1 / 7

The structure and emplacement of cinder cone fields.

Discover differences in emplacement & structures between flank and platform volcanic cones with case studies from Mauna Kea, Mt. Etna, Kilimanjaro, San Francisco Mtn., Paricutin region, & Nunivak Island.Test lunar cones, morphometric analysis implications & climatic conditions.

viola
Télécharger la présentation

The structure and emplacement of cinder cone fields.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The structure and emplacement of cinder cone fields. An overview by Richard Fletcher

  2. Study objectives • Identifying differences in emplacement and structures between flank cinder cones and flat lying volcanic field cones. • Flank cones studied around: Mauna Kea. Hawaii; Mt. Etna, Italy; Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. • Platform cones studied around: San Francisco Mtn., Arizona; Paricutin region, Mexico; Nunivak Island, Alaska.

  3. Overview of Climatic conditions and ages of cones

  4. Primary Study Areas

  5. Implications • Lunar cones have smaller rim heights and larger basal diameters due to less gravity and atmospheric drag. • Morphometeric analysis suggests the shape and size is a function of age and erosive processes. • Younger cones indicate active volcanism methods (conduits and dikes).

  6. Thanks!!!

More Related