HTML TOC SEARCH

2
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., 2004, Properties of thrusts and upper bounds for the size of thrust
sheets, in K. R. McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG
Memoir 82, p. 18 – 29.

Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds

for the Size of Thrust Sheets
Robert D. Hatcher Jr.
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

B
asic types of thrusts recognizable in many orogens include: (1) foreland fold-
thrust belt (and accretionary complex) thrusts, (2) Type C crystalline thrust sheets
that detach along the ductile- (plastic) brittle transition in either continental or
oceanic crust, and (3) Type F (fold-related) crystalline thrust sheets that are generated
beneath the ductile-brittle transition by plastically shearing the common limb between
antiforms and synforms.
Spacing of thrusts in a foreland fold-thrust belt is determined by the thickness and
shear strength of the dominant structural-lithic unit and by basement irregularities, facies
changes, and the development of stress maxima that localize buckling instabilities.
Displacement-length plots for the Canadian Rockies and Alberta Foothills, along
with the Wyoming-Idaho-Utah thrust belt thrusts, plot on a linear curve. Appalachian
foreland fold-thrust belt thrusts, however, plot on three curves that separate triangle
zone thrusts from thrusts of small displacement from thrusts of large displacement.
Type C sheets plot on a curve of positive slope separate from Alpine plastic Type F sheets,
which plot on a curve of negative slope, because pure Type F sheets may involve a greater
component of constrictional flow.
Upper bounds for the size of thrust sheets are delimited by the thickness and strength
of their strong components, the size of the orogen of which a thrust sheet is a part, and
by other inherent properties of a deforming wedge. Foreland fold-thrust belts contain
thrust sheets that reach their maximum size as a function of the thickness and along-
strike continuity of structural-lithic units. The maximum size of Type C sheets may be
attained by the constancy of the geothermal gradient over a wide area during continent–
continent collision.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to identify and eval-

Thrust fault properties and the processes that form
thrusts have been debated for more than 150 years.
Today we are able to apply seismic imaging and com-
puter technologies to better understand them in three
dimensions, but several attributes and processes related
to the formation of thrust sheets remain obscure.
uate the parameters that may control the upper bounds
for the size of thrust sheets. Size is regarded here as the
overall dimensions of a thrust sheet: along-strike length,
across-strike width, and thickness. Intuitively, proper-
ties like thickness of the dominant structural-lithic
unit, nature of the detachment, and the overall strength
of the sheet should provide limits on the size of thrust

18
 HTML TOC SEARCH
Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets 19

sheets. If these were the only variables, however, thrust

sheet size and upper size limits would be very predictable.
In addition, the size of thrust sheets may also be related
proportionally to the size of the orogen in which they
form. For example, the Alps are a relatively small orogen
and the largest thrust sheet (the Silvretta composite
crystalline sheet) should be smaller than the largest
thrust sheet in the medium-size Appalachians (the Blue
Ridge – Piedmont megathrust sheet), and those should
ideally be smaller than the largest thrust sheets in a
large orogen, the North American Cordillera (Yukon-
Tanana crystalline sheet, and Monashee detachment
and Selkirk allochthon). All three, however, contain
foreland fold-thrust belts with thrust sheets of about
the same maximum size and displacement, but the
Appalachian Blue Ridge – Piedmont megathrust sheet is
anomalously much larger relative to the size of the
orogen. Thus, either other variables are involved or the
suggested direct proportionality between thrust size and
orogensizeisanoversimplification.
Studies of thrusts in most orogens have been con-
fined to foreland fold-thrust belts, at least partly because
they contain economic accumulations of hydrocar-
bons. As a result, we know more about the emplace-
ment mechanisms and geometry of foreland fold-thrust-
belt sheets. Foreland thrust sheets and certain types of
internides crystalline thrust sheets, however, exhibit
similar geometry and kinematics and deserve to be con-
sidered together for analysis, despite important mate-
rial differences.

SIZE OF THRUST SHEETS

Thrust sheet size may be delimited partly by the
thickness and strength of strong components as well
as by the mechanical properties of a deforming wedge
(Davis et al., 1983; Dahlen, 1990; Mandal et al., 1997).
All foreland fold-thrust belt thrusts (with a few excep-
tions like the Muddy Mountains thrust in Nevada; Brock
and Engelder, 1977), crustal slab Type C (composite crys-
talline) thrust sheets (Hatcher and Hooper, 1992), and
ophiolites, regardless of size, have a weak basal unit (Fig-
ure 1). Local irregularities in the basement (or on the
basement surface), facies changes that alter mechanical
properties, and other factors that affect mechanical stra-
tigraphy may also influence the size of thrust sheets. It is
difficult to understand the linear along-strike continu-
ity and across-strike width or regular spacing of succes-
sive thrust sheets, however, without concluding that
some independent, overriding mechanical properties
dominate the size parameter.
Willis (1893) recognized the relationship between
the size of foreland fold-thrust-belt structures and the
relative strength and thickness of structural-lithic units
FIGURE 1. Three environments of thrust faulting. (a) Fore-
land fold-thrust belt (FFTB), where thrusts are generated by
an indentor by propagation into a wedge-shaped assem-
blage of sedimentary rocks with a weak basal unit (local
ductile-brittle transition) and a strong structural-lithic
unit (SLU) that influences the size of thrust imbricates
(after Fermor, 1999). (b) Type C crustal-slab thrust sheet
that detaches along the ductile-brittle transition, trans-
porting all of the crust above the transition in the sheet.
These thrust sheets serve as the indentors that push the
foreland fold-thrust belt in front of them, generally in
continent – continent collision zones. (c) Plastic, Type F—
fold-related—thrust sheets that form with a lobate shape
below the ductile-brittle transition, or cool and evolve (as
Type T, transitional) into smaller Type C sheets.
that compose them. A direct relationship probably exists
between the thickness of strong structural-lithic units and
size of thrust sheets; this relationship defines an upper

20 Hatcher
limit relating the size of thrust sheets to the thickness
of strong structural-lithic units (e.g., Woodward et al.,
1988). These factors appear related to the locations
of structural-lithic units in a foreland fold-thrust belt
and of individual thrusts in foreland fold-thrust belts.
Strong structural-lithic units may range from a section
of strong sedimentary rocks, such as carbonate or mas-
sive sandstone; to a slab of continental crust that en-
compasses a substantial proportion of the crust; to an
ophiolite — a slab of oceanic crust (or volcanic island
arc) that may include upper mantle rocks (Figure 1).
Weak structural-lithic units include evaporites, shale,
and coal or thin-bedded carbonate rocks in sedimen-
tary sequences (‘‘effective ductile-brittle transitions’’),
and the ductile-brittle transition in the crust or mantle.
Thicknesses of structural-lithic units range from a few
millimeters to meters in mesoscopic thrusts, to 1 – 3 km
in foreland fold-thrust belts, to 10 km or more in Type C
crystalline slabs.
The three types of thrusts depicted in Figure 1
have contrasting attributes. The foreland fold-thrust-
belt thrusts (Figure 1a) characteristically propagate in-
to a strongly anisotropic foreland-thinning wedge of
layered sedimentary rocks that contains weak and strong
structural-lithic units (Chapple, 1978; Davis et al., 1983).
Thrusts in foreland fold-thrust belts ideally propagate
parallel to bedding in weak structural-lithic units (ma-
terial of low yield strength, <10 MPa; Ranalli, 1987), and
ramp (refract) at 18 to 308 across strong structural-lithic
units. Detachment in strong structural-lithic units in
foreland fold-thrust belts has always been an enigma,
but transient ductile-brittle transitions that result from
local, anomalously high fluid pressures that produce
strain-induced weak zones may provide an explana-
tion. The basal weak structural-lithic unit in foreland
fold-thrust belts exhibits plastic or low-strength fric-
tional-brittle thixotropic behavior, thus serving as a
local ductile-brittle transition. Faults move incremen-
tally or continuously, depending on continuity of the
mechanically weak properties of the weak structural-
lithic unit, as the fault propagates or is reactivated.
Where stratigraphic thinning, facies changes, and topo-
graphic irregularities interrupt a weak zone, a thrust
will refract to a higher weak structural-lithic unit, or
ultimately, with sufficient displacement, to the surface.
The largest sheets in foreland fold-thrust belts — the
Lewis, McConnell, and Purcell in the Canadian Cordil-
lera, and the Saltville and Whiteoak Mountain in the
Appalachians — have displacements on the order of 100
km (determined from published and unpublished cross
sections) and strike lengths on the order of 700 km,
including linked systems (Figure 1). All are dominated
by thick carbonate structural-lithic units. These may
approach a critical mechanical upper bound for size of
foreland fold-thrust-belt thrusts. Foreland fold-thrust-
belt thrust sheet sizes range from mesoscopic to thrust
HTML TOC SEARCH
sheets with strike lengths of >700 km, displacements
of >100 km, and dominant structural-lithic unit thick-
nesses that are >3 km.
The largest thrust sheets, by almost an order of mag-
nitude, occur in the internides of mountain chains and
consist of composite (Type C) crystalline megathrust
sheets (Hatcher and Hooper, 1992), no doubt largely
because they have greater strength and cohesiveness
than the largest foreland sheets. The larger size of
Type C crystalline sheets is no doubt also related to their
temperature (and heat flow) at the time they formed:
a strong structural-lithic unit of continental basement
would detach on the ductile-brittle transition 10 or more
kilometers deep in the crust, and will be stronger and
thus larger than the largest thrust sheet in the foreland
fold-thrust belt in the same orogen (Hatcher and Wil-
liams, 1986) (Figure 1b). Type C sheets commonly serve
as the indentors that drive the thin-skinned foreland fold-
thrust belt deformation in front of them (Blue Ridge –
Piedmont; Yukon-Tanana and Monashee-Selkirk; and
Jotun). The behavior of Type C sheets is geometrically
similar to that of large foreland fold-thrust-belt sheets
composed of a strong structural-lithic unit and a weak
basal unit, with the principal important mechanical dif-
ferences being size and composition of strong structural-
lithic units, and the fact that they propagate along the
ductile-brittle transition in either continental or oceanic
crust (and mantle) (Figure 1b). The thickness of these
sheets is determined largely by the geothermal gradient
where they form. Sheet thickness ranges from a few
kilometers in thin, warm oceanic crust to 10 km or more
in continental crust (Armstrong and Dick, 1974). These
thrusts form in the internides of mountain chains and
propagate until the ductile-brittle transition changes
level and the thrust is forced to propagate (ramp) toward
the surface. These thrusts frequently ramp into a higher,
weak structural-lithic unit in the sedimentary wedge in
the platform margin that becomes the master detach-
ment for the foreland fold-thrust belt. The Type C sheet,
because of its size and energy, serves as an indentor
and pushes the foreland fold-thrust belt like a snow-
plow in front of it (it actually is the snowplow), thus
mechanically linking foreland fold-thrust belt and
Type C thrusts. The size of Type C thrusts ranges from
the size of moderate to large foreland fold-thrust-belt
thrusts to the megathrust sheets like the Blue Ridge –
Piedmont in the Appalachians, the Silvretta in the east-
ern Alps, and the Monashee detachment–Selkirk alloch-
thon in British Columbia. The latter has a displacement
of more than 200 km and a strike length greater than
600 km (Brown et al., 1986, 1993; Wheeler and McFeeley,
1991).
Smaller crystalline sheets form in the internides as
products of folding at moderate to high temperatures
(Types F: fold-related, and T: transitional sheets), but
exhibit purely plastic behavior throughout with only

Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets
a strain or velocity gradient at the base. Type F sheets
(Figure 1c) contrast markedly in geometry and me-
chanics with the other two classes in Figure 1. They
form entirely below the ductile-brittle transition, are a
byproduct of folding, and are created by plastic shear-
ing of the common limb between an antiform and syn-
form (Hatcher and Hooper, 1992). These thrusts move
by directed plastic flow at moderate to high tempera-
tures in the crust and mantle or in salt or ice at surface
temperatures. The dominant mechanism may be flex-
ural to passive flow (passive amplification), or involve
ductility contrast between layers of different material
properties (e.g., amphibolite or quartzite with pelitic in-
terlayers). Layering and thus buckling and flexural flow
still play a role in the thrusting process here. Useful
natural analogs may be seen in glacial ice (e.g., Hud-
leston, 1976) and salt (e.g., Muehlberger, 1968; Jackson
et al., 1990) and also experimentally in artificial ana-
logs (e.g., Bucher, 1956). Cooling during emplacement
of Type F thrusts may lower the ductile-brittle transi-
tion and cause Type F thrusts to gain strength and be
transformed into Type C sheets, thus increasing their
stability and potentially their lateral extent and dis-
placement. All Type F sheets do not evolve into Type C
sheets. Eastern Pennine Alps Type F sheets (Adula, Tambo,
Suretta) have a lobate shape, with the long axis extended
in the direction of transport, whereas western Pennine
Type F sheets (St. Bernard, Dente Blanche, Monte Rosa)
probably originated as Type F sheets, but may have
cooled during emplacement and transformed into Type
T (transitional) or C sheets. Type C sheets do not neces-
sarily originate as Type F sheets; most Type C sheets
probably form independently, as slabs detached along
the horizontal ductile-brittle transition. Interestingly,
displacement on the Appalachian Blue Ridge–Piedmont
megathrust sheet decreases northeastward where the
thrust becomes blind beneath the Blue Ridge anticli-
norium, suggesting it is a crustal analog of the Powell
Valley anticline that ramped from the ductile-brittle
transition into the sedimentary section (Harris, 1979).
The Blue Ridge anticlinorium may, however, be an
artifact of the early Paleozoic Taconian orogeny (Geiser
in Hatcher et al., 1989).
Rheology of internides Type F and C sheets ranges
from plastic to elastic-plastic, whereas that of foreland
fold-thrust-belt sheets ranges from elastic (Coulomb,
on the mesoscale) to elastic-plastic (or even plastic) on
the scale of the orogen. The foreland undergoes perma-
nent, unrecoverable body deformation and thus may
be considered a plastically deformed mass (Chapple,
1978). Proportionally smaller segments of foreland fold-
thrust belts (e.g., in the Alberta Foothills, Appalachian
Plateau, and Jura Mountains) and subduction complex
sheets may be smaller because of the dimensions and
strength of their strong structural-lithic units. Smaller
thrust sheets form in the outer parts of foreland fold-
HTML TOC SEARCH
21
thrust belts, by a combination of stratigraphy—thinner
structural-lithic units in the distally tapered part of
the deforming wedge, and the small amount of avail-
able energy remaining for deformation. Willis (1893)
may have been the first to recognize the importance of
structural-lithic units in determining the properties of
thrust sheets. Woodward et al. (1988) also attempted to
apply this concept to the Appalachian foreland fold-
thrust belt, where they addressed the importance of
structural-lithic units in controlling thrust sheet thick-
ness and of facies in controlling the areal distribution of
structural-lithic units. The variable properties of structural-
lithic units may ultimately be the factor that controls
the size and displacement of thrust sheets.
Large Type C sheets formed in the internides of
orogens like the Appalachians (Blue Ridge – Piedmont),
Canadian–Alaska Cordillera (Monashee–Selkirk alloch-
thon, Yukon-Tanana) (Figure 2a), and Scandinavian
Caledonides (Jotun, Seve, Särv). Type C sheets propor-
tionally larger than those in the corresponding fore-
land fold-thrust belt also exist in the Alps (Austroalpine
sheet) (Figure 1). Strong structural-lithic units in Type C
sheets are an order of magnitude thicker than those in
foreland fold-thrust-belt sheets, partly accounting for
the much greater size of these sheets. The dimensions of
these sheets may thus define the upper bound for the
size of thrust sheets composed of quartz-rich crust. The
upper bound for ophiolite sheets, and also for smaller
Type C sheets, is more difficult to estimate, because it
requires reconstruction of larger, formerly more contin-
uous ophiolite sheets and identification of the source,
which may have been partially consumed during sub-
duction or eroded following obduction. One of the larg-
est preserved ophiolites is the Samail in Oman (at least
700 km long, with greater than 200 km of displacement),
yet it is only a remnant of a larger sheet of unknown
original dimensions (Coleman, 1981).
SPACING OF THRUSTS
Attempts have been made to predict the spacing of
thrust sheets, which is partly a function of size, thick-
ness of structural-lithic units, location of basement ir-
regularities and facies boundaries, and other factors.
Such determinations are made difficult by contrasting
relationships of thrust sheet spacing that increases to-
ward the foreland in the southern Appalachians (Figure
3a) but decreases toward the foreland in the Canadian
Cordillera (Figure 2a). Wiltschko and Eastman (1983),
Bombolakis (1986), and Mandal et al. (1997) concluded
that basement topographic surface irregularities can
focus thrust nucleation and influence thrust spacing.
Dixon (1982) pointed out, however, that the regular
spacing of thrusts in the Idaho-Wyoming-Utah thrust
 HTML TOC SEARCH
22 Hatcher

FIGURE 2. (a) Map of the

Alberta – British Columbia
foreland fold-thrust belt. Bold
lines represent the approxi-
mate boundary between the
Foothills and Rocky Moun-
tains (from Wheeler and
McFeely, 1991). (b) Thrusts
(teethed lines) and major nor-
mal faults (not ornamented)
in the Wyoming-Idaho-Utah
thrust belt (after Royse et al.,
1975). (c) Displacement-
length plot for thrusts in the
Alberta – British Columbia
and Wyoming thrust belts
(modified from Fermor, 1999).
Names of Alberta Foothills
thrusts and triangle zones
are shaded. Wyoming-Utah-
Idaho thrusts are indicated as
open circles. [Additional data
on Canadian Rockies thrusts
from Price and Mountjoy
(1970) and Price (1981).]

spaced thrust ramps. Thick-

ness of the strong structural-
lithic unit has also been shown
experimentally to be a factor
in determining size and spac-
ing (Mandal et al., 1997).
Regular thrust spacing
exists in parts of the south-
ern Appalachian foreland
fold-thrust belt, in Tennessee,
northern Georgia, and south-
western Virginia. Regional fa-
cies changes (e.g., changes
from carbonate to fine sili-
ciclastics) clearly influence
the spacing and behavior of
thrusts by providing mechan-
ical interfaces and variations
in structural-lithic unit thick-
ness. Basement topography
produced by Neoproterozoic
extensional faults related to
the rifting of Laurentia doubt-
lessly also influenced spacing
belt developed over a featureless basement surface, so of thrust sheets in the southern Appalachians (Hatcher
other factors must be involved. et al., 1998). Mandl and Shippam (1981) were able to
Liu and Dixon (1995) suggested that spacing of experimentally estimate critical shear strength within
thrust ramps in duplexes is linearly related to the thick- a rectangular thrust sheet and predict how imbrica-
ness of strata involved in the duplex. They also con- tion would occur within a sheet of specified dimen-
cluded that buckling instability in layered assemblages sions and mechanical properties (e.g., competent thrust
can produce stress concentrators that result in regularly sheet, plastic substratum). They were able to predict
 HTML TOC SEARCH
Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets 23

FIGURE 2. (cont.).

that a rectangular block that

was bounded on two ends by
thrusts would be imbricated
from the end closest to the
push in blocks of decreasing
spacing toward the foreland,
but with a lengthy gap from
the foreland-propagating im-
bricates to the most foreland-
ward thrust. This latter is one
of the bounding thrusts and
would have formed prior to
initiation of imbrication, in
contrast with the way most
foreland fold-thrust belts are
thought to form. Interesting-
ly, the pattern of imbrication
and spacing of thrust sheets
predicted by Mandl and Ship-
pam (1981) is almost exactly
that in the Tennessee Valley
and Ridge foreland fold-thrust
belt (Figure 3a and 3b). A se-
ries of thrusts formed here
that is more closely spaced
toward the northwest, except
for the westernmost thrusts
(Cumberland Plateau and
Pine Mountain) that are
spaced well to the west of the
more hinterlandward thrusts.
Except for the predicted spac-
ing of the most forelandward
thrust, the imbrication pat-
tern could conceivably devel-
op without the older thrust
already there. The spacing be-
tween the imbricate fan and
the older thrust, however, lends
credence to the Mandl and
Shippam (1981) hypothesis
that the older thrust should
already be there, making the
imbricate fan an initially out-
of-sequence array that then
develops in piggyback (for-
ward-breaking) fashion as it
evolves. Alternatively, the en-
tire array and spacing could
have developed because of
changes in thickness of the

24 Hatcher
dominant structural-lithic unit, which occurs in the
southern and central Appalachian foreland fold-thrust
belt (Rich, 1934; Harris and Milici, 1977; Mitra, 1988).
The existence of the westernmost thrusts is related to
westward pinching of the Cambrian detachment that
forced the basal thrust to ramp into either the weak
Devonian – Mississippian shale in the Pine Mountain
block or the Pennsylvanian coal and shale in the Cum-
berland Plateau overthrust to the southwest.
DISPLACEMENT-LENGTH PLOTS
Elliott (1976) showed that a direct relationship ex-
ists between displacement and strike length of thrust
sheets in the Alberta Foothills and Front Ranges of the
Canadian Rockies (Figure 2). Fermor (1999) reconfirmed
this relationship for the same area. Wyoming thrust
belt and other Canadian Rockies thrusts also plot on
Fermor’s log-log displacement-length curve (Figure 2c).
Ironically, the relationship is not as clear for Appala-
chian foreland fold-thrust-belt sheets (Figure 3). Small
Appalachian foreland fold-thrust-belt thrust sheets —
largely triangle zones and small-displacement thrust
sheets in the Cumberland – Allegheny Plateau — plot on
a separate curve from that of moderate-displacement
Appalachian thrusts and a third curve of lower slope is
possible for large-displacement Appalachian foreland
fold-thrust belt curves (Figure 3c).
Type C crystalline slab sheets (Figure 4) plot on a
displacement-length curve that is not unlike the curve
that Fermor (1999) generated or that generated here
for the Appalachian foreland fold-thrust belt (Figure 3c),
HTML TOC SEARCH
FIGURE 2. (cont.).
but none of these lines are
colinear. The Type C thrust
sheets plot on a line (Figure 4c)
that has a lesser slope than
the foreland fold-thrust-belt
thrust curves. This may reflect
the greater variation in the
size of Type C sheets or per-
haps more uniform thickness.
Megathrust (large Type C)
sheets (Figure 1b) plot on a
length-displacement curve
(Figure 4c) that has a lower
slope than that of foreland
fold-thrust-belt sheets (Fig-
ures 2c and 3c). The Blue
Ridge–Piedmont sheet, for ex-
ample, is more than 1100 km
long and has a maximum
displacement greater than
350 km (Figure 3a). Several Scandinavian Caledonides
composite sheets are even larger, with strike lengths
of greater than 1400 km and displacements of more
than 600 km (Gee, 1978; Gee et al., 1985) (Figure 4c).
Some Type F sheets (e.g., Walhalla) have strike
lengths and displacements similar to those of thrusts in
foreland fold-thrust belts, and plot on similar curves of
different slope in displacement-length plots (Figure 4c).
Dominantly plastic sheets, like the Suretta, Tambo, and
others in the Pennine Alps, have greater displacements
than along-strike length and thus plot on a curve with
negative slope (Figure 4c). These may have been the
least cohesive and may have flowed into place. Al-
ternatively, they could have been laterally and vertically
confined into a state of northwest-directed, constricted
flow during emplacement. Some of the sheets in the
Appalachian Inner Piedmont (e.g., Sugarloaf Mountain–
Six Mile–Alto), and the Pennine Great St. Bernard nappe,
which formed as Type F sheets, however, cooled suffi-
ciently to become coherent and to move as intact sheets
(evolving from F to T or C) rather than as flowing lobate
masses (Figure 4b).
UPPER BOUNDS FOR
THRUST-SHEET SIZE
The largest thrust sheets in foreland fold-thrust belts
approach lengths of 700 km and have displacements
on the order of 100 to 150 km. These include the Lewis
and Purcell thrusts in the southern Alberta-Montana
Rockies and the Saltville and Whiteoak Mountain thrusts
 HTML TOC SEARCH
Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets 25

FIGURE 3. (a) Map of Alleghanian (Carboniferous-Permian) thrust faults in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge foreland
fold-thrust belt from Virginia to Alabama. The shaded region represents part of the Blue Ridge – Piedmont Type C
megathrust sheet indentor. Faults shown in solid black are Alleghanian thrusts that formed during emplacement of
the Blue Ridge – Piedmont sheet that pushed the Valley and Ridge in front of it. Light teethed lines are early to middle
Paleozoic thrusts. WOM = Whiteoak Mountain fault. Sources of data include Gwinn (1964), Hardeman (1966), Johnson
(1993), and Osborne et al. (1988). (b) Cross section through the Valley and Ridge of Tennessee and the Blue Ridge –
Piedmont megathrust sheet in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. Note the spacing of thrusts from southeast
to northwest in both (a) and (b). Rocks of the foreland fold-thrust belt are stippled in the cross section; the Blue Ridge –
Piedmont Type C crystalline slab is shaded. Location of line A – A0 indicated in (a). (c) Displacement-length plot for
Appalachian foreland fold-thrust-belt thrusts. Note that small-displacement and triangle-zone (names shaded) thrusts
mostly plot on a different, more steeply sloping curve, and very large thrusts plot on a third, more gently sloping curve
(gray). The dashed line is Fermor’s (1999) Canadian Rockies curve.

in the southern Appalachians. Each contains strong
structural-lithic units that range up to 2 km thick and
are composed mostly of carbonate rocks. Interestingly,
thrusts immediately adjacent on either side of the Appa-
lachian examples have relatively small displacements
of 10 km or less (with subsidiary imbricates having
even less than 1 km of displacement), yet the structural-
lithic units for these are approximately the same thick-
ness. The upper bound for the size of foreland fold-
thrust-belt thrusts may thus be determined by the
strength, thickness, and lateral extent of the dominant
structural-lithic units in the system, and may dictate
that maximum displacement is on the order of 100 km
before subsidiary imbricate thrusts begin to form (both
in- and out-of-sequence). An additional factor favoring
generation of larger thrusts in foreland fold-thrust
belts could be the lack of initiation of buckling insta-
bilities or fewer mechanical obstacles to detachment
propagation within the wedge, so that larger thrust sheets
formed.
The largest thrust sheets in any orogen are crys-
talline Type C crustal slab megathrust sheets (Figure 1b).
They are always larger than the largest foreland fold-
thrust-belt thrusts in the same orogen (Hatcher and
 HTML TOC SEARCH
26 Hatcher

FIGURE 3. (cont.).

CONCLUSIONS
1) Three fundamental types
of thrust sheets can be
defined: (1) foreland fold-
thrust-belt (accretionary-
complex) thrusts, (2)
Type C crystalline thrust
(and megathrust) sheets
that are detached along
the ductile- (plastic) brit-
tle transition in either
continental or oceanic
crust, and (3) Type F (fold-
related) crystalline thrust
sheets that are generat-
ed beneath the ductile-
brittle transition by the
plastic shearing of the
common limb between
antiforms and synforms.
A transitional (Type T)
class probably also exists
where Type F sheets cool,
gain strength, and evolve
toward Type C sheets but
do not attain the max-
imum size of Type C
megathrust sheets.
2) Foreland fold-thrust-belt
thrust sheets are smaller
analogs of Type C sheets.
Williams, 1986). As might be expected because of the 3) Displacement-length plots help distinguish fam-
involvement of crystalline rocks and a detachment that ilies of thrusts that form by similar or different
is some 10 km deep in the crust, they also plot on a mechanisms.
displacement-length curve that differs from those for 4) Thrust-sheet size may be delimited by thickness and
foreland fold-thrust-belt thrusts or triangle zones (Fig- strength of strong structural-lithic units, but other
ure 4c). The upper bound for these huge thrusts is factors are probably also involved.
difficult to estimate, because the largest sheets known, 5) Imbrication of a thrust-bounded block may be pre-
the Blue Ridge–Piedmont megathrust sheet and several dicted experimentally and matches the thrust pat-
of the composite allochthons in the Scandinavian tern in part of the southern Appalachian foreland
Caledonides (Gee, 1978; Gee et al., 1985), have displace- fold-thrust belt.
ments of hundreds of kilometers, but their absolute 6) Localization of ramps by preexisting inhomoge-
upper displacement limits remain unknown. The crustal neities (e.g., basement topography, facies bound-
uniformity of the geothermal gradient where the Type aries) may affect the size of thrust sheets.
C sheets are being formed may be a factor that delimits 7) The upper bounds for thrust-sheet size are probably
their size. More precise statements can, however, be related to the maximum size and lateral continuity
made about the minimum displacements on Type C for the structural-lithic units in the thrust system.
sheets, and this remains the basis for interpreting the This maximum appears to be 100 km of displace-
points plotted in Figure 4c. ment in foreland fold-thrust belts and between 500
 HTML TOC SEARCH
Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets 27

FIGURE 4. (a) Part of the Pen-

nine Alps showing major Type F
thrust sheets, along with part of
the Type C Austroalpine sheet
to the east. Arrows are orien-
tations of mineral stretching
lineations. The area with the x
pattern is the Bergell pluton.
(b) Map of the northern part of
the southern Appalachian Inner
Piedmont showing the configu-
ration of major Type F and C
thrust sheets. Arrows indicate
orientations of shallow-plunging
mineral stretching lineations
that probably trace flow paths of
thrust sheets. (c) Displacement-
length plot for crystalline Types
F and C thrust sheets from sev-
eral orogens. The curve with
negative slope for Pennine Alps
thrusts indicates these lobate
thrusts have displacements that
are much greater than their along-
strike length. The others, in-
cluding the St. Bernard sheet,
probably cooled enough that
the sheet gained enough strength
to evolve into Type C thrusts.
Alpine thrusts are indicated by +;
Appalachian thrusts are indi-
cated by open circles; Canadian
Rockies thrusts and the Paris –
Willard thrust in the Wyoming
thrust belt are indicated by solid
circles; and Scandinavian Cale-
donides thrusts are indicated
by an x. Data for the Alpine
thrusts are derived from Spicher
(1980). The dashed line is Fer-
mor’s (1999) Canadian Rockies
curve. Data for Canadian Cordil-
lera thrust sheets were derived
from Wheeler and McFeely
(1991). The Paris-Willard thrust
sheet dimensions in Wyoming
are from Royse et al. (1975). Data
for Scandinavian Caledonides
thrusts are from Gee et al. (1985).
Data for Appalachian thrusts
(open circles) are from Hatcher
et al. (1990), state geologic
maps, and unpublished maps
and sections.

28 Hatcher
and 1000 km of displacement in large crustal-slab
Type C megathrust sheets in orogens formed by
continent-continent collision.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this research has been provided by the
U.S. National Science Foundation and more recently
by the U.S. Department of Energy National Petroleum
Technology Office and the National Cooperative Geo-
logic Mapping Program, Educational Component (ad-
ministered by the U.S. Geological Survey). This paper
was improved following reviews by Mark Cooper and
Robert I. Thompson, and additionally by the editing of
Anne H. Thomas.
REFERENCES CITED
Armstrong, R. L., and H. J. B. Dick, 1974, A model for the
development of thin overthrust sheets of crystalline
rock: Geology, v. 1, p. 35 – 40.
Bombolakis, E. G., 1986, Thrust-fault mechanics and the
origin of a frontal ramp: Journal of Structural Geology,
v. 8, p. 281 – 290.
Brock, W. G., and T. Engelder, 1977, Deformation asso-
ciated with the movement of the Muddy Mountains
overthrust in the Buffington window, southeastern
Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88,
p. 1667 – 1677.
Brown, R. L., C. Beaumont, and S. D. Willett, 1993, Com-
parison of the Selkirk fan structure with mechanical
models: implications for interpretation of the south-
ern Canadian Cordillera: Geology, v. 21, p. 1015 –
1018.
Brown, R. L., J. M. Journeay, L. S. Lane, D. C. Murphy,
and C. J. Rees, 1986, Obduction, backfolding and
piggyback thrusting in the metamorphic hinterland
of the southeastern Canadian Cordillera: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 8, p. 255 – 268.
Bucher, W. H., 1956, Role of gravity in orogenesis: Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 76, p. 1295 –
1318.
Chapple, W. M., 1978, Mechanics of thin-skinned fold-
and-thrust belts: Geological Society of America Bulle-
tin, v. 89, p. 1189 – 1198.
Coleman, R. B., 1981, Tectonic setting for ophiolite
obduction in Oman: Journal of Geophysical Research,
v. 86, p. 2497 – 2508.
Dahlen, F. A., 1990, Critical taper model of fold-and-
thrust belts and accretionary wedges: Annual Review
of Earth and Planetary Science, v. 18, p. 55 – 99.
Davis, D., J. Suppe, and F. A. Dahlen, 1983, Mechanics of
fold-and-thrust belts and accretionary wedges: Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, v. 88, p. 1153 – 1172.
Dixon, J. S., 1982, Regional structural synthesis, Wyoming
salient of western overthrust belt: American Associ-
HTML TOC SEARCH
ation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1560 –
1580.
Elliott, D., 1976, The motion of thrust sheets: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 81, p. 949 – 963.
Fermor, P., 1999, Aspects of the three-dimensional struc-
ture of the Alberta Foothills and Front Ranges: Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, p. 317 –
346.
Gee, D. G., 1978, Nappe displacement in the Scandi-
navian Caledonides: Tectonophysics, v. 47, p. 393 –
419.
Gee, D. G., R. Kumpulainen, D. Roberts, M. B. Stephens,
A. Thon, and E. Zachrisson, 1985, Scandinavian Cale-
donides tectonostratigraphic map: Geological Survey
of Sweden, scale 1:2,000,000.
Gwinn, V. J., 1964, Thin-skinned tectonics in the Plateau
and northwestern Valley and Ridge provinces of the
central Appalachians: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 75, p. 863 – 900.
Hardeman, W. D., 1966, Geologic map of Tennessee:
Tennessee Division of Geology, scale 1:250,000.
Harris, L. D., 1979, Similarities between the thick-skinned
Blue Ridge anticlinorium and the thin-skinned Powell
Valley anticline: Geological Society of America Bulle-
tin, v. 90, p. 525 – 539.
Harris, L. D., and R. C. Milici, 1977, Characteristics of
thin-skinned style of deformation in the southern
Appalachians, and potential hydrocarbon traps: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1018, 40 p.
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., and R. J. Hooper, 1992, Evolution of
crystalline thrust sheets in the internal parts of
mountain chains, in K. R. McClay, ed., Thrust tec-
tonics: London, Chapman & Hall, p. 217 – 233.
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., and R. T. Williams, 1986, Mechanical
model for single thrust sheets Part 1: Crystalline
thrust sheets and their relationships to the mechan-
ical/thermal behavior of orogenic belts: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 97, p. 975 – 985.
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., P. H. Osberg, P. Robinson, and W. A.
Thomas, 1990, Tectonic map of the U.S. Appalachians:
Geological Society of America, The Geology of North
America, v. F-2, Plate 1, scale 1:2,500,000.
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., W. A. Thomas, P. A. Geiser, A. W.
Snoke, S. Mosher, and D. V. Wiltschko, 1989, Alle-
ghanian orogen, Chapter 5, in R. D. Hatcher Jr., W. A.
Thomas, and G. W. Viele, eds., The Appalachian –
Ouachita orogen in the United States: Boulder, Colo-
rado: Geological Society of America, The Geology of
North America, v. F – 2, p. 233 – 318.
Hatcher, R. D. Jr., P. J. Lemiszki, and C. Montes, 1998,
Boundary conditions of foreland fold-thrust-belt de-
formation from 3 – D reconstruction of a curved seg-
ment of the southern Appalachian basement surface
and base of the Blue Ridge – Piedmont thrust sheet:
Progress report and initial results: American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Extended Abstracts, v. 1,
p. A281 – A284.
Hudleston, P. J., 1976, Recumbent folding in the base
of the Barnes Ice Cap, Northwest Territories, Can-
ada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87,
p. 1684 – 1692.

Properties of Thrusts and Upper Bounds for the Size of Thrust Sheets
Jackson, M. P. A., R. R. Cornelius, J. H. Craig, A. Gansser,
J. Stocklin, and C. J. Talbot, 1990, Salt diapirs of the
Great Kavir, central Iran: Geological Society of Amer-
ica Memoir 177, 139 p.
Johnson, S. S., 1993, Geologic map of Virginia: Virginia
Division of Mineral Resources, scale 1:500,000.
Liu, S., and J. M. Dixon, 1995, Localization of duplex
thrust-ramps by buckling: Analog and numerical model-
ing: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 17, p. 875 – 886.
Mandl, G., and G. K. Shippam, 1981, Mechanical model
of thrust sheet gliding and imbrication, in K. R.
McClay and N. J. Price, eds., Thrust and nappe tec-
tonics: London, The Geological Society of London
Special Publication 9, p. 79 – 98.
Mandal, N., A. Chattopadhyay, and S. Bose, 1997, Im-
bricate thrust spacing: Experimental and theoretical
analyses, in S. Sengupta, ed., Evolution of Geological
Structures in Micro- to Macro-scales: London, Chap-
man & Hall, p. 143 – 165.
Mitra, S., 1988, Three-dimensional geometry and kine-
matic evolution of the Pine Mountain thrust system,
southern Appalachians: Geological Society of Amer-
ica Bulletin, v. 100, p. 72 – 95.
Muehlberger, W. R., 1968, Internal structures and mode
of uplift of Texas and Louisiana salt domes: Geo-
logical Society of America Special Paper 88, p. 359 –
364.
Osborne, W. E., M. W. Szabo, T. L. Neathery, and C. W.
Copeland, Jr., 1988, Geologic map of Alabama: Geo-
logical Survey of Alabama, scale 1:250,000.
Price, R. A., 1981, The Cordilleran foreland thrust and
fold belt in the southern Canadian Rockies, in K. R.
McClay and N. J. Price, eds., Thrust and nappe tec-
tonics: Geological Society of London Special Publi-
cation 9, p. 427 – 448.
Price, R. A., and E. W. Mountjoy, 1970, Geologic structure
HTML TOC SEARCH
29
of the Canadian Rocky Mountains between Bow and
Athabaska Rivers — A progress report: Geological
Association of Canada Special Paper 6, p. 7 – 25.
Ranalli, G., 1987, Rheology of the Earth: Boston, Allen and
Unwin, 366 p.
Rich, J. L., 1934, Mechanics of low-angle overthrust
faulting illustrated by the Cumberland thrust block,
Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 18, p. 1584 – 1596.
Royse, F. Jr., M. A. Warner, and D. L. Reese, 1975, Thrust
belt structural geometry and related structural prob-
lems, Wyoming – Idaho – northern Utah, in D. W.
Bolyard, ed., Symposium on drilling frontiers of the
Central Rocky Mountains: Denver, Colorado, Rocky
Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 41 – 54.
Spicher, A., 1980, Tektonische Karte der Schweiz: Swiss
Geological Commission, scale 1:500,000.
Wheeler, J. O., and P. McFeely, 1991, Tectonic assem-
blage map of the Canadian Cordillera and adjacent
parts of the United States of America: Geological
Survey of Canada Map 1712A, scale 1:2,000,000.
Willis, B., 1893, The mechanics of Appalachian structure:
U.S. Geological Survey 13th Annual Report 1891–1892,
Part 2, p. 212 – 281.
Wiltschko, D. V., and D. J. Eastman, 1983, Role of base-
ment warps and faults in localizing thrust fault ramps,
in R. D. Hatcher Jr., H. Williams, and I. Zietz, eds.,
Contributions to the tectonics and geophysics of moun-
tain chains: Geological Society of America Memoir 158,
p. 177 – 190.
Woodward, N. B., K. R. Walker, and C. T. Lutz, 1988, Rela-
tionships between early Paleozoic facies patterns and
structural trends in the Saltville thrust family, Ten-
nessee Valley and Ridge, southern Appalachians: Geo-
logical Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1758 –
1769.