Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T08:37:02.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of the Great Falls Tectonic Zone on the thrust sheet geometry of the southern Sawtooth Range, Montana, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

C. M. BURBERRY*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 214 Bessey Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68558-0340, USA
J. M. PALU
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 214 Bessey Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68558-0340, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: cburberry2@unl.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reactivation potential of pre-existing deep-seated structures influences deformation structures produced in subsequent compression. This contribution investigates thrust geometries produced in surface thrust sheets of the Sawtooth Range, Montana, USA, deforming over a previously faulted sedimentary section. Surface thrust fault patterns were picked using existing maps and remote sensing. Thrust location and regional transport direction was also verified in the field. These observations were used to design a series of analogue models, involving deformation of a brittle cover sequence over a lower section with varying numbers of vertical faults. A final model tested the effect of decoupling the upper cover and lower section with a ductile detachment, in a scenario closer to that of the Sawtooth Range. Results demonstrate that complexity in surface thrust sheets can be related to heterogeneity within the lower sedimentary section, even when there is a detachment between this section and the rest of the cover. This complexity is best observed in the map view, as the models do not show the deep-seated faults propagating into the cover. These results were then used to predict specific locations of discrete basement fault strands in the study area, associated with what is generally mapped as the Scapegoat-Bannatyne Trend. The deep-seated faults are more likely to be reactivated as strike-slip features in nature, given the small obliquity between the ENE-directed compression direction and the NE-oriented basement faults. More generally, these results can be used to govern evaluation of thrust belts deforming over faulted basement, and to predict the locations of specific fault strands in a region where this information is unknown.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Regional geology of the Sawtooth Range, Montana, with an inset map showing the regional context. The inset base map is from Geomapapp, and GFTZ marks the extent of the Great Falls Tectonic Zone. The main map (a) is compiled from references within the text. Key basement features mentioned in the text are marked. The black box shows the location of the study area in Figures 3, 5 and 18. (b) A cross-section modified from Fuentes, DeCelles & Constenius (2012).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Tectonostratigraphic column for the study area, compiled from references within the text.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Simplified geologic map of the study area, modified after Fuentes, DeCelles & Constenius (2012). Solid black lines mark thrust faults. Key areas and the location of Figure 7 are marked. Field sites are marked as black stars.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Initial configurations of Models 1–6, showing the locations of lower-cover faults. (a–e) The initial configurations of Models 1–5 respectively. (f) The configuration of Model 6, with the grey box representing the location of the silicon layer. (g) The stratigraphy used in Models 1–5. (h) The stratigraphy used in Model 6.

Figure 4

Table 1. Scaling parameters

Figure 5

Table 2. Model data

Figure 6

Figure 5. Structural map of the study area overlain on the satellite image from Figure 3. Thrust faults are generated after Fuentes, DeCelles & Constenius (2012), the USGS map of Montana and remote-sensing observations.

Figure 7

Figure 6. (a) Orientations of macrofractures along the Gibson Dam transect, indicating four key fracture orientations. Two are parallel to the strike and dip of the thrust faults respectively, and a set of conjugate shears can also be seen. (b) Orientations of the fractures containing sub-horizontal mineral lineations. Transport is inferred to be W–E.

Figure 8

Figure 7. (a) Photograph of folding within the Cambrian units at Cataract Falls. (b) Stereonet showing the orientations of fold hinge lines and a strike-slip fault within the outcrop.

Figure 9

Figure 8. (a–h) Stepwise plan views from Model 1, at successive stages of shortening. The scale bar at the lower right is 3 cm long. The number at the lower left indicates the percentage shortening at the point the image was taken. Thrust traces are interpreted on each image. Black dots represent branch lines. (i) A choropleth map of branch line density.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Same as Figure 8, but for Model 2. The locations of the pre-existing faults are shown.

Figure 11

Figure 10. Same as Figure 8, but for Model 3. The locations of the pre-existing faults are shown.

Figure 12

Figure 11. Same as Figure 8, but for Model 4. The locations of the pre-existing faults are shown.

Figure 13

Figure 12. Same as Figure 8, but for Model 5. The locations of the pre-existing faults are shown.

Figure 14

Figure 13. Same as Figure 8, but for Model 6. The locations of the pre-existing faults are shown.

Figure 15

Figure 14. All choropleth maps from Figures 8–12 (Models 1–5) for comparison. Branch lines cluster around the locations of the pre-existing faults.

Figure 16

Figure 15. Representative cross-sections from Models 1–3. (a, b) A representative section from Model 1. (c, d) Representative sections from Model 2. (e–h) Representative sections from Model 3. Thrusts are interpreted in the right-hand line drawings, and the positions of the pre-existing faults are marked where relevant.

Figure 17

Figure 16. Representative cross-sections from Models 4–5. (a–d) Representative sections from Model 4. (e–h) Representative sections from Model 5. Thrusts are interpreted in the right-hand line drawings, and the positions of the pre-existing faults are marked where relevant.

Figure 18

Figure 17. Representative cross-sections from Model 6. Thrusts and the deformation of the ductile layer are interpreted in the line drawings in (b) and (d), and the positions of the pre-existing faults are marked.

Figure 19

Figure 18. Structural map of the study area overlain on the satellite image from Figure 3. The positions of proposed basement fault strands are marked with heavy dashed lines.

Figure 20

Figure 19. Major density boundaries (solid lines) within the middle to upper crust, marking structural trends in the study area. Base map is from Mankinen et al. (2004). The dotted line marks the approximate deformation front of the Sawtooth Range, and the grey area marks the extent of the Rocky Mountains in this region. The black box marks the present study area, that shown in Figures 3, 5 and 18. The arrowed density boundaries are interpreted to be faults within the GFTZ that continue into the study area and are consistent with predicted faults in Figure 18.