06.08.2013 Views

structural geology, propagation mechanics and - Stanford School of ...

structural geology, propagation mechanics and - Stanford School of ...

structural geology, propagation mechanics and - Stanford School of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

6.3. Approaching tip interactions<br />

Aside from the effects <strong>of</strong> heterogeneous stress fields <strong>and</strong>/or mechanical anisoptropies<br />

related to sedimentary architecture (e.g. shear along fine-grained deflation-plane<br />

boundaries separating major, teardrop-shaped dune sequences), which this paper does not<br />

attempt to address, the primary source <strong>of</strong> mechanical interaction for a propagating CB is<br />

the close approach <strong>of</strong> an adjacent tip. Within the framework <strong>of</strong> our simple model, there<br />

are two primary variables that can affect the mechanical interaction <strong>of</strong> straight b<strong>and</strong>s<br />

propagating toward each other along parallel trends symmetric to σ11 r : the spacing<br />

between them <strong>and</strong> the magnitude <strong>of</strong> the remote differential stress. In order to examine the<br />

interplay <strong>of</strong> these variables in determining the degree <strong>of</strong> interaction realized between<br />

b<strong>and</strong>s, we performed a suite <strong>of</strong> simulations for σ d = 0, 0.25 <strong>and</strong> 0.5 at spacing intervals<br />

(s) <strong>of</strong> 2.5 cm, 25 cm <strong>and</strong> 2.5 m (Figure 4.21), starting with two 25-m-long b<strong>and</strong>s identical<br />

to that used in the calibration section above.<br />

In all cases the model results match our qualitative expectations based on theoretical<br />

considerations—the tips at first curve slightly away from each other <strong>and</strong> then curve more<br />

strongly toward each other, while the interaction is distinctly more pronounced for σ d = 0<br />

<strong>and</strong> s = 2.5 cm. The absolute magnitudes <strong>of</strong> path divergence from the established linear<br />

trend, however, can not be intuited, <strong>and</strong> the results reveal several interesting relationships.<br />

When the remote stress state is isotropic, interaction is quite pronounced, even at s = 2.5<br />

m for which the final overlapped spacing drops by half to 1.25 m before parallel<br />

<strong>propagation</strong> is restored. At s = 25 cm <strong>and</strong> 2.5 cm, the overlapped b<strong>and</strong> tips end up on<br />

intersecting trends, although the approach is distinctly more asymptotic for s = 25 cm.<br />

When σ d = 0.5, interaction is negligible except at s = 2.5 cm, when the final overlapped<br />

spacing drops by about one third to 1.6 cm. Even then, parallel <strong>propagation</strong> resumes<br />

before intersection occurs. Perhaps most interesting is that the results for σ d = 0.25 are<br />

all but indistinguishable from those <strong>of</strong> σ d = 0.5. Again, even at s = 2.5 cm, parallel<br />

<strong>propagation</strong> resumes prior to intersection. In fact, because the initial repulsive effect is<br />

more pronounced than for σ d = 0.5, the final overlapped spacing ends up the same at 1.6<br />

cm. In sum, these results suggest that strongly anastomosing b<strong>and</strong> patterns, particularly<br />

those involving very close encounters <strong>and</strong> the effective merging <strong>of</strong> b<strong>and</strong>s, can only occur<br />

114

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!