4.5 Article

Rift propagation in rotational versus orthogonal extension: Insights from 4D analogue models

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
Volume 135, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2019.103946

Keywords

Rotational extension; Analogue modeling; Structural gradients; Rifting; Rift propagation; Boundary effects; Scissor tectonics

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021_147046]
  2. University of Bern
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_147046] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In rift settings, extension rates often vary along strike, due to rotation about a vertical axis or Euler pole, yet tectonic modelers traditionally apply constant along-strike deformation rates. Here we compare rift development and propagation under traditional orthogonal extension versus rotational extension conditions. The set-ups involve brittle-viscous layering and localize deformation through structural weaknesses (seeds). Our models provide first-order insights into the differences in rift development between both boundary conditions: orthogonal extension produces a rift basin with constant synchronous along-strike features, whereas rotational extension induces along-strike structural gradients, diachronous rift development causing rift propagation and the development of V-shaped basins. We observe important viscous flow associated with differential pressure gradients in rotational extension. We also describe the important effects of strain partitioning between rift axis and model boundaries, the quantifying of which is crucial to avoid incorrect model interpretations. Although our model results are first-order only, they are in good agreement with various natural examples and previous modeling studies and highlight the importance of considering the third dimension when studying tectonic systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available