Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone, Roer Valley Rift System, the Netherlands, based...

Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone,

Roer Valley Rift System, the Netherlands, based on

displaced fluvial terrace fragments

R.F. Houtgast *, R.T. Van Balen , L.M. Bouwer , G.B.M. Brand , J.M. Brijker

Faculteit der Aardwetenschappen, Department of Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology, Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1085,

1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 5 November 2001; accepted 19 April 2002

Abstract

The Meuse River crosses the Feldbiss Fault Zone, one of the main border fault zones of the Roer Valley Graben in the

southern part of the Netherlands. Uplift of the area south of the Feldbiss Fault Zone forced the Meuse River to incise and, as a

result, a flight of terraces was formed. Faults of the Feldbiss Fault Zone have displaced the Middle and Late Pleistocene terrace

deposits. In this study, an extensive geomorphological survey was carried out to locate the faults of the Feldbiss Fault Zone and

to determine the displacement history of terrace deposits.The Feldbiss Fault Zone is characterized by an average displacement

rate of 0.041–0.047 mm a� 1 during the Late Pleistocene. Individual faults show an average displacement rate ranging between

0.010 and 0.034 mm a� 1. The spatial variation in displacement rates along the individual faults reveals a system of

overstepping faults. These normal faults developed by reactivation of Paleozoic strike-slip faults.As fault displacements at the

bases of the younger terrace deposits are apparently similar to the tops of the adjacent older terrace, the age of these horizons is

the same within thousands of years. This implies that the model of terrace development by rapid fluvial incision followed by

slow aggradation does apply for this area.

D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Roer Valley Rift System; Feldbiss Fault Zone; Fault displacement rates; Fluvial terraces; Meuse River; Quaternary

1. Introduction

In the southern part of the Netherlands, the Meuse

River crosses the Feldbiss Fault Zone. This fault zone

forms the boundary between a strongly subsiding Roer

Valley Graben, to the north and the uplifting Ardennes

and South LimburgBlock in the south (Fig. 1). Uplift of

the area south of the Feldbiss Fault Zone caused the

Meuse river to incise during the Pliocene and the

Quaternary and thus forming a flight of terraces (e.g.,

Pissart, 1974; Zonneveld, 1974; Felder et al., 1989; Van

den Berg, 1989; Juvigne and Renard, 1992; Renson et

al., 1999; Pissart et al., 1997; Van Balen et al., 2000).

Numerous studies have been carried out to detect

and quantify large-scale tectonic uplift using terrace

stratigraphy (e.g., Antoine et al., 2000; Krzyszkowski

et al., 2000; Chen and Liu, 2000). Such a study has

0040-1951/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0040 -1951 (02 )00219 -6

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Earth Sciences, Vrije

Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands. Tel.: +31-20-44-47392; fax: +31-20-64-62457.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.F. Houtgast).

www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Tectonophysics 352 (2002) 295–315

also been carried out for the Meuse terraces (Van den

Berg, 1996; Van Balen et al., 2000). Alluvial surfaces

have also been used to date movements on individual

faults (e.g., Hou et al., 1998; Li et al., 1999). In this

study, fluvial terraces are used to detect activity along

the Feldbiss Fault Zone.

In the area where the Meuse River crosses the

Feldbiss Fault Zone, several fault scarps dissect the

terrace morphology. These scarps offer the opportu-

nity to identify faults that were active during the Late

Quaternary. The terrace stratigraphy is used to quan-

tify activity along the individual faults. An extensive

geomorphological study combined with an analysis of

borehole data of the Dutch Geological Survey (TNO-

NITG) and geo-electric soundings was carried out.

The objective of this paper is to establish a Late

Quaternary tectonic model for the Feldbiss Fault Zone

in the Sittard area, using the terrace chronostratigra-

phy as time control.

2. Tectonic setting

The Feldbiss Fault Zone is the southern border

fault of the central Graben of the Roer Valley Rift

System (RVRS). The RVRS is an active rift system,

located in the southern part of the Netherlands, the

northeastern part of Belgium and adjacent parts of

Germany (Fig. 1). The RVRS extends from the Dutch

North Sea coast southeastwards into the Lower Rhine

Embayment, which is an integral part of a Cenozoic

mega-rift system crossing western and central Europe

(Ziegler, 1992). The RVRS has a complex Mesozoic

and Cenozoic tectonic history, comprising several

Fig. 1. Tectonic features of the Roer Valley Rift System, the Netherlands.

R.F. Houtgast et al. / Tectonophysics 352 (2002) 295–315296

extensional and inversion phases (Zijerveld et al.,

1992). The current extension phase started during

the Late Oligocene (Geluk et al., 1994).

The Roer Valley Rift System (RVRS) comprises the

Campine and South Limburg Blocks in the south, the

Roer Valley Graben in the center, and the Peel Block

and the Venlo Block in the northeast (Fig. 1). The Roer

ValleyGraben is separated from the adjoining blocks by

the Feldbiss Fault Zone in the southwest and the Peel

Boundary Fault Zone in the northeast, both of which

were active during the Quaternary (e.g., Ahorner, 1962;

Paulissen et al., 1985; Houtgast and Van Balen, 2000).

These fault zones are characterized by a spasmodic

displacement behavior during the Quaternary. In addi-

tion, activity along these fault zones is laterally variable

(Houtgast and Van Balen, 2000).

In the Sittard area (Fig. 2), the Feldbiss Fault Zone

crosses the Meuse terraces almost perpendicularly. The

Fig. 2. Map of South Limburg (The Netherlands). Distribution of terraces (after Van den Berg, 1989) and location of study area.

R.F. Houtgast et al. / Tectonophysics 352 (2002) 295–315 297

Feldbiss Fault Zone consists of several individual

faults (Fig. 2; TNO-NITG, 1999). In this study, we

focus on the Feldbiss Fault Zone east and west of

Sittard, which consists of the Feldbiss, Geleen and

Heerlerheide Faults. The two interpreted seismic sec-

tions, east and west of Sittard illustrate that these faults

were repeatedly reactivated since the Jurassic (Fig. 3).

3. Meuse terraces

3.1. Introduction

Due to northwest directed tilting and continuous

uplift of the South Limburg Block, terrace remnants

are preserved mainly on the east bank of the Meuse

river valley. The Meuse terraces in South Limburg

have been the subject of many studies and have been

extensively described (e.g., Van Rummelen, 1942;

Brueren, 1945; Zonneveld, 1974; Felder et al., 1989;

Van den Berg, 1989, 1996). Traditionally the Meuse

terraces are subdivided into four groups: the East

Meuse Terraces, Main (Higher) Terraces, Middle

Terraces and Lower Terrace (Table 1; Zonneveld,

1974). The different age models of these terraces do

not agree (especially for the Middle and Higher

Terraces) and different names were proposed (espe-

cially for the Lower Terraces). In this paper, we use

the terminology of Van den Berg (1996). The differ-

ences in the age models will be addressed below.

During the Pliocene and Early Pleistocene, the

Meuse flowed east of the Waubach Island (Van den

Berg, 1996; Fig. 2). The terraces formed in this period

are grouped into the East Meuse terraces. During the

Early Pleistocene the Meuse River changed its course

and flowed west of the Waubach Island. The Higher

Terraces, comprising the Geertruid and Pietersberg

Terraces, were formed during the Early Pleistocene to

the Early (Van den Berg, 1996) or Middle Cromerian

times (Felder et al., 1989; Van Balen et al., 2000). The

Middle Terraces, comprising the ’s Gravenvoeren,

Rothem and Caberg Terraces, are of Cromerian to

Middle Saalian Age. The Lower Terraces, comprising

the Eisden-Lanklaar, Mechelen a/d Meuse and Geist-

ingen are of Late Saalian to Late Glacial age (Felder et

al., 1989; Van den Berg, 1996; Van Balen et al., 2000).

3.2. Terraces in the Sittard area

The Meuse terrace fragments in this area belong to

the Middle and the Lower Terraces (Fig. 2). The

Caberg Terraces of the Middle Terrace sequence are

aggradational terraces formed by a braided river dur-

ing cold periods (Paulissen, 1973). The Eisden-Lan-

klaar and Geistingen Terraces of the Lower Terrace

system were also formed by a braided river system

during a cold period (Paulissen, 1973). An important

stratigraphic characteristic of the Geistingen Terrace is

the complete absence of coversands. Consequently,

this terrace was formed during or after the latest

period of coversand deposition, i.e. during or after

the Younger Dryas period (Paulissen, 1973).

All terraces in this study area have been deposited

by braided river systems and are characterized by

comparable lithological compositions. Generally,

these terraces consist of a lower part which is formed

by stacked channel deposits, mainly composed of

gravel and coarse sand (unit 1) and an upper part

Fig. 3. Interpreted seismic sections east and west of Sittard, after

TNO-NITG (1999). Location of section given in Fig. 2.


which is build up of overbank and floodplain deposits

composed of coarse to fine sands and loam (unit 2).

These finer sediments could be the overbank and

floodplain deposits of the same fluvial system that

formed the underlying coarse grained deposits (unit

1), leading to comparable ages of the units. Alter-

natively, the fine deposits (unit 2) could represent a

different fluvial system active during the subsequent

interglacial period, like observed at the Caberg 3

Terrace near Maastricht (Vandenberghe, 1993). There-

fore, the age of unit 2 is ambiguous.

The terrace deposits are often covered by aeolian

deposits, mainly sandy loess (Mun cher, 1986). The

terrace deposits are underlain by Tertiary Breda or

Kiezelooliet Formations, which consist of fine to

coarse sands (Felder et al., 1989). The base of the

terrace deposits has a spatial height variation of up to

several meters, whereas the top of the terrace deposits

generally varies only 1 m (Van den Berg, 1996).

3.3. Existing terrace maps

Two detailed geomorphological/terrace maps have

been published: Felder et al. (1989) and Van den Berg

(1989). Felder and Bosch used the base of the terrace

deposits to distinguish and map the different terraces.

Van den Berg used the top of the terrace deposits, i.e.

their geomorphology and topographic height. As the

height variability at the top of the terrace deposits is

smaller than the height variability at their base (Van den

Table 1


Berg, 1996), mapping the top of the terrace deposits

provides a more accurate picture of the terrace mor-

phology. The Van den Berg terrace division differ-

entiates more terraces in our study area. Therefore, we

prefer the Van den Berg (1989) map to the Felder et al.

(1989) map as a starting point. However, the accuracy

of the terrace borders in the vicinity of the Feldbiss

Fault Zone may be questioned as bending of the terrace

edges may be explained by downfaulting and not so

much by river activity (Fig. 4).

3.4. Age of the terraces

In order to calculate fault displacement rates an age

model for the terraces is required. The age of the

Caberg 3 Terrace (250 ka) has been established by

thermoluminescence and paleontological remains

(Huxtable and Aitken, 1985; Van Kolfschoten et al.,

1993) and is not disputed. For the older terraces, the

age control is less sure. Three different age models for

the terraces have been published (Table 1; Felder et al.,

1989; Van den Berg, 1996; Van Balen et al., 2000).

Felder et al. (1989) based their age model on pollen

data and on correlation to a paleo-temperature curve.

Van den Berg (1996) also used pollen data, correlation

with the paleo-temperature curve and additional local

paleomagnetic measurements. Van Balen et al. (2000)

used data from pollen, regional paleomagnetic meas-

urements and U/Th measurements, as well as a corre-

lation of Meuse and Rhine terraces. The age control of

the latter terraces is better. The different age models

show some discrepancies, particularly for the middle

Pleistocene terraces. The differences are caused by

paleomagnetic data and regional correlations.

The Meuse valley is characterized by flat and wide

terraces its upper part, the Main Terraces, and narrow

terraces in its lower part, the Middle and Lower Terra-

ces. The transition is sharplymarked in themorphology.

The same morphology is also present along the Rhine.

As both rivers are located in the same tectonic and

climatic setting, the morphologic break observed along

theMeuse and Rhine should have the same age. Several

paleomagnetic measurements constrain the age of the

youngest Main Terrace of the Rhine and Meuse, within

and outside the South Limburg area. Therefore, the

basic questions for the terrace age model are: What is

the paleomagnetic signature of the youngest Main

Terrace, and which terrace in the South Limburg area

corresponds to this terrace level? Based on upstream

terrace altitude correlation with the Belgian part of the

Meuse, Van Balen et al. (2000) concluded that the

Pietersberg 1 level is the youngest Main Terrace level.

Although, based on the local morphology, both the

Pietersberg 1 and the Pietersberg 2 Terraces appear to

belong to the last of the Main Terraces (Van den Berg

and Van Hoof, 2001). Thus, Pietersberg 2 is the young-

est Main Terrace. We therefore question the validity of

the date given by Van den Berg (1996) for the age of the

Pietersberg Terrace. Along the Rhine and along the

Meuse upstream of Maastricht, paleomagnetic meas-

urements on the youngest Main Terraces show normal

polarization (seeVanBalen et al., 2000). In addition, the

deposits in the Roer Valley Graben which can be

correlated to the Pietersberg 2 Terrace based on tec-

tono-morphological arguments (Van Balen et al., 2000)

also show normal polarization (van Montfrans, 1971).

The age of this terrace is therefore constrained by the

age of the paleomagnetic Matuyama–Brunhes boun-

dary, which is 0.78 ka. However, the paleomagnetic

data from the Pietersberg 2 level from South Limburg

(Van den Berg, 1996; Van den Berg and Van Hoof,

2001) is not in accordance with this scheme. WeFig. 4. Influence of fault activity on terrace heights. Correlation of

terraces based on altitudes can lead to wrong results.


question their validity of their date particularly as the

Pietersberg Terrace correlates with well dated fluvial

deposits in the Roer Valley Graben (Van Balen et al.,

2000). In addition, assuming for it an age close to the

Matuyama–Brunhes boundary results in a more uni-

form distribution of terraces through time, and a

straightforward correlation of terraces with the ocean

oxygen isotope record (Shackleton et al., 1990), (see

Fig. 5 and Table 1, age model this paper). Still, both age

models will be used to calculate fault displacements.

4. Methodology

During this study, borehole records form the Dutch

Geological Survey (TNO-NITG) were combined with

new handcorings and vertical electric soundings. The

advantage of handcorings is the accurate lithological

description, their disadvantage is that it is only pos-

sible to determine the top of the coarse terrace

deposits. The advantage of TNO-NITG core holes is

that most of them reached the base of the coarse

terrace deposits and thus permit to map their top and

base. Geo-electric surveys have the advantage of deep

penetration, but their disadvantage is the dependence

on a number of factors which influence the measure-

ment and their interpretation, e.g. groundwater level

and availability of nearby corings to calibrate the geo-

electric measurement (Vandenberghe, 1982). The

accuracy in determination of the top and base of the

coarse terrace deposits is less than in corings. There-

fore, the geo-electric soundings play a supportive role,

particularly for the determination of the base of the

coarse terrace deposits.

In a first step, the faults in the study area were

mapped, using topographic and geomorphological

Fig. 5. Correlation in southern Limburg of terraces with the ODP 667 d18O ocean record (Shackleton et al., 1990). Van den Berg (1996) age

model and the age model used in this paper. After Van den Berg (1996).


maps, field observations and a DTM. Secondly, the

terrace stratigraphy was used to develop an accurate

terrace map for each fault block. Finally, the elevation

of the top and base of each terrace on the different

fault blocks was determined, thus permitting the

calculation of the fault displacements along the indi-

vidual faults.

4.1. Location of the faults in the Sittard area

Various maps showing the location of faults in the

study area have been published (e.g., Felder et al.,

1989; TNO-NITG, 1999; Beerten et al., 1999). In the

field, tectonic scarps are evident as relatively steep

slopes which extent over several kilometers. Based on

a DTM of the area combined with field observations a

new map of the faults was constructed (Fig. 6). The

mapped faults divide the study area, southwest of

Sittard, into four tectonic blocks, namely the area

northeast of the Feldbiss Fault, between the Feldbiss

Fault and the Geleen Fault, between the Geleen Fault

and the Heerlerheide Fault and southwest of the

Heerlerheide Fault. We assume that each fault block

behaves as a tectonic entity. Smaller faults ( < 1 m)

within the individual fault blocks cannot be distin-

guished from natural height variation of 1 m at the top

of the terrace deposits (Van den Berg, 1996). South of

the Heerlerheide Fault, we were unable to collect

enough data because the younger terraces have no

or only small terrace remnants in that area, and

because of built areas. The contribution of the Heer-

lerheide Fault to the total displacement of the Feldbiss

Fault Zone will be addressed in the Discussion sec-

tion. The fault configuration northeast of Sittard (older

terraces) is different from the area west of Sittard

(younger terraces, Fig. 6). East Of Sittard, we divide

the area into three tectonic blocks, namely north of the

NE-Main Fault, between the NE-Main fault and the

Feldbiss Fault and South of the Feldbiss Fault.

4.2. Mapping the terraces

The terrace deposits consists of a coarse grained

lower part (unit 1) and a finer grained upper part (unit 2).

Fig. 6. Detailed map of the terraces and differences with the Van den Berg (1996) map. Dutch reference system coordinates (Rijks Driehoeks

Meting).


The boundary between the sandy Tertiary deposits and

the lower terrace deposits (unit 1) is in most cases easy

to recognize in core holes and geo-electric soundings.

The transition between unit 1 and the overlying finer-

grained unit 2 is also easily recognized in corings. Due

to the gradual transitions, the boundary between the

fine-grained unit 2 and the overlying sandy loess cover

is often difficult to pinpoint in (hand) corings. In this

paper, the base of the terrace deposits refers to the base

of the coarse unit 1, whereas the top of the terrace

deposits refers to top of unit 1.

In order to map the position of the terrace borders

on the individual fault blocks we constructed geo-

logical sections parallel to their bounding NW–SE-

oriented faults (Figs. 7 and 9), applying the following

three criteria: (1) Terrace scarps paralleling the river

Meuse have a clear expression, particularly on the

younger terraces (Geistingen, Eisden-Lanklaar). By

contrast the morphological expression of the older

terraces is less clear due to their masking loess cover

and erosion of the scarps (Zonneveld, 1974). (2)

Abrupt depth changes in the top of unit 1, which

forms a very distinct marker. However, one must

realize that the top unit 1 has often been disrupted

by post depositional gully erosion (Van den Berg,

1996). (3) Abrupt depth changes of the base of unit 1,

which is clearly recognizable in core holes and geo-

electric measurements. However, natural height var-

iations of several meters are evident at the base of unit

1 (Van den Berg, 1996).

5. Results

It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the

resulting profiles in detail. However, some features of

Fig. 7. Location of geological sections parallel to the faults (Fig. 8) and the location of the interpreted seismic sections (Fig. 3). For legend, see

Fig. 6.


Fig. 8. Geological sections parallel to the faults. Based on corings and geo-electric soundings.


the profiles deserve attention. One prominent feature

is the stacking of terrace deposits in profiles A, B and

C. Older terrace deposits (probably deposits of the

Caberg 3 Terrace) underlie the younger terraces (Hol-

ocene floodplain, Geistingen and Eisden-Lanklaar

Terraces; Beerten et al., 1999). The bases of the coarse

deposits of these terraces are located at about the same

elevation. The profiles are located on different fault

Fig. 8 (continued ).


Fig. 8 (continued ).


blocks, with different tectonic regimes (Fig. 7). Pro-

files A and B are located in the Roer Valley Graben,

which is a strong subsiding block. Profiles C and D

are respectively located on the Feldbiss/Geleen Fault

Block and the Geleen/Heerlerheide Fault Block,

which are moderate to minor (with respect to the

Roer Valley Graben) subsiding blocks. Because of

the strong subsiding nature of the Roer Valley Graben

and the moderate subsiding nature of the Feldbiss/

Geleen Fault Block, older terrace deposits underlie the

younger terraces. An additional cause for the decrease

in incision of the younger terraces (Eisden-Lanklaar

and Geistingen Terraces) could be the loss of the

Moselle tributary to the Meuse River during the Late

Saalian (Pissart et al., 1997; Van Balen et al., 2000).

Decreasing the discharge of the Meuse river after the

formation of the Caberg 3 Terrace (Middle Saale) lead

to the preservation of the Caberg 3 Terrace deposits

beneath the younger terrace deposits. This strati-

graphic superposition makes it difficult to establish

the exact position of the boundaries between the

stacked terrace deposits. Section D (Fig. 8) is located

on the Geleen/Heerlerheide Fault Block. Tertiary

deposits underlie all terraces in this profile, stacked

terrace deposits are absent. Section E (Fig. 8) is

located south of the Heerlerheide Fault. In the area

of this profile, the younger terraces are hardly pre-

served.

In section C (Fig. 8), the large height difference

between the Caberg 1 Terrace and the older Terraces

deserves attention. It could possibly be the result of a

N–S-oriented fault. On the geological map of the top

of the pre-Permian (TNO-NITG, 1999), a N–S-ori-

ented fault is situated near this location. However, at

other locations in between the Feldbiss and Geleen

Faults we could not any find evidence for a N–S-

oriented fault that was active during the Quaternary.

Additionally, the inferred displacement of more than

30 m is too large for such a short (1 km) fault

segment, making it the fault with the largest displace-

ment in the area. An alternative explanation is that

during the formation of the Caberg 1 Terrace the river

was able to remove older terrace remnants (Rothem 2,

Rothem 1 and ’s Gravenvoeren) at this location.

The natural height variation of the base of the

terraces is several meters (Van den Berg, 1996). At

Table 2

Average height [m NAP] of the base and top of the terrace deposits on each tectonic block

Terrace North of Feldbiss Fault

Height r N

Between Feldbiss

and Geleen Faults

Between Geleen and

Heerlerheide Faults

South of Heerlerheide

Fault

Height r N Height r N Height r N

Geistingen Top 29.9 0.8 9 31.7 0.6 10 32.4 1.0 7 n.d.

Base 17.6 0.3 2 21.7 0.9 3 26.5 0.4 3 n.d.

Eisden-Lanklaar Top 31.7 0.4 4 34.9 0.7 5 40.0 0.3 5 n.d.

Base 19.2 0.2 2 24.9 1.2 2 34.5 1.2 2 n.d.

Caberg 3 Top 32.9 0.4 5 39.7 0.7 5 46.5 0.6 3 n.d.

Base 17.5 0.5 4 27.0 0.8 4 34.4 1.1 3 n.d.

Caberg 2 Top 34.8 0.5 8 44.2 0.4 4 49.8 0.2 3 n.d.

Base 19.1 1 33.2 0.8 4 38.6 0.6 2 n.d.

Caberg 1 Top 38.6 0.4 5 48.6 0.3 3 53.4 0.1 2 54.7 0.1 3

Base 20.9 0.6 4 38.0 0.6 3 37.3 1 47.3 1

North of NE-main Fault Between Feldbiss

and NE-main Faults

South of Feldbiss Fault

Pietersberg 1 Top 52.5 1 n.d. 95.0 1

Base 49.0 1 n.d. 86.1 1

Geertruid 3 Top n.d. n.d. 98.2 1

Base 48.4 2.7 2 n.d. 96.4 0.4 2

Geertruid 2 Top n.d. 73.2 1.6 3 104.1 1.6 3

Base 39.9 1 66.6 1.8 2 91.8 1.4 5

r= Standard deviation, N =Number of observations, n.d. = no data.

The values given in this table could differ from the results given in the profiles of Fig. 8. In those profiles the terrace heights represent the

elevation at the location of the profile, whereas the values given in this table are calculated with data from the whole fault block.


several locations along the profiles, the variation is

even larger (e.g., profile B, Caberg 2; profile E,

Caberg 2). This shows that the variation in the base

of the terraces can be as large as 5–8 m. In general,

the terrace heights in the profiles represent the ele-

vation of the base of the terraces at the location of the

profile, whereas the values given in Table 2 are

calculated with data from the whole fault block. Thus,

the values given in Table 2 could differ from the

results as shown in the profiles of Fig. 8.

Additional data (hand corings, TNO-NITG corings

and geo-electric soundings) located outside the pro-

files were used to determine the location of the terrace

borders between the profiles. The new terrace map

differs in several details from the terrace map of Van

den Berg (1989) as indicated in Fig. 6. Most of these

differences occur north of the Feldbiss Fault. South of

the Feldbiss fault, these differences between the two

maps are minimal. The largest discrepancy is the

border between the Geistingen Terrace and Holocene

floodplain. Large parts of the Holocene floodplain are

now interpreted as forming a part of the Geistingen

Terrace. Three arguments support our interpretation.

(1) Difference in morphology between the two terra-

ces. In our interpretation, the Holocene floodplain is

characterized by a clear scroll bar morphology. In the

interpretation of Van den Berg, this distinct morphol-

ogy is attributed to the Geistingen Terrace south of the

Feldbiss Fault. (2) The heights differ between the two

terraces and a scarp occurs between the two terraces.

(3) Analyses of the pollen record of the fill of a

meander scar a few kilometers north of the Feldbiss

Fault revealed a Younger Dryas age (Van Nieuwpoort

and Schokker, 1998), placing the abandonment of this

system before or during the Younger Dryas.

5.1. Height of terrace deposits on the different fault

blocks

Faults divide the area west of Sittard into several

tectonic blocks while the terrace borders subdivide

these blocks into individual terrace sections. The next

step in our analysis was to calculate the average height

of the top and base of the terrace deposits on each

block. Theoretically, all the measurements on a terrace

within one block should approximately yield the same

elevation. However, some natural variations may be

attributed to a depositional height variability of about

1 m at the top of the coarse terrace deposits (Van den

Berg, 1996), and to longitudinal gradients of the

terrace surface. Additional factors are gully erosion

and inaccuracy in the height measurements in corings

and in the determination of the top and base of unit 1

in the corings. We made corrections for the latter (see

below).

Because of the height variability we expect some

of the height measurements to deviate downwards. We

assume that the highest points give the most accurate

representation of the depositional height. Measure-

ments which deviate too much ( > 1 m) from the

average height of each section were rejected. A

distinction should be made between the older terraces

(Pietersberg 1, 2, 3 and Geertruid 1, 2, 3) and the

younger terraces (Caberg 1, 2, 3, Eisden-Lanklaar, and

Geistingen). The older terraces were subjected to

erosion for a much longer time and therefore large

parts of the terrace deposits are missing (Felder et al.,

1989). Therefore, on a number of sections we were

not able to determine the height of the top and/or base

of the coarse terrace deposits. On the younger terra-

ces, a complete stratigraphy is present at most places

and the values are much more reliable. As mentioned

above, the youngest terraces (Eisden-Lanklaar and

Geistingen) are underlain by older terrace deposits

(probably Caberg 3 Terrace deposits, see Fig. 8).

Therefore, values for the base of the unit 1 terrace

deposits on these younger terraces should be regarded

with caution. Table 2 gives the height of the base and

the top of the terrace deposits on each tectonic block

together with the number of reliable observations and

the standard deviation. A distinction was made

between the area west and east of Sittard because of

difference in fault configuration between the two

areas, see Fig. 2.

Beerten et al. (1999) also investigated the height of

the base of several terraces on the Belgian and Dutch

side of the Meuse River, but did not investigate the

height of the top of the terrace deposits. The result of

their investigation is given in Table 3 along with the

results of our study. In most cases the results of both

investigations coincide within a margin of 2 m.

However, they differ significantly on the Geistingen

Terrace in between the Geleen and Feldbiss Faults.

Beerten et al. (1999) used the terrace map of Van den

Berg (1989) in the area of the Geistingen Terrace near

the Feldbiss Fault Zone. This is exactly the area where


the largest adjustments to the Van den Berg terrace

map were made (see Fig. 6). Moreover, Beerten et al.

(1999) regards the area north of the Geleen Fault on

this terrace as one fault block, not intersected by the

Feldbiss Fault. This could lead to different results.

Therefore, we give preference to the results of our

investigation at these specific points.

5.2. Fault displacements

The height difference of the base and top of the unit

1 terrace deposits across a fault is interpreted as

resulting from a displacement along that fault. How-

ever, in order to calculate fault displacements accu-

rately we have to take into account the longitudinal

river gradient of the original terrace surface (Fig. 9).

According to Van den Berg (1996), terrace surfaces

have a gradient of about 0.75 m/km south of the

Feldbiss Fault Zone. The heights of the terrace depos-

its in the middle of adjacent blocks on the same terrace

are approximately 1.2–1.6 km separated from each

other. Therefore, we corrected each height difference

across the faults with 1.0 m for the longitudinal

gradient. In Fig. 10, the displacements of the base

(Fig. 10a) and top (Fig. 10b) of the unit 1 terrace

deposits along the individual faults are presented.

We used two age models to date the fault displace-

ments, the Van den Berg (1996) age model and an

improved Van Balen et al. (2000) age model (Table 1).

To date the displacement of the top of the coarse terrace

deposits we used the age of the terrace as given by the

age models. For dating the displacement of the base of

the coarse terrace deposits, we use the age of the

adjacent older terrace as a maximum age (Fig. 11).

This approach assumes that there is a short time interval

between the formation of two subsequent terraces,

Fig. 9. Relation between height of the tectonic block, fault displacement and fluvial gradient.

Table 3

Comparison between the heights of the base of the terrace deposits on the Dutch side of the Maas River found by Beerten et al. (1999) and this

investigation

Terrace Average heights (m NAP) of the base of the terrace deposits

South of the Geleen Fault Between the Geleen and Feldbiss Faults North of the Feldbiss Fault

This research Beerten et al. This research Beerten et al. This research Beerten et al.

Holocene Floodplain n.d. F 27 n.d. F 16 17.0 F 16

Geistingen 26.5 F 27 21.7 F 27 17.6 < 20

Eisden-Lanklaar 34.5 F 35 24.9 F 27 19.2 < 20

Caberg 3 34.4 F 35 27.0 F 27 17.5 < 20

Caberg 2 38.6 F 40 33.2 F 33 19.1 < 20

n.d. = no data.


which corresponds to fast river incision followed by

slow aggradation as proposed in models of fluvial

terrace development (e.g., Vandenberghe, 1993).

In Fig. 12 (left), the results of our study are

presented as displacements both at the top and the

base of the terrace deposits as a function of location

along the fault, showing the lateral variability in fault

activity along the individual faults (Geleen and Feld-

biss Faults). The average fault displacement rate since

the formation of the terrace is given for the locations

indicated in Fig. 10a and b. It varies between 0.009 and

0.034 mm a� 1 along the Geleen Fault and between

0.017 and 0.031 mm a� 1 along the Feldbiss Fault. We

reject the value of 0.073 mm a � 1, based on the

displacement of the base of the Geistingen Terrace,

as the inaccuracy (several meters, see above) in deter-

mination of the base of the Geistingen Terrace is too

large in comparison with the displacement (0.8 m).

Fig. 13 shows the displacement as a function of

time for the Feldbiss Fault Zone as a whole (Heerler-

heide, Geleen and Feldbiss Faults), using the two age

models. It gives an indication of fault activity for the

Feldbiss Fault Zone from the Middle Pleistocene up to

the present. In Fig. 13, we used the most reliable

measurements, e.g. the displacement at the top of the

terrace deposits for the younger terraces (Geistingen

and Eisden-Lanklaar) and the displacement in the base

of the terrace deposits for the older terraces (Caberg 1,

2 and 3, Pietersberg 1, Geertruid 2 and 3). The

average fault displacement rate since the Middle

Pleistocene for the Feldbiss Fault Zone is 0.041 mm

a� 1, using the Van den Berg (1996) age model and

0.047 mm a� 1, using the improvement of the Van

Balen et al. (2000) age model. These displacement

rates are of the same order of magnitude as displace-

ment rates found by other studies on the Roer Valley

Rift System (Paulissen et al., 1985; Van den Berg,

1996; Camelbeeck and Meghraoui, 1998).

The individual faults show temporal and spatial

variation in fault activity (Fig. 12). However, it is

difficult to separate the temporal and spatial compo-

nents, since the Geleen Fault is only active in the

western part of the study area. This is indicated by the

increase in displacements at both the base and top of

the terrace deposits along this fault towards the north-

west, despite the fact that the terrace deposits become

younger (Fig. 10). This is also clearly evident in the

morphology, as the Geleen Fault looses its morpho-

logical expression southeast of the Caberg 1 terrace.

The displacements along the Feldbiss Fault at both the

base and top of the terrace deposits decrease as

expected whereas the terraces become younger. Yet,

at the Caberg 2 Terrace where the Geleen Fault

becomes active the activity of the Feldbiss Fault

decreases. However, Fig. 13 shows that the total

displacement rate on the Feldbiss Fault Zone is con-

stant at a rate of 0.041 or 0.047 mm a� 1 throughout

Fig. 10. Displacement of the base (a) and top (b) of the terrace

deposits along the individual faults of the Feldbiss Fault Zone. For

legend, see Fig. 6.


the Late Pleistocene. These two observations indicate

that the Feldbiss Fault Zone is a system of over-

stepping faults: in a northwestward direction exten-

sional strain is transferred from the Feldbiss Fault to

the Geleen Fault.

5.3. Contribution of the Heerlerheide Fault to the

activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone

Wewere not able to calculate the displacement of the

younger terraces along the Heerlerheide Fault. On a

geo-electric profile along theMeuse River Beerten et al.

(1999) could not find evidence for activity of the

Heerlerheide Fault. Further to the southeast the Heer-

lerheide Fault has displaced the deposits of the Caberg 1

Terrace. It seems that activity along the Heerlerheide

Fault diminishes towards the northwest. However, the

contribution of the Heerlerheide Fault Zone to the

displacement of the Feldbiss Fault Zone as a whole

can be calculated. Van den Berg (1996) reconstructed

the terrace gradients between Maastricht and the Roer

Valley Graben, and arrived at about the same value for

all terraces. From his reconstruction, it is clear that

terrace convergence is negligible on the South Limburg

Block. The height difference between the Geertruid 3

Terrace and the Holocene floodplain in the Maastricht

area is 80 m. whereas the height difference between

these two terraces north of the Feldbiss Fault Zone is 23

m. Because river profile convergence is negligible, the

difference of 57 m is mainly caused by fault move-

ments. We found a displacement since the formation of

the Geertruid Terrace of 52 m (see Fig. 13). This leaves

Fig. 11. Using the terrace age model to date the base and top of the coarse terrace deposits. The age of the top of the coarse terrace deposits

corresponds to the age of the terrace as given by the age model. The age of the base of the coarse terrace deposits corresponds to the age of the

adjacent older terrace as given by the age model. Levels of approximately the same age are indicated.


5 m unaccounted for, for which the Heerlerheide Fault

is partly responsible. There are probably more small

faults on the South Limburg Block. Therefore, we

assume that since the Middle Pleistocene the Heerler-

heide Fault contributed less then 10% to the total

displacement along the Feldbiss Fault Zone.

6. Discussion

6.1. Quaternary and present-day stress field and

relation to fault movements

Our results have revealed the occurrence of an

overstepping fault system that can be explained in

several ways. For example, it could represent a system

of overstepping strike-slip faults. Strike-slip motions

were proposed by Camelbeeck and Meghraoui (1998)

Fig. 12. Displacements along the Feldbiss and Geleen Faults.

Fig. 13. Displacement as a function of time for the Feldbiss Fault

Zone.


and Van den Berg (1996) for faults of the Roer Valley

Graben, based on the fault pattern, the occurrence of

possible pop-up and pull-apart structures, and earth-

quake focal mechanisms. However, these authors

disagree however on the sense of wrenching: Camel-

beeck and Meghraoui (1998) suggest a left lateral

strike-slip component for the Belgian part of the

Feldbiss Fault Zone, whereas Van den Berg (1996)

argues that the Feldbiss and Peel Boundary Fault

Zones have a right lateral strike-slip component.

However, morphological- and structural geology data

provide no hard evidence for strike-slip motions along

the NW–SE-oriented faults (Houtgast, manuscript in

preparation). In addition, the Quaternary faults in the

Roer Valley Graben represent reactivated Paleozoic

wrench faults of late Variscan age or older (Houtgast

and Van Balen, 2000). Therefore, the observed Qua-

ternary fault pattern is inherited and could not be

directly related to the present-day stress field (Hout-

gast and Van Balen, 2000). The present-day maximum

horizontal stress direction is NW–SE-oriented (Mun l-ller et al., 1992), and was established during the

middle and late Miocene (Bergerat, 1987; Hibsch et

al., 1995; Becker, 1993). Based on earthquake focal

mechanisms, Plenefisch and Bonjer (1997) showed

that the vast majority of fault activity in the Lower

Rhine Embayment is characterized by normal fault-

ing. Thus, the maximum principal stress is vertical. In

this stress system, the NW–SE striking faults, such as

the Feldbiss and Peel Boundary Fault Zones, are

expected to move in a normal faulting mode. There-

fore, in our view, the system of overstepping faults in

the Sittard area represents a set of Paleozoic strike-slip

faults reactivated as normal faults. However, we do

not exclude strike-slip motions along faults with

different orientations. For example, N–S-oriented

fault lineaments have been found on satellite images

by Sesoren (1976), and in the topography by Van den

Berg (1996) and Houtgast and Van Balen (2000).

6.2. Fluvial development model of rapid incision and

slow aggradation

To date the fault displacements we assumed a

model of rapid river incision followed by slow aggra-

dation (e.g., Vandenberghe, 1993). This implies that

on a 10-ka time scale the base of the coarse deposits

of a terrace are approximately of the same age as the

top of the coarse terrace deposits on the adjacent older

terrace (see Fig. 11): Incision takes only thousands of

years, whereas aggradation lasts for tens of thousands

of years. On a 1- to 10-ka time scale, an individual

fault moves centimeters to decimeters, whereas on a

10- to 100-ka time scale the fault moves several

meters. If one assumes a constant displacement rate

along an individual fault, extending over several

kilometers, the displacement of the base of a terrace

should approximately equal the displacement at the

top of the older adjacent terrace. Fig. 12 (right) shows

that, in fact, in most cases the displacement at the base

of a terrace is slightly larger than that of the top of the

higher terrace. This suggests that the top of the terrace

deposits were subjected to erosion. The displacement

at the base of the terrace equals the displacement at

the top of the older adjacent terrace within a meter.

There are some exceptions: along the Feldbiss Fault

the displacement at the base of the Caberg 2 Terrace is

significantly larger then the displacement at the top of

the Caberg 1 Terrace. This may be due to strong

erosion of the top of the Caberg 1 Terrace. Along the

Geleen fault in the middle of the investigated fault

segment, the displacement at the base of the terrace is

larger then the displacement in the top of the adjacent

older terraces. This can be explained by northwest-

wards increasing activity along the Geleen Fault (Fig.

12, left). The base of the Eisden-Lanklaar Terrace and

the top of the adjacent older Caberg 3 Terrace are 2

km apart. In this case, the assumption of a constant

fault displacement rate along the Geleen Fault over

several kilometers is not correct.

As in general the apparent displacement at the top

of the terrace deposits is equal to or even less than the

displacement at the base of the next younger terrace.

The time elapsed between the formation of these two

surfaces is probably short. Therefore, the model of

rapid fluvial incision followed by slow aggradation

for the terrace formation appears to apply in this area.

7. Conclusions

Terrace deposits displaced by faults are very useful

to locate and quantify fault activity, provided the age of

the terraces is known. However, the tops of the terrace

deposits have been subjected to erosion and this could

lead to an underestimation of the vertical fault displace-


ment. Correlation of the top of the terrace deposits

across faults can cause problems. A terrace surface on

the hanging wall will be lower then on the footwall.

However, an older terrace on the hanging wall can have

the same height as a younger terrace on the footwall.

This has to be taken into consideration when terrace

stratigraphy is used to quantify fault activity.

As the bases of the younger terrace deposits have

similar fault displacements as the tops of the older

terraces, the ages of these horizons are apparently

similar within a margin of several thousands of years.

This implies that the duration of the fluvial incision

phase is relatively short compared to the terrace

formation phase.

During the Middle and Late Pleistocene, the Feld-

biss Fault Zone had an average fault displacement rate

of 0.041 or 0.047 mm a� 1, depending on which age

models is used. During the same time period individ-

ual faults of this fault zone (Heerlerheide, Geleen and

Feldbiss Faults) show fault displacement rates varying

between 0.010 and 0.035 mm a � 1. In the area

between Sittard and the Meuse River, the contribution

of the Feldbiss Fault to the total displacement of the

Feldbiss Fault Zone decreases towards the northwest,

whereas in the same direction the contribution of the

Geleen Fault increases. Therefore, this part of the

Feldbiss Fault Zone is a system of overstepping faults.

The overstepping faults are Paleozoic wrench faults,

reactivated as normal faults.

Acknowledgements

The study presented in this paper is a contribution

to the NEESDI (Netherlands Environmental Earth

System Initiative) program, funded by the Netherlands

Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). We

thank Drs. W. Westerhoff of the TNO-NITG for his

cooperation. Prof. Dr. J. Vandenberghe, Dr. C. Kasse,

Dr. F.W. van der Wateren, Drs. P.W. Bogaart and Drs.

V. Bense for their discussions and constructive

criticism.

References

Ahorner, L., 1962. Untersuchungen zur Quartaren Bruchtektonik

der Niederrheinischen Bucht. Eiszeitalter Ggw. 13, 24–105.

Antoine, P., Lautridou, J.P., Laurent, M., 2000. Long-term fluvial

archives in NW France: response of the Seine and Somme rivers

to tectonic movements, climatic variations and sea-level changes.

Geomorphology 33, 183–207.

Becker, A., 1993. An attemp to define a ‘‘neotectonic period’’ for

central and northern Europe. Geol. Rundsch. 82, 67–83.

Beerten, K., Brabers, P., Bosch, P., Gullentops, F., 1999. The pas-

sage of the Feldbiss Bundle through the Maas Valley. Aardkd.

Meded. 9, 153–158.

Bergerat, F., 1987. Stress fields in the European platform at the time

of Africa–Eurasia collision. Tectonics 6 (2), 99–132.

Brueren, J.W.R., 1945. Het terrassenlandschap van Zuid-Limburg.

Meded. - Geol. Sticht., Ser. C VI. (1), 93 pp.

Camelbeeck, T., Meghraoui, M., 1998. Geological and geophysical

evidence for large palaeo-earthquakes with surface faulting in

the Roer Graben (Northwest Europe). Geophys. J. Int. 132,

347–362.

Chen, Y.-G., Liu, T.-K., 2000. Holocene uplift and subsidence along

an active tectonic margin, southwestern Taiwan. Quat. Sci. Rev.

19, 923–930.

Felder, W.M., Bosch, P.W., Bisschops, J.H., 1989. Geologische

kaart van Zuid-Limburg en omgeving, schaal 1:50.000. Afzet-

tingen van de Maas. Rijks Geologische Dienst, Haarlem.

Geluk, M.C., Duin, E.J.Th., Dusar, M., Rijkers, R.H.B., Van den

Berg, M.W., Van Rooijen, P., 1994. Stratigraphy and tectonics of

the Roer Valley Graben. Geol. Mijnbouw 73, 129–141.

Hibsch, C., Jarrige, J.J., Cusginh, E.M., Mercier, J., 1995. Paleo-

stress analysis, a contribution to the understanding of basin

tectonics and geodynamic evolution. Example of the Permian/

Cenozoic tectonics of Great Britain and geodynamic implica-

tions in western Europe. Tectonophysics 252, 103–136.

Hou, J.-J., Han, M.-K., Han, H.-J., 1998. Geomorphological obser-

vations of active faults in the epicentral region of the Huaxian

large earthquake in 1556 in Shaanxi Province, China. J. Struct.

Geol. 20, 549–577.

Houtgast, R.F., Van Balen, R.T., 2000. Neotectonics of the Roer

Valley Rift System, the Netherlands. Global Planet. Change

27, 131–146.

Huxtable, J., Aitken, J., 1985. Thermoluminescence dating results

for the Palaeolithic site Maastricht –Belvedere. Meded. - Rijks

Geol. Dienst 39, 41–44.

Juvigne, E., Renard, F., 1992. Les terrasses de la Meuse de Liege a

Maastricht. Ann. Soc. Geol. Belg. 115, 167–186.

Krzyszkowski, D., Przybylski, B., Badura, J., 2000. The role of

neotectonics and glaciation on terrace formation along the Nysa

Klodzka River in the Sudeten Mountains (southwestern Poland).

Geomorphology 33, 149–166.

Li, Y., Yang, J., Tan, L., Duan, F., 1999. Impact of tectonics on

alluvial landforms in the Hexi Corridor, Northwest China. Geo-

morphology 28, 299–308.

Mun cher, H.J., 1986. Aspects of Loess and Loess-Derived Slope

Deposits: an Experimental and Micromorphological Approach.

Fysisch Geografisch en Bodemkundig Laboratorium, Universi-

teit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, p. 267.

Mun ller, B., Zoback, M.L., Fuchs, K., Mastin, L., Gregersen, S.,

Pavoni, N., Stephansson, O., Ljunggren, C., 1992. Regional

patterns of tectonic stress in Europe. J. Geophys. 43, 783–803.

Paulissen, E., 1973. De morfologie en de Kwartairstratigrafie van de


Maas vallei in Belgisch Limburg. Verh. K. Acad. Wet. Lett.

Schone Kunsten Belg., Klasse Wet. 35 (127), 1–266.

Paulissen, E., Vandenberghe, J., Gullentops, F., 1985. The Feldbiss

fault in the Maas valley bottom (Limburg, Belgium). Geol.

Mijnbouw 64, 79–87.

Pissart, A., 1974. La Meuse en France et en Belgique. Formation du

basin hydrographique. Les terrasses et leur enseignements. In:

Macar, P. (Ed.), L’Evolution Quaternaire des Basins Fluviaux de

la mer du Nord Merondiale. Centenaire de la Societe Geologi-

que de Belgique, Liege, pp. 105–131.

Pissart, A., Harmand, D., Krook, L., 1997. L’Evolution de la Meuse

de Toul a Maastricht depuis le Miocene: correlations chronolo-

giques et traces des captures de la Meuse Lorraine d’apres les

mineraux denses. Geogr. Phys. Quat. 51, 267–284.

Plenefisch, T., Bonjer, K.-P., 1997. The stress field in the Rhine

Graben area inferred from earthquake focal mechanisms and

estimation of frictional parameters. Tectonophysics 275, 71–97.

Renson, V., Juvigne, E., Cordy, J.-M., 1999. Decouverte en faveur

d’une revision de la chronologie du Quaternaire: la grotte de La

Belle-Roche (Belgique); hypothese nouvelle concernant l’an-

ciennete de l’Homme en Europe du Nord-Ouest. C. R. Acad.

Sci. Paris, Sci. Terre Planeteres/Earth and Planetary Sciences

328, 635–640.

Shackleton, N.J., Berger, A., Peltier, W.R., 1990. An alternative

astronomical calibration of the Lower Pleistocene timescale

based on ODP Site 677. Trans. R. Soc. Edinburgh: Earth Sci.

81, 251–261.

Sesoren, A., 1976. Lineament analysis from ERTS (Landsat) images

of the Netherlands. Geol. Mijnbouw 55, 61–67.

TNO-NITG, 1999. Toelichting bij kaartblad XV Sittard-Maastricht.

Nederlands instituut voor Toegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO,

Utrecht, 127 pp.

Van Balen, R.T., Houtgast, R.F., Van der Wateren, F.M., Van-

denberghe, J., Bogaart, P.W., 2000. Sediment budget and

tectonic evolution of the Meuse catchment in the Ardennes

and the Roer Valley Rift System. Global Planet. Change 27,

113–129.

Van den Berg, M.W., 1989. Geomorfologische Kaart van Nederland

1:50.000 Kaartblad 59 Genk, 60 Sittard, 61 Maastricht, 62 Heer-

len, met toelichting en de Kaart Maasterrassen en Hellingklassen.

Staring Centrum, Wageningen en Rijks Geologische Dienst,

Haarlem, 32 pp.

Van den Berg, M.W., 1996. Fluvial sequences of the Maas, a 10 Ma

record of neotectonics and climate change at various time-

scales. PhD thesis, Universiteit Wageningen, 181 pp.

Van den Berg, M.W., Van Hoof, T., 2001. The Maas terrace se-

quence at Maastricht, SE Netherlands: evidence for 200 m of

late Neogene and Quaternary surface uplift. In: Maddy, D.,

Macklin, M.G., Woodward, J.C. (Eds.), River Basin Sediment

Systems: Archives of Environmental Change. A.A. Balkema

Publishers, Lisse, pp. 45–86.

Van Kolfschoten, T., Roebroeks, W., Vandenberghe, J., 1993. The

Middle and Late Pleistocene sequence at Maastricht–Belvedere:

the type locality of the Belvedere Interglacial. Meded. - Rijks

Geol. Dienst, Niewe Ser. 47, 81–91.

Van Montfrans, H.M., 1971. Paleomagnetic dating in the North Sea

Basin. Thesis, Amsterdam, 133 pp.

Van Nieuwpoort, I.L., Schokker, J., 1998. Rivierevolutie op ver-

schillende tijdschalen. De ontwikkeling van het midden-Lim-

burgse Maasdal vanaf het Cromerien tot heden onder invloed

van klimaat, tektoniek en de mens. Internal report, Faculteit der

Aardwetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 107 pp.

Van Rummelen, F.H., 1942. De Maasterrassen van S.-Limburg en

hunne wordingsgeschiedenis, Idem, pp. 85–108.

Vandenberghe, J., 1982. Geo-electric investigations of a fault sys-

tem in Quaternary deposits. Geophys. Prospect. 30, 879–897.

Vandenberghe, J., 1993. River terrace development and its relation

to climate: the Saalian Caberg terrace of the Maas river near

Maastricht (The Netherlands). Meded. - Rijks Geol. Dienst 47,

19–24.

Ziegler, P.A., 1992. European Cenozoic rift system. Tectonophysics

208, 91–111.

Zijerveld, L., Stephenson, R., Cloetingh, S., Duin, E., Van den Berg,

M.W., 1992. Subsidence analysis and modelling of the Roer

Valley Graben (SE Netherlands). Tectonophysics 208, 159–

171.

Zonneveld, J.I.S., 1974. The terraces of the Maas (and Rhine)

downstream of Maastricht. L’Evolution Quartenaire des Bassins

Fluviaux de la Mer du Nord Meridionale. Centenaire de la So-

ciete Geologique de Belgique, Liege, pp. 133–157.


Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone, Roer Valley Rift System, the Netherlands, based...

Documents

Transcript of Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone, Roer Valley Rift System, the Netherlands, based...