The development of kinematic shear-stress free faults

Faults are normally thought to present shear fractures that develop at an angle to the main principal stresses, so that they have shear stresses active parallel to the fault plane and thus move. Here we present two “fault” features that deviate from this principle, they develop not due to stress but during kinematic movement, they are both oriented parallel to two of the main principle stresses and as such have no shear stresses in their planes. On the large tectonic plate scale one of these features are the well known transform faults between mid ocean ridges. The ridges themselves are extensional features with the lowest principle stress perpendicular to the ridge. Transform faults are oriented perpendicular to the ridges and show movement only or mainly between the ridges where the plates move in opposite directions. These are faults that do not develop due to shear stress, they develop only because of differential movement and are therefore only or mainly kinematic. On the small scale a very similar feature is the side of a stylolite tooth. Stylolites are dissolution features, they are thus in a way the opposite to mid ocean ridges and have the largest principal stress oriented perpendicular to the stylolite plane. Due to differential movement and growth of the stylolite roughness they develop steep teeth where the sides of teeth become oriented perpendicular to the stylolite plane. These are also movement surfaces or “faults” that have no shear stress.

What does this mean for stress inversion analysis? At least stylolite teeth show a quite pronounced set of striations on their sides and slikolites are also often developed on fault planes, at least in limestone. How do we separate a purely kinematic from a stress-related fault? This discussion and the potential consequences for stress inversion studies is not new, but remains to be very important and should be debated.