GR-00562; No of Pages 10

Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Gondwana Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / g r

Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from

numerical simulations
Md. Shofiqul Islam a,b, Ryuichi Shinjo a,⁎, J.R. Kayal c
a
Faculty of Science, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan
b
Department of Petroleum and Georesources Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh
c
School of Oceanographic Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Shillong Plateau in northeastern India represents one of the most seismically active “pop-up” structures
Received 16 March 2010 within the peninsular shield area. In order to constrain the role of the inferred Oldham Fault in the northern
Received in revised form 30 September 2010 boundary of the plateau, we performed 2-D finite element method (FEM) simulations for convergent
Accepted 5 November 2010
displacement caused by northeastward movement of the Indian plate with respect to the Eurasian plate.
Available online xxxx
Various rock properties (density, Poisson's ratio, Young's modulus, cohesion, and angle of internal friction)
Handling Editor: P. Betts and the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion are used to evaluate failure and faulting patterns. Two plane strain
models with appropriate boundary conditions were also calculated. The predicted maximum compressive
Keywords: stress (σ1) shows a preferred orientation that helps explain the tectonic environment and the fault pattern.
Shillong Plateau The best-fit model suggests that a compressive stress regime is dominant in the study area everywhere except
Pop-up for the uppermost part of the crust where extensional stress dominates. With increased progressive
Numerical simulation convergent displacement, the modeled σ1 are predicted to rotate counterclockwise around the fault zones.
Oldham Fault The simulation results suggest that the Oldham Fault does not have a significant role in the development of
Dauki Fault
stress and deformation distribution in the area. We also infer that the tectonically induced deformation in
both the plateau and the adjoining areas is restricted to mainly within the crust (b 30 km).
© 2010 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction compression stresses, due to resistance at the continent-continent

The Shillong Plateau, located in northeastern India (Fig. 1), has
attracted interest because 1) the Plateau includes the site of the great
Assam earthquake of 12 June 1897 (e.g., Rao et al., 2006), and 2) the
plateau shows the major pop-up structure induced by plate conver-
gence (Fig. 1). Pop-up structures are tectonically important and have
been developed in the mountainous region. To study these structures
help us to understand the overall tectonic framework of a particular
region and its role on deformation processes. These structures are
caused by in-plane compressional stress with flexure due to buckling or
bending of plates. Pop up structures may also form anticlinal uplifts,
commonly with doubly plunging arrangement of folds (McClay and
Bonora, 2001; Schellart and Nieuwland, 2003). The basement fault
bounding the pop-up structures display convex-upward as well as
straight to concave-upward shape and associated with strike-slip
movement (Schellart and Nieuwland, 2003).
The Shillong Plateau has an average elevation of 1 km, and it is
bounded by the E-W oriented Dauki Fault to the south, the E-W oriented
Brahmaputra River Fault to the north. There is no doubt that horizontal
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 81 98 895 8569; fax: + 81 98 895 8552.
E-mail address: rshinjo@sci.u-ryukyu.ac.jp (R. Shinjo).
India-Eurasia collisional zones, are the primary driving forces behind the
pop-up structure of the Shillong Plateau. Consequently, the Shillong
Plateau was built as a result of contractional deformation. Moreover,
two major deposits (sediments of Bengal fan) on the lithosphere are
present to the east and south of the Shillong Plateau that are absent
elsewhere along the Himalaya chain (Bilham and England, 2001). The
Shillong Plateau is a giant pop-up structure characterized by an
asymmetric topography with the marked morphological expression of
the Dauki Fault compared with north bounding faults (e.g., Brahmaputra
Fault and/or Oldham Faults). The characteristics of regional stress
orientation and deformation pattern are directly linked to the fault
activity.
Seismic activity in the region is ongoing and there has been
considerable debate on which structures are responsible for this activity
(Khan, 2005). Studies of paleoseismicity suggest that the large 8.7
magnitude 1897 AD earthquake occurred along the north-dipping
Dauki Thrust Fault (Oldham, 1899), whereas Kayal and De (1991)
used micro-earthquake data to suggest that the seismicity is focused on
the Dapsi Thrust, a conjugate structure to the Dauki Fault. These
interpretations are contradicted by Bilham and England (2001), who
suggest that the 1897 earthquake occurred as a result of pop-up
tectonics that resulted from movement along the south-dipping hidden
Oldham Fault and north-dipping Dauki Fault, and the earthquake

1342-937X/$ – see front matter © 2010 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
2 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Major tectonic features in the study region (modified after Bhattacharya et al., 2008). Line A-A/ indicates the location of the cross-section used in this study. DuF = Dudhnoi
Fault; CF = Chedrang Fault; and BS = Barapani Shear Zone.

resulted from movement along Oldham Fault, which has been
interpreted as the northern boundary fault of the plateau.
To examine the role of the Oldham Fault, we performed 2-D
numerical modeling, using the finite element method (FEM), for the
present-day stress distribution and crustal deformation along the N-S
profile across the plateau. We used numerical modeling for this study
because it is the most suitable method to identify tectonic stress field
and ongoing deformation of any tectonically active part of the earth.
Its strength and effectiveness lies on simulating and identifying the
tectonic stress field in large scales or large regions of an area. Such
information cannot be obtained from field observations and labora-
tory experiments. Moreover, the stress orientation and deformation
pattern of asymmetrical topographic structure like the Shillong
Plateau can only be realized through numerical simulation. Thus we
employed numerical modeling in this study to understand regional
stress distribution and deformation pattern. The geometry and geo-
logic structure of the “pop-up” model used in the simulation (Fig. 2a)
were adapted from the model proposed by Bilham and England
(2001), after simplification with reasonable parameters. We modeled
the study area considering rock layer properties and lithostatic stress
with active converging Indian plate that could predict more realistic
tectonic condition. Our objectives in this study are 1) to define
both shallow and deep crustal deformation processes across the
plateau, 2) to examine how the proposed Oldham Fault contributes to
the geostructural framework, 3) to evaluate the principal stress
distribution and deformation patterns around the Shillong Plateau
due to plate convergence, and 4) to assess the existence of the Oldham
fault along the northern boundary of the Shillong Plateau. Although
our 2-D modeling on cross-section cannot produce strike-slip fault
type deformation, model results can provide useful constraints on the
above issues.
2. Geology and tectonic setting
The Shillong Plateau is located between two arcs, the Himalayan
arc to the north and the Burmese arc (~ 80 Ma, Chandra, 1984) to the
east (Fig. 1). Rajesekhar and Mishra (2008) suggested that predom-
inant E-W, N-S, and NW-SE oriented faults in the Shillong Plateau
might be the results of complex tectonic forces from both the
Himalayan collision zone and the Indo-Burma subduction zone
(Kayal, 2001). Tectonic forces exist here due to the continued
indentation of the Indian plate into the Eurasian plate along the
Himalayan collision zone, and subduction beneath Burmese sub-plate
(e.g., Seno and Rehman, in press). The Shillong Plateau consists of an
Archean gneissic complex (Archean rock), metasedimentary Shillong
Group rocks (1530–1550 Ma, Mitra, 1998; Devi and Sarma, 2010),
igneous rocks, porphyritic granites and ultramafic alkaline-carbonate
complexes (Evans, 1964; Mishra and Sen, 2001). Its southern flank

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3

a. cross-section
A Shillong
Bhutan A/
North plateau
Tibet Himalaya South
Assam Bengal basin
0
Depth (km) Sediments

Ol

.
20

iF
dh
am

uk
Indian crust Oceanic crust

Da
40

F.
60 Upper mantle

80
100 200 300
Distance (km)

b. Simplified geometry for model 1

A
A/

O.
T

.F
BT
MC

Shillong plateau

F.

D.
Tibet Bengal basin
M

Assam
0 6
5 4 7 12
Depth (km)

20 9
8 10
3
40 2 11

60 1
80

c. Simplified geometry for model 2

A A/
O.

F.
T

BT

Shillong plateau
MC

F.

D.
Bengal basin
M

Assam
0 6
5 4 7 12
Depth (km)

20 9
8 10
3
40 2 11

60 1
80

d. Simplified geometry for model 1 with boundary condition

T

BT
MC

North Shillong plateau Bengal Basin

M

Assam
Sediments
Ol

.
dh

iF
am

Oceanic crust
uk

Indian crust
Da
F.

Upper mantle

Fig. 2. a) North–south cross-section (A-A/ shown in Fig. 1) from Tibet to the Bay of Bengal, showing schematic “pop-up” geometry of the Shillong Plateau (simplified from Bilham and
England, 2001), b) Model geometry for the study. 1 = Upper mantle, 2 = Indian crust, 3 = MBT, 4 = MCT, 5 = Upper Indian crust in Tibet, 6 = Area between MBT and MCT, 7 = Assam,
8 = Oldham fault zone, 9 = Shillong Plateau, 10= Dauki fault zone, 11 = Upper part of the Bengal basin and 12= Lower part of the Bengal basin. b) Simplified geometry of model 1.
c) Simplified geometry of model 2. d) Boundary condition of the model.

consists of Cretaceous-Tertiary sediments (Biswas and Grasemann,
2005). The Dapsi Thrust separates the Archean gneiss to the north and
the Tertiary sediments to the south. The Sylhet Trough to the south of
the Shillong Plateau contains a succession of thick sedimentary
deposits (13–18 km) from the Tertiary to recent times (Evans, 1964;
Alam et al., 2003 and Biswas and Grasemann, 2005).
The Indian lithospheric Plate originally formed part of the
Gondwana supercontinent. Since the Miocene, the collision of the
Indian plate with both the Tibetan plate to the north and the Burmese
plate to the east has resulted in a large influx of clastic sediments to
the south of the Shillong Plateau. The lack of lithological units with
ages from Pliocene to recent, and the spatial distribution of the
Mesozoic to Miocene rocks in the southern flank of the Shillong
Plateau indicate that the Shillong Plateau emerged rapidly during the
Pliocene-Pleistocene (Johnson and Alam, 1991). Deformation of the
Shillong Plateau has been linked to a number of kinematic changes
(different rate of the Shillong Plateau uplift) within the Himalayas and
Tibet as well as along the Indo-Burmese plate boundary (Clark and
Bilham, 2008). These events comprise the onset of E–W extension in
central Tibet, eastward expansion of high topography of the Tibetan
Plateau, onset of rotation of crustal fragments in southeastern Tibet,
and restoration of eastward subduction beneath the Indo-Burman
ranges (Clark and Bilham, 2008; Xia et al., in press).
The existence of the Oldham Fault is a matter of debate. Bilham and
England (2001) proposed that this fault is a “cryptic” reverse fault,
defining the northern boundary of the plateau. Based on their best-fit
solution on stress indicator, the fault has a proposed length of
~110 km, dips approximately 57○ to the SSW, and extends from 9 to

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
4 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

45 km beneath the Shillong Plateau. By contrast, Rajendran et al. Table 1

(2004) and Kayal et al. (2006) used geological and seismological Definition of the layers of the rock unit used in the plane strain models.

evidence to argue that the Brahmaputra fault, located approximately Layer Major unit Rock type Reference
20 km north of the proposed Oldham Fault, as the northern boundary
Layer 1 Upper Mantle Peridotite, dunite, Keary and Frederick
fault of the plateau. In addition, Kayal et al. (2006) argued that the (Depth down kimberlite pyrolite, (1998)
north dipping, NW-SE trending Dapsi thrust is the southern boundary to 84 km) gabbro, eclogite etc.
for the hypothesized pop-up tectonics rather than the Dauki Fault. The Layer 2 Indian Crust Granite, syenite, Santosh (1999)
basic and ultra-basic rocks
Dapsi Thrust also marks the southern boundary of the maximum
Layer 3 MCT Weak rheology this study
intensity of the 1897 great earthquake (Kayal, 2001). Layer 4 MBT Weak rheology this study
Layer 5 Higher Himalaya Gneiss and granite Hodges (2000)
3. Plate velocity in the vicinity of the Shillong Plateau Layer 6 Lesser Himalaya Siwalik sediments Hodges (2000)
with limestone
and metasediments
Plate velocity is very important to imposing appropriate boundary
Layer 7 Sedimentary Tertiary–Recent sandstone, Evans (1964);
condition for the model. Since our study area is the Shillong Plateau, unit within siltstone, limestone Kent and Dasgupta
we consider the velocity of the Indian plate for imposing the boundary Assam valley and loose sediments (2004)
condition. The Shillong Plateau is currently behaving like a rigid body Layer 8 Oldham fault Weak rheology this study
zone
coupled to the Indian plate and moves at 46.5 ± 1 mm/yr toward
Layer 9 Shillong Plateau Archean gneissic complex, Evans (1964);
N51°E (Jade et al., 2007). Previous studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2000; Shen schist, ultramafic Mishra and Sen
et al., 2000; Holt et al., 2000; Paul et al., 2001; Sella et al., 2002; alkaline carbonate, (2001)
Socquet et al., 2006; Malaimani et al., 2000) reported that the velocity metasedimentary
of the Indian plate relative to the Eurasia plate is between 34.8 and Shillong Group and
Cretaceous-Tertiary
43.7 mm/yr, which is lower than the NUVEL-1A modeling (45 mm/yr;
sediments
DeMets et al., 1994). Furthermore, Krisna and Sanu (2000) reported Layer 10 Dauki fault Weak rheology this study
N-S compressional deformation of 18.9 ± 2.5 mm/yr, E-W extension zone
of 17.1 ± 2.2 mm/yr and vertical component of the velocity tensor of Layer 11 Oceanic crust Tholeiitic basalt, Brown and Rushmer
below the gabbro, rhyolite, (2006)
2.4 ± 0.3 mm/yr in the Shillong Plateau. They also showed that the
Bengal basin migmatite, diatexite,
compressional velocity is 5.4 ± 2.8 mm/yr toward N33°E in the Bengal granulite, mylonite
Basin and in the Tura folded belt in the Shillong Plateau. Moreover, and other basaltic rocks
Angelier and Baruah (2009) suggested NNE-ward Indian plate Layer 12 Sedimentary Tertiary–Recent Johnson and Alam
movement within the Shillong plateau. unit within the deposits of sandstone, (1991); Alam et al.
Bengal basin siltstone, limestone (2003)
GPS measurements during 1997–1999 revealed that the rate of
and loose sediments.
convergence between the central Shillong Plateau and points in
central and southeast India is 6.3 ± 3.8 mm/yr (Paul et al., 2001).
Recent studies (e.g., Bilham and England, 2001; Jade, 2004) on GPS considered as a single lithologic unit. The lower crust (layer 2) under
velocity infer that ~30% of the 15–19 mm/yr convergence across the the Assam Valley area consists of granite, syenite, mafic and ultramafic
eastern Himalayan system is accommodated by the Shillong Plateau rocks (Santosh, 1999; Srivastava and Sinha, 2004), whereas the lower
(Clark and Bilham, 2008). Clark and Bilham (2008) also suggest that crust (layer 11) beneath the Bengal Basin is considered to be of
deformation of the Shillong Plateau indicates differentiation of the oceanic origin (Bilham and England, 2001). The oceanic crust mainly
eastern Himalayan system from the rest of the Himalayas and consists of tholeiitic basalt and gabbro, intercalated with subducted
significant changes in regional strain partitioning. These data show sediments, metamorphosed and intruded by different magmatic units
that northward movement of the Indian plate is the major cause of during the final stages of subduction-collision tectonics (Brown and
crustal deformation within the Shillong Plateau and its adjoining Rushmer, 2006). We also consider the upper mantle (down to 84 km)
areas. In this study, we used Indian plate velocity of Jade et al. (2007) as one lithologic unit (layer 1). The sheared formations at the Main
to constrain the modeling. Based on analysis of focal mechanism Boundary Thrust (MBT), Main Central Thrust (MCT), Oldham Fault,
solution of earthquake, Angelier and Baruah (2009) obtained average and Dauki Fault are labeled as layers 3, 4, 8, and 10, respectively. We
δ1 trend of N2°W ± 14° from the Eastern Himalayan and Northeast also take into account the rheology for the Tibetan Himalaya (layer 5)
India, which corresponds to our study area. In agreement with and the Lesser Himalaya (layer 6) (Table 2).
Angelier and Baruah (2009), the World Stress Map (Heidbach et al.,
2007) also indicate that the N-S compression extends from the
Eastern Himalyan Front into the Shillong Plateau. Table 2
Rock layer properties used in the plane strain models.

4. Modeling Layer Density Young's modulus Cohesion Internal friction angle

(kg/m3) (GPa) (MPa) (degrees)
Stress conditions within the Earth depend on the rheology of a 1 3300 65 21 46
particular region. In a plane strain study, a suitable geological cross- 2 2900 60 18 45
section needs to be selected to estimate the stress conditions and the 3 2000 1 10 32
4 2000 1 10 32
convergence-induced deformation within the elastic continuum. The
5 2600 56 16 46
geologic cross-section shown in Fig. 2a was selected for finite element 6 2450 50 15 44
modeling and divided into small triangular elements or domains. A 7 2400 45 16 42
mesh is generated with 2,242 elements and 1,200 nodes for the entire 8 2000 1 10 32
9 2800 55 18 45
cross-section. The simulation was performed using the Finite Element
10 2000 1 10 32
(FE) software developed by Hayashi (2008). 11 2850 48 15 45
A generalized model (Fig. 2b) of an approximately 400 km long 12 2400 40 14 30
and 84 km deep section (shown A-A/ in Fig. 1) is divided with twelve Poisson's ratio is 0.25.
layers (Table 1). The Tertiary-Recent deposits in the upper crust of the References: Khan and Hoque (2006); Rajesekhar and Mishra (2008); Clark (1966);
Assam Valley (layer 7) and in the Bengal Basin (layer 12) are Joshi and Hayshi (2008a, b) and this study.

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
The boundary condition was considered in relation to generalize
motion of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate. In the model with
boundary condition (Fig. 3a), a 200-m horizontal displacement of the
Indian plate for ~ 4,283 yrs at a rate 46.5 ± 1 mm/yr (Jade et al., 2007)
has been applied along the x-axis from right to left with fixed vertical
dimension. The displacement gradually decreases toward the left
and becomes zero at the rear nodal point. All nodal points in the
right side of the model have equivalent displacement. We fixed the
rear nodal point at the bottom end of the left side, and a free slip
boundary condition was used along the left wall of the model. The
left side was fixed in the horizontal dimension and free along the
y-axis. The upper part of the model is kept for free movement, and it
represents the Earth's surface. Moreover, we imposed horizontal
convergent displacement of 50 m, 200 m and 1000 m in the applied
boundary condition.
Two geometric models were examined in this study. In model 1
(Fig. 2b), twelve layers are considered, whereas in model 2, we
remove the Oldham Fault from the model (Fig. 2c).
Rock properties, such as density, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio,
angle of internal friction and cohesion were examined in models as
shown in Table 2. The density values are from Khan and Hoque (2006)
and Rajesekhar and Mishra (2008), and they range from 2000 kg/m3
(for layer 3, 4, 8 and 10) to 3300 kg/m3 (for layer 1). The elastic
constant Young's modulus of elasticity was calculated using density, P
wave velocity and Poisson's ratio (see Joshi and Hayshi, 2008a, b). The
values of cohesion and angle of internal friction are from Clark (1966)
and Joshi and Hayshi (2008a, b), with Poisson's ratio set to 0.25.
5. Results
The spatial distribution and the orientation of the stress were
obtained at each node of the mesh. A series of model calculations have
been carried out, but only representative models are shown here.
According to the applied convergent displacement, the calculated
stress fields and faulting patterns display significant variation with
and/or without the Oldham Fault. Here, we present the model results
for (i) the stress distribution and (ii) distribution of failure elements.
a. Model 1
CT
BT
Tibet Assam Shillong plateau
M Bengal basin
M
84 km
400 km
b. Model 2
84 km
400 km
Fig. 3. Distribution of principal stresses for model 1 (a), and model 2 (b) at 200 m of convergent displacement. The red line represents extensional stress.
Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
5
5.1. Stress distribution
Fig. 3 represents the simulated spatial distribution pattern of
principal stresses given a 200-m convergent displacement for models
1 and 2. Except for the area close to the faults, the maximum
compressive stress (σ1) and the minimum compressive stress (σ3)
in the Bengal Basin and Assam Valley are predicted to be aligned
vertically and horizontally, respectively, in the both models. A
considerable change in the stress orientation pattern is predicted
in the deeper part of the models at the Dauki Fault end and Oldham
Fault end beneath the Shillong Plateau. This kind of change may
caused by bending nature of basement, structural profile of Shillong
Plateau and presence of both basement faults. Along the fault zones,
the modeled orientation of σ1 is normal to the fault where the stress
magnitude is smaller than that of the adjoining areas. The model
results predict that a considerable convergent displacement is
accommodated in these fault zones. We predict a complex stress
distribution exists beneath the Shillong Plateau in model 1 (Fig. 3a).
The upper part of the Shillong Plateau shows extensional stress,
whereas the deeper part shows compressional stress. Extensional
stress is predicted to dominant in model 2 in upper part of the Shillong
Plateau, Assam Valley and Bengal basin (Fig. 3b). The deeper part of
the Dauki Fault shows unchanged modeled stress distribution relative
to model 1.
For larger convergent displacement (model 2, 1000-m), the
anticlockwise rotation of the modeled principal stresses (σ1 and σ3)
in the Assam Valley increases from shallow regions to deeper regions
(Fig. 4c), and the area predicted to be undergoing an extensional
stress regime is reduced significantly. The characteristic anticlockwise
rotation (up to 90° or more) of predicted principal stresses (σ1 and
σ3) displayed in the Bengal Basin and Assam is an excellent indicator
of thrust faulting in a convergent tectonic environment. Non-uniform
shear stress (Fig. 5) is distributed in model 2, which predicted
that shear stress has a maximum (500 MPa) at the Dauki Fault
end and deeper part of the Shillong Plateau. It may be caused by
fault orientation and basement structure of the plateau under
convergent boundary condition or strike-slip movement (Schellart
and Nieuwland, 2003).
F.
500 MPa
D.
200m
200m
6 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

a. Model 2 with 50 m convergent displacement

F.
BT
MC
Tibet Shillong plateau

D.
Bengal basin

M
Assam
84 km

50 m

400 km

b. Model 2 with 200 m convergent displacement

84 km

200m

400 km

c. Model 2 with 1000 m convergent displacement

84 km

1000 m

400 km

Fig. 4. Distribution of principal stresses in model 2 at 50 m (a), 200 m (b) and 1000 m (c) convergent displacement. The red line represents extensional stress.

5.2. Distribution of failure elements
Our simulation results predict the interseismic deformation and the
fault development pattern in the study area. The Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion is used to analyze fault development in the FE software
(Hayashi, 2008). Fig. 6a-b show the computed principal stresses within
failure elements for the two models using given boundary condition.
Both models show a different pattern of fault development. Results for
model 1 (Fig. 6a) suggest that both the Dauki and the Oldham Faults are
thrust faults, while the upper part of the Shillong Plateau is a normal
faulting environment. Results for model 2, which consists only of the
Dauki Fault (Fig. 6b), suggest that the upper part of the Shillong Plateau,
the Assam Valley and Bengal basin are predicted to be experiencing
normal fault conditions, whereas the Dauki Fault is predicted to be
undergoing thrust faulting. With progressive convergent displacement
(Fig. 7a-c), especially in the case of 1000-m displacements (Fig. 7c),
predicted extensional failures are reduced significantly and restricted
within the Shillong Plateau and its surrounding areas. From predicted
failure elements within the models suggested that most of these failures
are restricted up to depth of 30 km (Fig. 6a-b).

100 MPa
200 MPa
300 MPa
400 MPa
500 MPa
150 100 150 50
50 250 100
200
200 200 150

350 300
400
450
500

Fig. 5. Contours of maximum shear stress in the Shillong plateau, Assam Valley and the Bengal Basin for model 2 at 200 m convergent displacement.

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
a. Model 1 (with O. F.)
CT
BT
O.
Tibet M Shillong plateau
M
Assam
F
.
84 km
b. Model 2 (without O. F.)
84 km
c. Epicenter distribution
B. F. O. F.
27
Fig. 6. Principal stress within failure elements for model 1 (a), model 2 (b) at 200-m convergent displacement The red line represents extensional stress. (c) Epicenter distribution
taken from Fig. 4 of Nayak et al. (2008). BF = Brahmaputra Fault.
6. Discussion: Comparison of our model results with seismic
activity, the stress regime and the effect of Oldham Fault
Stresses from the Himalayan arc to the north and from the
Burmese arc to the east are often hypothesized to be transmitted to
the Shillong Plateau (e.g., Mukhopadhyay, 1984; Kayal and De 1991;
Kayal, 2001) and a high level of micro-earthquake activity has been
observed around the Shillong Plateau (e.g., Bhattacharya et al., 2008).
Rajendran et al. (2004) reported that during 1986–1999, most of the
earthquakes with M N 4.0 occurred at depths b30 km in the Shillong
Plateau and in the Assam-Brahmaputra Valley. Kayal et al. (2006)
analyzed paleomicroseismicity data of the northeastern India and
argued that the north-dipping Dapsi Thrust in the southern margin
and the south-dipping Brahmaputra River Fault in the northern
margin are responsible for generating the earthquakes in the Shillong
Plateau.
We believe that the model 2 is our best-fit model to the observed
seismicity. Despite the fact that model 2 does not predict the exact
location of failure in the Bengal Basin, it does a good job of simulating
natural faulting and failure elements in the Shillong Plateau, Assam
Valley and the Dauki Fault region. First, using the boundary condition,
the results suggested that extensional stresses were concentrated at
the upper part of the Shillong Plateau, Bengal Basin and Assam Valley,
which is in accordance with satellite observations of structural
fracture and faulting on the surface of the plateau (Das et al., 1995).
Second, when we compare the both models in Fig. 6a-b with epicenter
distribution (Fig. 6c), it appears that the distribution of failure
Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
7
F.
250 MPa
D.
Bengal basin
200m
400 km
200m
400 km
D. F
26 25 24 N
0
Depth (km)
40
80
elements in model 2 displays general agreement with the distribution
of earthquake epicenters (Fig. 6c) reported by Nayak et al. (2008).
Although the results of our model 2 (Fig. 6b) do not exactly match the
epicenter distribution (Fig. 6c), the occurrence of seismic events in the
shallow part of the Shillong Plateau, Bengal Basin and Assam is
compatible with model 2. This slight mismatch between the modeled
failure distribution and estimated epicenters could be due to the
exclusion of some of the small scale faults of the study area.
When we consider the existence of the Oldham Fault along with the
prominent Dauki Fault in the model (Fig. 6a), it is evident that the
predicted failure elements are concentrated mainly within the Shillong
Plateau. This is inconsistent with the epicenter distribution within the
Assam and the Bengal Basin. Although here we do not show the detailed
results including those of the Brahmaputra Fault, these results are
almost similar to those of model 1 (Fig. 6a). Therefore, our simulation
results predict that the Oldham Fault (if it is present) does not contribute
to the regional deformation. Bilham and England (2001) proposed the
existence of the Oldham Fault based on triangulation data, coseismic
stress change, highest shaking intensity of 1897 earthquake, and
aftershock productivity. We think that this fault is a rupture that was
caused by the 1897 earthquake or any other previous seismic events. No
big seismic activity has been observed along this zone in the last century
which indicates that it is an active part. Moreover, there is no surface
exposure of this fault. More geophysical data and field investigations are
required to assess this problem.
The results from model 2 clearly demonstrate that the Dauki Fault
region and deeper part of the Shillong Plateau exhibit the maximum
8 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
a. Model 2 under 50 m convergent displacement
O.
BT
MC
Tibet
F.
M
84 km Assam
b. Model 2 under 200 m convergent displacement
84 km
c. Model 2 under 1000 m convergent displacement
84 km
Fig. 7. Principal stress within failure elements for model 2 for 50 m (a), 200 m (b) and 1000 m (c) convergent displacement. The red line represents extensional stress.
predicted shear stress (Fig. 5), the northern part of the Shillong
Plateau and Assam Valley and Bengal Basin are deforming (Fig. 6b)
due to presence more failure elements. This results support the
concerning of Bilham and England (2001) regarding the seismic
hazard potential of the Shillong Plateau since the Dauki Fault has not
slipped recently.
The simulated distribution of both failure elements and faulting
pattern is compatible with the observed fault plane solutions of the
earthquakes. Earthquake focal mechanism solutions in or near the
Shillong-Mikir hills-Assam Valley reveal that a NNE-SSW maximum
horizontal stress (σHmax) is mostly dominant (Chen and Molnar, 1990,
Angelier and Baruah, 2009), whereas Verma (1991) showed that the
Shillong Plateau has been subjected to N-S, NW-SE and NE-SW
compression. Kayal et al. (2006) reported that the Shillong Plateau
earthquakes are dominated by thrust/reverse faulting. Model 1 and model
2 (Fig. 4) suggest that the Dauki Fault as a thrust fault, which could also
correspond to the Dapsi Thrust indentified by Kayal et al. (2006) as a
conjugate segment of the Dauki Fault. The best-fit model (model 2)
predicts the Dauki (or Dapsi Fault) as a thrust fault with a few conjugate
normal faults associated at shallower depths (Fig. 6b). Failure of the Dauki
Fault (or Dapsi Fault) at deeper depth is in agreement with the recent
seismological data (Kayal et al., 2006). The best-fit model, however, does
not reproduce strike-slip seismicity below the Bengal Basin. Deep
earthquake events in the Bengal Basin may be due to the Sylhet Fault or
blind basement fault, which are not included in our model, leading to a
misfit of our modeled results with the real observation.
We modeled for plane strain case to evaluate the realistic tectonic
condition that can make more understandable the study area because
Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
.
F
Shillong plateau
D.
Bengal basin
50 m
400 km
200 m
400 km
1000 m
400 km
there are some geological debates are existing including the inferred
Oldham Fault by Bilham and England (2001). Most of the researchers
do not agree with the existence of such fault even though some
seismic events had been recorded along the fault (Fig. 6c). Our
modeled failure elements under stress condition also predict some
failures (Fig. 6b) along that zone in absence of the Oldham Fault.
However, the stress condition and thrust faulting are clearly predicted
within the entire study area more realistically.
We use 2D elastic modeling that could be unable to reproduce
proper geologic or tectonic conditions especially at deeper part of the
model. The upper mantle always shows viscous-elastic properties
whereas our model does not take into account this phenomenon. In
such case, we fix such the value of rock parameters so that the deeper
part shows plastic nature. This assumption does not affect our
modeled results because we consider the shallow part of the mantle
(b85 km) where mantle has plastic property. For most cases, there are
some possibilities to produce artificial conditions. Moreover, the rock
layer property has some effects in reproducing wrong geologic
phenomenon in the model. Furthermore, our 2D plane strain model
for the cross-section is unable to reproduce true strike-slip fault.
However it is possible in the plane stress (see Islam et al., 2011). If we
tried to reproduce the strike-slip movement in the model, some
unrealistic boundary conditions have to be applied.
7. Conclusion
We present finite element modeling result used to consider the
present-day stress field and deformation style in the Shillong Plateau
 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
and adjoining areas in northeast India and Bangladesh (Bengal Basin).
Our models are based on the initial pop-up model of the Shillong
Plateau proposed by Bilham and England (2001). Simulation results
were compared with seismic activity and faulting patterns in the
region. The best-fit model (model 2) predicts the stress field and
faulting pattern in the Shillong Plateau and its adjoining areas. The
Bengal Basin and the Assam Valley are predicted to experience a
compressive stress regime. The upper part (depth b 30 km) of the
Shillong Plateau, however, is predicted to be undergoing extension,
while the model predicts that the deeper part of the Plateau is
undergoing a compressive stress regime at the Dauki (or Dapsi) Fault.
The fault zones are modeled to experience lower values of principal
stresses (σ1 and σ3). The model indicates that regional deformation is
accommodated within these fault zones. Under the existing tectonic
environment and for areas of greater convergence, the Assam Valley
and the upper part of the Bengal Basin are modeled to be undergoing
thrust faulting. The upper part of the Shillong Plateau is predicted to
be undergoing normal faulting. Because the Oldham Fault at the
northern boundary of the Shillong Plateau is not assumed to be a
structural discontinuity in the best-fit model, we suggest that this
fault does not exist or that its effect is insignificant if it is present.
Acknowledgements
M. S. I. is grateful to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (Monbukagakusho), Japan, for providing
scholarship to carry out this research under the Okinawa International
Marine Science Program of the Graduate School of Engineering and
Science, University of the Ryukyus. We thank two reviewers (Mark
Tingay and Peter Betts) for their constructive comments and
suggestions on the manuscript, which significantly improved this
paper.
References
Alam, M., Alam, M.M., Currey, J.R., Chowdhury, M.L.R., Gani, M.R., 2003. An overview of
the sedimentary geology of the Bengal Basin relation to the regional tectonic
framework and basin-fill history. Sedimentary Geology 155, 179–208.
Angelier, J., Baruah, S., 2009. Seismotectonics in Northeast India: A stress analysis of
focal mechanism solution of earthquakes and its kinematic implications.
Geophysical Journal International 178, 303–326.
Bhattacharya, P.M., Mukhopadhyay, S., Majumdar, R.K., Kayal, J.R., 2008. 3-D seismic
structure of the northeast India region and its implication for local and regional
tectonics. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 33, 25–41.
Bilham, R., England, P., 2001. Plateau ‘pop up’ in the great 1897 Assam earthquake.
Nature 410, 806–809.
Biswas, S., Grasemann, B., 2005. Quantitative morphotectonics of the southern Shillong
Plateau (Bangladesh/India). Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 97, 82–93.
Brown, M., Rushmer, T., 2006. Evolution and differentiation of continental crust.
Cambridge publishing company, UK, p. 553.
Chandra, U., 1984. Tectonic segmentation of the Burmese–Indonesian arc. Tectonophysics
105, 279–289.
Chen, P., Molnar, P., 1990. Source parameters of earthquakes and interplate
deformation beneath the Shillong Plateau and the Northern Indoburman ranges.
Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 12527–12552.
Chen, Z., Burchfiel, B.C., Liu, Y., King, R.W., Royden, L.H., Tang, W., Wang, E., Zhao, J.,
Zhang, X., 2000. Global Positioning System measurements from eastern Tibet and
their implications for India/Eurasia intercontinental deformation. Journal of
Geophysical Research 105, 16215–16227.
Clark, M.K., Bilham, R., 2008. Miocene rise of the Shillong Plateau and the beginning of
the end for the Eastern Himalaya. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 269,
337–351.
Clark J.R., S.P.R., 1966. Handbook of Physical Constants. Geologcal Society of America,
Memory. 587p.
Das, J.D., Saraf, A.K., Jain, A.K., 1995. Fault tectonics of the Shillong Plateau and adjoining
regions, northeast India using remote sensing data. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 16, 1633–1646.
DeMets, C., Gordon, R.G., Argus, D.F., Stien, S., 1994. Effect of recent revisions to the
geomagnetic time scale on estimates of current plate motion. Geophysical Research
Letter 21, 2191–2194.
Evans, P., 1964. The tectonic framework of Assam. Journal of the Geological society of
India 5, 80–96.
Devi, N.R., Sarma, K.P., 2010. Strain analysis and stratigraphic status of Nongkhya,
Sumer and Mawmaram conglomerates of Shillong basin, Meghalaya, India. Journal
of Earth System Sciences 119, 161–174.
Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007
9
Hayashi, D., 2008. Theoretical basis of FE simulation software package. Bulletin of the
Faculty of Science, University of the Ryukyus 85, 81–95.
Heidbach, O., Fuchs, K., Muller, B., Reinecker, J., Sperner, B., Tingay, M., Wenzel, F., 2007.
The world stress map. Episodes 30, 197–201.
Hodges, H.V., 2000. Tectonics of the Himalaya and southern Tibet from two
perspectives. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112, 324–350.
Holt, W.E., Chamot-Rooke, N., Pichon, L.X., Shen-Tu, B., Ren, J., Haines, A.J., 2000.
Velocity field in Asia inferred from Quaternary fault slip rates and Global
Positioning System observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 105,
19185–19209.
Islam, M.S., Shinjo, R., Kayal, J.R., 2011. The tectonic stress field and deformation pattern of
northeast India, the Bengal basin and the Indo-Burma Ranges: a numerical approach.
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 40, 121–131 doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.08.015.
Jade, S., 2004. Estimates of plate velocity and crustal deformation in the Indian
subcontinent using GPS geodesy. Current Science 86, 1443–1448.
Jade, S., Mukul, M., Bhattacharyya, A.K., Vijayan, M.S.M., Jaganathan, S., Kumar, A., Tiwari, R.P.,
Kumar, A., Kalita, S., Sahu, S.C., Krishna, A.P., Gupta, S.S., Murthy, M.V.R.L., Gaur, V.K., 2007.
Estimste of interseismic deformation in Northeast India from GPS measurements. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 263, 221–234.
Johnson, S.Y., Alam, A.M.N., 1991. Sedimentation and tectonics of the Sylhet Trough,
Bangladesh. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103, 1513–1527.
Joshi, G.R., Hayshi, D., 2008a. Numerical modeling of neotectonic movements and state
stresses in the central seismic gap region, Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Mountain
Science 5, 279–295.
Joshi, G.R., Hayshi, D., 2008b. Neotectonic deformation and shortening along the
Himalayan Front in the Garhwal region by finite element modelling. Bulletino di
Geofisica teorica ed applicata 49, 228–233.
Kayal, J.R., Arefiev, S.S., Barua, S., Hazarika, D., Gogoi, N., Kumar, A., Chowdhury, S.N.,
Kalita, S., 2006. Shillong plateau earthquakes in northeast India region: Complex
tectonic model. Current Science 91, 109–114.
Kayal, J.R., 2001. Microearthquake activity in some parts of the Himalaya and the
tectonic model. Tectonophysics 339, 331–351.
Kayal, J.R., De, R., 1991. Microseismicity and tectonics in northeast India. Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America 77, 1718–1727.
Khan, P., 2005. Mapping of b-value beneath the Shillong Plateau. Gondwana Research 8,
271–276.
Keary, P., Frederick, J.F., 1998. Global tectonics. Blackwell science publishing company, p. 333.
Kent, W.N., Dasgupta, U., 2004. Structural evolution in response to fold and thrust belt
tectonics in northern Assam: A key to hydrocarbon exploration in the Jaipur
anticline area. Marine and Petroleum Geology 21, 85–803.
Khan, A.A., Hoque, M.A., 2006. Crustal dynamics, seismicity and seismotectonics of the
Bengal Basin. Proceeding of 1st Bangladesh earthquake symposium. Earthquake
Society, Bangladesh, pp. 45–54.
Krisna, M.R., Sanu, T.D., 2000. Seismotectonics and rate of active crustal deformation in
the Burmese arc and adjoining regions. Journal of Geodynamics 30, 401–421.
Malaimani, E.C., Campbell, J., Gorres, B., Kothoff, H., Smaritschnik, S., 2000. Indian plate
kinemtics studies by GPS-geodesy. Letter of Earth Planet Space 52, 741–745.
McClay, K.R., Bonora, M., 2001. Analog models of restaining stopovers in strike–slip
fault systems. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 85, 233–260.
Mishra, U.K., Sen, S., 2001. Dinosaur bones from Megalaya. Current Science 80,
1053–1056.
Mitra, S.K., 1998. Structure, sulphide mineralization and age of the Shillong group of
rocks, Meghalaya. S K Krishnan Centenary Commemorative National Seminar. 1–2
November, 1998, Calcutta, pp. 118–119. Abstract).
Mukhopadhyay, M., 1984. Seismotectonics of transverse lineaments in the eastern
Himalaya and its foredeep. Tectonophysics 109, 227–240.
Nayak, G.K., Rao, V.K., Rambabu, H.V., Kayal, J.R., 2008. Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau
in the great 1897 earthquake (Ms 8.7): Insight from the gravity in conjunction with the
recent seismological results. Tectonic 27, TC1018 doi:10.1029/2006TC002027.
Oldham, R.D., 1899. Report of the great earthquake of 12th June, 1897. Memory
Geological Survey of India 46, 257–276.
Paul, J., Burgmann, R., Gaur, V.K., Bilham, R., Larson, K.M., Ananda, M.B., Jade, S., Mukal, M.,
Anuama, T.S., Satyal, G., Kimar, D., 2001. The motion and active deformation of India.
Geophysical Research Letters 28, 647–650.
Rajesekhar, R.P., Mishra, D.C., 2008. Crustal structure of Bengal Basin and Shillong
Plateau: Extension of Eastern Ghat and Satpura mobile belts to Himalyan fronts and
seismotectonics. Gondwana Research 14, 523–534 doi:10.1016/j.gr.2007.10.009.
Rajendran, C.P., Rajendran, K., Daurah, B.P., Earnest, A., 2004. Interpreting the style of
faulting and paleoseismicity associated with the Shillong, northeast India, earthquake:
Implication for regional tectonism. Tectonics 23, TC4009 doi:10.1029/2003TC001605.
Rao, N.P., Kumar, P., Kalpana, Tsukuda, T., Ramesh, D.S., 2006. The devastating
Muzaffarbad earthquake of 8 October 2005: New insights into Himalayan
seismicity and tectonics. Gondwana Research 9, 365–378.
Santosh, M., 1999. Intregated geological studies in the deep continental crust of
southern India. Gondwana Research 2, 309–310.
Seno, T., Rehman, H.U., in press. When and why the continental crust is subducted: Examples
of Hindu Kush and Burma. Gondwana Research, doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.05.011
Schellart, W.P., Nieuwland, D.A., 2003. 3D evolution of a pop-up structure above a double
basement strike–slip fault: Some insights from analogue modelling. In: Nieuwland, D.A.
(Ed.), New insights into structural interpretation and modelling: Geological Society
Special Publications, vol. 212, pp. 169–179 doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2003.212.01.11.
Sella, G.F., Dixon, T.H., Mao, A., 2002. REVEL: A model for the recent plate velocities from
space geodesy. Journal of Geophysical Research 107 doi:10.1029/2000JB000033.
Shen, Z.K., Zhao, C., Yin, A., Li, Y., Jackson, D.D., Fang, P., Dong, D., 2000. Contemporary
crustal deformation in East Asia constrained from Global Positioning System
measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 5721–5734.
10 M.S. Islam et al. / Gondwana Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Socquet, A., Vigny, C., Rooke, N.C., Simons, W., Rangin, C., Ambrosious, B., 2006. India and
Sunda plate motion and deformation along their boundary in Myanmar determined
by GPS. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, B05406 doi:10.1029/2000JB000033.
Srivastava, R.K., Sinha, A.P., 2004. Geochemistry of Early Cretaceous alakine ultramafic–mafic
complex from Jasra, Karbi Anglong, Shillong Plateau, Northeastern India. Gondwana
Research 7, 549–561.
Verma, R.K., 1991. Seismicity of the Himalaya and the northeast India, and nature
of continent–continent collision. In: Sharma, K.K. (Ed.), Geology and Geody-
namics Evolution of the Himalyan Collision Zone, Part 2, vol. 18. Pergamon
Press, pp. 345–370.
Xia, L., Li, X., Ma, Z., Xu, X., Xia, Z., in press. Cenozoic volcanism and tectonic evolution of
the Tibetan plateau. Gondwana Research, doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.09.005.

Please cite this article as: Islam, M.S., et al., Pop-up tectonics of the Shillong Plateau in northeastern India: Insight from numerical
simulations, Gondwana Res. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.007