When we want to record the orientation in space of a geological surface (e.g. a stratigraphic body), we have two different ways of doing it:

a) Dip direction and dip angle: Dip direction is just the direction toward which the plane is inclined. Dip angle is the angle of inclination of the plane. In the example included in this article, we would write it down as 090/45; the plane is inclined 45º towards the east (090º). Easy.

b) Strike and dip angle: Strike is the direction of the imaginary line which would represent the intersection between the plane and a horizontal surface. But here it comes the problem: the strike, as we know, can be represented by two different conjugated angles, and we need to follow some kind of convention; typically, the strike is expressed as the acute angle between the intersection line and the north direction. In our example, it would be 0ºN. But how which convention we take for indicating towards which direction is dipping the bed? For that we use the right hand rule.


There are two different right hand rules... Did you know that? Oh, that is not very convenient...

  • American right hand rule: Looking to the strike direction, the bed dips to the right. In our example, that would fit with 000/45. So, looking to the north, the bed dips to the right, to 090 (east).
  • British right hand rule: The thumb of the right hand indicates the dip direction, and the heal points to the strike direction. So in our example, we would record the orientation as 180/45. That is: Strike towards 180 (perfect south bearing), and dip of 45º towards 090.
Usually, if the person who took the measurements knew that other people MAY HAVE different criteria expressing the same results, the data can be recorded as

180/45E

Which would mean, no doubt, a strike of 180 and a dip direction towards the east, with a magnitude (dip angle) of 45. If you use strike, please remember to write always as a companion of the dip angle the quadrant where the dip direction would be. For example, 045/56SE. In this case we are talking of 120/56 (dip direction/dip angle). 045/56NW; now we would be talking of 315/56 (dip direction/dip angle).

But what happens with measures like:

45W/34

What does that mean? I have seen it. Does it mean 45º from north towards west, so 315? or does it mean strike of 045 and an a dip angle of 34 towards W? Is that? Uh, I don't think so.

The truth is that, besides right-hand rules, many geologists use other conventions, sometimes personal ones, and maybe in a wrong way. Perhaps using only NW and NE quadrants for the strike. Perhaps not.

It is clear that using strike values when representing the orientation of a bed we are introducing a risk factor if we don't state clearly which right hand rule we are using. Of course, for some people in some situation the usage of strike/dip angle may be very useful:
  • When we speak of general trends in a big area (e.g. an orogen, in order to show that a trend is parallel or not to the structure).
  • In a mine, in order to visualise quickly if the strike direction is the same as certain mineralisation or lineaments.
  • In engineering geology, for the same reason, in order to know if the bedding/joints have the same orientation than a well, a tunnel, etc.

I would suggest another right hand rule... If you use strike for describing the attitude of a plane, your right hand should be cut!.

But perhaps that is very extreme... so far.

I am totally absorted with my renewal work in another website (about Poland, if you are interested, although it is in Spanish), and I am planing to write up some articles for this blog about basic structural geology. Perhaps I should say "not so basic stuff but something we should have always in mind".

And something I have realised now is that I totally forgot to post here the creation, some months ago, of a "Structural geology and tectonics" group in Facebook. Raik and I are the administrators of the group.

If you are an user of this social network (you are in another planet, or perhaps you are still resisting to join it... now is the moment to do it!), you are invited, encouraged, to join us there. I wonder how I can do a more direct link between this blog and the group, but first things first: writing about geology!



As it has been communicated in the Geo-Tectonics mailing list, the “Deformation, rheology and tectonics” conference in Liverpool will take place this September, between the 7th and the 9th.

 

In their own words, “In 2009, DRT is a joint venture between the universities of Liverpool and Manchester, and is to be held in the contemporary cityscape of the rejuvenated Liverpool Docklands.

 

As many of you are aware, 2008 was shrouded by the untimely loss of Dr. Martin Casey.  This meeting is dedicated to Martin, and events and sessions will be organised in his memory.

 

The conference includes two fieldtrips: A pre-conference trip to the Mam Tor Landslide (Derbysire, England) on the 6th of September 2009 and a post-conference trip to the Isle of Anglesey (north Wales) from the 9th to the 11th of September of 2009.  (http://www.liverpool.ac.uk/PDMearth_sciences/dept/drt2009/fieldtrips.html)

 

 

The site is www.liverpool.ac.uk/earth/drt2009, and you can see the programme in here: www.liverpool.ac.uk/earth/drt2009/programme.

 

 

If you have been listening to the news in the last hours, you probably know already that a M6.3 earthquake has struck offshore Taiwan. As usual, the best information comes from the USGS.

The event happend at 18.05 UTC, and we don't yet have a focal mechanism solution for it. Anyway, in the attached figure you can have an idea of what is going on in there.

Taiwan is located in the boundary between the Phillipine Sea and the Eurasian plates. There is an approximated convergence rate of 80 mm/yr to the SE. What is really especial about this island is the presence of two subduction zones: One, where the South China Sea subducts beneath Eurasia, and another one, where Eurasia subducts beneath the South China Sea, forming both zones approximately a right angle.

You can see a great introduction (including the previous explanation) to the geology of Taiwan in the dedicated website of the
California Institute of Technology:

http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/taiwan/regional.htm



Sources:

- http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009jabu.php
- http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/taiwan/regional.htm
In the last days I have been trying to fix the problem we had with the comments, which now they work again!

The problem was fairly simple: although we have our own domain, the blog is enginereed by www.blogger.com, and it seems they don't fit as nicely as we expected.

Probably, if you have been visiting this website in the few days, you have been we have been trying some fancy designs... I promise the final one will have a geological look, just give me a couple of days!!

So... post your comments, they are more than welcome!

On Monday 29th of June of 2009, NASA and Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, released the Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) created from Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) data. That has involved the processing of more than a million ASTER scenes, in order to cover Earth’s land surface between 83 degrees North and 83 degrees South.

 

The result is a 30-m resolution digital elevation model available from the following URL: ASTER GDEM . In this website the GDEM can be downloaded selecting by tiles, by polygon, by shapefile and of course, by coordinates.

 

So far the standard DEM was the SRTM data, obtained during a flight of the Space Shuttle in 2000. Its resolution is approximately 90 m (30 for USA), and has proven to be a very valuable resource in structural geology, hydrocarbon exploration, geohazard analyses, etc. GDEM will predictably become a new standard, with a commercial resolution and global availability.

 

 

363788main_pia12090-516.jpg

 

 

Important links:

http://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp/index.jsp

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20090629.html

 

I apologise for the error in the web that doesn’t let you to leave comments in the articles. I will try to fix that in the next days. Apparently it is just a small bug in the template I am using, nothing else! I’ll keep you updated about that.

 

Thanks for reading this humble place :)

 

Jorge

About