1-20 OF 3561 RESULTS FOR

cohesive strength

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Article
Published: 01 October 2018
Clays and Clay Minerals (2018) 66 (5): 438–448.
...Yuan-Shiang Lin; Chang-Yu Ou; Shao-Chi Chien Abstract Injection of CaCl 2 and Na 2 SiO 3 solutions into clay suspensions during electroosmosis often improves the cohesive strength of clays near the anode and cathode, whereas the cohesive strength of clays between the electrodes remains weak...
FIGURES | View All (12)
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 February 1970
GSA Bulletin (1970) 81 (2): 607–608.
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 June 1969
GSA Bulletin (1969) 80 (6): 927–952.
... angle, and τ 0 an empirical constant, commonly referred to as the cohesive strength. Experiments showed that the τ 0 for sedimentary rocks is about 200 bars. Hubbert and Rubey (1959) assumed that once a fracture is started, TO is eliminated and further movement results when They proceed, however, to use...
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 June 1969
GSA Bulletin (1969) 80 (6): 953–954.
Journal Article
Journal: GSA Bulletin
Published: 01 June 1969
GSA Bulletin (1969) 80 (6): 955–960.
Journal Article
Journal: Geosphere
Published: 01 December 2012
Geosphere (2012) 8 (6): 1207–1230.
... the cohesive debris flows originated outside the study area. Previous work showed that intermediate and low strength debris flows produced different downflow-trending facies tracts. Here, we show that intermediate strength debris flows entered the study area as debris flows, while low strength (clast poor...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Journal Article
Published: 01 September 1970
Journal of Sedimentary Research (1970) 40 (3): 1026–1037.
Image
Published: 01 August 2002
Table 1 Friction Coefficient, Cohesive Strength, Fluid Flow, and Capillary Properties for Catalasites and Reservoir Sandstones
Published: 01 January 1972
DOI: 10.1130/MEM135-p95
... Triaxial compression tests were run on seven orientations of three rocks with pervasive planar anisotropy—slate, phyllite, and schist—to evaluate the effects of cohesion and granularity on anisotropic strength variation and deformational mode. The rocks show a gradation in the percentage...
Image
Generalized models for the behavior and deposits of submarine cohesive debris flows. (A) Very strong or strong cohesive strength. (B) Intermediate cohesive strength. (C) Low cohesive strength. (D) Generalized model for an even lower cohesive strength fluid mud layer.
Published: 01 June 2013
Figure 12. Generalized models for the behavior and deposits of submarine cohesive debris flows. (A) Very strong or strong cohesive strength. (B) Intermediate cohesive strength. (C) Low cohesive strength. (D) Generalized model for an even lower cohesive strength fluid mud layer.
Journal Article
Journal: Geosphere
Published: 01 June 2013
Geosphere (2013) 9 (3): 460–488.
...Figure 12. Generalized models for the behavior and deposits of submarine cohesive debris flows. (A) Very strong or strong cohesive strength. (B) Intermediate cohesive strength. (C) Low cohesive strength. (D) Generalized model for an even lower cohesive strength fluid mud layer. ...
FIGURES | View All (12)
Journal Article
Published: 27 December 2021
Geological Magazine (2022) 159 (11-12): 2036–2059.
... of geometrical, kinematical and mechanical processes between model and nature. The geometrical scaling factor defines the model resolution, which depends on the density and cohesive strength ratios of model material and natural rocks. Granular materials such as quartz sands are ideal for the simulation of upper...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Journal Article
Journal: AAPG Bulletin
Published: 01 August 2002
AAPG Bulletin (2002) 86 (8): 1383–1405.
...Table 1 Friction Coefficient, Cohesive Strength, Fluid Flow, and Capillary Properties for Catalasites and Reservoir Sandstones ...
FIGURES | View All (24)
Journal Article
Journal: Economic Geology
Published: 01 January 2000
Economic Geology (2000) 95 (1): 41–48.
... – σ 3 ) versus least effective compressive stress, σ 3 ' = (σ 3 – P f ), scaled to nominal tensile strength, T (~ half the cohesive strength). Plots of this kind may be used to define maximum sustainable overpressure in different tectonic environments and the structural conditions under which the flow...
FIGURES | View All (5)
Journal Article
Journal: AAPG Bulletin
Published: 01 February 1985
AAPG Bulletin (1985) 69 (2): 277–278.
... no role in the development of diapiric salt structures on a geologic time scale, (c) both overpressure and the lateral cohesive strength of overlying sediments retard the development of a dome by delaying the initiation of diapirism and suppressing the later growth of the salt structure, (d) the formation...
Book Chapter

Author(s)
Henri S. Swolfs
Series: AAPG Memoir
Published: 01 January 1972
DOI: 10.1306/M18373C31
EISBN: 9781629812229
... of the rock mass is further reduced through modification of the cohesive strength of its constituent grains in contact with the fluid. Several experiments reveal that the strength of rocks and propagation of minute surface cracks are highly dependent on the moisture content of the rock. Dilute solutions...
Image
Synoptic illustration of the evolution of mode of failure in rocks developing pseudotachylytes (PSTs). Strength relationships are schematically indicated on a Mohr-circle diagram with a linear Coulomb envelope. C1 and C2 refer to the different cohesive strengths of the Alpine fault (New Zealand) mylonites and Gole Larghe fault (Italy) tonalites, respectively. Note that the cohesive strength of the intact rock is the same before generation of the PST stage 1 and after stage 4. C0 represents both rocks when faulted and cohesionless. τ is shear stress, and σn is normal stress.
Published: 01 December 2016
Figure 4. Synoptic illustration of the evolution of mode of failure in rocks developing pseudotachylytes (PSTs). Strength relationships are schematically indicated on a Mohr-circle diagram with a linear Coulomb envelope. C1 and C2 refer to the different cohesive strengths of the Alpine fault (New
Journal Article
Published: 01 December 2004
Journal of the Geological Society (2004) 161 (6): 939–946.
...-mass compressive ( σ cm ) and cohesive ( c ) strengths decrease exponentially with RMR according to σ cm =0.652 (0.0559RMR) and c =0.035 (0.0669RMR) , respectively, and appear insensitive to both initial magma composition and relative age. This exponential relationship provides a new predictive tool...
FIGURES | View All (7)
Journal Article
Published: 01 December 2010
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2010) 100 (6): 2996–3019.
... to deep fault geometry and cohesive strength of shallow geologic units, while it is relatively insensitive to fault zone structure, the seismogenic depth, and pore-pressure response. Taking previous estimates of Andrews et al. (2007) as a benchmark, a 10° reduction in dip (from 60° to 50...
FIGURES | View All (23)
Image
Brittle rock failure can be modeled by a modified Coulomb–Griffith failure envelope. In the brittle realm, failure is controlled by differential stress, defined by the local tectonic setting, pore fluid pressure conditions, and rock properties. To estimate stress magnitude, we use a nondecompacted burial history curve at top Summerville Formation. Approximate timing of regional deformation events and faulting at LGWF are shown by black bars (a). The Mohr–Coulomb–Griffith construction on the right, (b), shows variation due to changes in cohesive strength, the values used here are the maximum strength from UCS tests in this study. This variation in cohesive strength will result in different failure types/modes occurring under similar differential stress and pore fluid pressure conditions. Dimensions of the Mohr circle derived from the burial history curve at maximum burial (b).
Published: 19 August 2024
a nondecompacted burial history curve at top Summerville Formation. Approximate timing of regional deformation events and faulting at LGWF are shown by black bars ( a ). The Mohr–Coulomb–Griffith construction on the right, ( b ), shows variation due to changes in cohesive strength, the values used here