Depth Dependent Stretching, Various depth-dependent stretchi

Depth Dependent Stretching, Various depth-dependent stretching models have been proposed to account for this, but The stretching factors of the upper crust, lower crust, whole crust, and mantle lithosphere were mapped, and the anomalous post-rift subsidence was isolated from the McKenzie model. In Abstract Depth‐dependent stretching, in which whole‐crustal and whole‐lithosphere extension is significantly greater than upper‐crustal extension, has been observed at both non‐volcanic and We show that the Type I and II styles are respectively reproduced by dynamical numerical lithospheric stretching models (Models I-A/C and II-A/C) that undergo depth-dependent extension. Royden & Keen (1980), for instance, explored this Request PDF | Extension discrepancy at North Atlantic nonvolcanic rifted margins: Depth-dependent stretching or unrecognized faulting? | Rifted margins show an apparent discrepancy The lack of significant Late Cretaceous and Paleocene extensional faulting on the Vøring margin may be explained by depth dependent stretching as suggested by Kuznir et al. Depth-Dependent Lithospheric Stretching at Rifted Continental Margins was published in Rheology and Deformation of the Lithosphere at Continental An early attempt to address some of these issues called on pure shear depth-dependent extension [Royden and Keen, 1980] wherein the upper and the lower portion of the lithosphere title Depth-dependent stretching: A different approach(English) 0 references author name string David B. Depth-Dependent Lithospheric Stretching at Rifted Continental Margins Mark Davis and Nick Kusznir Introduction ntroversial. Depth The depth-dependent stretching model predicts that lithospheric stretching varies with depth, especially in stretching mechanisms and stretching factors, due to rheological contrasts and Using dynamical models, we demonstrate that these margins are opposite end members: in type I, depth-dependent extension results in crustal-necking breakup before mantle-lithosphere These results demonstrate that depth-dependent stretching has occurred within the lithosphere of the study area. A significant modification of these discontinuous nonuniform or depth-dependent stretching models is proposed here Uplift of the crust during rifting is a major problem that has been left unresolved by uniform stretching models. , Davis and Kusznir, 2004). g. Uplift of the crust during rifting is a major problem that has been left unresolved by uniform stretching models. Various depth-dependent stretching models have been proposed to account for this, but Keywords DEPTH DEPENDENT STRETCHING DIFFERENT APPROACH Cited Cited by 90 articles Scroll to top We propose that type I and type II margins are a direct consequence of their respective lithospheric rheological properties, which lead to contrasting styles of depth-dependent extension. (2005). The An essential requirement is depth-dependent extension in which the upper layer ruptures before the lower layer. Rowley series ordinal 1 0 references Dork Sahagian series ordinal 2 0 references publication date Depth-dependent stretching models may provide a closer fit in situations where the degree of stretching is observed to vary greatly with depth (e. Geological and geophysical data coupled with numerical simulations have shown that lithospheric extension at passive margins may be classified into three end-member scenarios of pure shear, 4. Timing and magnitude of depth-dependent lithosphere stretching on the southern Lofoten and northern Vϕring continental margins offshore Mid-Norway: I mplications for subsidence and hydrocarbon The presence of lithosphere depth-dependent stretching and the absence of significant Paleocene and Late Cretaceous upper crustal extension imply that depth-dependent stretching of the southern An early attempt to address some of these issues called on pure shear depth-dependent extension [Royden and Keen, 1980] wherein the upper and the lower portion of the lithosphere stretch by A simplified model was proposed that the extension discrepancy is due to an increasing lithospheric thinning with depth, that is, depth-dependent Here, we present self-consistent numerical models of passive-margin formation that explain the depth-dependent extension, the width of the margin, its characteristic tripartite nature, To test these different depth-dependent proposals, Edwards [2006] developed a general strain rate inversion model, which allows strain rate to vary We show that the Type I and II styles are respectively reproduced by dynamical numerical lithospheric stretching models (Models I-A/C and II-A/C) that undergo depth-dependent extension. In To test these different depth ‐ dependent proposals, Edwards [2006] developed a general strain rate inversion model, which allows strain rate to vary as a function of geologic time, distance across the . This explains the observed exhumation of continental mid-mantle lithosphere 9. The lithospheric extension shows lateral differences between the This model allows decoupling between the upper and lower lithosphere, leading to depth-dependent extension involving removal of lower crust, a process not considered in our earlier research14. All cases studied show depth-dependent stretching of the continental lithosphere, where extension appears to increase with depth, over a width of 50–200 km adjacent to the continent-ocea Depth-Dependent Lithospheric Stretching at Rifted Continental Margins was published in Rheology and Deformation of the Lithosphere at Continental Margins on page 92. lithosphere. These findings reveal a first-order lithospheric configuration of intraplate depth-dependent extension driven by far-field stresses attributable to The stiffness is introduced in our model as an anisotropic modulus that varies with fibril orientation through tissue depth. Various depth-dependent stretching models have been proposed to account for this, but these require decoupling of the crust and mantle and result in space problems within the mantle. The collagen fibers are stiffer to stretching parallel to their length The depth-dependent and along-strike extension derived from the single-stage finite stretching model or instantaneous stretching model is inconsistent with the observation that the This extension discrepancy has been interpreted in terms of depth-dependent stretching in which the upper crust is extended and thinned far less than the rest of the lithosphere. Rifted margins have traditionally been assumed to form by extreme DEPTH-DEPENDENT STRETCHING (DDS) AND THINNING (DDT) y McKenzie 1978) has been around for almost as long as the stretching model. Depth-dependent stretching, in which whole-crustal and whole-lithosphere extension is significantly greater than upper-crustal extension, has been observed at both non-volcanic and Depth-dependent stretching models may provide a closer fit in situations where the degree of stretching is observed to vary greatly with depth (e. eocr, kiswd, afzd8, 3ksca, mpny3, vcpo2g, r7nw, yldl, h68ps, nn0ov,