Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:34:25.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nanoindentation creep of quartz, with implications for rate- and state-variable friction laws relevant to earthquake mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

David L. Goldsby
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Andrei Rar
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996
George M. Pharr
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996
Terry E. Tullis
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Get access

Abstract

The frictional behavior of rocks in the laboratory is reasonably well described by rate- and state-variable friction laws, which reproduce a rich variety of natural phenomena when used in models of earthquakes. Despite the widespread adoption of the rate and state formalism in earthquake mechanics, the physical mechanisms that occur at microscopic contacting asperities on the sliding surface, which give rise to the observed rate and state effects, are still poorly understood. In an attempt to identify these underlying mechanisms, a series of nanoindentation experiments on quartz, an abundant mineral in the earth’s crust, was conducted. These experiments demonstrate the utility of using continuous stiffness measurements as a means of obtaining reliable indentation creep data on hard materials like quartz at room temperature. The projected area of indentation in quartz increases linearly with the logarithm of the time of indentation, in agreement with the increase in real area of contact with log time inferred from slide-hold-slide friction experiments on quartz rocks. However, the increase in fractional area with time in the indentation tests was larger than that inferred from friction experiments by a factor of 1.7. Differences between the rates of fractional area increase in the two tests may indicate that the increase in contact area during the hold portion of slide-hold-slide tests was modulated by slip that occurs during reloading after the hold, as was observed for other materials. The nanoindentation results suggest that the increase in frictional strength (i.e., the increase of state in the rate- and state-variable friction laws) during slide-hold-slide friction experiments was caused by creep of the highly stressed asperity contacts.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Dieterich, J.H., J. Geophys. Res. 77 3690 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Brace, W.F. and Byerlee, J.D., Science 153 990 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dieterich, J.H. and Kilgore, B.D., Pure Appl. Geophys. 143 283 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Scholz, C.H. and Engelder, J.T., Int. J. Rock Mech. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13 149 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Dieterich, J.H., Pure Appl. Geophys. 116 790 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Ruina, A.L., J. Geophys. Res. 88 10359 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Beeler, N.M., Tullis, T.E. and Weeks, J.D., Geophys. Res. Lett. 21 1986 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Rice, J.R. and Ruina, A.L., J. Appl. Mech. 50 343 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Tullis, T.E., Pure Appl. Geophys. 126 555 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Hay, J.L. and Pharr, G.M. in ASM Handbook Volume 8: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, edited by Kuhn, H. and Medlin, D. (American Society of Metals International, Materials Park, OH, 2000), p. 232.Google Scholar
11.Baker, S.P.Barbee, T.W. Jr., and Nix, W.D. in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties III, edited by Nix, W.D., Bravman, J.C., Arzt, E., and Freund, L.B. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 239, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), p. 319.Google Scholar
12.Weihs, T.P. and Pethica, J.B. in Thin Films: Stresses and Mechanical Properties III, edited by Nix, W.D., Bravman, J.C., Artz, E., and Freund, L.B. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 239, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), p. 325.Google Scholar
13.Li, X. and Bhushan, B., J. Info. Storage Proc. Sym. 3 131 (2001).Google Scholar
14.Dieterich, J.H. and Kilgore, B.D., Tectonophysics 256 219 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Brace, W.F., J. Geol. 71 581 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Evans, B., J. Geophys. Res. 89 4213 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Masuda, T., Hiraga, T., Ikei, H., Kanda, H., Kugimiya, Y. and Akizuki, M., Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 2773 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Sharp, S.J., Ashby, M.F. and Fleck, N.A., Acta Mater. 41 685 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Multhopp, H., Lawn, B.R. and Dabbs, T.P., Mater. Sci. Res. 18 681 (1984).Google Scholar
20.Li, W.B., Henshall, J.L., Hooper, R.M. and Easterling, K.E., Acta Metall. Mater. 39 3099 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar