REVIEW QUESTIONS (CAP.

17)
1. How can a reverse fault in some special cases also be extensional?
A reverse fault can also be an extensional fault if a tectonic or sedimentary
layering is used for reference, and if the reference layer is extended by the
faults.
2. What is unrealistic about the domino fault model?
The characteristics and constraints of this model (see Box 17.1) impose
geometric challenges when applied to geologically realistic situations. In
particular, open voids and overlaps are unacceptable. The first challenge is
what is going on at each end of the domino system. The second compatibility
problem exists between the base of the blocks and the substrate.
We could also resolve the basal space problem by penetrative deformation of
the basal parts of the domino blocks. However, this would represent a
deviation (unrealistic) from the ideal domino model and its assumption of
rigid and therefore internally unstrained fault blocks.
3. How can low-angle faults form if we expect normal faults to form with
dips around 60?
Low-angle normal faults can form by reactivation of thrust faults, and many
low-angle extension faults have indeed been interpreted as such. At the same
time, experiments and field observations indicate that some high- and lowangle extensional faults formed under a single phase of extension, without the
use of preexisting weak structures.
In particular, some low-angle normal faults must have rotated from initial
high-angle faults to low-angle structures, while other low-angle faults are
thought to have formed directly without much rotation.
An explanation could perhaps be that the high-angle faults lock up, but it is
more likely to be caused by a subhorizontal zone of weakness.
4. Give at least two examples of fault development that create domino-like
fault blocks but contradict the domino model.
5. Explain the formation of an extensional fault set that overprints earlier
extensional faults formed during the same extensional phase.

6. In what settings can metamorphic core complexes form?

A typical metamorphic core complex consists of a core of metamorphic rocks
(gneisses) exposed in a window through non-metamorphic rocks, typically
sedimentary rocks of considerably younger age.
These two units or plates are separated by a detachment that shows evidence
of significant shear offset.
This detachment is brittle, overprinting mylonitic non-coaxial fabrics in the
underlying gneissic lower plate. In general a core complex is controlled by a
low-angle extensional detachment or shear zone that thins the upper plate
(hanging wall) so that metamorphic lower-plate rocks ascend isostatically and
eventually become exposed at the surface.
7. What is meant by the rolling hinge mechanism during extensional
detachment faulting?
A closer look at Figure 17.8 reveals that the vertical shear on the footwall
(right) side of the figure gradually ceases. The oppositely directed shear on the
hanging-wall side remains active underneath the active part of the fault
system, moving in the hanging-wall direction. If we consider the crustal
flexure as a fold, then the hinge zone is seen to move or roll in the hangingwall direction during the course of the extensional development. This effect
has led to the name rolling hinge model. The rolling hinge model is a soft
(ductile) fault rotation model where rotation migrates through the footwall as
it is progressively unroofed.

Figure 17.8 Development of a metamorphic core complex

during crustal-scale extension and isostatic compensation.
Note how new wedge-shaped fault blocks are successively torn
off the hanging wall. Also note how isostatic compensation is
accommodated by means of vertical shear. Based on Wernicke
and Axen (1988).
8. Why does crustal balancing yield different estimates of extension than
summing fault heaves across many rifts?
One possible explanation is that the lower part of the rifted crust is somehow
assimilated by the mantle. Hence, the assumption of area conservation does
not hold and extension is overestimated. On the other hand, assimilation of
crustal material does not seem to be extensive enough to explain the
discrepancy, except perhaps in active rifts with widespread magmatism.
9. What may cause the entire orogen to uplift during or at the end of the
collisional history?
Phase transitions, for example eclogitization, can increase the density of rocks
in the root zone. It is likely that the densest part of an orogenic root can be
removed by sinking into the mantle below.

This model is called the delamination model (Figure 17.21) wich results in
more rapid heating of the (remaining) orogenic root, partial melting and
increased magmatic activity. Delamination of a dense root releases the
buoyant part of the root, which leads to orogenic uplift (Figure 17.19d).