DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8224470
title: Distributions and scaling of offsets, dips and widths on normal faults and their relations to fault growth: insights from Auto_Throw code

description: The repository includes: 1. The Auto_Throw code 2. The topographic data (folder “DEMs”). Note that Les Saintes bathymetric data are available at https://doi.org/10.17882/96053). 3. Analysis Auto_Throw outputs obtained in the study (folder “Analysis_outputs”); namely, the topographic profiles as analyzed by Auto_Throw (along with raw topographic profiles for comparison). Each file concerns a given fault, as indicated in the file name. 4. Result Auto_Throw outputs obtained in the study (folder “Results_outputs”); namely the interpreted results obtained for each fault and each calculation. Each file concerns a given fault, as indicated in the file name. Each Fi_Synthesis file includes: (a) A Table synthesizing the Fault, DEM, and Run parameters (b) Results from far-field slope measures: we show maps of average far-field slope along each profile (far-field slopes are averaged over all calculations, and maps of far-field slope differences either side of the target scarp (averaged on each side over all calculations per profile;) (c) The final measures obtained on the fault, for each run. Each page includes several figures: (A1): manual fault map (not used in the calculations); (A2): map of the final vertical offset measures. Profiles are shown (red), along with the polygon (black) within which measures are considered as concerning the target fault; (A3): 3D vision of the topographic profiles; (A4): Bivariate histogram showing the relative difference between any offset value and the final best offset along each profile (for a given scarp; i.e., within the polygon in A2), as a function of Th. Inset shows these differences globally; (B1): fault scarp and extracted topographic profiles. Fault tips are indicated in yellow; (B2): Final vertical offset profile, with measures undiscriminated or discriminated based on expert assessment. Uncertainties are standard deviation of offsets among the dense population of “most represented offsets”. If this population is small (e.g., Th &lt; 40), the uncertainty is calculated as indicated in the corresponding pages (example in F5-Run 4); (B3): Final steepest (red) and mean (black) scarp dip profiles, with measures undiscriminated or discriminated based on expert assessment. Uncertainties on steepest dip are aleatory errors derived from the code, while uncertainties on mean dip are standard deviation of dip values among the dense population of “most represented offsets”; (B4): Final fault (black) and scarp (green) width profiles, with measures undiscriminated or discriminated based on expert assessment. Uncertainties on fault width are the standard deviation of the averaged values; (C1): Fault width measured at 2 lowest Th values; (C2): Fault width measured at 10 lowest Th values; (C3): Fault width measured at all Th values for population of “most represented offsets”. When several runs have been done, or several faults combine into a larger-scale system, or our results need to be compared to prior measures, the compared or combined results are generally presented in the last few pages of the Fi_Synthesis file. For F5-Run 4, results are shown per individual fault. For Fish Slough, results are presented slightly differently as the objective is their comparison with those of Scott et al., 2022.
description: Contact : Laboratoire Géoazur 250 rue Albert Einstein - 06560 Valbonne Emails : giampietro@geoazur.unice.fr, tiziano.giampietro@gmail.com