SpringerLink
Log in

Laboratory Shear Behavior of Tensile- and Shear-Induced Fractures in Sandstone: Insights from Acoustic Emission

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The distinction between the shear behavior of tensile- and shear-induced fractures is critical to understanding the deformation and failure of geologic discontinuities at different scales. To investigate these differences, a series of direct shear tests were performed on sandstone specimens with a continuous fracture created by either splitting or shearing. The acoustic emission (AE) technique was used to examine variations in grain-size cracking behavior between specimens with tensile- and shear-induced fractures. An increase in normal stress for both fracture types correlates with increased microcrack density and energy release. However, there are notable differences: during the shear process, tensile-induced fractures produce AE sequences similar to the seismic patterns observed along natural tectonic faults, with foreshocks, mainshocks, and aftershocks. In contrast, the AE sequence for shear-induced fractures during the shear process lacks prominent mainshocks and deviates progressively from the power-law function with time as normal stress increases. In addition, the AE b-value for tension-induced fractures initially shows a gradual decrease as the mainshock approaches and then slowly increases during the aftershock period. In contrast, the b-value remains nearly constant for shear-induced fractures due to the low roughness and heterogeneity of the fracture surface. These differences highlight the strong correlation between AE responses and fault heterogeneity, paving the way for fault characterization and risk assessment in subsurface energy extraction.

Highlights

  • The cracking behavior of both tensile- and shear-induced fractures in direct shear tests is investigated using the AE technique.

  • In direct shear tests, the AE sequences of tensile fractures follow a power law, while a significant deviation from the power law is observed in the AE sequence of shear fractures.

  • The power-law evolution of the AE sequence before and after the mainshock, together with anomalous b-values, can be used as indicators to distinguish young faults from mature faults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  • Amorèse D (2007) Applying a change-point detection method on frequency-magnitude distributions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1742–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badt N, Hatzor YH, Toussaint R, Sagy A (2016) Geometrical evolution of interlocked rough slip surfaces: the role of normal stress. Earth Planet Sci Lett 443:153–161

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Beeler NM (2004) Review of the physical basis of laboratory-derived relations for brittle failure and their implications for earthquake occurrence and earthquake nucleation. Pure Appl Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-004-2536-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton DC, Shreedharan S, Riviere J, Marone C (2021) Frequency-magnitude statistics of laboratory foreshocks vary with shear velocity, fault slip rate, and shear stress. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 126(11):e2021JB022175

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton DC, Marone C, Saffer D, Trugman DT (2023) Foreshock properties illuminate nucleation processes of slow and fast laboratory earthquakes. Nat Commun 14(1):3859

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Boneh Y, Chang JC, Lockner DA, Reches Z (2014) Evolution of wear and friction along experimental faults. Pure Appl Geophys 171(11):3125–3141

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Borate P, Riviere J, Marone C, Mali A, Kifer D, Shokouhi P (2023) Using a physics-informed neural network and fault zone acoustic monitoring to predict lab earthquakes. Nat Commun 14(1):3693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Byerlee JD (1970) The mechanics of stick-slip. Tectonophysics 9(5):475–486

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cattania C, Segall P (2021) Precursory Slow Slip and foreshocks on rough faults. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB020430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen B-R, Feng X-T, Li Q-P, Luo R-Z, Li S (2013) Rock burst intensity classification based on the radiated energy with damage intensity at **** II hydropower station, China. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(1):289–303

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cui G, Zhang C, Ye J, Zhou H, Li L, Zhang L (2022) Influences of dynamic normal disturbance and initial shear stress on fault activation characteristics. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-022-00463-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidesko G, Sagy A, Hatzor YH (2014) Evolution of slip surface roughness through shear. Geophys Res Lett 41(5):1492–1498

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsen J, Stanchits S, Dresen G (2007) Scaling and universality in rock fracture. Phys Rev Lett 98(12):125502

    Article  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dresen G, Kwiatek G, Goebel T, Ben-Zion Y (2020) Seismic and aseismic preparatory processes before large stick-slip failure. Pure Appl Geophys 177(12):5741–5760

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein HH (2021) Fractures: tension and shear. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54(7):3389–3408

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Freed AM (2005) Earthquake triggering by static, dynamic, and postseismic stress transfer. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 33(1):335–367

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Geffers GM, Main IG, Naylor M (2022) Biases in estimating b-values from small earthquake catalogues: how high are high b-values? Geophys J Int 229(3):1840–1855

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Goebel THW, Becker TW, Schorlemmer D, Stanchits S, Sammis C, Rybacki E, Dresen G (2012) Identifying fault heterogeneity through map** spatial anomalies in acoustic emission statistics. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goebel THW, Sammis CG, Becker TW, Dresen G, Schorlemmer D (2013a) A comparison of seismicity characteristics and fault structure between stick-slip experiments and nature. Pure Appl Geophys 172(8):2247–2264

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Goebel THW, Schorlemmer D, Becker TW, Dresen G, Sammis CG (2013b) Acoustic emissions document stress changes over many seismic cycles in stick-slip experiments. Geophys Res Lett 40(10):2049–2054

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Goebel THW, Brodsky EE, Dresen G (2023) Fault roughness promotes earthquake-like aftershock clustering in the lab. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL101241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasselli G (2006) Manuel rocha medal recipient shear strength of rock joints based on quantified surface description. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39(4):295–314

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Gu L, Hao S, Elsworth D (2023) Precursory predictors of the onset of stick-slip frictional instability. Int J Solids Struct 264:112119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao S-W, Rong F, Ming-Fu L, Wang H-Y, **a M-F, Fu-Jiu K, Bai Y-L (2013) Power-law singularity as a possible catastrophe warning observed in rock experiments. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardebeck JL, Felzer KR, Michael AJ (2008) Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann H et al (2019) First field application of cyclic soft stimulation at the Pohang Enhanced Geothermal System site in Korea. Geophys J Int 217(2):926–949

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Ji Y, Hofmann H, Duan K, Zang A (2022a) Laboratory experiments on fault behavior towards better understanding of injection-induced seismicity in geoenergy systems. Earth Sci Rev 226:103910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji Y, Wang L, Hofmann H, Kwiatek G, Dresen G (2022b) High-rate fluid injection reduces the nucleation length of laboratory earthquakes on critically stressed faults in granite. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Q, Yang B, Yan F, Liu C, Shi Y, Li L (2020) New method for characterizing the shear damage of natural rock joint based on 3D engraving and 3D scanning. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson F (2016) Influence of scale and matedness on the peak shear strength of fresh, unweathered rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 82:36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karami A, Stead D (2007) Asperity degradation and damage in the direct shear test: a hybrid FEM/DEM approach. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(2):229–266

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y-S, Peacock DCP, Sanderson DJ (2003) Mesoscale strike-slip faults and damage zones at Marsalforn, Gozo Island, Malta. J Struct Geol 25(5):793–812

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kolawole F et al (2019) The susceptibility of Oklahoma’s basement to seismic reactivation. Nat Geosci 12(10):839–844

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lei X (2003) How do asperities fracture? An experimental study of unbroken asperities. Earth Planet Sci Lett 213(3–4):347–359

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lei X, Ma S (2014) Laboratory acoustic emission study for earthquake generation process. Earthq Sci 27(6):627–646

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lei X et al (2004) Detailed analysis of acoustic emission activity during catastrophic fracture of faults in rock. J Struct Geol 26(2):247–258

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Jiang Y, Mizokami T, Ikusada K, Mitani Y (2014) Anisotropic shear behavior of closely jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 71:258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Du X, Ji Y (2022) Prediction of the transitional normal stress of rock joints under shear. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 159:105203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Xu W, He Z, Fang L, Chen Z (2022) Aseismic slip and cascade triggering process of foreshocks leading to the 2021 Mw 6.1 Yangbi earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 93(3):1413–1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo G, Qi S, Zheng B (2022) Rate effect on the direct shear behavior of granite rock bridges at low to subseismic shear rates. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marty S et al (2023) Nucleation of laboratory earthquakes: quantitative analysis and scalings. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB026294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza C, Hartzell SH (1988) Aftershock patterns and main shock faulting. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(4):1438–1449

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng F, Zhou H, Li S, Zhang C, Wang Z, Kong L, Zhang L (2016a) Shear behaviour and acoustic emission characteristics of different joints under various stress levels. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(12):4919–4928

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng F, Zhou H, Wang Z, Zhang L, Kong L, Li S, Zhang C (2016b) Experimental study on the prediction of rockburst hazards induced by dynamic structural plane shearing in deeply buried hard rock tunnels. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 86:210–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng F, Wong LNY, Guo T (2022) Frictional behavior and micro-damage characteristics of rough granite fractures. Tectonophysics 842:229589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao ST, Pan PZ, Zhang CQ, Huo L (2024) Shear band evolution and acoustic emission characteristics of sandstone containing non-persistent flaws. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 16(2):497–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2023.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morad D, Sagy A, Hatzor YH (2020) The significance of displacement control mode in direct shear tests of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 134:104444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morad D, Sagy A, Tal Y, Hatzor YH (2022) Fault roughness controls sliding instability. Earth Planet Sci Lett 579:117365

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan SP, Johnson CA, Einstein HH (2013) Cracking processes in Barre granite: fracture process zones and crack coalescence. Int J Fract 180(2):177–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers R, Aydin A (2004) The evolution of faults formed by shearing across joint zones in sandstone. J Struct Geol 26(5):947–966

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Niktabar SMM, Rao KS, Shrivastava AK (2017) Effect of rock joint roughness on its cyclic shear behavior. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(6):1071–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohnaka M (2003) A constitutive scaling law and a unified comprehension for frictional slip failure, shear fracture of intact rock, and earthquake rupture. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JB00012

  • Ōmori F (1894) On the after-shocks of earthquakes. J Coll Sci Imp Univ Tokyo 7:111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouillon G, Sornette D (2005) Magnitude-dependent Omori law: theory and empirical study. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 110:4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagy A, Brodsky EE, Axen GJ (2007) Evolution of fault-surface roughness with slip. Geology 35(3):283

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh HK, Basu A (2016) Shear behaviors of ‘real’ natural un-matching joints of granite with equivalent joint roughness coefficients. Eng Geol 211:120–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang ZC, Wong LNY (2015) New criterion for evaluating the peak shear strength of rock joints under different contact states. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(4):1191–1199

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Triantis D, Kourkoulis SK (2018) An alternative approach for representing the data provided by the acoustic emission technique. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(8):2433–2438

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vogler D, Walsh SDC, Bayer P, Amann F (2017) Comparison of surface properties in natural and artificially generated fractures in a crystalline rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(11):2891–2909

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Voight B (1988) A method for prediction of volcanic eruptions. Nature 332(6160):125–130

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vulcanologia INDGE, Bologna S, Bologna I (2003) A review and new insights on the estimation of the b-valueand its uncertainty. Ann Geophys 46:1271–1282

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang ZY, Di CC, Yen KC (2001) The effect of asperity order on the roughness of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(5):745–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zang A, Wagner FC, Stanchits S, Janssen C, Dresen G (2000) Fracture process zone in granite. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 105(B10):23651–23661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JZ, Zhou XP (2020) Forecasting Catastrophic Rupture in Brittle Rocks Using Precursory AE Time Series. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB019276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Cui G, Deng L, Zhou H, Lu J, Dai F (2019) Laboratory investigation on shear behaviors of bolt–grout interface subjected to constant normal stiffness. Rock Mech Rock Eng 53(3):1333–1347

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Xu J, ** S, Cui G, Guo Y, Li L (2022) Sliding modes of fault activation under constant normal stiffness conditions. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 15:1213–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X-P, Sun W, Zhang Q, **e X (2023) Can the splitting joint reproduce the characteristics of the natural joint in the lab?—A comparison study based on the roughness analysis and shear test. Eng Geol 324:107246

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the comments of our anonymous reviewers to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52125903). The first author expresses gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for providing financial support for her postdoctoral research at the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. HH and YJ kindly acknowledge the financial support of the Helmholtz Association’s Initiative and Networking Fund for the Helmholtz Young Investigator Group ARES (Contract Number VH-NG-1516).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 14473, Potsdam, Germany

    Shuting Miao, Arno Zang, Hannes Hofmann & Yinlin Ji

  2. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China

    Peng-Zhi Pan & Chuanqing Zhang

  3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bei**g, 100049, China

    Peng-Zhi Pan & Chuanqing Zhang

  4. Institute for Applied Geosciences, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Hannes Hofmann

Authors
  1. Shuting Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peng-Zhi Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arno Zang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuanqing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hannes Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yinlin Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Peng-Zhi Pan or Yinlin Ji.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miao, S., Pan, PZ., Zang, A. et al. Laboratory Shear Behavior of Tensile- and Shear-Induced Fractures in Sandstone: Insights from Acoustic Emission. Rock Mech Rock Eng (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-03780-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-03780-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation