Z-ecton~physics, 163 (1989) 153-168 153

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.. Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

An analytical model of hanging-wall and footwall deformation

at ramps on normal and thrust faults

BILL KILSDONK and ~Y~OND C. FLETCHER

Center forTectonophysics and Departments of Geology and Geophysics. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 (U.S.A.)

(Received January 4, 1988; revised version accepted October 6, 1988)

Abstract

Kilsdonk, B. and Fletcher, R.C., 1989. An analytical model of hanging wall and footwall deformation at ramps on
normal and thrust faults. Tectonoph.ysics, 163: 153-168.

We determine stress, strain, and structural evolution for an analytical model of moderate angle (10-20”) ramps
developed on both normal Caults (normal ramps) and thrust faults (thrust ramps). In the model, a frictionless sliding
surface with ramp configuration separates two incompressible, isotropic, viscous half-spaces of different viscosity
(n-hanging wall and n’-footwall). Ramps are planar, but ramp-flat corners are locally rounded. Deformation is due
solely to translation across the ramp, and regional extension or shortening is ignored.
Sliding down a normal ramp causes vertical extension and horizontal shortening in both the hanging wall and the
footwall. This conforms with reverse faults seen in experimental models of normal ramps. The stress in the footwall has
the same magnitude as that in the hanging wall but the footwall strain rate is reduced in magnitude by the ratio y/q’_
Both a hanging-wall syncline and a footwall anticline form. The normal ramp migrates in front of the rising footwall at
a rate P& = V[n/(n + n’)], where V is the sliding velocity. But the ramp does not change shape. The continuous ramp
motion in the model may correspond to the creation of an extensional duplex or chaos zone in brittle rocks. At a
normal ramp, mean compressive stress is lowered and deviatoric stress is raised, favoring local faulting and fracture.
Sliding up a thrust ramp causes stresses, strain rates, and strains of the opposite sign. Horizontal extension and
vertical shortening in both walls is consistent with normal faulting. Both a hanging-wall anticline and a footwall
syncline form passively. Although the deviatoric stress is raised at the ramp, so is the mean compressive stress,
inhibiting fracturing. However, the mean compressive stress is lowered on the adjacent flats, favoring fracturing there.

(1982) and Gibbs (1984) have proposed that slip

down a normal ramp produces complex struc-
Fold-and-thrust wedges taper towards the fore- tures, such as chaos zones and extensional
land, and their basal detachments climb section duplexes. Martin and Bartley (1986) have de-
on thrust ramps. Major structures, such as ramp scribed a normal ramp in the Worthington Moun-
anticlines and duplexes form at thrust ramps. In tains, Nevada. Rarely, normal ramps may also
an extensional terrane, the structure analogous to occur along thrust faults (Knipe, 1985).
a thrust ramp is a ramp on a low-angle normal M&lay and Ellis (1987) studied the kinematics
fault, called a normal ramp (Fig. 1). Although of normal ramps in sand box models. Reverse
normal ramps have only recently been recognized faults form over the ramp (Fig. 2). The present
(Wernicke and Burchfiel, 1982), the tapering forms study provides a quantitative picture of deforma-
of extensional wedges imply that normal ramps tion, stress, and structural evolution at a ramp by
may be as important here as thrust ramps in means of an analytical model. Analytical models
fold-and-thrust wedges. Wernicke and Burchfiel have been used to study deformation at a thrust

0040-1951/89/$03.50 0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

154
Normal Ramp
Thrust Ramp
1 ramp width 1
Id _ + -
_ * - *
Fig. 1. Ramps developed on both a thrust fault (thrust ramp)
and a normal fault (normal ramp). Rarely normal ramps may
occur on thrust faults and thrust ramps may occur on normal
faults.
ramp both when the thickness of the hanging wall
is much greater than the ramp width (Berger and
Johnson, 1980, 1982) and when it is much less
than the ramp width (Wiltschko, 1979a, b; 1981).
In these models, the footwall is rigid, and the
ramp has a smoothly curved shape. Our model
differs in two ways: (1) to address the footwall
deformation implied by the formation of struc-
tures such as duplexes at a foreword-stepping
thrust ramp, or chaos zones at a back-stepping
normal ramp, both the hanging wall and the
footwall can deform; and (2) the ramp has a more
realistic planar form. Like the models of Berger
and Johnson (1980,1982) and of Wiltschko (1979a,
b; 1981), our solution is approximate and is only
valid for a ramp of modest dip, no greater than 15
to 20”. Because both media are treated as half-
spaces, our model applies to the case where the
ramp width is less than the thickness of the overly-
20% EX’rE:NSIoN
Fig. 2. Sand-box model of deformation over a ramp in a
normal fau’ft (normal ramp), Thrust faults form over the ramp.
From McClay and Ellis (1987).
ing layer. It may also be applied to the study of a
ramp-like irregularity in the shape of a fault of
any orientation.
The model
To qu~titatively model tectonic structures, one
must generally adopt relatively simple models to
obtain tractable boundary-value problems. In ad-
dition, to obtain physical insight, the behavior of
these simple models must be understood before
passing to more complex models which may fit
certain features of the observed structures.
Berger and Johnson (1980) formulated a simple
mechanical model for the deformation and struc-
tural evolution caused by sliding over a thrust
ramp. In their model, a linear viscous, incom-
pressible half-space slides on a frictionless surface
above a rigid footwall. The sliding surface has the
form of a smoothly-curving thrust ramp joining
two adjacent flats. The maximum slope of the
thrust ramp is 15 to 20 O. Because the hanging wall
is a half space, the results apply only to the case
where the hanging-wall thickness is greater than
the ramp width. By chasing both a linear viscous
rheology and a low ramp slope, an adequate solu-
tion for the deformation is obtained by superpos-
ing the linearly independent solutions for the
Fourier components in the shape of the sliding
surface. This is the same standard technique used
by Sanford (1959) to obtain stress distributions in
an elasticity deforming rock mass subject to a
complicated distribution of basal displacements.
In our model, the rigid footwall of Berger and
Johnson is replaced by a deformable viscous half
space. The sliding surface itself then becomes de-
formable. Generally, the viscosity of the footwall
will differ from that of the hanging wall. Defor-
mation is due solely to sliding past the ramp, and
any regional shortening or extension is ignored. A
regional deformation could be included provided
it were the same in both the hanging wall and the
footwall.
The weak sliding surface will be treated in the
limiting case as frictionless. The sliding surface,
which forms the interface between the two media,
is cylindrical with generator normal to the direc-
tion of slip. Deformation is therefore plane. The
 155

separated by long flats (Fig. 4a). Although there is

a-L-
Fig. 3. Local coordinates n, normal
sinusoidal sliding surface.
height of the sliding surface above its mean plane,
z = 0, is
z = C(.% f)
Let n and s denote coordinates locally normal
and tangent to the sliding surface (Fig. 3). At the
sliding surface, both normal and shear stresses are
continuous, and, because the fault is frictionless,
the latter vanishes:
Q”,(X, 0 = a;,(% 5)
fl,,(& S) = e,l,(x, l) = 0
where a prime denotes a quantity in the lower
medium. At the scale of interest, the two media
rn~nt~n perfect contact during sliding. This re-
quirement is satisfied if the normal component of
the velocity is continuous:
u,(x, r> = u;(x, S)
Form of the sliding surface
The sliding surface of chief interest is an alter-
nating series of normal ramps and thrust ramps,
a weak, large-scale flow away from thrust ramps
and toward normal ramps, because the width of a
ramp, w, is much less than the width of a flat,
L/2 - w, the ramps are effectively isolated struc-
to, and s tangent to a
tures. Because the sliding surface contains both
normal ramps and thrust ramps, it allows for
comparison of the two. An alternate form (Fig.
4b), consisting solely of normal ramps separated
by long, very gently sloping “flats”, also was
treated and was found to give the same local
(1) deformation at a ramp.
The analysis is valid only for ramps of modest
slope, up to 20 O, and is carried out to first-order
in ramp slope. To this degree of appro~mation,
the flow for an arbitrary sliding surface configura-
tion is the sum of the flows for the Fourier com-
(2) ponents in that configuration. Consequently, much
physical insight is provided by the elementary
solution for a sinusoidal sliding surface.
Analysis
With the modifi~tions noted above, our analy-
sis follows that of Berger and Johnson (1980).
Further details on this kind of first-order analysis
(3) are given in Fletcher (1977). We use the conven-
tion that a positive stress is tensile and a negative
stress is compressive. Pressure, the mean compres-
sive stress, is the opposite of the mean stress.
Consider a basic state, in which the sliding
surface is perfectly plane. Two half-spaces slide

N_oormalRamp

Fig. 4. a. Portion of the sliding surface, I(x). The sliding surface comprises a periodic array (wavelength L) of short thrust and
normal ramps separated by long flats. Ramp width = W, ramp height = 2h, and flat length = L/2 - W. In our calculations
(t/2 - w)/w = 20. Direction of slip is as indicated by arrows. b. Alternate sliding surface containing only one kind of ramp.
156

past each other with no internal deformation. Here, The quantities (7) and (8) die off away from the
we specify velocities relative to the lower medium. sliding surface, as required.
The velocity components are: Expansion of boundary conditions (2) and (3)
to first-order in the slope (Fletcher, 1977), where,
is, = V
from (6):
u: = 0 (4)
al/ax = - (XA) sin( Ax) (9)
u, = 6; = 0
yields:
where the bars denote the basic state, and a prime
denotes a quantity in the lower medium. The &(x, 0) =4:(x, 0)
stresses in the basic state are: &(x, 0) = C?iz(x, 0) = 0 (10)
u,(x, 0) + V(U) sin(Ax) = u:(x, 0)
a,, = CY;:,= CYz;
= i?,, (5)

a,, = Ciz = 0 Substitution of the expressions (7) and (8) into

(10) leads to four algebraic equations in the arbi-
The vertical gradient in lithostatic stress (pgh) is
trary constants whose solutions are:
ignored.
Now let the sliding surface be altered to a a = b = - VAXq’/( TJ+ 7’) (11)
sinusoidal shape: c= -d= VAh~/(q+q’)
C(x) =A cos(Xx) (6)
with amplitude A and wavelength L = 2a/X. The Periodic array of ramps
velocity and stress components (4) and (5) no
longer satisfy boundary conditions (2) and (3) We obtain the results for a single ramp from
applied to this surface. the solution for a periodic array of short ramps
In order to satisfy boundary conditions (2) and separated by long flats (Fig. 4a). If the ratio of
(3) to the desired order of approximation, we add ramp width to flat length is small, the interference
a perturbing flow. A suitable form for the compo- between ramps is negligible.
nents of velocity and stress, which satisfy the The periodic array in Fig. 4a is represented by
equations governing the flow of a linear viscous the finite series:
fluid (Fletcher, 1977) is, for the upper half-space N

lx= c YJk4Akx) (12)

fiz = [a + b( Xz)] eeXZ sin( Xx)
k=l
i&= -[a+b(Xz-l)] eCX’cos(Xx)
where:
6X,,= 29A [a + b( AZ - l)] e-x’ cos( Ax) (7) yk = {sin([2k- l]a/2N)}/([2k - 1]~/2N)
&X,x= 27~X[a + b( AZ - 2)] eCX’ sin( Ax)
A,= -8/z-l) k sin[(2k - l)Aw/2]
gzz = -217X[a+~(Az)] eChz sin(Ax)
/[ wX7r(2k - l)‘]
and for the lower half-space:
h, = (2k - 1)A
Ci = [c + d( AZ)] ehr sin( hx) Here, L = 2~7/X is the repeat distance of the
5: = [c + d( Xz + l)] exz cos( hx) array.
u“:,=2n’X[c+d(Xz+l)] eX’cos(Xx) The value of N determines the shape of the
(8)
-l sliding surface. For N = 10, the ramp shape is
u = -217’X[c+d(Xz+2)] e”‘sin(Xx)
broadly rounded; for N = 100, the comers are
67=2n’A[c+d(Xz)] exz sin( Ax) rather sharp; in the limit N + cc, the comers are
perfectly sharp. In the Fourier series expansion of
where a, b, c, and d are arbitrary constants to be the limiting sharp-cornered form A, is the Fourier
fixed by application of the boundary conditions. coefficient. Because this form has discontinuities
 157

in slope, its truncated Fourier series is not well-be-

haved. The Gibbs’ factor, yk (Lanczos, 1961),
improves the convergence and differentiability
properties of the representation, and it allows us
to treat the case of a locally rounded, planar ramp
shape. Without the Gibbs’ factor we could treat
only smoothly curving ramps similar to that of
Berger and Johnson (1977).
We solve for the perturbing
periodic array of ramps by summing
flow from
the separate
the
A-B
Fig. 5. Streamlines from perturbing flow over a frictionless,
flows from its components, where the stresses, rigid, sinusoidal sliding surface. The basic flow is from left to
velocities, and coefficients for each component are right. The perturbing flow is upward over stoss slopes and
obtained by replacing A by A,, A by A,, and a, downward over lee slopes. Vertical streamlines occur over the
inflection points of the sinusoidal sliding surface. To the order
b, c, and d by ak, b,, ck, and d, in (7), (8), and
of the approximation used the portion of the slip surface
(11). shown below the diagram is the horizontal line AE.

Kinematics and structural development at a normal

ramp The perturbing streamlines form cells with upward
motion over stoss slopes and downward motion
Velocity field for a sinusoidal sliding surface over lee slopes (Fig. 5). The cells are separated by
vertical streamlines at the inflection points. The
Since flow at any low angle ramp is the sum of perturbing velocity at the sliding surface is vertical
the elementary flows at its Fourier components, and the vertical velocity component decays with
the study of a single component provides much height. The horizontal velocity component is zero
insight into ramp processes. The lee and stoss at the sliding surface, reaches a maximum at z =
slopes of the sinusoid are rough analogs to normal L/27, and then decays with height. The perturb-
and thrust ramps, respectively. Moreover, the more ing velocity adds to the basic velocity over crests,
complex behavior that occurs when the footwall and subtracts from it over troughs.
deforms is most easily understood in terms of the Streamlines for the total velocity field for a
sinusoidal sliding surface. sliding surface with maximum slope of about 7O
The velocity field is graphically represented by (A/L = 0.02) are shown in Fig. 6. The basal
plotting streamlines, which are contours of the streamline coincides with the sliding surface. Be-
stream function #(x, z), where: cause they are fixed in the reference frame, the
streamlines are paths along which particles con-
u, = aq/az 03) tinue to move.
vZ= -aq/ax Now consider those modifications which occur
when both media are deformable. At symmetri-
The velocity vector is tangent to the streamline,
and its magnitude is inversely proportional to the
streamline spacing for a fixed contour interval.
First consider the case of a rigid footwall. The
stream function for the basic flow is:

I//= -vz (14)

and streamlines are horizontal and uniformly
spaced. The stream function for the perturbing
flow is:
Fig. 6. Streamlines from the total (basic + perturbing) flow over
4 = VA( XL + 1) e-&’ cos( Xx) (15) a frictionless, rigid, sinusoidal sliding surface.
158

equation for evolution of the sliding surface shape

(Fletcher, 1977):

al/at = &;(x, s> - I&(x, S>(X/iM 06)

is common to both surfaces, since the continuity
of the normal velocity component, (3) implies
that the right-hand sides evaluated separately for
the two surfaces are equal. We replace the expres-
sion (6) by one in which an arbitrary phase angle,
+, is inserted:
{=A cos(Xx-+) (17)
Substituting into (16), the velocity components in
either the upper or lower medium, (7) or (8)
making use of (11) together with (17) and
evaluating to first-order in AA, yields:
Fig. 7. Streamlines from the perturbing flow resulting from
sliding between two deformable media on a frictionless dA/dt=O (I8a)
sinusoidal interface. Sense of shear is right lateral. To the order
and :
of the approximation used the portion of the slip surface
shown below the diagram is the central horizontal line AB. The dWdt=XVh/(v+d)l (18b)
footwall viscosity (7’) is twice the hanging-wall viscosity (n).
The amplitude of the sliding surface therefore
Perturbing flow is away from stoss slopes and toward lee
slopes. Vertical streamlines occur at the inflection points of the
remains constant, but the surface translates rela-
sinusoidal sliding surface. tive to the footwall at a velocity:

K= [17/(77-tV’)l~ (19)
Since the sliding surface shape is constant, it is
tally equivalent points, the perturbing streamlines convenient to use it, rather than the footwall, as a
in the lower medium (Fig. 7) have a form that is reference frame. The sliding surface then appears
complementary to those in the upper medium. In fixed and each medium moves relative to it.
this example, the viscosity of the footwall is twice Streamlines are stationary with respect to this
that of the hanging wall, and the magnitude of the
perturbing velocity in the lower medium is one-half
(TJ/TJ’) that in the upper medium. For a fixed rate
of sliding, I’, the perturbing velocity in the upper
medium scales with n’/(q + 7’) and is therefore
less here than in the case of a rigid footwall.
It is useful here to consider two reference
frames. In the first, the mean velocity of the
footwall is zero. Since the footwall deforms, the
sliding surface also deforms, and the streamlines
in Fig. 7 are not stationary relative to the footwall.
In this case, the perturbing streamline field moves I- i
lJ’=ZTl
in harmony with the sliding surface. We first show
that the locus of particles on the sliding surface, Fig 8. Streamlines from the total (basic+perturbing) flow
[(x, t), translates at a uniform velocity, but does resulting from sliding between two deformable media on a
stationary frictionless sinusoidal interface. Because the inter-
not change its shape.
face is stationary with respect to the reference frame, the
The sliding surface is the common locus of the
hanging wall and the footwall each has a mean velocity and a
surfaces bounding the upper and lower half-spaces. basic flow component. Footwall viscosity (n’) is twice the
While these surfaces slide past each other, the hanging-wall viscosity (n).
 159

shown in Fig. 10. For this example, the ratio

between the ramp width and the flat width is
w/D = 0.05, 7’ = 2~, and N = 100. As in the case
of a sinusoidal sliding surface, the large scale flow
converges towards the normal ramp, on the right,
and diverges from the thrust ramp, on the left.
The streamline patterns are symmetrical across the
Fig. 9. Deformed grid illustrating the small increment of sliding surface, but the velocity magnitude in the
hanging-wall distortion caused by a small increment of dis- footwall is one-half that in the hanging wall. The
placement on a sinusoidal slip surface. The undeformed square large-scale perturbing flow between ramps, which
grid is not shown. The same small increment of displacement
results from the alternation of normal and thrust
causes an increment of distortion in the footwall that is scaled
by the viscosity ratio (n/n’) and reflected across the interface.
ramps, has negligible effect on the local deforma-
tion at the ramp, represented by the convergent
pattern of streamlines shown in Fig. 11. A series
coordinate system and particles move along them of normal ramps separated by gently rising “flats”
(Fig. 8). The hanging wall translates at V[ n’/( n + (Fig. 4b) has a different pattern of large-scale
n’)] to the right, and the footwall translates at flow, but the same local deformation.
- V[r,/(q + n’)] to the left. Because the rate of translation of a sinusoidal
perturbation is independent of wavelength (19), all
Deform~ti5n at a sinusoidal sliding surface

The deformation of an initially square grid,

after a small increment of sliding, is shown for a
portion of the hanging wail (Fig. 9). Strain and
rotation arise solely from the perturbing flow, and
the increment of horizontal translation is not
shown. The deformation of the lower medium is
given by the mirror image of the grid in Fig. 9, but
the magnitude is scaled by the reciprocal of the
viscosity. The center half shows the deformation
on the lee side of a sinusoidal sliding surface,
analogous to the normal ramp. Material extends
vertically and shortens horizontally at the inflec-
tion point, both above and below the sliding
surface. Elements at the frictionless sliding surface
rotate, but do not strain. Although it is difficult to
see in the figure, the strain rate is maximum at
z = L/2a, and decays with height above that. 11'
The grid shows the local deformation of an
element as it translates relative to the sliding
surface. An element deforms periodically, and after 11’=2q

a wavelength of translation, its net defo~ation is Fig. 10. Streamlines from the perturbing flow caused by sliding
zero. between two deformable media on the frictionless interface of
Fig. 1. The number of terms in the series summation (N ) = 100.
The sense of shear from the basic flow (not shown) is right
Velocity field and deformation for a normal ramp
lateral. Footwall viscosity (n’) is twice the hanging-wall viscos-
ity (7). Perturbing flow is away from thrust ramps and toward
The perturbing streamlines for a sliding surface normal ramps. Vertical streamlines occur at the mid points of
with alternating thrust and normal ramps are ramps.
160

Fig. 13. Deformed grid illustrating the small increment of

hanging-wall distortion caused by a small increment of dis-
placement on a normal ramp. The undeformed square grid is
not shown. The same small increment of displacement causes
an increment of distortion in the footwall that is scaled by the
Fig. 11. Streamlines from the perturbing flow in the hanging
viscosity ratio (f/q’) and reflected across the interface. N =
wall over a normal ramp. The basic flow (not shown) is to the
100.
right. To the order of the approximation used, the bottom
horizontal line AB is the portion of the slip surface shown
below the diagram.
flow (Fig. 11). Flow is fastest on the convex sides
of ramp-flat corners and slowest on the concave
of the sinusoidal components that compromise the sides of corners.
periodic array translate at the same velocity, After a small increment of sliding above the
without changing amplitude, and therefore so does normal ramp, an initially square grid deforms as
the ramp form. Thus we can show the total veloc- shown in Fig. 13. The correspondence of this to
ity field, in the convenient stationary-ramp refer- the deformed grid shown in Fig. 9 is apparent.
ence frame (Fig. 12). The velocities in the two The deformation of the lower medium is given by
media increase on the approach to a normal ramp, the mirror image of this grid, but the magnitude is
decrease over the ramp, and increase again after scaled by the reciprocal of the viscosity. Above
exiting the ramp, corresponding to the perturbing and below a normal ramp, material stretches verti-
cally and shortens horizontally. In the hanging
wall, elements on the right margin of the ramp
undergo positive shear while elements on the left
margin undergo negative shear. The deformation
diffuses laterally and decreases in intensity with
increasing height above the ramp.
If the same pattern of deformation is imagined
to take place in brittle materials, thrust faults
might accommodate the horizontal shortening, as
I I seen in the sand-box model (Fig. 2). In this model,
the normal faulting to the left of the ramp would
be attributed to “regional” extension. The normal
faulting to the right of the ramp may be associated
with the effect of the right-hand boundary of the
model. At a thrust ramp, normal faults would
ll’=Zl-
accommodate the horizontal extension associated
Fig. 12. Streamlines from the total (basic+perturbing) flow with sliding.
caused by sliding between two deformable media on a sta-
The instantaneous state of flow at a sharp-
tionary normal ramp. Because the interface is stationary with
cornered, planar, normal ramp is equivalent to the
respect to the reference frame, the hanging wall and the
footwall each have a mean velocity and a basic flow compo- flow in a medium above a block of rigid basement
nent. Footwall viscosity (q’) is twice the hanging-wall viscosity that is descending between two vertical fault
(a). surfaces to form a graben. This is suggested im-
 161

mediately by the deformation increment shown in The same kind of equivalence applies to a
Fig. 13. The equivalence requires that the contact thrust ramp, but in this case the rigid basement
between the deformable upper medium and the block rises as a horst to deform the hanging wall.
rigid basement be frictionless. In both cases, the Displacement past a normal ramp causes local
continuity of the normal velocity is equivalent, omission of section and forms two passive folds, a
within the accuracy of the analysis, to the applica- hanging-wall syncline and a footwall anticline (Fig.
tion of a uniform vertical velocity along a strip at 14a). The folds grow in inverse proportion to the
the base of the medium. The strip is bounded by viscosity ratio. As noted by Berger and Johnson
the ramp comers, in one case, and by the vertical (1982), these folds are nearly symmetric in the
faults, in the other. The local rounding of the case of a frictionless sliding surface. A hanging-
ramp comers is equivalent to replacing the faults wall syncline is seen in the sand-box model shown
that bound the basement block by narrow shear in Fig. 2.
zones. Because horizontal shortening is zero on the
Below a normal ramp, a deformable footwall is fault but reaches a maximum in the cores of both
subject to a uniformly upward vertical velocity, folds, initially vertical planes warp in a way that
and the velocity field in this medium is the mirror could be interpreted in terms of fault drag. At a
image of that in the hanging wall. The magnitudes normal ramp, the sense of drag is normal on the
of the vertical velocities applied to each medium back-limbs of the folds, and reverse on the front
equal the respective velocities of translation, in the limbs.
stationary sliding surface reference frame, times Motion on the thrust ramp duplicates section
the ramp slope. Having noted this, it is sufficient to form a familiar hanging-wall anticline (Rich,
to keep in mind the equivalence in the deforma- 1934), and a footwall syncline (Fig. 14b). Material
tion of the upper medium alone. extends horizontally at the ramp, as is well seen in
This equivalence applies to the state of stress in the deformed grid shown in Fig. 14b. Surprisingly,
the deformable medium, and, excluding transla- then, horizontal extension occurs in the cores of
tions, to the instantaneous velocity fields, but it these folds. Joints, veins, and normal faults which
does not extend to finite deformations. In the strike perpendicular to the direction of motion
graben case, the material stays above the down- have been observed in thrust sheets (Kilsdonk and
dropping block, while, in the ramp case, it trans- Wiltschko, 1988), and in experimental models of
lates past the strip of vertical velocity. Thus differ- thrust ramps (Chester et al., in press). Initially
ent patterns of finite deformation arise. vertical planes show normal drag on the front

Fig. 14. Deformation after 1.5 ramp widths of right lateral fault displacement for: (a) a normal ramp, (b) a thrust ramp. Footwall
viscosity (q’) is twice the hanging-wall viscosity (q). N = 100.
162

limbs of the folds, but reverse-drag on the back- petted, the ratio of strain rate in the hanging wall
limbs. Although this drag might not be seen in to that in the footwall is inversely proportional to
bedded rocks, it could be seen in ramp-like fea- the viscosity ratio, q’/n. If the hanging wall and
tures on a fault cutting a foliated or gneissic rock the footwall are of equal viscosity, the strain rate
at a large angle to its planar fabric. in each is half that of a hanging wall sliding over a
rigid footwall at the same velocity.
Model strain rates The maximum shear strain rate for sliding over
isolated ramps whose shapes have variable
In the case of the sinusoidal sliding surface, amounts of rounding may be read off of Fig. 15,
strain rates scale with the product (Al/)( h.4). This which shows contours of maximum shearing stress
can be seen by generating a component of the in units of a characteristic stress u*. The corre-
strain-rate tensor from the velocity components sponding values of the contour units are, for the
(7) or (8) and substituting for the constants from hanging wall, C* = a*/217 = 0.19[9’/($ +
(11). Obtained in this way, the maximum shear n)](hV/w2) and for the footwall c*‘=u*/~v’=
strain rate in the hanging wall above a sinusoidal 0.19[ 71/( 9’ + n)]( h V/w 2), respectively. The
sliding surface is: numerical factor depends on the ratio of the ramp
( 1*y2 = [et,+<:,I 1’2 width, w, to the repeat distance of the ramp
profile, L; in the present case w/L = l/42. The
= (ww)h’/(71’+ 41
product hV/w2 has the dimensions of a strain
XKW exd-WI (20) rate. It may be convenient to identify 2/z/w as the
Notice that in this case the maximum shear strain slope of the ramp.
rate is a function only of height above the plane To estimate the magnitude of the strain rate
z = 0. The final factor takes a maximum value of associated with sliding across a ramp, we suppose
l/e at Xz = 1, or z = 1/2m. As would be ex- the hanging vall is weaker than the footwall and

/ / -- \ \\
/
I
-
\
\

0/\ - /\
\
\D- / \ /
I /

\ - /

Fig. 15. Contours of normalized deviatoric stress (G/e *) and-for (a) and (c)-maximum compressive stress directions (short
lines) in both the hanging wall and the footwall of a normal ramp. To the order of the approximation used, the central horizontal line
AB is the portion of the slip surface shown below each contour diagram. Ramp shapes are as shown: (a) N = 10, (b) N = 32, (c)
N = 100. In (c). four extreme values of fi = 200 * lie within the J”; = 100 * contours, just over and under the flat-ramp corners.
The sense of shear is right lateral as shown. The contours also represent values of normalized strain rate, c/r * in the hanging wall
and c’/z*’ in the footwall. The strain rate contour units are E* = e*/2n in the hanging wall and c*’ = c*/2q’ in the footwall.
With the ramp dip direction reversed the ramp is a thrust ramp. The contour values are the same for a thrust ramp, but the principal
compressive stress directions are normal to the short lines shown here.
 163

seek to estimate 6 *. The maximum value of the rocks undergo deformation as the basal detach-
viscosity term is unity. Consider geometrically ment propagates forward and a new frontal ramp
similar ramps with a slope of 20 O, so that h/w = forms. In this case, the analogy with the continu-
0.182. This is approximately equal to the angle of ous translation of the sliding surface in the present
the Pine Mountain thrust ramp (Wiltschko, 1979a). model is convincing.
The value of e* then depends on the ratio of the
sliding to the ramp width, V/w. Now, if the Stress distribution, stress concentrations, and likely
sliding velocity were held fixed, the strain rate fracture patterns
could be increased to large values simply by de-
creasing the width of the ramp. More realistically, Stress distribution
the absolute size of the ramp might typically scale
with the length or area of the fault, and with the Contour plots of the mean compressive stress
sliding velocity. Then, V/w would be independent (Fig. 16) and the maximum shear stress (Fig. 15)
of the absolute scale of the ramp. Choosing, arbi- with the orientation of the maximum principal
trarily, a sliding velocity of 1 cm/yr, and a width stress (Fig. 15), illustrate the stress distribution.
of 1 km, V/w = 3 X lOpi3 SK’. Combining values, Tensile stress is taken as positive. Both in the
f* z 10-14 s-1,
hanging wall and in the footwall, stress magni-
Since regional strain rates might lie in the range tudes scale linearly with (I *, where:
of lo-l5 s-’ to lo-i4 ss’, the strain rates due
solely to sliding at a ramp might be typically of
(I * = 0.38[ hV,‘w*] [TJ~‘/(TJ + q’)] (21)
the same order, and in some cases, larger. The Again, the numerical constant depends, in part, on
observation of extensional features in rocks which the choice of w/L. Clearly, u* = 2qe* = 217/c*‘.
travelled over a thrust ramp, alluded to above, Stress magnitudes in the footwall are equal to
suggests that in some cases the deformation asso- those in the hanging wall, as indicated by the
ciated with travel across ramp locally dominates equality both of the characteristic stress in the two
over the regional deformation. media and of the contours in Figs. 14, 15, and 16.
Stress magnitudes are symmetrical across the slid-
Footwall deformation ing surface, regardless of the viscosity ratio. More-
over, the stress distribution in the footwall is a
Both Gibbs (1984) and Wernicke and Burchfiel mirror image, across the mean sliding surface, of
(1982) infer extensional duplexes and chaos zones that in the hanging wall. This symmetry holds to
below low-angle normal faults. In both structures, the accuracy of the approximation. To this degree
the active fault plane migrates in the direction of of accuracy, perturbing quantities on the sliding
hanging-wall displacement. The migration takes surface are equal to their values on the mean
place by failure of hanging-wall rock and accre- plane, z = 0, and in the figures the sliding surface
tion of the failed rock onto the footwall. In con- is drawn as a plane. This consequence of the
trast to our model, this kind of fault migration is approximation must be bourne in mind in apply-
not continuous and occurs by addition to, rather ing the model results to interpret field observa-
than deformation of, the footwall. However, it tions.
seems plausible that this process is the analog, in The stress distribution near a planar ramp has
brittle rocks, of the continuous ramp translation broad-scale features, at the scale of the ramp
in the model. width, and small-scale features, which depend sen-
This poorly-characterized process in the exten- sitively on the sharpness of the ramp corners and
sional regime may be compared with the observa- represent the stress concentrations there. The latter
tionally well-characterized process of duplex for- depend on the ratio of the smallest wavelength in
mation in thrust terranes. It clearly involves the the series expansion, L,, to the ramp width, w,
forward jumping of the active flat-ramp-flat slid- L,/w = (L/w)(2N - l), where, for the present
ing surface. Moreover, it is clear that the footwall model, L/w = 42. For N = 10, 32, and 100, for
 A_! A A
(I B B c B
Fig. 16. Contours of normalized pressure (normalized mean compressive stress = -It/o * ) in both the hanging wall and the footwall
of a normal ramp. To the order of the approximation used, the central horizontal line AB is the portion of the slip surface shown
below each contour diagram. Ramp shapes are as shown; (a) N = 10, (b) N = 32, (c) N = 100. In (c), two extreme values of
-I, P - 400 * lie on the slip surface, within the - Jt = - 200 * contours. The sense of shear is right lateral. With the ramp dip
direction reversed such that it is a thrust ramp the diagrams are contour plots of normalized mean stress (1,/o * ) near a thrust ramp.

which the stress dist~bution is shown in each
figure, L,/w = 2.2, 0.67, and 0.21, respectively.
As the corners are sharpened, the broader-scale
contours are modified only slightly, while higher
contours appear at the comers, representing the
stress concentrations there. The stress concentra-
tions increase as the comers sharpen, and a rough
estimate of the effect may be obtained by compar-
ing the maximum contour value with the inverse
measure of sharpness, L,/w. The product of these
is about equal, impl~ng a linear relations~p. Per-
fectly sharp comers imply stress singularities, no
matter how low the ramp angle. In actual exam-
ples, other mechanisms of deformation such as
brittle fracture, will occur at sharp corners, bound-
ing the value of the stress concentrations and
effectively smoothing the comers.
Stress magnitudes depend on the viscosities
through the factor [qn’/(n + $)I. If the footwall
viscosity is twice that of the hanging wall, and the
latter is n = 1020 Pa s, the unit of the stress
contour, for E* = lo-r4 s-l, is 2 MPa. Although
not shown by contours, the maximum stresses
obtained in the model are 20 times (deviatoric
stress, Fig. 1%) and 40 times (pressure or negative
mean stress, Fig. 16~) this amount. Thus, with
these assumptions, a normal ramp with locally
rounded corners may reduce the mean regional
compressive stress (pressure) by over 80 MPa and
raise the maximum deviatoric stress by over 40
MPa.
Although the value of the differential stress is
the same at a thrust ramp as at a normal ramp, the
maximum pressure reduction is only about half as
large and differs in location. While near a normal
ramp the pressure is reduced directly over, and
under, the ramp, near a thrust ramp the pressure
is reduced over, and under, the adjacent parts of
the flats.
Because the sliding surface cannot support a
tensile stress, the normal stress on the sliding
surface, which is the sum of basic-state and per-
turbing values, u~,,(x, h) = Cz, + I?~,,, must be
negative (compressive). In the model, the devia-
toric stress vanishes at the sliding surface, so that
the normal stress on the fault is equal to the mean
stress. For no separation, the magnitude of the
compressive vertical stress must exceed the maxi-
mum, tensile, mean stress (~nimum pressure).
The pressure is reduced at a normal ramp and
enhanced on the adjacent parts of the flats (Fig.
16). The opposite relation holds at a thrust ramp.
In both cases the pressure changes signs at the
flat-ramp corners. In addition to the ramp-scale

pressure distribution, strong local pressure con-
centrations arise as the comers become sharp (Fig.
16). Necessarily, the same sign changes are seen in
these.
The same kind of ramp-scale and near comer
features occur in the ma~mum shearing stress
(Fig. 15). The ramp-scale maximum lies near the
center of the ramp, but if the comers are sharp
enough, this single maximum is replaced by max-
ima near the comers. The magnitude of the devia-
toric stress is the same for both normal and thrust
ramps.
The greatest (least compressive) and least (most
compressive) principal stress directions switch be-
tween normal and thrust ramps. In the perturbing
flow, material is pushed away from a thrust ramp
in all directions in the plane of flow, and the
maximum compressive stress directions form a
radial pattern. At a normal ramp they form a
concentric pattern. The local pattern near sharp
corners causes deviations from this ramp-scale
pattern.
Faulting and tensile fracture
As is commonly done (Hafner, 1951; Sanford,
1959), the stress distribution from a simple elastic
Fig. 17. Contours of normalized maximum tensile stress near a normal
maximum compressive stress near a thrust ramp).
horizontal line AB is the portion of the slip surface
165
or viscous model may be interpreted in terms of
brittle fracture. Regions of high stress in the model
are likely to experience fracture enhancement in
an actual example, and the orientations and mag-
nitudes of the principal stresses in the model may
be used to estimate the o~entation and nature of
shear or extension fractures. This procedure is
only quantitatively accurate in estimating initial
yield. As the regions of brittle fracture grow to a
significant fraction of the ramp scale, the viscous
solution will no longer give a good approximation
to the stress distribution.
Tensile fracture will occur in regions of maxi-
mum (tensile) stress, provided the pore pressure is
large enough. Maximum stress is contoured near
two normal ramps of different shapes in Fig. 17.
These plots also represent the ~~rnurn stress
near thrust ramps of the same shape. Fracture
orientations would parallel the minimum stress
directions. Regardless of the ramp shape, the max-
imum tensile stress always lies on the sliding
surface, If, then, the only stresses are due to slip
past a ramp, and if the rock everywhere resists
fracture at least as well as the fault resists sep-
aration, then no extension fractures will form. But
if a stress field resulting from a regional extension
ramp (or, if the ramp dip direction is reversed, normalized
Tensile stress is positive. To the order of the approximation used, the central
shown below each contour diagram. Ramp shapes are as shown; {a) n = 10, (b)
N=lOO.
166
is superposed, as might be expected at a normal
ramp, fracture will occur first where the maximum
stress direction is nearly horizontal.
A yield criterion for shear fracture can be writ-
ten:
&-~cos@=p sin@
where I- is the cohesion, Q, is the angle of internal
friction, and p is the opposite of the mean stress,
or the pressure. In terms of basic-state and per-
turbing quantities, with perturbing terms on the
left-hand side, the yield criterion is:
iz--p sintP=rcos@++ij sin@
If the region of interest is sufficiently small, the
gradient of lithostatic pressure (pgh) near the
ramp can be ignored, and the right-hand side is a
constant. This may be specified for a particular
example from the rock strength and the lithostatic
stress at the depth of the ramp. The value of the
left hand side, normalized by the characteristic
stress u* is contoured for a normal ramp in Fig.
18. For small values of u*, the left-hand side will
be less than the right-hand side and yield will not
occur. At some value of u* the yield condition
(23) will be met at the isolated maximum or
maxima of the left-hand side. As (T* increases
Fig. 18. Inferred shear fracture orientations
failure. To the order of the approximation
contour diagram. Ramp shapes are as shown;
values lie just inside of the flat-ramp comers,
shear fractures.
further, the left-hand side will exceed the right-
hand side in regions bounded by the contour
satisfying the yield condition (23). In reality, this
is impossible, and both the stress distribution and
flow consistent with the yield condition (22) will
differ from the estimate of the model in four
122)
ways: (1) Within the region undergoing brittle
deformation, the stresses will satisfy the yield con-
dition; (2) the principal directions will differ; (3)
the positions of the bounding surface of the yield-
ing region will be different; and (4) the stresses
outside the yielding region will also differ. The
premise of our inte~retation, and of previous
(23) workers, is that these differences may be relatively
modest, and that the method may still provide
reasonably accurate estimates of the yielded re-
gions and the orientations of faults.
Near a normal ramp deviatoric stress is high
and pressure is low, favoring localized generation
of shear fractures (Fig. 18). Because the stress field
is symmetrical across the fault, the faulting wiIl
occur in both the footwall and the hanging wall.
Fractures will first develop in regions just inside
of the ramp-flat corners, slightly above and below
the fault. In close agreement are the observations
by McClay and Ellis (1987) that all reverse faults
in their sand-box model nucleated at a fixed point
(short lines) near a normal ramp and contours of the l~elihood of focal Mob-Coulomb
used, the central horizontal line AB is the portion of the slip surface shown below each
(a) N = 10, (b) N = 100. The sense of shear is right lateral. In (b), the highest contour
both above and below the sliding surface, and contain the locations most apt to develop
In both (a) and (b), the first faults to form are thrusts.
 167

above the ramp’s upper hinge and that the earliest compressive stress) is reduced on flats adjacent to
fault was a reverse fault. The orientations of con- a thrust ramp, shear fractures will form there first.
jugate shear fractures, inferred from principal Thrust faults form in these locations. Normal
stress directions, are shown as line segments in faulting above and below a thrust ramp requires
Fig. 18. larger values of u * and will be suppressed by
At a normal ramp, thrust faults form first, at a regional compressive stress.
lower value of u* then do normal faults. How-
Summary and conclusions
ever, a superposed regional extension would both
shrink regions of thrust faulting and expand re- We modeled the deformation associated with
gions of normal faulting. A significantly large sliding across an isolated ramp, and emphasized
regional tension would suppress thrust faulting all the normal-ramp configuration. The model treats
together. By considering this interaction between both the footwall and the hanging wall as de-
the stresses associated with sliding across a ramp formable, linear-viscous media, and the weak fault
and the regional stress, it might be possible to is treated in the limiting case as a frictionless
estimate the relative values of the characteristic sliding surface. The ramp width is sufficiently
stress u* and the regional stress. However, it small relative to its burial depth that the presence
should be noted that our model assumes a linear of a free surface can be ignored.
stress to strain-rate relation, and only grossly In the model, the equality of stresses in the
estimates the consequences of brittle fracture. Ac- footwall with those in the hanging wall supports
curate treatments would necessitate numerical the notion of footwall deformation. The planar
modeling. shape of the ramp is more realistic than those
The left-hand side of (23) is contoured in Fig. treated in previous studies, and leads to strong
19 for a thrust ramp. Because pressure (mean concentrations of stress and deformation at the
ramp-flat corners.
Translation down a normal ramp causes verti-
cal elongation and horizontal shortening, con-
sistent with reverse faults produced in experimen-
tal models. Structures such as thrust faults or
sub-horizontal extension cracks or veins are ex-
pected in natural examples. Conversely, transla-
tion up a thrust ramp causes horizontal extension
and vertical shortening, suggesting normal faulting
and sub-vertical extension crack or veins over, and
under, the ramp. However, the stress field on the
flats flanking a thrust ramp suggest localized thrust
faulting there.
A hanging-wall syncline and a footwall anti-
cline form passively at a normal ramp. The
material in the cores of both folds is vertically
Fig. 19. Inferred shear fracture orientations near a thrust ramp
stretched and horizontally shortened. At a thrust
and contours of the Likelihood of iocal Mohr-Coulomb failure. ramp, the folds are a hanging-wall anticline and a
To the order of the approbation used, the central horizontal footwall syncline. The material in the cores of
line AB is the portion of the slip surface shown below the these folds is ho~zontally stretched and vertically
contour diagram. Ramp shape is as shown; iV = 32. The hori- shortened.
zontal line AB represents the portion of the sliding surface
Maximum stress magnitudes depend largely on
shown. The sense of shear is right lateral. The highest contour
values he just outside of the flat-ramp comers, both above and the sharpness of the ramp-flat corners. The stress
below the sliding surface, and contain the locations most apt to magnitude scales linearly with slip velocity and
develop shear fractures. The first faults to form are thrusts. the tangent of the ramp dip.
 At a normal ramp pressure is low and devia- Gibbs, A.D., 1984. Structural evolution of extensional basin
margins. J. Geol. Sot. London, 141: 609-620.
toric stress is high. Localized fracturing will occur
Halfner, W., 1951. Stress distributions and faulting. Geol. Sot.
first in the ramp region. Am. Bull.. 62: 373-398.
Deviatoric stress is high near a thrust ramp and Kilsdonk. B. and Wiltschko, D.V., 1988. Deformation mecha-
pressure is low at its adjacent flats, favoring local- nisms in the southeastern ramp region of the Pine Moun-
ized fracturing in the regions flan~ng the ramp. tain Block, Tennessee. Geol. Sot. Am. Bull., 100: 653-664.

In the footwall of either kind of ramp, the Knipe, 1985. Footwafl geometry and the rheology of thrusts. J.
Struct. Geol., 7: I-10.
stress field due to sliding is a mirror image of that
Lanczos, C., 1961. Applied Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood
in the hanging wall. Associated fracture patterns Cliffs, N.J.
should be similarly related. Martin, M.W. and Bartley, J.M., 1986. A ramp-flat listric
normal fault, and other normal fault geometries. Worthing-
Acknowledgements ton Mountains, Nevada. Geol. Sot. Am., Abstr. Progr..
99th Annu. Meet. Expo., Abstr. No. 101641,
McClay, K.R. and Ellis, P.G., 1987. Geometries of extensional
This work was supported by NSF grant EAR-
fault systems developed in model experiments. Geology,
8708326. We thank Richard Groshong, Jr., Mel 15: 341-344.
Friedman, and an anonymous reviewer for thier Rich, J.L., 1934. Mechanics of low-angle overthrust faulting as
helpful suggestions. illustrated by Cumbertand thrust block. Virginia, Kentucky,
and Tennessee. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 18: 1584-1596.
Sanford, A.R., 1959. Analytical and experimental study of
References
simple geologic structures. Bull. Geol. Sot. Am., 70: 19-52.
Tankard, A.J. and Welsink, H.J., 1987. Extensional tectonics
Berger, P. and Johnson, A.M., 1980. First order analysis of
and stratigraphy of Hibernia Gil Field, Grand Banks, New-
deformation of a thrust sheet moving over a ramp.
foundland. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 71: 1210-1232.
Tectonophysics, 70: T9-T24.
Wernicke, B. and Burchfiel, B.C., 1982. Modes of extensional
Berger, P. and Johnson, A.M., 1982. Folding of passive layers
tectonics. J. Struct. Geol., 4: 105-115.
and forms of minor structures near terminations of blind
Wiltschko, D.V., 1979a. A mechanical model for thrust sheet
thrust faults-applications to the central Appalachian blind
deformation at a ramp. J. Geophys. Res., 84: 1091-1104.
thrust. J. Struct. Geoi., 4: 343-353.
Wiitschko. D.V., 1979b. Partitioning of energy in a thrust sheet
Chester, J.S., Spang, J.H. and Logan, J.M., in press, Compari-
and implications concerning driving forces. J. Geophys.
son of thrust fault rock models to basement-cored folds in
Res.. 84: 6050-6058.
the Rocky Mountain Foreland. In: C.J. Schmidt and W.J.
Wiltschko, D.V.. 1981. Thrust-sheet deformation at a ramp:
Perry (Editors). Thrust Belt-Foreland Interation. Geol.
summary and extension of an earlier model. In: K.R.
Sot. Am., Spec. Pap.
McClay and N.J. Price (Editors), Thrust and Nappe
Fletcher, R.C.. 1977. Folding of a single viscous layer: exact
Tectonics. Geol. Sot. London, Spec. Publ., 9: 55-64.
infinitesimal-amplitude solution. Tectonophysics, 39:
593-606.