untitled
<OAI-PMH schemaLocation=http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd>
<responseDate>2018-01-15T18:19:01Z</responseDate>
<request identifier=oai:HAL:hal-01467165v1 verb=GetRecord metadataPrefix=oai_dc>http://api.archives-ouvertes.fr/oai/hal/</request>
<GetRecord>
<record>
<header>
<identifier>oai:HAL:hal-01467165v1</identifier>
<datestamp>2018-01-11</datestamp>
<setSpec>type:ART</setSpec>
<setSpec>subject:sdu</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:CNRS</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:UNIV-AG</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:GM</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:AGROPOLIS</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:INSU</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:B3ESTE</setSpec>
<setSpec>collection:UNIV-MONTPELLIER</setSpec>
</header>
<metadata><dc>
<publisher>HAL CCSD</publisher>
<title lang=en>Accuracy evaluation of both Wallace-Bott and BEM-based paleostress inversion methods</title>
<creator>LEJRI, Mostfa</creator>
<creator>Maerten, Frantz</creator>
<creator>Maerten, Laurent</creator>
<creator>SOLIVA, Roger</creator>
<contributor>Géosciences Montpellier ; Université des Antilles et de la Guyane (UAG) - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS) - Université de Montpellier (UM) - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)</contributor>
<contributor>Geologie des Reservoirs et Ressources ; Géosciences Montpellier ; Université des Antilles et de la Guyane (UAG) - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS) - Université de Montpellier (UM) - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) - Université des Antilles et de la Guyane (UAG) - Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS) - Université de Montpellier (UM) - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)</contributor>
<description>International audience</description>
<source>ISSN: 0040-1951</source>
<source>EISSN: 1879-3266</source>
<source>Tectonophysics</source>
<publisher>Elsevier</publisher>
<identifier>hal-01467165</identifier>
<identifier>https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467165</identifier>
<source>https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467165</source>
<source>Tectonophysics, Elsevier, 2017, 694, pp.130-145. 〈10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.039〉</source>
<identifier>DOI : 10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.039</identifier>
<relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.11.039</relation>
<language>en</language>
<subject lang=en>Stress inversion</subject>
<subject lang=en>Geomechanics</subject>
<subject lang=en>Wallace & Bott</subject>
<subject lang=en>Faults</subject>
<subject lang=en>Angular misfit</subject>
<subject lang=en>Friction</subject>
<subject>[SDU.STU.GP] Sciences of the Universe [physics]/Earth Sciences/Geophysics [physics.geo-ph]</subject>
<type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</type>
<type>Journal articles</type>
<description lang=en>Four decades after their introduction, the validity of fault slip inversion methods based on Wallace (1951) and Bott (1959) hypothesis, which states that the slip on each fault surface has the same direction and sense as the maximum resolved shear stress, is still a subject of debate. According to some authors, this hypothesis is questionable since fault mechanical interactions induce slip reorientations as confirmed by geomechanical models. This leads us to ask as to what extent the Wallace-Bott simplifications are reliable as a basis hypothesis for stress inversion from fault slip data. In this paper, we compare two inversion methods; the first is based on the Wallace-Bott hypothesis, and the second relies on geomechanics and mechanical effects on fault heterogeneous slip distribution. In that context, a multi-parametric stress inversion study covering (i) the friction coefficients (μ), (ii) the full range of Andersonian state of stress and (iii) slip data sampling along the faults is performed. For each tested parameter, the results of the mechanical stress inversion and the Wallace-Bott (WB) based stress inversion for slip are compared in order to understand their respective effects. The predicted discrepancy between the solutions of both stress inversion methods (based on WB and mechanics) will then be used to explain the stress inversions results for the chimney Rock case study. It is shown that a high solution discrepancy is not always correlated with the misfit angle (ω ) and can be found under specific configurations (View the MathML sourceR−, θ, μ, geometry) invalidating the WB solutions. We conclude that in most cases the mechanical stress inversion and the WB based stress inversion are both valid and complementary depending on the fault friction. Some exceptions (i.e. low fault friction, simple fault geometry and pure regimes) that may lead to wrong WB based stress inversion solutions are highlighted.</description>
<date>2017-01-02</date>
</dc>
</metadata>
</record>
</GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
