Interesting question...this will depend on several things. Here are a couple of thoughts to consider: The present-day surface expression of an ancient fault is a random 'line' of intersection on an elliptical (?) fault surface, so where that random line is located will matter. It will also be important to know whether the fault was blind or surface breaching at the time of growth, or in any other way vertically restricted by mechanical boundaries etc.
The paper by Nicol et al in JSG 1996 is of interest here, particularly the discussion about fault aspect ratios...link below:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191814196800472
Cheers,
Atle Rotevatn
Department of Earth Science
University of Bergen
Sent from my iPhone
Den 5. apr. 2015 kl. 17.00 skrev Kattenhorn, Simon ([log in to unmask]) <[log in to unmask]>:
This can be difficult to answer, especially in cases of heterogeneous rock
types and the resultant mechanical stratigraphy effect. I published a
study on this back in 1999, comparing numerical predictions of normal
fault propagation direction with actual observations of fault dimensions
in 3D. Although I found that faults mechanically want to propagate upwards
to become taller than they are wide (long), in actuality, many faults are
longer than they are tall (deep) because they are guided more by
mechanical layering, as well as lateral linkages between layer-bound
segments. I didn¹t do any analyses of length/depth scaling though.
Cheers,
Simon
Kattenhorn, S.A., Pollard, D.D. 1999. Is lithostatic loading important for
the slip behavior and evolution of normal faults in the Earth's crust?
Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (B12), 28,879-28,898.
On 4/4/15, 7:00 PM, "Allan Lopez" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi everybody !
Is there a scaling relationship between regional fault-length and DEPTH (
not width) ??. Input will be DEEPLY appreciated.
Best regards.
Allan López
CICG-UCR
