LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Goehring, L; Conroy, R; Akhter, A; Clegg, WJ; Routh, AF (2010)
Publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Identifiers:doi:10.1039/B922206E
In mud, crack patterns are frequently seen with either an approximately rectilinear or hexagonal tiling. Here we show, experimentally, how a desiccation crack pattern changes from being dominated by 90° joint angles, to 120° joint angles. Layers of bentonite clay, a few mm thick, were repeatedly wetted and dried. When dried, the layers crack. These cracks visibly close when rewetted, but a similar crack pattern forms when the layer is redried, with cracks forming along the lines of previously open cracks. Time-lapse photography was used to show how the sequence in which individual cracks open is different in each generation of drying. The geometry of the crack pattern was observed after each of 25 generations of wetting and drying. The angles between cracks were found to approach 120°, with a relaxation time of approximately 4 generations. This was accompanied by a gradual change in the position of the crack vertices, as the crack pattern evolved. A simple model of crack behavior in a layer where the positions of previously open cracks define lines of weakness is developed to explain these observations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 A. Corte and A. Higashi, US Army Snow Ice and Permafrost Research Report, 1960, vol. 66, 48pp.
    • 2 K. Pasricha, U. Wad, R. Pasricha and S. Ogale, Phys. A, 2009, 388, 1352-1358.
    • 3 K. A. Shorlin, J. R. de Bruyn, M. Graham and S. W. Morris, Phys. Rev. E: Stat. Phys., Plasmas, Fluids, Relat. Interdiscip. Top., 2000, 61, 6950.
    • 4 G. Mu€ller, J. Struct. Geol., 2001, 23, 45.
    • 5 S. Bohn, L. Pauchard and Y. Couder, Phys. Rev. E: Stat., Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys., 2005, 71, 046214.
    • 6 S. Bohn, J. Platkiewicz, B. Andreotti, M. Adda-Bedia and Y. Couder, Phys. Rev. E: Stat., Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys., 2005, 71, 046215.
    • 7 A. Groisman and E. Kaplan, Europhys. Lett., 1994, 25, 415-20.
    • 8 A. Nakahara and Y. Matsuo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 2005, 74, 1362-1365.
    • 9 B. Cotterell and J. R. Rice, Int. J. Fract., 1980, 16, 155-169.
    • 10 F.-H. Lee, K.-W. Lo and S.-L. Lee, J. Geotech. Eng., 1988, 114, 915- 929.
    • 11 J.-J. Wang, J.-G. Zhu, C. F. Chiu and H. Zhang, Eng. Geol., 2007, 94, 65-75.
    • 12 A. L. Washburn, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 1956, 67, 823-865.
    • 13 A. H. Lachenbruch, U.S. Geol. Surv. Spec. Paper, 1962, 70, 69.
    • 14 R. S. Sletten, B. Hallet and R. C. Fletcher, J. Geophys. Res., 2003, 108, 8044.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article