Seminar series
Date
Thu, 16 Sep 2004
12:00
12:00
Location
DH 3rd floor SR
Speaker
Prof Donald L Turcotte
Organisation
University of California
Time delays are associated with rock fracture and earthquakes. The
delay associated with the initiation of a single fracture can be
attributed to stress corrosion and a critical stress intensity factor
[1]. Usually, however, the fracture of a brittle material, such as
rock, results from the coalescence and growth of micro cracks. Another
example of time delays in rock is the systematic delay before the
occurrence of earthquake aftershocks. There is also a systematic time
delay associated with rate-and-state friction. One important question
is whether these time delays are related. Another important question
is whether the time delays are thermally activated. In many cases systematic
scaling laws apply to the time delays. An example is Omori92s law for the
temporal decay of after shock activity. Experiments on the fracture of fiber
board panels, subjected instantaneously to a load show a systematic power-law
decrease in the delay time to failure as a function of the difference between
the applied stress and a yield stress [2,3]. These experiments also show a
power-law increase in energy associated with acoustic emissions prior to
rupture. The frequency-strength statistics of the acoustic emissions also
satisfy the power-law Gutenberg-Richter scaling. Damage mechanics and dynamic
fibre-bundle models provide an empirical basis for understanding the systematic
time delays in rock fracture and seismicity [4-7]. We show that these approachesgive identical results when applied to fracture, and explain the scaling
obtained in the fibre board experiments. These approaches also give Omori92s
type law. The question of precursory activation prior to rock bursts and
earthquakes is also discussed.
[1] Freund, L. B. 1990. Dynamic Fracture Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.20
[2] Guarino, A., Garcimartin, A., and Ciliberto, S. 1998. An experimental test of the critical behaviour of fracture precursors. Eur. Phys. J.; B6:13-24.20
[3] Guarino, A., Ciliberto, S., and Garcimartin, A. 1999. Failure time and micro crack nucleation. Europhys. Lett.; 47: 456.20
[4] Kachanov, L. M. 1986. Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Netherlands.20
[5] Krajcinovic, D. 1996. Damage Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.20
[6] Turcotte, D. L., Newman, W. I., and Shcherbakov, R. 2002. Micro- and macroscopic models of rock fracture, Geophys. J. Int.; 152: 718-728.
[7] Shcherbakov, R. and Turcotte, D. L. 2003. Damage and self-similarity in fracture. Theor. and Appl. Fracture Mech.; 39: 245-258.
[2] Guarino, A., Garcimartin, A., and Ciliberto, S. 1998. An experimental test of the critical behaviour of fracture precursors. Eur. Phys. J.; B6:13-24.20
[3] Guarino, A., Ciliberto, S., and Garcimartin, A. 1999. Failure time and micro crack nucleation. Europhys. Lett.; 47: 456.20
[4] Kachanov, L. M. 1986. Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Netherlands.20
[5] Krajcinovic, D. 1996. Damage Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.20
[6] Turcotte, D. L., Newman, W. I., and Shcherbakov, R. 2002. Micro- and macroscopic models of rock fracture, Geophys. J. Int.; 152: 718-728.
[7] Shcherbakov, R. and Turcotte, D. L. 2003. Damage and self-similarity in fracture. Theor. and Appl. Fracture Mech.; 39: 245-258.