Best Of
Re: Comment créer et finaliser une carte de résistivité
Hi Kouakou,
What software are you using to work with resistivity data? And which type of data?
Re: why I am getting higher FOS instead of getting lower value?
Hi @LaboniGupta, I apologize for the delay. One of the reasons you're seeing the factor of safety increase is because the piezometric surface is lower in the SEEP/W model than the piezometric surface model. If you change the SEEP/W model so that the piezometric surface follows the ground surface, the factor of safety decreases.
However, the SEEP/W model FOS is still higher than the piezometric surface model FOS. This is because when there is a downward flow regime, SLOPE/W calculates higher pore water pressures from piezometric surfaces than SEEP/W calculates. You can read more about this in the PDF I've attached. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
🎉 We love seeing how members are using our tools to support and inspire the next generation of geos
One of our Visible Geology users, Ayokunle, recently shared this thoughtful post after receiving a small thank you from the team for being one of our most active contributors:
🔗 Link to Post
It's always exciting to hear how the tools are being used in the classroom and beyond - and even better when we can show appreciation in fun ways.
Got ideas or feedback to help us improve Visible Geology? We'd love to hear them. And if you're doing something awesome with it - let us know. You might just get a surprise too 😉
Kenometer accuracy: Are your alpha angle measurements as reliable as you think?
Hi everyone:
If you're collecting structural data (e.g., alpha-beta-gamma) from orientated drillcore, check out this LinkedIn article on the uncertainty of alpha values measured with the popular Kenometer tool.
Maybe +/-5 degrees isn't significant in your project but orientated drillcore is expensive to collect.
Please share your thoughts.
Graham
Re: Most Efficient Method for Modeling Folds Given Only Trend & Plunge Lines?
Hi Ben,
This looks like an opportunity to use the fold interpolant tool in Leapfrog [Form Interpolants]. The amount of dip & strike data you have for the bedding/foliation is enough to adjust the structural trends of the interpolants, the same with the plunge direction arrows you have. Because your fold axes are fairly close to parallel, so they can share the same general structural trend.
I recommend having a look through the online training for Leapfrog's Structural Modelling Tools, specifically the section on structural surfaces [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre], the section on form interpolants [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre], and the section on structural trends [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre].
Have a go at that and get back to me if you need more help.
Thanks
Graham
Re: Most Efficient Method for Modeling Folds Given Only Trend & Plunge Lines?
Thanks Graham! I'll give that a try and let you know how it goes. Really appreciate the help!
Re: 🚀Leapfrog 2025.1 is finally here!
Thanks @ElliottCrosby , everything is running smooth now, just installed Bentley's Connection client, signed up there, and everything went to normal…
Re: Most Efficient Method for Modeling Folds Given Only Trend & Plunge Lines?
Thanks @GrahamAndrews! I've attached a typical section of the map I'm working with. The hinge lines are drawn on the map, but no other orientation data. Some of the hinge lines do have a plunge measurement, but not all. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated-thank you!
Ben
Re: Most Efficient Method for Modeling Folds Given Only Trend & Plunge Lines?
Hi Ben.
When you say you have a dip for each line, do you mean the plunge of the fold hinge, or the dip of one of the fold limbs?
Can you post a copy or sketch of the map?
Graham
Seequent - Training Content Developer (Geology & Geostats)
Re: 🚀Leapfrog 2025.1 is finally here!
would have been better to have some warning of this change emailed out to users beforehand. Today I spent about an hour and 2 restarts trying to get it working.