Fault and Joint Development in Brittle and Semi-Brittle Rock 1966
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-08-011275-6.50006-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brittle Fracture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
35
0

Year Published

1971
1971
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, opening-mode fractures are generally anti-clustered and display a fairly regular spacing in a given locality and lithology due to the stress shadow that forms as a result of joint propagation (e.g., Price, 1966;Hobbs, 1967;Gross, 1993). So, how did the TFCs form?…”
Section: Tabular Fracture Clusters: a Mesozoic Inheritance Of Weaknessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather, opening-mode fractures are generally anti-clustered and display a fairly regular spacing in a given locality and lithology due to the stress shadow that forms as a result of joint propagation (e.g., Price, 1966;Hobbs, 1967;Gross, 1993). So, how did the TFCs form?…”
Section: Tabular Fracture Clusters: a Mesozoic Inheritance Of Weaknessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A preexisting systematic joint can represent, in certain cases, a mechanical layer boundary, which is characterized by a homogeneous rheological behaviour [3]. Nonstratabound joints are longer or shorter with respect to the mechanical layer and show more irregular average spacing trends with respect to the stratabound ones [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ratios of fracture spacing to model thickness (S/T f ) calculated for all of the models are within the ranges suggested by previous studies of fracturing in sedimentary layers where additional fracturing mechanisms (beyond extension) are required to explain fracture oversaturation [e.g., Bai and Pollard, 2000b]. Doubling the thickness of a model layer does not affect fracture spacing, thus thicker models exhibit even lower S/T f ratios, suggesting that the closely spaced fractures observed in some sedimentary rocks [Price, 1966;Ladeira and Price, 1981;Huang and Angelier, 1989;Narr and Suppe, 1991;Gross, 1993;Becker and Gross, 1996;Gross et al, 1997] may record large overpressures rather than mechanical layer thickness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Mechanical layers are discrete mechanical entities, most commonly sedimentary beds sandwiched between physically unlike beds or weak bedding planes. Fracture spacing is observed to decrease with mechanical layer thickness [Price, 1966;Ladeira and Price, 1981;Huang and Angelier, 1989;Narr and Suppe, 1991;Gross, 1993;Becker and Gross, 1996;Gross et al, 1997;Bai and Pollard, 2000a]. Documented ratios of fracture spacing to bed thickness range from 12 to <0.01, with purely mechanical models explaining ratios of 0.8 to 12 as the result of extensional boundary loading and subsequent fracture saturation [Bai and Pollard, 2000a].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%