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; September 2006; v. 34; no. 9; p. 733-736; DOI: 10.1130/G22793.1
© 2006 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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Culshaw, N.G.
Right arrow Articles by Jamieson, R.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

The orogenic superstructure-infrastructure concept: Revisited, quantified, and revived

N.G. Culshaw1, C. Beaumont2 and R.A. Jamieson3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5, Canada
2 Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1, Canada
3 Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5, Canada

The historical superstructure-infrastructure concept (S-I) expressed contrasts in structural style and metamorphic grade between shallow and deep orogenic levels. Two-dimensional thermal-mechanical models provide a quantitative explanation in terms of progressive crustal shortening and thickening (phase 1), thermal relaxation and rheological weakening (phase 2), and ductile flow at depth (phase 3). Results predict an upper-crustal superstructure, dominated by early steep structures, separated across a subhorizontal high-strain zone from a ductile infrastructure with late gently dipping structures; this is consistent with observations from the western Superior Province. These models can account for contrasts in structural style, metamorphic grade, seismic reflectivity, and age between upper- and lower-crustal levels. In contrast to conventional thrust-tectonics models, the revived S-I model shows how young structures can form beneath older ones during progressive convergence, thereby encouraging reassessment of standard seismic reflection interpretations.

Key Words: tectonics • crustal structure • superstructure • infrastructure • seismic reflectivity • Superior Province




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the Geological SocietyHome page
D. A. Kellett and L. Godin
Pre-Miocene deformation of the Himalayan superstructure, Hidden valley, central Nepal
Journal of the Geological Society, March 1, 2009; 166(2): 261 - 275.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
B. Wernicke
The detachment era (1977-1982) and its role in revolutionizing continental tectonics
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2009; 321(1): 1 - 8.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society, London, Special PublicationsHome page
A. Korja, P. Kosunen, and P. Heikkinen
A case study of lateral spreading: the Precambrian Svecofennian Orogen
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2009; 321(1): 225 - 251.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




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