Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone, Roer ... - Falw.vu

Tectonophysics 352 (2002) 295–315 

www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto 

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 

* 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: hour@geo.vu.nl (R.F. Houtgast). 

and South Limburg Block 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; Juvigné 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

296 

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

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

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 opportunity 

to identify faults that were active during the Late 

Quaternary. The terrace stratigraphy is used to quantify 

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 chronostratigraphy 

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

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

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

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 

Valley Graben 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 addition, 

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

298 


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

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

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 sections, 

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 (especially 

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

the terminology of Van den Berg (1996). The differences 

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 Geistingen 

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 during 

cold periods (Paulissen, 1973). The Eisden-Lanklaar 

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


Table 1 

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. Alternatively, 

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). Therefore, 

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 

Kiezelöoliet 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

300 


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

provides a more accurate picture of the terrace morphology. 

The Van den Berg terrace division differentiates 

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. 

Fig. 4. Influence of fault activity on terrace heights. Correlation of 

terraces based on altitudes can lead to wrong results. 

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 measurements 

and U/Th measurements, as well as a correlation 

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 Terraces. 

The transition is sharply marked in the morphology. 

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 

the Meuse 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 youngest 

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 measurements 

on the youngest Main Terraces show normal 

polarization (see Van Balen et al., 2000). In addition, the 

deposits in the Roer Valley Graben which can be 

correlated to the Pietersberg 2 Terrace based on tectono-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 boundary, 

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. We


Fig. 5. Correlation in southern Limburg of terraces with the ODP 667 d 18 O 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). 

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 uniform 

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 possible 

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 measurement 

and their interpretation, e.g. groundwater level 

and availability of nearby corings to calibrate the geoelectric 

measurement (Vandenberghe, 1982). The 

accuracy in determination of the top and base of the 

coarse terrace deposits is less than in corings. Therefore, 

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

302 


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 individual 

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 distinguished 

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 Heerlerheide 

Fault to the total displacement of the Feldbiss 

Fault Zone will be addressed in the Discussion section. 

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 finergrained 

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 geological 

sections parallel to their bounding NW–SEoriented 

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 geoelectric 

measurements. However, natural height variations 

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.

304 


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


Fig. 8 (continued). 

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 (Holocene 

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

306 


Fig. 8 (continued).


Table 2 

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

Terrace 

North of Feldbiss Fault Between Feldbiss Between Geleen and South of Heerlerheide 

Height r N 

and Geleen Faults Heerlerheide Faults 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 South of Feldbiss Fault 

and NE-main Faults 

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. 

blocks, with different tectonic regimes (Fig. 7). Profiles 

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 stratigraphic 

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 preserved. 

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-oriented 

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–Soriented 

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 displacement 

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

308 


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 elevation 

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 profiles 

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 terraces. 

In our interpretation, the Holocene floodplain is 

characterized by a clear scroll bar morphology. In the 

interpretation of Van den Berg, this distinct morphology 

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. Measurements 

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 terraces, 

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


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. 

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. However, 

in order to calculate fault displacements accurately 

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 deposits 

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 displacements, 

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.

310 


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. 

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 Feldbiss 

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 determination 

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 (Heerlerheide, 

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 displacement 

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 components, 

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 northwest, 

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 morphological 

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 constant 

at a rate of 0.041 or 0.047 mm a 

1 throughout


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. 

the Late Pleistocene. These two observations indicate 

that the Feldbiss Fault Zone is a system of overstepping 

faults: in a northwestward direction extensional 

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 

We were not able to calculate the displacement of the 

younger terraces along the Heerlerheide Fault. On a 

geo-electric profile along the Meuse River Beerten et al. 

(1999) could not find evidence for activity of the 

Heerlerheide Fault. Further to the southeast the Heerlerheide 

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 movements. 

We found a displacement since the formation of 

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

312 


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

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 Heerlerheide 

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 

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

Zone. 

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)


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 earthquake 

focal mechanisms. However, these authors 

disagree however on the sense of wrenching: Camelbeeck 

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 Quaternary 

fault pattern is inherited and could not be 

directly related to the present-day stress field (Houtgast 

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 faulting. 

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. Therefore, 

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 Sesören (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 aggradation 

(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 northwestwards 

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-

314 


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 Feldbiss 

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 individual 

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 Quartären 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 passage 

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. Afzettingen 

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. Paleostress 

analysis, a contribution to the understanding of basin 

tectonics and geodynamic evolution. Example of the Permian/ 

Cenozoic tectonics of Great Britain and geodynamic implications 

in western Europe. Tectonophysics 252, 103–136. 

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

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 –Belvédère. Meded. - Rijks 

Geol. Dienst 39, 41–44. 

Juvigné, E., Renard, F., 1992. Les terrasses de la Meuse de Liége à 

Maastricht. Ann. Soc. Géol. 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. Geomorphology 

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, Universiteit 

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’Évolution Quaternaire des Basins Fluviaux de 

la mer du Nord Mérondiale. Centenaire de la Société Géologique 

de Belgique, Liège, pp. 105–131. 

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

de Toul à Maastricht depuis le Miocène: corrélations chronologiques 

et traces des captures de la Meuse Lorraine d’après les 

minéraux 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., Juvigné, E., Cordy, J.-M., 1999. Découverte en faveur 

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

Belle-Roche (Belgique); hypothèse nouvelle concernant l’ancienneté 

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

Sci. Paris, Sci. Terre Planèteres/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. 

Sesören, 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., Vandenberghe, 

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 Heerlen, 

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 timescales. 

PhD thesis, Universiteit Wageningen, 181 pp. 

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

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–Belvédère: 

the type locality of the Belvédère 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 verschillende 

tijdschalen. De ontwikkeling van het midden-Limburgse 

Maasdal vanaf het Cromeriën 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 system 

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’Évolution Quartenaire des Bassins 

Fluviaux de la Mer du Nord Meridionale. Centenaire de la Société 

Géologique de Belgique, Liège, pp. 133–157.

Late Quaternary activity of the Feldbiss Fault Zone, Roer ... - Falw.vu

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?