Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics

Springer Geology
Soumyajit Mukherjee Editor
Teaching
Methodologies
in Structural
Geology and
Tectonics
Springer Geology
Series editors
Yuri Litvin, Institute of Experimental Mineralogy, Moscow, Russia
Abigail Jiménez-Franco, Mexico City, Mexico
The book series Springer Geology comprises a broad portfolio of scientific books,
aiming at researchers, students, and everyone interested in geology. The series
includes peer-reviewed monographs, edited volumes, textbooks, and conference
proceedings. It covers the entire research area of geology including, but not limited
to, economic geology, mineral resources, historical geology, quantitative geology,
structural geology, geomorphology, paleontology, and sedimentology.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10172

Soumyajit Mukherjee
Editor
Teaching Methodologies
in Structural Geology
and Tectonics
123
Editor
Soumyajit Mukherjee
Department of Earth Sciences
IIT Bombay
Mumbai, India
ISSN 2197-9545 ISSN 2197-9553 (electronic)

Springer Geology
ISBN 978-981-13-2780-3 ISBN 978-981-13-2781-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2781-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958345
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
…combing research and teaching is not
always easy…the synergy between research
and teaching is to be cultivated but it is
worth the effort…
—Tong VCH (2014)
Tong VCH 2014. From research-implicit to
research-enhanced teaching: A geoscience
perspective. In: Tong VCH (Ed) Geoscience
Research and Education: Teaching at
Universities. Springer. ISBN:
978-94-007-6946-5. pp. 1–10.
How can individual faculty, course teams and

departments effectively bring students into
the worlds of geoscience research?
—Jenkins A. (2014)
Jenkins A. 2014. Curricula and Departmental
strategies to link teaching and geoscience
research. In: Tong VCH (Ed) Geoscience
Research and Education: Teaching at
Universities. Springer. ISBN:
978-94-007-6946-5. pp. 55–68.
Dedicated to geosciences instructors, whose
names may not appear in research papers
and books
Acknowledgements
I thank the Springer proofreading team. Especially, thanks go to Praveenkumar V.

and Aninda Bose (Springer). Ph.D. students, Dripta Dutta and Narayan Bose
(IIT Bombay), assisted in several occasions. I am grateful to the anonymous
reviewers who evaluated the proposal of this book. A sabbatical received from IIT
Bombay in 2017 is acknowledged.
ix
Contents
Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics:

An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Soumyajit Mukherjee
Self- and Peer-Evaluation of Individual Project Work: An Innovative
Course Assessment Method to Increase Student Motivation . . . . . . . . . . 5
Marcel Frehner
Modern Methods in Structural Geology of Twenty-first Century:
Digital Mapping and Digital Devices for the Field Geology . . . . . . . . . . 43
Lucie Novakova and Terry L. Pavlis
Paleomagnetism in Structural Geology and Tectonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
B. Oliva-Urcia and E. L. Pueyo
Teaching Structural Geology Techniques for Applied Subsurface
Interpretation and Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Kellen L. Gunderson and Katelyn A. Huffman
Structural Geology Field Exercises of Intermediate to More
Advanced Complexity from the Classic Black Hills
of South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Jeffrey K. Greenberg
Geographic Information Systems in an Undergraduate
Structural Geology Course: A Pilot Project at Middle Tennessee
State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Mark Abolins
Teaching Structural Geology in Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Soumyajit Mukherjee
xi
xii Contents
Teaching Structural Geology Map Interpretation to Masters’

Students: The Experience of a Teaching Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Narayan Bose
Image Log Interpretation and Geomechanical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Troyee Dasgupta, Swagato Dasgupta and Soumyajit Mukherjee
About the Editor
Dr. Soumyajit Mukherjee is an Associate Professor in the Department of Earth

Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India. He completed his Ph.D.
in Geology (2007) and his M.Tech. in Applied Geology (2002) from IIT Roorkee.
His chief research areas are structural geology and tectonics. In addition to
serving as an editorial board member of the International Journal of Earth
Sciences, he has over 60 journal publications and 12 books/thematic volumes
written/edited to his credit.
xiii
Teaching Methodologies in Structural
Geology and Tectonics: An Introduction
Soumyajit Mukherjee
Abstract This introduction chapter of the book provides a summary of its nine key
chapters. Structural geology and tectonics has progressively become more quantita-
tive. To keep the pace, instructors of these subjects need to upgrade their teaching
contents. This book presents issues related to (i) evaluation system of students using
the peers, (ii) use of new instruments in measuring structural data from rocks, (iii)
paleomagnetic studies in tectonics, (iv) sub-surface structural interpretations required
in industries, (v) field studies in structural geology, (vi) interdisciplinary aspects of
structural geology, (vii) teaching structural geology and tectonics in Indian context,
(viii) conducting practical classes in structural geology with map interpretations and
(ix) and simple geomechanical problems and solutions.
Keywords Pedagogy · Geosciences · Classroom teaching

Geoscientific fieldworks · Practical exercises in structural geology
Structural geology (and tectonics) has undergone a revolution in the last few decades
in their contents and mode of teaching, from Hills (1940) up to Fossen (2016). From
descriptive science, it has become significantly quantitative (e.g., Allmendinger et al.
2012) leading to new challenges in the way it is to be taught in the present days. New
methods of teaching structural geology have been discussed in several conferences
in recent years, such as GSA 2004 (Internet reference-1) in Colorado, EGU 2017
(Internet reference-2) in Vienna, and the Rock Deformation Structures-2018 in Delhi.
Innovative ways of teaching in structural geology and tectonics are discussed
in this edited book. The main purpose of this edited volume is to reach the (new)
instructors of structural geology and tectonics worldwide with novel ideas. The aim is
to execute improved modes of teaching in academia and industry involving classical
and modern techniques, both inside and outside the classroom.
This book consists of nine key chapters out of which Chaps. 5 and 10 are
(co)authored by industry persons. The remainders are written by the academicians.
S. Mukherjee (B)
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai 400076, Maharashtra, India
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 1

S. Mukherjee (ed.), Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics,
Springer Geology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2781-0_1
2 S. Mukherjee
Interestingly, Chap. 9 is authored by a Teaching Assistant that shares his personal

experience and approaches in instructing structural map interpretation. Interdisci-
plinary aspects of structural geology and tectonics have been discussed in Chaps. 4
and 7. A total of 13 authors and coauthors from 5 countries have been involved in
this book.
In Chap. 2, Frehner (2018) describes innovative dual self- and peer-evaluation and
grading system for students undertaking his Master’s-level coursework. The exercise
builds confidence in students in evaluating other’s work, which they would require in
their career. In Chap. 3, Novakova and Pavlis (2018) test 25 smartphones with differ-
ent configurations for accuracy of measuring attitudes. iPhones give more accurate
results than the smartphones with Android software. The authors rightly ask to under-
stand the level of accuracy of the mobile device in measuring attitudes before using
them in actual research work. Chapter 4 by Oliva-Urcia and Pueyo (2018) details
how paleomagnetic studies are done in structural geology and tectonics, especially
to unravel deformation kinematics. They explain sampling, processing, and interpre-
tation processes involved in such studies. Gunderson and Huffman (2018) in Chap.
5 remind the need of structural teaching keeping in mind that most of the students
would join the workforce as geoscientists rather than solely as structural geologists.
They emphasize in this context subsurface structural interpretation involving cross-
sectional construction, and geomechanical and seismic studies related to structural
geology and tectonics. The authors provide a guideline in few cases how the instruc-
tor can proceed with some of these subjects. Greenberg (2018) in Chap. 6 reminds
the great importance of field studies in the coursework for the geoscience students.
He lucidly presents the Black Hills of South Dakota as the potential field area where
students have been undergoing several structural exercises. Sketching structural and
other geological features continues to remain as an indispensable aspect of field
studies (e.g., Geikei 1882; Khrul 2017). In Chap. 7, Abolins (2018) presents how
students have been effectively utilizing GIS in structural geological studies in a field
course. The most important outcome of such a multidisciplinary approach has been
improved 3D visualization skills to students. Mukherjee (2018) in Chap. 8 points out
that the structural geology syllabi in some of the Indian Institutes require upgrada-
tion. To enhance problem-solving skill of students, specific branches of mathematics
and physics in the syllabus need to be added. Through PowerPoint presentations, the
instructor can discuss such new issues even within the existing limited time frame of
semesters. Chapter 9 by Bose (2018) presents his personal experiences as a Teach-
ing Assistant and how he has been planning map interpretation classes for students.
Chapter 10 by Dasgupta et al. (2018) presents how image logs have been used in
geomechanical issues-an interdisciplinary subject where structural geologists have
been interested these days. They provide simple problems as well as solutions.
Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics … 3
References
Abolins M (2018) Geographic Information Systems in an undergraduate structural geology course:

a pilot project at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. In: Mukherjee
S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp
201–219. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Allmendinger RW, Cardozo N, Fisher DM (2012) Structural geology algorithms: vectors and ten-
sors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN: 978-1-107-01200-4
Bose N (2018) Teaching structural geology map interpretation to Masters’ students: the experience
of a teaching assistant. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and
tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 233–235. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Dasgupta T, Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S (2018) Image log interpretation of geomechanical issues.
In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics. Springer, pp
237–251. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Fossen H (2016) Structural geology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. ISBN -13: 978-
1107057647
Frehner M (2018) Self- and peer-evaluation of individual project work: an innovative course assess-
ment method to increase student motivation. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in
structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 5–41. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Geikei A (1882) Geological sketches at home and abroad. Macmillan and Co., London
Greenberg JK (2018) Structural geology field exercises of intermediate to more-advanced complex-
ity from the classic Black Hills of South Dakota. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in
structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 159–200. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Gunderson KL, Huffman KA (2018) Teaching structural geology techniques for applied subsurface
interpretation and characterization. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural
geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 123–157. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Hills ES (1940) An outline of structural geology. Methuen & Company Limited
Internet reference-1. https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/session_13363.htm.
Accessed 16 July 2018
Internet reference-2. https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/ts/category/teaching/. Accessed 16 July 2018
Khrul JH (2017) Drawing geological structures. The geological field guide series. Wiley Blackwell,
p 232. ISBN: 978-1-405-18232-4
Mukherjee S (2018) Teaching structural geology in Indian context. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching
methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 221–232. ISBN:
978-981-13-2781-0
Novakova L, Pavlis TL (2018) Modern methods in structural geology of 21 century: digital mapping
and digital devices for the field geology. In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural
geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 43–54. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Oliva-Urcia B, Pueyo EL (2018) Paleomagnetism in structural geology and tectonics. In: Mukherjee
S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp
55–121. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Self- and Peer-Evaluation of Individual
Project Work: An Innovative Course
Assessment Method to Increase Student
Motivation
Marcel Frehner
Abstract Besides teaching itself, which most university lecturers enjoy, evaluating
and particularly grading students is one of the biggest challenges. While modern edu-
cational developments transform university courses from pure knowledge-oriented
to skill-oriented, the way students are evaluated and graded has not kept up with
these developments. Classical written or oral examinations often only assess factual
knowledge, and not the desired skills. Here, an innovative evaluation procedure is
presented that applies self- and peer-evaluation (and -grading) of the students them-
selves. The procedure is used to evaluate and grade end-of-semester projects in a
Master’s level course. After finishing their end-of-semester project work, students
are asked to evaluate and grade their own work (self-evaluation) and the work of one
fellow student (peer-evaluation). For both evaluations, they have to give a mark and
write a one-page evaluation report that justifies the mark they give. This mark is not
modified in any way by the teacher and counts one-to-one for the final mark; hence,
the students have to take responsibility. The final mark is then averaged between the
self- and peer-evaluation, as well as the mark from the teacher. The outcome of three
years of experience with this evaluation procedure shows that the students can handle
the given responsibility very well and take both the self- and peer-evaluation very
seriously. Compared to the teacher’s mark, they do not evaluate themselves or their
colleagues overly positive or negative. If anything, the self-evaluation is slightly more
negative and the peer-evaluation slightly more positive than the teacher’s evaluation.
On average, the final mark is exactly the same as the teacher’s mark. Nevertheless,
the evaluation procedure allows training several soft-skills that are crucial for the
student’s future career, such as having an opinion, taking responsibility, or being
objective and honest with oneself and colleagues.
Keywords Assessment method · Project work · Self-evaluation · Peer-evaluation

Soft skills
M. Frehner (B)
Geological Institute, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 ETH Zurich, Switzerland

6 M. Frehner
1 Introduction
Evaluating and grading students in semester courses is a very crucial task for every
university lecturer. However, while most lecturers enjoy teaching a course, grading is
often the least enjoyable task. Fortunately, there are many guidelines to help lecturers
design exams, both as international publications (e.g., Biggs 1996; Downing and
Haladyna 2011; Race et al. 2005) and as institutional guidelines (e.g., ETH Zurich
2013 in case of the ETH Zurich). According to the “Guidelines on Grading Written
Examinations” of the ETH Zurich (ETH Zurich 2013), an exam is a good exam if the
three principles objectivity, reliability and validity are respected. Each of the three
principles is outlined below with a question and a statement:
• Objectivity:
– Is the measurement independent of the person who measures and the circum-
stances of the measurement?
– Different people reach the same conclusion, independent from each other!
• Reliability:
– Is the measurement reliable? Does it deliver reproducible results?
– Different versions of the measurement yield the same result!
• Validity:
– Do I measure what I intend to measure, or something else?
– The measurement measures what it pretends to measure!
Thereby, the last principle (validity) can only be achieved if the two others are
assured. Hence, validity is the prime aim of designing an exam. While these three
principles are specifically defined for written exams, they should also hold for any
other type of examination at the university level.
The problem with these three principles is that it is impossible to ever achieve them.
For example, every exam always also tests a certain level of fluency of a language.
The students not only have to know something, but first they have to be able to
understand the question and then to explain/express what they know. This is true for
written exams, but even more for oral exams. The latter in addition also tests to a
certain level the self-confidence of a student and hence his/her personality. If student
A does not know very much during an oral exam (i.e., little factual knowledge), but
presents everything very elegantly and self-confidently (good soft-skills), he/she will
unavoidably get a better final mark than student B, who knows as little as student
A (i.e., equal factual knowledge) but is less self-confident in her/his presentation
(poor soft-skills). The same problem occurs if reports are evaluated and graded, for
example reports of end-of-semester projects. In this case, the language proficiency
plays an important role, but also the visual impression (document layout, figures).
Hence, not only the project work is evaluated, but also several other soft-skills, which
are not intended to be tested and marked. For example, a figure that is very well made
and clear, but does not contain much information, still impresses the reader and may
Self- and Peer-Evaluation of Individual Project Work … 7
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of Bloom’s original and revised taxonomy of educational objec-
tives after (Bloom et al. 1956) and (Anderson et al. 2001), respectively. The taxonomy describes
the increasing levels and complexity of learning and thinking, which should also be addressed by
educational developments and examinations
positively influence the evaluation and grading. With all these examples, it should
be clear that a true validity cannot be reached when evaluating and grading students.
The best way to at least come close to fulfilling the three principles described
above is to use multiple-choice (MC) exams. MC-exams are influenced very little
by language issues or any other confounding factors, and they allow to really test
the pure knowledge of students. However, MC-exams are very limited in testing
the higher levels of learning and thinking according to Bloom’s taxonomy (Fig. 1;
Anderson et al. 2001; Bloom et al. 1956; Krathwohl 2002), such as the analysis and
evaluation of results. In Bloom’s taxonomy (Fig. 1), each level builds on all lower
levels. For example, students can only apply a concept to a specific problem (third
level) if they know it (first level) and understand it (second level); and only when they
are able to apply the concept, they can analyze the corresponding results or analyze
results from a different application. For university-level teaching (in particular on the
Master’s level), it is desirable to reach the highest levels in Bloom’s taxonomy. Of
course, the students need to know and understand the necessary concepts and be able
to apply them to specific problems. However, at the end of the Master’s program, the
students should also be able to analyze and evaluate results (e.g., not just understand,
but have an opinion when reading a scientific article) and eventually also be able to
create new applications (i.e., have their own ideas). Fortunately, modern curriculum
reforms respect this; university courses transform more and more from knowledge-
oriented to skill-oriented. However, the way students are evaluated and graded has not
changed considerably and does often not keep up with the educational developments.
The highest levels of Bloom’s taxonomy are also required in the student’s future
career (e.g., in industry, as Ph.D. student). There, the three principles for evaluations
are not guaranteed either. An evaluation (e.g., by a customer; in a job interview)
will always depend on the person who evaluates (i.e., no objectivity), it will not
be reliable because in many cases there is no option for a repetition and hence no
indication for reliability, and evaluations deliberately consider many different aspects
of a piece of work or of a person (i.e., no validity). In other words, traditional exams at
universities do not represent typical evaluations in real life; hence, they do not prepare
the students very well for their future career. However, universities should do exactly
8 M. Frehner
this: prepare the students for their future career, not only in terms of knowledge,
but also in terms of how they and their work are evaluated. Therefore, I believe
that, at least on the Master’s level, university teachers should be allowed to ignore
the three principles above for a “good” exam and design evaluation procedures that
also consider crucial soft-skills, such as teamwork, communication and presentations
skills, technical writing skills, or self-confidence, which count as much as or even
more than the technical/scientific knowledge.
In this article, I present an evaluation procedure of end-of-semester project work
that applies self- and peer-evaluation by the students themselves in a Master’s level
course. First, I describe the course, the end-of-semester projects, and the evaluation
procedure in detail and provide all the documents handed out to the students in the
Appendix. Second, I report on the outcome of the evaluations and compare them to
my own evaluation. I implemented the evaluation procedure in 2014 and therefore
can present data for three consecutive years. Last, I discuss the pros and cons of the
presented evaluation procedure and give some advice about critical points that can
render the evaluation procedure a success.
2 Course Description and Project Work
Here I provide an overview of the course “Numerical Modeling of Rock Defor-

mation” (NMRD), in which I implemented the innovative evaluation procedure. The
NMRD-course is a regular semester course at the Department of Earth Sciences, ETH
Zurich. It comprises two contact hours per week during each fall semester (14 weeks;
Table 1) and is worth four European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) points. For a
2-h/week course, three ECTS points are more common. However, the NMRD-course
requires a significant amount of extra work compared to other courses because of
the semester-end project work and its special evaluation procedure described in this
article. Therefore, the extra ECTS point is justified. The course is offered on the Mas-
ter’s level in the Structural Geology Module (Master in Earth Sciences → Major in
Geology → Structural Geology Module). However, the course is open to all Master
students of the ETH Zurich. In particular, it is recommended for Earth Sciences Mas-
ter students with Major in Engineering Geology (Master in Earth Sciences → Major
in Engineering Geology) and it is regularly taken by students from civil engineering,
material sciences, or environmental sciences. Also, Ph.D. students from all these
disciplines regularly take the NMRD course. Usually, the course is taken by 15–20
students each fall semester, out of which 13–18 students seek the final mark.
Table 1 Schedule for the course “numerical modeling of rock deformation” at the ETH Zurich.
The last two weeks are devoted to the individual exercises the students work on in groups of two
Block Week Topic
1 1 Introduction to the course and introduction to MATLAB
2 Continue with introduction to MATLAB and exercises
3 Kinematic models—strain ellipses (MATLAB exercise)
2 4 Basics on continuum mechanics
5 Basics on rheology
6 Introduction to the finite-element (FE) method
3 7 FE—Exercises in 1D and isoparametric elements
8 FE—Going to 2D
9 FE—2D elastic deformation
10 FE—Stress calculation and visualization
11 FE—2D viscous flow
12 FE—Heterogeneous media and wrap-up
4 13 Time for exercises
14 Time for exercises
2.1 Course Content and Schedule
The primary aim of the course is to enable students to solve simple mechani-
cal/geological problems using the finite-element (FE) method. Applications are either
elastic structural problems (e.g., stress analysis) or viscous flow problems (e.g.,
buckle folding, shear zones). Thereby, they do not use existing commercial or open-
source codes, but develop the necessary FE-codes themselves during the course.
Hence, further principal aims of the course are to understand all relevant mathemat-
ical and mechanical concepts to formulate the mechanical problem (i.e., continuum
mechanics, rheology), understand the basics of the FE-method, and learn how to
program an FE-code (Table 1).
To teach all of this, I divided the NMRD-course into four blocks (Tables 1 and
2), which are distinctively different in their content and didactical approach. These
blocks are:
1. Introduction to MATLAB: Some students take the NMRD-lecture without any
experience in MATLAB or programming; others have quite some experience.
Hence, the principal aim for this block is to bring the students to the same (or
similar) level of prior programing skills. To achieve this, the students work on
MATLAB/programing exercises by themselves or in small groups of two or three.
I and one teaching assistant help/teach the students one-to-one at the computer
workplaces.
2. Theoretical background: During this block, the students learn the basics of con-
tinuum mechanics and rheology, as well as the FE-method. These are traditional
lectures using a frontal teaching style. I derive the relevant equations on the
10 M. Frehner
blackboard, and the students copy everything by hand to their personal lecture
notes. At the same time, I provide PowerPoint and pdf-slides online with all the
material that I explain on the blackboard for the students to prepare and repeat
the lectures.
3. FE-theory and -exercises: At the end of block 2, I teach the basics of the FE-
method. Now in this block, students use, apply, and extend the FE-code going to
more and more advanced applications (1D → 2D elastic problem → 2D viscous
problem). For this, I provide short theoretical inputs in the form of PowerPoint
presentations or self-study tutorials, but the majority of the time the students
spend programing their FE-codes. As a starting point for each major step and
because of time restrictions, I provide FE-codes “with holes”, where the students
program the critical gaps. I and one teaching assistant help/teach the students
one-to-one at the computer workplaces.
4. Application to a particular problem (see Sect. 2.2): In the end-of-semester
project work, the students finally apply their FE-code to an individual prob-
lem, which they solve in groups of two. There is no teaching anymore. However,
I and one teaching assistant help/teach the students one-to-one at the computer
workplaces.
Table 2 Description of the teaching styles during the four distinct blocks of the course “numerical
modeling of rock deformation” at the ETH Zurich
Block Teaching style
1 • Mainly computer/programing exercises using MATLAB
• Students get short handouts and problem descriptions
• Students may work alone or in small groups of 2–3
2 • Theoretical background lectures
• Traditional frontal teaching using the blackboard
• Students copy everything by hand to their personal lecture notes; however,
PowerPoint and pdf-slides are provided online with all the material from the
blackboard
3 • Theoretical input (~1/4) and MATLAB/programing exercises (~3/4) are mixed
• Theoretical input is provided using short PowerPoint presentations or self-study
tutorials; the latter mostly mixed between theory and exercises
• FE-codes “with holes” serve as the basis for the exercises. Hence, students do
not program everything themselves, but fill in critical gaps
4 • Individual exercises the students work on in groups of two
• No lecturing anymore
• The students can discuss with the teacher and/or the assistant
2.2 End-of-Semester Project Work
The first three blocks of the NMRD-course are rather theoretical and not really applied
to any specific problem. The aim is to understand the basics of the FE-method and
learn how to program an FE-code. However, the overarching aim of the NMRD-
course is to enable the students to solve a specific problem. Therefore, block 4 is the
culmination of the course, where the students apply their prior knowledge (and their
FE-code) to a specific problem of their choice. I ask the students to form groups of
two, although I also allow them to work alone or in groups of three in exceptional
cases.
I want the students to profit from this last part of the lecture as much as possible.
Therefore, each group can choose the problem/application they want to work on
themselves. They can choose between an elastic and a viscous problem, for both of
which they have developed a running FE-code during the course. Hence, for these
types of applications, the main challenge is to set up the geometry and the numerical
grid, as well as using the correct boundary conditions. Students may also choose
a more theoretical/mathematical/methodological problem, which typically involves
deriving new equations and implementing new FE-terms in their code. However,
students may also define their own project (in discussion with me) based on their
personal interests. Such projects may be defined in relation to a student’s Master’s
thesis, another lecture, or any other personal interests.
To help students decide on the project they want to work on, I provide them with
a short explanatory note some two weeks before they have to make the choice. This
explanatory note can be found in Appendix A. Three examples of end-of-semester
project descriptions, exactly the way the students receive them from me, are provided
in Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D. These examples comprise two viscous
flow problems (Appendix B: development of parasitic buckle folds in a multilayer
stack; Appendix C: horizontal sill emplacement below a sharp lithological boundary)
and one elastic problem (Appendix D: stress distribution around two tunnels).
3 Course Assessment
For the final grading, it was important to me to assess the student’s achievement of
the major aim of the course, i.e., being able to solve a specific problem. Because this
is rather a skill than just plain knowledge, it was clear to me that I will not base the
final mark on a written or oral exam, in which I could only assess knowledge, but
not the desired skill. Therefore, the final mark is based on the student’s performance
in their end-of-semester project work. To do that, the students not only have to solve
their individual problem, but also write a four-page report explaining their solution
strategy, show and interpret the results, and draw some conclusions. This report is also
written in groups of two and should be structured very much like a scientific article
with its typical sections. To help the students structuring their report, I provide them
12 M. Frehner
with some general remarks regarding this report, which can be found in Appendix
E. Ultimately, each group has to hand in their report together with all the necessary
FE-codes to solve their specific problem.
3.1 Self- and Peer-evaluation
After the students handed in their report and FE-codes, the work is evaluated by three
parties:
• By the teacher (me)
• By the student her/himself (i.e., self-evaluation)
• By two fellow students from the same course (i.e., peer-evaluation)
The students have to take responsibility and actually set a mark for themselves and
for the report they peer-evaluate. The marks from the self- and peer-evaluation are not
altered in any way by me but count one-to-one for the final mark. To calculate the final
mark, all three marks are averaged with equal weight (i.e., 1/3). However, students
working alone on their end-of-semester project only receive one peer-evaluation
while students working in groups of two receive two peer-evaluations. Therefore, in
the latter case, the two marks from the peer-evaluations are averaged first and only
this average counts 1/3 for the final mark. The key how to calculate the final mark is
shown Tables 3 and 4 for the two cases.
The redistribution of the reports among all students for the peer-evaluation is done
by me based on a pre-defined key. To define this key, I follow two simple rules:
• One report cannot be peer-evaluated by two students of the same group of two
• Two students (and also two groups) cannot peer-evaluate each other. That means
no swapping of the reports.
However, to redistribute the reports for the peer-evaluation, I also try to consider
the similarity of the different projects and the student’s interests. The resulting redis-
tribution key resembles an exchange of the reports in some circular way (see Figs. 2,
3 and 4).
Table 3 Marking scheme in case a student works alone on his/her end-of-semester project (excep-
tional case). In this case, the peer-evaluation is done by only one fellow student
Mark from Counting Mark
Teacher 1/3 A
Self-evaluation 1/3 B
Peer-evaluation 1/3 C

Average mark (A + B + C) 3
Final mark Average mark rounded to 0.25
Table 4 Marking scheme in case two students work together on their end-of-semester project
(regular case). In this case, the peer-evaluation is done by two fellow students
Mark from Counting Mark
Teacher 1/3 A
Self-evaluation 1/3 B
Peer-evaluation
Student 1 1/6 C1
Student 2 1/6 C2
A+B+(C1 +C2 )/ 2
Average mark 3
Final mark Average mark rounded to 0.25
The students cannot just set a mark, but they have to justify their decision and
argue about the positive and negative aspects of the report. To do that, they are asked
to write an evaluation report for both their own work and the work they peer-evaluate.
These evaluation reports should be about one-page long and conclude with the mark
they set. To help the students during the self- and peer-evaluation, I provide them
with some evaluation guidelines, which can be found in Appendix F. However, I do
not provide a standardized evaluation form, because I really want that the students
find their own way of doing these evaluations. For the peer-evaluation, they can also
choose to be anonymous or reveal their identity, very much the same as in a scientific
review process.
During my evaluation of the end-of-semester projects, I also check the numerical
FE-codes in detail. Hence, my evaluation reports always contain three sections:
(1) general impression/general comments concerning the entire work, (2) specific
comments/questions to the report, and (3) specific comments/questions to the FE-
code. For the self-and peer-evaluations, I ask the students to primarily focus on the
report, and not so much on the FE-code. However, it is each student’s choice to which
degree he or she wants/has to read the FE-code to be able to do the evaluation.
After all the evaluation is done, each student receives his/her personal evaluation
bundle containing the following documents/information:
• Final mark with an explanation how it is calculated based on the marks by me, the
self-, and peer-evaluation (see Tables 3 and 4)
• Evaluation report from me with my mark
• Evaluation report from themselves (self-evaluation) with their mark
• One or two peer-evaluation reports with the corresponding marks, depending on
whether they worked alone or in a group of two
• Annotated project report from me with mostly editorial comments and suggestions.
14 M. Frehner
4 Assessment Outcome and Interpretation
Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the marks of the end-of-semester projects of the years
2014 (15 data points), 2015 (13 data points), and 2016 (16 data points), respectively,
yielding a total of 44 data points for the three years. Shown are the individual marks
from me (the teacher), the self-, and peer-evaluation, the average mark calculated
using the formulas in Tables 3 and 4, and the final mark, which is the average mark
rounded to 0.25. Red and green colors highlight marks that are below and above
my given mark, respectively. Also, the redistribution key for the peer-evaluation is
shown in the third column of each figure. Figures 5 and 6 show the distribution of
these marks for the three years individually and combined, respectively.
Generally, it is striking that all marks lie above 4.00, which is the critical mark
to pass the course (see Swiss marking scale in Appendix F). Hence, nobody in three
years failed the NMRD-course. In addition, the average mark lies between 5.36 and
5.45, which seems relatively high on a scale from 1.00 to 6.00. This mark distribution
is relatively common for Geology courses on the Master’s level at the ETH Zurich
(Master in Earth Sciences → Major in Geology), which may have several reasons:
Fig. 2 Individual marks for the students of the NMRD-course of fall 2014. Listed are the marks
from me (teacher; fourth column), from the students themselves (self-evaluation; fifth column), from
the fellow students (peer-evaluation; sixth column), the average mark calculated using the formulas
in Tables 3 and 4 (seventh column), and the final mark (average mark rounded to 0.25; eighth
column). The third column shows who did the peer-evaluation for whom. The red and green color
scales indicate how much the self- and peer-evaluation is below or above the teacher’s evaluation,
respectively
Fig. 3 Same as Fig. 2, but for fall 2015
Fig. 4 Same as Fig. 2, but for fall 2016
• The Bachelor’s program at the ETH Zurich is very competitive. Only the top
students actually make it through to the Master’s level.
• For incoming international Master students, who did their Bachelor’s degree
abroad, the ETH Zurich is very restrictive. In many cases, the prior knowledge is
assessed before acceptance of a student to the ETH Master’s program.
16 M. Frehner
Fig. 5 Distribution histograms for all three years (2014–2016; left to right) of the marks given
by me (teacher; a), from the students themselves (self-evaluation; b), from the fellow students
(peer-evaluation; c), and the final mark (d)
Fig. 6 Distribution histograms for all three years combined of the marks given by me (teacher; a),
from the students themselves (self-evaluation; b), from the fellow students (peer-evaluation; c), and
the final mark (d). Vertical gray areas indicate the average mark (bold gray line) and the standard
deviation (shaded area, σ ), both of which are also given as gray numbers
• Compared to other courses, the NMRD-course is a relatively techni-

cal/mathematical course for Geology Master students. Hence, the NMRD-course
is usually only taken by students that enjoy being exposed to this branch of geo-
logical work.
For these reasons, students in the NMRD-course are typically very motivated
to learn the FE-method and enjoy working with MATLAB and solve mathematical
problems. From the feedback that I get from the students, I know that they are
very motivated to work on their end-of-semester projects and apply their gained
knowledge to a specific problem. As a result, the individual marks are all very good
in this course.
The distribution histograms (Fig. 6) show that the average marks are extremely
similar independent of who is marking (teacher, self-, or peer-evaluation, final mark).
In particular, the average final mark is exactly the same as the average teacher’s mark.
However, the distribution of the final marks is narrower (standard deviation σ 0.22)
than each individual contribution (teacher σ 0.40, self-evaluation σ 0.39, and
peer-evaluation σ 0.33). With this narrower distribution of the final marks, nobody
neither reaches the highest possible mark (6.00) nor a mark smaller than 5.00, even
though these marks have individually been given during the teacher’s evaluation or
during self- and peer-evaluation. This is clearly an effect of averaging the different
contributions when calculating the final mark (Tables 3 and 4). During this averaging,
the more extreme marks (6.00 or <5.00) are averaged out.
It could have been expected that the self-evaluation is overly positive because
students may hope to get a better final mark by systematically overestimating them-
selves. However, the distribution histograms (Fig. 6) clearly show that this is not the
case, at least not on average. In fact, the contrary is the case. The average mark from
the self-evaluations is the lowest average mark. This demonstrates that the students
are relatively critical with themselves and evaluate their own work objectively.
18 M. Frehner
Concerning the peer-evaluation, I had no clear expectation. It could have been both
overly positive (students support their colleagues) or negative (students compete with
each other). However, the distribution histograms (Fig. 6) again show that neither is
the case, at least on average. If anything, the peer-evaluation is slightly more positive
than the teacher’s evaluation and the self-evaluation. However, the distribution of
marks from the peer-evaluation is somewhat narrower (σ 0.33) than the other two
contributions (teacher σ 0.40, self-evaluation σ 0.39), which is due to the lack
of relatively lower marks (<4.75). This shows that during peer-evaluation, students
do not like or do not dare to give lower marks.
4.1 Marks Compared to Teacher’s Marks
Figure 7 shows cross-plots comparing the marks from the self-evaluation, peer-
evaluation, and the final mark with my (the teacher’s) mark (a–c, respectively), as
well as the comparison between peer- and self-evaluation (d). The last is provided
as a comparison, but is not discussed here in detail. All cross-plots also show the
linear regression line with its slope (s). It is remarkable that the slope of the linear
regression is very small for both self- (s 0.008) and peer-evaluation (s 0.024).
This means that on average, the marks from the self- and peer-evaluation are almost
uncorrelated with the teacher’s marks. In other words, when I give a relatively lower
mark (lower than about 5.00), the students (both self- and peer-evaluation) tend to
give a higher mark than me; when I give a relatively higher mark (higher than about
5.50), the students tend to give a lower mark than me.
However, the linear regression may be biased by the low mark of 4.25 that I gave
to one group in 2016 (Figs. 4 and 5a). I had to reduce the mark for this particular
group primarily because of some confusions and mistakes in the FE-code, while
the report was reasonably good. Because during the peer-evaluation students focus
on the report, they have not realized the problems in the FE-code. Therefore, the
two peer-evaluations are much more positive than my evaluation (Figs. 4 and 7b).
It goes without saying that the group of two themselves did not realize the mistakes
in the FE-code; otherwise they would not have made them. Therefore, also the two
self-evaluations are much more positive than my evaluation (Figs. 4 and 7a). If the
relatively low mark of 4.25 is removed from the datasets, the slope of the linear
regression in Fig. 7 (sl ) increases significantly for both the self- (sl 0.096) and
peer-evaluation (sl 0.143).
For the final mark (Fig. 7c), the linear regression is much steeper (s 0.317) than
the self- and peer-evaluation and the relatively low mark of 4.25 does hardly affect
the linear regression (sl 0.362). The significantly larger slope can be explained
because the final mark consists to one-third of the teacher’s mark. Hence, the linear
regression partly reflects an auto-correlation. However, the final mark is still more
narrowly distributed than my mark (see also Fig. 6). In other words, when I give a
relatively lower mark (lower than about 5.00), the final mark tends to be higher than
Fig. 7 Cross-plots showing the relationship between a the self-evaluation and the teacher’s evalua-
tion, b the peer-evaluation and the teacher’s evaluation, c the final mark and the teacher’s evaluation,
and d the peer- and the self-evaluation. Bold light gray lines indicate where the two marks are equal;
thin light gray lines indicate where the marks on the vertical axis are 0.25 or 0.5 units above or
below the marks on the horizontal axis. Red, green, and black numbers indicate how many marks
on the vertical axis are below (plotting within the red field), above (plotting within the green field),
or equal to marks on the horizontal axis (plotting on the bold light gray line), respectively. Dashed
dark gray lines correspond to the linear regression for each entire dataset (bold line; slope s) and
each dataset neglecting the teacher’s mark of 4.25 (thin line; slope sl ). Note that some data points
are slightly shifted to make them all visible
mine; when I give a relatively higher mark (higher than about 5.50), the final mark
tends to be lower than mine.
In principle, in Figs. 7a–c, I assumed my mark as the reference for all other
marks (mark from self- and peer-evaluation and final mark). Red and green colors
highlight the marks that are below and above this reference, respectively. As an
additional information, Figs. 8 and 9 show the distribution of how far the marks
20 M. Frehner
are below and above the reference for the three years individually and combined,
respectively. Hence, these are similar plots as in Figs. 5 and 6, but plotted relative
to my (the teacher’s) mark. Therefore, very similar observations can be made. On
average, the marks from the self-evaluation are slightly below my marks (average
deviation −0.051), demonstrating that the students mark themselves slightly more
critical than me. The marks from the peer-evaluation are slightly above my marks
(average deviation +0.040), showing that the students are slightly more positive with
their colleagues than me. However, these average deviations are almost negligible.
This is even truer for the final mark, which on average deviates only +0.006 from my
mark. Hence, on average, the students (almost) get the identical final mark I would
have given them alone. However, the distribution of the deviation for the final mark
is significantly narrower (standard deviation σ 0.33) than the self- (σ 0.56) and
peer-evaluation (σ 0.51). Again, this is an effect of the averaging scheme (Tables 3
and 4), which averages out larger deviations from the individual contributions. In the
end, 36 out of 44 students (81.8%) have a final mark within ±0.25, and 42 students
(95.5%) have a final mark within ±0.50 of my (reference) mark.
5 Discussion
Generally, the evaluation procedure works extremely well, which was a positive
surprise at the beginning when I introduced it. Both the self- and peer-evaluation is
done in a very serious and rigorous way and leads to marks very similar to mine. At
the same time, I always believed that students can deal with responsibility and use it
in a positive way if they get the opportunity. Hence, I also expected that the students
do a great job during the self- and peer-evaluation. Already before I introduced this
evaluation procedure, but now even more, I think it is safe to give responsibility into
the students’ hands and it even has very positive effects on their performance and
motivation.
5.1 Training of Soft-Skills
The results of the evaluation procedure over the course of three years (Figs. 6 and 9)
show that on average the students (almost) get the identical final mark I would have
given them alone. Therefore, the question arises if this entire evaluation procedure
is obsolete. In my opinion, this is clearly not the case because during the evaluation
procedure, the students learn and train some crucial soft-skills, such as
• Having an opinion! During the evaluation, the students have to build an opinion
about the work they evaluate. They cannot be indifferent toward the evaluation,
but they have to seriously deal with the work because of the next point.
Fig. 8 Distribution histograms of the number of marks below (red) and above (green) the teacher’s
mark for all three years (2014–2016; left to right) for the self- (a) and peer-evaluation (b), as well
as for the final mark (c)
• Taking responsibility! The students have to conclude their self- and peer-evaluation
with a mark, which is not altered in any way by me and hence counts one-to-one
for the final mark. This is an important point for me, because I strongly believe
that students can deal with responsibility and use it in a positive way if they get
the opportunity.
• Being objective and honest with yourself and your own work! This is a very crucial
soft-skill both as a scientist and in industry jobs. Very often in a job, one has to
decide if a piece of work is good enough (i.e., finished) to be presented to the
22 M. Frehner
Fig. 9 Distribution histograms of the number of marks below (red) and above (green) the teacher’s
mark for all three years combined for the self- (a) and peer-evaluation (b), as well as for the final
mark (c). Vertical gray areas indicate the average deviation from the teacher’s mark (bold gray line)
and the standard deviation (shaded area, σ ), both of which are also given as gray numbers
supervisor or a customer or to be submitted to a journal. This requires an objective

and honest self-evaluation.
• Being objective and honest with a colleague! This is a very crucial soft-skill when
working in teams. It is important to be able to provide critical feedback to some-
body, who is a close collaborator or friend. In particular, it is very important to be
able to provide criticism in a way that the colleague can accept it, which is only
possible when it is objective and fair.
• Evaluating work, for which you are not the exact expert! During peer-evaluation,
the students have to judge if the given results and interpretations are feasible
without having worked on the specific problem themselves. As a scientist or in
industry jobs, this situation occurs all the time when doing a peer-review for a
journal article or when evaluating the work of a contractor.
All of these soft-skills are very important for the student’s future career. The
self- and peer-evaluation mimics a scientific review process or an industry workflow
of reporting. Unfortunately, such soft-skills are not typically trained at universities,
where the primary focus is on knowledge and its applications. However, modern
education should be more skill-oriented than knowledge-oriented, in particular at
the university level. Using the presented evaluation procedure, I try to cover both
aspects, technical knowledge and its application, but also the required soft-skills to
perform the necessary evaluation of the work.
Going back to Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Fig. 1), it is satisfying
to see that the NMRD-course reaches the highest levels of learning and thinking.
Just with the end-of-semester project alone (which would only be evaluated by me),
students would only reach the level of “Application/Apply” (i.e., apply the FE-code to
a specific problem) and “Analysis/Analyze” (i.e., analyze and interpret the results),
which are in the middle of the taxonomy. However, with the presented self- and
peer-evaluation procedure, the students reach the level of “Evaluation/Evaluate”,

which is the highest and second highest level in the original and revised taxonomy,
respectively. Those students who also chose to define their own end-of-semester
project even reach the level of “Create”, which is the highest level in the revised
taxonomy. However, all students generate their own new knowledge by working on
and solving their individual end-of-semester project. In that sense, all students reach
the level of “Synthesis/Create”.
5.2 Advantages of the Self- and Peer-evaluation Procedure
Besides the training of soft-skills described above, the presented evaluation procedure
of the NMRD-course has several additional advantages. In particular, I feel that the
students are extremely motivated to work on their end-of-semester project because
they can choose or even define their own project. This allows them to work on
something they are really interested in, which can be different if such projects were
distributed randomly by the teacher. This very high motivation expresses itself by
how much time the students spend on their project and in particular on some small
details that they would like to understand. It happened quite regularly that some
students even come up with their own questions related to the project, which go
beyond the original set of questions in the project posed by me.
The final mark of any course at the ETH Zurich (and probably at most universities)
has to be individual. In other words, marking group work is officially not allowed.
Nevertheless, many courses are marked based on group work, in particular on the
Master’s level. The reason is that many courses become more and more skills-oriented
rather than knowledge-oriented, which is relatively difficult to assess in individual
written or oral exams. Group work solving a particular problem is better suited to
assess the desired problem solving-skills. The presented evaluation procedure offers
a solution to this problem, because thanks to the self-evaluation, it assesses group
work with individual marks. In this procedure, only two-thirds of the final mark is
the same for the group (peer-evaluation and mark from the teacher; Tables 3 and 4),
while one-third is individual (self-evaluation). It does not happen too often that the
two students of a group have different final marks; however, it happened to 4 out of
18 groups (22.2%) in the course of three years.
5.3 Disadvantages and Criticism of the Self-

and Peer-evaluation Procedure
Of course, the presented evaluation procedure also has a few disadvantages. In par-
ticular, it is a relatively large effort in terms of time and work for everybody involved.
On one hand, I (the teacher) have to define and describe all the individual end-of-
24 M. Frehner
semester projects and in fact solve all of them myself to make sure they are suitable
for the students in terms of difficulty and time requirements. If the students come
up with their own ideas for these projects (which I encourage a lot), I even cannot
copy and modify the projects from the previous years but have to design them every
year from scratch, which is very time-consuming. Also, I have to define the redis-
tribution key for the peer-evaluation and do an evaluation myself for every report
and FE-code. On the other hand, the students not only have to solve their individual
project, but also read one report from another group in detail and deliver two evalua-
tion reports (self- and peer-evaluation). Despite all of this additional work compared
to a course using a more traditional evaluation procedure, the average final mark
for the students is (almost) identical to the teacher’s mark. However, the extra work
(at least of the students) is rewarded with one extra ECTS point compared to other
2-hour/week lectures.
One criticism of the presented evaluation procedure might be that the final mark
is not objective, because every student receives the evaluation from different people.
Therefore, the marking standard might be different for different students. This is a
justified criticism. However, one could argue that this is just the way it is in real life.
The acceptance of a scientific paper in a peer-review process also depends on the
choice of reviewers (and maybe even their daily mood); or whether or not a service
can be sold to a customer also depends on the person representing that customer.
Because such differences in the evaluation of the same piece of work exist in real
life, teachers should expose our students to this challenge and train them accordingly.
Traditional individual exams, which are all evaluated and marked by the same teacher,
pretend that there is one unique evaluation and marking standard. On the Master’s
level, I believe that this is not what an teacher should teach the students anymore.
Also, there is no reason to believe that my (the teacher’s) evaluation is more objective
than the student’s own evaluation.
5.4 Communication: One Key Point for the Self-

and Peer-evaluation Procedure
One very important point for the presented evaluation procedure is a good commu-
nication. For almost all students, it is the very first time they do such a self- and
peer-evaluation, and in particular to give marks that count. Therefore, it is crucial
to provide sufficient explanation, documentation, and guidance prior and during the
entire procedure. In the case of the NMRD-course, I explain the evaluation procedure
at the very beginning of the course, so the students know very early what they are
supposed to do at the end of the semester. Also, I provide a short information in
the middle of the semester (Appendix A) and some general remarks (Appendix E)
and the evaluation guidelines (Appendix F) when the students actually start with the
end-of-semester projects. In addition, the students have access to some four reports
from previous years to get an idea how the report may look like. All of this is crucial
to make the self- and peer-evaluation an enjoyable and successful experience for the
students.
5.5 Further Ideas/Outlook
During the three years I implemented the presented evaluation procedure, a num-
ber of extension and modification possibilities came to my mind. However, I never
implemented any of them, and therefore, I cannot report on any experience. These
are just ideas, including
• The evaluation of the report and the FE-code may be separated more strictly in
the sense that I only evaluate the FE-code (not even looking at the report) and the
peer-evaluation only considers the report (the students would not even get the FE-
code). This would put even more responsibility into the students’ hands because
they had the sole responsibility to evaluate the report. At the same time, it would
reduce my workload significantly. In this scenario, the self-evaluation would still
consider both the report and the FE-code.
• Instead of written evaluation reports, it would be very interesting to do oral exam-
inations consisting of two parts:
– First, a true oral examination of/discussion with the student receiving the mark
(about 20 min). The examination panel would consist of myself and the stu-
dent(s), who do the peer-evaluation in the current evaluation procedure (i.e.,
they have read the report in detail). Hence, one or two fellow students would
take an active part in examining their colleague together with me. This situation
would be extremely interesting to see how the students interact with each other.
The students, who were exposed to this situation could learn and train soft-skills
related to oral argumentation that go beyond the written evaluation.
– Second, finding the final mark in a discussion (about 10 min). Everybody
together (I, the fellow student(s) doing the peer-evaluation and the student
him/herself) should agree on the final mark in a discussion. So, the idea is
not to average the different contributions, but to have a discussion and argue
about the final mark. If there is no consensus, the established averaging scheme
(Tables 3 and 4) may still be adopted.
Such an oral examination incorporating fellow students into the examination
panel and finding an agreement on the final mark would be extremely interesting
for everybody involved. It involves a lot more interpersonal exchange than the
current evaluation procedure, which is just based on written reports. In terms of
workload, the students do not have to write two evaluation reports anymore (self-
and peer-evaluation); instead they have to take part in 2–3 oral examinations
(their own and 1–2 in the examination panel). So, the workload may be about
the same as in the current evaluation procedure. However, organizing all the oral
examinations with all the students would be very tedious and time-consuming.
26 M. Frehner
• The oral evaluation procedure just described above may also be combined with
written evaluation reports. Of course, the workload would increase significantly. At
the same time, the amount and quality of feedback each student would receive also
increases significantly because the advantages of both written and oral evaluations
were combined.
6 Conclusions
The students really enjoy working on their end-of-semester project, because they can
apply their gained knowledge to a specific problem. The fact that they can choose, or
even design themselves their own project contributes significantly to their motivation.
Concerning the self- and peer-evaluation, my main conclusion is that they both work
very well. After three years of experience, it is clear that the students can handle the
given responsibility and take the self- and peer-evaluation very seriously. They are
objective during the evaluation and do not evaluate themselves or their colleagues
overly positive or overly negative. If anything, the self-evaluation tends to be slightly
more negative and the peer-evaluation slightly more positive than my (the teacher’s)
evaluation. On average, the final mark is exactly the same as my mark.
In addition, the evaluation procedure allows the students to learn and train several
crucial soft-skills allowing them to conduct an objective and fair evaluation of their
own and their colleague’s work. The presented evaluation procedure allows teaching
and training such soft-skills in addition to the technical/scientific knowledge, which is
otherwise not trained enough at universities at the Master’s level. Based on the student
feedback I received over a period of three years, I can conclude that the evaluation
procedure itself significantly enhances student motivation. The main reason for this is
an opportunity they do not usually get as students, that is taking responsibility for their
own evaluation and marks. However, giving responsibility into the students’ hands
as a teacher acknowledges their competence and capabilities, which is something
very motivating.
Acknowledgements I thank all the past students that took the NMRD-lecture at the ETH Zurich.
Originally, the presented grading procedure was indeed an experiment, which the students pursued
on their free will. Only thanks to their enthusiasm, I initiated this experiment and through very
constructive and helpful feedback from my students, I could refine and improve the presented
grading system over the years. I also thank Adrian Gilli, our Department’s educational support
and teaching expert, for encouraging me to initiate this grading procedure at the very beginning.
Reviewed by Soumyajit Mukherjee (IIT Bombay).
Appendix A
In the following, a short document is provided that helps the students decide what
kind of end-of-semester project they want to work on.
Table 5 List of possible end-of-semester projects to give the student ideas what they could/want
to work on
Project Elastic problem Viscous problem Mathematical/theoretical
problem
Examples • Stress distribution • Geological buckle • Visco-elastic rheology,
inside a bridge folding, e.g., neutral or non-linear rheology
• Pressure distribution line in folds • Seismic wave
around a borehole • Growth of diapirs and propagation
• Pressure distribution at salt domes • Surface
tunnel level below a • Sigma-/delta-clast processes/erosion
topography formation • 3D problem (viscous or
• Stress distribution in a • Deformation in shear elastic)
landslide situation zones, e.g., drag fold • Problems in
• Any other formation cylindrical or spherical
engineering-type • Glacier rock glacier coordinates
application (i.e., flow
stresses in a piece of
something)
• Lithospheric bending
Suited for • Engineering geologists • Geologists interested Everyone who wants to
• Geologists interested in viscous/ductile • learn more technical
in elastic and brittle deformation details about the FEM
deformation • use the FEM in the
MSc thesis
A1. Some notes on the examination

For getting a mark for this course, you are expected to work on an individual project
in groups of two (if possible) and hand in a short report about this project. Further
details about this report, I will tell you later in the semester. But it is time to speak
about the type of project you should work on. Because I want that you can profit
from this project as much as possible, I let you decide what the broad application of
your project should be. Possible choices are provided in Table 5.
If you have your own ideas, just talk to me. I am sure we find a good project for
you.
Important (until end of next week): Please form groups of two (if possible) and
tell me or write an e-mail about your choice of project.
28 M. Frehner
Fig. 10 Parasitic folds in the Cycladic Blueschist Unit. The individual layers develop an order
of magnitude smaller wavelength compared to the entire multi-layer stack, which is referred to as
parasitic folds or second-order folds. Location: Northern Syros Island, Greece (37° 29 28.86 N/24°
54 26.14 E)
Appendix B
In the following, an example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

vided, which would be solved by a group of two students. The following description
corresponds exactly to the problem set the students receive.
B1. Exercise: Parasitic folds
Folds are one of the most spectacular geological structures that form in compressional
tectonic regimes (Fig. 10). In many cases, folds can be modeled as a linear viscous
(Newtonian) fluid in two dimensions. Very often, folds occur on multiple scales,
whereas the smaller-scale folds develop so-called parasitic folds (S-, Z-, and M-
folds; Fig. 11) in relation to the larger-scale fold.
In this exercise, you should model multilayer folding and the development of
parasitic folds, very similar to my Master’s Thesis (Frehner and Schmalholz 2006).
Consider the multilayer geometry in Fig. 12, which consists of three stronger (ηLayer
= 100) and five weaker layers (ηMatrix = 1). All lengths are normalized; hence, in the
following, all lengths are given as units, and not meters. The layers are 20.2 units
long. This corresponds to the dominant wavelength, λd , of the two-layer system; i.e.,
neglecting the thin central layer:
Fig. 11 Sketch of asymmetric parasitic folds (second-order folds) in association with a larger-scale
fold (first-order fold). Also shown are the third-order folds, which are parasitic folds to the second-
order folds. Picture taken from the lecture notes of Jean-Pierre Burg, ETH Zurich (http://www.files.
ethz.ch/structuralgeology/JPB/files/English/8folds.pdf)
Fig. 12 Sketch of the model

setup to model the
development of asymmetric
parasitic folds in a multilayer
stack. All material
parameters, model
dimensions, and boundary
conditions are provided here

η Layer
λd 2π H 3 n Layer , (B.1)
6η Matri x
where H is the thickness of the individual strong layers and ηLayer is the number of
strong layers (i.e., 2). The upper and lower strong layers have a thickness of 1 unit,
30 M. Frehner
and the central strong layer has a thickness of 0.1 units. The central strong layer
should be placed symmetrically in the center between the two outer strong layers.
However, the distance to them is a free parameter.
All layer interfaces need to have a sinusoidal initial geometry to initialize the fold-
ing process (indicated in Fig. 12). The amplitude of this sinusoidal initial geometry
should be small (use 1 × 10−4 ). In addition to the sinusoidal initial geometry, the
central strong layer should have a random initial geometry to allow it developing its
own dominant wavelength. This random initial geometry, you may program as
rand_array = Arand*h0*detrend(cumsum(rand(1,nx)));
where Arand is the amplitude of the random geometry (use Arand 2 × 10−1 ),
h0 is the thickness of the thin layer (i.e., h0 0.1), and nx is the number of nodes
of the numerical grid in x-direction.
The boundary conditions for this multilayer folding model are:
Left and right boundary: Constant strain rate
Bottom boundary: Free slip
Top boundary: Free surface.
The free surface boundary condition corresponds to a zero-stress Neumann bound-
ary condition and can be applied in the FE-code by not defining any Dirichlet bound-
ary conditions for the corresponding degrees of freedom. Free slip corresponds to
the following two conditions:
• Zero velocity perpendicular to the boundary
• Traction-free movement parallel to the boundary. This can be applied in the FE-
code by not defining any Dirichlet boundary conditions for the boundary-parallel
velocity.
The constant strain rate boundary condition corresponds to the following two
conditions:
• Traction-free movement parallel to the boundary.
• Velocity perpendicular to the boundary is a function of the coordinate value (the
x-coordinate in this case), i.e., vx ε̇x x x. Use ε̇x x −1 in your model.
B2. Questions
• Plot the distribution of the pressure inside and around the multilayer folds as they
progressively deform.
• Find a good value for the distance between the two outer strong layers to develop
nice parasitic folds.
• Describe (and possibly quantify) the development of the small- and large-scale
folds and how they are related to each other. How is the temporal relationship
between the small- and large-scale folds? When do the small-scale folds become
asymmetric?
• Where do S-, Z-, and M-folds develop in relation to their position on the larger-
scale fold?
B3. Notes/Tips
• Use a time increment of dt 5 × 10−3 .

• Simulate approximately 120 time steps.
• Put your lower and upper boundaries “far away” from the layer, i.e., approximately
15x the layer thickness.
• You do not need to include gravity in this exercise, because it is irrelevant on this
scale.
• Make some color snapshots during the simulation to visualize the model evolution.
• Maybe, you have to run the exact same model setup several times. These alleged
equal simulations are still different because you use a random initial geometry for
the central strong layer. Use a simulation that gives “nice” results.
• You realize that you model is mirror symmetric with a vertical symmetry axis.
Maybe you can think of only modeling half the model to save some numerical
costs. When plotting the results, you can “double” the model again.
What kind of boundary conditions do you have to use on the symmetry axis?
Appendix C
In the following, a second example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

C1. Exercise: Sill emplacement
Diapirs are important geological structures that occur when relatively lighter material
rises through relatively denser material. This occurs, for example, at the slab interface
of a subducting plate, where rock partially melts and rises through the upper mantle
toward the crust (Fig. 13). If a diapir encounters a sharp lithological contrast, it
may not be able to ascend further and starts to move sideways along the lithological
boundary forming a horizontal sill. Hence, diapirism is not only an important process
for vertical magma emplacement, but also for underplating, and the formation of large
intrusions.
In many cases, diapirs can be modeled as a linear viscous (Newtonian) fluid in two
dimensions. In this exercise, you should investigate the interplay between the vertical
and horizontal movement of a diapir/sill encountering a sharp lithological boundary.
To do that, an initial model geometry is assumed (Fig. 14) that resembles a diapir
in its relatively late stage just after encountering the lithological interface. Consider
the initial model geometry in Fig. 14. It consists of three materials: the diapir, the
surrounding mantle, and a layer above the diapir. All values for the dimension of the
model, density, and viscosity are given in the figure.
32 M. Frehner
Fig. 13 Sketch of diapirs rising from a subducting slab below an intraoceanic island arc. This
buoyant harzburgite model originates from (Oxburgh and Parmentier 1978)
The boundary conditions for this diapir model are:

Left, right, and bottom boundary: Free slip boundary conditions
Top boundary: Free surface boundary conditions
• Zero velocity perpendicular to the boundary
velocity.
C2. Questions/Tasks
• Plot the pressure distribution in and around the diapir as it progressively amplifies.
Where is the pressure greatest/smallest? Are there pressure concentrations?
• Track both the amplitude of the topography above the diapir and the horizontal
extent of the diapir’s head. Compare and quantify the two values (maybe take the
ratio or make a cross-plot) for different values of the viscosity of the upper layer.
Which viscosity should the upper layer have for an efficient horizontal movement
of the diapir’s head?

setup to model sill
emplacement along a sharp
lithological boundary when a
rising diapir head encounters
the latter. All material
parameters, model
C3. Tips and tricks for building the model grid
Creating the model is somewhat tricky because the model contains some curved
interfaces. However, if you use a constant number of elements in both x- and y-
directions, you can keep the structure of the two arrays x2d and y2d, only that
you have to program the actual coordinate values differently (not using ndgrid).
The final grid looks something like Fig. 15 (this is a low-resolution numerical grid
for visualization reasons). You recognize that the y-coordinates are constant in x-
direction. So, layer-by-layer, you can create a y-coordinate array.
Once you have this, it is probably best to loop through this y-coordinate array.
For every y-coordinate, you can define the x-coordinate of the bold interface in the
middle of the model and from this, you can calculate the grid spacing in x-direction
(x) on the left and right side of this interface.
C4. Notes/Tips
• The horizontal extent of the model is not provided here. Choose a “large enough”
model to avoid boundary effects.
• Gravity-driven self-consistent models are actually quite tricky because they can
numerically become unstable (the solution can explode). Therefore, this model is
somewhat scaled and does not really contain physical parameters. In other words,
the lengths are not in meters but in arbitrary units; the densities are not in kg/m3 ,
34 M. Frehner
Fig. 15 Low-resolution
version of the numerical
FE-grid that discretized the
model shown in Fig. 14
but also in arbitrary units; and so on. It is important to stick to the given values for
this exercise not to have numerical problems.
• Use a time increment of t 5 × 10−2 .
• Simulate approximately 120 time steps.
• Make some color snapshots during the simulation to visualize the model evolution.
• You realize that you model is mirror symmetric with a vertical symmetry axis.
Maybe you can think of only modeling half the model to save some numerical
costs. When plotting the results, you can “double” the model again.
What kind of boundary conditions do you have to use on the symmetry axis?
Appendix D
In the following, a third example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

D1. Exercise: Second Gotthard tunnel
In 2016, the Swiss public voted (57% yes against 43% no; https://www.bk.admin.
ch/ch/d/pore/va/20160228/det599.html) for the construction of a second Gotthard
road tunnel. The main pro-argument was the increased safety, because with two
tunnels the traffic in the two directions can be separated from each other. The main
contra-argument was the protection of the alpine environment. Now after the vote,
the planning for this construction has started.

setup to model the second
Gotthard tunnel. All material
parameters, model
In this exercise, you should use the FE-method to investigate how the second tunnel
affects the stress distribution around the first tunnel. Consider the two-dimensional
elastic model shown in Fig. 16 with the material parameters given in Table 6.
The boundary conditions in this model should be the following:
Left, bottom, and right boundary: Free slip
Top boundary: Free surface
• Zero displacement perpendicular to the boundary
displacement.
To avoid boundary effects, the left, bottom, and right boundaries should be “far
away” from the tunnel.
The goal of this exercise is to study the stress distribution in the subsurface in the
case of one (initial state) and two tunnels under the gravitational load that acts on
the rock mass and compare the two cases.
Table 6 Elastic material properties to model the second Gotthard tunnel

Parameter Surrounding rock (granite) Tunnel (air)
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.3 0.1
Elastic bulk modulus (K) 35 GPa 0.1 MPa
Density (ρ) 2700 kg/m3 1 kg/m3
36 M. Frehner
D2. Questions
1. Plot the distribution
of the second invariant of the stress tensor, which is given
2
as σII σx x − σ yy 4 + σx2y in both cases (1 and 2 tunnels), and plot the
difference between these two cases.
2. Describe the stress distribution around the tunnel in both cases. How does it
look like? Is the stress distribution symmetric around the tunnel? Are there
areas of stress concentrations?
3. How does the stress distribution around the first tunnel change when the second
tunnel is added? Does it increase or decrease, and where does it change?
4. How would you adjust the safety installations in the first tunnel before drilling
the second tunnel?
D3. Tips and Tricks
• You are supposed to run two different models, one with one tunnel, and one with
two tunnels. I suggest that the numerical grid for both simulations is exactly the
same. Then you can compare your results one-to-one, because the numerical points
of the two simulations are at the same position.
• So, I suggest to use three phases in your model (i.e., the Phase-array contains
values 1, 2, and 3), 1 for the granitic rock, 2 for the left tunnel, and 3 for the right
tunnel. Then you also have to define three sets of material parameters (i.e., 2 elastic
parameters and density), one for each phase. When you do that, you can run the
first simulation where the material parameters for phase 3 are equal to the rock
parameters and the second simulation where the material parameters for phase 3
are equal to the air parameters.
• To compare these two simulations, you can either
• save the stresses after the first simulation, i.e.,
save filename STRESS
At the end of the code for your second simulation, before you plot the stresses,
you can load the stresses from the first simulation again:
T2 = STRESS;
load(‘filename’)
T1 = STRESS;
T2 are the stresses in the case of two tunnels and T1 are the stresses in the case
of one tunnel. And then you can plot the difference between the two.
• or write a loop around your entire code, which is executed twice, e.g.,
for iTunnel = 1:2
and in each iteration choose the material parameters according to one or two
tunnels. After executing this loop, you have both stress fields.
• To avoid an overly dense resolution away from the areas of interest, it would be
helpful to use a non-uniform resolution (non-constant x and y). You may try
using a smoothly increasing spatial resolution from the left boundary toward the
tunnels, and a smoothly decreasing spatial resolution from the tunnels away toward
the right boundary (and similar in the y-direction). This way, you can save some
numerical points away from the tunnels, where you do not need a high resolution.
Appendix E
In the following, some general remarks that are handed out to the students are pro-
vided. These general remarks specify some details concerning the project work, the
report, and the evaluation procedure.
E1. General remarks
Your mark will be based on your performance in a small project carried out in groups
of two (if possible). I tried to design projects of similar difficulty. The idea of the
project is for you to demonstrate that you understand the FE-method sufficiently to
solve a practical problem. Of course, the primary goal is to get the correct answer.
However, it is not a disaster if your code contains a bug or gives strange results.
Therefore, it is important that you provide sufficient documentation, such that even
if your program does not work correctly, your solution strategy is clear.
For getting a mark, you have to hand in the following things until xxx:
• A report, not longer than 4 pages (!), describing how you solved your problem
and summarizing your results. See below.
• All MATLAB codes necessary for solving your problem. The codes should auto-
matically produce the figures in your report. Use comments in your code (!);
otherwise, I will not be able understand it (and cannot find the errors ☺).
I leave the organization of your four-page report up to you; the following may act
as a guideline:
• Your report should only contain solution strategies and
results/interpretations/discussions to your problem. So, do not waste time
and space for
• repeating the questions given in your project. I know them already.
• introduction and motivation. This report is not for a general audience.
• Shortly describe the governing equations describing your problem and how they
are discretized with the FE-method (e.g., Ku = F; what is K, u, and F?).
• Describe the boundary and initial conditions and how they are implemented.
• Maybe draw a diagram or flowchart of your code, or outline it in keywords. This
also helps you writing the actual code. Focus on the things that you implemented,
and not on the things done together in the course.
• Include figures, flowcharts, sketches, etc. (!). Do not forget figure labels. Figures
are the most important step for explaining results and to draw conclusions. Figures
in the report should be reproducible by the code that you hand in.
• Describe the results, interpret and discuss them, and draw some conclusions.
38 M. Frehner
The last two weeks of the semester, you have time to work on your project during
the lecture hours. You are free to discuss with me and the course assistant. During
the week and semester break, I am still available for discussions and questions (also
per e-mail). Your questioning will not have any influence on your mark. Consider
this exercise as an integral part of the lecture. I want you to profit from this exercise
as much as possible…!
You should email your report and all MATLAB files to me or bring them to my
office until xxx.
E2. Getting a mark
After handing in everything, your report and code will be marked by three parties:
• I mark your report and your code.
• You mark your report yourself! (i.e., self-evaluation)
• Two fellow students from the same course will mark your report. (i.e., peer-
evaluation)
Your final mark will be the average value from the three marks.
Because the reports will be rotated among all students, reports from groups of
two will be evaluated by two other students, while reports from single students will
be evaluated only by one other student. In the first case, the two evaluations from the
two fellow students will be averaged to result in on mark counting one-third of the
total mark. Which student will mark whose other student’s report will be determined
by me based on the similarity between the different projects.
This somewhat revolutionary marking procedure allows you to not only learn
some technical details about the FE-method and how to apply the method to your
problem, but also to gain some crucial “soft skills”, which may be useful for your
further career, such as
• Honest self-evaluation
• Evaluating reports, where you are not the exact expert
• Be objective when dealing with colleagues
• Be objective with yourself
• Accept criticism from colleagues without taking it personal
Of course, the mark that you give to yourself and to a colleague of yours has to be
justified. Therefore, not only the mark is required, but a written statement that justifies
your decision. To help you during the evaluation process (both self-evaluation and
peer-evaluation), I will provide some evaluation guidelines and some reports from
the same course from previous years as a comparison. So, everybody’s task will be
threefold:
• Write a report and hand in all the codes.
• After handing in everything, evaluate your own report yourself based on the eval-
uation guidelines.
• Evaluate one other report from a colleague.
The self- and peer-evaluation should happen as soon as possible after the deadline
for handing in the report, i.e., soon after xxx, but latest until the new semester starts,
that is until xxx.
Now have fun…
E3. General tips and tricks
During this course, you wrote two working codes, one for 2D elastic media and one
for 2D incompressible linear viscous (Newtonian) media. Now it is time to apply
one of these codes. So, most of you do not need to include any new physics or any
new equations, but building the model (i.e., the geometrical setup and setting up the
numerical grid) is the most challenging part. Therefore, I suggest that you first try
to draw the numerical setup on a sheet of paper and try to understand how you can
define the external and internal boundaries and interfaces mathematically, so that
you can then program them.
[In the original document, I list some technical tips and tricks in MATLAB, which
are not of relevance here.]
Appendix F
In the following, the evaluation guidelines that are handed out to the students are
provided. These guidelines specify some details concerning the evaluation procedure
and explain how to evaluate the reports for the self- and peer-evaluation.
F1. Guideline for report evaluation
Your report and code will be marked by three parties: me, yourself (i.e., self-
evaluation), and one or two fellow students (i.e., peer-evaluation) (depending whether
you are in a group of two or alone). So, everybody will have to evaluate his/her own
report plus one other report from a colleague. Of course, the mark that you give
to yourself and to a colleague of yours has to be justified. Therefore, not only the
mark is required, but a written statement that justifies your decision. This written
statement should be roughly one-page long.
To help you evaluating (both self- and peer-evaluation), I provide some questions
that you may/should answer during the evaluation, very similar to a review process
of a scientific manuscript. I deliberately do not provide a strict evaluation form,
because you should keep some flexibility and independence. As additional help, you
will also have access to some reports from the same course but from previous years
as a comparison.
F2. Possible questions for evaluation
Because your reports are reasonably short, you are not supposed to explain the
purpose of the study and how it fits into a bigger picture. Therefore, you should also
not evaluate these points. During both self- and peer-evaluation, you may consider
the following questions:
40 M. Frehner
Table 7 Swiss marking Mark Meaning Comment

system
6.0 Excellent Best possible mark
5.5 Very good
5.0 Good
4.5 Satisfactory
4.0 Sufficient Passed the course
3.0 Insufficient Failed the course
2.0 Poor
1.0 Very poor
• What is your general impression of the report?

• Is the structure of the report logical? Is there a good flow in reading the report?
• Are all assumptions clearly declared and justified?
• Is the applied method and solution strategy clear?
• Are the results clear and well presented?
• Is there a clear distinction between results and interpretations?
• Are the conclusions supported by data/results?
• Are the figures clear (labels, captions, colors, legend, etc.)?
• Do the figures contribute to a better understanding of the text?
• Are all figures necessary?
• Are all citations (if any) correctly listed at the end of the report?
• Did anything strike you as particularly clever/novel/elegant/interesting?
F3. Marking the report
In particular for self-evaluation for students in groups of two:

• How was the work distributed?
• Did someone contribute considerably more than the other?
After you evaluated the report, you should mark the report (both yours and your
colleague’s). For marking the report, you should follow the standard Swiss marks,
which have the meaning given in Table 7. You can give marks with an accuracy of
0.25 (i.e., 4.75, 5.25).
F4. Other remarks
• I am not asking you to check your colleague’s code in detail (I will take care of
this). However, the code will be provided and it is your decision to which detail
you want/have to look at the code for your evaluation.
• Even though I will not check on this, I ask you to do the self-evaluation alone,
even if you are in a group of two.
• This somewhat experimental evaluation procedure requires and trains some “soft
skills”, which I want you to keep in mind when performing the evaluation:
• Be as objective as possible. Forget the person behind the report (both yourself
for self-evaluation and your colleague for peer-evaluation).
• Be honest with your colleague. If you consider (parts of) your colleague’s report
bad, tell so in your written statement, but justify and explain in a way that your
colleague can accept your criticism.
• Be honest with yourself during self-evaluation.
References
Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J,
Wittrock MC (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York. ISBN 0-415-34279-1
Biggs J (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32:347–364. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956) Taxonomy of educational
objectives: the classification of educational goals, handbook 1: cognitive domain. Longmans,
Green and Co. Ltd., London. ISBN 0-582-28010-9
Downing SM, Haladyna TM (2011) Handbook of test development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc, Publishers, Mahwah. ISBN 0-8058-5265-4
ETH Zurich, Department for Educational Development and Technology (LET) (2013) Guidelines
on grading written examinations. ETH Zurich, Zurich
Frehner M, Schmalholz SM (2006) Numerical simulations of parasitic folding in multilayers. J
Struct Geol 28:1647–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2006.05.008
Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41:212–218.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Oxburgh ER, Parmentier EM (1978) Thermal processes in the formation of continental lithosphere.
Philos Trans Royal Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 288:415–429. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1978.0025
Race P, Brown S, Smith B (2005) 500 Tips on assessment. Routledge Falmer, Abingdon. ISBN
0-415-34279-1
Modern Methods in Structural Geology
of Twenty-first Century: Digital Mapping
and Digital Devices for the Field Geology
Lucie Novakova and Terry L. Pavlis
Abstract In the digital era of the present century, we are witnessing big changes in
field geology, especially digital mapping and usage of digital devices. Until recently
geologists used only a classic Brunton or Freiberg compass. Now, they are using
smartphones as a digital geological compass. We tested 25 smartphones with Android
software and iPhones with iOS software to determine whether they are suitable as a
substitute for the analog compasses. We found big differences between the devices
especially for measuring the strikes of the planes. Generally, iPhones provided better
results than the smartphones with Android software. The possible explanation is
the presence of higher-quality sensors, especially magnetometer, gyroscope, and
accelerometer. Thus, we recommend to check the digital device first and to do a
series of the tests before using the smartphone as a digital geological compass.
Keywords Field geology · Digital mapping · Smartphone · Calibration

Application
1 Introduction
Not long ago a professional geologist’s field tools consisted of a Brunton compass,
rock hammer, magnifying glass, and field notebook. Both in the field and in the lab-
oratories, studying geology has experienced a great change in recent years, fueled
by technological leaps in handheld digital devices, especially tablets and cameras
(GSA 2012). Considering the worldwide distribution of 5.3 billion unique mobile
L. Novakova (B)
Czech Academy of Sciences, Department of Seismotectonics,
Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics, Czech Republic, v.v.i.,
V Holesovickach 41, 182 09, Prague, Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]
T. L. Pavlis
Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at
El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA

44 L. Novakova and T. L. Pavlis
subscriptions with a smartphone percentage of 56% compared to the global popu-

lation of ~7.6 billion people, a life without smartphones is unimaginable nowadays
(Kröhner et al. 2017).
A basic compass is capable to determine north because it measured the horizontal
component of the earth’s magnetic field, which is approximately aligned with the
earth’s rotation axis. The earth’s magnetic field long has been ascribed to convection
of molten iron–nickel in the outer core generating an earth-centered magnetic dipole
field. This vector field varies systematically around the earth and can be measured
routinely by modern, inexpensive devices that can serve as a digital compass when
linked to other sensors like an accelerometer. Variations in rock magnetic properties
have been exploited for decades in exploration by measuring variations in the strength
of the magnetic field or the magnetic vector itself, and in theory, these modern devices
could also serve crudely in this function.
In this paper, we look at a modern application of a low-cost magnetometer,
the magnetometer chips buried in most smartphones. These devices have seen
widespread use as a replacement for a traditional compass, yet little is known about
their accuracy. Here, we assess a subset of this problem.
2 Digital Devices
There are many analog and digital devices that can be used as a geological com-
pass: classic Freiberg compass, Brunton compass, traditional baseplate compass (see
Fig. 1), smartphone (iPhone), tablet, iPad, etc. (Fig. 2). The smartphones are handheld
phones that have different operating systems and several applications and sensors.
The past few years have observed the increase in smartphones usage in people’s daily
lives. Yang et al. (2015) described smartphones as programmable devices equipped
with a set of cheap but powerful embedded sensors, such as the accelerometer, digital
compass, gyroscope, GPS, microphone, and camera. These sensors can collectively
monitor a diverse range of human activities and the surrounding environment. Alsub-
aie et al. (2017) stated smartphones are pretty more sophisticated and keener and are
quickly closing the gap between computers and portable tablet devices. The present
generation of smartphones is fortified with low-cost GPS receivers, high-resolution
digital cameras, and micro-electromechanical system-based navigation sensors (e.g.,
accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetic compasses, and barometers).
Some smartphones have a small magnetometer built in, which can measure the
earth’s magnetic field. This information is shared with an accelerometer that acquires
evidence regarding the phone’s position in space. It is able to pinpoint the phone’s
position from solid-state sensors within the phone that can measure their tilt and
movement. The information provided by these devices means that the compass
app can display fundamental directions no matter which orientation the phone is
in, according to the algorithmic software development company Sensor Platforms.
However, many smartphone navigation sensors undergo from the reduced preci-
sion of global navigation satellite system, accumulated drift, and high signal noise.
Modern Methods in Structural Geology of Twenty-first Century: Digital … 45
Fig. 1 Analog devices used as geological compasses, left traditional baseplate compass, right
Freiberg compass
Fig. 2 Digital devices used as geological compasses, left iPhone with iOS software, right Honor
6x with Android software
These topics affect the accuracy of the initial exterior orientation parameters that are
inputted into the package adjustment algorithm, which then produces inaccurate 3D
mapping clarifications (Alsubaie et al. 2017).
3 Digital Mapping
Digital field geology was first attempted in the 90’s and became practical in the 21st
century (e.g., Pavlis et al. 2010, 2014). Although the use of paper methods continues,
digital mapping has now progressed to the point that it dramatically increases both
field efficiency and map accuracy, indicating paper methods are now a historic relic.
Digital technology is also essentially changing field geology in ways that will impact
all geosciences. The beginning of the twenty-first century saw a major development
in the methods of field data acquirement and geologic map performance (Whitmeyer
et al. 2010). Traditionally in geology, we have been flat map-centric by necessity
with paper, but this is not a limitation in digital mapping. The real world is 3D, and
the geologists are trying to make mapping a real-time 3D exercise (Pavlis 2017).
Digital mapping, however, is only the beginning of an even bigger revolution that
is upon us from three-dimensional (3D) mapping and visualization. The geometry
of geologic features analyzed in field studies is inherently 3D, and reliance on 2D
maps has handicapped advances in our understanding of the earth system (Pavlis and
Mason 2017).
Geologic field data gathering, analysis, and map compilation are undergoing a
revolution in methods, largely triggered by global positioning system (GPS)- and
geographic information system (GIS)-equipped mobile computers paired with vir-
tual globe visualizations. Modern, ruggedized personal digital assistants (PDAs) and
tablet PCs can record a wide spectrum of geologic data and simplify iterative geo-
logic map production and the assessment of location in the field. Spatial data, maps,
and interpretations can be presented in a variety of formats on virtual globes, such
as Google Earth (Whitmeyer et al. 2010). Zhang et al. (2016) described a broad con-
struction data collected from both air and earth. With the latter data, it was unable
to observe the building rooftops, while the previous data often had scarce coverage
on building front. To cover the missing data, the usage of GPS and digital compass
information was inserted into the image data of smartphones (Zhang et al. 2016).
4 Field Geology
Weng et al. (2012) specified field geology as a location-based science. The first action
a geologist takes in the field is to locate a geological object of interest and find its
coordinates. The GPS unit has become an essential tool for every field geologist.
In the analysis of geologic structures, geologists routinely measure orientations
of planar and linear features, and this function was one of the early smartphone apps
developed for geologists. The built-in accelerometer and magnetometer in smart-
phones have a 3D coordinate system with its center at (0, 0, 0). The axes parallel to
the screen of the smartphone are the X and Y axes, and the axis normal to the screen
is the Z-axis.
The earth’s gravity field and magnetic fields are both vector fields that can be
measured by an accelerometer and magnetometer, respectively. Thus, when these
sensors are embedded in the phone’s coordinate system, these two vectors can be
decomposed to determine the orientation of the phone in space (Allmendinger et al.
2017). The accelerometer provides the acceleration due to gravity in g-force, and
the magnetometer provides the strength of the geomagnetic field in microtesla (µT)
(Lee et al. 2013).
Even with traditional mechanical compasses geologists long have known to avoid
metal objects in close proximity to the compass, but in modern electronic devices, this
problem is compounded. Specifically, because the device is using the entire vector
field to determine orientation, small variations in any vector component can introduce
error. In addition, unlike an analog device which naturally dampens variations in the
electromagnetic field, magnetometers can make tens to hundreds of measurements
per second. Hence, electromagnetic (EM) spikes or EM noise from features like
powerlines or a field computer can introduce noise that can disturb the magnetic
measurement. Allmendinger et al. (2017) noted that one solution to this problem is
extensive averaging of the magnetometer measurements, yet even averaging may not
compensate for some noise sources.
The second factor is the calibration of the device (e.g., Bonnet et al. 2009). The
calibration procedure for smartphones varies among devices, but in a common pro-
cedure with Android systems, the device must be placed in the horizontal plane
and moved in an eight shape. After the movement, the device is calibrated and it is
possible to start the measurements. As other electronic components in smartphones
interfere with the magnetometer, smartphone operating systems provide a calibrated
value to eliminate this. Accordingly, we have not added additional calibration in
the application. The direction of gravity and the geomagnetic field are required to
calculate the orientation of the smartphone.
Additionally, accelerometers are sensitive to vibration, which is their primary
purpose within the device, and any vibration can introduce an error. Thus, in these
devices, care must always be taken to avoid vibration during the measurement which
includes a wait time when holding the device against a surface (Lee et al. 2013).
Alternatively, traditional sighting methods commonly used with analog compasses
require care, and averaging of measurements, with digital devices (Allmendinger
et al. 2017).
To obtain statistical data, we did the “Lucie” test. This test is based on measuring
one plane for several seconds more than 30 times to avoid the noise and statistical
errors. The device must be placed directly on the measured plane, at the same place.
Between the individual measurements, the device must be placed away from the rock
and then placed again to the same place as before the previous measurements. This
movement warrants the change of the position of the sensors in the device and again
the recalculation of “new” position of the new measurement.
4.1 Tests in the Field
To prove or invalidate the idea of the stability of the device, serious tests need
to be done. We have tested sensors in the airplane and standard mode. However,
almost no differences between these two modes were registered (Novakova and Pavlis
2017). We have also tested several fractures with different orientations and different
dips (Novakova and Pavlis 2017). Then, we installed FieldMove Clino application
(Midland Valley 2017) to as many devices as we had, including smartphones with
Android system and iPhones (25 devices).
We applied the “Lucie” test for all the devices. Strikes of the planes and dips were
both measured during the test. The results of our tests were displayed in box and
whiskers plots (Figs. 3 and 4). The graphs show the big variability of the measured
data, especially for strike values, and for smartphones with the old version of Android
software. On the other hand, the newer Android smartphones, as well as iPhones,
provided good and relatively stable results. For the dip values, the data are usually
in the maximum of 10° of variance, but they are definitely more stable. Measured
maximum and minimum for all planes are summarized in Table 1. We have also
calculated the mean and standard deviation for all the devices. The best data are
provided by iPhone SE and Honor 6x (subvertical plane). The variations in standard
Fig. 3 Box and whiskers plot for the measured strikes on various devices
Fig. 4 Box and whiskers plot for the measured dips on various devices
deviations were very high from 2.45 to 74.77° for strikes and 0.51 to 0.78° for dips. To
get the better view of all measured data, the planes were displayed into stereograms
with great circles (Fig. 5).
Thus, we choose two devices with different operation software: Honor 6x with an
Android software and iPhone SE with iOS software. With both, we measured four
types of fractures: horizontal, subhorizontal, subvertical, and vertical ones. Tests with
iPhone SE proved the stability of this device since there were no big changes in the
data acquisition. On the other hand, data measured with Honor 6x are quite unstable
depending on the dip of the fracture (Fig. 6). These results correspond to the results
of Novakova and Pavlis (2017).
5 Summary and Discussion
McCarthy et al. (2009) stated the critical limitation of the iPhone is the lack of an
inbuilt compass. Thus, the device cannot independently generate a strike measure-
ment. Since this date, the devices changed and were improved markedly. According
to Midland Valley (2017), FieldMove compass-clinometer measurements on iPad
Table 1 Statistical data of the measured planes. All fractures were measured more than 30 times
with each device, and in the table, the data for minimum and maximum strikes and dips measured
are displayed. Means and standard deviations were calculated from all measured strikes and dips for
various devices. To get meaningful statistics, negative values were used to describe some azimuth
measurements oscillating around N (e.g., −5° means 355°). Commonly used values (0–360°) can
be obtained simply by adding 360° to the negative values
Phone Min Max Mean St. Dev. Min dip Max dip Mean St. Dev.
type strike strike strike strike dip dip
Honor 125 184 173 7.14 17 20 19 0.60
3C
Honor 6 236 304 263 16.16 2 6 4 1.17
Honor 342 354 337 2.68 65 67 64 0.70
6x
Honor 68 93 76 4.82 3 5 4 0.43
6x
Honor 92 307 205 74.77 29 33 30 0.78
6x
Honor 6 306 216 50.58 86 90 86 0.71
6x
Honor 259 287 267 7.33 68 70 67 0.48
6x
Huawei −177 73 −18 73.49 7 9 8 0.67
CUN 21
Huawei 200 235 211 9.58 18 21 19 0.84
Nexus
6P
Huawei −6 162 76 39.86 6 7 6 0.50
P7 L10
Huawei 287 384 301 22.75 4 7 5 0.57
P8 Lite
Huawei 232 276 256 10.42 18 20 18 0.57
P8 Lite
Huawei 55 128 100 15.65 5 7 6 0.66
P9 Lite
Huawei 46 85 57 7.63 6 7 6 0.50
P9 Lite
iPhone 107 128 114 5.10 86 89 86 0.59
5s
iPhone 248 265 250 3.94 19 20 19 0.46
5s
iPhone 6 263 304 266 7.52 18 19 18 0.49
iPhone 6 125 311 156 50.24 85 89 85 0.70
iPhone 6 311 325 311 2.82 5 6 5 0.30
Plus
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Phone Min Max Mean St. Dev. Min dip Max dip Mean St. Dev.
type strike strike strike strike dip dip
iPhone −9 5 0 2.92 4 5 4 0.49
6s
iPhone 58 72 66 3.08 4 5 5 0.32
SE
iPhone 87 99 93 3.29 29 33 30 1.13
SE
iPhone 182 196 183 4.42 88 89 86 0.16
SE
iPhone 283 290 278 2.45 68 70 67 0.51
SE
LG- 237 300 257 13.32 10 19 17 1.42
D620r
Moto X −28 59 8 19.48 6 7 6 0.49
Samsung 260 362 336 18.91 3 26 5 5.32
Note 2
Samsung 176 344 255 36.26 4 8 5 0.87
Note 4
Samsung 179 215 193 8.24 3 4 3 0.48
s5mini
Sony −50 150 −5 53.26 6 7 6 0.47
Xperia
Z3
Sony 230 314 253 20.44 6 19 17 2.19
Xperia
Z5
comp.
Xiaomi 193 347 245 56.47 5 6 5 0.48
3S
Readme
tablets have accuracies to within 5° for compass bearings and “very good” clinometer
accuracy, with results from Apple devices displaying greater reliability than Android
or Windows counterparts (Cawood et al. 2017). We agree that for iPhone devices
there are almost not big changes within measurements on one single plane. For all
iPhones (except the only iPhone 6), the data provided by the measurements were
quite precise. According to Allmendinger et al. (2017), iPhones can be successfully
used by structural geologists as data collection devices in the field.
The other devices with Android software provided poor data sets that in some
cases are not possible to be used for measurements in the field. Alsubaie et al.
(2017) showed the GPS receivers used in most of the current smartphones (e.g.,
iPhone, Samsung, and HTC) have poor positioning accuracy. Furthermore, the micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors, especially gyroscopes, will accumulate
position drift over a short time because of their high signal-to-noise ratio over time.
Fig. 5 All measured data using “Lucie” test for 24 devices. Stereograms with great circles show
the scattering of the data
Fig. 6 Tests with iPhone SE and Honor 6x in different fracture dips
Furthermore, magnetometers can be easily disturbed by the presence of metallic

objects in its vicinity. For this reasons, we did the test in the remote area far away
from metallic objects. Although these sensors offer the ability to acquire direct geo-
referencing data, their low-level sensor measurements can lead to inaccurate exterior
orientation parameters (EOPs) which, in turn, decrease the mapping accuracy of the
system. These erroneous EOPs must be corrected before calculating the final 3D
mapping coordinates of the points of interest (Alsubaie et al. 2017). It seems new
devices like iPhones have higher-quality magnetometers and gyroscopes than the
older or cheaper smartphones with Android software. In line with our findings, Lee
et al. (2013) stated that the measurements of dip direction showed greater disparity
due to high variability in the magnetometer.
6 General Recommendation
Generally, iPhones provided better results than smartphones with Android software.
We think the mobiles with gyroscope are more precise than without. Since the new
devices contain high-quality sensors, they are better for field measurements.
Before using the smartphone as a digital geological compass, our recommenda-
tion is be sure that you know your device very well. First, check you are aware of
any metallic source. Second, calibrate your device, if possible. Third, check your
device performing a simple “Lucie” test (30 measurements) for three or four differ-
ent planes with different strikes and dips. These planes should be horizontal (0–10°),
subhorizontal (20–40°), subvertical (50–70°), and vertical (80–90°). Check the data,
first graphically on a stereonet, and then calculate the standard deviation and mean
for all data. Ideally, check the data with the classic analog compass. After you know
your device, it is safe to use it as a digital geological compass provided it passes
these simple tests.
Acknowledgements This work was carried out thanks to the support of the long-term conceptual
development research organization RVO: 67985891 to Novakova and NSF EAR-1250388 to Pavlis.
We would like to thank our colleagues and friends for their help with the field measurements. This
chapter was reviewed by Soumyajit Mukherjee. Springer proofreading team is thanked.
References
Allmendinger RW, Siron ChR, Scott ChP (2017) Structural data collection with mobile devices:
accuracy, redundancy, and best practices. J Struct Geol 102:98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.
2017.07.011
Alsubaie NM, Youssef AA, El-Sheimy N (2017) Improving the accuracy of direct geo-referencing
of smartphone-based mobile mapping systems using relative orientation and scene geometric
constraints. Sensors 17:2237. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17102237
Bonnet S, Bassompierre C, Godin C, Lesecq S, Barraud A (2009) Calibration methods for inertial
and magnetic sensors. Sens Actuators A Phys 156:302–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2009.
10.008
Cawood AJ, Bond CE, Howell JA, Butler RWH, Totake Y (2017) LiDAR, UAV or compass-clino.
J Struct Geol 98:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.04.004
Geological Society of America (2012) Field geologists (finally) going digital. Sci. Daily. www.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121105100928.htm, 5 Nov 2012
Kröhner M, Keh CH, Litschke H, Buckley JS (2017) Image-to-geometry registration on mobile
devices concepts, challenges and applications. In: Melanie Conference: 20. Anwendungsbezo-
gener Workshop zur Erfassung, Modellierung, Verarbeitung und Auswertung von 3D-Daten At:
Gesellschaft zur Förderung angewandter Informatik, Berlin
Lee S, Suh J, Park H (2013) Smart compass-clinometer: a smartphone application for easy and
rapid geological site investigation. Comput Geosci 61:32–42
McCarthy A, Cosgrave R, Meere P (2009) Use of the iPhone as a geological field tool: ractical
benefits and technical limitations. In: Proceedings of the EGU general assembly, Vienna, Austria.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-11727.pdf
Midland Valley (2017) Fieldmove Clino: android users guide. Midland Valley, Glasgow, Scotland,
38 pp
Novakova L, Pavlis TL (2017) Assessment of the precision of smart phones and tablets for mea-
surement of planar orientations: a case study. J Struct Geol 97:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsg.2017.02.015
Pavlis T (2017) Digital field geology & digital geologic mapping site. http://www.geo.utep.edu/
pub/pavlis/digitalmappingwebpages/. Accessed 31 May 2018
Pavlis TL, Mason KA (2017) The new world of 3D geologic mapping. GSA Today, pp 4–10
Pavlis TL, Langford R, Hurtado J, Serpa L (2010) Computer-based data acquisition and visualization
systems in field geology: results from 12 years of experimentation and future potential. Geosphere
6(3):275–294. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00503.1
Pavlis T, Hurtado J, Langford R, Serpa L (2014) Lessons in modern digital field geology: open
source software, 3D techniques, and the new world of digital mapping. In: EGU General Assembly
Conference Abstract, vol 16
Weng Y-H, Sun F-S, Grigsby JD (2012) GeoTools: an android phone application in geology. Comput
Geosci 44:24–30
Whitmeyer SJ, Nicoletti J, De Paor DG (2010) The digital revolution in geological mapping. GSA
Today 20(4/5):4–10. https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG70A.1
Yang D, Xue G, Fang X, Tang J (2015) Incentive mechanisms for crowdsensing: crowdsourcing with
Smartphones. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 99:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2015.2421897
Zhang S, Shan J, Zhang Z, Yan J, Hou Y (2016). Integrating smartphone images and airborne Lidar
data for complete urban building modelling. In: The international archives of the photogrammetry,
remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol XLI-B5, 2016 XXIII ISPRS Congress,
Prague, Czech Republic. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xli-b5-741-2016. 12–19 July 2016
Paleomagnetism in Structural Geology
and Tectonics
B. Oliva-Urcia and E. L. Pueyo
Keywords Tectonic evolution · Rotations · Paleogeography · Dating
1 Introduction
Paleomagnetism is the stable record, from a geological point of view, of the ancient
Earth’s magnetic field in the rocks at the time of rock-forming or during younger
and significant geological processes (i.e., metamorphism, burial). It rests in three
basic assumptions: (i) the Earth’s magnetic field is produced by a geocentric axial
dipole (GAD) and centered in the rotational axis (GAD hypothesis is granted for
periods longer than 7 kyr Pavón-Carrasco et al. 2010), (ii) rocks may efficiently
register a primary magnetic field, and (iii) this magnetization can be kept invariable
in time (Park 1983; Butler 1992). If these principles are met, then paleomagnetic
vectors represent an absolute reference system very useful in Structural Geology and
Tectonics since it allows tracking relative motions among geological elements as
B. Oliva-Urcia (B)
Dpto. de Geología y Geoquímica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
B. Oliva-Urcia
Dpto. de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/Pedro Cerbuna 12,
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
E. L. Pueyo
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Unidad de Zaragoza, C/Francisco Lasala 44.
9ºB, 50006 Zaragoza, Spain
E. L. Pueyo
Associated Unit in Earth Sciences, IGME/Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

56 B. Oliva-Urcia and E. L. Pueyo
well as to stablish absolute rotational movements, a very elusive variable in strain

characterization, if some conditions are met.
In this chapter, we aim to show a comprehensive view of the use of paleomag-
netism in Structural Geological and Tectonic studies. We intentionally focus on struc-
tural applications at the meso-scale (orogen) or smaller. Among other applications,
the calculation of rotations (vertical or/and horizontal), the detection of geological
processes during basin and orogen evolution (burial histories, fluid circulation, meta-
morphism, etc.), and dating of syntectonic sediments provide crucial information,
not only from the geometrical point of view, but also about the timing and processes
through the kinematic evolution of rocks since basin formation to their inversion
during orogen life. For a comprehensive view of classic standard applications on
Plate Tectonics, we here refer to the books of Van der Voo (1993) and Tauxe (2003).
In addition, there is an intrinsic physical property of all materials that acquire a
magnetization when an external magnetic field is applied: the magnetic susceptibility
(M k*H, M: induced magnetization; k: magnetic susceptibility, H: external mag-
netic field). Usually materials are not isotropic; therefore, the induced magnetization
is represented as a magnetic susceptibility ellipsoid, also known as the anisotropy
of the magnetic susceptibility (AMS) or magnetic fabric. This induced property is
very useful for analyzing the mineral preferred orientation (and thus the strain field)
particularly in rocks with little/subtle strain markers, i.e., extensional basins, weakly
deformed granites. The reason of its usefulness roots in the early works of magnetic
fabric, which revealed its correlation with rock fabric (Graham 1954; Borradaile and
Tarling 1981; Borradaile 1988). Recent works have also proven the usefulness of
magnetic fabrics in fault rocks and ductile shear zones (i.e., Casas-Sainz et al. 2018;
Kontny et al. 2012).
2 Basics of Paleomagnetic Method
The following section summarizes basic concepts about the characteristics of the
Earth’s magnetic field, how some specific minerals can record the orientation of that
field at the time of their formation, and how to distinguish the timing of the acqui-
sition of the magnetization with the laboratory procedures, collected structural field
data, and the so-called paleomagnetic stability test. For more detailed explanations,
the classical manuals of Merril et al. (1983), Collinson (1983), Tarling (1983), But-
ler (1992), Opdyke and Channel (1996), McElhinny and McFadden (2000), Tauxe
(2003), Gupta (2011) and Kodama (2013) are recommended. Apart from the basic
concepts, sampling procedures and laboratory analyses will be also explained.
Customarily, the magnetic fabric analyses were performed before carrying out
the paleomagnetic “cleaning” to determine any strong deformation that could hinder
the interpretation of the analyses of the paleomagnetic vectors (Jackson et al. 1993).
Nowadays, magnetic fabric analyses have revealed themselves as a powerful proxy
to detect strain (Tarling and Hrouda 1993; Bouchez et al. 1997, 2013; Borradaile and
Jackson 2004, 2010).
Paleomagnetism in Structural Geology and Tectonics 57
(a) (b)
Fig. 1 a Lines of the Earth’s magnetic field tilted ~11° with respect to the rotational axis. For a
period of time (~7000 year), both axes overlap. b Representation of the magnetization vector (F)
decomposed in two: magnetic declination (D) in the horizontal plane and magnetic inclination (I=Z)
in the vertical plane
2.1 Earth’s Magnetism
At present, analyses of Gauss spheric harmonics reveal that the Earth’s magnetic field
has an internal origin, in the movement of the fluid electric conductor in the outer
core in which rotation of the Earth plays an important role. About 90–95% of the
magnetic field observed at the surface is explained by a dipole inclined ~11° respect
to the rotational axes (Fig. 1a). The other circa 5% are related to a dipole magnetic
field, which is not geocentric (remanent magnetizations of the crust) or non-dipolar
magnetic fields of an external origin (solar or interplanetary) (Opdyke and Channel
1996). The Earth’s magnetic field inverted its polarity through time non-periodically.
Since those field reversals are global and can be recorded simultaneously, they can be
used for dating and magnetostratigraphic correlation (Ogg 2012). The determination
of the reversals in a sedimentary sequence relates to magnetostratigraphy, which is
useful particularly in syntectonic sedimentary rocks for dating the tectonic activity
related to their formation.
2.2 Rocks as Compasses (Minerals and Mechanisms)
Minerals, and any material, show three different behaviors with respect to an external
magnetic field: (1) Paramagnetic: They acquire an induced magnetization parallel
to the external magnetic field that disappears when the external field vanishes. The
induced magnetization changes with temperature (such as in phyllosilicates). (2)
Table 1 Maximum unblocking temperatures and maximum remanent coercivities (in Tesla) for
most common ferromagnetic minerals (Dunlop and Özdemir 2001)
Mineral Curie/Néel temperature (°C) Maximum coercivity (T )
Magnetite 580 0.3
Maghemite 590–675 0.3
Hematite 675 15.5
Goethite 120 >5
Pyrrhotite 320 0.5–1
Greigite 320 0.3
Diamagnetic: They acquire an induced magnetization antiparallel to the external

magnetic field that disappears when the external magnetic field does and the induced
magnetization does not change with temperature (such as quartz, calcite, water, air).
(3) Ferromagnetic: They acquire an internal magnetization that persists even when the
external field disappears, and every ferromagnetic mineral has a diagnostic tempera-
ture above which they behave as paramagnetic because the thermal energy dominates
in the crystallographic structure. Ferromagnetic s.l. (sensu lato) minerals are the ones
behaving as small compass within rocks. Their composition is iron and titanium oxi-
hydroxides such as (titano)magnetite, (titano)maghemite, (titano)hematite, goethite,
and iron sulfides such as pyrrhotite and greigite. They are present in all kind of rocks
and sediments and are potential carriers of the paleomagnetic signal. All three types
of minerals contribute to the magnetic fabric. A summary of the characteristics of
ferromagnetic s.l. minerals are summarized in Table 1.
Ferromagnetic minerals are able to record and block the external magnetic field in
nature. The different blocking mechanisms of remanent magnetization are compiled
in Table 2. The NRM found in a sedimentary rock will be due to DRM. ChRM can
also occur during diagenesis, burial, thermal metamorphism in any kind of rock,
and the TRM will occur in igneous rocks when they cool below the Curie/Néel
temperature. NRM in weakly metamorphic rocks can be related to TRM (in case of
iron sulfides) or ChRM.
2.3 Stable Records (Relaxation Time)
Remanent magnetization decays with time, relaxation time is the period of time
under which the initial remanent magnetization of an assemblage of single domain
(SD) grains decays to 1/e (36.8%), and it is the most straightforward effect of thermal
activation (Butler 1992). Magnetic relaxation was studied by Louis Néel, who showed
that the characteristic relaxation time is given by
τ 1/C exp(vh c js /2kT ) (1)

Table 2 Types of remanent magnetization (RM) (McElhinny and McFadden 2000)

Type Description
NRM Natural remanent The remanent magnetization (RM) that a sample possess in
magnetization natural conditions is the addition of all magnetic
remanence components of a rock/sediment
ChRM Chemical RM The acquired RM during a chemical interphase exchange
or formation of new minerals (diagenesis, burial,
metamorphism)
DRM Detrital RM The acquired RM during deposition, the minerals are
detrital particles from somewhere else
PDRM Post deposit RM The acquired DRM may undergo additional changes (i.e.,
shallowing) after deposition but before final compaction
VRM Viscous RM The acquired RM during a long period of time in a weak
external magnetic field. This process usually affects
shallow buried rocks affected by very low temperatures
IRM Isothermal RM The acquired RM during a short period of time at a certain
temperature in a strong external magnetic. In nature, this
only happens in relation to lightning, blasting, or
meteoritic impacts
TRM Thermoremanent M The RM acquired for a mineral below the Curie/Néel
temperature. Given the high temperatures of most
ferromagnetic minerals, this mechanism affects igneous or
high-temperature metamorphic rocks
where
C frequency factor 108 /s
v volume of SD grain
hc microscopic coercive force of SD grain
js saturation magnetization of the ferromagnetic material

kT thermal energy.
The above equation explains why rocks and sediments contain the record of differ-
ent magnetic moments since they may amalgamate a large variety of ferromagnetic
(s.l.) minerals with different grain sizes (and even compositions). This is the foun-
dation of the more basic paleomagnetic procedure in the laboratory: the demagneti-
zation of the natural remanent magnetization (NRM; see next Sect. 2.4). A primary
record is defined as the magnetic field at the time of the rock formation. A secondary
one is any other recorded afterward. They can be meaningful remagnetizations related
to significant orogenic processes (such as burial and metamorphism) or “not mean-
ingful,” as the typical and omnipresent record of the present-day magnetic field in
most rocks during the last 780 kyr (the Brunhes normal polarity period).
2.4 Rock Mechanisms for Blocking the Magnetization
In sediments, detrital remanent magnetization is the mechanism under which they

acquire and record the Earth’s magnetic field at the time of their deposition (Fig. 2a).
Ferromagnetic minerals that record for long period of times the Earth’s magnetic field
are nanometer in size (i.e., magnetite single domain size; see below); therefore, grav-
ity is overcome by magnetic field force at the time of deposition. Post-depositional
remanent magnetization (pDRM) can reinforce the DRM but showing an earlier time
in the acquisition of the RM. Burial compaction may produce an artificial shallow-
ing of the paleomagnetic vector, particularly in lower latitudes (Kodama 2013 and
references therein).
In igneous rocks, ferromagnetic minerals acquire the RM when the temperature
of sub-solidus/solidus magma descends below the Curie/Néel temperature (Fig. 2b).
Above that temperature, they behave as paramagnetic minerals. For extrusive igneous
rocks, cooling is faster than for intrusive igneous ones and, therefore, they show no
average for the secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field (GAD hypothesis).
The temperature below which the ferromagnetic s.l. minerals acquire the Earth’s
magnetic field is close to its final emplacement position. TRM may also affect meta-
morphic rocks, usually at high temperatures (and affect the NRM of hematite and
magnetite of the protolith), but also at moderate temperatures (and affect the NRM
of pyrrhotite of the protolith, with lower Curie temperature than hematite and mag-
netite). Nevertheless, metamorphism can induce the formation of new ferromagnetic
minerals too (ChRM).
2.5 Basic Processing of Paleomagnetic Data
2.5.1 Sampling
A paleomagnetic site is a homogeneous rock outcrop where samples are collected

(usually drilled with a portable machine refrigerated with water) and oriented with
respect to the present-day geographical reference system. The natural scatter of the
NRM components and the need of a statistical data processing require the study of a
certain number of standard samples per site. The standard samples are cylinders of
~2.1 cm height and ~2.5 cm in diameter (~10.3 cm3 volume). The number of samples
and distribution of sampling per site depends on the purpose of the paleomagnetic
study; i.e., for a tectonic study, 8–12 samples per site distributed in 5–10 m of the
stratigraphic section is ideal, whereas for a magnetostratigraphic study, 2 samples
per site (stratigraphic level) in locations which density (spacing) will depend upon
the estimate age and the number of expected magnetic chrons (may vary between a
few cm and a few meters) (Johnson and McGee 1983). The basic equipment consists
of a petrol- or electrical powered drill machine refrigerated with water, drill bits,
Fig. 2 a Schematic representation of DRM and b TRM. Modified from Tauxe (2003) and references
therein. 580 °C is the Curie temperature for magnetite, above which it behaves as a paramagnetic
mineral
and an orientation device to calculate azimuth and dip of the drill core. For softer
sediments, a manual device is also used (Fig. 3).
In tectonic studies, the distribution of the sites within a structural domain is usu-
ally intended to estimate the rotation magnitudes. Ideally, they should be designed to
meet some criteria: (a) Enough sites must be sampled to allow for a robust rotation
of a volume of rock estimate (mean and error) of the structural trend (account-
ing for potential along-strike or along-trend changes). (b) Folds must be sampled
for allowing the fold test to be applied (see next section) (Pueyo et al. 2016c).
(c) For magnetostratigraphic studies, syn-orogenic sediment sites should be evenly
Fig. 3 Sampling. a Basic field equipment (hammer, GPS, compass, field book), b drilling equip-
ment packed. c and h Typical site for a tectonic (note the water-pressure can). d Electrical equipment.
e Orientation and soft-material tools. f and g Drilling the rocks. i Field notes and labeled samples.
j Sampling boreholes for magnetic fabric and paleomagnetic analyses in the laboratory
distributed within the stratigraphic sequence allowing for the characterization of the
date and deformation velocities (folding, rotations of a volume of rock, etc.) of the
associated tectonic structure (fold, thrust).
2.5.2 Laboratory
The most important target during the paleomagnetic laboratory analysis is to unravel
the magnetization record in a rock, i.e., the different components of the NRM. Demag-
netization of the NRM is usually tackled in the laboratory (i.e., in paleomagnetic lab-
oratories as shown in Fig. 4) by means of increasing temperatures (thermal method;
TH), increasing magnetic alternating fields (AF) or, less frequently, by chemical
attacks. If we focus, for example, on the TH method, an increase of the temperature
induces a reduction of the relaxation time (see Eq. 1); if we cool down the sample
in the absence of an external magnetic field, those minerals with smaller unblock-
ing temperatures (and equivalent τ ) will become randomly oriented (demagnetized).
Repeating this process several times with increasing temperatures or alternating
fields, typically, 10–15 times, will reproduce the magnetic history of the rock. The
3D representation of this information is known as the orthogonal (or Zijderveld’s
1967) diagrams and are at the core of any paleomagnetic work. Typically, a paleo-
magnetic site for a tectonic study will be defined by 8–12 demagnetized samples.
Based on the physical properties, a large number of laboratory and analytical pro-
cedures have been developed during the last decades, the so-called rock magnetism
techniques (Dunlop and Özdemir 1997), to allow attaining information on the mag-
netic carriers, their acquisition mechanism, and their temporal stability beyond their
unblocking (TH or AF) spectra (readily derived from the demagnetization). This
subject is quite useful, for example, as proxy for paleoenvironmental changes, but it
is beyond of the scope of this chapter. See also Tauxe (2003), Kodama (2013), etc.,
for further consideration.
2.5.3 Fitting Paleomagnetic Directions
Once the demagnetization procedure is finished, the evaluation of the orthogonal

diagrams, the stereographic projection, and the decay of the intensity will allow
defining the different paleomagnetic components (Fig. 5). The mathematical fitting
of an individual direction is usually performed by eye selecting the demagnetization
interval that is later on fitted by principal component analyses (PCA; Kirschvink
1980; Heslop and Roberts 2016). Other auxiliary methods (or combinations of them),
such as the demagnetization circles (Halls 1976), when two directions are present, or
other automatized approaches like the linearity spectrum analysis (Schmidt 1982),
stacking routine (Scheepers and Zijderveld 1992), and the virtual paleomagnetic
directions (Ramón et al. 2017) may be very useful to understand the paleomagnetic
behavior from a global perspective.
The orthogonal diagrams (Zijderveld’s 1967) allow decomposing the paleomag-
netic vector in its horizontal and vertical components to facilitate the eye selection
of the demagnetization interval of a given direction to calculate their principal com-
ponent analyses (Fig. 6).
Fig. 4 Pictures of some paleomagnetic and rock magnetism laboratories. 2G magnetometer with
AF demagnetizer integrated (model 755-1.65 from 2001) at Barcelona (Laboratori de Paleomag-
netisme CCiTUB-CSIC, Institut de Ciències de la Terra “Jaume Almera”). 2G magnetometer (model
755-1.65 from 2004). MPMS by Quantum Ltd. Magnetometers (Physical measurements Research
Service, Universidad de Zaragoza).2G magnetometer (model 760-3.0 from 1990 upgraded in 2001)
in Gams Laboratory (Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria). JR5 spinner magnetometer and furnace
for TH demagnetization (Petrophysics at Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse). Note the Helmholtz
coils surrounding most equipments; these installations compensate the current external magnetic
field to help the “zero” field needed for the magnetometer measurements
2.5.4 Statistics
The next statistical treatment includes the characterization of the mean paleomagnetic
vector for the suite of samples of a site in a tectonic study. Classically, paleomag-
netic studies use the Fisher’s (1953) spherical statistics (Fig. 7). A directional mean
(Declination and inclination, Dec&Inc) and their confidence parameters (α95 , k and
R) are widely used. As proposed by Van der Voo (1990), a reliable site should be
characterized by α95 lower than 10° and a precision parameter (k) larger than 20. The
orientation tensor of the vector distribution (Bingham 1974) may be also useful at the
site scale to characterize possible anisotropies [i.e., related to internal deformation,
as it is the case in the example (Fig. 7)].
Fig. 5 Processing of paleomagnetic directions in the VPD software (Ramón et al. 2017) using
some unpublished sites from the south Pyrenean turbiditic trough. The demagnetization data can be
visualized in the stereographic projection (left), the orthogonal diagram (center), and the intensity
decay curve (right). Manual selection of demagnetization steps (left bottom) allows fitting the
direction for the chosen thermal interval by PCA. Note that individual information is available for
every step. The VPD method also allows the application of other fitting approaches (demagnetization
circles, stacking routine, linearity spectrum analysis, and virtual directions). Software and manuals
available at: http://www.igme.es/zaragoza/aplicaInfor.htm
2.5.5 Restoration of Paleomagnetic Sites to the Ancient

Paleogeographic Reference System
The paleomagnetic vectors must be corrected to the ancient reference system for
the time when their magnetization was blocked-in. In many paleomagnetic works,
this is simply done by applying the so-called bedding correction. Sometimes, the
paleomagnetic characteristic component was blocked during folding, and then, the
small circle method intersection (Shipunov 1997; Waldhör and Appel 2006; Calvín
et al. 2017b) is used to calculate the position of beds at the time of the stable remanent
magnetization acquisition. In addition, in some instances, the geometry of folds needs
to be accurately known and defined to performing an appropriate restoration. In cases
of complex geometric/kinematic contexts, restoration of the paleomagnetic vectors
must strictly follow the reverse order of the deformational sequence (Pueyo et al.
2003a, b; Mochales et al. 2016). Otherwise, the bedding correction will impart errors
in the final estimation of VARs (Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2011, 2013).
Fig. 6 General example showing the decomposition of the NRM comprised by two components (P
and S). The comparison with the other samples from the same site will allow determining which one
is the characteristic component (usually the one with the higher unblocking temperature/alternating
field, in this case, P). Subsequently, the stability tests will help to determine the relative age of each
calculated component
2.6 Checking the Paleomagnetic Assumptions: the “Stability

Test”
Several field stability tests are used when possible to determine the timing of the
acquisition of the characteristic component(s) once it (they) is (are) calculated. The
fold test, used in sedimentary rocks affected by deformation, can determine when
a characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM) has been acquired with respect to
the time of folding. It can be acquired after folding (Fold test A in Fig. 8), before
folding (Fold test B in Fig. 8), or during (syn) folding (Villalaín et al. 2003).
The conglomerate test, where the characteristic (ChRM) of pebbles is compared
to the characteristic ChRM of the matrix, can decipher if the ChRM is sedimentary; if
NRM is acquired at the time of sedimentation, the pebbles will show the ChRM com-
ponent randomly oriented, whereas if the pebbles and the matrix of the conglomerate
(intraformational breccia) show the same paleomagnetic orientation of the ChRM
vectors, then the magnetization has not been blocked at the time of the sedimenta-
tion. In examples from Fig. 8, the example with positive conglomerate test shows
that once bedding restores to horizontal, the matrix has a constant paleomagnetic
direction but the pebbles have a random orientation; this means the stable remanence
was acquired at the time of deposition. However, in the negative conglomerate test,
Fig. 7 Site-level statistical processing of data; an unpublished example from the External Sierras
(southern Pyrenees). a Several directions (one per specimen) are plotted together in the stereonet.
One direction (red in table, green in the plot) seems clearly an outlier of the group and has not
been considered in further calculations. b. Fisher’s (1953) and Bingham’s (1974) statistics of the
population. Note that Fisher’s mean and main eigenvector (E1 ) are almost identical. c Standard
table of characteristic paleomagnetic component. R/D; resultant (vector to the origin)/difference.
D/C direction versus (demagnetization) circle. Step MIN/MAX; demagnetization interval. #steps;
number of steps used in the fitting. DEC&INC; Mean vector orientation. INT; intensity (10−6 A/m).
MAD; maximum angular deviation from the PCA method. Data processed with VPD software
(Ramón et al. 2017) and stereographic projections made with Stereonet (Allmendinger et al. 2012)
the same paleomagnetic orientation for the pebbles and the matrix (before tectonic
correction) is observed, indicating that a remagnetization was acquired (reorienting
the ChRM of pebbles and matrix with the new external magnetic field) and it occurred
after the folding.
The baked contact test is used to compare the ChRM from an igneous rock,
that of its baked contact (hornfels), and that of the host rock far from the igneous
body. The baked contact and the igneous rock should share the same ChRM vector,
whereas if the vector overlaps with the host rock ChRM, it will indicate a widespread
remagnetization caused by the igneous body emplacement (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8 Checking the age of paleomagnetic vectors with the fold test for sedimentary rocks, baked
contact (igneous and hornfels), and conglomerate test. Modified from Butler (1992)
The reversal test is basically used in magnetostratigraphic studies to support the

primary character of the ChRM. If so, when all sites are plotted in a stereographic dia-
gram, the normal polarity sites should differ by 180° in magnetic declination respect
with the reversed polarity sites; thus, they are antiparallel. However, acquisition of
later secondary NRM components will cause resultant NRM vectors to deviate by
<180° (Fig. 15 in Butler 1992).
2.7 Paleomagnetic Reference and Rotation Confidence
Once paleomagnetic directions have been defined and their relative age with respect
to deformation processes has been characterized with the stability tests, we are ready
to calculate the vertical axis rotation (VAR). However, an accurate estimation of
VAR magnitudes requires a high-quality reference field direction. To determine the
absolute rotation values, angles from a deformed area should be contrasted against
a paleomagnetic reference direction obtained in a close and non-deformed part of
the tectonic element. Reference data from the undisturbed foreland basin will most
often yield the best result in fold and thrust belts (see more details in Sect. 2).
When processing paleomagnetic data after laboratory work, quality of data must
be assessed taking into account van der Voo’s (1993) reliability criteria for paleopoles,
Opdyke and Channels’ (1996) criteria for paleopoles and magnetostratigraphic data,
and Pueyo et al.’s 2016c) criteria regarding folds and thrust belts. Apart from quality,
the analyses of the data will provide information about the stable remanent magneti-
zation. Is it primary? Is it secondary? Is it rotated respect to the reference direction?
What mineral is the carrier of the stable magnetization? Is there more than one stable
magnetization recorded in the rock? Which polarity has the stable remanent magne-
tization? The answers to these questions constrain tectonic evolution of basins and
orogens.
2.8 Paleomagnetic Databases
During the past few decades, an exhaustive paleomagnetic dataset has been orig-
inated worldwide. Reliability criteria have been stablished through time in order
to constraint the quality of the paleomagnetic data (Van der Voo 1990; Opdyke
and Channel 1996). In addition, significant efforts have been made to compile the
database (McElhinny and Smethurst 2001; Pisarevsky 2005) such as the more com-
plete MagIC Initiative (https://www2.earthref.org/MagIC Jarboe et al. 2012; Tauxe
et al. 2016) or recently the European EPOS initiative (Pueyo et al. 2017) aligned with
the MAGIC one. The significant achievement of these databases is that they allow a
durable and easy online open access to paleomagnetic data in order to, among other
things, constraint the already existing results (location, quality, and purpose) to better
orient future interest and research.
3 Paleomagnetism as a Kinematic Indicator
Paleomagnetism has been one of the keystones to support the Plate Tectonics theory
from the 60s until today (Van der Voo 1993). The spatiotemporal reconstruction of
tectonic plates has, among other achievements, demonstrated the continental drift and
the existence of supercontinents in the past (e.g., Pangea). Beyond the applications
at the plate scale, paleomagnetism is the only external reference system that allows
relating the orientation of tectonic bodies before and after deformation processes.
Deformation (s.l.) of a geological body can be decomposed in some variables: internal
strain (simple or pure shear: Mukherjee 2012) that changes the shape of the body and
the displacement field (both pure translation and/or horizontal axis rotation related
to, e.g., folding) as well as the vertical axis rotation that accounts for position changes
of that body. At the orogenic scale, paleomagnetism has crucial implications since it
permits obtaining one of the most elusive variables in structural geology and tectonic
analyses: the vertical axis rotation (VAR).
The explanation is relatively straightforward; rocks may have recorded the ancient
geomagnetic field (that is supposed to be always N–S directed in the GAD hypoth-
esis), and thus, any deviation of the expected meridian (or reference) line will allow
estimating the VAR undergone by this rock.
In orogenic systems (i.e., fold and thrust belts), relative VARs related to a fault
(or any structural discontinuity) can always be calculated by comparing the paleo-
magnetic vectors from the footwall and hanging wall of that fault. Absolute VARs
can be obtained comparing the deformed region with the non-deformed one. Coming
back to the fold and thrust belt example, this would imply observing the differences
between the hanging wall and the equivalent rocks in the foreland basin. This is the
concept of paleomagnetic reference: a paleomagnetic direction obtained in a stable
portion (non-deformed) of the plate for the same age. This is so because plates are
always moving during the Earth history; therefore, most orogenic systems related to
plate boundaries may have “rotated” references because the plates have undergone
complex movements on the Earth surface during their history and thus the expected
meridian direction may have changed accordingly.
The calculation of apparent polar wander paths (APWPs) through the history
of Plate Tectonics is essential to compare the new paleomagnetic data with. Doing
so, it is possible to either quantify VARs or obtain ages for remagnetizations. For
example, Fig. 9a is showing the APWP for Gondwana (from 550 to 10 Ma) (Torsvik
et al. 2012) and this data is used to calculate the declination and inclination of a
location in Southern Africa to compare with the new obtained paleomagnetic data,
in order to get a date for the magnetization (Torres-López et al. 2014) (Fig. 9b).
The APWP represents the apparent movement of the magnetic pole, considering the
Gondwana plate is fixed (see, e.g., Tauxe 2003 for more details).
3.1 VARs
The pioneer application of paleomagnetism to estimate relative motions in orogenic

belts was first described by Norris and Black (1961), to unravel the origin of along-
strike changes associated with the Lewis thrust sheet in western Montana. This con-
cept has since then grown in its utilization (Van der Voo and Channell 1980; Kissel and
Laj 1989; Sussman and Weil 2004), and most orogenic regions are currently covered
by hundreds or thousands of paleomagnetic data. Apart from minor non-cylindrical
or non-coaxial structures responsible for local VARs, the causes of VARs at orogenic
scale are commonly associated with differential displacement along-strike (McCaig
and McClelland 1992; Allerton 1998; Soto et al. 2006a; Sussman et al. 2012).
Beyond differential displacement directly accommodated by thrusts, normal, or
directional faults (Fig. 10), orogenic zones may also undergo complex geological his-
tories (Mukherjee et al. 2012) and be affected by significant secondary VARs during
later orogenic processes including piggyback and basement movements, indentation
caused by plate boundaries during final stages of collision (Achache et al. 1983;
Thomas et al. 1994; Collombet et al. 2002), buttressing caused by collision with
rigid bodies (Grubbs and Van der Voo 1976; Eldredge et al. 1988), oroclinal bend-
ing (Eldredge et al. 1985; Weil and Sussman 2004), strike-slip rearrangements (Ron
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9 a Paleomagnetic reference for the movement of Gondwana from 550 to 10 Ma (simplified
from Torsvik et al. 2012). b Comparison of the obtained paleomagnetic data with the APWP
(declination and inclination) to date the remanent magnetization acquisition time (modified from
Torres-López et al. 2014)
et al. 1984; Nur et al. 1986), etc. Therefore, and given the potential complexity,
paleomagnetic and structural investigations should be coordinated as a best practice
method in deciphering and delineating the many physical processes associated with
deformation.
Paleomagnetic analyses of orogenic zones usually aim to obtain geometric and/or
kinematic information. Typically, rotations are displayed as cones on the map
(Mochales and Blenkinsop 2014). The cone axis represents the mean paleomag-
netic vector, and the semi-apical angle of the cone represents the confidence region
(α95 by Fisher 1953) (Fig. 11). Apart from studies’ focus on determining rotation
magnitudes at distributed locations within orogenic regions at different scales (from
Fig. 10 a and b Map view and c three-dimensional view of the VARs associated to different
structural settings (HAR: horizontal axis rotation). Reproduced from Pueyo et al. 2016c), Moreira
and Dias (2018) and Ferrill and Morris (2001)
Fig. 11 Geological map from the South Pyrenean Zone showing cones representing VARs when
comparison of the paleomagnetic data with a stable magnetic reference has been calculated (López
et al. 2008). Geological base map from Choukroune and Séguret (1973). The map covers the west-
central part of the Pyrenees, from north to south: the Axial Zone, Internal Sierras, Jaca-Pamplona
Piggyback basin, External Sierras and Ebro foreland basin. The Internal Sierras, the Jaca-Pamplona
basin, the External Sierras are part of the South Pyrenean Zone (see Fig. 12 for location)
orogen to mineral scales passing by fold and thrust belt, or meso- and micro-scale
folds), kinematic information (folding, thrusting, exhumation, rotation histories) can
be also deduced from magnetostratigraphic studies when syn-orogenic sedimentary
sequences are exposed.
One step further is the combination of paleomagnetic and structural and tectonic
analyses to achieve reliable and quantitatively constrained interpretations in: (1)
palinspastic reconstructions (Arriagada et al. 2008; Muñoz et al. 2013), (2) correction
of errors caused in shortening estimates in balanced sections (Pueyo et al. 2004), (3)
as additional constraints in 3D restoration (Ramón et al. 2016a, b), (4) qualitative
reconstruction of inverted extensional basins (partial restoration in 2D and 3D) using
remagnetization components (snapshots of the deformation) (Villalaín et al. 2016).
Finally, VARs derived from paleomagnetic vectors have been compared to other
methods. Present-day high-precision GPS measurements can estimate current rota-
tion velocities of tectonic plates; extrapolation of those velocities to the past move-
ment of those plates can be used to calculate VAR magnitude, especially where
paleomagnetic data are available and can verify the results (see, e.g., Mattei et al.
2007; Otofuji et al. 2010). Other kinematic indicators as calcite twins (Kollmeier
et al. 2000; Hnat et al. 2008) or even AMS axis (Pueyo-Anchuela et al. 2012) have
been also used and compared to paleomagnetic vectors to estimate the magnitude of
differential shortening (VARs).
3.1.1 Compressional Settings: Characterization of VARs
There are a large number of examples of the application of paleomagnetism to esti-

mate VARs in orogenic systems. In this section, we will overview a case study from
the Pyrenees to illustrate its application, since this orogen displays an extremely high-
density paleomagnetic data network (López et al. 2008; Pueyo et al. 2017) (shown
in Fig. 11).
The External and Internal Sierras as well as the Jaca-Pamplona basin in the south-
western Pyrenees (between the Pamplona and l’Ainsa basins) are among the two
main cover units of the region in that sector. They are related to main basement units
that transferred the deformation to the upper cover levels during the orogen building.
Deformation took place between Eocene and Miocene times according to a recent
overview of kinematic data (Labaume et al. 2016). The region has been subjected
to numerous paleomagnetic investigations during the past few decades for several
reasons including the occurrence of oblique structures and syntectonic sedimen-
tary records, but the main one is the significant differential shortening along-strike
derived from balanced and restored sections located in the central part (ECORS pro-
file: 147 km, Muñoz 1992; recalculated to ~160 km in Beaumont et al. 2000) and
the westernmost sections (Cotiella with about 100 km Martínez-Peña and Casas-
Sainz 2003 or Ansó-Arzacq with about 80 km, Teixell 1996) modified to 114 km
in Teixell et al (2016). Therefore, assuming the shortening estimates are correct and
comparable (not fully straightforward), ~46 km of differential shortening must have
been accommodated in less than 100 km along-strike which, in turn, represents ~25º
clockwise (CW) vertical axis rotation (Oliva-Urcia and Pueyo 2007a). Note that no
significant relative rotational movements between the Iberian and the Eurasian plates
are expected during this period.
In that area, more than 700 paleomagnetic sites (including 66 means of magne-
tostratrigraphic profiles) were obtained, in the course of several Ph.D.’s (Dinarès
1992; Bentham 1992; Hogan 1993; Pueyo 2000; Larrasoaña 2000; Fernández 2004;
Oliva-Urcia 2004; Costa 2011; Mochales 2011; Beamud 2013; Rodríguez-Pintó
2013; Izquierdo-Llavall 2014; Pérez Rivarés 2016), during the past few decades
distributed as follows: External Sierras (Pueyo et al. 1997, 2003a, b; Rodríguez-
Pintó et al. 2012, 2013, 2016), Jaca Basin (Hogan and Burbank 1996; Oms et al.
2003), Internal Sierras (Oliva-Urcia and Pueyo 2007a, b; Izquierdo-Llavall et al.
2015), Ebro Basin (Larrasoaña et al. 2006; Pérez-Rivarés et al. 2002, 2004, 2016,
2018; Costa et al. 2010, 2013), Pamplona Eocene basin (Larrasoaña et al. 2003a,
b), Ainsa oblique zone (Bentham and Burbank 1996; Mochales et al. 2012c, 2016;
Muñoz et al. 2013). The VARs calculated from those areas are summarized in Table 3
and Fig. 12.
Well-proven primary paleomagnetic components (several reversal and fold tests)
are typically found in the central and southern units, usually carried by detrital mag-
netite and diagenetically neoformed magnetic sulfides (and some hematite in some
cases in the continental deposits). On the contrary, secondary and post-folding direc-
tions are reported in the northern units (Internal Sierras and part of the Eocene
turbiditic trough). The boundary between the remagnetized and primary domains is
not fully delineated and understood, but it is very closely related to the location of
the Alpine Pyrenean cleavage front (Oliva-Urcia et al. 2008). In any case, the defor-
mation ages and the age of the rocks as well as the tentative remagnetization timing
(Late Eocene/Oligocene) have allowed drawing an enviable net of VARs (Fig. 12).
The Ebro foreland basin displays, as expected from the geodynamic evolution of
Iberia-Eurasia, non-significant rotations. This value, taken as the local reference for
the estimation of VARs, allows characterizing different magnitudes of rotation as a
function of the structural location. Internal and External Sierras as well as the tur-
biditic basin give comparable VAR magnitudes, in agreement with the along-strike
differential shortening previously mentioned. This amount is significantly smaller in
the Jaca molassic basin due to the synrotational character of the exposed rocks imply-
ing that only the lower part of the rock sequence has recorded the entire rotational
movement (Eocene–Oligocene) while the rest has only partially registered this move-
ment (Oligocene–Miocene). The easternmost boundary (Ainsa oblique zone) records
the highest VAR magnitudes (which locally may be even higher as in the Balzes and
Boltaña anticlines), and finally, the Pamplona basin brackets to the west the end
of the rotational movement (Larrasoaña et al. 2003b) and the related along-strike
differential shortening.
3.1.2 Compressional Settings: Curvature Analysis
Because differential shortening may happen at any scale, at any position, and at
any time during the orogenic building, the application of paleomagnetism became,
long ago, a standard tool to decipher the primary or secondary origin of observed
curvatures in fold and thrust belts or, in general, in orogens.
Table 3 Robust paleomagnetic means per structural sectors in the southwestern Pyrenees
Sector Sites/sections Polarity P/S Dec Inc a95 k R VAR
Internal 93 R Remag 020.0 40.5 3.9 15.5 0.9360 17.3
Sierras
Molassic 33 N+R Remag/Primary 016.9 48.1 9.1 8.6 0.8866 14.2
Basin
Turbiditic 37 N+R Primary 009.6 39.4 8.3 9.1 0.8929 6.9
Basin
External 222 N+R Primary 019.3 42.8 3.1 8.9 0.8878 16.6
Sierras
Pamplona 52 N+R Primary 006.5 49.9 3.7 30.1 0.9674 3.8
Paleomagnetism in Structural Geology and Tectonics
Basin
Ainsa 114 N+R Remag/Primary 037.7 44.9 2.9 22.4 0.9558 35
oblique zone
Ebro 138 N+R Primary 002.7 49.0 5.7 5.4 0.8152 Q
Foreland
Basin
Sites/sections Number of paleomagnetic site means and magnetostratigraphic section ones include in the estimation. Polarity magnetic polarity found in the
studied rocks (either primary or secondary = remagnetized). Mean Dec(clination) and Inc(lination) of the sector as well as the Fisher’s (1953) statistical
parameters. VAR mean vertical axis rotation observed. Note that this averaged usually smooth larger rotation magnitudes
75
Fig. 12 West-central Pyrenees. Geological base map from Barnolas et al. (2008) modified fol-
lowing the mapping style by Choukroune and Séguret (1973). Turbiditic (molassic) part of the
Jaca-Pamplona basin. Robust averages (numerical data in Table 3) in different structural units.
Every steronet represents the plotting of several paleomagnetic (or magnetostratigraphic) means.
Lower hemisphere vectors (normal polarity) are plotted as solid dots while upper hemisphere vector
(reverse polarity) are plotted as open points
Understanding Fold Curvature at the Fold Scale
Curved or bent structures are common in many orogenic areas, besides, many oblique
features as lateral thrust ramps, oblique and superposed folding imply VARs during
their genesis. However, oblique structures may also be produced by a number of
factors (lateral thickness variations, detachment level distributions, etc. (Storti et al.
2001; Soto et al. 2002, 2003, 2006a, b)) without necessarily requiring VARs in their
genesis. Thus, paleomagnetic analysis is the only reliable and absolute way to unravel
the primary or secondary origin of curvatures.
The Balzes anticline, located in the easternmost corner of the External Sierras,
in the frontal part of the South Pyrenean Zone, is a good example to illustrate this
kind of analysis (Fig. 13). Its >20 km of outcrop exposes axis orientations changing
Fig. 13 Balzes anticline curvature analysis. a Vertical axis rotation inferred for the Balzes anticline
and paleomagnetic rotations in different sectors of the Balzes anticline on the geological map. b
Bending diagram of the Balzes anticline, showing data from other N–S anticlines: Boltaña (BA)
and Pico del Aguila (PA). c Numerical restoration of fold axis trend to its pre-rotational position. d
Simple map view sketch of the anticline fold axis before and after vertical axis rotation (modified
from Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016) that demonstrates an original (and smoother) bending before the
VAR was accommodated
from N142E in the southern part to N015E in the northern part implying up to >50°
of relative bending. A thorough paleomagnetic investigation based on 80 sites and
magnetostratigraphic profiles, 30 of them from previous studies, was carried out
(Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016 and references therein). Mostly, primary vectors (two
polarities and positive fold test in all studied sectors) characterize a robust and dense
net of paleomagnetic rotations.
The distribution of the paleomagnetic data along the fold axis demonstrates a linear
relationship between fold axis trend and magnitude of VARs. In addition, this relation,
similar to the other External Sierras oblique anticlines (Ramón 2013), also allows
reconstructing the original trend of the fold axis before the VARs have taken place and
evinces the existence of a primary curvature displaying about 23° of original bending.
This pre-rotational feature corresponds to the geometry of the imbricate system of
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14 Oroclinal test. a Positive orocline test showing a one-to-one relationship between deviation
in structural trend and observed vertical axis rotation, which indicates formation of an ideal orocline.
b Primary arc, which shows a negative orocline test without correlation between change in structural
trend and vertical axis rotation. Modified from Eldredge et al. (1985) and Weil and Sussman (2004)
submarine thrusts emplaced during the Lutetian–Bartonian times. The high density
of oblique structures in map view correlates to the small wavelength in relation to
the small thickness of the cover of sediments at that time. The Balzes anticline is the
only one in the southern Pyrenees that allows performing a curvature analysis, since
>50° of bending is exposed nowadays. This model is believed to explain most of the
N–S trending structures in the region (Pico del Aguila, etc.).
Understanding Orogenic Curvature: the Orocline Test
Paleomagnetic analysis in curved fold and thrust belts is necessary to recognize the
original curvature of the orogen and to understand how oroclines form. Oroclines
were described as curved mountain belts, which were straight or at least more straight
than they are today (Carey 1955). Different examples of curved orogens are compiled
in Sussman and Weil (2004), and they include any curved mountain belt, regardless
of its original shape, i.e., Bolivian, Alaskan, Cantabrian, Appalachians, Calabrian,
Carpathian, Himalayan oroclines. The orocline test (Eldredge et al. 1985; Weil and
Sussman 2004; Pastor-Galán et al. 2017) helps to determine the timing and origin
of the curvature of the orogeny (Fig. 14). The VAR magnitudes obtained along
the arched structure (Y -axis) is confronted to the structural trend (strike) where the
paleomagnetic sites were sampled (X-axis) (Fig. 14).
The Alps have been subjected of an intense paleomagnetic analysis during the
last two decades (Crouzet et al. 1996; Kempf et al. 1997; Kempf and Matter 1999;
Thomas et al. 1999; Auburg and Chabert-Pelline 1999; Piguet et al. 2000; Katz
Fig. 15 a Overview of the paleomagnetic data around the Alps. Robust means (and confidence
angles) of Paleogene–Neogene paleomagnetic references (mostly remagnetizations) in the Alpine
system
et al. 2000; Kechra et al. 2003; Cairanne et al. 2002; Collombet et al. 2002; Thöny
et al. 2006; Pueyo et al. 2007; Sonnette et al. 2014; Cardello et al. 2016); these
data as well as a previous large database from the 70s and 80s have allowed us
to perform a selection (based on the reliability criteria by Van der Voo 1993) and
a reprocessing of Cenozoic primary paleomagnetic signals and well-dated Tertiary
(now Paleogene–Neogene) remagnetizations (Fig. 15). The aim of this overview is
to illustrate the potential of the oroclinal test and to check the validity and the lateral
extension of the hypothesis of a complex oroclinal bending deduced in the western
Alps (Collombet et al. 2002), since a new interpretation from the age of rotation and
the occurrence of remagnetization is proposed by Thöny et al. (2006) and Pueyo
et al. (2007) in the eastern Alps (Northern Calcareous Alps [NKA] units). It is worth
mentioning that a more refined processing and compilation of the data will be needed
in the near future.
Variable magnitudes of mostly well-dated post-Oligocene rotations, deduced by
primary or secondary paleomagnetic directions, have been reported in different struc-
tural domains in the Western, the Swiss, and in the Eastern Alps—Briançonnais:
From 38° to 108° CCW (Thomas et al. 1999; Collombet et al. 2002). Dauphinoise:
Almost non-significant (<15°) CW (Crouzet et al. 1996 and references therein). Sub-
alpine Chains: From non-significant to 27° CCW (Cairanne et al. 2002 and references
therein). Vocontian trough: Slightly (<10°) CCW (Katz et al. 2000; Kechra et al. 2003;
references therein). Swiss molasse: Moderate (10°–20°) CW (Kempf et al. 1999 and
references therein). Western NCA: (Thöny et al. 2006). Central NCA (and Grauwacke
zone): Important (56°–81°) CW (Pueyo et al. 2007 and references therein). Eastern
NCA: Important (48°–79°) CW. Eastern Alps Miocene basins: Important (≈50°)
CCW (Márton et al. 2000; Scholger et al. 2003).
The classic oroclinal bending diagram (Eldredge et al. 1985) was built using the
exposed rotations and their correspondent structural trends (Fig. 16). The latter has
been assigned by selecting the dominant strike from geological maps and using the
right-hand rule toward west. The theoretical pure oroclinal line (slope 1) is also
marked. At a first glance, and despite the variability, the set shows a pseudo-oroclinal
fitting (slope 0.7 R 0.91), indicating some degree of initial curvature. Neverthe-
less, the data must be examined in more detail. In the Western Alps, the Briançonnais
data fit to a pure oroclinal since the Subalpine Chains and the Vocontian trough get
slightly and significantly (respectively) apart from it. This difference may be caused
by the transference of the rotation from the internal to the external units. In general,
the external or upper (cover) orogenic units usually have more freedom to accommo-
date or to balance big gradients of shortening. The Dauphinoise unit likely reflects
the inflexion point in which the orogen was bent. On the contrary, the Swiss molasse
and the Aar massif display the expected behavior at the other side of the western
arc. The departure from the pure oroclinality in this case is probably linked to the
absence of data in the internal zones. In the Eastern Alps, the scenario is, to some
extent, different and seems to be controlled by the geometry of the eastern indentor.
The western NKA (west of the Inntal line) displays a lower degree of CW rotation
than the central or eastern sectors (north of the Salzachtal–Ennstal–Mariazell–Puch-
berg; SEMP fault). This may be due to the secondary effect of the western portion of
the eastern indentor. Finally, the Miocene basins in the Austroalpine units underwent
a strong CCW rotation, which could be explained within their own boundary condi-
tions; the SEMP fault to the north and the Periadriatic lineament to the south. It is
very well known that both faults acted with opposite senses of movement during the
lateral extrusion creating an independent mega-structural domain, which probably
balanced the huge amount of differential shortening in the Eastern Alps.
These results indicate that the Neogene bending of the entire Alps affected an
original curved structure (especially in the Eastern Alps) has been modified during
the collision (indentation). This partial oroclinality seems to be more controlled by
the geometry of the Adriatic plate boundary (Insubric and Periadriatic lineaments)
than by the coupling due to the rotational history of the southern plate or the lateral
(southwards) extrusion (as has been proposed by Collombet et al. 2002). Neverthe-
less, there are still big gaps of reliable and robust Tertiary rotation values around the
orogen that should be filled in future studies to refine the interpretation and the role
of the exposed mechanisms.
3.1.3 Strike-Slip Zones (Dead Sea Transform Fault)
Strike-slip faulting can rotate blocks and faults segmenting the blocks (domino struc-
tures). Dominos and dominos-like structures are developed in brittle and brittle–duc-
tile deformation regimes and may not rotate blocks (Fig. 9a; Moreira and Dias 2018
Fig. 16 Preliminary overview of the paleomagnetic data around the Alps. Oroclinal bending dia-
gram displaying robust means in different structural sectors along the Alps
and references therein). Several workers tackled this issue (McKenzie and Jackson
1983; Geissman et al. 1984; Ron et al. 1984; Garfunkel 1989) already stated that
the sense of the block rotation (if any) depends on the orientation and geometry of
fault slip with respect to the strain axes and the space geometry and rearrangement
between faults (see overview in Larrasoaña et al. 2003a). This statement has been
confirmed by analogue experiments, where orientation and spacing of fractures in
the brittle layers are the main factors controlling the kinematics of domino struc-
tures (Moreira and Dias 2018 and references therein) (Fig. 9b). The definition of
the kinematic model of a strike-slip zone will be solely completed by paleomagnetic
analyses, given that a careful and precise classical field investigation of faults and
segmented blocks has been performed. As an example, the Dead Sea fault system
(Dead Sea transform fault) has a left-lateral strike-slip movement with little internal
deformation within the domino blocks. Rotation values were first predicted for the
studied area based on field research related to fault slip and spacing. Rotations were
later confirmed by paleomagnetic analyses, which provide an independent rotation
value (Fig. 17). Therefore, the kinematic model of the area was determined with
Fig. 17 Map (GeoMapApp) showing the predicted and confirmed CW and CCW in Ron et al.’s
(1984) research. Section XYZ details the kinematic models
certain detail, concluding that faults and blocks contemporaneously rotated with
progressive deformation along the transform fault (Ron et al. 1984).
3.1.4 Extensional Settings (Rio Grande Rift)
Paleomagnetism can be essential in extensional settings to determining the kinematic

model of the rift system. Between normal faults, the deformation of the crustal volume
Fig. 18 Slight counterclockwise (CCW) and clockwise (CW) rotations (red arrows) deduced for
the area as in Harlan and Geissman (2009) but no rotation detected for the last 2 Ma west of Pajarito
Fault (PF) (modified from Sussman et al. 2009)
has been described as two end members: relay ramp (Fig. 10c) and transfer fault
(Peacock et al. 2000; Fossen and Rotevatn 2016). Evidence for vertical axis rotation
is an important test of relay ramp formation. In New Mexico, paleomagnetic analyses
have been performed along the Río Grande Rift system in the Española Basin, one
of the three right-stepping, asymmetric fault-bounded en echelon basins, that from
north to south are Albuquerque, Española, and San Luis (Harlan and Geissman 2009)
(Fig. 18). Paleomagnetic analyses reveal a little or no counterclockwise rotations in
Tertiary intrusive rocks (Harlan and Geissman 2009 and references therein).
This rotation agrees with the kinematic model of moderate left slip along rift-
bounding faults segmented the rift into specific rotational blocks (Muehlberger 1979;
Brown and Golombek 1985), but also with the kinematic model of right slip of elon-
gated blocks oriented sub-parallel to the rift rotation with increasing magnitudes of
transtension (Wawrzyniec et al. 2002; Markley and Tikoff 2002; Harlan and Geiss-
man 2009). The rotation occurred within the past 2 Ma (Harlan and Geissman 2009).
However, during the Quaternary, paleomagnetic rotation has not been active west of
Española Basin although slip in the Española Basin limiting faults has been reported
(Sussman et al. 2009).
3.1.5 Understanding Orogens in 2D: Map View Reconstructions

(Andes)
Paleomagnetism in map view has been also used in 2D reconstructions in the central
part of the Andes. A 2D block model in map view with 257 fault-bounded blocks
between 5° and 30°S latitude was constructed in order to elucidate when rotations
took place and to reconstruct the position of the blocks before tectonic rotations and
shortening occurred in the structural evolution of the Bolivian orocline (Fig. 19a).
The number of blocks and the choice of bounding are non-unique (Arriagada et al.
2008). Certain characteristic for choosing the bounding of the blocks and the restora-
tion model had been taken into account: (i) Restoration is based on the removal of
the horizontal components of slip on faults by the least squares minimization of
interblock gaps and overlaps (Arriagada et al. 2008 and references therein). (ii) The
initial direction of shortening is presumably orthogonal to the main fold axes and
thrusts, and it rotates with the block during restoration. (iii) The length of the block
along-strike does not change during restoration. (iv) All blocks are assumed inter-
nally undeformed (rigid body behavior) and rotated progressively in 30 or 60 steps
(for each step, the model minimizes the gaps and overlaps). (v) Rotations are specific
for some blocks but other blocks are allowed to rotate freely. (vi) The rotations of
the blocks were calculated on the basis of trends in the paleomagnetic data.
The performed restoration in two time steps (0–15 Ma and 15–45 Ma) allowed
Arriagada et al. (2008) obtaining some conclusions about the evolution of shortening
and rotations: The orogenic curvature of the Bolivian orocline is mainly formed dur-
ing the Paleogene (Eocene–Oligocene) due to differential shortening in the Eastern
Cordillera, the horizontal shortening near the Arica bend is calculated in 400 km,
and there appears to be an extension along the southern limb (Fig. 19).
3.1.6 Understanding Shortening in 2D: Cross Section Estimations
Balancing and restoration techniques of geological cross sections were developed

mainly during the 70s and 80s (Dahlstrom 1969; Elliott 1976; Hossack 1979; Elliott
and Johnson 1980; Price 1981; Cooper 1983) which focused on performing more
reliable and better subsurface reconstructions in order to squeeze scarce and hetero-
geneous geological/geophysical data by applying relatively simple geometric rules
based on the classic principle of volume conservation (Goguel 1952). A balanced
and restored section must honor all available geological and geophysical data aiming
to build (and validate) a geometrically plausible and geologically admissible recon-
struction of the subsurface. During those years, the computational possibilities were
very limited and balanced and restored techniques were first developed in 2D taking
Fig. 19 a Fault-bounded blocks defined in the model of Arriagada et al. (2008). b Shortening and
rotation restored for the interval 0–15 Ma (Arriagada et al. (2008)
some assumptions (Wilkerson and Marshak 1997): (1) Interpreted geometries must
be in accordance to natural observations. (2) Retrodeformed horizons and faults must
display reasonable and logical geometries. (3) Areas and lengths must be conserved
between the deformed and the restored stages. Therefore, evidences for out-of-plane
motions across the section may invalidate the interpretation (and the implicit plane
strain assumption) if they are not account for. (4) A plausible kinematic model must
describe the development of the structures during the deformation.
In regions where VARs are determined, which is a common natural scenario that
invalidates the third assumption, the shortening measured in a series of cross sec-
tions drawn along-strike (ratio between the final and the initial lengths) is different
for each cross section (Fig. 20) being the differences controlled by the VAR mag-
nitude (β) and the distance between the rotation axis and the selected cross section.
Indeed, the occurrence of VAR implies that the transport direction changes during the
progress of deformation. Therefore, standard techniques of cross section balancing
are inadequate in regions where VARs are documented.
However, some map view trigonometric models were developed (Pueyo et al.
2004) to overcome this problem (Fig. 20). If the VAR (β) is estimated (i.e., by means
of paleomagnetic analysis), then the correct shortening (Sc ) along the arc length
(actual transport track) can be estimated following these equations:
Fig. 20 map view sketch of the thrust elements in which the hanging wall undergoes a moderate
CW VAR in a rigid fashion, and the transport direction is always perpendicular to the frontal ramp,
thus following and arched geometry. The hanging and footwall cutoffs crosses at a point where
shortening is null (tip line of the fault) and corresponds to the physical axis of rotation (AR).
Any “balanced” and restored section located at a distance from AR and drawn perpendicular, for
example, to the footwall cutoff (classic method; A − A ) will estimate a shortening “St” which will
not be accurate since the magnitude of rotation (VAR or β) was not taken into account. The reason
is that the particles within the hanging wall followed an arcuate path (Sc ) rather than the straight
path implied by St (from Pueyo et al. 2004)
Sc St βπ/360 sin(β/2) St βπ/180 tan(β). (2)
If Sc is the shortening estimate along the chord length, then:
Sc St sin(90 − β)/ sin (90 + β/2) St cos(β)/ cos(β/2). (3)
In cases where cross sections are not perpendicular to the footwall cutoff (A −
A ), the corrected shortening (ScNP ) can be also deduced in terms of Cooper (1983):
ScNP St − α sin(90 + β − α)/ sin(90 − β/2) St − α cos(α − β)/ cos(β/2).

(4)
where α is the angle between the cross section (A − A ) and the transport direction at
the onset of the thrust movement, although equivalent calculations can be performed
using the final (finite) transport direction (see an example in the Wyoming salient by
Sussman et al. 2012).
On the other side, Sussman et al (2012) have calculated the percentage of error in
the shortening estimation (comparison between the measured shortening [St] and the
actual shortening along the arc [Sc’]) as a function of the VAR magnitude (Fig. 21):

% Err or 1 − Sc /St ∗ 100 [1 − (βπ/180 tan(β))] ∗ 100 (5)
Fig. 21 Graph showing the

relationship between the
VAR (β) and the expected
error in the shortening
estimation, if the restoration
is done ignoring the rotation.
Modified from Sussman
et al. (2012)
This means that, for example, VARs of 70° will imply an apparent shortening
estimation two times larger than the true shortening if the cross section would have
been drawn in a straight line perpendicular to the thrust trace. When VARs are ~50°
(not infrequent), the standard shortening estimate (St) will comprise errors around
30%. However, VAR smaller than 30° generates errors below 10% (assumable in
normal conditions).
The map view simple trigonometric model relating shortening and VARs can be
extended to perform independent estimations of shortening by forward modeling
between two adjacent cross sections (Fig. 22). The distance between them along the
footwall cutoff is DFW . The difference in the estimate of the chord lengths (S
Sc1 − Sc2 ) between two cross sections is a function of the distance measured over
the footwall (DFW ) and the magnitude of β (VAR):
S Sc1 − Sc2 2DFW sin(β/2). (6)
The shortening gradient (Gs) is the variation in the difference of shortening along
the structural trend in the footwall cutoff and can be determined by:
Gs (S1 − S2 )/DFW 2 sin(β/2), (7)
The shortening gradient depends on the VAR magnitude, and it can be considered
as a linear function when β is brackets between −90° > β > +90° (Sussman et al.
2012). The main implication of this variable is its ability to predict the expected
shortening (Sr) of a given cross section without first restoring the stratigraphic pack-
age to its non-deformed state. The estimation of the expected shortening in a given
Fig. 22 Trigonometric relationships (top/mapview) between two cross sections performed in a

rotated thrust system displaying the trigonometric relationships between differential shortening and
VAR (β) (from Pueyo et al. 2004)
location of the thrust front requires the following data: (a) the amount of rotation
(β), (b) a reliable shortening value from another cross section where the locations
of the hanging and footwall cutoffs are known, and (c) the distance between both
cross sections along the footwall cutoff (DFW ). For example, imagine a more reliable
shortening at cross section 1 (Sc1 ), and thus, a realistic minimum shortening estimate
for cross section 2 (Sr2 ) could be more accurately determined if the hanging wall
cutoff would have been eroded (2 location in Fig. 22) and the standard estimation
Sc2 is, therefore, incomplete.
Sr2 Sc1 + S Sc1 + 2DFW sin(β/2). (8)
Given the large amount of paleomagnetic data in most of orogenic zones, these
simple equations may be used to improve the quality of shortening estimations.
3.2 Understanding Orogens in 3D
As previously mentioned at the beginning of this section, reconstructions are an

important challenge in Earth Sciences, particularly when considering 3D subsur-
face reconstructions because of its important socioeconomic implications. Several
methodological and computational solutions during the last decades have returned
several methods and software suites. They allow obtaining reasonable subsurface
reconstructions with a reasonable level of predictability that helps in decision-making
processes. The goodness of such reconstructions is highly dependent on the abun-
dance, homogeneity, and quality of surface and subsurface data. Limited certainty
Fig. 23 Concept of the restoration with paleomagnetism (Ramón et al. 2012). An infinite surface
element can be restored to its paleoposition using both undeformed reference indicators; (1) bedding
plane (assumed to be horizontal) and (2) its (primary) paleomagnetic vector (assumed to be parallel
to its paleomagnetic reference)
occurs when limited data are available or when deformation is complex and that
is why restoration methods were developed to validate subsurface reconstructions.
During the last years, the classic 2D restoration concepts (Dalhstrom 1969; Elliott
1983; Hossack 1979) have evolved to 3D (Gratier et al. 1991; Williams et al. 1997;
Griffiths et al. 2002; Rouby et al. 2000; Thibert et al. 2005; Moretti et al. 2005;
Moretti 2008; Durand-Riard et al. 2010). Present 3D geometrical restoration algo-
rithms, e.g., Move by Midland Valley Exploration (Griffiths et al. 2002), gOcad and
Kine3D (Moretti et al. 2005) by Paradigm, Dinel3D by iGeoss (Maerten and Maerten
2006), Pmag3Drest (Ramón 2013; Ramón et al. 2012, 2016a, b), etc., can be split into
two different approaches depending on the number of dimensions considered: sur-
face (horizon) balancing (2.5D) and real 3D approaches (volumes). Surface methods
are the initial point for the real 3D and are based in the restoration to the horizontal
of individual stratigraphic horizons or surfaces and the assumption of constant (or
controlled) thickness of layers. In this context, the use of paleomagnetic vectors (as
markers of deformation in 3D) can contribute building a more accurate reference sys-
tem able to relate the deformed and undeformed stages to and reduce the uncertainty
in restoration processes, especially where deformation is complex (non-coaxial or
non-cylindrical) (Fig. 23).
This simple idea (Fig. 23) was early suggested during the 90s (McCaig and
McClelland 1992). However, and likely because technical limitations (computers
performance), in the 90s only few researchers tried using paleomagnetism in this
sense. Pioneer works used paleomagnetic data to double-check the rotation magni-
tudes inferred from their restoration method (Bonhommet et al. 1981; Bourgeois et al.
1997). Later, others have proposed using paleomagnetism as a map view restoration
method (Arriagada et al. 2008; Ramón 2013) or, as we have seen, as a tool to cor-
rect shortening estimates (Pueyo et al. 2004; Sussman et al. 2009). Recently, some
works have introduced a surface restoration method (Pmag3Drest) that uses, for the
very first time, paleomagnetic vectors as a primary source of information (Ramón
et al. 2012). The UNFOLD method is the starting point (Gratier et al. 1991; Gratier
and Guiller 1993) due to its simplicity (although is also valid for non-cylindrical
Fig. 24 Building analogue models with paleomagnetic vectors (modified from Ramón et al. 2013).
Analogue model reconstruction using gOcad to assemble the cross section (DICOM) images
obtained by CT: a model setup under the CT scanner; b lateral view; c top/map view: d selected
(11, 17 & 23) cross sections (originally spaced 2 cm apart); and e 3D reconstruction of the upper
and lower surfaces of the model (performed in gOcad). Left column: acquisition of paleomagnetic
meridian lines in the model (red lead paint was used to enhance the X-ray absorption and brightness
in the radiograms). Center: final deformation stage (analogue model). Bottom: super-position of
the top-view from gOcad and a photogrammetric image to double-checked the 3D reconstruction
quality (Ramón 2013)
structures) and because the paleomagnetic variables can be readily implemented.

However, the UNFOLD method, based on a piecewise approach (triangular ele-
ments) to characterize the structural horizons, was demonstrated to be very sensitive
to the starting element (pinpoint), the mesh type, and density of elements as well as
the orientation of the paleomagnetic reference (Ramón et al. 2016a), and therefore,
alternative mathematical approaches were selected.
It is worth to mention that specially designed analogue models displaying pale-
omagnetic vectors were developed (Ramón et al. 2013). In such models, deformed
and unreformed states are completely characterized, and thus, the quality of the
restoration result can be tested (Figs. 24 and 25).
An alternative mathematical approach (Ramón et al. 2016b) to the piecewise
restoration was to incorporate the paleomagnetic vectors in a parametrized deformed
Fig. 25 Parametric restoration approach: results from two analogue models where paleomagnetic
vectors were considered (Pmag3Drest) or obviated (Kine3D) (Ramón et al. 2016b). a Folded sur-
faces (digitalized models from CT scans); note that the pin-element as well as the pin-vector ori-
entation are displayed. b Restored surface without using paleomagnetic vectors (standard Kine3D
result). c Restored surface using paleomagnetism (Pmag3Drest approach). In all cases, dilation
is plotted on top of the restored surfaces as a control of the result. d Expected result: the initial
horizontal surface showing the real dilation (dreal).e is the mean error between the real and the
estimated dilation (e. mean(|dreal 2d|)) and dmean is the mean dilation (dmean. mean(|d|))
surface (Léger et al. 1997). The starting point for this new approach is the method-
ology described by Mallet (2002) and used by the gOcad (Mallet 1992) and Kine3D
(Moretti et al. 2005) software packages. The unfolding technique relies on the deter-
mination of a particular parameterization for the nodes of the triangular surface that
defines the horizon to be unfolded and unfaulted. The restoration method preserves
the metric properties (areas, angles, and lengths), and thus, parameterization must
generate a metric tensor approximately equal to the unit tensor. These are the isomet-
ric constraints (gradu 1, gradv 1, gradu · gradv = 0) that can be incorporated
in the discrete smooth interpolation (DSI, Mallet 1992) applied to the entire surface.
The main idea was to use paleomagnetic vectors as one of the two vectors (u)
needed for the parameterization of the surface (Ramón et al. 2016b) and as an addi-
tional restriction of the DSI. This is particularly important for “globally developable”
(flexural) surfaces with some no-developable areas of maximum deformation in
which isometric constraints must be relaxed. These authors have double-checked
their novel approach using analogue models of complex structures (conical folds,
superposed folding; Ramón et al. 2013) inspired in the southwestern Pyrenean struc-
tures (San Marzal and Balzes anticlines in the External Sierras) (Fig. 25). These ana-
logues always reproduce non-coaxial and non-cylindrical geometries which imply
“out-of-plane movements” in classic 2D balancing techniques (Hossack 1979).
Therefore, these analogues make standard restoration methods being inapplicable or
difficult (Kine3D in that case). The shape of the restored surfaces using Pmag3Drest
(Fig. 25) nearly matches the expected shape and orthogonality of the on-deformed
surface, and this is not the case using the standard gOcad approach (Kine3D). To
contrast these results with the expected ones (from the analogue models), the authors
used the dilation in the restored state; this variable is a measure of area varia-
tion between the folded and the restored surfaces; d(areafold 2arearest)/arearest
(Fig. 25c). Then, this variable was compared to the real dilation in the analogue
model, difference between the folded surface and the initial horizontal surface, dreal.
(areafold2areaini)/areaini (Ramón et al. 2016b) (Fig. 25d). The main result using
paleomagnetism is that the distribution of maximum dilation values roughly corre-
sponds to the expected result. However, the absolute value of dilation is lower than
the expected one.
These authors (Ramón et al. 2016a, b) have demonstrated that incorporating pale-
omagnetic vectors as an additional constraint during the restoration process (para-
metric approach) decreases the uncertainty in the result and is very helpful to validate
reconstructions of complex structures (non-coaxial, non-cylindrical). Moreover, the
use of paleomagnetic vectors avoids the dependency on the pin-element of the initial
solution (piecewise approach). However, a major weakness of this method is the need
to define the paleomagnetic vector at numerous points of the target surface (includ-
ing most in the subsurface). Until now, these authors have used data from digitalized
analogue models (where vectors are known everywhere). Future challenges in 3D
restoration using paleomagnetism have to focus on the development of interpolation
algorithms to extrapolate individual sites from the outcrops to the subsurface, which
certainly will promote the usefulness of the approach in natural cases. The need of
a vast net of paleomagnetic vectors in the surface (hundreds of sites) should not
be a problem considering the modern robotized demagnetization systems already
available in some laboratories.
4 Remagnetizations; Snapshots of Deformation Histories
Sometimes, large-scale basinal and orogenic processes are able to totally or partially
reset the original (primary) magnetic signal recorded in the rocks; this phenomenon is
known as remagnetization, and very often, they may be very extensive and pervasive
in basin and orogenic domains. Several mechanisms have been claimed to produce
remagnetizations during basinal and orogeny evolutions; smectite–illite transforma-
tion (Katz et al. 1998), pyrite oxidation (Hornafus 1984), dolomite diagenesis (Hart
and Fuller 1988), dedolomitization (Elmore et al. 1985), oil migration (Elmore et al.
1987; Oliva-Urcia et al. 2010a, b), and thermal metamorphism (Juárez et al. 1998; Vil-
lalaín et al. 2003 among others). During a metamorphic event, when temperatures are
higher that the Curie/Néel temperature the magnetization will totally resent once the
temperatures decrease. If metamorphism reaches lower temperatures, the remanence
can be partially reset depending on how long the temperature affects the volume of
rock. This process may affect most deep-seated and old rocks of the Earth. Actually,
ferromagnetic minerals with low Curie temperatures (as in magnetic sulfides) have
been also used to reconstruct the exhumation history in the Himalaya (Crouzet et al.
2001, 2007).
Another cause of chemical remagnetizations is fluids circulating due to compres-
sive strain in the orogenic wedge (Oliver 1986) or derived by gravity from meteoric
waters (Garven 1985; McCabe and Elmore 1989; Elmore et al. 2001 among others;
Elmore et al. 2012). A relationship between cleavage development and remagnetiza-
tions has also been speculated (Oliva-Urcia et al. 2008). Orogenic wedges produce
very large amounts of sediments stacked in the foreland basins (that may also get
involved later on in the orogeny; e.g., Dutta et al. submitted). The burial history, very
easily exceeding more than 200 °C, has been demonstrated to be an efficient mecha-
nism of chemical remagnetization within the diagenesis domain. In many cases, the
temperature is not enough to totally reset the magnetization (as the high-temperature
metamorphism) but the physico-chemical conditions allow for the growing of new
magnetic minerals (ChRM) that will record the current magnetic field. This process
has been recognized in relation to phyllosilicate-bearing rocks, but it may be also
responsible in carbonatic and detritic (red beds) ones. In fact, the chemical reac-
tions between magnetic minerals during the burial have been proposed as a potential
geothermometer (Aubourg et al. 2012; Blaise et al. 2014).
Nevertheless, the resetting of the paleomagnetic signal under a known external
field can be considered as a snapshot of the deformation history, and it is still able
to contribute to our understanding of orogens and Plate Tectonics.
4.1 Basin Geometry Reconstruction
Paleomagnetism has revealed its application to reconstruct intermediate basinal

stages when a remagnetization occurs. Intermediate basinal stages have been recon-
structed for example in the present-day inverted basins in Cameros (Iberian Range,
Spain) or High Atlas (Morocco) (Villalaín et al. 2003; Soto et al. 2008a, b; Torres-
López et al. 2014; Villalaín et al. 2016; Calvín et al. 2017a) or to reconstruct interme-
diate positions during folding (García-Lasanta et al. 2017). In the Cameros and High
Atlas basins, the blocking of the characteristic RM, which is synfolding, occurred
before the end of the basinal stage (Fig. 26). For a proper reconstruction of the posi-
tion of bedding using the paleomagnetic vectors, the small circle method intersection
is necessary (Shipunov 1997; Waldhör and Appel 2006; Calvín et al. 2017b).
After laboratory cleaning and analyses with the small circles method, the recon-
struction of bedding planes to the time of the remagnetization acquisition can be
done. Therefore, a snapshot of the basinal stage can be known (sketch 3 in Fig. 26).
Earth magnetic feld at the time of the blocking NRM in the basin sediments
Extensional setting
Compressional setting
Fig. 26 Schematic representation of the evolution of sedimentation in a basin (1 and 2), the time
of the acquisition of a stable characteristic component of the NRM (3) and the final position of
bedding and paleomagnetic vectors after the tectonic inversion (4)
4.2 Orogen Geometry
4.2.1 Basement/Cover Relationships
Remagnetizations occurring during orogen evolution have been also essential in

the South Pyrenean Zone to detect rotations after the remagnetization event and to
reconstruct the position of the Internal Sierras (cover thrust related) prior to that time.
As represented in Fig. 27, a post-folding remagnetization has allowed disentangle
part of the vertical axes rotations recorded in the Internal Sierras (South Pyrenean
Zone). The post-folding remagnetization is also later than the Gavarnie basement
thrust, which is tilting the Larra–Monte Perdido cover thrust system. Therefore, the
rotation recorded by the post-folding remagnetization is related to a younger thrust
sheet (Guarga, outcropping to the south of the cross section).
Additionally, reconstructing the position of the Internal Sierras (IS) prior to the
VAR results in that the curvature of the IS is probably a primary feature, which
is interpreted as the result of basement features inherited from the Variscan, the
Late Variscan, or the Mesozoic times (Izquierdo-Llavall et al. 2015). In addition, an
early remagnetization prior to basement tilting was found. This component predates
basement thrusting and is diachronous across the study area (Izquierdo-Llavall et al.
2015).
Fig. 27 Cross section showing cover detachments (Larra–Monte Perdido thrust system) later tilted
by a basement thrust sheet (Gavarnie thrust) and remagnetization components averaged from three
sites in every four of the thrust sheets (Oliva-Urcia and Pueyo 2007b)
5 Chronostratigraphic Frames for Deformation Processes
The Earth’s magnetic field has another characteristic, which relates to its polarity.
During the present-day normal polarity chron, magnetic lines shown in Fig. 1 indi-
cate that, in the northern hemisphere, magnetic inclination points toward the North
Geomagnetic Pole. On the other hand, during a reverse polarity chron, magnetic
inclination would point toward the South Geomagnetic Pole. These reversals occur
at a global scale in a non-rhythmic fashion through time, and therefore, the record of
normal and reverse polarities through the history of the Earth can be reconstructed
as in the geomagnetic polarity time scale (GPTS) as in Ogg et al. (2016) where black
(white) bars indicate normal (reverse) polarity chrons.
Magnetostratigraphy consists of the paleomagnetic study of a sedimentary section
in order to obtain the sequence of local polarity magnetozones which can be corre-
lated independently to the geomagnetic polarity time scale (GPTS). This is possible
to achieve when the stratigraphic section is long enough; therefore, the correlation
of the local magnetozones with the GPTS admits only one possibility (Garcés 2015).
Magnetostratigraphic dating of syntectonic deposits is essential to unravel the defor-
mational history of orogens and their adjacent foreland basins.
5.1 Dating Rocks and Basin Histories
The final architecture of the sediments in a basin depends on the accommodation

space, the tectonic uplift, lithology, and grain size distribution of the sediment supply,
and it is modulated by climate (Armitage et al. 2011; Molnar 2004) (Fig. 28).
Fig. 28 Schematic presentation of the main factors controlling sedimentation in foreland basins
Therefore, to unravel the tectonic influence on the architecture of the basin, one
key data is the age of the sediments filling up the accommodation space, once the
sedimentological framework is stabilized.
Magnetostratigraphy is, therefore, an essential tool to unravel the age of sedimen-
tary basins. This technique has proven its advantages as independent dating tool over
paleontological dating particularly in continental basins, with scarce and disperse
fossil deposits.
As an example, the Ebro foreland basin has been studied since the 80s particu-
larly to obtain information about the evolution of the Pyrenean orogeny (see next
point). With the increasing amount of results from magnetostratigraphic long sec-
tions, it has been possible, for example, to determine a coeval continental closure
of the foreland basin ~36 Myr ago (Costa et al. 2010 and references therein) or to
resolve the depocenter shifting link to lacustrine sedimentation (Valero et al. 2014
and references therein) (Fig. 29). More recently, the frequency analyses of litholog-
ical variations of well-dated stratigraphic sections from the center of the basin have
revealed the influence of the Milankovic cycles in their sedimentation; particularly,
orbital eccentricity is the pacemaker of short- to long-term lacustrine sequences and
reveals a correlation of maxima of the 100-kyr, 400-kyr, and 2.4-Myr eccentricity
cycles with periods of lake expansion due to relatively wet periods (Valero et al.
2014). These results of the influence of long period orbital cycles compared with the
tectonic-driven sequences are a fundamental target for interpreting the large-scale
stratigraphic architecture in foreland systems (Valero et al. 2014).
Fig. 29 Map (GeoMapApp) with the temporal shifting of lacustrine depocenters of the Ebro fore-
land basin Simplified from Valero et al. (2014)
5.1.1 Source to Sink
Combining the paleomagnetic dating of syntectonic continental conglomerates with

thermochronology data from the granite boulders of the same synsedimentary section
is the perfect combination to determine the complete source-to-sink course of the
sediments, from the moment the source rocks are uplifted till the time they are
deposited. A magnetostratigraphic and thermochronological analyses reveal that syn-
tectonic sediments from Late Lutetian to Late Oligocene in the central Pyrenees have
experienced two well-defined periods of rapid cooling in the hinterland ~50–40 and
30–25 Ma. The combination allows determined that exhumation rates between the
40–25 Ma period had an averaged of 0.3 km Myr−1 with sedimentary rates varying
from 0.28–0.05 km Myr−1 , except for the Oligocene period, with >1 km Myr−1 and
a sedimentation rate of 0.1 km Myr−1 . This data reveals that these sediments are
indeed syntectonic, contrary to previous considerations (Beamud et al. 2011).
5.2 Dating Folding and Thrusting
The geometry of syntectonic sediments at the boundary of foreland basins reveals its
connection to deformational processes (fold–thrust systems) affecting them. There-
fore, using magnetostratigraphy at the boundary of foreland basins is key to date
the tectonic events of the orogen evolution (Fig. 30). In addition, the combination of
magnetostratigraphic data from syntectonic deposits with thermochronology data of
Fig. 30 Schematic representation of folds and thrusts (red) at the frontal part of an orogen. Obtain-
ing the local magnetozones of the syntectonic sediments by magnetostratigraphy and the anchoring
of the local magnetozones to the geomagnetic polarity time scale (GPTS, Ogg et al. 2016) to the left,
allow dating the deformation at the frontal part of the orogen
the pebbles found in those syntectonic deposits provides a complete timing scenario
of the accumulation time on one hand and the uplift of the source area on the other
hand (i.e., Beamud et al. 2011).
The tectonic evolution of the frontal part of the west-central Pyrenees was stab-
lished by magnetostratigraphy for a certain sedimentary scenario (Hogan and Bur-
bank 1996). However, updated data regarding the sedimentary interpretations (Are-
nas et al. 2001) and new magnetostratigraphic section results have slightly changed
the temporal frame for the latest thrust activity in the frontal Pyrenees respect to the
Piggyback basin, together with accumulation rates (Oliva-Urcia et al. 2015) (Fig. 31).
The variations of tectonic activity and accumulation rates of the foreland basin
with respect to the Piggyback basin can be ascertained using magnetostratigraphy
and complete knowledge of the sedimentary architecture.
5.3 Rotational Kinematics
Because its unique capability to characterize VARs, paleomagnetic studies have

helped unraveling the kinematics in fold and thrust belts around the world. They
have allowed obtaining rotation magnitudes along-strike variations of thrust sheets
and across differences between them. However, determination of rotation velocities
of thrust systems is a necessary step forward to understand the rotational kinematics
of fold and thrust belts. As folding and thrusting (translational) velocities has helped
understanding these systems, the rotational kinematics is also necessary and, alto-
gether, will turn into a real 4D comprehension of thrust systems. So far, only few
Fig. 31 Example of younger ages (green line, ~1 Ma younger) obtained in the frontal part of the
orogen for the activity of the San Felices (SF) thrust sheet respect to its age in the Piggyback basin
(Oliva-Urcia et al. 2015 and references therein)
works have addressed the rotational kinematics issue at orogen scale (Speranza et al.
1999; Duermeijer et al. 2000; Mattei et al. 2004).
Accurate definition of rotation velocities of individual thrust sheets is of key
importance to fully understand the 4D geometric and kinematic evolution of fold
and thrust belts. This is so because VARs involve significant along-strike changes
in the distribution of masses (and voids), and thus, bracketing its magnitudes and
the timing of them are crucial variables to comprehend the deformation systems.
Till date, this kind of control has been only done in the Pyrenees. The first precise
characterization of rotation velocities at the thrust scale was performed in the Pico
del Aguila anticline (Pueyo et al. 2002) taken advantage of previous biostratigraphic
(Canudo et al. 1988) and magnetostratigraphic (Hogan and Burbank 1996) data in
its western limb (Fig. 32). A net of discrete paleomagnetic sites were accurately cal-
ibrated in this enviable chronostratigraphic frame and allowed observing a variation
in the VAR magnitude from the bottom (maximum values up to 40° CW) to the
top (non-significant values) of the Bartonian–Pirabonian marine sequence (Arguis
marls).
This pioneer work has been later on along-strike extended to other well-known
oblique structures of the South Pyrenean front taken advantage of the occurrence of
magnetostratigraphically dated syntectonic (synrotational) series; Boltaña (Mochales
et al. 2012a; Muñoz et al. 2013), Balzes (Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016), Pico del Aguila
(Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2008) and partially in the Santo Domingo (Pueyo 2000) and
Mediano (Muñoz et al. 2013; Beamud et al. 2016) anticlines (Fig. 33).
All these structures are characterized by:
– Syntectonic sedimentation (Puigdefábregas 1975; Millán et al. 1994; Barnolas and
Gil-Peña 2001; Arenas et al. 2001; Poblet et al. 1998)
Fig. 32 Along-strike variations of age and magnitude of VARs in the southwestern Pyrenees (Pueyo
2000). Paleomagnetic sites are superposed to previous magnetostratigraphic data (Hogan 1993)
allowing for the characterization of the diachronism of the rotational movement of the Pyrenean
basal thrust along the External Sierras front
– Reliable and detailed magnetostratigraphic sections allowing for deformation to

be dated (both folding and rotation); Boltaña (Mochales et al. 2012b), Balzes
(Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2013); Pico del Aguila (Hogan and Burbank 1996; Kodama
et al. 2010; Rodriguez-Pintó et al. 2012), Santo Domingo (Hogan and Burbank
1996; Teletzke 2012; Oliva-Urcia et al. 2016, 2018), Mediano (Holl and Anastasio
1993; Bentham and Burbank 1996).
– Dense paleomagnetic sampling (sites) to bracket the rotation age and magnitudes
(Fig. 34) and thus, the rotation velocities, together with a detail structural control
on the geometry of these folds; Boltaña (Mochales et al. 2012c; Muñoz et al. 2013),
Balzes (Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016); Pico del Aguila (Pueyo et al. 2002), Santo
Domingo (Pueyo 2000), Mediano (Muñoz et al. 2013; Beamud et al. 2017).
This exceptional and unique dataset allows for a better 4D comprehension of the
southwestern Pyrenean front. There, rotation ages seem to be quite isochronous in the
central sector (Boltaña, Balzes, Guara and Pico del Aguila sectors, Fig. 35) and have
been identified as Upper Lutetian to Bartonian in the Boltaña anticline (Mochales
et al. 2012c; Muñoz et al. 2013), Upper Lutetian in the Balzes anticline (Rodríguez-
Pintó et al. 2016), and Bartonian-Priabonian in the Pico del Aguila anticline (Pueyo
et al. 2002; Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2008; Kodama et al. 2010). However, younger ages
have been reported to the West in the Santo Domingo anticline (Pueyo 2000) since
Fig. 33 Location of the synrotational structures in the External Sierras Front (southwestern Pyre-
nees)
significant VAR magnitudes were found during Rupelian times across the Anzañigo
and Salinas sections (Hogan 1993; Pueyo 2000). Besides, the rotation timing is likely
older to the East in the Mediano anticline (Beamud et al. 2017).
Despite the onset of rotation is only partially established, a well-defined diachro-
nism has been demonstrated for the end of the rotational movement. The rotation
vanishes along-strike at ~5 km Ma−1 although this velocity may be locally faster if
a non-steady scenario is considered, for example, if some oblique structures (lateral
thrusts terminations) articulate zones with and without rotation. Comparable values
could be expected for the rotation onset as regards of the remarkable similarities
found with the lateral migration of the deformation along the External Sierras front
(Millán et al. 2000) (Fig. 36).
Another interesting result deals with the rotation velocity magnitude. The three
structures characterized by robust datasets (Pico del Aguila, Balzes and Boltaña)
display very similar rotation velocities. During the rotational period, the underlying
thrust sheet could have accommodated up to 13 Ma−1 in the Balzes anticline, although
10 Ma−1 is the average. This velocity is of similar magnitude to those deduced in
the Boltaña (2.3–10 Ma−1 ; Mochales et al. 2012a) and Pico del Aguila (2–7 Ma−1 ;
Pueyo et al. 2002 and Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2008) anticlines. Further ongoing studies
in the Mediano (to the east) and Santo Domingo (to the west) anticlines will help
Fig. 34 Rotation velocities in some Pyrenean oblique structures: a Pico del Águila (modified from
Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2008 and Pueyo et al 2002). b Northern sector of the Guara thrust system
(Pueyo 2000), c Balzes anticline (Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016) and d Boltaña anticline (Mochales
et al. 2012c). Abscissas are always the geological time scale (in Ma) and the ordinates represent
the VAR magnitude where the decreasing trends represents the onset of the rotational activity of
the related thrusts
clarifying this kinematic model and understanding the 4D architecture of the thrust
system.
Fig. 35 Compilation of rotation velocities and ages in three oblique structures of the south-central
Pyrenees (from Rodríguez-Pintó et al. 2016)
6 Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility as a kinematic

indicator
The anisotropy of the magnetic susceptibility (AMS) is a second-order tensor that

is represented in three dimensions by an ellipsoid. Since the early works of AMS
in rocks, a parallelism between the petrofabric and the AMS (also called magnetic
fabric) was found (Borradaile and Jackson 2004, 2010 and references therein). There-
fore, analyses of the AMS, which are also done in standard paleomagnetic samples,
provide information of the petrofabric in volumes of rocks.
AMS has been very useful in different types of rocks (igneous, sedimentary,
metamorphic) and tectonic settings (as seen above), but it is specially interesting
in obtaining the strain in sedimentary rocks with subtle (or none) deformational
features.
6.1 Compressional Settings
In compressional settings, usually, the maximum axis, the magnetic lineation (k max ) is
parallel to the elongation direction, usually perpendicular to the shortening direction
(Fig. 37a). A gradation of the AMS orientation can be found in a basin from center
of the basin to close to the orogen (Parés et al. 1999; Borradaile and Tarling 1981);
Kligfield et al. 1981; Hrouda 1982; Borradaile 1987; Aubourg et al. 1995, 2000; Parés
and van der Pluijm 2002). In foreland basins, the imprint of the compressional strain
is also found in the magnetic fabric of soft syntectonic sediments (silts, mudstones),
Fig. 36 Evolutionary model for the oblique structures of the southwestern central Pyrenees (mod-
ified from Pueyo et al. 2002). a (≈40 Ma); at the beginning of the deposit of the Arguis Fm., the
initiation of the rotation in the hanging wall of the south Pyrenean basal thrust. b (36.5 Ma); until
the end of the deposit of the transitional sediments (Belsué-Atarés Fm.) that represents the end of
the rotation of the basal thrust in this sector (but not to the east or to the west). c (26 Ma); in this
period, the studied area rotational movements are finished but significant southwards translation
are still active, while for the same time span, the western sector of the External Sierras suffered
important rotations Santo Domingo anticline)
far from the frontal part of the orogen (Soto et al. 2009). Magnetic fabric (the k max
axis) can be also used as a passive marker during deformation events. Magnetic fabric
can develop at early stages during deformation, for example, during layer-parallel
shortening, and then, the k max axes are grouped and oriented perpendicular to the
shortening direction. Later, block rotations will modify the orientation of the k max
axes, as found in the southern frontal part of the Pyrenees, where VARs obtained
by paleomagnetic analysis are similar to the passive rotation the magnetic lineation
(k max axes) have experienced (Pueyo-Anchuela et al. 2012). Moreover, the magnetic
lineation is quite sensitive to near-field and far-field strain variations, as recorded
in the magnetic fabric of the Boltaña anticline, in the frontal part of the Pyrenees.
In this area, variations in the orientation of the magnetic lineation are considered to
correspond to the far-field effect of deformation in the Axial Zone (Cotiella nappe)
and the near-field formation of the Boltaña anticline (Mochales et al. 2010).
Fig. 37 Orientation of the magnetic ellipsoid under certain strain scenarios
6.2 Extensional Settings
In extensional settings, the magnetic lineation parallels the elongation direction, usu-
ally perpendicular to main extensional faults (Alfonsi 1997; Mattei et al. 1997; Cifelli
et al. 2005) Fig. 37b. If the magnetic fabric developed during the basinal stage, that
is, the k max axes grouped parallel to the main extension direction and the minimum
magnetic axis (k min ) oriented perpendicular to bedding, and this relationship is kept
through the later tectonic inversion, and then, the magnetic ellipsoid can be used to
unravel the strain of the basinal stage (Sect. 6.3).
6.3 Inversion Tectonics
Magnetic fabrics has been an essential tool to determine the strain at the basin stage
of inverted basins, which can be preserved under certain circumstances (García-
Lasanta et al. 2018) (Fig. 37c). The basic relationship of the magnetic fabric with
the bedding for the magnetic fabric to be used as a basinal stage strain marker
is that the minimum axis of the ellipsoid is perpendicular to bedding. This is of
special interest in rocks with scarce strain markers, although any stress information
can be compared with the magnetic fabric results, i.e., brittle structures, microscopic
observations. The use of magnetic fabric has been successful in determining the strain
of basin stage in the Mesozoic basins of the western Tethys in Iberian plate: Pyrenees:
Mauléon, Organyà Nogueres area basins (Oliva-Urcia et al. 2010b, 2011; Izquierdo-
Llavall et al. 2013); Cantabrian and Iberian Ranges: Cabuérniga, Cameros, Maestrat,
Castillian Branch (Soto et al. 2008b; Oliva-Urcia et al. 2013; García-Lasanta et al.
2014, 2015, 2016); Lusitanian basin (Soto et al. 2012); and African plate: High Atlas
of Morocco (Moussaid et al. 2013; Oliva-Urcia et al. 2016).
6.4 Fault Rocks
Magnetic fabric represents can significantly contribute, together with structural anal-
ysis, paleothermal indicators from clay minerals (X-ray diffraction) and magnetic
mineralogy investigations, to unravel the large-scale kinematics of fault gouge and
microbreccia along fault zones. These analyses in an intraplate fault zone (Daroca,
Iberian Range, Spain) reveal that the magnetic foliation (plane perpendicular to the
minimum magnetic ellipsoid axis) is either parallel to compressional foliation (S-
planes) or between S- and C-planes (see Passchier and Trouw 2005 and Mukherjee
2011 for definition and morphological variations of S- and C-planes). The magnetic
lineation is parallel to the intersection lineation between S- and C-planes, therefore
perpendicular to the transport direction. These studies also point out to the necessity
of a sufficient number of specimens for the magnetic fabric analyses, with increasing
number as the grain size of the gauge increases (Casas-Sainz et al. 2018).
7 Conclusions
In this chapter, the use of paleomagnetism and magnetic fabrics in Structural Geology
and Tectonics has been shown with existing examples, to constraint the kinematic
evolution of deformed zones.
Paleomagnetism is a first-order kinematic indicator to determine vertical axis rota-
tions (VARs) in compressional settings. VARs characterize the compression when
differential shortening occurs, for example, but also allow analyzing the curvature
of a fold or an orogen (is the curvature primary, is it secondary?) in order to date the
origin of the curvature. It is also very useful in strike-slip and extensional zones to
determine the presence or absence of VARs.
In addition, recent advances of the use of paleomagnetism consider VARs (or
paleomagnetic vectors) in a quantitative fashion and have been proposed to performed
palinspastic reconstructions, corrections in shortening estimates from cross sections
as well as a primary reference system in 3D restoration methods.
Besides, when secondary magnetizations are present (erase or overlap partially
the primary signal) they represent an intermediate snapshot of the basin or orogenic
evolution that can be used to reconstruct intermediate basinal stages, basement/cover
relationships, in orogens and/or exhumation and burial histories.
The applicability of dating syntectonic deposits has been essential to reconstruct
basin evolution, to separate climate from tectonic signal in the filling of foreland
basins and compare exhumation with sedimentary rates. Besides, magnetostratigra-
phy of syntectonic rocks is essential in reconstruction kinematic histories of deformed
regions (folding, thrusting and rotation timing, and velocities).
Finally, the magnetic fabric is a good indicator of strain in rocks with scarcity of
strain markers, in every tectonic context: compressional, extensional, and inverted.
Acknowledgements We are gratefully indebted to our former Ph.D. adviser, Andrés Pocoví, who
visualized the potentiality of paleomagnetism to unravel complex structural geology problems.
Paleomagnetic laboratories at Universities of Spain: Burgos, Barcelona, Vigo, CENIEH; Austria:
Gams, ZAMG; USA: Ann Arbor, Albuquerque, Alaska, Minneapolis; Germany: Karlsruhe, Tübin-
gen; Netherlands: Utrecht. Italy, Roma tre; France: Toulouse, Marseille; Japan: Kochi Core Center
and the Magnetic fabric laboratory of the University of Zaragoza are greatly acknowledged for their
support during the last years.
We also are grateful for stimulating discussions with closer colleagues and collaborators: Antonio
Casas, Juan Cruz Larrasoaña, Bet Beamud, Teresa Román-Berdiel, José Luis Briz, José Carlos Ciria,
Ruth Soto, Pilar Mata, Luis Ros, Héctor Millán, Andrés Gil-Imaz, Carlos Sancho, Arsenio Muñoz,
Arantxa Luzón, Concha Arenas, Asunción Soriano, Miguel Garcés, Josep María Parés, Josep Anton
Muñoz, Antonio Barnolas, Pep Serra-Kiel, Chema Samsó, Xabier Pereda-Suberbiola, Rob Van der
Voo, Jean Luc Bouchez, Philippe Olivier, Celeste Gomes, Juanjo Villalaín, Daniel Pastor-Galán,
Robert Scholger, Hermann Mauritsch, Wolfgang Thöny, Martin Waldhör, Emö Marton, Agnes
Kontny, John Geissman, Claudia Lewis, Aviva Sussman, David Anastasio, Ken Kodama, Roberto
Molina-Garza, Eric Tohver, Arlo Weil, David Stone, Wesley Wallace, Mike Jackson, Peat Sol-
heid, Thelma Berquó, Ramon Egli, Mark Deckers, Cor Langereis, Alexandra Abrajevitch, Kazuto
Kodama, Ann Hirt, Anja Scheleicher, Bjarne Almqvist, Frantisek Hrouda, Martin, Chadima, Jaume
Dinarès, Néstor Vegas, Manolo Calvo-Rather, Óscar Fernández as well as María José Ramón, Adri-
ana Rodriguez-Pintó, Tania Mochales, Gelu López, Carlota Oliván, Oscar Pueyo-Anchuela, Oskar
Vidal, Jordi Bausa, Javier Pérez-Rivarés, Galo San Miguel, Eliseo Tesón, Esther Izquierdo-Llavall,
Pablo Calvín, Pablo Santolaria, Elisa Sánchez-Moreno, Lope Ezquerro, Cristina García-Lasanta,
Héctor Gil-Garbi, Roi Silva, Marcos Marcén, Luis Valero, Elisenda Costa, Borja Antolín, Manuel
Porquet, Mikel Calle, among many others.
Finally, we also acknowledge the financial support from several projects during the last
years from the Spanish National Plan in Science (RyC2004-002236; CGL2006-02289,
CGL200914214-, CGL2014-54118; PRX17/00462; CGL2017-90632-REDT, CGL2009-08969,
CGL2016-77560-C2-1-P, and CGL2016-77560-C2-2-P of the MICINN) as well as some projects
from the Aragonian Government and the INTERREG III (CTP) program. Soumyajit Mukherjee (IIT
Bombay) handled and reviewed this chapter. Springer proofreading team is thanked for assistance.
Collaborators in Figs. 3, 4, and 24 are also acknowledged.
Suggested Key References
Bouchez JL, Hutton D, Stephens WE (eds) (2013) Granite: from segregation of melt to emplacement
fabrics, vol 8. Springer Science & Business Media, 358 pp. ISBN 978-90-481-4812-7
Butler RF (1992) Paleomagnetism. Magnetic domains to geologic terranes. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 319 pp. ISBN 9780865420700
Collinson DW (1983) Methods in rock magnetism and palaeomagnetism: techniques and instru-
mentation. Chapman and Hall, 503 pp. ISBN, 0412229803
Dunlop DJ, Özdemir Ö (2001) Rock magnetism: fundamentals and frontiers, vol 3. Cambridge
University Press, 573 pp. ISBN 0521 32514 5
Elmore RD, Muxworthy AR, Aldana MM, Mena M (eds) (2012) Remagnetization and chemical
alteration of sedimentary rocks. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 371:290
Kodama KP (2013) Paleomagnetism of sedimentary rocks: process and interpretation. Wiley Black-
well, p 164. ISBN: 978-1-444-33502-6
Gupta HK (ed) (2011) Encyclopedia of solid earth geophysics. Springer Science & Business Media.
ISBN: 978-90-481-8701-0
Lanza R, Meloni A (2006) The earth’s magnetism. An introduction for geologists, 278 pp. ISBN
978-3-540-27980-8
Martin-Hernández F, Loneburg CM, Aubourg C, Jackson M (eds) (2004) Magnetic fabric: methods
and applications. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 238:511 pp. ISBN 1-86239-170-X
McElhinny MW, McFadden PL (2000) Paleomagnetism, continents and oceans. Int Geophys Ser
73:386 pp. Academic Press. ISBN 10: 0124833551
Merrill RT, McElhinny MW, McFadden PL (1983) The magnetic field of the earth: paleomagnetism,
the core, and the deep mantle. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA. ISBN 0-12-491245-
1:531
Opdyke ND, Channel JET (1996) Magnetic stratigraphy. Int Geophys Ser 64:346 pp. Academic
Press. ISBN 0-12-527470-X
Pueyo EL, Cifelli F, Sussman AJ, Oliva-Urcia B (eds) (2016) Palaeomagnetism in fold and thrust
belts: new perspectives. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 425:282 pp. ISBN 978-1-86239-
737-8
Tarling D, Hrouda F (eds) (1993) Magnetic anisotropy of rocks. Springer Science & Business
Media. ISBN 978-0-412-49880-0
Tarling DH, Turner P (eds) (1999) Palaeomagnetism and diagenesis in sediments. Geol Soc London,
Special Publications 151:214 pp. ISBN 1-86239-028-2
Tauxe L (2003) Paleomagnetic principles and practice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/
0-306-48128-6
Van der Voo R (1993) Paleomagnetism of the Atlantic, Tethys and Iapetus Ocean. Cambridge
University Press, 411 pp. ISBN-10: 0521612098
References
Achache J, Courtillot V, Besse J (1983) Paleomagnetic constraints on the late cretaceous and ceno-
zoic tectonics of Southeastern Asia. Earth Planet Sci Lett 63(1):123–136
Alfonsi L (1997) Paleomagnetic and anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) analyses of the
Plio-Pleistocene extensional Todi Basin, central Italy. Ann Geofis 40(6):1535–1549
Allerton S (1998) Geometry and kinematics of vertical-axis rotations in fold and thrust belts.
Tectonophysics 299:15–30
Allmendinger RW, Cardozo N, Fisher DM (2012) Structural Geology Algorithms, Vectors and
Tensors. Cambridge University Press
Arenas C, Millán H, Pardo G, Pocoví A (2001) Ebro Basin continental sedimentation associated
with late compressional Pyrenean tectonics (north-eastern Iberia): controls on basin margin fans
and fluvial systems. Basin Res 13(1):65–89
Armitage JJ, Duller RA, Whittaker AC, Allen PA (2011) Transformation of tectonic and climatic
signals from source to sedimentary archive. Nat Geosci 4(4):231
Arriagada C, Roperch P, Mpodozis C, Cobbold PR (2008) Paleogene building of the Bolivian
Orocline: Tectonic restoration of the central Andes in 2-D map view. Tectonics 27(6)
Aubourg C, Chabert-Pelline C (1999) Neogene remagnetization of normal polarity in the Late
Jurassic black shales from the southern Subalpine Chains (French Alps). Evidence for late anti-
clockwise rotations. Tectonophysics 308(4):473–486
Aubourg C, Rochette P, Bergmüller F (1995) Composite magnetic fabric in weakly deformed black
shales. Phys Earth Planet Inter 87(3–4):267–278
Aubourg C, Hebert R, Jolivet L, Cartayrade G (2000) The magnetic fabric of metasediments in a
detachment shear zone: the example of Tinos Island (Greece). Tectonophysics 321(2):219–236
Aubourg C, Pozzi JP, Kars M (2012) Burial, claystones remagnetization and some consequences
for magnetostratigraphy. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 371(1):181–188
Barnolas A, Gil-Peña I (2001) Ejemplos de relleno sedimentario multiepisódico en una cuenca de
antepaís fragmentada: La Cuenca Surpirenaica. Bol Geol Mine 112(3):17–38
Barnolas A, Gil-Peña I, Alfageme S, Ternet Y, Baudin T, Laumonier B (2008) Mapa geológico de
los Pirineos a escala 1:400 000. IGME/BRGM. ISBN: 978-2-7159-2168-9
Beaumont C, Muñoz JA., Hamilton J, Fullsack P (2000) Factors controlling the Alpine evolution
of the central Pyrenees inferred from a comparison of observations and geodynamical models. J
Geophys Res [Solid Earth] 105(B4):8121–8145
Beamud E (2013) Paleomagnetism and thermochronology in tertiary systectonic sediments of the
South-central Pyrenees: chronostratography, kinematic and exhumation constraints. Unpublished
Ph.D. Universitat de Barcelona
Beamud E, Muñoz JA, Fitzgerald PG, Baldwin SL, Garcés M, Cabrera L, Metcalf JR (2011) Magne-
tostratigraphy and detrital apatite fission track thermochronology in syntectonic conglomerates:
constraints on the exhumation of the South-Central Pyrenees. Basin Res 23(3):309–331
Beamud E, Pueyo EL, Muñoz JA, Valero L, Granado P (2017) Paleomagnetic constraints on the
kinematics of the Mediano Anticline (Ainsa Basin). Preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the
MAGIBER X (Valle del Grío), pp 34–35. ISBN: 978-84-16723-40-9
Bentham P (1992) The tectono-stratigraphic development of the western oblique ramp of the South-
Central Pyrenean thrust system, northern Spain, PhD thesis, Univ. of S. Calif, 253 pp
Bentham P, Burbank DW (1996) Chronology of Eocene foreland basin evolution along the western
oblique margin of the South-Central Pyrenees. Tert Bas Spain:144–152
Bingham C (1974) An antipodally symmetric distribution on the sphere. Ann Statist 2:1201–1225
Blaise T, Barbarand J, Kars M, Ploquin F, Aubourg C, Brigaud B, … Janots D (2014) Reconstruction
of low temperature (<100 °C) burial in sedimentary basins: a comparison of geothermometer in
the intracontinental Paris Basin. Mar Pet Geol 53:71–87
Bonhommet N, Cobbold PR, Perroud H, Richardson A (1981) Paleomagnetism and cross-folding
in a key area of the Asturian Arc (Spain). J Geophys Res 86:1873–1887
Borradaile G (1987) Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility: rock composition versus strain. Tectono-
physics 138(2–4):327–329
Borradaile GJ (1988) Magnetic susceptibility, petrofabrics and strain. Tectonophysics 156:1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(88)90279-X
Borradaile GJ, Jackson M (2004) Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS): magnetic petro-
fabrics of deformed rocks. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 238(1):299–360
Borradaile GJ, Jackson M (2010) Structural geology, petrofabrics and magnetic fabrics (AMS,
AARM, AIRM). J Struct Geol 32(10):1519–1551
Borradaile GJ, Tarling DH (1981) The influence of deformation mechanisms on magnetic fabrics
in weakly deformed rocks. Tectonophysics 77:151–168
Bouchez JL, Hutton D, Stephens WE (eds) (1997) Granite: from segregation of melt to emplacement
fabrics, vol 8. Springer Science & Business Media, 358 pp. ISBN 978-90-481-4812-7
Bourgeois O, Cobbold PR, Rouby D, Thomas JC, Shein V (1997) Least squares restoration of
tertiary thrust sheets in map view, Tajik Depression, Central Asia. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth
Planet 102(12):27553–27573
Brown LL, Golombek MP (1985) Tectonic rotations within the Rio Grande rift: evidence from
paleomagnetic studies. J Geophys Res 90:790–802. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB01p00790
Butler RF (1992) Paleomagnetism. Magnetic domains to geologic terranes. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 319 pp. ISBN 9780865420700
Cairanne G, Aubourg C, Pozzi JP (2002) Syn-folding remagnetization and the significance of
the small circle test: examples from the Vocontian trough (SE France). Phys Chem Earth
27:1151–1159
Calvín P, Casas-Sainz AM, Villalaín JJ, Moussaid B (2017a) Diachronous folding and cleavage in
an intraplate setting (Central High Atlas, Morocco) determined through the study of remagneti-
zations. J Struct Geol 97:144–160
Calvín P, Villalaín JJ, Casas-Sainz AM, Tauxe L, Torres-López S (2017b) pySCu: A new python
code for analyzing remagnetizations directions by means of small circle utilities. Comput Geosci
109:32–42
Canudo JI, Molina E, Riveline J, Serra-Kiel J, Sucunza M (1988) Les événements biostrati-
graphiques de la zone pré-pyrenéenne d’Aragon (Espagne), de l’Eocène moyen a l’Oligocène
inférieur. Rev Micropaleontol 31(1):15–29
Cardello GL, Almqvist BS, Hirt AM, Mancktelow NS (2016) Determining the timing of formation
of the Rawil depression in the Helvetic Alps by palaeomagnetic and structural methods. Geol
Soc London, Special Publications 425(1):145–168
Carey SW (1955) The orocline concept in geotectonics. Proc Royal Soc Tasmania 89:255–288
Casas-Sainz AM, Gil-Imaz A Simón, Izquierdo-Llavall JL, Aldega E, Román-Berdiel L, Osácar T,
Pueyo-Anchuela MC, Ansón Ó, García-Lasanta M, Corrado C, Invernizzi S, Caricchi C (2018)
Strain indicators and magnetic fabric in intraplate fault zones: case study of Daroca thrust, Iberian
Chain, Spain. Tectonophysics 730:29–47
Choukroune P, Séguret M (1973) Carte Structurale des Pyrénées. ELF-ERAP. Mission France,
Boussens
Cifelli F, Mattei M, Chadima M, Hirt AM, Hansen A (2005) The origin of tectonic lineation in
extensional basins: combined neutron texture and magnetic analyses on “undeformed” clays.
Earth Planet Sci Lett 235(2005):62–78
Collinson DW (1983) Methods in rock magnetism and palaeomagnetism: techniques and instru-
mentation. Chapman and Hall, 503 pp. ISBN, 0412229803
Collombet M, Thomas JC, Chauvin A, Tricart P, Bouillin JP, Gratier JP (2002) Counterclockwise
rotation of the Western Alps since the Oligocene; new insights from paleomagnetic data. Tectonics
21(4):15 pp
Cooper MA (1983) The calculation of bulk strain in oblique and inclined balanced sections. J Struct
Geol 5(2):161–165
Costa, G.E (2011) Paleogene chronostratigraphy of the SE margin of the Ebro Basin: biochronolog-
ical and tectonosedimentary evolution implications (Cronostratigrafia del paleogen del marge SE
de la conca de l’Ebre: Implicacions biocronològiques i evolució tectonosedimentaria). Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Universitat de Barcelona
Costa E, Garcés M, López-Blanco M, Beamud E, Gómez-Paccard M, Larrasoaña JC (2010) Closing
and continentalization of the South Pyrenean foreland basin (NE Spain): magnetochronological
constraints. Basin Res 22(6):904–917
Costa E, Garcés M, López-Blanco M, Serra-Kiel J, Bernaola G, Cabrera L, Beamud E (2013) The
Bartonian-Priabonian marine record of the eastern South Pyrenean foreland basin (NE Spain):
a new calibration of the larger foraminifers and calcareous nannofossil biozonation. Geologica
Acta Int Earth Sci J 11(2):177–193
Crouzet C, Ménard G, Rochette P (1996) Post-Middle Miocene rotations recorded in the Bourg
d’Oisans area (western Alps, France) by paleomagnetism. Tectonophysics 263:137–148
Crouzet C, Rochette P, Ménard G (2001) Experimental evaluation of thermal recording of successive
polarities during uplift of metasediments. Geophys J Int 145(3):771–785
Crouzet C, Dunkl I, Paudel L, Arkai P, Rainer TM, Balogh K, Appel E (2007) Temperature and age
constraints on the metamorphism of the Tethyan Himalaya in Central Nepal: a multidisciplinary
approach. J Asian Earth Sci 30(1):113–130
Dahlstrom CD (1969) Balanced cross sections. Can J Earth Sci 6:743–757
Dinarès J (1992) Paleomagnetisme a les Unitats Sudpirinenques Superiors. Universidad de
Barcelona, Implicacions estructurals. Tesis Doctoral, p 462
Duermeijer CE, Nyst M, Meijer PT, Langereis CG, Spakman W (2000) Neogene evolution of the
Aegean arc: paleomagnetic and geodetic evidence for a rapid and young rotation phase. Earth
Planet Sci Lett 176(3):509–525
Dunlop DJ, Özdemir Ö (1997) Rock magnetism: fundamentals and frontiers, vol 3. Cambridge
university press, 573 pp. ISBN: 0521 32514 5
Durand-Riard P, Caumon G, Muron P (2010) Balanced restoration of geological volumes with
relaxed meshing constraints. Comput Geosci 36(4):441–452
Eldredge S, Bachtadse V, Van der Voo R (1985) Paleomagnetism and the orocline hypothesis.
Tectonphysics 119:153–179
Eldredge S, Van der Voo R (1988) Paleomagnetic study of thrust sheet rotations in the Helena and
Wyoming salients of the northern Rocky Mountains. Geol Soc Am Mem 171:319–332
Elliott D (1976) The energy balance and deformation mechanisms of thrust sheets. Philos Trans
Royal Soc A283:289–312
Elliott D, Johnson MRW (1980) Structural evolution in the northern part of the Moine thrust belt.
NW Scotland Trans Royal Soc Edimburg, Earth Sci 71:69–96
Elliott D (1983) The construction of balanced cross-sections. J Struct Geol 5:101–101
Elmore RD, Dunn W, Peck C (1985) Absolute dating of a diagenetic event using paleomagnetic
analysis. Geology 13:558–561
Elmore RD, Engel MH, Crawford L, Nick K, Imbus S, Sofer Z (1987) Evidence for a relationship
between hydrocarbons and authigenic magnetite. Nature 325:428–430
Elmore RD, Kelley J, Evans M, Lewchuk T (2001) Remagnetization and orogenic fluids: testing
the hypothesis in the central Appalachians. Geophys J Int 144:568–576
Elmore RD, Muxworthy AR, Aldana MM, Mena M (eds) (2012) Remagnetization and chemical
alteration of sedimentary rocks. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 371
Fernández O (2004) Reconstruction of geological structures in 3D. An example from the Southern
Pyrenees. Unpublished Ph.D. Universitat de Barcelona, 321 pp
Ferrill DA, Morris AP (2001) Displacement gradient and deformation in normal fault systems. J
Struct Geol 23(4):619–638
Fisher RA (1953) Dispersion on a sphere. Proc R Soc A 217:295–305
Fossen H, Rotevatn A (2016) Fault linkage and relay structures in extensional settings—a review.
Earth Sci Rev 154:14–28
Garcés M (2015) Magnetostratigraphic dating. Encycl Sci Dating Methods 507–517
García-Lasanta C, Oliva-Urcia B, Román-Berdiel T, Casas AM, Hirt AM (2014) Understanding the
Mesozoic kinematic evolution in the Cameros basin (Iberian Range, NE Spain) from magnetic
subfabrics and mesostructures. J Struct Geol 66:84–101
García-Lasanta C, Oliva-Urcia B, Román-Berdiel T, Casas AM, Gil-Peña I, Sánchez-Moya Y,
Sopeña A, Hirt AM, Mattei M (2015) Evidence for the Permo-Triassic transtensional rifting in
the Iberian Range (NE Spain) according to magnetic fabrics results. Tectonophysics 651:216–231
García-Lasanta C, Román-Berdiel T, Oliva-Urcia B, Casas AM, Gil-Peña I, Speranza F, Mochales
T (2016) Tethyan versus Iberian extension during the Cretaceous period in the eastern Iberian
Peninsula: insights from magnetic fabrics. J Geol Soc 173(1):127–141
García-Lasanta C, Casas-Sainz A, Villalaín JJ, Oliva-Urcia B, Mochales T, Speranza F (2017)

Remagnetizations used to unravel large-scale fold kinematics: a case study in the Cameros Basin
(Northern Spain). Tectonics 36(4):714–729
García-Lasanta C, Oliva-Urcia B, Casas-Sainz AM , Román-Berdiel T, Izquierdo-Llavall E, Soto
R, Calvín P, Moussaid B, El Ouardi H, Kullberg JC, Villalaín JJ (2018) Inversion tectonics and
magnetic fabrics in Mesozoic basins of the Western Tethys: A review. Tectonophysics 475:1–23
Garfunkel Z (1989) Regional deformation by block translation and rotation. In: Kissel C, Laj C
(eds) Paleomagnetic rotations and continental deformation (Nato ASI Ser Ser C), vol 254. Kluwer
Acad., Norwell, Mass, pp 181–208
Garven G (1985) The role of regional fluid flow in the genesis of the Pine Point deposit, Western
Canada. Sed Basin Econ Geol 80:307–324
Geissman JW, Callian JT, Oldow JS, Humphries SE (1984) Paleomagnetic assessment of oroflexural
deformation in west-central Nevada and significance for emplacement of allochtonous assem-
blages. Tectonics 3:179–200
Goguel, J. 1952. Traité de tectonique. Comptes Rendus Critiques. Paris, Masson, in-8°, 383 p.
(translated in 1962 as Tectonics [San Francisco, Freeman, 384p]. by H.E. Thalman)
Graham JW (1954) Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy, an unexploited petrofabric element. Geol
Soc Am Bull 65:1257–1258
Gratier JP, Guiller B (1993) Compatibility constraints on folded and faulted strata and calcula-
tion of total displacement using computational restoration (UNFOLD program). J Struct Geol
15:391–402
Gratier JP, Guillier B, Delorme A, Odonne F (1991) Restoration and balance of a folded and faulted
surface by best-fitting of finite elements; principle and applications. J Struct Geol 13(1):111–115
Griffiths P, Jones S, Salter N, Schaefer F, Osfield R, Reiser R (2002) A new technique for 3D-
flexural-slip restoration. J Struct Geol 24:733–782
Grubbs KL Van, der Voo R (1976) Structural deformation of the Idaho-Wyoming overthrust belt
(USA), as determined by Triassic paleomagnetism. Tectonophysics 33(3–4):321–336
Halls HC (1976) A least squared method to find a remanence direction from converging remagne-
tization circles. Geophys J R Astron Soc 45:297–304
Harlan SS, Geissman JW (2009) Paleomagnetism of tertiary intrusive and volcaniclastic rocks of
the Cerrillos Hills and surrounding region, Española Basin, New Mexico, U.S.A.: Assessment
and implications for vertical-axis rotations associated with extension of the Rio Grande rift.
Lithosphere 1(3):155–173. https://doi.org/10.1130/l53.1
Hart M, Fuller M (1988) Magnetization of dolomite bed in the Monterey Formation: implications
for diagenesis. Geophys Res Lett 15:491–494
Heslop D, Roberts AP (2016) Estimation and propagation of uncertainties associated with paleo-
magnetic directions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121(4):2274–2289
Hnat JS, van der Pluijm BA, Van der Voo R, Thomas WA (2008) Differential displacement and
rotation in thrust fronts: A magnetic, calcite twinning and palinspastic study of the Jones Valley
thrust, Alabama, US Appalachians. J Struct Geol 30(6):725–738
Hogan PJ (1993) Geocrohonologic, tectonic and stratigraphic evolution of the Southwest Pyrenean
foreland basin, Northern Spain. Unpublised Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California,
219 pp
Hogan PJ, Burbank DW (1996) Evolution of the Jaca piggyback basin and emergence of the External
Sierra, southern Pyrenees. In Friend PF, Dabrio CJ (eds) Tertiary basins of Spain. Cambridge
University Press, pp 153–160
Holl JE, Anastasio DJ (1993) Paleomagnetically derived folding rates, southern Pyrenees, Spain.
Geology (Boulder) 21(3):271–274
Hornafus JS (1984) Origin of remanent magnetization in dolomite from the Monterey Formation.
In: Garrisom RE, Kastner M, Zenger DH (eds) Dolomites of the monterey formation and other
organic-rich units, vol 42. Bakersfield, California, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Min-
eralogists Pacific Section Publication, pp 195–284
Hossack JR (1979) The use of balanced cross sections in the calculation of orogenic contraction: a
review. J Geol Soc London 136:705–711
Hrouda F (1982) Magnetic anisotropy of rocks and its application in geology and geophysics
Geophys surv 5(1):37–82
Izquierdo-Llavall E (2014) Variaciones longitudinales en la estructura de la Zona Axial pirenaica:
aportaciones de la fábrica magnética, el paleomagnetismo, la paleotermometría y la modelización
analógica. Unpublished Ph.D. Universidad de Zaragoza
Izquierdo-Llavall E, Casas-Sainz AM, Oliva-Urcia B (2013) Heterogeneous deformation recorded
by magnetic fabrics in the Pyrenean Axial Zone. J Struct Geol 57:97–113
Izquierdo-Llavall E, Sainz AC, Oliva-Urcia B, Burmester R, Pueyo EL, Housen B (2015) Multi-
episodic remagnetization related to deformation in the Pyrenean Internal Sierras. Geophys J Int
201(2):891–914
Jackson M, Borradaile G, Hudleston P, Banerjee S (1993) Experimental deformation of synthetic
magnetite-bearing calcite sandstones: effects on remanence, bulk magnetic properties, and mag-
netic anisotropy. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 98(B1):383–401
Jarboe, N. A., Koppers, A. A., Tauxe, L., Minnett, R., Constable, C. 2012. The online MagIC
Database: data archiving, compilation, and visualization for the geomagnetic, paleomagnetic and
rock magnetic communities. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol 1, p 1063
Johnson NM, McGee VE (1983) Magnetic polarity stratigraphy: stochastic properties of
data, sampling problems, and the evaluation of interpretations. J Geophys Res Solid Earth
88(B2):1213–1221
Juárez MT, Lowrie W, Osete ML, Meléndez G (1998) Evidence of widespread Cretaceous remag-
netization in the Iberian Range and its relation with the rotation of Iberia. Earth Planet Sci Lett
160:729–743
Katz B, Elmore RD, Cognoini M, Ferry S (1998) Widespread chemical remagntetization: orogenic
fluids or burial diagenesis of clays? Geology 26(7):603–606
Katz B, Elmore RD, Cogoini M, Engel MH, Ferry S (2000) Associations between burial diagenesis
of smectite, chemical remagnetization, and magnetite authigenesis in the Vocontian trough, SE
France. J Geophys Res 105(B1):851–868
Kechra F, Vandamme D, Rochette P (2003) Tertiary remagnetization of normal polarity in Mesozoic
marly limestones from SE France. Tectonophysics 362(1–4):219–238
Kempf O, Matter A (1999) Magnetostratigraphy and depositional history of the Upper freshwater
Molasse (OMS) of eastern Switzerland. Eclogae Geol Helv 92:97–103
Kempf O, Bolliger T, Kälin D, Engesser B, Matter A (1997) New magnetostratigraphic calibration
of Early to Middle Miocene mammal biozones of the North Alpine foreland basin. Mémoires et
travaux de l’Institut de Montpellier (21):547–561
Kempf O, Matter A, Burbank DW and Mange M (1999). Depositional and structural evolution of
a foreland basin margin in a magnetostratigraphic framework: the eastern Swiss Molasse Basin.
Int J Earth Sci 88(2):253–275
Kirschvink JL (1980) The least-squares line and plane and the analysis of paleomagnetic data.
Geophys J R Astr Soc 62:669–718
Kissel C, Laj C (1989) Paleomagnetic rotations and continental deformation. NATO ASI Sci Ser C
254
Kligfield R, Owens WH, Lowrie W (1981) Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy, strain, and progres-
sive deformation in Permian sediments from the Maritime Alps (France). Earth Planetry Sci Lett
55(1):181–189
Kodama KP (2013) Paleomagnetism of sedimentary rocks: process and interpretation. Wiley Black-
well. ISBN: 978-1-444-33502-6
Kodama KP, Anastasio DJ, Newton ML, Pares JM, Hinnov LA (2010) High resolution rock magnetic
cyclostratigraphy in an Eocene flysch, Spanish Pyrenees. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 11:22 p.
Q0AA07
Kollmeier JM, Van der Pluijm BA, Van der Voo R (2000) Analysis of Variscan dynamics; early
bending of the Cantabria-Asturias Arc, northern Spain. Earth Planet Sci Lett 181(1–2):203–216
Kontny A, Engelmann R, Grimmer JC, Greiling RO, Hirt A (2012) Magnetic fabric development in
a highly anisotropic magnetite-bearing ductile shear zone (Seve Nappe Complex, Scandinavian
Caledonides). Int J Earth Sci 101(3):671–692
Labaume P, Meresse F, Jolivet M, Teixell A, Lahfid A (2016) Tectonothermal history of an
exhumed thrust-sheet-top basin: an example from the south Pyrenean thrust belt. Tectonics
35(5):1280–1313
Larrasoaña JC (2000) Estudio magneto-tectónico de la zona de transición entre el Pirieno central
y occidental; implicaciones estruucturales y geodinámicas. Unpublished Ph.D. Universidad de
Zaragoza, 287 pp
Larrasoaña JC, Parés JC, Pueyo EL (2003a) Stable Eocene magnetization carried by magnetite
and magnetic iron sulphides in marine marls (Pamplona-Arguis Formation, southern Pyrenees,
N Spain). Studia Geophysica Geodetica 47:237–254
Larrasoaña JC, Parés JM, Millán H, del Valle J, Pueyo EL (2003b) Paleomagnetic, structural and
stratigraphic constraints on the role of transverse fault development during basin inversion (Pam-
plona Fault, Pyrenees, N Spain). Tectonics 22(6):1071–1093
Larrasoaña JC and Crespo MG (2004) Nueva localidad fosilífera en el mioceno inferior de las
Bárdenas Reales de Navarra (cuenca del ebro, península ibérica). Geogaceta (36):175–178
Larrasoaña JC, Murelaga X and Garcés M (2006) Magnetobiochronology of lower Miocene (Ram-
blian) continental sediments from the Tudela formation (western Ebro basin, Spain). Earth Planet
Sci Lett 243(3–4):409–423
Léger M, Thibaut M, Gratier JP, Morvan JM (1997) A least-squares method for multisurface unfold-
ing. J Struct Geol 19(5):735–743
López MA, Oliván C, Oliva B, Pueyo EL, The GeoKin3DPyr Working (2008) Pyrenean Paleomag-
netic databases. Geotemas 10:1219–1222
Maerten L, Maerten F (2006) Chronologic modelling of faulted and fractured reservoirs
using geomechanically based restoration: technique and industry applications. AAPG Bull
90(8):1201–1226
Mallet JL (1992) Discrete smooth interpolation. Comput Aided Des J 24(4):263–270
Mallet JL (2002) Geomodeling. Appl Geostatist. Oxford University Press
Markley MJ, Tikoff B (2002) Matchsticks on parade: vertical axis rotation in oblique divergence.
J Geophys Res 107:ETG 9-1–ETG 9-11
Martinez-Peña M, Casas-Sainz A (2003) Cretaceous–tertiary tectonic inversion of the Cotiella Basin
(southern Pyrenees, Spain). Int J Earth Sci 92(1):99–113
Márton E, Kuhlemann J, Frisch W, Dunkl I (2000) Miocene rotations in the Eastern Alps—palaeo-
magnetic results from intramontane basin sediments. Tectonophysics 323(3–4):163–182
Mattei M, Sagnotti L, Faccenna C, Funiciello R (1997) Magnetic fabric of weakly deformed clay-
rich sediments in the Italian peninsula: relationship with compressional and extensional tectonics.
Tectonophysics 271(1–2):107–122
Mattei M, Petrocelli V, Lacava D and Schiattarella M (2004) Geodynamic implications of Pleis-
tocene ultrarapid vertical-axis rotations in the Southern Apennines, Italy. Geology 32(9):789–792
Mattei M, Cifelli F, D’Agostino N (2007) The evolution of the Calabrian Arc: evidence from
paleomagnetic and GPS observations. Earth Planet Sci Lett 263(3–4):259–274
McCabe C, Elmore RD (1989) The occurrence and origin of late Paleozoic remagnetization in the
sedimentary rocks of North America. Rev Geophys 27:471–494
McCaig AM, McClelland E (1992) Palaeomagnetic techniques applied to thrust belts. In: McClay
KR (ed) Thrust tectonics. Chapman y Hall, London, pp 209–216, 447 pp
McElhinny MW, McFadden PL (2000) Paleomagnetism, continents and oceans. Int Geophys Ser
73:386 pp. Academic Press. ISBN 10: 0124833551
McElhinny MW, Smethurst MA (2001) The global paleomagnetic database: current status. Eos
Trans Am Geophys Union 82(39):434
McKenzie DP, Jackson JA (1983) The relationship between strain rates, crustal thickening, pale-
omagnetism, finite strain, and fault movement within a deforming zone. Earth Planet Sci Lett
65:184–202
Merrill RT, McElhinny MW, McFadden PL (1983b) The magnetic field of the earth: paleomag-
netism, the core, and the deep mantle. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. ISBN 0-12-
491245-1
Millán H, Aurell M, Melández A (1994) Synchronous detachment folds and coeval sedimentation
in the Prepyrenean External Sierras (Spain): a case study for a tectonic origin of sequences and
system tracts. Sedimentology 41:1001–1024
Millán H, Pueyo EL, Aurell M, Luzón A, Oliva-Urcia B, Martínez MB, Pocoví A (2000) Actividad
tectónica registrada en los depósitos terciarios del frente meridional del Pirineo central. Revista
de la. Sociedad Geológica de España 13(2):279–300
Mochales T (2011) Chronostratigraphy, vertical axis rotations and AMS in the Boltaña anticline
(Southern Pyrenees): kinematic implications. Unpublished Ph.D. University of Zaragoza, 222 pp
Mochales T, Blenkinsop TG (2014) Representation of paleomagnetic data in virtual globes: a case
study from the Pyrenees. Comput Geosci 70:56–62
Mochales T, Pueyo EL, Casas AM, Barnolas A, Oliva-Urcia B (2010) Anisotropic magnetic
susceptibility record of the kinematics of the Boltaña Anticline (Southern Pyrenees). Geol J
45(5–6):562–581
Mochales T, Casas AM, Pueyo EL, Barnolas A (2012a) Rotational velocity for oblique structures
(Boltaña anticline, Southern Pyrenees). J Struct Geol 35:2–16
Mochales T, Barnolas A, Pueyo EL, Casas AM, Serra-Kiel J, Samsó JM, Ramajo J (2012b) Chronos-
tratigraphy of the Boltaña anticline and the Ainsa Basin (Southern Pyrenees). Geol Soc Am Bull
124(7–8):1229–1250
Mochales T, Barnolas A, Pueyo EL, Serra-Kiel J, Casas AM, Samsó JM, Ramajo J and Sanjuán
J (2012c) Chronostratigraphy of the Boltaña anticline and the Ainsa Basin (southern Pyrenees).
GSA Bulletin 124(7–8):1229–1250
Mochales T, Pueyo EL, Casas AM, Barnolas A (2016) Restoring paleomagnetic data in com-
plex superposed folding settings: the Boltaña anticline (Southern Pyrenees). Tectonophysics
671:281–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.008
Molnar P (2004) Late Cenozoic increase in accumulation rates of terrestrial sediment: how might
climate change have affected erosion rates? Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 32:67–89
Moreira N, Dias R (2018) Domino structures evolution in strike-slip shear zones; the importance
of the cataclastic flow. J Struct Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.01.010
Moretti I (2008) Working in complex areas: new restoration workflow based on quality control, 2D
and 3D restorations. Mar Pet Geol 25:205–218
Moretti I, Lepage F, Guiton M (2005) KINE3D: a new 3D restoration method based on a mixed
approach linking geometry and geomechanics. Oils Gas Sci Technol (Rev IFP) 60:1–12
Moussaid B, El Ouardi H, Casas-Sainz A, Villalaín JJ, Román-Berdiel T, Oliva-Urcia B, Soto
R, Torres-López S (2013) Magnetic fabrics in the Jurassic-Cretaceous continental basins of the
northern part of the Central High Atlas (Morocco): geodynamic implications. J Afr Earth Sc
87:13–32
Muehlberger W (1979) The Embudo fault between Pilar and Arroyo Hondo, New Mexico: an intra-
continental transform fault. In: Ingersoll RV, Woodward LA, James HL (eds) Santa Fe County:
Socorro, New Mexico Geological Society, 30th Fall Field Conference Guidebook, pp 77–82
Mukherjee S (2011) Mineral fish: their morphological classification, usefulness as shear sense
indicators and genesis. Int J Earth Sci 100(6):1303–1314
Mukherjee S (2012) Simple shear is not so simple! Kinematics and shear senses in Newtonian
viscous simple shear zones. Geol Mag 149:819–826
Mukherjee S, Koyi HA, Talbot CJ (2012) Implications of channel flow analogue models in extrusion
of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone with special reference to the out-of-sequence thrusting. Int
J Earth Sci 101:253–272
Muñoz JA (1992) Evolution of a continental collision belt: ECORS-Pyrenees crustal balanced
cross-section. In: Thrust tectonics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–246
Muñoz JA, Beamud E, Fernández O, Arbués P, Dinarès-Turell J, Poblet J (2013) The Ainsa Fold
and thrust oblique zone of the central Pyrenees: kinematics of a curved contractional system from
paleomagnetic and structural data. Tectonics 32(5):1142–1175
Norris DK, Black RF (1961) Application of palaeomagnetism to thrust mechanics. Nat (London)
192(4806):933–935
Nur A, Ron H, Scotti O (1986) Fault mechanics and the kinematics of block rotations. Geology
14(9):746–749
Ogg JG (2012) Geomagnetic polarity time scale. In: Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Schmitz M, Ogg G
(eds) The geologic time scale 2012. Elsevier, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp
85–113
Ogg JG, Ogg G, Gradstein FM (2016) A concise geologic time scale: 2016. Elsevier
Oliva-Urcia B (2004) Geometría y Cinemática Rotacional en las Sierras Interiores y Zona Axial
(Sector de Bielsa) a Partir del Análisis Estructural y Paleomagnético. Unpublished Ph.D. Uni-
versity of Zaragoza
Oliva-Urcia B, Pueyo EL (2007a) Gradient of shortening and vertical-axis rotations in the South-
ern Pyrenees (Spain), insights from a synthesis of paleomagnetic data. Revista de la Sociedad
Geológica de España 20(1–2):105–118
Oliva-Urcia B, Pueyo EL (2007b) Basement kinematic constrains from paleomagnetic data of
remagnetized cover rocks (Internal Sierras, Southwestern Pyrenees). Tectonics 26 (TC4014-
TC4036)
Oliva-Urcia B, Pueyo EL, Larrasoaña JC (2008) Magnetic reorientation induced by pressure
solution: a potential mechanism for orogenic-scale remagnetizations. Earth Planet Sci Lett
265(3–4):525–534
Oliva-Urcia B, Casas AM, Pueyo EL, Román-Berdiel T, Geissman JW (2010a) Paleomagnetic
evidence for dextral strike-slip motion in the Pyrenees during alpine convergence (Mauléon
basin, France). Tectonophysics 494(3–4):165–179
Oliva-Urcia B, Roman-Berdiel T, Casas AM, Pueyo EL, Osacar C (2010b) Tertiary compressional
overprint on Aptian-Albian extensional magnetic fabrics, North-Pyrenean Zone. J Struct Geol
32(3):362–376
Oliva-Urcia B, Casas AM, Soto R, Villalaín JJ, Kodama K (2011) A transtensional basin model for
the Organyà basin (central southern Pyrenees) based on magnetic fabric and brittle structures.
Geophys J Int 184(1):111–130
Oliva-Urcia B, Román-Berdiel T, Casas AM, Bógalo MF, Osácar MC, García-Lasanta C (2013)
Transition from extensional to compressional magnetic fabrics in the Cretaceous Cabuérniga
basin (North Spain). J Struct Geol 46:220–234
Oliva-Urcia B, Beamud E, Garcés M, Arenas C, Soto R, Pueyo EL, Pardo G (2015) New mag-
netostratigraphic dating of the Palaeogene syntectonic sediments of the west-central Pyrenees:
tectonostratigraphic implications. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 425 pp. SP425-5
Oliva-Urcia B, Casas AM, Moussaid B, Villalain JJ, El Ouardi H, Soto R, Torres-López S, Roman-
Berdiel T (2016) Tectonic fabrics vs. mineralogical artifacts in AMS analysis: a case study of the
Western Morocco extensional Triassic basins. J Geodyn 94:13–33
Oliver J (1986) Fluids expelled tectonically from orogenic belts: their role in hydrocarbon migration
and other geological phenomena. Geology 14:99
Oms O, Dinarès-Turell J, Remacha E (2003) Magnetic stratigraphy from deep clastic turbidites: an
example from the Eocene Hecho group (southern Pyrenees). Stud Geophys Geod 47(2):275–288
Opdyke ND, Channel JET (1996) Magnetic stratigraphy. Int Geophys Ser 64:346 pp. Academic
Press. ISBN 0-12-527470-X
Otofuji YI, Yokoyama M, Kitada K, Zaman H (2010) Paleomagnetic versus GPS determined tectonic
rotation around eastern Himalayan syntaxis in East Asia. J Asian Earth Sci 37(5–6):438–451
Parés JM, Van Der Pluijm BA (2002) Evaluating magnetic lineations (AMS) in deformed rocks.
Tectonophysics 350(4):283–298
Parés JM, van der Pluijm BA, Dinarès-Turell J (1999) Evolution of magnetic fabrics during incipient
deformation of mudrocks (Pyrenees, northern Spain). Tectonophysics 307(1–2):1–14
Park JK (1983) Paleomagnetism for geologists. Geosci Can 10(4)

Passchier CW, Trouw RAJ (2005) Microtectonics, 2nd edn. Springer
Pastor-Galán D, Mulchrone KF, Koymans MR, van Hinsbergen DJ, Langereis CG (2017) Boot-
strapped total least squares orocline test: a robust method to quantify vertical-axis rotation patterns
in orogens, with examples from the Cantabrian and Aegean oroclines. Lithosphere 9(3):499–511
Pavón-Carrasco FJ, Osete ML, Torta JM (2010) Regional modeling of the geomagnetic field in
Europe from 6000 to 1000 BC. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 11(11)
Peacock DCP, Knipe RJ, Sanderson DJ (2000) Glossary of normal faults. J Struct Geol 22:291–305
Pérez Rivarés FJ (2016) Estudio magnetoestratigráfico del Mioceno del sector central dela Cuenca
del Ebro: Cronología, correlación y análisis de la ciclicidad sedimentaria. Ph.D. Thesis. Univer-
sidad de Zaragoza, 281 p
Pérez-Rivarés FJ, Garcés M, Arenas C, Pardo G (2002) Magnetocronología de lasucesión miocena
de la Sierra de Alcubierre (sector central de la Cuenca del Ebro). Rev Soc Geol Esp 15:217–231
Pérez-Rivarés FJ, Garcés M, Arenas C, Pardo G (2004) Magnetostratigraphy of the Miocene con-
tinental deposits of the Montes de Castejón (central Ebro basin, Spain): geochronological and
paleoenvironmental implications. Geol Acta 2:221–234
Pérez-Rivarés FJ (2016) Estudio magnetoestratigráfico del Mioceno del sector central de la Cuenca
del Ebro: cronología, correlación y análisis de la ciclicidad sedimentaria. Univ. Zaragoza PhD,
281pp.
Pérez-Rivarés FJ, Arenas C, Pardo G, Garcés M (2018) Temporal aspects of genetic stratigraphic
units in continental sedimentary basins: examples from the Ebro basin, Spain. Earth Sci Rev
178:136–153
Piguet B, McNeill DF, Kindler P (2000) Tectonic rotation and diverse remanence carriers revealed
by the paleomagnetism of Eo-Oligocene turbidites from two Ultrahelvetic units (Western Alps,
Haute-Savoie, France). Tectonophysics 321(3):359–375
Pisarevsky S (2005) New edition of the global paleomagnetic database. Eos, Trans Am Geophys
Union 86(17):170
Poblet J, Muñoz JA, Travé A, Serra-Kiel J (1998) Quantifying the kinematics of detachment folds
using three-dimensional geometry; application to the Mediano Anticline (Pyrenees, Spain). Geol
Soc Am Bull 110(1):111–125
Price RA (1981) Special Publications Geol Soc London 9:427–448
Pueyo EL (2000) Rotaciones paleomagnéticas en sistemas de pliegues y cabalgamientos. Tipos,
causas, significado y aplicaciones (ejemplos del Pirineo Aragonés). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Universidad de Zaragoza, 296 pp
Pueyo EL, Millán H, Pocoví A (1997) Cinemática rotacional del emplazamiento del cabalgamiento
basal surpirenaico en las Sierras Exteriores Aragonesas: Datos magnetotectónicos. Acta Geológ-
ica Hispánica 32(3–4):119–138. (English extended abstract)
Pueyo EL, Millán H, Pocoví A (2002) Rotation velocity of a thrust: a paleomagnetic study in the
external Sierras (Southern Pyrenees). Sed Geol 146:191–208
Pueyo EL, Parés JM, Millán H, Pocoví A (2003a) Conical folds and apparent rotations in paleo-
magnetism (A case studied in the Southern Pyrenees). Tectonophysics 362(1–4):345–366
Pueyo EL, Pocoví A, Parés JM, Millán H, Larrasoaña JC (2003b) Thrust ramp geometry and spurious
rotations of paleomagnetic vectors. Studia Geophysica Geodetica 47:331–357
Pueyo EL, Pocoví A, Millán H, Sussman A (2004) map view models for correcting and calculating
shortening estimates in rotated thrust fronts using paleomagnetic data. In: Weil A, Sussman A (eds)
Special publication on orogenic curvature: integrating paleomagnetic and structural analyses.
Geol Soc Am 383:57-71
Pueyo EL, Mauritsch HJ, Gawlick HJ, Scholger R, Frisch W (2007) New evidence for block
and thrust sheet rotations in the central northern Calcareous Alps deduced from two pervasive
remagnetization events. Tectonics 26(5)
Pueyo EL, Sussman AJ, Oliva-Urcia B, Cifelli F (2016c) Palaeomagnetism in fold and thrust belts:
use with caution. Geol Soc London, Special Publications 425(1):259–276. ISBN 978-1-86239-
737-8
Pueyo EL, García-Lasanta C, López M, Oliván C, Miguel GS, Gil-Garbi H, Oliva-Urcia B, Bea-
mud E, Hernández R, Elger K, Ulbricht D, Lange O, GeoKin3DPyr Group (2017) Metodología
para el desarrollo de la BBDD paleomagnética de Iberia (EPOS-DDSS Iberian Paleomag-
netism)—Reunión de la Comisión de Paleomagnetismo de la Sociedad Geológica de España.
MAGIBER X. (Valle del Grío, Zaragoza) 2017), pp. 94–99. ISBN: 978-84-16723-40-9
Pueyo-Anchuela Ó, Pueyo EL, Pocoví A, Gil-Imaz AG (2012) Vertical axis rotations in fold and
thrust belts: comparison of AMS and paleomagnetic data in the Western External Sierras (Southern
Pyrenees). Tectonophysics 532:119–133
Puigdefábregas C (1975) La sedimentación molásica en la cuenca de Jaca. Pirineos 104, 1e188
Ramón MJ (2013) Flexural unfolding of complex geometries in fold and thrust belts using pale-
omagnetic vectors. Unpublished Ph.D. University of Zaragoza, 228 pp. http://zaguan.unizar.es/
record/11750
Ramón MJ, Pueyo EL, Briz JL, Pocoví A, Ciria JC (2012) Flexural unfolding in 3D using paleo-
magnetic vectors. J Struct Geol 35:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2011.11.015
Ramón MJ, Pueyo EL, Rodríguez-Pintó A, Ros LH, Pocoví A, Briz JL, Ciria JC (2013) A com-
puted tomography approach to understanding 3D deformation patterns in complex flexural folds.
Tectonophysics 593:57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.02.027
Ramón MJ, Briz JL, Pueyo EL, Fernandez O (2016a) Horizon restoration by best-fitting finite
element and rotation constraints: sensitivity of the meshes geometry and pin-element location.
Math Geosci 48(4):419–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-015-9602-1
Ramón MJ, Pueyo EL, Caumon G, Briz JL (2016b) Parametric unfolding of flexural folds using
paleomagnetic vectors. Geol Soc London Special Publication 425:247–258. (In: Pueyo EL, Cifelli
F, Sussman AJ, Oliva-Urcia B (eds) Palaeomagnetism in fold and thrust belts: new perspectives).
https://doi.org/10.1144/sp425.6
Ramón MJ, Pueyo EL, Oliva-Urcia B, Larrasoaña JC (2017) Virtual directions in paleomagnetism:
a global and rapid approach to evaluate the NRM components. Front Earth Sci 5:8
Rodríguez Pintó A (2013) Magnetoestratigrafía del Eoceno inferior y medio en el frente Surpire-
naico (Sierras Exteriores): implicaciones cronoestratigráficas y cinemáticas. Unpublished Ph.D.
University of Zaragoza, 370 pp
Rodriguez-Pintó A, Pueyo EL, Serra-Kiel J, Samsó JM, Barnolas A, Pocoví A (2012) Lutetian
magnetostratigraphic calibration of larger foraminifera zonation (SBZ) in the Southern Pyrenees:
the Isuela section. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 333–334:107–120. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.palaeo.2012.03.012
Rodríguez-Pintó A, Pueyo EL, Pocoví A, Barnolas A (2008) Cronología de la actividad rotacional en
el sector central del frente de cabalgamiento de Sierras Exteriores (Pirineo Occidental). Geotemas
10:1207–1210
Rodríguez-Pintó A, Ramón MJ, Oliva-Urcia B, Pueyo EL, Pocoví A (2011) Errors in paleomag-
netism: structural control on overlapped vectors, mathematical models. Phys Earth Planet. Inter
186:11–22
Rodríguez-Pintó A, Pueyo EL, Barnolas A, Pocoví A, Oliva-Urcia B, Ramón MJ (2013) Overlapped
paleomagnetic vectors and fold geometry: a case study in the Balzes anticline (southern Pyrenees).
Phys Earth Planet Inter 215:43–57
Rodríguez-Pintó A, Pueyo EL, Calvín P, Sánchez E, Ramajo J, Casas AM, Ramón MJ, Pocoví
A, Barnolas A, Román T (2016) Rotational kinematics of a curved fold: the Balzes anticline
(Southern Pyrenees). Tectonophysics 677:171–189
Ron H, Freund R, Garfunkel Z (1984) Block rotation by strike-slip faulting: structural and paleo-
magnetic evidence. J Geophys Res 89:6256–6270
Rouby D, Suppe J, Xiao H (2000) 3D restoration of complexly faulted and folded surfaces using
multiple unfolding mechanisms. Amer Assoc Petrol Geol 84:805–829
Scheepers PJJ, Zijderveld JDA (1992) Stacking in Paleomagnetism: application to marine sediments
with weak NRM. Geophys Res Lett 1914:1519–1522
Schmidt PW (1982) Linearity spectrum analysis of multicomponent magnetizations and its appli-
cation to some igneous rocks from south-eastern Australia. Geophys J R Astron Soc 70:647–665
Scholger R, Stingl K, Mauritsch HJ (2003) New palaeomagnetic results from the Eastern Alpine
Neogene basins indicate rotations of micro-plates during the Miocene. VI ALPSHOP WORK-
SHOP, Sopron (abstract): Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis. Sectio Geologica
35:89–90. Budapest
Shipunov SV (1997) Synfolding magnetization: detection, testing and geological applications. Geo-
phys J Int 130:405–410
Sonnette L, Humbert F, Aubourg C, Gattacceca J, Lee JC, Angelier J (2014) Significant rotations
related to cover–substratum decoupling: example of the Dôme de Barrôt (Southwestern Alps,
France). Tectonophysics 629:275–289
Soto R, Casas AM, Storti F, Faccenna C (2002) Role of lateral thickness variations on the develop-
ment of oblique structures at the western end of the South Pyrenean Central Unit. Tectonophysics
350(3):215–235
Soto R, Storti F, Casas AM, Faccenna C (2003) Influence of along-strike pre-orogenic sedimentary
tapering on the internal architecture of experimental thrust wedges. Geol Mag 140(3):253–264
Soto R, Casas-Sainz AM, Pueyo EL (2006a) Along-strike variation of orogenic wedges associated
with vertical axis rotations. J Geophys Res (Solid Earth) 111:B10402–B10423
Soto R, Storti F, Casas-Sainz A (2006b) Impact of backstop thickness lateral variations on the
tectonic architecture of orogens: insights from sandbox analogue modelling and application to
the Pyrenees. Tectonics 25. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004tc001693
Soto R, Casas-Sainz AM, Villalaín JJ, Gil-Imaz A, Fernández-González G, Del Río P, Calvo M,
Mochales T (2008a) Characterizing the Mesozoic extension direction in the northern Iberian plate
margin by anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS). J Geol Soc 165(6):1007–1018
Soto R, Villalaín JJ, Casas-Sainz AM (2008b) Remagnetizations as a tool to analyze the tectonic
history of inverted sedimentary basins: a case study from the Basque-Cantabrian basin (north
Spain). Tectonics 27(1)
Soto R, Larrasoaña JC, Arlegui LE, Beamud E, Oliva-Urcia B, Simón JL (2009) Reliability of
magnetic fabric of weakly deformed mudrocks as a palaeostress indicator in compressive settings.
J Struct Geol 31(5):512–522
Soto R, Kullberg JC, Oliva-Urcia B, Casas-Sainz AM, Villalaín JJ (2012) Switch of Mesozoic
extensional tectonic style in the Lusitanian basin (Portugal): insights from magnetic fabrics.
Speranza F, Maniscalco R, Mattei M, Di Stefano A, Butler RWH, Funiciello R (1999) Tim-
ing and magnitude of rotations in the frontal thrust systems of southwestern Sicily. Tectonics
18:1178–1197
Storti F, Soto Marín R, Faccenna C, Casas Sainz AM (2001) Role of the backstop-to-cover thickness
ratio on vergence partitioning in experimental thrust wedges. Terra Nova 13:209–211
Sussman AJ, Weil AB (eds) (2004) Orogenic curvature: integrating paleomagnetic and structural
analyses, vol 383. Geol Soc Am
Sussman AJ, Lewis CJ, Mason SN, Geissman JW, Schultz-Fellenz E, Oliva-Urcia B, Gardner J
(2009) Implications for the tectonic evolution of Española Basin, Rio Grande rift. Lithosphere
3:328–345
Sussman AJ, Pueyo EL, Chase CG, Mitra G, Weil AJ (2012) The impact of vertical-axis rotations
on shortening estimates. Lithosphere 4(5):383–394
Tarling DH (1983) Palaeomagnetism: principles and applications ingeology, geophysics, and
archaeology, 379 pp. ISBN- 13: 978-94-009-5957-6
Tarling D, Hrouda F (eds) (1993) Magnetic anisotropy of rocks. Springer Science & Business
Media. ISBN 978-0-412-49880-0
Tauxe L (2003b) Paleomagnetic principles and practice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.
1007/0-306-48128-6
Tauxe L, Shaar R, Jonestrask L, Swanson-Hysell NL, Minnett R, Koppers AAP, Constable CG,
Jarboe N, Gaastra K, Fairchild L (2016) PmagPy: software package for paleomagnetic data
analysis and a bridge to the magnetics information consortium (MagIC) database. Geochem
Geophys Geosyst 17(6):2450–2463
Teixell A (1996) The Ansó transect of the southern Pyrenees: basement and cover thrust geometries.
J Geol Soc 153(2):301–310
Teixell A, Labaume P and Lagabrielle Y (2016) The crustal evolution of the west-central
Pyrenees revisited: Inferences from a new kinematic scenario. Comptes Rendus Geoscience
348(3–4):257–267
Teletzke AL (2012) Sedimentary and tectonic evolution of the Peñaflexure, southwest Pyrenean
mountain front, Spain. M.Sc. Thesis Lehigh University
Thibert B, Gratier JP, Morvan JM (2005) A direct method for modelling and unfolding developable
surfaces and its application to the Ventura Basin (California). J Struct Geol 27:303–316
Thomas JC, Chauvin A, Gapais D, Bazhenov ML, Perroud H, Cobbold PR, Burtman VS (1994)
Paleomagnetic evidence for Cenozoic block rotations in the Tadjik depression (Central Asia). J
Geophys Res Solid Earth (1978–2012) 99(B8):15141–15160. Research 112:B1, B01102
Thomas JC, Claudel ME, Collombet M, Tricart P, Chauvin A, Dumont T (1999) First paleomagnetic
data from the sedimentary cover of the French Penninic Alps: evidence for tertiary counterclock-
wise rotations in the Western Alps. Earth Planet Sci Lett 171(4):561–574
Thöny W, Ortner H, Scholger R (2006) Paleomagnetic evidence for large en-bloc rotations in the
Eastern Alps during Neogene orogeny. Tectonophysics 414:169–189
Torres-López S, Villalaín JJ, Casas AM, Ouardi HE, Moussaid B, Ruiz-Martínez VC (2014)
Widespread Cretaceous secondary magnetization in the High Atlas (Morocco). A common origin
for the Cretaceous remagnetizations in the western Tethys? J Geol Soc 171(5):673–687
Torsvik TH, Van der Voo R, Preeden U, Mac Niocaill C, Steinberger B, Doubrovine PV, van
Hinsbergen DJ, Domeier M, Gaina C, Tohver E, Meert JG (2012) Phanerozoic polar wander,
palaeogeography and dynamics. Earth Sci Rev 114(3–4):325–368
Valero L, Garcés M, Cabrera L, Costa E, Sáez A (2014) 20 Myr of eccentricity paced lacustrine
cycles in the Cenozoic Ebro Basin. Earth Planet Sci Lett 408:183–193
Van der Voo R (1990) The reliability of paleomagnetic data. Tectonophysics 184:1–9
Van der Voo R (1993) Paleomagnetism of the Atlantic, Tethys and Iapetus Ocean. Cambridge
University Press, 411 pp. ISBN-10: 0521612098
Van der Voo R, Channell JET (1980) Paleomagnetism in orogenic belts. Rev Geophys Space Phys
18(2):455–481
Villalaín JJ, Fernández-González G, Casas AM, Gil-Imaz A (2003) Evidence of a Cretaceous remag-
netization in the Cameros Basin (North Spain): implications for basin geometry. Tectonophysics
377:101–117
Villalaín JJ, Casas-Sainz AM, Soto R (2016) Reconstruction of inverted sedimentary basins from
syn-tectonic remagnetizations. A methodological proposal. Geol Soc London, Special Publica-
tions 425(1):233–246
Waldhör M, Appel E (2006) Intersections of remanence small circles; new tools to improve data
processing interpretation in palaeomagnetism. Geophys J Int 166(1):33–45
Wawrzyniec TF, Geissman JW, Melker MD, Hubbard J (2002) Dextral shear along the eastern
margin of the Colorado Plateau: a kinematic link between Laramide contraction and Rio Grande
rifting (ca. 75–13 Ma). J Geol 110:305–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/339534
Weil AB, Sussman AJ (2004) Classifying curved orogens based on timing relationships between
structural development and vertical-axis rotations. Orogenic curvature: integrating paleomagnetic
and structural analyses 383:1–16
Wilkerson MS, Marshak S (1997) Fold-thrust belts—an essay. In van der Pluijm BA, Marshak S
(eds) Earth structure: US Division. WCB/McGraw-Hill, 485 p
Williams GD, Kane S, Buddin TS, Richards AJ (1997) Restoration and balance of complex folded
and faulted rock volumes; flexural flattening, jigsaw fitting and decompaction in three dimen-
sions. Tectonophysics 273(3–4):203–218
Dutta D, Biswas T, Mukherjee S (Submitted) Orogen-parallel compression in NW Himalaya: evi-

dence from structural and paleostress studies of brittle deformation from the pebbles of Upper
Siwalik conglomerates, Uttarakhand, India. J Earth Syst Sci
Zijderveld JDA (1967) The natural remanent magnetizations of the Exeter volcanic traps (Permian,
Europe). Tectonophysics 4(2):121–153
Teaching Structural Geology Techniques
for Applied Subsurface Interpretation
and Characterization
Kellen L. Gunderson and Katelyn A. Huffman
Abstract Most students enrolled in undergraduate structural geology classes will

go on to careers in the applied geosciences as non-structural geology experts, yet
many of them will still engage in structural interpretations in their day-to-day job
activities. It is useful, therefore, for structural geology instructors to carefully design
their course material so that it delivers the essential concepts and skills which these
students will need in their future jobs. Here, we present three major skillsets that
applied geoscientists need to be successful in subsurface structural interpretation
and characterization, as applied in a petroleum exploration and development con-
text: (1) making quality geologic maps and cross sections, (2) seismic structural
interpretation, and (3) application of geomechanics to conventional and unconven-
tional hydrocarbon reservoirs. We provide example problem sets that reinforce these
skills and concepts and suggest methods for delivering this content to undergraduate
structural geology students. The potential future direction of subsurface structural
interpretation is also discussed, and we include some suggestions for how instruc-
tors can help students develop employable skillsets in a future that contains a rapidly
changing technological environment.
Keywords Seismic interpretation · Applied structural geology · Geomechanics
1 Introduction
Structural interpretation is a job function for many geoscientists working in applied

geoscience fields such as hydrogeology, engineering geology, economic geology, and
petroleum geology. Such geoscientists are commonly tasked with creating subsurface
structure contour maps, fault maps, fracture network models, or structural cross
K. L. Gunderson (B) · K. A. Huffman

Chevron Energy Technology Company, Houston, TX, USA
K. A. Huffman

124 K. L. Gunderson and K. A. Huffman
sections. Despite the commonality of these tasks, many of these geoscientists do

not have educational backgrounds as structural geology experts. Often their only
exposure to structural geology concepts and methods is a single structural geology
and tectonics course that is offered in most traditional undergraduate geoscience
curricula. These geoscientists might have extensive experience in other subdisciplines
relevant to their jobs, such as sedimentology, petrology, or geophysics, yet they are
still often tasked with interpreting subsurface structures.
In view of this reality, it is useful for teachers of undergraduate structural geology
and tectonics courses to consider these students and their careers paths when design-
ing their classes. Most teachers recognize that many, if not most, of their students
will work as applied geoscientists (Wilson 2016), so it is important for structural
geology instructors to periodically evaluate the skills and concepts being taught in
their courses to make sure they align with the skillsets used by the modern workforce.
Here we describe some of the basic skills that are required of geoscientists who
make structural interpretations in the subsurface, but are not trained specifically as
structural geology experts. We primarily focus on the interpretation of structures in
sedimentary basins as applied to petroleum exploration and production, but many of
the same methods might be applied to other problems such as carbon sequestration
or hydrogeology. We also provide example laboratory, homework, or exam prob-
lems that instructors might consider using and suggest resources for instructors to
obtain subsurface data that they wish to use in their classes. This paper focuses on
teaching techniques and problems for an undergraduate structural geology class and
proceeding under the assumptions that the course will be the only structural geology
class many of the students will take in their educational career and that most of them
will become experts in some other geoscience discipline. We recognize that there are
many other essential skills and concepts that are taught in undergraduate structure
courses, but we propose the following skills and concepts as part of a well-balanced
structural geology curriculum to create well-rounded applied geoscientists.
This paper begins by summarizing the history of subsurface interpretation and then
elaborates on three skillsets related to subsurface interpretation and characterization
that we think structural geology instructors should include in their undergraduate
courses: (1) how to create quality geologic maps and cross sections, (2) an intro-
duction to seismic interpretation of structures, and (3) geomechanical principles as
applied to both conventional and unconventional petroleum reservoirs. Nested within
each of these skillsets are a subset of focused skills and concepts that all subsurface
interpreters should be familiar with. Many of these are likely already being taught in
undergraduate structural geology courses to some degree, and in such cases, it may
only be necessary to help students understand the relevance of a concept to subsur-
face interpretation or to provide an exercise that shows how a concept is applied to a
real-world problem. Finally, we end with some ideas about the future of subsurface
interpretation and how instructors can position their students to be competitive in a
workplace that is being constantly changed by technology.
Teaching Structural Geology Techniques for Applied Subsurface … 125
2 History of Subsurface Interpretation
Early petroleum exploration relied on field mapping and the identification of

petroleum traps at the earth’s surface. Geologists would extrapolate surficial data
into the subsurface to predict where petroleum accumulations might occur. The accu-
racy of the subsurface maps depended on the geologist’s skills in applying geologic
mapping principles and techniques. Some of the early rigorous structural geology
techniques developed in the Appalachian (Chamberlin 1910) and Zagros (Busk 1929)
fold and thrust belts were developed to better predict the location of subsurface struc-
tures from surface data to aid in petroleum exploration. The first subsurface data that
geologists incorporated into their interpretations was the information that came from
exploration wells. This well data was used to refine initial subsurface interpretations
and provide additional data control.
The first geophysical techniques that were employed to create subsurface maps
were gravity and magnetic surveys and electrical logging of wells (Selley and Son-
nenberg 2014). Later, beginning in the 1950s and 1960s the first 2D seismic reflection
surveys began to be widely used when exploration for oil and gas began offshore,
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico (Dragoset 2005; Bjørlykke 2015). Beginning in
the 1980s, 3D seismic surveys became more common and their use became ubiqui-
tous in the 1990s with the rise of workstation-aided seismic interpretation software
(Brown 2011). The increase in workstation computing power and improvements in
seismic visualization software have combined to increase the efficiency of subsurface
mapping and made structural interpretations more accessible to geoscientists from
non-structural backgrounds such as stratigraphy, geophysics, or geochemistry.
The modern subsurface interpreter has a plethora of tools and datasets at their dis-
posal and they are required to integrate an ever-increasing amount of geophysical and
geological data from different disciplines. However, the dependence on workstation-
aided mapping, the ubiquitous and accessible nature of seismic datasets, and the
need for a modern geoscientist to be a multi-disciplinary integrator have led to the
deterioration of some basic subsurface structural mapping skillsets. Additionally,
the increasing importance of unconventional resources in the early twenty-first cen-
tury and the application of geomechanical skills and concepts in the exploration
and exploitation of those resources have exposed a skills gap in the modern applied
geoscience workforce. We think an emphasis on the three skillsets detailed below in
structural geology and tectonics instruction can help close this skills gap and increase
the technical competency of the applied geoscience workforce.
3 Skillset 1—Making Quality Geologic Maps and Cross

Sections
The ability to create high-quality and geologically reasonable structure maps and
cross sections quickly and efficiently is a fundamental skill for applied geoscientists
(Bose and Mukherjee 2017). Structure maps are used for evaluating the size of poten-
tial hydrocarbon accumulations, planning wells, mitigating subsurface hazards, and
many other applications. These tasks are often completed by generalist geoscientists
or specialists in other disciplines and not overseen by structural geology specialists.
Despite the ubiquitous nature of structure maps and cross sections in the applied geo-
scientist workflow, and the importance of these work products in many applications
of subsurface interpretation, there is a wide range in the quality of maps and cross
sections produced.
3.1 Concept 1a: Use Simple Mapping Rules to Ensure

Quality Control on Structure Maps
In the expanding field of geoscience, there is an ever-increasing number of important

concepts that instructors must fit into their courses, so some traditional techniques
and principles inevitably get left out. In the past, it was more common for geology
students to spend a significant amount of time learning detailed methods on how
to make structure contour maps, including multiple methods for hand-contouring.
While many of these methods have become obsolete due to the emergence of map-
ping on workstations with automated gridding and contouring, there are still a few
important rules that subsurface mappers should keep in mind to make sure the maps
produced on workstations are geometrically and kinematically valid.
The application of simple mapping rules has a twofold benefit: First, it is a
reminder to the interpreter to consider and apply sound structural geology reasoning
while interpreting subsurface data. Second, rules can act as a checklist to provide
quality control (QC) to structure maps created by others. Often geoscientists are
presented with structure maps created by other interpreters with very little context
of the methods by which those maps were made. To make sound decisions based on
those maps, it is essential that a geoscientist can quickly examine a map and assess
its geological validity. Having a set of structural rules in mind provides a geoscientist
with a checklist to ensure that a subsurface interpretation meets a minimum stan-
dard of validity (Richards et al. 2015). The rules presented here are not meant to be
all-inclusive; but, in our experience, they have proven useful for maintaining quality
interpretations. Of course, deviations from these rules are possible, but they should
be rare and accompanied by empirical observations supporting logical arguments.
An example problem is provided (Fig. 1), where students can practice applying these
rules for quality control to identify problematic areas on a structure map.
Rule 1: The map should maintain a consistent structural trend and style. Faults,
folds, and bedding attitudes should generally trend in directions consistent with each
other and the stress field that created them. Interpretations from one set of data
(i.e., seismic) should be consistent with measurements from other sources, such as
dipmeter and image log data from wells (Groshong 2006; Dasgupta et al. 2018).
Interpretations should be placed in a correct regional context, so that the orientations
Fig. 1 a Example exercise for map quality control. b Solution to example exercise. Example
exercise prompt, “You are presented with the structure map created for the top of a target reservoir
for an exploration prospect. After closely examining the map, you notice some inconsistencies in
the mapping. Label and describe potential problems with the structure map using the concepts for
map quality control that you have learned.”
and structural styles are consistent with a basin’s structural evolution. Some maps
and cross sections may look reasonable when viewed in a geographical isolation, but
are unreasonable when placed in the context of the regional stress and strain patterns.
Rule 2: The interpreter should account for contouring and gridding artifacts
created by mapping software. Anomalous data points, edge effects, and disconti-
nuities such as faults can create non-geologic features in structure maps (Groshong
2006). Interpreters should examine maps for these features and manually remove
them, if possible. Edge effects in a structure map can be eliminated by pushing map-
ping efforts beyond the immediate area of investigation. Smoothing algorithms can
eliminate anomalous data points, but care must be taken that the smoothing does
not create interpretations that are geologically unreasonable and do not honor the
input data. Faults and other discontinuities in a map can create unusual map patterns,
which are especially challenging considering the importance of faults in forming
hydrocarbon traps or seals.
Rule 3: Fault displacement patterns should be consistent with the type of
fault system and be geologically reasonable. This rule works especially well in
extensional fault systems, where displacement patterns (Nicol et al. 1996) and
length/displacement ratios (Kim and Sanderson 2005) are well established. An easy
method that students can learn is creating fault displacement profiles by plotting the
displacement magnitude along the length of a fault. For a single disconnected normal
fault, displacement should decrease toward the fault tips with the maximum displace-
ment in the middle of the fault. More complex profiles result from the interactions of
multiple faults (Fig. 2) (Nicol et al. 1996). Using these profiles, interpreters can also
measure the displacement/length ratio, which can be used to set bounds on reason-
able displacement interpretations across a fault (Kim and Sanderson 2005). While
the rigorous statistical relationships between fault displacement and length might not
be as well established in contractional or strike-slip settings, thrust faults still tend
to have maximum displacement in the middle of the fault that decreases toward the
fault tips (Elliott 1976; Chapman and Williams 1984). Interpretations should also
maintain conservation of displacement (Tearpock and Bischke 2002), which states
that the displacement of intersecting faults should balance across an interpretation.
This means that the displacement of a single merged fault should be equal to the sum
of the displacements of two or more intersecting faults around the intersection point.
Rule 4: The interpretation is internally consistent in 3D. Structural maps for
one horizon should be consistent with those of deeper or shallower levels in terms of
structural style, fault position, fault displacement, and stratigraphic thickness. Simple
methods to check this rule include measuring the maximum displacement on a fault
for multiple horizons, comparing interval thickness on both sides of a fault, or simply
Fig. 2 a Example fault profile exercise. b Solution to example exercise. Example exercise prompt,
“Match the fault system on the left (1–3) with its associated fault profile (A–C) on the right. Mark
the location of the relay fault and splay fault branch line on the fault profile. For Fault system 4,
draw what a fault profile for two faults connected by an unbreached relay ramp would look like in
the blank space on the right.”
overlaying contour lines from multiple mapped intervals to check for major changes
in pattern or orientation (Groshong 2006).
While these rules are simple, they are powerful tools for increasing the quality
of a structural interpretation. Exercises such as the example problems in Figs. 1 and
2 can help students practice applying these rules and internalizing them. It is also
useful to encourage students to create a visual reminder of these rules to refer to
when creating and evaluating structure maps.
3.2 Concept 1b: Know and Apply the Methods for Creating
Valid Structural Cross Sections
Structural cross sections are a powerful tool to communicate interpretations of sub-

surface geology. The ability to accurately create reasonable structural cross sections
is a skill that requires practice and adherence to tried and tested principles.
A simple, yet powerful concept for interpreters to understand when they begin
to construct cross sections is the concept of “regional,” which is the structural level
of the undeformed stratigraphic horizons. Horizons that drop below regional result
from net extensional structures and horizons that rise above regional result from net
contractional structures. This is especially important while interpreting in new basins
where an interpreter is not familiar with the regional strain history. Establishing
“regional” helps interpreters know what types of structures are present in poorly
imaged areas and is necessary to apply cross-sectional balancing methods.
Structural cross sections should be consistent with available well data, map inter-
pretations, cross-sectional construction rules, and interpreted structural style (Elliot
1983). Interpreters should have a fluency with the basic rules of cross-sectional con-
struction (i.e., try to place the section in the primary dip direction, thrust faults cut
up section in the transport direction, bed thickness remains constant unless evidence
shows otherwise, etc.) (Dahlstrom 1969). Exercises in which students build cross
sections from maps, or build maps from a series of cross sections, help to reinforce
the principle of 3D consistency of subsurface interpretations. For cross sections that
are not robustly constrained by data, justification should be given for why certain
structural geometries and styles are chosen as analogs.
Approaches for section construction can be broadly divided into geometric, kine-
matic, or hybrid approaches. The two primary geometric methods of cross-sectional
construction are the dip-domain method (Gill 1953) and the circular arc method
(Busk 1929). The strength of a geometric approach is that a cross section is con-
strained by the available data rather than an a priori structural model imposed by the
interpreter. An alternative approach is to use one of the established kinematic models
of deformation such as fault-bend folding (Suppe 1983), fault-propagation folding
(Suppe and Medwedeff 1990), shear fault-bend folding (Suppe et al. 2004); trishear
(Erslev 1991), detachment folding (Jamison 1987), or one of the many variations of
these well-known models to guide cross-sectional construction and interpretation.
Kinematic models are useful because they provide a framework to interpret struc-
tures in data-limited areas. The preferred alternative is for interpreters to use a hybrid
of geometric and kinematic approaches when building cross sections. Students need
to practice using these approaches on a variety of structures of varying complexity
and various tectonic settings to build fluency and working competency in section
construction.
An important element of cross-sectional construction is determining the depth of
detachment. The detachment depth is necessary when creating regionally balanced
sections and is often critical for determining a hydrocarbon trap’s size and access
to a viable source rock (Magoon and Dow 1994; Moretti 1998; Losh et al. 1999).
Sometimes, even in areas that have high-quality seismic imaging, interpreting the
detachment depth can be ambiguous. This is because the detachment dips are close to
horizontal, are commonly parallel to undeformed horizons, and the detachments lie
below faults and folds that distort seismic images (see Skillset 2). Even so, interpreters
should be familiar with the common methods for determining the depth to detachment
such as the excess area method (Chamberlin 1910; Epard and Groshong 1993) and
the area-depth strain method (Groshong and Epard 1994; Eichelberger et al. 2017).
Many modern structure laboratory texts contain depth to detachment problems to
incorporate in the classroom.
We provide two example problems for students to apply the concepts and skills
discussed above (Figs. 3 and 4). In both problems, students are presented with a
series of wells and/or surface measurements projected onto a vertical profile and are
asked to complete the cross section.
4 Skillset 2—Seismic Interpretation of Structures
One of the most common datasets applied geoscientists use when interpreting sub-
surface structures is 2D and 3D seismic reflection data. Seismic data provides a
wealth of information about the geometry and kinematics of structures; however,
skilled interpretation of seismic data requires practice and an understanding of the
limitations of the seismic volume (Brown 2011; Bond et al. 2012; Macrae et al.
2016; Misra and Mukherjee 2018). It is important for students and new practitioners
of seismic interpretation to understand some of the potential pitfalls that come from
misunderstanding how a seismic image is created. For instance, one common pitfall
is to interpret a seismic image as if it is simply a picture of the subsurface, rather than
a highly distorted view that is affected by seismic acquisition, processing history, and
rock properties. While it is beyond the scope of an introductory structural geology
course to cover all the technical geophysical aspects of seismic interpretation, there
are some basic principles related to the structural interpretation of seismic data that
are helpful to introduce to undergraduate structural geology students. These include
understanding the principal components of a seismic reflection and how they change
with depth, the effects of time versus depth migration, velocity heterogeneity effects
on structural geometries, and how vertical exaggeration is used in seismic displays
132
Fig. 3 a Example extensional cross section interpretation exercise. b Solution to example exercise. Example exercise prompt, “You are tasked with creating a
K. L. Gunderson and K. A. Huffman
cross section interpretation across a passive margin shelf system. This section has several wells projected onto it to provide you with structural control. Each
well has interpreted formation tops, with the dip magnitude and directions of those dips shown by the colored dip markers. Interpret the cross section and answer
the following questions: At what unit is the detachment located? Over what time period was each fault active?”
Teaching Structural Geology Techniques for Applied Subsurface …
133
Fig. 4 a Example contractional cross section interpretation exercise. b Solution to example exercise. Example exercise prompt, “Interpret the cross section
using the data provided and your cross-section interpretation toolkit- (i.e. dip domains, area depth strain calculations, the concept of regional, etc.)”
to distort geometries and aid visualization. Additionally, some of the numerous free
resources related to seismic interpretation are discussed, where teachers can obtain
data and give their students practice in seismic interpretation.
Seismic interpretation is a skill that is improved through practice and repetition.
Several recent studies have investigated questions regarding conceptual uncertainty
in seismic interpretation and what qualities effective interpreters possess (Bond et al.
2007, 2011, 2012; Macrae et al. 2016; Alcalde et al. 2017). These studies demon-
strate that seismic interpretations are often biased by interpreters’ past experiences,
especially when it comes to interpreting tectonic setting or structural style (Bond
et al. 2007, 2012; Alcalde et al. 2017). Macrae et al. (2016) studied the factors that
led to accurate seismic interpretations and found that exposure to structures from
different areas around the world and the amount of experience in interpretation were
two major factors correlated positively with improved interpretations. The primary
message of these studies for structural geology instructors is that is it necessary to
introduce students early in their training to seismic examples of structures from var-
ious tectonic settings and to give them practice in the basics of structural seismic
interpretation.
4.1 Concept 2a: Geophysical Survey Design and Processing

Influences the Seismic Images that Interpreters Use
Decisions made in seismic survey design and seismic data processing have the poten-
tial to have a large influence on a seismic structural interpretation. This can occur
through obscuring subsurface structures that are present or creating the appearance
of “false” structures that are nothing more than data artifacts. While it is beyond the
scope of this paper to give a detailed treatise on exploration geophysics, it is worth
mentioning a few important points for interpreters to keep in mind when working
with seismic data.
Seismic data is made from the stacking of vertical seismic traces. The principal
components of a seismic trace are phase, frequency, and amplitude (Sheriff and
Geldart 1995). The predominant frequency of seismic data decreases with depth due
to seismic energy attenuation. The net effect of this is a decrease in the resolution
of the seismic image with depth, which can be quantified by calculating the limit of
separability or limit of visibility (Brown 2011). Horizontal resolution, especially of
dipping horizons, is affected by the sampling rate of the seismic data. In areas where
dipping horizons are closely spaced or dipping steeply, the horizons are often aliased
and the seismic image will show dipping reflectors that are, in reality, just seismic
noise. Interpreters should take care to determine what the vertical and horizontal
resolution of their seismic data is at the depths they are interpreting and to make sure
that the structures they are interpreting are real geologic features.
Seismic acquisition, migration, and other geophysical processes can create arti-
facts in the data that are often misinterpreted as geologic features. The geometry of
the seismic footprint is sometimes imprinted in the data, which can create disconti-
nuities that are misinterpreted as faults. Areas near the edges of 3D seismic volumes
are not always fully migrated and therefore can contain reflectors that are not in the
correct location (Brown 2011). Additionally, there are different migration techniques
that seismic processors use to enhance certain geologic features that might create data
artifacts that appear to be geologic features. Finally, the presence of seismic wave
multiples from highly reflective interfaces, like the water bottom or a salt layer, can
create reflections that are misinterpreted as geologic structures deeper in the seismic
survey. Interpreters need to be aware that data artifacts due to these processes exist,
and they should work closely with geophysics experts on their project teams to make
sure any suspicious structure they interpret is, in fact, a geologic feature.
4.2 Concept 2b: Seismic Data Is Collected in the Time

Domain, but Subsurface Structures Are Best Interpreted
in the Depth Domain
Seismic data is collected in the time domain and must be converted to depth using a
subsurface velocity model. Because of potential large density contrasts of rocks in the
subsurface, time domain seismic images have the potential to distort the geometries
of subsurface structures. One very common example is the effect of “fault shad-
ows” (e.g., Fagin 1996) on the geometries of strata in the footwall of dipping faults
(Fig. 5). Because of the lateral variability of rock density at a given depth across
the fault, a velocity contrast will exist between the hanging wall and footwall strata.
This will create “velocity pull-ups” or “velocity pull-downs” in the footwall block,
velocity distortions which are often mistaken for real geologic structures, but are
actually artifacts of the varying rock properties. There are many geophysical tech-
niques that are used to address the fault shadow problem, but the important thing
for an interpreter to recognize is that fault shadows potentially exist. Interpreters can
work around the problem of fault shadows by validating whether potential structures
follow appropriate kinematic or geometric rules.
Another simple principle that seismic interpreters must understand when working
with seismic data is that the vertical exaggeration (vertical: horizontal) affects the
geometries of faults and folds in seismic data (Stewart 2012). In general, faults and
folds should be interpreted and presented on properly migrated depth seismic to
minimize the effects of vertical exaggeration, but this is not always possible. In some
cases, depth-migrated seismic data may not be available and the interpreter must
work in the time domain. Interpreters often need to vertically exaggerate a seismic
section to fit the data onto a workstation display or into a presentation, or to highlight a
stratigraphic feature. In these cases, the best practice is for structures to be interpreted
in as close as 1:1 as possible, even if the seismic needs to be stretched later for
display or to interpret stratigraphy. This is because many of the predictive geometric
and kinematic models for structures will not work properly on exaggerated sections.
Fig. 5 a A theoretical depth section showing a normal fault system containing high-velocity strati-
graphic layer in between lower-velocity zones. b The same section is shown in (a), but in two-way
time. The time section shows apparent distortions in the footwall below the high-velocity unit. c
A synthetic seismic section based on (b). A misunderstanding of the effects of the high-velocity
zone could cause an interpreter to falsely interpret geologic structures in the footwall block. Figure
from Fagin (1996). SEG © 1996. Reprinted by permission of SEG, whose permission is required
for further use
Dealing with vertical exaggeration in time-migrated seismic can be more difficult.

Because of the generally increasing velocity of rocks in sedimentary basins with depth
(Audet and Fowler 1992), the vertical exaggeration of the seismic data collected
in these basins typically decreases with depth (Stewart 2012). When working on
structures on time-migrated seismic, interpreters should focus on one depth interval
at a time and try their best to put that interval in a 1:1 ratio. Interpreters can then
move to a different depth interval and adjust the vertical exaggeration as needed to
work as close to 1:1 as possible.
4.3 Concept 2c: Use the Full 3D Seismic Volume—Including

Mapping on Time/Depth Sections
and Strike-Perpendicular Sections
The advantage of 3D seismic data over a grid of 2D seismic is the ability to truly
visualize complex structures in 3D dimensions, but interpreters commonly fail to
utilize an entire plane of 3D seismic volumes, specifically the ability to visualize
and interpret structures on time/depth sections. Time/depth sections are useful for
correlating faults between sections, interpreting transfer zones, analyzing fault con-
nectivity, and many other aspects of structural seismic interpretation (Brown 2011).
An effective structural seismic interpreter will move back and forth between vertical
and horizontal slices of the seismic volume, systematically testing their hypotheses
regarding the structures while interpreting. Figure 6 shows a simple example exer-
cise illustrating a series of faults and folds on horizontal and vertical seismic slices.
This exercise provides students with an example of what thrust faults and asymmet-
ric anticlines look like on horizontal seismic slices and gives students a chance to
interpret the major structures in 3D.
Another common mistake is that interpreters default to interpreting on a 3D
volume’s inlines and crosslines, even though these lines are commonly not ideally
oriented to major structures in the volume, which can lead to incorrect geometric
interpretations of those structures. Ideally, seismic sections should be oriented
perpendicular to the strike of structures of interest. Modern seismic interpretation
software allows interpreters to create seismic sections at any arbitrary orientation;
skilled interpreters will first interrogate a volume to get a sense of the trend of major
Fig. 6 Example exercise, “Interpret the major structural elements on the vertical and horizontal
seismic sections including: faults, anticlinal/synclinal axes, and fold limbs. Follow the structures
imaged on the vertical section along strike on the depth section, do they maintain a consistent
direction of vergence? What is your interpretation regarding the lateral terminations of the imaged
folds, are they plunging folds or do they terminate at lateral fault ramps? Justify your answer.”
Image courtesy the Virtual Seismic Atlas (VSA), data original from CGG Veritas, submitted to
VSA by Estelle Mortimer and Rob Butler
structural elements then interpret on the appropriate inline, crossline, or arbitrary

sections that are oriented perpendicular to the strike of those structures.
4.4 Concept 2d: Know How Growth Strata Is Used

to Determine Structural Kinematics
In many seismic interpretation projects growth strata, which are rocks deposited
concurrently with deformation (Suppe et al. 1992), are important for gaining key
understandings of a structure’s evolution. Often the timing of a structure’s formation
relative to the generation of hydrocarbons or the development of a sealing layer is
critical in the evaluation of a viable exploration prospect (Magoon and Dow 1994).
Growth strata are commonly the only indication of the onset of a structure’s for-
mation. Bond et al.’s (2007) seismic interpretation experiment showed how growth
strata are often the key to a correct interpretation of complex structures; interpreters
that focused on the different growth strata geometries were more likely to interpret
the structure correctly.
Additionally, growth strata can be used to indirectly determine the geometry of
deeper stratigraphic levels. Commonly, reservoir targets are in pre-growth intervals
that might not be imaged well. By examining well-imaged growth strata in shallower
intervals, it is possible to constrain the geometry of structures that are poorly imaged.
This is because different fault-related folding kinematic models produce distinct
growth strata geometries (Suppe et al. 1992; Hardy and Poblet 1994; Hardy and
Ford 1997; Shaw et al. 2004).
Fig. 7 Example growth strata exercise—“Vertical seismic section in TWT with a series of folds.
Use growth strata to determine the sequence of deformation on the major structures. Which, if
any, of the structures were active contemporaneously? Are any of the structures still active? Based
off your interpretation, what type of fault-related folding model best explains the structures in this
section?” Image courtesy of the Virtual Seismic Atlas (VSA), data originally from Fugro, submitted
to VSA by Rob Butler
Figure 7 shows an example exercise of seismic interpretation of growth strata. It

asks students to determine the relative timing of deformation on threefolds. A typical
workflow for this problem is for students to interpret the boundaries between pre-
growth/growth strata and growth/post-growth strata on each structure and correlate
those horizons across the section.
4.5 Concept 2e: Understand How Salt Can Affect Structural

Geometry and Kinematics
Many modern structural geology students have very little exposure to salt tectonics
in undergraduate structural geology courses. This is surprising, since many major
hydrocarbon basins worldwide contain salt structures (Hudec and Jackson 2007).
Salt and other evaporites in these basins often deform to create hydrocarbon traps or
acts as a sealing barrier preventing the leakage of hydrocarbons from the reservoir.
Additionally, salt structures are often studied and targeted as locations for nuclear
waste, wastewater, or CO2 disposal and long-term storage.
Because salt is ductile and deforms viscoplastically at temperatures and pressures
at which surrounding rocks are brittle, salt deformation produces much different
structural geometries than those predicted by the common kinematic models that
students are most often exposed to. To make subsurface interpretation of salt
structures even more complicated, the presence of salt creates seismic imaging
problems by obscuring structures below thick salt layers.
The key to understanding salt tectonics is understanding the mechanics of salt
deformation (Hudec and Jackson 2007). Salt will move when there is a pressure
gradient in a basin, so that salt will flow from high pressure to lower pressure. This
Fig. 8 Example exercise, “This figure shows an interpreted vertical seismic section in a sedimentary
basin that has been affected by salt deformation. The salt diapirs are colored in black and are labeled,
‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. Using the salt deformation classification system, determine what type of salt system
is shown here. Use the interpreted growth horizons to determine the timing of emplacement for each
of the diapirs. Provide sketches for what you think this section might have looked like at 0.5, 5.0
and 9.0 Ma.” Image courtesy the Virtual Seismic Atlas. Figure originally published by Trudgill and
Rowan (2004). Reprinted by permission of The Geological Society © 2004
can be accomplished with differential sediment loading in a basin or through crustal

thinning and faulting above a salt layer. Salt systems will evolve so that salt might
flow to one area only to later be extruded due to a change in the system. These
complex histories can be unraveled by examining patterns in syn-kinematic strata
surrounding a salt body.
A geometric classification system for salt structures was developed by Hudec
et al. (2011) to aid in the interpretation of salt tectonic systems. This classification
system allows interpreters to apply consistent geometric interpretations of the salt
bodies and the surrounding deformed strata that are often poorly imaged by seismic
data. A deeper understanding of the kinematics of each specific salt geometry allows
interpreters to make inferences about the evolution of salt structures based on the
observed present-day geometry. Students can practice these types of geometric and
kinematic analyses in simple laboratory or homework exercises, such as the one
shown in Fig. 8.
4.6 Practical Ideas for Integrating Seismic Interpretation

into the Classroom
We recognize that there are many challenges inherent in introducing seismic inter-
pretation into an undergraduate structural geology class. As we previously discussed,
it is beyond the scope of an undergraduate structure class to teach all the geophysical
Fig. 9 Example exercise, “Interpret the faults in the seismic section using the kink-band method
and by calculating the depth to detachment. Does the geometry of the hanging wall strata indicate
the presence of growth strata? Do you think this structure is still active? Why or why not?” Exercise
from Allmendinger (2017). Seismic line originally published by Beer et al. (1990). AAPG © 1990.
Reprinted by permission of the AAPG, whose permission is required for further use
aspects of seismic interpretation, which are often integral to valid structural inter-
pretations. An additional challenge is that many instructors do not have access to
seismic datasets and interpretation software, which are often proprietary and expen-
sive. There are, however, creative alternatives for instructors to use if they want to
introduce structural seismic interpretation into their undergraduate instruction.
There are efforts made by professional organizations, governmental entities, and
academic organizations to distribute public domain seismic datasets online. Two
major outlets to access these datasets are the Society for Exploration Geophysicists’
data repository (www.SEG.org) and the Virtual Seismic Atlas (www.seismicatlas.
org). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) has published
thousands of seismic lines in their various publications that are made available to
members at the AAPG publications Web site, a prominent example being the AAPG
seismic atlas (Shaw et al. 2005).
Another challenge is how to fit the seismic structural interpretation material into
a semester-long course that is already covering a lot of material. Instructors should
thoughtfully consider where they might teach this material to maximize impact.
While seismic interpretation can be included in all forms of instruction and assess-
ment—lectures, homework, laboratories, and exams, we propose that a well-crafted
laboratory exercise could provide an excellent exposure to the concepts discussed
here. The recent structural geology laboratory manual by Allmendinger (2017) pro-
vides an example of how to build a laboratory exercise that incorporates many of the
principles discussed here, including delving into the details of seismic acquisition and
processing. An example interpretation problem from Allmendinger (2017), shown in
Fig. 9, demonstrates how students can use the methods of structural cross-sectional
construction discussed earlier to guide their seismic structural interpretation.
5 Skillset 3—Applying Geomechanics to Conventional

and Unconventional Reservoirs
Incorporating geomechanics into subsurface structural interpretation and characteri-

zation is critical, as the fundamental underpinnings of the geometry and kinematics of
any geologic structure are geomechanics (i.e., how material with certain mechanical
properties deforms under stress applied at a particular rate). For many applied geo-
scientists, especially those working in unconventional resources, the geomechanics
material of their undergraduate structural geology course will be the material they
use the most in their professional lives, so understanding fundamental geomechanical
concepts and their applications to subsurface structural interpretation and character-
ization prior to starting a career in applied geosciences will set students apart from
their peers. Therefore, it is essential that instructors create meaningful activities that
maximize interest and learning in this portion of their class and provide students with
practical examples of geomechanical problems.
There are a variety of geomechanical concepts that applied geoscientists use
in their work, including static elastic properties and poromechanics, strain rate-
dependent material behavior, local versus principal stresses, fracture stability and
mechanics, and static and dynamic elastic properties. These concepts are applied
at spatial scales ranging from individual grains to a large 3D seismic survey and at
temporal scales from the distant past, the present, and the future. Geomechanics is
relevant at all stages of drilling, completing, producing, and managing a reservoir,
and even beyond cessation of production. One effective way to teach geomechanics
in a structural geology course is to tie the small-scale physics of deforming rocks
to the large-scale structures observed at the seismic scale. This section focuses on
tying together the relationship between elastic material properties and stress across
various scales. This will be done through the presentation of some sample exercises
that include typical data used by applied geoscientists to characterize the subsurface
stress state.
5.1 Concept 3a—Properly Using Stress Data to Characterize

the Subsurface
The misuse or misapplication of stress data in well drilling, completion, or pro-

duction planning and design can lead to numerous problems, including unexpected
well casing deformation and shear, wellbore collapse, stimulation operations that do
not work, or hydraulic fractures that travel in unexpected directions, among other
potentially negative outcomes. Stress data is commonly misapplied due to faulty
assumptions and misunderstandings of fundamental stress concepts and their appli-
cations. In this section, we address some of the common pitfalls regarding the use of
stress data in the subsurface and provide an exercise for students that demonstrates
the practical application of stress data in the subsurface.
There are many misconceptions and misapplications of stress data and concepts
in applied geoscience, for example:
• Misunderstanding the difference between principal, cartesian, normal, and shear
stresses.
• Misunderstanding the difference between far-field stresses and local stresses (at
the scale of a wellbore or even at the scale of a single mechanical facies).
• Assuming the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses (S Hmax and S hmin ) and
overburden stress (S v ) are equivalent to the principal stresses, despite the numer-
ical, experimental, and experiential evidence that shows local stresses (i.e., what
is relevant at the scale of a well) is frequently not perfectly horizontal or vertical
(Fig. 10).
• Assuming the overburden stress (S v ) is always the most compressive stress (i.e., a
“normal faulting” regime), this is often assumed because hydrocarbon resources
are typically not perceived to occur in active tectonic margins.
• Assuming is that there is little differential stress between the principal stresses.
• Not differentiating between effective stress and total stress. In petroleum, geo-
science stress is reported in terms of total stress, so one must subtract pore pressure
to determine effective stress.
• Assuming a hydrostatic gradient of pore pressure; even though reservoirs are often
overpressured.
We mention these potential pitfalls to remind instructors that if students learn to
be careful with stress nomenclature and understand the differences and implications
of stress early in their careers, they will be better equipped to perform their future
roles in applied geosciences.
Directly measuring stresses in the earth is difficult; to combat this challenge,
there are numerous methods to indirectly constrain the magnitude and orientation of
principal stress (σ 1 , σ 2 , and σ 3 ) and/or the maximum horizontal (S Hmax ), minimum
horizontal (S hmin ), and vertical stresses (S v ). Stress is frequently reported in applied
subsurface work as a gradient (e.g., “the overburden gradient in the reservoir is
1.1 psi/ft”), which frequently is the total stress, rather than the effective stress (total
stress minus the pore pressure).
5.1.1 Calculating Vertical and Horizontal Stresses
S v is the most frequently reported stress since commonly employed downhole logs
like density or sonic logs can be used to calculate S v (Crain 2000). It is critical to
understand that these values of S v are not necessarily a principal stress and are not
always greater than S hmin and S Hmax that assumption should not be made without
examining other data.
The next most frequently reported stress is S hmin , which is also called frequently
referred to as “frac gradient” in unconventional reservoirs (a problematic term in
thrust faulting regimes since the actual stress controlling fracture initiation in those
regimes will not be oriented in the horizontal plane). S hmin is not always a principal
Fig. 10 a Numerical model of stress distribution around a salt body (red) intruded into a sequence of
shale (blue) and sand (red). The orientations of the maximum and minimum compressive principal
stresses are shown, respectively, by the red and blue tick marks. Notice the abrupt change in stress
orientation when entering and exiting the salt due to material contrast. Figure from Eckert (personal
communication). b Schematic of the orientation of the maximum principal stress orientation, which
was previously in the horizontal plane, as it approaches various structures. Figure modified from
Bell (1996). c Numerical model of stress distribution at a single depth due to topography. The
orientations of the maximum compressive and minimum compressive principal stresses are shown
by the red and blue tick marks, respectively
stress and is not necessarily σ 3 as is commonly assumed. Most downhole measure-

ments of “S hmin ” (e.g., mini-frac and leak-off tests) are measurements of the least
compressive principal stress, σ 3 , and not S hmin . Only in the case where other lines
of evidence support that S hmin is the least principal stress, σ 3 , do results of such
tests provide an estimate of S hmin . For example, in a thrust faulting regime, the test
provides a measurement of σ 3 , which is oriented more in the vertical plane. S hmin
can also be estimated from sonic logs and overburden stress (Crain 2000).
When dealing with calculations of horizontal and vertical stresses, geoscientists
should begin by interrogating the source of the data. Typical questions for vertical
stress include whether it was calculated from well log data or using an average
crustal density. Questions for the minimum horizontal stress might include whether
it was measured downhole using a mini-frac or leak-off test or estimated using a log.
Additionally, the geoscientist should investigate to see if the method determined the
least principal effective stress, σ 3, or S hmin . If the data used for stress calculations
came from downhole measurements, then they should interrogate the error in the
measurements, determine whether there were operational complications during the
test, and question the underlying assumptions regarding pore pressure. It should be
noted that if calculated from log data, the uncertainty in measured S hmin values will
be compounded with the uncertainty in S v used in the calculation. While stress is
typically reported as total stress in the oil and gas industry, it is important to find out
if the gradient being used is reported as total stress or effective stress.
In vertical wells where principal stresses are vertical and horizontal, S Hmax ori-
entation and magnitude can be constrained using compressional borehole failures
measured in image logs (Fig. 11) (e.g., Moos and Zoback 1990; Zoback and Healy
1992; Brudy et al. 1997; Zoback 2007; Chang et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2013; Huffman
and Saffer 2016; Brodsky et al. 2017). Although an example of this type of analysis
is not presented here, we mention it so that students will be familiar with the concept
due to its prevalence.
5.1.2 Principal Stresses and Fracture Propagation Direction
Fractures can help inform the orientation of principal stresses in the past when the
fractures formed. Present-day principal stress orientations, and in some cases prin-
cipal stress ratio, can be determined using earthquake focal mechanisms or fault slip
Fig. 11 a Schematic borehole cross section showing the local stress state around the circumference
of a vertical borehole relative to the far-field horizontal stresses. Compressional borehole failures
or breakouts are oriented with the least compressive horizontal stress, S hmin , and form where the
differential stress at the borehole wall exceeds the rock strength. At the edge of a breakout, stress
and strength are in equilibrium, such that breakout width can be used to determine the far-field
stress magnitudes (e.g., Zhou 1994). b Example of an unwrapped borehole resistivity image with
clearly developed breakouts. Figure modified from Huffman et al. (2016). Reprinted by permission
of AGU © 2016
data (Gephart and Forsyth 1984; Michael 1984; Angelier 1990; Lallemant et al. 1993;
Hauksson 1994; Hardebeck and Hauksson 2001; Lin et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2013).
Numerical modeling can be used to determine the orientation of principal stresses
due to topography or structures such as folds (Connolly and Goodman 2007; Eckert
et al. 2014).
Hydraulic fractures open in the orientation of σ 3 , as this is the easiest stress to
overcome in tensile mode, and they propagate in the direction of σ 2 and σ 1 (Fig. 12)
(Zoback 2007). When σ 1 S v , hydraulic fractures are generally height limited by
fracture barriers (frac barrier), which are typically in formations that have higher
stress and higher stiffness.
Fig. 12 Schematic diagrams of hydraulic fracture propagation with differing orientations of prin-
cipal stresses. a Hydraulic fracture orientation in a normal faulting regime where principal stresses
are vertical and horizontal. The fracture is typically constrained by a frac barrier, which is a forma-
tion with higher stress and stiffness. b Hydraulic fracture orientation in a strike-slip faulting regime
where principal stresses are vertical and horizontal. In this case, the fracture will typically exhibit
an increased height growth compared to that from normal faulting regime, unless a fracture barrier
with a great degree of stress and stiffness contrast is present. c Hydraulic fracture orientation in a
thrust faulting regime where principal stresses are vertical and horizontal. The fracture propagates
in horizontal direction, as S v is the minimum principal stress. d Hydraulic fracture orientation in a
normal faulting regime where principal stresses are not vertical and horizontal. The fracture opens
and propagates oblique to the horizontal and vertical plane
5.1.3 Pore Pressure and Effective Stress
Pore pressure is important to many aspects of subsurface structural interpretation and

characterization because of effective stress, not total stress, controls many aspects
of subsurface integrity. For example, a fault or a rock that is overpressured might be
much more prone to slip than if that fault is at hydrostatic pressure. Hydrostatic pore
pressure can easily be calculated using the fluid density, gravity, and depth (Crain
2000), but it assumes hydraulic connection throughout the subsurface. Pressures that
exceed hydrostatic are common in impermeable rock types, such as shales, due to
the inability of fluid to dissipate during compaction, among other reasons. Under-
standing the location and magnitude of overpressure prior to drilling is critical for
creating a safe and efficient strategy for drilling, well construction, production, and
reservoir management. Yet, pore pressure in hydrocarbon systems is difficult to con-
strain a priori. Seismic methods involve identifying zones that diverge from expected
trends in rock acoustic properties (Crain 2000). However, this does not provide an
absolute magnitude of pore pressure. After drilling a well, drilling mud weight and
drilling fluid losses/gains can be analyzed to determine a lower or upper estimate

of pore pressure magnitude, although most methods involve inherent uncertainty
(Crain 2000). Zones of overpressure can also be identified in density and sonic logs,
where measured values diverge from the expected trend (Crain 2000). Therefore,
any reported pore pressure estimate should be used with caution as it should have an
associated large range of uncertainty.
5.2 Concept 3b—Critical Stresses and Shear Failure
One common application of geomechanics is understanding fault stability. In doing

so, it is important to differentiate between past stress regimes that produced specific
structures with the current stresses acting on the subsurface. Even in tectonic margins
where there is active faulting, dynamic stresses throughout the earthquake cycle can
cause stress regimes and orientations to vary. For example, near the megasplay thrust
fault in the Nankai Trough which was activated during earthquakes as recently as
the 1940s, recent image logs indicate the area is not presently in a thrust faulting
regime and the most compressive stress is not in line with direction of tectonic
convergence (Huffman et al. 2016). When present-day stress is understood, following
the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion (Coulomb 1776), a discrete geologic feature (i.e.,
fault, fracture, bedding plane) will remain locked if the applied shear stress is less
than the strength of the contact.
Figure 13 provides an example problem set that uses the concepts of stress and
shear failure discussed above to solve common subsurface questions.
5.3 Concept 3c—Relating Stress, Strain, and Elastic

Properties
Connecting the geometry and kinematics of large-scale structures that a seismic

interpreter might identify to stresses in the earth can sometimes be difficult, because
different rocks subjected to the same stresses strain differently. This difference is
due to rock elastic properties, of which the most commonly used in subsurface
interpretation and characterization is Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. Stiffness,
or more specifically, Young’s modulus (E), is a measurable elastic property of rock
that is defined by the ratio of axial stress (S 11 ) to axial strain ε11 (Fig. 14). Relating
this to different rock types is straightforward—an instructor can use an example of
two different springs that have two different stiffness values with the same weight
hanging on the end, where the stiffer spring strains (stretches) less—but a better
example to illustrate how this relates to rock with different stiffness is illustrated in
the problem in Fig. 15. Poisson’s ratio (ν) (Fig. 15) is another commonly utilized
elastic property of rock that is defined by the ratio of lateral strain to axial strain.
Fig. 13 Example problem set of how an instructor might illustrate the practical application of stress
data to understand hydraulic fracture propagation and fault stability in the subsurface
In subsurface applications, two different types of measurements of Young’s mod-

ulus and Poisson’s ratio are often reported—while it is not expected that students will
understand all the details regarding these two methods of deriving elastic moduli,
it is helpful for them to be generally familiar with how these properties are mea-
sured and applied. Static moduli are measured directly in laboratory deformation
experiments and, thus, are a direct measurement of the way a rock deforms or strains
under an applied stress. Static moduli are used to calculate hydraulic fracture width
and propagation, in wellbore stability analysis, and should be used when calculating
stress change with depletion. Dynamic moduli are typically calculated using elastic
wave velocity and density from logs or seismic and are typically used in calculating
horizontal stress. Dynamic moduli can also be measured in a laboratory by measur-
ing acoustic velocities and density and can be compared to static moduli. Dynamic
Fig. 14 Schematic of the physical meaning of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, which are
elastic material properties that relate axial strain to axial stress and lateral strain to axial strain,
respectively
and static elastic properties are typically very different in magnitude; hence, when
dealing with elastic moduli, it is critical to know how the moduli were measured or
calculated to determine if appropriate for the intended use. There are typically good
correlations between dynamic and static Young’s moduli so one can be calculated
from the other, however, there is not always a good correlation between static and
dynamic Poisson’s ratio (Tutuncu et al. 1998).
5.4 Concept 3d—Understanding the Effects

of Geomechanics at Different Spatial Scales
Connecting structural geology and geomechanics at different spatial scales is impor-

tant to gain a holistic view of the subsurface environment. Fundamental physical
laws operate at every scale, and the large-scale behavior of a system (i.e., the kine-
matics of fault-related fold observed in an outcrop) is the net effect of the physical
processes that are operating at the grain scale, bed scale, facies scale, and all the way
up to the seismic scale. The critical components of geomechanics that operate at a
fundamental level but have a huge effect on large-scale structures are (1) stress, (2)
elastic material properties and poromechanics, and (3) strain rate-dependent mate-
rial strength and failure behavior. Although these concepts are introduced in many
introductory structure courses, the behavior in the context of scale is not typically
introduced.
A helpful way to illustrate this principle to a student is to show a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) image of a shale (Fig. 16). The bulk elastic behavior of the shale is
a function of the elastic properties of each mineral species, how they are oriented, and
Fig. 15 Example problem illustrating the difference between Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
and how both elastic properties control strain behavior in response to an applied stress
how they are distributed, or its fabric. When the rock deforms elastically, despite the
same far-field stress existing at the boundaries and the net strain of the bulk sample,
the strain is accommodated differently in each mineral so the resulting shear stress in
each component and at boundaries between differing components is modified. The
magnitude of stress inside each component species is both a function of the individual
elastic properties of that mineral and the effect of the grains or cement it is in contact
with. Although this example is in the elastic regime and does not include any failure
of components or at component boundaries, the location and time of shear failure is
a function of the distribution of shear stress in conjunction with the shear strength
of individual components and contacts, which is a function of the rock’s fabric. Two
different facies with the same volume of minerals that are distributed and oriented
differently behave differently under applied stress. If those two materials were then
layered and deformed, which is analogous to a folded stratigraphic section, the bulk
behavior of the system would be different than the behavior of the two materials
individually. The resulting fold would look very different if the materials were stacked
in a different order or at different proportions. Predicting the real-world bulk behavior
may seem overwhelming in a stratigraphic section with many different mechanical
species stacked on top of each other; luckily, numerical modeling tools allow us
to handle this complicated problem—and real-world observations from outcrop or
seismic allow us to test the validity of such models. The seemingly random stacking of
mechanical units seen in an outcrop can be put in the context of sequence stratigraphy
to arrive at some a priori understanding of the expected distribution of mechanical
layers. Thus, by moving from the very small scale and the fundamental physics
that govern material behavior all the way to the outcrop, seismic, and sequence
stratigraphic scale, geomechanics can be integrated into structural geology.
6 The Future of Subsurface Interpretation
Probably, the most difficult challenge for structural geology instructors in the twenty-
first century is keeping the material in their classes relevant in a time when the
skillsets demanded by their students’ future employers are constantly changing. The
rise of and spread of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are likely to
have big impacts on the way geoscientists handle and interpret subsurface data in
the future. This will be a new challenge for students, as they will have to become
fluent not only in working with structural data in the digital realm, but they will
also need to be familiar with some of the underlying principles that govern AI and
machine learning. Supplemental courses in computer science and data science can
broaden students’ skillsets and help them connect these emerging technologies with
fundamental structural geology concepts and workflows. Instructors should remind
students that the skillsets they need to succeed in applied geoscience fields change
quickly and constantly and they need to be adaptable after they enter the workforce.
If the past is any indication for future directions, technology has not proven to be a
panacea for the challenges of subsurface structural interpretation, and there is still a
place for geoscientists who are well grounded in basic structural geology principles
and can creatively apply them across all spatial and temporal dimensions.
In addition to digital technology changing the way applied geoscientists work,
advances in drilling technology will continue to change the type of work applied
geoscientists are engaged in. Most projections expect that the development of uncon-
ventional resources will continue at a rapid pace (Tinker 2017). This means that
the geomechanical skills and concepts discussed above will become increasingly
important. For many applied geoscientists, geomechanics will be the aspect of their
undergraduate structural geology training they will use the most. Since many of
these geomechanical concepts are important at the pore-scale, current and future
geoscientists will need to get better at integrating across all scales of subsurface
interpretation, from the pore-scale to wellbore scale, to seismic and basin scales.
Additionally, as carbon capture and storage technologies become more viable, more
subsurface interpreters will be applying their skills on carbon sequestration projects,
which have their own unique structural geology challenges.
Fig. 16 SEM image of a shale (a) and results of a numerical simulation (b) showing the concen-
tration of shear stress when the sample is subjected to a small amount of strain on the boundary,
where red is high shear stress and blue is low shear stress. The distribution and magnitude of stress
is a function of the elastic properties of the individual parts and their orientation and distribution
7 Conclusions
Most of the skills and concepts discussed in this paper are simple, time tested, and
fundamental to successful subsurface structural interpretation, yet are commonly not
applied properly in modern subsurface interpretation projects. Effective and accu-
rate structural subsurface interpretation and characterization are built upon a strong
foundation of structural geology principles coupled with experience and practice.
Structural geology instructors that wish to keep their course material relevant for
students should maintain continuous dialogue with applied geoscientists in various
fields, so that they understand what the current skills gaps are for recent graduates.
While we recognize that most applied geoscientists will not be structural geology
subject matter experts, we think that by internalizing and mastering the key con-
cepts and skills detailed above and by carefully applying those in their projects,
applied geoscientists will be able to accurately interpret and characterize the struc-
tural geology in most of their subsurface projects. Of course, there will always be
more complicated subsurface structural problems for which the generalist geoscien-
tist will need to engage structural geology specialists; therefore, it is also important
for interpreters to understand the limits of their knowledge and skills and to know
when they should seek out additional structural geology expertise from recognized
subject matter experts. Applied geoscientists who have mastered the skills and con-
cepts detailed here, coupled with expertise in their own subdiscipline, will therefore
become valuable assets on multi-disciplinary teams working on any of the exciting
subsurface problems of the future.
Acknowledgements We thank Patrick Brennan, Frank Richards, Greg Schoenborn, Peter Con-
nolly, and numerous other colleagues at Chevron for informal conversations that influenced the
ideas in this paper. Chris Guzofski, JoAnn Gage, and Vincent Heesakkers provided comments that
greatly improved the manuscript. We thank Dean Thornton at Chevron for contributing some of
the geomechanics figures. We are also thankful to management at Chevron for giving permission
to publish this work. This paper was also improved thanks to the comments and suggestions from
the volume editor, Soumyajit Mukherjee.
References
Alcalde J, Bond CE, Johnson G, Butler RW, Cooper MA, Ellis JF (2017) The importance of structural
model availability on seismic interpretation. J Struct Geol 97:161–171
Allmendinger RW (2017) Modern structural practice. p 325 http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/
faculty/RWA/structure-lab-manual/
Angelier J (1990) Inversion of field data in fault tectonics to obtain the regional stress: 3. A new
rapid direct inversion method by analytical means. Geophys J Int 103:363–376
Audet DM, Fowler AC (1992) A mathematical model for compaction in sedimentary basins. Geo-
phys J Int 110(3):577–590
Beer JA, Allmendinger RW, Figueroa DE, Jordan TE (1990) Seismic stratigraphy of a Neogene
piggyback basin, Argentina. Am Assoc Petrol Geol Bull 74:1183–1202
Bell JS (1996) Petro geoscience 2. In situ stresses in sedimentary rocks (part 2): applications of
stress measurements. Geosci Can 23(3):135–153
Bjørlykke K (2015) Introduction to petroleum geology. In: Bjørlykke K (ed) Petroleum geoscience.
Springer, Berlin, pp 1–29
Bond CE, Gibbs AD, Shipton ZK, Jones S (2007) What do you think this is? Conceptual uncertainty
in geoscience interpretation. GSA Today 17(11):4
Bond CE, Philo C, Shipton ZK (2011) When there isn’t a right answer: interpretation and reasoning,
key skills for twenty-first century geoscience. Int J Sci Educ 33(5):629–652
Bond CE, Lunn RJ, Shipton ZK, Lunn AD (2012) What makes an expert effective at interpreting
seismic images? Geology 40:75–78. https://doi.org/10.1130/G32375.1
Bose N, Mukherjee S (2017) Map interpretation for structural geologists. Developments in structural
geology and tectonics. Mukherjee S (Series Editor). Elsevier, Amsterdam. ISBN: 978-0-12-
809681-9
Brodsky EE, Saffer D, Fulton P, Chester F, Conin M, Huffman K, Moore JC, Wu HY (2017) The
postearthquake stress state on the Tohoku megathrust as constrained by reanalysis of the JFAST
breakout data. Geophys Res Lett 44:8294–8302. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074027
Brown AR (2011) Interpretation of three-dimensional seismic data. Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p 665
Brudy M, Zoback MD, Fuchs K, Rummel F, Baumgärtner J (1997) Estimation of the complete
stress tensor to 8 km depth in the KTB scientific drill holes: implications for crustal strength. J
Geophys Res 102(B8):18453–18475. https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB02942
Busk, HG (1929) Earth flexures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Chamberlin RT (1910) The Appalachian folds of central Pennsylvania. J Geol 18(3):228–251
Chang C, McNeill L, Moore JC, Lin W, Conin M, Yamada Y (2010) In situ stress state in the
Nankai accretionary wedge estimated from borehole wall failures. Geochem Geophys Geosyst
11:Q0AD04. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gc003261
Chapman TJ, Williams GD (1984) Displacement-distance methods in the analysis of fold-thrust
structures and linked-fault systems. J Geol Soc 141(1):121–128
Connolly P, Goodman HE (2007) Reconciling subsurface uncertainty with the appropriate well
design using the mechanical earth model (MEM) approach. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/108847-ms
Coulomb CA (1776) Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelquels
problemesde statique relatifs, a la architecture. Mem Acad Roy Div Sav 7:343–387
Crain ER (2000) Crain’s petrophysical handbook, an internet-based worldwide eLearning project
for petrophysics 3rd millennium edition, https://www.spec2000.net/00-index.htm
Dahlstrom CDA (1969) Balanced cross sections. Can J Earth Sci 6(4):743–757
Dasgupta T, Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S (2018) Image log interpretation of geomechanical issues.
In: Fagereng A, Billi A (eds) Problems and solutions in structural geology and tectonics. Devel-
opments in structural geology and tectonics book series. Mukherjee S (Series Editor). Elsevier,
New York. ISSN: 2542-9000
Dragoset B (2005) A historical reflection on reflections. Lead Edge 24(1):46–70. https://doi.org/
10.1190/1.2112392
Eckert A, Connolly P, Liu X (2014) Large-scale mechanical buckle fold development and the
initiation of tensile fractures. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 15:4570–4587
Eichelberger NW, Nunns AG, Groshong RH Jr, Hughes AN (2017) Direct estimation of fault
trajectory from structural relief. AAPG Bull 101(5):635–653
Elliott D (1976) The motion of thrust sheets. J Geophys Res 81(5):949–963
Elliott D (1983) The construction of balanced cross-sections. J Struct Geol 5(2):101
Epard JL, Groshong RH Jr (1993) Excess area and depth to detachment. AAPG Bull
77(8):1291–1302
Erslev EA (1991) Trishear fault-propagation folding. Geology 19(6):617–620
Fagin S (1996) The fault shadow problem: its nature and elimination. Lead Edge 15(9):1005–1013
Gephart JW, Forsyth DW (1984) An improved method for determining the regional stress tensor
using earthquake focal mechanism data: application to the San Fernando earthquake sequence. J
Geophys Res 89:9305–9320. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB11p09305
Gill WD (1953) Construction of geologic sections of folds with steep limb attenuation. AAPG
Bulletin 37:2389–2406
Groshong RH Jr (2006) 3-D structural geology. Springer, Berlin
Groshong RH, Epard JL (1994) The role of strain in area-constant detachment folding. J Struct
Geol 16(5):613–618
Hardebeck JL, Hauksson E (2001) Crustal stress field in southern California and its implications for
fault mechanics. J Geophys Res 106(B10):21859–21882. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000292
Hardy S, Ford M (1997) Numerical modeling of trishear fault propagation folding. Tectonics
16(5):841–854
Hardy S, Poblet J (1994) Geometric and numerical model of progressive limb rotation in detachment
folds. Geology 22(4):371–374
Hauksson E (1994) State of stress from focal mechanisms before and after the 1992 landers earth-
quake sequence. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:917–934
Hudec MR, Jackson MP (2007) Terra infirma: understanding salt tectonics. Earth Sci Rev 82(1):1–28
Hudec MR, Jackson MP, Vendeville BC, Schultz-Ela DD, Dooley TP (2011) The salt mine: a digital
atlas of salt tectonics. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Udden
book series no. 5, AAPG Memoir 99, 305 p
Huffman KA, Saffer DM (2016) In situ stress magnitudes at the toe of the Nankai Trough
Accretionary Prism, offshore Shikoku Island, Japan. Journal of Geophys Res Solid Earth
121.2:1202–1217
Huffman KA, Saffer DM, Dugan B (2016) In situ stress magnitude and rock strength in the Nankai
accretionary complex: a novel approach using paired constraints from downhole data in two wells.
Earth, Planets and Space 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0491-4
Jamison WR (1987) Geometric analysis of fold development in overthrust terranes. J Struct Geol
9(2):207–219
Kim YS, Sanderson DJ (2005) The relationship between displacement and length of faults: a review.
Earth Sci Rev 68(3):317–334
Lallemant SJ, Byrne T, Maltman A, Karig D, Henry P (1993) Stress tensors at the toe of the Nankai
accretionary prism: an application of inverse methods to slickenlined faults. In: Hill IA et al (eds)
Proceedings of the ODP, scientific results, vol 131. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station,
Texas, pp 103–122
Lin W, Conin M, Moore JC, Chester F, Nakamura Y, Mori J, Anderson L, Brodsky EE, Eguchi
N, Expedition 343 Scientists (2013) Stress state in the largest displacement area of the 2011
Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Science 339(6120):687–690
Lin W, Byrne TB, Kinoshita M, McNeill LC, Chang C, Lewis JC, Tsuji T (2016) Distribution of
stress state in the Nankai subduction zone, southwest Japan and a comparison with Japan Trench.
Losh S, Eglington L, Schoell P, Wood J (1999) Vertical and lateral fluid flow related to a large
growth fault, south Eugene Island Block 330, offshore Louisiana. AAPG Bull 82:1694–1710
Macrae EJ, Bond CE, Shipton ZK, Lunn RJ (2016) Increasing the quality of seismic interpretation.
Interpretation 4(3):T395–T402
Magoon, LB, Dow, WG (1994) The petroleum system—from source to trap: AAPG memoir 60.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 644 p
Michael AJ (1984) Determination of stress from slip data: faults and folds. J Geophys Res
89:11517–11526. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB13p11517
Misra AA, Mukherjee S (eds) (2018) Atlas of structural geological interpretation from seismic
images. John Wiley & Sons
Moos D, Zoback M (1990) Utilization of observations of well bore failure to constrain the ori-
entation and magnitude of crustal stresses: applications to continental deep sea drilling project,
and ocean drilling program boreholes. J Geophys Res 95:9305–9325. https://doi.org/10.1029/

JB095iB06p09305
Moretti I (1998) The role of faults in hydrocarbon migration. Petrol Geosci 4(81–94). https://doi.
org/10.1144/petgeo.4.1.81
Nicol A, Walsh JJ, Watterson J, Gillespie PA (1996) Fault size distributions—are they really power-
law? J Struct Geol 18(2–3):191–197
Richards FL, Richardson NJ, Bond CE, Cowgill M (2015) Interpretational variability of struc-
tural traps: implications for exploration risk and volume uncertainty. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ
421(1):7–27
Selley R, Sonnenberg SA (2014) Elements of petroleum geology. Academic Press, Cambridge
Shaw JH, Novoa E, Connors CD (2004) Structural controls on growth stratigraphy in contractional
fault-related folds. In: McClay KR (ed) Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG Memoir
82. 400–412 p
Shaw JH, Connors CD, Suppe J (eds) (2005) Seismic interpretation of contractional fault-related
folds: an AAPG seismic atlas 53. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Sheriff RE, Geldart LP (1995) Exploration seismology. University Press, Cambridge
Stewart SA (2012) Interpretation validation on vertically exaggerated reflection seismic sections. J
Struct Geol 41:38–46
Suppe J (1983) Geometry and kinematics of fault-bend folding. Am J Sci 283(7):684–721
Suppe J, Medwedeff DA (1990) Geometry and kinematics of fault-propagation folding. Eclogae
Geol Helv 83(3):409–454
Suppe J, Chou GT, Hook SC (1992) Rates of folding and faulting determined from growth strata.
Thrust tectonics 1:105–121
Suppe J, Connors CD, Zhang Y (2004) Shear fault-bend folding. In: McClay KR (ed) Thrust
tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG Memoir 82. 303–323 p
Tearpock DJ, Bischke RE (2002) Applied subsurface geological mapping with structural methods.
Pearson Education, London
Tinker S (2017) The next 100 years of global energy: Part I energy security and energy poverty.
In: The next 100 years of global energy use: resources, impacts and economics at AAPG annual
convention and exhibition, Houston, Texas, 4 Apr 2017. Retrieved from AAPG datapages, search
and discovery article #70268
Trudgill BD, Rowan MG (2004) Integrating 3D seismic data with structural restorations to elucidate
the evolution of a stepped counter-regional salt system, Eastern Louisiana Shelf, Northern Gulf
of Mexico. Geol Soc Lond Mem 29(1):165–176
Tutuncu A, Podio A, Gregory A, Sharma M (1998) Nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of sedimentary
rocks, Part I: effect of frequency and strain amplitude. Geophysics 63(1):184–194. https://doi.
org/10.1190/1.1444311
Wilson C (2016) Status of recent geoscience graduates. American Geosciences Institute. https://
www.americangeosciences.org/sites/default/files/ExitSurvey_2016_final.pdf. Accessed Jan 1
2018
Yang YR, Johnson KM, Chuang RY (2013) Inversion for absolute deviatoric crustal stress using
focal mechanisms and coseismic stress changes: the 2011 M9 Tohoku-oki, Japan, earthquake. J
Geophys Res Solid Earth 118:5516–5529. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50389
Zhou S (1994) A program to model the initial shape and extent of borehole breakout. Comput
Geosci 20:1143–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-3004(94)90068-X
Zoback MD (2007) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, New York
Zoback MD, Healy JH (1992) In situ stress measurements to 3.5 km depth in the Cajon Pass
scientific research borehole: implications for the mechanics of crustal faulting. J Geophys Res
97:5039–5057. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JB02175
Structural Geology Field Exercises
of Intermediate to More Advanced
Complexity from the Classic Black Hills
of South Dakota
Jeffrey K. Greenberg
Abstract Training geoscience students in the methods of modern structural field

analysis occurs in some degree during conventional coursework, on field trip excur-
sions, in the process of undertaking undergraduate or graduate research projects, and
while participating in extended programs usually referred to as “field camp.” Until
the mid- to later 1980s, field course curricula were required for most university or
college geoscience degrees in the USA. This educational fixture has declined over the
last few decades, becoming lost or optional from many geology degree programs.
Most recently, industry, government, and academia have recognized this decrease
in emphasis as a mistake. The basic understanding of geological field methods is
essential in many contexts beyond structural analysis. Advanced courses or those
that include advanced problems are also of great benefit to students who will study
structural geology as application in economic geology, local and regional tectonics,
petrology, geochemical and geophysical studies, etc. The Black Hills of South Dakota
in the USA is a region long exploited for instruction in field methods, because of its
centrality, relatively accessible from much of the nation. It is also a small area rich
in many classic, wonderful examples of structural features in diverse tectonic rela-
tionship. Certain localities within the Precambrian core of this uplift have provided
great case study exercises to extend structural analysis beyond the basics. Five areas
described for advanced instruction offer “hard rock” associations of metamorphic
and some intrusive complexities.
Keywords Black Hills · South Dakota · USA · Field exercises

Precambrian crystalline rock · Structural analysis
J. K. Greenberg (B)
Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA

160 J. K. Greenberg
1 Introduction
The American Geoscience Institute (AGI) monitors many aspects of the science,
including academic trends. Surveys over a few decades indicate changes in ways
that field instruction is treated in university geoscience curricula (Earth Magazine
2013). Field camp programs for training undergraduate geology majors have gone
from 257 in 1995 to around 120 in 2018 for inclusion as degree requirements. Rea-
sons for this in the USA include the relative expense in conducting a specific sum-
mer program outside the main campus venue. There is also a sense that traditional
fieldwork is less necessary in modern times than back when mapping and resource
exploration were “by foot.” Thus, field camp curricula were “fading in importance
as a capstone.” (see Drummond Editorial in the Journal of Geoscience Education,
2001, Can Field Camps Survive? http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/columns/editorials.
html#edv49n3). That same attitude may elevate remote, instrumental analysis of
all sorts above the more human practice of ground coverage. As the science became
more integrated into sophisticated theoretical studies, geochemistry, and geophysics,
the old-style geologist seemed passé. That perspective has lost momentum, with a
renewal of fundamental observational and data collection skills in most institutional
contexts.
“Field Camps” or programs conducted mostly over the summer, after the typical
school year in North America, can be statistically examined to identify a normative
collection of topics and skills to cover. Standard deviations among the many pro-
grams (again, about 120, according to the National Association of Geology Teachers
and the US Geological Survey 2017), would indicate that some instruction is consid-
ered essential, while a few other concepts and methods, such as hydrogeological, are
less widespread. Most of these courses can be considered fundamental and appro-
priate for all undergraduate geology students. It may also be desirable to serve some
advanced students, undergraduate, or graduate, with more focused, intense instruc-
tion pertinent to the characteristics of their research. The types of projects described
below could prepare novice investigators with more background such that they avoid
many mistakes and field time wasted. Instructors in Structure and Tectonics may also
desire to have useable examples of advanced projects so that they can develop similar
exercises in other areas and with other features. It is hoped that the five projects of
interest here are outlined in a fashion that will assist the development of others.
The five project exercises are from the excellent exposure of Precambrian rocks
in the South Dakota Black Hills, essentially a tectonic dome uplifted as the eastern-
most portion of the Laramide Rocky Mountains. Each project involves metamorphic
materials of igneous and sedimentary derivation. Each project analyzes structural
elements related to Precambrian tectonism. A modern course in structural geology
with weekly laboratory assignments ought to be considered an essential prerequisite
for these advanced exercises. All five could be completed in two weeks. However,
one or more could be selected as later parts of conventional field courses.
Each of the following sections presents an exercise from a single outcrop or a few
in direct association over a limited area. These locations are indicated on the Black
Structural Geology Field Exercises of Intermediate … 161
Fig. 1 Outline map of Black Hills Precambrian region, with locations of the structural exercise
projects indicated by 1–5. The main Harney Peak Granite exposure (HPG) is labeled in the south,
and the two areas of Archean-aged (2.5 Ga) foliated granitic rocks are shown in gray shading.
Dotted, unspecified isograds and folded-line forms indicate prominent supracrustal units, based on
the geologic map of DeWitt et al. (1986)
Hills regional map (Fig. 1). Descriptions of the five exposure areas and the details
for their analysis occur in order from (a) where (location) to (j) evaluation.
162 J. K. Greenberg
2 The Five Projects
1. Little Elk Creek (LEC) Project
(a) Where—Latitude: 44-14-11-68 N, longitude: 103-27-58-11 W (Fig. 1).

(b) Extent Scale—Students map macro-scale structures exposed on six significant
outcrops of the LEC “gneissic granite” (Zartman and Stern 1967) along the
named creek, over a distance of 1200 m from southwest to northeast. This
metaigneous rock is late-Archean (2.5 Ga) and the oldest known unit in the
Black Hills (Gosselin et al. 1988). The mapping scale is approximately 1:150.
(c) Regional Context and Local Geology—The LEC granitic outcrops, along with
a few other probable, contemporaneous, late-Archean metaplutonic exposures
(Fig. 1), represent the Black Hill’s basement complex. There is no clear country
rock terrane identified as host for the original intrusion of the granitic material.
The existing material may possess remnants of original magmatic textures, but
fabric development and feldspar growth imply significant recrystallization and
potential metasomatic change. Comparing fabrics and deformational orienta-
tions just outside the LEC outcrop area with those in the LEC “basement” may
indicate if Archean features are preserved, or if all structures are from later
Proterozoic tectonism. Jenkins and Allard (2011) provide a good framework
for the correlation of LEC units with other Black Hills Proterozoic rocks.
(d) Objectives—The mapping is accomplished over a maximum of two days (7 h per
day), individually, in order to practice observation–identification–documenta-
tion and ultimately interpretation of the strain-kinematic significance of impor-
tant minor structures (Fig. 2). The local interpretation is then placed in a more
regional tectonic context. Students work on one outcrop until completion (ade-
quate coverage of all features) before moving on to evaluate all those chosen for
the project. Outcrops are generally flat with 3D relationships only discernable
among about 20% of the combined exposure. The particular features for this
investigation include
• Foliation defined by biotite concentrations and flattened feldspar augen (S1 );
• Secondary, cross-cutting foliations demonstrated by SC surfaces (Fig. 2a;
Lister and Snoke 1984) and other non-penetrative fabrics (S2 − Sn );
• Lineations defined by biotite and quartz-feldspar porphyroblast elongation
and fold hinges;
• Shear zones (Fig. 2b) defined by concentrations of micas and mylonitic-
ductile flattening of quartzo-feldspathic segregations (some parallel to the
major S1 orientation, parallel to S2 , or neither) see Mukherjee (2017);
• Quartz veins (Fig. 2c), mapped as discontinuous lenses or more dike-like, in
various orientations, mostly parallel to other planar features;
• Poorly developed folds, defined by broad wrapping of foliations or by
cm-scale blocks rotated within shear zones;
• Aplites and pegmatites, as distinctive sub-planar dikes/segregations, exhibit-
ing properties of earlier, magmatic as well as later tectonic character.
Fig. 2 Photographs of Little Elk Creek “gneissic granite” outcrop features, a double, cross-cutting
foliations (“SC” geometry), on near-vertical surface, b shear zone displaying ‘s’-shaped minor
folds, on horizontal surface, and c quartz vein with regular fractures (blue outline) along dextral
shear plane with dragged foliation (in red), on horizontal surface
Crucial observations are necessary to arrive at a hypothetical sequence of

cross-cutting. Relationships among the features.
This project is considered an advanced exercise for undergraduate geology
students and is only undertaken after four weeks of more basic practice and
mapping of larger areas. The LEC experience is an opportunity to add more
technical-structural detail than other projects that emphasize stratigraphy and
larger fold–fault features.
(e) Skills Required and Practiced—The analysis of various features on the outcrop
surface extends the use of compass measurements beyond planes to collecting
abundant lineations, commonly as rake angles and directions on foliation sur-
faces and down plunge of fold axes. This project in particular challenges the
students to take measurements more quickly (in order to get adequate, if not
statistically essential numbers of data). At the same time, they are urged to be
sure their measurements are correct, within reasonable error. The assembling of
stereonet data compilations is done both on paper and compared with images
produced via software programs (available as applications on smart phones).
Common error sources such as picking the 180° wrong dip direction are more
quickly eliminated by practice. All data types, separately recorded on stereonets,
are evaluated for each outcrop and then compiled for the whole area (Fig. 3).
The 2D nature of most exposures limits many measurements, such that rose
164 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 3 Stereonet–rose diagram compilations from Summer 2014 exercise: a averaged main folia-
tions, S1 , b aplite strikes, c averaged shear zone strikes
diagrams are most helpful in indicating clustering of strikes for foliation, shear
zones, and aplite dikes. Where exposed in three dimensions, all planar structures
are dominantly steeply dipping. Likewise, lineations along foliations have steep
rakes, plunging near vertically.
This project also requires a good ability to construct pace and compass sketch
maps of smaller areas. Each outcrop shape is sketched with a common north
orientation, and the distances between mapped features are estimated. Out-
crops are mostly flat, stream worn, with a few places displaying vertical relief.
Three-dimensional control is common enough to allow some good feature mea-
surements. At LEC, the light color of the rock needs the addition of stream
water wetting to reveal subtler features. It is crucial that observations include
the order of any cross-cutting relationships. Final outcrop sketches depict the
features symbolically and with proper relationship to each other (Fig. 4). Thin
sections of LEC granitic samples are available in the laboratory room at the
Wheaton College field station. Students in the summer mapping program have
taken both general petrography and structural geology courses as prerequisites.
They are expected to use the thin section information to help determine metaig-
neous character and describe deformational aspects in thin section.
(f) Instruction Preface—A full briefing on expectations for the project is provided
on the evening before mapping. Procedural outlines and topographic base maps
are given to help guide the work. Students are acquainted with the pertinent
geology as background. Each project has its own distinctive issues that could
cause difficulties. These are described and hopefully averted. This outcrop area
poses no opportunities for getting lost or injured away from colleagues. Once
equipped with essential knowledge and the basic tools, the instructor walks out
the entire area while pointing out features. At least one of each structural feature
is also analyzed by the instructor, demonstrating proper observational and data
collection techniques.
(g) Supervision Onsite—The instructor or instructors essentially patrol the entire
length of the project area along the stream, in order to answer questions and
to check on student progress. Students are not allowed to “share” their work at
this time in their program. It is important that each student actually exercises
their methods of analysis while observed by an instructor. Without inordinate
interruptions, the instructor(s) can also continually ask questions to help keep
the work on track. Supervising instructors must be sure to encourage the less
skilled students and to keep everyone on schedule to complete the project on
time.
(h) Data Collection and Processing—Participants need to know how much data
represents adequate coverage at each outcrop. Some features are relatively scarce
and will not be shown with the confidence as others. Stereonet–rose diagram
plotting can be done on site if they have digital applications available. Frequent
review of data collected should indicate if more is needed and from where in
the area. The actual processing of the data requires translation of stereonets
into real-world 3-D imagination. This component of the research is typically
quite difficult but also for advanced study, essential. Inferences drawn from
structural geology books and the prerequisite course will ultimately derive strain
“pictures” from the features. These in turn can then be carefully interpreted in
terms of tectonic (and/or magmatic for dikes) stress environments. In the case
of the LEC outcrops, there is a good sense that the great majority of features
are related to a tectonic stress regime and probably of Early Proterozoic age.
How much and in what way the post-magmatic features were influenced by the
original granitic fabric remains problematical.
(i) Report and Presentation—Project results to evaluate the quality of the exercise
include a “report of investigation,” with introduction, geological background,
methods of investigation, basic description of outcrops (generalized), data col-
lected, data interpretation and conclusion. Each report includes the final outcrop
166 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 4 Undergraduate student-generated sketch map of the LEC project, with symbology and topo-
graphic location reference (Summer 2014 exercise)
map(s) with detailed legend, all stereonets carefully annotated, and interpretive
sketches (Fig. 4).
(j) Evaluation—Participants fill out a brief self-evaluation on their experience, with

a critique of positives and negatives. Instructors evaluate student performance
according to a template-rubric. Not all students have the same background. Some
have more geology classes completed and maybe even supervised field experi-
ence. By this time in the larger field program, instructors will know their students
fairly well. Grades are awarded in three major categories: (1) effort–attitude, (2)
aptitudes demonstrated, and (3) growth in learning. The most accomplished in
skills and creativity, etc., will likely score high in #2. However, other students
may well excel at #1 or #3, which are educationally as significant as #2.
2A, B Rochford Area Mini-Exercise
(a) Where—Approximately 6.3 km west of Rochford on the north side of State

Road 231—Latitude: 44-08-33-36 N, longitude: 103-48-33-97 W (Figs. 1 and
5).
(b) Extent Scale—The detailed analysis is of a single outcrop approximately 11 m
long, 2.5 m wide, and 4 m high above ground level. The entire feature is com-
posed of the same phyllite, Sage Creek Formation on the 1:24,000 geologic
map (Fig. 5; Bayley 1972). This same Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rock
is exposed along almost a 3 km segment of South Dakota SR 231. The com-
plete exercise also includes examination and interpretation of a high roadcut,
described below, along the same road on the western edge of Rochford (location
2B).
(c) Regional Context and Local Geology—The region of the central Black
Hills around Rochford is famous as one of the main gold-mining districts,
for both placer and “hard rock” deposits. The gold is hosted by extensive
sequences of metasedimentary units, mostly classified as schists, phyllites,
quartzites–metagraywackes, and iron formations, all within the major pack-
Fig. 5 Portion of the Rochford area geologic map (from Bayley 1972): western outcrop (A), eastern
Rochford outcrop (B). Sage Creek Formation in yellow tint. Rochford Formation in red tint. Scale
given by section lines at 1 mile intervals
168 J. K. Greenberg
age of Paleoproterozoic supracrustal deposits (DeWitt et al. 1986). The great

abundance of metavolcanic units observed in many other areas of the Black
Hills is absent in this immediate area. The metamorphic grade ranges from
Biotite into the Garnet isograd of Greenschist to Lower Amphibolite Facies.
The roadcut of interest at Rochford (2B) displays almandine garnet + cumming-
tonite in layers considered iron formation of the Rochford Formation (Bayley
1972). Macro-to mega-scopic structural patterns are locally very similar to the
extremely tight and steeply plunging folds that are well known at the Homes-
take Gold Mine, to the northeast. The intensity of layer-parallel strain seems to
be greater to the east in Rochford than to the west where the primary analyt-
ical exercise is conducted. Folds and associated features are particularly well
exhibited where the phyllite–schist contains layers of quartz, interpreted both as
original quartzite–metachert bands and as displaced and transposed quartz veins
(Fig. 6a, b). Quartz veining in the region strongly suggests multiple episodes
of development and a progressive history of rotation accompanying increased
non-coaxial strain.
The phyllite of the Sage Creek Formation at the conspicuous western exposure
(2A, Figs. 5 and 7) has a rusty patina, mostly from the oxidation of biotite
and hematite segregations. The rock is compositionally homogeneous, fine-
to medium-grained biotite + muscovite ± chlorite and quartz. There are no
porphyroblasts, and the main foliation has variations in some crenulated surfaces
(Fig. 7). Specimens exhibit small-amplitude, high-frequency crenulations in one
direction, or some have “interfering” patterns of crenulation; it all depends on the
proximity to macro-scale folds. Quartz segregations, commonly as boudinage
features, occur in parts of the exposure (Fig. 8).
The nature of this outcrop that makes it an ideal student project is the evidence
for cross-folding discerned through analysis of orientation data. Viewing the
rock from the roadway emphasizes one set of folds. Another, “later,” strain
refolds the first set and is observed from 90°, parallel to the road (Fig. 7a, b).
(d) Objectives—Students have half a day to do an initial reconnaissance of the
isolated outcrop, make a sketch, and then climb all over the rock to record all
possible types of orientation data. Students are required to measure the outcrop
by tape and to sketch it from two perspectives, one approximately northeast, per-
pendicular to the road and a nearly orthogonal view, to the northwest (Fig. 9). The
drawing scale is about 1:30. The best lighting for the project is a partly cloudy
day, without continuous, direct sunlight. Close examination of the entire outcrop
is essential for discernment of important structural features. One quickly learns
that some wetting is needed to accentuate quartz segregations, distinguished
from the darker phyllitic layering. It is vital pedagogy in macroscopic structural
analysis, to demonstrate how each rock type, in various settings requires dif-
ferent observational techniques. This exercise emphasizes a three-dimensional
context that is commonly unavailable. The phyllite is accessible from four sides
and carefully, from above. The particular structural elements of interest here
include:
Fig. 6 Rochford Formation outcrop photographs from location B, a transposition of quartz veins
and metachert segregations into rootless isoclinal folds, b faint, folded layering in rootless metachert
segregation with interlayered folded carbonate bands
170 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 7 Outcrop photographs of the western (A) exercise location, a view to the NE and b view to
the NW
Fig. 8 Western outcrop showing folded phyllite and offset quartz boudins indicating sense of
rotation
Fig. 9 Student sketch of the western outcrop with data stations numbered and some features indi-
cated (Summer 2016 exercise). The main NE view is left of the NW orthogonal view
172 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 10 Stereonet compilations from 2016 student data. Few data represent the NW and SE plung-
ing cross-folds from the NW view. a Axial planes, b folded foliation surfaces, c fold axes trend and
plunge, d poles to axial planes, e poles to foliation surfaces
• A dominant low-angle foliation, phyllitic layering (S1 in this context) is dip-

ping NW to SE, as it wraps around the most-pronounced, smaller set of folds
(Fig. 10);
• The most obvious, smaller folds are chevron-like, with highly inflected to
more rounded hinges, plunging 20–30° NE and SW, symmetrical to mod-
erately asymmetrical, upright to slightly overturned, with near-vertical to
steeply dipping (NW) axial planes, and with amplitudes of 0.1–0.5 m (F2 in
this context);
• Crenulation cleavage forms continuous to less frequently disjunctive sec-
ondary foliation, S2 , that is, axial planar to the F2 folds;
• Lineations include the fold axes–hinge lines, crenulation hinges, and quartz
boudin-rods;
• There are a few small, very tightly refolded earlier folds that are represented
by rotated quartz boudins and subtle interfolial folds, also seen by the contrast
between quartz and phyllite laminae;
• Larger-scale, perhaps later folds of amplitudes as much as 2 m and broad,
rounded hinges trend mostly SE with less to the NW. Hinges plunge from 10
to 15° to the NW and 25–45° to the SE on the better-developed folds (F3 or
possibly later F2 , in the local context). These are not shown on the stereonets
(Fig. 10). The sense of asymmetry is noted in the smaller, tighter, maybe
earlier fold set with steeper, shorter limbs on the SE, indicating a left-over-
right vergence. This rotation is also noted in the earliest, refolded folds and
boudin-rods of quartz (Figs. 8 and 9).
(e) Skills Required and Practiced—Time devoted to this exercise allows each inves-
tigator to collect an adequate number of data measurements from the outcrop,
with the NE and NW perspectives providing most measurements. Careful obser-
vation of better-exposed folds is necessary to determine the correct trend and
plunge of axes. Compass positioning and reading here take practice. Students
learn to use their hands and clipboard surfaces as spatial extensions of struc-
tures for proper visualization and measurement. The concept of non-cylindrical
folding, in this case, due to cross-folds, becomes apparent as axes directions are
recorded with nearly bimodal plunges along the same trend line. Orientation
data collected is recorded for each type of feature and given a location identi-
fier (in notes as F2 -1-14, F3 -1-5, S2 -1-10, etc.) on the outcrop sketch (Fig. 9).
At about the halftime point in the effort, the group plots their existing data on
stereonets (Fig. 10). This is quickly executed with the apps on their phones
or computer tablets. There is an initial discussion of pattern recognition made
before finishing the assignment. At this point, students can see the 3D relation-
ships emerging from a limited amount of data. Once everyone has completed the
essential minimum of measurements, the class returns to their base to complete
the project work.
(f) Instruction Preface—This exercise is conducted once the concepts of structural
elements, their relationships, and their measurement have been covered in lec-
ture and initial field demonstration. The exercise is of intermediate complexity
and should only follow other field assignments where compasses are used for
general strike and dip, trend, and plunge determination. The topics of multi-
ple generation of structures, such as polyphase folding and fold interference,
are important background. The Wheaton College summer program for majors
requires a comprehensive course in structural geology as prerequisite. Once
onsite of the Road 231 outcrop, the instructor must clearly describe expecta-
tions, and it is best to demonstrate methods. This can be done with a minimum
of giving away the details of the observable features. A little time for discovery
can be required, so that students seek out and identify the diversity of elements,
before instructors do it for them.
(g) Supervision Onsite—It is extremely important to encourage the participants and
carefully see that nobody is too slow or too confused. This demands instructors
to spend adequate time with each student, monitoring their work. Compass
measurement can be a big challenge for some people. It is too easy to misread
data or to reverse a dip/plunge direction. It is always wise to apply a mini-quiz
for each person to see if they do comprehend what was taught and hopefully
learned. It is also essential to discourage too much information sharing among
the class. As all veteran instructors have witnessed, students too easily either
give away what they have discovered, or others are too eager to take the ideas of
their peers without personal discernment. This can be envisioned as the “ionic
bonding” phenomenon of a giver and a taker, instead of the mutual strengthening
of true cooperation, the “covalent bonding” relationship.
(h) Data Collection and Processing—As described, this is an opportunity for geol-
ogy students to derive a good, representative sample of measurements from a
174 J. K. Greenberg
single outcrop and to use stereonet comparisons to interpret a regional tectonic

significance. Analytical software enables the correlation of different structural
elements, resulting in a general tectonic stress field model. In this particular case,
the relatively low-angle, dominant foliation strongly suggests horizontal force
acting from NW to SE, coincident with F2 and a potentially transcurrent stress
component associated with the larger-scale F3 and related S2 development.
(i) Report and Presentation—A redrafted outcrop sketch and set of stereonet pro-
jections serve as the primary data illustrations. Close-up sketches idealizing
the various structural elements are added to the final outcrop depiction via
connecting arrows. Some but not all students are capable of then further ide-
alizing a block diagram indicating the 3D relationship of elements. Models of
colored-clay layers may also be made to reproduce the 3D relationships with
the kinematic–dynamic inference of tectonic force. All products of this study
are completed, and then, the instructor reviews what has been learned, including
the more speculative regional associations. Note that this project is informed
by observation of nearby exposures along Road 231, including examination of
the roadcut outcrop 2B to the east in Rochford (described below, Fig. 6). The
7.5-min geological map quadrangle for Rochford is also shown to indicate the
regional context.
(j) Evaluation—A basic understanding of principles and their application is
expected from each participant. Grading evaluation of each effort begins with
this expectation, as well as the observation of effort expended. Students attaining
the basic expectations are rated at the level of primary proficiency. In the case of
Wheaton College’s Program, a ‘B+’ is earned if no significant deficiencies are
evident. If advanced undergraduate or graduate students participate, they ought
to be held to higher standards of comprehension and performance. As in most of
this author’s experiences, the two most important demonstrations from students
are effort expended and a sense of growth in understanding. These demand
close interaction and familiarity from instructors. Programs attempting this or
similar exercises should attempt to provide enough knowledgeable instructors
to serve no more than eight people each. It is helpful to visualization that block
models of fold-interference patterns be shown to the class, along with how these
patterns change depending upon stereonet relationships (Fig. 11; Ramsay 1962).
2B Rochford Roadcut Supplementary Observations
This exposure extends for approximately 25 m on the western edge of Rochford
[44-07-16-33 N and 103-43-32-26 W], Fig. 5. The rock at this location is distinctly
foliated with thin, 1–2 cm-scale, to wider 4–8 cm bands of varying composition.
This dominant layering is mostly vertical, striking between N 80 W and N 80 E. The
material here is mapped as iron formation with interlayered quartzite. The mineral
content ranges from vein quartz and sugary, ferruginous quartz, to biotite, chlorite,
cummingtonite, garnet, carbonates, and iron oxide phases. Some layers are also
graphitic and pyritic. A shallow prospecting adit opens into the widest quartz vein
on the face of the cut. Examination of the more impressively banded rock indicates
great horizontal flattening strain. Quartz- and carbonate-rich bands are seen to be
rootless isoclinal folds with stretched out limbs. The transposition of earlier fabric
elements is displayed in “textbook” quality (Fig. 6a; Lagoeiro et al. 2003). Preserved
fold hinges commonly exhibit hook-like form and plunge from shallow to steeply
rotated within the vertical foliation (Fig. 6a, b).
Students sketch and photograph several of the observed folds. Foliation, fold
axes, and fold axial planes are measured here and recorded for later comparison to
the western outcrop analysis. The intensity of strain and vertical planar orientations
should lead the participants to infer a change in tectonic influence coincident with the
west to east contrast in structural style. A good explanation for the data is that sheets
of supracrustal units may have been thrusted from the west up to a major shear zone
or to the vertical “root” zone of an adjacent thrust sheet. The occurrence of garnet +
cummingtonite might also infer a localized increase in metamorphic intensity.
3A, B Hill City Area Outcrops: The “Bow-Tie” and Recumbent Fold
(a) Where—Latitude: 43-56-21-71 N, longitude: 103-33-33-46 W. This roadcut
occurs just east of Hill City, about 1500 m on the north side of Highway 16-385
(Fig. 12; Ratte and Wayland 1969).
(b) Extent—The spectacular feature of interest is about 9 m wide and 5 m high, along
the wall of the excavated roadcut. It is composed of four primary rock materials:
a quartzitic–graywacke, thin layers of micaceous phyllite–schist, discontinuous
2–6 cm wide layers of boudinaged calc–silicate rock (grossular + amphibole +
plagioclase + quartz), and quartz veins, some being feldspathic (Fig. 13).
(c) Regional Context—The exposures along this stretch of HWY 16-385 just east of
Hill City are generally of the same metagraywacke-dominated sequences, inter-
preted as possible turbidite deposits (Xgw2 and Xgw3 by Redden and Uzunlar
2017). Graded bedding has been described, but none was noticed in several
Fig. 11 Student fold-interference block diagram for interpretive reference. Type 1 (Ramsay 1962)
patterns are the most applicable
176 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 12 Portion of the Hill City area geologic map (Redden and Unzalar 2017): “bow-tie” boudin
outcrop (a), recumbent fold outcrop (b)
Fig. 13 Photograph of the boudinage and ‘X’ shearing at outcrop A. Field of view, approximately
5m
field seasons of student projects at this locality. Evidence for the intrusion and
associated metamorphism by Harney Peak Granite (Nabelek et al. 1999) occurs
south and east of Hill City, as pegmatite bodies are noticed and increase in
number along roadcuts. The closely related 3A and B exercises both indicate
the sense of primarily horizontal compression and transport in tectonic style for
this region of the Black Hills Precambrian exposure.
Fig. 14 Student sketch of the bow-tie boudinage
(d) Objectives—The goal at this location is to use an hour or so to identify rock

types, structural elements, and interpret the deformational framework. Students
examine the outcrop face close up; then, they back away to make a rough sketch.
The instructor expects the recognition of distinctive features to be noticed by
all participants. The final objective is to arrive at a rational explanation via
discussion. The key observations include:
• Near-horizontal compositional layering of apparently original sedimentary
bedding;
• The massive to granular nature of the graywacke layers (from a few cm to a
meter in thickness);
• The strongly foliated, thin micaceous layers at the boundaries of graywacke
and calc–silicate “beds”;
• The orientation and shear sense along ends of larger quartz veins;
• The visually dominant pair of ovoid graywacke pods (boudins, see Goscombe
et al. 2004), separated by an ‘X’ of shear foliation in the middle of the exposure
(Figs. 13 and 14);
• The absence of additional foliation fabrics or folds at the outcrop.
Students with more experience or quicker discernment are asked to wait in allow-
ing others to make attempts to analyze the kinematics of the mega-boudins and the
‘X’ feature indicating conjugate shearing with separation and rotation of the oval
blocks (Mukherjee 2017). The shear sense along each of the ductile to brittle zones
is strain compatible and is supported by the deformation of the quartz veins, as rotated
tension gashes. At this site, there is only a slight indication of asymmetry, suggesting
west-over-east regional transport.
178 J. K. Greenberg
(e) Skills required and Practiced—No statistically relevant measurement data are
collected here. Students need to envision the approximate variation in orienta-
tions, given only the direction of north. Otherwise, they are to remember and
employ understanding of structural features as kinematic indicators.
(f) Instructor Preface—This site represents an observational and memory exercise.
Instructors have little as preface here, except to explain the goals of discovery
and subsequent interpretation. It is noted that site 3B immediately follows 3A
in the day’s work, and it is to be considered as another “story” compatible with
the structural–tectonic explanation for 3A.
(g) Supervision Onsite—Careful attention must be paid to each participant. They
must see and ponder the significance of all features. Instructors must avoid
disengagement from any participant. Hints and leading comments can be very
helpful in allowing some students to get by forgetfulness. This might be cat-
egorized, along with exercise 3B, as a group project, and that carries the risk
of “parasitism,” similar to the “ionic bonding” relationship mentioned for the
Rochford project.
(h) Data Collection and Processing—Sketches and notes are the only records of
data gained in 3A and 3B (Fig. 14). The question–answer discussion time is the
“processing.”
(i) Report and Presentation—Student behavior at the outcrop is combined with a
brief written report (outline template provided by instructor) as indication of
effort and learning.
(j) Evaluation—This again is gauged by the quality of the report plus the effort
demonstrated on site.
3B Hill City Outcrops: Recumbent Fold
(a) Where—This fold is observed in the roadcut on the north side of Highway 16-
385, just 1100 m east of 3A, at 43-56-23-97 N, 103-32-19-25 W (Figs. 12 and
15).
(b) Extent—The exposed fold extends around a gentle curve about 30 m in length
and is present vertically above the road across two bench-cuts for more than
12 m. Observation is primarily attainable from an old railroad-grade cut on the
south side of the road and close up in walking the length of the north cut. The
upper bench area is accessible with care by ascending the hill of the curve from
one of its lower ends. The cut is hazardous from potential rock falls or from
unwise attempts to climb.
(c) Regional Context—The high-amplitude, nearly horizontal axial-planar fold is
well known as another feature of the Hill City region. It is compositionally the
same as the remarkable boudinage at site 3A. Massive metagraywacke layers
bedding up to 1.5 m thick are separated by thin, 1–5 cm phyllitic–schist layers.
Podiform masses of calc–silicate appear as boundins segregated by the stretch-
ing–flattening strain on the fold limbs. Other than the calc–silicate phase assem-
blage, only very rare and small garnets indicate any metamorphic grade above
biotite stability. Quartz veining is moderately developed in thin gashes, mostly
Fig. 15 Photograph of the recumbent fold at outcrop B
sub-perpendicular to the layering. The fold itself is consistent with the other
evidence of strong horizontal and transport across this part of the Black Hills.
This feature, as a classic Black Hills outcrop, is shown and briefly described in
Gries (1996, pg. 264, 265).
(d) Objectives—The visual impact of this beautifully exposed structure is gained
by first ascending to the old railroad grade, across the highway from the outcrop
(Fig. 15). Students are asked to carefully scan the cut from left-west to right-
east and be ready to offer a preliminary interpretation. The one fairly common
mistake made initially is to think that the folded bedding is actually large-scale
cross-bedding. The fold is tight with a very sharply inflected axis. The axis closes
to the east and the axial plane is coincidentally positioned right at the boundary
between the two roadcut benches. The angle of dip is therefore shallow to the
east on the upper bench and shallow to the west on the lower bench. Each limb is
inclined at about 10–15° from horizontal. A sketch is made before approaching
for a close-up examination. The strain appearance of the phyllite infers a great
amount of slippage–shear between layers. Nearby, on other exposures, there
are phyllitic layers that vary significantly in thickness and display some rotated
internal foliation. This suggests a similar style of behavior not easily evident at
3B, where a metagraywacke-dominated competency kept layers more consistent
180 J. K. Greenberg
in thickness. Graded bedding in the metagraywacke layers may be observed but

is not well developed. Some interpretations suggest overturned bedding (Gries
1996).
(e) Skills Required and Practiced—3B challenges the participants to recall knowl-
edge about folding mechanics, rheology, etc. Hand “compasses” are all that is
needed to describe the fold geometry. Close-up examination provides petrolog-
ical information that contributes to the tectonic story. At the one-hour project’s
conclusion, an air photograph and satellite image plus the best-scale bedrock
map are referenced to show how the fold and the previously examined 3A out-
crop fit into their regional context.
(f) Instruction Preface—Instructors lead the students up to the railroad grade obser-
vation point and then supervise the initial interpretation and sketching. Discov-
ery is the main objective, and so few hints are given.
(g) Supervision Onsite—Instructors must consistently be aware of student progress
on all structural exercises. Answering student questions is important, but it is
more important to get them to answer most queries themselves.
(h) Data Collection and Processing—The simple sketches completed with accuracy
are the only “hard copy” products.
(i) Evaluation—Students with more course background ought to be better at
describing the structure and its tectonic-regional significance. Instructors must
spend an adequate amount of time, “quizzing” participants on their knowledge
and ability to synthesize observations with other data, such as the 3A outcrop,
in this case. Grading practices should be consistent with those applied for other
exercises.
4 Pactola Dam Outcrop Exercise
(a) Where—Latitude: 44-03-56-91 N, longitude: 103-28-58-53 W (Figs. 1 and 16).

(b) Extent Scale—The three-tiered roadcut on the northeast side of Highway 321
is immediately south of the Pactola Dam spillway (Fig. 16; Norton et al. 2008).
Exposure of blasted rock extends for almost 200 m along a gradual curve in the
road, and essentially expressed in three dimensions by benches up to 7 m high
on two levels (Fig. 17).
(c) Regional Context and Local Geology—The 7.5 min Pactola Dam Geological
Quadrangle map (Norton et al. 2008) indicates that the outcrop occurs in one
unit of metabasalt sills and flows exposed along a mostly northwest strike of
the eastern-central Black Hills. Field and geochronologic investigations sug-
gest that similar appearing metabasaltic units were formed during two or more
tectonic and magmatic episodes across the region as early as 2480 Ma (Dahl
et al. 2006; Van Boening and Nabelek 2008). In some regional contexts, pillow
structures are evident. Thicknesses and grain size plus compositional variation
Fig. 16 Portion of the Pactola Reservoir geologic map (Norton et al. 2008) indicating the roadcut.
The major green unit is the metabasalt, with folded lenses of material mapped as iron formation,
including mostly carbonaceous slate and metachert
lead to the conclusion that some of the other Black Hills mappable units were
originally basaltic sills. There is no definitive way to characterize the Pactola
unit as extrusive versus shallow intrusive. The exact age is also unknown, but
the metabasaltic and associated metasedimentary rocks here are likely in the
range of 2100–1875 Ma. Metagraywacke and carbonaceous sulfidic slate are
the other rock types in possibly original conformity with the metabasalts. The
original “package” of units at the outcrop is interpreted as a sea-floor exhalative
complex (Brice and Greenberg 2010). Everything has attained a metamorphic
intensity below the regional Garnet isograd of a Greenschist terrane.
Most recent studies of the regional tectonic framework attribute a four-stage
folding history occurring over at least two major compressional episodes (Allard
and Portis 2013). The most obvious structures here and in many parts of the
Black Hills include F2 and F3 folds with multiple expressions of foliation and
linear features. F3 development can be observed from smaller-scale hinges to
182 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 17 a Photograph of the roadcut just south of the Pactola Dam spillway and b a close-up portion
of the same
those of frequency over two meters apart. In this region, the F3 axes plunge
steeply and so are better noticed from above on near-horizontal surfaces.
Two factors appear to cause the observed distribution of units and rock types at
Pactola. Most obviously, bedding and compositional variation are folded such
that sequences are exposed at intervals both horizontally along the outcrop faces
and vertically in looking down upon the surface of the first bench. In addition,
there may well be discontinuity in the distribution of at least the slatey units. That
is, these relatively thin layers seem lenticular and are depicted on the geological
quadrangle map as stringers within the metabasalt.
The outcrop is distinctly ornamented by sub-vertical, dextrally twisted shear
zones and by quartz-carbonate veins of variable orientation (Fig. 18). Strongly
developed, near-vertical mineral lineations are associated with the shear zones.
A nicely preserved original porphyritic fabric in the more massive blocks of
metabasalt is converted to a highly lineated chloritic phyllite along sheared
bands of 1 cm to almost a meter in thickness. The previous pyroxene phenocrysts
are in some places partly altered and preserved (Fig. 19) but in areas of high
strain became smeared, elongated segregations of mostly chlorite ± actinolite +
quartz + carbonate.
(d) Objectives—Students work in pairs to initially conduct a quick reconnaissance
of the entire outcrop, pacing (or using a tape) for the horizontal distance along
the road and then upon the first, elevated bench. Major changes in lithology and
larger structures are noted and roughly sketched in on a sheet of approximately
1 m × 40 cm waterproof paper. All significant features will be revisited in the
second, detailed stage of the day-long project. Photographs are taken at inter-
vals to help produce an eventual photo-mosaic and to aid in carefully locating
measured observations. Student pairs can alternate shared measurements and
note-taking.
After the two main vertical “faces” (Fig. 17) and the first bench surface are
sketched in, each pair then must identify all important structural elements, along
with other notable features. Care must be taken to avoid mistaking most joints
as actual fault surfaces or more ductile foliations. For this project, the following
features are of prime analytical significance:
• Dominant foliation as Sn , typically folded by the larger F3 structures;
• Secondary foliation, as surfaces along shortened SE limbs of F3 and along
shear zones (these include very high-strain mylonitic bands, Fig. 18a), and
also as crenulation cleavages, associated with blocks rotated between shear
zones (designated as Sn+1 shear or Sn+1 cren), Fig. 18b;
• Earlier foliations are difficult to interpret but may be noted wherever any
original layering bedding has been disrupted or transposed (these would be
S1 while S0 as traditionally designated would represent bedding features);
• Lineations include all fold axes which, if from F3 , plunge steeply and are
commonly twisted in the direction of regional dextral transport. The hinges
of small crenulations are also recordable lineations. These are best developed
as nearly horizontal and at the SE end of the outcrop. The most prominent
184 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 18 Photographs that represent progressive, rotational strain across the exposure: a polished
hand specimen of mylonitic metabasalt displaying shear fabric (10 cm length); b crenulation cleav-
age; and veins: c boundinaged quartz + Fe–Ca–Mn carbonate vein, dextral ‘z’-shape rotation (1 m
wide view); d straight to folded veins, orientation dependent upon proximity to shear zones; e series
of minor shear zones with rotated tension-gash quartz segregation, in greenish metabasalt
Fig. 19 Photomicrograph of relict pyroxenes in porphyritic metabasalt (crossed polarized, 5 mm

width)
lineations are the steeply plunging mineral streaks, associated with shear
zones and attenuated F3 limbs;
• Larger F3 folds are defined by the wrapping of foliation. They are mostly
asymmetrical, with sheared-attenuated SE limbs and a general sense of ver-
gence in that direction. Smaller-scale, “parasitic” F3 features commonly are
open to tight and many are rootless. These smaller folds are best developed
in the metachert layers in the carbonaceous slate. A good reference for the
complexity of fold geometry along shear zones is Kuiper et al. (2007). Fea-
tures observed, deformed within shear zones, are better understood locally
from Heim and Allard (2011) and in the context of Tikoff and Fosson (1993);
• Veins exhibit a prolonged history of formation (Fig. 18c–e), with dilatancy
occurring during reorientation of blocks rotated with regional dextral trans-
port. The latest or only initially affected veins are relatively consistent in thick-
ness and nearly planar, inclined from vertical to near 45° to the NW. Many
186 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 20 Peter Brice examining low-angle shear zones, “thrusts” in metagraywacke at the northern
end of the outcrop
veins have sections of this simpler character but also are folded and rotated
into the dextral configuration where they intersect shear zones (Fig. 18d).
Other veins are boudinaged or twisted into ‘Z’-shaped folds (Fig. 18c). A few
prominent veins display strain partitioning, with secondary minor veins form-
ing from rotational dilatancy. Shear zone, tension-gash segregations occur
at smaller scale in more massive parts of metagraywacke and metabasalt
(Fig. 18e). Interpreting the multiple features involved in shearing requires a
good “tool kit” of examples from other places and analyses (Mukherjee 2014,
2015).
• Actual macro-thrusting surfaces can be discerned on the northern end of
the outcrop (Fig. 20). These lower-angle features have broken particularly
metagraywacke material into horse and duplex structures with the north-
over-south sense of motion.
This is another example of an advanced structural problem for undergraduate
geology students. They need enough previous experience with data collection
from complex features, as well as background in polyphase deformation.
The ultimate objective for this effort is to demonstrate a systematic analysis
of structural elements and their temporal relationship. A three-dimensional
interpretation of the outcrop in block diagram form is the desired outcome.
The rock types and their constituent mineralogy make for a good contrast
with the petrology–rheology of the other Black Hills projects.
(e) Skills Required and Practiced—The three-dimensional aspect of this project is
an important advance beyond smaller exercises (The Rochford outcrop 2A, for
example). The scope of this Pactola project allows a good comparison of local
features with a more regional context. The strategy of student pairs is designed
to have constant discussion and evaluation of observations with essentially dou-
bling the skill power of other projects. Alternating the partner that makes mea-
surements with the one taking notes sharpens essential methods for both parties.
They must reach an agreement in all efforts. Instructors must arbitrate where
any major disagreement occurs. All planar and linear measurement-orientation
techniques must be employed here. Sample collection is also required in order
to make important lithological comparisons. Oriented samples may be taken,
primarily for the purpose of learning proper technique. The Wheaton College
Science Station keeps an extensive collection of hand specimens and thin sec-
tions from the outcrop. These are available to the study pairs as they make
interpretations of field data in the laboratory. A full day’s processing of data
collected, notes, etc., follows the field exercise. Local-scale sketches of struc-
tural relationships are key to the production of stereonet diagrams and their
interpretation. Preliminary stereonet compilations are made in the field, once a
workable classification of elements is established.
(f) Instruction Preface—Very detailed and careful instructions are necessary at
Pactola. The outcrop has high faces and potential fall or rockfall hazards. The
expected quantity and quality of observation–measurement must be explained
on site. Some reading and regional tectonic background can be required before
any field engagement. Participants will be certain of their compass skills before
beginning. Instructors can allow students to do some discovery–inquiry dur-
ing the earlier recon stage. This means that rock types, visual mineralogy, and
structural-element relationships can be divulged only after students are infor-
mally, orally “quizzed” about them. The initial recon is done with instructors in
covering the entire two face levels and the first bench surface. Once completed,
after about three hours, student pairs continue with the detailed analysis.
(g) Supervision Onsite—Faculty supervision for the second stage is to float among
participants, answer questions, give hints, and observe techniques. The different
rates at which individuals operate may cause friction in the pairs or some pairs
to lag behind a desired extent of accomplishment. Expectations must not be set
too high and according to the known background of the students. Constructing
pairs with one stronger and one relatively weaker geologist is a good strategy.
However, beware placing a very strong student with one much weaker. It is
important to check with each pair about halfway into their second stage. Are
they getting a sense of how all the features fit together spatially and temporally?
Do they need to visit or revisit key locations to receive essential perspective? It
is also essential to be sure that notes are systematic (we provide a template for
organizing notes and measurements) and legible for both partners. Good field
188 J. K. Greenberg
habits are not optional! Instructors will close the day’s labor after seeing that a
minimally acceptable quantity of data, sketches, photographs are in hand. If for
any reason, a pair has not met a minimum expectation, they are allowed some
time on the following day to complete the fieldwork. The Pactola outcrop is
only 11 km from our Science Station base and exercise 5 at Hisega (Fig. 1).
(h) Data Collection and Processing—Everything collected onsite is laid out upon
a table surface for integration. Adequate understanding of the outcrop’s char-
acteristics is reviewed by each pair at return to the Science Station after the
dinner mealtime. Instructors must again be available to help untangle signifi-
cant confusion. The next day begins with instructors in debriefing, particularly
answering questions that linger. The entire group of participants is now exposed
to each other’s perspectives. The remainder of the day is in collating data types
and using the sketch-map strip of field paper as a basis for a final redraft. All
data must be carefully recorded in summary form on the sketch base. This map
has three or more sections, the lower face along the road, the first bench surface
above and perpendicular to the lower face, and the upper face above the first
bench. Significant lithologic and mineralogic variation are mapped upon each
section, and contacts between units, either distinct (rare) or approximate, are
drawn in.
Summary stereonet icons (Fig. 21) can be tied to locations on the sketches.
Major structures are also sketched in. Important minor features are idealized
by expanded “bubble windows” on or outside the map sections (Fig. 22). Hand
sketches and photographs are essential for the proper depiction of these features.
Some work pairs will have much better artists than others. This skill, especially
in consideration of 3D perspectives, may take time to develop, if ever. Newer,
more sophisticated software programs can accomplish this representation. Some
instructors might require student facility with good drawing programs.
Tectonic and structural interpretations will certainly vary among the student
pairs. Enough interaction with instructors usually provides insight to arrive at
something feasible in explaining the relationship of rocks and structures.
(i) Report and Presentation—Each pair of investigators will prepare a final map in
three sections or a computer-generated block diagram (which might be required
for graduate students) with all pertinent data observations neatly inscribed or
attached via “location lines.” Their orientation data, summarized on stereonets,
may appear separately or upon their maps. Contrasting colors, patterning, and
symbols will be used to clearly distinguish different features. Temporal symbol-
ogy will be applied wherever appropriate (e.g., F3 or Sn+1 ) A map explanation
will include a complete listing of all elements/features, with annotations of their
characteristics.
A narrative report consists of an abstract, introduction of regional and local geo-
logic–tectonic significance, and a quasi-kinematic story of progressive history
determined from the collected data. The most sophisticated, and to this point
in our experience, unattempted presentation could be an animated model of
temporal development. Such model depictions are possible but not commonly
Fig. 21 Examples of summary stereonet diagrams for Pactola outcrop structures. Fx refers to the
regional F3
Fig. 22 Example of student, in progress, outcrop sketch including depictions of structural relation-
ships (from Summer 2010)
190 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 23 Portion of the Pactola Reservoir geologic map (Norton et al. 2008) in the Hisega area.
Section line intervals represent 1 mile. Note that only three Precambrian units are identified
undertaken. Instructors will provide a final overview, filling in any details missed
by the work pairs.
(j) Evaluation—The advanced nature of this project demands that instructor eval-
uations be made with participant experience in mind. Close supervision makes
it possible to fairly assess the effort, creativity, and any growth in facility. The
grading rubric described for the Little Elk Creek project (1) can be used here
with some modification. Advanced students should create better kinematic inter-
pretations, but all students should demonstrate basic descriptive accuracy about
major features.
5 Hisega Area Mapping Exercise

(a) Where—Structural mapping is conducted just south of State Highway 44, 10 km
west of Rapid City—Latitude: 44-03-39-9 N, longitude: 103-24-145-66 W
(Figs. 1 and 23).
(b) Extent-Scale—This Hisega area in the immediate vicinity of the Wheaton Col-
lege Science Station covers about two square miles or 5.2 km2 . A US Geolog-
ical Survey Topographic map (Pactola Reservoir 7.5 min quad) is enlarged for
the project base to a scale of approximately 1:5000 from 1:24,000 to capture

structural details. The terrain is hilly with some steep relief sections along the
down-cut Rapid Creek.
(c) Regional Context and Local Geology—The geology of this area is depicted on
the Pactola Dam Geologic Map (7.5 min, 1:24,000; Norton et al. 2008) east of
the Pactola Dam outcrop exercise. The types of metamorphic units observed
are constituents of the same Early Proterozoic terranes involved in projects
2–4 (Rochford, Hill City, and Pactola). Phyllitic and quartzite units are most
dominant with narrow basaltic sills interlayered. The regional trend of steeply
dipping bedding and foliation is northwest, similar to the Pactola outcrop (4).
Locally, the units are wrapped around larger-scale folds (regional F3 most prob-
ably) with steep plunges varying in trend due to later folding (Fig. 24). Thicker
beds, to over 3 m, of massive, dark-colored quartzite define the geometry of
major flexural, nearly concentric F3 folds. Phyllite and thinner quartzite layers
are passively deformed in between the stronger massive quartzites.
The metamorphic character of the area’s rocks indicates attainment of Biotite-
Grade P and T conditions in phyllite and micaceous quartzite. Chlorite, mus-
covite, and biotite with quartz constitute the phases observed with the most per-
vasive–penetrative foliation. This S1 structure is typically sub-parallel with the
bedding, except around minor-fold hinges. Biotite porphyroblasts are developed
along non-penetrative secondary foliations including some crenulation cleav-
ages and more widely spaced kink boundaries or minor shear zones. A small
exposure of unusual porphyroblastic amphibolite occurs along a steep section of
Hisega Road in the map area. The amphibolite is interpreted as a metabasalt sill
intruded between quartzite beds (Fig. 25a, b). Amphibole, primarily actinolite
(Ratajeski et al. 2013) plus quartz, chlorite, and carbonate constitute a matrix
for euhedral amphibole porphyroblasts, more hornblendic in composition, up to
1 cm in length (Fig. 24b). An exposure of a metabasalt sill 1 km south of the map
project area displays these post-kinematic amphibole crystals growing across
an earlier fabric (Fig. 25c). The larger amphiboles were originally considered
as either phenocrysts in the sills or as evidence of contact metamorphism from
the sills in adjacent phyllite. More careful analysis must conclude that these are
indeed porphyroblasts and post-date most deformational features in the local
sequences (Mickelson and Moore 2000).
The interlayering of phyllite and quartzite units in most vertical outcrops pro-
vides a great opportunity for interpreting fold orientation and symmetry. Where
quartzite is in contact with the phyllite, the relationship of bedding S0 to S1 or
later foliations is easily determined. Within phyllite layers, the same types of S0
× S1 angularity can often be observed, closer to parallel along fold limbs and
higher angles of intersection at fold hinge areas.
Understanding the fold geometry along with preserved sedimentary structures
leads to some conclusions about sequence facing-younging directions across the
map area. Graded bedding in fine-grained conglomeratic “grits” and small-scale
cross-beds are infrequently exhibited between zones of higher strain, commonly
within finer-grained laminated quartzite. More commonly, load structures indi-
192 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 24 Photographs of nearly vertical plunging F3 folds, a shown as hollow arc (in black) with
blue arrow for plunge and wrapped by quartzite beds (shown in red); b indicated by dark-gray
mullion–rod, wrapped by phyllite
Fig. 25 a Photograph of Hisega Road basaltic sill with prismatic amphibole porphyroblasts; b
photomicrograph of sill amphiboles in cross-polarized light, 2 mm wide view; c photomicrograph
of post-kinematic amphiboles in carbonate-rich wall rock of sill south of Hisega (crossed polarizers,
5 mm wide view)
cate younging in some laminated quartzites (Fig. 26). These particular outcrops
of very regularly layered quartzite–phyllite sequences as “rhythmites” have been
interpreted as from distal turbidite deposition (DeWitt et al. 1986). It is a good
challenge to determine the difference between tectonic, concentric folding, and
similar appearing syn-depositional load features. Just south of the mapping
area, there are exposures of a quartzite conglomerate containing flattened phyl-
lite clasts separated by a matrix of quartz granules. This material may represent
original rip-up clast flow regimes.
(d) Objectives—Students work in pairs on this project, primarily for safety reasons
in a larger area with potential hazards from steep terrain and a cold, fast-moving
stream. Each person creates their own map but may help their colleague in find-
ing mappable features. Four full days are devoted to the adequate exploration
of the field and collecting data at an effective rate. Pre-mapping plans are made
among the student pairs to determine how to divide the area into pieces suitable
for traverse loops, avoiding overly long hikes. Coloration, sun-shading, weath-
ered surfaces and vegetation cause many outcrops to be difficult to interpret.
All units are typically a dark gray, green, or brown-black. Some oxidized sur-
faces provide a contrast in the weathered appearance, particularly in distinguish-
ing bedding from foliation in thinner layers of phyllite or laminated quartzite.
194 J. K. Greenberg
Fig. 26 Photograph of interlayered phyllite and laminated quartzite, with load cast and flame
structures exhibited below the lens cap
Determining jointing versus foliation is also a very common observational chal-

lenge, overcome only with experience. Here and in other of the Black Hills
exercises, students need to be wary of structural orientations altered by sur-
face creep. This problem is of greatest concern where phyllite is the dominant
lithology.
Strike and dip of bedding and foliation are the most common structural ele-
ments for measurement. Wherever possible, data recorded on the maps should
include both surfaces together symbolically. Fold features must be recorded via
photographs and sketches indicating overall style and relationships of all ele-
ments. Folds occur at different scales, from smaller bent or buckled quartzitic
layers and passive-flow/slip folds in phyllite, to larger (up to a few meters in fre-
quency) concentric bed layers of quartzite. Some larger, massive quartzites form
mega-rods or mullions defining the axial orientation of these major structures
(Fig. 24). Where relatively continuous across a significant outcrop distance (up
to 10 m), the rods display a lack of linear trend and thus are non-cylindrical. At
Hisega as well as Rochford (project 2) and Pactola (project 4), the polyphase
complexity of regional deformation is indicated by major cross-folding of F2
and F3 features. There is little indication that the complexities arise from multi-
ple, separate deformational events (Greenberg 1996). Stereonet compilations of
the measureable orientations of the structural elements offer the best evidence
Fig. 27 Stereonet compilations from raw (not separated by domains) field data at Hisega (Summer
2004 exercise)
of the latest strain factors (Fig. 27). Students will eventually map all elements
including:
• Each mappable (at scale) rock unit, including at least, areas dominated
by micaceous phyllite, areas dominated by laminated and thinner quartzite
layers, massive quartzite beds, and metabasalt sills. The sills here range in
character from the porphyroblastic amphibolite described above, to dense,
dark-greenish, very fine-grained rock, and chloritic phyllite in thin layers
(perhaps phyllonitic), distinguishable from the muscovite-rich sedimentary
protolith of phyllite;
196 J. K. Greenberg
• Bedding S0 as contacts between mappable units, with primary sedimentary

structures, including load features, cross-beds, grading, minor channels that
indicate younging directions;
• Primary foliation S1 in the phyllites;
• Any crenulation cleavage as S2, though rather rare;
• Folds as Fx and Fx+1 in the local context, in terms of folded bedding surfaces,
axial-planar cleavage in fold hinges, and rods or other hinge-line type features
as axial lineations;
• Any significant shear surfaces (rare) and larger quartz veins within the more
massive quartzites (including shear sense if discernable).
The field map on paper or in digital base bears all the symbology of the measured
features (Fig. 28a). Each day’s fieldwork is assessed to guide the following day’s
effort. The map product is both lithologic and structural. A final report interprets the
geology in a tectonic–historical narrative, emphasizing the style of deformation.
(e) Skills Required and Practiced—Of all the problems among the five described
for the South Dakota Black Hills, this Hisega map is the most comprehen-
sive and requires the most integration of observational and measurement skills.
Macroscopic data processed via stereonets provide the basis for interpreting the
map-scale structures. The existing 7.5-min geologic map does offer a regional
perspective. The exercise’s detailed observation of associated structural ele-
ments strongly suggests better indication of strain intensities and stratigraphic-
facing directions. This is a fine location for recognizing contrasts in structural
deformation style as a function of contrasting lithology–rheology and inter-
preted stress orientations.
(f) Instruction Preface—In addition to the initial drive around and walk around
reconnaissance with the instructor, students will receive an introductory lec-
ture. This preface must include information about boundaries, some private
property to avoid (most of the map is on National Forest land), and potential
hazards. Concepts such as the significance of bedding–cleavage relationships
and stratigraphic-facing indicators are reviewed. Instructors demonstrate the
methods of complete data collection on at least one outcrop nearby the labora-
tory room. All note-taking requirements are also reviewed. A sample of mapping
a similar area is shown to the class in order to see what is expected from their
efforts.
(g) Supervision onsite—The large size of the map area precludes any close super-
vision from instructors, unless the class is quite small or they all move about the
area together. It has been most effective for instructors to note the student pairs’
intended itinerary each day and to meet them at key outcrops for assessing per-
formance. Plenty of hints and leading information can be given to students with
less confidence or background. This visitation protocol is most important in the
first day of mapping. Hopefully, bad habits or other problems can be averted
before multiplied over the entire project.
Fig. 28 Hisega exercise maps (Summer 2004), a structural data; b final unit distribution map, scale
indicated by 1 mile section line intervals
(h) Data Collection and Processing—All categories of data, including all observ-
able measureable structural elements, rock types, and petrologic characteristics,
are systematically recorded in notes, either on paper or in digital data templates.
Photographs and interpretive sketches are essential. It is unlikely that outcrops
will be analyzed more than once, especially if relatively far from base. A dig-
ital version of the map can be decorated with symbolic data, or this may be
198 J. K. Greenberg
completed at the end of each day in the lab. Small, representative samples and
possibly some oriented samples will be systematically collected as well. Stere-
onet compilation of different structural elements is done at the end of each day.
Once a “picture” of the larger structural features emerges from the study, stere-
onets may be separated into distinctive domains, so that confusion is limited
and polyphase deformation can be identified. High densities of collected data
across the map might be best handled by expanding the map size for attempting
interpretation. Several permutations of the work map may be utilized before
actually “putting ink to paper,” in a final draft.
(i) Report and Presentation—A geological map is the ultimate product for the
Hisega project. This will include all lithologies as interpreted, and not all stu-
dents will arrive at the same conclusions. Some maps may have fewer categories
of units and some more. There must be a good rationale for whatever is decided.
Subdivisions and inter-unit features may be depicted, if done neatly and accu-
rately. Many units contain bed layers of contrasting materials that are not thick
enough to be at mappable scale. Structural symbology must be neat, accurate
for any site, and if in an area of complexity, so indicate multiple orientations,
etc. Symbols representing fold orientations, as well as associated lineations and
foliation, are drafted in place. No jointing is recorded. Figure 28b is an example
of a map showing units but without structural symbols. The work map with
field data is included as part of the exercise (Fig. 28a). A brief report describes
the units in more detail than the map explanation. A brief structure section of
the report describes folding styles, fabrics and includes primary structures for
stratigraphic interpretation. The final section attempts a dynamic analysis that
places this area into the larger spatial-temporal context of Black Hills tectonic
history.
(j) Evaluation—More detail and sophisticated interpretation is expected from grad-
uate students and advanced undergraduates. This particular project, more than
others, requires neat, attractive visual presentation. In this case, technical, map-
making expertize is judged for a grade. The final, overall grade is based on a
rubric including, *general appearance in all essential map components, *accu-
racy, *completeness in appropriate abundance of data, *quality of notes, samples
collected, photographs, sketches, data compilation in stereonets, *field perfor-
mance in covering the area, *quality of report and feasibility of interpretations.
This project is similar to many assigned to geology students in mapping practi-
cal courses. However, the emphasis on structure in a complex area distinguishes
this exercise as an advanced challenge.
References
Allard ST, Portis DH (2013) Paleoproterozoic transpressional shear zone, eastern Black Hills, South
Dakota: implications for the Late Tectonic history of the Southern Trans-Hudson Orogen. Rocky
Mountain Geol 48:73–99
Bayley RW (1972) A preliminary report on the geology and gold deposits of the Rochford District,
Black Hills, South Dakota. US Geol Surv Bull 1332-A
Brice P, Greenberg JK (2010) Deformational state of a Paleoproterozoic seafloor exhalative-complex
exposed at Pactola Dam, South Dakota Black Hills. Geol Soc Amer Abs Prog 42:295
Dahl PS, Hamilton MA, Wooden JL, Foland KA, Frei R, McCombs JA, Holm DK (2006) 2480 Ma
mafic magmatism in the Northern Black Hills, South Dakota: a new link connecting the Wyoming
and superior cratons. Can J Earth Sci 43:1579–1600
DeWitt E, Redden JA, Wilson AB, Buscher D (1986) Mineral resource potential and geology of
the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Geol Surv Bull 1580
Earth Magazine (2013) Earthmagazine.org/article/mapping-field-camps-past-and-present-
exploring-mainstay-geoscience-education
Goscombe BD, Passcier CW, Hand M (2004) Boudinage classification: end-member boudin types
and modified boudin structures. J Struct Geol 26:739–763
Gosselin DC, Papike JJ, Zartman RE et al (1988) Archean rocks of the Black Hills, South Dakota:
reworked basement from the Southern extension of the Trans-Hudson Orogen. Geol Soc Amer
100:1244–1259
Greenberg JK (1996) Lower proterozoic tectonism at Hisega, SD. Geol Soc Amer Abs Prog 28:A29
Gries JP (1996) Roadside geology of South Dakota. Mountain Press, Roadside Geology Series
Heim NJ, Allard ST (2011) Structural analysis of proterozoic shearing and folding; Northeast Black
Hills, S.D. Geol Soc Amer Abs Prog 43:269
Jenkins KR, Allard ST (2011) Correlation of supracrustal rocks in the little Elk Terrane, Black Hills,
S.D. Geol Soc Amer Abs Prog 43:271
Kuiper YD, Jiang D, Lin S (2007) Relationship between non-cylindrical fold geometry and the
shear direction in monoclinic and triclinic shear zones. J Struc Geol 814:1022–1033
Lagoeiro L, Hippertt L, Lana C (2003) Deformation during folding and transposition of Quartz
layers. Tectonophy 361:171–186
Lister GS, Snoke AW (1984) S-C Mylonites. J Struct Geol 6:617–638
Mickelson JE, Moore J, Greenberg JK (2000) Composition and tectonic character of Paleoprotero-
zoic Basaltic Sills from the Eastern Black Hills, SD. Geol Soc Amer Abs Prog 32:A-52
Mukherjee S (2014) Review of flanking structures in meso- and micro-scales. Geol Mag
151:957–974
Mukherjee S (2015) Atlas of shear zones in macro-scale. Elsevier
Mukherjee S (2017) Review on symmetric structures in Ductile Shear Zones. Int J Earth Sci
106:1453–1468
Nabelek PI, Sirbescu M, Lin M (1999) Petrogenesis and tectonic context of the Harney Peak Granite,
Black Hills, South Dakota. Rockey Mountain Geol 34:165–181
National Association of Geology Teachers and US Geological Survey (2017) Cooperative summer
field training program. https://education.usgs.gov/nagt/NAGTFlyer2017.pdf
Norton JJ, Redden JA, Anderson FJ (2008) Geologic map of the Pactola Dam Quadrangle, South
Dakota, SD. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Geologic
Map 8
Ramsay JG (1962) Interference patterns produced by the superposition of folds of similar type. J
Geol 70:466–481
Ratajeski K, Greenberg J, Allard S, Schwandt C, Tulimiero, Gates C (2013) Diverse, widespread
static porphyroblasts: the last gasp of Proterozoic metamorphism in the Black Hills, SD? Geol
Soc Amer Abs Prog 45:113
Ratte JC, Wayland RG (1969) Geology of the hill city quadrangle Pennington County, South Dakota-
a preliminary report. US Geol Surv Bull 1271-B
Redden JA, Uzunlar N (2017) Geologic map of the hill city quadrangle, South Dakota, SD. Depart-
ment of Environment and Natural Resources, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Geologic Map 23
200 J. K. Greenberg
Tikoff B, Fossen H (1993) Simultaneous pure and simple shear: the unifying deformation matrix.
Tectonophy 217:267–283
Van Boening AM, Nabelek PI (2008) Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of mafic rocks in the
Black Hills, South Dakota. Precam Res 167:363–376
Zartman RE, Stern TW (1967) Isotopic age and geological relationships of the little Elk Granite,
northern Black Hills, South Dakota. US Geol Surv Res 1967-D:157–163
Geographic Information Systems
in an Undergraduate Structural Geology
Course: A Pilot Project at Middle
Tennessee State University
in Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Mark Abolins
Abstract This chapter describes a Fall 2016 semester Middle Tennessee State
University (Murfreesboro, TN) pilot project in which undergraduate students use
a Geographic Information System (GIS) to learn about structure surfaces, structural
domains, cross sections, geologic maps, and cratonic structural geology and tec-
tonics. While two self-selected undergraduates completed optional GIS exercises
comprising approximately 25% of a semester-long structural geology course, ten
self-selected undergraduates solved pencil-and-paper problems related to the same
topics. Formative and summative assessment results demonstrate the potential of
the GIS approach. Comparison of pilot project characteristics with characteristics
of projects described in the literature suggests that education research on differen-
tiated learning (e.g., Tomlinson in How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability
classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
2001) and 2D and 3D visualization (e.g., Giorgis in J Geosci Ed 63:140–146, 2015)
is relevant. The education literature suggests that an effectively executed project
of this type will likely improve visual penetrative ability (Giorgis in J Geosci Ed
63:140–146, 2015) and spatial skills in general (e.g., Hall-Wallace and McAuliffe
in J Geosci Ed 50:5–14, 2002; Lee and Bednarz in J Geog Higher Ed 33:183–198,
2009).
Keywords Geographic information systems · Spatial skills

Visual penetrative ability · Structural geology · Craton
1 Introduction
Historically, undergraduate structural geology students used paper, pencils, drafting

supplies, trigonometry and algebra (e.g., Bose and Mukherjee 2017), and various
M. Abolins (B)
Department of Geosciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Davis Science Bldg,
Room 217, MTSU Box 9, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
202 M. Abolins
freeware or low-cost software applications (e.g., Cardoza and Allmendinger 2013)

to solve problems, and, therefore, various undergraduate structural geology labora-
tory manuals (e.g., Marshak and Mitra 1988) are tailored to this approach. In contrast,
structural geology graduate students and professionals often use sophisticated spe-
cialized software packages to solve similar problems (e.g., Lavecchia et al. 2017;
Macaulay 2017; Misra and Mukherjee 2018; Watkins et al. 2018). Therefore, the
techniques and tools of structural geology problem-solving evolve along the contin-
uum from undergraduate to professional. Given the need to support the growth of
undergraduates into professionals equipped to use digital information and sophisti-
cated software to solve real-world problems, it is not surprising that the US tectonics
community has articulated a vision (Huntington and Klepeis 2018) including (a)
cyberinfrastructure and (b) education. Specifically, this vision includes investment
in integrative data products, simulation, and visualization tools, and the practical
implementation of best practices in geoscience education. Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) are part of this vision in so far as the vision document refers to Pale-
oGIS (e.g., White et al. 2009; Pehrsson et al. 2016), a plate tectonics application built
on widely used Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS software.
With this vision in mind, the author describes GIS use within an undergraduate
structural geology course. To make the exploration of potential benefits more con-
crete, the author describes a pilot project in which he implemented optional GIS
exercises in an undergraduate structural geology course during Fall semester 2016
at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) in Murfreesboro, TN. He situates
the design and outcomes of the pilot project within the existing education literature.
In so doing, he discusses two themes: differentiated learning and visualization in
undergraduate geoscience education. This specific GIS implementation was an out-
growth of use at MTSU of a series of GIS-based workbooks. During the 2000s, the
author implemented one workbook (Hall-Wallace et al. 2003) in a general studies
introductory Earth Science course, and he implemented a second workbook (Hall-
Wallace et al. 2007) within the undergraduate structural geology course, although
both workbooks were primarily intended for use in introductory instruction.
2 Demographics
Twelve undergraduates enrolled in the Fall 2016 semester structural geology course.
All were visibly Caucasian, and eight were female. One male and one female volun-
tarily chose to complete the optional GIS exercises and the others voluntarily chose
to complete pencil-and-paper exercises related to the topics examined by the GIS
pair. Both undergraduates in the GIS pair had completed a required semester-long
introductory GIS course. (The introductory GIS course is required for the geology
concentration within the geosciences bachelor’s degree at MTSU, but the GIS course
is not a prerequisite for the structural geology course.)
Geographic Information Systems in an Undergraduate Structural … 203
Fig. 1 Structural geology of

area examined by
undergraduates completing
GIS exercises. Structure
contours are the elevation of 100 ft contour interval
the base of the upper
Devonian Chattanooga shale
in feet above sea level
(Stearns and Reesman 1986).
F: Appalachian foreland fold
and thrust belt, HRFZ:
Harpeth River fault zone,
SRFZ: Stones River fault
zone, MKFZ: Marshall
Knobs fault zone. See
Table 1 for characteristics of
inferred fault zones. See
Abolins et al. (2015) for
HRFZ and SRFZ. See
MKFZ. Other faults from
Nicholson et al. (2007)
M2.6 epicenter
Map by M. Abolins
3 Geologic Setting of the GIS Exercises
In the GIS exercises implemented during the Fall 2016 semester, undergraduates
spent most of their time using ArcGIS to analyze geologic maps of a North American
cratonic fault-and-fold zone located in central Tennessee ~37 km west of MTSU
(Fig. 1) and ~90 km northwest of the Appalachian foreland fold and thrust belt. In that
area, Ordovician strata are gently folded and mesoscale faults and folds are exposed
in road cuts (Abolins et al. 2015). Abolins et al. (2015) interpreted the macroscale
folds and mesoscale structures as the surface manifestation of macroscale sub-surface
normal faults (Fig. 2) which they collectively described as the Harpeth River fault
zone (HRFZ). The HRFZ is largely aseismic, but a M2.6 earthquake happened on
July 8, 2001 (UTC date). The epicenter of the earthquake was ~4 km NW of the NW
corner of the HRFZ, although the location is not precise because central Tennessee
lacks a permanent seismographic network.
The undergraduates also used GIS to examine other gently folded areas near
MTSU. In one exercise, undergraduates used ArcGIS to add strike and dip symbols
to a geologic map of a gently folded area ~3.5 km W of MTSU and ~3.1 km E of the
Stones River fault zone (SRFZ), another inferred macroscale fault zone described
in Abolins et al. (2015). In the summative assessment, undergraduates analyzed
204 M. Abolins
Fig. 2 Conceptual model of

relationship between a
macroscale syncline and
mesoscale structures, on one
hand, and a macroscale
sub-surface fault on the
other. No particular scale is
implied. Illustration based on
Withjack et al. (1990)
geologic maps of a gently folded area ~12.3 km SW of MTSU and immediately

SW of the Marshall Knobs fault zone (MKFZ), an inferred sub-surface fault zone
described in Abolins et al. (2018). They also added strike and dip symbols to a
geologic map of an area ~9.6 km SSW of MTSU and immediately N of the MKFZ.
Table 1 lists the salient characteristics of the HRFZ, SRFZ, and MKFZ. All of
these structures are probably a legacy of Precambrian rifting and Paleozoic and
Cenozoic uplift of the Nashville dome. Geophysical investigations suggest that a rift
lies immediately south of the inferred faults (Stein et al. 2014, 2015), and Abolins
et al. (2018) hypothesized that rift structures are also under the inferred fault zones.
Rift structures likely reactivated during uplift of the Nashville dome, accommodating
extension of the uppermost crust. The dome rose episodically during the Paleozoic
and Cenozoic with the greatest uplift happening during the late Paleozoic uplift
of the Appalachian Mountains (Wilson and Stearns 1963); Beaumont et al. (1988)
attributed Paleozoic uplift to lithospheric flexure during orogenic loading of the
Laurentian margin, although Reesman and Stearns (1989) attributed some uplift to
isostatic adjustment accompanying Cenozoic erosion.
In the GIS exercises, undergraduates show that strata within much of the HRFZ
(A in Fig. 3) dip NE, E, or SE. Abolins et al. (2015) attributed these dip directions to
macroscale folding during down-to-the-east slip on sub-surface normal faults because
the HRFZ is on the NW flank of the Nashville dome, and, therefore, strata in that
part of the dome generally dip NW. To delineate NE-, E-, and SE-dipping structural
domains, undergraduates use the elevation of the contact between the Ordovician Her-
mitage Formation and the underlying Ordovician Carters Formation at 1,729 points.
During the research that led to Abolins et al. (2015), undergraduate researchers used
scanned georeferenced US Geological Survey 7.5-min quadrangle maps (Wilson
1963; Miller and McCary 1963) to digitize the points, and they used the National
Elevation Dataset (NED) to extract elevations to the points. In the GIS exercises,
undergraduates use the “Topo to Raster” tool in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst and the
points to interpolate a structure surface having a cell size of ~9.1 m (30 ft). Then
they use the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst “Aspect” tool to find dip direction, and they
define structural domains by selecting all cells having dip azimuths between 22.5°
Table 1 Characteristics of inferred fault zones (Abolins et al. 2015, 2018)

Fault zone Strike Shear sense Length (km) Max.
structural
relief (m)
Stones River (SRFZ) 356° East down 25 40?
(approximate
thickness of
Ridley
Limestone)
Marshall Knobs fault zone 283° Northeast 16.3 35
(MKFZ) down
Harpeth River Arno (AFZ) 350° East down 13.2 27
fault zone
(HRFZ)
McDaniel 340° East down 11.6 24
(MFZ)
Peytonsville 358° West down 4.7 10
(PF)
McClory 331° East down 1 8
Creek
(MCFZ)
and 157.5°. They filter out cells for areas where there is little data [<7 points within
a 1,524 m (5,000 ft) radius], and they filter out small domains (<approx. 1.715 km2 ).
This process leaves them with four domains ranging in area from 3.7 to 34.4 km2
and totaling 49.7 km2 (Fig. 4).
4 The Pilot Project and Its Place Within the Structural

Geology Course
Optional GIS problems comprised up to approximately 25% of the Fall 2016

semester-long MTSU undergraduate structural geology course. According to the
syllabus, course learning outcomes are:
• Students practice spatial reasoning.
• Students apply algebra and trigonometry to solve geologic problems.
• Students apply discipline-specific graphical techniques to solve geologic prob-
lems.
• Students apply knowledge about stress and strain to solve rock deformation prob-
lems.
• Students quantitatively and qualitatively describe geologic structures.
• Students semi-independently study aspects of structural geology relevant to them,
and they share their knowledge with their peers.
206 M. Abolins
Fig. 3 Locations of areas
35o52’30”N
B
examined by undergraduates
completing GIS exercises HRFZ
(Table 2) and the related
summative assessment. See
text and Table 2 for
references to lettered areas.
Structure contours are the A D
elevation of the base of the
upper Devonian Chattanooga
shale in feet above sea level
1200 Ō
(Stearns and Reesman 1986).
HRFZ: Harpeth River fault
zone, SRFZ: Stones River
fault zone, MKFZ: Marshall C
Knobs fault zone. See
inferred fault zones. See Location Map by M Abolins
Abolins et al. (2015) for Figure 1
HRFZ and SRFZ. See
MKFZ
• Students build a foundation for the application of structural geology to undergrad-

uate research.
4.1 The First Half of the Course: Scaffolding the GIS

Exercises
During the first half of the course, undergraduates learned content selected from van
der Pluijm and Marshak (2004), and they solved problems selected from Marshak and
Mitra (1988). They also learned related content taken by the author from other sources
(e.g., Namson and Davis 1990), and they solved problems created by the author.
Undergraduates had access to PowerPoint slides created by the author and containing
illustrations and other content. They learned vocabulary and concepts related to
the following topics: force, stress, rheology, brittle and ductile deformation, strain,
joints and veins, faults and faulting, folds and folding, and fabrics and ductile shear
zones. In parallel, undergraduates solved problems related to the following topics:
attitudes, structure contour maps, strain analysis, rock deformation experiments,
fracture geometry, and stereographic projections, poles, and rotations. Quizzes and
graded homework problems provided for formative assessment on average once
each week. At the end of the first half of the course, all undergraduates completed a
summative assessment.
Fig. 4 Undergraduate
formative assessment
submission depicting MFZ
structural domains within the
Harpeth River fault zone (A U D
in Fig. 3). Within the shaded
areas, the structure surface
depicting the base of the
Ordovician Hermitage
PF
Formation has dip azimuths
between 22.5° and 157.5°.
MCFZ
D
Inferred faults are from D U U
Abolins et al. (2015). The D
author added labels, the scale U
bar, and the north arrow. See
AFZ
inferred fault zones. PF: D U D
Peytonsville fault, AFZ: U
Arno fault zone, MCFZ:
McClory Creek fault zone,
MFZ: McDaniel fault zone
U D
4.2 GIS in the Structural Geology Course
At the beginning of the second half of the course, all undergraduates completed
a single week-long assignment in which they used ArcGIS to create a structure
surface and delineate structural domains within the HRFZ (#1 in Table 2). In a
computer laboratory, the author showed the undergraduates how to use ArcGIS and
the elevation of a geologic contact to generate a structure surface (videos “Getting
started fitting a structure surface” and “Structure surface!” in Table 2), and each
undergraduate followed along, using ArcGIS to complete the same task. Outside
of class time, undergraduates used the other four videos listed under #1 in Table 2
to create dip and dip direction surfaces, define structural domains, and filter their
results. To provide for assessment, each undergraduate submitted screen shots of
each of four intermediate products and the end-product. The end-product was a map
of NE-, E-, and SE-dipping structural domains (Fig. 4).
208 M. Abolins
Table 2 Optional GIS exercises implemented during Fall semester 2016 at MTSU
Exercises Description Time (min.) Area
1. Creating a structure Getting started. 10:10 HRFZ (Area A in
surface and Undergraduates use Fig. 3)
delineating structural different colors for
domains. Completed points at different
by entire class during elevations on the
a one-week interval. contact between two
Total duration of formations in the
videos: 54:48 HRFZ (Abolins et al.
2015).
Undergraduates
overlay inferred faults
on the map
Structure surface! 10:11
Undergraduates use
the ArcGIS Spatial
Analyst “Topo to
Raster” tool to
interpolate a structure
surface.
Undergraduates use
different colors for
different elevations on
the surface.
Undergraduates
overlay inferred faults
Dip. Undergraduates 2:57
use the ArcGIS
Spatial Analyst
“Slope” tool to create
a color surface
depicting dip. The
input is the structure
surface (above)
Dip Direction. 2:56
Undergraduates use
the ArcGIS Spatial
Analyst “Aspect” tool
to create a color
surface depicting dip
direction. The input is
the structure surface
(the end-product of
“Structure surface!”)
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Defining structural 6:00
domains.
Undergraduates use
the ArcGIS Spatial
Analyst “Raster
Calculator” tool to
delineate areas having
dip directions of
22.5°–157.5°
Additional processing. 22:34
Undergraduates filter
their structural domain
map and learn about
the relationship
between their GIS
exercises and ongoing
research (Abolins
2016). See text for
explanation of
filtering. See Fig. 4 for
submission
2. How to make a Undergraduates use 28:06 HRFZ (Area A in
cross section with the ArcGIS 3D Fig. 3)
ArcGIS Analyst “Create
Profile Graph” tool to
create a cross section.
See Fig. 5 for
submission. In
parallel,
undergraduates
completing this GIS
exercise used four
videos (total duration
40:04 min) to solve a
paper-and-pencil
cross-sectional
problem based on
Wojtal (1988)
(continued)
210 M. Abolins
Table 2 (continued)
3. Making a geologic Undergraduates 30:37 East of SRFZ (Area B
map. One-week symbolize point in Fig. 3)
duration features representing
structural domain
mean bedding plane
attitudes described in
Abolins (2014).
Undergraduates add
standard cartographic
elements (e.g., a scale
bar). See Fig. 6 for
related summative
assessment
submission
constructed with data
from Area D in Fig. 3
4. 3D visualization of Undergraduates use 7:19 HRFZ (Area A in
structure surface. ArcScene to visualize Fig. 3)
Completed in parallel the color structure
with #3 above surface (the
end-product of
“Structure surface!”)
in 3D and overlay the
surface traces of
inferred faults. See
Fig. 7 for related
summative assessment
submission
constructed with data
from Area C in Fig. 3
HRFZ: Harpeth River fault zone. SRFZ: Stones River fault zone. See Abolins et al. (2015) for
information about inferred fault zones
After all undergraduates completed the week-long GIS assignment, undergradu-

ates had the option of (a) completing two weeks of additional GIS exercises (#2–#4
in Table 2) or (b) solving more pencil-and-paper problems selected from those in
Marshak and Mitra (1988) or similar to those in that text. Undergraduates who
opted for GIS largely worked independently. They received screen capture videos
(#2–#4 in Table 2) showing them how to complete tasks, and they submitted screen
shots of end-products (e.g., Fig. 5) to provide for formative assessment. They also
used four screen capture videos to learn how to use a pencil, paper, and a geo-
logic map to make a cross section through folds (Wojtal 1988). After completing
the additional GIS exercises, they completed a summative assessment requiring
them to use different data and ArcGIS to complete tasks like those depicted in the
videos. Undergraduates who opted to solve more pencil-and-paper problems explored
the following topics: making structure contour maps and cross sections in general,
West East
Elevation (ft.)
Distance from end of section line (ft.)
Fig. 5 Undergraduate formative assessment submission depicting a cross section through the base
of the Hermitage Formation within the Harpeth River fault zone (Fig. 4). Thin gray line is topography
from the National Elevation Dataset (NED). Fault zones were labeled by student. Other labels are
by the author. Vertical exaggeration: 35.4X
making a structure contour map of and a cross section through a homocline, making a
cross section through a kink fold, finding depth to detachment beneath a detachment
fold, and cratonic structural geology and tectonics. I met with those undergraduates
during the regularly scheduled class time. However, I videotaped my presentations,
and the undergraduates could refer to the videos outside of class time. After com-
pleting weekly assignments and receiving feedback, the undergraduates completed
a different summative assessment aligned with the problems they had solved.
4.3 The Rest of the Course: Supplementing

the Pencil-and-Paper and GIS Exercises
During the second half of the course, undergraduates completed a few assignments
in addition to those described above. While completing either (a) GIS exercises or (b)
pencil-and-paper problems, undergraduates also read a self-selected peer-reviewed
paper connecting structural geology and tectonics with a topic of interest to them,
and they prepared a PowerPoint and hands-on educational materials based on what
they had learned from the paper. After the second summative assessment, all of the
students came back together, and each undergraduate spent 25 min using his or her
PowerPoint and hands-on materials to teach the other undergraduates about the paper
he or she had read. Undergraduates also participated in a two-day field trip including
stops in the North American platform near MTSU, the Appalachian foreland fold
and thrust belt (e.g., Wilson and Wojtal 1986; Hatcher and Milici 1986; Hatcher et al.
2004), and the Appalachian internal metamorphic zone (Hatcher 2004a, b). Finally,
212 M. Abolins
undergraduates completed an assignment in which they used Stereonet freeware to

analyze structural data collected during the field trip.
5 Undergraduate Work
The author asked one undergraduate for permission to use coursework in this chapter,
and that undergraduate granted permission. The author asked that undergraduate
because that undergraduate completed all parts of all formative and summative assess-
ments. A geologic map (Fig. 6) is the response to the first summative assessment
prompt, and a 3D visualization of a structure surface (Fig. 7) comprises part of the
response to the second prompt. In response to the second prompt, the undergraduate
also completed a cross section similar to Fig. 5. However, the elevation of the geo-
logic contact was not plotted correctly because the undergraduate did not convert the
elevation of the geologic contact from meters to feet.
5.1 Summative Assessment
1. Use the rectified geologic map and the “attitudes” shapefile to make a 1:5000
geologic map of Hwy 231 where it passes through Marshall Knobs (SE corner
of Murfreesboro quad). Note that some attitudes are joints (j) and others are bed-
ding (b). Use different symbols for joints and bedding. Add standard cartographic
elements (e.g., a scale bar) as you did for your geologic map of the greenway.
[Additional explanation. The rectified geologic map was a scanned and georef-
erenced version of the US Geological Survey Murfreesboro 7.5’ quadrangle map
(Wilson 1965). The greenway map is the end-product of exercise #3 in Table 2.
A shapefile is an ESRI computer file containing information about the locations
and characteristics of point features.]
2. Use the OlbOrd shapefile to make a structure surface. [Additional explanation.
The shapefile contained the elevations of points on the contact between the
Ordovician Lebanon Limestone and the underlying Ordovician Ridley Lime-
stone. It was prepared by undergraduates involved in the research that led to
Abolins et al. (2018).] Then use the surface and ArcScene to make a 3D visu-
alization of the Lebanon–Ridley contact. Also, make a cross section that passes
through the structurally highest part of the map and the structurally lowest part
of the map. Note that I have already eliminated bad data from the shapefile. Also,
you don’t have to do any filtering. (You do not have to generate point density and
then eliminate areas having a low point density.) Just use interpolation to create
a structure surface.
Fig. 6 Undergraduate map submitted in response to a summative assessment prompt. All work is
by student. Geology is of Area D in Fig. 3. Geologic base map is Wilson (1965). Olb: Ordovician
Lebanon Limestone
214 M. Abolins
Fig. 7 Undergraduate 3D visualization of the top of the Ordovician Carters Formation (base of
the Ordovician Hermitage Formation) submitted in response to a summative assessment prompt.
Structure surface is of Area C in Fig. 3. Carters/Hermitage contact is from Wilson (1965) and Miller
and McCary (1963)
6 Situating the Pilot Project Within the Existing Education

Literature
6.1 Differentiated Learning
The pilot project is an authentic example of differentiated learning as described by

Tomlinson (2001). The author recognized that undergraduates within his classroom
differed in ability to complete GIS exercises because some had already completed a
required semester-long introductory GIS course and some had not. Recognizing the
heterogeneity of his class, the author allowed the undergraduates to self-select either
(a) GIS exercises or (b) more pencil-and-paper problems. Both groups learned about
structure surfaces, cross sections, and the structure and tectonics of the craton, but
each group completed a summative assessment aligned with the specific problems
actually solved by that group.
Although content and products were similar for the two groups, process and learn-
ing environment were markedly different. The process for the pencil-and-paper group
primarily involved the intersection between graphing (mathematics) and structural
geology, and that group was involved in embodied learning because they manually
drew curves and plotted points. The process for the GIS group was markedly differ-
ent, residing at the intersection between GIS and structural geology and requiring
computer literacy. Also, the GIS group worked with real research data related to
Abolins et al. (2015, 2018), while the pencil-and-paper group largely worked with
simple contrived examples. Learning environments also differed markedly: class-
room tabletop versus keyboard and screen in computer laboratory.
6.2 Visualization in Undergraduate Geoscience Education
The GIS group was authentically involved in the use of computer-generated 2D and
3D color visualizations and cross sections in structural geology education. Many
recent projects which are broadly similar to the pilot project involved Google Earth
(e.g., Whitmeyer et al. 2012). Quantitative research (Giorgis 2015) suggests that
Google Earth geologic mapping, map interpretation, and cross-sectional exercises
(Tewksbury 2015) improve visual penetrative ability and close a visual penetra-
tive ability performance gap between males and females. Similarities between the
GIS exercises and the Google Earth activities suggest that completion of the GIS
exercises might be associated with some of the same benefits, although many dif-
ferences between the two suggest that application of the Google Earth results to the
pilot project should be made with caution. Generally, extended and effective GIS
use should improve spatial skills (e.g., Hall-Wallace and McAuliffe 2002; Lee and
Bednarz 2009).
Giorgis (2015) suggests that scaffolding is important because he found that geo-
logic background knowledge boosted the impact of Google Earth use on visual pene-
trative ability. Others also found that scaffolding boosted the impact of visualizations
in education. For example, Stofer (2016) used qualitative methods to examine the
use by novices and experts of color maps broadly similar to the 2D structure surfaces
and found that scaffolding improved novice performance, although novice perfor-
mance was still not comparable to that of experts. Note, however, that scaffolding
in that study differed considerably from scaffolding in the pilot project. That study
primarily examined internal scaffolds like labels on illustrations. In contrast, the
pilot project primarily involved external scaffolds in the form of pencil-and-paper
problems solved by all of the undergraduates during the first half of the course and a
pencil-and-paper cross-sectional problem (Wojtal 1988) completed in parallel with
the GIS exercises. In addition, the GIS pair and most of the undergraduates solving
pencil-and-paper problems had completed a local semester-long academic year field
course in which they visited many of the locations described in Abolins (2014) and
Abolins et al. (2015, 2018).
6.3 What the Pilot Project Was not (But Could Become)
Although the pilot project involved some elements found in course-based under-
graduate research experiences (CUREs), problem-based learning, and place-based
learning, the pilot project lacked essential elements of all of those. Although under-
graduates used real research data (Abolins et al. 2015, 2018) and spent considerable
time (~1 month) on the GIS exercises and related summative assessment, the curric-
ular design did not explicitly require undergraduate formation of research questions
or hypotheses as is commonly done in course-based undergraduate research (e.g.,
Huntoon et al. 2001; Kortz and van der Hoeven Kraft 2016; Moss et al. 2018). The
216 M. Abolins
exercises fall outside the realm of most problem-based learning because they were
structured and largely completed individually. In contrast, most problem-based learn-
ing is more open-ended and involves groups (e.g., Smith et al. 1995). Also, the GIS
exercises did not focus on a real problem in seismic hazard, hydrogeology, engineer-
ing geology, or another applied geoscience sub-field, and problem-based learning
commonly involves such a problem (e.g., Lev 2004; Lant et al. 2016). Finally, while
the undergraduates investigated the geology of locations within 50 km of MTSU,
the exercises lacked essential characteristics of place-based geoscience education as
described by Semken (2005). Specifically, the exercises included almost no connec-
tions with local culture and did not explicitly promote ecologically and culturally
sustainable living in the local area. The limitations listed briefly in this paragraph
suggest some of the ways that the pilot project could evolve into a CURE, problem-
based learning, or place-based learning through redesign or expansion to include
additional elements.
7 Summary and Conclusions
This chapter describes a pilot project in which undergraduates used ArcGIS to learn
about structure surfaces, cross sections, and geologic maps by completing optional
exercises comprising approximately 25% of a structural geology course. Structures
examined by the undergraduates are located within 50 km of the MTSU campus in
central Tennessee and are part of a cratonic fault-and-fold zone (Abolins et al. 2015,
2018). Working independently, undergraduates used screen capture videos to learn
how to complete the exercises. Scaffolding included PowerPoint and pencil-and-
paper instruction in structural geology vocabulary, concepts, and problem-solving.
Also, undergraduates had completed a semester-long academic year field course
in the same geographic area. Undergraduate work shows that undergraduates can
complete the exercises and related summative assessment.
When considered in light of the education literature, the pilot project was authen-
tically an example of differentiated instruction and the use of 2D and 3D color visu-
alizations in structural geology. Many broadly similar projects involve Google Earth
(e.g., Whitmeyer et al. 2012; Tewksbury 2015). Quantitative research with Google
Earth curricula (e.g., Giorgis 2015) suggests that the pilot project GIS exercises might
improve visual penetrative ability and close the gender gap in visual penetrate ability,
although application of the Google Earth project results to the pilot project should be
made with caution because of differences between that project and this one. Gener-
ally, extended and effective GIS use should improve spatial skills (e.g., Hall-Wallace
and McAuliffe 2002; Lee and Bednarz 2009). Undergraduates grow in computer and
spatial skills as they move along the continuum from beginning undergraduates to
professionals capable of the computer-assisted structural geology research described
in studies like Lavecchia et al. (2017), Macaulay (2017), and Watkins et al. (2018).
Acknowledgements The author has taken consent from all participants in the study.
References
Abolins M (2014) Undergraduates discovering folds in “flat” strata: an unusual undergraduate

geology field methods course. J Geosci Ed 62:264–277
Abolins M (2016) Using the spatial analysis of a structure contour map to compare fold hinge
and fault orientations within the Harpeth River fault zone, a cratonic fault and fold zone in
central Tennessee. Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts with Programs 48(7), https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/
2016AM/webprogram/Paper287942.html
Abolins M, Bush R, Han A (2018) Mesoscale faults, mesoscale folds, and inferred basement struc-
tures, Nashville dome, central Tennessee. In: Engel AS, Hatcher RD Jr. (eds) Geology at every
scale: field excursions for the 2018 GSA southeastern section meeting in Knoxville, Tennessee,
vol 50, p 95–119, https://doi.org/10.1130/2018.0050(07)
Abolins M, Young S, Camacho J et al (2015) A road guide to the Harpeth River and Stones River
fault zones on the northwest flank of the Nashville dome, central Tennessee. In: Holmes AE (ed)
Diverse excursions in the southeast: Paleozoic to present, vol 39, p 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1130/
2015.0039(01)
Beaumont C, Quinlan G, Hamilton J (1988) Orogeny and stratigraphy: numerical models of the
Paleozoic in the eastern interior of North America. Tectonics 7:389–416. https://doi.org/10.1029/
TC007i003p00389
Bose N, Mukherjee S (2017) Map interpretation for structural geologists. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Cardoza N, Allmendinger R (2013) Spherical projections with OSXStereonet. Comp Geosci
51:193–205
Giorgis S (2015) Google earth mapping exercises for structural geology students—A promising
intervention for improving penetrative visualization ability. J Geosci Ed 63:140–146
Hall-Wallace M, McAuliffe C (2002) Design, implementation, and evaluation of GIS-based learning
materials in an introductory geoscience course. J Geosci Ed 50(1):5–14
Hall-Wallace M, Schaller C, Walker CS et al (2003) Exploring water resources: GIS investigations
for the earth sciences. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove
Hall-Wallace M, Butler RF, Huth A et al (2007) Exploring the dynamic earth: GIS investigations
for the earth sciences, ArcGIS ed. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont
Hatcher RD Jr (2004a) Trans appalachians internides geotraverse: overview. In: Merschat AJ,
Hatcher RD Jr (eds) 17th International Basement Tectonics Conference Field Guides, Oak Ridge,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, p 1–12, June, 2004
Hatcher RD Jr (2004b) Trans appalachians internides geotraverse: day 1, Transect From Laurentian
Rifted Margin to Suspect Terranes & the Upper Crust to Lower Middle Crust SE TN, Western NC
Blue Ridge: Ordovician Greenschist to Granulite Facies Barrovian Metamorphism. In: Merschat
AJ, Hatcher RD Jr (eds) 17th International Basement Tectonics Conference Field Guides, Oak
Ridge, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, p 13–27, June, 2004
Hatcher RD Jr, Milici RC (1986) Ocoee Gorge: appalachian valley and ridge to blue ridge transition.
In: Neathery TL (ed) Southeastern section of the geological society of America centennial field
guide, vol 6. Geol. Soc. of Amer, Boulder, pp 265–270
Hatcher RD Jr, Whisner JB, Thigpen JR et al (2004) Southern Appalachian Foreland Fold-Thrust
Belt. In: Hatcher RD Jr, Merschat AJ, Whisner JB (eds) 17th International Basement Tectonics
Conference Field Guides, Oak Ridge, University of Tennessee, Knoxville , June, 2004
Huntington K, Klepeis K (eds) (2018) Challenges and opportunities for research in tectonics:
understanding deformation and the processes that link earth systems, from geologic time to
human time, University of Washington. https://doi.org/10.6069/H52R3PQ5
Huntoon JE, Bluth GJS, Kennedy WA (2001) Measuring the effects of research-based field expe-
rience on undergraduates and K-12 teachers. J Geosci Ed 49(3):235–248
Kortz KM, van der Hoeven Kraft KJ (2016) Geoscience education research project: student benefits
and effective design of a course-based undergraduate research experience. J Geosci Ed 64:24–36
218 M. Abolins
Lant C, Pérez-Lapeña B, Xiong W, Kraft S et al (2016) Environmental systems simulations for

carbon, energy, nitrogen, water, and watersheds: design principles and pilot testing. J Geosci Ed
64(2):115–124. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-004.1
Lavecchia G, Adinolfi G, Nardis R et al (2017) Multidisciplinary inferences on a newly recognized
active east-dipping extensional system in Central Italy. Terra Nova 29(1):77–89
Lee J, Bednarz R (2009) Effect of GIS learning on spatial thinking. J Geog Higher Ed 33(2):183–198
Lev SM (2004) A Problem-based learning exercise for environmental geology. J Geosci Ed
52(2):128–132. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-52.2.128
Macaulay E (2017) A new approach to backstripping and sequential restoration in subsalt sediments.
AAPG Bull 101(9):1385–1394
Marshak S, Mitra G (eds) (1988) Basic methods of structural geology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice-Hall
Miller R, and McCary C (1963) Geologic map and mineral resources summary of the college grove
Quadrangle. Tennessee Division of Geology Geologic Quadrangle Map 70-SW, scale 1:24,000
Misra AA, Mukherjee S (2018) Atlas of structural geological interpretation from seismic images,
Wiley Blackwell
Moss E, Cervato C, Genschel U et al (2018) Authentic research in an introductory geology laboratory
and student reflections: impact on nature of science understanding and science self-efficacy. J
Geosci Ed. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1411730
Namson J, Davis TL (1990) Late cenozoic fold and thrust belt in the southern coast ranges and
santa Maria basin, California. AAPG Bulletin 74:467–492
Nicholson S, Dicken C, Horton J et al (2007) Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for
the United States: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/
1324/ Accessed 9 March 2018
Pehrsson S, Eglington B, Evans D et al (2016) Metallogeny and its link to orogenic style during the
Nuna supercontinent cycle. In: Li ZX, Evans DAD, Huston D et al (eds) Supercontinent cycles
through earth history, vol 424. Geological Society, London, pp 83–94
Reesman AL, Stearns RG (1989) The Nashville dome, an isostatically induced erosional structure
and the Cumberland Plateau Dome, an isostatically suppressed late Paleozoic extension of the
Jessamine dome. Southeastern Geol. 30:147–174
Semken S (2005) Sense of place and place-based introductory geoscience teaching for American
Indian and Alaska native undergraduates. J Geosci Ed 53(2):149–157
Smith DL, Hoersch AL, Gordon PR (1995) Problem-based learning in the undergraduate geology
classroom. J Geol Ed 43(4):385–390
Stearns R, Reesman A (1986) Cambrian to Holocene structural and burial history of Nashville
dome. AAPG Bull 70:143–154
Stein CA, Stein S, Merino M et al (2014) Was the midcontinent rift part of a successful seafloor-
spreading episode? Geophys Res Lett 41:1465–1470
Stein CA, Kley J, Stein S et al (2015) North America’s midcontinent rift: when rift met LIP.
Geosphere 11:1607–1616
Stofer KA (2016) When a picture isn’t worth 1000 words: learners struggle to find meaning in data
visualizations. J Geosci Ed 64:231–241
Tewksbury B (2015) Using Google earth to teach geologic map interpretation, cross section con-
struction, and geologic mapping. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/structure/Google_
Earth/approach.htmlAccessed 9 March 2018
Tomlinson CA (2001) How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, 2nd edn. Asso-
ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria
van der Pluijm BA, Marshak S (2004) Earth structure, 2nd edn. WW Norton & Co., New York
Watkins H, Healy D, Bond C et al (2018) Implications of heterogeneous fracture distribution on
reservoir quality; an analogue from the Torridon Group sandstone. Moine Thrust Belt, NW
Scotland. 108:180–197
White J, Jessop C, Scotese C et al (2009) Depicting biostratigraphical data from palynodata: exper-
iments and questions in data presentation and manipulation. Palynology 33(2):157–174
Whitmeyer SJ, Bailey JE, DePaor DG et al (2012) Google Earth and Virtual Visualizations in
Geoscience Education and Research. Geol Soc Amer, Boulder
Wilson CW Jr (1965) Geologic map and mineral resources summary of the Murfreesboro Quad-
rangle, Tennessee. Tenn. Div. Geol. Geol. Quadrangle Map, 315-SW, scale 1:24,000
Wilson CW Jr, Stearns R (1963) Quantitative analysis of ordovician and younger structural devel-
opment of Nashville dome. Tennessee. AAPG Bull 47(5):823–832
Wilson R, Wojtal S (1986) Cumberland Plateau decollement zone at Dunlap, Tennessee. In: Neathery
TL (ed) Southeastern section of the geological society of America centennial field guide, vol 6.
Geol. Soc. of Amer, Boulder, pp 143–148
Withjack MO, Olson J, Peterson E (1990) Experimental models of extensional forced folds. AAPG
Bull 74:1038–1054
Wojtal S (1988) Objective methods for constructing profiles and block diagrams of folds. In: Mar-
shak S, Mitra G (eds) Basic methods of structural geology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall,
pp 269–302
Teaching Structural Geology in Indian
Context
Soumyajit Mukherjee
Abstract While updates on the Indian structural geological and tectonic research
have been available from time to time (e.g., Bhattacharya et al. in Proc Indian Nat
Sci Acad 82:435–443, 2017), teaching strategy and critique on these subjects from
India has not come up yet. This chapter emphasizes the urgent need for quantitative
structural geology and tectonics teaching in India. In this chapter, I share few personal
approaches in teaching structural geology to M.Sc. applied geology students in the
Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Bombay: (i) students’ evaluation through their
peers, (ii) group discussions, (iii) field training, and (iv) going beyond the syllabus.
Several papers in the Journal of Geoscience Education discuss mode and motto
of tectonic and structural teaching, geological visualization, and field approaches
(e.g., Badgley in Structural methods for the exploration geologist. Harper & Row,
New York, p. 280, 1959; Libarkin and Brick in J Geosci Educ 50:449–455, 2002;
Elkins and Elkins in J Geosci Educ 55:126–132, 2007; Orion et al. in J Geosci Educ
45:129–132, 2018).
Keywords Structural geology teaching · Tectonics

Postgraduate education of structural geology in India
1 Approach in Structural Geology
Structural geology has been described classically as a field-based subject. However,

with time the scope of the subject has increased. Presently, geoscientists can think
structural geology being practiced by the following principal methods:
(1) Field studies
(2) Microscopy
(3) Modeling: analogue and analytical.
S. Mukherjee (B)
Powai, Mumbai 400 076, Maharashtra, India
222 S. Mukherjee
The aim of structural geology has been chiefly to decipher the geometry and
genesis of structures at different scales that are mostly deformation-induced, i.e.,
the secondary structures. With time, diverse industry-oriented branches have also
cropped out. Structural geologists’ inputs have been crucial in engineering geology
in applied field. Structural geology has also attempted extracting rheological (Talbot
1999; Mukherjee et al. 2010; Mukherjee 2011, 2013; Mukherjee and Mulchrone
2012, 2013; Mulchrone and Mukherjee 2015, 2016) and thermodynamic information
(Mukherjee and Khonsari 2018; Mukherjee 2017a; Mukherjee and Mulchrone 2013;
Mulchrone and Mukherjee 2015, 2016; Marko and Caddick 2018; Mukherjee and
Agarwal 2018) of rocks by a number of indirect methods. Geomechanics is now
considered to be an important aspect of structural geology (e.g., Dasgupta et al., in
press).
Recently, Geological Society of London published a book on “Industrial Struc-
tural Geology” (e.g., Richardson et al. 2015). Fossen (2010, 2016) introduced several
issues of hydrocarbon geology, such as the primer for fault seal analysis, for the first
time within the structural geology textbook. Possibly because of lack of funds for
core/pure research and more importantly current societal/industrial requirements
have pushed structural geologists to explore (numerical modeling of) carbon seques-
tration, radioactive waste disposal and other waste management issues, pore pressure
prediction, well bore stability, etc. The modern and the broad range of structural geol-
ogy is also well reflected in the scope of the Journal of Structural Geology (Internet
Reference-1): “The Journal of Structural Geology publishes process-oriented inves-
tigations about structural geology using appropriate combinations of analog and
digital field data, seismic reflection data, satellite-derived data, geometric analy-
sis, kinematic analysis, laboratory experiments, computer visualizations, and ana-
logue or numerical modelling on all scales. Contributions are encouraged to draw
perspectives from rheology, rock mechanics, geophysics, metamorphism, sedimen-
tology, petroleum geology, economic geology, geodynamics, planetary geology, tec-
tonics and neotectonics to provide a more powerful understanding of deformation
processes and systems. Given the visual nature of the discipline, supplementary mate-
rials that portray the data and analysis in 3-D or quasi 3-D manners, including the
use of videos, and/or graphical abstracts can significantly strengthen the impact of
contributions.”
Geoscience students with B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees can be hired for various geo-
scientific assignments, and not all of them will handle structural geological issues.
As a real (broad) example, a student who is a geologist by training has been asked
to undertake geophysical studies in a private company. It is therefore very impor-
tant for any geology students to know how structural geology can work with other
geoscientific branches.
The syllabus of structural geology courses in the Appendix shows no such mul-
tidisciplinary aspect of the subject that is presently taught. In this situation, students
are left to learn multidisciplinary aspect of the subject after joining their jobs and
through their experiences. This can be well avoided, and the instructors can take
more charge by upgrading their course contents. Just as an example, techniques of
identifying faults in the field are compulsorily taught to geology students following
Teaching Structural Geology in Indian Context 223
standard textbooks, e.g., Billings (1954) and Fossen (2016). But there is an alto-
gether different approach of identifying faults based on geomorphologic and image
studies (e.g., Keller and Pinter 2002; Misra et al. 2014; Dasgupta and Mukherjee
2017, submitted; Kaplay et al. 2017), and seismic reflection studies (e.g., Misra and
Mukherjee 2018a, b; Misra et al. 2018a, b) as well. Active faults in terrains, espe-
cially out-of-sequence faults (Mukherjee et al. 2012; Thakur 2013), can be identified
based on geomorphologic criteria. Such faults can be seismogenic. Students join-
ing any remote sensing organization or co-working with geomorphologists would
require such knowledge. To add such inputs in classroom teaching, the instructor
needs to undertake “research for the sake of teaching.” The instructor can argue that
due to time constraint in semester mode of teaching, it is not possible to add more
components in his/her lecture. But it may be still possible to achieve if PowerPoint
presentations are prepared for “smarter” presentations that can use time economically
in the classroom.
A second concern arises after noting the existing structural geology syllabus
(Appendix) for the master’s students in Earth Sciences Departments in IIT Roor-
kee and IIT Bombay. The present syllabus does not empower students to study the
deformation mechanism independently. Traditionally geological teaching in India
has been providing chunk of information that seldom explains the true reasons. The
standard statement in the class has been: “If X and Y conditions exist, P and Q would
be the result.” In contrast, if the structural geology instructor really wants her students
to solve problems independently, the students must be made well acquainted with 3D
geometry, tensor operation, solid and fluid mechanics (e.g., Burgmann and Dresen
2008; Mukherjee 2013), statics (e.g., Ghosh 1993; Mukherjee 2017b, 2018a, b, c),
rheology, graph theory (e.g., Sanderson and Nixon 2018, Mukherjee in press), ther-
modynamics, computer programming, finite elements and finite difference methods,
software that can simulate deformation such as COMSOL (e.g., Lunn et al. 2008;
Bose et al. 2018), etc. These can be done through structural problems of moderate
difficulty level posed by the faculty. Billi and Fagereng (in press) provide few such
problems and solutions.
Structural geologists for non-specialists such as geophysicists and civil engineers
are another aspect. Wiley has been publishing such books in different branches (e.g.,
Allen 2010). Structural geology and tectonics text written in this problem-solving
format would be much required. The geoscientific community has at present a few
books on numerical problem solutions in structural geology (e.g., Allmandinger et al.
2012), but they look difficult for the beginners.
2 Students as Evaluators
Marcel Frehner (ETH Zurich), in Chap. 2 of this book, refers students’ evaluation
technique that is being used to grade students. Interestingly, I have been conducting
an evaluation technique with students with the following workflow. This takes about
4 h to conduct, so ideally a laboratory class is used for this purpose.
224 S. Mukherjee
I. One specific structural geological issue, I conduct some seven lectures.

II. Students are informed to study the content well and come prepared for an exam.
III. Students set questions of 10 marks in question paper-cum-answer sheet. They
are asked not to set flat question such as “Define X.”
IV. The question papers are then interchanged with the other students. Students
now need to answer those questions within say one hour.
V. After the exam gets over, students get back those sheets where they set questions.
They need to check all answers, assign numbers, write comments, etc., within
around 40 min.
VI. The annotated sheets now go back to the students who answered them. They
now sit along with the question setters and seek clarification for marks deducted
and comments made.
I join as another examiner in the two following cases, which sometimes arise:
(i) The question setter student cannot justify why he deduced marks.
(ii) The students answering text point out that some of the questions are incorrect.
In this way, a very interactive session is developed, where even the most introvert
student is forced to speak out and discuss. Having even number of students makes
this exercise easy to undertake. In case the student number is odd, I usually ask one
of the students to answer her questions herself, and then I check her questions and
answers. However, I do not add the marks assigned by the students in my formal
evaluation and in assigning grades. This exercise enables students to frame correct
questions in the subject, and probably for the first time to check answer sheets.
3 Group Discussions
Another activity I conduct is the “group discussion.” Typically after finishing a single
issue, such as doming and diapirism (e.g., Talbot and Pohjola 2009; Mukherjee et al.
2010), I instruct students to come well prepared for a discussion. Students also
need to study what has not been covered in the class by looking at textbooks and
research papers. The group discussion involves unconventional questions instantly
raised by students, and the most plausible geological answers. Examples could be:
does diapirism necessarily involve thinning of the overlying rock/sediment layer? As
per Ramsay’s scheme, which class of fold is expected by flexing this sediment layer?
Can one explain how the profiles of the thermal and the electrical conductivity will
look like across a salt dome? The advantage of brainstorming leads to new ideas,
and admittedly not always the participants can answer them instantly. Students are
asked to visit library to find answers to unresolved issues and submit logical answers
along with references.
4 Fieldwork
Geology students of my department compulsorily undergoing field training have

been visiting usually at Ambaji (Gujarat, India; Biswal et al. 2010; Singh et al.
2010; Mahadani et al. 2015; Fig. 1). Prof. T. K. Biswal, a passionate field-based
structural geologist, studied this terrain in a great extent and passed his knowledge
to the younger faculty members. This is a unique terrain where all kinds of rocks
and tremendous variation of deformation features are available to demonstrate. Sur-
pagla is an area, in between the Ambaji temple and the Abu Road railway station,
where diverse and clear-cut structures exist. Even junior school students without any
exposure to geoscience can be brought here and be convinced with the structures.
Similarly, Taleti is another place where superposition and order of folds can be quite
well demonstrated in a small area. Surpagla and Taleti are areas where no climbing
is required to undertake the fieldwork. Therefore, one can focus on the structures.
My approaches with students regarding fieldwork course have been:
I. Each student can make an oral presentation for about 10 min on different
geoscientific issues of Ambaji area in my class, before visiting for fieldwork.
II. They submit a report on geology, structures, and tectonics of this terrain before
going out for fieldwork. All minerals and rocks reported from this terrain are
listed, and their distinguishing properties are jotted down.
Fig. 1 Relaxed moment during fieldwork at Surpagla area, Ambaji, in 2015, with the then M.Sc.
first-year applied geology students. S. Mukherjee is located at the fourth position from left in the
front row
226 S. Mukherjee
III. In field: The first day is spent on basic measurement techniques using both
conventional clinometer and brunton. Measurements using mobile phones are
also done and accuracy of the mobile phone derived data is checked carefully.
IV. Second day: Mine visit is done. The abandoned Deri Cu mine is visited and
rocks and minerals are identified using a hand lens. This is followed by visiting
a limestone opencast mine. The mining geologist/engineer explains the mining
operation. Mine visit is traditionally done in fieldwork at the last day when
students’ energy and interest go down. To avoid this, I usually keep the second
day of the fieldwork for mine visit.
V. Rest of the days: Identification of structures with the partial assistance of
the faculty members. Students are then encouraged to explore more. A day
or two days are kept for independent mapping of litho-contacts for several
kilometers, near the Koteshwar area. Likewise, one or two days are kept for
plane paper mapping. It is ensured that students work both in groups and also
individually. Coming back from field, students are asked to cross-check in
Google Earth image whether the drawn litho-contacts are also revealed in any
other (geomorphologic) ways.
VI. Every night, students need to submit the resume of fieldwork and one-to-one
discussions are made with them. Besides, every night, five to six students need
to make oral presentation using laptop where both students and faculty ask
more questions. The aim is to push interpretations to be more detailed.
VII. Coming back from fieldwork, students need to submit individual reports of
fieldwork, usually within 40 days. Students are encouraged to send soft copies
of their reports 7 days before formal submission dates, so that I have a look and
suggest improvements, and I also run the entire report in plagiarism checker.
Reports with copied sentences from previous literature/batch mate’s reports
are returned, and the students are asked to rewrite in their own language.
VIII. Spread over almost an entire semester, students deliver oral presentations for
about 10 min on specific issues of Ambaji geology and the fieldwork done.
Grades are awarded based on all the activities I to VIII. Field diaries are also
checked along with the field reports. Things checked in the report: diagrams/sketches,
data collected, daily resume, etc.
5 Syllabus and Beyond
When allotted to instruct structural geology for the geology students, I cover the syl-
labus and in addition touch the following subjects: (i) principles of analogue modeling
(geometric, dynamic, and kinematics; I am yet to add up centrifuge modeling tech-
niques and numerical problems), (ii) cross section balancing, (iii) well bore stability,
(iv) rock rheology, (v) pore pressure prediction, (vi) statics (moment and product of
inertia, isostasy, center of gravity for rock column with known density variation), (vii)
growth folds and growth faults, compaction folds, diapir mechanism, (viii) Poiseuille
flow mechanism and strain profiles for Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids, (ix)
preliminary other aspects of fluid mechanics, etc.
Acknowledgements Springer proofreading team is thanked for their assistance. Ph.D. student
Dripta Dutta made an internal review. Mukherjee (2018d) summarizes this work.
Appendix
Syllabus of Structural Geology at the Department of Earth

Sciences, IIT Roorkee (Internet Reference-2)
ES 203
Geological significance and recognition of unconformities

Morphology of folds
Geometric classifications of folds
Genetic classifications of folds
Mechanism and causes of folding
Strain distribution in different types of folds
Outcrop patterns of different types of folds
Geometric and genetic classification of faults, effects of faulting on outcrops, large-
scale faults, and their tectonic significance
Geometric and genetic classification of joints
Foliation, their descriptive terminology, origin, and relation to major structures
Different types of lineations, their origin, and their relation to major structures
Different types of shear zones and their development.
Practical
Contour, stratum contour, dip, and strike problems

Plunge and pitch of lineations
Completion of outcrop pattern
Geological maps—cross section through different types of structures and geological
history
Dip isogon studies and classification of folds
Geological structures in hand specimen.
228 S. Mukherjee
ES 204: Field Training-1
Study of toposheets and geological maps

Determination of location on maps
Measurements of dip and strike of planar surfaces
Measurement of lineation
Measurement of stratigraphic columns
Geological mapping
Plotting and analysis of field data.
ES 304
Stress in homogeneous and inhomogeneous media and analytical techniques

Geometry and analysis of fractures, joints, and faults
Homogeneous strain and techniques of strain analysis including Fry method, grain
center method, and Rf/ method
Geometry of folds and their classification schemes
Mechanism of folding and internal strain accommodation
Shear zones and techniques of their analysis
Example analysis of foliation and lineation in rocks: geometry, mechanics, and sig-
nificance
Techniques of structural analysis in areas of superposed folding
Different types of deformation mechanism.
Practical
Techniques of strain analysis: determination of finite strain of deformed objects using

long- to short-axis, center-to-center, Fry, and Rf/ methods
Determination of finite strain from deformed fossils
Dip isogon method of fold analysis
Determination of strain in ductile shear zones and analysis of brittle fault zones
Structural analysis of folded terrains.
Syllabus of Structural Geology at the Department of Earth

Sciences, IIT Bombay (Internet Reference-3)
GS 407
Dynamic and kinematic analyses of rocks in two dimensions

Stress and strain. folds—classification, mechanism of folding
Biot’s law—strain within buckled layer, similar fold and shear fold, kink bands,
chevron folds, and conjugate fold
Cleavage, lineation, boudinage; deformation of linear structures by flexural slip fold-
ing and shear folding
Deformation of planar structures by flexural slip folding and shear folding; superim-
posed folding
Type 1, 2, and 3 interference pattern
Faults and ductile shear zone.
GS 413 Structural Geology Laboratory
Stereographic plotting and contouring of planes and lines

Analysis of folds, faults, and ductile shear zone
Strain measurements from deformed fossils and other markers
Interpretation of geological maps
Computer aids to analysis of structural data.
GS 450 Geological Fieldwork
Fieldwork in Metamorphic Terrai

Toposheet reading, use of GPS
Recconnaitory traverse
Structural mapping (1:1000) scale
Oriented sampling
Shear zone studies
Visit to mines
References
Allen JH (2010) Statics for dummies. Wiley, Hoboken. ISBN 978-0-470-59894-8

Allmendinger RW, Cardozo N, Fisher DM (2012) Structural geology algorithms: vectors and ten-
sors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-107-01200-4
Badgley PC (1959) Structural methods for the exploration geologist. Harper & Row. New York.
280p
Bhattacharya AR, Bose S, Mukherjee BK, Mamtani MA, Srivastava DC (2017) Status of research
in structural geology; the Indian scene during the last five years. Proc Indian Nat Sci Acad
82:435–443
Billings MP (1954) Structural geology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Biswal TK, Thirukumaran V, Ratre K, Bandyapadhaya K, Sundaralingam K, Mondal AK (2010)
A study of mylonites from parts of the Salem-Attur shear zone (Tamil Nadu) and its tectonic
implications. J Geol Soc Ind 75:128–136
230 S. Mukherjee
Bose N, Dutta D, Mukherjee S (2018) Role of grain-size in phyllonitisation: insights from miner-
alogy, microstructures, strain analyses and numerical modeling. J Struct Geol 112:39–52
Burgmann R, Dresen G (2008) Rheology of the lower crust and upper mantle: evidence from rock
mechanics, geodesy, and field observations. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 36:531–567
Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S (2017) Brittle shear tectonics in a narrow continental rift: asymmetric
non-volcanic Barmer basin (Rajasthan, India). J Geol 125:561–591
Dasgupta T, Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S. Image log interpretation of geomechanical issues. In:
Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer. ISBN
978-981-13-2781-0 (in press)
Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S. Remote sensing in lineament identification: examples from western India.
In: Billi A, Fagereng A (eds) Problems and solutions in structural geology and tectonics. Devel-
opments in structural geology and tectonics book series. Series Editor: Mukherjee S. Elsevier.
ISSN 2542-9000. ISBN 9780128140482 (in press)
Elkins JT, Elkins NML (2007) Teaching geology in the field: significant geoscience concept gains
in entirely field-based introductory geology courses. J Geosci Educ 55:126–132
Billi A, Fagereng A (eds) Problems and solutions in structural geology and tectonics. Developments
in structural geology and tectonics book series. Series Editor: Mukherjee S. Elsevier. ISSN 2542-
9000 (in press)
Fossen H (2010) Structural geology, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-
0-521-51664-8
Fossen H (2016) Structural geology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 13:
978-1107057647
Ghosh SK (1993) Structural geology: fundamentals and modern developments. Pergamon Press,
Oxford
Internet reference-1: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-structural-geology
Internet reference-2: https://www.iitr.ac.in/departments/ES/uploads/File/ES-203.pdf (ES 203)
Internet reference-3: https://www.iitr.ac.in/departments/ES/uploads/File/ES-304.pdf (ES 304)
Kaplay RD, Babar MD, Mukherjee S, Kumar TV (2017) Morphotectonic expression of geological
structures in eastern part of south east Deccan volcanic province (around Nanded, Maharashtra,
India). In: Mukherjee S, Misra AA, Calvès G, Nemčok M (eds) Tectonics of the Deccan large
igneous province. Geological society. Special Publications, London 445:317–335
Keller EA, Pinter N (2002) Active tectonics: earthquakes. uplift, and landscape (2nd edn). Prentice
Hall, New Jersey, ISBN: 0-13-088230-5. pp. 49–86
Libarkin JC, Brick C (2002) Research methodologies in science education: visualization and the
geosciences. J Geosci Educ 50:449–455
Lunn RJ, Willson JP, Shipton ZK, Moir H (2008) Simulating brittle fault growth from linkage of
preexisting structures. J Geophys Res 113:B07403
Mahadani T, Biswal TK, Mukherjee T (2015) Strain estimation of folds, orbiculites and quartz
phenocrysts in the Ambaji Basin of the South Delhi Terrane, Aravalli Delhi Mobile Belt, NW
India and its Tectonic implication. J Geol Soc India 85:139–152
Marko CA, Caddick MJ (2018) Quantifying magnitudes of shear heating in metamorphic systems.
Misra AA, Mukherjee S (2018a) Atlas of structural geological interpretation from seismic images.
Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken. ISBN 978-1-119-15832-5
Misra AA, Mukherjee S (2018b) Seismic structural analysis (Chap. 2) In: Misra AA, Mukher-
jee S (eds) Atlas of structural geological interpretation from seismic images, pp. 15–26. Wiley
Blackwell, Hoboken. ISBN: 978-1-119-15832-5
Misra AA, Bhattacharya G, Mukherjee S, Bose N (2014) Near N-S paleo-extension in the western
Deccan region in India: does it link strike-slip tectonics with India-Seychelles rifting? Int J Earth
Sci 103:1645–1680
Misra AA, Sinha N, Mukherjee S (2018a) The gop rift: a Paleo slow spreading centre, offshore
Gujarat, India. In: Misra AA, Mukherjee S (eds) Atlas of structural geological interpretation from
seismic images, pp 208–212. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken. ISBN: 978-1-119-15832-5
Misra AA, Sinha N, Mukherjee S (2018b) The Ratnagiri fracture zone: a Paleo Oceanic-fracture-
zone in the Mumbai-Ratnagiri offshore region, West India. In: Misra AA, Mukherjee S (eds)
Atlas of structural geological interpretation from seismic images, pp 195–199. Wiley Blackwell,
Hoboken. ISBN: 978-1-119-15832-5
Mukherjee S (2011) Estimating the viscosity of rock bodies-a comparison between the Hormuz-and
the Namakdan salt domes in the Persian Gulf, and the Tso Morari Gneiss Dome in the Himalaya.
J Indian Geophys Union 15:161–170
Mukherjee S (2013) Channel flow extrusion model to constrain dynamic viscosity and Prandtl
number of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone. Int J Earth Sci 102:1811–1835
Mukherjee S (2017a) Shear heating by translational brittle reverse faulting along a single, sharp
and straight fault plane. J Earth Syst Sci 126(1):1
Mukherjee S (2017b) Airy’s isostatic model: a proposal for a realistic case. Arab J Geosci 10:268
Mukherjee S (2018a) Locating center of pressure in 2D geological situations. J Indian Geophys
Union 22:49–51
Mukherjee S (2018b) Locating center of gravity in geological contexts. Int J Earth Sci
107:1935–1939
Mukherjee S (2018c) Moment of inertia for rock blocks subject to bookshelf faulting with geolog-
ically plausible density distributions. J Earth Syst Sci 127:80
Mukherjee S (2018d) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics: an introduction.
In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer, Berlin
Mukherjee S. Using graph theory to represent brittle plane networks. In: Billi A, Fagereng A
(eds) Problems and solutions in structural geology and tectonics. Developments in structural
geology and tectonics book series. Series Editor: Mukherjee S. Elsevier. ISSN 2542-9000; ISBN
9780128140482 (in press)
Mukherjee S, Khonsari MM (2017) Brittle rotational faults and the associated shear heating. Mar
Pet Geol 88:551–554
Mukherjee S, Khonsari MM (2018) Inter-book normal fault-related shear heating in brittle bookshelf
faults. Mar Pet Geol 97:45–48
Mukherjee S, Mulchrone K (2012) Estimating the viscosity and Prandtl number of the Tso Morari
Gneiss Dome, western Indian Himalaya. Int J Earth Sci 101:1929–1947
Mukherjee S, Mulchrone KF (2013) Viscous dissipation pattern in incompressible Newtonian simple
shear zones: an analytical model. Int J Earth Sci 102:1165–1170
Mukherjee S, Agarwal I (2018) Shear heat model for gouge free dip-slip listric normal faults. Mar
Pet Geol 98:397–400
Mukherjee S, Talbot CJ, Koyi HA (2010) Viscosity estimates of salt in the Hormuz and Namakdan
salt diapirs, Persian Gulf. Geol Mag 147:497–507
Mukherjee S, Koyi HA, Talbot CJ (2012) Implications of channel flow analogue models in extrusion
of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone with special reference to the out-of-sequence thrusting. Int
J Earth Sci 101:253–272
Mulchrone KF, Mukherjee S (2015) Shear senses and viscous dissipation of layered ductile simple
shear zones. Pure Appl Geophys 172:2635–2642
Mulchrone KF, Mukherjee S (2016) Kinematics and shear heat pattern of ductile simple shear zones
with ‘slip boundary condition’. Int J Earth Sci 105:1015–1020
Orion N, Ben-Chaim D, Kali Y (2018) Relationship between Earth-Science education and spatial
visualization. J Geosci Educ 45:129–132
Richardson NJ, Richards FL, Rippington SJ, Bond CE, Wilson RW (2015) Industrial structural geol-
ogy: principles, techniques and integration: an introduction. Geological Society, p 421. Special
Publications, London. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP421.15
Sanderson DJ, Nixon CW (2018) Topology, connectivity and percolation in fracture networks. J
Struct Geol 115:167–177
Sanderson DJ, Peacock DCP, Nixon CW, Rotevatn A. Graph theory and the analysis of fracture
networks. J Struct Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011 (in press)
232 S. Mukherjee
Singh YK, De Waele B, Karmakar S, Sarkar S, Biswal TK (2010) Tectonic setting of the Balaram-
Kui-Surpagla-Kengora granulites of the South Delhi Terrane of the Aravalli Mobile Belt, NW
India and its implication on correlation with the East African Orogen in the Gondwana assembly.
Precambr Res 183:669–688
Talbot CJ (1999) Can field data constrain rock viscosities? J Struct Geol 21:949–957
Talbot CJ, Pohjola V (2009) Subaerial salt extrusions in Iran as analogues of ice sheets, streams
and glaciers. Earth Sci Rev 97:153–183
Thakur VC (2013) Active tectonics of Himalayan Frontal Fault system. Int J Earth Sci
102:1791–1810
Teaching Structural Geology Map
Interpretation to Masters’ Students: The
Experience of a Teaching Assistant
Narayan Bose
Abstract The work of Teaching Assistant (TA) is compulsory for the Ph.D. students
in many (Indian) Institutes. Through this short article, I share my experiences in
working as a TA in the Structural Geology classes in IIT Bombay. Such an avenue
gave me the very first exposure to teaching. Gathering such teaching experiences for
a few years, eventually, I have been able to publish a map interpretation book (Bose
and Mukherjee, Map interpretation for structural geologists. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2017). The teaching experience has been fulfilling in terms of this output, and it also
cleared my geological doubts in some issues.
Keywords Teaching · Structural Geology · Map interpretation
1 Main Text
On one fine morning in 2015, my Ph.D. supervisor Prof. Soumyajit Mukherjee sug-
gested me to instruct the M.Sc. Applied Geophysics students in a Structural Geology
practical class. I was asked to discuss the basic concepts and interpret a beginner’s
geological map. The map consists of a monoclinal sequence that crops out in an
undulating topography. I readily accepted to instruct students, but in the class, soon
after conversing with the students, I clearly realized that the job was not so easy as I
thought it would be.
It has been a time when I was spending my time on literature surveys and under-
standing my Ph.D. research problem. Eventually, explaining even the very basic
concepts, e.g., topography, inclined beds, strike line, and stratum contour with that
map in hand, all of a sudden appeared “not so easy”.
I went back to more fundamental concepts before interpreting the map. The con-
cept of height contours and the representation of topographic features, e.g., hill, dome,
N. Bose (B)
Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

234 N. Bose
basin, valley, and spur through height contours were discussed. The students appeared
to be more interested as they drew several topographic features and described them.
After this, the concepts of inclined beds, stratum contours, and strike lines were
described through block diagrams. Then the logic and methodology behind drawing
the strike lines for planar surfaces, from the points of interaction between the height
contours and exposure of the planar surfaces, were explained. Finally, the actual task
of the day, i.e., the interpretation of that map was successfully accomplished by the
students themselves.
When I shared the experience with my guide, he encouraged me to go for the next
few practical classes as well. He also gave me the set of maps to be interpreted in
that semester. The maps were selected with increasing difficulty level. These maps
were: (i) only topography (no beds), (ii) horizontal beds only, (iii) a single sequence
of inclined beds, (iv) three-point problem leading to drawing of strike lines, (v)
unconformity, (vi) fold, (vii) fault, (viii) faulted fold, and (ix) map completion of
an inclined plane and drill-hole-related calculations. Later few maps were added
for practice. In subsequent classes, the concept required to solve the corresponding
maps was explained at first before interpreting the given maps. I recalled the common
mistakes and areas of confusions that I faced as a student. I found many of them to
happen amongst the students. For example:
1. In few of the initial maps, the topographic undulation was not so clearly visible in
the cross-sections. Here, a normal tendency is to exaggerate the vertical scale in
order to represent the surface undulation. Although, this is permitted in structural
geological exercises, drawing only such cross-sections fail to give the beginner
student an idea about the actual scenario. At the same time, difficulties arise
in such sections when the beds are to be drawn from true-/apparent-dip values.
Hence, I encouraged the students to make separate cross-section as well, where
the elevation axis (the Y-axis) is as per the scale of the map.
2. During the plane paper drawing of cross-section, it is very important to mark
and label all the necessary points on the X-axis, the line drawn on the map along
which the section is drawn. Not doing this ultimately wastes time.
3. In general, the detailed map descriptions had the following subheadings: topog-
raphy, lithounits and litho groups (including their attitudes), structural details
(individual discussions on each of the unconformities/folds/faults and related
calculations), and sequence of events (with detail reasoning). A professional geol-
ogist may not undertake each and every detailing depending on the job assigned
to her, but such a classical practice in the classroom can improve thought pro-
cesses, enhance understanding, and boost confidence. In later days, while solving
new maps with already learnt concepts, a crisp description was encouraged.
Gradually, the pace of the class increased as the semester progressed and the class
became more dynamic with the students’ active participation in discussions. In the
final classes, students already knew what steps to be followed for the interpretation of
a new and more complex map (such as a faulted fold along with an unconformity and
a few dykes). Their confidence and efficiency made them keen on finding the answers
themselves, than to get solutions from me. The official practical period ultimately
Teaching Structural Geology Map Interpretation to Masters’ … 235
turned into an interactive session. Instead of giving straightway solutions, I used to

give them possibilities and encouraged them to find the exact solution.
Acknowledgements Soumyajit Mukherjee annotated the text. The Springer proofreading team is
thanked. Mukherjee (2019) summarizes this chapter.
References
Bose N, Mukherjee S (2017) Map interpretation for structural geologists. In: Mukherjee S (ed)
Developments in structural geology and tectonics. Elsevier. Amsterdam. ISBN: 978-0-12-
809681-9
Mukherjee S (2019) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics: an introduction.
In: Mukherjee S (ed) Teaching methodologies in structural geology and tectonics. Springer,
Heidelberg. ISBN: 978-981-13-2781-0
Image Log Interpretation
and Geomechanical Issues
Troyee Dasgupta, Swagato Dasgupta and Soumyajit Mukherjee
Abstract Structural geological texts, research papers and books, are progressively
incorporating well logging-related studies and geomechanical issues, including bore-
hole imaging techniques. Geomechanical studies usually involve magnitudes and
orientations of the three principal stress axes: S v —vertical stress, and S hmin and
S Hmax —the minimum and the maximum horizontal stresses, respectively. Electrical,
acoustic or video devices that capture high-resolution images are lowered into the
well and give crucial information about bed boundaries, structural elements such as
faults, folds, discontinuities, fractures and even secondary porosities such as frac-
tures and vugs. Image log data gives important information about the S hmin and S Hmax
directions. Hoop stresses acting along the circumference of the borehole wall causes
breakouts, and the radial stresses result in tensile fractures known as drilling-induced
fractures. Borehole breakouts and drilling-induced fractures can be easily distin-
guished with the help of borehole images. By integrating the information obtained
from image logs and other kinds of well logs, one can get orientations of the minimum
and maximum horizontal stresses. We present two problems, relevant to classroom
teaching for geoscience students, and solutions related to geomechanical issues and
image log interpretation.
Keywords Geomechanics · Stress regimes · Image log · Borehole breakouts

Drilling-induced fractures
T. Dasgupta
Exploration Division, Reliance Industries Ltd., Navi Mumbai 400701,
Maharashtra, India
S. Dasgupta · S. Mukherjee (B)
Powai, Mumbai 400 076, Maharashtra, India

238 T. Dasgupta et al.
1 Introduction
Tectonic stresses act along the Earth’s surface as well as within the crust. The mag-
nitudes of stresses depend upon factors such as geological processes, depth, pore
pressure, frictional coefficient and rock strength (Zoback 2007). Thus, geomechan-
ical issues have become subjects of active interest in structural geology and tecton-
ics (Zoback et al. 1985; Barton and Zoback 2002; Nelson et al. 2005; Fowler and
Weir 2008; Mukherjee 2013; Richardson et al. 2015; Fossen 2016; Mulchrone and
Mukherjee 2016).
To address geomechanical problems in oil and gas industries as well as geothermal
reservoirs, knowledge about the local and the regional stresses is required (Zoback
2007; Fellgett et al. 2018). Anderson’s (1905) scheme is helpful in understanding
the relative magnitudes of highest, intermediate and minimum stresses (σ 1 , σ 2 and
σ 3 , respectively) in terms of different stress regimes where normal, strike-slip and
reverse faulting are preferred. The stress magnitudes in the three end-member regimes
can also be explained in terms of vertical overburden stress (S v ) and the maximum
and minimum horizontal stresses (S Hmax and S hmin ; Fig. 1). In this model, S v σ 1
is for normal faults, S v σ 2 for strike-slip faults and S v σ 3 for reverse faults.
Under most geological conditions, the principal stresses are compressional rather
than tensile (e.g. Fossen 2016). The convention amongst structural geologists is to
define stress as positive in compression.
There are several techniques for measuring in situ stresses. The parameters for
stress estimation can be deduced from the following procedures to get an overview
of stress orientations (Zoback 2007).
I. The vertical stress (S v ), due to the overburden pressure, can be estimated from
a density log.
II. S hmin can be obtained during well drilling operations from procedures such as
leak-off tests (LOT) and hydro-fracturing techniques such as the mini-frac test.
A mini-frac is a type of small fracturing test usually performed before the key
hydraulic fracturing test. It provides important information regarding the response of
the tested interval, geometry and propagation of hydro-fractures and the magnitude
of S hmin (De Bree and Walters 1989; Zoback 2007).
III. Pore pressure (Pp ) can be estimated directly from conventional logs in real
time while drilling a well or can be inferred from seismic velocities while defining
a pre-drill pore-pressure model. The estimated pore pressure can be calibrated with
actual pore fluid pressure data obtained from reservoir sand bodies.
IV. Estimates of S Hmax and S hmin orientations can be obtained from borehole
breakouts as well as drilling-induced fracture studies from image logs.
V. To obtain stress magnitudes, information about rock properties is required.
Rock strength can be measured from laboratory-based rock compressibility tests. It
can also be estimated from density and sonic P-wave and S-wave logs.
The rock failure can be explained with the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria
(Zoback 2007; Labuz and Zang 2012) where the knowledge of two parameters,
viz. μi —coefficient of internal friction, and Co or UCS—unconfined compressive
Image Log Interpretation and Geomechanical Issues 239
Fig. 1 Three modes of

Andersonian faulting
mechanism in extensional,
strike-slip and compressional
regime
strength, is required. As the Mohr circle touches the failure envelope, depending on
the magnitude of maximum and minimum principal stresses, shear failure, tensile
failure or hybrid failure of the rock may take place. The rock is in the stability field
below the failure envelope, which is defined by:
√ 2 2
SHmax − Pp Shmin − Pp μ +1 +μ (1)
The above equation can be rewritten in the following forms for different stress
regimes
√ 2 2
Reverse fault regime : SHmax −Pp Sv − Pp μ +1 +μ (2)
√ 2 2
Normal fault regime: Sv − Pp Shmin − Pp μ +1 +μ (3)
√ 2 2
Strike slip fault regime : SHmax − Pp Shmin − Pp μ +1 +μ (4)
The magnitude of μ generally ranges from 0.6 to 1 (Byerlee 1978; Zoback 2007).
Image logs can be integrated with other data such as wireline logs, core data
and production data to give detailed information about the geology (Hurley 2004).
Modern-day logging tools can retrieve image logs created by high-intensity sensors
(sensors having higher strength) that pick up samples both horizontally and vertically.
Resistivity-based image tools consist of four or six arm calipers. Each arm is equipped
with pads in which micro-resistivity electrodes are placed that acts as sensors. These
pads get pressed against the borehole wall for recording image data around the
borehole (OBMI brochure: Schlumberger 2006). Thus, samples consist of image
data defined by resistivity contrast representing lithological and structural variations.
This high-resolution sampling of data creates images that give a continuous record
of the formation and the borehole circumference (Rider 2011).
Generally, 40–80% of the borehole information is covered by image logs and the
best images are obtained in case of resistivity-derived electrical images when the
resistivity ratio between the mud and the formation is <1000 (Hurley 2004). At first,
optical photography was performed using a 16 mm lens by Birdwell in 1964. Shell
first used downhole black and white television camera. Later, there was an evolution
of logs from optical to acoustic to finally electrical image logs (Prensky 1999).
Nowadays, conventional coring of wells is costly affairs. In some lithologies, e.g.
in unconsolidated sands and brecciated rocks in deformation/fault zones, the core
recovery is poor and the chances of losing critical information of the well are high.
In these circumstances, subsurface sedimentological and structural data are obtained
by imaging techniques by these advanced logging tools. Therefore, such tools have
become popular in the recent years (Hurley 2004).
This chapter will discuss deciphering structural features such as breakouts and
drilling-induced fractures from image logs, and the usefulness of these features in
deducing the maximum and minimum horizontal stress directions.
2 Image Logging Tools
Imaging tools are broadly of two categories that perform either electrical or acoustic
imaging. The electrical borehole tools are the most sophisticated and commercially
available tools (Hurley 2004). Image log tools are generally equipped with pads
and are pressed against the borehole wall when lowered. Button electrodes (current
and voltage electrodes) are embedded in the pads of the tools where the potential
difference is measured between the voltage electrodes at the centre of the pad face
(OBMI brochure—Schlumberger 2006). The effective button size and effective res-
olution are 0.2 in. and 1.2 in., respectively, and the depth of investigation is 3.5 in.
These tools have 32% coverage of the borehole—this is the general working princi-
ple of an image tool working in the non-conductive borehole environment (OBMI
brochure—Schlumberger 2006).
In case of boreholes drilled with water-based mud, the image log tool has a spec-
ification to cover 80% of the 8 in. hole and the button size is of 0.2 in. with a
vertical as well as horizontal resolution of 0.2 in. Because of the micro-resistivity
changes resulted by the passage of the current in the rock, we get images and
Fig. 2 Comparison between static (left) and dynamic image (right) of a massive sandstone. The
truncated surface, as highlighted by ‘Truncation’, and finer laminations are also visible. Dynamic
processing is done in a moving window of 5 ft and the geological features are prominent in this
image. N-S-N refers to the true north reference. Modified after Hurley (2004)
these are interpreted as textural features, stratigraphic and structural features (FMI
brochure—Schlumberger 2002).
After the data acquisition, the array data is processed with necessary corrections.
Two images in the unwrapped borehole formats are generated: static and dynamic
(Fig. 2). In the static image, a colour contrast is applied to the entire well. On the
other hand, in the dynamic image, the colour contrast is applied to a specific moving
window length. Dynamic images help to identify subtle features, e.g. vugs, bed
boundaries, low resistivity shales, fractures and other geological features (Hurley
2004).
Apart from the wireline imaging, logging while drilling (LWD) imaging tools are
also available. The two common varieties are: resistivity at bit (RAB, Schlumberger)
and StarTrak (Baker Hughes). In acoustic imaging tools, rotating transducers exist,
which emit and record sound waves and these tools are often referred to as the
“borehole televiewers” (Rider 2011; Hurley 2004). These tools were first developed
in the 1960s by Mobil, and later several oil companies improved them. The amplitude
and travel time are recorded and processed as images through these tools. The acoustic
borehole imaging tools are summarized in Appendix-2 (Rider 2011; Hurley 2004;
Tingay et al. 2008)
3 Image Log Interpretation
Nowadays, image logs are interpreted in workstations, where both static and dynamic
images are studied by the log analysts. Features such as bed boundaries and natural
fractures are picked by the interpreter by fitting sine curves. Automated dip picking
is done by certain algorithms. The dip picking can be edited and interpreted man-
ually when required. Image logs can also identify stress-induced fractures such as
breakouts and drilling-induced fractures, which is the main focus of this chapter.
To optimize the wellbore design, the knowledge of in situ stresses and the com-
pressive strength of the (anisotropic) rocks is required (Chatterjee and Singha 2018).
Understanding local and regional stresses is important as these can produce and
propagate hydraulic fractures. Knowing stress regimes is important in petroleum
exploration projects such as in the deep-water gas hydrate exploration and in inte-
grated ocean drilling programmes (IODP).
In tight reservoirs, flow of hydrocarbon is enabled by creating hydraulic fractures
through stimulations (Bailey et al. 2017). Local and regional stresses control the
generation of these fractures (Bell 1996; Hillis and Reynolds 2000; Bailey et al.
2017).
The main components of stresses as discussed above are S v (principal vertical
stress), S Hmax (maximum horizontal stress) and S hmin (minimum horizontal stress).
The orientation of S Hmax plays an important role in petroleum industry and can be
obtained from borehole breakouts and drilling-induced fractures (Zoback 1992; Bell
1996; Rajabi et al. 2017). Borehole breakouts happen perpendicular to the S Hmax .
On the other hand, drilling-induced fractures are parallel to the S Hmax direction,
i.e. orthogonal to S hmin (Zoback 2007; Fowler and Weir 2008; Tingay et al. 2008;
Rajabi et al. 2017). In the subsequent sections, the formation of breakout and drilling-
induced fracture process will be explained.
Borehole breakouts: Borehole breakout was classically described by Bell and
Gough (1979) and Gough and Bell (1981). Later, Zoback et al. (1985) expanded the
study theoretically along with several experiments. Stress-induced deformation can
result in borehole breakouts that occur in a preferential direction when the stress con-
centration around the borehole exceeds the rock strength (Zoback et al. 1985; Fowler
and Weir 2008). Breakouts are the wellbore enlargements, which propagates in con-
ical geometry, seen as spalled regions, and form where the circumferential stress
(σ ) around the borehole exceeds the rock strength (Lai et al. 2018). Spalling
occurs in the direction of minimum horizontal stresses (S hmin ) in breakouts (Fig. 3;
Thorsen 2011). Studies on breakouts provide information about the stress field ori-
entations. Elastic models indicate that the breakouts are the result of compressive
failure as per the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria (Zoback et al. 1985; Zoback 2007).
The stress around the wellbore is explained by circumferential stress (σ ) .
Bell (2003) discusses a few points about the reliability of the S hmin direction from
breakout study: (i) several breakouts encountered in a well can constrain the stress
orientation; (ii) the drilled well must be vertical or have up to 3° inclination. Borehole
breakout interpretations need to be performed very carefully, since in many cases
Fig. 3 Schematic cross-section of well bore showing formation of breakouts and hydraulic frac-
tures. The figure shows the variation of circumferential stress (σ ) to azimuth. Modified after
Hillis and Reynolds (2000)
the long axis of the breakout could be due to the result of key seating by abrasion on
one side of the wall in consequence to lowering of the drilling equipment (Fig. 2a,
b; Bell 2003).
In order to understand stress concentration around a vertical borehole wall, prin-
cipal stresses are transformed from an orthogonal system to a cylindrical system in
which case they act parallel and perpendicular to borehole wall.
At any point around the wellbore, the stresses (Zoback 2007) can be described as:
I. Radial stress (σ rr ) acts along the radius of the wellbore. It is the difference
between wellbore pressure and pore pressure acting radially along the wellbore.
II. Hoop stress or circumferential stress (σ ) acts around the wellbore circum-
ference. It depends on several factors such as the wellbore pressure, magnitude and
orientation of stress, hole inclination and azimuth and the pore pressure of the for-
mation.
III. Axial stress (σ zz ) acts parallel to the well path and is not affected by the mud
weight. σ zz depends on the in situ stress and its orientation and magnitude, hole
inclination and azimuth, pore pressure, etc. When a well is vertically drilled with
S Hmax S hmin , the axial stress equals the vertical stress. For an inclined well, this
relation will not hold true.
The degree of breakout varies in rocks: in crystalline rocks, it appears as small
chips and usually initiates from the borehole wall. On the other hand, in sedimentary
rocks, it initiates as fractures within the formation (Fowler and Weir 2008). The
breakout lengths range from <1 m up to tens of m.
Fig. 4 Borehole breakouts interpreted on a FMI (formation micro imager log). The caliper 2 direc-
tions (C2 marked in red) show borehole enlargement feature and the FMI log directly shows broad
poorly resolved conductive zones. These borehole breakout features are oriented towards 100ºN
and 290ºN and display ~N–S oriented S Hmax (from Tingay et al. 2008)
Borehole breakouts can be directly identified from electrical images depending on

the contrast in resistivity. In resistivity images, breakouts appear as broad, conductive
zones with poor resolution and these are usually parallel and 180° apart in either static
or dynamic images, and are accompanied by enlarged caliper features (Tingay et al.
2008; Rajabi et al. 2017). Breakout appears as resistive features in images generated
by the Oil-based Micro Imager (OBMI; Fig. 4).
Borehole breakout can easily be interpreted using the acoustic images. Breakouts
are prominent features in both amplitudes and borehole radius (travel time) data of
the acoustic images. As the borehole breakouts have typically rough surfaces, they
appear as broad low amplitude zones with increased travel time on opposite sides of
borehole (Tingay et al. 2008; Fig. 5). As per Zoback (2007), the most reliable way
to analyse breakouts is through ultrasonic image logs where the breakouts appear as
dark bands with low reflectance images on opposite sides of the wellbore. Breakout
Fig. 5 Borehole breakout and drilling-induced fracture observed on acoustic image log. Borehole
breakouts are identified as broader zones with high radius and low reflection amplitude and oriented
around 095–275 N. The breakouts indicate that the present day maximum horizontal stress (σ Hmax )
trends N–S (from Tingay et al. 2008)
may appear as en echelon features in oil-based mud (OBM) with respect to the
breakouts in water-based mud (WBM) (Fig. 4c, d; Nian et al. 2016).
Drilling-induced fractures: In gas, oil and geothermal wells, drilling-induced frac-
tures are commonly present as there is concentration of far-field stresses close to the
borehole and these stresses commonly exceed the strength of the rock (Barton and
Zoback 2002). In four or six arm caliper image logs, natural fractures can be seen
as a feature that cut across the wellbore (as in Dasgupta et al. 2018), whereas the
drilling-induced fractures (DIFs) appear as subparallel to wellbore axis (i.e. vertical)
or slightly dipping features in vertical wells (Fig. 6; Tingay et al. 2008). DIFs usually
appear as narrow resistive features in the OBMI as well as conductive features in
image logs and are 180° apart (Tingay et al. 2008; Lai et al. 2018). Drilling-induced
fractures form when the circumferential stress exceeds the tensile strength of the rock
Fig. 6 DIFs interpreted from image Formation Micro Imager logs (FMI). These are seen as 180°
apart conductive narrow features. a DIFs trending 010–190ºN indicates N–S oriented maximum
horizontal stress (σHmax ). b DIFs orient towards 040 and 220ºN. NE–SW is the approximately the
maximum horizontal stress direction (σ Hmax ) (Reproduced from Tingay et al. 2008)
and are oriented along the S Hmax (Tingay et al. 2008). The most valuable information
obtained by studying drilling-induced fractures is the determination of stress fields,
which is worked out routinely in oil and gas fields (Barton and Zoback 2002).
Peska and Zoback (1995) demonstrate that apart from occurrence of drilling-
induced fractures occurring in significant wellbore—fluid overpressure condition-
s—there are various other reasons of fracturing. Generally in vertical boreholes, the
drilling-induced fractures parallel S Hmax . In deviated wells, these fractures appear as
en echelon features (Fig. 1b; Barton and Zoback 2002).
Image logs are to be interpreted carefully as the drilling-induced fractures and

drilling-enhanced natural fractures (Fig. 3a, Barton and Zoback 2002) can resemble
each other morphologically. The only way to distinguish is that drilling-induced
fractures are discontinuous whereas the drilling-enhanced natural fractures can be
picked as sinusoidal curves.
3.1 Problems
Question 1:
Fig. 7 is an image log of a formation where the four pads of the tool show some distinct
features. The darker colour represents conductive layers and the lighter colour the
resistive ones. Parallel laminations are distinct. Feature 2 is a prominent characteristic
observed in pads 1 and 3, whereas feature 1 can be seen in pad 3 and pad 4. Identify
these two features.
Answer:
Feature 1 is a signature that is broad and presumably blurred. Feature 1 is a breakout.

Feature 2 is linear and runs parallel in two pads. Feature 2 is drilling-induced fracture.
The geoscientist should be able to distinguish non-tectonic or atectonic structures
from tectonic ones. From this example, it is observed that the S Hmax is oriented along
the pads 1 and 3, whereas S hmin is oriented along the pads 2 and 4. Since no en
echelon fractures are seen, whether the image log is from a vertical well cannot be
commented. Note the answer is independent to location of borehole and the stress
state. The identified features do not specify any tectonic/stress regime: extensional,
compressional and strike-slip.
Question 2:
a. Consider two different stress regimes: compressive—reverse fault regime and

extensional—normal fault regime, where the overburden pressure, pore pressure and
coefficient of internal friction are the same. The overburden pressure (S v ) at 3210 m
depth is 88.5 MPa with an in situ pore pressure ~31 MPa. Taking the coefficient of
internal friction (μ) 0.6, find out the magnitude of the σ Hmax , in case of reverse
fault regime, and the σ hmin , in case of normal fault regime.
b. At 2500 m depth, the overburden stress (S v ) is 70 MPa. The minimum com-
pressive stress (S hmin ) deduced from leak-off test is 61.5 MPa. At a certain pore
pressure, estimate the possible range of S Hmax without performing any calculations.
Also, deduce the possible stress regime. Knowing stress regime helps in wellbore
stability and predicting induced fracturing. The hydraulic fracture orientation is con-
trolled by the local stress regime. For example, hydraulic fracture forms on a vertical
plane for a normal and a strike-slip fault regime. On the other hand, hydraulic fracture
forms in a horizontal plane when a reverse fault regime prevails (Lin et al. 2008).
Fig. 7 Four pads of an image log display two prominent features in alternate pads. The darker
layers represent conductive bodies and lighter colour the resistive features. ‘Feature 1’ appears to
be broad and blur and can be seen in pads 2 and 4. ‘Feature 2’ is a linear, narrow feature running
parallel along pads 1 and 3 (Reproduced from Tingay et al. 2008)
Answers:
a. Using Eqs. (2) and (3), S Hmax 210.4 MPa and S hmin 49.4 MPa.
b. Since S hmin is the least principal stress, S Hmax cannot be less than S hmin .
So, the lower bound of S Hmax is 61.5 MPa. The upper bound is unconstrained:
either < or > S v . A normal fault regime is characterized S hmin < S Hmax < S v . Here, S v
is the maximum principal stress. If S Hmax is >S v , i.e. S hmin < S v < S Hmax , then it is in
strike-slip regime. Thus, two stress regimes are possible.
4 Conclusions
Modern-day logging tools aid in identifying the features related to geomechanical

issues. Kingdon et al. (2016) while studying the in situ stress for the shales state that
before determining the stresses from any laboratory tests, high-resolution image logs
should reliably determine the stress orientations. DIFs and breakouts are the features
obtained from image log analysis. Such fracturing and breakouts happen due to
compressive failures in the borehole and the orientation of the stress directions can
be obtained by studying these features. DIFs oriented parallel to the S Hmax direction,
and the breakout formation gives the S hmin direction.
Acknowledgements Ake Fagereng and Andrea Billi provided detailed comments in multiple
rounds, when this article was submitted in a different platform. While we acknowledge their strong
efforts, we need to state that we have not been able to accommodate all of their comments. No
data was taken from Reliance Industries Limited. For more geo-mechanical discussions, see Patil
(2015).
Appendix
Table 1 List of electrical logs (Rider 2011; Tingay et al. 2008)

Trade name Company name Number of pads
Electrical Micro Imaging Tool Halliburton 6
(EMI)
Formation Micro Scanner Schlumberger 4
(FMS)
Formation Micro Imager Schlumberger 8
(FMI)
Oil-based Micro Imager Schlumberger 4/8
(OBMI)
Simultaneous Acoustic and Baker Hughes 6
Resistivity Imager (STAR)
Table 2 List of acoustic logs (Rider 2011; Tingay et al. 2008)

Trade name Company name
Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool Halliburton
(CAST)
Ultrasonic Borehole Imager (UBI) Schlumberger
Simultaneous Acoustic and Resistivity Imager Baker Hughes
(STAR)
Circumferential Borehole Imaging Log (CBIL) Baker Hughes
References
Anderson EM (1905) The dynamics of faulting. Trans Edinb Geol Soc 8:387–402
Bailey A, Tenthorey E, Ayling B (2017) Characterising the present-day stress regime of the Georgina
Basin. Aust J Earth Sci 64:121–136
Barton CA, Zoback MD (2002) Wellbore imaging technologies applied to reservoir geomechanics
and environmental engineering. In: Lovell M, Parkinson N (eds) Geological applications of well
logs: AAPG Methods in Exploration, vol 13, p. 229–239
Bell JS, Gough DI (1979) Northeast-Southwest compressive stress in Alberta: evidence from oil
wells. Earth Planet Sci Lett 45:475–482
Bell JS (1996) Petro geoscience 1. In situ stresses in sedimentary rocks (Part 1): measurement
Techniques. Geosci Can 23:85–100
Bell JS (2003) Practical methods for estimating in situ stresses for borehole stability applications
in sedimentary basins. J Petrol Sci Eng 38:111–119
Brochure OBMI (2006) Borehole imaging in oil based mud. Schlumberger Ltd., Sugarland TX
Byerlee JD (1978) Friction of rock. Pure appl Geophys 116:615–626
Chatterjee R, Singha DK (2018) Stress orientation from image log and estimation of shear wave
velocity using multiple regression model: a case study from Krishna—Godavari basin, India. J
Indian Geophys Union 22:128–137
Dasgupta S, Dasgupta T, Singh VN, Mukherjee S (2018) A numerical study of the effect of borehole
on the response of epithermal neutron log. In: Fagereng A, Billi A (eds) Problems and solutions
in structural geology and tectonics. Mukherjee S (ed) Developments in structural geology and
tectonics book series. Elsevier ISSN: 2542–9000
De Bree P, Walters JV (1989) Micro/minifrac test procedures and interpretation for in situ stress
determination. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 26(6):515–521
Fellgett MW, Kingdon A, Williams JDO, Gent CMA (2018) Stress magnitudes across UK regions:
new analysis and legacy data across potentially prospective unconventional resource areas. Mar
Pet Geol 97:24–31
FMI Brochure (2002) Borehole geology, geomechanics and 3D reservoir modeling. Schlumberger
Fossen H (2016) Structural geology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, pp 1–510 (ISBN 978-
1-107-05764-7)
Fowler MJ, Weir FM (2008) The use of borehole breakout for geotechnical investigation of an open
pit mine. In: Potvin Y, Carter J, Dyskin A, Jeffrey R (eds) SHRMS 2008. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics. Perth (ISBN 978-0-9804185-5-2)
Gough DI, Bell JS (1981) Stress orientation from oil well fractures in Alberta and Texas. Can J
Earth Sci 18:1458–1370
Hillis RR, Reynolds SD (2000) The Australian stress map. Journal of the Geological Society
157:915–921
Hurley N (2004) Borehole images. In: Asquith G, Krygowski D (eds) Basic well log analysis:
AAPG methods in exploration, vol 16, pp 151–163
Kingdon A, Fellgett M, Williams J (2016) Use of borehole imaging to improve understanding of the
in- situ stress orientation of Central and Northern England and its implications for unconventional
hydrocarbon resources. Mar Pet Geol 73:1–20
Labuz JF, Zang A (2012) Mohr-coulomb failure criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:975–979
Lai J, Wang G, Wang S, Cao J, Li M, Pang X, Han C, Fan X, Yang L, He Z, Qin Z (2018) A review
on the applications of image logs in structural analysis and sedimentary characterization. Mar
Pet Geol 95:139–166
Lin W, Yamamoto K, Ito H, Masago H, Kawamura Y (2008) Estimation of minimum principal
stress from an extended leak-off test onboard the chikyu drilling vessel and suggestions for future
test procedures. Sci Drill 6:43–47
Mukherjee S (2013) Channel flow extrusion model to constrain dynamic viscosity and Prandtl
number of the Higher Himalayan Shear Zone. Int J Earth Sci 102:1811–1835
Mulchrone KF, Mukherjee S (2016) Kinematics and shear heat pattern of ductile simple shear zones
with ‘slip boundary condition’. Int J Earth Sci 105:1015–1020
Nelson EJ, Meyer JJ, Hillis RR, Mildren SD (2005) Transverse drilling-induced tensile fractures
in the West Tuna area, Gippsland Basin, Australia: implications for the in situ stress regime. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:361–371
Nian T, Wang G, Xiao C, Zhou L, Deng L, Li R (2016) The in situ stress determination from
borehole image logs in the Kuqa depression. J Nat Gas Eng 34:1077–1084
Patil M (2015) Dipmeter surveys in petroleum exploration. BS Publications. Hyderabad, pp 1–128.
ISBN: 978-93-83635-25-2.
Prensky SE (1999) Advances in borehole imaging technology and applications. In: Lovell M,
Williamson G, Harvey P (eds) Borehole imaging: applications and case histories, vol 159. Geo-
logical Society Special Publication, pp 1–43
Rajabi M, Tingay M, King R, Heidbach O (2017) Present-day stress orientation in the Clarence-
Moreton Basin of New South Wales, Australia: a new high density dataset reveals local stress
rotations. Basin Res 29:622–640
Richardson NJ, Richards FL, Rippington SJ, Bond CE, Wilson RW (2015) Industrial structural
geology: principles, techniques and integration: an introduction. In: Richardson NJ, Richards FL,
Rippington SJ, Bond CE, Wilson RW (eds) Industrial structural geology: principles, techniques
and integration, vol 421. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, pp 1–5
Rider M (2011) The geological interpretation of well logs, 2nd edn. Whittles Publishing, Caithness.
ISBN 0954190688
Thorsen K (2011) In situ stress estimation using borehole failures-even for inclined stress tensor. J
Petrol Sci Eng 79:86–100
Tingay M, Reinecker J, Műller B (2008) Borehole breakout and drilling -induced fracture analysis
from image logs. In: World stress map project guidelines: image logs. http://dc-app3-14.gfz-
potsdam.de/pub/guidelines/WSM_analysis_guideline_breakout_image.pdf. Accessed on 12 Mar
2018
Zoback MD (2007) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–445
(ISBN 978-0-521-77069-9)
Zoback MD, Moos D, Mastin L (1985) Well Bore Breakouts and in situ stress. J Geophys Res
90:5523–5530
Zoback ML (1992) First- and second-order patterns of stress in the lithosphere: the world stress
map project. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 97:11703–11728

Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What topics are covered in the Springer Geology book series?

What topics are covered in the Springer Geology book series?

Springer Geology

Soumyajit Mukherjee Editor

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10172

ISSN 2197-9545 ISSN 2197-9553 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958345

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

How can individual faculty, course teams and

I thank the Springer proofreading team. Especially, thanks go to Praveenkumar V.

Teaching Methodologies in Structural Geology and Tectonics:

Teaching Structural Geology Map Interpretation to Masters’

Dr. Soumyajit Mukherjee is an Associate Professor in the Department of Earth

Keywords Pedagogy · Geosciences · Classroom teaching

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 1

Interestingly, Chap. 9 is authored by a Teaching Assistant that shares his personal

Abolins M (2018) Geographic Information Systems in an undergraduate structural geology course:

Keywords Assessment method · Project work · Self-evaluation · Peer-evaluation

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 5

2 Course Description and Project Work

Here I provide an overview of the course “Numerical Modeling of Rock Defor-

2.1 Course Content and Schedule

2.2 End-of-Semester Project Work

3.1 Self- and Peer-evaluation

4 Assessment Outcome and Interpretation

Fig. 3 Same as Fig. 2, but for fall 2015

Fig. 4 Same as Fig. 2, but for fall 2016

• Compared to other courses, the NMRD-course is a relatively techni-

4.1 Marks Compared to Teacher’s Marks

5.1 Training of Soft-Skills

supervisor or a customer or to be submitted to a journal. This requires an objective

peer-evaluation procedure, the students reach the level of “Evaluation/Evaluate”,

5.2 Advantages of the Self- and Peer-evaluation Procedure

5.3 Disadvantages and Criticism of the Self-

5.4 Communication: One Key Point for the Self-

5.5 Further Ideas/Outlook

A1. Some notes on the examination

In the following, an example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

Fig. 12 Sketch of the model

• Use a time increment of dt 5 × 10−3 .

In the following, a second example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

The boundary conditions for this diapir model are:

Fig. 14 Sketch of the model

C3. Tips and tricks for building the model grid

In the following, a third example of an individual semester-end project work is pro-

Fig. 16 Sketch of the model

Table 6 Elastic material properties to model the second Gotthard tunnel

Table 7 Swiss marking Mark Meaning Comment

• What is your general impression of the report?

F3. Marking the report

In particular for self-evaluation for students in groups of two:

Lucie Novakova and Terry L. Pavlis

Keywords Field geology · Digital mapping · Smartphone · Calibration

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 43

subscriptions with a smartphone percentage of 56% compared to the global popu-

4.1 Tests in the Field

5 Summary and Discussion

Fig. 6 Tests with iPhone SE and Honor 6x in different fracture dips

S Sc1 − Sc2 2DFW sin(β/2). (6)

Sr2 Sc1 + S Sc1 + 2DFW sin(β/2). (8)