, northwest-striking dextral faults, indicating Big Creek fault reactivation during regional faulting. The coincidence of periods of carbonate-crystallizing fracturing and fluid flow with intervals of seismic, gouge-generating slip supports the fault valve model, where fault strength is mediated by fluid pressures, and fluid emplacement requires seismic pumping in otherwise impermeable aseismic fault zones. The reproducibility of slip periods for distinct fault-generated materials using different decay systems indicates that these methods provide complimentary results and can be reliably applied to date brittle fault slip, opening new opportunities for investigating fault conditions with associated mineralizing fluid events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据