Kim,
Another group of papers that blend quantitative analysis to geology includes those written by M. King Hubbert in the 1940-50's. This group of papers includes his 1945 "strength of the Earth" AAPG paper where he develops the notion of rock strength with a marvelously hilarious analogy with the state of Texas. Then, the 1951 "Mechanical basis for geologic structures" and the classic 1959 paper with W. W. Rubey on pore fluid pressure and the thrust "paradox", both published in the GSA Bulletin.
Now, don't laugh just cuz these papers are 50+ years old! I re-visited these recently and, yes(!), these papers are quite relevant; especially, I would argue to an undergraduate, because Hubbert's approach still forms the basis of modern structural geology text books (e.g., Davis, Reynolds, Kluth, or Pollard and Fletcher, or Twiss and Moores). The student will probably say, "ha, this is what they were talking about in my text!"...
These two papers, plus the ensuing discussion with a variety of scientists in the '60's, also in GSA Bulletin, makes an excellent historical read and demonstrates how to link math, analog modeling and field observations to solve relevant geologic problems (at least, as the problems were formulated then).
Yes, these are long reads, but, so what - they're worth it - beautiful, humorous writing. Plus, the context, the methods, and results are all there for the reader to pour over, digest, and synthesize. Unlike modern papers that often short on… oh, I digress!
Reading these papers would provide a sound quantitative analysis tied to geology. And, they would set the context and foundation for the pioneering work done by Dave Elliott, Chapple, Dan Davis, Suppe and others in the 70's and 80's.
What I like about the above set of papers (including those by Elliott, etc.) is that they provide analytical approaches that "should" be discernible by savvy students with appropriate calculus training and a little grit - but they are all tied to geological observations. Then, you could introduce them to some of the "state of the art" papers that John Suppe mentioned, etc.
If you want complete refs, email off list and I'm happy to send...
happy reading,
Aaron
Aaron Yoshinobu
Professor
Department of Geosciences
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79410
U.S.A.
Fax: 806-742-0100
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/gesc/Faculty-Staff/Yoshinobu-index.php
________________________________________
From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Suppe [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 5:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: suggested readings for an undergrad - quantitative geodynamics
Hi Mark and Kim,
If you’re reading wedge papers, I would also recommend the more modern ones that show that you can actually use wedge mechanics in a quantitative way in the real world, going from observed wedge geometry to crustal strength and detachment friction relatively unambiguously. In particular there is the remarkable work of Nadia Cubas on the great Tahoku-Oki Japan and Maule Chile earthquakes (2013 GRL; 2013 EPSL) and also see my 2007 Geology paper.
One of the problems of the original wedge papers was that the theory was written in terms of a large number of unobservable rock-mechanics parameters whose crustal-scale meaning is ambiguous. As a result, the impact of wedge mechanics was almost entirely qualitative, both for the real world and for analog or numerical models. We had good reasons for the original formulations, but this approach was ultimatly unfortunate because wedge mechanics fundamentally invoves very simple relationships between geometry and critical stress.
John
On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Mark Brandon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Kim,
> I would recommend the Princeton wedge papers. There are about 10 of them, with authors Dan Davis, Tony Dahlen, John Suppe, and others. The 1984 JGR paper by Dahlen, "Noncohesive Critical Coulomb Wedges: An Exact Solution” is a great paper for someone that is interested in math and orogen-scale tectonics. The solution that Dahlen provides is very clever, and a good example of finding an exact solution to problems that appear rather complicated at first. Better yet, the solution provides a lot of conceptual insight about how thrust belts and subduction wedges evolve with time. That paper provides a nice lead into Dahlen and Barr, 1989, which solves for the velocity field within a wedge. The other papers provide additional developments that can be taken on given suitable time and interest. If your student enjoys the thinking about big tectonic problems, then I am certain that he/she will enjoy seeing how well the math fits in this particular research topic on wedges.
> Best,
> Mark Brandon
>
>
>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Hannula, Kim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve got an undergrad who loves math, and is interested in putting together an independent study involving readingreading a set of papers dealing with big-scale tectonic/geodynamic modeling. If you had such a student, what papers would you suggest to her?
>>
>>
>>
>> (She’s also doing a research-based senior thesis, so I’m not looking for an undergrad research project – just a potential reading list that she could choose from.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>> Kim Hannula
>>
>> Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences
>>
>> Professor of Geoscience
>>
>> Berndt 301
>>
>> Fort Lewis College
>>
>> Durango, CO 81301
>>
>> 970-247-7463
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
|