Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:  
<math>\text{SSF} = \frac{\text{fault throw}}{\text{shale layer thickness}}</math>
 
<math>\text{SSF} = \frac{\text{fault throw}}{\text{shale layer thickness}}</math>
   −
The shale smear factor remains constant between the offset terminations because it does not depend on smear distance (although lateral variations in fault throw would have a corresponding effect on the calculated SSF). SSF thus models the profile of abrasion-type smears. From a study of 80 faults (excluding composite smears), Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay /> concluded that shale smears may become incomplete for an SSF greater than 7. Smaller values of SSF are more likely to correspond to continuous smears and therefore to a sealing layer on the fault surface. The values of SSF are not additive for compound smears because thin shales give higher SSF and dominate the sum. In such cases, a simple application of SSF values would take the minimum value (most sealing) from the relevant shale beds at that point on the fault.
+
The shale smear factor remains constant between the offset terminations because it does not depend on smear distance (although [[lateral]] variations in fault throw would have a corresponding effect on the calculated SSF). SSF thus models the profile of abrasion-type smears. From a study of 80 faults (excluding composite smears), Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay /> concluded that shale smears may become incomplete for an SSF greater than 7. Smaller values of SSF are more likely to correspond to continuous smears and therefore to a sealing layer on the fault surface. The values of SSF are not additive for compound smears because thin shales give higher SSF and dominate the sum. In such cases, a simple application of SSF values would take the minimum value (most sealing) from the relevant shale beds at that point on the fault.
    
==Shale gouge ratio (SGR)==
 
==Shale gouge ratio (SGR)==

Navigation menu