1976
DOI: 10.1029/jb081i020p03575
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rupture propagation with finite stress in antiplane strain

Abstract: Rupture propagation in antiplane strain is investigated by using both analytic and numerical methods. Under the assumption that a solid will absorb energy irreversibly when it is strained at a sufficiently large shear stress it is found that energy must be absorbed at the rupture front in addition to the work done against the sliding friction stress. The energy absorbed increases with propagation distance, so it is not negligible at any length scale and is much larger than the ideal surface energy of molecular… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
330
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 430 publications
(344 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
14
330
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note also that the cohesive zone size is inversely proportional to the crack half-length L. For L ) L o , the crack half-length L would be approximately equal to the propagation distance. The functional form (37) is identical to Andrews' [1976Andrews' [ , 2004Andrews' [ , 2005 estimate obtained by somewhat different considerations.…”
Section: Cohesive Zone and Constraints On Discretizationsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Note also that the cohesive zone size is inversely proportional to the crack half-length L. For L ) L o , the crack half-length L would be approximately equal to the propagation distance. The functional form (37) is identical to Andrews' [1976Andrews' [ , 2004Andrews' [ , 2005 estimate obtained by somewhat different considerations.…”
Section: Cohesive Zone and Constraints On Discretizationsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…This is identical to the scaling that Andrews [1976Andrews [ , 2004 derived from a somewhat different (but essentially equivalent) line of reasoning. The stress drop Dt used in our test calculation, 7 MPa, is about twice the average stress drop for shallow crustal earthquakes, making the test case modestly conservative in this respect (that is, had we used a more typical stress drop value of 3 MPa, the cohesive zone sizes and hence N c would have been larger).…”
Section: Scale Collapsementioning
confidence: 55%
See 3 more Smart Citations