Discussions - Relationship Of Fault Displacement To Gouge And Breccia Thickness - Technical Papers, Mining Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 10, October 1983, pp. 1426- 1432 – Robertson, E. C.

D.G. Wilder I found the suggestion that the amount of displacement of a fault can be numerically related to the thickness of gouge or breccia to be both intuitively satisfying and intriguing. I have long agreed that there is some type of relationship between the amount of gouge and the amount of displacement of faults. I congratulate the author for developing a numerical relationship between them. However, I am concerned that the limits for applying this relationship be fully understood. An underlying assumption in this approach is that there is either a uniform thickness of gouge or breccia along a given fault or the thickness does not vary widely. Since it is not always possible to confirm this, the displacements derived by this method should be viewed with caution unless significant fault extent can be observed. At the Nevada Test Site, in drifts constructed in granite for test emplacement of spent nuclear reactor fuel, we found a fault with 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gouge. Within a few meters of this location, the fault had no clay gouge, but rather consisted of a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides. Based on Fig. 1, the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness of gouge would indicate a displacement in excess of 30 m (98 ft). However, no gouge thickness would indicate essentially no displacement. Based on a quartz vein that terminated on the fault, and is not identified nearby, an estimated displacement of more than a few meters was made. This estimate is consistent with that obtained using the regression line proposed in the paper if the 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) thickness for the gouge is used. However, using the regression curves with zero thickness would not yield results consistent with what was observed in the field. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the suggested procedure would properly yield a range of probable displacements. ? *Work performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Reply by E.C. Robertson It is certainly true that the t (thickness) of gg-bx (gouge and breccia) on a fault does vary along the fault. My observations have been that near the termination of a fault, the displacement d is small and the t is also small, whereas the maximum d and t will usually be found in the central part of the fault. The information on gg-bx and t of the fault found in granite in the NTS tunnel by Mr. Wilder could be interpreted somewhat differently than he does. He speaks of the fault changing within a few meters from 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) of clay gg to "a highly fractured zone with significantly altered rock and some slickensides," but no gg. The highly fractured rock may be taken to be bx, rock not so finely ground as gg but still crushed by the fault movement, equivalent to the gg in my usage, and probably occupying about the same t. Mr. Wilder's estimates for the fault in the NTS tunnel for t of 0.3 to 0.4 m (12 to 16 in.) and for d of a quartz vein, in excess of "a few meters," would place the point on the low side of the central trend line in my Fig. 1, at the lower limit. There is, of course, a problem with determining d using displacement of only one planar surface. It would be greater or lesser depending on the rake of the movement. Finally, estimating the d of a fault from its t should be made with awareness of our present uncertainties, as pointed out by Mr. Wilder. Although the central trend line in my Fig. 1 has a ratio of d/t of 100, I have put the limiting ratios at 10 and 1000. Understanding of the values of the ratio will be improved only with collection of more data, for which the discussion of Mr. Wilder is much appreciated. ? G.C. Waterman E.C. Robertson's paper provides significant information to a geologist attempting to deduce fault offset by noting the products of structural dislocation. However, considerable mapping in underground and open-pit mines, and examination of structures produced in different geological settings, have convinced me that gouge and breccia thickness are controlled by geological conditions and fault movement. The following paragraphs suggest geological variables that control them. 1. Depth of Loading A near-surface fault resulting from tensional stress has more breccia/gouge than is produced by a similar stress at considerable depth. A deep-loaded compressional stress may produce a linear zone of schist, or structural dislocation may occur along an earlier formed belt of schist. Such "shear zones" are common in Canadian mines in precambrian rocks. In neither case can offset be directly deduced by an analysis of the minimal gouge/breccia in the shistose rocks. At greater depth, stress may be partially to wholly relieved by flowage. I vividly recall first noting the regional "Midas Thrust" in the Lark mine, Bingham Mining District, UT (where we called the structure the North Fault). My recorded notes, as I remember them, showed a narrow gouge streak separated the "Jordan" and "Commercial" limestone units from impure, muddy limestone beds of uncertain stratigraphic position. The visible structure did not indicate the great importance of this premineral fault