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:

Scaling rules in rock fracture and possible implications for earthquake prediction

Abstract

A major preoccupation in physical sciences has been to interpret macroscopic events from microscopic phenomena. In some cases the change of scale is efficient and fairly easy to perform, but in others it turns out to be difficult and uninteresting. Success or failure is due more to the nature of the events than to the efficiency of the theoretical methods used. Some macroscopic phenomena have their origin in a microscopic organization which can be transferred to larger scales whereas others attain their structure on the macroscopic scale itself. Thus before applying scaling laws techniques1–4 one must ensure that embedded scales are suggested by physical observations. That this seems to be the case for the fracture of rocks is supported by geological, seismological and rock mechanics observations. We have therefore built a very simple model based on scaling laws which yields a criterion for fragility at different scales and views rupture as a critical point. We use this model here to outline a general approach to earthquake prediction.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson, K. & Kogert, J. Phys. Rep. 12 C, 77 (1974).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Toulouse, G. & Pfeuty, P. Introduction au Groupe de Renormalisation et à ses Applications (Presse Université de Grenoble, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  3. De Gennes, P. G. Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics (Cornell University Press, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Madden, T. R. Geophysics 41, 1104 (1976).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mattauer, M., Déformations de l'Écorce Terrestre (Hermann, Paris, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aki, K. J. geophys. Res. 84, 6140 (1979).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Madariaga, R. in Identification of Seismic Sources, 71 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brace, W. F., Paulding, B. & Scholz, C. H. J. geophys. Res. 71, 3939 (1966).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Waversik, W. R. & Brace, W. F. Rock Mech. 3, 61 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brace, W. F. & Bombolakis, E. G. J. geophys. Res. 68, 3709 (1963).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tapponnier, P. & Brace, W. F. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Mm. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 13, 103 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Scholz, C. H., Sykes, L. R. & Aggarwal, Y. P. Science 181, 803 (1973).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson, E. M. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Applications to Britain (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 2nd ed., 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Scholz, C. H. & Kranz, R. J. geophys. Res. 79, 2132 (1974).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hadkey, B. Proc. Conf. on Tectonic Problems at Low Confining Pressures (ed. Nur, A.) 427 (CRL, Kovach, 1980).

  16. Abe, K. J. geophys. Res. 79, 4393 (1974).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aki, K. J. geophys. Res. 73, 5359 (1968).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mogi, K. Bull. Earth Res. Inst. Tokyo 40, 125 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kranz, R. L. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 16, 23 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allègre, C., Le Mouel, J. & Provost, A. Scaling rules in rock fracture and possible implications for earthquake prediction. Nature 297, 47–49 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1038/297047a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/297047a0

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