RESEARCH ARTICLE
10.1029/2019TC005841
Key Points:
• We model the effects of deep
lithospheric scars and lithospheric
rheological strength in an intraplate
setting using analog models
• Rheological strength of the
lithospheric mantle plays a role in
the distribution of strain and style of
deformation in the upper crust
• Lithospheric scars or structural
planes of weaknesses play a
governing role in localizing
deformation over rheological
strength
Correspondence to:
T. Santimano,
tasca.santimano@utoronto.ca
Citation:
Santimano, T., & Pysklywec, R. (2020).
The influence of lithospheric mantle
scars and rheology on intraplate
deformation and orogenesis: Insights
from tectonic analog models. Tectonics,
39, e2019TC005841. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019TC005841
Received 23 AUG 2019
Accepted 1 MAR 2020
Accepted article online 4 APR 2020
©2020. American Geophysical Union.
All Rights Reserved.
SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC
The Influence of Lithospheric Mantle Scars and Rheology
on Intraplate Deformation and Orogenesis: Insights
From Tectonic Analog Models
Tasca Santimano1 and Russell Pysklywec1
1
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract Structural heterogeneities in the deep lithosphere have been identified as an important factor
in crustal tectonics, particularly where inherited deep zones of weakness may initiate orogenesis in
continent interiors. Aside from structural heterogeneity, the rheological strength of the lithosphere may also
have a primary role affecting the kinematics of deformation in the lithosphere. To investigate the interplay of
rheology and preexisting structures, we designed a set of physical scaled analog experiments for a
convergent setting that tests (a) the presence and absence of a preexisting weak zone in the lithospheric
mantle and (b) the effects of the rheological strength of the lithospheric mantle. Tectonic evolution of the
model is recorded to acquire a time series data set of the velocity field and subsequently strain in the model.
Results show that a weak zone in the lithospheric mantle allows deformation to be accommodated by
displacement along this zone and into the overlying lower and upper crust, regardless of lithosphere
strength. In contrast, a model absent of a weak zone accommodates deformation by folding and thickening
of the viscous layers. The viscous lithosphere in models with a strong lithospheric mantle tends to buckle
creating a sequence of brittle faulting in the upper crust. Specifically, the rheology of the lithosphere
dictates the distribution of strain. Our results are considered in the context of the formation of the Eurekan
fold and thrust belts in an intraplate setting on Ellesmere Island, where deformation may be related to the
influence of deep lithosphere structure(s) and deep lithosphere strength.
1. Introduction
Our knowledge of the movement of tectonic plates to form orogens and the study of plate tectonics relates
mainly to the upper crust. In recent years, studies have shown that the initiation of some events of intraplate
orogenesis may be related to structural heterogeneities in the deep lithosphere (Heron et al., 2015, 2016a, b,
Heron, Pysklywec, et al., 2019). In particular, these heterogeneities may be ancient subduction zones or fossil
plate boundaries observed in deep seismic surveys (Calvert et al., 1995; Phillips et al., 2016; Schiffer
et al., 2014; Steer et al., 1998; van der Velden & Cook, 2005) that can act as planes of weakness in the litho-
spheric mantle. This idea has been tested with numerical models. For example, Heron et al. (2016a, 2016b)
studied the role of lithospheric scars or zones of weakness in the brittle upper crust, lower crust, and mantle
lithosphere. Although the models are limited to a 2‐D geometry, their results show how the pattern of defor-
mation changes when there are zones of weaknesses in the different layers of the lithosphere. In 3‐D numer-
ical models it has similarly been shown that deep mantle sutures may control surface tectonics (Heron,
Pysklywec, et al., 2019). In addition, analog models have shown that heterogeneities in the lithosphere,
namely, the existence of a strong domain, can also influence the surface tectonics (Calignano
et al., 2015, 2017; Luth et al., 2010). The models show that heterogeneities in the deep lithospheric mantle
control how the upper crust responds to deformation from far‐field stresses caused at plate boundaries. In
these studies, the focus is on how these heterogeneities affect the overall strength of the lithosphere and
how strain is localized or distributed accordingly. However, the bulk strength of the lithosphere is related
to the rheology of the lithosphere, in addition to heterogeneities (Jackson et al., 2008). Since the strength
of the lithosphere is primarily related to its rheology (Ranalli, 1997), it is important to consider the litho-
sphere's rheological strength when trying to understand intraplate deformation.
In order to investigate the interplay between rheological strength and zones of weakness in the lithospheric
mantle, we consider both these parameters using scaled physical analog models of convergent lithosphere.
Crustal heterogeneities and sutures also play a role in lithospheric dynamics, but we focus on the
1 of 19
 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

heterogeneities in the lithospheric mantle because this is an unexplored and poorly understood aspect of
lithospheric tectonics. Our methodology consists of systematically modeling surface deformation in experi-
ments with a nominal and strong lithosphere and with the presence or absence of a plane of weakness only
in the lithospheric mantle. The 3‐D analog models permit a finely detailed study of the genetic relationship
between upper crustal deformation and rheology or a scar in the deep lithosphere, as well as the dominant
controls that rheology or a deep scar has on tectonic processes. Specifically, we consider how the strength of
the lithospheric mantle affects the extent of deformation in the upper crust and on the surface of the Earth.
The strength of the lithosphere as a whole in intraplate deformation has been considered by previous studies
that focused on the complexity and geometry of the weak zone (Willingshofer & Sokoutis, 2005;
Willingshofer & Sokoutis, 2009; Sokoutis & Willingshofer, 2011) and the lateral strength contrast in the
lithosphere (Vogt, Willingshofer, et al., 2017). Although these works provide valuable insight toward intra-
plate orogenesis, such models have too complex geometries and rheologies of the weak zone and rheological
layering of the lithosphere to investigate specifically the interplay between lithospheric strength and any
inherent zones of weakness. In contrast, our models are based on a parameter study where only the absence
or presence of a structure or the rheology of the lithospheric mantle is varied.
As a way to interpret the models, our results are considered with the structural architecture of Ellesmere
Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago that has undergone several deformation stages. Orogenesis on
Ellesmere Island occurs in an intraplate setting without a subduction zone or direct relation to plate collision
(De Paor et al., 1989). It is hypothesized that the fold and thrust belts in this region and rifting in the sur-
rounding regions are related to the heterogeneities in the deep lithosphere (Heron et al., 2015, Heron,
Peace, et al., 2019). In comparison to our models, we consider the relative age of tectonic regions and initia-
tion of the folds and thrust structures formed on Ellesmere Island during the Eurekan orogeny and the pos-
sible control of the deep lithosphere.

2. Experimental Design
We designed our physical scaled analog experiments to test the interplay of lithosphere rheology and preex-
isting structure. The configuration and conduct of the analog experiments required a series of tests and trial
runs (not presented here) that were also conducted to ensure that the results—particularly first‐order struc-
tures formed during deformation—were consistent between models. Since physical analog materials are
used in these experiments, when choosing materials, the experimenter is limited by the physical properties
(particularly viscosity and density) of the materials. Therefore, extended laboratory experimentation was
conducted to explore several aspects: combining viscous and brittle materials to produce an analog material
for each part of the lithosphere (upper crust, lower crust, and lithospheric mantle) that scales well for the
purpose of the model and optimal orientation of the cameras to record the experiment and produce the best
images and data sets possible.
Our experimental design is simplified to understand the governing factors of deformation that are related to
the two tested parameters. We neglect the temperature dependency of the viscous material but assume that a
viscosity stratification by temperature dependence is approximated by the assigned viscosities of the layers,
similar to the models by Davy and Cobbold (1991). The temperature dependency is neglected owing to the
major difficulty in adding thermal effects to analog models on this length scale. Omission of temperature
dependence in our models also allows us to investigate specifically the mechanical aspects of the two para-
meters we are focused on. In addition, surface processes such as deposition of sediments or erosion are not
considered due to the very thin scaled upper crust. We show the results with one setup having a nominal
lithospheric mantle and another setup with a stronger lithospheric mantle. With both setups two experi-
ments were performed: (1) with the presence of a weak zone (Experiments 1 and 3) in the lithospheric man-
tle and 2) with a laterally homogenous lithospheric mantle (no weak zone) (Experiments 2 and 4). The weak
zone in the two experiments is a fracture or discontinuity and is located in the center of the model and runs
the full width of the box through the lithospheric mantle and perpendicular to the convergence
direction (Figure 1).
2.1. Experimental Setup
The experimental setup consists of a plexiglass box of dimensions 51 cm * 51 cm * 12 cm (Figure 1). A moving
or converging wall is operated by a stepper motor attached to a gear box that is computer controlled to

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 2 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 1. (a) Experimental setup for the four experiments. The three layers of the lithosphere (upper crust, lower crust,
and lithospheric mantle) rest on glucose syrup that acts as the asthenosphere. The inset shows the location and
geometry of the preexisting weak zone in Experiments 1 and 3. (b) Rheology and analog materials used for the layers of a
nominal lithospheric mantle and a strong lithospheric mantle. The strength profile for each layer is calculated using
equations from Corti et al. (2004).

achieve very low velocities (0.010 mm/s). The entire experiment is optically recorded from above with two
digital cameras (Imager ProX by LaVision GMbH, Göttingen, Germany) (CCD, 11MPx, 16 bit) at 0.05 Hz
for all experiments. The raw images are calibrated and processed using the software StrainMaster (DaVis
by LaVision GmbH). The surface displacement and subsequent velocity field are derived from the images
using Particle Image Velocimetry (Adam et al., 2005). The obtained data are used to make maps and plots
for better visualizing the evolution of deformation (e.g., formation of faults or folds) at the surface of
the model.

2.2. Rheology and Scaling of Analog Materials

The lithosphere in the models consists of three layers: upper crust, lower crust, and lithospheric mantle
—overlying a layer of glucose syrup that acts as an analog for the asthenosphere. Overall, the astheno-
sphere has a density of 121–191 kg/m3 greater than the overlying lithospheric mantle. The difference in
density allows the lithosphere to be buoyant, and it may prevent the subduction of the lithosphere into
the asthenosphere or delamination of the lower and upper crust. Therefore, these experiments are con-
vergence driven and not buoyancy driven. The asthenosphere is used mainly as an isostatic support for
the lithosphere. A viscous non‐Newtonian composition of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and sand is
used for the nominal lithospheric mantle (Experiments 1 and 2) and PDMS and modeling clay for the
strong lithospheric mantle (Experiments 3 and 4) (Figure 1b). The strength profile of our multilayer ana-
log model is comparable to a “crème brûlée” profile. In this profile the brittle upper crust is stronger
than the mantle and has a higher occurrence of fractures and earthquakes than the mantle (Burov &
Watts, 2006). A composition of bouncy putty, PDMS, and iron filing is used to form the viscous lower

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 3 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Table 1
Scaling of the Analog Materials and Experimental Parameters for Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4
Thickness Density Viscosity

Model Nature Model Nature Nature Material

3 3
(mm) (km) (kg/m ) (kg/m ) Model (Pa·s) (Pa·s) n composition

Upper crust Brittle 10 25 1,100 2,750 Si sand + E‐spheres

4 21
Lower crust Ductile 5 12.5 1,107 2,900 1.5 × 10 8.0 × 10 1.08 PDMS + BP + Fe
fillings
4 22
Nominal lithospheric mantle Ductile 12 30 1,230 3,075 2.73 × 10 1.38 × 10 1.12 PDMS + sand
(Exp. 1 and Exp.2)
4 22
Strong lithospheric mantle Ductile 12 30 1,300 3,250 4.1 × 10 2.3 × 10 1.15 PDMS + plasticine
(Exp. 3 and Exp.4)
20
Asthenosphere 40 100 1,421 3,550 380 1.90 × 10 Glucose syrup
–7 –18
Scaling factors: model/ L* = 4 × 10 ρ* = 0.4 η* = 2.0 × 10
prototype
–11
Time scaling factor t* = η*/ t* = 1.24 × 10 1 hr in model ~9 Ma in
(ρ* × g* × L*) nature
4
Velocity scaling factor v* = L*/t* v* = 3.2 × 10 36.5 mm/hr in model
~10 mm/yr in nature
Gravity scaling factor g* = gm/gp = 1
Note. Power law stress component (n) is measured at room temperature. The density and viscosity values listed for nature are similar to those used in models by
Calignano et al. (2015), Molnar et al. (2017), Heron et al. (2016a), and Funiciello et al. (2008).

crust. The stress exponent (n) for all the viscous layers is variable and slightly greater than one
(Table 1). The stress exponent (n) and the viscosity are measured at strain rates of ~10−4 similar to
the strain rates in our models. These values along with the material parameter (A) also measured in
the lab are used to calculate the strength profile. A combination of silica sand and e‐spheres makes
up the brittle upper crust and is sieved on top of the lower crust, and a laser level was used to
ensure a horizontal surface and uniform thickness of the sand layer. The various mixtures were
concocted to make suitable densities and rheologies for the disparate layers. The details of the
rheology and density for the upper crust, lower crust, two different lithospheres, and asthenosphere
are listed in Table 1.
For each setup, the analog materials have the same scaling ratio for thickness of the layers, density, and
viscosity of the materials. Therefore, they are scaled geometrically, dynamically, and kinematically
(Benes & Davy, 1996; Davy & Cobbold, 1991; Ramberg, 1967). A model length of 10 mm corresponds
to 25 km in nature for all the experiments. Convergence velocities of 0.010 mm/s for all the experiments
correspond to 1 cm/yr in nature. All the models are shortened by 30%. In Experiments 1 and 3, we
include a weak zone in the lithospheric mantle, which represents a fault, a fault network, or a “scar”
from an ancient plate boundary. In the experiments with a weak zone, the lithospheric mantle is
cut with a knife at an angle of 30°. The weak zone is filled with Vaseline petroleum jelly to prevent
the two sides from joining together, and healing the fault plane as petroleum at room
temperature and low strain rates has a high yield stress and effective viscosity (Duarte et al., 2014);
therefore, it does not control deformation once the weak zone is activated. The weak zone dips toward
the fixed backwall.
In Experiments 1 and 2 the natural viscosity ratio between the lower crust and the lithospheric mantle is
approximately double. In Experiments 3 and 4 the scaled viscosity of the lithospheric mantle is approxi-
mately 3 times higher than the lower crust, where the lower crust and lithospheric mantle viscosities are
1.50 × 104 Pa·s (scaled to 8.00 × 1021 Pa·s) and 4.10 × 104 Pa·s (scaled to 2.30 × 1022 Pa·s), respectively. In
comparison, Experiments 1 and 2 have a normal lithospheric mantle of 2.73 × 104 Pa·s (scaled to
1.38 × 1022 Pa·s)(Figure 1b and Table 1).

3. Data Analysis and Primary Observations

The data obtained from the Particle Image Velocimetry imaging and model cross sections allow us to moni-
tor the kinematics of the model in the following manner. We explain the data analysis and its importance in

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 4 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 2. Top view of velocity in the x direction (Vx) for (a) Experiment 1 and (b) Experiment 2 from 10% shortening to 30% shortening at every 5% intervals. The
black curved lines show the change in velocity (Vx) and highlight the fault traces (Experiment 1) or fold axes (Experiment 2) over time. Dashed lines
highlight a small change in velocity indicating that strain is not fully localized, and the fault plane or fold axis is not fully developed. F‐fault, FA‐trace of fold axial
plane.

detail as some of the techniques are specific to analog modeling. Important features from the experiment are
highlighted in the results of the data analysis.

3.1. Velocity Maps Highlighting Deformation in the Models

The maps show deformation by depicting the x component of surface particle velocity, Vx, in a top view of
the model (Figures 2 and 3). The evolution of the structures is clearly observed in these maps as discrete
regions are in motion and separated by localized zones. The change in Vx highlights the boundary of the
zones and the location of structures such as faults or folds. Once a structure is formed, there is a clear divide
based on the Vx values (Figure 2). The area of the model between the indenter wall and the developed struc-
tures in the middle of the model is considered the foreland, and the area from structure to the backwall is the
hinterland (Figures 2 and 3). The velocity maps emphasize higher areas of deformation particularly in the
foreland and less deformation in the hinterland. For Experiments 1 (Figure 2a), 2 (Figure 2b), 3
(Figure 3a), and 4 (Figure 3b), a top view of all the experiments is shown at 10% to 30% shortening with
5% intervals.
In Experiment 1, at 10% shortening, the formation of a fault in the center of the model manifests as a change
in velocity from the converging wall to the fixed backwall. The fault propagates laterally toward the sidewalls
and eventually a second fault forms (visible at 25% shortening). In Experiment 2, folds begin to form in the
center of the model and eventually propagate to the side of the model. However, in this model the trace of the
fold axis forms two lozenge‐shaped features on the surface that merge to become one long lozenge that is
perpendicular to the convergence direction. As a result, the trace of the fold axis produces an undulating sur-
face expression. In Experiment 3, a thrust fault is already well established before 10% shortening (Figure 3a).
Displacement continues to occur along this active zone as the converging wall moves toward the fixed back-
wall. As convergence continues, a second fault forms and the area of the foreland begins to get smaller.
Similar to Experiment 3, in Experiment 4 at 10% of shortening, a fault plane is well established. As shorten-
ing continues, several structures form with deformation moving toward the backwall. All faults do not
always extend the full length of the model, and they are seen everywhere at the surface of the model, even
close to the fixed backwall.

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 5 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 3. Top view for velocity in the x direction (Vx) for (a) Experiment 3 and (b) Experiment 4 from 10% shortening to 30% shortening at every 5% intervals. The
changes in velocity highlight the location of the fault planes marked by solid black lines. The dashed lines indicate a subtle change in velocity. Here, the dashed
lines indicate that the fault planes have not yet been developed and strain is not fully localized or the fault is deeper and not exposed at the surface. F‐fault,
FA‐trace of fold axial plane.

3.2. Temporal Velocity Maps

Temporal maps are taken along a central profile that is parallel to the convergence direction (Figure 4).
The velocity profile for each time step is stacked one on top of the other along the y axis. The x axis is
the length of the profile. The color scheme denotes the velocity along the profile at each time step.
These velocity maps show the transition from diffuse deformation to fault localization over several time
steps (y axis). In all the experiments, at the beginning, the colors of the profile move from blue to light
blue over time, indicating an increase in velocity evenly distributed in the model. This pattern relates to
diffuse deformation along the length of the model (Figure 4). In all four experiments, after a certain
time step, the sharp change in the velocity (and color) along a profile (x axis) indicates the location
of strain localization either in the form of a fault or fold. These maps are important for highlighting
the activity of the faults in relation to each other, over time. In Experiment 1, Fault 1 (F1) is inactive
when Fault 2 (F2) becomes active, indicating that both faults are not active simultaneously (Figure 4a).
Experiment 2 shows that both fold axes (FA1 and FA2) are active simultaneously and throughout the
experiment (Figure 4b). In Experiment 4, Fault 4 (F4) is not active throughout the experiment. Over
time, it is also noticeable that several faults form and deformation progresses toward the fixed
backwall (Figure 4d).

3.3. Cross Sections

At the end of the experiments, the models are removed from the experimental box and cut into cross sec-
tions. Before removing the models from the box, a protective layer of colored sand is sieved on top of the
model to protect the surface structures that have formed. The model is then saturated with water to prevent
the structures from being destroyed when the model is removed from the box and also to facilitate the dis-
section of the model into sections. A challenge in the process is separating the model lithosphere from the

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 6 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 4. Temporal velocity maps displaying the velocity (Vx) along the profile line (Figure 1a) for (a) Experiment 1, (b) Experiment 2, (c) Experiment 3, and (d)
Experiment 4. F‐fault, FA‐fold axis.

asthenosphere (glucose syrup) in the experimental box. To accomplish the separation, we use a gridded steel
mesh (~1.0 cm grid spacing) that sits at the bottom of the experiment box during the experiment. At
completion of the experiment, we raise this grid mesh up through the fluid asthenosphere and lift out the
model lithosphere. This process is effective in separating the lithosphere from the asthenosphere (glucose
syrup) but is not perfect as ~1.0 cm of the lithospheric mantle, specifically the weaker nominal
lithospheric mantle from the bottom, is lost while removing the model. To quantify the change in the
layers (specifically the upper and lower crust), we measured the thickness of the upper and lower crust at
the end of the experiment and compared them to the original thickness (Figures 5 and 6). Since the
vertical thickness of each layer is measured, folded or overlapping layers in the upper crust result in a
large increase in final thickness from the original thickness. These are also zones of deformation, and the
difference in thickness has been shaded to make a comparison between how much the upper and lower
crust have thickened.
The cross sections show the development of the faults in Experiment 1 (Figure 5a), Experiment 3
(Figure 6a), and Experiment 4 (Figure 6b) and folds in Experiment 2 (Figure 5b). We identify a fault as
a plane with displacement along the plane. This is evident by the break and movement of the marker hor-
izon along the established fault plane (Figure 5a). In contrast, a lack of displacement but a change in
direction in the marker horizon is characterized as a fold. Accordingly, a trace of the fold axial plane is
drawn on the cross section (Figure 5b). In Experiment 1, the section shows the overlap of what we

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 7 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 5. Cross sections of (a) Experiment 1 and (b) Experiment 2. Both cross sections are made in the middle of the
model at the end of the experiment. In the graphs below each cross section, we report the thickness of the different
layers (solid line) at the end of the models and compare them to the original thickness (dashed line). For the lower crust
and upper crust, the areas that have significantly thickened are shaded. The yellow arrows indicate the location
where the lower crust has protruded into the upper crust causing deformation in the form of faults or folds in the upper
crust. The number under a fault indicates the displacement along the fault plane in mm. F‐fault, FA‐trace of fold
axial plane.

label as Fault 2 over Fault 1 (see below) and the dip of both faults. In both Experiments 1 and 2, the
brittle upper crust and the lower crust thickened from their original thickness of 1 and 0.5 cm,
respectively (Figures 5a and 5b). Experiment 3 (Figure 6a) shows structures similar to Experiment 1
with the addition of another fault toward the backwall. It is also evident here that the first fault
formed closer to the indenter wall and not in line with the weak zone. In fact, it is the third fault that
formed as a result of deformation propagating from the weak zone into the upper crust. In Experiment
4 (Figure 6b) several faults can be seen which complies with the observations made from the velocity
map (Figure 3b) and temporal velocity map (Figure 4d).

4. Results
The velocity maps (Figures 2 and 3), temporal velocity plots (Figure 4), and the cross sections (Figures 5 and
6) of the models are collectively used to unravel the kinematic and geodynamic evolution of the models and
create interpreted schematic diagrams showing the formation of the internal structures for all the experi-
ments (Figures 7 and 8).
4.1. Experiment 1: Nominal Lithospheric Mantle With a Weak Zone
In Experiment 1 a weak zone is present only in the lithospheric mantle layer. The zone is in the middle of the
layer, dipping away from the converging wall. After 10% shortening, a fault (F1‐Figure 4a) has localized in
the center of the model and is propagating laterally toward the side walls (Figure 2a). At 15% shortening the

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 8 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 6. Cross sections of (a) Experiment 3 and (b) Experiment 4. Both cross sections were taken in the middle of the
model. In the graphs below each cross section, we report the thickness of the different layers (solid line) at the end of the
models and compare them to the original thickness (dashed line). For the lower crust and upper crust, the areas that have
significantly thickened are shaded to show the relationship between the two layers. The yellow arrows indicate the
location where the lower crust has protruded into the upper crust causing brittle deformation and faulting in the upper
crust. The number under a fault indicates the displacement along the fault plane in mm. F‐fault, FA‐trace of fold axial
plane. Only faults that are exposed at the surface are labeled.

fault is completely formed with secondary structures at the ends of the fault close to the side walls. By 20%
shortening, a second lineament (F2‐Figure 4a) has developed in the foreland region of the model. The
temporal maps show that before the formation of the second fault, a pop‐up structure evolves (Figure 4a).
We identify this feature, in the temporal maps, as a pop‐up by the blue velocity zone indicating lower Vx
values in the surrounding area, most likely due to the sliding of sand grains in the vertical (z) plane west
of the pop‐up structure (Figure 4a). The pop‐up structure consists of a back thrust and a fore thrust. The
lineament that formed in the foreland is the trace of the back thrust as depicted in the schematic drawing
(Figure 7a). Once the second fault is formed, the back thrust begins to slowly become less active
(Figure 5a). The fore thrust F2 is within mm to the trace of F1 and cannot be easily deciphered on the
surface. The cross section (Figure 5a) shows that F2 overlaps F1 and is dipping toward the converging
wall also indicating that F2 formed in the foreland and not the hinterland. The cross sections also show
that dip and angle of F1 are the same as the imposed weak zone in the lithospheric mantle indicating that
it formed as a result of fault propagation from the weak zone. The vergence of F1 (toward the backwall)
in the brittle upper crust also indicates that it was not formed due to accretion of upper crustal material.
A fault formed in an accretionary system undergoing convergence would have the dip in the opposite
direction (Chapple, 1978; Davis et al., 1983) than F1 and the same as that of F2. Once the second fault
formed, a majority of the deformation is accommodated by this fault and F1 becomes less active, as seen
on the temporal maps (Figure 4a). In this experiment both faults are not active simultaneously.

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 9 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 7. Schematic diagrams showing the evolution of structures in the model for (a) Experiment 1 and (b) Experiment 2. These schematic drawings are based
on the observations from the surface (Figure 2), temporal velocity plots (Figure 4), and the cross sections (Figure 5). The drawings show only half the model with
cross sections along the profile line marked in Figure 1.

The velocity maps (Figure 2a) show a steady increase in cumulative Vx on either side of the fault zone; how-
ever, the area between the indenter and the fault zone has a higher Vx value than the area between the fault
zone and the backwall. Similarly, the temporal velocity plots (Figure 4a) show that once the strain is loca-
lized and after the first fault is formed, majority of the deformation is in the foreland and the hinterland is
only slightly active. Most of the brittle deformation is accommodated by the two faults with an average dis-
placement of 16 mm. In the cross sections, it is also important to note the increase in thickness of the upper
and lower crust from the original thickness. The layer parallel thickening of these layers in the hinterland
must have occurred due to deformation at sand grain scale in the upper crust and ductile viscous flow in
the lower crust. The hinterland deformation is evenly distributed and displays as a slightly active zone in
the velocity and temporal velocity plots. The lower crust beneath each fault is folded and thickened. The
underlying lithospheric mantle also protrudes into the lower crust at the location of the faults. In this multi-
layer model, buckling and layer thickening of the lithospheric mantle and lower crust is coeval with faulting
in the upper crust (Figure 5a), indicating that the three layers in the model deformed together. In terms of
fault activity, F1 formed due the propagation of the weak zone from the lithospheric mantle. This initial fault
became inactive. As stresses had to be accommodated due to the continuing convergence, F2 was formed
and continued to accommodate the rest of the deformation.

4.2. Experiment 2: Nominal Homogenous Lithospheric Mantle

In Experiment 2 there is no weak zone. The change in velocity in the velocity maps shows the formation of
an undulating lineament (Figure 2b—10% shortening) in the center of the model. This lineament develops
into two lozenge‐shaped features aligned perpendicular to the convergence direction (Figure 2b—15% short-
ening). As the model evolves, the two features merge to become one long lozenge that is the width of the
experimental box and has the tails oblique to the side walls (Figure 2b—20%, 30% shortening). The cross sec-
tion (Figure 5b) for Experiment 2 shows that the lineaments are traces of fold axial planes with opposite ver-
gence, for two folds. The temporal velocity map indicates that the folds (FA1 and FA2—Figure 4b) were
formed at the same time as demonstrated in the schematic diagram (Figure 7b). In this experiment, deforma-
tion was accommodated in a ductile manner by two folds formed at the same time. In Experiment 2, and as
shown in the temporal velocity maps (Figure 4b), once the folds formed, Vx is the highest between the inden-
ter and the fold axis (FA1—Figure 4b) (versus between the two fold axes) and the hinterland is slightly

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 10 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 8. Schematic diagrams showing the evolution of structures in the model for (a) Experiment 3 and (b) Experiment 4. These schematic drawings are based
on the observations from the surface (Figure 3), temporal velocity plots (Figure 4), and the cross sections (Figure 6). The drawings show only half the model with
cross sections along the profile line marked in Figure 1.

active. Similar to Experiment 1, the cross sections (Figure 5b) show thickening of the lower crust due to
viscous flow, particularly beneath the fold axes.

4.3. Experiment 3: Strong Lithospheric Mantle With a Weak Zone

In Experiment 3, the lithospheric mantle is stronger than in Experiments 1 and 2 and includes a weak zone
in the center of the model. The dip of the weak zone is similar to that in Experiment 1. In this model, at 10%
shortening, strain has already localized along a well‐established fold system (FA1 and FA2—Figure 4c) that
is closer to the indenter than in Experiment 1 (Figure 3a—10% shortening). At a later stage, a fault (F3—
Figure 4c) develops and its location indicates that it propagated from the weak zone in the lithospheric man-
tle as seen in the cross section (Figures 3a and 6a). The trace of F3 is initially segmented but eventually joins
the trace of FA1 and FA2 to form one continuous structure (Figure 3a—25% shortening). The Vx graphs for
this experiment appear similar to Experiment 1 and show that once strain has localized as a fault, the Vx
values are higher in the foreland than in the hinterland. The cross section (Figure 6a) shows that the thick-
ening of the lower crust is only evident in the foreland part of the model.
This model differs from Experiment 1 mainly in the mechanics and sequence of the fault formation. FA2 and
FA1 formed due to buckling of the underlying lower crust and strong lithospheric mantle (Figure 8a). FA1 in
this experiment is analogous to F2 in Experiment 1. Both faults have similar dip direction and genetic for-
mation but different timings relative to other faults in the same model. F3 in Experiment 3 formed with con-
tinuing deformation and propagation of the weak zone into the lower and upper crust. Similar to F1 in
Experiment 1, this fault initiated from the deep weak zone.

4.4. Experiment 4—Strong Lithospheric Mantle With No Weak Zone

In Experiment 4, the lithospheric mantle is the same as in Experiment 3 (stronger than that in Experiments 1
and 2). However, there is no preexisting weak zone and the model is laterally homogenous. In this experi-
ment, deformation is distributed among several faults (Figure 3b) with an average displacement of approxi-
mately 6 mm (Figure 6b). The faults start forming closer to the indenter, and as shortening continues, the
formation of faults continues toward the backwall. At the end of the experiment as seen in the cross section
(Figure 6b) and model interpretation (Figure 8b), several sets of conjugate faults have formed. The boundary
between the lower crust and the lithospheric mantle has buckled more than in the model with a nominal

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 11 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

lithospheric mantle (Exp. 1 and Exp. 2), indicating that the strong lithospheric mantle may not have the
chance to evenly flow due to its strong rheology. Consequently, the lower crust has protruded into the upper
crust at certain areas (marked with a yellow arrow in Figure 6b), causing brittle deformation in the upper
crust and the formation of several faults with an averaged displacement of 6 mm. The cross section shows
that the location of folding or bumps in the lower crust corresponds to the location of faults in the upper
crust (Figure 6b). Although there are several faults, not all faults are continuously active, as seen in the tem-
poral velocity plots (Figure 4d). The lack of layer parallel thickening in the upper crust indicates very little
deformation at the grain scale in this model. Overall, Experiment 4 is unlike the other models, with defor-
mation being distributed throughout the model (Figure 4d).

5. Discussion
The study focuses on how the rheological strength of the lithospheric mantle and a discontinuity in the deep
lithosphere influence crustal tectonics with intraplate horizontal convergence. In the two different types of
lithospheres, the difference in rheological strength is only in the lithospheric mantle, as is the weak zone. For
the stronger lithosphere (Experiments 3 and 4), the difference in viscosity ratio between the lithospheric
mantle and the lower crust is around three. In the nominal lithosphere (Experiments 1 and 2) the viscosity
of the lithospheric mantle is almost double that of the lower crust. We present our interpretations by com-
paring the models in terms of (1) lithospheric strength and (2) the presence or absence of a weak zone.
5.1. Lithospheric Mantle Strength—Nominal Versus Stronger
The rheological strength of the lithosphere affects how each model reacts to shortening and influences the
evolution and pattern of deformation over time. Comparison of the two types of lithospheres from the tem-
poral velocity plots (Figures 4c and 4d) illustrates that strain localizes sooner in the stronger lithosphere
regardless of whether a weak zone was present.
It is well established that rheology is an important factor in the deformation of the lithosphere
(Ranalli, 1997). In our experiments, the rheology controls the initiation of fault or fold development. For
example, in Experiment 2, it is the ductile behavior of the lower crust that initiates the folding of the upper
crust. In the absence of the lower crust, the brittle upper crust would behave like an accretionary wedge, i.e.,
accreting material by faulting (Davis et al., 1983). In Experiment 2, there are two folds that form with oppo-
site dipping fold axes and the strain is distributed between these two structures. In Experiment 1, although
two faults are formed and a majority of the deformation is taken up by these faults, the ductile lower crust
and the brittle upper crust are thickened (Figures 5a and 5b) indicating that secondary grain scale deforma-
tion also accommodated the stresses imposed on the lithosphere.
In experiments with a stronger lithospheric mantle (Experiments 3 and 4), deformation is accommodated
mainly by brittle failure in the upper crust. The lack of a weak zone (Experiment 4) yields significantly more
faults with evenly distributed displacement among the faults (Figure 6b). Both types of lithosphere (strong
and nominal) are deformed at the same strain rate. However, the nominal lithospheric mantle has a lower
viscosity and yield stress which allows it to flow more easily, causing the overlying lower crust and upper
crust to deform in the middle of the model by ductile thickening or folding. In contrast, the higher viscosity
lithospheric mantle flows at a slower rate and constant convergence causes it to buckle instead, similar to
layered analog experiments by Burg et al. (1994) and Martinod and Davy (1994). As a result of the deep litho-
spheric buckling, the lower crust also buckles and causes faulting in the upper crust, as seen particularly in
Experiment 4 (Figure 6b). Formation of thrust faults due to buckling has also been seen in experiments by
Martinod and Davy (1994). Models with a stronger lithosphere have a wider zone of deformation in the
upper crust, while the models with nominal lithosphere have a more localized zone of deformation. Thus,
the time‐dependent (viscous) rheology of the lithospheric mantle and its response to convergence determine
whether a narrower or wider deformation zone will form. Similarly, more complex models with varied rela-
tive strengths in the lithosphere influence the style of deformation and the final crustal architecture (Davy &
Cobbold, 1991; Vogt, Willingshofer, et al., 2017). In all the experiments, once a fault is formed regardless of
the lithospheric strength, the deformation is only evident in the foreland and the hinterland appears quiet
(Figures 4a and 4c). With continuing convergence, the foreland lithosphere continues to thicken and uplift
while the hinterland also thickens at a slower rate (Figure 2). In this case the shortening creates two domains
with different rates of strain accumulation and which is divided by a fault or fault network.

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 12 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

5.2. The Interplay Between Rheology and Preexisting Structures in the Deep Lithosphere
A heterogeneity or a zone of weakness at depth lowers the overall strength of the lithosphere, and the weak
zone accommodates the compressive stress applied on the system. This is consistent with other studies
(numerical and analog modeling) that have shown that deformation initiates at the location of the hetero-
geneity whether it is in the form of a strong domain in the upper mantle (Calignano et al., 2015), a weak
shear zone in the mantle (Vogt, Matenco, & Cloetingh, 2017), or a plane of weakness in the mantle litho-
sphere (Heron et al., 2016a).
The comparison of Experiments 1 and 2 isolates the influence of a preexisting structure in a nominal litho-
spheric mantle (Figure 7). In Experiment 1, the presence of the preexisting structures in the lithospheric
mantle allows deformation to be accommodated by the zone of weakness. In the homogeneous lower crust
and brittle upper crust, deformation is accommodated by the propagation of the weak zone from the litho-
spheric mantle into the upper two layers. In Experiment 2, the localization of deformation manifests in the
formation of two fold axes in the center of the models. The cross sections reveal that the viscous layers flow to
initiate the fold and layer parallel thickening that continues into the brittle upper crust. It is evident that the
folding or localization of deformation did not begin in the upper crust because the upper crust would deform
by creating a fault and not a fold. The absence of a preexisting fault allows deformation to be more distrib-
uted and over a larger area in the models. In addition, the surface expressions show the formation of an ana-
stomosing fold axis (Figure 2b) oblique to the converging wall. Geometrically, this obliquity indicates that
there is a component of movement perpendicular to the converging direction. Over time, this movement
can later develop into strike‐slip faulting.
In Experiment 1, a second fault (F2—Figure 4a) is formed and F1 (Figure 4a) becomes less active. The for-
mation of a second fault indicates that the first fault (F1—Figure 4a) is locked, and a second fault is needed to
continue accommodating stresses due to shortening. Here, the second fault has a dip (toward the indenter)
similar to faults in an accretionary sand wedge. Similarly, in Experiment 3, the first formed fold (Figure 4c—
FA1) is dipping toward the indenter. In this model the third fault (Figure 4c—F3) has an opposite dip (or
similar to F1—Experiment 1) and formed as a result of strain localization propagating from the weak zone
in the underlying mantle lithosphere. According to the temporal velocity map (Figure 4c), this second fault is
not active for very long. In both experiments, the faults that propagated from the lithospheric mantle become
inactive. This might be because the fault plane has rotated over time to an angle that is not optimum for dis-
placement or the load on the fault plane prevents further deformation. The presence of a secondary fault also
indicates a change in the force balance.
The distribution of deformation is related to the rheological strength of the lithosphere as a whole and the
presence of a zone of weakness. However, in the presence of a plane of weakness, the forces needed to
deform the homogenous part of the lithosphere are far greater than the forces needed to displace the litho-
sphere along the plane of weakness. Therefore, the system will use the plane of weakness to accommodate
the stresses acting on it. In the analog experiment where the lithospheric strength is nominal, a fault first
propagated from the mantle lithosphere to the brittle upper crust to accommodate stresses due to conver-
gence. Once this fault was locked, the lithosphere deformed by thickening and producing a secondary fault.
In comparison the model with a strong lithosphere shows a fault formed closer to the indenter due to the
buckling of the lithospheric mantle. Fault propagation from the mantle lithosphere did occur, but this
was secondary . The comparison of the two models shows that a stronger lithosphere buckles faster due to
its higher viscosity. In all the models an important observation is that the viscous lower crust, being rheolo-
gically weaker than the mantle lithosphere, appears to thicken more quickly than the mantle lithosphere.
Thus, it is also the rheology of the lower crust that allows the propagation of the fault or folding from the
lithospheric mantle to the brittle upper crust.

5.3. Consideration of the Dynamics of the Eurekan Orogeny on Ellesmere Island

The structural architecture of Ellesmere Island, located in the interior of the North American plate in the
Canadian Archipelago, consists of fold and thrust belts and strike‐slip faults that are a result of several epi-
sodes of varying plate movement among the North American Plate, Greenland, and the Eurasian plate (Gion
et al., 2017, and references herein; Piepjohn et al., 2016). The nonconventional orogenesis on Ellesmere
Island is not directly related to plate boundary activity like subduction (Piepjohn et al., 2016, De Paor

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 13 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

et al., 1989). In addition, geophysical surveys in this area have shown evidence for zones of weakness in the
deep lithosphere (Schiffer & Stephenson, 2018) and Heron et al. (2015, 2016) have tested the idea that these
zones of weakness can affect the progression of deformation at the surface. To illustrate the genetic relation-
ship between the deep lithosphere and the pattern of deformation in this intraplate setting, we briefly pre-
sent the tectonic history as a sequence of events focusing on the far‐field stresses that led to the formation
of the structures on Ellesmere Island. We then consider the findings from our analog models in the context
of the Eurekan evolution on Ellesmere Island in order to identify possible geological applications (and lim-
itations) for the experiments.
5.3.1. Tectonic History of Ellesmere Island
A major period of deformation occurred during the Eurekan Orogeny that consisted of shortening
(Thorsteinsson & Tozer, 1970) over a span of 28 Ma, between 63 and 35 Ma, and can be divided into two main
tectonic periods that resulted in four tectonic domains (Figure 9a). During Stage 1 of the Eurekan Orogeny,
seafloor spreading occurred around Greenland that existed as a separate plate from the Eurasian plate and
continued to move NE with sinistral movement along the Wegner fault. During the second stage of the
Eurekan Orogeny, seafloor spreading continued around the continental plate of Greenland. However,
Greenland changed direction and began to move NW resulting in convergence along the Wegner fault.
Stage 2 of the Eurekan Orogeny consists of approximately 30 km of E‐W and 200 km of N‐S compression
across Ellesmere Island (Gion et al., 2017). The fold and thrust belt that formed in the process is thought
to originate from a deep seated detachment which was also active prior to the Eurekan Orogeny
(Piepjohn et al., 2016). Due to seafloor spreading, Greenland became part of the North American plate after
the Eurekan Orogeny. Greenland continued to move NW; however, movement along the Wegener fault ter-
minated (Tessensohn & Piepjohn, 2000).
The changing far‐field stresses over time resulted in the formation of four structural domains. They are
the following: (a) Domain (i) in the Pearya Terrane formed in the first stage of the Eurken Orogeny and
consists of sinistral and dextral strike‐slip faults trending ENE‐WSW (Piepjohn et al., 2016, and refer-
ences therein) in an anastomosing layout. It is bounded by the Lake Hazen Fault Zone to the south
(Higgins & Soper, 1983; Klaper, 1990; Okulitch & Trettin, 1991) (Figure 9b). It is important to note that
this domain is furthest away from the plate boundaries along the Wegener Fault to the south. (b)
Domain (ii) consists of strike‐slip faults with sinistral movement located between the Archer Fiord
Fault zone and the Wegener Fault in the south, two dominant faults (Harrison et al., 2007;
Wilson, 1963) that converge to the NE along the Nares Strait. These faults were formed between
Stages 1 and 2 of the Eurekan Orogeny. The Hazen Plateau in the middle of the two domains is con-
sidered a stable block (Heron et al., 2015) with limited deformation. (c) Domain (iii) consists of NW and
SE dipping reverse faults that overprinted the structures of Domains (i) and (ii). (d) Domain (iv) consists
of a strike‐slip fault west of the Vendom Fiord Fault Zone and a NW dipping reverse fault further west
(Figure 9) (Piepjohn et al., 2016).
The strike‐slip faulting occurred early in Stage 2 of the Eurekan Orogeny, while the reverse faulting occurred
toward the end of Stage 2 (Piepjohn et al., 2016). The upper crust consists of the Sverdrup Basin in the north
(Thorsteinsson & Tozer, 1970) and Franklinian Basin in the south of Ellesmere Island, which are predomi-
nantly metasedimentary basins overlying a crystalline basement (Stuart Smith & Wennekers, 1979). Deep
seismological data from Ellesmere Island show that the depth of the Moho and the thickness of the crystal-
line crust along a NW‐SE profile differ with a zone of shallow Moho beneath the Hazen Plateau (Schiffer
& Stephenson, 2018).
5.3.2. Evolution of the Eurekan Orogeny Versus the Analog Experiments
We consider the evolution of our 3‐D analog experiments in the context of upper crustal structures observed
on Ellesmere Island in an attempt to understand the formation of these structures.
The Pearya Terrain (Domain (i)) despite being furthest away from the plate boundary at the Nares Strait
underwent strike‐slip faulting prior to the area to the south that is closer to the plate boundary.
Deformation is expected to occur first in Domain (ii) mainly due to its proximity to the plate boundary.
The existence of faulting in Domain (i) prior to Domain (ii) allows us to interpret that the lithosphere of
Domain (i) may be rheologically stronger compared to Domain (ii). The Moho in Domain (i) is shallower
or uplifted (Figure 9c) (Schiffer & Stephenson, 2018) indicating a possible buckling of the lithospheric man-
tle similar to the buckling and variable depth of the lithospheric mantle in Experiment 4 (Figure 6b).

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 14 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Figure 9. (a) Map modified from Piepjohn et al. (2016) (originally compiled from Okulitch, 1991; Harrison et al., 2006; and Piepjohn et al., 2008, 2013)) showing
the structural architecture of NE‐SW thrust faults and strike‐slip faults on Ellesmere Island. (b) Map of the structural domains distinguished by the structures and
the timing of the formation of these structure. (c) NW‐SE cross section from Piepjohn et al. (2012) showing the vergence of these faults. The Eurekan
faults are shown in red, and the thrusting and large‐scale folding especially at Lake Hazen is related to the earlier Ellesmerian Orogeny. In addition, we highlight
the three tectonic domains in the cross section and the depth of the Moho (M) in these areas compiled from seismological studies by Schiffer et al. (2016) and
Schiffer and Stephenson (2018).

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 15 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Experiment 4 would also explain the shallowness of the Moho in this domain and deformation in the upper
crust prior to other domains (Figure 4d). The occurrence of strike‐slip faults (Harrison et al., 2006; Piepjohn
et al., 2013) and anastomosing pattern of faulting north of Mount Rawlinson Fault may be attributed to the
obliquity of the fault orientation with respect to plate boundary in the south. In Domain (i), faults are also
evenly distributed (Figure 9c) and are dipping in both directions, resembling the cross section of
Experiment 4 (Figure 6b).
The lack of Eurekan deformation on the Lake Hazen plateau (Figure 9b) is genetically related to a strong
domain that is bounded by the Lake Hazen fault zone to the north and Archer Fiord Fault zone to the south
(Heron et al., 2015). The faults may have originated from preexisting fault zones in the lithospheric mantle.
These zones of weakness would allow for deformation to be accommodated along the fault plane similar to
Experiment 1 thus causing a higher surface relief to form and uplifted Moho in this region (Schiffer &
Stephenson, 2017). The Hazen plateau itself (Figure 10c) consists of tight folds indicating that the plateau
went through a primary deformation stage during the earlier Ellesmerian Orogeny (Piepjohn et al., 2007)
and possibly strengthening the plateau. In a model system with a nominal lithosphere (Experiment 2), defor-
mation may be accommodated by folding (Experiment 2) in the plateau itself and this would also produce
some uplift. In this region, uplift occurred mainly due to the accommodation of deformation along the faults
that bound the Hazen plateau, causing the Moho to be higher beneath the plateau.
Domain (ii) to the south east differs from the Hazen block and the Pearya Terrane, as it has a deeper Moho
and a thicker crystalline crust. Here there is surface exposure of the Neoproterozoic rocks underlying the
metasediments due to displacement along the major thrust faults. The significantly thicker crystalline crust
indicates ductile flow owing to a weaker lower crust in the lithosphere compared to the lithosphere beneath
Pearya Terrane. Continued convergence would allow the lower crust to thicken in a ductile manner.
However, the brittle upper crust and metasediments would deform in a brittle manner after
continued deformation.
In the analog models, the presence of a weak zone in the mantle lithosphere dominates where deformation is
localized in the upper crust. Heron et al. (2015) and Calignano et al. (2015) demonstrate through their
numerical and analog models, respectively, that structural heterogeneities in the lithospheric mantle also
produce localized deformation and topography. The deformation on Ellesmere Island is related to conver-
gence in an oblique convergent setting unlike our models that has a convergence direction perpendicular
to the weak zone. Calignano et al. (2017) show that a heterogeneity (strong domain) oblique to convergence
will affect the amount of localized deformation and the curvature of the formed structures. Along with other
factors, this might explain the additional complexity in the observed Eurekan fault movement and shape. In
addition, the variation in depth of the Moho and the thickness of the crystalline crust indicate that the
strength of the deep lithosphere also played a role in the surface deformation. In Ellesmere Island, particu-
larly, it is possible that from NW to SE, the strength of the lithospheric mantle varies, thus causing a very
complex structural architecture on the Island.
A limitation of our study is that our models do not include the effects of temperature which is an important
factor that controls the rheological strength of the lithospheric mantle. Numerical models by Heron
et al. (2016a) do include temperature‐dependent rheology in their models. The numerical models also differ
from our models in the strength profile. They have a strong crust and lithospheric mantle compared to our
analog models that have a strong upper crust and weak lithospheric mantle. Despite a “crème brûlée” rheol-
ogy and lack of temperature dependency, our analog models are able to propagate deformation from the
deep lithosphere in a style of deformation similar to the numerical models. This comparison of
temperature‐dependent rheology in numerical models and temperature independent analog models shows
the importance of rheological strength in intraplate deformation.

6. Conclusions
Our 3‐D physical scaled analog models were designed to understand the interplay between preexisting struc-
ture and rheological strength in the lithospheric mantle. The results reveal that both rheology and the pre-
sence or absence of inherited structures play an important role on the patterns of deformation. The
rheological strength of the lithosphere determines how stresses in an intraplate setting, particularly
far‐field stresses, are distributed. Compared to a homogenous strong lithosphere, a nominal lithosphere

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 16 of 19


Acknowledgments
T. S. is supported by a postdoctoral
NSERC grant and funding from the
University of Toronto. R. P. is supported
by an NSERC Discovery Grant. We are
grateful to Parham Adiban for the
development of a code to visualize the
data. We also thank Prof. Pierre Yves
Robin for fruitful discussions. Data
from this study are available at the
University of Toronto Dataverse
(Santimano & Pysklywec, https://doi.
org/10.5683/SP2/JTHCER).
SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC
Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841
will deform and produce folds. From this study and previous work, it is observed that deep structural hetero-
geneity in the lithospheric mantle strongly controlled the localization of deformation in the brittle upper
crust (Calignano et al., 2015; Heron et al., 2015, Vogt, Matenco, & Cloetingh, 2017). In the absence of a weak
zone, a lithosphere with a nominal rheology would deform in a ductile manner. Folding can eventually form
a fault plane over time if stresses on the system continue. Models with a strong lithospheric mantle demon-
strate the rheological effects on upper crustal deformation. With a stronger viscous rheology, the flow of the
viscous deep lithospheric mantle is reduced, causing it to buckle and subsequently yield more deformation
in the upper crust than a nominal lithosphere.
The difference in rheology between the lower crust and the lithospheric mantle affects the coupling between
the layers and also the deformation. In all the models, deformation is accommodated by faulting or ductile
folding and thickening. The degree of folding, amount of thickening, or amount of displacement along the
fault is determined by the strength of the lithosphere and/or the presence of weak zones. All our models
show that the strength of the lithospheric mantle is important as it influences the translation of strain to
the lower crust and style of deformation in the upper crust.
We examine the structural network of folds, thrust faults, and strike‐slip faults that forms the Eurekan intra-
plate orogeny on Ellesmere Island and relate it to the lower crust and variable Moho depth from seismolo-
gical studies by Schiffer and Stephenson (2018). A comparison of the Eurekan structures to results from our
models shows that the formation of folds and thrust faults is consistent with zones of weakness and can also
be attributed to the rheological strength of the deep lithosphere. This change in the Moho depth most likely
due to rheological strength as seen in our models also affects the relative timing of deformation and the pat-
tern of fault formation in the upper crust on Ellesmere Island.
Our study is an initial step that investigates the interplay between rheology and lithosphere‐scale preexisting
tectonic structures in the high details and three dimensions that analog modeling affords. These are two pri-
mary parameters that affect how deformation is accommodated in the lithosphere. However, other factors
such as temperature changes with depth, that may particularly affect the strain‐rate dependent rheologies,
will also impact the style of deformation. In models created to understand the kinematics of deformation,
the primary parameter that should be studied is the interplay between rheology and preexisting structure.
Therefore, for future research with these types of models, further consideration and refinement of the mate-
rial rheologies could be insightful. Also, for direct comparison with oblique convergent tectonic systems
(such as the Eurekan Orogeny and the South Island of New Zealand), it would be interesting to consider
more complex velocity boundary conditions in the 3‐D analog models. In such cases, the strike‐slip compo-
nent to the plate motions may yield significantly different deformational response that would be well illu-
strated by an analog model.
References
Adam, J., Urai, J. L., Wieneke, B., Oncken, O., Pfeiffer, K., Kukowski, N., et al. (2005). Shear localisation and strain distribution during
tectonic faulting‐new insights from granular‐slow experiments and high‐resolution optical image correlation techniques. Journal of
Structural Geology, 27(2), 283–301.
Benes, V., & Davy, P. (1996). Modes of continental lithospheric extension: Experimental verification of strain localization processes.
Tectonophysics, 254(1–2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(95)00076-3
Burg, J. P., Davy, P., & Martinod, J. (1994). Shortening of analogue models of the continental lithosphere: New hypothesis for the formation
of the Tibetan plateau. Tectonics, 13, 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1029/93TC02738
Burov, E. B., & Watts, A. B. (2006). The long‐term strenght of continental lithosphere: “Jelly sandwich” or “crème brûlée”? GSA Today,
January 2006, 16(1), 4.
Calignano, E., Sokoutis, D., Willingshofer, E., Gueydan, F., & Cloetingh, S. (2015). Strain localization at the margins of strong lithospheric
domains: Insights from analogue models. Tectonics, 34, 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003756
Calignano, E., Sokoutis, D., Willingshofer, E., Brun, J.‐P., Gueydan, F., & Cloetingh, S. (2017). Oblique contractional reactivation of
inherited heterogeneities: Cause for arcuate orogens. Tectonics, 36. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016TC004424
Calvert, A. J., Sawyer, E. W., Davis, W. J., & Ludden, J. N. (1995). Archean subduction inferred from seismic images of a mantle suture in
the Superior Province. Nature, 375, 670–674.
Chapple, W. M. (1978). Mechanics of thin‐skinned fold‐and thrust belts. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 89, 1189–1198.
Corti, G., Bonini, M., Sokoutis, D., Innocenti, F., Manetti, P., Cloetingh, S., & Mulugeta, G. (2004). Continental rift architecture and pat-
terns of magma migration: A dynamic analysis based on centrifuge models. Tectonics, 23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003TC001561
Davis, D., Suppe, J., & Dahlen, F. A. (1983). Mechanics of fold and thrust belts and accretionary wedges. Journal of Geophysical Research,
88(B2), 1153–1172.
Davy, P., & Cobbold, P. (1991). Experiments on shortening of a 4‐layer model of the continental lithosphere. Tectonophysics, 188, 1–25.
De Paor, D. G., Bradley, D. C., Eisenstadt, G., & Phillips, S. M. (1989). The Artic Eurekan orogen: A most unusal fold‐and‐thrust belt.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 101, 952–967.
17 of 19
 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Duarte, J. C., Schellart, W. P., & Cruden, A. R. (2014). Rheology of petrolatum‐paraffin oil mixtures: Applications to analogue modelling of
geological processes. Journal of Structural Geology, 63, 1–11.
Funiciello, F., Faccenna, C., Heuret, A., Lallemand, S., di Giuseppe, E., & Becker, T. W. (2008). Trench migration, net rotation and
slab‐mantle coupling. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 271(1–4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.04.006
Gion, A. M., Williams, S. E., & Müller, R. D. (2017). A reconstruction of the Eurekan Orogeny incorporating deformation constraints.
Tectonics, 36, 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC004094
Harrison, J.C., T.A. Brent, and G.N. Oakey (2006), Sheet 1 of 2, Bedrock geology, Nares Strait, scale 1:1,000,000. Bedrock geology of the
Nares Strait region of Arctic Canada and Greenland, with explanatory text and GIS content. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File,
5278
Harrison, J.C., U. Mayr and K. Piepjohn (2007), Geological map of Lady Franklin Bay, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, 1:250,000. Geological
survey of Canada, Map 2105A.
Heron, P., Pysklywec, R. N., & Stephenson, R. (2016b). Identifying mantle lithosphere inheritance in controlling intraplate orogenesis.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 121(9), 6966–6987.
Heron, P. J., Peace, A. L., McCaffrey, K. J. W., Welford, J. K., Wilson, R., van Hunen, J., & Pysklywec, R. N. (2019). Segmentation of rifts
through structural inheritance: Creation of the Davis Strait. Tectonics. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005578
Heron, P. J., Pysklywec, R. N., & Stephenson, R. (2015). Intraplate orogenesis within accreted and scarred lithosphere: Example of the
Eurekan Orogeny, Ellesmere Island. Tectonophysics, 664, 201–213.
Heron, P. J., Pysklywec, R. N., & Stephenson, R. (2016a). Lasting mantle scars lead to perennial tectonics. Nature Communications, 7,
11834. 10.1038.ncomms.11834
Heron, P. J., Pysklywec, R. N., Stephenson, R., & van Hunen, J. (2019). Deformation driven by deep and distant structures: Influence of a
mantle lithosphere suture in the Ouachita orogeny. Geology. https://doi.org/10.1130/G45690.1
Higgins, A. K., & Soper, N. J. (1983). The Lake Hazen fault zone: A transpressional upthrust? Current research, part B. Geological Survey of
Canada, Paper, 83(1B), 215–221.
Jackson, J., McKenzie, D., Priestley, K., & Emmerson, B. (2008). New views on the structure and rheology of the lithosphere. Journal of the
Geological Society, 165, 453–465.
Klaper, E. M. (1990). The mid‐Paleozoic deformation in the Hazen fold belt, Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, 27, 1359–1370.
Luth, S., Willingshoffer, E., Sokoutis, D., & Cloetingh, S. (2010). Analogue modeling of continental collision: Influences of plate coupling
lithosphere subduction, crustal deformation and surface topography. Tectonophysics, 484, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tecto.2009.08.043
Martinod, J., & Davy, P. (1994). Periodic instabilities during compression of the lithosphere 2. Analogue experiments. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 99(B6), 12,057–12,069. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB03599
Molnar, N. E., Cruden, A. R., & Betts, P. G. (2017). Interactions between propagating rotational rifts and linear rheological heterogeneities:
Insights from three‐dimensional laboratory experiments. Tectonics, 36. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016TC004447
Okulitch, A. V. (1991). Geology of the Canadian Artic Archipelago, Northwest Territories and North Greenland, scale 1:2,000,000. In H. P.
Trettin (Ed.), Geology of the innuitian orogen and Arctic platform of Canada and Greenland (No. 3). Geology of Canada: Geological
Survey of Canada.
Okulitch, A. V., & Trettin, H. P. (1991). Late Cretaceous‐Early Tertiary deformation, Arctic Islands. In H. P. Trettin (Ed.), Geology of the
innuitian orogen and Arctic platform of Canada and Greenland (Vol. 3, pp. 469–490). Geology of Canada: Geological survey of Canada.
Phillips, T. B., Jackson, C. A.‐L., Bell, R. E., & Duffy, O. B. (2016). Reactivation of intrabasement structures during rifting: A case study from
offshore southern Norway. Journal of Structural Geology, 91, 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.08.008
Piepjohn, K., von Gosen, W., & Tessensohn, F. (2016). The Eurekan deformation in the Arctic: An outline. Journal of the Geological Society,
173, 1007–1024.
Piepjohn, K., von Gosen, W., Estrada, S., & Tessensohn, F. (2007). Deciphering superimposed Ellesmerian and Eurekan deformation, Piper
Pass area, northern Ellesmere Island (Nuavut). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 44, 1439–1452.
Piepjohn, K., von Gosen, W., Läufer, A., McClelland, W. C., & Estrada, S. (2013). Ellesmerian and Eurekan fault tectonics at the northern
margin of Ellesmere Island (Canadian High Arctic). German Journal of Geosciences, 164, 81–105.
Piepjohn, K., von Gosen, W., & Tessensohn, F. (2012). The structure of Ellesmere Island—A 400 km long transect across the northern
margin of North America. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 14, EGU, 2012–9608.
Piepjohn, K., von Gosen, W., Tessensohn, F., & Saalmann, K. (2008). Ellesmerian fold‐and‐thrust belt (northeast Ellesmere Island,
Nunavut) and its Eurekan overprint. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 592, 285–303.
Ramberg, H. (1967). Model experimentation of the effect of gravity on tectonic processes. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 14(1–4), 307–329. 10.111/j.1365‐246X.1967.tb06247.x
Ranalli, G. (1997). Rheology of the lithosphere in space and time. Geological Society of London Special Publication, 121, 19–37. https://doi.
org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1997.121.01.02
Santimano, T., & Pysklywec, R. (2020). "The influence of lithospheric mantle scars and rheology on intraplate deformation and orogenesis
—Analogue experiment data set", https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/JTHCER, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1
Schiffer, C., Balling, N., Jacobsen, B. H., Stephenson, R. A., & Nielsen, S. B. (2014). Seismological evidence for a fossil subduction zone in
the East Greenland Caledonides. Geology, 42, 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1130/G35244.1
Schiffer, C., & Stephenson, R. (2018). Regional crustal architecture of Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada. In V. Pease & B. Coakley (Eds.),
Circum‐Arctic Lithosphere Evolution (Vol. 460, pp. 19–32). Geological Society, London: Special Publications.
Schiffer, C., Stephenson, R., Oakey, G. N., & Jacobsen, B. H. (2016). The crustal structure of Ellesmere Island, Artic Canada—
Teleseismic mapping across a remote intraplate orogenic belt. Geophysical Journal International, 204, 1579–1600. https://doi.org/
10.1093/gji/ggv539
Sokoutis, D., & Willingshofer, E. (2011). Decoupling during continental collision and intra‐plate deformation. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters., 305, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.03.028
Steer, D. N., Knapp, J. H., & Brown, D. L. (1998). Super‐deep reflection profiling: Exploring the continental mantle lid. Tectonophysics, 286,
111–121.
Stuart Smith, J. H., & Wennekers, J. H. N. (1979). Geology and hydrocarbon discoveries of Canadian Arctic Islands. AAPG Bulletin, 61,
1–27.
Tessensohn, F., & Piepjohn, K. (2000). Eocene compressive deformation in Arctic Canada, North Greenland and Svalbard and its plate
tectonic causes. Polarforschung, 68, 21–124.

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 18 of 19

 Tectonics 10.1029/2019TC005841

Thorsteinsson, R., & Tozer, E. T. (1970). Geology of the Arctic Archipelago. In R. J. W. Douglas (Ed.), Geology and Economic Minerals of
Canada (Vol. 1, pp. 547–590). Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada, Economic Geology Repor.
van der Velden, A. J., & Cook, F. A. (2005). Relict subduction zones in Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, B08403. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2004JB003333
Vogt, K., Matenco, L., & Cloetingh, S. (2017). Crustal mechanics control the geometry of mountain belts. Insights from numerical mod-
elling. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 460, 12–21. doi.org/10/1016/j.epsl.2016.11.016
Vogt, K., Willingshofer, E., Matenco, L., Sokoutis, D., Gerya, T., & Cloetingh, S. (2017). The role of lateral strength contrasts in orogenesis:
A 2D numerical study. Tectonophysics, 746, 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.08.010
Willingshofer, E., & Sokoutis, D. (2009). Decoupling along plate boundaries: Key variable controlling the mode of deformation and the
geometry of collisional mountain belts. Geology, 37, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1130/G25321A.1
Willingshofer, E., Sokoutis, D., & Burg, J. P. (2005). Lithospheric‐scale analogue modelling of collision zones with a pre‐existing weak zone.
In: Gapais, D., Brun, J.P., Cobbold, P.R. (eds) Deformation Mechanisms, Rheology and Tectonics: From Minerals to Lithosphere.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 243, 277–294.
Wilson, J. T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth's behaviour. Nature, 4884, 925–292.

SANTIMANO AND PYSKLYWEC 19 of 19