skip to main content

Title: Regional Slip Tendency Analysis of the Great Basin Region

Slip and dilation tendency on the Great Basin fault surfaces (from the USGS Quaternary Fault Database) were calculated using 3DStress (software produced by Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by the measured ambient stress field. - Values range from a maximum of 1 (a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions) to zero (a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate). - Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the Great Basin. As dip is unknown for many faults in the USGS Quaternary Fault Database, we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum slip and dilation tendency. - The resulting along‐fault and fault‐to‐fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault‐to‐fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions were calculated across the entire Great Basin. Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman etmore » al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson‐Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005). The minimum horizontal stress direction (Shmin) was contoured, and spatial bins with common Shmin directions were calculated. Based on this technique, we subdivided the Great Basin into nine regions (Shmin <070, 070140). Slip and dilation tendency were calculated using 3DStress for the faults within each region using the mean Shmin for the region. Shmin variation throughout Great Basin are shown on Figure 3. For faults within the Great Basin proper, we applied a normal faulting stress regime, where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax), which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin). Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin, we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46. These values are consistent with stress magnitude data at both Dixie Valley (Hickman et al., 2000) and Yucca Mountain (Stock et al., 1985). For faults within the Walker Lane/Eastern California Shear Zone, we applied a strike‐slip faulting stress, where shmax > sv > shmin. Upon visual inspection of limited stress magnitude data from the Walker Lane and Eastern California Shear zone, we chose values such that SHmin/SHmax = .46 and Shmin/Sv= .527 representative of the region. Results: The results of our slip and dilation tendency analysis are shown in Figures 4 (dilation tendency), 5 (slip tendency) and 6 (slip tendency + dilation tendency). Shmin varies from northwest to east‐west trending throughout much of the Great Basin. As such, north‐ to northeast‐striking faults have the highest tendency to slip and to dilate, depending on the local trend of shmin. These results provide a first order filter on faults and fault systems in the Great Basin, affording focusing of local‐scale exploration efforts for blind or hidden geothermal resources. « less
Authors:
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
353
DOE Contract Number:
EE0002748
Product Type:
Dataset
Research Org(s):
DOE Geothermal Data Repository; University of Nevada Reno
Collaborations:
University of Nevada Reno
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)
Subject:
15 Geothermal Energy; geothermal; Slip Tendency; Dilation Tendency; Stress Fields; Quaternary Faults; Great Basin; Walker Lane; Basin and Range
OSTI Identifier:
1148724
  1. The Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) is the submission point for all data collected from researchers funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Office (DOE GTO). The DOE GTO is providing access to its geothermal project information through the GDR. The GDR is powered by OpenEI, an energy information portal sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
No associated Collections found.
  1. Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilation tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) providesmore » an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency analysis for the Patua geothermal system was calculated based on faults mapped in the Hazen Quadrangle (Faulds et al., 2011). Patua lies near the margin between the Basin and Range province, which is characterized by west-northwest directed extension and the Walker Lane province, characterized by west-northwest directed dextral shear. As such, the Patua area likely has been affected by tectonic stress associated with either or both of stress regimes over geologic time. In order to characterize this stress variation we calculated slip tendency at Patua for both normal faulting and strike slip faulting stress regimes. Based on examination of regional and local stress data (as explained above) we applied at shmin direction of 105 to Patua. Whether the vertical stress (sv) magnitude is larger than ... « less
  2. Slip and Dilation Tendency in focus areas Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilationmore » tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) provides an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Based on inversion of fault kinematic data, Edwards (2013) interpreted that two discrete stress orientations are preserved at Neal Hot Springs. An older episode of east-west directed extension and a younger episode of southwest-northeast directed sinistral, oblique -normal extension. This interpretation is consistent with the evolution of Cenozoic tectonics in the region (Edwards, 2013). As such we applied a southwest-northeast (060) directed normal faulting stress regime, consistent with the younger extensional episode, to the Neal Hot Springs faults. Under these stress conditions northeast striking steeply dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to dilate and northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. Under these stress condition... « less
  3. Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilation tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) providesmore » an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency for the San Emidio geothermal field was calculated based on the faults mapped Tuscarora area (Rhodes, 2011). The San Emidio area lies in the Basin and Range Province, as such we applied a normal faulting stress regime to the San Emidio area faults, with a minimum horizontal stress direction oriented 115, based on inspection of local and regional stress determinations, as explained above. This is consistent with the shmin determined through inversion of fault data by Rhodes (2011). Under these stress conditions north-northeast striking, steeply dipping fault segments have the highest dilation tendency, while north-northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. Interesting, the San Emidio geothermal field lies in an area of primarily north striking faults, which... « less
  4. Slip and Dilation Tendency in focus areas Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilationmore » tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) provides an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency for the McGinness Hills geothermal field was calculated based on the faults mapped McGinness Hills area (Siler 2012, unpublished). The McGinness Hills area lies in the Basin and Range Province, as such we applied a normal faulting stress regime to the McGinness area faults, with a minimum horizontal stress direction oriented 115, based on inspection of local and regional stress determinations, as explained above. Under these stress conditions north-northeast striking, steeply dipping fault segments have the highest dilation tendency, while north-northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. The McGinness Hills geothermal system is characterized by a left-step in a north-northeast striking west-dipping fault system wit... « less
  5. Critically stressed fault segments have a relatively high likelihood of acting as fluid flow conduits (Sibson, 1994). As such, the tendency of a fault segment to slip (slip tendency; Ts; Morris et al., 1996) or to dilate (dilation tendency; Td; Ferrill et al., 1999) providesmore » an indication of which faults or fault segments within a geothermal system are critically stressed and therefore likely to transmit geothermal fluids. The slip tendency of a surface is defined by the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on that surface: Ts = τ / σn (Morris et al., 1996). Dilation tendency is defined by the stress acting normal to a given surface: Td = (σ1-σn) / (σ1-σ3) (Ferrill et al., 1999). Slip and dilation were calculated using 3DStress (Southwest Research Institute). Slip and dilation tendency are both unitless ratios of the resolved stresses applied to the fault plane by ambient stress conditions. Values range from a maximum of 1, a fault plane ideally oriented to slip or dilate under ambient stress conditions to zero, a fault plane with no potential to slip or dilate. Slip and dilation tendency values were calculated for each fault in the focus study areas at, McGinness Hills, Neal Hot Springs, Patua, Salt Wells, San Emidio, and Tuscarora on fault traces. As dip is not well constrained or unknown for many faults mapped in within these we made these calculations using the dip for each fault that would yield the maximum slip tendency or dilation tendency. As such, these results should be viewed as maximum tendency of each fault to slip or dilate. The resulting along-fault and fault-to-fault variation in slip or dilation potential is a proxy for along fault and fault-to-fault variation in fluid flow conduit potential. Stress Magnitudes and directions Stress field variation within each focus area was approximated based on regional published data and the world stress database (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2010; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012; Moeck et al., 2010; Moos and Ronne, 2010 and Reinecker et al., 2005) as well as local stress information if applicable. For faults within these focus systems we applied either a normal faulting stress regime where the vertical stress (sv) is larger than the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (sv>shmax>shmin) or strike-slip faulting stress regime where the maximum horizontal stress (shmax) is larger than the vertical stress (sv) which is larger than the minimum horizontal stress (shmax >sv>shmin) depending on the general tectonic province of the system. Based on visual inspection of the limited stress magnitude data in the Great Basin we used magnitudes such that shmin/shmax = .527 and shmin/sv= .46, which are consistent with complete and partial stress field determinations from Desert Peak, Coso, the Fallon area and Dixie valley (Hickman et al., 2000; Hickman et al., 1998 Robertson-Tait et al., 2004; Hickman and Davatzes, 2011; Davatzes and Hickman, 2006; Blake and Davatzes 2011; Blake and Davatzes, 2012). Slip and dilation tendency for the Tuscarora geothermal field was calculated based on the faults mapped Tuscarora area (Dering, 2013). The Tuscarora area lies in the Basin and Range Province, as such we applied a normal faulting stress regime to the Tuscarora area faults, with a minimum horizontal stress direction oriented 115, based on inspection of local and regional stress determinations, as explained above. Under these stress conditions north-northeast striking, steeply dipping fault segments have the highest dilation tendency, while north-northeast striking 60° dipping fault segments have the highest tendency to slip. Tuscarora is defined by a left-step in a major north- to-north northeast striking, west-dipping range-bounding normal fault system. Faults within the broad step define an anticlinal accommodation zone... « less