Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T11:44:42.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Symmetry Principle and the Deformation Ellipsoid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Derek Flinn
Derek Flinn
Affiliation:
The Jane Herdman Laboratories of Geology, The University, Liverpool, 3.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the symmetry principle the fabric of a tectonite reflects the symmetry of the deforming movements. Where the symmetry of the deformation varies from place to place this should be reflected in a similar variation in the fabric. The possible variation in homogeneous strain is best shown by the range of variation possible in the deformation ellipsoid. It is argued in the paper that rocks commonly occur which show a variation in fabric from place to place similar to the whole or part of the possible variation in shape of the deformation ellipsoid. It is concluded that such rocks have deformed by homogeneous strain. This conclusion is supported by the shapes and orientations of pebbles in deformed conglomerates.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , February 1965 , pp. 36 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Brace, W. F., 1955. Quartzite pebble deformation in Central Vermont. Amer. J. Sci., 253, 129–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, W. F. 1961. Mohr construction in the analysis of large geologic strain. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72, 1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwell, R. W. D., 1955. Lithology and structure of a boulder bed in the Dalradian of Mayo, Ireland. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 111, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbairn, H. W., 1936. Elongation in deformed rocks. J. Geol., 44, 670–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinn, D., 1956. On the deformation of the Funzie conglomerate, Fetlar, Shetland. J. Geol., 64, 480–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinn, D. 1958. On the nappe structure of north-east Shetland. Quart. Jour. geol. Soc. Lond., 114, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinn, D. 1961. On deformation at thrust planes in Shetland and the Jotunheim area of Norway. Geol. Mag., 98, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinn, D. 1962. On folding during three-dimensional progressive deformation. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 68, 385–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigout, M., 1956. Les conglomérates métamorphiques des Rehamna et roches associeés. Trav. de l'Institut Scientifique Chérifien Series Géol. et Géog. Phys., No. 4, Rabat.Google Scholar
Oftedahl, C., 1948. Deformation of quartz conglomerates in Central Norway. J. Geol., 56, 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, M. S., and Weiss, L. E., 1961. Symmetry concepts in the structural analysis of deformed rocks. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer., 72, 841–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, F. J., and Weiss, L. E., 1963. Structural analysis of metamorphic tectonites. New York.Google Scholar
Walton, M., Hills, A., and Hansen, E., 1964. Compositionally zoned granitic pebbles in three metamorphosed conglomerates. Amer. J. Sci., 262, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H., Turner, F. J., and Gilbert, C. M., 1958. Petrography. San Francisco.Google Scholar