Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.

org on July 14, 2012

Geological Society of America Bulletin

Throughgoing fractures in layered carbonate rocks

Michael R. Gross and Yehuda Eyal

Geological Society of America Bulletin 2007;119, no. 11-12;1387-1404

doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(2007)119[1387:TFILCR]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

The Geological Society of America, Inc.

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Throughgoing fractures in layered carbonate rocks
Michael R. Gross*
Department of Earth Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199, USA
Yehuda Eyal
Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
ABSTRACT
Fracture surveys were conducted across
a broad anticline in southern Israel in order
to investigate the development and geom-
etries of throughgoing fractures in layered
carbonate rocks. At Halukim anticline,
throughgoing fractures form by the linkage
and coalescence of preexisting, bed-confined
joints. Thus the internal morphology of these
structures is highly segmented, often consist-
ing of vertically aligned zones of subparallel
fractures and bed partings linked together
across the stratigraphy. The large popula-
tion (n = 132) of throughgoing fractures rep-
resents a continuum of structures at various
stages of development that can be classified
into three main geometric categories corre-
sponding to increasing levels of brittle strain:
incipient, linked, and linked with aperture.
Despite the wide variety of internal mor-
phologies and geometries, the throughgoing
fractures display a consistent east-north-
eastwest-southwest orientation, parallel to a
set of bed-confined cross joints. The spatial
distribution of throughgoing fractures varies
as a function of structural position, the high-
est frequency and estimated strain intensity
being located at the fold crest. Results sug-
gest that throughgoing fractures develop
only after a critical level of strain is achieved,
as quantified by the density of bed-confined
joints. Throughgoing fractures are multi-
layer structures that may greatly enhance the
connectivity of a fracture network; therefore,
understanding their formation, geometry,
and distribution may contribute to efforts of
flow modeling in fractured carbonate rocks.
Keywords: fractures, fracture zones, brittle de-
formation, joints, connectivity, Israel.
*grossm@fiu.edu
eyal@bgu.ac.il
GSA Bulletin; November/December 2007; v. 119; no. 11/12; p. 13871404; doi: 10.1130B26049.1; 13 figures; 3 tables.
INTRODUCTION
Stratigraphic layering often provides a mechan-
ical anisotropy that controls the distribution and
geometry of fractures in sedimentary rocks. Bed
boundaries may inhibit fracture growth, resulting
in fracture tips residing at discrete stratigraphic
interfaces and elliptical rather than circular frac-
ture shapes (e.g., Bahat and Engelder, 1984; Hel-
geson and Aydin, 1991; Gross et al., 1995; Pas-
cal et al., 1997; Rijken and Cooke, 2001; Cooke
and Underwood, 2001; Hoffmann et al., 2004).
For the specific case of interbedded sedimentary
rocks of contrasting lithologies, there are two dis-
tinct groups of opening-mode fractures, based on
their relative dimensions: fractures confined to
individual beds (i.e., joints if unmineralized) and
fractures that span multiple beds, herein referred
to as throughgoing fractures. This combina-
tion results in a fracture architecture commonly
arranged in a multiscale hierarchy, with bed-con-
fined fractures nested within the larger through-
going fractures (Fig. 1) (Becker and Gross, 1996;
Cacas et al., 2001; Gillespie et al., 2001).
Throughgoing fractures range in geometry
from single fracture planes (Becker and Gross,
1996; Pascal et al., 1997; Shackleton et al.,
2005) to narrow zones of closely spaced, sub-
parallel fractures (Gillespie et al., 2001; Rogers
et al., 2004). Bahat (1988) introduced the term
multilayer joint to describe fractures that cut
across numerous beds. Helgeson and Aydin
(1991) defined a composite joint as an array
of vertically aligned but discontinuous joint seg-
ments that propagated in sequence across layer
boundaries. Becker and Gross (1996) used the
more general term throughgoing fractures to
describe a range of planar structures belonging
to the same population, including single multi-
layer joint planes, linked zones of closely spaced
joints, and multilayer joints and joint zones that
were subsequently reactivated to form faults.
Field evidence suggests that many through-
going fractures develop subsequent to the bed-
confined joints (Bahat, 1988; Becker and Gross,
1996; Shackleton et al., 2005). For thin- to
For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org
2007 Geological Society of America
medium-bedded rocks, where bed-confined
joints are closely spaced, throughgoing frac-
tures commonly form by the coalescence (i.e.,
linkage and preferential widening) of preexist-
ing joints (Finn et al., 2003). Throughgoing
fractures may be genetically related to, and
form concurrently with, a set of bed-confined
joints (Helgeson and Aydin, 1991; Becker and
Gross, 1996), or they may reflect an entirely
different phase of deformation (Gillespie et al.,
2001; Finn et al., 2003; Shackleton et al., 2005).
Thus the criteria we use to identify and classify
throughgoing fractures are based on their geom-
etry and kinematics. We prefer to use the more
general term throughgoing fracture to describe
these multilayer brittle structures, because
(1) they are composed not only of joints but
may also incorporate veins, bed partings, and
faults, and (2) they may have accrued shear dis-
placement due to subsequent reactivation.
Detailed structural analyses of throughgoing
fractures will lead to a better understanding of
fracture flow through layered rocks. Carbonate
rocks are especially worthy of attention because
an estimated 25% of the worlds groundwater
supply is derived from karst aquifers, many of
which are fractured (Ford and Williams, 1989).
To this end, the main objective of this study is to
provide a detailed and comprehensive analysis
of throughgoing fractures in layered carbonate
rocks. Specific objectives include the following.
(1) To describe the origin and development
of throughgoing fractures within the context of
multiphase brittle deformation. In this regard,
bed-confined joints and regional stress play
critical roles in controlling the internal structure
and orientation of throughgoing fractures.
(2) To provide a classification and morpho-
logic description of throughgoing fractures that
span the range of structural development, from
early incipient to advanced mature. Because
hydrologic properties of a throughgoing fracture
largely depend upon its geometry and dimen-
sions, such a classification may contribute to
modeling efforts of flow through fractured car-
bonate aquifers and reservoirs.
1387
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Fracture Architecture in Layered Rocks
Jointing
Unit
Faulting
Unit
Unfractured
Unit
Throughgoing
(Multilayer)
Fault Zone
(3) To evaluate the spatial distribution of
throughgoing fractures with respect to their
structural position across a regional fold.
TECTONIC SETTING
Halukim anticline is part of the Syrian Arc fold
belt, a system of folds that extends from northern
Sinai through Israel and across the Dead Sea
transform into Syria (Fig. 2A) (Krenkel, 1924;
Bentor and Vroman, 1954; Freund, 1965; Gar-
funkel and Bartov, 1977; Bosworth et al., 1999).
In southern Israel, the asymmetric folds assume
a monoclinal geometry with generally north-
east-southwesttrending axes, steeply dipping to
slightly overturned southeast limbs, and shallow
to moderately dipping northwest limbs (Figs. 2B,
2C) (Bentor and Vroman, 1954; Bruner, 1991;
Druckman et al., 1995; Shamir and Eyal, 1995).
Drilling and seismic surveys reveal high-angle
reverse faults beneath many of the folds exposed
on the surface (Grader, 1957; Mimran, 1976;
Druckman et al., 1995). Growth strata in hanging
walls suggest that these faults initiated as normal
faults during TriassicJurassic extension, and
were subsequently reactivated in reverse motion
(i.e., structurally inverted) in response to regional
compression that accompanied Syrian Arc fold-
ing between the Late Cretaceous and Miocene
(Freund et al., 1975; Eyal and Reches, 1983;
Bruner, 1991; Druckman et al., 1995).
The ~1000-km-long Dead Sea transform,
~55 km east of the study area (Fig. 2B),
has accommodated ~105 km of left-lateral
1388 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007
Gross and Eyal
Throughgoing
(Multilayer) Throughgoing
Fault Zone (Multilayer)
Fracture Zone
Systematic Joints Cross Joints
Throughgoing Confined
(Multilayer) (Single layer)
Fracture Zone Joints
movement between the Israel-Sinai subplate
(part of the African plate) and the Arabian plate
since the middle Miocene (Quennell, 1959;
Freund et al., 1968; Garfunkel, 1981; Wdowin-
ski et al., 2004). Structural analysis provides evi-
dence for two distinct stress regimes in southern
Israel since the Late Cretaceous: an early phase
(Late CretaceousMiocene) dominated by west-
northwesteast-southeasttrending maximum
horizontal compressive stress (SHMAX) referred
to as the Syrian Arc stress field , and a late phase
(MioceneHolocene) corresponding to the Dead
Sea stress field dominated by an SHMAX trend-
ing north-northwestsouth-southeast (Fig. 2A)
(Eyal and Reches, 1983; Eyal, 1996). The inten-
sity of tectonic deformation in southern Israel
has resulted in pervasive brittle deformation
throughout the region, as manifested on the out-
crop scale by multiple sets of joints (e.g., Reches,
1976; Bahat, 1987; Bahat and Grossmann, 1988;
Becker and Gross, 1996; Eyal et al., 2001) and
faults (e.g., Eyal and Reches, 1983; Eyal, 1996;
Katz et al., 2003; Sagy et al., 2003).
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The four roadcuts at Halukim anticline ame-
nable for fracture analysis, labeled AD in Fig-
ure 3, are through carbonate rocks of the Upper
Nezer Formation of late Turonian (Cretaceous)
age (Arkin and Braun, 1965; Zur et al., 1996;
Buchbinder et al., 2000). The dominantly thin-
to medium-bedded (~180 cm) limestones are
interlayered with occasional marlstones ranging
Figure 1. General schematic
representation of fracture dis-
tribution, geometry, and hier-
archy commonly observed in
layered sedimentary rocks. For
alternating beds of contrast-
ing lithologies, fractures (both
joints and faults) often appear
as populations of bed-confined
(single layer) fractures and
populations of throughgoing
(multilayer) fractures. Note
that for the specific case of
Halukim anticline, through-
going fractures preferentially
utilize the population of bed-
confined cross joints.
in thickness from 3 to 35 cm. Limestone com-
positions and textures are variable in terms of
fossil content, grain size, and degree of purity;
the most common lithologies consist of chalky
limestone and microcrystalline limestone. A 60-
cm-thick bed noteworthy for its hardness and
abundant Acteonella forms a prominent ledge in
the middle and upper sections of roadcut B.
Bedding orientations were measured from
highway roadcuts and other outcrops along
strike. Bedding is generally shallow dipping,
ranging from 2 t 28. A cylindrical best fit to
bedding poles yields a calculated fold axis of
037 trend and 0 plunge (Fig. 3 inset). A profile
cross section of the exposed strata, constructed
using the Busk method, portrays the broad and
open surface expression of the Halukim anti-
cline (Fig. 4A). Similar to other more promi-
nent Syrian Arc folds in the northern Negev, the
southeast-verging Halukim anticline displays a
shallow-dipping backlimb and a more steeply
dipping forelimb. The horizontal strata exposed
at section B correspond to the fold crest (the
point of highest elevation of the folded surface),
whereas the fold hinge (zone of maximum cur-
vature) is likely found to the southeast of section
A (Fig. 4). Despite their opposing dips, all four
roadcuts apparently belong to the same north-
west limb of the anticline.
On the basis of their relationship to strati-
graphic layering, there are two main categories
of fractures at Halukim anticline: bed-confined
joints restricted in vertical dimension to indi-
vidual mechanical beds, and throughgoing
 000 34E 100 35E 200
0 50 100 km Figure 2. (A) Generalized tectonic
32N map of Israel and Sinai subplate
DSS Anticline a showing orientations of the maximum
Fault Se

lt
n horizontal stress directions for the
ea

Be
n Syrian Arc stress field (SAS) and the
rra

ld
Dead Sea stress field (DSS). (B) Map

ad Sea
ite

rm
100

Fo
De
SAS ed of regional folds belonging to the Syr-
M

c
Ar
ian Arc fold belt in southern Israel

ra n s fo
and northern Sinai. (C) Axes of major

an
ri
Dead Sea 31N anticlines in the northern Negev region

Sy
Transform of southern Israel superimposed on

Sea T
structural contour map of the top

d
Israel-Sinai

a
of the Judea Group. Contour values

e
000

D
subplate SAS represent depth in meters from mean
sea level. Star indicates study site at
Gulf of Halukim anticline. Based on Bentor
Gulf of Elat and Vroman (1954), and Shamir and
Suez C e n t ra l S i n a i - N e g ev Eyal (1995); structural contours were
30N
DSS Shear Zone provided by the Geophysical Institute
A 900
of Israel.
B
Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012

3430' 3440' 3450' 3500' 3510'

00
0
3110' 3110'

-4
-2
Throughgoing fractures

-400
0 400
ur

r
00 60
o

-2
0 a

gu
rb

ay

A
200

0
00
Ba

D
r

10
-2
0

'a

0
400
20

0
on
ha

av
en -40 0
im
ha

Z
40 0 D
S

00
er

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

60
400

-4
Q
20

0
00

20
-6
era

3100' 3100'
e
z
0

ira

0 0
t
0

40
60

m
80

h
Ha

Ha 0

00
ek

-1
20

r
0
1

0
00

60

0
-2

60

qe
-R
0
00

o
400

0
60
10

40

20
0
im

600 0
luk

00
400

-4

00
-2
Ha

00
-4
3050' C 3050'
3430' 3440' 3450' 3500' 3510'

1389
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal

129 130 131

036

eva
N
500 meters
h
Roadcuts
To Beer S 183
Scanline for throughgoing fractures
Nahal & faults, with numbered feature at
177 beginning and end of scanline
Noqed
Bed B2 Scanline for bed-confined joints

06
500

192
D
> 035
Bed D1
06

176 184

Bed C2 0
54
C 520

03

Bed C1 133

034
05
00 520 540
5

132
B
N
bedding Bed B2
Equal Area

Bed B1
Fold Axis 500
037T 0P 1
033
10
>
183 Line of cross-section
Bed A1 A in Figure 4

Halukim
n = 37
520

Junction
09 177

Figure 3. Map of roadcuts (labeled AD) with locations of scanline surveys. Inset is pi-diagram of poles to bed-
ding showing cylindrical best fit and calculated fold axis trending northeast-southwest.

1390 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

 Sec C Sec B
NW Sec D Sec A SE
133 - 176 1 - 132 177 - 183
184 - 192
600

500
A 400

meters
B2 B1
300 D1 C2 C1 A1
200
0 meters 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

N N N N N N
Bed D1 Bed C2 Bed C1 Bed B2 Bed B1 Bed A1

Joints
N = 70 N = 108 N = 41 N = 82 N = 84 N = 74

3 3 3 3 3 3
Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012

2 2 2 2 2 2

FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
FSR
Throughgoing fractures

1 1 1 1 1 1
C

FSR
0 0 0 0 0 0
Bed D1 Bed C2 Bed C1 Bed B2 Bed B1 Bed A1

N N N N
Section D Section C Section B Section A

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

TF
D

N=7 N = 36 N = 83 N=6

Figure 4. (A) Profile section across Halukim anticline (see Fig. 3 for section line) drawn at 1:1 horizontal to vertical scale using the Busk method. (B) Rose diagrams with ori-
entations of bed-confined joints (black petalssystematic joints, gray petalscross joints). (C) Fracture spacing ratios (FSR) calculated for bed-confined joints (black sys-
tematic joints; diagonallithology-controlled cross joints; grayjoint-controlled cross joints). (D) Rose diagrams with orientations of throughgoing fractures (TF).

1391
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal

Figure 5. Overview photograph of a portion of section B showing throughgoing fractures indicated by white arrows and mechanical stratigraphy. Selected throughgoing
TF 84
fractures and faults that span multiple beds. All
S

Limestone, marly and/or chalky

of the studied fractures are unmineralized. Two

Limestone, medium bedded

sets of bed-confined joints, identified initially as

Limestone, thin bedded

Limestone, fossiliferous
sets I and II, are distinguished from each other
according to their geometries and crosscutting
relationships. The bed-confined joints are sub-
vertical and terminate in cross section against
bed partings or thin layers of marlstone (i.e.,
Marl

TF 85
lithology-controlled mechanical layer bound-
aries). Set I joints trend northwest-southeast to
north-south and are horizontally persistent, with
bed-parallel trace lengths typically in excess of
one to several meters where observed. In con-
trast, set II joints dominantly trend east-north-
eastwest-southwest and consistently abut (i.e.,

TF 88
terminate against) joints belonging to set I (i.e.,
joint-controlled mechanical layer boundaries),
resulting in horizontal trace lengths typically
<30 cm. Based on these temporal and geomet-
ric relationships, the preexisting set I joints are
referred to as systematic joints and the later set
II joints are classified as cross joints (Fig. 1)
Section B

(Hodgson, 1961; Rawnsley et al., 1992; Gross,

1993; Bai et al., 2002; Finn et al., 2003). Note
that mechanical boundaries for the systematic
joints are stratigraphic, whereas mechanical
boundaries for the cross joints are both strati-
graphic and structural.
Fracture surveys of bed-confined joints were
conducted in six beds (identified by roadcut
section as A1, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D1; Fig. 3).
These beds were selected by virtue of their high
quality of attainable data, their inclusion within
overlapping scanline surveys of throughgoing
fractures, and uniform mechanical layer thick-
nesses. The orientation (strike and dip) and dis-
tance along the scanline were measured for each
bed-confined joint that intersected the tape mea-
sure. The mechanical layer thickness was mea-
sured as joint height (i.e., trace length perpendic-
TF 96

ular to bedding), whereas spacing was measured

fractures are numbered (e.g., TF 88) on the photograph.

as the perpendicular distance between adjacent

joints belonging to the same set. In total, 446
bed-confined joints were measured along scan-
lines with a cumulative length of ~108 m.
Throughgoing fractures and multilayer faults
were mapped directly onto photomosaics of the
N

four roadcut exposures by assigning a num-

ber to each structure and marking its distance
along the survey line. In addition to measuring
J 66-145 cm
K 15-20 cm

H 155 cm
I 60 cm

orientations (strike and dip), the throughgoing

G 60 cm

D 39 cm
E 70 cm

B 50 cm
F 46 cm
L 60 cm

A 22cm
C 8 cm
Bed B1

fractures and multilayer faults were described in

terms of sense of displacement, geometry, mor-
Section B

phology, vertical persistence, aperture, and dip

separation. The best exposures of these struc-
tures, both in terms of quality and quantity, are
Bed B2
"Acteonella"

found in roadcut B on the crest of the anticline

7.0 m

6.0 m

5.0 m

4.0 m

2.0 m

1.0 m
3.0 m

(Figs. 3, 4, and 5). We measured 132 through-

going fractures and 59 multilayer normal faults
along a cumulative scanline length of 728 m.

1392 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Throughgoing fractures

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ORIENTATION AND SPACING DATA FOR BED-CONFINED FRACTURES MEASURED AT HALUKIM ANTICLINE
Scanline Joint set Orientation Spacing
Mean 95 Angle Mean spacing Median spacing MLT-LC MLT-JC FSR-LC# FSR-JC#
orientation* between sets (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
A1 Systematic 353/87E 2.1 87 34.1 31.0 42.9 1.38
Cross 079/87N 2.8 51.9 44.5 42.9 31.0 0.96 0.70
B1 Systematic 357/88W 2.4 79 14.8 14.4 31.8 2.20
Cross 076/85N 3.0 34.2 27.7 31.8 14.4 1.15 0.52
B2 Systematic 353/87W 1.9 73 19.8 17.0 46.3 2.72
Cross 066/85N 4.0 26.0 24.6 30.7 17.0 1.25 0.69
C1 Systematic 333/83E 2.9 86 16.2 16.0 29.0 1.81
Cross 067/89N 4.4 36.0 31.7 29.0 16.0 0.92 0.51
C2 Systematic 319/88N 2.4 71 19.2 19.6 34.6 1.77
Cross 061/88S 3.2 32.14 27.1 34.6 19.6 1.28 0.72
D1 Systematic 323/89W 2.9 62 33.8 34.5 43.5 1.26
Cross 025/88W 6.6 42.8 32.2 43.5 34.5 1.35 1.07
*Fracture orientations presented in NW and NE quadrants as strike/dip and dip direction.

95 refers to the 95% cone of confidence around the mean pole (Cox and Hart, 1986).

MLT-LC refers to lithology-controlled mechanical layer thickness; MLT-JC refers to joint-controlled mechanical layer thickness.
#
FSR-LC refers to lithology-controlled fracture spacing ratio; FSR-JC refers to joint-controlled fracture spacing ratio.

RESULTS
N N
All Systematic Mean 342 All Cross Mean 064
Bed-Confined Joints
Joints Joints
Orientations of bed-confined joints, summa-
rized in Table 1 according to location and joint A B
set, are compiled in rose diagrams in Figures 4
and 6. In general, the systematic joints trend
north-northwestsouth-southeast with a mean
strike of 342. However, the composite rose dia-
gram of all systematic joints reveals a bimodal
distribution, with a dominant north-south peak
at ~355 and a secondary northwest-southeast
peak at ~325 (Fig. 6A). The composite rose
diagram of all cross joints yields one major
peak trending east-northeastwest-southwest, N = 175 Max % = 33 N = 284 Max % = 25
reflecting a mean strike of 064 (Fig. 6B). At
each locality, orientations of systematic joints
35 40
are consistent and confined to narrow azimuthal
ranges (Fig. 4B). However, in the southeast- 30
C 35 D
dipping roadcuts (beds A1, B1, and B2), the sys- All Cross Joints
25
All Systematic Joints 30
tematic joints trend north-south, whereas in the Mean = 23.6 Mean = 34.6
No. of Joints

No. of Joints

25
northwest-dipping roadcuts (beds C1, C2, and 20 Median = 20 Median = 28.0
D1) they trend northwest-southeast (Fig. 4B), Stand Dev = 13.4 20 Stand Dev = 25.7
15 N = 164 N = 268
resulting in the bimodal peak in the composite 15
rose diagram (Fig. 6A). For the most part, cross 10
joints maintain an east-northeastwest-south- 10

west trend across the anticline, with a subtle 5 5

counterclockwise rotation from bed A1 (079) 0 0
to bed C2 (061). The one exception is bed D1, 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
where the cross joints are aligned north-north- Joint Spacing (cm) Joint Spacing
Range (cm)
eastsouth-southwest (025). The acute angle
Figure 6. Combined results for scanline surveys of bed-confined joints. (A) Rose diagram of
between the two sets of bed-confined joints
orientations for all systematic joints. (B) Rose diagram of orientations for all cross joints.
ranges from 62 to 87. The cross joints are
(C) Spacing histogram for all systematic joints. (D) Spacing histogram for all cross joints.
more widely scattered in orientation than the
systematic joints (Fig. 4B; Table 1).
Analysis of spacing measurements combined
from all localities yields the general result that are consistently lower for the systematic joints is slightly greater than the median spacing for
systematic joints (mean = 23.6 cm; median = (Table 1). This difference is especially notewor- cross joints.
20 cm) are considerably more closely spaced thy for scanlines B1 and C1, where the spacing The measured joint sets are confined to strati-
than cross joints (mean = 34.6 cm; median of systematic joints is about half the spacing of graphic intervals with average thicknesses rang-
= 28 cm) (Figs. 6C, 6D). In general, at each cross joints. The one exception is scanline D1, ing from 29 to 46 cm (Table 1). Because fracture
locality the mean and median spacing values where the median spacing of systematic joints spacing in layered rocks is often proportional

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007 1393

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
to bed thickness (e.g., Narr and Suppe, 1991;
Gross et al., 1995; Bai and Pollard, 2000), we
calculated the fracture spacing ratio (FSR) in
each bed. The FSR is defined as the mechanical
layer thickness divided by the median fracture
spacing within a specific bed, and allows for the
meaningful comparison of spacing measure-
ments among beds with different thicknesses
by normalizing for effects of bed thickness
(Gross et al., 1995, 1997). In accordance with
the fracture spacing index (FSI) introduced by
Narr and Suppe (1991), FSR values increase
with increasing fracture density (i.e., the inverse
of spacing). The lithology-controlled FSR was
calculated for both joint sets using a mechani-
cal layer thickness defined by vertical termina-
tions of the joints against upper and lower strati-
graphic boundaries (i.e., the lithology-controlled
mechanical layer thicknesses). Because cross
joint spacing may be controlled by the spacing
of preexisting joints rather than stratigraphic
bed thickness (Gross, 1993; Ruf et al., 1998), a
joint-controlled FSR was also calculated for the
cross joints using the median systematic joint
spacing as the effective mechanical layer thick-
ness (Table 1).
With the exception of bed D1, the systematic
joints display higher FSR values than the cross
joints (Table 1; Fig. 4C). The difference is more
dramatic upon comparing lithology-controlled
FSR of systematic joints to joint-controlled
FSR of cross joints. Whereas FSR values for
cross joints do not show any consistent trends
as a function of structural position, the FSR val-
ues for systematic joints reveal low values on
opposing flanks of the fold crest (1.26 at locality
D1 and 1.38 at locality A1) that increase updip
to a maximum of 2.72 at locality B2 on the crest
of the anticline (Table 1; Fig. 4C).
Normal Faults
The overwhelming majority of normal faults
(49 of 59) were encountered in section B along
the crest of the anticline (Fig. 4A). Fault geom-
etries vary from a series of short, isolated seg-
ments (<1 m in cross-sectional trace length)
to connected, multilayer features that span the
entire exposure (>6 m in cross-sectional trace
length) (Fig. 7A). Where observed, fault striae
indicate a dominantly dip-slip sense of move-
ment with normal offset. Measured dip sepa-
rations are relatively minor, ranging from a
minimum of 0.5 cm to a maximum of 13 cm.
Normal faults cluster into two distinct popula-
tions based on orientation, each consisting of
conjugate pairs of moderately dipping (~40
55) faults (Figs. 8A, 8B, 8C). Most normal
faults belong to conjugate sets that strike east-
northeastwest-southwest (mean 076, range
1394 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007
Gross and Eyal
061100; Fig. 8B; Table 2). The second pair
of conjugate normal faults is aligned north-
east-southwest (mean 038, range 020060;
Fig. 8C; Table 2), parallel to the trend of the
regional fold axis (Fig. 3).
Throughgoing Fractures
The 132 throughgoing fractures encountered
at Halukim anticline exhibit a wide range of
geometries and dimensions, yet share a num-
ber of important characteristics. First, they are
multilayer structures that span at least several
mechanical beds, and in some cases, the entire
outcrop exposure. Second, all throughgoing
fractures are steeply dipping to vertical (mean
strike and dip of 068/89S), and despite consid-
erable scatter in orientation, reveal a dominant
east-northeastwest-southwest trend that paral-
lels the strike of the bed-confined cross joints
(Figs. 8D, 8E). Third, throughgoing fractures are
not single planes, but rather consist of individual
fracture segments aligned within a narrow ver-
tical zone of brittle deformation. Fourth, many
segments belonging to the throughgoing frac-
tures are individual, bed-confined cross joints
that have been preferentially widened and/or
linked together across bed boundaries. Fifth, the
throughgoing fractures occur at regular intervals
along the scanlines (e.g., Figs. 5 and 7G), sug-
gesting that they are a ubiquitous component of
the fracture architecture at Halukim anticline,
rather than isolated or localized structures.
Throughgoing fractures can be grouped into
three main categories based on their geometries
observed in cross-sectional exposures. One
group, referred to as incipient throughgoing
fractures, typically consists of 310 isolated,
steeply dipping, subparallel fracture segments
aligned in vertical sequence (Fig. 7B). Individ-
ual segments consist of slightly widened, bed-
confined cross joints that have either preserved
their dimensions or have grown beyond their
original mechanical boundaries to span several
beds. Incipient throughgoing fractures are not
vertically connected and are not vertically per-
sistent, but rather are often restricted to a sub-
section of the mechanical stratigraphy.
Fractures belonging to the second main
group, linked throughgoing fractures, are con-
tinuously connected from their lower to upper
tips. In many cases, these brittle structures are
composed of numerous, vertically aligned cross
joint segments linked together across strati-
graphic intervals by short segments consisting
of bed-parallel fractures (locally widened bed-
ding contacts) and shallow-dipping fractures.
The result is a highly segmented structure
characterized by a zigzag geometry (Fig. 7D).
Another common type of linked throughgoing
fracture consists of several elongated segments
whose vertical alignments are nearly identical,
resulting in only minor (<~2 cm) lateral shifts
across mechanical boundaries (Fig. 7C). From
a distance these structures appear as single frac-
ture planes; however, their segmented nature is
apparent upon close inspection.
The third main category is referred to as
throughgoing fractures with aperture. These
are linked (vertically connected) structures that
have developed significant mechanical aperture
(>0.5 cm) across the majority of opposing seg-
ment walls. The apertures reflect a dominantly
opening mode of displacement. The maximum
aperture measured for this category of through-
going fracture ranges from 1.0 to 6.0 cm with a
mean of 3.3 cm. In many cases, these structures
are vertical swaths of closely spaced, subparal-
lel fractures that delineate a fracture zone com-
posed of joint-bounded blocks (Fig. 7E). The
segmented nature of throughgoing fractures in
general, and those with aperture in particular,
may be observed in the close-up photograph
of TF 88 (Fig. 7F). Note that the fracture zone
is composed of preferentially widened cross
joints, linked together across bed boundaries in
an alternating zigzag geometry.
The three main descriptive categories provide
a general classification for the population of
throughgoing fractures at Halukim anticline. In
reality, the structures portray transitional geom-
etries between categories, and can be subdivided
into different groups within each category based
on their degree of development. For example, an
early incipient throughgoing fracture consists
of only several isolated segments separated by
large gaps, whereas a late incipient throughgo-
ing fracture has more segments separated by
narrower gaps, yet is not entirely linked to form
a connected structure. Similarly, throughgoing
fractures with aperture may range from initially
formed fracture zones to structures resembling
breccia zones. In general, the vertical persistence
(i.e., percentage of outcrop exposure cut by the
structure) of throughgoing fractures increases
from incipient to linked to aperture catego-
ries. Incipient and linked structures are mostly
restricted to the chalky intervals, and at section
B do not pass through the resistant (microcrys-
talline) Acteonella bed (e.g., Fig. 7C). In con-
trast, throughgoing fractures with aperture often
span the entire outcrop exposure and typically
pass through the Acteonella bed (e.g., Fig. 7E).
The vertical attitudes of throughgoing frac-
tures (Figs. 8D, 8E) justify their presentation
in two-dimensional rose diagrams, where azi-
muthal trends can be clearly recognized and
analyzed. Inspection of rose diagrams gener-
ated for each main descriptive category reveals
a consistent east-northeastwest-southwest
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Throughgoing fractures

A B

STF NF

60 cm

C D
Act

60 cm

Figure 7. Photographs of throughgoing fractures observed at Halukim anticline. (A) Intersection of a single (linked) throughgoing fracture
(TF 125, labeled STF in photo) and a low-angle normal fault (TF 123, labeled NF). (B) Incipient throughgoing fracture (TF 89). Arrows
point to vertically aligned, preferentially widened segments that are isolated from each other. (Continued on following page).

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007 1395

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal

Act E F

G
Act

1m TF 88 TF 86 TF 85

Figure 7 (continued). (C) Single linked throughgoing fracture (TF 86) in lower section of photo. Note the fracture is confined to unit H and
does not propagate across the base of the Acteonella bed (Act). (D) Linked throughgoing fracture (TF 49) with zigzag geometry. (E) Linked
throughgoing fracture with aperture (TF 88). Note the structure propagated across the Acteonella bed. (F) Close-up of TF 88, showing seg-
mented internal structure composed of numerous bed-confined cross joints. (G) View of three prominent throughgoing fractures at section
B. Hammer in A, D, E, and F is 28 cm long.

1396 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
A B
Normal
Faults
N = 59
D E
Throughgoing
Fractures
N = 132
dominant trend for all types of throughgoing
fractures (Fig. 9), roughly parallel to the main
cross joint trend (Fig. 6). Mean strikes are 069
for incipient, 071 for linked, and 067 for fea-
tures with aperture, in comparison to a mean
strike of 069 for the combined population of
all throughgoing fractures. A minor peak trend-
ing northeast-southwest is also visible in rose
diagrams classified by category (Fig. 9B, 9C,
9D). Orientations of throughgoing fractures
plotted as a function of structural position may
show a slight (~10) counterclockwise rotation
in the main trend from section B to section C,
where most of the data were collected (Fig. 4).
The secondary northeast-southwest trend in
throughgoing fractures is visible in section
C, but much less prominent in section B. The
interpretation of rose diagrams from sections
A and D is severely limited by the small num-
ber of throughgoing fractures observed at those
localities (Fig. 4D).
The intensity of throughgoing fracture
development for each section across Halukim
anticline was quantified by calculating the
Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007
Throughgoing fractures
N = 32
N = 123
frequency of throughgoing fractures measured
from scanline surveys. Only throughgoing
fractures belonging to the northeast-southwest
quadrants (n = 123) were used in the analysis.
Original scanline lengths were projected along
a trend perpendicular to the mean throughgoing
fracture orientation at each section, which repre-
sents the trend of maximum extension for these
opening-mode features. At each locality, the
number of throughgoing fractures per 10 m of
projected scanline length was calculated for the
three main descriptive categories, as well as for
all categories combined together. The results,
compiled in Table 3 and graphically displayed
in Figure 10, show dramatic differences in the
frequency of throughgoing fractures between
the crest (section B) and the surrounding por-
tions (sections A, C, D) of the anticlinal limb.
For example, the frequency of all throughgoing
fractures is <1.2 per 10 m for sections A, C, and
D, in contrast to a frequency of 4.2 per 10 m
for section B. Similar differences in frequency
between the fold crest and opposing flanks were
determined from the incipient (ITF), linked
C
N = 24
Figure 8. Stereoplots with orientations
of normal faults and throughgoing frac-
tures measured at Halukim anticline.
(A) All normal fault planes. (B) Planes
and poles of normal faults belonging
to the east-northeastwest-southwest
conjugate sets. (C) Planes and poles of
normal faults belonging to the north-
east-southwest conjugate sets. (D) All
throughgoing fractures. (E) Through-
going fractures belonging to the domi-
nant ENE-WSW set. Squares indicate
mean orientations (poles).
(LTF), and linked with aperture (ATF) catego-
ries of throughgoing fractures.
We then calculated an intensity value that
characterizes the relative strain accommodated
by the entire population of throughgoing frac-
tures in each section. Incipient, linked, and
linked with aperture structures were assigned
multiplication factors of 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
to match their assumed relative degree of devel-
opment. The weighted sum was then divided by
the projected scanline length to derive a measure
of strain intensity per unit length: 10 [((#ITF
1) + (#LTF 2) + (#ATF 3))/(scanline length)]
= strain intensity per 10 m.
Thus for section C, the 18 incipient, 6 linked,
and 11 linked with aperture structures sum to
63 (i.e., 18 1 + 6 2 + 11 3), that when
normalized to the projected scanline length of
293 m results in a calculated strain intensity of
2.1/10 m (Table 3). In contrast to the unweighted
frequency, this index incorporates the relative
abundance of each type of throughgoing frac-
ture, and their relative degree of deformation
into the intensity calculation. The highest strain
1397
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal

intensity value of 6.6/10 m was recorded for sec-

tion B, with values of 1.6, 2.1, and 0.4 per 10 m
calculated for sections A, C, and D, respectively TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THROUGHGOING NORMAL FAULT SETS
MEASURED AT HALUKIM ANTICLINE
(Table 3; Fig. 10).
Fault set Number of Mean orientation 95*
data

DISCUSSION All normal faults 59 na na

Group 1 (ENE-WSW striking)

Origin of Throughgoing Fractures at North-dipping set 22 076/49N 5.8
Halukim Anticline South-dipping set 10 076/53S 4.9

Group #2 (NE-SW striking)

Structural geometries indicate a clear tem- Northwest-dipping set 8 035/46NW 5.8
poral order in the formation of the three main Southeast-dipping set 16 040/42SE 8.4
fracture populations. The systematic joints Note: Fault orientations are presented in NW and NE quadrants as strike/dip and dip
direction.
formed first and served as mechanical boundar- *95 refers to the 95% cone of confidence around the mean pole (Cox and Hart, 1986).

ies to constrain the subsequent development of na = not applicable.
the cross joints. Throughgoing fractures then
formed by the coalescence and linkage of selec-
tive zones of vertically aligned, preexisting,
bed-confined joints. As brittle deformation pro-
gressed at Halukim anticline, it was more effi-
cient for throughgoing fractures to utilize (i.e., All Throughgoing Fractures All Incipient Throughgoing Fractures
reactivate) preexisting fractures rather than to N N
propagate new fracture surfaces in intact rock.
Evidence supporting this scenario is provided Mean = 069 Mean = 069
by the internal structure of mature throughgo- Max% = 31 Max% = 32
ing fracture zones, which consists of numerous A N = 132 N = 80 B
individual fracture segments (Figs. 7E, 7F, 7G).
Based on their orientations, dimensions, and
restriction to discrete stratigraphic beds, most of
these segments are cross joints that have been
incorporated into a multilayer zone of deforma-
tion. New fracture segments propagated in order
to link the preferentially widened cross joints,
often resulting in a vertically continuous struc-
ture with a zigzag geometry. The throughgoing
fractures are not aligned parallel to the domi-
nant preexisting north-northwestsouth-south-
east fracture fabric. Rather, they preferentially
utilized the cross joints, although the systematic All Linked Throughgoing Fractures All Throughgoing Fractures with Aperture
joints are considerably more pervasive, with N N

greater horizontal trace lengths and a higher fre-

quency of occurrence (lower spacings) than the Mean = 071 Mean = 067
cross joints (Figs. 6C, 6D). Max% = 30 Max% = 28
N = 27 N = 25
Critical Strain for Throughgoing Fractures
C D
at Fracture Saturation

The correlation between FSR of systematic

joints (x axis) and frequency (or intensity) of
throughgoing fractures (y axis) may provide
additional insight into the sequence of brittle
deformation at Halukim anticline (see plot
in Fig. 11). Extrapolating the best-fit line to
intersect the y axis at zero yields an FSR of
1.17, which corresponds to the degree of bed-
confined fracturing prior to development of Figure 9. Rose diagrams of throughgoing fractures by category. (A) All throughgoing
throughgoing fractures. The FSR of ~1.2, in fractures. (B) All incipient throughgoing fractures. (C) All linked throughgoing fractures.
turn, is in agreement with values reported in the (D) All linked throughgoing fractures with aperture.
literature for fracture saturation, i.e., the mini-
mum average spacing of bed-confined fractures

1398 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Throughgoing fractures

7.0

intensity
Strain

Number (or intensity) of Throughgoing

0.43
1.64
6.60
2.15

2.90
All TF per 10m
6.0 ITF per 10m

Fractures per 10 meters

LTF per 10m
0.21
0.71
0.37

0.36
ATF

5.0 ATF per 10m

0
TF Intensity per 10m
Frequency per 10 m

4.0
0.41
0.98
0.20

0.38
LTF

3.0
ITF

2.0
0.21
2.51
0.61
0.43
1.05
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF FREQUENCIES AND STRAIN ESTIMATES DERIVED FROM SCANLINE SURVEYS

1.0
Note: TFthroughgoing fracture; ITFincipient throughgoing fracture; LTFlinked throughgoing fracture; ATFthroughgoing fracture with aperture.
0.82
4.20
1.19

1.79
0.43
All TF

0.0
Section A Section B Section C Section D Average
OF NE-SWTRENDING THROUGHGOING FRACTURES AT HALUKIM ANTICLINE

Outcrop Section
Figure 10. Plot of frequencies and intensity of throughgoing frac-
intensity
Strain

tures at Halukim anticline as a function of location (section) and type

63
121

199
7
8

(TFthroughgoing fracture; ITFincipient; LTFlinked (single);

ATFwith aperture). Note that the highest frequencies and intensity
are found at section B, which is at the fold crest.
Number of fractures
ATF

25
11
13

0
1
LTF

26
6
0
18
2

5 7
ITF

72
18
7

Intensity of Throughgoing Fractures per 10m

46
1

FSR = 1.17
6
Throughgoing Fractures per 10m
All TF

123
35
7
77
4

4
No Throughgoing

5
Cumulative
projected
length

686.16
293.16
161.03
183.36
48.62

Fractures
(m)

3
4

3
2
Projected
scanline
trend

331
319
344
358
()

1 Number TF / 10 m
y = -3.6 + 3.1x, r 2 = 0.93 1
Cumulative
scanline

TF Intensity / 10 m
length

728.0
300.0
164.2
190.3
73.5
(m)

y = -5.6 + 4.8x, r 2 = 0.94

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fracture Spacing Ratio (FSR) of Systematic Joints
Totals/Averages

Figure 11. Plot of fracture spacing ratio of systematic joints versus frequency
Section C
Section D
Section A
Section B

and intensity of throughgoing fractures (TF). Extrapolation of the best-fit lines

Section

to zero throughgoing fractures yields an FSR of ~1.2, corresponding to the

critical strain (density of bed-confined joints) required for the development of
throughgoing fractures at Halukim anticline.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007 1399

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal

commonly observed in layered rocks (e.g., Narr porate many of these smaller fractures within the of central California, where we observed the
and Suppe, 1991; Gross, 1993; Wu and Pollard, larger structures. In contrast, one would expect development of throughgoing fractures on bed-
1995; Becker and Gross, 1996; Bai and Pollard, markedly different geometries for throughgo- ding surfaces (Finn et al., 2003). In both cases
2000; Sagy et al., 2001). This result implies that ing fractures that develop in a thick-bedded the throughgoing fractures formed by the prefer-
throughgoing fractures develop only after a criti- sequence with a higher percentage of incompe- ential widening and linkage of preexisting bed-
cal density of bed-confined fractures is achieved tent lithologies, where bed-confined joints are confined joints, suggesting a common process
(i.e., a critical strain as measured by FSR), and taller, more widely spaced, and less likely to be for the development of throughgoing fractures
that throughgoing fractures are absent in rocks vertically aligned across bed boundaries. in jointed sedimentary rocks.
where beds are below fracture saturation (FSR In order to facilitate quantitative comparisons,
<~1.2). This intriguing result provides a quanti- the throughgoing fractures were grouped into Relation to Folding and Regional Stress Fields
tative means to predict both the occurrence and three broad categories: isolated vertically aligned
intensity of throughgoing fractures based on the segments (incipient), linked vertically continu- The north-northwestsouth-southeast system-
FSR of bed-confined joints. ous segments (intermediate), and linked frac- atic joints belong to a regional joint set observed
ture zones with significant aperture (advanced). to the south in Late Cretaceous limestones
Classification of Throughgoing Fractures The gradational nature of geometries, as well as around the Ramon erosional cirque (Eyal et al.,
similar orientations for the three main categories 2001) and to the north in Eocene chalks in the
Geometries and physical properties of (Fig. 9), implies that the population of through- Beer Sheva syncline (Bahat, 1987; Bahat and
throughgoing fractures in sedimentary rocks going fractures at Halukim anticline represents Grossmann, 1988). This regional joint set most
are controlled by a variety of factors, including a continuum of structures at varying degrees likely formed within the MioceneHolocene
lithology, bed thickness, interface boundaries, of development, with more advanced geom- Dead Sea stress field (Fig. 2A). Because the
stress concentrations, propagation mechanisms, etries reflecting a greater amount of localized cross joints and throughgoing fractures post-
applied strain, and preexisting fractures (Bahat, strain. We present a generalized classification date the systematic joints, all of the measured
1988; Helgeson and Aydin, 1991; Becker and of throughgoing fractures in layered carbonate fracture sets must be Miocene or younger. Cross
Gross, 1996; Cooke and Underwood, 2001; rocks in Figure 12. We illustrate the progression joints may develop in response to changes in
Rijken and Cooke, 2001; Finn et al., 2003; Hoff- from incipient to linked with aperture (lower orientation of the regional stress field (Dyer,
mann et al., 2004). For the specific case of a stra- strain to higher strain), as well as other sce- 1988; Rawnsley et al., 1992; Eyal et al., 2001),
tigraphy composed of thin to medium beds of narios that may arise from mechanical barriers or alternatively to a local reorientation of princi-
competent limestone (e.g., Halukim anticline), and shear reactivation. Our analysis of fractures pal stresses between closely spaced systematic
initial phases of brittle deformation may result at Halukim anticline is admittedly limited by joints (Bai et al., 2002). The latter is a form of
in numerous closely spaced fractures confined cross-sectional exposures. However, it comple- stress relaxation (e.g., Engelder, 1985, 1993;
to individual beds. This provides the opportunity ments a companion study of carbonate and sili- Dunne and North, 1990) due to the propagation
for subsequent throughgoing fractures to incor- ceous lithologies in the Monterey Formation of the systematic joints, whereby an effective
No throughgoing
(bed-confined only)

Early Incipient

Late Incipient

Single Linked

Single Straight

Throughgoing
with Aperture

Reactivated
(Faulted) TF

Restricted by
mechanical barrier

Unrestricted by
mechanical barrier
Fracture Zone
Linked

Lower main types Higher

specific geometries
Strain increasing aperture, width of fracture zone, connectivity, Strain
vertical persistence, hydraulic conductivity

Figure 12. Generalized classification of throughgoing fractures (TF) in layered carbonate rocks based on observa-
tions at Halukim anticline. The progression from early incipient to throughgoing with aperture may be interpreted
as stages of increasing strain.

1400 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
tensile stress generated parallel to the systematic
joints results in the development of orthogonal
cross joints (Bai et al., 2002).
The three main fracture sets observed in this
study are aligned neither parallel nor perpendic-
ular to the calculated 037 fold axis (Fig. 13).
This noncoaxial strain between the regional fold
and fracture sets may represent two phases of
deformation; an early Syrian Arc stress field
phase of folding in response to west-north-
westeast-southeastdirected SHMAX (Fig. 2A),
followed by MioceneHolocene fracturing.
Alternatively, coeval folding and fracturing
could have occurred within the same Miocene
Holocene deformation phase, resulting in a sig-
nificant component of left-lateral shear along the
basement fault. In both scenarios, the regional
fold geometry is controlled by the orientation
of the inherited basement fault, which predated
both the Syrian Arc and Dead Sea stress fields
(Eyal and Reches, 1983).
At Halukim anticline there is evidence for a
minor component of outer arc extension among
brittle mesostructures, as manifested by the pair
of northeast-southwest conjugate normal faults
at stations B and C (Fig. 8C) and a secondary
peak in some throughgoing fracture populations
(e.g., Fig. 4D, section C), whose strikes paral-
lel the trend of the regional fold axis. However,
based on their orientations and spatial distribu-
tion, one cannot attribute a bending origin to the
overwhelming majority of bed-confined joints
and throughgoing fractures at Halukim anti-
cline. First, most systematic cross and through-
going fractures are oriented at high angles, and
not parallel to the regional fold axis. Second,
fold curvature, thought to reflect degree of outer
arc extension and thus fracturing (Lisle, 1994;
Fischer and Wilkerson, 2000; Bergbauer et
al., 2003), is extremely low along the shallow-
dipping surface exposures. Third, fracture inten-
sity is highest along the fold crest (section B),
rather than closer to the fold hinge (section A)
Most intriguing is the correlation between
FSR for systematic joints and intensity of
throughgoing fractures across the anticline.
Laboratory studies and numerical models point
to a decrease in bed-confined fracture spacing
in response to increasing strain (Garrett and
Bailey, 1977; Rives et al., 1992; Wu and Pol-
lard, 1995; Bai et al., 2000). A similar relation-
ship observed in outcrop suggests that FSR
can serve as a proxy for strain in layered rocks
(Becker and Gross, 1996; Gross et al., 1997;
Engelder et al., 1997; Eyal et al., 2001; Fischer
and Christensen, 2004). The FSR for systematic
joints is twice as high along the crest than along
the oppositely dipping sections of the limb
(Fig. 4C), suggesting a local intensification
of north-northwestsouth-southeastdirected
Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007
Throughgoing fractures
shortening at the fold crest. The frequency of
throughgoing fractures, whether considered by
type or as a combined index, reveals a similar
pattern of high intensity, and hence high strain,
at the fold crest in comparison to the surround-
ing sections (Fig. 10). Further, the east-north-
eastwest-southwestoriented normal faults
(Fig. 8B) along the crest provide independent
evidence for the phase of extension recorded
by the throughgoing fractures.
One possible scenario for these observa-
tions is the presence of a blind thrust fault(s)
directly beneath the fold crest, which may
have splayed off the larger fault that cores the
anticline during MioceneHolocene regional
shortening (Fig. 13). This would initially lead
to the localization of strain along the crest in
the form of high FSR for the systematic joints
(Fig. 13A). We hypothesize that the cross
joints and throughgoing fractures developed
in response and proportionally to relaxation of
the north-northwestsouth-southeastdirected
SHMAX during exhumation of the section, hence
their orthogonal orientation with respect to the
systematic joints and the higher frequency of
throughgoing fractures at the crest (Figs. 13B,
13C). Note how dominant trends in through-
going fractures at sections B and C track with
changes in orientations for bed-confined frac-
tures (Fig. 4). The cross joints and throughgo-
ing fractures may therefore represent two stages
of the brittle response to Dead Sea stress field
relaxation, with the initial formation of east-
northeastwest-southwest cross joints followed
by their coalescence and linkage across bed
boundaries to form east-northeastwest-south-
west throughgoing fractures.
Implications for Fluid Flow
Throughgoing fractures link clusters of
bed-confined fractures into multilayer frac-
ture networks that are hydraulically connected
across bed boundaries. As a consequence, this
enhanced connectivity (e.g., LaPointe, 1988;
Berkowitz, 1995; Odling, 1997; Renshaw,
1999) increases the likelihood of a percolat-
ing backbone at the aquifer or reservoir scale,
and provides vertical communication among
numerous beds that would otherwise remain
hydraulically isolated from each other (Finn
et al., 2003; Tipping et al., 2006; Cooke et al.,
2006). Volumetric flow through a fracture is
approximately proportional to the cube of its
hydraulic aperture (Witherspoon et al., 1980;
Priest, 1993; Oron and Berkowitz, 1998). Thus
throughgoing fractures, whose lengths and
mechanical apertures are at least one order of
magnitude greater than for bed-confined frac-
tures, may serve as the primary flow conduits
in the fracture network. They also may dramati-
cally increase the hydraulic conductivity of lay-
ered rocks with low matrix permeability. The
permeability of throughgoing fracture zones can
be assessed according to their internal composi-
tions, geometries, and diagenetic history (e.g.,
block size, tortuosity, mineralization, fracture
and/or segment orientation, density, and aper-
ture) in a manner similar to fault zones (e.g.,
Tsang, 1984; Caine et al., 1996; Eichhubl and
Boles, 2000; Odling, 2001; Caine and Tomu-
siak, 2003; Laubach, 2003; Gudmundsson et
al., 2003; Gale et al., 2004). Further, important
hydrologic properties are expected to track in
parallel with the sequential development of
throughgoing fractures. For example, fracture
connectivity, aperture, and hydraulic conductiv-
ity will increase systematically as a throughgo-
ing fracture transitions from incipient to linked
to linked with aperture (Fig. 12).
CONCLUSIONS
Throughgoing fractures at Halukim anti-
cline form by the linkage and coalescence of
preexisting, bed-confined fractures. A thin- to
medium-bedded mechanical stratigraphy results
in abundant, closely spaced fractures confined
to individual beds during initial phases of
deformation. Subsequent throughgoing frac-
tures incorporate numerous bed-confined joints
into vertically persistent zones of deformation,
and thus represent an advanced stage of brittle
deformation in sedimentary rocks whereby
fracture development transitions in scale from
single layer to multilayer structures. Through-
going fractures at Halukim anticline display a
wide variety of geometries, which can be clas-
sified into three main categories: incipient struc-
tures consisting of vertically aligned, isolated
segments; linked structures whose segments
are connected across stratigraphic layering,
often in a zigzag geometry; and structures with
aperture, where segments of linked zones have
been preferentially widened. Field observa-
tions suggest that the population of throughgo-
ing fractures represents a continuum of brittle
structures at varying stages of development
from early (incipient) to intermediate (linked)
to advanced (with aperture). Because progres-
sive development of a throughgoing fracture is a
manifestation of increasing brittle strain, the fre-
quency and type of throughgoing fractures may
be used as relative strain indicators. The highest
frequency of systematic joints and throughgoing
fractures occurs at the fold crest, suggesting that
this locality has undergone higher strain than
adjacent sections of the fold limb. Moreover,
the correlation between frequencies of bed-
confined joints and throughgoing fractures can
1401
1402
N
S Hmax Late (DSS)
throughgoing fractures
hig
A N B hF
systematic
fold crest SR
S Hmax Early (SAS) joints

Possible Fault Splay

(Miocene-Holocene) fold hinge

Fault
Thrust
alukim
Main H

cross joints
systematic hig
joints hT
Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012

F in
ten
Gross and Eyal

sity
C D

ITF

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007

ATF
throughgoing LTF
fractures ITF
ATF

LTF

Figure 13. Scenario proposed for fracture development at Halukim anticline (not drawn to scale for schematic purposes). (A) Blind fault splay responsible for localizing strain
along fold crest. (B) Development of systematic joints with higher fracture spacing ratio (FSR; lower spacing) along the fold crest. SHMAXmaximum horizontal compressive
stress; DSSDead Sea stress field; SASSyrian Arc stress field. (C) Formation of cross joints. (D) Development of throughgoing fractures (TF) with higher intensity along
the fold crest. ITFincipient throughgoing fractures; LTFlinked throughgoing fractures; ATF throughgoing fractures with aperture.
 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Throughgoing fractures

Israel: Cretaceous Research, v. 21, p. 813843, doi: Freund, R., 1965, A model for the development of Israel and
be used to estimate the critical strain at the onset 10.1006/cres.2000.0228. the adjacent areas since Upper Cretaceous times: Geo-
of throughgoing fracture development. Our Cacas, M.C., Daniel, J.M., and Letouzey, J., 2001, Nested logical Magazine, v. 102, p. 189205.
geological modelling of naturally fractured reservoirs: Freund, R., Zak, I., and Garfunkel, Z., 1968, Age and rate of
recommendations for future research include Petroleum Geoscience, v. 7, p. S43S52. the sinistral movement along the Dead Sea rift: Nature,
(1) investigating throughgoing fractures in other Caine, J.S., and Tomusiak, S.R.A., 2003, Brittle structures v. 220, p. 253255, doi: 10.1038/220253a0.
lithologies and arrangements of mechanical and their role in controlling porosity and permeabil- Freund, R., Goldberg, M., Weissbrod, T., Druckman, Y., and
ity in a complex Precambrian crystalline-rock aquifer Derin, B., 1975, The Triassic-Jurassic structure of Israel
stratigraphy, and (2) hydrologic modeling of system in the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front Range: and its relation to the origin of the eastern Mediterra-
discrete throughgoing fractures based on their Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 115, nean: Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin no. 65, 27 p.
specific geometries. p. 14101424, doi: 10.1130/B25088.1. Gale, J.F.W., Laubach, S.E., Marrett, R.A., Olson, J.E.,
Caine, J.S., Evans, J.P., and Forster, C.B., 1996, Fault zone Holder, J., and Reed, R.M., 2004, Predicting and char-
architecture and permeability structure: Geology, acterizing fractures in dolostone reservoirs: Using the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v. 24, p. 10251028, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1996)024 link between diagenesis and fracturing, in Braithwaite,
<1025:FZAAPS>2.3.CO;2. C.J.R., et al., eds., The geometry and petrogenesis of
We are grateful to Terry Engelder and two anony- Cooke, M.L., and Underwood, C.A., 2001, Fracture ter- dolomite hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological Society
mous reviewers whose comments and suggestions mination and step-over at bedding interfaces due to [London] Special Publication 235, p. 177192.
frictional slip and interface opening: Journal of Struc- Garfunkel, Z., 1981, Internal structure of the Dead Sea
greatly improved the paper. Funding for this research
tural Geology, v. 23, p. 223238, doi: 10.1016/S0191- leaky transform (rift) in relation to plate kinematics:
was generously provided by the United StatesIsrael 8141(00)00092-4. Tectonophysics, v. 80, p. 81108, doi: 10.1016/0040-
Binational Science Foundation grant 94-00396. Cooke, M.L., Simo, J.A., Underwood, C.A., and Rijken, P., 1951(81)90143-8.
2006, Mechanical stratigraphic controls on fracture Garfunkel, Z., and Bartov, Y., 1977, The tectonics of the Suez
REFERENCES CITED patterns within carbonates and implications for ground- Rift: Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin 71, 44 p.
water flow: Sedimentary Geology, v. 184, p. 225239, Garrett, K.W., and Bailey, J.E., 1977, Multiple transverse
doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.004. fracture in 90 cross-ply laminates of a glass fibre-
Arkin, Y., and Braun, M., 1965, Type sections of Upper Cre-
Cox, A., and Hart, B.H., 1986, Plate tectonicsHow it reinforced polyester: Journal of Materials Science,
taceous formations in the northern Negev (southern
works: Boston, Massachusetts, Blackwell Scientific v. 12, p. 157168, doi: 10.1007/BF00738481.
Israel). Stratigraphic sections No. 2a: Jerusalem, Geo-
Publications, 392 p. Gillespie, P.A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Bonson, C.G., and
logical Survey of Israel, 19 p.
Druckman, Y., Gill, D., Fleischer, L., Gelbermann, E., and Manzocchi, T., 2001, Scaling relationships of joint
Bahat, D., 1987, Jointing and fracture interactions in middle
Wolff, O., 1995, Subsurface geology and structural and vein arrays from The Burren, Co. Clare, Ireland:
Eocene chalks near Beer Sheva, Israel: Tectonophysics,
evolution of the northwestern Negev, southern Israel: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 23, p. 183201, doi:
v. 136, p. 299321, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(87)90031-X.
Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 44, p. 115135. 10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00090-0.
Bahat, D., 1988, Early single-layer and late multi-layer
Dunne, W.M., and North, C.P., 1990, Orthogonal fracture sys- Grader, P., 1957, New geological data on the Rekhme anti-
joints in the Lower Eocene chalks near Beer Sheva,
tems at the limits of thrusting: An example from south- clinal crest: Research Council of Israel Bulletin, v. 63,
Israel: Annales Tectonicae, v. 2, p. 311.
western Wales: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 245250.
Bahat, D., and Engelder, T., 1984, Surface morphology on
p. 207215, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(90)90005-J. Gross, M.R., 1993, The origin and spacing of cross joints
cross-fold joints of the Appalachian Plateau, New York
Dyer, R., 1988, Using joint interactions to estimate paleo- Examples from the Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara
and Pennsylvania: Tectonophysics, v. 104, p. 299313,
stress ratios: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 10, coastline, California: Journal of Structural Geology,
doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(84)90128-8.
p. 685699, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(88)90076-4. v. 15, p. 737751, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(93)90059-J.
Bahat, D., and Grossmann, N.F., 1988, Regional jointing
Eichhubl, P., and Boles, J.R., 2000, Focused fluid flow Gross, M.R., Fischer, M.P., Engelder, T., and Greenfield, R.J.,
and paleostresses in Eocene chalks around Beer Sheva:
along faults in the Monterey Formation, coastal 1995, Factors controlling joint spacing in interbedded
Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 37, p. 181191.
California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, sedimentary rocks: Integrating numerical models with
Bai, T.X., and Pollard, D.D., 2000, Fracture spacing in lay-
v. 112, p. 16671679, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(2000) field observations from the Monterey Formation, USA,
ered rocks: A new explanation based on the stress tran-
112<1667:FFFAFI>2.0.CO;2. in Ameen, M.S., ed., Fractography: Fracture topogra-
sition: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 22, p. 4357,
Engelder, T., 1985, Loading paths to joint propagation dur- phy as a tool in fracture mechanics and stress analysis:
doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(99)00137-6.
ing a tectonic cycle: An example from the Appalachian Geological Society [London] Special Publication 92,
Bai, T.X., Pollard, D.D., and Gross, M.R., 2000, Mechanical
Plateau, U.S.A: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 7, p. 215233.
prediction of fracture aperture in layered rocks: Journal
p. 459476, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(85)90049-5. Gross, M.R., Bahat, D., and Becker, A., 1997, Relations
of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, v. 105, p. 707
Engelder, T., 1993, Stress regimes in the lithosphere: Princeton, between jointing and faulting based on fracture-
721, doi: 10.1029/1999JB900303.
New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 457 p. spacing ratios and fault-slip profiles: A new method
Bai, T.X., Maerten, L., Gross, M.R., and Aydin, A., 2002,
Engelder, T., Gross, M.R., and Pinkerton, P., 1997, Joint devel- to estimate strain in layered rocks: Geology, v. 25,
Orthogonal cross joints: Do they imply a regional
opment in clastic rocks of the Elk Basin anticline, Mon- p. 887890, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0887:
stress rotation?: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 24,
tana-Wyoming: An analysis of fracture spacing versus RBJAFB>2.3.CO;2.
p. 7788, doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(01)00050-5.
bed thickness in a basement-involved Laramide struc- Gudmundsson, A., Gjesdal, O., Brenner, S.L., and Fjelds-
Becker, A., and Gross, M.R., 1996, Mechanism for joint
ture, in Hoak, T., et al., eds., Rocky Mountain Associa- kaar, I., 2003, Effects of linking up of discontinuities
saturation in mechanically layered rocks: An example
tion of Geologists 1997 Guidebook: Denver, Colorado, on fracture growth and groundwater transport: Hydro-
from southern Israel: Tectonophysics, v. 257, p. 223
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 118. geology Journal, v. 11, p. 8499.
237, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(95)00142-5.
Eyal, Y., 1996, Stress field fluctuations along the Dead Sea Helgeson, D.E., and Aydin, A., 1991, Characteristics of joint
Bentor, Y., and Vroman, A., 1954, A structural contour map
rift since the middle Miocene: Tectonics, v. 15, p. 157 propagation across layer interfaces in sedimentary
of Israel (1:250,000) with remarks on its dynamical
170, doi: 10.1029/95TC02619. rocks: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 13, p. 897911,
interpretation: Bulletin of the Research Council of
Eyal, Y., and Reches, Z., 1983, Tectonic analysis of the Dead doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(91)90085-W.
Israel, v. 4, p. 125135.
Sea rift region since the Late Cretaceous based on Hodgson, R.A., 1961, Regional study of jointing in Comb
Bergbauer, S., Mukerji, T., and Hennings, P., 2003, Improv-
mesostructures: Tectonics, v. 2, p. 167185. Ridge-Navajo Mountain area, Arizona and Utah:
ing curvature analyses of deformed horizons using
Eyal, Y., Gross, M.R., Engelder, T., and Becker, A., 2001, Joint American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bul-
scale-dependent filtering techniques: American
development during fluctuation of the regional stress letin, v. 45, p. 138.
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87,
field in southern Israel: Journal of Structural Geology, Hoffmann, W., Dunne, W.M., and Mauldon, M., 2004, Prob-
p. 12551272, doi: 10.1306/0319032001101.
v. 23, p. 279296, doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00096-1. abilistic-mechanistic simulation of bed-normal joint
Berkowitz, B., 1995, Analysis of fracture network connec-
Finn, M.D., Gross, M.R., Eyal, Y., and Draper, G., 2003, patterns, in Cosgrove, J.W., and Engelder, T., eds., The
tivity using percolation theory: Mathematical Geology,
Kinematics of throughgoing fractures in jointed rocks: initiation, propagation, and arrest of joints and other
v. 27, p. 467483, doi: 10.1007/BF02084422.
Tectonophysics, v. 376, p. 151166, doi: 10.1016/ fractures: Geological Society [London] Special Publi-
Bosworth, W., Guiraud, R., and Kessler, L.G., 1999, Late
j.tecto.2003.10.001. cation 231, p. 269284.
Cretaceous (ca. 84 Ma) compressive deformation of
Fischer, M.P., and Christensen, R.D., 2004, Insights into Katz, O., Reches, Z., and Baer, G., 2003, Faults and their
the stable platform of northeast Africa (Egypt): Far-
the growth of basement uplifts deduced from a study associated host rock deformation: Part I. Structure of
field stress effects of the Santonian event and origin
of fracture systems in the San Rafael monocline, small faults in a quartz-syenite body, southern Israel:
of the Syrian arc deformation belt: Geology, v. 27,
east central Utah: Tectonics, v. 23, p. TC1018, doi: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 25, p. 16751689,
p. 633636, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0633:
10.1029/2002TC001470. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(03)00011-7.
LCCMCD>2.3.CO;2.
Fischer, M.P., and Wilkerson, M.S., 2000, Predicting the Krenkel, E., 1924, Der Syrische bogen: Zentralblatt Minera-
Bruner, I., 1991, Investigation of the subsurface in the northern
orientation of joints from fold shape: Results of logie, v. 9, p. 274281.
Negev, Israel, using seismic reflection techniques [Ph.D.
pseudo-three-dimensional modeling and curvature La Pointe, P.R., 1988, A method to characterize fracture den-
thesis]: Tel Aviv, Israel, Tel Aviv University, 105 p.
analysis: Geology, v. 28, p. 1518, doi: 10.1130/0091- sity and connectivity through fractal geometry: Inter-
Buchbinder, B., Benjamini, C., and Lipson-Benitah, S.,
7613(2000)28<15:PTOOJF>2.0.CO;2. national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci-
2000, Sequence development of late Cenomanian
Ford, D.C., and Williams, P.W., 1989, Karst geomorphology ences and Geomechanics Abstracts, v. 25, p. 421429,
Turonian carbonate ramps, platforms and basins in
and hydrology: London, Unwin Hyman, 601 p. doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(88)90982-5.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007 1403

 Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on July 14, 2012
Gross and Eyal
Laubach, S.E., 2003, Practical approaches to identifying
sealed and open fractures: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87, p. 561579, doi:
10.1306/11060201106.
Lisle, R.J., 1994, Detection of zones of abnormal strains in
structures using Gaussian curvature analysis: Ameri-
can Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
v. 78, p. 18111819.
Mimran, Y., 1976, Deep-seated faulting and the structures
of the northern Negev (Israel); an analytic and experi-
mental study: Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 25,
p. 111126.
Narr, W., and Suppe, J., 1991, Joint spacing in sedimentary
rocks: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 13, p. 1037
1048, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(91)90055-N.
Odling, N.E., 1997, Scaling and connectivity of joint sys-
tems in sandstones from western Norway: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 19, p. 12571271, doi: 10.1016/
S0191-8141(97)00041-2.
Odling, N.E., 2001, The scaling of hydraulic conductivity
in rock fracture zones: Geophysical Research Letters,
v. 28, p. 30193022, doi: 10.1029/2000GL011863.
Oron, A.P., and Berkowitz, B., 1998, Flow in rock frac-
tures: The local cubic law assumption reexamined:
Water Resources Research, v. 34, p. 28112825, doi:
10.1029/98WR02285.
Pascal, C., Angelier, J., Cacas, M.C., and Hancock, P.L.,
1997, Distribution of joints: Probabilistic modelling
and case study near Cardiff (Wales, UK): Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 19, p. 12731284, doi: 10.1016/
S0191-8141(97)00047-3.
Priest, S.D., 1993, Discontinuity analysis for rock engineer-
ing: London, Chapman & Hall, 473 p.
Quennell, A.M., 1959, The structural and geomorphic evolu-
tion of the Dead Sea rift: Geological Society [London]
Quarterly Journal, v. 114, p. 124.
Rawnsley, K.D., Rives, T., Petit, J.-P., Hencher, S.R., and Lums-
den, A.C., 1992, Joint development in perturbed stress
1404 Geological Society of America Bulletin, November/December 2007
fields near faults: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 14,
p. 939951, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(92)90025-R.
Reches, Z., 1976, Analysis of joints in two monoclines in
Israel: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87,
p. 16541662, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1976)87<1654:
AOJITM>2.0.CO;2.
Renshaw, C.E., 1999, Connectivity of joint net-
works with power law length distributions: Water
Resources Research, v. 35, p. 26612670, doi:
10.1029/1999WR900170.
Rijken, P., and Cooke, M.L., 2001, Role of shale thickness
on vertical connectivity of fractures: Application of
crack-bridging theory to the Austin Chalk, Texas: Tec-
tonophysics, v. 337, p. 117133, doi: 10.1016/S0040-
1951(01)00107-X.
Rives, T., Razack, M., Petit, J.-P., and Rawnsley, K.D., 1992,
Joint spacing: Analogue and numerical simulations:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 14, p. 925937, doi:
10.1016/0191-8141(92)90024-Q.
Rogers, C.M., Myers, D.A., and Engelder, T., 2004, Kine-
matic implications of joint zones and isolated joints
in the Navajo Sandstone at Zion National Park, Utah:
Evidence for Cordilleran relaxation: Tectonics, v. 23,
TC1007, doi: 10.1029/2001TC001329,.
Ruf, J.C., Rust, K.A., and Engelder, T., 1998, Investigating
the effect of mechanical discontinuities on joint spac-
ing: Tectonophysics, v. 295, p. 245257, doi: 10.1016/
S0040-1951(98)00123-1.
Sagy, A., Reches, Z., and Roman, I., 2001, Dynamic frac-
turing: Field and experimental observations: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 23, p. 12231239, doi: 10.1016/
S0191-8141(00)00190-5.
Sagy, A., Reches, Z., and Agnon, A., 2003, Hierarchic three-
dimensional structure and slip partitioning in the west-
ern Dead Sea pull-apart: Tectonics, v. 22, 1004, doi:
10.1029/2001TC001323.
Shackleton, J.R., Cooke, M.L., and Sussman, A.J., 2005, Evi-
dence for temporally changing mechanical stratigraphy
and effects on joint-network architecture: Geology,
v. 33, p. 101104, doi: 10.1130/G20930.1.
Shamir, G., and Eyal, Y., 1995, Elastic modeling of fault-
driven monoclinal fold patterns: Tectonophysics, v. 245,
p. 1324, doi: 10.1016/0040-1951(94)00250-D.
Tipping, R.G., Runkel, A.C., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Alexander,
S.C., and Green, J.A., 2006, Evidence for hydraulic
heterogeneity and anisotropy in the mostly carbon-
ate Praire du Chien Group, southeastern Minnesota,
USA: Sedimentary Geology, v. 184, p. 305330, doi:
10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.11.007.
Tsang, Y.W., 1984, The effect of tortuosity on fluid flow
through a single fracture: Water Resources Research,
v. 20, p. 12091215.
Wdowinski, S., Bock, Y., Baer, G., Prawirodirdjo, L.,
Bechor, N., Naaman, S., Knafo, R., Forrai, Y., and
Melzer, Y., 2004, GPS measurements of current crustal
movements along the Dead Sea Fault: Journal of Geo-
physical Research, Solid Earth, v. 109, B05403, doi:
10.1029/2003JB002640.
Witherspoon, P.A., Wang, J.S.Y., Iwai, K., and Gale, J.E.,
1980, Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deform-
able rock fracture: Water Resources Research, v. 16,
p. 10161024.
Wu, H.Q., and Pollard, D.D., 1995, An experimental study of
the relationship between joint spacing and layer thick-
ness: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 17, p. 887905,
doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(94)00099-L.
Zur, Y., Almogi-Labin, A., Shamir, G., and Eyal, Y., 1996,
Thinning of the Menuha Formation at the Afran flex-
ure, Hatira monoclineImplication for the monocline
formation: Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 45,
p. 211216.
MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 31 MAY 2006
REVISED MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED 16 MAY 07
MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED 28 MAY 07
Printed in the USA