Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
Geology Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Geology; February 2005; v. 33; no. 2; p. 113-116; DOI: 10.1130/G20898.1
© 2005 Geological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sandiford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Schellart, W. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Evaluating slab-plate coupling in the Indo-Australian plate

Mike Sandiford1, David Coblentz2 and Wouter Pieter Schellart3

1 School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
2 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, New Mexico 87545, USA
3 Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

Distributed seismicity in the central Indian Ocean affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the extent of slab-plate coupling in the Indo-Australian plate. The mix of reverse-fault and strike-slip mechanisms in this region, with northwest-southeast to north-south maximum horizontal stress, SHmax, implies that the effective slab pull is no more than ~10% of the total negative buoyancy operating on the subducting slab. Numerical models of the intraplate stress field predict a slab-pull component along the Sumatra and Java boundary segments of 2.82 ± 0.82 and 0.89 ± 0.35 x 1012 N·m–1, respectively. Mantle tomographic constraints coupled with insights from analogue modeling suggest that the differences relate to variations in the depth extent of the slabs and the degree of slab support provided by the transition zone. These results help resolve apparent contradictions between insights from intraplate stress fields and plate dynamics; i.e., although plate motion is dominated by subduction, slab pull is only poorly expressed in the intraplate stress field because of low slab-plate coupling.

Key Words: subduction • plate tectonics • stress • Indo-Australian plate • slabs






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Geological Society of America