4.5 Article

Energy partition for grain crushing in quartz gouge during subseismic to seismic fault motion: An experimental study

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 139-155

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2011.12.014

Keywords

Energetics of seismic fault motion; Fracture energy; High-velocity friction; BET surface area; Quartz gouge

Funding

  1. [201007605]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21107004] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of quartz gouge was measured before and after shearing deformation at subseismic to seismic slip rates to determine how much of frictional work and fracture energy was consumed during grain crushing. Measurement of BET surface area provides more direct data on surface-area change than grain-size measurement does. Twenty-four experiments on quartz gouge composed of Ottawa sands or crushed quartz were conducted dry (with room humidity) or wet (with added water) at slip rates of 0.006 similar to 1.3 m/s and normal stresses of 0.76 similar to 3.37 MPa, using a high-velocity friction apparatus and a low to high-velocity friction apparatus. About 1 mm-thick gouge was placed between cylindrical specimens of Belfast dolerite of 25 mm in diameter. Results show that grain crushing absorbed only 0.02 similar to 0.22% of frictional work and only 0.05 similar to 1.06% of fracture energy under dry and wet conditions. Thus, grain comminution is unlikely to be an important energy sink at least for mature faults with well-developed slip zone. Surface area of gouge decreases with deformation at seismic slip rates. This and SEM observations suggest partial sintering due to frictional heating. Thus a simple scenario of grain crushing as an energy sink does not hold for estimating the energy budget during earthquakes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available