CHAPTER 9

Mechanics of fracturing an faulting

Theory and experiment

In this chapter, we investigate the relationship between stress and the formation of rock
fractures. We wish to understand the conditions under wich fracture develop in earth
materials as a guide to understanding how and why natural fractures and faults form.

We begin with a discussion of elastic deformation, which characterizes brittle

materials at stresses below those that cause fracture. In the laboratory, rock samples can be
subjected to a variety of stress states that produce elastic deformation and that, if increased
suffyciently, result in different types of fracturing.data from such experiments make it
possible to formulate fracture criteria that define both the stress state at fracture and the
orientations of the fractures .fracture criteria enable us to determine whether any given state
of stress in the earth will cause fracturing or wil be stable. We next reviuw the effects on
fracture criteria of physical conditions such as confining pressure, pore pressure, rock
anisotropy,the intermediate principal stress,and temperature. Finally, we consider the griffith
theory for brittle fracture, a unifying model that accounts,at the microscopic and
submicroscopic level, for many of these observed effects.

9.1 Elastic Deformation And Experimental Fracturing Of Rocks

In a typical rock deformation experiment, a piece of rock is cut into a cylinder that has a
diameter ranging from less than 1 cm up to tens of centimeters, in some cases and a length
typically two to four times the diameter . The sample is placed between two pistons of
hardened steel or similar material, wich are forced together by a device such as a hydraulic
ram. The applied stress changes the length, diameter, and volume of the sample. These
changes are parts of the strain, which is measured by strain gauges attached to the sample.
The primary imformation that such an experiment yields is the relationship between the axial
force applied through the pistons and the associated change in dimensions of the sample.

When a material such a rock experiences a gradually increasing stress, the initial
deformation is elastic, which means that changes in stress induce an instantaneous change in
the sample dimensions, measured by the strain. When a tress is removed , the srain
completely disappears. Thus the strain is recoverable. The extensional strain. It is the change
in lenght of thee sample per unit of initial length-that is,
𝒍−𝑳 𝚫𝑳
𝒆𝒏 = = (9.1)
𝑳 𝑳

Where L is the initial length, is the deformed lenght, and is the change in length. We also
express the extension as a percent change in length by multiplying en by 100

In a uniaxial state of stress, the magnitude of the elastic extension parallelto the
applied stress is directly proportional to the magnitudeof the stress(see zone II of the curves
in figure 9.21A):Type equation here.
 Ϭn
Ϭn = Eenύ en = (9.2)
𝐸

Where the constant of proportionality E is young’s modulus,which is one of two elastic

constants we need to characterize the elastic behaviour of an isotropic material. For the
geologic sign convention, a uniaxial compressive (positive) stress decreases the length of the
specimen, thereby producing a negative extension. Conversely, a tensile (negative) tress
produces a positive extension. Thus youngs modulus is a negative number. For rocks,E
characteristically has values in the range of -0,5 x 105 Mpa to – 1.5 x 105 Mpa. the extreme
value of the extension that most materials can reach before they fracture is generally quite
small-a few percent a most and usually much less.

Like stess, strain is actually a symmetric secondrank tensor quantity, which we

discuss further in chapter 15.For present purposes, we note only that (1) the complete state of
srain can be defined by three principal extension, ȇ1 ≥ ȇ2 ≥ ȇ3 , where the circumflex above
the symbols indicates that they represent principal values, consistent with our notation for
stess, and (2) for the very small strains characteristic of elastic deformation, the principal axes
of strains are parallel to the principak axes of stress. Thi parallelism, however, does not hold
in general for the large strains characteristicnof ductile deformation.

In uniaxial compression, the sample shortens parallel to the applied stress. If the
volume of the sample is conserved, the sample must also expand in a direction normal to the
shortening (Figure 9.1A). materials are never perfectly incompressible, however, so there is a
net decrease in volume in any deformation caused by a compressive stress. Poisson’s ratio v
is the absolute value of the ratio given by the extension ȇ┴ normal to an applied compressive
stress, divided by the extension ȇ║ parallel to the applied compression.
ȇ┴
V = ȇ║ (9.3)

Poisson’s ratio is the second elastic constant that characterizes the behavior of an isotropic
elastic material. If a material were perfectly incompressible, v would equal 0.5.poisson’s
ratio for most rocks, however, ranges from 0.25 to 0.33.the expansion normal to an applied
compression is the poison expoansion.

In a sample under confined compression, the magnitude of the axial extension

depends not only on the axial stress but also, because of the poisson expansion, on the radial
pressure. The axial shortening produced by an axial compressive stressin reduced by the
poisson expansion associated with each of the compressive radial principal stresses(Figure
9.1B). Thus4
1 1 1
ȇzz = 𝐸 ̐όzz – v ( 𝐸 ) όxx – v ( 𝐸)όxx (9.4)

1 𝑣
ȇ =𝐸 ȇzz - 𝐸 ( όzz + όyy ) (9.5)
Compare these relationships with Equation (9.2) for uniaxial stress. In Equation (9.4), the two
terms containing v give the poisson expansion that would develop in the ẑ direction if each
radial stress component parallel to ẋ and ẏ were a uniaxial stress.we can write similar
equations for the other two principal extensions simply by permuting the subscripts on the
symbols for extension and stress.

The volumetric extension is the change in volume divided by the initial volume; for
small strains, it is approximately related to the three principal extensions(see sections 15.1
and 15.2) by
Δ𝑉
ev = ≈ ȇ1 + ȇ2 + ȇ3 (9..6)
v

Increasing the axial stress ultimately results in failure of a sample when the sample is
unable to support a stress increase without permanentdeformation.the stress a wich failure
occurs is a measure of the strength of the material. Because failure can occur in a number of
different ways, there are a variety of different measures of material strenght.Brittle failure
occurs with the formation of a brittle failure,which is a surface or zone across which the
material loses cohesion.

Experiments investigating the effect of pressure on failure employ a sample sealed in

an impermeable jacket and surrounded in a pressure chamber by a fluid under pressure. The
pressure of the surroundingfluid(the confining pressure) and that of the pore spaces in the
rock (the pore fluid pressure) can be controlled indenpendently to determine the influence of
each on the bihavior of the rock samples. In experiments on temperature effects, the
temperature is controlled with a small wire-woud furnace that surrounds the sample in the
pressure chamber.

Generally the applied forces are normal to the surfaces of the sample so that the
principal axes of stress are either parallel to the cylinder axis(the axial stress) or
perpendicular to the cylinder axis(the radial stress confining pressure).Experiment usually are
done in either uniaxial compression (Figure8.14B) or confident compression(Figure 8.14D),
the axial stress being the maximum compressive stress ϭ1 .axial extension experiment in wich
the axial stress in the minimum compressive stress ϭ3 (Figure 8.14E) are also common.special
modifications to the equipment permit experiment in uniaxial tension (Figure 8.14C),
although these are relatively uncommon.

Experiment on brittle failure reveal two fundamentally different types of

frature:extension fractures(mode I) and shear fractures (modes II and III) (compare figure
3.1). each type exhibits a different orientation of the fracture plane relative to the principal
stresses and adifferent direction of displacement retive to the fracture surface. these two types
mimic natural fractures in rock (as described, for example, at the beginning of chapter 3).

For extension fractures,the fracture plane is perpendicular to the minimum principal

stress ϭ3 and parallel to the maximum principal strees ϭ1 displacement is approximately
normal to the fracture surface.extension fractures are tension fractures (Figure 9.2A)if the
minimun principal stress ϭ3 is tensile, as in uniaxial tension(Figure 8.14C).They from by
longitudinal splitting (Figure 9.2B) if the minimum pricipal stress is equal or close to zero
and the maximum compressive stress ϭ1 is the axial stress, as in uniaxial compression (Figure
8.14B). fractures that from by longitudinal splitting tend to be more irregular in orientation
and shape than othet extension fractures.extension fractures may also form under conditions
of axial extension (Figure 9.2C), in wich the axial stress in the minimum conpressive ϭ3
stress(Figure 8.14E).

Shear fractures from in confined compression (Figure 8.14D) at angles of less than
45 to the maximim comperenssive stress ϭ1 (Figure 9.2D).displacement is parallel to the
o

fracture surface. if the state of stress is triaxial(Figure 8.14F),the shear fractures are parallel
to the intermediate pricipal stress ϭ2 and from a conjugate pair of orientation at angles less
than 45o on either side of the maximum compressive stress ϭ1..if ϭ2 = ϭ3 (Figure 8.14D),then
the possible orientations of shear fractures are tangent to a cone of less than 45o about the ϭ1
axit(see section 9.3).

9.2 A Fracture Criterion For Tension Fractures

Experiments on rocks under uniaxial tension show that there is,for each material or
rock type, a characteristic value of tensile stress (T0)at which tension fracturing occurs. The
rock is stable at tensile stresses smaller than T0, but it cannot suppor large tensile stresses.T0
is the tensile strength of the material.On a Mohr diagram,the boundary between stable and
unstable states of tensile stress is called the tension fracture envelope(Figure 9.3A). it is a line
perpendicular to the ϭn axis at T0 and represented by the equation

Where ϭn is the critical normal stress required produce fracture. A Mohrcircle that lies to the
right of the line represents a stable stress state(Figure 9.3A). A Mohr circle tangent to the line
(a critical Mohr circle) represent a state of stress that a cause tension fracturing (Figure 9.3B).
Morh circles that cross the line represent state of stress that the material cannot support
(Figure 9.3C).

We can describe the orientation of a fracture plane relative to the principal stresses by
the fracture plane angle αf, which is the angle between the maximum principal stress ϭ1 and
the fracture plane, or by the fracture angle θf, which is the angle between the maximum
principal stress ϭ1 and the normal to the fracture plane. For a given plane, (θf – αf ) = 900 and
if both angles are acute, thez are opposite n sign(compare Figures 9.3D and 9.4E). in order to
plot on a Mohr diagram the surface stresses that act on the fracture planes, we must define the
orientation of the fracture plane by the orientation of is normal, so we use the fracture angle
θf.

In experiment, the tension fracture plane is normal to the maxsimum tensile stress ϭ3
Thus the fracure plane angle αf is 0o and the fracture angle θf is 90o (Figure 9.3D).On the
Morh diagram (Figure 9.3E). the stress onthe fracture plane plots at an angle of 2θ = 1800
from ( ϭ1, 0 ).the normal stress and shear stressc components on the fracture plane threfore
plot exactly at the point of tangency between the critical Morh circle and the tension fracture
envelope.

Equation (9.7) thus provides a fracture criterion, because it defines both the stress
required for fracturing and the orientation of the fracture : A tension fracture forms on any
plane in the material on which the normal stress reaches the critical value T0, and the fracture
plane is perpendicular to the maximum tensile stress ϭ3

This fracture criterion, however, applies only to tension fractures formed under
conditions of tensile stress. It does not account for the occurrence of extension fractures that
develop under conditios in which none of the principal stresses are tensile (Figure
9.2B,C).such a longitudinal splitting.

9.3 The Coulomb Fracture Criterion For Confined Compression

The relationship between the state of stress and the occurrence of shear fracturing for
confined compression experiments (Figure 8.14D) is more complicated than for uniaxial
tension. Fracture experiments on differennt samples of the same rock show that the initiation
of fracturing depends on the differential stress(Dϭ = ϭ1 – ϭ2) and that the magnitude of the
differential stress necessary to cause shear fracture increases with confing pressure5. The
fracture angle θf between ϭ1 and the normal to the fracture plane is gerally around ± 600, s so
the fracture plane angle αf between the fracture plane itself andthe maximum compressive
stress ϭ1 must be about ± 300 (Figure 9.2D).

Experimental data show that it is possible to contruct on theMorh diagram a shear

fracture envelope that separates stable from unstable state of stress. This envelope is
commonly approximated by a pair of strainght lines that are symmetric across the ϭn
axis9Figure 9.4 A-C), although in fact the line may be slightly concave toward that axis. Anz
Morh circle contained between the two lines af the fracture envelope represents a stable stress
state (Figure 9.4A).A Morh circle tangents to the lines represent a critical state of stress that
causes fracturing (Figure 9.4B).A Morh circle that crosses that fracture envelope represent an
unstable state of stress that cannot be supported (Figure 9.4 C). Radii drawn to the points of
tangency between each critical Morh circle and the shear fracture anvelope (Figure 9.4B)
indicate the surface stress components on the actual fracture pkane at the time of fracture.

The straight line approximationto the shear fracture envelope is known as the
coulomb fracture criterion. And it is described by the equation

Ϭs = c + 𝜇𝜎n (9.8)

Where

𝜇 = tan ∅ ( 9.9)
And where 𝜎n* is the critical shear stress, 𝜇 and 𝑐 are the slope and intecept of the lines,
respectively, and ∅ is the slope angle of the line,taken to be positive(Figure 9.4B).because
the equation is written in terms of the absolute value of the critical shear stress,it describes
both lines of the the fracture criterion.

The two constants in equation (9.8), 𝑐 and 𝜇, characterize the failure properties of the
material,and they vary from one material or rock type to another. The cohesion 𝑐 is the
resistance to shear fracture on a plane across which the normal stress is zero. We call 𝜇 the
coefficient of internal friction and ∅ the angle of internal friction because of the
similarity,when the cohesion is zero,between equation(9.8) and the law of frictional
resistance.the coulomb fracture criterion can also be expressed in terms of the principal
stress (see Box 9.1).

The coulomb fracture criterion states that whenever the state of stress in a rock is such
that on a plane of some orientation ,the surface stress component(𝜎n )satisfy equation(9.8), a
shear fracture can develop on that plane.for anz critical stress state, the criterion

9.1 The Coulomb Fracture Criterion In Terms Of Principal Stresses

The coulomb fracture criterion in terms of principal is sometimes expressed in terms of the
critical principal stresses at fracture. We can derive this relationship from equation(9.8),
using the positive value of 𝜎s. We subtite for 𝜎s and 𝜎n from equations (9.28) or (8.38) with
θ2 = θf and use the relationship from equation(9.9) and the firs equation(9.10)
1
𝜇 = tan ∅ = - tan 2𝜃𝑓 = - cot 2θf

After some algebraic manipulation, using the standard trigonometric relations tan 2𝜃𝑓 =
sin 2𝜃𝑓 / cos 2𝜃𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑑 sin2 2𝜃𝑓 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠2 2𝜃𝑓 = 1, we find that the maximum compressive
stress required for fracture varies linearly with the minimum principal stress the according to

𝜎1 = s + k𝜎3
2𝑐 sin 2𝜃𝑓 1−cos 2𝜃𝑓
Where S = 1+cos 2𝜃𝑓 𝐾= 1+cos 2𝜃𝑓

And where the asterisk in 𝜎1* indicates the critical maximum compressive stress for a given
value of the maximum compressive stress. S is the fracture strength under uniaxial
compression (𝜎3* = 0). Note, however, that setting 𝜎1 = 0 does not give tensile strength
under uniaxial tension, because this equation is an expression of the coulomb fracture
criterion, which does not account for tensile fracture.

In this form, the fracture criterion commonly plotted on a graph of the maximum
versus minimum principal stress.although the Morh circle does not plot on such a graph, the
difference betweeen 𝜎1* and 𝜎3 is the diameter of the critical Morh circle.is satisfied at the
two points where the Morh cirlcle is tangent to the two lines given by equation(9.8) (Figure
9.4B).these points define the stress on two differently oriented planes (Figure 9.4D,E),and
they indicate that there are two possible orientation of shear fractures that can develop.the
fracture criterion does not predict which orientation should form.

On the Morh circle (figure 9.4B),the angle between the radii to(𝜎1*, 0) and to the
stress components(𝜎*n, 𝜎*s ) on the critically stressed planes is ± 2𝜃𝑓. Thus is physical space,
the normals to the two conjugate shear fractures must be at an angle of ± 𝜃𝑓 to the 𝑥1 axis
and to 𝜎1, and the fracture planes themselves make an ngle of ± 𝛼𝑓 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝜎1 (fIgure 9.4D,E).
On the Morh circle, the radius to the tangets point must be perpendicular to the fracture
envelope, so the angles 𝜃𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛼𝑓 are related to the slope angle of the fracture anvelope ∅
by
𝜋
2𝜃𝑓 = (90 + ∅)𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 = ( 2 tan +) 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠 (9.10)
𝜋
2𝛼𝑓 = (90 − ∅)𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 = 2 tan − ∅) 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠

Thus the fracture envelope defines bosh the critical stress required for fracture and the
orientation of the shear fracture thats develops.

If the three principal stresses are unequal,the line of intersection of the conjugate
shear planes parallels the intermediate principal stress 𝜎2 .in uniaxial or confined
compression where 𝜎2 = 𝜎3 , there is no unique intermediate principal stress axis,and there
are an infite number of posssible orientations for the shear fracture planes distributed as
tangent to a cone whose axis is parallel to 𝜎1

The coulomg fracture criterion that best fits the experimentally determined data for
shear fracturing of Berea sandstone, for example, is, units of megapascals(MPa),

𝜎 1* = 24.1 + 0.49𝜎𝑛 (9.11)

By comparingEquations (9.8) and (9.11) and using Equation (9.9) and (9.10), we find that
∅ = 260 𝜃𝑓 = 580 , and 𝛼𝑓 = 320

the relationships expressed in equation (9.9) and (9.10) indicate that 𝜇, ∅, 𝜃𝑓 and 𝛼𝑓
measure the same physical property.Figure 9.5A shows a histogram of experimentally
determined values of 𝛼𝑓 on a variety of rock under widely differing experimental
conditions. The mcan of the fracture planes angle 1s about 290 ,very close to the oft quoted
”constant” of 300. these data suggest than the angle between the shear fracture plane and the
maximum comprenssive stress 𝜎1 is about 300. thus the fracture angle 𝜃𝑓 between the
normal to the shear fracture plane and the maximum compressive stress 𝜎1 1s about 600.

The large scatter in values of 𝛼𝑓 in figure 9.5 A results partly from combining
experiments performed under different conditions of stress, confining pressure, pore fluid
pressure,tempereture ,and rock type.the data in the histogram indicated by dark shading are
for jacketed dry samples of Berea sandstone.here the mean fracture plane angles is 310 and
the scatter is reduced, althougth the angle still range between 260 and 380 .temperature
apparently has no effect on these data, and althougth the fracture plane angle tends to increase
with confining pressure, as shown by Figure 9.5B, indicating a fracture envelope concave
toward the 𝜎 axis, the scatter is still considerable.thus the experimental variation in the
average value of 300 for 𝛼𝑓 is considerable and is to be expected is nature as well.

It may seem strange that shear fracture form at an angle of approximately 𝛼𝑓 =

0
±30 to the maximum compressive stress 𝜎1 rather than parallel to the conjugate planes of
maximum shear stress, which are oriented at ± 450 . the lowers angle results from
competing effects of normal stress and shear stress on a given fracture orientation. The
development of a shear fracture is promoted by both a minimum normal stress and a
maximum shear stress on the fracture plane, but the normal stress on a plane is not a
minimum at the same orientation for which the shear stress is a maximum. Thus the fracture
angle is an optimization of these two effects.

Figure 9.6 illustrates this relationship for one of the fracture experiment on Berea
sandsone.for this particular state of stress(inset,Figure 9.6A),the tewo solid curves in Figure
9.6 A show how the normal stress 𝜎n (the first equation (8.38) and the shear tress 𝜎s (the
econd equation ) vary with changing orientation of a plane (see also equation 8.28). that
orientation defined by the angle 𝜃2 between the normal to the plane and the 𝜎1 direction
(Figure 9.6B). note that it is impossible to minimize the normal stress and the maximize to
shear stress on the same plane.the curve for the critical shear stress 𝜎s* required to cause
fracture on any particilar orientation of plane calculated from the coulomb fracture criterion
for Berea sandstone (Equation 9.11) using values for 𝜎n from the curve in Figure 9.6 A.
Where the available shear stress aquals the critical shear stress needed to cause fracture, the
curves for 𝜎s and 𝜎*s touch,and that poin defines the orientation of the critically stressed
plane that becomes the fracture plane.

The predicted fracture where,within experimental error, curves touch is 𝜃𝑓 =

58° (𝛼𝑓 = 32°); the experimentally observed angle is 𝜃𝑓 = 55 ° (𝛼𝑓 = 35°).the two
curves however, are almost parallel for angles of roughly ± 5° on either side of the ideal 𝜃𝑓,
so whitin this range of angles, all the planes are very nearly at the critical shear stress.under
such conditions, minor heterogeneities must play a significant part in determining which of
these planes ultimately becomes the fracture plane, thereby accounting for some of the scatter
in the observed data(datk shaded histogram bars in figure 9.5A).

By far the most common stress state in natural environments is triaxial stress(Figure
8.14F). because faults are shear fracture, the coulomb fracture criterion leads us to expect
faults to form parallel to the intermediate pricipal stress at angles 𝛼𝑓 = ±3 0° to the
maximum compressive stress 𝜎1. In nature, one orientation of the conjugate pair tends to be
dominant locally although bothare present over large areas.

We can get some insight into how natural deformation might proceed by examining
scale models in the laboratory.the mechanical properties of dry sand and wet clay provide
appropriate csale analogues for the properties of the earth’s (see section 20.5 and 20.7).Figure
9.7 shows one experiment in which a layer of clay was shortened in one direction and
stretched in a perpendicular direction by the deformation of an underlying sheet of rubber.the
ammout of deformation is indicated by the ellipses, which where circles. Faults intialy
develop in conjugate orientation that are approximatelly 600 apart(Figure 9.7).slip on one set
of faults offsets faults of the other orientation,however, and therefore interferes with the
deformation. Thus wich continued deformation, domains tend to develop in which the faults
of one or the other orientation dominate (Figure 9.7B). the angle between the conjugate sets
of faults increases with increasing deformation. The conjugate shear fracture are consistend
with the coulomb fracture criterion, as indicated on Figure 9.7C

A different geometry of faults develops if the layer of clay is subjected to a shear

parallel to its boundaries (Figure 9.8;compare Figure 7.4). again two conjugate sets of faults
labeled R and R’appear (Figure 9.8 A).neither is parallel to the imposed direction of
sshearing, however and they are referred to as secondary shear or Rieders shear.R shear
synthetic,having the same sense as the imposed shear (sinistral in Figure 9.8A) and are
oriented about 150 from the direction of the imposed shear. R’ shear are antithetic, having a
sense of shear opposite to that imposed (dexral in Figure 9.8A) and are oriented about 750
and 800 from the direction of the imposed shear. With creasing deformation, R shear rotate to
smaller angles, and another set of secondary synthetic shears (labeled P) develops, oriented at
about 100 from the imposed shear direction (Figure 9.8B).only after this stage do shear
parallel to the imposed direction form.

If the state of stress is assumed to be a pure shear stress (Figure 8.14G) and the plane
of the imposed shear is the plane of the maximum shear stress at 450 to 𝜎1 , the Riedel shear
R and R’ can be accuonted for as the conjugate shear fractures credicated by the coulomb
fracture criterion (Figure 9.8C). the secondary shear fractures labeled P, however, are not
predicted by this simple analysis;rather, they probably result from coulomb shear fracturing
under a locally rotated orientation of the principal stresses.

Thus, althought the coulomb fracture criterion is a reasonable approximation to the

data on fracturing, it applies only to a limited park of the Morh diagram, and it does not
account for all observed shear fracturing. Nevertheless,it is a useful predictive tool for brittle
fracture in compression.

It is important to determine how changes is various physical conditions might affect

both the mechanical behavior of rock and the range of conditionnover which the failure
criteria can be applied. In the following three section, we discuss effect of confining pressure,
pore fluid pressure, temperature, anisotropy, the intermediate principal stress, and the
dimensions of the body of rock.

9.4 Effect Of Confining Pressure Oo Fracturing And Frictional Sliding

Confining pressure and shear failure

Experimental data show that the coulomb fracture criterion does not apply in the tensile part
of the Morh diagram. In fact, the data indicate that rather than the straight-line fracture
envelope shown in Figure 9.4B, a more comprehensive fracture criterion should actually
approximate a parabolic curve on the negative side of the normal stress axis that connects
which the coulomb fracture criterion on the positive side(Figure 9.9). if the Morh circle is
tangent to the fracture envelope where the envelope crosses the 𝜎n axis, tension fracture
form normal to the least principal stress( 2𝜃𝑓 = 180° ;Figure9.9A.whit increasing confining
pressure,the Morh circle shifts to the right, and its point of tangencywith the fracture
envelope shifts toward lower values of 2𝜃𝑓 .as long as that point of tangency is in the tensile
stress field, mixed-mode fractures develop than combine extensional and shear displacement
across the fracture surface (Figure 9.9 B). Higher confining pressured lead to shear fracture
according to the coulomb fracture criterion( 2𝜃𝑓 ≈ 120° ;Figure 9.9C).

At still higher confining pressures, data indicated that the fracture envelope becomec
concave toward the normal stress axis and the therefore decreases in slope. As a
consequence, 2𝜃𝑓 decreases with increasing confining pressure (Figure 9.9) and the fracture
plane angle 𝛼𝑓 incrases (Figure 9.5B and Figure 9.9 D). This bihavior is asociated with a
transition from brittle to ductile bihavior. In the ductile region the coulomb criterion no
longer applies, and another failure criterion, the vonmises criterion, becomes applicable. On a
Morh diagram, the von mises criterion consits of a pair of lines of constans shear stress
symmetric about the normal stress axis(Figure 9.9).this criterion implies that ductile
deformation begins at a critical shear stress, the yield stress, which is independent of the
confining pressure, and that planes of ductile failure are the planes of maximum shear stress(
2𝜃𝑓 = ±90° ;Figure 9.9E).the algebraic expression for thr von Mises criterion is brittle
fracture to ductile deformation with increasing confifing pressure. At a confining pressure of
about 0.1 MPa(atmospheric pressure), longitudinal splitting occurs(Figure 9.10A); at 35 MPa,
standard shear fracture form (Figure 9.10B);at 35 MPa, the deformation is transitional and is
characterized by more pervasive fracturing and by the development of conjugate shear with a
large fracture angle (Figure 9.10C).finally, at 100 MPa confining pressure, tthe marble
cylinder deforms ductilely into a smooth barrel shape (Figure 9.19D).

Thus we can account for the failure of rocks over a broad range of pressure only by
means of a composite failure criterion, as ilustrated schematically on the Morh diagram in
Figure 9.9. in the eatrh, of course, the situation is even more complex,because an increase

Figure 9.10
Figure 9.11

In pressure with depth goes hand with and increase in temperature, which lowers the yield
stress for ductile deformation.

Confining Pressure And Deformation Sliding

After a shear fracture develops in a rock at relatively low confining pressure, fracture plane is
a plane of weakness because the rock possesses no cohesion across it. Subsequent
deformation occurs by frictional sliding

Figure 9.12

on the fracture. The criterionfor the onsert of frictional sliding is given by an equation similar
to the Coulomb fracture criterion, Equation (9.8) :

|𝜎s*|=𝜇𝜎n (9.13)

Where |𝜎s*| is the magnitude of the critical shear stress and 𝜇 is the coefficient of sliding
friction. Commonly, the coefficient of sliding friction is greater than the coefficient of
internal friction (𝜇 > 𝜇; compare Equation 9.8), so at low confining pressure, the
differential stress D𝜎=𝜎1- 𝜎3 required to produce sliding is less than that needed to form
another fracture. Immediately upon fracture, therefore (mohr circle I, Figure 9.11), the
differential tress must drop to a level at which the frictional sliding criterion is not exceeded
(Mohr circle II, Figure 9.11). thus it is not surprising that faulting near the Earth’s surface
often results from sliding on preexisting faults.

At low confining pressure, frictional sliding occurs as a smooth, continuous motion called
stable sliding (Figure 9.12A). As the compessive stress across the sliding surface increases
with increasing confining pressure, the motion changes to stick-slip behavior (Figure 9.12B),
which is characterized by “stick” intervals of no motion, during which the shear stress
increases, alternating with “slip” intervals of rapid sliding that relieve the stress (figure
9.12B). On a much larger scale than laboratory experiments, this same phenomenon may be
responsible for the episodic nature of many earthquakes, as suggested by a detailed fault slip
history deduced from young deformed sediments along the san andreas fault in southern
california ( figure 9.12 C). The “stick” parts of the cycle represent the periods of quiescence
between earthquakes, and the “ slip” parts represent the earthquakes themselves.

As confining pressure increases still further, the frictional sliding criterion and the
fracture criterion cros, and it requires less shear stress to form a new frecture in a rock than to
slide along an axisting one ( Mohr circle III figure 9.11). the rock deforms by pervasive
brittle fracturing an comminution of the grains, rather than by sliding on preexisting cracks.
This process of cataclasis, or cataclastic flow, results in a cataclasite (see figufre 4.5B and
sections 18.3 and 19.1)

9.5 Effects of pore fluid pressure 0n fracturing and frictional Sliding

The presence of pore fluid causes a rock to behave as though the confining pressure were
lower by an amount equal to the pore fluid pressure. The mechanical be havior is discribed in
terms of the effective strees tensor, whose components ( E𝜎𝑘𝑙, where k = l ) is reduced by an
amount equal to the pore fluid pressure 𝑝𝑓 (figure 9.13) shear stress (E𝜎𝑘𝑙 where k ≠ 𝑙) are
unaffected. Thus the Mohr circle for the effective stress is the same size as for the applied
stress, but it is shifted along the normal stress axis toward smaller compressive stresses by an
amount equal to the pore fluid pressure (figure 9.13).

The fracture criterion remains the same, except that the normal stress is replaced by
the effectivev normal stress.

|𝜎1*| =𝑐 + 𝜇(E𝜎n = c + 𝜇 ( 𝜎n-𝑝𝑓) (9.14)

Wher

E𝜎 n = 𝜎 n-𝑝𝑓 (9.15)

The effect of shifting rhe mohr circle to the left is that states of stress that are stable at
zero pore fluid pressure may become unstable if the pore pressure is suffictienly high. If the
differential stress D𝜎 ( the diameter of the mohr circle) is small, as is commonly the case in
the earth, and if the pore fluid pressure 𝑝𝑓 exceeds the minimum compressive stress 𝜎3 by an
amount equal to the rensil strength of the rock ( tha is 𝜎3- 𝑝𝑓 = 𝑇0), then extension fracturing
can occur, even at great depths (figure 9.13A). if D𝜎 is relatively large on the other hand,
shear fracturing can result if the pore fluid pressure is sufficiently high ( figure 9.13B).

Pore pressure has axactly the same effect on frictional sliding. An imcriase in the pore
fluid pressure cause a decrease in the effetive normal stress across the surfae. Because
frictional stress is propertional to the normal stress aross the sliding surface, the critical shear
stress necessary for sliding also decreases.

Thus pore fluid pressure is geologically important for several reasons. First, it lowers
the differential stress necessary to cause failure and permits fracture at depths where the rock
otherwise would be either stable or in the realm of ductile behavior. Second, it can shift the
conditions of frictional sliding from those favoring stick-slip behavior to those faforing stable
sliding. And third, it can shift deformation from cataclastic flow to frictional sliding. High
pore fluid pressure in commonly an important factor in the development of joints and large-
scale faults, as we disduss in chapter 10.

The most obvious origins of pore fluid are water incorporated into a sediment during
subaqueous deposition and fluids released from minerals by dehydration reactions during
metamorpishm. If a rock at a given depth is permeable all the way to the surface, the pore
spaces from the surface to that depth are interconnected, an the fluid pressure cannot exceed
the wight of a column of water extending from the surface to that depth. The lithostatic
pressure result from the weight of the overlying rock at a particular depth. Thus the
hydrostatic pore fluid pressure (𝑝𝑓) and the vertical lithostatic normal stress (𝜎v) at a given
depth are, respectively

𝑝𝑓 = 𝜌wgh and 𝜎v = 𝜌rgh (9.16)

Where 𝜌w and 𝜌r are the densities of water and rock, respectively, g is the accelaration
due to gravity, and 𝑏 is the given depth. If the density of water is 103/m3 and that of sediment
is (2.3)(103) kg/m3, then the ratio 𝑑 of the hydrostatic pore pressure to the lithostatic pressure
is

𝑝𝑓 𝜌wgh
𝑑= = = 0,4 (9.17)
𝜎𝑣 𝜌rgh

Despite the fact that this calculation cannot possibly be wrong by a factor as large as 1.5,
values of 𝑑 approaching 1 are not uncommon in deep wells drilled in many sedimentary
sequances, as well as in tectonic comploxes along consuming plate margins. Thus in these
areas, the assumptions undurlying this calculation of 𝑑 must not apply. Such a fluid pressure
buildup can occur only if impermeable barriers prevent free communication of the fluid with
the surface

9.6 effects on fracturing of anisotorpy, the intermediate principal stress, temperature, and
scale

Effect of anisotorpy
So far in this discussion, we have assumed that rocks have the same mechanical properties in
all directions that is, that they are mechanically isotropic. In this case the fracture criterion is
the same regardless of the principal stresses in the rock. Many rocks, howefer are
mechanically anisotropic; that is, their strength is different directions. A mechanical
anisotropy may result, for exaple, from a preferred planar alignment of platy minerals in a
rock, called a cleavage, such as is characteristic of slates and schists. Such rocks break easily,
or cleave, along these planes of weakness. A pervasive joint set has the same effect at a larger
scale. These planes of weakness dominate the strength of the rock and the orientation of the
fractures that develop for a wide range of orientations of the principal stresses relative to the
anisotropy.

A series of fracture experiments performed on the martinsburg slate illustrate these a ffect.
Figure 9.14A shows examples of the fractured samples in copper jacket for different
oriontation (𝛿) of the slaty cleavage plane relative to the maximum compressive stress 𝜎1.
Figure 9.14B shows the relationship berween the fracture plane angle 𝛼𝑓 and the angle 𝛿. If
the cleavage plane and 𝜎1 are either parallel (𝛿 = 00 ) or perpendicular (𝛿 = 900 ), there is no
resolved shear stress on the cleavage plane because the clevage is Prallel to a principal plane
of stress. In these cases, fracture strength is a maximum (figure 9.14C), and shear fractures
form at the usual angel of about 300 (figure 9.14B). if the cleavage plane and 𝜎1 are parallel
(𝛿 = 00 ), howefer, there is also a tendency to develop longitudinal splitting at low confining
pressures. At values of 𝛿 between 150 and 600, shear fractures tend to develop parallel to the
cleavage, and even if 𝛿 is as high as 750, the cleavage still has a substantial influance on the
fracture plane orientation. Shear strength is lower for those orientations of slaty cleavage that
affect the formation of shear fractures (figure 9.14C), and it is a minimum when the cleavage
is parallel to the usual shear fracture plane at an angle of approximately 300 to the maximum
compressive stress 𝜎1

In sample terms, two different fracture criteria are necessary to account for the
behavior of the rock. One criterion, plotted as the outer pair of solid lines in figure 9.15,
aplies to ftacture that develop across the plane of weakness. The mohr circle cannot cross this
criterion, because a fracture forms at the usual shear angle as soon as the surface stress
components on any plane reach the critical values. The second criterion, plotted as the inner
pair of dashed lines, applies only to the surface stress components acting on the cleavage
plane.

The stress is stable as long as the mohr circle is within the outer fracture envelope,
and the surface stress components on the cleavage plane plot within the inner fracture
envelope ( Figure 9.15B, C ). Note that in figure 9.15 C, the stable Mohr circle can cross the
inner fracture envelope as long as the surface stress acting on the cleavage plane remains in
the stable field. Unstable stresses occur either when the surface stress on the cleavage plane
reaches the inner fracture envelope ( figures 9.15D, and 9.16B ), in the which case the
fracture develops parallel to the cleavage, or when the surface stress on the cleavage is stable
but the Mohr circle intersects the outer fracture envelope ( Figure 9.17B ), in which case the
fracture develops across the cleavage.
The shear strength of a rock equals the differential stress at shear fracture ( plotted in figure
9.14C ), which is the diameter of the critical Mohr circle. It is a minimum for those cleavage
orientations in which the surface stress on the cleavage plane plots at the point of tangency
between the Mohr circle and the inner fracture envelope ( Figure 9.16B ). It is a maximum
when the shear stress on the cleavage plane is very small and the rock fractures across the
cleavage ( Figure 9.17B ).

Effect of the intermediate principal stress

So far in our discussion of fracture criteria, we have assumed that for isotropic rocks, shear
fractures develop parallel to the intermediate principal stress 𝜎2. In that orientation, 𝜎2
contributes nothing to the normal stress or shear stress on the fracture plane, so it should have
no effect on the fracture strength. This assumption is only approximately valid, however,
because experiment indicate that 𝜎2 does have a small effect on a rock’s fracture strength.
The strength is highest and
The fracture plane angle 𝛼 f is lowest when the intermediate principal stress equals the
maxsimum compressive stress 𝜎2 = 𝜎1 ( extensional stress ; see figure 8.14E). conversely, the
strength is lowest and the fracture plane angle is highest when the intermediate principal
stress equals the minimum compressive stress 𝜎2 = 𝜎1 ( confined compression; see figure
8.14D). these relationships imply that the angle of internal friction ∅ for the fracture envelope
is highest for extensional stress and lowest for confined compression.

For anisotropic rocks, the plane of weakness need not be parallel to the intermediate
principal stress. In that case, 𝜎2 contributes to the normal and shear stresses on the plane of
eakness and therefore affects shear stress required for fracturing parallel to that plane.

Effect of Temperature

The effect of temperature on brittle fracturing is difficult to investigate experimentally,

because above temperatures ranging from 200℃ to 500℃ (depending on the composition of
the rock ) ductile deformation mechanisms become important. The increase in temperature
lowers the von Misses yield stress for ductile behavior ( figure 9.9 ), thereby lowering the
pressure of the brittle-ductile transition and reducing the field of brittle behavior.
Experimental data suggest, however, that there is aiso a small decrease in the brittle shear
strength with increasing temperature.

Effect of scale

Rock samples that are tested in the laboratory generally are homogeneous samples without
flaws. In nature, however, such flaws as joints, faults, and compositional heterogeneities are a
characteristic feature of large bodies of rock. Thus we should expect that the strengths
determined from flawless sample in the laboratory might not describe the behavior of large
bodies of rock. In pervasively jointed rock, for example, the strengthmay be determined more
by the properties of the joints than by the rock material between them. In fact, experiments
have demonstrated that as the scale of the sample tested increases, the measured strength of
the Eart’s brittle crust is less than that suggested by most measurements made on crustal
rocks inn the laboratory.

9.17 The Griffith Theory of Fracture

So far we have discussed empirical fracture criteria that relate the initiation of fracturing to
stress and other physical conditions. These criteria have been reasonably successful in
accounting for the macroscopic brittle behavior of most geologic materials, but they
contribute little to our understanding of the physical mechanism of fracturing on a
microscopic or molecular level.