See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258845369

Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian, and point load
tests

Article  in  Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10064-013-0505-4

CITATIONS READS

78 12,885

3 authors:

Arindam Basu Deepak Amban Mishra

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy, Visakhapatnam
36 PUBLICATIONS   1,122 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   319 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kaberi Roychowdhury
Geological Survey of India
1 PUBLICATION   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rock mechanics View project

Exploration for radioactive ore bodies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deepak Amban Mishra on 13 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bull Eng Geol Environ (2013) 72:457–475
DOI 10.1007/s10064-013-0505-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian,
and point load tests
A. Basu • D. A. Mishra • K. Roychowdhury
Received: 6 February 2013 / Accepted: 25 July 2013 / Published online: 16 November 2013
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Rock failure is a serious problem in rock
engineering environments. Rock failure modes, however,
are complex and difficult to quantify or predict. A com-
prehensive study on rock failure modes at laboratory scale
is, therefore, potentially important as it helps recognize the
adequacy of the support designed on the basis of the nature
of an engineering work. With due need, this paper analyzes
the failure modes of granite, schist, and sandstone under
uniaxial compression, Brazilian, and point load tests in
relation to corresponding strengths. The nature of the
principal failure mode changes from axial splitting to
shearing along a single plane to multiple fracturing in the
case of both granite and sandstone specimens as uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) increases. In the case of schist,
specimens failed at low UCS show failure along foliations
whereas specimens which do not fail along foliations
portray high strength. The relation between failure modes
of all three rocks under uniaxial compression and corre-
sponding UCS values was broadly explained in terms of
damage evolution of the rocks. Granite and sandstone
specimens failed mainly following central or central mul-
tiple type of fracturing whereas schist specimens princi-
pally failed by layer activation in combination with either
central or non-central fractures over the entire range of
determined Brazilian tensile strength. In the case of granite
and sandstone, central multiple failure mode corresponds to
high tensile strength. Descriptions of different failure
modes under point loading were presented. It was found
that granite and sandstone specimens generally fail through
the rock materials in one or more extensional planes
A. Basu (&)
D. A. Mishra
K. Roychowdhury
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India
e-mail: abasu@gg.iitkgp.ernet.in
containing the line of loading. Failure patterns showing
triple junctions correspond to high point load strength
indices. In the case of schist, specimens failed along foli-
ations show a low point load strength index whereas
specimens failed through material with a single extensional
plane result in high strength.
Keywords Failure modes
Uniaxial compressive
strength
Brazilian tensile strength
Point load
strength index
Introduction
Rock failure is a serious problem in rock engineering
environments. Although at material scale, mineralogy and
geometric arrangements of particles and voids and/or mi-
crocracks together control rock mechanical behaviors,
micro-flaws often play a dominant role in this regard
(Sammis and Ashby 1986; Akesson et al. 2004; Hudyma
et al. 2004; Basu 2006; Szwedzicki 2007; Basu et al. 2009).
Brittle crystalline rock materials contain initial damage,
microcracks, etc. and under compression (e.g., uniaxial or
triaxial), undergo a complex sequential process of crack
closure, crack initiation, stable crack growth, and unstable
cracking and eventually fail (Brace et al. 1966; Bieniawski
1967; Scholz 1968; Lajtai and Lajtai 1974; Martin 1993;
Martin and Chandler 1994; Eberhardt et al. 1998; Li et al.
2003; Jaeger et al. 2007). However, failure modes of rocks
are complex and difficult to quantify or predict (Santarelli
and Brown 1989). For example, Peng and Johnson (1972)
discussed the fracture propagation in granite specimens
subjected to various end-boundary conditions and reported
that the failure theories such as Mohr–Coloumb and Irwin–
Griffith theories fail to explain or predict the exact nature
123
458
of the fracture development in brittle crystalline rock
materials. According to Hudson (1989), if we wish to
consider how the peripheral stress around a circular tunnel
in rocks might cause failure, it is essential to understand the
modes of failure in these circumstances. Amann et al.
(2011) indicated that whereas many failure criteria utilized
in engineering analysis are primarily based on the process
of shear failure, observations in several argillaceous rock
types consistently show that macroscopic extensional
fracturing is involved in the failure process near an
underground cavity. As no straightforward mathematical or
numerical analysis model can ascertain the nature of
fracture development in rock materials, Bieniawski (1984)
suggested that physical models of the rock may provide
useful information particularly when the failure modes are
examined at laboratory scale. Hudyma et al. (2004) indi-
cated that uniaxial compression testing of rock materials
can help comprehend the failure modes of rock masses.
Szwedzicki (2007) indicated that understanding the influ-
ence of rock failure mode on rock strength enables an in-
depth interpretation of the results of laboratory strength
tests. A comprehensive study on rock failure modes is,
therefore, potentially important to stabilize engineering
rock masses. It helps recognize the adequacy of the support
designed on the basis of the nature of the engineering work.
Several studies have been undertaken to observe the
failure patterns in variety of rocks under triaxial and uni-
axial compressions. In a triaxial test, the influence of
applied confining pressure on the rock failure mode was
demonstrated by researchers (e.g., Jaeger and Cook 1979;
Santarelli and Brown 1989; Klein et al. 2001) and the
findings of these investigations broadly comply with each
other. At zero confining pressure (i.e., under uniaxial
compression), rocks fail generally by axial splitting. At low
to intermediate confining pressure, rocks fail usually along
conjugate or single shear planes whereas rock failure takes
place along multiple shear planes when the applied con-
fining pressure is high. It should be noted that magnitudes
of low, intermediate, and high confining pressure varied
depending on the tested rock types in these investigations.
On the basis of the study of the failed rock specimens of
sandstones and dolomite under triaxial tests, Santarelli and
Brown (1989) concluded that failure can manifest itself in
different ways depending on the microstructure of the rock.
Szwedzicki (2007) and Basu et al. (2009) indicated that
even when specimens of identical lithological composition
are tested, a large range of uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) and various specimen failure modes may be
observed which could be attributed to microstructural dif-
ferences particularly in the form of microcracks. In the case
of granite core specimens tested under uniaxial compres-
sion, Maji (2011) observed fracture patterns like splitting
along a single plane but away from the central axis,
123
A. Basu et al.
splitting along multiple extensional planes parallel to the
core axis, and failure along a shear plane (sometimes with
spalling at the top of the specimen). Occasionally,
V-shaped cracks were found to form at the core ends where
the specimen failed along one of these planes.
Maji (2011) indicated that the failure mode of a rock
material under compression affects the resultant strength of
the sample. As compressive strength of a rock material
increases with the increase in confining pressure, UCS
provides a measure of minimum strength a rock material
can have under compression and, therefore, the failure
modes of rock materials under uniaxial compression can
provide useful information for safe and economic design of
various engineering structures. Although several research
works were carried out in the past, our understanding of
rock breakage is still inadequate and uncertain. This study
aims to understand the failure patterns of granite (brittle
crystalline igneous rock), sandstone (porous sedimentary
rock), and schist (anisotropic metamorphic rock) under
uniaxial compression and their relation with UCS.
Index tests that are easy to perform and do not require
quality machined rock specimens unlike uniaxial com-
pression tests have always been attractive to predict rock
material strength. However, limited research has been
carried out on the failure modes of rock materials under
mechanical index tests that are frequently used in the rock
engineering environment. With due need, an attempt is
made in this study to understand the failure patterns of the
three rock types under Brazilian and point load tests. The
relations of Brazilian tensile strength and point load
strength index of these rocks with corresponding failure
modes are also evaluated.
Description of rock types and laboratory investigations
Rock types investigated
Three rock types, granite, schist, and sandstone, were
considered for the present investigation. The granite cores
(diameter &58 and 51 mm) were collected from Malan-
jkhand Copper Project (in the state of Madhya Pradesh,
central India) whereas schist and sandstone cores (diame-
ter &54 and 47 mm, respectively) were collected from
UCIL mines Jaduguda (in the state of Jharkhand, eastern
India) and from Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Kothagudem (in the state of Andhra Pradesh, southern
India), respectively. The collected rock cores were fresh to
slightly discolored in appearance. Core sample photo-
graphs and corresponding photomicrographs of the col-
lected rocks are given in Fig. 1.
Granitic cores collected are from gray and pink Ma-
lanjkhand granitoid of Palaeoproterozoic (-2,400 Ma) age
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression
Fig. 1 Core sample photographs of a granite, b schist, and c sandstone; and d–f corresponding photomicrographs (Qtz quartz, Plag plagioclase,
Bt biotite, Chl chlorite)
(Panigrahi et al. 2004). These granitoids are essentially
mica bearing, and have been subjected to pervasive deu-
teric alterations in the form of saussuritization of plagio-
clase, breakdown of hornblende, and chloritization of
biotite (Panigrahi et al. 2004). These rocks have very less
interconnected pores (effective porosity = 0.05–0.40 %
with an average of 0.22 %) and unit weight of these
granites ranges from 26.49 to 27.17 kN/m3 with an average
of 26.78 kN/m3 as determined in this study in the context
of physical description of the rock materials.
The schist cores are from Proterozoic metasediments of
the Singhbhum Shear Zone which is a 200-km-long arcuate
belt in Jharkhand state of India (Saha 1994). These rocks
are mainly apatite–magnetite–tourmaline–biotite–chlorite-
bearing quartz-rich schist (Mahur et al. 2008). Macro-
scopically, the rock shows alternate dark and light colored
foliations whereas alternate chlorite–biotite-rich and
quartz-rich layers are conspicuous under microscope
(Fig. 1b, e, respectively). The ranges of effective porosity
and unit weight of these schists are 0.20–0.55 % (with an
average of 0.38 %) and 26.98–28.55 kN/m3 (with an
average of 27.76 kN/m3), respectively (as per the deter-
mined values in this study). In the case of these schistose
cores collected directly from the mine, the angle between
the core axis and foliations varies from 10 to 40.
Sandstones, collected for this study, belong to early
Permian Barakar Formation from the Kothagudem sub-
basin of Pranhita–Godavari valley (Sengupta 2003). The
Barakar sandstones are mainly coarse feldspathic sand-
stones which contain about 10–17 % of feldspar (Sengupta
2003). The collected sandstone core pieces occasionally
show differences in their grain bonding (i.e., in degree of
459
cementing). These rocks have effective porosities varying
between 2.89 and 15.54 % with an average of 9.83 % and
unit weight of these rocks lies between 21.29 and
25.51 kN/m3 with a mean of 22.96 kN/m3 as found in this
study. General sample descriptions of all three rock types
are summarized in Table 1.
Specimen preparation
The collected cores were saw-cut into uniaxial compres-
sion, Brazilian, and point load test specimens. It is known
that the failure mode of a rock specimen under uniaxial
compression depends also on the degree of the end con-
straints of the specimen offered by the platens of the testing
machine and the surface quality of the parallel ends of the
specimen (Vutukuri et al. 1974; Jumikis 1983; Szwedzicki
2007). In order to avoid such influence on UCS values, the
test specimens with an approximate length–diameter ratio
of 2 were prepared carefully following the stipulations of
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM
2001) and specimen end faces were lubricated before
testing. Specimen dimensions, i.e., length–diameter ratios,
for Brazilian and point load tests were kept around 0.5 and
1, respectively, in compliance with the stipulations of the
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM 2007). It
should be noted that all prepared specimens for three dif-
ferent tests were air-dried to constant mass.
Experimental setups and test procedures
In this study, an automatic compression test machine of
1,000 kN load capacity (Fig. 2a) was used for uniaxial
123
460 A. Basu et al.

Table 1 General descriptions of investigated rocks

Rock types Granitic rocks Quartz–chlorite–biotite– Sandstone (subarkosic/arkosic)
(granite/granodiorite) magnetite schist

Geologya Malanjkhand granitoid Singhbhum shear zone Barakar Formation of Kothagudem

sub-basin
Color Gray and pink Dark blue White and light gray
Degree of weatheringb Fresh to slightly weathered Fresh to slightly weathered Fresh to slightly weathered
General observations under microscope
1. Texture Hypidiomorphic Alternate dark (mainly Clastic
biotite, chlorite) and
white bands (mainly
quartz)
2. Average grain sizec Coarse to medium Fine Medium
Effective porosity (%) 0.05–0.40 0.20–0.55 2.89–15.54
Unit weight (kN/m3) 26.49–27.17 26.98–28.55 21.29–25.51
a
Relevant references are indicated in the text
b
Based on the weathering classification of uniform materials by the Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party (1995)
c
As per grain size classification by Hutchison (1974)

Fig. 2 Laboratory setups for a uniaxial compression, b point load, and c Brazilian tests

compression tests of all rock specimens. The test procedure
followed and calculations of UCS were in accordance with
ASTM (2001). Loading rate was kept consistent at 0.5 kN/
s for all specimens.
A point load system of 100 kN load capacity with a
deformation sensor (range = 50 mm; resolu-
tion = 0.01 mm) attached to the test frame was used
(Fig. 2b) in this investigation. The data acquisition system
supplied by the manufacturer along with the instrument
was used to continuously record the load and the corre-
sponding displacement (i.e., depth of cone penetration) as a
function of time throughout the tests (Fig. 2b). The test
procedure and calculation of point load strength index
complied with ISRM (2007) and Basu and Aydin (2006).
The Brazilian test frame fitted within the point load
system was used for the Brazilian tensile strength test
(Fig. 2c). The testing technique and calculation of tensile
strength were in accordance with ISRM (2007).
Failure under uniaxial compression
A total of 76 specimens (26 granite,20 schist, and 30
sandstone) were tested under uniaxial compression in this
investigation. Various failure patterns of granitic speci-
mens were observed (Fig. 3). In the case of schist, most
specimens failed along foliations (Fig. 4) whereas most of
the sandstone specimens failed in shear mode (Fig. 5). The
different failure modes observed in all rock types in this
study are categorized into six varieties (i.e., axial splitting,
shearing along a single plane, double shear, multiple
fracturing, along foliation, and Y-shaped) which are sche-
matically represented in Fig. 6. Detailed analysis of the
failure modes are presented below.
The UCS value along with the corresponding failure
mode of the granite specimens is given in Table 2 and
Fig. 7a. The dominant failure mode in granite up to the
UCS value of 120 MPa is axial splitting (single extensional

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression 461

Fig. 3 Failure modes observed

on granite specimens under
uniaxial compression. Failure
modes and corresponding UCS
(in MPa) are indicated on
individual specimen photos
(Axial axial splitting, MF
multiple fracturing, Shear
shearing along a single plane)

123
462 A. Basu et al.

Fig. 4 Failure modes observed on schist specimens under uniaxial axial splitting, Shear shearing along a single plane). Yellow dashed
compression. Failure modes and corresponding UCS (in MPa) are lines are parallel to foliation traces
indicated on individual specimen photos (AF along foliation, Axial

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression 463

Fig. 5 Failure modes observed

on sandstone specimens under
uniaxial compression. Failure
modes and corresponding UCS
(in MPa) are indicated on
individual specimen photos
(Axial axial splitting, MF
multiple fracturing, Shear S
shearing along a single plane,
Shear D double shear)

123
464 A. Basu et al.

Fig. 6 Schematic representation of different failure modes under uniaxial compression observed in this study

Table 2 UCS values and corresponding failure modes of granite

specimens
Specimen no. UCS (MPa) Failure mode

G1 139.04 Shearing along single plane

G2 177.37 Multiple fracturing
G3 167.17 Multiple fracturing
G4 176.75 Multiple fracturing
G5 160.82 Multiple fracturing
G6 198.15 Multiple fracturing
G7 148.34 Axial splitting
G8 117.95 Axial splitting
G9 134.76 Axial splitting
G 10 124.89 Axial splitting
G 11 138.22 Shearing along single plane
G 12 130.06 Shearing along single plane
G 13 122.74 Shearing along single plane
G 14 201.73 Multiple fracturing
G 15 153.55 Multiple fracturing
G 16 182.33 Multiple fracturing
G 17 150.42 Shearing along single plane
G 18 127.47 Multiple fracturing
G 19 158.69 Multiple fracturing
G 20 91.48 Shearing along single plane
G 21 48.24 Axial splitting
G 22 59.50 Axial splitting
G 23 95.60 Axial splitting
G 24 57.61 Axial splitting
G 25 62.76 Axial splitting
G 26 91.11 Axial splitting
For a specimen that failed partially in axial splitting and partially in
shear mode, the dominant failure pattern is presented against the
specimen

plane or multiple extensional planes) (Figs. 3, 6, 7a). Fig. 7 Bar diagram showing number of specimens failed in different
Shearing along a single shear plane is the dominant mode ranges of UCS in relation to failure modes in a granite, b schist and
of failure between 120 and 150 MPa (Figs. 3, 6, 7a) c sandstone

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression 465

Table 3 UCS values and corresponding failure modes of schist Table 4 UCS values and corresponding failure modes of sandstone
specimens specimens
Specimen no. UCS (MPa) Failure mode Specimen no. UCS (MPa) Failure mode

S1 37.97 Along foliation (multiple) SS 1 53.63 Shearing along single plane

S2 43.97 Along foliation SS 2 19.66 Multiple fracturing
S3 47.05 Along foliation SS 3 110.66 Multiple fracturing
S4 49.22 Along foliation SS 4 22.04 Shearing along single plane
S5 47.05 Shearing along single plane SS 5 12.80 Axial splitting
S6 26.55 Along foliation SS 6 17.55 Multiple fracturing
S7 33.31 Along foliation SS 7 96.26 Shearing along single plane
S8 22.83 Along foliation SS 8 56.82 Shearing along single plane
S9 32.07 Along foliation SS 9 63.78 Shearing along single plane
S 10 39.06 Axial splitting SS 10 44.05 Shearing along single plane
S 11 42.38 Along foliation SS 11 51.29 Axial splitting
S 12 95.14 Shearing along single plane SS 12 21.75 Double shear
S 13 35.57 Along foliation (multiple) SS 13 39.54 Multiple Fracturing
S 14 60.82 Along foliation (multiple) SS 14 19.22 Axial splitting
S 15 49.08 Along foliation (multiple) SS 15 40.05 Double shear
S 16 21.36 Along foliation (multiple) SS 16 124.13 Multiple fracturing
S 17 70.47 Axial splitting SS 17 60.79 Double shear
S 18 42.95 Along foliation SS 18 172.03 Multiple fracturing
S 19 49.33 Along foliation (multiple) SS 19 39.24 Shearing along single plane
S 20 84.44 Axial splitting SS 20 83.54 Shearing along single plane
For a specimen that failed partly along foliations and partly in other SS 21 15.83 Axial splitting
mode, the dominant failure pattern (mostly along foliation) is pre- SS 22 12.56 Shearing along single plane
sented against the specimen SS 23 29.46 Axial splitting
SS 24 18.61 Axial splitting
SS 25 13.75 Y-shaped
whereas most specimens with UCS above 150 MPa failed SS 26 11.77 Axial splitting
following multiple fracturing (Figs. 3, 6, 7a). SS 27 16.29 Axial splitting
The UCS value along with the corresponding failure SS 28 10.38 Shearing along single plane
mode of the schist specimens is presented in Table 3 and SS 29 17.13 Axial splitting
Fig. 7b. Most specimens failed along foliations (i.e., out of
SS 30 13.92 Axial splitting
20 specimens tested under uniaxial compression, 15 spec-
imens failed along foliations) (Figs. 4, 6, 7b). A few
specimens failed partly along foliations and partly in other Under a uniaxial state of stress, pre-existing microcracks
modes, the dominant failure pattern, most of the time, with suitable dimensions and orientations with respect to
being along foliations (Fig. 4). Generally, specimens which the maximum principal stress get closed as the applied
did not fail along foliations showed high UCS (Fig. 7b). compressive stress reaches a particular level known as the
The UCS value along with the corresponding failure crack-closure stress. When the tensile stresses induced by
mode of the sandstone specimens is summarized in Table 4 compression exceed the local tensile strength at the tips of
and Fig. 7c. Out of 30 specimens tested under uniaxial the pre-existing flaws, cracks generate and propagate from
compression, 16 specimens failed below 30 MPa. Shearing those tips and propagating cracks, known as wing cracks,
along a single plane is the most common mode of failure align themselves parallel to the maximum principal stress
amongst the specimens failed at a stress between 30 and (Bobet and Einstein 1998). The failure modes observed in
120 MPa whereas above 120 MPa, the specimens failed this study can be explained in terms of damage evolution of
only in multiple fracturing mode (Table 4; Fig. 7c). Only the rocks under uniaxial compression. It is apparent from
one specimen failed with a Y-shaped failure pattern Fig. 7a that the nature of the principal failure mode chan-
(specimen 25 in Fig. 5). In this specimen, there are two ges from axial splitting to shearing along a single plane to
shear planes which join to result in a simple extension type multiple fracturing in the case of the granite specimens as
of failure (or an axial splitting type failure) from the middle UCS increases. This implies that when the generated wing
of the specimen. cracks aligned parallel to the maximum principal stress are

123
466 A. Basu et al.

Fig. 8 a Axial splitting due to

wing crack propagation through
entire material. b Shear failure
because of coalescence of
adjacent wing cracks or of wing
cracks in close proximity
(arrows indicate direction of
compression)

free to propagate, i.e., when microstructure of a specimen
does not hinder the propagation of wing cracks, the spec-
imen fails in axial splitting mode (Fig. 8a). However, when
wing crack propagation along the maximum principal
Fig. 9 Shaded planes representing orientations of thin sections
prepared from unloaded specimens and failed specimens under
uniaxial compression
stress is constrained because of the existing microstructure,
coalescence of adjacent wing cracks or of wing cracks in
close proximity generated from the tips of the suitably
oriented microcracks takes place in order to release the
strain energy in the form of shear fracture (Fig. 8b)
resulting in higher UCS than that generally portrayed by
axial splitting. Multiple fracturing (Fig. 6) is essentially an
irregular breakage or crumbling of the specimens which is
likely to take place in order to release the strain energy in
any feasible way when systematic coalescence of adjacent
wing cracks even becomes restricted. The same explana-
tion also seems to justify the relations between failure
mode and UCS of the sandstone specimens (Fig. 7c).
Damage evolution in the case of sandstone is, however,
sensitive to a different scale of compressive stress magni-
tude as compared to that in the case of granite (Fig. 7a, c).
It should be noted that the explanation given in the
above paragraph has been hypothesized in compliance with
damage evolution (i.e., microcrack generation, propaga-
tion, and coalescence) in rocks under compression which is
well-documented in the literature (e.g., Bieniawski 1967;

Fig. 10 Photomicrographs of
granite showing orientation of
cracks traced in black (specimen
failed in axial splitting mode)

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression 467

Fig. 11 Photomicrographs of
sandstone showing orientation
of cracks traced in black
(specimen failed in shearing
along single plane)

Fig. 12 Photomicrographs of
schist (specimen failed in axial
splitting mode)

Fig. 13 Schematic representation of different failure modes under Brazilian test conditions

Martin and Chandler 1994; Bobet and Einstein 1998; Eb-
erhardt et al. 1998; Li et al. 2003). Although finding out
exact microstructural evidence to ascertain such an expla-
nation was beyond the scope of this study, thin sections
prepared from unloaded and failed rock specimens under
uniaxial compression were studied under microscope in
order to compare relevant microcrack patterns (Fig. 9). The
thin sections from the failed specimens were prepared
keeping the longest direction of the section parallel to the
core axis and the section was perpendicular to the line of
intersection between the failure plane and core end surface
as shown in Fig. 9. The objective was to capture the mi-
crocrack patterns (parallel or sub-parallel to the loading
direction) that are likely to have traces on the prepared
section. When the thin sections from unloaded granite
specimens were observed under optical microscope, mi-
crocracks in general were not found to be aligned parallel
to the loading direction (Fig. 10). On the other hand, wing

123
468 A. Basu et al.

Table 5 Brazilian tensile strength values and corresponding failure Table 5 continued
modes of granite, schist, and sandstone specimens
Specimen no. Brazilian tensile Failure mode
Specimen no. Brazilian tensile Failure mode strength (MPa)
strength (MPa)
SSB 8 4.77 Central
GB 1 13.85 Central multiple SSB 9 7.60 Central
GB 2 16.73 Central multiple SSB 10 4.14 Central
GB 3 16.26 Central multiple SSB 11 9.08 Central
GB 4 18.40 Central multiple SSB 12 3.67 Central
GB 5 17.30 Central SSB 13 3.90 Central
GB 6 19.80 Central multiple SSB 14 1.95 Central
GB 7 15.85 Central multiple SSB 15 3.85 Central
GB 8 15.24 Central multiple SSB 16 13.43 Central multiple
GB 9 14.75 Central multiple SSB 17 6.13 Central
GB 10 12.85 Central multiple SSB 18 14.34 Central multiple
GB 11 14.84 Central SSB 19 3.75 Central
GB 12 16.45 Central multiple SSB 20 9.42 Central
GB 13 13.38 Central multiple
GB 14 19.66 Central
GB 15 11.85 Central cracks aligned parallel to the loading direction were com-
GB 16 16.72 Central multiple mon in the sections prepared from the failed specimens
GB 17 15.58 Central (Fig. 10). Similarly, when thin sections of unloaded sand-
GB 18 16.00 Central multiple ? non-central stone specimens were studied, microcracks were found to
GB 19 13.37 Central be present without any compliance with the loading
GB 20 10.51 Central direction whereas microcracks parallel and sub-parallel to
SB 1 7.90 Central ? layer activation the loading direction were frequently observed when thin
SB 2 11.04 Central ? layer activation sections of the failed specimens were examined (Fig. 11).
SB 3 14.96 Non-central ? layer activation It is emphasized that within the scope of this study, it was
SB 4 13.42 Non-central not possible to capture complete propagation of micro-
SB 5 14.97 Central cracks leading to specimen failure under uniaxial com-
SB 6 8.50 Non-central pression as thin sections were prepared from specimens
SB 7 9.79 Central that already failed. Therefore, although the stated micro-
SB 8 6.81 Non-central scopic observations do not ascertain the hypothesis
SB 9 11.67 Non-central explained in the previous paragraph, they certainly comply
SB 10 10.54 Central ? layer activation with the known damage evolution process. Further studies
SB 11 10.91 Non-central ? layer activation
may be undertaken in order to check the explained
SB 12 19.47 Central ? layer activation
hypothesis more objectively than this study using a
sophisticated real-time device.
SB 13 12.40 Non-central ? layer activation
In the case of schist, the situation is different. In this
SB 14 14.88 Non-central ? layer activation
case, shear stress induced parallel to foliations, i.e., along
SB 15 9.91 Central
the surface between quartz-rich and chlorite–biotite-rich
SB 16 6.14 Central
layers exceeds the shear strength along it before propaga-
SB 17 16.62 Central
tion of wing cracks through the entire specimen without or
SB 18 11.80 Central ? layer activation
with coalescence (Figs. 4, 6, 7b). When foliations are not
SB 19 16.12 Central ? layer activation
so prominent or quartz or other inclusions along suitable
SB 20 17.43 Central
foliation surfaces are present, the specimens fail through
SSB 1 8.16 Central
the material either in axial splitting or in shear mode
SSB 2 5.75 Central
resulting in higher UCS than that brought about by failure
SSB 3 11.34 Non-central
along foliations. In this case also, shear mode shows higher
SSB 4 3.25 Central strength than that in axial splitting which could be attrib-
SSB 5 2.25 Central uted to the reason explained before. When the thin sections
SSB 6 4.38 Central from unloaded and failed schist specimens were looked at
SSB 7 7.42 Central multiple under microscope, no specific differences in microcrack

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression
Fig. 14 Representative failure modes of granite (a–c), schist (d–f), and sandstone (g–i) specimens failed in Brazilian test (yellow dashed lines
are the lines along which specimens were loaded)
patterns were observed (Fig. 12). This may be attributed to
the complex anisotropic microstructure of the rock along
with masking influence of the traces of anisotropic layers
(i.e., quartz-rich and chlorite–biotite-rich layers) on mi-
crocracks in the studied thin sections.
Failure under Brazilian test conditions
The Brazilian test (also known as the splitting tensile test or
indirect tensile test) is widely used to evaluate the tensile
strength of rocks, as it is easy to prepare and test the
specimens. Compression-induced extensional fracturing
generated in this test is also more representative of the
in situ loading and failure of rocks (Aydin and Basu 2006).
When a circular disc specimen is placed between two
platens in the case of a Brazilian test, a nearly uniform
tensile stress distribution normal to the loaded diametral
469
plane of the specimen is produced which makes the disc
fail by splitting (Rocco et al. 1999).
Tavallali and Vervoort (2010) indicated that there are
three types of failure of disc specimens of anisotropic rocks
under Brazilian test conditions: (1) layer activation (frac-
tures parallel to the foliation plane); (2) central fracture
(fractures roughly parallel to the loading direction and
located in the central part (i.e., 10 % of the diameter on
both sides of the central line of the specimen between the
two loading lines); and (3) non-central fracture (fractures
outside the central part and do not correspond to layer
activation) (schematic diagrams of the failure modes
observed in the present study are presented in Fig. 13). The
non-central fractures are often curved lines, starting at or
around the loading platens. It should be noted that in the
present study, along with the aforementioned failure modes
(Tavallali and Vervoort 2010), additional terminologies
(i.e., central multiple and central or non-central ? layer
123
470
Fig. 15 Bar diagram showing number of specimens failed in
different ranges of Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) in relation to
failure modes in a granite, b schist and c sandstone
activation) with due need are also used and are explained in
the following paragraphs.
In the present investigation, a total of 60 specimens (20
from each of granite, schist, and sandstone) were tested
under Brazilian test conditions. Different types of failure
mode in the three rock types along with their Brazilian
tensile strengths are presented in Table 5. In the case of
granite, most specimens failed in central multiple mode (a
terminology used in this study for central fracture only
when the central part of the specimens has multiple frac-
tures occupying a length exceeding 10 % of the specimen
diameter horizontally on both sides from the line of load-
ing) (Figs. 13, 14a–c). In the case of schist, most specimens
failed by a combination of two failure types (Figs. 13, 14d–f).
123
A. Basu et al.
Generally, layer activation was found in combination with
central or non-central fractures termed as central ? layer
activation and non-central ? layer activation, respectively,
in this study (Fig. 14d–f). Most sandstone specimens failed
with central fractures (Fig. 14g, i). However, well-cemen-
ted sandstone specimens failed with central multiple type
of failure mode (Fig. 14h).
The relation between failure modes of the specimens of
rock types under Brazilian test conditions and corre-
sponding Brazilian tensile strengths is presented in Fig. 15.
Central and central multiple fracture types are common
modes of failure in granite and sandstone specimens across
the entire range of Brazilian tensile strength; central mul-
tiple type is the dominant failure mode in the case of high
tensile strength (Fig. 15a, c). This implies that central
multiple type of fracture patterns develop in order to
release the high stored strain energy for both granite and
sandstone where the capacity for sustaining strain energy is
different for these two rocks. In the case of schists, layer
activation is the principal failure mode across the complete
range of Brazilian tensile strength (Fig. 15b). In other
words, compression-induced tensile stresses exploit the
foliations for the strain energy to be released earlier than
they can do so by forming central or non-central fractures.
Understandably, when such exploitation is not possible, the
specimens fail in pure central or non-central mode resulting
in high tensile strength.
Failure under point loading
A number of researchers have explored the use of point
load testing in estimating the UCS of rock materials (e.g.,
Brook 1985; Cargill and Shakoor 1990; Ghosh and Sri-
vastava 1991; Chau and Wong 1996; Tugrul and Zarif
1999; Basu and Aydin 2006). The point load strength index
has also been incorporated in the geomechanics classifi-
cation of rock masses (RMR system after Bieniawski
1989). The test involves loading rock specimens (cylin-
drical, prismatic, or irregular) between two conical platens
of stipulated geometry and hardness. Rock specimens
should fail by the development of one or more extensional
planes containing the line of loading and these failure
modes are referred to as valid failure modes whereas
deviation from these failure patterns is indicated as a
failure in invalid mode (ISRM 2007).
In this study, a total of 60 specimens (20 from each of
granite, schist, and sandstone) were tested under point
loading. Most specimens were tested axially, because there
is always a chance of slippage of specimens under diam-
etral point loading (Basu and Kamran 2010). The majority
of the granite and sandstone specimens failed in valid
modes as stipulated by ISRM (2007), whereas most
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression 471

Fig. 16 Representative failure modes of granite (a–d), schist (e–h), and sandstone (i–l) specimens failed under point loading (axial—loaded
along the core axis, and diametral—loaded along the diameter)

Fig. 17 Twisted type of failure mode in granite and sandstone under point loading

schistose specimens failed along foliations (Fig. 16). Basu invalid failure modes as per the standard), these data
and Kamran (2010) suggested that rather than rejecting should be used in rock engineering environments as failure
point load strength index values of schistose specimens that along foliations is normal mechanical behavioral charac-
have failed along foliations inclined to the core axis (i.e., in teristic in the case of schist specimens. Following this, the

123
472 A. Basu et al.

Table 6 Point load strength index values and corresponding failure Table 6 continued
modes of granite, schist, and sandstone specimens
Specimen no. Point load strength index (MPa) Failure mode
Specimen no. Point load strength index (MPa) Failure mode
SSP 8 3.91 Invalid
GP 1 8.35 Single plane SSP 9 6.21 Single plane
GP 2 10.85 Triple junction SSP 10 4.47 Single plane
GP 3 10.02 Single plane SSP 11 3.31 Single plane
GP 4 9.92 Single plane SSP 12 1.98 Single plane
GP 5 11.73 Triple junction SSP 13 2.57 Single plane
GP 6 14.13 Triple junction SSP 14 1.33 Single plane
GP 7 10.63 Single plane SSP 15 2.76 Triple junction
GP 8 6.93 Single plane SSP 16 9.08 Single plane
GP 9 8.49 Single plane SSP 17 4.36 Triple junction
GP 10 7.87 Single plane SSP 18 11.49 Triple Junction
GP 11 8.41 Triple junction SSP 19 3.70 Single plane
GP 12 7.85 Triple junction SSP 20 9.59 Triple junction
GP 13 5.99 Twisted
GP 14 8.51 Invalid
common failure of schistose specimens along foliations
GP 15 7.29 Single plane
was considered as an acceptable mode of fracturing. A
GP 16 11.36 Single plane
unique failure mode was occasionally observed in granite
GP 17 9.23 Single plane
and sandstone where the specimen failed in two pieces and
GP 18 6.92 Triple junction
from the external appearance of the failure, one may think
GP 19 9.72 Single plane
that the specimen has failed along the plane containing the
GP 20 5.66 Single plane line of loading, whereas the failure surface is not a planar
S1 3.93 AF (parallel) one, but rather twisted (Fig. 17).
S2 2.80 AF (parallel) The relation between failure modes of rock materials
S3 3.58 AF (oblique) under point loading and point load strength index does not
S4 4.49 AF (oblique) seem to have gained any attention. It should be noted that
S5 4.03 AF (oblique) for the first time, this issue was investigated in this study
S6 3.17 AF (oblique) (Table 6). Terminologies used in Table 6 are defined in the
S7 3.48 AF (oblique) following way. ‘Single plane’ refers to a single extensional
S8 1.52 AF (oblique) plane containing the line of loading. ‘Triple junction’
S9 3.07 AF (oblique) represents a failure along three extensional planes (dihedral
S 10 3.27 AF (parallel) angle &120) containing the line of loading. ‘Twisted’
S 11 2.45 AF (parallel) failure mode is a failure along a twisted or curved surface
S 12 7.42 Through material containing the points of loading. ‘AF (parallel)’ and ‘AF
S 13 3.47 AF (oblique) (oblique)’ refer to failures along foliations when foliations
S 14 4.85 AF (oblique) are parallel and inclined with respect to loading direction in
S 15 2.96 AF (parallel) the case of the axial test. ‘Through material’ means failure
S 16 1.15 AF (oblique) along a single extensional plane containing the line of
S 17 6.06 Through material loading only in the case of schist. ‘Invalid’ mode indicates
S 18 4.25 AF (oblique) failure of a point load specimen along a plane that does not
S 19 3.24 AF (oblique) contain the line of loading. Although all these terminolo-
S 20 6.63 Through material gies are given by the authors of this paper and are based on
SSP 1 5.80 Triple junction their present investigation, ‘Invalid’ failure mode carries
SSP 2 4.50 Triple junction the same connotation as in ISRM (2007).
SSP 3 8.38 Triple junction The relation between failure modes of the specimens of
SSP 4 1.25 Twisted all three rock types studied under point loading and cor-
SSP 5 1.46 Invalid responding point load strength indices is presented in
SSP 6 2.99 Single plane Fig. 18 as per the information given in Table 6. In granite
SSP 7 6.75 Triple junction and sandstone, failure along a single plane is the most
common mode of failure. Triple junction failure was also

123
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression
Fig. 18 Bar diagram showing number of specimens failed in
different ranges of point load strength index in relation to failure
modes in a granite, b schist and c sandstone
observed in few specimens generally at high point load
strength index values (Fig. 18a, c) which implies that the
triple junction has formed in order to release the high strain
energy. Twisted failure mode was observed in two speci-
mens (one each from granite and sandstone) at very low
point load strength indices (Fig. 18a, c). Such failures may
be attributed to selective fracture propagation paths
depending on the existing microstructure of those speci-
mens to release the stored strain energy as quickly as
possible. In the case of schist, specimens failed along
foliations [AF (parallel) and AF (oblique)] showed a point
load strength index below 6 MPa whereas specimens failed
through material with a single extensional plane showed a
strength above 6 MPa (Fig. 18b). This implies that when
473
stored strain energy is not released by failure along folia-
tions because of some reason, the specimen fails through
the rock material resulting in high point load strength
index.
Conclusions
Failure modes of granite, sandstone, and schist under uni-
axial compression, Brazilian tensile conditions, and point
loading were examined. On the basis of these observations
and analyses of the failure modes in relation to corre-
sponding strengths, the following conclusions are drawn:
• The nature of the principal failure mode changes from
axial splitting to shearing along a single plane to
multiple fracturing in the case of both granite and
sandstone specimens as UCS increases.
• Most schist specimens, where foliation planes are at an
angle to the loading direction, fail along foliations.
When foliations are not so prominent or quartz or other
inclusions along suitable foliation surfaces are present,
the specimens fail through the material either in axial
splitting or in shear mode resulting in higher UCS than
that brought about by failure along foliations. In this
case also, shear mode shows higher strength than that in
axial splitting.
• The relation between failure modes of all three rocks
under uniaxial compression and corresponding UCS
values can broadly be viewed in terms of damage
evolution of the rocks as explained in the section
‘‘Failure under uniaxial compression’’.
• In the Brazilian test, central and central multiple
fracture types are common modes of failure in granite
and sandstone specimens across the entire range of
determined Brazilian tensile strength where central
multiple type is the dominant failure mode in the case
of high tensile strength. In schist, layer activation that
generally occurs along with either central or non-
central fracturing is the dominant failure mode across
the complete range of Brazilian tensile strength.
• In the case of granite and sandstone under point
loading, failure along a single plane is the most
common mode of failure. Twisted failure mode of
granite and sandstone specimens is occasionally
observed which portrays a low point load strength
index. Schist specimens that fail along foliations show
low strength whereas specimens failed through material
result in high strength.
• The findings of this study as presented above are likely
to be useful particularly in an engineering environment
concerning underground excavation. In the case of a
circular tunnel, the rock on the boundary is subjected to
123
474
a uniaxial state of stress. If this stress exceeds the
strength of the rock material at the tunnel boundary, the
rock will fail. The type of laboratory investigations
presented in this paper could provide useful informa-
tion about probable rock failure modes as no straight-
forward mathematical or numerical analysis model can
ascertain the nature of failure modes. This eventually
would help recognize the adequacy of the support
designed in such engineering environments. However,
further research in this direction should be undertaken
considering various rock types to comprehend rock
failure modes at laboratory scale. The usefulness of
such studies needs to be evaluated in relation to real
engineering situations.
Acknowledgments The authors thank to Prof. Ulusay and an
anonymous reviewer for their comprehensive review of the manu-
script that helped enhance the quality and clarity of this paper. The
financial support (Project Number SR/FTP/ES-03/2008) by the
Department of Science and Technology (DST, New Delhi, India) is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank the Malanjkhand Copper
Project, Uranium Corporation of India Limited, and Singareni Col-
liery Company Limited for providing granite, schist, and sandstone
cores, respectively, for academic purposes.
References
Akesson U, Hansson J, Stigh J (2004) Characterization of micro-
cracks in the Bohus granite, western Sweden, caused by uniaxial
cyclic loading. Eng Geol 72:131–142
Amann F, Button EA, Evans KF, Gischig VS, Blumel M (2011)
Experimental study of the brittle behavior of clay shale in short
term unconfined compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng
44:415–430
Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party (1995) The
description and classification of weathered for engineering
purposes. Q J Eng Geo 28:207–242
ASTM (2001) American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM
Standards on Disc, 04.08. West Conshohocken, PA
Aydin A, Basu A (2006) The use of Brazilian test as a quantitative
measure of rock weathering. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39:77–85
Basu A (2006) Mechanical characterization of granitic rocks of Hong
Kong by improved index testing procedures with reference to
weathering induced microstructural changes. PhD thesis, The
University of Hong Kong
Basu A, Aydin A (2006) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength by
point load test: significance of cone penetration. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 39:483–490
Basu A, Kamran M (2010) Point load test on schistose rocks and its
applicability in predicting uniaxial compressive strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47:823–828
Basu A, Celestino TB, Bortolucci AA (2009) Evaluation of rock
mechanical behaviours under uniaxial compression for different
weathering grades. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42:73–93
Bieniawski ZT (1967) Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock: part I—
theory of the fracture process. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 4:395–406
Bieniawski ZT (1984) Rock mechanics design in mining and
tunneling. AA Balkema, Rotterdam
123
A. Basu et al.
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. Wiley,
New York
Bobet A, Einstein HH (1998) Fracture coalescence in rock-type
materials under uniaxial and biaxial compression. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 35:863–888
Brace WF, Paulding BW, Scholz CH (1966) Dilatancy in the fracture
of crystalline rocks. J Geophys Res 71:3939–3953
Brook N (1985) The equivalent core diameter method of size and
shape correction in point loads testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 22:61–70
Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for
measuring the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27:495–503
Chau KT, Wong RHC (1996) Uniaxial compressive strength and
point load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
33:183–188
Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B, Read RS (1998) Identifying crack
initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Ca Geotech
J 35:222–233
Ghosh DK, Srivastava M (1991) Point-load strength: an index for
classification of rock material. Bull Eng Geol Env 44:27–33
Hudson JA (1989) Rock Mechanics principles in engineering
practice. CIRIA Report, Butterworths, London
Hudyma N, Avar BB, Karakouzian M (2004) Compressive strength
and failure modes of lithophysae-rich Topopah Spring Tuff
specimens and analog models containing cavities. Eng Geol
73:179–190
Hutchison CS (1974) Laboratory handbook of petrographic tech-
niques. Wiley, New York
ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock
characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay
R, Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the
commission of testing methods, ISRM, compilation arranged
by the ISRM Turkish national group, Kozan Ofset, Ankara
Jaeger JC, Cook NGW (1979) Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 3rd
edn. Chapman & Hall, London
Jaeger JC, Cook NGW, Zimmerman RW (2007) Fundamentals of
rock mechanics, 4th edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Jumikis AR (1983) Rock mechanics, 2nd edn. Trans Tech Publ,
Clausthal
Klein E, Baud P, Reuschle T, Wong TF (2001) Mechanical behavior
and failure mode of Bensteim sandstone under triaxial compres-
sion. Phys Chem Earth (A) 26:21–25
Lajtai EZ, Lajtai VN (1974) The evolution of brittle fracture in rocks.
J Geol Soc Lond 130:1–16
Li L, Lee PKK, Tsui Y, Tham LG, Tang CA (2003) Failure process of
granite. Int J Geomeh 3:84–98
Mahur AK, Kumar R, Sonkawade RG, Sengupta D, Prasad R (2008)
Measurement of natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rate
from rock samples of Jaduguda uranium mines and its radiological
implications. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 266:1591–1597
Maji VB (2011) Understanding failure mode in uniaxial and triaxial
compression for a hard brittle rock. In: Proceedings of the 12th
ISRM international congress on rock mechanics. CRC Press/
Balkema, Leiden, pp 723–726
Martin CD (1993) The strength of massive Lac du granite around
underground openings. PhD thesis, University of Manitoba
Martin CD, Chandler NA (1994) The progressive fracture of Lac du
Bonnet granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
31:643–659
Panigrahi MK, Bream BR, Misra KC, Naik RK (2004) Age of granitic
activity associated with copper–molybdenum mineralization at
Malanjkhand, Central India. Miner Deposita 39:670–677
Peng S, Johnson AM (1972) Crack growth and faulting in cylindrical
specimen of chemsford granite. Int Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 9:37–86
Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression
Rocco C, Guinea GV, Planas J, Elices M (1999) Mechanisms of
rupture in splitting tests. ACI Mater J 96:52–60
Saha AK (1994) Crustal evolution of Singhbhum North Orissa,
Eastern India. Geol Soc India Memoir 27:281–307
Sammis CG, Ashby MF (1986) The failure of brittle porous solids
under compressive stress state. Acta Metall 30:511–526
Santarelli FJ, Brown ET (1989) Failure of three sedimentary rocks in
triaxial and hollow cylinder compression tests. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 26:401–413
Scholz C (1968) Experimental study of the fracturing process in
brittle rock. J Geophys Res 73:1447–1454
Sengupta S (2003) Gondwana sedimentation in the Pranhita–Godav-
ari valley: a review. J Asian Earth Sci 21:633–642
View publication stats
475
Szwedzicki TA (2007) A hypothesis on modes of failure of rock
samples tested in uniaxial compression. Technical note. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 40:97–104
Tavallali A, Vervoort A (2010) Effect of layer orientation on the
failure of layered sandstone under Brazilian test conditions. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47:313–322
Tugrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural
characteristics with selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng
Geol 51:303–317
Vutukuri VS, Lama RD, Saluja SS (1974) Handbook on mechanical
properties of rocks. Trans Tech Publ, Clausthal
123