2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.03.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Permeability and porosity relationships of edifice-forming andesites: A combined field and laboratory study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

13
110
1
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 159 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
13
110
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Alteration has been previously shown to weaken volcanic rocks (Pola et al 2014;Wyering et al 2014;Heap et al 2015b). Permeability measurements show that permeability increases as porosity increases, in accordance with other measurements on basaltic andesites and andesites (Farquharson et al 2015;Kushnir et al 2016;Heap and Kennedy 2016).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Alteration has been previously shown to weaken volcanic rocks (Pola et al 2014;Wyering et al 2014;Heap et al 2015b). Permeability measurements show that permeability increases as porosity increases, in accordance with other measurements on basaltic andesites and andesites (Farquharson et al 2015;Kushnir et al 2016;Heap and Kennedy 2016).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…It is interesting that aspect ratio and roundness do not provide a good fit, which suggests that embayments along the pore perimeter do not contribute to fluid flow. This is analogous to the low permeability of some samples with micro-porosity characterised by high surface area in Farquharson et al (2015), where many micropores did not contribute to fluid flow. We also attempted to determine if a correlation between increased microfracture density and increased connected porosity was present, as has been observed in reservoir rocks of the nearby Rotokawa Andesite .…”
Section: Microfracture and Pore Analysismentioning
confidence: 61%
“…The host rock porosity-permeability is bracketed by other porosity-permeability measurements on lavas from Volcán de Colima (Kendrick et al, 2013;Farquharson et al, 2015), and is akin to measurements on other lavas from basaltic (Schaefer et al, 2015) to dacitic (Mueller et al, 2005) to rhyolitic (Heap et al, 2014a;Okumura and Sasaki, 2014). The trend in porosity-permeability data is well described by the relationship given for effusive lavas in Mueller et al (2005), as is the majority of the natural tuffisite, with some examples falling into a range that is slightly more permeable than anticipated from their porosity (Figure 7).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the right, this porosity and permeability relationship for the eight samples of both the natural host rock and tuffisite veins are compared to the crushed dome material and sintered tuffisite analogs from 940 to 980 • C (data in Table 3). This is compared to porosity-permeability measurements on other lavas from Volcán de Colima (Kendrick et al, 2013;Farquharson et al, 2015) and to lavas from elsewhere ranging from basalt (Pacaya; Schaefer et al, 2015) to dacite (Mount Unzen; Mueller et al, 2005) rhyolite (Mount Meagre; Heap et al, 2014a) and in addition it is compared to the results of compaction experiments on chips of rhyolite lava (Okumura and Sasaki, 2014) and overlain by the porosity-permeability relationship for effusive lava given by Mueller et al (2005). The plot shows the region in which the neck-formation regime is active, i.e., the region in which sintering materials plot, but where they do not follow the anticipated porosity-permeability trend for lavas.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%