GeoScienceWorld

Lithosphere
Volume 2022, Article ID 6058346, 23 pages
https://doi.org/10.2113/2022/6058346

Research Article
Understanding the Deformation Structures and Tectonics of the
Active Orogenic Fold-Thrust Belt: Insights from the Outer
Indo-Burman Ranges

Md. Sakawat Hossain ,1,2,3 Songjian Ao ,2,3,4 Tridib Kumar Mondal ,5 Arnab Sain ,6
Md. Sharif Hossain Khan ,1 Wenjiao Xiao ,3,4,7 and Pengpeng Zhang 2,3
1
Department of Geological Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh
2
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100029, China
3
Innovation Academy for Earth Science, CAS, China
4
China-Pakistan Joint Research Center on Earth Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, China
5
Geological Studies Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700108, India
6
Department of Geology, Presidency University, Kolkata 700073, India
7
Xinjiang Research Center for Mineral Resources, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Urumqi 830011, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Songjian Ao; asj@mail.iggcas.ac.cn

Received 20 November 2021; Accepted 18 March 2022; Published 18 April 2022

Academic Editor: Feng Cheng

Copyright © 2022 Md. Sakawat Hossain et al. Exclusive Licensee GeoScienceWorld. Distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).

The tectonic deformation of the outer Indo-Burman Ranges (i.e., Chittagong Tripura Fold Belt, CTFB) is associated with the
oblique convergence of Indo-Burmese plates since the latest Miocene. This article presents detailed field evidence of
deformation structures and their kinematics in the exposed Tertiary successions in the CTFB. We combine observations made
in this study with the published structural, geodetic, and seismic data sets to present an overview of the active tectonic
framework of the region and its strain partitioning. To determine the kinematic evolution, décollement depth, and amount of
strain, we combined geologic field mapping, structural analysis of fifteen anticlines, fracture/lineament analysis, and paleostress
analysis of faults that define the ∼100 km wide CTFB. Structural data and kinematic analyses suggest subhorizontal plane strain
with approximately 10% east-west shortening (oriented ~65°) that is perpendicular to the axial plane (oriented ~155°) of the
CTFB anticlines. No evidence of significant transpression or strike-slip faulting has been observed in the CTFB and, therefore,
suggests that full slip-partitioning is normal to the outer belt and parallel to the inner belt of the IBR. Paleostress analysis
results are in good agreement with the present-day stress regime, and this implies that past and present deformation is
dynamically related with the normal component of India-Burma oblique vector velocity motion.

1. Introduction earthquake-prone area, where deformation and kinematics

Understanding the structural evolution of the outer Indo-
Burman Rages (IBR) is crucial to reconstructing the Ceno-
zoic geodynamics of the Bengal Basin and the complex
development of collisional events between the Indian and
Burmese plates [1]. The plate boundary region between the
India and Burma plates in the outer IBR region consists of
fold belts, and regional scale thrust (Figure 1) is a prominent
are governed by oblique subduction of the Indian Plate
beneath the Burma plate [1–6]. This oblique convergence-
related transpressional tectonics in orogenic belts is a com-
mon phenomenon giving rise to complex deformation pat-
terns (e.g., [7–11]). Transpressional deformation involves
both strike-slip and dip-slip components. However, the
strike-slip deformations can deviate from simple shear when
shortening oblique to the deformation zone [10]. At the

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 2 Lithosphere

87°E 90°E 93°E

Himalayan Mountain Ranges

27°N

27°N
Main Frontal Thrust
.
Suture
gaF

Dhubri F.

Ko
Na
Thrust

pil
Sinistral
Dextral Mikir Hills

iF
Old

.
F. ham
Ti

F.
sa
ta
F.

.
Jamuna F

24°N
24°N

Bay of Bengal
21°N

21°N
N

Onshore digital elevation from SRTM (ver. 3)

Projection: WGS 1984 World Mercator SRTM Elevation
Model
50 0 100 200 8500
km
Reference Scale: 1:12,50,000
1250

255
Thrust Fault Deformation Front
Thrust/Strike-slip Undifferrentiated Fault 50
Thrust Front CTFB = Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt
Strike-slip Fault IBR = Indo-Burman Ranges
18°N

18°N

0m
87°E 90°E 93°E

Figure 1: Simplified schematic tectonic map of the Bengal Basin and its surroundings. The background image is the digital elevation model
(DEM) of the area based on Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) images. Compilations of tectonic features are based on Hossain
et al. [44]. The black rectangular box is the study area (CTFB). The major tectonic domains are shown in the index map (modified
after [103]).

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere
obliquely convergent plate boundaries, deformation occurs
both locally and regionally and produces a range of defor-
mation structures [9, 12]: folds, thrusts, and shear zones,
which are essential for oil and gas exploration [13, 14] and
active tectonic studies [15, 16].
Tectonic deformation of the western outer edge of the
young and active IBR, known as the Chittagong Tripura
Fold Belt (CTFB), is mainly attributed to the oblique
India-Burmese convergence. This oblique convergence-
related transpressional tectonics splits along different
tectono-geomorphic units separated by large-scale thrust
and dextral strike-slip faults and produces a fold-thrust belt,
in which the western limit is marked by the “Deformation
Front” (Figure 1) [2, 17]. The convergence is accommodated
by different tectonic structures where the deformation inten-
sity and age gradually decrease from IBR in the east to the
CTFB in the west. According to Maurin and Rangin [18], a
total of about 11 km east-west shortening occurs in the last
2 Ma, indicating ~5 mm/year long-term shortening rate.
Two regional scale active faults and thick-skinned tectonics
of the CTFB constantly accommodate the stress associated
with the Indo-Burma oblique subduction and, therefore,
are responsible for the kinematic evolution of the CTFB
[18, 19]. The two regional faults are the Chittagong Coastal
Fault (CCF) to the west and Kaladan Fault to the east, and
these faults are running approximately N-S (Figure 1). The
CCF is approximately a coast parallel structure where an
overthrusting hanging wall concealed major parts of the
western flank of the Sitakund, Inani, and Dakhin Nhila anti-
clines (Figure 2). Recent geodetic measurements suggest the
tectonic convergence with overall E-W shortening in the
CTFB area occurred at the rate of ~5 mm/year [3, 5, 19].
This east-west shortening produces approximately a north-
south complex fold and overlapping thrust systems in the
CTFB area. The plunging fold system consists of a series of
NNW-SSE trending anticlines and synclines, where the
geometry is predominantly expressed by NNW-SSE striking
reverse faulting [20]. Moreover, the presence of active
macro-gas seepages in the CTFB area is reported and
encountered during the fieldwork. The presence of such
seepages suggests hydrocarbon accumulation in the subsur-
face [21]. Therefore, the proper understanding of the defor-
mation structures (e.g., fold and fault) of the study area will
facilitate having a clear insight regarding the hydrocarbon
system of the area.
The folds, faults, joints, fractures, and their geometry can
be used to interpret the regional deformation and kinematic
history. Fractal dimensional analyses of these structures over
2D space can reveal their formation processes and kinematic
evolution [22–25]. For example, the lineament/fracture net-
work revealed from the Advanced Land Observing Satellite
(ALOS) images is the imprint of two-dimensional features
in the ground surface [26, 27]. Rocks exhibit anisotropy
when subjected to stress, and the resultant cracks/fractures
are assumed to have preferential orientation [28–31]. The
study of such fracture networks, their size, and their spatial
relationships are important to establish the regional stress
field, rock strength and its deformability [32], and kinematic
model [33, 34]. In this study, the fractal dimension anisot-
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
3
ropy of the fracture system (i.e., fracture spacing and orien-
tation in a given direction) has been analyzed to understand
the spatial distribution of the fractures and associated stress
field.
Understanding the evolution of geological structures and
their dissemination with progressive deformation is the fun-
damental aspect in inaugurating the tectonics of any region
[35, 36]. This leads to a better appraisal of the state of paleos-
tress conditions that led to the deformation on account of
regional tectonics. Therefore, it becomes essential to study
the paleostress condition in accordance with the kinematics
of the structures. The previous studies on CTFB have only
been restricted to geochemistry and provenance studies
[37–41]; seismic hazards [2, 4–6, 19, 42–44]; and geody-
namics, tectonics, and geophysical investigations [1–3,
18–20, 42, 45, 46]. Except Betka et al.’s [17] slip-
partitioning study that carried out locally in Tripura, no
attempt has been made to comprehensively decipher the
deformation structures, related kinematics and stress regime,
and balanced geological cross-sections of the CTFB’s
Tertiary sediments and amount of strain in terms of field
investigation. The present paper aims to fill this lacuna by
presenting a complete structural map of the CTFB area of
the outer IBR (Figure 2) for the first time based on several
comprehensive geological fieldwork carried out since 2008
and other published maps and data sets ([2, 20, 47] and ref-
erences there in). It also provides evidence for structural
deformations and interprets their kinematics in the exposed
Tertiary sedimentary rocks in the area. Structural interpreta-
tions are then constrained by in-depth analysis of the folds,
faults, and fractures/lineaments geometry to understand
the prevailing stress regime in the area.
Three balanced geological cross-sections from the north-
ern, central, and southern parts of the study area illustrate
the geometry and kinematics of the structures developed in
the exposed Tertiary sediments and the total amount of
strain. The fault-slip analysis reveals the paleostress direc-
tion that led to the formation of deformation structures in
the CTFB. The tectonic evolution of the CTFB in response
to the oblique convergence along the Kaladan Fault and
CCF is also discussed. This study helps characterize the fault,
lineament/fracture disposition patterns in CTFB and pro-
vides a clearer understanding into the deformation kinemat-
ics and tectonics of a young and active orogenic belt.
2. Geological Settings
Extending from the northern end of the Arakan Trench in
the south to the juncture of the Dauki, Halflong, Naga, and
Disag thrusts to the north, the CTFB has been recognized
as the outer edge of the western Neogene belt of the Indo-
Burman Ranges (IBR), which separated from the eastern
Palaeogene belt of the IBR along the Kaladan Fault
[17–19]. Geologically, the CTFB is bounded by the Foredeep
basin part of the Bengal Basin to the west and the IBR to the
east and considered to be an active orogenic belt in the world
(Figure 1). To the east, it is structurally separated from the
IBR by the approximately N-S running Kaladan thrust (also
known as Tut Fault). To the west, the boundary of the CTFB
 4 Lithosphere

92°E 93°E

Barja
Sald
Aizawl

la
ana
di

Mualuaw
ti F.
Gum

Kho

m
Tichna

wai
C′
C

Tula
Gaja

mur
Fig.7d
lia

Da
kh
in

23°N
Nh
ila
N

Kaladan
Fig. 7d

F.
Chittagong
Sangu

22°N
Magnama

Lower Middle Bhuban and

Pre-Miocene Sediments
Mahesk

Upper Bhuban (Dominantly

sandstone with shale)
Mowdak
hali

Boka Bil (Shale and

sandstone alternation)

Tipam Sandstone

Dupi Tila Sandstone

Inan

45 30
Pin

20
i

10
cha

Quaternary Holocene
Deposits (Alluvium) N
F.

Big City
Thrust W E
Undifferentiated Fault (F.)
Dak

21°N

C′
Doubly plunging anticline C
hin

S
Pin

Boundary between
Nhila

Fig. 7f
cha

WFTZ and EHCFTZ

0 20 40 60 80
km

Figure 2: Geological map of the CTFB area of the Bengal Basin (structural data sets were complemented from [2, 20]; surface geology was
complemented from [47]). Abbreviations: CCF: Chittagong Coastal Fault; F: fault. AA ′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ lines are three balanced geological
cross-sections. The boundary between the eastern highly compressed fold-thrust zone (EHCFTZ) and the western fold-thrust zone
(WFTZ) is marked with the thick red dotted line on the map. The black rectangular box area shows the enlarge view of the CC ′ cross-
sectional area.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere
Table 1: Major geotectonic events related to the convergence of the India-Burmese plates and subsequent development of the CTFB in the
eastern part of the Bengal Basin (after [2, 20]).
Geologic time Age in Ma
Late Pleistocene –recent ~0.125
Early Pleistocene ~2
Compression
Late Pliocene ~3.5-3
development of the IBR at the beginning in the eastern margin of the Bengal Basin
and later CTFB as the accretionary prism
Early Miocene ~20
Early Eocene ~45
with the Foredeep basin is assumed to be along the edge of
the convex shape “Thrust Front” (Figure 1) [17, 20], repre-
sented by the CCF. The CCF is a regional thrust fault, run-
ning NNW-SSE along the northeastern coastline of the Bay
of Bengal (Figures 1 and 2). According to Maurin and Ran-
gin [18] both the Kaladan and CCF have a dextral-slip com-
ponent. In between the CCF and the Kaladan Fault, this
~100 km wide deformation/transpressional zone (i.e., the
CTFB) is framed by en echelon plunging folds and
faults [20].
Before the convergence of the India-Burma plates, the
CTFB area was an integral part of the Foredeep basin of
the Bengal Basin [48]. The commencement of the CTFB
development in the eastern part of the Foredeep basin is
mainly presumed to be started from the Pliocene as an
accretionary wedge due to the incessant subduction of the
Indian Plate’s oceanic crust beneath the Burmese Plate [4,
18, 39, 41]. With continued collision, the eastern part of
the Foredeep basin evolved as a fold belt and form folded
flank of the Bengal Basin, currently known as the CTFB
(Table 1). Since last 2 Ma, the rapid development of the
CTFB and its westward propagation is facilitated from
upliftment of the Shillong Plateau and consequent deepen-
ing and sedimentary filling of the Sylhet Trough (Figure 1)
[18]. Due to this rapid westward propagation since Pliocene,
thin-skinned tectonics of the CTFB is gradually engraved
westward by thick-skinned tectonics of the IBR [18, 49].
Therefore, the deformation age of the structures gradually
increases eastward from the CTFB to the IBR.
Based on the geometry and deformation intensity of the
folded structures, field observation, Shuttle Radar Topogra-
phy Mission (SRTM) image analysis, and published data
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
5
Major geodynamic events Major tectonic events
The fold belt has been progressively
growing westward and actively
developing the “Emerging Fold Belt”
between the Thrust Front and
Continued subduction – westward Deformation Front
migration of the Deformation Front
In the upper part (~ up to 5 km),
sediments deform above a decollement
level through thin-skinned and thick-
skinned tectonic processes
Oblique subduction of the Indian Plate
beneath the Burmese Plate in an arc-
trench setting started to develop
accretionary prism (i.e., CTFB) within the
Subduction (ocean-continent) – upper parts of the thick deltaic sequence
Sediment contributions to the Bengal
Basin began to arrive from the rising IBR
due to the subduction of the Indian Plate
beneath the Burmese Plate
The northeastern corner of the Indian
plate making a glancing contact with the
Soft lateral convergence
Sumatra Block, followed by the Burmese
Plate
set, the CTFB area has been divided into two tectonic zones
(Figure 2): (a) western fold-thrust zone and (b) eastern
highly compressed fold-thrust zone [20]. To the west,
subduction-related deformation continues from the CTFB
towards the current Foredeep basin, but the intensity of
the deformation gradually decreases from the east to the
west and ceases along the Deformation Front. The transi-
tional boundary of these two tectonic units is marked by
the “Thrust Front” [17]. The continued deformation from
the Deformation Front to the Thrust Front produces an
approximately 80 km wide young subsurface fold belt, which
is known as the Emerging Fold Belt [20].
The CTFB area consists of late Miocene–Quaternary
accreted sediments of ~5 km thickness (Figure 2), where
the sedimentary facies ranges from shallow marine through
deltaic to fluvial environments [40, 48]. Within the CTFB,
the Miocene Surma Group consists of shallow marine shelfal
and intertidal deposits and is divided into two formations:
Bhuban at the bottom and Boka Bil at the top (Table 2).
Overlying Boka Bil Formation, the Tipam Group comprised
of Pliocene fluvial deposits and is divided into two forma-
tions: Tipam Sandstone at the bottom and Girujan Clay at
the top. Above the Tipam Group, the Pliocene–Pleistocene
Dupi Tila Group consists of meandering channels, flood-
plain, and alluvial deposits [2, 40, 48].
In the CTFB (i.e., the western prolongation of the Indo-
Burman accretionary prism), the upper deltaic sediments of
the Surma, Tipam, and Dupi Tila groups occur (~up to
5 km) above a major basal detachment fault and deformed
[42]. In the last 2 Ma, these deformations rise to a series of
elongate, ~NNW–SSE trending curvilinear plunging folds,
indicating the combination of thick-skinned and thin-
 6 Lithosphere
Table 2: Stratigraphic succession of the CTFB in the eastern part of the Bengal Basin (after [2, 48]).
Age
Group Formation
(approx.)
Holocene Alluvium
Coarse ferruginous sandstone with
Dupi Tila
siltstone with lignitic fragments and
Plio-Pleistocene
Girujan Clay
Tipam
Tipam Sandstone
Late
Boka Bil
Miocene
Miocene Surma
Sandstone and pebbly sandstone at
Middle
Bhuban
Miocene
skinned tectonic processes [2, 17, 18]. These folds are
arranged in a set of alternating low relief ridge-forming
fault-cored anticlines and valley-forming synclines. The
anticlines are continuous along-strike for tens to more than
100 km. Moreover, the geometry of the CTFB fold ridges is
attributed to the free westward migration of fold, longitudi-
nal thrust, and multi-phase deformation of the Tertiary sed-
iments [2, 46].
3. Methods
The study connects the outcrops-scale surface geology and
fault kinematics data with large-scale kinematics and tec-
tonics to determine the overall geometry and kinematics
of the CTFB. The bedding attitude data (from fifteen anticli-
nal structures), lineament/fracture data (from two struc-
tures), fault-slip data (from four structures), exposed
deformation structures, and stratigraphic and lithologic data
from the CTFB were measured and recorded. A geologic
map of the CTFB area that defines the outer belt was con-
structed (Figure 2). Outcrops are sparsely exposed due to
ever-increasing settlement, heavy vegetation cover, and
rapid erosion. Field data were collected only from the
road-cut, river, and lake outcrops along transects that cross
each anticline during several fieldwork conducted in the last
decade. Lithologic and fault contacts detected along each
transect were extrapolated manually on both sides using a
hillshade digital elevation model based on the SRTM images
(ver. 3.0 with 1° × 1° tiles at 1 arc second, i.e., 30 m resolu-
tion). Secondary tectonic and structural data sets from the
published maps are digitized, scaled, and integrated with
the primary field data to get the total coverage of the study
area.
3.1. Bedding Analysis. To quantify the fold belt geometry, we
have analyzed the bedding attitude data (total n = 1356)
individually for each anticlinal structure and all of them
together (Figures 3 and 4). The orientations of the studied
structure were determined using a cylindrical best fit to poles
to bedding using the software Stereonet 11 (Figure 3) [50].
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
Thickness
Lithology Depositional environment
Max (m)
Fluvial
layers of quartz pebbles and
Fluvial
petrified wood 1,600
Clay and siltstone
Coarse-grained, pebbly, cross- Alluvial
bedded sandstone
Fluvial
Dark grey pyrite-bearing shale,
1,600 Tidal-deltaic
sandy shale, and sandstone
Estuarine
the top and sandy shale at the 1,500 Shallow marine
bottom
Determination of the bedding to mean pole follows Right
Hand Rule (RHR), and pi axis orientation (trend and
plunge) of each segment was determined using the same
software.
3.2. Lineament/Fracture Analysis. The primary data set used
to detect fold-related fracture (i.e., lineaments) are ALOS,
SRTM-based digital elevation models (DEMs), and Google
Earth. After initial processing of the ALOS images (e.g.,
spatial enhancement and hillshade) in ArcGIS 10.3 environ-
ments (Figures 5(a) and 5(d)), lineament/fracture demar-
cated, and digitized manually through visual interpretation
to avoid the manmade features (e.g., road and foot track).
During manual extraction, the utmost care has been given
to maintain the same scale/zooming level. Features more
than 500 m in length and having structural significance such
as fracture, faults, abrupt changes of river courses, and linear
scarp faces were digitized as lineament/fracture and stored in
a geographic information system (GIS) database. For the
comparison and necessary corrections of lineaments
obtained by remote sensing, the resulting lineaments maps
(Figures 5(b) and 5(e)) were cross-checked with the geolog-
ical map, topographic map, SRTM-based DEM, Google
Earth, and field observations to remove roads, lithological
boundaries, and any other linear artifacts. After all these
processing and ground checks, a total of 483 and 345 linea-
ments/fractures were mapped for the Sitakund and Sitapa-
har structures, respectively (Figures 5(b) and 5(e)).
We used the AMOCADO software [51] to analyze the
possible relationship between the extracted fracture/linea-
ment (Figures 5(b) and 5(e)) anisotropy with the stress filed
of the area. AMOCADO is based on the modified Cantor
dust method [52], where a set of scanlines (parallel) are
superimposed on the lineament/fracture pattern. The num-
ber of segments Ns that intercept the lineament/fracture
and segment-length s are automatically measured and plot-
ted as a log cumulative Ns vs. s in the graph to determine
the slope m (i.e., fractal dimension). Consequently, the scan-
line set is rotated in 1° incremental steps up to 180° to pro-
duce the complete result. Here, the AMOCADO method
 Lithosphere 7

(a) (b) (c)

.8
88
2.0/
23
5.7
.0/8
064
.4 /86.4
067

Barkal n = 25 Belasari n = 18 Gobamura n = 54

(d) (e) (f)

4.7
253.7/8 89.
1
.8/
240

1.5
.3/8
057

Kasalong n = 31 Uttan Chatra n = 16 Bandarban n = 88

(g) (h) (i)

9.4 /89.7
259.1/8 076.4

Changotaung n = 11 Dakhin Nhila n = 202 Inani n = 40

(j) (k) (l)

.9 .8
/87 /87 89.
1
5.7 6.6 .8/
05 23 240

Matamuhuri n = 21 Patiya n = 28 Semutang n = 16

(m) (n) (o)

9.2
.7/8 7.3
068 88.
2
.0/8
.5, 067
245

Sitapahar n = 420 Sitakund n = 287 Olathang n = 77

Figure 3: Stereograms show the Kamb density contour of the poles to bedding (contour interval = 2σ) with a cylindrical best fit line
(magenta solid line), axial plane (magenta dashed line), and fold axis (hollow red circle) for each studied anticline of the CTFB area
(locations are marked in Figure 2). All stereograms are generated with Stereonet 11 through equal-area lower hemisphere projections
[50]. The orientation of the fold axis (hollow red circle) is labeled with trend and plunge. Note: n: number of bedding attitude data;
WFTZ: western fold-thrust zone; and EHCFTZ: eastern highly compressed fold-thrust zone.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 8 Lithosphere

180

33
5.6
160

Fold Interlimb Angle (°)

01
.9
140
2
R = 0.486
120

100

80 Gobamura
88.1 Kasalong
65 .6/ 60
Barkal
40
n = 1356 n = 1356 n = 1356 50 60 70 80 90
Axial Plane Dip (°)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

160
4

120 3
Mean Value

Mean value
2
80
1

40 0

Fold axial trend Interlimb angle Fold axial plunge Shear strain
Fold Attribute Fold Attribute

(e) (f)

CTFB Zone
EHCFTZ
WFTZ
CTFB Total

Figure 4: Combined plot of the bedding attitude data from fifteen anticlines of the CTFB area. (a) Stereograms show poles to bedding (blue
points), (b) the Kamb density contour of the poles to bedding (contour interval = 2σ) with a cylindrical best fit line (solid black), and
regional fold axis (red circle) of the CTFB area. (c) Rose diagram of strike of the bedding attitude data of the CTFB area plotted with 5°
class interval (petals parallel strike direction). All stereograms are lower hemisphere equal-area projections generated with Stereonet 11
[50]. The trend and plunge of the regional fold axis (red circle) is labeled. Note: n: number of bedding attitude data. (d) Fold interlimb
angle vs. an axial surface dip of the same folds. If Barkal, Kasalong, and Gobamura values excluded from linear regression calculation,
the plot reveals a weak linear relationship (R2 = 0:486). In general, gentle folds are more upright compared to the open folds. (e and f)
Mean value and confidence interval of the fold attributes of the WFTZ and EHCFTZ of the CTFB and CTFB as a whole. Error bars
represent 95% confidence interval.

[51] is used to quantify the fractal dimension anisotropy identified in this study and are presented in Figures 5 and
(insets in Figures 5(b) and 5(e)) of the extracted fracture/lin- 6, respectively. The angle of each set (i.e., axial, cross-axial,
eament system of the Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines. The and oblique fracture sets) was carefully compared with the
FracPaQ, a MATLAB™ open-source toolbox [53], was used fold axial trace. Finally, the bisector of the two oblique frac-
to quantify fracture/lineament patterns (Figures 5(b) and 5 ture sets was regarded as parallel to subparallel of the maxi-
(e)), including their distributions and spatial variation mum shortening direction (i.e., σ1) [57, 58].
(Figures 5(c) and 5(f)).
The rose diagrams (Figure 6) of the extracted lineaments 3.3. Kinematic Analysis of Outcrop-Scale Structures. Kine-
were plotted and compared with the general trend of the matic analysis of the mesoscale deformation structures
CTFB. The total fractures obtained from the remote sensing (Figure 7) was performed based on field geological investiga-
technique were divided into different sets on the rose dia- tions, oriented field photographs, geometric measurements
grams according to their angle and direction relative to the of the bedding and fault-slip data (e.g., rake, displacement),
fold axis [54–56]. If a fracture set has a trend parallel with and their mutual relationship with respective anticlinal
the fold axial trend (i.e., within 0-15° of the fold axial trace), structures of the CTFB.
it is defined as the “axial fracture set.” On the other hand, if a
fracture set is perpendicular to the fold axial trend (i.e., 80- 3.4. Balanced Geological Cross-section. To evaluate the struc-
90° from the trend of the related fold axis), it is defined as tural pattern and shortening of the Tertiary sediments in the
a “cross-axial fracture set.” In this study, the axial fracture outer belt of the Indo-Burma Ranges, we constructed a bal-
set is detonated by S1 (Figure 6(e)). Fractures having greater anced cross-section based on our field data and seismic pro-
angles (i.e., >15° and <80°) with the trend of the fold axis files of the study area from the previous literature [18, 39, 42,
were called an “oblique fracture set.” Two oblique fracture 59]. Three probable balanced sections (Figure 8) are drawn
sets defined with S2 and S3 (Figures 6(d) and 6(f)) were in the northern, middle, and southern part of the study area

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere 9

10 10
~3.08
22∘ 50′
b

y-data
0 a
20 20
~–3.08

~–3.57 0 ~3.57
x-data

30 30
22∘ 40′

n = 483 n = 483
0 0
40 40

Y, km

Y, km

S2
1 50

50 50
22∘ 30′

S3
2
100

N 60 3 60

S1
150

0 8 16 Lineaments Lineament
22∘ 20′

km 70 length, km 70 strike, degrees

91∘ 40′ 91∘ 50′ 30 40 50 30 40 50
X, km X, km
(a) (b) (c)

~2.71
22∘ 40′

b
y-data

15 0 15
a
~–2.71
20 ~–3.53 0 ~3.53
20
x-data n = 345
25 0 25 0
n = 345
S2

30 1 30 40
Y, km
Y, km
22∘ 30′

35 2 35 80
S3

40 3 40
120
N 45 45
4
S1

160
0 5 10
km 50 50
Lineaments Lineament
length, km strike, degrees
55 55
92∘ 05′ 92∘ 10′ 92∘ 15′ 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
X, km X, km
(d) (e) (f)

Figure 5: Lineaments extraction and analysis using remote sensing technique in the study area. (a and d) The Shaded Relief map of the
Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines using Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) images for lineaments extraction. The location is
marked by the rectangular box on the inset CTFB figure. (b and e) The length-orientation map of the primary fracture system was
obtained using remote sensing techniques from the Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines, respectively. Note: a and b are long and short axis,
respectively. The inset figures in (b) and (e) are the results of the anisotropy of fractal dimension analysis by AMOCADO of the
Sitakund and Sitapahar fractures, respectively. (c and f) Fracture/lineament strike orientation map of the Sitakund and Sitapahar
anticlines, respectively (prepared using FracPaq). Three distinct fracture/lineament sets (S1-S3) orientations are marked in the color bar.
Note: n: number of extracted lineaments.

along AA ′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ traverse, respectively. In these pro- Here, the cross-section lines of the formation layers and fault
file sections, the lines are drawn perpendicular to the general planes are primarily oriented perpendicular to the principal
trend of the fault planes along the ENE-WSW direction. direction of shortening. Apparent dips of each layer and

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 10 Lithosphere

0∘ 0∘

S2
S2

10%
𝛼 𝛼 5%
1%
S3
1% S3
5%
10%
20%

n = 483 n = 345

S1 S1
180∘ 180∘

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fracture/lineament strike, degrees Fracture/lineament strike, degrees
(a) (b)

Kapti Lake

S2
Ka

:V
Fig (e) ert
rna

ica
l (N
phu

Fig. d, f Shale NE
)
li
Riv

10 km
er

NNW SSE
(c) (d)

S1: S70W/86 S3: Vertical

S0 S0

Shale

Shale

NNW SSE E W
(e) (f)

Figure 6: Rose diagram of the fold-related fracture/lineament trends of the study area. (a) Rose diagram of the fracture/lineaments trends of
the Sitakund Anticline (based on the fractures shown in Figure 5(b)). (b) Rose diagram of the fracture/lineament trends of the Sitapahar
Anticline (based on the fractures shown in Figure 5(e)). S1, S2, and S3 mark three distinct fracture/lineament sets (their mean
orientation marked with the blue lines). Note: n: number of analyzed fracture/lineament. (c) Panchromatic satellite image taken from the
Google Earth Pro showing the Sitapahar Anticline (structure marked with dotted white line). White rectangle represents the location of
the measured lineaments. (d) White arrow on the field photograph marked the S2 lineament (joint). The student in the photograph is
1.75 m height. (e) Smooth fracture surface represents S1 lineament oriented approximately parallel to the fold axis. The student in the
photograph is 1.70 m height. (f) Approximately EW oriented S3 lineament (joint). Bedding plane is marked by the dashed white line
(S0), and axial cleavage is marked by the dotted white line. The student in the photograph is 1.77 m height.

fault planes were calculated from the field data and projected are used, and the surface data is projected downward using
along with strikes on the balanced cross-section. To under- the kink methods [60, 61]. Basal detachment fault is identi-
stand the subsurface structure, available seismic sections fied from the different seismic sections [42]. To construct

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere 11

(a) (b)
S0 S0
Fault

Sandstone

Shale
S0

S0 Shale
Sandstone ENE WSW Shale
Shale

WSW Sangu River ENE

S0
(c) CL
Fault
Sangu River WSW
ENE

(f) S0
S0
S0 S0
Fault

CL
Shale Cleavage
Shale
S0 E W
(d)
S0

S0 Shale
S0

S0
Fault

Fault

1m
N20 ∘W S20 ∘E ENE WSW

(e)

S0

Fault

Shale
N60 ∘E/2 ∘ N6
6∘
0 E/4
6∘

S0
3∘
/4
W
6∘
S6

Kaptai Lake
NE

Figure 7: Kinematics of the exposed faults in different anticlinal structures of the CTFB (all locations are marked in Figure 2). (a) Near
vertical thrust plane cross-cut the sandstone (Tipam Formation) and thinly bedded shale unit with calcareous sandstone band (Boka Bil
Formation) in the downstream part of the Sangu River section (east flank of the Bandarban structure). The inset figure in the upper
right corner is the zooming of the rectangular area in (a). The layer parallel broken calcareous sandstone fragment is marked by the
white outline. The length of the hammer in the picture is 0.20 m. Note: In all photos; the thrust plane is marked with the solid pink line;
the bedding plane (S0) is marked with the solid white line; half-arrow indicates the hanging-wall movement direction; and the
stereogram shows poles to the bedding (black), fault (pink), and cleavage (green) planes. (b) West verging and east-dipping antithetic
back thrust in the upstream part of the Sangu River (Bandarban structure). The length of the hammer in the picture is 0.20 m. (c) West
verging and east-dipping thrust-shear zone in the Debchara section (west flank of the Sitapahar Structure). The cleavage plane (CL) is
marked with the white dotted line. The length of the hammer in the picture is 0.20 m. (d) West verging and east-dipping thrust in the
Sahasradhara area of the Labanakhya Chara section (west flank of the Sitakund Structure). The in-sequence thrust plane cross-cuts the
thinly bedded shale unit with a calcareous sandstone band (Boka Bil Formation). (e) Meso-scale fault propagating kink fold in a thinly
bedded shale at the tip of the east verging and west-dipping thrust in the Kaptai Lake section near Shuvolong Bazar Army camp (east
flank of the Gobamura Structure). The green cap student is 1.83 m tall. (f) Small-scale ~northwest verging and ~southeast dipping thrust
in the west flank of the Dakhin Nhila Structure, just east of the marine drive. The in-sequence thrust with dextral strike-slip component
cross-cuts the thinly bedded shale unit (Boka Bil Formation). The inset figure in the upper right corner is the zooming of the rectangular
area in (f). The length of the hammer in the picture is 0.27 m.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 12 Lithosphere

N65∘E WFTZ EHCFTZ

A Sitakund A'
anticline Changotaung Gobamura Kasalong Shishuk
Semutang anticline anticline anticline anticline
CCF
anticline
0
2.5
5.0
7.5
km 0 20 40 60 80 90 km

(a)

WFTZ EHCFTZ
Sakudaung N60∘E Dakhin Nhila
B
N70∘E
Bandarban Anticline C’
anticline B’ C
anticline
Jadi Matamuhari
anticline 0
anticline
0 2.5
2.5 5.0
5.0
7.5
7.5 km 0 5
km 0 20 40 60 km (c)

Lower Middle Bhuban and

Tipam Sandstone
Pre-Miocene Sediments
Dupi Tila Sandstone and
Upper Bhuban Quaternary Holocene Deposits

Boka Bill

(b)

20
A A’
y = 0.146x + 2.76
R2 = 0.98
15
Shortening (km)

10 Shishuk
Kasalong
Sitakund Gobamura
Changotaung
5
Semutang
y = –0.0135x + 3.43
R2 = 0.27
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Horizontal distance (km)
Individual shortening
Cumulative shortening
(d)

Figure 8: Deformed state geological cross-section of the CTFB, Bangladesh (i.e., the outer edge of the Indo-Burman Ranges). (a, b, and c)
Balanced section along the profile line AA ′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ shown in Figure 2. Note: Decollement has been marked with thick pink line and
the depth of the decollement adopted from Bürgi et al. [42]. (d) Individual and cumulative shortening of the CTFB anticlines along the
section AA ′ .

the cross-section, it is assumed that there was no transport of
material; hence, the volume was maintained during the
deformation as the domain suffered major tectonic deforma-
tion after the deposition of Tipam Formation.
3.5. Fault-Slip Analysis/Paleostress Analysis. All fault-slip
data (orientations of fault planes and slip vectors) recorded
during the field works in the four different structures
(Bandarban, Sitapahar, Gobamura, and Dakhin Nhila) were
used for paleostress determination (Figure 9). Common
kinematic indicators such as Riedel shears, shear bands,
and bedding offset (generally well preserved ∼0.1–1 m of dis-
placement between fault blocks) were used to decipher the
sense of slip.
Following Angelier [62], a total of 46 fault data are col-
lected from the study area and classified as an oblique-slip

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere 13

Schmidt Lower Schmidt Lower

R. Dihedron N Weight Mode 2 R. Dihedron N Weight Mode 2
n/nt: 20/22 n/nt: 8/11

σ1: 08/095 𝜎1: 07/256

σ2: 07/186 𝜎2: 04/347
σ3: 79/317 𝜎3: 82/103
R: 0.88 CD: 20.3 R: 0.5 CD: 22.2
QRw: D QRt: D QRw: D QRt: D
Counting deviation Counting deviation
60 60

30 30

0 0
0 Sum of Weights 51 0 Sum of Weights 11

(a) (b)

Schmidt Lower Schmidt Lower

R. Dihedron N R. Dihedron N Weight Mode 2
Weight Mode 2
n/nt: 4/4 n/nt: 11/11

𝜎1: 01/239 𝜎1: 05/249

𝜎2: 04/329 𝜎2: 13/340
𝜎3: 86/140 𝜎3: 76/137
R: 0.5 CD: 6.7 R: 0.64 CD: 19.3
QRw: E QRt: E QRw: C QRt: C
Counting deviation Counting deviation
60 60

30 30

0 0
0 Sum of Weights 13 0 Sum of Weights 21

(c) (d)

Figure 9: Results of paleostress analysis using the right dihedron method. (a, b, c, and d) Results of paleostress analysis of faults recorded
from Bandarban, Dakhin Nhila, Gobamura, and Sitapahar, respectively. Blue and green arrows are for maximum (σ1) and minimum (σ3)
principal compression, respectively. The histograms give the counting deviation. Note: n and nt are the numbers of data accepted for tensor
calculation and the total number of data, respectively. Stress ratio, R = ðσ2 − σ3 Þ/ðσ1 − σ3 Þ. QRw and QRt give a quality ranking index of
the data.

thrust fault. There are several methods suggested for paleos-
tress investigation using fault-slip data (e.g., [62–79]). The
paleostress analysis using fault-slip data can be done using
kinematic or dynamic methods based on the following
assumptions [67, 77, 80]: (1) The bulk state of stress is
assumed to be constant, and any displacement on the fault
planes are independent; (2) the slip on the fault plane ensues
the direction of resolved shear stress maximum under a cer-
tain state of stress condition (Wallace–Bott Hypothesis); and
(3) the faults are believed to be homogeneous and formed by
the same tectonic event [62, 67, 77, 81]. We resolved the
paleostress condition in this study, using fault-slip data col-
lected from the studied region by Right Dihedron methods.
Although some of the fault planes show a wide range of
strike orientations, most of them are oriented along the
NNW-SSE (maxima) or NNE-SSW (submaxima). The col-
lected fault data sets are arranged into homogeneous data
subsets using the software program “Win_Tensor” (version
5.8.6; [82, 83]). This process eliminates all probable hetero-
geneities from the initial data. All the data are presented in
a single data set, and the initial separation has been com-
pleted using the Right Dihedron method. Further, the data
is filtered based on stress ratio (R), stress axes orientation,
and symmetry of the measured sets. Following Delvaux
and Sperner [83], the best possible data are recognized with
a low value of “counting deviation” and “nominal counting”
values of 0 and 100 for σ1 and σ3, respectively. The detailed
result of paleostress analysis is presented in Section 4.5.
4. Results
4.1. Bedding Geometry Analysis. Bedding attitude measure-
ments (n = 1356 data points) of 15 anticlines show almost
consistent NNW strike with variable dip amounts

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 14 Lithosphere

Table 3: Geometric fold data from the fifteen anticlines of the CTFB area. Note: IA = fold interlimb angle; APD = fold axial plane dip;
APDD = axial plane dip direction.

Interlimb angle Average IA Axial plane dip, α (°); Average APD Shear strain,
CTFB fold zones Fold name
(°) (°) APDD (°) γ
Barkal 58.6 83.9; W 0.11
Belasari 96.6 75.8; W 0.25
Eastern highly compressed
Gobamura 91.6 96.82 83.5; W 83.70 0.11
fold-thrust zone
Kasalang 84.0 87.1; E 0.05
Utan Chatra 153.3 88.2; W 0.03
Bandarban 123.0 77.9; W 0.21
Changotaung 111.2 88.9; W 0.02
Dakhin
119.2 82.7; W 0.13
Nhila
Inani 161.0 86.6; W 0.06
Western fold-thrust zone Matamuhari 145.2 125.19 87.7; E 84.20 0.04
Patiya 147.6 87.0; E 0.05
Semutang 155.5 89.5; W 0.009
Sitapahar 100.4 87.6; E 0.04
Sitakund 75.4 67.6; E 0.41
Walayataung 113.4 86.5; E 0.06

(Figure 3). Only a few of these measurements are shown in
Figure 2 due to limited space. Table 3 summarizes the main
geometrical features of the fifteen anticlines from the two
zones of the CTFB area, and Figure 3 represents the density
contour of the poles to bedding with a cylindrical best fit line
axial plane and fold axis for each studied anticline of the
CTFB area. Figure 4(d) presents plots of fold interlimb angle
vs. axial plane dip. However, for the eastern highly com-
pressed zone, plunges vary from 0.9° to 5.3°, and for the
western fold-thrust zone, plunges vary from 0.3° to 8.5°.
The standard deviation of the trend and plunge of the fold
axis is 7.93° and 2.21°, respectively, (Figures 4(e) and 4(f)).
Out of fifteen anticlines (Figure 3), about a half (seven)
plunges to SSE, while another half (eight) plunges to
NNW.
The dip of the axial surface of the studied anticlines var-
ies from 68° to 89°. For the eastern highly compressed fold-
thrust zone, the dip of the axial plane varies from 76° to
88°, and for the western fold-thrust zone, the axial plane
dip varies from 68° to 89°. The standard deviation of the
axial plane dip is 6.00. Out of fifteen studied anticlines, six
of their axial planes dip to the east, whereas the remaining
axial planes dip to the west (Figure 3, Table 3). Interestingly,
the axial plane of most of the anticlines of the eastern highly
compressed zone is dipping to the west except one, whereas
in the western fold-thrust zone, both west and east-dipping
axial planes have been observed.
The interlimb angles of the analyzed folds show a dis-
tinct difference between the eastern highly compressed
fold-thrust zone and the western fold-thrust zone
(Figures 4(e) and 4(f)). Generally, the folds in the western
zone show a larger interlimb angle (average is 125°), whereas
folds in the eastern compressed zone have a smaller inter-
limb angle (average is 97°). However, one fold from each
zone (Utan Chatra, eastern zone; Sitakund, western zone)
shows different results (Table 3).
A combined analysis of the entire bedding attitude mea-
surements (n = 1356) of the CTFB area shows an axial plane
orientation (Figures 4(a)–4(b)) and strike trend (Figure 4
(c)). A weak linear relationship has been revealed based on
graphical analysis of the fold interlimb angle vs. an axial sur-
face dip of the same folds (Figure 4(d)), except for Barkal,
Kasalong, and Gobamura. Shear strain, γ, has been calcu-
lated for the fifteen studied folds of the CTFB area based
on the following equation: γ = ½tan ð90° − αÞ. Here, α is
the dip of the axial plane [84]; the result is reported in
Table 3 and shows a considerable variation of the shear
strain from 0.009 to 0.41 (Supplement 1, Figure S1). The
highest value (0.41) has been calculated for Sitakund
Anticline, whereas the lowest value is calculated for
Semutang Anticline, and interestingly, both are situated at
the western fold-thrust zone.
4.2. Fracture/lineament Pattern Analysis. Elongated folds
dominate the structural geology of the CTFB with minimum
aspect ratio (i.e., length of the hinge line divided by the
width of the fold) of more than 3 (Figure 2). Fold-related
fractures/lineaments have been analyzed from the two anti-
clines within the western fold-thrust zone and had a geomet-
rical relation to the fold elements. For both anticlines, three
distinct fracture/lineament sets (S1-S3) were identified.
These fracture/lineament sets can be attributed to syn-
folding and/or post-folding regimes. The chronological and
geometrical studies can reveal the relation between fractures
and the fold [85, 86]. The fold-related fractures are visual-
ized using the rose diagram (Figure 6).
Based on these diagrams and following the RHR, for
Sitakund anticline, S1 fractures include the NNW-SSE

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere
Table 4: The results of the AMOCADO analysis of the fracture system of Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines of the CTFB area.
Axial ratio or azimuthal
Name of the structure
anisotropy (a/b)
Sitakund 1.16
Sitapahar 1.27
fracture set with the mean direction of N155°±5, the S2 frac-
tures include NE-SW fracture set with the mean direction of
N45°±5 and S3 fractures with almost E-W orientation with
the mean direction of N95°±5 (Figures 5 and 6). For Sitapa-
har anticline, S1 fractures include the NNW-SSE fracture set
with the mean direction of N155°±5. The S2 fractures
include NE-SW fracture set with the mean direction of
N37°±5 and S3 fractures with almost E-W orientation with
the mean direction of N90°±5 (Figures 5 and 6). With
respect to the Sitakund and Sitapahar fold axial trace, these
fractures are divided into two major groups: (a) axial frac-
tures S1, which are parallel to the fold axial trace, and (b)
oblique fractures S2 and S3 with an angle of 120° and 65°,
respectively, relative to the fold axial trace (Figure 6). The
acute angle (α) of the two intersecting S2 and S3 fracture sets
is 50°±5.
The results of the AMOCADO analysis of the fracture
system are presented in Figure 5 and Table 4. The axial
ratios (i.e., a/b) of the fractal dimension anisotropy ellipse,
which represents anisotropy intensity for the fracture system
of the Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines are found to be 1.16
and 1.27, respectively. The azimuthal trends of the major
axis (a) for Sitakund and Sitapahar anticline fracture systems
are found to be 82° and 79°, respectively, which are approx-
imately orthogonal to their respective anticline trend
(Table 4).
4.3. Deformation Structures and Their Kinematics. Among
the two broad zones of the CTFB, brittle (fault, joint, and
cleavage) and brittle-ductile (boudins and shear bands)
deformations are dominant in the eastern highly compressed
fold-thrust zone compared to the western fold-thrust zone.
Only compressional/transpressional deformation has been
observed in the two deformation zones of the CTFB. The
observations from field and satellite images on different
scales suggest a fold parallel to subparallel thrust with dom-
inant NNW-SSE to NNE-SSW trend (Figure 7).
Both the east- and west-dipping thrusts at different
scales with highly variable dipping angles are omnipresent
in the study area (Figure 7). Observed displacement along
the fault plane ranges from a few cm to tens of m. Evidence
of synthetic (Figure 7(a)) antithetic (Figure 7(b)) thrusts,
thrust-shear zone (Figure 7(c)), fault propagating kink fold
(Figure 7(e)), and thrust fault with dextral shear (Figure 7
(f)) are present in both deformed zone of the CTFB, but
dominantly to the eastern zone. The age and relief of the
exposed Tertiary rocks increase towards the east, and the
oldest exposed formation in the study area is the Bhuban
Formation, mainly exposed at the eastern anticlines of the
CTFB. However, the exceptions are the Sitakund, Inani,
and Dakhin Nhila anticlines, whose western flanks are
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
15
Angle between north and
Coefficient of determination (R2)
the long axis (a)
82° 0.934
79° 0.890
underthrusted by the east-dipping and west verging CCF
(Figure 2).
4.4. Balanced Geological Cross-Section. The field data sets
that were used to generate the balanced cross sections are
presented on the map (Figure 2) and stereographic projec-
tions (Figure 3), accompanied by a description of field obser-
vations in Table 3 and a field photo showing the structural
relationship in Figure 7. Sections are drawn parallel to the
principal direction of shortening to estimate the shortening
of the Tertiary sediments. Three ENE-WSW oriented bal-
anced cross-sections from the northern (AA ′ ), middle
(BB ′ ), and southern part (CC ′ ) of the study area
(Figure 2) were constructed to examine the tectonic features
on the surface and the subsurface across the CTFB (Figure 8
and Figure S2 of Supplement 2). Sections are drawn parallel
to the principal direction of shortening to estimate the
shortening of the Tertiary sediments (Figure 8(d)). Here,
most of the anticlines are bounded by single thrust fault on
both sides except the Sitakund anticline (Figure 8(a)). The
western flank of the Sitakund anticline is affected by
imbricate thrust faults. Therefore, the Sitakund anticline is
more tightly folded than the other folds in the western
fold-thrust zone. All the anticlines show gentle to open
fold in the surface, and the interlimb angle decreases with
depth as well as towards the east. The shortening estimates
in the northern part of the study area along AA ′ are
~16 km for the 94 km section. In the central part along BB ′
section, the shortening is ~4.2 km for the 68 km section. In
the southern part along CC ′ section, the estimated
shortening is ~1.5 km for the 7.5 km section. The
percentages of shortening of the Tertiary sediments in AA ′ ,
BB ′ , and CC ′ sections are ~15%, ~6%, and ~16.7%,
respectively (Supplement 3, Figures S3 and S4).
4.5. Paleostress Analysis. The stress tensor obtained by pro-
cessing all fault data from CTFB gives a NE-SW to ENE-
WSW directed compression. In Figure 9, a relative position
of the principal stress axes and stress ratio (R) is provided
(also see Supplement 4, Tables S1 and S2). It may be noted
that the maximum principal stress axes in all locations are
found to be horizontal, while the minimum principal stress
axes are vertical, consistent with a compressive
environment. This suggests that all the faults recorded in
the study area result from thrust due to NE-SW to ENE-
WSW directed compression. The fault-slip analysis also
helps to analyze the tectonic stress regime, including any
variation in the stress regime. The stress regime is
determined with the help of the stress regime index (R ′ )
invoked in the program “Win_Tensor.” The R ′ is related
to R values depending on the relative orientations of the
 16
principal stress axes and includes a range of values. Delvaux
et al. [87] have quantified the R ′ values in detail for various
stress regimes. These stress regimes are generally recognized
as radial extension, pure extension, transtension, pure
strike-slip, transpression, pure compression, and radial
compression [72, 83]. The stress regimes for all faults have
been evaluated based on the R ′ value and the principal stress
orientations (see Supplement 4, Table S1). The stress regime
indicates that in all the locations, the faults lie within the
pure compressional domain.
5. Discussion
5.1. Spatial Variation of Anticlines in Chittagong Tripura
Fold Belt. The western Indo-Burman Ranges (i.e., CTFB)
has developed an exemplary linear NNW-SSE oriented dou-
bly plunging fold belt. These folds are arranged in a set of
alternating valley-forming synclines and ridge-forming anti-
clines [2, 88]. To the west, the surficial expressions of the
CTFB folds are limited chiefly along with the Chittagong
Coastal Fault (CCF).
The bedding attitude analysis (Figure 3) reveals that the
axial planes of the eastern highly compressed zone anticlines
are dipping primarily to the west whereas the axial planes in
the western fold-thrust zone dipping both east and west. The
larger interlimb angles were observed in the western zone
(average 125°) compared to that of the eastern compressed
zone (average 97°) except for Utan Chatra and Sitakund
anticlines (Table 3; Figure 3). A weak linear relationship
exists between fold interlimb angle and axial surface dip of
the same folds (Figure 4(d)), except for the Barkal, Kasalong,
and Gobamura, which are bent down below, possibly due to
proximity to the Kaladan Thrust. Although the calculated
shear strain (γ) of the CTFB area shows a small variation
(Table 3), anticlines in the eastern zone have a relatively
higher shear strain than the western zone. Based on the
interlimb angle and shear strain of the studied anticlines, it
is evident that the intensity of the folding in general
decreases towards the west: the direction of the fold belt
propagation (Figures 4(e) and 4(f)). The exceptional values
for the few anticlines in the western zone are possibly related
to the deformation caused by CCF. The CCF is a major
boundary thrust known as “Thrust Front” that separates
the “Emerging Fold Belt” to the west and CTFB to the east
[17, 20]. The western flank and part of the axial zone of a
few of the anticlines (e.g., Sitakund, Inani, and Dakhin
Nhila) are highly deformed and under thrusted by the CCF
and, therefore, show deviation from the general fold param-
eter results (Figure 8(a)). Overall, Hossain et al.’s [44] classi-
fication of CTFB into two broad zones seems to be
supported by the current study with few exceptions. In the
balance geological cross-section, it is also evident that there
is a sharp variation in the spacing of anticlines. At the west-
ern fold-thrust zone, spacing between anticlines is higher
than the eastern highly compressed zone, whereas the curva-
ture of the synclines is higher in the eastern highly com-
pressed zone.
Multicurved geometry of some of the CTFB fold ridges
(e.g., Sitapahar, Changotaung; Figure 2) are attributed to
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
Lithosphere
the westward migration of fold, multiphase deformation of
soft sedimentary rocks, and longitudinal thrust as well as
transverse faulting [2, 88]. In the western fold-thrust zone,
the curvature of the anticlines is higher than the synclines,
whereas in the eastern highly compressed zone, the curva-
ture of the synclines and the anticlines are more or less sim-
ilar (Figure 8). It indicates that the development of anticlines
in the western fold-thrust zone is more fault-controlled,
while the anticlines in the eastern highly compressed zone
are superposed in nature and result from buckling as well
as fault propagation. This is a typical structural style in
fold-and-thrust belts [89–92].
5.2. Competence of the Folded Rock Units and Folding
Mechanism. At low to very low metamorphic levels, Ramsay
[93] classifies the common rock units from the highest (with
value 1) to the lowest competence (with value 10). As the
exposed Tertiary rock units in the core of the CTFB
anticlines are at a very low metamorphic level, therefore,
Ramsay’s [93] classification can be applied. The folded rock
units in the CTFB area are mainly quartz sandstone (compe-
tence value 3), siltstone (competence value 7), and shale
(competence value 9). In the CTFB area, the presence of less
competent rock units (e.g., shale, mud, and silty shale) in the
form of separation surfaces and lateral changes in sedimen-
tary facies can cause the overall changes in fold wavelength,
amplitude, and style (Figure 3).
The mechanical properties of rock units involved in fold-
ing have profound effect on the fold geometry. If similar
sized-layers of incompetent and competent rock units are
forced to deform at a given rate, the differential stress will
less in the incompetent unit compared to the competent
unit. As the rock units in the study area are subjected to layer
parallel compressive stress, buckling should be dominant
mechanism. In fold-thrust belts, the compressive stress that
drives thrusting causes the rock units to buckle and thereby
shortening and thickening of the rock units. The buckling
can occur either through flexural shear/flow and/or flexural
slip depending on the competency of the rock units. Accord-
ing to Donath and Parker [94], the type of mechanism of
folding is related to the competence contrast and mean com-
petence of the rock units involved in folding. In the CTFB
area, the average competency of the rock units (Table 2) is
medium to high, and the competence contrast is also
medium to high as compared to Ramsay’s [93] classification.
Hence, by considering the Donath and Parker [94] kine-
matic model and Ramsay’s [93] competence classification,
the dominant mechanism of folding in the CTFB area is pos-
sibly a flexural shear with some influence of a flexural slip.
5.3. Development of Brittle Structures and Paleostress
Conditions. In a fold-thrust belt, two major fracture systems
are generally developed, which are fold-related and fault-
related fractures [55, 56, 95]. Fractures with different orien-
tations can be attributed to changes in the stress field during
folding [95]. Fold-related fractures may be axial, cross-axial,
and oblique fractures [55, 56]. In the CTFB area, a good
relation prevails between fold-related fractures and the fold
axes (Figure 6). The S1 fracture set (i.e., axial extensional
 Lithosphere
fracture) has the mean direction of N120°. Fold-related con-
jugate oblique fractures set S2 and S3 have the trend of
~NNE and ~E, respectively. The bisector azimuth of these
two conjugate fracture sets (i.e., S2 and S3) is almost perpen-
dicular to the mean trend of the axial fracture set [95, 96].
The geometric relation between these fracture sets and
axial plane suggests that the maximum shortening stress
(σ1) that formed the CTFB anticlines also formed the frac-
tures/lineaments simultaneously. Therefore, it can be argued
that the fracture sets S2 and S3 are the members of a conju-
gate shear system, where the horizontal shortening is per-
pendicular to the S1 fracture set. If so, then the σ1 (i.e.,
maximum principal stress) bisects the acute angle between
S2 and S3, while the σ3 (i.e., minimum principal stress)
bisects the obtuse angle between the fracture planes. How-
ever, the underlying assumption is that the fractures which
formed in homogenous materials under homogenous stress
field and in a single deformation event do not significantly
perturb the stress field in their neighborhood and their ori-
entation has not rotated significantly since their commence-
ment [55, 57, 58, 74, 97]. In this study, the S2 and S3
conjugate shear fractures in the CTFB area are probably
formed simultaneously under the same stress conditions.
As these fracture sets were formed as a conjugate pair, the
orientation of the bisector angle of the two sets (S2 and S3)
of the Sitakund (70°) and Sitapahar (63°) would show the
maximum principal compressive stress (σ1). The mean
shortening (σ1) direction measured from the fracture/linea-
ments of the two anticlines is 67°, which is in good agree-
ment with the shortening direction (65°) determined from
the axial plane orientation.
The directions of maximum anisotropy intensity of the
Sitakund and Sitapahar anticlines fracture systems are 82°
and 79°, respectively, which are approximately parallel to
the mean shortening direction maximum compressive stress
(σ1). This AMOCADO-based results of maximum fractal
anisotropy intensity direction (insets of Figures 5(b) and 5
(e)) reasonably fit with the regional compressional direction
of the CTFB (Figure 10).
The fault-slip data collected from the four different anti-
clines (i.e., Gobamura, Sitapahar, Bandarban, and Dakhin
Nhila) of the fold belt (Figure 2) are used to reveal the
paleostress direction which prevailed during deformation.
It may be noted that Gobamura is situated in the eastern
compressed zone, while Sitapahar, Bandarban, and Dakhin
Nhila are from the western fold-thrust zone of the CTFB.
The results reported in Section 4.5 reveal an NW-SE to
ENE-WSW directed maximum compression, which remains
consistent in all the four anticlines mentioned above. It is
envisaged that all the thrust faults are related to CTFB defor-
mation on account of NW-SE to ENE-WSW directed maxi-
mum compression, which is in good agreement with the
paleostress direction obtained from conjugate fracture set
as well as fractal anisotropy intensity direction.
Moreover, it is possible to determine the paleostress of a
folded area based on the axial plane orientation of the fold
[98]. The axial plane orientation of the mapped (Figure 2)
and analyzed anticlines (Figure 3) has been used to deter-
mine the paleostress of the CTFB. In general, the compres-
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
17
sional axis that creates the fold is equal to the maximum
principal stress axis (σ1). This compressive axis is aligned
perpendicular to the axial plane of the folds. The average
trend of the fold axial plane is ~155° (see Table S2;
Figure 10(d)), and therefore, the trend of the maximum
principal stress (σ1) is ~65°, which supports the result
obtained through other methods.
5.4. Deformation Kinematics vis-à-vis Regional Tectonics.
The mesoscale analysis of deformation structures performed
in this study is mainly based on the field kinematics of the
observed thrust faults (Figure 7 and Figure S5 of
Supplement 5) and their relation with the map patterns of
the anticlines (Figure 2). The presence of approximately
east and west verging thrust parallel to subparallel of the
NNW-SSE trending fold indicates the west-verging fault-
cored anticlines with ENE a subhorizontal shortening. In
general, bedding dip distributions, fault kinematics data,
and overall map patterns indicate that the subhorizontal
shortening axes are approximately perpendicular to the
axial trace of the CTFB (Figures 2 and 10). The faults
observed locally in both western and eastern zones of the
study area (Figure 2) are most likely related to ENE
subhorizontal shortening due to westward propagation as
the accretionary prism of the Indo-Burmese oblique
subduction zone [2, 49]. In general, the deformation
pattern shows more complexity in the eastern zone and
gradually becomes less intense towards the propagation
front of the western IBR, i.e., CTFB, and the observation is
consistent with previous studies [17, 20]. The fault-slip
analysis also helps analyze the tectonic stress regime and
the detailed account of the stress tensor orientation. The
tectonic stress regime of the four anticlines has been
determined (see Section 4.5), revealing the variation in
stress regime in the CTFB from the northern to the
southern part. The evaluation of the stress regime
(Supplement 4, Table S1) for the respective faults indicates
that most faults lie within the pure compressional domain.
The obtained stress regime also fits well with the regional
tectonics of the CTFB [1, 3, 99].
Three balanced geological cross-sections are drawn
along the mean compressive stress direction in the northern,
middle, and southern part of the study area (Figure 2), and
the estimated shortening percentage of the Tertiary sedi-
ments are ~16 km (15%), ~4.2 km (6%) and ~1.5 km
(16.7%), respectively. This variation may be due to the fold
morphology of the different sedimentary layers. The north-
ern AA ′ section covers part of the eastern highly com-
pressed zone where the folds are open to gentle and the
overall compression rate is high. The middle and the south-
ern part of the study area represent the western fold-thrust
zone where the folds are gentle and the percentage of short-
ening decreases. In the present study, the rate of shortening
is not measured because data on thermochronology and geo-
chronology is not available. Maurin and Rangin [18] esti-
mated a crustal shortening of 11 km in the IBR with a
5.5 mm/yr rate along a composite section. Betka et al. [17]
reported a westward propagation rate of ≥15 km/Myr. The
estimated shortening of the Tertiary sediments in the
 18 Lithosphere

92°E 93°E
(a)

23°N
(b)
𝜎

22°N
(c)

21°N

(d)
Anticline
𝜎
Syncline
Thrust
Fault
Stress Filed (World Stress Map)
Paleostress (Fault)
Paleostress (Fracture/Axial-Plane)

Figure 10: Kinematic model of the CTFB area. (a) Simplified tectonic map of the CTFB (after [20]). Maximum principal stress orientations
(i.e., σ1) are taken from the World Stress Map database released in 2016 [99]. White arrow: GPS-derived velocity field (in mm yr-1) of the
present-day active convergence of the Indian Plate to the Shan Block (from [3]). Major earthquakes with magnitude ≥4.5 are marked with
filled black circles (after [2]). Earthquake focal mechanism is plotted as focal spheres/beach ball diagrams (magenta color: [104]; blue color:
Global Centroid-Moment-Tensor, CMT Catalog). Paleostress orientations (fault) are based on Figure 9. (b and c) Paleostress based on the
acute angle of the conjugate lineament/fracture sets the orientation of Sitapahar and Sitakund anticlines, respectively. The pink line marks
the S2 and S3 acute bisector orientation, equivalent to the maximum compressive stress (σ1) direction. Note: n: number of analyzed fracture/
lineament. (d) Great circle and pole density contour of the fold axial plane orientation (based on Figure 3). Arrow marked the orientation of
the maximum compressive stress (σ1). Note: n: number of the analyzed fold axial plane.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf

by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
 Lithosphere
present study is quite similar to the previous works. The bal-
anced cross-sections of the present study suggest that the
CTFB is a thin-skinned fold-thrust belt that reflects an active
accretion of deeper Foredeep basin sediments of the Bengal
Basin above a ~5–5.5 km deep décollement. We suppose that
the décollement, which is at ~7–7.5 km depth in the eastern
part of CTFB [42], is laterally continuous and rises to ∼2 km
shallower in the western margin of the CTFB. Betka et al.
[17] also suggest that the décollement laterally continuous
to the west and rises to a shallower level.
Structural data and kinematic analyses of this study sug-
gest that the CTFB was developed due to an approximately
east-trending subhorizontal shortening that is normal to
the fold axial plane (Figures 2, 3, 9, and 10). Although
Maurin and Rangin [18] reported a dextral shear in the
western IBR, we found no such field evidence in the IBR
outer belt (i.e., CTFB). Our geologic mapping and paleos-
tress analysis (see Supplement 4, Table S2) in the CTFB
area revealed no evidence of significant transpression or
strike-slip faulting in the study area. The measured ENE
shortening orientations based on the fold axial plane,
fractures/lineaments (Figure 10), fracture anisotropy
(Figure 5), and paleostress analysis (Figure 9) is consistent
with the maximum horizontal stress orientations derived
from earthquake focal mechanism solutions and with the
absolute plate motion direction of the Indian Plate to
Eurasian Plate (Figure 10) in the CTFB area. Though only
one earthquake focal mechanism solution in the middle of
the area shows evidence of dextral strike-slip (see in
Figure 10), all other evidences suggest compression rather
than transpression is dominant in the study area. The
study conducted by Betka et al. [17] in the Tripura Fold
belt area and Wang et al. [19] in the Myanmar region also
found no evidence of dextral shear in the IBR outer belt.
Moreover, the characteristics of synthetic Fault Plane
Solution (FPS) from a recent dynamic model involving
India-Burma oblique motion are consistent with those
derived from our observations [6]. The synthetic source
mechanisms from the dynamic model reveal reverse
faulting in the CCF and Kaladan faults.
Our observations are also consistent with the shallow
seismic events, maximum principal stress orientations (i.e.,
σ1) extracted from the World Stress Map database [99],
and GPS-derived present-day stress field (Figure 10). The
apparent inconsistency between the oblique GPS vector
velocity motion of the Indian Plate in the Bengal Basin
(Figure 1) and the geologic shortening axes normal to the
structural trend of the CTFB (Figure 10) might result from
strain partitioning of dominantly pure shear regimes per-
pendicular to the frontal/outer IBR margin structures. The
structural analyses suggest a nearly complete strain parti-
tioning in the frontal part of the IBR (i.e., the CTFB). The
component of the plate motion which is normal to the fold
belt is absorbed by the CTFB, whereas the component paral-
lel to the fold belt is taken up along ~NS-striking major dex-
tral faults (i.e., Sagaing Fault, Churachandpur-Mao Fault,
and Kabaw) in the inner part of the IBR [5, 17, 100]. A sim-
ilar strain partitioning has also been reported at other obli-
que subduction zones where the axial traces of accretionary
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
19
wedge fold belt are usually trench parallel [101, 102]. There-
fore, we can rationally conclude that the CTFB absorbs nor-
mal component (with respect to the fold belt orientation) of
India-Burma oblique vector velocity motion and developed
as a nearly fully partitioned accretionary wedge. We
assumed that the partitioning between the outer belt of
the IBR (i.e., CTFB) and the inner belt occurred along
the Kaladan Fault (Figure 1).
6. Conclusions
Folds, fault-bounded anticlines, thrusts, and factures/linea-
ments are the major deformation structures of the outer belt
(i.e., CTFB) of the IBR. The development of the anticlines in
the western fold-thrust zone of the CTFB is more controlled
by buckling than the anticlines in the eastern highly com-
pressed fold-thrust zone, which are superposed in nature
and developed firstly due to buckling and later through fault
propagation mechanism.
The geometric relation between these fracture sets, axial
plane, and axial trace suggests that the maximum shortening
stress (σ1) direction measured from the fracture/lineament
of the two anticlines is 67°, which is in good agreement with
the shortening direction (65°) determined from the orienta-
tion of the fold axial plane. The stress tensors deduced from
fault-slip analysis of four anticlines show an NW-SE to ENE-
WSW directed maximum compression and remain consis-
tent for the analyzed anticlines of the area. It is envisaged
that all the thrusts of the CTFB are related to the NW-SE
to ENE-WSW directed maximum compression, which is in
good agreement with the other analyzed results in this study.
The geologic shortening percent of the Tertiary sedi-
ments are ~13.8%, ~8.4%, and ~10.2% for the northern,
middle, and southern parts, respectively, of the outer fold-
belt component. Kinematics analysis also suggests that the
CTFB is a thin-skinned fold-thrust belt that reflects active
accretion of the Foredeep basin sediments of the Bengal
Basin above a deep regional décollement. Geologic mapping
and kinematic analysis of the present study revealed no evi-
dence of significant transpression, which is consistent with
previously published studies and, therefore, suggest com-
plete strain partitioning.
The interpreted tectonic stress regime and resulted fold-
thrust system of the region will significantly improve the
understanding of deformation of any young and active oro-
genic fold-thrust belt. Finally, it is the first attempt to pro-
vide a detailed geological mapping of the CTFB along with
a comprehensive analysis of the exposed deformation struc-
tures and their stress regime. This study would help to fur-
ther develop the kinematic and dynamic model of the
outer IBR in terms of present-day collision of the eastern
and northeastern parts of the Indian Plate.
Data Availability
All analyzed data are accessible at https://osf.io/x6ye9/?
view_only=84091640f750442781e3f2ad8716727f.
 20
Additional Points
Key Points. (i) We present a complete structural map of the
Chittagong Tripura Fold Belt (CTFB) of the IBR outer belt
for the first time. (ii) The maximum compressive stress
(σ1) shows eastward shortening normal to the fold axial
plane, and the estimated shortening is ~10.8%. (iii) Due to
strain partitioning, the CTFB absorbs the component of
plate velocity motion that is normal to mean anticlinal trend.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The study is financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (41888101 and 41822204),
the Science and Technology Major Project of Xinjiang
Uygur Autonomous Region, China (2021A03001) and the
Jahangirnagar University Research Grants through the Fac-
ulty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. Md. Sakawat
Hossain was supported by the CAS PIFI Visiting Scientist
Fellowship (2019VCB0011) at the Institute of Geology and
Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. A special thanks
to the China-Pakistan Joint Research Center on Earth Sci-
ences for supporting the implementation of this study
(131551KYSB20200021).
Supplementary Materials
Figure S1: mean value and confidence interval of the shear
strain (α) of the WFTZ and EHCFTZ of the CTFB. Error
bars represent 95% confidence interval. Figure S2: semigeo-
logical profile along three sections (AA ′ , BB ′ , and CC ′ )
based on fieldwork in the CTFB area (concept is based on
the [105]). Note: Black lines with teeth are the thrust faults.
Figure S3: shortening % along section AA ′ . Here, the black
square represents cumulative shortening; the red square rep-
resents the shortening in kilometer, and the blue star repre-
sents the shortening percentage for individual anticline.
Figure S4: shortening % along section BB ′ . Here, the black
square represents cumulative shortening, the red square rep-
resents the shortening in kilometer, and the blue star repre-
sents the shortening percentage for individual anticline.
Figure S5: (a) approximately vertical thrust plane between
sandstone and shale in the eastern flank of the Bandarban
structure (Sangu River downstream). (b, c, and d) Evidence
of fault kinematics in the upstream part of the Sangu River
section (East flank of the Bandarban structure). (e and f)
Evidence of fault kinematics in the western flank of the Sita-
pahar structure. Note: The red broken line is the fault plane;
the half-arrow indicates the hanging-wall movement direc-
tion; the white dotted line is the striation on the fault plane;
and CSB is the calcareous sandstone band. Table S1: stress
regimes determined from fault-slip analysis (Right Dihe-
dron) of all faults. N: number of fault data accepted for stress
tensor determination at the lowest misfit angle (software
generated); nt: total number of fault data measured; σ1, σ2,
and σ3: orientations (plunge/azimuth) of the maximum,
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
Lithosphere
intermediate, and minimum principal stress axes; R = stress
ratio ðσ2 − σ3Þ/ðσ1 − σ3Þ; R ′ = stress regime index. Table
S2: axial plane trend of the anticline and paleostress orien-
tation (maximum principal stress, σ1). (Supplementary
Materials)
References
[1] V. K. Gahalaut, B. Kundu, S. S. Laishram et al., “Aseismic
plate boundary in the Indo-Burmese wedge, northwest Sunda
Arc,” Geology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 235–238, 2013.
[2] M. S. Hossain, M. S. H. Khan, K. R. Chowdhury, and
R. Abdullah, “Synthesis of the Tectonic and Structural Ele-
ments of the Bengal Basin and Its Surroundings,” in Tectonics
and Structural Geology: Indian Context, S. Mukherjee, Ed.,
pp. 135–218, Springer International Publishing AG, 2019.
[3] R. Mallick, E. O. Lindsey, L. Feng, J. Hubbard, P. Banerjee,
and E. M. Hill, “Active convergence of the India-Burma-
sunda plates revealed by a new continuous GPS network,”
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 124, no. 3,
pp. 3155–3171, 2019.
[4] M. S. Steckler, S. H. Akhter, and L. Seeber, “Collision of the
Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta with the Burma Arc,” Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, vol. 273, no. 3-4, pp. 367–378, 2008.
[5] M. S. Steckler, D. Mondal, S. H. Akhter et al., “Locked and
loading megathrust linked to active subduction beneath the
Indo-Burman ranges,” Nature Geoscience, vol. 9, no. 8,
pp. 615–618, 2016.
[6] I. Vorobieva, A. Gorshkov, and P. Mandal, “Modelling the
seismic potential of the Indo-Burman megathrust,” Scientific
Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, article 21200, 2021.
[7] H. Fossen, B. Tikoff, and C. Teyssier, “Strain modeling of
transpressional and transtensional deformation,” Norsk Geo-
logisk Tidsskrift, vol. 74, pp. 134–145, 1994.
[8] B. D. Goscombe, D. Gray, R. Armstrong, D. A. Foster, and
J. Vogl, “Event geochronology of the Pan-African Kaoko Belt,
Namibia,” Precambrian Research, vol. 140, no. 3-4, pp. 103.
e1–103.e41, 2005.
[9] M. S. Hossain, M. S. H. Khan, R. Abdullah, and S. Mukherjee,
“Late Cenozoic transpression at the plate boundary: kinemat-
ics of the eastern segment of the Dauki fault zone (Bangladesh)
and tectonic evolution of the petroliferous NE Bengal basin,”
Marine and Petroleum Geology, vol. 131, p. 105133, 2021.
[10] S. Lin, D. Jiang, and P. F. Williams, “Discussion on transpres-
sion and transtension zones,” Journal-Geological Society Lon-
don, vol. 135, pp. 1–14, 1999.
[11] D. J. Sanderson and W. R. D. Marchini, “Transpression,”
Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 449–458, 1984.
[12] T. K. Mondal, “Evolution of fabric in Chitradurga granite
(South India)-a study based on microstructure, anisotropy
of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) and vorticity analysis,” Tec-
tonophysics, vol. 723, pp. 149–161, 2018.
[13] I. Davison, T. Faull, J. Greenhalgh, E. O. Beirne, and I. Steel,
“Transpressional structures and hydrocarbon potential along
the Romanche fracture zone: a review,” in Transform Mar-
gins: Development, Controls and Petroleum Systems, M. Nem-
čok, S. Rybár, S. T. Sinha, S. A. Hermeston, and L.
Ledvényiová, Eds., vol. 431, pp. 235–248, Geological Society,
Special Publications, London, UK, 2015.
[14] M. Nemčok, S. Rybár, S. T. Sinha, S. A. Hermeston, and
L. Ledvényiová, “Transform margins: development, controls
 Lithosphere
and petroleum systems – an introduction,” London: Geologi-
cal Society, Special Publications, vol. 431, pp. 1–38, 2016.
[15] C. Benavente, S. Zerathe, L. Audin et al., “Active transpres-
sional tectonics in the Andean forearc of southern Peru quan-
tified by10Be surface exposure dating of an active fault scarp,”
Tectonics, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1662–1678, 2017.
[16] M. Meghraoui and S. Pondrelli, “Active faulting and trans-
pression tectonics along the plate boundary in North Africa,”
Annals of Geophysics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 955–967, 2012.
[17] P. M. Betka, L. Seeber, S. N. Thomson, M. S. Steckler,
R. Sincavage, and C. Zoramthara, “Slip-partitioning above a
shallow, weak décollement beneath the Indo-Burman accre-
tionary prism,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
vol. 503, pp. 17–28, 2018.
[18] T. Maurin and C. Rangin, “Structure and kinematics of the
Indo-Burmese Wedge: recent and fast growth of the outer
wedge,” Tectonics, vol. 28, no. 2, article TC2010, 2009.
[19] Y. Wang, K. Sieh, S. T. Tun, K.-Y. Lai, and T. Myint, “Active
tectonics and earthquake potential of the Myanmar region,”
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 119, no. 4,
pp. 3767–3822, 2014.
[20] M. S. Hossain, M. M. Rahman, and R. A. Khan, “Active seis-
mic structures, energy infrastructures, and earthquake disas-
ter response strategy - Bangladesh perspective,” International
Energy Journal, vol. 20, no. 3A, pp. 509–522, 2020.
[21] A. Boruah, S. Verma, A. Rasheed, G. S. Gairola, and A. Gogoi,
“Macro-seepage based potential new hydrocarbon prospects
in Assam-Arakan Basin, India,” Scientific Report, vol. 12, arti-
cle 2273, 2022.
[22] D. Das, T. K. Mondal, and M. S. Hossain, “Quantification of
quartz reefs and mafic dykes of Bundelkhand, Craton, Central
India: a study based on spatial and fractal analysis,” Journal of
the Geological Society of India, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 227–237, 2019.
[23] M. S. Hossain and J. H. Kruhl, “Fractal geometry-based quan-
tification of shock-induced rock fragmentation in and around
an impact crater,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 172,
no. 7, pp. 2009–2023, 2015.
[24] J. H. Kruhl, “Fractal-geometry techniques in the quantifica-
tion of complex rock structures: a special view on scaling
regimes, inhomogeneity and anisotropy,” Journal of Struc-
tural Geology, vol. 46, pp. 2–21, 2013.
[25] R. Pérez-López, C. Paredes, and A. Muñoz-Martín, “Rela-
tionship between the fractal dimension anisotropy of the spa-
tial faults distribution and the paleostress fields on a Variscan
granitic massif (Central Spain): the F-parameter,” Journal of
Structural Geology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 663–677, 2005.
[26] C. O. A. Filho and D. F. Rossetti, “Effectiveness of SRTM and
ALOS-PALSAR data for identifying morphostructural linea-
ments in northeastern Brazil,” International Journal of
Remote Sensing, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1058–1077, 2012.
[27] T. Ghosh, S. Hazra, and A. K. Das, “Potential of ALOS-2
PALSAR-2 Strip Map data for lithofacies identification and
geological lineament mapping in vegetated fold-thrust belt
of Nagaland, India,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 69,
no. 4, pp. 1840–1862, 2022.
[28] F. A. Donath, “Experimental study of shear failure in aniso-
tropic rocks,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 72,
no. 6, pp. 985–990, 1961.
[29] A. A. Griffith, “The phenomena of rupture and flow in
solids,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Lon-
don, A., vol. 221, pp. 163–198, 1921.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
21
[30] B. Shen, T. Siren, and M. Rinne, “Modelling fracture propa-
gation in anisotropic rock mass,” Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1067–1081, 2015.
[31] L. Zeng, J. Zhao, S. Zhu, W. Xiong, Y. He, and J. Chen,
“Impact of rock anisotropy on fracture development,” Prog-
ress in Natural Science, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1403–1408,
2008.
[32] F. Zengchao, Z. Yangsheng, and Z. Dong, “Investigating the
scale effects in strength of fractured rock mass,” Chaos, Soli-
tons & Fractals, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 2377–2386, 2009.
[33] D. C. P. Peacock and D. J. Sanderson, “Displacements, seg-
ment linkage and relay ramps in normal fault zones,” Journal
of Structural Geology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 721–733, 1991.
[34] R. Soliva and A. Benedicto, “A linkage criterion for seg-
mented normal faults,” Journal of Structural Geology,
vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 2251–2267, 2004.
[35] S. Bhowmick and T. Mondal, “Influence of fluid pressure
changes on the reactivation potential of pre-existing frac-
tures: a case study in the Archaean metavolcanics of the
Chitradurga region, India,” Geological Magazine, pp. 1–
15, 2021.
[36] D. Delvaux, F. Kervyn, A. Macheyeki, and E. Temu, “Geo-
dynamic significance of the TRM segment in the East African
Rift (W-Tanzania): active tectonics and paleostress in the
Ufipa plateau and Rukwa basin,” Journal of Structural Geol-
ogy, vol. 37, pp. 161–180, 2012.
[37] N. T. Dina, M. J. J. Rahman, M. S. Hossain, and A. S. M.
Sayem, “Provenance of the Neogene succession in the Ban-
darban structure, South-East Bengal Basin, Bangladesh:
insights from petrography and petrofacies,” Himalayan Geol-
ogy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 141–152, 2016.
[38] Y. Najman, M. Bickle, M. BouDagher-Fadel et al., “The
Paleogene record of Himalayan erosion: Bengal Basin, Ban-
gladesh,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 273,
no. 1-2, pp. 1–14, 2008.
[39] Y. Najman, R. Allen, E. A. F. Willett et al., “The record of
Himalayan erosion preserved in the sedimentary rocks of
the Hatia Trough of the Bengal Basin and the Chittagong Hill
tracts, Bangladesh,” Basin Research, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 499–
519, 2012.
[40] M. J. J. Rahman, W. Xiao, M. S. Hossain et al., “Geochemistry
and detrital zircon U-Pb dating of Pliocene-Pleistocene sand-
stones of the Chittagong Tripura Fold Belt (Bangladesh):
implications for provenance,” Gondwana Research, vol. 78,
pp. 278–290, 2020.
[41] L. Yang, W. Xiao, M. J. J. Rahman et al., “Indo-Burma passive
amalgamation along the Kaladan fault: insights from zircon
provenance in the Chittagong-Tripura Fold Belt (Bangla-
desh),” Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 132,
no. 9-10, pp. 1953–1968, 2020.
[42] P. Bürgi, J. Hubbard, S. H. Akhter, and D. E. Peterson,
“Geometry of the décollement below eastern Bangladesh
and implications for seismic hazard,” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, vol. 126, 2021.
[43] P. R. Cummins, “The potential for giant tsunamigenic earth-
quakes in the northern bay of Bengal,” Nature, vol. 449,
no. 7158, pp. 75–78, 2007.
[44] M. S. Hossain, W. Xiao, M. S. H. Khan, K. R. Chowdhury, and
S. Ao, “Geodynamic model and tectono-structural frame-
work of the Bengal Basin and its surroundings,” Journal of
Maps, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 445–458, 2020.
 22
[45] A. Das, S. Bose, S. Dasgupta, S. Roy, and B. Mukhopadhyay,
“Post-Oligocene evolution of Indo-Burma wedge: insights
from deformation structures of Tripura Mizoram fold belt,”
Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 154, article 104497, 2022.
[46] M. S. H. Khan, M. S. Hossain, and K. R. Chowdhury, “Geo-
morphic implications and active tectonics of the Sitapahar
anticline–CTFB, Bangladesh,” Bangladesh Geoscience Jour-
nal, vol. 23, pp. 1–24, 2017.
[47] M. K. Alam, A. K. M. S. Hasan, M. R. Khan, and J. W.
Whitney, “Geological map of Bangladesh,” in Scale
1:1,000,000, Geological Survey of Bangladesh, 1990.
[48] M. Alam, M. M. Alam, J. R. Curray, M. L. R. Chowdhury, and
M. R. Gani, “An overview of the sedimentary geology of the
Bengal Basin in relation to the regional tectonic framework
and basin-fill history,” Sedimentary Geology, vol. 155, no. 3-
4, pp. 179–208, 2003.
[49] Y. Najman, L. Bracciali, R. R. Parrish, E. Chisty, and
A. Copley, “Evolving strain partitioning in the Eastern Hima-
laya: the growth of the Shillong plateau,” Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, vol. 433, pp. 1–9, 2016.
[50] N. Cardozo and R. W. Allmendinger, “Spherical projections
with OSXStereonet,” Computers & Geosciences, vol. 51,
pp. 193–205, 2013.
[51] A. Gerik and J. H. Kruhl, “Towards automated pattern quan-
tification: time efficient assessment of anisotropy of 2D pat-
terns with AMOCADO,” Computers & Geosciences, vol. 35,
no. 6, pp. 1087–1097, 2009.
[52] S. Volland and J. H. Kruhl, “Anisotropy quantification: the
application of fractal geometry methods on tectonic fracture
patterns of a Hercynian fault zone in NW-Sardinia,” Journal
of Structural Geology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1499–1510, 2004.
[53] D. Healy, R. E. Rizzo, D. G. Cornwell et al., “FracPaQ: A
MATLAB™ toolbox for the quantification of fracture pat-
terns,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 95, pp. 1–16,
2017.
[54] N. Kianizadeh, B. Rahimi, G. R. Lashkaripour, and V. Fakoor,
“Kinematic and statistical analysis of fold related fractures in
the northeast of Kopet Dagh Folded Belt, Northeast Iran,”
Journal Geological Society of India, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 428–
441, 2021.
[55] K. Mobasher and H. A. Babaie, “Kinematic significance of
fold- and fault related fracture systems in the Zagros moun-
tains, southern Iran,” Tectonophysics, vol. 451, no. 1-4,
pp. 156–169, 2008.
[56] B. J. Stephenson, A. Koopman, H. Hillgartner et al., “Struc-
tural and stratigraphic controls on fold-related fracturing in
the Zagros Mountains, Iran: implications for reservoir devel-
opment,” Geological Society London Special Publication,
vol. 270, no. 1, pp. 1.2–121, 2007.
[57] D. D. Pollard and A. Aydin, “Progress in understanding
jointing over the past century,” Geological Society of America
Bulletin, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 1181–1204, 1988.
[58] D. W. Stearns and M. Friedman, “Reservoirs in fractured
rock: geological exploration methods,” AAP G Special Vol-
ume, vol. 16, pp. 82–100, 1972.
[59] T. Afrin, D. Hossain, and M. H. Imam, “Seismic characteriza-
tion of the Semutang gas field, Bengal Basin, Bangladesh,”
Journal Geological Society of India, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 547–
552, 2015.
[60] C. D. A. Dahlstorm, “Balanced cross sections,” Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 743–757, 1969.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
Lithosphere
[61] N. Woodward, S. E. Boyer, and J. Suppe, Balanced Geological
Cross-Sections: An Essential Technique in Geological Research
and Exploration, American Geophysical Union, Washington,
DC, USA, 1989.
[62] J. Angelier, “Fault slip analysis and palaeostress construc-
tion,” in Continental Deformation, P. L. Hancock, Ed.,
pp. 53–100, Pergamon Press, London, UK, 1994.
[63] J. Angelier, “Inversion of field data in fault tectonics to obtain
the regional stress – III. A new rapid direct inversion method
by analytical means,” Geophysical Journal International,
vol. 103, pp. 363–376, 1990.
[64] J. M. Dupin, W. Sassi, and J. Angelier, “Homogeneous stress
hypothesis and actual fault slip: a distinct element analysis,”
Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1033–1043,
1993.
[65] A. Etchecopar, G. Vasseus, and M. Daigniers, “An inverse
problem in microtectonics for the determination of stress
tensor from fault striation analysis,” Journal of Structural
Geology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 1981.
[66] N. Fry, “Striated faults: visual appreciation of their constraint
on possible paleostress tensors,” Journal of Structural Geol-
ogy, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 7–21, 1999.
[67] D. Gapais, P. R. Cobbold, O. Bourgeois, D. Rouby, and M. de
Urreiztieta, “Tectonic significance of fault–slip data,” Journal
of Structural Geology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 881–888, 2000.
[68] J.-A. Hansen, “Direct inversion of stress, strain or strain rate
including vorticity: a linear method of homogenous fault-slip
data inversion independent of adopted hypothesis,” Journal
of Structural Geology, vol. 51, pp. 3–13, 2013.
[69] R. J. Lisle, “Principal stress orientations from faults: an addi-
tional constraint,” Annales Tectonicae-International Journal
of Structural Geology and Tectonics, vol. 1, pp. 155–158, 1987.
[70] R. Marrett and R. W. Allmendinger, “Kinematic analysis of
fault–slip data,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 12, no. 8,
pp. 973–986, 1990.
[71] T. K. Mondal and S. S. Acharyya, “Fractured micro-granitoid
enclaves: a stress marker,” Journal of Structural Geology,
vol. 113, pp. 33–41, 2018.
[72] T. K. Mondal, S. Bhowmick, S. Das, and A. Patsa, “Paleostress
field reconstruction in the western Dharwar Craton, South
India: evidences from brittle faults and associated structures
of younger granites,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 135,
article 104040, 2020.
[73] T. K. Mondal and M. A. Mamtani, “Palaeostress analysis of
normal faults in granite implications for interpreting Riedel
shearing related to regional deformation,” Journal of the Geo-
logical Society, vol. 173, no. 1, pp. 216–227, 2016.
[74] J. G. Ramsay and R. J. Lisle, “The Techniques of Modern
Structural Geology,” in Applications of Continuum Mechanics
in Structural Geology, pp. 1–1061, Academic Press, London,
UK, 2000.
[75] P. Thakur, D. C. Srivastava, and P. K. Gupta, “The genetic
algorithm: a robust method for stress inversion,” Journal of
Structural Geology, vol. 94, pp. 227–239, 2017.
[76] M. D. Tranos, “TR method (TRM): a separation and stress
inversion method for heterogeneous fault-slip data driven
by Andersonian extensional and compressional stress
regimes,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 79, pp. 57–74,
2015.
[77] R. J. Twiss and J. R. Unruh, “Analysis of fault slip inversions:
do they constrain stress or strain rate?,” Journal of
 Lithosphere
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 103, no. B6,
pp. 12205–12222, 1998.
[78] A. Yamaji, “The multiple inverse methods: a new technique
to separate stresses from heterogeneous fault-slip data,” Jour-
nal of Structural Geology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 441–452, 2000.
[79] J. Žalohar and M. Vrabec, “Paleostress analysis of heteroge-
neous fault–slip data: the Gauss method,” Journal of Struc-
tural Geology, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1798–1810, 2007.
[80] G. T. Blenkinsop, “Kinematic and dynamic fault slip analyses:
implications from the surface rupture of the 1999 Chi-Chi,
Taiwan, earthquake,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 28,
no. 6, pp. 1040–1050, 2006.
[81] J. W. Gephart and D. W. Forsyth, “An improved method for
determining the regional stress tensor using earthquake focal
mechanism data: application to the San Fernando earthquake
sequence,” Journal Geophysical Research, vol. 89, no. B11,
pp. 9305–9320, 1984.
[82] D. Delvaux, “Win-tensor, an interactive computer program
for fracture analysis and crustal stress reconstruction,” in
EGU General Assembly, vol. 13, Geophysical Research
Abstract, Vienna, Austria, 2011.
[83] D. Delvaux and B. Sperner, “Stress tensor inversion from
fault kinematic indicators and focal mechanism data: the
TENSOR program,” in New Insights into Structural Interpre-
tation and Modelling, D. Nieuwland, Ed., vol. 212, pp. 75–
100, Geological Society, Special Publication, London, UK,
2003.
[84] D. J. Sanderson, “The transition from upright to recumbent
folding in the Variscan fold belt of Southwest England: a
model based on the kinematics of simple shear,” Journal of
Structural Geology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 171–180, 1979.
[85] H.-T. Chu, J. -C. Lee, F. Bergerat et al., “Fracture patterns and
their relations to mountain building in a fold-thrust belt: a
case study in NW Taiwan,” Bulletin de la Société Géologique
de France, vol. 184, no. 4-5, pp. 485–500, 2013.
[86] O. Lacombe, N. Bellahsen, and F. Mouthereau, “Fracture pat-
terns in the Zagros simply Folded Belt (Fars, Iran): con-
straints on early collisional tectonic history and role of
basement faults,” Geological Magazine, vol. 148, no. 5-6,
pp. 940–963, 2011.
[87] D. Delvaux, R. Moeys, G. Stapel et al., “Paleostress recon-
structions and geodynamics of the Baikal region, Central
Asia, part 2. Cenozoic rifting,” Cenozoic rifting. Tectonophy-
sics, vol. 282, no. 1-4, pp. 1–38, 1997.
[88] J. D. Das, A. K. Saraf, and Y. Shujat, “A remote sensing tech-
nique for identifying geometry and geomorphological fea-
tures of the Indo-Burman frontal fold belt,” International
Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 31, no. 16, pp. 4481–4503,
2010.
[89] D. Davis, J. Suppe, and F. A. Dahlen, “Mechanics of fold-and
thrust belts and accretionary wedges,” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, vol. 88, no. B2, pp. 1153–1172, 1983.
[90] W. J. Jamison, “Geometric analysis of fold development in
overthrust terranes,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 207–219, 1987.
[91] S. Mitra, “Effects of deformation mechanism on reservoir
potential in the central Appalachian,” American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, vol. 72, pp. 536–
554, 1988.
[92] A. Sikder and M. M. Alam, “2-D modelling of the anticlinal
structures and structural development of the eastern fold belt
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/lithosphere/article-pdf/doi/10.2113/2022/6058346/5587560/6058346.pdf
by The Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Prof. Songjian Ao
23
of the Bengal Basin, Bangladesh,” Sedimentary Geology,
vol. 155, no. 3-4, pp. 209–226, 2003.
[93] J. G. Ramsay, “Rock ductility and its influence on the devel-
opment of tectonic structures in mountain belts,” in Moun-
tain Building Processes, K. J. Hsu, Ed., pp. 111–127,
Academic Press, London, UK, 1982.
[94] F. A. Donath and R. B. Parker, “Folds and folding,” Geological
Society of America Bulletin, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 45–62, 1964.
[95] R. J. Twiss and E. M. Moores, “Structural Geology,” in Glaci-
ology, p. 531, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY,
USA, 1992.
[96] K. McClay, The mapping of geological structures, London
Handbook, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1987.
[97] N. Price, Fault and joint development in brittle and semi-
brittle rocks, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1966.
[98] H. A. Ardakani, F. Ghaemi, and B. Rahimi, “Geometric and
kinematic analysis of Dorbadam anticline, north of Quchan,
Iran,” Iranian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 10, pp. 121–
134, 2018.
[99] O. Heidbach, M. Rajabi, K. Reiter, and M. Ziegler, World
Stress Map 2016, vol. 1.1, GFZ Data Services, 2016.
[100] C. Nielsen, N. Chamot-Rooke, and C. Rangin, “From partial
to full strain partitioning along the Indo-Burmese hyper-
oblique subduction,” Marine Geology, vol. 209, no. 1-4,
pp. 303–327, 2004.
[101] K. E. Bradley, L. Feng, E. M. Hill, D. H. Natawidjaja, and
K. Sieh, “Implications of the diffuse deformation of the
Indian Ocean lithosphere for slip partitioning of oblique plate
convergence in Sumatra,” Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 572–591, 2017.
[102] R. McCaffrey, P. C. Zwick, Y. Bock et al., “Strain partitioning
during oblique plate convergence in northern Sumatra: geo-
detic and seismologic constraints and numerical modeling,”
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 105,
no. B12, pp. 28363–28376, 2000.
[103] Z. Huang, L. Wang, M. Xu, D. Zhao, N. Mi, and D. Yu, “P and
S wave tomography beneath the SE Tibetan Plateau: Evidence
for lithospheric delamination,” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Solid Earth, vol. 124, no. 10, pp. 292–308, 2019.
[104] A. Kumar, S. Mitra, and G. Suresh, “Seismotectonics of the
Eastern Himalayan and indo-burman plate boundary sys-
tems,” Tectonics, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2279–2295, 2015.
[105] B. Wang, L. Wu, W. Li et al., “A semi-automatic approach for
generating geological profiles by integrating multi-source
data,” Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 134, article 104190, 2021.