4.5 Article

The joint sets on the Lilstock Benches, UK. Observations based on mapping a full resolution UAV-based image

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104332

关键词

Joint; Lilstock; Joint abutment; UAV; Fracturing

资金

  1. German Science Foundation DFG [UR 64/17-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Manual mapping of a full-resolution UAV-based dataset and DEM of the wave-cut Lilstock Benches resulted in the identification of up to eight successive sets of joints, revealing unique characteristics in terms of shape, orientation, spatial distribution and cross-cutting relations in the whole outcrop. The presence of low-angle crossings and junctions of joints suggest periods of partial joint sealing and reactivation.
Outcrop studies of fracture networks are important to understand fractured reservoirs in the subsurface, but complete maps of all fractures in large outcrops are rare due to limitations of outcrop and image resolution. We manually mapped the first full-resolution UAV-based, Gigapixel dataset and DEM of the wave-cut Lilstock Benches in the southern Bristol Channel basin, a classic outcrop of layer-bound fracture networks in limestones. We present a map of the patterns and age relationships of successive sets of joints in dm-thick limestone layers separated by claystone beds. Using interpretation criteria based on crosscutting relationships, abutting and joint length, up to eight successive sets of joints were mapped. Results show that joint geometry and interrelations are fully resolved in the whole outcrop. Different joint sets have unique characteristics in terms of shape, orientation, spatial distribution and cross-cutting relations. The presence of low-angle crossings and junctions of joints suggest periods of partial joint sealing and reactivation. The dataset and interpretations are proposed as an outline for large scale, complete fracture network mapping to test digital fracture network models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据