Visualize and interpret the geometry, heterogeneity and lateral ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

lateral change in channel body thickness, since the GPS suggests that the section was logged abit further north, where the channel body starts to thin out (Figure 4.8B).Figure 4.11: This figure illustrates the log done at Russevika south in 1995 by GeirElvebakk, Leif Bjørnar Henriksen and Per Emil Eliassen, and two photos of key areas inthe log. (A) An illustration of the log. (B) A close up photo of Channel body 4. (C) Aclose up photo of the lower part of the log, where one can clearly see marine influenceindicating shallow marine environment.46
The log shows that the channel body consists of fine to medium grained sand with throughcross-stratification forming large beds and no indication of tidal influence. Hence it resemblesChannel body 1, both in size and in dominating sedimentological structures. As mentioned byKlausen and Mørk (submitted), the difference is that there are no signs of lateral accretionsurfaces on Channel body 4, as oppose to Channel body 1. This can be caused by this outcropbeing a lot more fractured due to its elevation and distance to the sea, or it is reflecting adifferent migration direction relative to the outcrop direction than what is found on Channelbody 1. Either way this channel body is assumed to be a trunk channel by Klausen and Mørk(submitted) for the same reasons as explained in subsection 4.1.1: Channel body 1.As described above it is possible to see this channel body on both sides of the island. Theoutcrop on the western side of the mountain is situated NW of the logged section on theeastern side of the island. This fits well with the palaeocurrent measurements done by Klausenand Mørk (submitted).Another interesting feature is found by looking at the lateral continuation of thisstratigraphical interval. By examining Figure 4.9 one can see that even though the channelpinches out there is still a sandstone unit continuing towards the north, possibly representingcrevasse splays and levee complexes with a direct link to the channel body. This theory issupported by Klausen and Mørk (submitted).The difficulties with pinpointing the location of the pinch outs can be due to crevasse splaysand levee complexes with a direct link to the channel body. The reason for that is thatcrevasse splays can comprise depositional elements such as channel bars and channel-fillwhich are hard to distinguish from the main channel on the floodplain. Crevasse splays canalso be difficult to distinguish from levee deposits. (Bridge, 2006), making it difficult to stateif this sandstone interval consists of either crevasse splays or levee complexes, or perhaps acombination.It is also important to recognize that the lower portion of the log (Figure 4.11A and 4.11C)indicates that this stratigraphical interval experienced marine influence, partly interpreted onthe base of abundant hummocky cross-stratification dominating the sediments. Hummockycross- stratification is typically found in connection with storm influenced deposits in ashallow marine environment (Reading and Collinson, 2006).47
Page 1:
Visualize and interpret the geometr
Page 5 and 6: SammendragEn digital 3D-modell av H
Page 7: 4.2.3 Channel body 8 (SW of Lyngefj
Page 10 and 11: Secondly, I wish to thank my co-sup
Page 12 and 13: 1.3 Regional geological settingThe
Page 14 and 15: The Triassic of Svalbard consists o
Page 16 and 17: Geerdalen Formation is overlain by
Page 18 and 19: 1.5 Previous work at HopenThe Swedi
Page 21 and 22: 2. MethodsThe work of this thesis i
Page 23 and 24: 2.2 PhotoModeler-modelThe program P
Page 25 and 26: 2.3 Sources of errorThere are no kn
Page 27 and 28: 3. Lateral distribution of possible
Page 29 and 30: Figure 3.2: This photo and drawing
Page 31 and 32: 3.2 Lateral distribution of Slottet
Page 33 and 34: Hopen member and the top of the mou
Page 35 and 36: 4. Channel bodiesIn this chapter ob
Page 37 and 38: 4.1.1 Channel body 1 (Northern chan
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4.2: Photos and illustration
Page 41 and 42: 4.1.2 Channel body 2 (Binnedalen)Ch
Page 43 and 44: Figure 4.4: This figure illustrates
Page 45 and 46: (1) DiscussionFacies occurring in t
Page 51 and 52: 4.1.4 Channel Body 4 (Johan Hjortfj
Page 53: Figure 4.10: Photos and illustratio
Page 57 and 58: 4.2.1 Channel body 5 (SW of Nørste
Page 59 and 60: (1) DiscussionOne of the interestin
Page 61 and 62: Another explanation of the apparent
Page 63 and 64: Figure 4.14: This figure illustrate
Page 65 and 66: 4.2.4 Channel body 9 (Blåfjellet,
Page 67 and 68: Figure 4.16: Illustrates Channel bo
Page 69 and 70: The outcrop orientations and/or a n
Page 71 and 72: Unfortunately the stratigraphic int
Page 73 and 74: Figure 4.22: An illustration of the
Page 75 and 76: 2006). Flaser bedding is characteri
Page 77 and 78: elow the stratigraphical level of C
Page 79 and 80: indications on the logs from the st
Page 81 and 82: Figure 4.27: This figure illustrate
Page 83 and 84: Figure 4.28: This Figure illustrate
Page 85 and 86: is perhaps the best indication of a
Page 87 and 88: 4.31: This figure illustrates the w
Page 89 and 90: Figure 4.32:Interpretation offault
Page 91 and 92: 4.3.1 Channel body 15 (NW of Braast
Page 93 and 94: 4.3.2 Channel body 16 (Blåfjellet
Page 95 and 96: 4.3.3 Channel body 17 (Djupskaret)C
Page 98 and 99: Figure 4.36: This figureillustrates
Page 101 and 102: 5. Discussion5.1 Map relevant featu
Page 103 and 104: Geerdalen Formation of no more than
Page 105 and 106:
ase of Hopen member. Going further
Page 107 and 108:
6. Conclusions18 channel bodies are
Page 109 and 110:
ReferencesAinsworth, R. B., Vakarel
Page 111:
Knarud, R. 1980. En sedimentologisk
Page 114 and 115:
AppendixAppendix 1: The measured se
Page 116 and 117:
108
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix 2: Legend of the measured
Page 120 and 121:
Appendix 4: Illustrations of the Ph
Page 122:
Figure 6: Illustration of the Photo
show all

Visualize and interpret the geometry, heterogeneity and lateral ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?