Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.
org on October 20, 2015
M. J. RICKARD Geology Department, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Fault Classification: Discussion
The modified fault classification by Gill
(1971) considerably reduces the confused state
of fault nomenclature. However, two additions
should be made to his comments. First, direc-
tions of net slip, which provide the main
classification categories, should be precisely de-
fined. Billings (1954) divided movements into
two groups—dip slips for which the pitch of
net-slip lines could vary from 45° to 90°, and
strike slips with 0° to 45° pitch. Gill (1941)
proposed three groups with a wide zone of
oblique slips, whereas Hills (1963) suggested
that oblique slip should be used only where dip
and strike components are approximately equal
(ca. 45° pitch of net slip). Following the
practice with fold-hinge orientations (Fleuty,
1964), it is suggested that the special cases of
dip and strike slip should be restricted to
pitches of 80° to 90° and 0° to 10°, respectively.
The second point concerns separations. In
describing the separation of marker beds, it
would be useful to use a simple unique separa-
tion line rather than dip and strike separations
which depend on chance exposure for their
measurement. For this purpose "separation"
should be defined as "the perpendicular dis-
tance between the traces of a displaced marker,
measured in the fault plane." Distances mea-
sured in other specified directions (for example,
dip and strike directions) are then components
of the separation; it is only these that have
previously been defined (Reid, 1913).
Since the net-slip line and the dip of the
fault must be known to use a kinematic classi-
fication, it should be possible to describe
translational faults exactly. For this purpose
it is convenient to plot the essential geometric
attributes on a modified version of the DPP
(Dip, Pitch, Plunge) diagram recently pro-
posed for the classification of fold orientations
(Rickard, 1971). The pitch of the determined
net-slip line is plotted on a special triangular
diagram along the line representing the dip of
the fault (Fig. la). Four triangles are necessary
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 83, p. 2545-2546, 1 fig., August 1972
2545
to allow representation of normal, reverse, and
left-handed and right-handed movements (Fig.
lb). In this way any translational fault can be
plotted. In addition to the category names, the
fault designation could be made more precise
by assigning an index symbol that can also
express geographical orientation; for example,
right-normal-slip fault (D60/270:P60N)—dip
and dip direction of fault 60/270, pitch of
net-slip line 60° to the north. This fault is
plotted on Figure lb.
The term "slip" has been added to the fault
names in Figure lb following Hill (1959) and
Kupfer (1960); if the separation classification
is dropped as advocated by Gill (1971), then
normal and reverse should only apply to move-
ments and the term slip can be dropped from
the fault names, except in the case of strike-slip
faults. This point is not made clear in Gill's
(1971) revised classification.
The four combined triangles make a useful
diagram for teaching fault classification. In
addition the diagram can be used for tectonic
analysis; by plotting faults of different ages,
localities, or orientations with different symbols
their geometries can be compared.
To counter the possible criticism that such a
classification is too precise, it must be pointed
out that loose classification and intuitive
assignment to one of Anderson's (1951) three
stress-based categories leads to false dynamic
conclusions. Faults are too often named on the
basis of an assumed dip, often that of a fault-
line scarp; movements are often assigned intui-
tively; and principle-stress orientations may be
erroneously inferred by considering noncon-
temporaneous diagonal faults as conjugate pairs.
The acceptance of a precise classification for
those (perhaps rare) instances where fault
geometries can be well established would
clarify this situation so that a tectonic analyst
would know what reliance to place on pub-
lished data.
Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on October 20, 2015

2546 M. J. RICKARD

RIGHT

Figure 1. Classification diagram for translational faults, a, Dip-pitch triangular grid; pitch (rake) is measured
along line representing the dip of the fault plane, b, Fault categories on dip-pitch triangles. Dip-slip categories are
ruled; faults dipping less than 45° may be called thrusts if movement is reverse, lags (Marr, 1906) if movement is
normal. Strike-slip categories are dotted; oblique-slip categories are blank; *f is example of right-normal-slip fault
(D60:P60N).

REFERENCES CITED Hills, E. S., 1963, Elements of structural geology:

Anderson, E. M., 1951, The dynamics of faulting
and dyke formation with application to
Britain (2d ed.): London, Oliver & Boyd, p.
206.
Billings, M. P., 1954, Structural geology (2d ed.):
New York, Prentice-Hall.
Fleuty, M. J., 1964, The description of folds:
Geol. Assoc. London Proc., v. 75, p. 461-492.
Gill, J. E., 1941, Fault nomenclature: Royal Soc.
Canada Trans., 3d ser., v. 35, p. 71-85.
1971, Continued confusion in the classifica-
tion of faults: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 82,
p. 1389-1392.
Hill, M. L., 1959, Dual classification of faults: Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 43,
p. 217-221.
London, Methuen, p. 483.
Kupfer, D. H., 1960, Problems of fault nomencla-
ture: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull.,
v. 44, p. 501-505.
Marr, J. E., 1906, The influence of the geological
structure of English lakeland upon its present
features—a study in physiography: Geol. Soc.
London Quart. Jour., v. 62, p. Ixxvi.
Reid, H. F., 1913, Report of the committee on
the nomenclature of faults: Geol. Soc. America
Bull., v. 24, p. 163-183.
Rickard, M. J., 1971, A classification diagram for
fold orientations: Geol. Mag., v. 108, p.
23-26.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY JANUARY
17, 1972
Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on October 20, 2015

Geological Society of America Bulletin

Fault Classification: Discussion

M. J RICKARD

Geological Society of America Bulletin 1972;83, no. 8;2545-2546

doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[2545:FCD]2.0.CO;2

Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail

alerts when new articles cite this article
Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to
Geological Society of America Bulletin
Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to
contact GSA
Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees
within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission,
without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a
brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make unlimited copies of items in
GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science.
This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only
of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting
includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums
for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide,
regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions
presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.

Notes

Copyright © 1972, The Geological Society

of America, Inc. Copyright is not claimed
on any material prepared by U.S.
government employees within the scope of
their employment.