# Crustal deformation

## Contents

# Crustal deformation#

*This section was contributed by Cedric Thieulot, and makes use of the
Drucker-Prager material model written by Anne Glerum and the free surface
plugin by Ian Rose.*

This is a simple example of an upper-crust undergoing compression or extension. It is characterized by a single layer of visco-plastic material subjected to basal kinematic boundary conditions. In compression, this setup is somewhat analogous to (Willett 1999), and in extension to (Allken, Huismans, and Thieulot 2011).

Brittle failure is approximated by adapting the viscosity to limit the stress
that is generated during deformation. This “cap” on the stress
level is parameterized in this experiment by the pressure-dependent Drucker
Prager yield criterion and we therefore make use of the Drucker-Prager
material model (see Section Material model) in the
`cookbooks/crustal_deformation/crustal_model_2D.prm`

.

The layer is assumed to have dimensions of \(\SI{80}{km} \times \SI{16}{km}\) and to have a density \(\rho=\SI{2800}{kg/m^3}\). The plasticity parameters are specified as follows:

```
```

The yield strength \(\sigma_y\) is a function of pressure, cohesion and angle of friction (see Drucker-Prager material model in Section Material model), and the effective viscosity is then computed as follows: $\(\mu_{\text{eff}} = \left( \frac{1}{ \frac{\sigma_y}{2 \dot{\epsilon}}+ \mu_{\text{min}}} + \frac{1}{\mu_{\text{max}}} \right)^{-1}\)\( where \)\dot{\epsilon}$ is the square root of the second invariant of the deviatoric strain rate. The viscosity cutoffs ensure that the viscosity remains within computationally acceptable values.

During the first iteration of the first timestep, the strain rate is zero, so
we avoid dividing by zero by setting the strain rate to
`Reference strain rate`

.

The top boundary is a free surface while the left, right and bottom boundaries are subjected to the following boundary conditions:

```
```

Note that compressive boundary conditions are simply achieved by reversing the sign of the imposed velocity.

The free surface will be advected up and down according to the solution of the Stokes solve. We have a choice whether to advect the free surface in the direction of the surface normal or in the direction of the local vertical (i.e., in the direction of gravity). For small deformations, these directions are almost the same, but in this example the deformations are quite large. We have found that when the deformation is large, advecting the surface vertically results in a better behaved mesh, so we set the following in the free surface subsection:

```
```

We also make use of the strain rate-based mesh refinement plugin:

```
```

Setting `set Initial adaptive refinement = 4`

yields a series of meshes as
shown in Fig. (1), all produced during the first timestep. As expected, we
see that the location of the highest mesh refinement corresponds to the
location of a set of conjugated shear bands.

If we now set this parameter to 1 and allow the simulation to evolve for 500kyr, a central graben or plateau (depending on the nature of the boundary conditions) develops and deepens/thickens over time, nicely showcasing the unique capabilities of the code to handle free surface large deformation, localised strain rates through visco-plasticity and adaptive mesh refinement as shown in Fig. (2).

Deformation localizes at the basal velocity discontinuity and plastic shear bands form at an angle of approximately \(53\degree\) to the bottom in extension and \(35\degree\) in compression, both of which correspond to the reported Arthur angle (Kaus 2010; Buiter 2012).

## Extension to 3D.#

We can easily modify the previous input file to produce `crustal_model_3D.prm`

which implements a similar setup, with the additional constraint that the
position of the velocity discontinuity varies with the \(y\)-coordinate, as
shown in Fig. (3). The domain is now \(128\times96\times16\)km and the
boundary conditions are implemented as follows:

```
```

The presence of an offset between the two velocity discontinuity zones leads to a transform fault which connects them.

The Finite Element mesh, the velocity, viscosity and strain rate fields are shown in Fig. (4) at the end of the first time steps. The reader is encouraged to run this setup in time to look at how the two grabens interact as a function of their initial offset (Allken, Huismans, and Thieulot 2011, 2012; Allken et al. 2013).

Allken, V., R. S. Huismans, H. Fossen, and C. Thieulot. 2013. “3D numerical modelling of graben interaction and linkage: a
case study of the Canyonlands grabens, Utah.” *Basin Research*
25: 1–14.

Allken, V., R. Huismans, and C. Thieulot. 2011. “Three Dimensional
Numerical Modelling of Upper Crustal Extensional Systems.”
*J. Geophys. Res.* 116: B10409.

———. 2012. “Factors Controlling the Mode of Rift
Interaction in Brittle-Ductile Coupled Systems: A 3d Numerical Study.”
*Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.* 13 (5): Q05010.

Buiter, S. J. H. 2012. “A review of brittle
compressional wedge models.” *Tectonophysics* 530: 1–17.

Kaus, B. J. P. 2010. “Factors That Control the Angle of Shear Bands in
Geodynamic Numerical Models of Brittle Deformation.” *Tectonophysics*
484: 36–47.

Willett, S. D. 1999. “Rheological Dependence of Extension in Wedge
Models of Convergent Orogens.” *Tectonophysics* 305: 419–35.