1 Rift propagation in rotational versus orthogonal extension: insights from 4D 2 analogue models 3 4 Creative Commons licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5 Link to final publication in Journal of Strucutral Geology (Elsevier): 6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2019.103946 7 8 9 Frank Zwaana*, Guido Schreursa, Matthias Rosenaub 10 11 a) Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1+3, CH-3012 Bern, 12 Switzerland 13 b) Helmholtz Centre Potsdam German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ, 14 Telegrafenberg, Potsdam 14473, Germany 15 16 *
[email protected],
[email protected] (F. Zwaan) Tel: +31634081562 17 18 ORCIDs: 19 20 Frank Zwaan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-2132 21 Guido Schreurs https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4544-7514 22 Matthias Rosenau http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1134-5381 23 24 25 Keywords: Rotational extension, analogue modeling, structural gradients, rifting, rift 26 propagation, boundary effects, scissor tectonics 27 28 29 30 Abstract 31 32 In rift settings, extension rates often vary along strike, due to rotation about a vertical axis or 33 Euler pole, yet tectonic modelers traditionally apply constant along-strike deformation rates. 34 Here we compare rift development and propagation under traditional orthogonal extension 35 versus rotational extension conditions. 36 37 The set-ups involve brittle-viscous layering and localize deformation through structural 38 weaknesses (seeds). Our models provide first-order insights into the differences in rift 39 development between both boundary conditions: orthogonal extension produces a rift basin 40 with constant synchronous along-strike features, whereas rotational extension induces 41 along-strike structural gradients, diachronous rift development causing rift propagation and 42 the development of V-shaped basins.