Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Chapter 13: Observations on Fracture and a Hypothesis of Earthquakes

GRIGGS, DAVID, HANDIN, JOHN·1960·Geological Society of America Memoirs

Abstract

Experiments have shown that the deformation of rocks under high confining pressures cannot be described by terms based on ordinary experience. The writers believe there are only three fundamental macroscopic processes at work: extension fracturing, faulting, and uniform flow. The first involves separation across a plane of no shear normal to the direction of least principal stress and includes tensile fracture as a special case. Faulting involves a shearing displacement and occurs with or without loss of cohesion. It includes shear fracturing as a special case and may occur along a plane inclined at from a few degrees to 45° to the direction of maximum principal stress. From the standpoint of the stress-strain curve, faulting without loss of cohesion is indistinguishable from flow. (The three flow mechanisms—cataclasis, gliding, and recrystallization—cannot always be distinguished either.) Examples of experimental boudins are presented to illustrate these categories of deformation. The field evidence is that earthquakes are accompanied by shearing displacements and are therefore due to faulting in the general sense. Since stored elastic strain energy is released, there must be at least a momentary and local loss of cohesion. A crack then propagates at close to the speed of sound. For deep-focus earthquakes (down to 700 km) certainly, and most probably even for shallow disturbances (a few tens of kilometers), ordinary Coulomb fracture is impossible. The internal friction of dry rocks under tens or hundreds of thousands of bars pressure would demand impossibly high shearing stresses of many kilobars. The most reasonable mechanism of energy release at great depth is a phase change, and the most probable phase change is melting. Calculations suggest that, once a crack or a flaw exists, there is ample elastic energy to propagate the crack by shear melting even if the stress difference is only a few tens of bars. It is, of course, inconceivable that an open crack could exist at depth, so that the most baffling problem is the nature of a flaw of the Griffith type under these conditions. Although it is little more than speculation, we suggest that the flaw may be a pocket of already molten rock or of its more volatile constituents. This idea receives some support from the intimate association of earthquake epicenters and zones of volcanic activity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1130/mem79-p347

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
GRIGGS, D., & HANDIN, J.
Venue
Geological Society of America Memoirs
Published
1960-03
Pages
347-364
ISSN
0072-1069
OpenAlex
W2343166190
Cited by
304
References
0
FWCI
1.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Chapter 13: Observations on Fracture and a Hypothesis of Earthquakes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1130/mem79-p347
The paper
GRIGGS, D., & HANDIN, J. (1960). Chapter 13: Observations on Fracture and a Hypothesis of Earthquakes. Geological Society of America Memoirs. https://doi.org/10.1130/mem79-p347

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.