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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Culshaw et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: