Starting from the analisys of the geodynamic evolution of the Umbrian- Marchean fold belt, we attempt to outline a seismogenetic model of the area. This model rests 1) on the assumption that every deformation tends to reduce the stress by which it has been originated so that the magnitude of the vectors changes and the stress field results reoriented (Price 1959, Ramsay 1967) and 2) on the observation that Umbrian-Marchean deformations of both sedimentary mesozoic cover and crystalline ercinic basement, in spite of their disharmonious behaviour due to the inter- position ot the incompetent level of the triassic evaporites, show a common displacement field (Lavecchia & Pialli 1981 a). At present, as far as the Umbrian-Marchean geodynamic evolution is concerned, all the available geological and geophysical data are in agreement with the existence of a displacement field (two axis in a horizontal plane of apenninic and counterapenninic directions, one axis vertical) whose orientation has been kep trought space and time, while the magnitude of its vectors underwent considerable variations. In a given area, the sequence of events trough the time should be the following. At time T, a horizontal counterapenninic direction of maximum compression a, shortens the crystalline basement and causes a crustal thickening. In response to the consequent increase of the lithostatic load the crust subsides isostatically. Because the elastic warping of the lithosphere beneath the load extends beyond the actual limits of the load, a peripheral depression is created in which the foredeep trough, that migrates northeastward in advance of the deformation, grows (Price 1973). The continuous increase of lithostatic load produces, at time T2, a reorientation of the strain ellipsoid with a vertical intermediate principal direction. Transcurrent shear zones (left-lateral about E-W and right-lateral N-S) and anticlockwise rotation are generated in the crust, while an arcuate fold belt with convexity towards East, formed by periclinal interdigitate folds, develops in the cover. Such deformation reduces the magnitude of the maximum counterapenninic complessive vector (a), so that the strain ellipsoid undergoes a new reorientation (time 3) with a vertical minimum principal strain direction. Crustal thinning and apenninic horst and graben structures are so generated. Obviously all these deformational phases (tensional, transcurrent and compressional) and the associated stress regimes, should be present at a given time, throughout the space from SW to NE. Following Adriatic this scheme, the present seismicity of the Umbrian- Marchean area should be a consequence of its Adriatic geodynamic distinction in apenninic fold belt, deformed Pliocene foretrough (B) compressional zone (C) and should reflect differents stress regimes, with normal faults to the West (A), transcurrent shear zones in the middle (B) and reversed in the East (C). Such seismic zoning is in a good agreement with the distribution ot the focal mechanisms of this area (Cagnetti et Al. 1978, Lavecchia e Pialli 1981 a) which confirms the existence of a tensional stress regime with apenninic and counterapenninic direction in the Apennines and a transcurrent regime in the periadriatic area. The much less clear evidence of a compressional regime in the Adriatic aseismic zone (Gasparini, Praturlon 1981) gives a further confirmation of the proposed model if interpreted as due not to a real absence of a compressional stress, but due to the existence of aseismic creep on reversed apenninic shear zones. A much greater concentration of strain energy is infact required to begin frictional sliding on thrust faults than on normal or transcurrent faults pore fluid pressure, A, continuous ductile shearing can be stable on reversed faults, while sudden release of shear strain energy consequently seismic failure, can realize on normal and transcurrent faults.
Read full abstract