4.6 Article

Cenozoic Shift From Compression to Strike-Slip Stress Regime in the High Andes at 30°S, During the Shallowing of the Slab: Implications for the El Indio/Tambo Mineral District

期刊

TECTONICS
卷 36, 期 11, 页码 2714-2735

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2017TC004608

关键词

stress field; Andes; El Indio mine

资金

  1. Agencia de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICT 2011-1079]
  2. Servicio Nacional de Geologia y Mineria (SERNAGEOMIN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the High Andes of central Chile, above the flat-slab segment, analysis of more than 1,000 fault slip data from Miocene outcrops provides evidence for a change of the regional tectonic regime from compressional to strike slip. This shift in tectonic regime occurred during the waning stages of arc volcanism between 14 and 11Ma, as a result of the shallowing of the Nazca plate, in conjunction with the migration of deformation to the Precordillera. During the early to middle Miocene, a compressive regime with horizontal sigma(1) axis (N86 degrees E) was responsible for reverse slip along NNE to N-striking faults. During the late Miocene, a shift to strike-slip tectonics took place due to an increase in the absolute magnitude of the vertical stress component as the crust thickened and the gravitational potential energy increase. We argue that instead of the previously accepted highly compressional setting in the arc region during the slab flattening, the change to a strike-slip regime was the main control on mineralization. Mineralization was controlled by the promotion of fluid expulsion from the magma chambers along active, subvertical strike-slip fault systems with a high slip tendency, and focusing of fluids in localized areas undergoing extension. Under this strike-slip regime, the El Indio, Tambo, and La Despensa fault systems formed as dextral strike-slip systems. The tips and jogsites along these faults experienced local extensional stress fields, forming the El Indio and Tambo mineral districts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据