“Lab‐Quakes”: Quantifying the Complete Energy Budget of High‐Pressure Laboratory Failure

Abstract Understanding the interplay of various energy sinks during seismic fault slip is essential for advancing earthquake physics and improving hazard assessment. However, quantifying the energy consumed by major dissipative processes remains a challenge. In this study, we investigate energy partitioning during laboratory earthquakes (“lab‐quakes”) by performing general shear stick‐slip experiments on synthetic granitic cataclasites at elevated confining pressure. Using ultrasound, microstructural, and novel magnetism‐based thermal analyses, we independently quantified the energy allocated to seismic radiation, new surfaces, and heat dissipation. These estimates showed good agreement with far‐field measurements of mechanical work during the lab‐quake. Our findings revealed that under the experimental conditions the majority of the released energy (68%–98%) is dissipated as heat, while seismic radiation accounts for 1%–8%, and the creation of new surfaces consumes <1%–32%. Microstructural observations indicate pre‐failure deformation, which includes comminution and development of the principal slip zone, significantly influences energy partitioning. This effect is further evident in the measured shear stress drops, where events with higher stress drops proportionally emitted more energy as seismic waves. This study is the first to constrain the full energy budget of lab‐quakes from an observational standpoint, providing critical insights into the dynamics of fault rupture and energy dissipation processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AGU Advances
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025av001683
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Risk and Safety Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.59
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

“Lab‐Quakes”: Quantifying the Complete Energy Budget of High‐Pressure Laboratory Failure

Camilla Cattania, Hoagy O’Ghaffari, Markus Ohl, Zheng Gong et al.
4 citations
AGU Advances
Risk and Safety Analysis
5.59
article

“Lab‐Quakes”: Quantifying the Complete Energy Budget of High‐Pressure Laboratory Failure

Camilla Cattania, Hoagy O’Ghaffari, Markus Ohl, Zheng Gong, Oliver Plümper, Roger Fu, Matěj Peč, Daniel Ortega‐Arroyo
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Understanding the interplay of various energy sinks during seismic fault slip is essential for advancing earthquake physics and improving hazard assessment. However, quantifying the energy consumed by major dissipative processes remains a challenge. In this study, we investigate energy partitioning during laboratory earthquakes (“lab‐quakes”) by performing general shear stick‐slip experiments on synthetic granitic cataclasites at elevated confining pressure. Using ultrasound, microstructural, and novel magnetism‐based thermal analyses, we independently quantified the energy allocated to seismic radiation, new surfaces, and heat dissipation. These estimates showed good agreement with far‐field measurements of mechanical work during the lab‐quake. Our findings revealed that under the experimental conditions the majority of the released energy (68%–98%) is dissipated as heat, while seismic radiation accounts for 1%–8%, and the creation of new surfaces consumes <1%–32%. Microstructural observations indicate pre‐failure deformation, which includes comminution and development of the principal slip zone, significantly influences energy partitioning. This effect is further evident in the measured shear stress drops, where events with higher stress drops proportionally emitted more energy as seismic waves. This study is the first to constrain the full energy budget of lab‐quakes from an observational standpoint, providing critical insights into the dynamics of fault rupture and energy dissipation processes.

AGU AdvancesVol. 6(5)
Nanjing Agricultural University (CN), Planetary Science Institute (US), Harvard University (US), University of Bremen (DE), Utrecht University (NL), Oxford Instruments (Germany) (DE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Risk and Safety Analysis
5.59
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.