Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
320
320
300
300
280
280
0
50
Time (kyr)
100
260
Run time 130 kyr
Rate of fall 2.5 m kyr
−
1
No erosion
240
320
300
280
Run time 130 kyr
Rate of fall 2.5 m kyr
−
1
260
Subaerial erosion 0.5 m kyr
−
1
240
320
300
280
260
Run time 130 kyr
Rate of fall 2.5 m kyr
−
1
Subaerial erosion 0.7 m kyr
−
1
240
320
320
300
300
280
280
0
50
100
150
260
Time (kyr)
Fig. 4.
Subaerial erosion and FST
development. The FST disappears at
an erosion rate of 700
Run time 190 kyr
Rate of fall 0.45 m kyr
−
1
240
Subaerial erosion 1 m kyr
−
1
m yr
1
. In bot-
tom panel, platform is eroded down
to lowstand level as rate of erosion
signifi cantly exceeds rate of sea-level
fall. Time lines and numbering on
axes as in Fig. 3.
220
200
0
100
200
300
400
Distance in modelling space (m)
become too steep. This is because the lateral
separation of the time lines used to defi ne the FST
in a computer output is a function of the cosine
of the slope and thus decreases with increasing
slope angle while the thickness of the printed
line remains nearly constant. This problem was
alleviated by conducting the FST experiments
in a relatively narrow range of intermediate slope
angles. The vast majority of FST presence/absence
tests were done on slopes of 15-25
exceptional circumstances slopes up to 40
were
considered.
Parameter space
The modelling results on FST development
can best be summarized by viewing the stabil-
ity domains of the FST and STM anatomies in
a space determined by the principal control-
ling parameters. The basic controls are the rates
, only in
