NB! All this work is in progress! Come see my latest results at: EGU26, GRC26
Collaborators: Otis Wickenhaeuser, Kristina Okamoto, Heather Savage, Jamie Kirkpatrick
Most friction experiments are usually run using plates that intentionally "grip" fault gouge. Natural faults, however, are smooth and striated along the slip direction - not particularly grippy. How does friction and frictional behavior of gouge change when bound by natural fault surfaces?
Collaborators: Lekima Yakuden, Jamie Kirkpatrick
Faults, because they are rough, only come into contact with each other at relatively small, discreet locations. At these contact regions, the local normal stress is very high, which can both impede and trigger earthquake rupture.
A 3D scan of a fault surface (in fact, the one I'm digging up on my home page).
Collaborators: Jamie Kirkpatrick
Typically, geologists quantify fault roughness using power spectral density (PSD) or root-mean-square (RMS) roughness. Both these quantifications omit the spatial arrangement of the roughness, which is often conspicuous and non-random on fault surfaces, like long grooves. Do these grooves change how we assume surfaces typically slip?
Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) axes from basalt flows plotted with varying distance from a transform fault.
Collaborators: Sarah Titus, Joshua Davis
Geological data are complex. Many geological measurements are not single values, but instead packages of information (i.e. strike and dip (and rake), trend and plunge, strain ellipsoid axes). It is important to treat these packages of data as a whole when doing statistics, but that gets complicated, especially, say, with AMS data, which are 6 dimensional).