1 / 31

Rheological Controls on Strain Partitioning During Continental Extension: Insights and Models

This paper discusses the rheological factors influencing strain partitioning during continental extension. It emphasizes the significance of the vertical contrast between upper and lower crust rheologies and how this affects fault spacing and modes of extension. Through the analysis of generic crustal extension models and field examples, particularly in Western Turkey, the study investigates the dynamics of distributed faulting versus metamorphic core complexes. It concludes that crustal strength, fault weakening, and lower crust buoyancy play crucial roles in controlling geological behaviors during extensional processes.

marcy
Télécharger la présentation

Rheological Controls on Strain Partitioning During Continental Extension: Insights and Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chris Wijns, Klaus Gessner, Roberto Weinberg, Louis Moresi Rheological Controls on Strain Partioning during Continental Extension(When does E=MC2 ?)

  2. Dynamical modelers’ joke There are only 10 types of people in this world • those that understand binary • and those that don’t If you don’t think this is funny you’ll realize that modelers don’t necessarily think like other people.

  3. A Meta-benchmark … • How do you know to trust dynamic models ? • If you trust a black box model, then what ? • Why would you want a dynamic model and not a kinematic one ? • When the kinematics is ambiguous • When you want to predict general behaviours • Example - what happens when geologists get hold of a modeling code !

  4. Outline I. Generic crustal extension models • physical and numerical model • end-member modes: distributed faulting vs. mcc • continuum of behaviour and secondary factors II. Field Examples • western Turkey • conceptual models of mcc and rolling hinges • related numerical modelling results

  5. Conclusion: the vertical rheological contrast between upper and lower crust is the key to fault spacing and the mode of extension (in the absence of heterogeneities) I. Generic Extension Models

  6. T=0 oC T=400 oC T=1200 oC Physical and numerical model d /dt = 6.3x10-15 s-1 = 3.1 mm/yr = 100% extension in 5 Ma

  7. Crustal strength profile • Byerlee coeff = 0.44 • maximum shear stress = 250 Mpa • crustal thickness = 60 km

  8. End-member: distributed faulting • strong lower crust • many closely-spaced faults; limited slip; contiguous upper crust

  9. End-member: metamorphic core complexes • weak lower crust • few, widely-spaced faults; large strain; block and fault rotation; exhumed lower crust

  10. Two basic modes

  11. Two basic modes

  12. Continuum of behaviour • r = ratio of integrated maximum shear stress of upper to lower crust

  13. Continuum of behaviour: r

  14. Continuum of behaviour: rh

  15. Continuum of behaviour: fault spacing • empirical relationship predicts mode of extension

  16. Secondary factors: fault weakening • crustal necking instead of planar fault zones

  17. Secondary factors • fault weakening • buoyancy

  18. Validation test Central Menderes mcc

  19. Conclusions part I • ratio of upper to lower crust “strength” controls fault spacing and mode of extension • strong lower crust = distributed faulting • weak lower crust = mcc • note: pre-existing weaknesses may change the mode • secondary controls: ratio of upper to lower crust thickness, fault weakening, lower crust buoyancy

  20. II. Field Examples and Conceptual Models Numerical models explain some field observations or suggest new observations

  21. Western Turkey: Central Menderes

  22. Conceptual models: rolling hinge vs. from Gessner et al. (2001) [Wernicke, 1981; Spencer, 1984; Buck, 1988]

  23. Initial low angle detachment from Davis, Lister, and Reynolds (1986)

  24. Analogue modelling from Koyi and Skelton (2001)

  25. upper crust: 12.5 km • lower crust: 25 km • upper mantle: 9.375 km • ß =1.7 • velocity: 1.25 cm / yr each side • d /dt = 6.3x10-15 • time: 3.52 Ma More modelling reults

  26. Single fault: “rolling hinge” • in mcc mode

  27. Temperature evolution uniform T contours, i.e., single T “top” as in Snake Range

  28. Low-angle “detachment fault” • very low friction coefficient (yield strength) for lower crust  near lithostatic pore pressure

  29. Reproducible field observations   

  30. Not modelled

  31. Conclusions part II • current-like lateral flow of lower crust relative to upper crust segments • thermal structure of metamorphic domes • ductile shear zone operates continuously from surface to mid-crustal levels • flow patterns of exhumed footwall match kinematics of exhumed mylonitic fronts in mcc • mylonites may be a secondary feature, not an exhumed part of a primary, lithospheric scale shear zone

More Related