We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Geophysical methods have the potential to delineate and map the geometry of glacially induced faults (GIFs) in the hard rock environment of the Baltic Shield. Relevant geophysical methods include seismic, geoelectric, electromagnetic, magnetic and gravity ones. However, seismic methods have the greatest potential for determining the geometry at depth due to their higher resolving power. Seismic methods have even been used to identify a previously unknown GIF within the Pärvie Fault system. The other geophysical methods are usually employed to image the near-surface structure of GIFs. We provide a brief review of geophysical principles and how they apply to imaging of GIFs in the hard rock environment. The advantages and challenges associated with various geophysical methods are discussed through several case histories. Results to date show that it is possible to map GIFs dipping at 35–65° from the near-surface down to depths of 7–8 km. It is not clear if the limiting factor in their mapping at depth is the nature of the faults or the limitations in the seismic acquisition parameters since the mapping capacity is highly dependent upon the acquisition geometry and source type used.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.