Engineering Geology - Science topic

Weathered sandstone may have "rock like behavior" or "soil like behavior", varying from compact sand to weakly bonded rock.

Some data may be found in the document below. It is in portuguese, but you will find data that may be interesting searching for "arenito" = sandstone.

Good Luck!

Hello

minimum value to of UCS to perform reliable PLT is accompanied by the deformation mode prior to failure. Progressive failure and large indentation with large "footprint" of the cone create problems in correlation. Quasi-brittle rock materials can be tested starting from UCS 15 MPa, while softer materials need at least about UCS 20 MPa. Take care that also coefficient for correlation between the test index and the UCS can vary: for most brittle rocks, the ratio is approximately 10, for soft sedimentary stones the ratio can be lower ( 5). As a consequence, PLT results might have to be interpreted differently.

See also USING THE POINT LOAD TEST TO DETERMINE THE UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF COAL MEASURE ROCK by Rusnak and Mark.

Hope this can help

Regards

Dear Klaus,

Hynes-Griffin & Franklin approach (kh=0.50 PGA) is a very common and well-known approach for numerical analysis. I can say that considering kv will not cause any significant difference in results.

However, considering topographical state of the section may help you to come up with a precise solution. NCHRP advices a factor called as "fill-height dependent reduction factor" for the determination of the proper kh value. The soil class of the area is also critical for this approach. Maybe you can check this solution for your analysis. See attached file: Section 7.5 for more detailed information.

Dear Tariq,

These articles might help:

Bests,

Mines tailing to check the effect of heavy metals released during mining on the environment and the population in particular

Crack, crunch, scrape, swoosh! Seriously - progressive failure of rock slopes - involving (possibly) all four components of strength (and weakness). We have been waiting 50, 100 or more years. So much of what we have done has ignored/failed to match the reality. Start with physical models of partly fractured rock simulants. Progress to modelling the components. Specifically do not use GSI.

Giovanni Bruno

the error for my study (prediction of unconfined compressive strength - 1120 data points) is about 30%

do you have any reference regarding your answer that may help me

Dear Bryant Andrew Robbins, Muhammad Usman Arshid and , thank you for your answers and I was not aware of these methods and software packages!

Mr. Nguyen is quite right in his answrr. Moreover, manual of the triaxial testing machine should be studied.

I think the best advice would be to contact the manufacturer. They should be able to send you the documentation you need, or if they're good, even diagnose what's going on remotely, or help you navigate through the software.

Hi Friend

I think you use the Rmi classified to detemine Vb.

Thanks

TC304 Engineering Practice of Risk Assessment & Management of the International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) provides a list of open datasets that include data of soil and rock mechanics on its website.

Dear Tabish Rahman,

Performance value of a network briefs about the average of mean square errors between desired output and NN predicted output. That means, Bayesian regularisation is suitable while compared with rest two methods.

Bayesian method always works better for small dataset because it doesn't not require validation data mandatorily. The regularisation parameters in the Bayesian method take care of the validation set inside the training set implicitly.

However, the reason behind having high performances is due to the small number of samples. In that case, the following things can be try out to increase the network performance:

1. By modifying the number of nodes in the hidden layer.

2. By playing with the number layers between input and output layer.

3. By altering the division ratio of training, testing and validation sets.

Regards

Jyotindra Narayan

If you are specifically thinking about fractures, there is a lot of literature on observational methods to quantify spatial attributes, well beyond "spacing". Here are just a few references to get started. These are generic but contain concepts that could be applied to TLS data.

Andrews, B. J., Roberts, J. J., Shipton, Z. K., Bigi, S., Tartarello, M. C., and Johnson, G.: How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection, Solid Earth, 10, 487–516, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-487-2019, 2019

Watkins, H., Bond, C. E., Healy, D., & Butler, R. W. H. (2015). Appraisal of fracture sampling methods and a new workflow to characterise heterogeneous fracture networks at outcrop. Journal of Structural Geology, 72, 67-82. 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.02.001

Sanderson, D. J., & Nixon, C. W. (2015). The use of topology in fracture network characterization. Journal of Structural Geology, 72, 55-66. 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.01.005

Roy, A., Perfect, E., Dunne, W. M., & McKay, L. D. (2014). A technique for revealing scale-dependent patterns in fracture spacing data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, n/a-n/a. 10.1002/2013jb010647

Randall Marrett, Julia F.W. Gale, Leonel A. Gómez, Stephen E. Laubach,

Correlation analysis of fracture arrangement in space, Journal of Structural Geology, Volume 108, 2018, Pages 16-33,

ISSN 0191-8141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.06.012.

and: http://fracpaq.com/index.html

Dear Irakli Skhirtladze

Please see the following link:

The best and easiest book is AAPG ASQUITH and Gibson book full of charts and log interpretation. It is recommended for reading and applications

This book is always useful to me

Designers' Guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design

(from the same authors of Eurocode, then they should know)

Please contact Dr. R.V.K.Singh, Liasion Officer, CIMFR, Dhanbad and its branches at Nagpur, Roorkee etc.

Having done a good deal of this kind of work, it is important to understand that this is more than just technical exercise. It is important to understand the standard of care and local practices by which the performance is judged. The American Consulting Engineers Council has an excellent publication on this topic: https://docs.acec.org/pub/18803059-a2fd-2d06-cc39-a6d1dd575265.

It is also important to understand the roles of all parties to the case. Failures are seldom the result of a single error or oversight, but often are the result of a perfect storm of factors involving multiple parties from the initial investigation, design assumptions, owner inputs, contracting limitations, information sharing, construction practices, etc.

There are many companies around the world flying different Lidar scanners for different purposes and they only exist because indeed someone is prepared to pay good money for the data. Many of those are multi-million dollar aerial systems in aircraft or helicopter, i think you are looking at UAV based solution though.

To attempt any freelance work with the Lidar unit you mentioned would be a waste of time however, the data precision and accuracy would not be considered good enough for the majority of end users.

A much higher level unit such as the Riegl Mini-VUX or the VUX-1UAV would operate well in that environment and with an appropriate IMU and GNSS/RTK system produce survey grade results of some value to an end user.

I uploaded the input file (*.inp). It is compressed.

It is the need of the hour - and is related to glacier melting

Hi,

There are MPM codes with different perspectives. For geotechnical analysis, in my opinion these are the main available codes:

Regards,

Fabricio

Dear Bekir Firincioglu,

Static liquefaction is all related to critical hydraulic gradient. when the submerge unit weight of soil become equal to unit weight of water then their might be possibility of liquefaction. Its a critical analysis of fully saturated soil under a steady seepage. You could collect data regarding seepage and hydraulic gradient. However its a very important parameter to irrefutable the safety of earthen dams, earth embankment ect.

Thank you for your interest Samuel J. Abbey , Which constitutive model do you recommend?

Have a look:

as observed by Matthew:

"At 3:36 in the video is states "the only shape that has a marked effect upon the way a rock rolls is demonstrated by this elongated piece of columnar basalt. Its length gives it eccentric action." By this I think they mean it inhibits its ability to roll. If you have ever tried to roll a fireplace sized log down a natural slope, you will have observed the difficultly that is being referred to."

An elongated rock (or log) is unable to change direction as easily as the natural slope changes aspect which cause it to wobble or bounce and slow its momentum. Not sure how/if you can model that effect.

Elongated rocks also have more of a tendency to break apart as they travel down a slope.

It is fortunate that the rockfall trap is effective for each of your simulations and not dependent on this issue.

good luck

Dave

Dear Bakir,

You have distinct weathering zones in your bench slope. So, you can define these zones in your model as a starting point. You can use GSI for estimating material properties of these zones. Since you do not have any defined joint sets, as you said, you can apply RS2 or RS3, both are FEM analysis program. Your slope dimension seems greather than REV size of your rock mass. Therefore, you can model your slope using continuum approach. Your bench slope is more prone to circular or non-circular failure mechanisms rather than discontunity controlled slip failures, such as plane, wedge or toppling.

I don't think using a probabilistic approach is the right thing to do. The most dangerous and statistically processed direction of cracks is not the same. The safety factor is very sensitive to the orientation of the cracks and changing the orientation by 5-10 degrees can change the safety factor several times. Enough odnogo adverse combination that basically the ledge collapsed. The analysis of field measurements of cracks and the choice of the most critical combinations is necessary. Also, it is possible to analyze already accomplished collapses (on what systems of cracks they occurred).

We can keep speculating on what the peak mean and not get any meaningful thing done. Mathias has really nailed this. All the requirements to do better justice is not extractable from the image. Did you change the slides for the bulk? Or you used glass for all different measurements? The hump can be very informative on amorphous situations / disorder.

I recommend Frank's answer

Dear Nisarg,

Although I've never used TecDEM, I've calculated the steepness index manually by extracting area and slope data using ArcGIS. I wrote the entire technique in my recent paper, published in Arabian J Geosciences.

In case, if you want to compare steepness index of many streams, you've to normalize the steepness values using a reference concavity. To easily compute the normalized steepness index you may follow the stream profiler tool and the MATLAB codes developed by Kelin Whipple and his team.

Cheers.

Sumit

Dear Ebrahim

The behavior observed is typical of a swelling clay mineral of the smectite type. This group of minerals include montmorillonite (Al,Mg-rich)but also beidellite (Al-rich) and nontronite (Fe-rich) (dioctahedral smectites) but also saponite (Mg,Al-rich), hectorite (Mg-rich) and stevensite (Mg-rich) (trioctahedral smectites). Thus, in air-dried, the major reflection (001) of a smectite with divalent cation (Ca or Mg) in interlayer domain (hydrated by 2 molecules of water) is close to 15.0 Å (5.0°2theta), after ethylene glycol saturation the position of this reflection moves close to 17 Å and (due to the increased order in the stack) its harmonic (002) appears to 8.5 Å (11.0°2theta), finally after heat treatment the interlayer domain collapses completely and the reflection (001) moves towards 10.0 Å (9 °2theta). From these basic treatments, the conclusion is that this phase is a smectite (without precision about species). The precise knowledge of the positions of reflections would make it possible to say whether it is a pure smectite end-member, a smectite / illite mixed-layer very rich in smectite or a mixture of the two.

On the other hand, the nature of the smectite crystallized during your experiment depends on the initial composition of your rock and in particular on the vitreous phase (clearly abundant in your case), but also on the operating mode adopted, open (lixiviation) or closed (batch), which controls the content of the most labile elements (Mg, Fe) available or not for the development of the structure of the neoformed smectite? By diffraction (powder mode), the study of the position of the reflection (060) (or (0633)) of this smectite will be able to know if it is a dioctahedral (1.49 - 1.51 Å) or a trioctahedral mineral (1.52 - 1.54 Å) or a mixture; because the Mg and Fe contents released by the alteration of hornblende and augite may be sufficient for this purpose. If you are in presence of the dioctahedral series (montmorillonite-beidellite), Hofmann -Klemen test will allow you to know what end-member you have. In any case, the precise determination of a smectite species requires knowledge of its chemical composition, which you can have by the EDX-SEM analysis of your material.

Cheers

I do not remember such a phenomenon from our 130 natural joint samples. On the contrary, JRC reduced due to highly-stressed damage 'islands'.

I answer the question as a science student!

Earth is unique in the Solar System as being the only planet which is able to support life in all its forms: from basic living micro-organisms to highly sophisticated and intelligent human beings.

life is simply active processing of DNA

acc to our knowledge there is only planet earth where DNA n RNA ( RNA is closure molecule to DNA) formed

means there is no such chemical environment is present on other planets, for the production of life molecules like DNA ….

Some scientists stated that some faraway planets might have life where nitrogen is in the form of liquid ( as we have water =H2O ) for producing life molecules, not yet confirmed, it's just a suspicious expectation and a possible occurrence as per their ( scientists) perception

I am not stating that DNA is the only life molecule but on earth it is

@ Rouhollah Basirat

Hi Dear Rouhollah

Both methods

From the parameters you've listed, it is possible to approximate the compression index, strength parameters, soil types, pre-consolldation pressure, re-compression index and many other compression and strength related parameters. These could then be used to help determine settlement, slope stability, bearing pressure. etc.

Hi Sajad

Your question is quite complex. I recommend you start designing the crude starting from a mixture of products that have high content of saturated and aromatic fractions, and then subjecting this mixture to thermal cracking reactions in Batch type reactors and an inert atmosphere between 250-500 psig of Nitrogen. You should create a training matrix so that you can vary the temperature and residence time conditions, since they are the variables that affect the quality and performance of thermal conversion products. Also I present one of my articles to have a better idea about this type of process (thermal cracking) and characterization and see if you can apply, this in my profile. Construction of a formation matrix for the production of anode-grade petroleum tar pitch by thermal cracking. Once you obtain a viscous product you can use ASTM D287 - 12b Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method)

Piotr!

You are making some serious mistakes concerning the development of the Q-system! The 212 case records dating from 1973 or before were 60% from Scandinavia, and both here and in all the other case records from outside this region there were a lot of different rock types (50 different types - please see some back-ground on Q so as not to spread, no doubt unintended, but nevertheless incorrect opinions). You might be interested to know that in the approx. 100km x 200km of land-area mostly to the south of today's Oslo - where the Q-system was developed, also using local non-hard-rock exposures as examples, there are 10 to 12 named collapsed caldera. Tunnel and cavern case records constructed in your assumed 'hard igneous rocks' would only have been of interest in shear zones and clay-bearing faulted 'hard' rock....we needed B+S(mr) cases, not 'no support needed'. The Q-system does a very good job of characterization, matching tunnelling observation very accurately, at least down to 4 to 9 MPa chalk marl, and of course must be pushed into (< 1 MPa) saprolites on occasion, where Q is usually <0.01.

Back to the flysch- and the sketches of Marinos. What would be the resultant anisotropic properties (?) from H-B/GSI application? Remember please the lack of an SRF equivalent in RMR and GSI - weak rock is not a limitation when you have a stress/strength term activated because needed.

sajad

grain size , arrangement and cementation and matrix, diagnises , fossils.

Hi Rafik Hebib,I would like to advise you that not always, in the problems of foundation and in any case of compressive stresses on schist rocks, can be considered as favorable, it depends on the orientation of the schistosity with respect to that of the solicitation. Regarding the use of classification indexes I suggest you use the GSI and consider an equivalent continuous rock mass. However, if you want to use RMR, you should calculate the compressive strength parameter, either in the laboratory or with the Point Load test, taking into account the orientation of the load with respect to the position of the schistosity.

For plagioclase there are a few determination charts, based on the extinction angle in the zone normal to (010) - the albite twin plane, as well as the cleavage plane= which function pretty well. Try fpr example this address: eps.mcgill.ca/~courses/c312/Labs/Optlab9-13.doc @ the McGill University

For clinopyroxene it's a bit more complicated because the optical properties depend on several compositional changes, the general idea is that the optical properties and the mineral assemblage offer some clues for the composition of certain phases. Sorry for the quality of typing in this box, I notice it has become very difficult to get what you type..

Hi Rafik,

1. The first formula you have shown should be written as (see Hoek and Brown 1997):

GSI = RMR'89 - 5 (for GSI>=18 or RMR>=23)

where RMR'89 = P1+P2+P3+P4+15+0 (evaluation for groundwater = 15 and for joint adjusment = 0)

(GSI = 9log [(RQD / Jn) (Jr / Ja)] + 44) is valid for GSI<18

2. Another quantification of GSI is given in the attached material.

Regards

In no manner any expert on squeezing, but the following observation might be of relevance. In the integrated Qc versus P-wave velocity versus static deformation modulus model that has appeared several times since Barton, 2002, (Figure 4) it is found that a fourth 'parameter' viz. the required support pressure Pr from Barton et al. 1974 is inversely related to the deformation modulus. So very low velocity, and very low modulus correlate with very high support pressure needs (sounds and is logical?), and very high velocity, and very high moduli correlate with the need for negligible support pressure (also logical).

Many relevant answers already given by others. I could add - with empirical developments bias: UCS (as already partially suggested) is a direct part of the RMR rating, but it is a 'when needed' part of Q-value determination, via SRF, if the local principal stress/UCS ratio is more than approx. 0.4. (But recently this has been shown (B.Shen and Barton, 2016) to be due to sigma t / Poisson's ratio: i.e. extensional strain failure in tension (even if all three principal stresses are compressional). At higher stress levels, fracture propagation will be by shear. So although we (actually incorrectly) use UCS to trigger an expectation of fracture initiation (and AE in a lab-test), the tensile strength is mobilized first (with help from Poisson's ratio), then shear strength, and the highest strength component UCS (or its confined equivalent) is seldom if ever actually mobilized. Exactly the same applies to cliff heights in weak materials and mountain wall heights in strong materials. The two weaker links are prioritized over UCS in geomorphology (terrain formation) and structural geology (the big scale).

UCS is however helpful for normalizing Q to Qc (= Q x UCS/100) for improved correlation to P-wave velocity and static deformation modulus (both are depth or stress dependent: 'Emass' modellers please note). UCS is also useful in Qtbm (TBM performance prognosis) for estimating SIGMA the approx. rock mass strength (approx. range 1 to 100 MPa) for comparing with mean cutter force. And finally in BB shear strength of joints JCS (when weathered) may approach the value of UCS if there is no weathering: in other words a fresh fracture surface during progressive (non MC, non HB) failure beneath say a major rock slope.

Please have a look at enclosed PDF..

Dear Peter,

congratulations for the hard work! If possible, I would like a copy of your article. Thank you!

Dear,

you can see standard rock mechanics text books like given below

Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics-by J.C. Jaeger (Author), N.G.W. Cook (Author), R.W. Zimmerman (Author)

Rock Mechanics - an introduction for the practical engineer, July 1966, by Evert Hoek

Jaeger, Cook, and Zimmerman (2008). Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780632057597.

Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T. (1999), Rock Mechanics For Underground Mining, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

I think X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and Brunner−Emmet−Teller (BET) may be helpful for you. XRD and XPS can clarify the particle binding type (crystal or amorphous; valence state) .  And BET can present porosity and specific surface area.

Hello Wadhah,

If the rocks are not exposed on the surface, "remote methods" such as geochemistry and geophysics are needed to outline possible mineralization at depth. Numerous geophysical surveys can be used - they are all useful. The results can map out rock formations at depth. The interpretation of the geophysical results can be difficult unless you know enough about the rocks at depth.

Dear Mr. Adeoti,

I am currently studying basement rocks rife with pegmatites and aplites. I would like to re-direct your thoughts to the classical field work combined with a meticulous analysis  of your planar and linear architectural elements using the stereographic projections (stereonet diagrams) for interpretation. Before making use of a lot of papers and trying to find everything there in your study area too, I recommend some good textbooks on structural geology for field and laboratory work, unless you are a trained structural geologist.

A wealth of  information how to come to tackle this kinematic issues is published in the books of Van der Pluijm & Marshak (2004), Fossen (2010),  Lisle et al. (2011) and Davis (2013).

Good luck

Harald G. Dill

I found one in Cairo University - Egypt ,

Thank you  

To prepare a susceptibility map to liquefaction you need  Geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical data:  (1) You need a detailed (1/5000- 1/1000) geological map where non compacted recent geological units should appear on the map (ancient compacted deposits are not liquefiable, (2) You need a detailed geotechnical map based on in situ and laboratory tests, mainly the granulometry of the deposits (liquefiable deposits should be fine sand with less 20% of clay), (3) You need the hydrogeological map of the area (liquefaction occurs only if the table water is at depth of less than 12m). See also the following references: Youd and Perkins (1978), Youd (1998).

like asphaltene growth

Sir,

The liquefaction hazard can be mapped aporoximately if you have Vs values. Vs represenrs the soil condition and there are correlations available to convert Cs to SPT. Tou need surface level PGA value as well to estimate probable liquefaction hazard as CSR depends on PGA. Please reply for any further clarifications.

Dear sir,

Thank you for the paper. Sorry for the delayed reply.

There is an alternativ concept for the research of the slaking behaviour developed by Nickmann.

Please read following articles:

Nickmann, M.; Spaun, G.; Thuro, K. (2006): Engineering geological classification of weak rocks

Nickmann, M.; Sailer, S.; Ljubesic, J.; Thuro, K. (2010): Engineering geological investigations into the border between hard and weak rocks. In: International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (Hg.) 2010 – Geologically active

I am agree with Francisco, it Is complicated due to many parameters (discribed n'y Francisco) but you can add also mineralogical parameters : for example clay mineral some familly like smectite have a water layer so you have an increase of the water content but this water Is not available for vegetation. Bioturbation can modified the water transfert.

Nivya,

Are you interested in capturing the longitudinal deformation profile? Is the ground you want to simulate tunnel excavation in- heterogeneous? If yes, definitely a 3D simulation can yield useful results.

Coming to your question, many engineers introduce the blast effect using a softer/weaker zone around the tunnel excavation which varies in thickness generally from 2-3 m. The GSI approach from Hoek uses a Blast Damage factor "D" to estimate parameters for this zone.

However, please bear in mind that in reality, the blast damage is not a discrete boundary but the effect of blast varies with the distance from excavation boundary. By introducing an artificial material boundary to distinguish between the Blast damage and non-damage zone, you may end-up with an unwanted sudden stiffness jump in the numerical solution.

Dear Mr. Sane

Since you faced with a problem in which the strength of rock mass should be checked, gathering data about discontinuity and intact rock and weathering (rock mass properties) is essentially needed to prepare engineering geological classification of rock masses. Absolutely any change in mentioned above properties of rock can leads the change in rock mass properties(base of engineering geological classification). In a single lithological stratum the rock mass properties may changes. In this condition if the rock mass properties remarkably changes, engineering geologists classify this stratum (geological unit) in engineering geological units (more than one).

You should know about how mach the stress change penetrate into beneath rock mass due to your structure (engineering loading). The stress bulb penetrates in each types of geomaterial you should know about its engineering behavior against the amount of stress change.

In your case you should classify the rock mass and checking the penetration of stress in ground and determine the amount of stress change received by each types of geomaterial.

Good Luck.

Dear Behzad,

Almost that.

Once it is not possible to properly scale joint parameters from lab sample to rockmass, it is my understanding that the best thing to do is to perform some mapping on site and use those data in your simulation.

Anyway, for any geological, geomechanical or hydrogeological study/design, the first thing to do is to understand the geological model, that is the geological environment. Mineralogy, petrology, presence of contacts, schistosity, faults, homonegenieity, anisotropy of the rockmass, etc... the geological model should guide you to make those decisions . 

It is interesting for me.

I would think that MODFLOW would work. It is a 3D finite-difference groundwater modeling program developed by the USGS and is freely available. 

Thanks a lot. This information is encouraging for me.

 Dear Ping He and Cornelia Florentina Dobrescu,

As you got no answer to the question, please do not send such no-content messages (I don't know... or....). Sorry but it doesn't make sense at all!

Dear Sina,

When cohesive strength C increases by depth, equation’s factors change for this condition. I attach one of them.

Regards

Very tough question! It is hard to determine the pre-1-Ma slip rate of the Altyn Tagh fault system accurately. The best way is to find piercing points with robust time contraints across the fault system. However, none has been reported yet. Erchie Wang (1997, Geology, 150, 55-64) indicated that the Subei and Aksay basins formed a pair of piercing point, but the timing and displacement have large uncertainty. However, Ritts et al. (2004, Journal of Geology, 112, 207-229) opposed the link between these two basins. Yue, YJ et al. (2001, 2003) reported a source-to-sink link between the Xorkol Basin and the North Qilian Shan, which is apparantly wrong considering the kinematics of the ATF. Recently, Cheng et al. (2015, Geosphere, 11, 921-942) suggested a link among Tula, Anxi and Caishiling areas in the same side of the Altyn Tagh fault, but the interpretation is too subjective and unconvincing.

To my knowledge, there is no convincing pre-1-Ma pircing points across the Altyn Tagh fault yet. We tried to find one between the Qaidam Basin and the Altyn Shan, but failed. Alternatively, we proposed a simple calculation to evaluate the slip history of the fault system based on detailed analysis of the kinematic evolution of the Altyn Tagh fault system and its relationship with crustal shortening in the northern Tibetan Plateau throughout the Cenozoic era. The prelimilary result shows ca. 175 ± 75 km offset during Cretaceous (>2.2±0.9 mm/a), ca. 105 ± 75 km offset during ca. 53.8 – 15 Ma (2.7 ± 1.9 mm/a) on the NAF and ca. 150 ± 30 km offset since ca. 15 Ma (10 ± 2 mm/a) on the ATF at ca. 90°. This work has been submitted and under review now. Next step, we will tesitfy the slip history using physical modelling.

Thanks Mr. Christian Gunther.

That is a good paper which covers at least one tunnel in Vestfold County, Norway.