Acoustic Emission Events Clustering Parameters in Laboratory Rock Fracture Experiments

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This paper verifies the compliance of the earthquake productivity law (Shebalin et al., 2020a) in laboratory experiments on rock destruction. Westerly granite and Benheim sandstone specimens were subjected to uniaxial loading under uniform compression. An acoustic-emission (AE) recording system made it possible to create catalogues of AE sources similar to earthquake catalogues. The data from experiments conducted at the Rock Friction Laboratory (USGS, Menlo Park, United States) and the Geomechanics and Rheology Laboratory (GFZ, Potsdam) were analyzed. It was found that the AE events in the considered samples are characterized by a unimodal distribution of the nearest-neighbor proximity function. The compliance of the productivity law for acoustic-emission events in laboratory experiments on the destruction of rock samples is shown, which gives grounds to speak about the similarity of grouping processes in real seismicity and in laboratory conditions.

About the authors

S. D. Matochkina

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: sofijamat@mail.ru

Faculty of Physics

Russian Federation, Moscow, 117997; Moscow, 119234

P. N. Shebalin

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: sofijamat@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 117997; Moscow, 119296

V. B. Smirnov

Moscow State University; Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: sofijamat@mail.ru

Faculty of Physics

Russian Federation, Moscow, 119234; Moscow, 123995

A. V. Ponomarev

Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: sofijamat@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 123995

P. A. Malyutin

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Moscow State University; Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: sofijamat@mail.ru

Faculty of Physics

Russian Federation, Moscow, 117997; Moscow, 119234; Moscow, 123995

References

  1. Баранов С.В., Жукова С.А., Корчак П.А., Шебалин П.Н. Продуктивность техногенной сейсмичности // Физика Земли 2020. № 3. С. 40–51.
  2. Баранов С.В., Шебалин П.Н. Закономерности постсейсмических процессов и прогноз опасности сильных афтершоков. М.: РАН. 2019. 218 с.
  3. Кочарян Г.Г. Геомеханика разломов. М.: ГЕОС. 2016. 424 с.
  4. Моторин А.Ю., Жукова С.А., Баранов С.В., Шебалин П.Н. Воздействие обводненности среды на продуктивность природно-техногенной сейсмичности (на примере Хибинского массива) // Физика Земли. 2024. № 2. С. 3–14.
  5. Смирнов В.Б., Пономарев А.В., Сергеева С.М. О подобии и обратной связи в экспериментах по разрушению горных пород // Физика Земли. 2001. № 1. С. 89–96.
  6. Смирнов В.Б., Пономарев А.В. Физика переходных режимов сейсмичности. М.: РАН. 2020. 412 с.
  7. Смирнов В.Б., Пономарев А.В., Станчиц С.А., Потанина М.Г., Патонин А.В., Dresen G., Narteau C., Bernard P., Строганова С.М. Лабораторное моделирование афтершоковых последовательностей: зависимость параметров Омори и Гутенберга–Рихтера от напряжений // Физика Земли. 2019. № 1. С. 149–165.
  8. Соболев Г.А., Пономарев А.В. Акустическая эмиссия и стадии подготовки разрушения в лабораторном эксперименте // Вулканология и сейсмология. 1999. № 4–5. C. 50–62.
  9. Baiesi M.,Paczuski M. Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks // Physical review E. 2004. V. 69. № 6. P. 066106.
  10. Baró J., Corral Á., Illa X., Planes A., Salje E.K.H., Schranz W., Vives E. Statistical similarity between the compression of a porous material and earthquakes // Physical review letters. 2013. V. 110. № 8. P. 088702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.088702
  11. Bayliss K., Naylor M., Main I.G. Probabilistic identification of earthquake clusters using rescaled nearest neighbour distance networks // Geophysical Journal International. 2019. V. 217. № 1. P. 487–503.
  12. Brace W.F., Byerlee J.D. Stick slip as a mechanism for earthquakes // Science. 1966. V. 153. P. 990–992.
  13. Grassberger P., Procaccia I. Measuring the Strangeness of Strange Attractors // Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 1983. V. 9. P. 189–208. doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(83)90298-1
  14. Hainzl S., Sippl C., Schurr B. Linear relationship between aftershock productivity and seismic coupling in the Northern Chile subduction zone // Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2019. V. 124. № 8. P. 8726–8738.
  15. Hirata T., Satoh T., Ito K. Fractal structure of spatial distribution of microfracturing in rock // Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 1987. V. 90. № 2. P. 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1987.tb00732.x
  16. Kandula N., Mc Beck J., Cordonnier B., Weiss J., Dysthe D.K., Renard F. Synchrotron 4D X-ray imaging reveals strain localization at the onset of system-size failure in porous reservoir rocks // Pure and Applied Geophysics. 2022. P. 1–26.
  17. Lei X., Ma Sh. Laboratory acoustic emission study for earthquake generation process // Earthquake Science. 2014. V. 27. № 6. P. 627–646. doi: 10.1007/s11589–014–0103-y
  18. Lockner D.A., Byerlee J.D. Development of fracture planes during creep in granite. In Proc. 2-nd Conference on Acoustic Emission. Microseismic Activity in Geological Structures and Materials / H. R. Hardy, W. F. Leighton (eds.). Trans-Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany. 1980. P. 11–25.
  19. Lockner D. A., Byerlee J. D., Kuksenko V., Ponomarev A., Sidorin A. Quasi-static fault growth and shear fracture // Nature. 1991. V. 350. № 6313. P. 39–42.
  20. Marsan D., Helmstetter A. How variable is the number of triggered aftershocks? // J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 2017. V. 122. P. 5544–5560.
  21. Marsan D., Lengline J. Extending Earthquakes’ Reach Through Cascading // Science. 2008. V. 319. P. 1076–1079. doi: 10.1126/science.1148783
  22. McBeck J., Ben-Zion Y., Renard F. Fracture network localization preceding catastrophic failure in triaxial compression experiments on rocks // Frontiers in Earth Science. 2021. V. 9. P. 778811.
  23. Ogata Y. Statistical model for standard seismicity and detection of anomalies by residual analysis // Tectonophysics. 1989. V. 169. № 1-3. P. 159–174.
  24. Scholz C.H. The Mechanics of earthquakes and faulting (3-rd edition). Cambrige Univ. Press. 2019. 512 p. ISBN: 9781316615232
  25. Shebalin P.N., Narteau C., Baranov S.V. Earthquake productivity law // Geophysical Journal International. 2020a. V. 222. № 2. P. 1264–1269.
  26. Shebalin P.N., Narteau C., Baranov S.V. Earthquake productivity law // Geophysical Journal International (Supporting information). 2020b. V. 222. № 2. P. 1264–1269.
  27. Utsu T. Aftershocks and earthquake statistics (1): Some Parameters Which Characterize an Aftershock Sequence and Their Interrelations //Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University. 1969. Series 7. Geophysics. 1970. V. 3. № 3. P. 129–195.
  28. Vilhelm J., Rudajev V., Ponomarev A.V., Smirnov V.B., Lokajíček T. Statistical study of acoustic emissions generated during the controlled deformation of migmatite specimens // International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2017. V. 100. P. 83–89.
  29. Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. Earthquake clusters in southern California I: identification and stability // J. Geophys. Res. 2013. V. 118. P. 2847–2864.
  30. Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. A global classification and characterization of earthquake clusters //Geophysical Journal International. 2016. V. 207. № 1. P. 608–634.
  31. Zaliapin I., Gabrielov A., Keilis-Borok V., Wong H. Clustering analysis of seismicity and aftershock identification // Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008. V. 101. № 1. P. 018501.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences