10,323
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: − * = ''I''<sub>''v''</sub>/''I''<sub>''h''</sub>, the ratio of vertical scale (''I''<sub>''v''</sub>) to horizontal scale (''I''<sub>''h''</sub>)+
→Vertical and horizontal scale
* δ = true dip
* δ = true dip
* ''V'' = vertical exaggeration, or
* ''V'' = vertical exaggeration, or
:: <math>\frac{I_v}{I_h}</math>, the ratio of vertical scale (''I''<sub>''v''</sub>) to horizontal scale (''I''<sub>''h''</sub>)
As a result of this relationship, low dips are exaggerated and appear larger, whereas higher dips all appear close to vertical. The effect is illustrated in Table 1, where selected values of true and apparent dip are shown for vertical exaggerations of five and ten times. Note that two horizons differing in dip by only 3° appear to differ by 14° and 22°, respectively, for the two values of vertical exaggeration. Any attempt to render structural form on a stratigraphic cross section is schematic but should take into account this effect. It is also important to remember that the image one creates with a stratigraphic cross section is a distortion of reality.
As a result of this relationship, low dips are exaggerated and appear larger, whereas higher dips all appear close to vertical. The effect is illustrated in Table 1, where selected values of true and apparent dip are shown for vertical exaggerations of five and ten times. Note that two horizons differing in dip by only 3° appear to differ by 14° and 22°, respectively, for the two values of vertical exaggeration. Any attempt to render structural form on a stratigraphic cross section is schematic but should take into account this effect. It is also important to remember that the image one creates with a stratigraphic cross section is a distortion of reality.