Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116

Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics

Study of Cracking Process in Granite

V. Kallimogiannis, H. Saroglou*, G. Tsiambaos
Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, 15780, Greece

Abstract

Behavior of intact brittle rocks during loading is characterized by a micro-cracking process, which occurs due the presence of
flaws in their microscopic structure, propagating through the intact rock leading to shear fracture. This fracturing process is of
fundamental importance as it affects the mechanical properties of the rock. The purpose of the present study is to investigate
the fracture mechanism and specifically detect the crack initiation and crack damage stresses in a granite rock. For this purpose,
stress-strain data were recorded and the acoustic emission method was used in uniaxial compression tests. The results from both
methods correlate well and show that the crack initiation and crack damage thresholds are about 46% and 78% of the uniaxial
compressive strength of the intact rock respectively, slightly higher than the results reported in literature from previous studies in
granite.
2017
2017The TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
Keywords: crack initiation; damage; acoustic emission; granite; micro-cracking

1. Main text

The micro-cracking process of granites during loading is well documented in literature, e.g. Lac du Bonnet
granite [1, 2]. In the present study, granite from Attica region in Greece was tested in the laboratory in order to study
its crack initiation and crack damage process. Usually, crack initiation and damage stresses are detected using the
stress-strain data, while acoustic emission has also been used for this purpose. Using the acoustic emission during
the uniaxial compression test, it was found that the crack initiation and damage thresholds can be correlated with
the wave events and characteristics recorded.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 7722440; fax: +30 210 7723428.
E-mail address: saroglou@central.ntua.gr

1877-7058 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.285
 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116 1109

In the present study, both approaches were used during uniaxial compression tests in order to determine the crack
initiation and crack damage stresses and study the cracking behavior of the tested granite.
The progressive deformation of intact rock is characterized by a fracturing process composed by the following
stages [3,4]:
x Crack closure
x Linear elastic deformation
x Crack initiation and stable crack growth
x Crack damage-Critical energy release and unstable crack growth
x Failure
Griffith [5, 6] suggests that crack initiation occurs at the tips of microscopic pre-existing flaws of the intact rock
when tensile strength is exceeded. These flaws are represented as elliptical cracks. Griffith's theory led to
the development of a discipline known as Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM). Anderson [7], distinguishes
three types of crack loading, namely Mode I in pure tension, Mode II in pure shear and Mode III in out of plane
shearing. There is an extensive series of published papers on the fracture initiation and crack propagation under
compressive stresses. All attempted to overcome the mathematical difficulties to express the stress field along
the crack flanks under compressive stresses, as compression closes the gap between them resulting in contact of
them, not satisfying the boundary conditions of the Mode I loading of cracks developed by classical theory [8]. Zuo
et al. [9] examined further the conditions of micro-crack growth. Their results agreed with Griffith's model of wing
cracks in the tips of pre-existing micro-cracks in the rock [10]. Based on these results, they suggested a new failure
criterion in a biaxial compressive strength field.
According to Hoek & Martin [11], Griffiths theory is important for understanding brittle fracture process but its
practical value is limited due to fact that Griffith's crack is a deficient model of the crack network, which originates
and propagates through the intact rock [12]. In this aspect, Paterson & Wong [13] discussed the transition of
Griffith's criterion, applied for tensile confining stresses, to a modified criterion for compressive confining pressure.
The results of their study are very similar to those derived from the conventional Mohr-Coulomb equation.
The fracture mechanism is still not fully understood, thus more complex models have to be developed.
The determination of crack initiation and crack damage thresholds are essential in order to investigate further
the cracking process. According to Martin [14], these values are not dependent on loading conditions but on rock
properties. Moreover, a discrete element numerical approach by Martin & Nicksiar [15], suggests that the ratio of
crack initiation stress to peak strength is usually found to be constant (approximately 0.450.05) for a wide range of
low porosity rocks.
Crack initiation stress is detected at the point where the stress-strain curve departs from linearity [1], whereas
crack damage stress is picked at the point where the volumetric curve changes from contractive to dilatant behavior.
Eberhardt [2] has studied thoroughly the fracturing process of Lac du Bonnet granite and detected the micro-
cracking stages by using stress-strain data in uniaxial compression tests and with acoustic emission tests (AE).
Acoustic emission (AE) technique is also used to investigate the fracturing process of rocks. Scholz and Boyce et. al
[16, 17] correlated the number of AE events with the stress applied. Eberhardt et. al [18] suggested that AE should
be used qualitatively when identifying crack initiation and crack damage thresholds. AE response depends on
the rock type. The majority of AE events occur very close to the failure of rock, especially for brittle rocks.
Therefore, an absence of AE in the initial stages of loading is observed, making it hard to distinguish background
noise from fracture-related acoustic events. Moreover, the waveforms of the acoustic elastic waves are very complex
to analyze in order to identify the fracturing stages.
Cai et. al [19] quantified the crack initiation and crack damage thresholds using Acoustic Emission tests in
uniaxial compression. They studied a variety of brittle rocks and found that the crack initiation and crack damage
occur at stress levels of approximately 30-50% and 70-80% of the uniaxial compressive strength, respectively.
Zhang et. al [20] performed tests in granite and marble and showed that the spatial distribution of AE were very
concentrated in space, with the obvious formation of a nucleation region and so AE response was characterized by
a intermittent behavior. In the contrary, micro-cracks in rock salt, were produced in a continuous and uniform way
resulting in a rather continuous AE response. Furthermore, in rock salt, AE activity and energy release reach
the peak during the early stage of loading. According to Zhao et. al [21] some errors due to subjectivity can occur
1110 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116

when picking crack initiation and crack damage threshold either using stress-strain data or AE response and so
a new method using cumulative AE hits (CAEH) is proposed. However, the study suggests that multiple techniques
should be used to increase the reliability of determination. Nomikos & Sofianos [22] have used acoustic emission to
detect the cracking process of marbles in uniaxial compression tests.

2. Crack initiation and damage process

2.1. Testing procedure

The physical and mechanical properties of granite were determined with laboratory testing on intact rock
samples. Porosity and density were measured, while uniaxial compression and Brazilian tests were performed in
order to determine the uniaxial compressive strength, the elastic constants (E, ) and the tensile strength. The range
and mean values of the physical and mechanical properties of the tested granite are presented in Table 1.
The number of tested samples is also given.
The tests were performed according to ISRM procedures [23]. The uniaxial compression tests were carried out
using a soft servo-controlled loading frame with a capacity of 1.5 MN. The stress rate was kept constant equal to
0.5 kN/s and failure occurred within 8-10 min from the start of loading. The axial strain () during uniaxial
compression tests was either measured using an LVDT mounted at the mid-height of the specimen or a strain gauge.
The diametral strain (d) was measured using a circumferential extensometer. The samples were cylindrical with
an NX diameter (54 mm) and with a height to diameter ratio of 2.5.
The recording of the AE signals was performed using four (4) piezoelectric sensors, located at opposite sides on
the specimen surface at different heights. The acoustic emission was performed according to ISRM procedure [24].
Silicon gel was used to achieve bonding of the sensors to the rock surface. The sensors were mounted using rubber
tapes on the specimen. The bonding was checked before the test, using the PLB technique (pencil lead break).
The locations of the sensors on a rock specimen are shown in Figure 1a. The frequency of the AE sensors was in
the range of 200 kHz to 1 MHz. Figure 1b and 1c shows a granite specimen before and after failure in uniaxial
compression.
The specimens failed in shearing in the uniaxial compression tests, as presented in Figure 1c.

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of tested granite.

Dry density Porosity n Uniaxial compressive Modulus of Poisson Tensile strength Hoek Brown
(Mg/m3) (%) strength ucs (Pa) elasticity, E (GPa) ratio, t (MPa) parameter, mi
Mean 2.57 1.34 183.4 47.8 0.26 12.1 28
Range (no of 0.17-
2.51 2.59 0.73 1.56 156 207 41.3 53.6 8.9 16.9 -
samples) 0.34
No of samples 12 12 5 5 5 10 1 set

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. (a) Locations of AE sensors on specimen; (b) Granite specimen before and (c) after failure in uniaxial compression test.
 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116 1111

2.2. Determination using stress-strain data

As mentioned earlier, crack initiation stress follows an elastic linear region and thus, using the stress-strain data it
is feasible to detect the point that the curve departs from linearity. This point can be determined graphically from
the stress-strain curve, as presented in Figure 2. It can also be determined by examining the rate of change of the
tangent deformation modulus, Et, as shown in the same figure. The graphical method allows defining a stress zone,
in which the crack initiation threshold lies and by plotting the rate of change of the tangent modulus it is possible to
determine a specific value of the crack initiation stress. These data correspond to a specimen with uniaxial
compressive strength equal to 207 MPa.
The crack damage stress is determined using the stress-volumetric strain data. It is defined as the stress point,
where the volumetric behavior changes from contractive to dilatant, as presented in Figure 3.

Fig. 2. Typical stress-strain curve of tested granite and change of tangent deformation modulus. Crack initiation threshold is denoted.

Fig. 3. Determination of crack damage threshold using the stress-volumetric strain curve.
1112 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116

According to the stress-strain data analysis, the crack initiation and crack damage thresholds of the tested granite
are the following:

V ci 47% V UCS (1)

V cd 79 % V UCS (2)

2.3. Determination using Acoustic Emission (AE)

Acoustic Emission is the phenomenon of acoustic wave radiation that occurs when a material undergoes
irreversible changes in its internal structure. In rocks, AE derives from the fracturing procedure when the specimen
is loaded and the acoustic waves propagate through the specimen.
The waveforms characteristics (e.g. Amplitude, Average Frequency, RMS, Energy, Rise time, Duration) of
the acoustic emission tests are too complex to be correlated with the crack initiation and crack damage threshold.
Instead, the analysis focuses on the cumulative AE event count as a function of the applied stress.
Onhaka & Mogi [25] presented an initial correlation of acoustic emission events with applied stress. They
suggested that there is acoustic emission activity during crack closure, which is eliminated during the linear elastic
region but starts again in an increasing pace after crack initiation. Literature references about brittle rocks [2, 20, 26]
show that acoustic events commence at crack initiation threshold and the majority of them occur close to failure.
The crack damage threshold is detected as the point where the rate of acoustic events increases abruptly with
increasing applied stress.
In the tests performed, minor acoustic emission activity was observed in the initial stages of loading. Crack
initiation was chosen as the point where the event count starts to exceed the initial minor records. These values were
recorded in the stress-cumulative AE event count diagram. A plot of cumulative AE events count as a function of
applied stress in one of the tested granite samples is shown in Figure 4. The derivative of cumulative (integral) count
of AE events with increasing applied stress is shown in Figure 5. The derivative changes abruptly at approximately
78 MPa indicating higher AE activity related with the crack initiation procedure. Then, after a stable stage,
the derivative changes again at 130 MPa with increasing rate indicating the crack damage value.
The data of AE events presented in Figures 4 and 5 correspond to a different sample from the one on which
stress-strain data were determined and presented in Figure 2 and 3. The AE data correspond to a specimen with
uniaxial compressive strength equal to 169 MPa.
The acoustic emission activity up to 45% of the peak axial strength is very low. After this level, the first increase
of the AE activity is encountered, which denotes the initiation of the stable crack growth phase. The AE activity
increases steadily with increasing applied stress and the increase rate changes at the crack damage stress level.
The crack initiation and damage thresholds are presented in the cumulative AE events-stress plot.
 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116 1113

Fig. 4. AE response of tested granite showing crack initiation and crack damage threshold.

Fig. 5. Derivative of cumulative count of AE events showing crack initiation and crack damage threshold.
1114 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116

Comparing the acoustic emission results of the tested granite with Lac du Bonnet granite [2] it was concluded
that:
x The total AE event count is about half in comparison to the Lac du Bonnet granite.
x The majority of AE events occur closer to the failure of granite.

Table 2. Distribution of acoustic emission events of tested granite and Lac Du Bonnet granite.
Events recorded (%) Total events recorded
Percentage (%) of ucs
Tested granite Granite Lac du Bonnet [2] Tested granite Granite Lac du Bonnet [2]
0-50 2 3 5400 12000
50-75 3 12 - -
75-90 7 15 - -
90-100 88 70 - -

Therefore, the micro-cracking process of the tested rock is more restricted and mostly occurs very close to
the specimens' failure. Thus, the tested granite has a more brittle behavior than the Lac du Bonnet granite.
According to the results of acoustic emission tests, crack initiation and damage thresholds are determined as
follows:

V ci 46% V UCS (3)

V cd 77 % V UCS (4)

3. Comparison of cracking process with previous studies

The results from the two approaches used to determine the crack stresses are compatible. The thresholds have
been determined in terms of percentages of the uniaxial compressive strength of the respective specimens. It must be
highlighted that the absolute values of determined thresholds have not been compared and differ substantially for
both used approaches. Since a number of specimens have been testes, a standard deviation of the thresholds is
expected. The average results of crack initiation and crack damage stresses using both sources of data and
the correspondent thresholds of the tested granite and Lac du Bonnet granite are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Crack initiation and crack damage thresholds results of tested granite and Lac du Bonnet granite.

Tested granite Granite Lac du Bonnet (Eberhardt, 1998)

Crack initiation and crack damage
threshold (% of ucs)
Acoustic Emission Stress-strain Average Combination of stress-strain data and
(AE) curve data values acoustic emission results
ci 46 % 47 % 46.5 % 35 %
cd 77 % 79 % 78 % 74 %

In the tested rock, the crack initiation and crack damage occur in higher stress than in Lac du Bonnet granite.
This is due to fact that the granite of the present study shows a more brittle behavior. A study from Cai et al. [19] in
granite, shows that the average crack initiation and crack damage thresholds are 42% and 78% of the uniaxial
compressive strength, respectively. Laboratory tests in granite by Qiao et al. [27] show that the crack initiation and
crack damage stresses correspond to 39% and 75% of uniaxial compressive strength, respectively.
Consequently, the results of the present study agree well with the results reported in literature for granites.
 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116 1115

4. Conclusions

The purpose of the present study was to use different approaches in order to determine the crack initiation and
crack damage thresholds in granite. The experimental procedure consisted of two sources of data, namely by
determining the complete stress strain curve in uniaxial compression and by using acoustic emission in a certain
number of specimens. In both approaches, certain subjectivity exists in the determination of the crack stresses.
Therefore, a graphical analysis was initially used and an analytical data processing for every test was performed at
a second stage.
Acoustic emission (AE) test results in uniaxial compression proved that the total count of the events was
approximately half to the corresponding AE events of Lac du Bonnet [2] granite. Moreover, the majority of those
events were concentrated very close to the failure of the intact rock, which proves that the tested granite exhibits
a highly brittle behavior. Brittle rocks are characterized by a larger linear elastic region. In this region, AE events do
not occur (or little AE activity is observed) and therefore the total amount of AE events during the total duration of
the experiment is reduced.
The results from both approaches show good agreement. The average crack initiation and crack damage stresses,
in terms of percentages of the uniaxial compressive strength, are equal to 46 % and 78%. These percentages of
stresses are slightly higher than the results of previous studies of crack process in granite [2, 14].
According to this, a higher stress is required for the crack initiation and crack damage to occur in the tested rock.
A possible reason may be the orientation of the pre-existing cracks, as there is an optimum angle relative to
the loading axis which favors crack propagation. Another aspect, which should be examined, is the mineralogical
composition of the tested rock as the resistance to the crack initiation and propagation procedure is primarily
controlled by the tensile strength of the rock's component grains. Further research in the crack process,
the propagation and the geometry of the micro-fractures is carried out in order to define the possible effects of
mineralogy on cracking behaviour.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank P. Nomikos for his assistance in conducting the acoustic emission tests in
the Tunneling laboratory of the School of Mining & Metallurgy, NTUA.

References

[1] W.R. Wawersik, C. Fairhurst, A study of brittle rock fracture in laboratory compression experiments, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 7 (1970)
561575.
[2] E. Eberhardt, Brittle rock fracture and progressive damage in uniaxial compression, Ph. D. Thesis, College of Studies and Research,
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 1998.
[3] W.F. Brace, Brittle fracture of rocks, in: State of stress in the Earths Crust: Proc. of the International Conference, Santa Monica, W. R. Judd
(eds), American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, 1964, pp.111174.
[4] Z.T. Bieniawksi, Mechanism of brittle rock fracture: Part I - Theory of the fracture progress, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.
4(4) (1967) 407423.
[5] A.A. Griffith, The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Phil. Trans. R. Soc., Ser. A, 221, 1920, 163198.
[6] A.A. Griffith, The theory of rupture, in: Proceedings of the First International Congress for Applied Mechanics, Delft. C.B. Biezeno and J.M.
Burgers, J.Waltman Jr. (eds), Delft, 1924, pp. 55-63.
[7] T.L. Anderson, Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 2005.
[8] N.I.Muskhelishvili, Some Basic Problems in the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Noordhof Int. Publ. Leyden, 1975.
[9] J.P. Zuo, H.T. Li, H.P. Xie, Y. Ju, S.P. Peng, A nonlinear strength criterion for rock-like materials based on fracture mechanics, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. (4) (2008) 594599.
[10] M.L. Kachanov, A microcrack model of rock inelasticity, Part II: propagation of microcracks, Mech Mater 1 (1982) 2941.
[11] E. Hoek, C.D. Martin, Fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock: A review. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 6 (4) (2014) 287300.
[12] S.P. Morgan, C.A. Johnson, H.H. Einstein, Cracking Processes in Barre Granite: Fracture Process Zones and Crack Coalescence, Int. J.
Fract., 180, 2 (2013) 177204.
1116 V. Kallimogiannis et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 1108 1116

[13] M.S. Paterson, T.F. Wong, Experimental Rock Deformation - The Brittle Field, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
[14] C.D. Martin, Strength of Massive Lac du Bonnet Granite Around Underground Opening. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Geological
Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 1993.
[15] C.D. Martin, M. Nicksiar, Factors Affecting Crack Initiation in Low Porosity Crystalline Rocks, Rock. Mech. Rock. Eng. 47 (4) (2014)
11651181.
[16] C.H. Scholz, Microfracturing and the inelastic deformation of rock in compression, Journal of Geophysical Research 96 (B10) (1968)
1652916533.
[17] G.M. Boyce, W.M. McCabe, R.M. Koerner, Acoustic emission signatures of various rock types in unconfined compression, in: Proc
Acoustic Emissions in Geotechnical Engineering Practice, ASTM STP 750, 1981, pp.142154.
[18] E. Eberhardt, D. Stead, B. Stimpson, R.S. Read, Changes in acoustic event properties with progressive fracture damage, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. 34 3-4 (1997) paper No. 071B.
[19] M. Cai, P.K. Kaiser, Y. Tasaka, T. Maejima, H. Morioka, M. Minaki, Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress thresholds of
brittle rock masses near underground excavation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 41(5) (2004) 833847.
[20] Z. Zhang, R. Zhang, H. Xie, J. Liu, P. Were, Differences in the acoustic emission characteristics of rock salt compared with granite and
marble during the damage evolution process. Environ Earth Sci 73 (2015) 69876999.
[21] X.G. Zhao, M. Cai, J. Wang, P.F. Li, L.K. Ma, Objective Determination of Crack Initiation Stress of Brittle Rocks Under Compression
Using AE Measurement, Rock Mech Rock Eng. 48 (2015) 24732484.
[22] P. Nomikos, A. Sofianos, Acoustic emmision of Dionysos marble in uniaxial compression, Greek Society of Engineering Geology
Newsletter 4 (2013) 1518.
[23] ISRM, The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974-2006. R. Ulusay and J.A. Hudson
(eds.), Suggested Methods Prepared by the Commission on Testing Methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Compilation
Arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Kozan Ofset, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
[24] ISRM, Draft suggested method for in-situ stress measurement from a rock core using the Acoustic Emission technique, in: Proc. 5th
International Workshop on the Application of Geophysics in Rock Engineering, Toronto, Canada, 2002, pp. 6166.
[25] M. Ohnaka, K. Mogi, Frequency characteristics of acoustic emissions in rocks under uniaxial compression and its relation to the fracturing
process to failure, Journal of Geophysical Research 87 (B5) (1962) 38733884.
[26] P. Rodrguez, P.B. Arab, T.B. Celestino, Characterization of rock cracking patterns in diametral compression tests by acoustic emission and
petrographic analysis, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 83 (2016) 7385.
[27] L. Qiao, M. Li, Y. Li, X. Wang, Study on the lateral strain response for determining crack initiation in compression tests on low porosity
rocks, in: Proc. ISRM SINOROCK, Shanghai, China, 2013.