lnt J Rock .!4ech. ~,fin. S e t & Geomech. 4hstr. Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 71-96, 1988 0148-9062 88 $3.

0148-9062 88 $3.00 +0.00

Pnnted in Great Britain Pergamon Press pie

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR ROCK MECHANICS

COMMISSION ON TESTING METHODS

SUGGESTED METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS

OF ROCK

CONTENTS

Technical Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Method h Suggested Method for Determining Fracture Toughness Using

Chevron Bend Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Method 2: Suggested Method for Determining Fracture Toughness Using

Short Rod Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9I

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Co-ordinator
F. O u c h t e r l o n y (Sweden)

The following persons contributed in the drafting of these Suggested Methods: J. A. Franklin
(Canada); Sun Zongqi (China); B. K. Atkinson and P. G. Meredith (U.K.): F. Rummel and
W. Mfiller (Germany); Y. Nishimatsu and H. Takahashi (Japan); L. S. Costin and A. R.
Ingraffea (U.S.A.); G. F. Bobrov (U.S.S.R.)

71
72 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNrESS SUGGESTED METHODS

INTRODUCTION
The ISRM Commission on Testing Methods*, formerly the Commission on
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests, was established in 1967. Its main task
is the drafting of "Suggested Methods" for rock testing. Its aim is to achieve some
measure of standardization without inhibiting the development and improvement of
techniques.
Any person interested in these recommendations and wishing to suggest additions
or modifications should address his remarks to the Secretary General, International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Lab6ratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Avenida do
Brasil, Lisboa 5, Portugal.

* On 24 September 1987, Dr J. A. Hudson succeeded Dr J, A. Franklin as President of the ISRM

Commission on Testing Methods.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 7~

Suggested Methods for Determining the

Fracture Toughness of Rock
Technical Introduction
ON FRACTURE MECHANICS available from the structure to drive the crack, is bal-
anced by a material strength term, which may' be seen as
While the rock mass is of primary importance in en-
resisting the crack growth. The strength term was the
gineering rock mechanics design problems, the rock
specific surface energy, ;.', of dimensions J m: [10].
material itself becomes important in fragmentation pro-
In present-day elastic fracture mechanics, the govern-
cesses such as drilling, blasting, tunnel boring, cutting or
crushing. However, the two are closely related and ing parameter is the stress intensity factor K, at least in
consequently fracture mechanics concepts have, despite the linear case. It is, on one hand, a measure of the
singularity of the stress field at a loaded crack tip and,
being primarily concerned with rock material, made
on the other, intimately related to the available energy'
important contributions to practical rock engineering
release rate [I 1]. It is usually determined by analysis
[1]. In recent years, these concepts have received an
and its dimensions are stress x ,/(crack length), i.e.
increasing interest, both through analytical studies and
P a x ,/(m) or N/m 15.
in the area of fracture toughness testing of rock [2-4].
The basic relation equates K to a critical value, which
Fracture mechanics is an engineering discipline, where
ks often taken as a material property,, and called the
the aim is to give a quantitative description of the
plane strain fracture toughness K~. When K reaches K~
transformation of an intact structural component into a
catastrophic crack growth is assumed to occur. Thus, a
broken one by crack growth. In its most basic form, it
structure can be designed to be safe if K is kept below
relates the maximum permissible stress to the size and
Kit and failure or fragmentation could be achieved if KI~
location of a crack. It can also predict the rate at which
is exceeded.
cracks grow to a critical size, by environmental
The relation between fracture toughness and
influences or by varying loads (fatigue). Further it can
(effective) surface energy is simply
determine the conditions of rapid propagation and arrest
of moving cracks [5]. K,~ = x/(2;'~,rE)
Fracture mechanics is primarily used to prevent and
predict catastrophic failure of structures of man-made where the factor 2 connects two crack faces with each
crack tip, the index effective implies that all dissipative
materials such as metals, plastics, and ceramics. Its
effects at the crack tip and in its immediate surroundings
application to cracking of concrete is becoming im-
are included in "/, and E is an appropriate modulus of the
portant too [6,7]. The prediction of earthquake fault
material.
movements is an application of growing importance in
Just as the basic K = K~ relation expresses a balance
geophysics. However, most applications in rock en-
between available and dissipated energy rates at crack
gineering seem to be ones where the cracking is consid-
initiation, these rates must also balance during crack
ered to be beneficial.
Historically fracture mechanics is a development of growth. Thus, the fracture toughness of a material
expresses its resistance to (catastrophic) crack extension
the strength of materials approach, in which the stress in
a structure is compared with some material strength (propagation), or the fracture energy consumption rate
value in order to decide whether failure will occur or not. required to create new surfaces.
The basic material parameter in fracture mechanics is
called the fracture toughness. ON THE USE OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
Since fracture mechanics specifically describes the VALUES FOR ROCK
effect of cracks, fracture toughness tests differ from Some applications of fracture toughness values for
ordinary strength tests by requiring specimens with well rock are as'.
defined cracks.
(i) A parameter for classification of rock material [12].
(ii) An index of fragmentation processes such as
ON THE CONCEPT OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
tunnel boring [13, 14] and model scale blasting [15].
Grfltith [8,9] was the first to make a quantitative (iii) A material property in the modelling of rock
connection between strength and crack size. He used a fragmentation like rock cutting [16]. hydraulic fracturing
global balance of energy rates to identify the critical state [17-19], gas driven fracturing [20,21], explosive stimu-
at the onset of unstable crack growth in brittle materials. lation of gas wells [22,23], radial explosive fracturing
In this approach the release rate of energy, which is [24,25], and crater blasting [26] as well as in stability
74 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

toughness of rock material in the form of core specimens

are described. Core specimens were chosen because rock
is readily available in the form of core pieces which then
require little machining.
Method 1 uses a bend specimen with a notch cut
perpendicular to the core axis [35]. The specimen rests on
two support rollers and a compressive load is applied to
press apart the notch sides (see Fig. t). This causes
transverse splitting of the specimen by crack growth in
the ligament, i.e. in the unnotched part, of the notched
cross section during the test.
Method 2 uses a specimen, called the short rod [36],
which has a notch cut parallel to the core axis. A tensile
load is applied to the specimen to pull apart the notch
sides (see Fig. 2). This causes lengthwise splitting of it by
crack growth in the ligament of the notched section
during the test.
In both methods, the ligament of the notched section
has the form of a V or chevron: This shape generates a
relatively long period of stable crack growth under
Fig. I. Set up of chevron bend specimen in testing machine, including increasing load before the point at which the fracture
arrangements for measuring displacements.
toughness is evaluated. In this way a sharp natural crack
is automatically formed in the specimen and the crack
resistance of the material should become fully developed
analysis [27,28] and in the interpretation of geolog!cal_ with the initial crack growth.
features [29, 30]. The use of two specimens with different crack orien-
[n some of these modelling examples, the fracture tations is justified by the frequent occurrence of aniso-
toughness is not the only strength property which enters. tropy in rock material. This also saves core material
Yet one realizes that it may be more relevant than the since the bend specimen used in Method t is long enough
other strength measures when the effect of relatively few for the remaining halves to be used in the short rod tests
dominant cracks is being modelled. Thus the fracture of Method 2.
toughness is presently mainly of value in predicting
the behaviour of rock in practical circumstances. Geo-
thermal energy extraction is however an example of
where fracture mechanics and fracture toughness testing
have been used in rock engineering design [31,32].

PURPOSE OF THESE SUGGESTED METHODS

To date, fracture toughness testing has utilized a wide
variety of specimen types and methods. The resulting
values are generally not comparable [2, 33, 34], implying
that the fracture toughness values thus measured usually
do not represent a material property. The main purpose
of these Suggested Methods is to provide testing meth-
ods which consistently yield accurate and precise frac-
ture toughness values.
Such values are clearly an important part of making
good quantitative engineering predictions. Even for
rocks where a material property does not result after
testing, the toughness number as such has a practical
value if it can be used as an index. In such cases, the
user of accepted standard testing methods can still
incorporate the experience of other users more easily
than a non-user can.

ON THE SUGGESTED METtlODS

Fig. 2. Set up of short rod specimen in testing machine, including
Two Suggested Methods for determining the fracture displacement measuring gauge.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 75

Table 1. Fracture toughness values o b t a i n e d from core specimens, given as mean~o ,~, 4- SD in M N m ~5
C h e v r o n bend Short rod
Rocks [data source] KcB K~-B KsR K~R
T a m p o m a s andesite [70I 1.50, ± 0.12 1.68- -+ 0.15 -- --
T a m p o m a s andesite [70] 1.265 2 0 . 1 0 1.265±0.10 -- --
Whin Sill dolerite [46] -- -- 2,866 + 0 . 1 2 3.266 ± 0 . 0 9
K a l l a x g a b b r o [44] -- -- 2,2213 + 0.11 2.58ts _+ 0.22
K a l l a x g a b b r o [44] -- -- 2,86 m + 0. t4 3.23t~ 4- 0.34
Bohus granite [68] 1.465 ± 0.07 -- 1,83 2.43
Bohus granite [69] [.69, _ 0.04 1.424 + 0.14 -- --
C o r n w a l l granite [66] 1.32~ ± 0 . 1 0 -- -- --
Epprechtstein granite [66] 1.74 s ± 0.18 -- -- --
F a l k e n b e r g granite [66] 0.65~ ± 0.14 -- -- --
F a l k e n b e r g granite [66] -- 1.525 ± 0.20 -- --
lidate granite [66] 1.0% + 0 . 1 3 1.735 +0.21 -- --
l i d a t e granite [67] [.37; + 0 . 1 3 2.263_+0,65 1,0la + 0 . 1 8 1.124 ± 0 . 3 5
lidate granite D, A [69] 1.433 ± 0 . 0 1 0.833+0.13 1,113 + 0 . 1 2 1.2G + 0 . 1 8
lidate granite ST [69] -- -- 1.583 + 0.08 1.853 + 0.06
Krfi.kemMa granite [68] 1.643 2 0 . 0 4 2.163+0.23 1.696 + 0 . 1 7 2.225 + 0 . 2 4
Merrivale granite [46] -- -- 1.50:4 + 0 . 1 0 1.80_,4 ± 0.13
Pink granite [46] -- -- 1,584 + 0.04 2.034 ± 0.08
Rfisj6 granite [69] -- -- 2,37~ ± 0.32 2.806 ± 0.33
Strath H a l l a d a l e granite [46] -- -- 1,80tt ± 0 . 1 0 2.19 u ± 0 . 1 1
Stripa granite [47] -- -- 2.015 + 0 . 1 4 2.36 u ± 0 . 1 3
Stripa granite [68] -- -- 2,37~ ± 0 . t 5 2.70, ± 0 . 2 7
Westerly granite [461 -- -- 1,64~ + 0.03 1.82~ ± 0.07
Westerly granite [68] -- -- 2,04~ + 0.05 2.274 + 0,03
Finnsj6n g r a n o d i o r i t e [69] -- -- 2,95~ + 0 . 1 l 3.35~ _+0.08
Grey norite [46] -- -- 2.23tt + 0 . 1 l 2.696 _+0.16
Ogino tuff [71] 1.051r ± 0.[1 1.08,~ __. 0.10 1,02t,~ _+ 0.05 1.06p~ + 0.05
Pennant s a n d s t o n e [461 -- -- 1.986 _+ 0.06 2.56, ± 0.07
Ruhr s a n d s t o n e [66] 1.03 m ± 0.04 . . . .
5'~Ivdalen s a n d s t o n e [69] 1.5b, + 0 . 0 8 0.73e,±0.08 1.54 u + 0 . 0 8 1.911~ 2 0 . 1 4
K l i n t h a g e n limestone [68] 1.31. -- 1.41,~ ± 0 . 1 9 1.87s _+0.25
Shelly limestone [46] -- -- 1.405 + 0.03 1.445 .+__+0.04
Anvil Points oil shale D [45] -- -- 0.56s ± 0.09 1.02~ _+ 0.14
Anvil Points oil shale ST [45] -- - - 0.254 _+ 0.04 0.47, __+0.07
C a r r a r a m a r b l e [661 1.265 _+ 0.08 1.38~ _+ 0.09 -- --
Ekeberg m a r b l e [681 1.89t~ _+ 0.12 -- 1.83~ _+0.35 2.25~ 2 0 . 3 6
Ekeberg m a r b l e ST [68] -- -- 1.48~ _+0.16 1.823 + 0 . I0
Ekeberg m a r b l e D [68] -- -- 2.28, ± 0.01 2.62, _+ 0.05
Ekeberg m a r b l e [69] 1.79~ + 0.07 1,7G ± 0.21 -- --
Treuchtlingen m a r b l e [66] 1.26~ ± 0.07 1,706 ± 0.09 -- --
* A, D and ST m e a n arrcster, divider and short transverse orientations of crack with respect to discernible
structure in rock [45].

It is anticipated that a third specimen will be added to
later versions of this document. The direction of crack
propagation in it would be perpendicular to that in each
of the present specimens, so that a complete investi-
gation of anisotropy could be made using only one core.
This direction would coincide with the initial (radial)
crack formation direction in an idealized hydraulic
fracturing situation or in a Brazil test.
Both methods offer two test levels. Level I testing can
be made with portable equipment and it requires only
the registration of maximum load during the test. The
fracture toughness value can then be determined through
a simple calculation but it has the character more of an
index number than a material property. Hence Level I
testing is more suitable for screening purposes.
Level II testing requires continuous load and displace-
ment measurements to be made during the test. Level II
testing is clearly laboratory oriented and relatively com-
plicated to perform. It is nevertheless recommended, and
justified by the experience that the testing of normal core
sizes otherwise tend to yield fracture toughness values
which are somewhat lower than values obtained from
larger specimens.
By offering two levels of testing these Suggested
RMMS ~2-B
Methods let the prospective user decide what combi-
nation of screening (Level I) and accuracy (Level II) is
best at a given cost. A close parallel is the choice between
point load strength and uniaxial strength, compressive
or tensile, in the conventional strength testing of rock.
Table 1 contains fracture toughness values obtained
from core specimens which have been tested by research-
ers engaged in the development of these Suggested
Methods. Both the testing and the fracture toughness
evaluation agree essentially with the contents of the final
document, but naturally differ in details from these
contents. These values, then, indicate the range of values
to be expected, the scatter obtained in testing and the
variability and anisotropy present in rock material.
While it is hoped to achieve some degree of standard-
ization in the fracture toughness testing of rock with
these Suggested Methods, their use should neither ex-
clude the search for simplifications and other improve-
ments of the present methods nor the parallel use of
other methods, especially since carefully conducted
fracture mechanics tests can yield a better insight into
the fracturing of intact rock [37-41].
Receiced 2 September 1987.
76 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

Method 1: Suggested Method for Determining Fracture

Toughness Using Chevron Bend Specimens

SCOPE SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

1. (a) This test is intended to measure the fracture
toughness of rock material, The main use of this prop-
erty is for the classification and characterization of intact
rock with respect to its resistance to crack propagation.
Other important uses are either as an index of fragmen-
tation processes such as crushing and tunnel boring, or
in the analysis of hydraulic or explosive fracturing and
stability.
(b) The test uses rock material in the form of core
specimens. The core axis should be oriented either
parallel or perpendicular to any anisotropy features such
as planes of weakness. The present method uses a
specimen, called the chevron bend specimen, with a
chevron or V-shaped notch cut perpendicular to the core
axis.
(c) The test has two levels. Level I testing requires only
the recording of maximum load. Level II testing requires
continuous load and displacement measurements to be
made during the test.
2. The geometry of the chevron bend (CB) specimen
is illustrated in Fig. 3. The chevron notch causes crack
propagation to start at the tip of the V and proceed
transverse to the core axis in a stable fashion until the
point where the fracture toughness is evaluated. The
specimen dimensions are to be as in Table 2.
APPARATUS
Specimen preparation equipment
3. A diamond wheel saw shall be used to cut the
required notch. The flanks of the chevron notch shall be
straight, which requires a saw with a linear cutting
motion. A preparation fixture should be used for cutting
the notch (Fig. 4). This will help to ensure that the
chevron angle conforms to the given tolerances.
Testing machine and load fixtures
4. (a) The testing machine shall have sufficient capac-

loading r o l l e r , ~
uncut rock
specimen\ , or ligament

L( knife edgV--' " a " not

spring support-
F
S

B sicnotaton

D - diameter of chevron bend speclmn

S distancebetween support points, 3 33
0 = chevron angle, gO"
a° - chevron tipdistance ao J ~ j
from s p e c t ~ n surface, 0.15.D.
a = crack length
t = notch width
h = depth of cut in notch flank
L - specimen length
A - projected ligament area
F = load on specimen
LPD = deflection of load point relative to support points
CMOD - relative opening of knife edges

Fig. 3. The chevron ~ n d specimen of Method I with recommended ~ n d test fixture.

 1SRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 77

Table 2. Specimen dimensions for Method I

Geomet~' parameter Value Tolerance
Specimen diameter D > i0 x grain size
Specimen length, L 4D > 3.5D
Support span, S 3.33D +0.02D
Subtended chevron angle, 0 90.0 ~ _+ 1.0 ~
Chevron V tip position, a 0 0.15D +0.10D
Notch width, t ~<0.03D or I mm*
* Whichever is greater.

ity for the peak load required and shall be capable of
applying load at a rate conforming to the requirements
of paragraph 11 below. It shall be calibrated at suitable
time intervals and shall comply with accepted national
requirements such as prescribed in ASTM Methods E4,
"'Verifications of Testing Machines" or British Standard
1610, Grade A or Deutsche Normen DIN 51 220, DIN
51 223, Klasse 1 and DIN 51 300.
(b) Level I testing prescribes the recording of maxi-
mum load only. This requires a testing machine in which
the loading rate can be controlled. Such equipment
could be portable [42].
(c) Level II testing prescribes a continuous measure-
ment of load and displacement beyond the maximum
load. This requires a testing machine in which the
displacement rate can be controlled. ~*
(d) Bend testing requires a compressive load to be
applied to the specimen. Its application shah be made
through a suitable fixture which minimizes frictional
effects. A design according to Fig. 3 is recommended in
which the support rollers are allowed to rotate outwards
and to maintain rolling contact throughout the test.
These rollers are initially positioned against stops that
define the support span and are held in place by soft
springs.-'
Specimen alignment aids
5. (a) Special alignment aids that facilitate accurate
positioning of the specimen in the load fixture should be
used in this method.
(b) One multi-purpose alignment aid is shown in Fig.
5. First, it may be used to centre the support rollers with
respect to the upper (loading) roller and to give an exact
support span length. Second, the flat back ensures that
the specimen axis will be perpendicular to the rollers.
Third, the guide pin ensures that accurate centring of the
notch between the support rollers is achieved. The design
should be such that the alignment aid can be removed
when the specimen has been secured in position.
(c) Since achieving all three purposes with this aid
within the tolerance limits for a whole range of specimen
diameters. Specimen notch centring and axis perpen-
dicularity are then still best achieved through the use of
some other alignment aids.
(d) Another alignment aid is shown in Fig. 6. It has
a spirit level whose reference plane is the base of the
testing machine. The direction of loading can be checked
by inserting it into the notch. If this direction is un-
satisfactory the specimen can easily be rotated into the
correct position, even under the small bias load referred
to in 10 below,
Displacement measuring equipment
6. (a) If displacement measurements are made, the
-equipment shall use transducers with electric output
signals. The load point displacement (LPD, Fig. 3)
should be the primary displacement variable measured
on the bend specimen. The crack mouth opening dis-
placement (CMOD) shall be regarded as a complement
to the LPD. As an exception the CMOD may be the only
displacement measured during the test. 3
(b) A saddle arrangement according to Fig. 7 should
be used to measure the LPD. ~ It measures the relative
displacement of two points on the notch front relative to
the saddle points directly above the points of contact
between specimen and support rollers. It uses two linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) transducers.
Their signals are summed in order to minimize the
influence of rotation and twisting of the specimen. 5 The
linearity of the LVDTs shall be better than 0.5% and the
Side view
spirit
level
I
fastening - - .

complicates the setting up for level II testing (see 10 screw

below) and restricts its use to one diameter value, a
simpler design may be preferable. The use of a rod or bar
with four sets of recesses with different spans milled at ~ J
I
90 ~, for example, will centre the support rollers with
respect to the loading roller and give a support span metal /
piece fastening
screw

Fig. 4. A suggested design of notch cutting fixture for the chevron bend
" Superscript numbers refer to Notes at the end of the text. specimen.
 78 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

Too view aluminium L-profile e.g.

/

I
fl at back
l

I
steel pin which fits
closely inside notch

centred milled recess

~id~ viqw to f i t loading roller

J s!e~l I height small

enough to

support
rol I er set in place
span

3.33-D

Fig. 5. A suggested design of specimen position alignment aid.

use of a gauge type with a spring return armature
actuator running in linear bearings is recommended.
(c) The yoke shown in Fig. 7 is more suitable for hard
rocks. For soft rocks a less acute tip angle at the contact
points may be advantageous to use, so as to give a stable
nonpenetrating contact with the specimen. The distance
between the tip points should not exceed 0.15D. The
yoke must be sufficiently thick to make it rigid and to
prevent it from slipping into the crack opening.
(d) tn order to measure the CMOD a gauge, either of
a type commonly called a clip gauge, or of a type using
an LVDT should be used. 6 Either type shall measure the
relative displacement of two precisely located gauge
positions spanning the notch mouth. To accomodate the
clip gauge, the specimen shall be provided with a pair of
accurately machined knife edges that support the gauge
arms and serve as displacement reference points. 7 The
linearity of the clip gauge shall be better than 0.5%.
(e) If displacement measurements are made, it is
advisable to prepare dummy specimens of aluminium
alloy or another material with similar properties to those
of the rock to be tested. These are used in a simple
calibration procedure (see 9 below).
Recording
7. An analog or digital recording system is required
such that the accuracies specified for force and displace-
ment systems can be realized. Direct plotting of load
versus LPD curves on an X-Y recorder during level II
testing is recommended. Other display media, such as a
W
CRT, are also acceptable provided that the nonlinearity
correction in 15 below can be made.
PROCEDURE
Specimen selection and preparation
8. (a) A test sample is defined as a set of core pieces
(specimens) with the same diameter, similar properties
and identical orientation of core axis (see 8b below)
for which the fracture toughness is to be determined.
Each set of specimens with identical loading direction
(see 8j below) forms a sub-sample that is to be treated
separately.
(b) The core pieces shall be marked with a reference,
using a waterproof pen, before specimen preparation so
that core axes and rotation angles relative to material
fabric, to block sample faces, to the core log etc. are
known. They shall be stored in such a way as to preserve
Ml(l section view with allqnment blade
metal blade
l l
i "---" I CTT
level
Fig. 6. A suggested design of specimen rotation alignment aid.
 ISRM: F R A C T U R E TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 79

Sideview ,_~
I ~ l -level loading .j L--LVDTx2 level--F--~--
I~ (, I .--.I-
~ ) I ~roller"/'] IN, saddle ~ [ k....,} Mid sectionviewwith yoke
I__ I', t "~' ' ~ ' '" ' If I

I!
I I r.bb~r band Nil/,

---,,,,
oe yoke
:7j]7- I
--onj
s~p~r'--I

_
I sensing ]

i
M/////./AA

'" . . "
,

shoulder hardened tip

I ',]11 i "'"°ei'°<"I
To°v,.o,.,,,./ , \
-L levelling I~ for I /l~_J
( ~ screw loading lhole for rubberbandsQ I F'~ I

, \
Fig. 7. The recommended saddle arrangement with LVDT gauges for LPD measurement.

their natural water content, as far as possible, until the
time of specimen preparation.
(c) The moisture content of each test sample should be
measured and reported. 8
(d) At least one thin section should be made from each
test sample set in order to describe mineral content, grain
size, texture and pore volume and configuration? The
accuracy of these determinations should be better than
+ 3 % for modal analyses, + 5 % for grain size, and
+ 0 . 2 % for porosity. If the core pieces appear
anisotropic ~° or are found to be anisotropic as a result
of later testing, then three mutually perpendicular thin
sections should be cut, parallel and perpendicular to the
anisotropy, and analysed.
(e) The direct tensile strength of the rock material, a,,
should be measured, tl
(f) The diameter, D, of the core should be related to
the size of the largest grain in the rock by the ratio of
at least 10:1. A smooth piece of core without abrupt
irregularities and straight to within 0.5 mm shall be
chosen for specimen preparation. The diameter shall be
measured to the nearest 0.1 mm by averaging two di-
ameters at right angles at each of three evenly spaced
positions along the intended specimen.
(g) The specimen length, L, should be at least 4D.
There are no special requirements on parallelism and
flatness of the end faces. However, the length of the
lateral edge on which the support rollers make contact
shall exceed 3.5D and the length elsewhere shall always
exceed one half of 3.33D on either side of the notch.
(h) Cores pieces of sufficient length shall be notched
using a diamond wheel saw with clean water as coolant.
(i) The notch width, t, shall be measured and it shall
not exceed 0.03D or I mm, whichever is greater. The
notch should be placed at equal distances from the end
faces. It shall be made with two cuts perpendicular to the
core axis. The angle fixture shown in Fig. 4 is first
screwed to the specimen in the desired direction with
respect to previous markings. The levels on the fixture
then allow the specimen to be rotated into the correct
position for the first cut in the core guide. The depth of
the cut should be 0.25D. After this cut the specimen is
rotated 905 with the aid of the fixture and cut again to
the same depth as in the first cut.
(]) The angle of the chevron notch bisector with
respect to the core reference shall be recorded so that
both the plane of the crack and its direction of propaga-
tion relative to material fabric, to block sample faces etc.
are known. This angle coincides with the intended
direction of loading, which should be parallel or perpen-
dicular to any anisotropy features.
(k) The included angle of the chevron V, 0, shall be
90.0 + 1.0L The position of its tip, a0, shall be measured
and it shall be within 0.10D of its nominal value 0.15D.
A preliminary check before the test will avoid unneces-
sary testing. ~2
 80 1SRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
Side view
kn,,e eOg _._ ,"'
( blade with
guide slot-iN
I
in notch
TOPview
blade--
L ?..~lock
1 ;
i
f ..~
knife edge
Fig. 8. A suggested way of mounting knife edges on chevron bend specimen. Note recommended knife edge spacing of 10 mm.
(1) The knife edges shall span the notch mouth and be
centred both with respect to the notch plane and with
respect to the tip of the chevron V. This may be achieved
by first inserting a blade with a guide slot into the
chevron notch and then sliding a spacer block down the
guide slot, with the knife edges loosely attached, until the
knife edges make contact with the specimen surface (Fig.
8). The knife edges shall he affixed to the specimen with
a cement which is of sufficient strength and gives a thin
joint. '3 Finally, pressing down on the knife edges allows
the spacer block to he lifted without causing damage to
the adhesive joint.
Calibration
9. (a) The load cell calibration shall be checked. Level
I testing requires no other calibration to be performed.
(b) Before each series of tests the alignment aids
should be placed flush with the base of the testing
machine and oriented in the same directions that they
will be used in during setting up (see 10b), in order to
check the level readings. The levels shall be adjusted to
give zero readings in these positions.
(c) For level II testing, all displacement measuring
equipment shall be checked for iinearity and preferably
calibrated before each series of tests. If a dummy
specimen with known properties is used then the cali-
bration of all equipment, including X-Y recorder, can
easily be checked every day by comparing the slope of
a resulting load vs LPD curve with the reference value
obtained from newly calibrated equipment. The two
slope values shall not differ by more than 1.0% for the
calibration to be acceptable.
(d) The displacement measuring equipment shall give
a linear response but the measured values need not be
Mid section view
q
II I blade--
I
1
spacer spacerblock
recess for
knife edge
L..
L.I
lOmm
calibrated precisely in terms of absolute displacement
(see 15e). However, if the equipment is absolutely cali-
brated, then additional results such as the Young's
modulus, the crack extension resistance in terms of
energy release rate, and the specific work of fracture
become available (see 16).
Setting up
10. (a) The load fixture shall be carefuUy installed in
the testing machine. The distance between the centres of
the two support rollers, the support span S, shall be
measured and it shall he 3.33D _+0.02D. (See also 5b.)
Setting of ram or cross head position and position limits
should he chosen so that no damage to the machine, load
fixtures, or displacement gauges can occur if the speci-
men should fail prematurely in a sudden or unexpected
manner.
(b) The specimen, possibly including LPD measuring
equipment (see 10d), shall be placed in the testing
machine in such a way that the load transfer system is
properly aligned. Alignment aids (see 5) should be used
to find the correct position and a small bias load used
to secure the specimen.
(c) For level II testing, the displacement gauges shall
be mounted on the specimen so that the specimen
movement or deformation does not interfere with the
measurement. They shall be centred. This is a simple
procedure for a clip gauge if the knife edges have been
mounted properly. The load shall then be applied and
the test shall proceed continuously until it is finished.
(d) The saddle of the LPD measuring equipment of
Fig. 7 should be attached to the specimen before the
latter is placed in the testing machine. The final adjust-
ment of the saddle is made after the specimen has been
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 81

(a) notch. The LVDTs are preferably adjusted to be as close

Load to their electrical zeros as possible.
O.S.AF
Testing
ax
11. (a) Level I presumes that the test will be run under
load control. The load shall be recorded and the test
shall be run until'the specimen fails. The average stress
.....'o:ii intensity rate during the test shall be not less than
C~cle
0.25 MPax/(m)/sec or such that failure occurs within
10 sec of initial load application.
0.2Fm,~ - . . . . . . . .
0 r=., -/
~
..... ....
rlzed ~l~ding line (b) Level II requires the test to be run in displacement
control and both ioad and displacement shall be
Oisplacement recorded) A minimum of four unloading-reloading
cycles shall be made during the test (Fig. 9a). The
(b) unloading shall be made by instantaneous reversal of the
Load
controlling displacement rate) ~ At least one such cycle
Xt shall be made before and one after maximum load. ~5The
cycles should be evenly spaced along the load vs LPD
Inl t t,l] t ,Inge~t --
llne with ~lope.~.
record. The unloading shall end and reloading begin
~init~al tangent when the load is in the interval of 10-20% of maximum
load (Fig. 9a).
(c) The displacement rate during the loading phase of
testing, either LISD or CMOD, shall be sufficient to
I In~,lri/e,J
unlo4dlng
make the crack speed, ~i, larger than I mm/sec at the
I Ine~ evaluation point. The calculation formula is given in 12
below•
Displacement
(d) In level I testing, the maximum load on the
specimen shall be recorded to within 1.0%.
(c) (e) In level II testing, the initial tangent slope of the
load vs LPD diagram shall be between 0.7 and 1.5 to
Load
permit an accurate evaluation of slopes. A value close to
• Line with slope sc when
1 ~ FL and Fz span the the higher limit is recommended. The slope value, s, is
/ evaluatlon point Fc.
/
defined in 13 below. Calibration and recorder settings
are to be selected such that the maximum load can be
L< ---
Line with slope sc when
determined to within 1.0%. The associated displacement
f I and F I ~ 9 ~ span the should also be determined to within 1.0%.
/// //'/J evaluation point Fc.
(f) Data recording in level II testing should be con-
/./ //'/ tinued beyond maximum load to a point where the
,// //t displacement is at least 1.5 times that at maximum
load) 5

./ ~ . / /
(g) The specimen halves remaining after a bend test
may be used to prepare and test two short rod specimens
according to the requirements in Method 2. If this is
done the crack planes in the short rod specimens should
Fig. 9. The principles of nonlinearity correction of either KcB in load be perpendicular to each other and one of these crack
vs LPD record (Method 1) or Ks~ in load vs CMOD record (Method
2). (a) Construction of linearized unloading line: (b) derivation of planes should lie in the symmetry plane of the bend
degree of nonlinearity,p; (c) derivation of load at evaluation point. F<. specimen such that a measure of strength anisotropy is
obtained.
(h) The result shall be considered invalid and a further
test conducted if the crack deviates from the symmetry
secured in position and the yoke has been installed. Both plane defined by the notch by more than 0.05D within
the base and the yoke shall be parallel with the base of 0.3D from the apex of the chevron V. ~5
the testing machine and centred with respect to core axis
and loading roller. The tilt adjustment of the base is
made with the aid of screws and reading of the levels•
The centring adjustment of the base and the yoke CALCULATIONS
adjustment are made by hand. The tension in the elastic Calculation o f loading rate
rubber bands shall be sufficient to keep the yoke in 12. The displacement rate in displacement controlled
contact with the notch bottom when the LVDTs have testing, which is referred to in 11 above, shall exceed the
been mounted• The yoke must not be wedged in the following calculated limit value:
82 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
LPD or CMOD>O.OO6Kc~/(E,]D)m/sec.
Here Kc8 is the fracture toughness defined below in
equation (3) and E the Young's modulus of the
material) 6
Calculation of slope values
13. The slope of a straight line, s, is defined as
s = tan(angle between line and LPD axis).
The initial tangent slope of the load vs LPD record is the
slope of a straight line through the origin at zero load
which is tangent to the curve (Fig. 9b).
Calculation of fracture toughness
14. For level I testing, the fracture toughness of the
specimen shall be calculated by the following formula:
Kc~ = Ami. F~,JD t.s
where
Am~,= [I.835 + 7.15a0/D + 9.85(ao/D)"] S/D.
With the failure load, Fm,~, in kN and the specimen
diameter, D, in cm the fracture toughness will be in
MPa~/(m) or MN/m Is. The use of SI units is rec-
ommended. The factor Am~, is dimensionless. A notch
angle value within the tolerance limits will cause less
than i% variation in the computed /(cB value.
Correction of fracture toughness'./'or nonlinearity
15. (a) For level II testing, the evaluation shall start
by calculating the fracture toughness as in 14 above.
Then a nonlinearity correction factor shall be evaluated
in the load vs LPD record according to the graphical
construction methods shown in Figs 9a-c.
(b) Draw a straight line for each unloading-reloading
cycle, in the sense specified below. Each line is defined
by two points, H and L. The high point (H) is where
LPD starts to decrease on the unloading part of the cycle
and the corresponding load is denoted by FH (Fig. 9a).
The low point (L) lies on the reloading part of the cycle
and it is defined by the load level:
FL = 0.5F..
An initial straight line shall then be drawn through H
and L.
(c) The extent of hysteresis centred about FL in the
unloading-reloading cycle is defined by the vertical
distance AF (Fig. 9a). The final straight line for each
cycle shall then be obtained by translating the initial line
vertically downwards by an amount 0.5AF. It shall
intersect the LPD axis.
(d) Compute the slope of each final line. Find the two
lines whose slope values most closely span the value:
s¢ = [I.05 -- 2.15ao/D + 4.21(ao/O)"]si,i~i~I ,~,~,t. (6)
The point corresponding to the unloading slope s¢ on the
load vs LPD curve is where the fracture toughness
should be evaluated] -~'~7
(I) (e) Let these two chosen linearized unloading lines
define the residual displacements in the unloaded state,
6t and 62, and the horizontal distance (Fig. 9b):
xu = 6 , - 6~. (7)
Draw a smooth approximation of the load vs LPD curve
between these unloading lines, ignoring the
unloading-reloading dips. Next find the intersection
(2) points between the unloading lines and the smoothed
curve. Denote their loads by Ff and F,. Then find the
average load:
F = (Fi + F,)/2. (8)
If the unloading lines span Fm~, then the greatest of F~
and Fz shall be replaced by Fm~x.Then draw a horizontal
load line at this level (Fig. 9b). This defines the displace-
ments of two matching loaded states along the linearized
unloading lines. The difference between these displace-
(3)
ments is designated x<. Then let the displacement ratio
p = xu/x< (9)
(4)
define the "degree of nonlinearity", p.~s Large variations
in p between the specimens in a test sample or a negative
value is probably an indication of unacceptable errors in
the evaluation procedure. ~
(f) If the two chosen unloading lines span the evalu-
ation point and if F is not less than 0.98Fm~ then the
nonlinearity corrected fracture toughness value shall be
calculated as
K~. = ,/[(l + p)/(I - p)] KcB. (10)
The superscript 'c' denotes a corrected fracture tough-
ness value. -'B
(g) If the two chosen unloading lines do not span the
evaluation point, or if F is less than 0.98Fm,~, then by
linear interpolation or extrapolation draw the unloading
line with slope s~.t7 The procedure shall be based on a
constant amount of recovered displacement (LPD), i.e.
the horizontal distance x, (Fig. 9c).
(h) First, along the unloading line through F t, find the
point F~ which has the same amount of displacement
recovery upon unloading as an unloading from F 2 along
(5) the second unloading line, i.e. the amount x,. Then draw
a straight line through F~ and F_, and find the point on
this line whose load is
F~ = s~x2. (11)
Next draw a straight line through this point which leads
to a recovered displacement x, upon unloading: Itsstope
will then by definition be so. Finally, find the load at the
evaluation point, F~, as the intersection between this line
and the smoothed load vs LPD record.
(i) Then the nonlinearity corrected fracture toughness
value shall be calculated as
K~:B= x/[(i + p)/(l -- p)]FJFm,xKcB. (12)
This correction of KcB does not require the material to
be isotropic.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 83

Calculation of additional quantities creasing specimen size. Cores with a diameter well above
16. (a) If an absolute calibration of the displacement 50 mm are probably required to avoid this limitation.
measuring equipment has been made then additional (b) Since no distinct validity criterion relating to
material parameters may be calculated according to the specimen size is given, there is no guarantee that a
following procedures. fracture toughness value which is determined according
(b) Young's modulus. If the initial tangent slope is to this method accurately represents a material property.
known in absolute terms then the Young's modulus in (c) However, one indication that the level II calculated
bending of the specimen material, E, may be calculated. -'~ fracture toughness value K~:B may be a valid represent-
The following equation shall be used: ation of a material property is ifp ~< 0.05 (see 15). In this
case the level I value KcB (see 14) is less than 5% lower
E = gosi,,u~l ~,,g~,~/D, (13) than K~B and level I testing gives an accurate estimate.
where (d) A stronger indication that K~B is a valid represent-
ation of a material property may be obtained by testing
go = 20.8 + 19.4ao/D + [42.3(ao/D) 2. (14) specimens of at least two different sizes, The largest
With sm,,,L,,.~,, given in kN/mm and D in mm the specimen size should yield p ~<0.05 and the span of
resulting Young's modulus value will be in GPa which diameter ratios should exceed 2. The desired indication
is the recommended unit. A support span variation is then obtained if K~-8 shows no dependence on speci-
within the tolerance limits will cause less than 2% men size.
variation in the computed E value. (e) There is presently little knowledge on whether
(c) Then if the Poisson's ratio of the specimen nonlinearity corrected chevron bend fracture toughness
material, v, is also known, it is possible to convert the values for rock show good agreement with toughness
fracture toughness value in stress intensity terms, values from other specimens where the stress state in the
MPav/(m), to crack extension resistance in terms of ligament ahead of the crack is predominantly one of
energy release rate: bending. Even if the fracture toughness values from this
-type of specimen were independent of size, they would
G~c, = (I - v")(KcB)'/E.
c "
(15) not necessarily agree with values from specimens where
The recommended unit of G{,B is J/m :. The v-value is not the ligament is predominantly in tension.
essential. Since v is less than 0.3 for most competent
rock, it may either be guessed with sufficient accuracy or
assumed to be zero if this is stated clearly.:: Use of fracture toughness values
(d) Finally, if the load vs LPD recording is followed 18. (a) Concerning their intended use, nonlinearity
through until the specimen has virtually no residual corrected fracture toughness values obtained using this
strength, then the total work of fracture W{, B, which is method are considered conservative for design analysis,
required to separate the notched specimen into two provided that the defects analyzed are much smaller than
halves ~ may be calculated as all other structural dimensions and are much larger than
the characteristic microstructure of the material. If this
W~,u = F d(LPD). (16) is not the case, then such values should only be used to
)
assess the relative fracture resistance of the different
Relating W~,~ to the ligament area of the notched materials.
specimen, :3 A, one then obtains the specific work of
fracture:

/~cr, = Wrc,/'A (17) REPORTING OF RESULTS

The dimension of K'cu is Jim' and its value should 19. All reports of results should contain the following
correlate closely with that of G~cB.:4 information:

VALIDITY
Spechnen size and type
17. (a) Plane-strain fracture toughness measurements
on metallic materials require that tests be completed and
the results analyzed before it can be ascertained whether
or not the result is valid. ->:6 The present method for rock
partly avoids this issue by recommending a correction
for nonlinear material behaviour that is based on dis-
placement measurements, Present experience indicates
that corrected fracture toughness values may be reason-
ably independent of the specimen size, but that un-
corrected values tend to decrease significantly with de-
General data
20. Details of testing equipment and procedures em-
ployed. Reference may be made to the present method,
describing the departures from recommended pro-
cedures and the reasons for these.
Test sample data
2[. For each test sample as a whole the information
should include the following:
(a) The sample number, source location and rock type.
and the nature and #t situ orientation of any planes of
anisotropy and weakness.
84 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

(b) Core axis with respect to in situ geology and
structures and, in case of sub-samples, the direction of
loading.
(c) Storage history and environment, water content
and degree of saturation at the time of testing.
(d) A tabulation o f specimen data related to the
fracture toughness determination, including auxiliary
parameters (see 22).
(e) For each sub-sample a summary tabulation of
mean fracture toughness value + standard deviation. 27
(f) Index properties obtained by other types of testing
and physical data such as specific gravity, grain size,
porosity, and permeability; citing the method of deter-
mination for each.
Specimen data
22. For each specimen in the sample the information
should contain the following:
(a) Specimen dimensions D, S, a 0, and O,
(b) Level of testing and the appropriate loading rate,
i.e. t or time to failure for level I and LPD for level II.
(c) Maximum load F,,,x , and for level II the load at the
evaluation point, F,, when applicable.
(d) Fracture toughness values expressed to three
significant figures, i.e. KcB for level I and both Kc~ and
K~:B for level II including p to two significant figures.
(e) Auxiliary parameters. (E, v, as or modulus of
rupture, G~:8, and RcB).

Method 2: Suggested Method for Determining Fracture

Toughness Using Short Rod Specimens
SCOPE Table 3. Specimen dimensions for Method 2
I. (a) This test is intended to measure the fracture Geometryparameter Value Tolerance
toughness of rock material. The main use of this prop- Specimendiameter D > I0 x grain size
Specimen length, w 1.45D _+0.02D
erty is for the classification and characterization ofintact Subtended chevron angle, 0 54.65 + 1.0'~
rock with respect to its resistance to crack propagation.- Chevron V tip position, a0 0.48D + 0.02D
Other important uses are either as an index of fragmen- Chevronlength, a~ - a0 0.97D +_O.02D
Notch width, t ~<0.03D or 1 mm*
tation processes such as crushing and tunnel boring, or
* Whichever is greater.
in the analysis of hydraulic and explosive fracturing and
stability.
(b) The test uses rock material in the form of core
specimens. The core axis should be oriented either
parallel or perpendicular to any anisotropy features such
as planes of weakness. The present method uses a End vlew

specimen, called the short rod, with a chevron or V-

shaped notch cut along the core axis.
(c) The test has two levels. Level I testing requires only
the recording of maximum load. Level II testing requires
continuous load and displacement measurements to be
made during the test.
Mid s e c t i o n view Side view
I
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
2. The geometry of the short rod (SR) specimen is
crack
illustrated in Fig. 10. The chevron notch causes crack a1 i W
propagation to start at the tip of the V and proceed
along the core axis in a stable fashion until the point notch

where the fracture toughness is evaluated. The specimen

dimensions are to be as in Table 3. I \ "uric rock
or l i g a m e n t
I
D D/2
Basic notation:
APPARATUS
O - diameter of s h o r t rod specimen
Specimen preparation equipment w - l e n g t h o f specimen, 1.450
3. A diamond wheel saw shall be used to cut the # • chevron a n g l e , 54.6"
a0 = chevron t i p distance from loaded end; 0.48.0
specimens to the required length and to cut the required a - crack l e n g t h
notch. The flanks of the chevron notch shall be straight, a z - maximum depth of chevron Flanks

which requires a saw with a linear cutting motion. A t - notch w i d t h

A - p r o j e c t e d ligament area
preparation fixture should be used for cutting the notch F - load on specimen
(Fig. 11). This will help to ensure that the chevron angle
conforms to the given tolerances. Fig. 10. The short rod specimen of Method 2.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 85

(a)
l}]~t vt~w
holes for mountlng 1 [-~ F--l . [ slots f°r back end
front end plate iLip_~l
Jl iLl,..rJll ,L,r#ii Platesth gu'de Pins
..... L' L; LJ
//i
K::: o o
slit for centring blade

to accomodatespecimens of
different diameters
/ I \
- ; .... ~~
50mm

-211

(b)

pins for

Flifl-:::o:: tap
I

[ ,,l,, I
0 .... ' 0 'r, I
i i ~ i l
, r i
" i:
~ //~holes for
front view N / fastening
screws
fastening
screws with
hardened
' 0 0 '
,i tips
top view I

Front end platR

holes for fastening screws
,/,\
U'O
fastening screws
0 0 2i with hardenedtips

0 0

50ram

front view

Fig. I 1. A suggested design of notch cutting fixture For the short rod. (a) V-block; (b) end plates and centring blade•
86 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

threaded connection They shall be made of steel of sufficient strength to

,,I --to force gaugeof

testing machine
prevent yielding of the jaws or at the grip points. The
grip jaws shall be tapered such that the load transmission
between grip and specimen is well defined with respect
to the tip of the chevron notch and lies on the intended
,,] loading axis.
(f) The specimen shall accomodate the grip jaws
through two end plates of aluminium alloy or another
~ed with
plastic putty
material which is hard enough to give a well defined line
contact between the jaws and the end plates. The end
plates for level II testing may have centred recesses to
accomodate the knife edges used in the required dis-
spherical swivel_ placement measurements (Fig. 14). The elastic properties
bearing with of the end plates should be similar to those of the rock
permanent to be tested so as not to cause high interracial stresses
lubrication during the testing. The end plates shall be cemented on
k
--pull rod to the notched end of the specimen. They shall be large
enough both to spread the applied load along the whole
of the notch mouth and to prevent premature failure of
the cement-rock interface.

Displacement measurement equipment

5. (a) If displacement measurements are made, the
equipment shall use transducers with electric output
signals. The crack mouth opening displacement
(CMOD, Fig. 14) shall be the displacement measured)
I--grips A gauge, either of a type commonly called a clip gauge,
(see Fig. 13 )
or built around linear variable differential transformer
L
Fig. 12. A suggested design of tensile load linkage for the short rod.
(LVDT) transducers is recommended. 6
(b) The clip gauge shall measure the relative displace-
ment of two precisely located gauge positions spanning
the notch mouth. The specimen shall be provided with

Testing machine and load fixtures

Side vie~I Back view
4. (a) The testing machine shall have sufficient 'I

capacity for the peak load required and shall be capable I i __J ~__
Q) I ,
of applying load at a rate conforming to the require-
ments of 10 below. It shall be calibrated at suitable time
intervals and shall comply with accepted national re-
I ---I

I I
I
I--"

I__ _

quirements such as prescribed in ASTM Methods E4, I/ ~I

"Verification of Testing Machines" or British Standard . . . . ..J ~ - -

1610, Grade A or Deutsche Normen DIN 41 220, DIN

51 223, Klasse 1 and DIN 51 300.
(b) Level I testing prescribes the recording of maxi-
mum load only. This requires a testing machine in which
._~/pul 1ing x . . . . .
the loading rate can be controlled. Such equipment
could be portable [43]. iXtapered jaw recess to accomodate
i
(c) Level II testing prescribes a continuous measure- clip gauge
I
ment of load and displacement beyond the maximum
load. This requires a testing machine in which the I
displacement rate can be controlled, t''s Top view I
(d) Short rod testing requires a tensile load to be
I II
applied to the specimen. Its application shall be made Ill

through a suitable linkage system which eliminates bend- " - ~ hole for
ing and torsional stresses in the specimen. A roller or pull rod
link chain may be used. A design according to Figure 12
Ill
may also be used in which bending and torsion are Ill

minimized by two spherical swivel bearings. 29

(e) The load shall be transferred from the linkage
system to the specimen by grips as shown in Fig. 13. Fig. 13. The required design of short rod grips.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
sling to keep
specimen horizontal
i f necessary
I (specimens) with the same diameter, similar properties
clli p gauge
_short rod
CMOD specimen
relative
opening of
knife edges
Fig. 14. Mounting of specimen with clip gauge and knife edges between
grips.
a pair of accurately machined knife edges that support
the gauge arms and serve as displacement reference
points (Fig. 14).7 The linearity of the clip gauge shall be
better than 0.5%.
(c) An alternative CMOD gauge using LVDTs is
shown in Fig. 15. The two LVDT transducers s shall
measure the separation of the lines of contact between
the end plates and the grip jaws. Their signals shall be
summed in order to minimize the influence of rotation
and twisting of the specimen halves. The linearity of the
LVDTs shall be better than 0.5% and the use of a
transducer type with a spring return armature actuator
running in linear bearings is recommended.
(d) If displacement measurements are made, it is
advisable to prepare dummy specimens of aluminium
alloy or another material with similar properties to those
of the rock to be tested. These are used in a simple
calibration procedure (see 8 below).
Recording
6, An analog or digital recording system is required
such that the accuracies specified for force and displace-
ment systems can be realized. Direct plotting of load vs
LPD curves on an X-Y recorder during level lI testing
87
is recommended. Other display media, such as a CRT.
are also acceptable provided that the nonlinearity cor-
rection in 14 below can be made.
PROCEDURE
Specimen selection and preparation
7. (a) A test sample is defined as a set of core pieces
and identical orientation of core axis (see 7b below)
for which the fracture toughness is to be determined.
Each set of specimens with identical loading direction
(see 7j below) forms a sub-sample that is to be treated
separately.
(b) The core pieces shall be marked with a reference,
using a waterproof pen, before specimen preparation so
that core axes and rotation angles relative to material
fabric, to block sample faces, to the core log etc. are
known. They shall be stored in such a way as to preserve
their natural water content, as far as possible, until the
time of specimen preparation.
(c) The moisture content of each test sample should be
measured and reported, s
(d) At least one thin section should be made from each
test sample set in order to describe mineral content, grain
size, texture, and pore volume and configurationfl The
accuracy of these determinations should be better than
_+3% for modal analysis, _+5% for grain size, and
_+0.2% for porosity. If the core pieces appear
anisotropic m or are found to be anisotropic as a result
of later testing, then three mutually perpendicular thin
sections should be cut, parallel and perpendicular to the
anisotropy, and analysed.
(e) The direct tensile strength of the rock material, at,
should be measured. '~
(f) The diameter, D, of the core should be related to
the size of the largest grain in the rock by the ratio of
Back view
I./ hole for LVDT
/ \
/ \
I t
' I I /LVDT sensing point
~ tI
\ /"
\
I solid
Top view I
for LVOT
[ I
Fig. 15. A suggested design of CMOD gauge based on LVDT
transducers.
88 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
Level I testinq Level II testinq
end
plate
spacer
o o
I 54.6 _+ 1.0°. The position of its tip, a0, shall be measured
T °
I I
centring pins
I I
I! knife edge
Fig. 16. Mounting of end plates and knife edges on short rod with
recommended spacer bars. Note knife edge spacing of 10 mm.
at least I0:1. A smooth piece of core without abrupt
irregularities and straight to within 0.5 mm shall be
chosen for specimen preparation. The diameter shall
be measured to the nearest 0.1 mm by averaging two
diameters at right angles at each of three evenly spaced
positions along the intended specimen.
(g) The cores shall be cut to desired length and
notched using a diamond wheel saw with clean water as
coolant.
(h) The specimen length, w, shall be measured and it
shall not depart from 1.45D by more than 0.02D. The
ends of the specimen shall generally be smooth and flat
and shall not depart from perpendicularity to the speci-
men axis by more than 0.5 mm in 100 m m ) °
(i) The notch width, t, shall be measured and it shall
not exceed 0.03D or 1 ram, whichever is greater. It is
recommended that the notch is made with two cuts
which are symmetric with respect to the core axis. The
fixture shown in Fig. 11 holds the specimen at the
specified angle with respect to the cutting line and in
the desired rotation with respect to previous markings.
The first cut is centred with the aid of the guide pins and
its depth shall be carefully adjusted to nearly intersect
the junction of the core diameter with the back end face
of the specimen. After this cut the specimen is removed
from the fixture, rotated 180° about the core axis,
reinserted into the fixture with a centring blade fixing the
rotation angle, and cut again to the same depth as in the
first cut.
(j) The angle of the normal to the notch plane with
respect to the core reference shall be recorded so that
both the plane of the crack and its direction of propa-
gation relative to material fabric, to block sample faces
etc. are known. This angle coincides with the intended
direction of loading, which should be parallel or perpen-
dicular to any anisotropy features.
(k) The included angle of the chevron V, 0, shall be
and it shall be within 0.02D of its nominal value 0.48D.
I
A preliminary check before the test will avoid unneces-
sary testing.
(I) The maximum depth of the chevron flanks, a~, shall
be measured and the chevron length, a z - a0, shall be
within 0.02D of its nominal value 0.97D) t
(m) The end plates shall be mounted parallel to and
equidistant from the notch centre plane. This is achieved
by the use of a spacer bar with central pins which fit
tightly in the notch (Fig. 16). The plates are abutted
against the spacer bar during their cementing. A cement
which is of sufficient strength and gives a thin joint shall
be used.t3
(n) The knife edges, used in level II testing, shall span
the notch mouth and be centred both with respect to the
notch plane and with respect to the tip of the chevron
V. This may be achieved if end plates with centred
recesses for the knife edges are first mounted properly
and the knife edges then mounted using another spacer
bar (Fig. 16). The knife edges may be fixed to the
specimen with the same cement as the end plates. In
order to accomodate the clip gauge, recesses in the load
grips are also necessary (Fig. 13). They shall be wide
enought to prevent contact between the gauge arms and
the grips. The knife edges may also be an integral part
of the end plates.
Calibration
8. (a) The load cell calibration shall be checked. Level
I testing requires no other calibration to be performed.
(b) For level II testing, the displacement measuring
equipment shall be checked for linearity and preferably
calibrated before each series of tests. If a dummy
specimen with known properties is used then the cali-
bration of all equipment, including X-Y recorder, can
easily be checked every day by comparing the slope of
a resulting load vs C M O D curve with the reference value
obtained from newly calibrated eqmpment. The two
slope values shall not differ by more than 1.0% for the
calibration to be acceptable.
(c) The displacement measuring equipment shall give
a linear response but the measured values need not be
calibrated precisely in terms of absolute displacement
(see 14e). However, if the equipment is absolutely cali-
brated, then additional results such as the Young's
modulus, the crack extension resistance m terms of
energy release rate, and the specific work of fracture
become available (see 15 below).
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
Setting up
9. (a) The load fixtures shall be carefully installed
in the testing machine. Setting of ram or cross-head
position and position limits should be chosen so that no
damage to the machine, load fixtures, or displacement
gauges can occur if the specimen should fail prematurely
in a sudden or unexpected manner.
(b) The specimen shall be placed in the testing
machine in such a way that the load transfer system is
properly aligned. A small bias load should be used to
secure it in the correct position. If the bias load is not
sufficient to prevent a large specimen from tilting as a
result of gravity loading, then a sling or a support shall
be used to keep the specimen axis perpendicular to the
load direction (Fig. 14).
(c) For level II testing, the displacement gauges shall
be mounted on the specimen so that the specimen
movement or deformation does not interfere with the
measurement. They shall be centred. This is a simple
procedure for a clip gauge if the knife edges have been
mounted properly. The clip gauge shall be kept in place
by the spring action of its cantilever arms only, without
the use of adhesives or other agents, A proper mounting
of the end plates has the same effect for the LVDT
arrangement.
Testing
10. (a) Level I presumes that the test will be run under
load control. The load shall be recorded and the test
shall be run until the specimen fails. The average stress
intensity rate during the test shall be not less than
0.25 MPax/(m)/sec or such that failure occurs within 10 s
of initial load application.
(b) Level II requires the test to be run in displacement
control and both load and displacement shall be
recorded) A minimum of four unloading-reloading
cycles shall be made during the test (Fig. 9a). The
unloading shall be made by instantaneous reversal of the
controlling displacement rate. ~ At least one such cycle
shall be made before and one after maximum load. ~5The
cycles should be evenly spaced along the load vs CMOD
record. The unloading shall end and reloading begin
when the load is in the interval of 10-20% of maximum
load (Fig. 9a).
(c) The displacement rate during the loading phase of
testing, CMOD, shall be sufficient to make the crack
speed, ~i, larger than I mm/s at the evaluation point. The
calculation formula is given in II below.
(d) In level I testing, the maximum load on the
specimen shall be recorded to within 1.0%.
(e) In level II testing, the initial tangent slope of the
load vs CMOD diagram shall be between 0.7 and 1.5 to
permit an accurate evaluation of slopes. A value close to
the higher limit is recommended. The slope value, s, is
defined in 12 below. Calibration and recorder settings
are to be selected such that the maximum load can be
determined to within 1.0%. The associated displacement
should also be determined to within 1.0%.
(f) Data recording in level II testing should be con-
tinued beyond maximum load to a point where the
89
displacement is at least 1.5 times that at maximum
load. K5
(g) The result shall be considered invalid and a further
test conducted if the crack deviates from the symmetry
plane defined by the notch by more than 0.05D within
0.5D from the apex of the chevron V. ~53-'
CALCULATIONS
Calculation of loading rate
11. The displacement rate in displacement controlled
testing, which is referred to in 10 above, shah exceed the
following calculated limit value:
CMOD > O.Ol7KsR/(E~/D)m/sec. (18)
Here KsR is the fracture toughness defined below in
equation (20) and E the Young's modulus of the
material ~
Calculation of slope rabies
12. The slope of a straight line, s, is defined as
s = tan(angle between line and CMOD axis). (19)
The initial tangent slope of the load vs CMOD record
is the slope of a straight line through the origin at zero
load which is tangent to the curve (Fig. 9b).
Calculation of fracture tougness
13. (a) For level I testing, the fracture toughness of the
specimen shall be calculated by the following formula:
Ks, = 24.0F~JD' S. (20)
With the failure load, Fm~, in kN and the specimen
diameter, D, in cm the fracture toughness will be in
MPax/(m) or MN/m '5. The use of SI units is rec-
ommended. The factor 24.0 is dimensionless.
(b) The following correction factor shall then be
calculated:
C~=(I-0.6Aw/D+I.4Aa0/D-0.01A0). (21)
The symbols Aw, ka0, and A0 denote the differences
between measured values and the nominal ones, i.e.
Aw/D = w/D - 1.45 etc. If 0.99 < CK < 1.01 then
equation (20) is valid, otherwise the fracture toughness
value shall be calculated from:
Ks~ = CK 24.0F~,,x/D ' 5. (22)
These equations have been derived assuming the
material to be isotropic, but they are not expected to be
overly sensitive to anisotropy.
Correction of fracture toughness for nonlinearity
14. (a) For level II testing, the evaluation shall start
by calculating the fracture toughness as in 13 above.
Then a nonlinearity correction factor shall be evaluated
in the load vs CMOD record according to the graphical
construction methods shown in Figs 9a-c.
(b) Draw a straight line for each unloading-reloading
cycle, in the sense specified below. Each line is defined
by two points, H and L. The high point (H) is where
90 ISRM: FRACTURE
C M O D starts to decrease on the unloading part of
the cycle and the corresponding load is denoted by F.
(Fig. 9a). The low point (L) lies on the reloading part of
the cycle and it is defined by the load level:
FL = 0.5FH.
An initial straight line shall then be drawn through H
and L.
(c) The extent of hysteresis centred about FL in the
unloading-reloading cycle is defined by the vertical
distance AF (Fig. 9a). The final straight line for each
cycle shall then be obtained by translating the initial line
vertically downwards by an amount 0.5AF. It shall
intersect the C M O D axis.
(d) Compute the slope of each final line. Find the two
lines whose slope values most closely span the value:
sc = 0.5si,iti,I t,,g¢,t.
The point corresponding to the unloading slope s¢ on the
load vs C M O D curve is where the fracture toughness
should be evaluated, ts':
(e) Let these two chosen linearized unloading lines
define the residual displacements in the unloaded state,
6, and 6,, and the horizontal distance (Fig. 9b):
x, = 62 - 6,.
Draw a smooth approximation of the load vs C M O D
curve between these unloading lines, ignoring the
unloading-reloading lines and the smoothed curve. De-
note their loads by F~ and F,. Then find the average load:
F = (F~ + F2)/2.
If the unloading lines span Fm~, then the greatest of F~
and F., shall be replaced by F,,~. Then draw a horizontal
load line at this level (Fig. 9b). This defines the displace-
ments of two matching loaded states along the linearized
unloading lines. The difference between these displace-
ments is designated x:. Then let the displacement ratio
p = xJx:
define the "degree of nonlinearity", p.t8 Large variations
in p between the specimens in a test sample or a negative
value is probably an indication of unacceptable errors in
the evaluation procedure) 9
(f) If the two chosen unloading lines span the evalu-
ation points and if F not less than 0.98Fm,~, then the
nonlinearity corrected fracture toughness value shall be
calculated as
K~R = 4[(! -4--p)/(l -- p)IKsR.
The superscript 'c' denotes a corrected fracture tough-
ness value, z°
(g) If the two chosen unloading lines do not span the
evaluation point, or if .,~ is less than 0.98Fm~,, then by
linear interpolation or extrapolation draw the unloading
line with slope s~. t7 The procedure shall be based on a
constant amount of recovered displacement (CMOD),
i.e. the horizontal distance x, (Fig. 9c).
(h) First, along the unloading line through F,, find the
point F I which has the same amount of displacement
TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
recovery upon unloading as an unloading from F, along
the second unloading line, i.e. the amount x,. Then dra~ '
a straight line through FI and F2 and find the point on
this line whose load is
(23) F~ = s~x~. (29)
Next draw a straight line through this point which leads
to a recovered displacement x., upon unloading. Its Slope
will then by definition be so. Finally, find the toad at the
evaluation point, Fc, as the intersection between this line
and the smoothed load vs C M O D record.
(i) Then the nonlinearity corrected fracture toughness
value shall be calculated as
K]R = ~/[(1 + p)/(l -- p)lFJFma~KsR. (30)
This correction of KsR does not require the material to
be isotropic.
(24)
Calculation o f additional quantities
15. (a) If an absolute calibration of the displacement
measuring equipment has been made then additional
material parameters may be calculated according to the
following procedures.
(b) Young's modulus. If the initial tangent slope is
known in absolute terms then the Young's modulus in
(25)
bending of the specimen material. E, may be calculated:'~
The following equation shall be used:
E = 84.5SiniUal ,~.g~.,/D. (31)
With s,,i,i,I t~,g~,, given in kN/mm and D in mm the
resulting Young's modulus value will be in GPa which
(26)
is the recommended unit.
(c) The following correction factor shall then be
calculated:
CE = [1 + 2.9Aao/D + 2.5(t/D - 0.012)]. (32)
If0.98 < CE < 1.02 then equation (31) is valid, otherwise
the Young's modulus shall be calculated from
(27) E = CE84.5Sinitia I ~.~.~/D. (33)
(d) Then if the Poisson's ratio of the specimen
material, v, is also known, it is possible to convert the
fracture toughness value in stress intensity terms,
MPax/(m), to crack extension resistance in terms of
energy release rate
= v-)(KsR)-/E. (34)
The recommended unit G cSR is Jim". The v-value is not
essential. Since v is less than 0.3 for most competent
(28) rock, it may either be guessed with sufficient accuracy or
assumed to be zero if this is stated clearly:'-
(e) Finally, if the load vs C M O D recording is followed
through until the specimen has virtually no residual
strength, then the total work of fracture W~R, which is
required to separate the notched specimen into two
halves ~ may be calculated as
W~R = F d(CMOD). (35)
Relating W~R to the ligament area of the notched
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS 91

specimen, :3 ,4, one then obtains the specific work of method are considered conservative for design analysis,
fracture: provided that the defects analyzed are much smaller than
all other structural dimensions and are much larger than
/~SR = ~I'~R .4. (36) the characteristic microstructure of the material. If this
The dimension of KsR is J m: and its value should is not the case. then such values should only be used to
correlate closely with that of G~-R.> assess the relative fracture resistance of the different
materials.
VALIDITY REPORTING OF RESULTS
Specimen size and type 18. All reports of results should contain the following
16. (a) Plane-strain fracture toughness measurements information:
on metallic materials require that tests be completed and
the results analyzed before it can be ascertained whether General &m~
or not the result is valid. :5'-'6The present method for rock 19. Details of testing equipment and procedures em-
partly avoids this issue by recommending a correction ployed. Reference may be made to the present method,
for nonlinear material behaviour that is based on dis- describing the departures from recommended pro-
placement measurements. Present experience indicates cedures and the reasons for these.
that corrected fracture toughness values may be reason-
ably independent of the specimen size [42,44], but Test sample data
that uncorrected values tend to decrease significantly 20. For each test sample as a whole the information
with decreasing specimen size. Cores with a diameter should include the following:
well above 50 mm tire probably required to avoid this (a) The sample number, source location and rock type,
limitation. and the nature and in situ orientation of any planes of
(b) Since no distinct validity criterion relating to anisotropy and weakness.
specimen size is given, therc is no guarantee that (b) Core axis with respect to & situ geology and
a fracture toughness wdue determined according to structures, in case of subsamples, the direction of load-
the present method accurately represents a material ing.
property. (c) Storage history and environment, water content
(c) However, one indication that the level II calculated and degree of saturation at the time of testing.
fracture toughness~ value K'~s~may, be a valid represent- (d) A tabulation of specimen data related to the
ation of a material property is ifp ,G<0.05 (see 14). In this fracture toughness determination, including auxiliary
case the level I value h[sa (see 13) is less than 5% lower parameters (see 21).
than K ~ and level I testing gives an accurate estimate. (e) For each sub-sample a summary tabulation of
(d) A stronger indication that K~a is a valid represent- mean fracture toughness values + standard deviation. :7
ation of a material property may be obtained by testing (f) Index properties obtained by other types of testing
specimens of at least two different sizes. The largest and physical data such as specific gravity, grain size,
specimen size should yield p 4 0.05 and the span of porosity, and permeability citing the method of deter-
diameter ratios should exceed 2. The desired indication mination for each.
is then obtained if K~:~ shows no dependence on
specimen size. Specimen data
(e) Present experience shows that nonlinearity cor- 21. For each specimen in the sample the information
rected short rod fracture toughness values for rock agree should contain the following:
well with toughness values obtained from other speci- (a) Specimen dimensions D, w, a0, and a~ or 0.
men geometries where the stress state in the ligament (b) Level of testing and the appropriate loading rate,
ahead of the crack is predominantly one of bending i.e. F o r time to failure for level I and CMOD for level
[45-47]. Even if the fracture toughness values from this II.
type of specimen were independent of size, they would (c) Maximum load Fm,~ and for level II the load at the
not necessarily agree with values from specimen types evaluation point, Fc, when applicable.
where the ligament is predominantly in tension. (d) Fracture toughness values expressed to three
significant figures, i.e. KsR for level I and both KsR and
Use of fracture toughness calues K.~R for level II including p to two significant figures.
17. (a) Concerning their intended use, nonlinearity (e) Auxiliary parameters. (E, v, ~ or modulus of
corrected fracture toughness values obtained using this rupture, G ~ , and K'sR).

Notes

I. Such testing machines are normally referred to as beyond maximum load and the following post peak
stiff or servo-controlted. When the test is performed behavior, which is part of the level II test, cannot be
under load control it will become unstable slightly recorded.
RMMS 252 ("
92 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
2. This type of fixture has its origin in the ASTM
Standard Test Method for "Plane-strain Fracture
Toughness of Metallic Materials" [61].
3. The fracture toughness is a parameter directly
related to the rate of energy release at the onset of and
during crack propagation, and hence to the work per-
formed on the specimen by the external load.
Since the definition of work done involves the load
point or load line displacement, not the CMOD,
the LPD is the preferred measured displacement in
Method I. However, for the short rod specimen used in
Method 2, the CMOD very nearly coincides with the
load line or grip displacement. Note that even if LPD is
the displacement used in level II measurements, the
displacement control signal in the testing machine may
still be either CMOD or piston stroke.
4. This arrangement has proven to give accurate
values of the initial tangent Young's modulus compared
with strain gauge results [48].
5. Since the LVDT arrangement makes use of two
transducers then ordinarily separate amplifying equip-
ment is needed.
6. The clip gauge is often the standard sensor in the
strain control feedback loop of the servo-hydraulic
testing machine and thus readily available. It may
however not be sensitive enough for the relatively small
displacements encountered in the fracture toughness
testing of hard rock. In this case an alternative LVDT
arrangement should be used.
7. The design is based on a knife edge spacing of
10mm which should not be exceeded. The effective
gauge length is somewhat longer than the knife edge
spacing depending on the method of fastening the knife
edges.
8. The recommended method is the ISRM "Suggested
Method for Determination of Water Content of Rock
Sample" (ISRM Commission on Testing Methods, 1981,
p. 83).
In order to prevent the required drying of the speci-
men from influencing the fracture toughness test, the
moisture measurement could either be performed before
the test on a specimen of identical moisture content, such
as a cut-offend, or after the test on a remaining specimen
half.
9. The recommended methods are those given in the
"Suggested Method for Petrographic Description of
Rocks" and the "Suggested Method for Porosity/
Density Determination Using Saturation and Buoyancy
Techniques" (ISRM Commission on Testing Methods,
1981, pp. 73 and 84).
10. Sometimes the core material may be anisotropic
even if there is little visual indication. The following
Herzian contact imprint procedure has been suggested
[49] as a method of determining the principal directions
of anisotropy in such a case:
(a) Take two adjacent pieces from one core and on
each mark out and number a set of symmetrically spaced
points around the circumference, both sets of points
being identical with respect to the original reference
marking.
(b) Fasten the core pieces in identical metal fixtures
with milled recesses and mount the assemblies in a
testing machine, making sure that the core axes are
perpendicular to each other and that identically num-
bered points face each other.
(c) Place copying paper with (or without) thin white
backing paper between the cores and press the cores
together. Choose a maximum force which is large
enough to give a sizeable contact imprint on the paper,
yet sufficiently low to avoid crushing of the rock, in the
interval 0.5-1.0 kN say.
(d) Repeat this process for each set of points, always
using the same maximum force.
(e) From a comparison of imprint diameters, the
principal directions of anisotropy which correspond to
the directions of maximum and minimum material com-
pliance and hence imprint size may be determined.
The diameter of a symmetrical imprint could, in
principle, be used to determine the modulus of elasticity
from Herzian contact formulas.
11. The recommended method is the ISRM "Sug-
gested Method for Determining Tensile Strength of
Rock Materials" (ISRM Commission on Testing Meth-
ods, 1981, p. 119). As an alternative the modulus of
rupture of an unnotched bend specimen which is tested
according to Method 1 may, when halved, be used as a
rough estimate of the tensile strength.
12. Both 0 and a0 may be easier to measure after
testing when the ligament surfaces on each of the
specimen halves are available. The angle fixture makes
it easy to cut 0 to within + 15 of 90 °. The a0 tolerance
is wide and hence easy to comply with, but an exact
measurement may be difficult to make. To measure the
depth of cut (Fig. 3), h, on both notch flanks and to
convert h through
ao = 1.414h - 0.207D
probably gives a more accurate result.
13. A gap filling cyanoacrylate adhesive is sufficient in
many cases. Epoxies may also be used but they can cause
allergic reactions if handled without adequate protec-
tion, such as using a hand lotion and gloves.
A thick adhesive joint increases the CMOD value
measured by the clip gauge considerably. This may have
several unwanted effects, including first that a nonlinear
term may be added to the CMOD value; second, tha t the
actual displacement rate may become lower than the
prescribed value; and third, that the calculated value of
the Young's modulus (Method 2) may become too low,
etc.
14. Unloading is defined as an instantaneous reversal
of the displacement rate controlled by the testing ma-
chine. Since substantial subcritical crack growth can
occur at loads near the unloading point, keeping the
displacement constant for even a short time will invari-
ably cause unnecessary crack growth in the specimen
[501.
15. The point at which fracture toughness is to be
evaluated is that at which the stress intensity factor as
a function of crack length has a minimum.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
For the chevron bend specimen of Method 1 with
a0 = 0.15D this occurs approximately at 0.15D from the
tip of the chevron V, at which point the stiffness of the
specimen is 78-95% (equation 6) of its original value
[51]. For the short rod specimen of Method 2 it occurs
approximately at 0.34D from the chevron tip, at which
point the stiffness is about half of its original value.
Under ideal circumstances, i.e. a linearly elastic and
brittle material with constant fracture toughness, the
evaluation point coincides with maximum load and the
stiffness is given by the slope of a secant through the
origin. Under non-ideal circumstances it may occur
before or after maximum load, in the case of small
specimens of soft rocks substantially before.
In the latter case two, three or even more unloading
cycles should be made before maximum load. Then the
requirement of 11 f (Method 1) and 10f (Method 2) may
be relaxed. In any case a series of unloading-reloading
cycles which span the evaluation point should give a
more accurate fracture toughness value than a series
which does not (see also Note 17).
16. The prefactor 0.006 in equation (I) has the dimen-
sions m/see since it contains the minimum required crack
speed 0.001 m/sec as a factor. If it is more convenient to
express LtSD or CMOD in mm/sec, for example, then the
prefactor 6.0 should be used instead. The corresponding
prefactor values for Method 2 are 0.017 and 17.0 [52].
In theory one cannot make sure that the requirement
of equation (1) is met until after the test has been
evaluated. In practice, Ken or KsR and E are easily
guessed with enough margin so as to meet it. Changing
LISD or CMOD by a factor of ten will normally cause
a change of only 2-10% in measured fracture toughness
values [2].
17. If the final linearized unloading lines do not span
the evaluation point, further testing of specimens from
the same sub-sample should be accompanied by more
unloading-reloading cycles so that the final lines do span
the evaluation point.
The evaluation point can still be obtained. Should it
lie before the final lines, then the initial tangent line and
the first final line shall be chosen as the two lines which
span it and the calculations proceed accordingly. In this
case F e in equation (11) (Method 1) or in equation (29)
(Method 2) will be an interpolation between F~ and F2
(Fig. 9c).
Should the evaluation point lie after the final lines,
then the last two final lines shall be chosen and the
calculations proceed. In this case F, will be an extrapo-
lation from FI through F 2 and below (Fig. 9c).
18. This method of taking nonlinear fracture behav-
iour into account was introduced by Barker [53-55].
Since p is dimensionless, this nonlinearity correction
only requires the displacement measurement equipment
to be linear, not calibrated absolutely.
19. If there is a large variation in p between the
specimens in a test sample this may effect the accuracy
of the calculated level II fracture toughness value ad-
versely. The cause may lie in an insufficiently accurate
determination of xo. This should show up as large
93
variations in the p-values for the unloading-reloading
cycles of a specimen and may be corrected in part by
forming an average p-value over two or three such
cycles. For future tests the recorder settings should be
changed.
A negative value of p may arise if there are macro-
scopic residual stresses of sufficient magnitude present.
Microscopic residual stresses, which are present on the
grain level in rock, are not expected to have this effect
unless the grain size is of the same order as the crack
length in the specimen. In any event, the non-linearity
correction procedure also accounts for any residual
stress effects present [56].
20. The p-factor is closely approximated by (I + p) if
p < 0.2, by about 2%, This is also the range of validity
of equation (10) (Method 1) and equation (28) (Method
2) for metallic materials. In rock testing however one will
frequently encounter values of p > 0.2.
21. Since the specimen is designed to initiate crack
propagation at relatively low loads, the load vs LPD
(Method I) or CMOD (Method 2) record will normally
be quite nonlinear. An initial slope reading of such a
record will therefore tend to underestimate E. The
relatively soft adhesive interfaces between specimen and
_knife edges will also tend to reduce the measured value
of E in Method 2.
In order to increase the accuracy of the E deter-
mination it is recommended that several separate load-
ing unloading cycles with higher resolution in the X-Y
recording be made before the fracture testing starts. The
load during these initial cycles should not exceed 20% of
the maximum load recorded during the fracture testing.
22. Both the equation for E and this conversion
equation assume the material to be isotropic. The error
in the conversion factor may be substantially larger than
the effect of ignoring v if the degree of anisotropy is
strong [48].
23. The (projected) ligament area of the chevron bend
specimen (Method 1, equation 17) is given by
A = 0.25 [arcsin/3 +/3(1 - 2Clo/D)]D:
where
,8 = 0.511 - 2ao/D + ,/(I + 4ao/D - 4(ao/D)")].
The ligament area of the short rod specimen (Method 2,
equation 36) is approximately given by
A = 0.5(w - ao)D.
The accuracy of this expression should be sufficient for
specimens within the specified tolerance limits.
24. RILEM has prepared a draft recommendation for
the "Determination of Fracture Energy of Mortar and
Concrete by Means of Three-point Bend Tests on
Notched Beams" [57]. They denote this quantity by Gv
and it is measured exactly as /~.
Gv essentially represents the same material property as
the fracture toughness. If the latter is converted to
energy rate resistance the two should be compatible.
They do however have somewhat different justifications,
fracture toughness being related to a sharp crack tip and
94 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS

the fracture energy to a cohesive line zone of finite length Such an apparatus is very simple and cheap, compared
[58]. with a servo-hydraulic testing machine. This method of
RILEM finds that the influence of the specimen size applying load is however patented by Terra Tek Systems
on the measured GF values for concrete seems to be of Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. Terra Tek sells flat-jack
acceptable, finding an average 20% increase when the equipment for making fracture toughness tests under the
size is doubled and 30% when it is tripled [59], See also name "Fractometer" (which is a registered trade mark).
Wittman [60]. Related measurements on rock are rather At present the flat-jack loading has several minor
more inconclusive [2]. disadvantages compared with the method of loading
25. Such validity criteria apply to the size of the used in this Suggested Method. Firstly much less cali-
specimen, the crack length, crack geometry and sharp- bration work has been done on it. Thus no correction
ness, and test record appearance. See ASTM standard formulae are available and specimen tolerances are,
E399 for "Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic therefore, more critical. Secondly the flat-jack pen-
Materials K[¢" [61]. etration depth into the notch has to be in constant
The most important criteria state that the crack length proportion to specimen size, otherwise the calibration
and the specimen thickness must exceed 2.5(KJay,) 2, changes. A careful adjustment of this depth is thus
where ays is the 0.2% offset yield strength of the material. necessary, especially if specimens of different size are to
Tests on rock show that thickness is relatively unim- be tested. Thirdly K1-matching has been used to calibrate
portant but that a crack length criterion based on tensile it and such matching must be used with caution [64].
strength is relevant [2]. Thus the accuracy of the calibration factor will not be
26. At present there are not sufficient data from as good as the +0.25 for the factor 24.0+0.25 in
chevron bend testing of rocks to establish a validity paragraph 13 of Method 2. Lastly, even if the level I
criterion for minimum specimen size for Method I, not fracture toughness formula is known, the basis for level
even in qualitative terms. II testing is not as complete.
Relating to Method 2, recent short rod testing of The patent aspects do not prevent the flat-jack loading
metallic materials shows that the crack length corrected of the short rod specimen from being included in
short rod toughness KSR will approach K~, as specimen Method 2 when better calibration data exist.
size is increased and that an acceptable minimum size is 29. This linkage system is also applicable to the
D >1 1.25(K, J a , s ) 2 [621. determination of the direct tensile strength of rock, see
Specimens that were smaller gave KSR values that were Note 11.
at least as small as valid-specimen toughness values and 30. The recommended method is that of Haas [65].
nonlinearity corrected toughness values, K ¢SR, were at 31. Both 0, a0, and a a may be easier to measure after
least as large as valid specimen toughness values. Thus testing when the ligament surfaces of the specimen
K~R was not necessarily independent of specimen size, halves are available. The preparation fixture makes it
but it appeared to be so for much smaller specimens of easy to cut 0 to within + 1° of 54.6 °.
some materials. The measurement of 0 may, if a~ ~< w, be based on the
The size limit above corresponds to a degree of formula:
nonlinearity, p, of about 0.05 which gives a K~R value 0 = 2 a t a n [ O . 5 D / ( a ~ - a0)].
that is about 5% higher than KSR and an uncertainty in On the other hand, if the notches have been cut into the
valid specimen toughness of less than + 2.5%. A smaller back face of the specimen so that a~ > w (Fig. 10), then
p-value indicates a valid test, but even if the test is
0 = 2 atan[0.5Dt/(w - a0)],
technically invalid, KsR and K~Ft place lower and upper
bounds on the fracture toughness. where Dj < D is the distance from notch root to notch
At present there are not sufficient data from short rod root measured across the diameter of the back face. In
testing of rocks either to establish a validity criterion for this case at = w + ( D - D ~ ) t a n ( O / 2 ) .
the minimum specimen size for Method 2. 32. The relative slenderness of the cantilever arms of
27. If the mean values are to be used when classifying the short rod specimen may induce tensile bending
small samples with regard to their fracture toughness, stresses of sufficient magnitude to cause crack branching
the extreme specimen values should not be included and transverse failure of the arms before the evaluation
(ISRM Commission on Testing Methods [63], Para- of fracture toughness (KsR)can be made. A simple beam
graph 14). estimate [52], shows that the specimen diameter should
28. A flat-jack apparatus has been used as the stiff be chosen
testing machine to conduct level II testing successfully D > 1.15(KsR/O'0~',
[46]. The flat-jack is a mercury filled bladder of thin
metal which is inserted into the crack mouth and if the crack is to stay in the chevron plane until the
subjects the crack faces to pressure loading when it desired evaluation point is reached. The presence of
expands. The pressure may be supplied either by hand- unfavorably oriented weakness planes increases the risk
pump or by a motor driven screw-pump. of premature tensile failure of the short rod arms.
 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
References
I, Bieniawski Z. T. Rock materials under mixed mode fracture. In
Mixed Mode Fracture Propagation (Edited by Sih G. C.
and Theocaris P. S.), pp. 333-347. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, The
Netherlands (1981).
2. Ouchterlony F. Review of fracture toughness testing of rock.
S M Archs 7, 131-211 (1982).
3. Rossmanith H. P. (Editor) Rock Fracture Mechanics, CISM
Courses and Lectures No. 275. Springer, Vienna (1983).
4. lngraffea A. R. Fracture Propagation in Rock. In Mechanics of
Geomaterials; Rocks. Concretes, Soils (Edited by Bazant Z. P.),
pp. 219-258. Wiley, Chichester (1985).
5. Kanninen M. F. and Popelar C. H. Advanced Fracture Mechanics,
Oxford Engineering Science Series, Vol. 15. Oxford University
Press, New York (1985).
6. Wittman F. H. (Editor) Fracture Mechanics of Concrete, Develop-
ments in Civil Engineering, Vol. 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1983).
7. Shah S. P. (Editor) Application of Fracture Mechanics to
Cementitious Composites, NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences,
Vol. 94. Nijhoff, Dordrecht (1985).
8. Griffith A. A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Proc.
Trans. R. Soc. A221, 163-198 (1921).
9. Grimth A. A. The theory of rupture. Proc. Ist Int. Congr. Applied
Mechanics, Delft, pp. 55-63. (1924).
10. Lawn B. R. and Wilshaw T. R. Fracture of Brittle SoIMs,
Cambridge Solid State Science Series. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1975).
1I. Irwin G. R. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack
traversing a plate. J. appl. Mech. 24, 361-364 (1957).
I2. Gunsallus K. L. and Kulhawy F. H. A comparative evaluation of
rock strength measures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. 21, 233-248 (1984).
13. Lindqvist P.-A. Rock fragmentation by indentation and disc
cutting. Doctoral Thesis 1982: 20D, Lulefi Univ. Techn., LuleS,
Sweden (1982).
14. Nelson P. P, and Fong F. L. C. Characterization of rock for
boreability using fracture material properties. Proc. 27th U.S.
Syrup. Rock Mechanics, pp. 846-852. SME, Littleton, CO (1986).
15. Rustan R. A., Vutukuri V. S. and Naarttij/irvi T. The influence
from specitic charge, geometric scale and physical properties of
homogeneous rock on fragmentation. Proc. Ist Int. Syrup. Rock
Fragmentation by Blasting, Vol. 1, pp. 115-142. Lulefi Univ.
Techn., LuleA (1983).
16. Saouma V. E. and Kleinosky M. J. Finite element simulation of
rock cutting: a fracture mechanics approach. Proc. 25th U.S.
Syrup. Rock Mechanics, pp. 792-799. AIME, New York, NY
(1984).
17. Rummel F. and Winter R. B. Application of laboratory fracture
mechanics data to hydraulic fracturing field tests. Proc. 1st
Japan-U,S.A. Seminar on Geothermal Energy and ttydraulic
Fracturing, pp. 31-39 (1982).
18. Roegiers J. C., McLennan J. D. and Schultz L. D. ln-situ stress
determinations in northeastern Ohio. Proc. 23rd U.S. Syrup. Rock
Mechanics, pp. 219-229. AIME, New York, NY (1982).
19. Takahashi H. In ftydraulic fracturing and geothermal energy
(Edited by Nemat-Nasser S. et aLL pp. 291-305. Nijhoff, Amster-
dam (1983).
20. Nilson R. H,, Proffer W. J. and Duff R. E. Modelling of gas-driven
fractures induced by propellant combustion within a borehole.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 22, 3-19 (1985).
21. Nilson R. H. and Griffiths S. K. Similarity analysis of energy
transport in gas-driven fractures. Int. J. Fracture. 30, 115-134
(1986).
22. Travis B. J. and Davis A. H. Calculation of gas-driven fracture
propagation in rocks. Proc. 21st U.S. Syrup. Rock Mechanics,
pp. 356-361. University of Missouri, Rolla, MO (1980).
23. McHugh S. and Keough D. Use of laboratory-derived data to
predict fracture and permeability enhancement in explosive-pulse
tailored field tests. Proc. 23rd U.S. Syrup. Rock Mechanics,
pp. 504-514 AIME, New York, NY (1982).
24. Warpinski N. R., Schmidt R. A., Cooper P. N., Walling H. C. and
Northrop D. A. High energy gas frac: multiple fracturing in a
wellbore. Proc. 20th U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, pp. 143-152.
University of Texas, Austin, TX (198[).
25. Grady D. The mechanics of fracture under high-rate stress load-
ing. In Mechanics of Geomaterials; Rocks, Concretes, Soils (Edited
by Bazant Z. P.I. pp. [29 156). Wiley, Chichester (1985).
26. Adams T. F., Demuth R. B., Keller C. F., Margolin L. G. and
95
Nicholas B. D. Simulation of dynamic rock breakage with the
shale code. In Fragmentation by Blasting (Edited by Fourney
W. L. et al.), 1st edn., pp. 147-157. SEM, Littleton, CT
(1985).
27. Ingraffea A. R. The strength ratio effect in the fracture of rock
structures. Proc. 20th U.S. Syrup. Rock Mechanics, pp. 153-159.
University of Texas, Austin, TX (1979),
28. Kemeny J. and Cook N. G. W. Formation and stability of steeply
dipping joint sets. Proc. 26th U.S. Syrup. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 1,
pp. 471-478. Balkema, Rotterdam (1985).
29. Pollard D. D., Segall P. and Delaney P. T. Formation and
interpretation of dilatant echelon cracks. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 93,
1291-1303 (1982).
30. "l'harp T. M. Mechanics of failure for rock masses subjected to
long term tensile loading--analysis of large naturally occurring
cantilevers. Proc. 24th U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, pp. 309-318.
Texas A&M University, College Station (1983).
31. Ab~ H. and Takahashi H. Crustal rock fracture mechanics for
design and control of artificial subsurface cracks in geothermal
energy extraction engineering (/'-project). Proc. 9th Workshop
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Report SGP-TR-74, Stanford
University, CA (1984).
32. Takahashi H., Shoji T. and Ab6 H. Recent progress and future of
F-project at Tohoku University, Japan. E.E.C./U.S. Workshop on
Hot Dr),' Rock, Brussels (1986).
33. Barton C. C. Variables in fracture energy and toughness testing of
Rock. Proc. 23rd U.S. Symp. Rock Mechanics, pp. 449-462.
AIME, New York, NY (1982).
34. Karfakis M. G., Chong K. P. and Kuruppu M. D, A critical review
of fracture toughness testing of rock. 27th U.S. Syrup. Rock
Mechanics, Chapter l, pp. 3-10. SME, Littleton, CO (1986).
35. Ouchterlony F. A new core specimen for the fracture toughness
testing of rock. SveDeFo Report DS 1980:17. Swedish Detonic
Research Foundation, Stockholm (1980).
36. Barkor L. M. A simplified method for measuring plane strain
fracture toughness. Engng Fract, Mech. 9, 361-369 (1977).
37. Peck L. Stress corrosion and crack propagation in Sioux quartzite.
J. Geophys. Res. B88, 5037-5046 (1983).
38. Peck L., Nolen-Hoeksma R. C., Barton C. C. and Gordon R. B.
Measurement of the resistance of imperfectly elastic rock to the
propagation of tensile cracks. J. Geophys. Res. B90, 7827-7836,
(1985).
39. Peck L., Barton C. C. and Gordon R. B. Microstructure and the
resistance of rock to tensile fracture. J. Geophys. Res. B90,
11533-11546 (1985).
40. Labuz J. F., Shah S. P. and Dowding C. H. Experimental analysis
of crack propagation in granite. Int. J. Rock Mechs. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 22, 85-98 (1985).
41. Labuz J. F., Shah S. P. and Dowding C, H. The fracture process
zone in granite: evidence and effect. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
& Geornech. Abstr. 24, 235-246 (1987).
42. Ouchterlony F. and Sun Z. New methods of measuring
fracture toughness on rock cores. Proc. 1st Int. Syrup. Rock
Fragmentation hy Blasting, Vol. 1, pp. 199 223. Lulefi. Univ.
Techn., Lule~ (1983).
43. Ingraffea A. R., Gunsallus K. L., Beech J. F. and Nelson P. P. A
short-rod based system for fracture toughness testing of rock.
Chevron-notched specimens: testing and stress analysis, ASTM STP
855, pp. 152-166. Philadelphia, PA (1984).
44. Yi X. Fracture toughness and crack growth in short rod specimens
of rock. Licentiate Thesis 1987:06L, Lule,~ Univ. Techn., Lulefi,
Sweden (1987).
45. Costin L. S. Static and dynamic fracture behaviour of oil shale.
Fracture mechanics for ceramics, rocks, and concrete, ASTM STP
745, pp. 581-590. Philadelphia, PA (1981).
46. Meredith P. G. A fracture mechanics study of experimentally
deformed crustal rocks. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of
London (1983).
47. Sun Z. and Ouchterlony F. Fracture toughness of round specimens
of stripa granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech, Abstr.
23, 399-409 (1986).
48. Ouchterlony F. Fracture toughness testing of rock. In Rock
Fracture Mechanics (Edited by Rossmanith H. P.). CISM Courses
and Lectures No. 275, pp. 69-150. Springer, Vienna (1983).
49. Bobrov G. F. Personal communication. The Mining Institute
of the Sibirian Branch of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.
Novosibirsk (1986).
96 ISRM: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SUGGESTED METHODS
50. Atkinson B. Subcritical crack growth in geological materials.
J. Geophys. Res. !189, 4077-4114 (1984).
51. Ouchterlony F. A core bend specimen with chevron notch
for fracture toughness measurements. 27th U.S. Syrup. Rock
Mechanics, Chapter 28, pp. 177-184. SME, Littleton, CO
(1986).
52. Ouchterlony F. Evaluation formulas for rock fracture toughness
testing with standard core specimens. Proc. 1986 SEM Spring
Conf. Session 6, pp. 115-124. SEM, Bethel, C'I" (1986).
53. Barker L. M. Kt, Measurements using short rod specimens---the
elastic plastic case. Terra Tek Report 77-91R. Salt Lake City, LIT
(1977).
54. Barker L. M. Theory for determining K~ from small non-LEFM
specimens, supported by experiments on aluminium. Int. J. Frac-
ture 15, 515-536 (1979).
55. Barker L. M. Data analysis methods for short rod and short bar
fracture toughness tests of metallic materials. Terra Tek Report
TR 80-12. Salt Lake City, UT (1980).
56. Barker U M. Residual stress effects on fracture toughness
measurements. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Fracture ICF 5, Vol. 5,
pp. 2563-2570. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1981).
57. RILEM Technical Committee TC-50 on Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete. Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and
concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams,
draft recommendation. Mater. Struct. 18, No. 106 (1985).
58. Hillerborg A. The theoretical basis of a method to determine the
fracture energy GF of concrete. Mater. Struct. 18, No. 106 (1985).
59. Hillerborg A. Results of three comparative test series for deter-
mining the fracture energy Gp of concrete. Mater. Struct. 18, No.
107 (1985).
60. Wittman F. H. (Editor) Fracture Toughness and Fracture Energy
of Concrete, Developments in Civil Engineering, Vol. 18. Elsevier,
Amsterdam (1986).
61. ASTM Standard Test Method For '+Plane-Strain Fracture Tough-
hess of Metallic Materials", Annual Book of Standards 03.0t.
pp. 522-557. ASTM, Philadelphia PA (1986).
62. Barker U M. Specimen size effects in short rod fracture toughness
measurements. Chet'ron-notched specimens: testing and stress
analysis, ASTM STP 855, pp. 117-133: Philadelphia, PA (1984)+
63. ISRM Commission on Testing Methods. Suggested method for
determining point load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 22, 51-60 (1985).
64. Newman J. C. Jr A review of chevron-notched fracture specimens.
Chevron-notched specimens: testing and stress analysis, ASTM STP
855, pp. 5-31. Philadelphia, PA (1984).
65. Haas C. J. Proposed new standard test method for dimensional
shape tolerance of rock core specimens. Geotech. Testing J. 6,
226-229 (1983).
66. Miiller W. and Rummel F. Bruchz~higkeitsmessungen an
Gesteinen. Bericht zu den BMFT-FE-Vorhaben 03E-3068-B. Ruhr
University, Bochum, F.R.G. (1984).
67. Takahashi H., Hashida T. and Fukazawa T. Fracture toughness
tests by use of core based specimens+ GEEE Research Report,
No. T-002-86. Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai,
Japan (1986),
68. Ouchterlony F. A presentation of the ISRM Suggested Methods
for determining fracture toughness of rock material. Proc. 6th
Int. Congr. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 2, pp. 1181-1186. Balkema.
Rotterdam (1987).
69. Ouchterlony F. Unreported data. Swedish Detonic Research
Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden (1987).
70. Abrahamsson S., Niklasson B. and Ouchterlony F. Fragmentation
monitoring of production blasts at Mrica. SveDeFo Report DS
1987: 6, Swedish Detonic Research Foundation, Stockholm
(1987).
71. Matsuki K., Nozuyama Y. and Takahashi H. Size effect in the
fracture toughness testing of rocks using a boring core. Proc+
Spring Meeting Min. Metall. Inst. Japan, pp. 193-194 (1987).