Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol. 4, pp. 395--406. Pergamon P r e a Ltd. 1967.

Printed in Great Britain

MECHANISM OF BRITTLE F R A C T U R E OF ROCK

P A R T I - - T H E O R Y O F T H E F R A C T U R E PROCESS

Z. T. BIENIAWSKI
National Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa
(Received 10 January 1967)

Synopsis--This paper presents results of investigations aimed at establishing a mechanism

of brittle fracture of rock in compression and tension. Results of fracture studies on specimens
of different shapes and subjected to different loading conditions are presented.
Fraction initiation, fracture propagation, strength failure and rupture are discussed.
A hypothesis on the mechanism of rock fracture is propounded, all significant failure
processes taking place in rock from initial load application to complete failure being dealt with.
This paper is published in three parts. Part I deals with the theory of the fracture process
while Parts II and III provide experimental verification of the postulated mechanism of brittle
fracture of rock.

1. INTRODUCTION
AN UNDERSTANDING of the fracture mechanism of rock is an essential prerequisite for
designing mining excavations and civil engineering structures, for developing rock-breaking
processes such as drilling or blasting, and for devising methods to prevent such hazards
as rockbursts. Increased knowledge of the fracture mechanism can make a considerable
contribution towards improving the efficiency of mining operations with regard to their
economy and safety.
Although much research has been done on the fracture of rock[l], mainly during the
last few years, very little is known at present about its actual mechanism.
Studies of failure of solids stem from the attempts to predict the strength of materials
and structures. These studies have resulted in a number o f failure hypotheses[2] which are
applied in practice with a varying degree o f substantiation. In the case of brittle fracture it
has been found that only three such hypotheses may be applicable, namely, those by
MOHR[2], GgIFFn'n[3, 4] and PO~CELET[5]. The first two hypotheses have been accepted
by various workers as being applicable to rock[6] while the hypothesis by Poncelet has been
strongly criticized[7].
A clear distinction must be made between a phenomenological failure criterion and a
genetic failure mechanism. A failure criterion simply provides a formula enabling predicting
the strength values for all states of multiaxial stress from a critical quantity which may be
determined in one type of test, e.g. the uniaxial tensile or compression test. A failure
mechanism describes the processes taking place in the material in the course of loading and
eventually leading to failure.
Preferably a failure criterion should be based upon knowledge of the failure mechanism,
but this is not always so. In fact, m a n y failure hypotheses have been propounded as a result
of theoretical reasoning only and could not be verified by experimental evidence. The M o h r
395
396 Z. T. BIENIAWSKI

hypothesis, although it has been shown to fit experimental data approximately, is not based
on a failure mechanism. The Griffith hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on a genetic
concept, namely the existence of small cracks or flaws, but not on a complete failure mecha-
nism, although it offers possibilities in this respect. It should be noted, however, that the
Griffith hypothesis refers to fracture initiation only which is not the same as fracture[8].
This series of three papers presents results of investigations, on the basis of which a hypo-
thesis on the mechanism of brittle fracture in rock under compression and tension is pro-
pounded.

2. DEFINITIONS
Since much confusion is caused by the use of various terms in different contexts in the
literature dealing with brittle fracture*, definitions of certain terms used in the present paper
are given below.
FAILURE is a process by which a material changes from one state of behaviour to another
one. The more important types of failure are yield, strength failure, fracture and rupture.
YIELD is the failure process by which a material changes from a state of predominantly
elastic behaviour to one of predominantly plastic behaviour.
STRENGTH FAILURE is the failure process by which a material changes f r o m a state in
which its load-bearing capacity is either constant or increases with increasing deformation
to a state in which its load-bearing capacity is decreased or has even vanished.
FRACTURE is the failure process by which new surfaces in form of cracks are formed in
a material or existing crack surfaces are extended. Various conditions and stages of fracture
can be visualized, namely:
Crack Initiation is the failure process by which one or more cracks are formed in a material
hitherto free from any cracks (Poncelet concept).
Fracture Initiation is the failure process by which one or more cracks pre-existing in a
material start to extend (Griflith concept).
Fracture Propagation is the failure process by which cracks in a material are extending,
thus it is a stage subsequent to fracture initiation. It may be distinguished between two
types of fracture propagation, namely stable and unstable.
Stable fracture propagation is the failure process of fracture propagation in which the
crack extension is a function of the loading and can be controlled accordingly.
Unstable fracture propagation is the failure process of fracture propagation in which the
crack extension is also governed by factors other than the loading, thus becomes uncon-
trollable.
RUPTURE is the failure process by which a structure (e.g. a specimen) disintegrates into
two or more pieces.I"
In addition to the above definitions the term brittle fracture and not brittle material
will be used in this paper.
BRIYrLE FRACTURE is defined as fracture that exhibits no or little permanent (plastic)
deformation. The opposite term is ductile fracture which is preceded by appreciable
plastic deformation. The definition of brittle fracture implies that the material behaves
elastically (but not necessarily linearly) up to fracture. Since, for example, brittle fracture

* For example, crack initiation, crack enlargement, crack growth, crack increment, slow crack propaga-
tion, fast propagation, rapid propagation, failure growth, etc. In addition, fracture and fracture initiation
have the same connotation for some authors.
t Sometimes called by some authors 'final fracture' or 'ultimate failure.'
 MECHANISM OF BRITTLE FRACTURE OF R O C K - - P A R T I 397

can occur in steel ('ductile' material) and ductile fracture in rock ('brittle' material) it is
more correct to say that it is the fracture and not the material that is brittle or ductile re-
spectively.

3. THEORY OF THE FRACTUREPROCESS

It is clear from the definitions given in the preceding section, that fracture propagation
and strength failure should be distinguished from fracture initiation, the ~ reason being
that fracture initiation does not necessarily render a structure or a material useless but
strength failure may do so while fracture propagation may cause an appreciable change in
the state of the material. Moreover, strength failure usually takes place at an appreciably
higher stress level than fracture initiation[8].

3.1 Fracture initiation

It has been found[9] that the Griflith hypothesis furnishes a satisfactory criterion for
fracture initiation. The question now arises whether this hypothesis also yields a strength-
failure criterion. Under certain conditions fracture initiation and strength failure may occur
nearly simultaneously and in such cases this criterion specifies, for practical purposes,
strength failure of the material. Many materials, however, amongst them rock, under certain
conditions, exhibit a definite process of fracture propagation and the strength failure of the
material cannot be predicted from a fracture initiation criterion. It has been recently shown
by BARENnLAa'r[10]that serious errors are introduced if fracture propagation considerations
are not included in a fracture criterion.
The above observations are of particular importance for fracture under compressive
stress conditions where, without doubt, the stress required for fracture initiation is different
from that causing strength failure. The reason for this is that, in compression, a crack does
not propagate in its own plane[8], as is the case in tension, and, further, stabilization of
fracture propagation may take place[8] under certain stress conditions. Consequently
a fracture initiation criterion cannot be expected to predict the compressive strength of
rock[11 ].
Considering brittle fracture on the basis of the Griffith hypothesis, it should be noted
that the GritFith criterion has been derived utilizing two methods of approach, namely
(i) by considering the stress field near the tip of a pre-existing (Griffith) crack
(ii) by considering the energy balance for a pre-existing (Griffith) crack.
Obviously both methods of approach yield the same criterion but the one may be more
convenient than the other when it is desired to use the hypothesis for a strength failure
criterion. This matter will now be discussed in greater detail.

3.1.1 The stress approach. GRIF~TH[3, 4] postulated that the presence of small cracks or
flaws existing in almost any material causes large tensile stress concentrations at the tips
of these (Griffith) cracks when the material is stressed. He determined the relationship
between the applied stress field and the tensile stress at the crack tip assuming the crack
having the shape of a flat ellipse. He furthermore postulated that the crack :would start to
extend (fracture initiation) when the tensile stress at or near its tip attained a certain critical
value. It has been propounded by OROWAN[ 12] that this critical value represents the molecular
cohesive strength of the material. Since the latter is difficult to determine by direct physical
measurements, the critical value of the tensile stress at the crack tip may be expressed[9]
398 z. T. BIENIAWSKI

by a corresponding critical value of the applied stress for the case of uniaxial tension utiliz-
ing the relationship between applied stress and tensile stress at the crack tip. Thus, a formula
is obtained which relates the principal stress components of any applied stress field at the
stage of fracture initiation (not strength failure) to the uniaxial tensile strength of the
material.* This, of course, yields a fracture initiation criterion which reads as follows:

(¢l - ~3)2/(~1 + as) : - 8at (1)

where al and az are the major and minor principal components of the applied stress and
at is the uniaxial tensile strength o f the material.
Griffith's analysis, which is reviewed in detail elsewhere[9], refers to an open crack, that
is, it does not make provision for the effect that closure of the crack (contact between oppo-
site faces) might have on the tensile stress at the crack tip. The phenomenon of crack closure
occurs, however, if the applied stress field is compressive. The original Griffith hypothesis
therefore does not lend itself to applications for compressive applied stresses. MCCLINTOCK
and WALSrI[13] propounded a modification to Griffith's hypothesis, accounting for crack
closure (closed cracks) by introducing a coefficient of internal friction between crack faces.l"
The modified Griffith theory therefore includes two critical quantities, namely, the critical
tensile stress at the crack tip, expressed by the value of the uniaxial tensile strength of the
material (as in the original Griffith hypothesis) and the coefficient of internal friction between
crack faces:
4~t - -

gl : (1 -- oa/ol)V(1 d- /z2) --/~(1 -b ~a/trl) (2)

where tz is the coefficient of internal friction of the material.

In spite of the theoretical advantage of expressing the fracture initiation criterion in
terms of the uniaxial tensile strength, the practical difficulties associated with the accurate
determination of this strength value for rock impose serious limitations upon the usefulness
of the formula. Since, in the case of rock, the uniaxial compressive strength is an easier
strength value to be determined experimentally, it may be used as the critical quantity in
place of the uniaxial tensile strength. Equation (2) then reads as follows[14]:

at : aa[~¢/(1 -~-/z2 -+-/z)/~¢/(1 -q-/~2 __/z)] -1- (re (3)

where ae is the uniaxial compressive strength of the material.

Recent analysis[14] has shown that the modified Griffith criterion can be satisfactorily
applied to predicting brittle fracture initiation in compression.
While the uniaxial compressive strength can easily be determined, means for determining
the internal crack friction coefficient directly are not available. The coefficient may, how-
ever, be determined in the following indirect manner. A series of tests for different multi-
axialities of the state of applied stress is carried out and the values of the principal compo-
nents of the applied stress fields at the onset of crack extension, i.e. at fracture initiation,
are noted. The data are presented in form of 'Mohr circles at fracture initiation' and a
* Strictly speaking, this is not quite correct since the uniaxial tensile strength refers to strength failure and
not to fracture initiation in uniaxial tension. Since however, in tension (N.B. not in compression), both
stress levelsare close to each other, the error is not great and the concept is acceptable for practical purposes.
t This coefficientof internal friction is not the same as that used in soil mechanics.
 MECHANISM OF BRITTLE FRACTURE OF ROCK--PART I 399

'Mohr envelope for fracture initiation' is fitted to the family of circles. Then a family of
such Molar envelopes, based on the modified Griffith criterion with different friction coeffi-
cients, is superimposed on the Mohr diagram. The friction coefficient that yields an en-
velope almost coinciding with the envelope found experimentally from the test series is then
taken as the internal crack friction coefficient for the particular material[8].
Ho~K and BIENIAWSKI[9] applied the modified Griffith fracture initiation criterion to
triaxial test data for strength failure. By applying the same method as above for determining
the friction coefficient they, of course, found--purely phenomenologically--that the
criterion is applicable to strength failure, if a friction coefficient is assumed which is different
from the internal crack friction coefficient valid for fracture initiation for the same mater-
ial[9, 14]. The coefficient valid for strength failure was termed 'fracture surface coefficient
of friction'. This coefficient can also be measured, on specimens fractured into pieces, by
letting both fracture fragments slide relative to each other along their fracture faces[15].
In addition, it can be determined from the stress-strain curve[16]. The results of all three
methods broadly agree with one another.
Ho~K and BIENIAWSKI[9]also gave some genetic explanation for the possible validity
of the modified Griffith hypothesis as a strength-failure criterion, but subsequent considera-
tions cause the author of the present work to adopt revised views to be discussed in Part II
of this paper.
Although the modified Griffith hypothesis has been adopted by some research workers
in rock mechanics as a phenomenological strength-failure criterion, it does not constitute
a hypothesis for the mechanism of brittle fracture propagation succeeded by strength
failure[8].
3.1.2 The energy approach. The Griffith criterion can also be derived from the energy
balance for a pre-existing (Griffith) crack[3]. The concept of the original Grittith hypothesis
is based upon the condition that the energy W applied by loading the structure is balanced
by the elastic strain energy We stored in the structure and the surface energy Ws in the free
faces of the pre-existing crack, thus:
W = W e + We. (4)
If the load is increased, the corresponding increase d W in the applied energy W may be
balanced either (i) by an increase d We in the strain energy We only or (ii) by an increase
d Ws in the crack surface energy We only or (iii) partly by an increase d We and partly by
an increase d Ws.
In the first case (dW : dWe, dWe = 0) the crack does not extend. In the two otn~:~
cases (dWs =~ 0) the crack surface energy can only increase if the crack extends, that is,
if the half-length of the crack increases from c to (c q- dc).
Thus, the balance for the energy increases reads:

dW--- dWe + dWe

dW dWe dWs
or . . . . + - (5)
de dc dc
It can be shown* that dW dWe
de = 2 d e " (6)
* L o w A . F. H. A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory o f Elasticity, 2nd e.dn., Cambridge University
Press, London (1906).
R.M~2C
400 Z . T . BIENIAWSKI

Substituting (6) into (5) yields

dive d Ws
(7)
dc dc "

For a thin plate subjected to uniaxial tension under plane stress conditions the elastic strain
energy stored was calculated by GRWFITH[3] as:

We = ~rc2 o~/E (8)

and the crack surface energy:

W8 = 4yc (9)

where ~ is the applied uniaxial tensile stress

E is the modulus of elasticity
9' is the specific surface energy, i.e. the surface energy per unit length
of crack surface.
Differentiating equations (8) and (9) with respect to c and substituting the results in equation
(7) yields:

(10)

This, in fact, is the condition for the onset of crack extension, that is, fracture initiation.
The corresponding condition may be derived from multiaxial states of stress and when
substituted in equation (8) will yield the same Griffith criterion for fracture initiation as
that obtained from the stress approach as given by equation (1).
The condition given in equation (10) implies that for

,, < [v'(2~,E/~ c) = ,,r~]

the crack does not extend. This is the first ease (d Ws = 0) mentioned above.
Furthermore, the unequity

represents fracture propagation. This will be discussed in the next section of this paper.
Equation (10) is, in fact, a hypothesis for a fracture initiation mechanism postulating
that fracture is initiated when the applied stress attains a critical value cri~ which depends
upon the length 2c of the pre-existing crack, the specific surface energy y and the modulus
of elasticity of the material. Its practical application is limited, however, because of the
difficulty of determining experimentally the specific surface energy ~, of the material.

3.2 Fracture propagation

Once fracture has been initiated as a result of the applied stress attaining the value given
by equation (10), the stage of fracture propagation is reached. Experience has shown[8]
that two types exist, namely, stable and unstable fracture propagation.
The fracture propagation is stable, as long as there is a definite relationship between the
half-length c of the crack and the applied stress ~ and the condition o > crier is maintained.
 MECHANISM OF BRITTLE FRACTURE OF R O C K - - P A R T I 401

Such a relationship would be valid for applied stress increases only, but not for decreases,
in other words the process is irreversible: it would permit calculating the increase Ac
in crack hail-length resulting from an increase + Aa in the applied stress but a decrease in
stress (--A~) would not yield a decrease (--Ac) in crack half-length since it cannot be
expected that a crack heals due to deloading.
Such a relationship has been proposed by IRWIN[17] for brittle fracture of metals but has
not, as yet, been adopted in rock mechanics. Irwin's relationship reads

= a/(GE/~c) (1 I)

where G is the energy released per unit crack surface area.

This formula is based upon the concept that fracture propagation is due to the fact that
a certain amount of energy, represented by G, is released from the stored elastic energy
We and used to form additional crack surface area. The energy release from W6 takes place
at the same rate as the energy absorption by crack extension.
It will be noted that, in essence, Irwin's formula takes the same appearance as equation
(10), 2 ~, being replaced by G, but while equation (10) is a formula specifying a criterion,
equation (i 1) constitutes a functional relationship between c and u as explained above.
Equation (11) is therefore a hypothesis describing stable fracture propagation.
Fracture propagation is unstable when a unique relationship between e and ~ ceases to
exist, that is, when other quantities, e.g. the crack growth velocity, also play a role and
fracture propagation cannot be controlled any more by the applied load. While in stable
propagation the crack growth can be stopped by stopping load increases, this does not
hold for unstable fracture propagation; the fracture then propagates uncontrollably al-
though the stress may be kept constant.
Stable fracture propagation is usually a slow process while unstable fracture propagation
is fast[18].
The question now arises whether a criterion exists which determines transitio/t from stable
to unstable fracture propagation. IRWIN[17] has used equation (11) as such a criterion.
He postulated that fracture propagation becomes unstable when the energy released per
unit crack surface, G, attains a critical value, Ge, which is a characteristic property of the
material.
Thus
a>~ [V(GeE/~rc) = otrvv] (12)

for unstable fracture propagation.

The value of Ge for a particular material may be determined by measuring the applied
stress aer and the crack half-length Cer at the onset of unstable fracture propagation and
making use of equation (12) as follows:

6 , = . O o r ~ cor/E. (13)
Values of Ge determined for various materials are listed in Table 1. A more detailed de-
scription of this concept as applied to rock is given by the author elsewhere[l~8].
The Irwin concept accounts for the total energy released which is 'absorbed ia the process
of fracturing' but does not specify the different forms of energy into which the energy re-
leased is converted. Useful information may be gained by considering a more detailed
energy balance for the process of fracture propagation.
 402 Z . T . BIENIAWSKI

TABLE1. CI~rrICAL~ROY RELEASEDG¢FORVARIOUSMATERIALS

Material Gc Source
lb-in/sq, in.

Glass 0.08 IRw~[l 6]

Concrete 0.1 IC~*
Quartzite 3.5 BmNInWSm[18]
Ship steel 80.0 IRwin[16]
Rotor steel 135.0 Wim,~ and WtmDTt

* K ~ t ~ N M. F. Crack propagation and fracture of concrete.

J. Am. Concrete Inst. 58, (5) 591-610 (1961)..
t Wr~r~mD. H. and W ~ D T B. M. Application of the Griffith-Irwin
theory of crack propagation to the bursting behaviour of discs.
Tram. Am. Soc. Mech. Engrs 80, 1643-1651 (1958).

The Griffith energy balance according to equation (7) accounts for the elastic energy
stored (We) and the crack surface energy (W,) only; several other forms of energy losses,
however, into which part of W6 is transformed must also be considered. The following
'losses' in addition to Ws may be listed here:
(i) Kinetic energy
(ii) Plastic energy
('tii) Energy dissipated on the breakdown of atomic bonds at the tips of extending cracks
(iv) Energy changes due to mining such as caused by artificial rock breaking, heat re-
moval due to ventilation, etc.[19]
As far as (iii) is concerned, it is doubtful whether energy dissipated on the breakdown
of atomic bonds plays any significant part[20]; energy changes due to mining (iv) are neg-
lected for the present time. Plastic energy losses (ii) which also include visco-plastic losses
exhibited very distinctly at loci of high stress concentrations, e.g. at the tips of cracks may
also be neglected since brittle fracture (i.e. absence of plastic deformation in the ideal case)
is dealt with here.
Thus, there only remains the kinetic energy (i) associated with the movement of the faces
of the extending crack to be considered. B ~ I ~ , [ 2 1 ] has shown that the amount of elastic
strain energy (We) transformed into such kinetic energy and eventually converted into heat
is appreciable and emphasized that a basic limitation of the Griffith hypothesis is due to the
fact that kinetic energy is not accounted for in Griffith's energy balance.
Equation (7) should therefore be rewritten as follows:

dWedWs dWk
+ -- 04)
dc dc dc

where We is the kinetic energy loss.

The kinetic energy has been evaluated by MOTT[22] in unlaxial tension under plane
stress conditions:

Wk = kpc ~ v ~ o~/2E ~ (15)

 MECHANISM OF BRITrLE FRACTURE OF ROCK--PART I 403

where k is a constant proportionality factor

p the density of the material
c the crack half-length
v the crack velocity
the applied stress
E the modulus of elasticity.

The constant k was evaluated by ROBOTS and WELLS[23]. The crack velocity can be
expressed as follows[24]:

v = 0-38 Eh, 0 - co~c) (16)

where co is the initial crack half-length, i.e. the half-length of the pre-existing (Griffith)
crack.
It is obvious from equation 06) that the velocity will, with increasing crack length, 2c,
approach the asymptotic value

0.38 v ' E / p = vT (17)

which is called the terminal velocity.

It will be noted from equation (17) that the terminal velocity is a characteristic property
of the material; it is a fraction of the velocity of the longitudinal stress wave in a rod made of
this material.
Equation (16) is graphically presented as the dotted curve in Fig. 1. In the same figure
are plotted experimental results obtained by BIS~WSKI[18] for rock. Similar results have
also been obtained by SCHARDrN[25]for glass. It must be concluded from Fig. 1 that re-
finements are required to the hypothesis on which equation (16) is based in order to achieve
agreement between theoretical and experimental results.*

200C

•.... 150(:
E
>- /
/
/
~- "-~'-Theo;eticol
~ mental

~oc I
I
I
I
I
!
5 I0 15 20 25 50 35
Ro+io Crock holf.len~tth c
Originol crock holf-lenqth Co

FIG. 1. Crack velocityrelated to crack length ratio; theoretically according to equation (16) and
experimentally for norite rock according to BmNXAWSKI[18].

* This will be the subject of a subsequent publication by the author.

404 Z. T. BIENIAWSKI

It will be noted from the results given in Fig. 1 that fracture propagation starts with low
crack velocity. Further, according to both SCHARDIN[25]and BIENIAWSlO[26]approximately
up to the turning point of the curve, the elastic energy released by crack extension is not
sufficient to maintain fracture. At a later stage, when elastic energy released is able to main-
tain fracture, the crack velocity increases rapidly to a limit where it attains a constant value.
Consequently, the turning point of the curve, that is where c/co ---- c o t / c o , ( d 2 v / d c 2 = 0),
marks the transition from stable to unstable crack propagation. It may also be shown mathe-
matically[18] that when c/co -----cer/co then the energy release G = Ge.
It may also be concluded[18] that while the influence of crack velocity may be neglected
during stable fracture propagation, it will be the governing factor in the process of unstable
fracture propagation.
This statement is also supported by the results of an analysis by CRAOOS[27] who based
his considerations on dynamic stresses created by a propagating crack without reference
to the extended Griffith energy balance. Craggs has shown that, as crack velocity increases,
the force required to maintain crack propagation decreases. Using Craggs analysis it may
be shown[18] that on the onset of unstable fracture propagation the fracture process will
become self-maintaining.
On the basis of considerations of velocity aspects in fracture propagation, a detailed
review of which is given by the author elsewhere[28], it may be noted that once the crack
approaches its terminal velocity the kinetic energy associated with crack extension will also
approach a constant value. The released energy increases with crack length, however, and in
order to dissipate the additional energy, the crack tends to increase its surface area and
hence its surface energy by forking (bifurcation or branching) to form additional cracks
at an angle to the original crack. This conclusion can also be substantiated by Cragg's
analysis who has shown analytically that crack forking will occur once the terminal velocity
is reached.
The onset of forking represents a transition within the process of unstable crack propaga-
tion. The condition which determines this transition is

v --- v~,. (18)

It has been recently shown[8] that this transition coincides with strength failure of the
material. Once this transition has taken place successive forking will lead to coalescence of
propagating fracture culminating in rupture of the material.

4. P O S T U L A T E D M E C H A N I S M OF BRITTLE ROCK FRACTURE OF ROCK

On the basis of the above considerations and experimental results to be presented in
Parts II and III of this paper, the following stages of brittle fracture of rock in multiaxial
compression are postulated:
1. Closing of cracks
I. Crack closure.
2. Linear elastic deformation
II. Fracture initiation.
3. Stable fracture propagation
III. Critical energy release.
4. Unstable fracture propagation
 Mdr~r envelope

//~=6
-J=~----"---'~'JCcr JCrack lengi'h C

/ ~ / ......... /F~king andcrockcoalescence | /

/ ~ / ~/energy balancedepends |
o~,///
I- . / /upon sfructure /
IProcTuredirect.i^- / / I ~-
k=l.3 i/ /
I Maximumstress 100% / J~_S . - ' ~ P /
.-oI~ Strength failure
i. ~i J / ~ / ~ ~ [/ ~ ",~ Unstable
' ".i
I " ~ % m'~ ~Ru'pfure Nm ~ I fracture propagation .~I" ~o~P ~0"15
. . . . . . . . . ,.~ _~. . . . . . . . . . . . . = - - ~ ]]I Critical energyrelease(long-term "
-. ~ / / _i.-'"~'~ ~
k=oo ./ - // _ - -~' ,f l ~ ¢ - ~J F.~,~..,~-F
i ~ ........... ~ ' 7 ~ 1 ,ructure~o~ga,ion
_~I - - f - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ -- -f-~ .e11 Fractureinitiation
I~._1 I~
) ~ J /~
/~" ... f ~
~ E of solid IF ~ ' ~ J J
I /
/ t
~ ,~ Perfectlyelastic
~=~2yE/.c
or
I ~ ~ ~ / (~)1 def°rmation °-,=o ' 3 ( ~ / ~ )+o'c
~ / " loop ~,~ Iik ~ ~ Closing "°I Crackcl°sure I
,~o-~ ~ of cracks
Linear strain =E Volumetricstrain 1 Volumetric strain
E._c
Grain boundariesin rack ,~
acting as pre-existing Mohr envelope
(Griffith) cracks T ~ I

o"
FIG. 2. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock in multiaxial compression.

14 ]R.M.
 MECHANISM OF BRITIT,E FRACTURE OF ROCK--PART I 405

IV. Strength failure ( m a x i m u m s t r e s s ) - o n s e t o f f o r k i n g

S. F o r k i n g a n d coalescence o f cracks
V. R u p t u r e ( m a x i m u m d e f o r m a t i o n ) .
The a b o v e m e c h a n i s m is d i a g r a m m a t i c a l l y represented in Fig. 2. T h e stages o f brittle
fracture o f r o c k s h o w n in this figure also generally a p p l y for tension. I n tension, however,
c r a c k closure will, o f course, be a b s e n t a n d processes o f stable a n d u n s t a b l e fracture p r o p a -
g a t i o n will be o f very small d u r a t i o n d u e to the fact that, in tension, a c r a c k will p r o p a g a t e
in its o w n plane.
E x p e r i m e n t a l verification o f this m e c h a n i s m will be dealt with in P a r t s I I a n d I I I o f this
p a p e r where certain details will also be e l a b o r a t e d on.

REFERENCES
1. BXE~AWAS~E. M. A Bibliography on Fracture of Rock. Report of the South African Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research No. MEG 355, May (1965).
2. NADAIA. L. Theory of Fracture and Flow of Solids, Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill (1950).
3. GR~FrrH A. A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans. A221, 163-198 (1921).
4. GRn~vllt~ A. A. Theory of Rupture. Proceedings of the First International Congressfor Applied Mechanics,
(Bienzeno and Burgess, Eds.) pp. 53-64. J. Waltman Jr. Press, Delft (1925).
5. PONCEL~rE. F. Fracture and comminution of brittle solids. Metals Technol. 11, Teeh. Pub. 1684, April
(1944).
6. BRACEW. L. Brittle fracture of rocks. State of Stress in the Earth's Crust (W. Judd, Ed.) pp. 111-180,
Elsevier, New York (1964).
7. BRACEW. L. Discussion to paper by E. F. Poncelet. Theoretical aspects of rock behaviour under stress.
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Bull. Miner. Industr. Expt. Stn. Penn. St.
Univ. No. 76, 65-71 (1961).
8. BmmAWSKIZ. T. Mechanism of Rock Fracture in Compression. Report of the South African Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research No. MEG 459, June (1966).
9. HOEK E. and BmNmws~ Z. T. Brittle fracture propagation in rock under compression. Int. J. Fracture
Mechanics 1, (3) 139--155 (1965).
10. BAI~NSLATr(3. I. Brittle Fracture, Royal Institute of Technology Publications, StockhoLm, No. 149
(1966).
11. BRACEW. L., PAULDINGB. W. and SCHOLZC. Dilatancy in the fracture of crystalline rocks. J. geophys.
Res. 71, (16) 3939-3953 (1966).
12. OROWANE. Fracture and strength of solids. Rep. Prog. Phys. 12, 185-232 (1949).
13. MCCLINTOCKF. A. and WAL~ J. B. Friction on Griffith Cracks in Rocks under Pressure. Proceedings
of the Fourth U.S. Congress on Applied Mechanics, pp. 1015-1021. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York (1963).
14. HOEKE. and Bm~O_AWSKIZ. T. Fracture Propagation Mechanism in Hard Rock. Proceedings of the First
Congress of the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, September, 1966, Vol. I, pp. 243-249.
15. JAEOL~J. C. Brittle Fracture of Rock.Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Univer-
sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, September, 1966. In press.
16. WALSHJ. B. The effect of cracks in the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks. J. geophys. Res. 70, (2)
399-411 (1965).
17. I a w ~ G. R. Fracture mechanics. StructuralMechanics, (Goodier and Hoff, Eds.) pp. 557-592, Pergamon
Press (1960).
18. BIEmAWS~Z. T. Stable and Unstable Fracture Propagation in Rock. Report of the South African Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research No. MEG 493, October (1966).
19. BLACKR. A. L. and S T ~ A. M. A Dynamic or Energy Approach to Strata Control Theory and
practice. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Strata Control and Rock Mechanics, pp.
450-462, Columbia University Press, New York (1965).
20. ZWICKVF. Die Reissfestigkeit von Steinsals. Phys. Z. 24, 131-137 (1923).
21. BAR~I,a~VG. M. The Mechanism of Energy Dissipation at Brittle Fracture. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Fracture, Sendal, Japan, September, 1965, Vol. A, No. 25, pp. 445-453.
22. Mo'rr N. F. Fracture of metals: theoretical considerations. Engineering 165, 15-18 (1948).
23. ROn~.RTSD. K. and WELLSA. A. The velocity of brittle fracture. Engineering 178, 820-821 (1954).
24. DtmAt,~" E. N. and BI~CE W. F. Velocity behaviour of a growing crack. J. appl. Phys. 31, (12) 2233-2236
(1960).
406 Z . T . BIENIAWSKI

25. SCHARDINH. Velocity effects in fracture. Fracture (B. L. Averbach et al., Eds.) pp. 297-329, Wiley, N.Y.
(1959).
26. BmNIAWSKIZ. T. Fracture Velocity of Rock. Report of the South African Council of Scientific and In-
dustrial Research No. MEG 517, December (1966).
27. CRAGGS J. W. On the propagation of a crack in an elastic-brittle material. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 8,
66-75 (1960).
28. BIm,nAWSKIZ. T. A Literature Survey on Fracture of Rock under Dynamic Stress Conditions. Report of
the South African Council of Scientific and Industrial Research No. MEG 340, March (1965).