1993
DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(93)90004-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical relations between compressive strength and porosity of siliciclastic rocks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
27
0
4

Year Published

1996
1996
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 185 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
6
27
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…8a.1). Vernik et al (1993;Eq. 25) predict much higher UCS for low-porosity sandstones ( < 15 %) and lower UCS for high-porosity sandstones ( > 25 %) than Eqs.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8a.1). Vernik et al (1993;Eq. 25) predict much higher UCS for low-porosity sandstones ( < 15 %) and lower UCS for high-porosity sandstones ( > 25 %) than Eqs.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The changing strain mechanisms reflect the changing mechanical characteristic of the host medium. Within a PRZ nucleating in the Navajo Sandstone, shearing and compaction reduces porosity within the PRZ (see , for representative porosity values) and the region becomes work -hardened (Edmond & Paterson 1972), with a fundamental change in the mechanical character of the host sandstone such as increased cohesion (Vernik et al 1993) or a larger angle of internal friction (Underhill & Woodcock 1987).…”
Section: Interpretation Of Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sodium silicate gel caused a re nement in uence on the pore structure which signi cantly a ects the strength of CTB. Generally, ner pore structure is associated with higher strength of the porous medium [16] or cemented back ll [4,17]. Figure 3 shows the MIP results performed on CTBs with 0% and 0.4% SS and cured for 28 days.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%