A critical look at the Wallace-Bott hypothesis in fault-slip analysis

Abstract

AbstractThe assumption is widely made that slip on faults occurs in the direction of maximum resolved shear stress, an assumption known as the Wallace-Bott hypothesis. This assumption is used to theoretically predict slip directions from known in situ stresses, and also as the basis of palaeostress inversion from fault-slip data. This paper examines different situations in relation to the appropriateness of this assumption. Firstly, it is shown that the magnitude of the shear stress resolved within a plane is a function with a poorly defined maximum direction, so that shear stress values greater than 90% of the maximum occur within a wide angular range (± 26°) degrees. The situation of simultaneous movement on pairs of faults requires slip on each fault to be parallel to their mutual line of intersection. However, the resolved shear stresses arising from a homogeneous state of stress do not accord with such a slip arrangement except in the case of pairs of perpendicular faults. Where fault surfaces are non-planar, the directions of resolved shear stress in general give, according to the Wallace-Bott hypothesis, a set of slip directions of rigid fault blocks, which is generally kinematically incompatible. Finally, a simple model of a corrugated fault suggests that any anisotropy of the shear strength of the fault such as that arising from fault surface topography, can lead to a significant angular difference between the directions of maximum shear stress and the slip direction.These findings have relevance to the design of procedures used to estimate palaeostresses and the amount of data required for this type of analysis.