Stick-split mechanism for anthropogenic fluid-induced tensile rock failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fluids play a critical role in natural and human-induced rock failure. It is unclear, however, if propagation of a tensile fracture is inherently an episodic or continuous process. For example, typical average propagation speeds of hydraulic fracture tips on the order of 1–10 m/min suggest continuous crack growth, possibly at subcritical stress intensities. In contrast, using field observations and numerical and mathematical analyses, we show that fracture growth due to anthropogenic hydraulic fracturing is most likely to occur in an episodic fashion, characterized by stick-split behavior that is analogous to stick-slip motion of earthquakes. The stick-split mechanism is regulated by cyclic variations in fluid pressure near the crack tip, in which each successive failure produces a local pressure drop that temporarily halts or slows fracture propagation. A pressure drop results in partial fracture closure, producing noncontinuous fracture propagation through a process that is reminiscent of hand clapping. Rupture speeds for individual failure events are on the order of the shear-wave velocity of the medium; thus, continuous crack growth is not a likely mechanism for anthropogenic hydraulic fracturing treatments despite slow average tip propagation speeds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".