Along-trace profiles of the Timpa San Lorenzo fault structure (Calabria, Italy)

 

 

   
Fig. 1. 3D view of the Timpa di San Lorenzo structure (center) with the Pollino range at the West (left). View from NE, Google Earth maps.

 

One quite spectacular geological structure in Southern Italy that can be visualized in 3D terrain browsers such as Google Earth is the Timpa di San Lorenzo (TSL) carbonatic structure, outcropping at the border between Basilicata and Calabria near San Lorenzo Bellizzi (Fig. 1).  

If you play for instance with Google Earth, you would note a well exposed, planar fault surface cutting through limestones in the footwall. This fault is dissected by other faults, the main one being a NW-SE high-angle fault. North of it the TSL fault has a WNW-ESE trend, while to the South it is NNW-SSE (Fig. 2).

 

   
Fig. 2. Geological sketch representing the Timpa di San Lorenzo structure (center), subdivided into two segments by a NW-SE trending fault. The Mt. Pollino range is at the West (left).

In Alberti (2019) the two main segments were analyzed with GIS tools, namely the qgSurf plugin for QGIS, in order to derive the best-fitting planes to the various fault segments.

For the northern segment the geological plane fitting the traces has an attitude of 072°/39° (dip direction/dip angle), i.e., a medium-angle fault dipping to the ENE.

In the southern segment the best-fitting plane attitude is 082°/40°, i.e. a 10° trend rotation in a clockwise manner with respect to the northern sector.

 

In order to help visualize these inferred geological planes directly within geological profiles, I am adding in the pygsf and gst Python modules a new GIS tool that uses line traces with attitudes, intersect them with profiles and plot the intersected attitude in the profiles. This tool is still in development.

 

To analyse the geological situation for the studied zone, I used the two previous geological attitudes in order to derive, using the ‘Plane-DEM intersections’ tool of the QGIS  qgSurf plugin, their expected topographic traces. These line traces were clipped to the appropriate spatial domain and then merged together into a single line shapefile.

Using pygsf, gst and spatdata modules in development mode within Jupyter Notebook, the Timpa di San Lorenzo data were imported from the spatdata module, maps with faults (both mapped and theoretical traces) and profiles traces were created (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Geological plane traces approximating the Timpa di San Lorenzo structure (yellow lines), with numbered traces of parallel profiles. Profiles from 1 to 7 are of the fault northern segment, from 8 to 13 from the southern one.

The final product is represented by the geological profiles (Fig. 4), always produced within Jupyter Notebook using the three mentioned modules. The produced profiles highlights the carbonatic structures, while the pelagic sediments and meta-sediments units are not mapped.

As you can see in the profiles, the theoretical planes approximate quite well the attitude of the outcropping TSL fault slickensides (profiles 1 to 8, with the exception of profile 3, where the TSL fault is masked by other  units).

In the southern segment, the slickenside is visible mainly in profile 8 and also profile 9.
Moving soutwards, both the fault slickenside and the footwall is more and more eroded, due to the deep incision of the Torrente Raganello (profiles 10-13).

Fig. 4. Parallel profiles of the Timpa di San Lorenzo structure (yellow lines), with fault intersections (red dots), geological outcrops of limestones (PL, green) and the profile trace of the best-fitting geological planes (yellow bars). Profiles from 1 to 7 are of the fault northern segment, from 8 to 13 from the southern one. Additional outcrops are of Quaternary sediments (Qt), Albidona Formation (Al) and Saraceno Formation (Sa).

 

The Jupyter Notebook document used to create these (and more) analyses is available here.

 

To replicate the analysis you have to clone the gsf, gst and spatdata repositories, install the modules (for instance in development mode) and then run the notebook.

References

 

Alberti M. 2019. GIS analysis of geological surfaces orientations: the qgSurf plugin for QGIS. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27694v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27694v1

GIS evidences for low-angle segments in the Valnerina fault system (Central Apennines, Italy)

A long time ago, my PhD thesis was about the Valnerina line, a Cenozoic structural lineament in the Central Apennines of Italy, that runs parallel to the more important Olevano-Antrodoco line (Fig. 1), that is considered by many Authors to have played an major syn-sedimentary role during the Mesozoic pre-orogenic phase. The Valnerina line was investigated, among others, by Francesco Antonio Decandia (e.g., Decandia 1982), my thesis supervisor in Siena University. 

During the Cenozoic compression phase, both the Valnerina and the Olevano-Antrodoco lines would have been acted as oblique-dextral ramps in the Apenninic thrust-and-fold belt. This role would have derived from the reactivation of syn-sedimentary faults of the Mesozoic Umbrian basin (Decandia, 1982). 

Fig. 1. Map of the described zone. From Fig. 9 in Alberti, 2006.

I remember, in a field trip with students, that Decandia showed us a large fault slickenside between Jurassic Calcari Diasprini/Calcari a Posydonia and Cenozoic Scaglia tectonites in the Schioppo segment of the line. The slickenside was quite high angle, dipping 70° or more to the West (Fig. 2).

 

Fig. 2. Mesofaults with dextral movements in the footwall of the Schioppo fault. From Alberti, 1998.

 

In the Umbrian sector, the Valnerina line is composed of a few segments, mainly with a NNE-SSW trend. I studied two segments at the North of the Schioppo one, the Tassinare and the Grotti faults (Fig. 3). 

 

Fig. 3. Traces of Tassinare and Grotti segments of the Valnerina line. From Alberti, 2006.

Studying the slickensides and shear zones exposed along the trace of the Grotti fault, while top-to-NE movements were common, I didn't  find abundant examples of high-angle meso-faults (e.g., Fig. 4, 5).

Fig. 4. The Grotti faults (left) and observed meso-faults at structural stations (right). From Alberti, 2006.

 

Fig. 5. S-C calcareous mylonites, with calcite shear veins, in a shear zone in the Grotti area. Foto M. Alberti.

At the time, during the first half of '90, I was not aware of GIS tools and related quantitative digital techniques for studying geological surfaces. I just remember, during a stage in Basel University, the geologist Daniel Bernouilli, digitizing a structural surface at the table with the equivalent of a mouse.

Only after the PhD, while working in the Museo dell'Antartide in Siena, I began knowing and working with commercial GIS tools, i.e. ArcView and Arc/Info. Later I began using QGIS, Saga, Grass, i.e, the open source side of the GIS software.

With Python, a scripting language well integrated with QGIS, I started creating plug-ins devoted to structural analysis of geological field data. One of these plug-ins, qgSurf, includes a module, named 'DEM-plane intersection' that allows to calculate the expected intersections between a geological plane and a topography. 

When applying this module to the data of the Grotti fault, I was surprised to find that a very low angle plane (West-dipping and about 7° of dip angle) would approximate in a more than acceptable way the traces of both the Grotti fault and the southern portion of the Tassinare fault, even when considering that the Grotti fault is locally displaced by a few minor NW-SE normal faults  (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Map of traces (red lines) of the Grotti (NNE-SSW mean trend, central part) and Tassinare (broadly N-S trending, to the West) faults. The theoretical trace of the inferred geological plane with dip direction 269° and dip angle of 6.7° is superposed (semi-transparent thick orange line).

In Fig. 6 you may note that in the South-Eastern part a large klippe, plus a minor one to the North would be expected. There are no geological evidence of these klippen in the field (cf. Fig. 7), but it could be explained by the fact that the geological surface increases its dip to the South-East.

Fig. 7. Geological sketch of the Tassinare-Grotti zone (from Alberti, 1998).

 

To represent the inferred attitude of the plane with respect to the geological situation, I have modified the gsf and gst Python modules to allow plotting significant planes into parallel profiles, as visualized in the profiles below. 

The input data are geological outcrops, faults and a DEM of the zone. Analyses and plots were made within a Jupyter Notebook.

The five parallel lines in the map (Fig. 8, white lines), from North (# 1) to South (# 5), are shown as topographic profiles in Fig. 9, with geological formations (see legend) and fault traces (red dots) added.

The very low-angle geological plane 269°/06.7° is represented in these profiles by the thick semi-transparent orange line. 

It can be seen that it approximates quite well the mapped traces of the NNE-SSW trending Grotti segment. It is therefore possible that the Grotti segment is a low-angle fault, differently from the Schioppo segment of the Valnerina line.

Fig. 8. Topographic map of the studied zone, with fault traces (red lines) and paralell profiles (white lines). Created with gst and gsf Python modules.

Fig. 9. Topographic profiles as in Fig. 8, with geological formations and fault traces (red dots). The low-angle plane is represented by the thick orange line. Created with gst and gsf Python modules.

References

Alberti, M., 1998. Ruolo cinematico e dinamico di lineamenti sisedimentari mesozoici durante la tettogenesi Appenninica - Linea della Valneria, Umbria. Unpublished Phd thesis.

Alberti, M., 2006. Spatial structures in earthquakes and faults: quantifying similarity in simulated stress fields and natural data sets. Journal of Structural Geology, 28, 998–1018.

Decandia F.A., 1982. Geologia dei Monti di Spoleto (Prov. di Perugia). Boll. Soc. Geol. It., 101, 291-315.

 

 

 

 

GeoProfiler, porting of qProf to qgSurf

To create geological profiles, one of the available tools for QGIS is qProf. 

qProf is still maintained and features are added, mainly based on user requests and suggestions, but the main development has shifted to qgSurf, via the addition of the GeoProfiler tool, that is a porting of the functionalities of qProf to qgSurf.

 

 

GeoProfiler GUI is partially modified with respect to qProf and has a general workflow that surely has to be improved as easy of use but that should be more intuitive than that of qProf.

One of the main features of GeoProfiler is its ability to create parallel profiles, starting from a base one.

The following example illustrates the creation of parallel profiles.

We use a base profile, that corresponds to the blue dotted line in the figure below.

 

Having defined the base profile (in addition to the source DEM) we define the number and spacing of parallel profiles ('Profiles generation' command):

 

 

The tool automatically replicates the base profile 5 times, so that at the end we obtain parallel profiles as in the figure below.

  

 

The resulting profiles in plan view, with geological outcrops and fault line intersections, are obtained using the 'Plot profiles' command:

 

Important: to define and fine-tune the polygon and line intersections graphical parameters, as well to define the figure parameters, you need to find the best ones in the graphical parameters windows by trial-and-error.

Very important: defined polygon intersection will not show up in the profiles until you define their graphical parameters ('Polygon intersections' command in figure below).

 

 

Crucial: GeoProfiler has one major limitation, with respect to qProf: it does not handle source data with different CRS. So all input datasets must share the same CRS, say EPSG: 32633, to produce meaningful results.

The version of qgSuf with GeoProfiler included has been submitted to the QGIS plugin repository today (Nov. 27, 2022) and has yet to be approved. 

For the impatient or the curious, it can be downloaded and imported in QGIS as a zip file via the GitLab release (remember to unzip the downloaded file, rename the folder as "qgSurf", zip again with for instance 7Zip and install the plug-in from the new zip file)

 

Animations of geological profiles with map traces

 

In the new 6.2 pygsf release (2022/02/06) it is possible to create figures and also animations that represent a set of parallel profiles in which each geological profile is coupled with the related map trace.

Currently, the produced maps (left in the above animation) can only represent the profile traces, apart from the topography (optionally with a shaded relief). 

The code to create the above animation is available in the Jupyter notebook:

Geologic profiles map animations - the Timpa San Lorenzo structure (Southern Italy)

 

The release is available here:

https://gitlab.com/mauroalberti/gsf/-/tags/v6.2.0

Cross-section maps vs. profiles

 

The new pygsf release (v. 6.1.0) makes it possible to create and visualize directly in Jupyter, just using Python, topographic maps with superposed traces of parallel profiles, numbered by their ids as in the example below.

These map traces can be compared with the topographic vertical profiles displaying also geological information, for instance geological outcrops, that can be composed into an animation.

 

Next step would be to implement  the creation of animation with both the topographic vertical profile and a map with the corresponding map profile trace, so to make easier to relate each vertical profile with the related map trace.

The map traces and animation creations are detailed in this Jupyter notebook:

https://gitlab.com/mauroalberti/gsf/-/blob/master/docs/others/Geologic%20profiles%20-%20Timpa%20San%20Lorenzo.ipynb

 

The version 6.1.0 can be downloaded from:

https://gitlab.com/mauroalberti/gsf/-/tags/v6.1.0

Creating basic geological profile animations

In the new release (v. 6.0.0) of pygsf it is possible to create animations made up of parallel geological profiles.

An example is in the following gif:

The red circles represent fault intersections, while the green thick lines (PL) are Mesozoic carbonatic outcrops and the grey ones (Qt) are Quaternary outcrops. The area is in Southern Apennines (Timpa di San Lorenzo carbonatic structure). The profiles are derived from a geological outcrop shapefile and a topographic DEM, both loaded in a Jupyter notebook using pygsf.

 

pygsf is a Python module (yet unpublished) for the processing of geological data.

The processing may be performed for instance in a Jupyter notebook.

The plan is to incorporate this module in a QGIS plugin, qgSurf, created for the processing of geological data.

For those interested, the animation derivation is detailed in this Jupyter notebook:

https://gitlab.com/mauroalberti/gsf/-/blob/master/docs/others/Geologic%20profiles%20-%20Timpa%20San%20Lorenzo.ipynb

 

The version 6.0.0 can be downloaded from:

https://gitlab.com/mauroalberti/gsf/-/tags/v6.0.0