Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Main, I. G.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 1990; v. 54; p. 81-96;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1990.054.01.09
© 1990 Geological Society of London

Fracture and Faulting

Influence of fractal flaw distributions on rock deformation in the brittle field

Ian G. Main1, Philip G. Meredith2, Peter R. Sammonds2 & Colin Jones3

1 Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Edinburgh, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
2 Rock Physics Laboratory, Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3 Rock and Fluid Physics Group, Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB2 3BE, UK

The geometrical distribution of flaws plays a crucial role in the physical behaviour of geological materials under stress. Flaws are present in the earth on all scales, from microcracks to plate-rupturing faults. They may be distributed on one characteristic length scale (e.g. joints, ‘characteristic’ earthquakes), or more commonly exhibit scale-invariance over a specified range of sizes. Scale-invariance implies that the discrete length distribution in a finite range is a power law of negative exponent D, where 1 ≤ D < 3. Fault systems where motion is concentrated on a dominant fault (e.g. San Andreas) have D {approx} 1, but more diffuse fault systems have D near 2. D is one of the fractal dimensions of the fracture system. The length distribution of faults or microcracks may be inferred from the slope b of the log-linear frequency—magnitude distribution of earthquakes, or laboratory-scale acoustic emissions, since it can be shown that D = 3b/c. The scaling factor c depends on the relative time constants of the seismic event and the recording instrument, and is usually equal to 3/2. b is found experimentally to be negatively correlated with the stress intensity on the dominant flaw, which depends in turn on the applied stress and the flaw length. Thus a fracture mechanics model of rock failure which includes a range of flaw sizes can be tested by seismic monitoring.

We describe a fracture mechanics model of rock failure for a variety of styles of deformation, ranging from elastic failure to quasi-static cataclastic flow, and predict the time-dependence of D and the seismic b-value at different times up to and including failure. Critical coalescence of microcracks during dynamic failure (e.g. earthquake foreshocks) occurs when D = 1 (b = 0.5); random processes (e.g. cataclastic flow, background seismicity) are associated with D = 2 (b = 1); positive feedback in the concentration of stress on the dominant flaw (e.g. during strain softening and shear localisation) occurs when D < 2 (b < 1); negative feedback in stress concentration (e.g. during the early stages of dilatancy), and where a highly diffuse fracture system is produced, occurs at low stress intensities and is associated with D > 2 (b > 1).

It has long been a goal of structural geologists to measure stress on rocks, since most geometrical signatures of deformation are strain-related. We show that stress is not usually as significant in rock fracture as stress intensity, and furthermore that the geometric signature of the length distribution of microcracks is well-correlated with the stress intensity.