TS
Tectonics and Structural Geology

EGU Guest blogger

This guest post was contributed by a scientist, student or a professional in the Earth, planetary or space sciences. The EGU blogs welcome guest contributions, so if you've got a great idea for a post or fancy trying your hand at science communication, please contact the blog editor or the EGU Communications Officer Laura Roberts Artal to pitch your idea.

Folding and Fracturing of Rocks – 50 years of research since the seminal textbook of JG. Ramsay

Folding and Fracturing of Rocks – 50 years of research since the seminal textbook of JG. Ramsay

John G. Ramsay1 wrote his seminal textbook on the folding and fracturing of rocks in 1957, almost 20 years before I was born (and I don’t count myself as young!). So why did I co-convene a session at EGU in 2017 to celebrate the book? Because the book, in many ways, expresses the legacy that John has given to structural geology. He followed it with a series of books of the same ilk – Ramsay and Huber ‘The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology’, published in two volumes (1984 and 1987), was a main stay for me as an undergraduate and postgraduate and well actually now; although, it is often not to be found on my bookshelf, but on the desk of one of my graduate students. The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology, like the Folding and Fracturing of Rocks, is beautifully illustrated and describes geometrically and mathematically many of the now commonly used techniques in structural geology. So to me Ramsay, although I did not know him personally, was the name behind this interesting subject structural geology.

John Ramsay opening the session on his book “Folding and Fracturing of Rocks”

It was as a postgraduate student that I met John at a Tectonic Studies Group (TSG) meeting and had the pleasure of dancing with him after the conference dinner! Many years on I am now the Chair of TSG, one of several specialist groups affiliated to the Geological Society of London. John was instrumental in founding TSG in 1970 @TSG_since1970 , when he was working at Imperial College London. As the Chair of TSG I was approached by several people enquiring about plans to celebrate 50 years since the publication of the Folding and Fracturing of Rocks. Given John’s European career and global impact EGU seemed the place to celebrate and I contacted some of John’s PhD students and collaborators to join me in convening a session to celebrate the book, John and structural geology.

Early on the morning of April 25th John gave the opening paper for the session to a large audience. He spoke not to a series of power point slides but to the audience about the book, his interests and his life as a structural geologist. I think one of the key messages for me is the one that he ended his paper with; that fieldwork is fundamental to structural geology and models need to be derived from and tested against field observations. John was followed by a series of speakers from Rod Graham, of Ramsay and Graham (1970)2 on shear zones from the field to seismic interpretation, to Richard Lisle (co-author with John on the third volume in the Techniques of Modern Structural Geology series)3. Richard gave an overview of the citations for the Folding and Fracturing of Rocks; it is the most cited structural geology textbook. Further papers were given in the afternoon poster session, celebrating and giving modern, and old, twists on aspects of the book.

Afterwards at the reception

John joined many well-wishers at a reception and dinner after the session. John has given a legacy to structural geology, through his focus on the geometry and mathematics of structures backed up with detailed field observations, work that very much forms part of modern structural geology today.

The Folding and Fracturing of Rocks is currently published by Blackburn press.

 

Click here to go to the webpage of EGU Session TS1.3.

 

 

Blog by Clare Bond,

University of Aberdeen

Thanks to TecTask and TSG for sponsorship

 

1.John was born in 1931 in London, he was educated at Imperial College, London gaining a first class degree in 1952 and a PhD, working on superposed folds at Loch Monar Scotland. After military service he returned to the staff at Imperial, before taking up Professorial positions at the University of Leeds and the ETH in Zurich. He has been recognized for his work in advancing structural geology with many awards: Bigsby (1973) and Wollaston (1986) medals of the Geological Society of London, the Société Géologique de France Prestwich Medal in 1989, Sir Arthur Holmes Medal of the European Union of Geosciences (EGU) in 1984, C. T. Clough medal (1962) of the Geological Society of Scotland, the University of Liège medal in 1988. In 1992 he was named a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in the Queen’s Honours list. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society(elected 1973), and holds Honorary Fellowships of the Geological Society of America, the Société Géologique de France, the Indian National Science Academy, the American Geophysical Union, the US National Academy of Sciences and the Geological Society of London.

2.Ramsay, J.G. and Graham, R.H., 1970. Strain variation in shear belts. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences7(3), pp.786-813.

3.Ramsay, J.G. and Lisle, R.J., 2000. The techniques of modern structural geology. Volume 3: Applications of continuum mechanics in structural geology. Academic, San Diego, Calif.

 

Highlights at EGU 2017 from the division for Tectonics and Structural Geology

Susanne Buiter (outgoing TS president, Geological Survey of Norway) and Claudio Rosenberg (incoming TS president, UPMC France)

It is with great pleasure that we write this blog welcoming everyone to EGU’s upcoming General Assembly in Vienna, and especially to the many events organised by our division for Tectonics and Structural Geology! We are highlighting some of the week’s many events below, though it is in fact really difficult to choose highlights as of course the contribution of every individual to the success of the meeting is a highlight!

The TS programme can be found directly at these two links:

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/meetingprogramme/TS

http://egu2017.eu/EGU2017_schedule_TS.pdf

We would encourage you to download the meeting app (http://app.egu2017.eu) and/or make a personal programme (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/egu2017/personal_programme) in addition to taking the above pdf schedule along to Vienna.

In the list below we emphasized award lectures, PICO sessions, poster-only sessions, short courses that TS co-organises, and of course the opportunities where you can give us feedback, such as the division meeting and Meet EGU. But please don’t forget that we are running several scientific sessions in parallel throughout the day!

At the General Assembly and throughout the year, you can follow the division via our webpage (http://www.egu.eu/ts/home/), Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/TSdivision), twitter (https://twitter.com/EGU_TS) and the division mailing list (http://lists.egu.eu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ts).

Don’t forget to tweet about the General Assembly using #EGU17TS and #EGU17!

We wish you a great conference!

Susanne and Claudio

 

Monday 24 April

  • Start of the TS scientific programme at 08:30 with three sessions in parallel: TS1.4 “New geochronological approaches for quantification of geological processes”, 3 “Structures and patterns in fractured and porous media: witnesses for paleostress and fluid flow”, and TS7.4 “Probing the subduction plate interface”
  • Short course SC48 “Publishing in EGU journals: Solid Earth and Earth Surface Dynamics – Meet the Editors”, 13:30-15:00, room -2.91
  • PICO TS8.1 “Digital mapping and 3D visualization approaches in the Earth Sciences”, 15;30-17:00, PICO spot 5a
  • TS division Early Career Scientists event at Brandauers Bierbögen (Heiligenstädter Str 31), starting at 20:00

 

 

Tuesday 25 April

  • TS1.3 “Folding and Fracturing of Rocks – 50 years of research since the seminal text book of JG. Ramsay”, 08:30 – 10:00/D3 and 17:30-19:00/Hall X2
  • PICO TS8.3 “Analogue and numerical modelling of tectonic processes”, 10:30-12:00, PICO spot 5a
  • The Stephan Mueller medal lecture by Cees Passchier, “Panta Rhei – the changing face of rocks “, 16:00-17:00, room D3
  • Poster-only session TS1.1 “Open Session on Tectonics and Structural Geology”, 17:30 – 19:00, Hall X2

 

 

Wednesday 26 April

  • PICO TS1.2 “Teaching Structural Geology and Tectonics in the 21st century”, 08:30-10:00, PICO spot 1
  • The Arne Richter Award lecture by João Duarte “The Future of Earth’s Oceans: consequences of subduction invasion in the Atlantic”, 09:30-10:00, room D3
  • Short course SC9/TS10.1 “Virtual Polarizing Microscopy in Petrology and Microtectonics”, 10:30-12:00 room -2.16
  • Division meeting of Tectonics and Structural Geology: Your chance to provide us with feedback on the division and our programme. A light lunch will be provided. 12:15 – 13:15, room G1
  • PICO TS3.3 “Microstructure and texture analysis: New methods and interpretations”, 13:30-15:00, PICO spot 5b
  • Poster-only sessions:
    • TS8.4 “Learning from failed models and negative results”
    • TS9.2 “Oceanic and continental transform plate boundaries: nucleation, evolution and tectonic significance”

 

 

Thursday 27 April

  • PICO TS8.2 “Unravelling the Earth subsurface structure from seismic imaging and interpretation, geological observations, and numerical Experiments” 10:30-12:00, PICO spot A
  • Arthur Holmes medal lecture by Jean-Pierre Brun, “The extending lithosphere”, 12:15-13:15, room E1
  • Meet the EGU Division Presidents of Tectonics and Structural Geology (us!), 13:30-14:15, EGU Booth
  • Meet the incoming EGU Division President (Claudio) and the ECS Representatives of Tectonics and Structural Geology (Anne Pluymakers and João Duarte (both outgoing), and Anouk Beniest (incoming)), 14:15-15:00, EGU Booth

 

Friday 28 April

  • 17:30 – 19:00 Friday evening poster sessions! All are in Hall X2:
    • TS5.1 “Bridging Earthquakes and Tectonics: give-and-take”
    • TS5.4 “Advances in understanding earthquake processes and hazards in regions of slow lithospheric deformation”
    • TS6.1 “The evolution and architecture of rifts, rifted passive margins, and mid oceanic ridges: from mantle dynamics to surface processes”
    • TS7.5 “The Caledonian orogen of the North Atlantic region: understanding tectonic processes in collisional belts”
    • TS7.6 “Lithospheric and crustal dynamics of the Wilson Cycle: The Iberia case study”

 

(photos by Susanne Buiter)

Minds over Methods: Reconstruction of salt tectonic features

Minds over Methods: Reconstruction of salt tectonic features

What is the influence of salt tectonics on the evolution of sedimentary basins and how can we reconstruct such salt features? Michael Warsitzka, PhD student at the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, explains which complementary methods he uses to better understand salt structures and their relation to sedimentary basins. Enjoy!

 

Reconstruction of salt tectonic features from analogue models and geological cross-sections

Michael Warsitzka, PhD student, Institute of Geosciences, Friedrich Schiller University Jena

Salt tectonics, as a sub-discipline of structural geology, describe deformation structures developing due to the special deformation behaviour of salt (as synonym for a sequence of evaporitic rocks). Salt behaves like a viscous fluid over geological time scales and, therefore, it may flow due to lateral differences in thickness and density of the supra-salt layers. This influences the structural evolution of sedimentary basins, because salt flow can modify the amount of regional subsidence of the basin. Local sinks (“minibasins”) develop in regions from where salt is squeezed out and salt structure uplifts, e.g. diapirs or pillows evolve in regions of salt influx. Unfortunately, temporal changes of salt flow patterns are often difficult to reconstruct owing to enigmatic ductile deformation structures in salt layers. Understanding the evolution of salt-related structures requires either forward modelling techniques (e.g. physically scaled sandbox experiments) or restoration of sedimentary and tectonic structures of the supra-salt strata.

In my PhD thesis, I tried to integrate both, analogue modelling and restoration, to investigate salt structures and related minibasins developed in the realm of extensional basins. The sandbox model is a lab-scale, simplified representative of natural salt-bearing grabens, e.g. the Glückstadt Graben located in the North German Basin (Fig. 1). A viscous silicone putty and dry, granular sand were used to simulate ductile salt and brittle overburden sediments. Cross sections were cut through the model at the end of each experiment to conduct reconstruction of the final experimental structures. The material movements were monitored with a particle tracking velocimetry (PIV) technique at the sidewalls of the experimental box.

(text continues below figure)

Fig 1: 2D restoration of the supra-salt (post-Permian) strata in the Glückstadt Graben (Northern Germany)

Using experimental and geological cross sections, structures in the overburden of the ductile layer can be reconstructed, if present-day layer geometries and lithologies of the overburden strata can be identified. From natural clastic and carbonatic sediments we know that they compact with burial, reducing the layer thickness. Therefore, the reconstruction procedure sequentially removes the uppermost layer and layers beneath are decompacted and shifted upwards to a horizontal surface (Fig. 2). The sequence of decompaction and upward shifting is then repeated until the earliest, post-salt stage is reached (Fig. 1). It intends to restore the initial position, shape and thickness of each reconstructed layer.

In analogue experiments, no decompaction is necessary, because the compressibility of the granular material is insignificant for depths of a few centimetre. Restoration can be directly applied to coloured granular layers revealing detailed layer geometries for each experimental period (Fig. 2a). The PIV technique displays coeval material movement and strain patterns occurring during the subsidence of the experimental minibasins (Fig. 2b). Based on the observation that the experimental structures resemble those reconstructed from the natural example (Glückstadt Graben during the Early Triassic, Fig. 1), it can be inferred that strain patterns observed in the experiments took place in a similar manner during the early stage of extensional basins. This demonstrates the advantage of applying both methods. First, original geometries of basin structures can be determined from the restoration and then reproduced in the model. If the restored geometries are suitably validated by the models, the kinematics observed in the model can be translated back to nature and help to understand the effect of salt flow on the regional subsidence pattern.

Fig 2: Result of an analogue model showing (a) reconstructed sand layers restored from a central cross section, and (b) monitored displacement and strain patterns in the viscous layer above the left basal normal fault

Minds over Methods: Sensing Earth’s gravity from space

Minds over Methods: Sensing Earth’s gravity from space

How can we learn more about the Earth’s interior by going into space? This edition of Minds over Methods discusses using satellite data to study the Earth’s lithospere. Anita Thea Saraswati, PhD student at the University of Montpellier, explains how information on the gravity of the Earth is obtained by satellites and how she uses this information to get to know more about the lithosperic structure in subduction zones.

 

Sensing Earth’s gravity from space

Anita Thea Saraswati – PhD student, Géosciences Montpellier

From the basic physics we all know that the value of the gravity is a constant 9.81 meter per second squared. This assumption would be true if the Earth were a smooth nonrotating spherical symmetric body made of uniform element and material. However, because of the Earth’s rotation, internal lateral density variation, and the diversity of the topography (including mountains, valleys, oceans and glaciers), the gravity  varies all over the surface. These tiny changes in gravity due to the mass variations could be a crucial hint for understanding the structure of the Earth, both on the surface and at depth.

The determination of Earth’s gravity field has benefited from various gravity satellite missions that have been launched recently. Among them are the Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) (2000-2010), the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) (2002-recent), and most recently the Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) (2009-2013). From these missions, finally a global high quality coverage of Earth’s gravity field became available. (Yay!)

GRACE observation data are very useful for the temporal analysis of changes in gravity. For example to detect the gravity signal before and after a big earthquake, like the Sumatra Mw 9.1 (2004) and Tohoku Mw 9.1 (2011) ones. By analyzing the changes of gravity signal during a certain period of time, it could also be used to detect the drought over a large scale area, which is used in several areas in Africa and Australia.

(text continues below figure)

Design of GOCE satellite observation. A geoid’s shape is showed on the bottom left. On the top right, the GOCE gravity gradients in six components. (Source : ESA)

 

Meanwhile, GOCE is very suitable for the construction of a static model of Earth’s gravity field. Since this satellite has a very low orbit, ~250 km above mean sea level, it has a better spatial resolution. Its accuracy is also better than the previous missions, up to 1 mGal. GOCE is equipped with a gradiometer, which measures the gravity acceleration in three directions (x, y, and z). Afterwards this information is processed into a gravity-gradient dataset containing six components (XX, XY, XZ, YY, YZ, ZZ).

This gravity gradient is the first derivative of the gravity acceleration, which provides us better information about the geometry of the earth’s structure than the gravity acceleration itself. For my PhD, I use this gravity gradient dataset to analyze the lithospheric structure of subduction zones. Before treating the GOCE observation data, I am developing a computational code to calculate the gravity and gravity gradient due to the effect of topography, also called the topographic reduction. The observed gravity and gravity gradient values will be reduced by this topography effect in order to get the anomaly signal. This means that only the signal due to other geodynamic phenomena over the observed area (e.g. slab, isostasy, mantle plum, etc.) is left. By doing further processing, we can obtain the lateral variations of the lithospheric structure in the study areas and then investigate the correlation with the occurrence of mega-earthquakes in these subduction zones.

Since there is still some ambiguity about the information that is produced by gravity data only, it is better to combine the use of them with others geophysical or geological measurements, e.g. seismic tomography measurements and magnetic field observations.

 

Global coverage of GOCE gravity gradient (in milliEötvös) in radial direction (ZZ) (Panet, I. et al., 2014)

 

Reference:

Panet, I., Pajot-Métivier, G., Greff-Lefftz, M., Métivier, L., Diament, M. and Mandea, M., 2014. Mapping the mass distribution of Earth/’s mantle using satellite-derived gravity gradients. Nature Geoscience7(2), pp.131-135.

Minds over Methods: studying dike propagation in the lab

Minds over Methods: studying dike propagation in the lab

Have you ever thought of using gelatin in the lab to simulate the brittle-elastic properties of the Earth’s crust? Stefano Urbani, PhD student at the university Roma Tre (Italy), uses it for his analogue experiments, in which he studies the controlling factors on dike propagation in the Earth’s crust. Although we share this topic with our sister division ‘Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Petrology & Volcanology (GMPV)’, we invited Stefano to contribute this post to ‘Minds over Methods’, in order to show you one of the many possibilities of analogue modelling. Enjoy!

 

dscn0024Using analogue models and field observations to study the controlling factors for dike propagation

Stefano Urbani, PhD student at Roma Tre University

The most efficient mechanism of magma transport in the cold lithosphere is flow through fractures in the elastic-brittle host rock. These fractures, or dikes, are commonly addressed as “sheet-like” intrusions as their thickness-length aspect ratio is in the range of 10-2 and 10-4 (fig.3).

Understanding their propagation and emplacement mechanisms is crucial to define how magma is transferred and erupted. Recent rifting events in Dabbahu (Afar, 2005-2010) and Bardarbunga (Iceland, 2014, fig.1) involved lateral dike propagation for tens of kilometers. This is not uncommon: eruptive vents can form far away from the magma chamber and can affect densely populated areas. Lateral dike propagation has also been observed in central volcanoes, like during the Etna 2001 eruption. Despite the fact that eruptive activity was mostly fed by a vertical dike to the summit of the volcano, several dikes propagated laterally from the central conduit and fed secondary eruptive fissures on the southern flank of the volcanic edifice (fig.2). Lateral propagation can hence occur at both local (i.e. central volcanoes) and regional (i.e. rift systems) scale, suggesting a common mechanism behind it.

fig-3mario-cipollini

Fig. 2 Lava flow near a provincial road, a few meters from hotels and souvenir shops, during the 2001 lateral eruption at Etna. Credit: Mario Cipollini

Therefore, it is of primary importance to evaluate the conditions that control dike propagation and/or arrest to try to better evaluate, and eventually reduce, the dike-induced volcanic risk. Our knowledge of magmatic systems is usually limited to surface observations, thus models are useful tools to better understand geological processes that cannot be observed directly. In particular, analogue modelling allows simulating natural processes using scaled materials that reproduce the rheological behavior (i.e ductile or brittle) of crust and mantle. In structural geology and tectonics analogue modelling is often used to understand the nature and mechanism of geological processes in a reasonable spatial and temporal scale.

d_grad_dike57_080Field evidence and theoretical models indicate that the direction of dike propagation is controlled by many factors including magma buoyancy and topographic loads. The relative weight of these factors in affecting vertical and lateral propagation of dikes is still unclear and poorly understood. My PhD project focuses on investigating the controlling factors on dike propagation by establishing a hierarchy among them and discriminating the conditions favoring vertical or lateral propagation of magma through dikes. I am applying my results to selected natural cases, like Bardarbunga (Iceland) and Etna (Italy). To achieve this goal, I performed analogue experiments on dike intrusion by injecting dyed water in a plexiglass box filled with pig-skin gelatin. The dyed water and the gelatin act as analogues for the magma and the crust, respectively. Pig-skin gelatin has been commonly used in the past to simulate the brittle crust, since at the high strain rates due to dike emplacement it shows brittle-elastic properties representative of the Earth’s crust. We record all the experiments with several cameras positioned at different angles, taking pictures every 10 seconds. This allows us to make a 3D reconstruction of the dike propagation during the experiment.

In order to have a complete understanding of the dike intrusion process it is essential to compare the laboratory results with natural examples. Hence, we went to the field and studied dikes outcropping in extinct and eroded volcanic areas, with the aim of reconstructing the magma flow direction (Fig. 3). This allows validating and interpreting correctly the observations made during the laboratory simulations of the natural process that we are investigating.

fig-1

Fig. 3 Outcrop of dikes intruding lava flows. Berufjordur eastern Iceland.

 

Publishing in Solid Earth: interview with Anna Rogowitz

Publishing in Solid Earth: interview with Anna Rogowitz

Following our previous blog about the EGU journal Solid Earth, we now would like to share some experiences of open access publishing in this journal with you. Therefore, we interviewed Anna Rogowitz, who recently published in Solid Earth, about her experiences. 

 

annaAbout Anna:

Anna is an Assistant Professor in the Structural Processes Group at the Department of Geodynamics and Sedimentology (University of Vienna, Austria) since December 2015. She finished her MSc degree in geology in the beginning of 2011 at the Institute of Geology, Mineralogy and Geophysics (Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany). Anna then carried on to a PhD in the field of structural geology with focus on strain rate dependent calcite deformation (Department of Geodynamics and Sedimentology, University of Vienna); using field observations in combination with detailed microfabric analyses to study strain localization processes in the lithosphere, with special focus on the ductile regime. Anna is also presently part of our TS ECS team.

 

1. You recently published a very interesting paper in Solid Earth. In three or four sentences, what is it about?

Thanks! The study was part of my PhD thesis in which I analysed the isotopic and mechanical impact of strain localization in a calcite marble at varying strain rates. The manuscript is dealing with the simultaneous activation of grain boundary sliding (GBS) and dislocation motion as a powerful strain softening mechanism in calcite. We analysed a pretty highly strained calcite marble and observed grain size reduction by bulging recrystallization, resulting in an almost strain-free ultramylonite that got subsequently deformed by dislocation activity, with clear evidence for GBS. The combination of these two mechanisms has been recently discussed more often for experimentally deformed rocks (Wang et al., 2010; Hansen et al., 2011). For us it was a bit surprising, as the deformation occurred at high differential stresses, relatively low temperatures and strain rates of nearly 10-9 s-1. At these conditions, brittle deformation could be anticipated rather than ductile behaviour.

 

2. Why did you choose Solid Earth?

One of the Editors, Luca Menegon (Plymouth University) was a visiting professor at our department while I was working on the study. We discussed our findings and he suggested that I submit the work to Solid Earth, as they were working on a Special Issue on ‘Deformation mechanisms and ductile strain localization in the lithosphere’ at that point. The topic of the Special Issue fit perfect to our results, so it was pretty easy to decide for Solid Earth.

 

3. Did the fact that it is an open access journal contribute to your decision?

Definitely! I like the idea of research being accessible for everybody who is interested.
I know some colleagues that have access to only a very limited number of journals. Of course there is always the possibility to write an e-mail to the author and ask for a copy of a specific manuscript but I also know that especially young researchers might be too shy or afraid to do so. Another reason for choosing an open access journal was that part of my study was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and open access publications are mandatory.

 

4. EGU journals have a very transparent peer-review process in which reviews and author replies are posted online. How did you experience this?

I think the idea of an open review process, where people interested in a specific topic can discuss a manuscript is great. Honestly, I would have liked more people to join the discussion on our publication. I think it helps to improve the quality of a manuscript and could also help to connect people. Maybe even result in more interdisciplinary studies.

 

5. As an early career researcher, what are the most important things you look for when choosing a journal to submit a paper to?

I always go with some suggestions to my co-authors and discuss with them what would be the best choice for our manuscript. One of the most important factors for me is if it is a journal that I read regularly and preferably has open access. As an early career researcher but not that young/early anymore I have to admit that the impact factor starts to play a more important role. And of course the publication costs. I prefer to spend my funding on research and analyses than the journal I publish in.

 

6. Do you have suggestions for improvements concerning the submission, review and publication process in Solid Earth?

I thought that it was a bit time consuming that the submitted manuscript got edited as a discussion paper before it went into the review process. Also the fact that we had to pay for the preparation of the discussion paper even though it might have possibly been rejected was something I disliked. But from what I understood, these two things have been changed already. Another thing is that I would like the entire review process to be public. Of course the discussion and review process has to stop at some point but I think it would be nice if this is not before the final decision by the editor has been made. I would like that further exchanges by editor and authors could also be followed and commented on by the community.

 

7. Do you have recommendations for authors who are considering publishing in Solid Earth?

Hah! Beside ‘Go for it’… No, I really think that Solid Earth is a great journal that covers a broad field of Earth sciences. The fact that it is open access and affordable (even for early career scientists that may not have a lot of funding) is a big plus. And different to some other journals, the review process is pretty fast, which nowadays is a very important factor. Personally, I would definitely consider to submit another publication to Solid Earth. Probably, I would try to motivate a few more people to comment on the manuscript during the peer-review process. Some people have started to announce their discussion papers in the Geo-Tectonics forum, which is a very smart idea.

 

Paper’s reference:

Rogowitz, A., White, J.C., and Grasemann, B., 2016. Strain localization in ultramylonitic marbles by simultaneous activation of dislocation motion and grain boundary sliding (Syros, Greece). Solid Earth 7, 355-366, Doi:10.5194/se-7-355-2016

 

This blog was established as a group effort of the T&S team.

Minds over Methods: Experimental earthquakes

Minds over Methods: Experimental earthquakes

After our first edition of Minds over Methods, which was about Numerical Modelling, we now move to Rock Experiments! How can rock experiments be used to study processes within the Earth? We invited Giacomo Pozzi, PhD student at Durham University, to explain us how he uses rock experiments to study fault behaviour during earthquakes.

 

13072693_10207863372934990_7705005482414752149_oExperimental earthquakes to understand the weak behaviour of faults.

Giacomo Pozzi, PhD student at Durham University

As seismic slip along faults accommodates large deformations in the upper crust, the intriguing absence of significant heat flow anomalies (which are expected to be produced by intense energy dissipation during slip) along major geological bodies like the S. Andreas fault pushed the researchers to start conceiving a new, dynamic theory of friction, which eventually led to the concept of low frictional strength of faults during propagation of earthquakes.

rotary_apparatus

Fig 1. the Rotary apparatus

In the past two decades, the development of machines capable of shearing natural materials made it possible to achieve direct, experimental evidences of how friction in rocks (and gouges, when pulverised) drops from Byerlee’s values (μ=0.6-0.8) towards zero when approaching seismic velocities (>10 cm/s) and this independently of the rock composition.

However, even though a common bulk behaviour is witnessed, the weakening mechanisms that operate at the microscale are strongly dependent on the mineralogy and, despite a large amount of literature focused on this research, they are still poorly understood as their physic is an evergreen matter of debate.

My Ph.D. focuses on a weakening mechanism that has been recently proposed to occur in carbonate faults: viscous flow by grain boundary sliding, a diffusion creep dominated process particularly efficient in fine grained aggregates. In order to verify and characterise this hypothesis we try to reproduce coseismic shear conditions in pure calcite (CaCO3) gouges with a Low to High Velocity Rotary (LHVR) apparatus (Figure 1). This machine allows to simulate arbitrary amounts of slip in a thin volume of gouge, our experimental fault core, which is squeezed between two hollow cylinders. A piston located in the lower part of the apparatus lifts the lower cylinder producing an axial load (up to 25MPa) perpendicular to the plane of slip while the top cylinder spins at angular velocities up to 1500rpm (1.4 m/s tangential velocity at the reference radius).

rotary_lrDuring the experiments we record different mechanical parameters that can be processed to obtain: displacement, velocity, axial stress, shear stress, axial displacement and, with an opportune equation, the estimated temperature in the shear zone. The ratio between shear stress and axial stress gives the friction coefficient that produces a classic weakening profile when plotted against the displacement as in the graph of figure 2, where are evident two main stages: pre-weakening (μ>0.6) and weakening stage (μ<0.3).

At the end of each experiment we carefully remove the sheared sample in order to make microstructural analysis. We describe the architecture of the shear zone mainly by acquiring electron backscattered (EBS) images (figure 3) on polished sections of the samples using a scanning electron microscope. We are also planning to use cathodoluminescence and EBS diffraction to study in detail the distribution of strain, temperature and hidden geometries.

By coupling the mechanical data and the microstructural analysis of experiments stopped at different amounts of slip we are able to reconstruct the evolution of the shear zone, including the transition between a pre-weakening brittle behaviour to the steady state weakening stage where ductile-plastic processes are dominant. Understanding how the internal architecture of the shear zone changes with time and measuring its geometrical features is of paramount importance to achieve a quantitative description of the processes, which can lead to new physical laws.

With our experiments we are trying to link a qualitative description of complex natural processes and quantitative simulations based on the current physical knowledge. As a matter of fact, the obtained microstructures can be compared to natural equivalents while mechanical data and inferred laws can be implemented in numerical models.

weakening_profile

Fig 2. Weakening profile

sem_image

Fig 3. SEM BSE image of a cross section of the slip zone

Solid Earth journal: the possibilities of open access publishing

Solid Earth journal: the possibilities of open access publishing
fabrizio-storti

Fabrizio Storti

The third blog for TS is an invited guest blog by Fabrizio Storti, the chief executive editor of the EGU journal Solid Earth. Solid Earth publishes open access manuscripts on the composition, structure, and dynamics of the Earth from the surface to the deep interior. It is the journal for our community and we encourage everyone to see if they can contribute a manuscript and/or participate in the open review process. This blog is also posted by other divisions working on solid earth themes.

 

Open access publishing in Solid Earth

graphic_se_cover_homepage

The importance of publishing open access is increasing every year in Scientific Institutions worldwide and is becoming mandatory in several research funding
programmes. Many funding institutions, including ERC, are financially supporting publishing in open access journals. EGU and Copernicus launched open access publishing in 2001, well before other publishers, and this means that we have accumulated a lot of experience with making articles available open access. But not only our journals are open access, we also have a fully open, interactive review system.

Without entering into details, which are available in the EGU portal (http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/), the major diagnostic features are the following:

–       As soon as a manuscript is submitted, it undergoes a preliminary assessment by the relevant Executive Editor and, if found suitable for possible publication, a Topical Editor is assigned to immediately start the review process. At this stage the manuscript receives a DOI and can be cited as published in the Discussion version of the journal (the non-peer review journal).

–       The review process is open, so reviewers upload their reports in the public domain, as well as authors do with their rebuttal letters. Everybody can download manuscripts under review and upload comments, which will help authors improve their manuscripts.

Solid Earth (SE: http://www.solid-earth.net/) is the EGU open access journal in the broad area of Earth system sciences: http://www.solid-earth.net/about/aims_and_scope.html. The journal is organized into six topical clusters (http://www.solid-earth.net/), each one handled by an Executive Editor. Different types of manuscripts can be submitted: http://www.solid-earth.net/about/manuscript_types.html, including special issues, pending approval of proposals by Executive Editors.

EGU is a bottom-up union that relies on the fundamental contributions by members to organize events, first of all the Annual General Assembly.

The same approach has allowed several EGU journals to become leaders in their fields. Solid Earth is still young and, as such, it has a great potential of growing up to get established as one of the best journals in Earth system sciences. With your contribution, the journal impact factor, higher than 2.0, can significantly increase and start a virtuous loop to attract more and more good papers.

Please take few minutes of your time to browse the journal homepage (http://www.solid-earth.net/), sign in to get alerts and enjoy published papers, and think about submitting a manuscript. We are all volunteers in EGU and by supporting the self-managed, non-profit Solid Earth journal, all together we can make it one of the reference journals in Earth system sciences.

Looking forward to handle your manuscripts!

Best regards,

SE Editorial Team.

Minds over Methods: Numerical modelling

Minds over Methods: Numerical modelling

Minds over Methods is the second category of our T&S blog and is created to give you some more insights in the various research methods used in tectonics and structural geology. As a numerical modeller you might wonder sometimes how analogue modellers scale their models to nature, or maybe you would like to know more about how people use the Earth’s magnetic field to study tectonic processes. For each blog we invite an early career scientist to share the advantages and challenges of their method with us. In this way we are able to learn about methods we are not familiar with, which topics you can study using these various methods and maybe even get inspired to use a multi-disciplinary approach! This first edition of Minds over Methods deals with Numerical Modelling and is written by Anouk Beniest, PhD-student at IFP Energies Nouvelles (Paris).

 

Approaching the non-measurable

Anouk Beniest, PhD-student at IFP Energies Nouvelles, Paris

‘So, what is it that you’re investigating?’ It’s a question every scientist receives from time to time. In geosciences, the art of answering this question is to explain the rather abstract projects in normal words to the interested layman. Try this for example: “A long time ago, the South American and African Plate were stuck together, forming a massive continent, called Pangea, for many millions of years. Due to all sorts of forces, the two plates started to break apart and became separated. During this separation hot material from deep down in the earth rose to the surface increasing the temperature of the margins of the two continents. How exactly did this temperature change over time, since the separation until present-day? How did this change affect the basins along continental margins?”

These are legitimate questions and not easy to answer, since we cannot measure temperature at great depth or back in time. In this first post on numerical methods, we will be balancing between geology and geophysics, highlighting the possibilities and limits of numerical modelling.

The migration of ‘temperature’ through the lithosphere is a process that takes time and depends heavily on the scale you look at. Surface processes that affect the surface temperature can be measured and monitored, yielding interesting results on the present-day state and variations of the temperature. The influence of mantle convection cycles and radiogenic heat production are already more difficult to identify, take much more time to evolve and might not even affect the surface processes that much. Going back in time to identify a past thermal state of the earth seems almost impossible. This is where numerical models can be of use, to improve, for example, our understanding on the long-term behaviour of ‘temperature’.

Temperature is a parameter that affects and is affected by a variety of processes. When enough physical principles are combined in a numerical model, we can simulate how the temperature has evolved over time. All kinds of different parameters need to be identified and, most importantly, they need to make sense and apply to the observation or process you try to reproduce. Some of these parameters can be identified in the lab, like the density or conductivity of different rock types. Others need to be extracted from physical or geological observations or even estimated.

Once the parameters have been set, the model will calculate the thermal evolution. It is not an easy task to decide if a simulation approaches the ‘real’ history and if we can answer the questions posed above. We should always realise that thermal model results at best approach the real world. We can learn about the different ways temperature changes over time, but we should always be on the hunt to find measurements and observations that confirm what we have learned from the simulations.

temperature_quick

 

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: