Evolution of Elastic and Mechanical Properties During Fault Shear: The Roles of Clay Content, Fabric Development, and Porosity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phyllosilicates weaken faults due to the formation of shear fabrics. Although the impacts of clay abundance and fabric on frictional strength, sliding stability, and porosity of faults are well studied, their influence on elastic properties is less known, though they are key factors for fault stiffness. We document the role that fabric and consolidation play in elastic properties and show that smectite content is the most important factor determining whether fabric or porosity controls the elastic response of faults. We conducted a suite of shear experiments on synthetic smectite‐quartz fault gouges (10–100 wt% smectite) and sediment incoming to the Sumatra subduction zone. We monitored Vp, Vs, friction, porosity, shear and bulk moduli. We find that mechanical and elastic properties for gouges with abundant smectite are almost entirely controlled by fabric formation (decreasing mechanical and elastic properties with shear). Though fabrics control the elastic response of smectite‐poor gouges over intermediate shear strains, porosity is the primary control throughout the majority of shearing. Elastic properties vary systematically with smectite content: High smectite gouges have values of Vp ~ 1,300–1,800 m/s, Vs ~ 900–1,100 m/s, K ~ 1–4 GPa, and G ~ 1–2 GPa, and low smectite gouges have values of Vp ~ 2,300–2,500 m/s, Vs ~ 1,200–1,300 m/s, K ~ 5–8 GPa, and G ~ 2.5–3 GPa. We find that, even in smectite‐poor gouges, shear fabric also affects stiffness and elastic moduli, implying that while smectite abundance plays a clear role in controlling gouge properties, other fine‐grained and platy clay minerals may produce similar behavior through their control on the development of fabrics and thin shear surfaces.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".