1
$\begingroup$

Here is a schematic of a cross section which should represent an anticline:

https://postimg.cc/4HcmmZ26

Below sea level, I have inferred what the units might look like with the dashed lines. As I have interpreted this to be an anticline, it was quite straightforward to understand the possible shape, and by working out true thickness I would represent uniform thickness.

Here is another example of a cross section which should represent a thrust fault system (I may have added these faults at a strange angle, but hopefully this gets my point across):

https://postimg.cc/CRkXJ2Xc

Would I assume these beds are uniformly dipping? How deep should units be represented?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ It's kind of preplexing why you might think sea level is the boundary between known stratigraphy and stuff you have to infer. Boreholes frequently go below sea level (there are lots of boreholes of the sea bottom). $\endgroup$
    – Spencer
    Jan 4 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ This is not based from borehole data, only boundaries from a topographic map. In any case, say that I did not infer the shape below sea level and kept a continuous line, how would I accurately know what it looked like? Like in the second case, can I assume beds are uniformly dipping? $\endgroup$
    – Vilo
    Jan 4 at 12:43
0
$\begingroup$

I would say it's reasonable to infer that the strata stay at roughly the same dip angle and thickness in areas not directly visible on the chart you're using.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.