sgr ms thesis - University of Maine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A 1000 CSD Type 3 compared to Type 2 Type 2 Bar Harbor clasts D = 3.2 count: 5538 R² = 0.9865 Type 3 diorite clasts D = 2.63 count: 5391 R² = 0.9891 100 Type 3 Bar Non-fractal Harbor clasts count: 284 R² = 0.9915 Cumulate frequency/m^2 10 1 cumulate frequency/m^2 1000 100 10 1 B D sf = 1.66 R 2 = 0.9867 Diabase clasts (count=5391) Bar Harbor clasts (count=284) D sf = 4.06 R 2 = 0.9492 D = 2.63 R² = 0.9891 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 10 radius (cm) 0.1 1 10 Clast radius r (cm) Figure 6.11. Clast size distribution data for Type 3 Shatter Zone. A) Type 3 data are split by rock type: Bar Harbor Formation (red) and diorite (blue) size distributions are compared to Type 2 distributions. Type 3 Bar Harbor formation best fits an exponential (i.e., nonfractal) trend. B) An alternative bifractal interpretation for Type 3 Bar Harbor Formation size distribution trend. 81
diorite dike with D s = 2.62 and R 2 = 0.9865 for the clast size range of 0.41- 11.82cm. The Bar Harbor CSD can be best defined in two ways: a bi-fractal distribution with a breakpoint at 1.6cm and D s equal to 1.66 above and 4.06 below, or a non-fractal, exponential curve. The bifractal R 2 values are 0.9867 above and .9492 below the 1.6cm breakpoint. The R 2 value for the exponential curve distribution is 0.9915. There are a total of 5675 outlined clasts from seven outcrops, less than 20% of which are Bar Harbor Formation clasts. Diorite size ranges are 0.1-11.8cm and Bar Harbor Formation size ranges are 0.1-4.24cm. Type 3 has 75% average matrix component by area. 6.3.2. Clast Boundary Shape (CBS) Data A total of 433 clasts from Type 1, 2, and 3 Shatter Zone, with an additional outcrop (named 2.5) located between types 2 and 3 (44.35714, -68.18371), were used for CBS (Figure 6.12). The CBS dataset comes from Hawkins and Johnson (2004). Values of D r vary only slightly with most values approaching 1 (1.04- 1.12). Type 1 Shatter Zone has the highest average D r value of 1.125 but with a relatively high standard deviation of 0.062 from 123 clasts. Type 2 has an average D r of 1.052 with a standard deviation of 0.037 from 79 clasts, and Type 2.5 has an average D r of 1.047 with a standard deviation of 0.035 from 66 clasts. Type 3 has an average D r of 1.040 with a standard deviation of 0.019 from 56 clasts. 82
Page 1 and 2:
FRACTAL ANALYSIS AND THERMAL-ELASTI
Page 3 and 4:
LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT In present
Page 5 and 6:
emplacement of mafic magma, resulti
Page 7 and 8:
© 2011 Samuel Geoffrey Roy All Rig
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Page 11 and 12:
5.3.5. Clast Circularity Analysis .
Page 13 and 14:
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Figure
Page 15 and 16:
LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1. Table 7.1
Page 17 and 18:
subvolcanic magmatic systems, the l
Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1. Reg
Page 21 and 22:
Somesville granite suite to the wes
Page 23 and 24:
Biotite is metamorphic in origin, a
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF S
Page 27 and 28:
thinned lithosphere allows for part
Page 29 and 30:
A B C Figure 3.1. Formation of a la
Page 31 and 32:
1997; Branney and Kokelaar, 1998; J
Page 33 and 34:
Effusive-Type Eruption max 10 0 - 1
Page 35 and 36:
magma quickly intrudes the develope
Page 37 and 38:
Piston Downsag Piecemeal Funnel Tra
Page 39 and 40:
fragmentation, and thermal energy h
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 4 THERMAL FRAMEWORK FOR CON
Page 43 and 44:
contrast, conduction is heat transf
Page 45 and 46: A B Grt C Grt D Crd Crd E 1 mm F Cr
Page 47 and 48: ! ! ! ! Biotite Zone Garnet Zone !
Page 49 and 50: 4.3.1. Model Setup The model is use
Page 51 and 52: to make a “hockey puck” style g
Page 53 and 54: t = 0s t = 1E11 t = 1E12s t = 1E13s
Page 55 and 56: 850 750 650 550 450 400m Into Chamb
Page 57 and 58: approximately 140m thinner. The Sha
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 5 ROCK MECHANICS AND THE FR
Page 61 and 62: A β δ σ 1 σ 3 σ t c a σ 1 σ
Page 63 and 64: friction along the closed crack sur
Page 65 and 66: h h/2 h/4 Figure 5.2. A cube displa
Page 67 and 68: where N (≥r) is the count of clas
Page 69 and 70: to place a minimum size limit when
Page 71 and 72: moment of sudden fracture tip failu
Page 73 and 74: produced results in a self-similar
Page 75 and 76: 13 ln(area) (pixels) 12 11 10 9 ln(
Page 77 and 78: eaction processes were involved in
Page 79 and 80: Chapter 6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The
Page 81 and 82: Type 1 Type 2 500 m N Type 1 Type 2
Page 83 and 84: A B Figure 6.3. Type 2 Shatter Zone
Page 85 and 86: A B Figure 6.5. Centimeter-scale bo
Page 87 and 88: A B Figure 6.6. Brecciation texture
Page 89 and 90: The final breccia classified in thi
Page 91 and 92: esolution images of each box were s
Page 93 and 94: Clast circularity data were produce
Page 95: A 1000 Clast Size Distribu on: Type
Page 99 and 100: 6.3.3. Clast Circularity Analysis (
Page 101 and 102: with decreasing clast size in all T
Page 103 and 104: possibilities as postulated previou
Page 105 and 106: Chapter 7 MECHANISMS FOR SECONDARY
Page 107 and 108: magma. To prove the viability of th
Page 109 and 110: mesh to better evaluate large therm
Page 111 and 112: consistent with Type 3 breccias. Th
Page 113 and 114: A temperature versus time plot was
Page 115 and 116: Dimensionless time 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Page 117 and 118: Figure 7.4 displays model results f
Page 119 and 120: thermal model ignores advection of
Page 121 and 122: Zone experienced a relatively weake
Page 123 and 124: 7.4. Thermal-Induced Fracture Field
Page 125 and 126: Metapelite/hornfels Diorite dike E
Page 127 and 128: 7.4.2. Results and Discussion COMSO
Page 129 and 130: This thermal fracture model explain
Page 131 and 132: disaggregation of Bar Harbor clasts
Page 133 and 134: REFERENCES Acocella, V. (2007). Und
Page 135 and 136: Billen, M.I. and Gurnis, M. (2001).
Page 137 and 138: Clarke, D. B. (2007). Assimilation
Page 139 and 140: Fisher, R.V. (1960). Classification
Page 141 and 142: Hartmann, W.K. (1969). Terrestrial,
Page 143 and 144: Johnson, S.E.; Paterson, S.R.; Tate
Page 145 and 146: Mandelbrot, B.B. (1967). How long i
Page 147 and 148:
Oliver, N.H.S.; Rubenach, M.J.; Fu,
Page 149 and 150:
Schoutens, J.E. (1979). Empirical A
Page 151 and 152:
Wiebe, R.; Holden, J.; Coombs, M.;
show all

sgr ms thesis - University of Maine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?