4.7 Article

Mechanisms of active folding of the landscape (southern Tian Shan, China)

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2006JB004362

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore the kinematic mechanisms of active large-scale folding, based on analysis of two adjacent major anticlines in Tian Shan (central Asia) that share an acceleration of shortening rate leading to topographic emergence and folded geomorphic surfaces. Their folding mechanisms are fundamentally different. Yakeng anticline is a gentle pure shear detachment fold with 1200 m of shortening and a well-constrained history of growth beginning at 5.5 Ma with an order-of-magnitude increase in shortening rate from 0.16 to similar to 1.2-1.6 mm/yr at similar to 0.16-0.21 Ma. The shape of the deformed topographic surface and of subsurface horizons deposited during deformation is a linearly proportional image at reduced amplitude of the deeper structure, which shows that instantaneous uplift rates have been pointwise linearly proportional to the current finite fold amplitude. In contrast, Quilitak anticline is a complex fault bend fold with uplift rates proportional to the sine of the fault dip, showing discontinuities in uplift rate across active axial surfaces. The 10- to 20-km-wide anticline is topographically emergent only in a central 5- to 7-km-wide mountainous uplift, the abrupt southern edge of which is marked by similar to 600- to 700-m-high triangular facets that result from active folding of a pediment across an active axial surface. The giant facets are shown to form by kink band migration and record postemergence deformation since an order-of-magnitude acceleration in shortening rate from similar to 0.6 to similar to 4-5 mm/yr, apparently contemporaneous with Yakeng. Sections logged across the active similar to 115-m-wide hinge zone show that recent strata provide a bed-by-bed record of fold scarp growth, which is quantitatively deciphered by fitting bed shapes to a finite width kink band migration model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据