Linear regression between applied normal stress and obtained peak shear stress data points indicated a friction angle of 33° (Fig. 1).
He maintained that the conjecture was false because angles needed to add up to 180° (Line 2) and made a non-dynamic depictive gesture that inaccurately indicated a large angle corresponding to a smaller side length (Line 3).
Using this model to fit the internal non-bonded distances indicated a folding angle of 9.1°, which was apportioned in transforming the coordinates in the ratio 0.35 : 0.65, the inverse ratio of the relevant moments of inertia about N1 – N1.
Exploratory analysis of within-tree trends in grain angle indicated a trend of increasing angle with height within stem levelling off above 5 m (Figure 3a), a radial trend showing an increase in grain angle over the first 20 mm followed by a gradual decline (Figure 3b), but no consistent directional effect (data not shown).
The classification method is similar to that of Frohlich (1992), but we introduce two grades (A and B) for each fault type: grade A means that the focal mechanism has an axis with a plunge angle θ ≥ 60°, and grade B indicates a plunge angle of 45° ≤ θ < 60°.
Grade A means that the focal mechanism has an axis with a plunge angle θ ≥ 60°, and grade B indicates a plunge angle of 45° ≤ θ < 60° Fig. 4 Examples of focal mechanisms determined and P-wave velocity structure used in this study.
The best-fit case (i.e., that with the minimum sum of squared residuals) indicates a dip angle of 31° and a slip amount of 4.4 m.
The lie ranges from 4 to 8, with a lower number indicating a wider angle.
The circle outside the points indicates a range of 1°visual angle.
A negative angle indicated a counterclockwise error (i.e., leftward error), whereas a positive angle indicated a clockwise error (i.e., rightward error).
