Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

How geometrical constraints contribute to the weakness of mature faults

Abstract

INCREASING evidence that the San Andreas fault has low shear strength1 has fuelled considerable discussion regarding the role of fluid pressure in controlling fault strength. Byerlee2,3 and Rice4 have shown how fluid pressure gradients within a fault zone can produce a fault with low strength while avoiding hydraulic fracture of the surrounding rock due to excessive fluid pressure. It may not be widely realised, however, that the same analysis2–4 shows that even in the absence of fluids, the presence of a relatively soft 'gouge' layer surrounded by harder country rock can also reduce the effective shear strength of the fault. As shown most recently by Byerlee and Savage5, as the shear stress across a fault increases, the stress state within the fault zone evolves to a limiting condition in which the maximum shear stress within the fault zone is parallel to the fault, which then slips with a lower apparent coefficient of friction than the same material unconstrained by the fault. Here we confirm the importance of fault geometry in determining the apparent weakness of fault zones, by showing that the apparent friction on a sawcut granite surface can be predicted from the friction measured in intact rock, given only the geometrical constraints introduced by the fault surfaces. This link between the sliding friction of faults and the internal friction of intact rock suggests a new approach to understanding the microphysical processes that underlie friction in brittle materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hickman, S. H. Rev. Geophys IUGG Rep. 759–775 (1991).

  2. Byerlee, J. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2109–2112 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Byerlee, J. D. Tectonophysics 211, 295–303 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rice, J. R. in Fault Mechanics and Transport Properties of Rocks (eds Evans, B. & Wong, T.-f.) 475–503 (Academic, London, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Byerlee, J. D. & Savage, J. C. Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 2341–2344 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansen, B. in Pro. 5th int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng 127–131 (Dunod, Paris, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mandl, G., de Jong, L. N. J. & Maltha, A. Rock Mechanics 9, 95–166 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Logan, J. M., Friedman, M., Higgs, N., Dengo, C. & Shimamoto, T. U.S. geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 79-1239, 305–343 (1979).

  9. Moore, D. E., Summers, R. & Byerlee, J. D. J. struct. Geol. 11, 329–342 (1989).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore, D. E. & Byerlee, J. D. Tectonophysics 211, 305–316 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saada, A. S., Fries, G. & Ker, C.-C. Soils Found. 23, 98–112 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Byerlee, J. D. Pure appl. Geophys. 116, 615–626 (1978).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Byerlee, J. D. J. geophys. Res. 72, 3639–3648 (1967).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Summers, R. & Byerlee, J. U.S. geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 77–142, 129 (1977).

  15. Dunn, D. E., LaFountain, L. & Jackson, R. J. geophys. Res. 78, 2403–2417 (1973).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Marone, C., Raleigh, C. B. & Scholz, C. H. J. geophys. Res. 95, 7007–7025 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lockner, D. A., Moore, D. E. & Reches, Z. in 33rd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symp. (eds Tillerson, J. R. & Wawersik, W. R.) 807–816 (Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Byerlee, J. D. J. geophys. Res. 73, 4741–4750 (1968).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ismail, I. A. H. & Murrell, S. A. F. Tectonophysics 175, 237–248 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Beeler, N. M., Weeks, J. D. & Tullis, T. E. Eos 73, 511 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rice, J. R. & Ruina, A. L. J. appl. Mech. 50, 343–349 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lockner, D., Byerlee, J. How geometrical constraints contribute to the weakness of mature faults. Nature 363, 250–252 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/363250a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/363250a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing