Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Structural Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsg

Relationships between fractures T

a,∗ b a
D.C.P. Peacock , D.J. Sanderson , A. Rotevatn
a
Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Allégaten 41, 5007 Bergen, Norway
b
Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fracture systems comprise many fractures that may be grouped into sets based on their orientation, type and
Fractures relative age. The fractures are often arranged in a network that involves fracture branches that interact with one
Interaction another. Interacting fractures are termed geometrically coupled when they share an intersection line and/or ki-
Geometry nematically coupled when the displacements, stresses and strains of one fracture influences those of the other.
Kinematics
Fracture interactions are characterised in terms of the following. 1) Fracture type: for example, whether they
Chronology
have opening (e.g., joints, veins, dykes), closing (stylolites, compaction bands), shearing (e.g., faults, de-
formation bands) or mixed-mode displacements. 2) Geometry (e.g., relative orientations) and topology (the
arrangement of the fractures, including their connectivity). 3) Chronology: the relative ages of the fractures. 4)
Kinematics: the displacement distributions of the interacting fractures. It is also suggested that interaction can be
characterised in terms of mechanics, e.g., the effects of the interaction on the stress field. It is insufficient to
describe only the components of a fracture network, with fuller understanding coming from determining the
interactions between the different components of the network.

1. Introduction
Fractures are generally common within a rock volume, and we refer
to the fractures that occur as the fracture system (Fig. 1). The individual
fractures may have similar properties (fracture type, mineral fill, etc.)
and a specific range of orientations, in which case it is convenient to
group then into fracture sets (Fig. 1a). The spatial arrangement of the
fractures forms a fracture network, in which the position, orientation
and relationships between the individual fractures is mapped in 2D or
3D space, where they intersect at intersection points (nodes) (Fig. 1b) or
intersection lines. Such networks can be relatively simple, being made up
of a single set of fractures (Fig. 1c), or they can be made up of many sets
with a wide range of orientations (Fig. 1d). Fracture sets may develop as
part of a single deformation event, in which case they are likely to have
interrelated kinematics and mechanics, or during a sequence of events
under different boundary conditions. It is common for a set of fractures
to be active during different events, with a set established during an
earlier event being reactivated during a later event. To understand such
systems, and to evaluate the resulting rock-mass properties, involves
both an analysis of the individual fractures and of the network as a
whole. In this paper, we discuss the interactions between pairs of
fractures in terms of their geometry and topology, relative age and ki-
nematics.
Areas of fracture interaction and intersection can be important sites
for stress concentration and perturbation (e.g., Crider and Pollard,
1998; Kattenhorn et al., 2000; Maerten, 2000; Bourne and Willemse,
2001), and therefore for structural development (e.g., Kim et al., 2004;
Choi et al., 2016), fluid flow (e.g., Knipe, 1992; Zhang and Sanderson,
2002) and mineralisation (e.g., Curewitz and Karson, 1997; Cox, 2005;
Johansen et al., 2005; Xiao-shuang et al., 2005). In spite of their im-
portance, no thorough characterisation and classification scheme for
fracture interactions appears to have been published. Peacock et al.
(2017) provide a characterisation scheme for interacting faults, but not
for other types of fractures. Here, we aim to generalise the character-
isation scheme of Peacock et al. (2017) to classify interaction between
all types of fractures, giving a precise methodology for describing the
different ways in which fractures of any type, orientation and relative
age can interact.
We focus on describing field examples, many from the Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks of Somerset, UK, where a history of different tectonic
regimes provides a rich array of fracture interactions (e.g., Dart et al.,
1995; Peacock and Sanderson, 1999; Glen et al., 2005; Peacock et al.,
2017). Examples from the literature are also used (e.g., Table 1). In this
paper, we emphasise interactions between different fracture types, thus
building on and generalising the study fault interactions presented by
Peacock et al. (2017) to include interactions between all fracture types.
The aim is to present a scheme for the characterisation of the re-
lationships between any two fractures, of any type, based on their

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hermangedge@gmail.com (D.C.P. Peacock).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.11.010
Received 29 March 2017; Received in revised form 12 September 2017; Accepted 19 November 2017
Available online 21 November 2017
0191-8141/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.C.P. Peacock et al. Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

Fig. 1. Fracture networks and interactions. (a) Fractures (1… n) can be divided into different sets (e.g., based on fracture types, orientations, mineral fills, etc.), which may have been
formed in a series of different events. Together, these fractures, sets and events constitute a fracture network. (b) Fractures meet at nodes (intersection points in 2D or intersection lines in
3D), between which the fractures can be divided into branches. (c) Calcites on a bedding plane of Liassic limestone (Kilve, Somerset). A single stress field produced a set of sub-parallel
veins. (d) Network of calcite veins in a limestone bed (Lilstock, Somerset). Note that the block was not in situ. The vein network formed by the overprinting/superposition of two or more
stress fields, producing interactions between veins.

Table 1
Examples of the different types of fracture interactions described in this paper, including possible large examples. In this context, “small” means exposure-scale examples of the type
illustrated (e.g., Figs. 3–9), while “large” means examples tens of metres across or larger, e.g., observable on seismic data.

Relationship Figure in this manuscript Other small examples Possible large examples

Opening mode fractures 3a Hendry et al. (2015, Fig. 8) Ernst et al. (2001, Fig. 1)
Shearing mode fractures 3b Misra et al. (2009, Fig. 12) Gourmelen et al. (2011, Fig. 1)
Compactional structures 3a Katsman (2010, Fig. 1) Lin et al. (2009, Fig. 1)
Hybrid structures 3c Belayneh and Cosgrove (2010, Fig. 5) Morley et al. (2009, Fig. 15)
Isolated fractures 4a Cobbold et al. (2013, Fig. 3c) Walsh and Watterson (1987)
Approaching fractures 4b Omosanya et al. (2013, Fig. 9); Morley (2014, Fig. 12) Gökten et al. (2011, Fig. 1)
Abutting fractures 4c Mughieda and Alzo'ubi (2004, Fig. 5) Khajavi et al. (2014, Fig. 1)
Branching 4d Bons and Montenari (2005, Fig. 5c) Marchal et al. (2003, Fig. 5)
Cross-cutting fractures 4b Lecumberri-Sanchez et al. (2013, Fig. 4) Bogdanoff et al. (2000, Fig. 2)
Synchronous fractures 5a, 6a Katz et al. (2006, Fig. 5) Mathieu et al. (2008, Fig. 9)
Different ages 5c, 6b Pati et al. (2007, Fig. 4) Singh and Slabunov (2014, Fig. 2)
Trailing fractures 6c Wise (2010, Fig. 8) Nixon et al. (2014, Fig. 15)
Reactivation 6d Dabi et al. (2011, Fig. 3) Busquets et al. (2005, Fig. 3)
Branch line parallel to displacement 7a Tewksbury et al. (2014, Fig. 2) Yin and Groshong (2007, Fig. 3)
Branch line normal to displacement 7c Arndt et al. (2014, Fig. 4) Taylor and Peltzer (2006, Fig. 12)
Different displacement directions 7e Micarelli and Benedicto (2008, Fig. 2) Dini et al. (2008, Fig. 13)
Antithetic relationship 8a Choi et al. (2016, Fig. 5) Kim and Sanderson (2006, Fig. 14)
Synthetic relationship 8b Morley (2014, Fig. 20) Kim and Sanderson (2006, Fig. 8)
Neutral intersection 8c, 8d Peacock and Sanderson (1994, Fig. 7) Bonson et al. (2007, Fig. 11)
Parallel displacements 8e Petit et al. (1999, Fig. 2b) Fort and Brun (2012, Fig. 16a)
Perpendicular displacements 8f Zulauf et al. (2011, Fig. 5) Trautwein-Bruns et al. (2010, Fig. 1)
Strains apparently unrelated 9a Peacock (2001, Fig. 8) Macdonald et al. (2015, Fig. 1)
Strains apparently related 9b Petit et al. (1999, Fig. 2a) Nicoll (2010, Fig. 3)
Non-uniaxial strain 9c Weinberger (1999, Fig. 1) Tuckwell et al. (2003, Fig. 1)

geometry and topology, chronology and kinematics, thereby providing
an observational framework for the analysis of interactions within
fracture networks. Detailed analysis of the mechanics of fracture in-
teraction is beyond the scope of this paper, but a brief discussion is
given of mechanical implications.
2. Fracture types
The first step in characterising fractures in rock is to determine what
type of fractures are being analysed. The term fracture is commonly
used in the geological literature to cover a range of structures, including

42
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
faults, joints, veins, dykes and sills, deformation bands, stylolites, etc.,
as reviewed by Schultz and Fossen (2008) and Peacock et al. (2016).
Many fracture networks comprise a range of fracture types, and it is
important in many areas of geology to recognise that different types of
fractures will contribute differently to the behaviour of the rock-mass
(e.g., Manda and Horsman, 2015; Peacock et al., 2016). For example, a
network of open joints or high permeability sandstone dykes may en-
hance fluid flow, whereas a network of veins or igneous dykes tend to
be barriers to fluid flow.
Here we group fracture types according to their dominant mode of
wall rock movement. This extends the work of Pollard and Aydin
(1988), who distinguish joints (generally opening mode) and faults
(shearing modes), by including closing-mode and hybrid fractures
(Fig. 2a).
• Extension fractures: where the fracture walls move apart (Fig. 3a),
i.e., opening-mode. These include: joints, unfilled dominantly
opening-mode fractures (e.g., Pollard and Aydin, 1988); veins, i.e.,
mineral-filled fractures (e.g., Bons et al., 2012); dykes and sills, i.e.,
fractures filled with igneous rocks (e.g., de Sitter, 1964; Paquet
et al., 2007) or remobilised sediments (e.g., Jolly et al., 1998); di-
lation bands, i.e., a deformation band recording localised dilation or
porosity increase, typically in highly porous, poorly-consolidated
sand (Du Bernard et al., 2002).
• Contractional fractures: where the fracture walls converge (Fig. 3a),
i.e., closing-mode. They include stylolites, which are surfaces on
which insoluble residues are concentrated as pressure solution re-
moves such soluble minerals as calcite or quartz (e.g., Stockdale,
1926; Fletcher and Pollard, 1981). They can also include compaction
bands (Mollema and Antonellini, 1996; Fossen et al., 2011; Rotevatn
et al., 2016), which are deformation bands that exhibit closing-mode
displacements.
• Shearing-mode fractures: a general term for a discontinuity along
which the wall rocks move sub-parallel to the plane of the fracture
(Fig. 3b). These include faults and fault zones, defined by Price
(1966) as “a plane of fracture which exhibits signs of differential
movement of the rock mass on either side of the plane”. They also
43
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
Fig. 2. (a) Fractures can be divided on the basis of the displacement
directions relative to the fracture planes. (b) When the fractures are
discrete surfaces, the shearing fractures include slip-planes, the
opening fractures include joints, and the closing structures include
stylolites. (c) When the fractures are bands or zones, the shearing
fractures include fault zones, the opening fractures include vein
systems, and the closing structures include compaction bands.
include deformation bands, which are mm-scale tabular zones of lo-
calised but non-discrete strain in porous, granular rocks/sediments
(e.g., Friedman and Logan, 1973; Engelder, 1974), typically invol-
ving grain reorganisation, cataclasis, dissolution and/or precipita-
tion (e.g., Aydin, 1978, Knott, 1994).
• Combined fractures: where there are measurable components of two
of the above modes (Fig. 3c). Such hybrid or mixed-mode fractures
include those developed by synchronous opening and shear modes
(e.g., Ramsey and Chester, 2004) and slickolites, where insoluble
residue created by pressure solution develops along fault planes
(e.g., Nitecki, 1962). Compactional shear bands, which record a
combination of closing- and shearing-modes, are also included (e.g.,
Aydin et al., 2006; Fossen et al., 2007).
We apply these terms to both discrete surfaces (Fig. 2b) and narrow
bands or zones of deformation (Fig. 2c).
Many fractures show evidence for combination of two (or more)
processes that may either operate synchronously (such as shear frac-
turing and pressure solution forming a slickolite) or sequentially. For
example, a joint may be mineralised to become a vein, and then un-
dergo pressure solution to form a stylolite (e.g., Srivastava and
Engelder, 1990). Similarly, joints may be reactivated to accommodate
shear displacement, thus forming a fault (e.g., Moore and Schultz,
1999).
3. Geometric and topological relationships between interacting
fractures
Any 2D fracture network can be considered as a system of nodes and
branches (e.g., Sanderson and Nixon, 2015), where the branches re-
present the fractures and the nodes the tips or intersection points of the
fractures (Fig. 1b). Manzocchi (2002) and Sanderson and Nixon (2015)
show that natural fracture networks are almost exclusively made up of
three types of nodes: an I-node is a tip with a single branch, a Y-node
has three branches, and an X-node has four branches. In this paper, we
propose that (1) the interactions between fractures occur at or near the
nodes, and (2) that the style of the interaction between fractures can be
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
Fig. 3. Photographs of different fracture types, from Somerset, UK, showing a classification based on the displacement direction relative to the fracture plane. (a). Extension fractures
(calcite veins), with the extension direction almost perpendicular to the vein walls, and contractional structures (stylolites) within a zone of en echelon calcite veins (Lilstock). Contraction
is approximately perpendicular to the stylolite planes. (b) Normal faults interacting across relay ramps and cut by joints (Kilve). (c) Combined fractures (pull-aparts linked by slickolites),
with net displacement neither in the plane of the fracture or perpendicular to the fracture (Lilstock). (d) Example of intersections between different fracture types. Gypsum vein abutting
another gypsum vein, which itself abuts a sandstone dyke (Watchet).
understood from the types of fractures that interact.
As a first step in the analysis of interacting fractures, we analyse the
geometric and topological relationship between adjacent fractures. We
recognise the following relationships between any two interacting
fractures:
• Isolated: where the fractures are not geometrically (physically) con-
nected to each other (at least in the plane in which they are being
observed), nor do they kinematically interact (Fig. 4a). Such fractures
would have tips in the rock matrix (i.e., I-nodes; Sanderson and
Nixon, 2015).
• Approaching: where two fracture tips are close enough to each other
to kinematically interact, either through their tip damage zones
overlapping (i.e., linking damage zones of Kim et al., 2004, or the
approaching damage zone of Peacock et al., 2017) or the displace-
ments interacting (Fig. 4b). Stepping normal faults that overlap
without touching each other form relay ramps (e.g., Peacock and
Sanderson, 1991), while bridges occur between stepping extension
fractures (e.g., Lisle, 2013). The tips may or may not be connected
by smaller fractures (damage) of the same or differing type. Ap-
proaching fractures therefore have I-nodes that are close enough to
be kinematically linked but not geometrically linked (i.e., physically
connected). For example, Fig. 4(b) shows two veins that approach
each other but do not meet on the bedding plane, on which they are
exposed, with interaction indicated by rotation of the bridge be-
tween the veins.
• Abutting: where one fracture links with another to form a T- or Y-
shaped node (Fig. 4c; Sanderson and Nixon, 2015). The fractures
may have originally been unconnected (at least in the plane in
which they are being observed) or one may have splayed off the
other (see branching). The fractures may have formed in the same
deformation event or be from different events. Where a later
opening-mode fracture abuts an earlier one, it commonly curves
towards it and intersects at a high angle (typically 60°–90°), with the
44
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
later fracture being arrested at the earlier fracture. Fig. 5(c) shows
joints that curve to abut another joint at ∼ 90°.
• Branching or splaying: this also produces Y-nodes, but is where the
branches can be demonstrated to have been active at the same time
(Fig. 4d). Where the branches develop by bifurcation of a propa-
gating fracture (as in many opening- and shearing-mode fractures),
two of the branches generally form at a low angle (< 30°) to each
another.
• Cross-cutting: where a later fracture cuts another fracture to form an
X-node (Fig. 4b). Where two fracture sets mutually cross-cut each
other, they may have developed synchronously (e.g., Nicol et al.,
1995, Fig. 5; Ferrill et al., 2009; Morley, 2014, Fig. 20). Fig. 5(d)
appears to show an intersection point between two mutually-
crossing joints, but it is possible that this example actually consists
of three joints, comprising an older joint against which two other
joints abut at the same location. Filled extension fractures (e.g.,
veins and dykes) can cross-cut each other if they do not represent
mechanical barriers (e.g., Polito et al., 2001, Fig. 9).
Abutting and branching relationships are topologically similar, both
producing Y-nodes, and can be impossible to distinguish where the
fractures are simply discrete surfaces. The two are more easily dis-
tinguished where the fractures are filled with other material (as in
veins, dykes, etc.) or are associated with changes of displacement.
4. Relative age relationships of interacting fractures
The geometric and topological relationships discussed above pro-
vide a basis for evaluating the age relationships between fractures, with
key information being located at fracture tips (I nodes), and at abutting
(Y) and crossing (X) nodes. Fig. 5 shows examples of different topolo-
gical relationships. Rotation of bridges between stepping fractures
suggests they were synchronously active (Fig. 5a). A step between sub-
parallel fractures does not, however, necessarily prove that the
D.C.P. Peacock et al. Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

Fig. 4. Veins from Liassic limestones and shales at Lilstock, Somerset, UK, as examples of different geometric relationships. (a) A partly-filled calcite vein that is isolated (in the plane of
view), which dies out as it passes from a limestone bed into the underlying shales. (b) Vein array, the segments in which interact across bridges. The array is cross-cut by later veins (c)
Abutting veins. (d) Branching (splaying) veins.

Fig. 5. Examples of joints and veins from the Liassic limestones of Somerset, UK, showing different topological relationships. (a) I-nodes at the tips of veins that interact across a bridge,
which has started to break (Lilstock). (b) I-nodes at the tips of joints that approach each other and interact but not actually meet (Lilstock). Interaction is indicated by the curvature of one
of the joints towards the other. (c) Y-node created by a joint that curves towards an earlier joint and abuts it at approximately 90° (Kilve). (d) X-node created by apparently mutually cross-
cutting joints (Kilve).

fractures were synchronously active. For example, the curvature at the
tip of one of the joints in Fig. 5(b) towards the other joint indicates only
that it was synchronous with or later than the other joint. For joints
(discrete, unfilled opening mode fractures) the negligible displacement
precludes the use of X-nodes and one must rely on abutting (Y) nodes
(Fig. 5c). This generally works well (e.g., Sanderson, 2015, Fig. 9), but
only where one can reasonably interpret an abutting fracture to be
arrested at a through-going one. Fig. 5(d) shows joints that appear to
mutually-crosscut.
Fig. 6 shows examples of intersecting fractures that can be char-
acterised by their different age relationships, from the Mesozoic sedi-
mentary rocks of Somerset, UK. Fig. 6(a) shows a network of possible

45
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
Fig. 6. Examples of fractures from the Liassic rocks of Somerset, UK, showing interacting fractures with different age relationships. (a) Network of possible syneresis cracks on a limestone
bedding plane that appear to have formed synchronously (Kilve). (b) Calcite veins cut by later joints (Lilstock). Alteration around the joints illustrate they were conduits for fluid flow at a
time when the calcite veins were not conduits. (c) Calcite veins on a bedding plane of Liassic limestone (Lilstock). Two later veins intersect and utilise an earlier, with the trailing
geometry causing an increase in aperture of the earlier vein between the later veins. (d) Set of en echelon calcite veins partly reactivated as a later joint (Lilstock).
syneresis cracks on a limestone bedding plane that appear to have
formed synchronously, and belong to the same deformation event.
Fig. 6(b) shows calcite veins cut by later joints, with alteration zones
around the joints indicating they formed a network for fluid flow.
Fig. 6(c) shows two sets of calcite veins, the later set showing a trailing
geometry through the earlier vein set, i.e., two younger veins are
connected via an older vein, on which renewed displacement has oc-
curred (Peacock et al., 2016, 2017, Fig. 12c). Fig. 6(d) shows a set of
calcite veins that has been partially reactivated by (or followed by) a
later joint.
5. Kinematic relationships between interacting fractures
Kinematic relationships can be identified between interacting frac-
tures, although fractures may interact whether or not they are kine-
matic related. We define three end-member cases for the kinematic
relationships between interacting fractures based on the angles between
the directions of wall rock displacement and the intersection line, i.e., the
line along which fractures meet (Fig. 7). This is used in the same sense
as defined by Peacock et al. (2016) and is preferred over the term
branch line (e.g., Butler, 1982). Note that intersection lines may be
curved (e.g., Butler, 1982, Fig. 7a). Fracture traces on bedding planes
and other exposure surfaces (e.g., Figs. 5 and 6) will generally meet
each other at intersection points (X- or Y-nodes).
We recognise three end-member situations, where:
• The intersection line is perpendicular to the displacement directions
of both intersecting fractures (Fig. 7a and b). The veins and stylolites
in Fig. 7(a) have displacement in the plane of the exposure surface,
while their intersection lines are approximately normal to the veins,
stylolites and the exposure surface.
• The intersection line is approximately parallel to the displacement
direction (Fig. 7c and d). Fig. 7(d) shows intersecting normal faults,
with the intersection lines being sub-parallel to the displacement
directions of the faults.
46
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
• The intersection line is parallel to the displacement direction of one
fracture and perpendicular to the displacement direction of the
other fracture (Fig. 7e and f). Fig. 7(e) shows intersecting faults,
veins and joints, in which the intersection lines between the faults
and joints are approximately perpendicular to the opening direc-
tions of the joints and parallel to the displacement directions of the
faults. Whilst these fractures are not the same age, they still display
a form of kinematic interaction. Synchronous fractures that may
display this relationship include normal and strike-slip faults in a
pull-apart basin (e.g., Karakhanian et al., 2002, Fig. 1).
Peacock et al. (2017) characterise antithetic, synthetic and “neutral”
relationships between interacting faults. A similar approach may be
applied to other fracture types, with shear displacements on shearing-
model fractures corresponding with displacement directions on exten-
sion, contractional or combined fractures. We therefore suggest that
any two fractures can interact in the following ways:
• “Antithetic” relationship, where the fractures have opposite senses
of displacement and usually occur at a high angle (> 45°) to one-
another, with slip approximately perpendicular to the intersection
line (Fig. 8a).
• “Synthetic” relationships, where the faults have the same senses of
displacement and usually occur at a low angle (< 30°) to one-an-
other, with displacement approximately perpendicular to the in-
tersection line. The example shown in Fig. 8(b) shows a shear
fracture and a vein with displacement directions at a low angle to
each other, which we characterise as “synthetic”.
• “Neutral” relationship, where the fractures have the same senses of
displacement (Fig. 8c) or different sense of displacement (Fig. 8d),
that is approximately parallel to the intersection line. This is
common in normal fault systems that branch and intersect in map
view, and between the detachment and lateral ramps of thrusts. We
use the term “neutral” because there is no tendency for either ex-
tension or contraction in the acute bisector, with little or no space
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
problem caused by interaction between the faults (Peacock et al.,
2017).
Interacting opening and closing mode fractures may show a range of
relative displacement directions, from having sub-parallel displacement
directions (Fig. 8e) to perpendicular displacement directions (Fig. 8f).
When considering any fracture network, the kinematic relationships
between different fracture sets can be considered to be incompatible if
they could have formed under different stress or strain boundary con-
ditions (Fig. 9a). Conversely we consider the fractures to be compatible
if the sets of fractures imply the same stress or strain boundary condi-
tions (Fig. 9b). Since we will generally know little about the stress field,
or of the material properties and deformation mechanisms operating
when the fractures formed, the kinematic relationships are usually best
expressed in terms of the implied principal incremental strain axes, i.e.,
47
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
Fig. 7. Examples of end-member relationships between the fracture
planes, displacement directions and intersection lines. (a) Veins and
stylolites in the Carboniferous Limestone at Ogmore-by-Sea, Vale of
Glamorgan, Wales. (b) Schematic diagram for the structure shown
in Fig. 7(a). The displacement directions of both structures are
approximately perpendicular to the intersection line. (c) Faults on a
steeply-dipping Liassic limestone bedding plane, Watchet,
Somerset, UK. Intersection points are marked by Xs. (d) Schematic
diagram for the structure shown in Fig. 7(c). The displacement di-
rection of the faults are approximately parallel to the intersection
lines. (e). Normal faults and joints on a gently-dipping Liassic
limestone bedding plane, East Quantoxhead, Somerset, UK. (f)
Schematic diagram for the structure shown in Fig. 7(e). The dis-
placement direction of the fault is approximately parallel to the
intersection line between the fault and the joint, while the dis-
placement direction of the joint is approximately perpendicular to
the intersection line.
directions of contraction, extension etc. (e.g., Marrett and Peacock,
1999). Note that some fracture networks form under conditions where
the principal strain axes are non-unique. For example, Fig. 9(c) shows a
network of calcite veins in a septarian nodule that represent extension
in all horizontal directions. Desiccation cracks (e.g., Weinberger, 1999)
and polygonal faults (e.g., Lonergan et al., 1998) are analogous ex-
amples.
6. Discussion
6.1. Mechanics of fracture interaction
Field-based analysis of fractures and their interactions, such as those
described above, give evidence of the geometries, kinematics and re-
lative age relationships of the fractures. This information may then be
D.C.P. Peacock et al. Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

Fig. 8. Different displacement relationships between interacting fractures from Liassic limestones, Somerset, UK. (a) Antithetic faults, with the faults having different displacement senses,
which are at a high angle to the intersection line (Watchet). (b) Synthetic relationship, with the opening of the veins being at < 90° to the later dextral fault, with these displacements
being at a high angle to the intersection lines (East Quantoxhead). (c) “Neutral” relationship, with the displacement directions of the synthetic faults being parallel to the intersection line
(Kilve). (d) “Neutral” relationship, with the displacement directions of the different faults being parallel to the intersection line (Watchet). Also see Peacock et al. (2017, Fig. 8d). (e)
Intersecting veins with the same displacement direction, obtained from mineral fibres (Lilstock). (f) Approximately perpendicular joint sets with opening directions at ∼ 90° to each other
(East Quantoxhead).

used as a basis for the analysis or modelling of the mechanics of in-
teraction between fractures, for example of the interpretation of the
stresses involved in fracturing. There have been many papers about
modelling the stress distributions around interacting fractures, in-
cluding faults (e.g., Worum et al., 2005; Ganas et al., 2006;
Micklethwaite and Cox, 2006), dykes (e.g., Hamling et al., 2010; Hou
et al., 2010; Re et al., 2015), and joints (e.g., Eberhardt, 2001; Moir
et al., 2010). While detailed analysis of mechanical relationships be-
tween fractures is beyond the scope of this paper, we suggest that in-
formation about mechanics between interacting fractures may be used
to characterise the interaction. For example, the interaction may be
characterised in terms of the orientations and magnitudes of the stresses
between and around the fractures.
While mechanical interpretation may give a deeper understanding
of the development of structures than does kinematic analysis (e.g.,
Pollard, 2000), we note that there are various problems involved in
using mechanics to characterise interaction between fractures, in-
cluding:
• Proper interpretation of the stresses between interacting fractures
depends on the correct interpretation of the geometries, kinematics
and age relationships of the interacting fractures. For example,

48
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
Fig. 9. Relationships between different fracture sets and strain from Mesozoic sedimen-
tary rocks, Somerset, UK. (a) Normal fault zone and calcite veins on a Liassic limestone
bedding plane (East Quantoxhead). Whilst the normal faults and the veins can be related
to the same strain regime, the network of joints that cut them was formed in an appar-
ently incompatible strain regime. (b) A zone of calcite-filled veins and pull-aparts linked
by slickolites in Liassic limestone (Lilstock). These structures all appear to have formed in
the same strain regime. (c) Septarian nodule, representing extension in all horizontal
directions (Blue Anchor Bay).
stresses between fractures of the same age are likely to be sig-
nificantly different than stresses between fractures of different ages.
• Stresses will evolve as the fracture interaction progresses (e.g.,
Nabavi et al., 2017), so a characterisation scheme would have to
incorporate the variations in the orientations and magnitudes of
stresses through time.
• Various aspects of the mechanics may be difficult to determine with
any degree of accuracy, including the temperatures, pressures, strain
49
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
rates, rheology and the boundary conditions at the time or times of
fracturing.
6.2. Description and classification scheme
Peacock et al. (2017, Fig. 15) shows a classification scheme for in-
teracting faults based on their geometric, kinematic and age relation-
ships. In Fig. 10, we adapt the fault characterisation scheme of Peacock
et al. (2017) to show the relationships between any two interacting
fractures based on fracture types, geometric and topological relation-
ships, relative age relationships and kinematics (e.g., angles between
the intersection lines and displacement directions). This scheme is ap-
plicable to any two fractures, being independent of such factors as li-
thology, tectonic setting and scale. We suggest that this scheme is a
useful tool for analysing fracture systems because it emphasises the
geometric, temporal and kinematic relationships between the compo-
nents of a network. It therefore enables progress beyond analyses of the
orientations and displacements to enable the geometries, topology,
chronology and kinematics to be understood.
6.3. Scaling of fracture interactions
It is possible that some of the fracture relationships shown in the
examples (e.g., Figs. 3–9) may occur between much larger fractures. For
example, faults show self-similar geometries (Tchalenko, 1970;
Turcotte, 1989; Main, 1996), with fault lengths and displacements
commonly exhibiting power-law scaling relationships (e.g.,
Mandlebrot, 1982; Gillespie et al., 1993). Similarly, dykes can be
hundreds of kilometres long and hundreds of metres wide (e.g., Bunger
et al., 2013). Other structures, however, do not show such a wide range
of sizes. For example, whilst populations of stylolites (e.g., Peacock and
Azzam, 2006) and veins (e.g., Clark et al., 1995) have also been shown
to obey power-law scaling relationships, they rarely show displace-
ments of more than a metre. The description and classification scheme
shown in Fig. 10 may, therefore, be of limited use at larger scales, for
example in the interactions between faults and dykes. The possible
large examples shown in Table 1 include orogenic belts as large-scale
contractional structures.
6.4. The three-dimensional character of fracture interaction
The examples of fracture interactions presented in Figs. 3–9 are
exposed on rock surfaces, so are two-dimensional. In these cases, frac-
ture intersections lines are represented by intersection points where
they meet the exposed rock surface. The three-dimensional geometry of
fracture intersections is illustrated in Fig. 7. Whilst fractures are com-
monly studied in two-dimensions, especially in the field, it must be
remembered that they interact in three-dimensions. For example,
stepping joint segments may be linked out of the plane of observation
(e.g., Delaney and Pollard, 1981, Fig. 29).
7. Conclusions
Various criteria can be used to evaluate the interactions between
any two fractures within a network. Different fracture types are re-
cognised (e.g., faults, deformation bands, joints, veins, dykes) and their
kinematics rationalised into opening-, closing- and shearing modes, that
can be applied to both discrete surfaces (e.g., joints) and banded
structures (e.g., fault zones and deformation bands). Fracture segments
are the branches of such networks and the nodes represent the location
of intersections with adjacent fractures (Y- and X-nodes). A fracture that
terminates in the rock volume has an I-node at its tip and has no direct
geometrical linkage to other fractures.
The geometry and topology of the network allows us to recognise
isolated, approaching, abutting, branching and cross-cutting relation-
ships that characterise the interactions and the relative ages of the
D.C.P. Peacock et al. Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

(caption on next page)

50
D.C.P. Peacock et al. Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53

Fig. 10. Classification of intersecting fractures, generalising the scheme for interacting faults presented by Peacock et al. (2017, Fig. 15). (a) to (d) Classification of fracture types based on
the displacement direction relative to the fracture plane. (a) Extension fracture, with extension approximately perpendicular to the fracture plane (e.g., joints, some veins, dykes, sills). (b)
Shear fracture, with displacement along the plane of the fracture (e.g., faults, some deformation bands). (c). Contractional, with contraction approximately perpendicular to the fracture
plane (e.g., stylolites). (d) Combined, with net displacement neither in the plane of the fracture or perpendicular to the fracture (e.g., slickolites, some veins and some compaction bands).
(e) to (i) Classification based on the geometric relationships between the fractures. (e) Isolated fracture. (f) The fractures interact as they approach each other, but are not connected. (g)
One fracture abuts the other. (h) One fracture (earlier) is cut by the other (later). (i) The fractures mutually cross-cut each other. (j) to (l) Classification based on topographic relationships.
(j) A geometrically isolated fracture with two I-nodes. (k) One fracture abuts another to form a Y-node. (l) Two fractures cut each other to form an X-node. (m) to (p) Classification based
on relative ages. (m) The fractures are synchronous. (n) The fractures are different ages. (o) “Trailing” geometry, where part of an earlier fracture is reactivated by interaction with later
fractures. (p) One or both fractures have been reactivated, in this case a vein wall has been reactivated as a stylolite. (q) to (s) Classification based on the relationship between the
intersection line and the displacement direction. (q) The intersection line is parallel to the displacement directions or both interacting fractures. This is only likely for some types of fault
interactions. (r) The intersection line is perpendicular to the displacement directions of both fractures, as would be typical of interacting extension fractures. (s) The intersection line is
parallel to the displacement direction of one fracture (typically a fault) and perpendicular to the displacement direction of the other fracture. (t) to (x) Classification based on the
displacements and strains between the interacting fractures. (t) “Antithetic” relationship, in which the displacement directions on the two fractures are at > 90° in their acute bisector.
(u) “Synthetic” relationship, in which the displacement directions on the two fractures are at < 90° in their acute bisector. (v) Neutral relationship, where the fractures have the same
senses of slip, approximately parallel to the intersection line. (w) The fractures have the same displacement direction. (x) The displacement directions of the fractures are at 90° to each
other.

fractures. From this information we can determine sets of fractures that
could have formed during different events, representing different stages
in the geological evolution of the network. Geometrical linkage need
not imply kinematic interaction (e.g., cross-cutting fractures of different
age), and vice versa (e.g., at bridges between stepping veins).
Fracture interactions can also be characterised by the relationship
between the intersection line and the displacement direction. We
identify three end-member cases: whether the intersection line is par-
allel or perpendicular to the displacement directions of both fractures,
or whether the fractures have different displacement directions. Such
kinematic interactions do not need to indicate that the fractures were
active at the same time, either through synchronous formation or re-
activation.
The scheme outlined in this paper provides a basis for describing
and understanding the different ways various fractures interact, and
provides a basis for describing the geometries and development of
fracture networks.
Acknowledgements
Rodolfo Carosa, Alex Manda and an anonymous reviewer are
thanked for their helpful comments. We thank Casey Nixon for useful
discussions about this work.
References
Arndt, M., Virgo, S., Cox, S.F., Urai, J.L., 2014. Changes in fluid pathways in a calcite vein
mesh (Natih Formation, Oman Mountains): insights from stable isotopes. Geofluids
14, 391–418.
Aydin, A., 1978. Small faults formed as deformation bands in sandstone. Pure Appl.
Geophys. 116, 913–930.
Aydin, A., Borja, R.I., Eichhubl, P., 2006. Geological and mathematical framework for
failure modes in granular rock. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 83–98.
Belayneh, M., Cosgrove, J., 2010. Hybrid veins from the southern margin of the Bristol
channel Basin, UK. J. Struct. Geol. 32, 192–201.
Bogdanoff, S., Michard, A., Mansour, M., Poupeau, G., 2000. Apatite fission track analysis
in the Argentera massif: evidence of contrasting denudation rates in the External
Crystalline Massifs of the Western Alps. Terra Nova 12, 117–125.
Bons, P., Montenari, M., 2005. The formation of antitaxial calcite veins with well-de-
veloped fibres, Oppaminda Creek, South Australia. J. Struct. Geol. 27, 231–248.
Bons, P.D., Elburg, M.A., Gomez-Rives, E., 2012. A review of the formation of tectonic
veins and their microstructures. J. Struct. Geol. 43, 33–62.
Bonson, C.G., Childs, C., Walsh, J.J., Schöpfer, M.P.J., Carboni, V., 2007. Geometric and
kinematic controls on the internal structure of a large normal fault in massive
limestones: the Maghlaq Fault, Malta. J. Struct. Geol. 29, 336–354.
Bourne, S.J., Willemse, E.J.M., 2001. Elastic stress control on the pattern of tensile
fracturing around a small fault network at Nash Point. J. Struct. Geol. 23, 1753–1770.
Bunger, A.P., Menand, T., Cruden, A., Zhang, X., Halls, H., 2013. Analytical predictions
for a natural spacing within dyke swarms. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 375, 270–279.
Busquets, P., Colombo, F., Heredia, N., Sole de Porta, N.L.R., Rodriguez Fernandez, L.R.,
Alvarez Marron, J., 2005. Age and tectonostratigraphic significance of the upper
Carboniferous series in the basement of the Andean Frontal Cordillera: geodynamic
implications. Tectonophysics 399, 181–194.
Butler, R.W.H., 1982. The terminology of structures in thrust belts. J. Struct. Geol. 4,
239–245.
Choi, J.H., Edwards, P., Ko, K., Kim, Y.S., 2016. Definition and classification of fault
damage zones: a review and a new methodological approach. Earth-Sci. Rev. 152,
70–87.
Clark, M.B., Brantley, S.L., Fisher, D.M., 1995. Power-law vein-thickness distributions and
positive feedback in vein growth. Geology 23, 975–978.
Cobbold, P.R., Zanella, A., Rodrigues, N., Løseth, H., 2013. Widespread bedding-parallel
veins of fibrous calcite (“beef”) in a mature source rock (Vaca Muerta Fm, Neuquén
Basin, Argentina): evidence for overpressure and horizontal compression. Mar.
Petrol. Geol. 43, 1–20.
Cox, S.F., 2005. Coupling between deformation, fluid pressures, and fluid flow in ore-
producing hydrothermal systems at depth in the crust. Econ. Geol. 100, 39–75.
Crider, J.G., Pollard, D.D., 1998. Fault linkage: three-dimensional mechanical interaction
between echelon normal faults. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24373–24391.
Curewitz, D., Karson, J.A., 1997. Structural settings of hydrothermal outflow: fracture
permeability maintained by fault propagation and interaction. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 79, 149–168.
Dabi, G., Siklósy, Z., Schubert, F., Bajnóczi, B., Tóth, T.M., 2011. The relevance of vein
texture in understanding the past hydraulic behaviour of a crystalline rock mass:
reconstruction of the palaeohydrology of the Mecsekalja Zone, south Hungary.
Geofluids 11, 309–327.
Dart, C.J., McClay, K., Hollings, P.N., 1995. 3D analysis of inverted extensional fault
systems, southern Bristol Channel basin, UK. In: Buchanan, J.G., Buchanan, P.G.
(Eds.), Basin Inversion. Geological Society, London, pp. 393–413 Special
Publications 88.
Delaney, P.T., Pollard, D.D., 1981. Deformation of host rocks and flow of magma during
growth of minette dikes and breccia-bearing intrusions near Ship Rock, New Mexico.
U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1202, 61.
de Sitter, L.U., 1964. Structural Geology, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dini, A., Westerman, D.S., Innocenti, F., Rocchi, S., 2008. Magma emplacement in a
transfer zone: the Miocene mafic Orano dyke swarm of Elba Island, Tuscany, Italy. In:
Thomson, K., Petford, N. (Eds.), Structure and Emplacement of High-level Magmatic
Systems. Geological Society, London, pp. 131–148 Special Publications 302.
Du Bernard, X., Eichhubl, P., Aydin, A., 2002. Dilation bands: a new form of localized
failure in granular media. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1–4.
Eberhardt, E., 2001. Numerical modelling of three-dimension stress rotation ahead of an
advancing tunnel face. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 499–518.
Engelder, J.T., 1974. Cataclasis and the generation of fault gouge. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 85,
1515–1522.
Ernst, R.E., Grosfils, E.B., Mège, D., 2001. Giant dike swarms: earth, Venus, and Mars.
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 29, 489–534.
Ferrill, D.A., Morris, A.P., McGinnis, R.N., 2009. Crossing conjugate normal faults in field
exposures and seismic data. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 93, 1471–1488.
Fletcher, R.C., Pollard, D.D., 1981. Anticrack model for pressure solution surfaces.
Geology 9, 419–424.
Fort, X., Brun, J.P., 2012. Kinematics of regional salt flow in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
In: Alsop, G.I., Archer, S.G., Hartley, A.J., Grant, N.T., Hodgkinson, R. (Eds.), Salt
Tectonics, Sediments and Prospectivity. Geological Society, London, pp. 265–287
Special Publications 363.
Fossen, H., Schultz, R.A., Shipton, Z.K., Mair, K., 2007. Deformation bands in sandstone: a
review. J. Geol. Soc. 164, 755–769.
Fossen, H., Schultz, R.A., Torabi, A., 2011. Conditions and implications for compaction
band formation in the Navajo Sandstone, Utah. J. Struct. Geol. 33, 1477–1490.
Friedman, M., Logan, J.M., 1973. Lüders' bands in experimentally deformed sandstone
and limestone. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 84, 1465–1476.
Ganas, A., Sokos, E., Agalos, A., Leontakianakos, G., Pavlides, S., 2006. Coulomb stress
triggering of earthquakes along the Atalanti Fault, central Greece: two April 1894
M6+ events and stress change patterns. Tectonophysics 420, 357–369.
Gillespie, P.A., Howard, C.B., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1993. Measurement and char-
acterization of spatial distributions of fractures. Tectonophysics 226, 113–141.
Glen, R.A., Hancock, P.L., Whittaker, A., 2005. Basin inversion by distributed deforma-
tion: the southern margin of the Bristol Channel Basin, England. J. Struct. Geol. 27,
2113–2134.
Gökten, E., Demirtaş, R., Özaksoy, V., Herece, E., Varol, B., Temiz, U., 2011. Faulting and
stress distribution in the Bolu Pull-apart Basin (North Anatolian fault zone, Turkey):
the significance of new dates obtained from the basin fill. Turkish J. Earth Sci. 20,
1–26.
Gourmelen, N., Dixon, T.H., Amelung, F., Schmalzle, G., 2011. Acceleration and evolution

51
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
of faults: an example from the Hunter Mountain-Panamint Valley fault zone, Eastern
California. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 301, 337–344.
Hamling, I.J., Wright, T.J., Calais, E., Bennati, L., Lewi, E., 2010. Stress transfer between
thirteen successive dyke intrusions in Ethiopia. Nat. Geosci. 3, 713–717.
Hendry, J.P., Gregg, J.M., Shelton, K.L., Somerville, I.D., Crowley, S.F., 2015. Origin,
characteristics and distribution of fault-related and fracture-related dolomitization:
insights from Mississippian carbonates, Isle of Man. Sedimentology 62, 717–752.
Hou, G., Kusky, T.M., Wang, C., Wang, Y., 2010. Mechanics of the giant radiating
Mackenzie dyke swarm: a paleostress field modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B02402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005475.
Johansen, T.E.S., Fossen, H., Kluge, R., 2005. The impact of syn-faulting porosity re-
duction on damage zone architecture in porous sandstone: an outcrop example from
the Moab Fault, Utah. J. Struct. Geol. 27, 1469–1485.
Jolly, R.J.H., Cosgrove, J.W., Dewhurst, D.N., 1998. Thickness and spatial distributions of
clastic dykes, northwest Sacramento Valley, California. J. Struct. Geol. 20,
1663–1672.
Karakhanian, A., Djrbashian, R., Trifonov, V., Philip, H., Arakelian, S., Avagian, A., 2002.
Holocene-historical volcanism and active faults as natural risk factors for Armenia
and adjacent countries. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 113, 319–344.
Katsman, R., 2010. Extensional veins induced by self-similar dissolution at stylolites:
analytical modelling. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 299, 33–41.
Kattenhorn, S.A., Aydin, A., Pollard, D.D., 2000. Joints at high angles to normal fault
strike: an explanation using 3-D numerical models of fault-perturbed stress fields. J.
Struct. Geol. 22, 1–23.
Katz, D.A., Eberli, G.P., Swart, P.K., Smith, L.B., 2006. Tectonic-hydrothermal brecciation
associated with calcite precipitation and permeability destruction in Mississippian
carbonate reservoirs, Montana and Wyoming. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 90,
1803–1841.
Khajavi, N., Quigley, M., Langridge, R.M., 2014. Influence of topography and basement
depth on surface rupture morphology revealed from LiDAR and field mapping, Hope
Fault, New Zealand. Tectonophysics 630, 265–284.
Kim, Y.S., Sanderson, D.J., 2006. Structural similarity and variety at the tips in a wide
range of strike-slip faults: a review. Terra Nova 18, 330–344.
Kim, Y.S., Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 2004. Fault damage zones. J. Struct. Geol. 26,
503–517.
Knipe, R.J., 1992. Faulting processes and fault seal. In: In: Larsen, R.M., Brekke, H.,
Larsen, B.T., Tallerass, E. (Eds.), Structural and Tectonic Modelling and its
Application to Petroleum Geology, vol. 1. Norwegian Petroleum Society Special
Publications, pp. 325–342.
Knott, S.D., 1994. Fault zone thickness versus displacement in the Permo-Triassic sand-
stones of NW England. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 151, 17–25.
Lecumberri-Sanchez, P., Newton, M.C., Westman, E.C., Kamilli, R.J., Canby, V.M.,
Bodnar, R.J., 2013. Temporal and spatial distribution of alteration, mineralization
and fluid inclusions in the transitional high-sulfidation epithermal-porphyry copper
system at Red Mountain, Arizona. J. Geochem. Explor. 125, 80–93.
Lin, C.C., Lin, A.T.S., Liu, C.S., Chen, G.Y., Liao, W.Z., Schnurle, P., 2009. Geological
controls on BSR occurrences in the incipient arc-continent collision zone off south-
west Taiwan. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 26, 1118–1131.
Lisle, R., 2013. Shear zone deformation determined from sigmoidal tension gashes. J.
Struct. Geol. 50, 35–43.
Lonergan, L., Cartwright, J., Jolly, R., 1998. The geometry of polygonal fault systems in
Tertiary mudrocks of the North Sea. J. Struct. Geol. 20, 529–548.
Macdonald, R., Fettes, D.J., Bagiński, B., 2015. The Mull Paleocene dykes: some insights
into the nature of major dyke swarms. Scott. J. Geol. 51, 116–124.
Maerten, L., 2000. Variation in slip on intersecting normal faults: implications for pa-
leostress inversion. J. Geophys. Res. 105 25,565–25,565.
Main, I., 1996. Statistical physics, seismogenesis, and seismic hazard. Rev. Geophys. 34,
433–462.
Mandlebrot, B.B., 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Manda, A.K., Horsman, E., 2015. Fracturesis Jointitis: causes, symptoms, and treatment in
groundwater communities. Groundwater 53, 836–840.
Manzocchi, T., 2002. The connectivity of two dimensional networks of spatially corre-
lated fractures. Water Resour. Res. 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000180.
Marchal, D., Guiraud, M., Rives, T., 2003. Geometric and morphologic evolution of
normal fault planes and traces from 2D to 4D data. J. Struct. Geol. 25, 135–158.
Marrett, R., Peacock, D.C.P., 1999. Strain and stress. J. Struct. Geol. 21, 1057–1063.
Mathieu, L., van Wyk de Vries, B., Holohan, E.P., Troll, V.R., 2008. Dykes, cups, saucers
and sills: analogue experiments on magma intrusion into brittle rocks. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 271, 1–13.
Micarelli, L., Benedicto, A., 2008. Normal fault terminations in limestones from the SE-
Basin (France): implications for fluid flow. In: Wibberley, C.A.J., Kurz, W., Imber, J.,
Holdsworth, R.E., Collettini, C. (Eds.), The Internal Structure of Fault Zones:
Implications for Mechanical and Fluid-flow Properties. Geological Society, London,
pp. 123–138 Special Publications 299.
Micklethwaite, S., Cox, S.F., 2006. Progressive fault triggering and fluid flow in after-
shock domains: examples from mineralized Archaean fault systems. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 250, 318–330.
Misra, S., Mandal, N., Dhar, R., Chakraborty, C., 2009. Mechanisms of deformation lo-
calization at the tips of shear fractures: findings from analogue experiments and field
evidence. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B04204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005737.
Mollema, P.N., Antonellini, M.A., 1996. Compaction bands: a structural analog for anti-
mode I cracks in aeolian sandstone. Tectonophysics 267, 209–228.
Moir, H., Lunn, R.J., Shipton, Z.K., Kirkpatrick, J.D., 2010. Simulating brittle fault evo-
lution from networks of pre-existing joints within crystalline rock. J. Struct. Geol. 32,
1742–1753.
Moore, J.M., Schultz, R.A., 1999. Processes of faulting in jointed rocks of Canyonlands
52
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
National Park, Utah. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 111, 808–822.
Morley, C.K., 2014. Outcrop examples of soft-sediment deformation associated with
normal fault terminations in deepwater, Eocene turbidites: a previously undescribed
conjugate fault termination style? J. Struct. Geol. 69, 189–208.
Morley, C.K., Kongwung, B., Julapour, A.A., Abdolghafourian, M., Hajian, M., Waples, D.,
Warren, J., Otterdoom, H., Srisuriyon, K., Kazemi, H., 2009. Structural development
of a major late Cenozoic basin and transpressional belt in central Iran: the Central
Basin in the Qom-Saveh area. Geosphere 5, 325–362.
Mughieda, O., Alzo’ubi, A.K., 2004. Fracture mechanisms of offset rock joints – a la-
boratory investigation. Geotechnical Geol. Eng. 22, 545–562.
Nabavi, S.T., Alavi, S.A., Mohammadi, S., Ghassemi, M.R., Frehner, M., 2017. Analysis of
transpression within contractional fault steps using finite-element method. J. Struct.
Geol. 96, 1–20.
Nicol, A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Bretan, P.G., 1995. Three-dimensional geometry and
growth of conjugate normal faults. J. Struct. Geol. 17, 847–862.
Nicoll, K., 2010. Geomorphic and hazard vulnerability assessment of recent residential
developments on landslide-prone terrain: the case of the Traverse Mountains, South
Salt Lake Valley, Utah, USA. J. Geogr. Regional Plan. 3, 126–141.
Nitecki, M.H., 1962. Observations on slickolites. J. Sediment. Petrol. 32, 435–439.
Nixon, C.W., Sanderson, D.J., Dee, S., Bull, J.M., Humphreys, R., Swanson, M., 2014.
Fault interactions and reactivation within a normal fault network at Milne Point,
Alaska. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 98, 2081–2107.
Omosanya, K.O., Akinbodewa, E.A., Mosuro, G.O., Kaigama, U., 2013. Alteration of σ3
field during the evolution of a polycyclic basement complex. J. Geol. Min. Res. 5,
23–37.
Paquet, F., Dauteuil, O., Hallot, E., Moreau, F., 2007. Tectonics and magma dynamics
coupling in a dyke swarm of Iceland. J. Struct. Geol. 29, 1477–1493.
Pati, J.K., Patel, S.C., Pruseth, K.L., Malviya, V.P., Arima, M., Raju, S., Pati, P., Prakash,
K., 2007. Geology and geochemistry of giant quartz veins from the Bundelkhand
Craton, central India and their implications. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 116, 497–510.
Peacock, D.C.P., 2001. The temporal relationship between joints and faults. J. Struct.
Geol. 23, 329–341.
Peacock, D.C.P., Azzam, I.N., 2006. Development and scaling relationships of a stylolite
population. J. Struct. Geol. 28, 1883–1889.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1991. Displacements, segment linkage and relay ramps
in normal fault zones. J. Struct. Geol. 13, 721–733.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1994. Geometry and development of relay ramps in
normal fault systems. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 78, 147–165.
Peacock, D.C.P., Sanderson, D.J., 1999. Deformation history and basin-controlling faults
in the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Somerset coast. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 110,
41–52.
Peacock, D.C.P., Nixon, C.W., Rotevatn, A., Sanderson, D.J., Zuluaga, L.F., 2016. Glossary
of fault and other fracture networks. J. Struct. Geol. 92, 12–29.
Peacock, D.C.P., Nixon, C.W., Rotevatn, A., Sanderson, D.J., Zuluaga, L.F., 2017.
Interacting faults. J. Struct. Geol. 97, 1–22.
Petit, J.P., Wibberley, C.A.J., Ruiz, G., 1999. ‘Crack-seal’ slip: a new fault valve me-
chanism? J. Struct. Geol. 21, 1199–1207.
Polito, P.A., Bone, Y., Clarke, J.D.A., Mernagh, T.P., 2001. Compositional zoning of fluid
inclusions in the Archaean Junction gold deposit, Western Australia: a process of fluid
- wall-rock interaction? Aust. J. Earth Sci. 48, 833–855.
Pollard, D.D., 2000. Strain and stress: discussion. J. Struct. Geol. 22, 1359–1367.
Pollard, D.D., Aydin, A., 1988. Progress in understanding jointing over the past century.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 100, 1181–1204.
Price, N.J., 1966. Fault and Joint Development in Brittle and Semi-brittle Rock.
Pergamon, Oxford.
Ramsey, J.M., Chester, F.M., 2004. Hybrid fracture and the transition from extension
fracture to shear fracture. Nature 428, 63–66.
Re, G., White, J.D.L., Or, M.H., 2015. Dikes, sills, and stress-regime evolution during
emplacement of the jagged rocks complex, Hopi Buttes Volcanic field, Navajo Nation,
USA. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 295, 65–79.
Rotevatn, A., Thorsheim, E., Bastesen, E., Fossmark, H.S., Torabi, A., Sælen, G., 2016.
Sequential growth of deformation bands in carbonate grainstones in the hangingwall
of an active growth fault: implications for deformation mechanisms in different
tectonic regimes. J. Struct. Geol. 90, 27–47.
Sanderson, D.J., 2015. Field-based structural studies as analogues to sub-surface re-
servoirs. In: In: Bowman, M., Smyth, H.R., Good, T.R., Passey, S.R., Hirst, J.P.P.,
Jordan, C.J. (Eds.), The Value of Outcrop Studies in Reducing Subsurface Uncertainty
and Risk in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production Geological Society, London, pp.
207–217 Special Publications 436.
Sanderson, D.J., Nixon, C.W., 2015. The use of topology in fracture network character-
ization. J. Struct. Geol. 72, 55–66.
Schultz, R.A., Fossen, H., 2008. Terminology for structural discontinuities. Am. Assoc.
Petrol. Geol. Bull. 92, 853–867.
Singh, V., Slabunov, A., 2014. The Central Bundelkhand Archaean greenstone complex,
Bundelkhand craton, central India: geology, composition, and geochronology of su-
pracrustal rocks. Int. Geol. Rev. 57, 1349–1364.
Srivastava, D.C., Engelder, T., 1990. Crack-propagation sequence and pore-fluid condi-
tions during fault-bend folding in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, central
Pennsylvania. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 102, 116–128.
Stockdale, P.B., 1926. The stratigraphic significance of solution in rocks. J. Geol. 34,
399–414.
Taylor, M., Peltzer, G., 2006. Current slip rates on conjugate strike-slip faults in central
Tibet using synthetic aperture radar interferometry. J. Geophys. Res. 111
B12402–B12402.
Tchalenko, J.S., 1970. Similarities between shear zones of different magnitudes. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 81, 1625–1640.
D.C.P. Peacock et al.
Tewksbury, B.J., Hogan, J.P., Kattenhorn, S.A., Mehrtens, C.J., Tarabees, E.A., 2014.
Polygonal faults in chalk: insights from extensive exposures of the Khoman
Formation, Western Desert, Egypt. Geology 42, 479–482.
Trautwein-Bruns, U., Schulze, K.C., Becker, S., Kukla, P.A., Urai, J.L., 2010. In situ stress
variations at the Variscan Deformation Front - results from the deep Aachen geo-
thermal well. Tectonophysics 493, 196–211.
Tuckwell, G.W., Lonergan, L., Jolly, R.J.H., 2003. The control of stress history and flaw
distribution on the evolution of polygonal fracture networks. J. Struct. Geol. 25,
1241–1250.
Turcotte, D.L., 1989. Fractals in geology and geophysics. Pure Appl. Geophys. 131
171–19.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1987. Distributions of cumulative displacement and seismic
slip on a single normal fault. J. Struct. Geol. 9, 1039–1046.
Weinberger, R., 1999. Initiation and growth of cracks during desiccation of stratified
muddy sediments. J. Struct. Geol. 21, 379–386.
Wise, J.M., 2010. Evaluation of conjugate vein formation in the Huachocolpa base-metal
53
Journal of Structural Geology 106 (2018) 41–53
district of central Peru. Bol. Soc. Geol. del Perú 104, 59–80.
Worum, G., Michon, L., van Balen, R.T., van Wees, J.D., Cloetingh, S., Pagnier, H., 2005.
Pre-Neogene controls on present-day fault activity in the West Netherlands Basin and
Roer Valley Rift System (southern Netherlands): role of variations in fault orientation
in a uniform low-stress regime. Quat. Sci. Rev. 24, 475–490.
Xiao-shuang, X., Jing-ru, T., Hua, K., Shao-xun, H., 2005. Control of Relay Structure on
Mineralization of Sedimentary-exhalative Ore Deposit in Growth Faults of Graben
Systems. Journal of Central South University of Technology 12, pp. 340–345.
Yin, H.W., Groshong, R.H., 2007. A three-dimensional kinematic model for the de-
formation above an active diapir. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 91, 343–363.
Zhang, X., Sanderson, D.J., 2002. Numerical Modelling and Analysis of Fluid Flow and
Deformation of Fractured Rock Masses. pp. 288 Pergamon.
Zulauf, G., Gutiérrez-Alonso, G., Kraus, R., Petschick, R., Potel, S., 2011. Formation of
chocolate-tablet boudins in a foreland fold and thrust belt: a case study from the
external Variscides (Almograve, Portugal). J. Struct. Geol. 33, 1639–1649.