Brittle failure #1

(in compression)

What do we already know about

brittle failure?
Characteristic of
deformation in shallow crust
(upper 5-10 km)

Fracture occurs at a critical

stress level
Dependent on rock type and
environmental conditions.

/brittle

Studying the strength of rocks in the lab

Uniaxial deformation
experiments
test the uniaxial compressive or
tensile strength of rocks

Triaxial deformation experiments

test the strength of rocks subject to
an axial load plus a confining
pressure

Triaxial deformation apparatus

Can simulate depths

of around 10-15 km
In most cases, 2 = 3
unless a true triaxial
apparatus is used

(Paterson and Wong, 2005)

Macroscopic fracture during triaxial

compression
Fracture initiation requires a differential stress that exceeds the
strength of the rock.

Extension fracture
Relative
displacement occurs
normal to failure
surface
Typically oriented
normal to minimum
principal stress
Common only at low
confining pressure

Shear fracture
Relative displacement
occurs parallel to
failure surface
Typically oriented at
angle <45 to
maximum principal
stress
Dominant at moderate
to high confining
pressure

Coulomb failure criterion

Predicts the state of stress at which a
given rock under compression is at the
verge of failure (critically stressed)

s n tan
s = critical shear stress
n = critical normal stress
= angle of internal friction

Charles Augustin de
Coulomb (1736-1806)

Coulomb failure envelope (compressional regime)

s C n tan

or

s C n

C = cohesion / the critical shear stress along a surface across which n=0

Stresses at brittle failure

The magnitude of stress at brittle failure depends on a number of
factors...e.g. confining pressure, lithology (composition, grain
size, porosity) and anisotropy...
Rock type

Uniaxial compressive
strength

Strength at confining
pressure = 100 MPa

Igneous and high-grade metamorphic

100-200 MPa

500-800 MPa

Low-porosity sedimentary and low- to

medium-grade metamorphic (inc.
limestones and marbles)

50-100 MPa

200-300 MPa

High-porosity sedimentary and some

low-grade metamorphic

10-50 MPa

Low-porosity quartzites and dolomites

Up to 300 MPa

500-1000 MPa

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Increasing the confining pressure makes it necessary to increase

the differential stress in order to fracture a rock
Non-linear relationship
Range of
igneous
rocks

Granite

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, after Byerlee, 1967)

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, after Ohnaka, 1973)

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Mohr failure
envelope

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Uniaxial Compressive Test
Pc = 0 MPa
(De Paola et al., 2009)

Brittle failure:
Sudden stress drop
Localized deformation
Fracture

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Triaxial Compressive Test
Pc = 10 MPa
(De Paola et al., 2009)

Brittle failure:
Sudden stress drop
Localized deformation
Fracture

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Triaxial Compressive Test
Pc = 20 MPa
(De Paola et al., 2009)

Brittle/ductile:
Slight stress drop
Non-localized deformation
Cataclastic flow

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

Triaxial Compressive Test
Pc = 40 MPa
(De Paola et al., 2009)

Ductile deformation:
No stress drop
Distributed deformation
Cataclastic flow

Effect of confining pressure, Pc

(De Paola et al., 2009)

Effect of strain rate

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, and refs therein)

Only a small effect. Reasons are unclear; probably dependent on

deformation mechanisms during loading.

Effect of temperature
Granite

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, after Wong, 1982)

Weak temperature dependence; more marked decrease in strength

at higher T may reflect changes in deformation mechanism.

Effect of sample size

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, after Lockner, 1995)

Size dependence has commonly been related to a statistical distribution in the

severity of flaws.
E.g. Weibull (1939, 51, 52) predicted a fracture stress proportional to V-1/,
where V is the volume and is a constant.

Effect of grain size

Experimental study is difficult because other
microstructural and compositional differences
typically accompany difference in grain size.
General trend is that finer grain size = higher
fracture stress.
Rationalized in terms of Griffith theory by
identifying Griffith crack size with maximum grain
size.

Effect of anisotropy

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, and refs therein)

Whether a rock fails along a pre-existing fabric or fracture depends on the

orientation of the fracture relative to the stress field.
Minimum in strength occurs when the maximum principal compressive stress is
inclined at ~30-45 to the plane of foliation.

Effect of intermediate principal

stress

(Paterson and Wong, 2005, after Haimson and Chang, 2000)

Alternative failure criteria

Mohr-Coulomb
Hoek-Brown
Modified Wiebels-Cook
Modified Lade
Drucker-Prager

Only consider the minimum and

maximum principal stresses

Consider all three principal

stresses

Estimating rock strength from

geophysical logs
Core samples are often unavailable for testing in the lab
necessary to try and estimate the strength of rocks in situ.
Numerous relations have been proposed that relate rock
strength to:
P-wave velocity or travel time
Youngs modulus
Porosity/density data

Estimating rock strength from

geophysical logs
Core samples are often unavailable for testing in the lab
necessary to try and estimate the strength of rocks in situ.

Estimating rock strength from

geophysical logs

Summary
Performing laboratory experiments under a range
of controlled conditions enables us to study the
factors that control rock strength (and thus rock
failure) within the Earths crust.
A number of criteria have been proposed to predict
the strength of crustal rocks under known
conditions. The most commonly used criterion for
rocks in compression is the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion.
A number of relations also exist for estimating rock
strength from geophysical log data.

Additional reading
Paterson and Wong (2005). Experimental Rock Deformation :
The Brittle Field (2nd Edition).
Murrell, S. A. F., 1965, The Effect of Triaxial Stress Systems on
the Strength of Rocks at Atmospheric Temperatures:
Geophysical Journal International, v. 10, no. 3, p. 231-281.
De Paola, N., Faulkner, D. R. & Collettini, C. (2009). Brittle
versus ductile deformation as the main control on the
transport properties of low-porosity anhydrite rocks. Journal
of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth) 114: B06211.
Chang, C., Zoback, M. D., and Khaksar, A., 2006, Empirical
relations between rock strength and physical properties in
sedimentary rocks: Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, v. 51, no. 3, p. 223-237.