4.7 Article

Evolution of strength recovery and permeability during fluid-rock reaction in experimental fault zones

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 206, 期 1-2, 页码 161-172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(02)01082-8

关键词

fault-healing; strength; permeability; porosity; earthquake mechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical and chemical fluid-rock interactions are implicated in controlling earthquake nucleation and recurrence. In particular, interseismic compaction, sealing and healing of fractured fault rocks can lead to strength recovery and stabilisation of fault zones. In contrast, these same processes can also assist increases in pore fluid pressures and consequent destabilisation of faults. Here, we present high-temperature, hydrothermal experiments designed to assess the evolution of strength of fault zones in previously intact rock, and also characterise the associated changes to porosity and permeability. Cores of Fontainebleau sandstone were initially loaded to failure in a high-pressure gas-medium apparatus. The failed specimens were then hydrothermally reacted at 927degreesC for variable duration under isostatic conditions, and subsequently re-fractured to determine the 'interseismic' strength recovery. In the most extreme case, hydrothermally induced gouge compaction, cementation and crack healing resulted in 75% strength recovery after reaction for 6 h. Isostatic hydrothermal treatment also resulted in dramatic reduction in porosity and permeability. Strength of the fault zone following hydrothermal reaction appears to be closely correlated to porosity, consistent with previous studies on brittle failure of porous aggregates. The experimental results show how hydrothermal reactions in fault zones may lead to two competing, time-dependent effects; fault strengthening due to increased cohesion in the fault zone and fault weakening arising from elevated pore pressures within a well cemented, low-permeability gouge layer. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据