Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T04:30:06.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Grain textural analysis across a range of glacial facies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

A. Khatwa
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton S0171BJ, England
J. K. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton S0171BJ, England
A. J. Payne
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton S0171BJ, England
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A technique proposed by Hooke and Iverson (1995) to identify deformed subglacial sediments is reviewed and tested, based on two main objectives. First, an investigation of whether the fractal dimension can distinguish between non-deformed and deformed facies; for which we compare supraglacial and subglacial facies explicitly. Second, an evaluation of whether the fractal dimension can be used as a diagnostic criteria to discriminate between different styles and degrees of basal deformation. This is tested using a range of sediments from the deformation continuum suggested by Hart and Boulton (1991b). Sixteen subglacial samples were selected from Quaternary sites in England and three supraglacial samples from the modern Haut Glacier d’Arolla, Switzerland. The mean fractal dimension for the subglacial diamicton matrix facies was 2.92, similar to findings of 2.90 by Hooke and Iverson (1995) for their basal tills. The supraglacial facies displayed a mean fractal dimension of 2.83, which is unusually high for facies which are assumed to be undeformed. A Mann—Whitney U test showed that fractal dimensions of supraglacial and subglacial diamicton matrix facies were not significantly different. No significant difference was found between the fractal dimensions of the different tectonic facies within the subglacial group. It may be impossible to separate the subglacial and supraglacial facies because of complex debris paths within the glacier. Grain fracture or parent lithology may affect the particle-size distribution of subglacial facies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1999
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram showing debris pathways through the glacier system.

Figure 1

Table 1. Range of supraglacial samples analysed from the Glacier d’Arolla.

Figure 2

Table 2. Range of subglacial samples analysed from Norfolk and Cumbria. The selection of these facies reflects the deforming continuum as suggested by Hart and Boulton (1991b).

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Proglacial deformation at Trimingham: (a) large-scale section diagram of the listric thrustfault at the site (after Hart, 1990); (b) sedimentology along thefault breccia.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Double-log plots of slope values for supraglacial facies comprising sieve and Coulter datasets (N is the number of particles and D is the particle diameter). The slope and correlation values are given on each graph.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Double-log plots for: (a) subglacial diamicton-matrix facies; (b) boudin facies; (c) tectonic-lamination facies; and (d) fault-breccia facies. Plots comprise sieve and Coulter datasets (N is the number of particles and D is the particle diameter). The slope and correlation values are given on each graph.

Figure 6

Table 3. Fractal dimensions for the range of supraglacial samples analysed. The mean and standard deviation are presented. The values for these samples show little difference to the subglacial facies analysed.

Figure 7

Table 4. Fractal dimensions for the range of subglacial samples analysed. The mean and standard deviations are presented. The values do not significantly vary across the deforming continuum nor are they significantly greater than the supraglacialfacies.

Figure 8

Table 5. Mann-Whitney U test for unmatched samples: Significance results.