Assessment of rock geomechanical quality by quantitative rock fabric coefficients: Limitations and possible source of misinterpretations

Rock microfabrics were quantified by image measurement system (petrographic image analysis) of thin sections. Along with common measured parameters (grain area and size, length of major and minor axes and their orientation), some quantitative parameters (aspect ratio, grain boundary smoothness) and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEngineering geology Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 149 - 162
Main Author PRIKRYL, Richard
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 03.11.2006
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Rock microfabrics were quantified by image measurement system (petrographic image analysis) of thin sections. Along with common measured parameters (grain area and size, length of major and minor axes and their orientation), some quantitative parameters (aspect ratio, grain boundary smoothness) and fabric coefficients (micropetrographic quality index ( K), “texture” coefficient (TC), indexes of interlocking ( t) and grain size homogeneity ( g)) were determined. The reliability of these parameters for the evaluation of geomechanical properties was tested on the set of granitic rocks showing pronounced variability in rock mechanical properties. None of the tested rock fabric coefficients or parameters proved a close correlation to rock mechanical properties except grain size. Based on experimental findings, the grain size is, along with porosity, the controlling factor of rock mechanical properties of genetically and mineralogically similar rocks. Obliteration of the real effects of rock fabric parameters on the mechanical properties of rocks by application of complex fabric coefficients disables their practical use in petrography applied to geomechanics.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0013-7952
1872-6917
DOI:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.011