2017
DOI: 10.1134/s1028334x17040183
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The geometry of a dyke swarm as a result of dyke interaction with each other and with external stresses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This subsurface geometry fits well with the teardrop‐shape model for dikes propagating laterally from the volcanic center and under a non‐uniform topography (Corbi et al., 2015; Parfitt, 1991). This geometry is found consistently in modeling studies (Maccaferri et al., 2011; Mukhamediev et al., 2017; Rivalta et al., 2015), and is similar to that observed in analog experiments (Daniels & Menand, 2015; Urbani et al., 2017). However, it must be stated that teardrop geometries obtained in experiments are observed in a dynamic system, while the modeling results presented in this paper refer to a solidified system.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…This subsurface geometry fits well with the teardrop‐shape model for dikes propagating laterally from the volcanic center and under a non‐uniform topography (Corbi et al., 2015; Parfitt, 1991). This geometry is found consistently in modeling studies (Maccaferri et al., 2011; Mukhamediev et al., 2017; Rivalta et al., 2015), and is similar to that observed in analog experiments (Daniels & Menand, 2015; Urbani et al., 2017). However, it must be stated that teardrop geometries obtained in experiments are observed in a dynamic system, while the modeling results presented in this paper refer to a solidified system.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%