1. Lecture 5. Rifting, Continental break-up, Transform faults How to break continent? Continental transform faults  Dead Sea transform  Dead Sea pull-apart basin

2. Continental break-up

7. How to break continent? Buck (2006) Cold lithosphere is too strong

8. Buck (2006) Effect of magma-filled dikes

9. Buck (2006) Effect of magma-filled dikes Not enough if lithosphere is thicker than 75 km.

10. Effect of magma-filled dikes and lithospheric erosion It works if lithosphere is first thinned to about 75 km

11. Effect of oblique rifting

12. (more during visit to Section from Sasha Brune)

13. Lithospheric thinning above mantle plume Sobolev et al. 2011

14. To break a continent are required: (1) extensional deviatoric stresses (internal, from ridge push or slubduction zones roll-back) and (2) lithospheric weakening Large Igneous Provinces are optimal for lithospheric weakening, as they may both thin lithosphere and generate magma-filled dikes. Intensive strike-slip deformation is also helpful Conclusion

15. Continental transform faults (case Dead Sea Transform)

16. Continental Transform Faults San Andreas Fault Dead Sea Fault

17. Regional setting With the surface heat flow 50-60 mW/m2, the DST is the coldest continental transform boundary

18. Regional setting Very low heat flow 50 mW/m2

19. Lithospheric thickness and magmatism Magmatism at 30-0 Ma

20. Lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) from seismic data Mohsen et al., Geophys. J. Int. 2006 LAB depth 70-80 km Chang et al, GRL, 2011 Chang and Van der Lee, EPSL, 2011 Inconsistent with the heat flow of 50-60 mW/m2

21. Hansen et al., EPSL 2007 Present day lithospheric thickness Mohsen et al., Geophys. J. Int. 2006 LAB depth 70-80 km Inconsistent with the heat flow of 60 mW/m2 or less!

22. Lithosphere around DST was thinned in the past and related high heat flow had not enough time to reach the surface Conclusion

23. Model setup Flat Earth approximation

24. Simplified 3D concept. Modeling technique LAPEX 3D combining FE and FD (Petrunin and Sobolev, Geology, 2006, PEPI, 2008)

25. Initial lithospheric structure: Moho mapLAB mapHeat flow

26. Modeling results: role of the thermal erosion of the lithosphere

27. Model setup Flat Earth approximation

28. Modeling results: role of the thermal erosion of the lithosphere Initial stage: 5-7 km net slip erosion at 10 Myr no erosion Applied force is 1.6e13N/m

29. Modeling results: role of the thermal erosion of the lithosphere Thermal erosion of the lithosphere Fault initiation, 15-20 km net slip erosion at 10 Myr no erosion

30. Modeling results: role of the thermal erosion of the lithosphere Fault development, 35-40 km net slip erosion at 10 Myr no erosion

31. Modeling results: role of the thermal erosion of the lithosphere Present day, 107 km net slip erosion at 10 Myr no erosion

32. Possible scenario Chang and Van der Lee, EPSL, 2011 Plumes at 25-35 Ma Lithospheric erosion 20- 30 Ma Localization of the DST 15-17 Ma Lithospheric erosion has triggered the DST

33. San Andreas Fault System

34. USGS Professional Paper 1515 Big Bend Salinian Block Bay Area Block Hayward & Calaveras Faults

36. Tectonic Evolution of SAFS N S Time (animation by T. Atwater)

39. Questions addressed Why the locus of deformation in SAFS migrates landwards with time? How differently would evolve SAFS with “strong” and “weak” major faults?

40. Why the locus of deformation in SAFS migrates landwards with time?

41. Extended 2D Model Setup (South view) Y

42. Eastward migration of maximum temperature and minimum lithospheric strength (Furlong, 1984,1993, Furlong et al., 1989) WE

43. Model Setup ( view from the North ) North American Plate Slab window Mendocino Triple Junction 140-250 km 80 km Gorda Plate N 3.5 cm/yr 4 cm/yr 3.5 cm/yr

44. Physical background Balance equations Deformation mechanisms Popov and Sobolev (2008) Mohr-Coulomb

45. Numerical background Discretization by Finite Element Method Fast implicit time stepping + Newton-Raphson solver Remapping of entire fields by Particle-In-Cell technique Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian kinematical formulation Popov and Sobolev ( 2008)

46. “Strong faults” model: the friction coefficient decreases only slightly (from 0.6 to 0.3) with increasing plastic strain “Strong” and “weak” faults models “Weak faults” model: the friction coefficient decreases drastically (from 0.6 to 0.07) with increasing plastic strain

47. 3D Model Setup (12-15 MA) Great Valley Block Monterrey Microplate Great Valley Block Monterrey Microplate North American Plate Salinian Block NW SE 250km 1100 km Gorda Plate Pacific Plate

50. Qualitative comparison of basic fault features Salinian Calaveras Hayward Bay Area Big Bend Salinian Calaveras Hayward Bay Area Big Bend San Andreas Fault Map Modeling Results (present day)

51. Modeled topography Salinian Calaver as Haywar d Bay Area Big Bend San Andreas Fault Map Bay Area

52. Modeled surface heat flow

53. “Weak faults” versus “strong faults” model

54. Weak-faults model Salinian Calaveras Hayward Bay Area Big Bend Salinian Calaveras Hayward Bay Area Big Bend San Andreas Fault Map Modeling Results (present day)

55. Salinian Calaveras Hayward Bay Area Big Bend San Andreas Fault Map Modeling Results (present day) Strong fault model Major faults in SAFS must be weak! Strong-faults model

56. Present day structure and landward motion of SAFS is controlled by kinematic boundary conditions and lithospheric heterogeneity, including captured Monterray microplate Conclusions for SAFS Major faults at SAFS must be “week”