Geosciences 08 00124

geosciences
Article
The Influence of Pre-Existing Deformation and
Alteration Textures on Rock Strength, Failure Modes
and Shear Strength Parameters
Tamara J. Everall and Ioan V. Sanislav *
Economic Geology Research Centre (EGRU), James Cook University, Townsville QLD 4811, Australia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-07-4781-3293

Received: 7 December 2017; Accepted: 27 March 2018; Published: 5 April 2018
Abstract: This study uses the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), the indirect tensile strength (ITS)
and the point load tests (PLT) to determine the strength and deformation behavior of previously
deformed and altered tonalite and anorthosite. In general, veined samples show higher strength
because the vein material has both cohesive and adhesive properties while fractures have no cohesion,
only frictional resistance. This implies that each rock category has to be treated independently
and absolute strength predictions are inaccurate. Thus, the conversion factor k is a sample specific
parameter and does not have a universal value. The ratio of UCS/ITS appears to be related to the
rock strength and can be used to classify rocks based on their strength. The shear strength parameters,
the friction angle and the cohesion, cannot be calculated for rocks with pre-existing planes of weakness.
Reactivation is favoured only for planes oriented less than 20◦ to the maximum stress. For planes
oriented between 20◦ and 50◦ to the maximum stress, failure occurs by a combination of reactivation
and newly formed fractures, while for orientations above 50◦ , new shear fractures are favoured.
This suggest that the Byerlee’s law of reactivation operates exclusively for planes oriented ≤10◦ to
the maximum stress.
Keywords: rock strength; failure modes; reactivation; friction angle
1. Introduction
Rock strength and rock deformation mechanisms are important parameters for understanding
not only geological processes in general but also for geohazards as well as geotechnical problems.
For example, pluton emplacement and volcanism are structurally controlled so that magma [1] takes
advantage of pre-existing structures [2,3] to migrate through the crust. That leads to redistribution of
heat within the crust, which, in turn, affects the deformation behavior of the rock [4,5]. Furthermore,
localization of deformation [6,7] into fault zones has been used to explain fluid flow at crustal scale
levels that can lead to redistribution and/or concentration of elements and eventually, to the formation
of ore deposits [8,9]. It is particularly worth noting that there is a tendency for older structures to get
reactivated during younger deformation events, which leads to prolonged tectonic activity along the
same structures [10,11]. This has been observed along active seismic zones with the occurrence of
earthquakes preferentially occurring along pre-existing fault zones [12].
Many civil engineering and construction projects involve the control of the mechanical behavior
of host rocks to ensure the stability of construction [13]. To control the host rocks, many underground
mine operations use reinforcements, such as roof bolting and pillars [14]. Knowing the rock strength
parameters is essential for ensuring the reinforcements are applicable and the design is appropriate [15].
Understanding the structural capability of the rock and how it may fail is fundamental, especially
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124; doi:10.3390/geosciences8040124 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 2 of 23
when the rock mass has pre-existing flaws. Many cases when rock has failed in the mining industry
have been due to toppling failure in rock slopes [16]. This type of failure is commonly induced when
the rock mass is heavily fractured, and the rock is overturned due to its own weight. Therefore,
it is essential to classify rock materials based on their strength to determine the appropriate method
and design approach for underground structures, such as dam walls, mine slope design and tunnel
infrastructure [17].
To predict conditions under which solid materials may fail under the action of external loads,
the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is the most widely used because of its simplicity and wide
applicability. The application of the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria requires knowledge of a series
of strength parameters [15]. These are the cohesive strength, the angle of internal friction and
the compressive strength. These parameters are normally determined by triaxial and shear box
experiments [18,19]. However, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), indirect tensile strength (ITS)
and the point load test (PLT) tests can also be used to determine rock strength properties. The testing
procedure for PLT and ITS implies that tensile failure occurs between the opposing loads [20]. Thus,
the magnitude of the applied load at the instant of failure is related to both the tensile strength
and the uniaxial compressive strength. Because PLT and ITS are easier and quicker to perform
compared to the UCS, many authors have tried to relate the PLT and ITS to UCS [21–23]. Experiments
performed on a large variety of intact rock types have shown that indeed tensile strength can be
correlated to the UCS by a conversion factor, k [22–24]. However, conversion factor k is non-unique
(varies between 8 and 30 for PLS to UCS conversions and between 2.7 and 50 for the ITS to UCS
conversion) and depends on the degree of anisotropy of the rocks [25,26]. The most important
factor controlling the strength of an anisotropic rock is the pre-existence of weakness planes due to
previous deformation [27–29]. For example, the orientation of pre-existing foliation to maximum
principal stress can control whether the failure plane is exploiting pre-existing foliation (reducing
the rock strength) or forming new shear fractures [27]. Fractures also have the ability to influence
the rock strength [28,29] even if they are inclined at a less favourable orientation to the maximum
principal stress. During loading, new fractures form adjacent to the pre-existing fractures and either
propagate or coalesce with surrounding fractures, causing a shear softening effect [30], decreasing
the uniaxial compressive strength dramatically. The influence of veins [29] on rock strength has not
been extensively studied. However, the process of infilling a fracture, called grouting, has proven
successful for improving the mechanical properties of rock samples. This process simply transfers
stress and reduces concentrations of stress, delaying failure and therefore, increasing the strength of the
sample [31]. Thus, filled fractures can increase the strength of a rock sample; therefore, we can expect
to see an increase in strength in veined samples as opposed to the fractured samples. It is necessary
to know how pre-existing textures directly influence the strength of rocks to truly understand rock
failure. Deformed and altered rocks are common within the crust and can be a serious problem in
rock engineering applications; they have many pre-existing planes of weakness (macro and micro
structures) that can easily be re-activated when subjected to an external load. The aim of this study is
to apply existing empirical and quantifiable methods used for intact rocks to deformed and altered
rocks to understand their behavior under an applied load.
2. Materials and Methods

Samples were collected from drill cores coming from the core library of the engineering
department at James Cook University (Townsville, Australia). The drill cores originated from
the Ernest Henry Cu–Au mine near Cloncurry in NW Queensland. The samples were variably
altered and deformed. Care was taken to select the same rock types but with different degrees
of alteration and deformation. The least altered and deformed samples from each rock type were
selected based on visual inspection and used as the reference samples. Based on their grain sizes and
compositions, the reference samples were determined to belong to two main rock types (Figure 1A,B).
These were coarse-grained (>5 mm diameter) tonalite (Figure 2A) and medium-grained (<5 mm
diameter) anorthosite (Figure 2B). All samples were subsequently classified based on their alteration
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23
and deformation style. Their alteration and pre-existing structure groups included alteration (no visible
deformation), foliation,
deformation), veins,veins,
foliation, fractures and and
fractures breccia. Figure
breccia. 1C1C
Figure shows a photograph
shows a photographof
ofeach
each pre-existing
pre-
texture focused on in this study.
existing texture focused on in this study.
Figure 1. Photographs of the two reference samples (A,B); they are the least altered and deformed.
Figure 1. Photographs of the two reference samples (A,B); they are the least altered and
(A) Sample TE3A, a coarse-grained tonalite with phaneritic texture. (B) Sample TE2A, a medium-
deformed. (A) anorthosite
grained Sample TE3A, a coarse-grained
with visible calcite veins. tonalite with phaneritic
(C) Photograph of samplestexture.
used in (B)
the Sample
uniaxial TE2A,
a medium-grained anorthosite
compressive strength (UCS)with
test, visible
classifiedcalcite veins. (C)
by pre-existing Photograph
textures. of samples
FR: fractured; used in the
VO: veined;
uniaxialAL:
compressive strengthBO:
alteration overprint; (UCS) test, classified
brecciated; by pre-existing textures. FR: fractured; VO: veined;
FO: foliated.
AL: alteration overprint; BO: brecciated; FO: foliated.
The altered samples (AL) generally had medium to large grain sizes, and the original textures
were
The alteredweakly to mostly
samples preserved.
(AL) generally Silicification
had medium alteration had overprinted
to large grain sizes, theand
original phaneritictextures
the original
texture, with some later stage hydration and sulfidation alteration. The degree of this alteration
were weakly to mostly preserved. Silicification alteration had overprinted the original phaneritic
varied across all specimens. The samples had minimal deformation features which were only visible
texture, under
with some later stage hydration and sulfidation alteration. The degree of this alteration varied
microscope. These were microfracture networks, weak foliation and carbonate veining. The
across all specimens.
degree of foliationThe samples
(FO) had minimal
varied between well anddeformation features samples
moderately developed which were onlysamples
with most visible under
microscope.
showingThese were microfracture
well-developed networks,
foliation. The foliationweak
bandsfoliation and carbonate
were typically at millimeter veining.
scale andThe degree of
were
due to compositional separation. The foliation varied from high to low angle
foliation (FO) varied between well and moderately developed samples with most samples showing to the longitudinal axis
of the sample.
well-developed Crosscutting
foliation. The the foliationbands
foliation were late stagetypically
were carbonate and sulphide veins.
at millimeter Theand
scale veinswere
(VO) due to
either occurred as a single vein along the longitudinal axis or followed the pre-existing foliation
compositional separation. The foliation varied from high to low angle to the longitudinal axis of the
orientation. The composition of the dominant veins was carbonate, mainly calcite. The minor veins
sample.were
Crosscutting the occurred
actinolite and foliationwith
werethelate stage
calcite carbonate
veins, each withandmultiple
sulphide veins. The
orientations. Theveins (VO) either
fractured
occurredsamples
as a single vein along the longitudinal axis or followed the pre-existing
(FR) had medium-grained texture and their degree of fracturing was specimen dependent. foliation orientation.
The composition of the
The orientation of dominant
the fracture veins
networkwaswas carbonate, mainly
either multiple and calcite. The minorThe
single orientations. veins were
breccia actinolite
(BO)
samples could be separated into clast-supported with polymictic clasts-
and occurred with the calcite veins, each with multiple orientations. The fractured samples and matrix-supported with
(FR) had
monomictic clasts. The clast-supported breccia had poorly sorted, rounded clasts with cross cutting
medium-grained texture and their degree of fracturing was specimen dependent. The orientation
calcite veins. The matrix-supported breccia had calcite infill between the large clasts and was either
of the fracture network was either multiple and single orientations. The breccia (BO) samples could
be separated into clast-supported with polymictic clasts- and matrix-supported with monomictic
clasts. The clast-supported breccia had poorly sorted, rounded clasts with cross cutting calcite veins.
The matrix-supported breccia had calcite infill between the large clasts and was either matrix or
clast-dominated, depending on the specimen. Table 1 summarizes all the pre-existing textures for each
matrix or clast-dominated, depending on the specimen. Table 1 summarizes all the pre-existing
sample and shows the classification of the textures.
textures for each sample and shows the classification of the textures.
Figure 2. Microphotographs of the investigated samples showing the range of deformation features
Figure 2. Microphotographs of the investigated samples showing the range of deformation features
not visible in the hand sample. (A) Sample TE2B: sub-parallel quartz—plagioclase mylonitic foliation
not visible
that in the hand
is cross cut bysample. (A)calcite
a late stage Sample TE2B: sub-parallel
micro-vein. quartz—plagioclase
(B) Sample TE1C: mylonitic
biotite rich foliation bands. (C)foliation
that is cross
Samplecut by clast-supported
TE2D: a late stage calcite micro-vein.
breccia with (B) Sample
deformed zones of matrixTE1C: biotite rich within
and micro-fractures foliation
the bands.
anorthosite
(C) Sample TE2D:clasts. (D) Sample TE3C:
clast-supported brecciatonalite
with with micro-fractures.
deformed zones of (E) Sample
matrix andTE3B: tonalite with within
micro-fractures
micro-veins
the anorthosite and (D)
clasts. conjugate
SamplesetsTE3C:
of micro-fractures. (F)micro-fractures.
tonalite with Sample TE1B: tonalite with conjugate
(E) Sample TE3B: sets of
tonalite with
micro-fractures. (G) Sample TE3B: tonalite with deformation zones between plagioclase and quartz
micro-veins and conjugate sets of micro-fractures. (F) Sample TE1B: tonalite with conjugate sets of
grains, micro-veins and micro-fractures. (H) Sample TE1A: anorthosite with a discontinuous calcite
micro-fractures. (G) Sample TE3B: tonalite with deformation zones between plagioclase and quartz
micro-vein following weakly formed foliation.
grains, micro-veins and micro-fractures. (H) Sample TE1A: anorthosite with a discontinuous calcite
micro-vein following weakly formed foliation.
Table 1. Summary table of rock descriptions and rock classifications.
Group Sample ID Texture Pre-Existing Structures

1 TE1A Medium-grained (anorthosite) Weak foliation and calcite veins visible under microscope
1 TE/2A Medium-grained (anorthosite) Calcite veins visible under microscope
1 TE3A Coarse-grained, phaneritic (tonalite) Weakly developed fractures visible only under microscope
Well-developed foliation at a high angle to the axis; one carbonate-sulfide
2 TE1C Foliated
vein ~parallel to the axis
2 TE1D Foliated Well-developed foliation at a low angle to the axis
2 TE/FO1 Foliated Moderately developed foliation parallel to the vein network
Well-developed foliation at a moderate angle to the axis; few carbonate veins
2 TE/FO2 Foliated
~parallel to the axis
2 TE/FO3 Foliated Moderate foliation with carbonate deposited along the foliation planes
2 TE/FO4 Foliated Well-developed foliation overprinted by small ~1 mm carbonate veins
3 TE/2B Mylonitic, veins Veins are coalesced; multiple orientations
3 TE/VO1 Medium-grained, veins Two vein types (actinolite and calcite) up to 5 mm width
Two vein types (actinolite and calcite) up to 5 mm width;
3 TE/VO2 Medium-grained, veins
multiple orientations
3 TE/VO3 Medium-grained, veins Fine and dense micro-vein network, mostly calcite; multiple orientations
3 TE/VO4 Medium-grained, veins Fine to coarse calcite veins; mainly one orientation
3 TE/VO5 Medium-grained, veins Fine to coarse carbonate veins; one preferred orientation
3 TE/VO6 Medium-grained, veins Fine to coarse calcite veins; mainly one orientation
Fine calcite and actinolite vein network; multiple orientations; one vein
3 TE/VO7 Medium-grained, veins
~parallel to the axis
3 TE/VO8 Medium-grained, veins Two main vein orientations: ~parallel to axis and ~perpendicular to the axis
4 TE2C Medium-grained; fracture network Multiple orientations; fractures and veins
Two main fracture networks. One ~parallel to the axis and one conjugate set
4 TE/FR1 Medium-grained; fracture network
at low-angle to the axis
4 TE/FR2 Medium-grained; fracture network Multiple orientations; fractures and veins
4 TE/FR3 Medium-grained; fracture network Multiple orientations; fractures and veins; calcite veins ~parallel to the axis
4 TE/FR4 Medium-grained; fracture network One preferred orientation; low angle to the axis
at a low-angle to the axis
Multiple orientations; fractures and veins; Low angle fractures
better developed
at a low-angle to the axis
Polymict; poorly sorted; clast-supported breccia; rounded clasts; few
5 TE2D Brecciated
overprinting veins
5 TE/BO1 Brecciated Polymict; clast-supported breccia with large clast size
5 TE/BO2 Brecciated Polymict; poorly sorted; clast-supported breccia; rounded clasts;
Polymict; poorly sorted; clast-supported breccia; rounded clasts; fine
5 TE/BO3 Brecciated
overprinting vein network
5 TE/BO4 Brecciated Monomict, matrix-supported breccia; large angular clasts; calcite infill;
Monomict, matrix-supported breccia; large angular clasts; calcite infill;
5 TE/BO5 Brecciated
clast-dominated
5 TE/BO6 Brecciated
clast-dominated
5 TE/BO7 Brecciated
infill-dominated
5 TE/BO8 Brecciated
clast-dominated
Polymict; poorly sorted; clast-supported breccia; rounded clasts; few
5 TE/BO9 Brecciated
overprinting veins
Altered; phaneritic texture Fractures visible only under microscope; carbonate, chlorite altered and
6 TE1B
mostly preserved weakly silicified
Altered; phaneritic texture Fractures visible under microscope; highly silicified and weak
6 TE3B
weakly preserved carbonate alteration
Altered; phaneritic texture
6 TE3C Moderately to highly silicified; weak foliation; rare calcite veins
weakly preserved
Altered; phaneritic texture
6 TE/AL1 Weakly silicified; micro-fracture network
well preserved
Group 1: reference samples; Group 2: foliated rocks; Group 3: veined rocks; Group 4: fractured rocks; 5: brecciated
rocks; Group 6: altered rocks.
Thin section investigation of the studied samples was done with the purpose of identifying
pre-existing weakness planes (fractures, veins, foliations) that could not be identified in hand samples
and to confirm the rock types. The mineralogy of the samples was dominated by quartz and plagioclase,
followed by biotite, calcite and, in a few samples, magnetite and sulphides. The primary tonalite
and anorthosite were
Geosciences 2018, variably
8, x FOR deformed and altered. The most prominent deformation
PEER REVIEW 6 of 23 feature
was the development of a mylonitic foliation (Figure 2A,B), which resulted in significant grain size
Thin section investigation of the studied samples was done with the purpose of identifying pre-
reduction, and the development of sub-parallel bands of quartz-plagioclase rich domains (Figure 2A)
existing weakness planes (fractures, veins, foliations) that could not be identified in hand samples
alternating
andwith biotitethe
to confirm richrockdomains
types. The(Figure 2B). Many
mineralogy samples
of the sampleshad wassignificant
dominated amounts
by quartz of and magnetite
and sulphides precipitated
plagioclase, followed byalong biotite,the foliation
calcite and, in aplanes. Somemagnetite
few samples, of theseand samples
sulphides.had Thelate calcite veins
primary
tonalite
(Figure 2A) and anorthosite
crosscutting were variably
the mylonitic deformedThe
foliation. andbrecciated
altered. Thesamples
most prominent
appeared deformation
undeformed in
feature was the development of a mylonitic foliation (Figure
hand specimen. However, thin section study revealed that the matrix between the breccia 2A,B), which resulted in significant grain clasts
size reduction, and the development of sub-parallel bands of quartz-plagioclase rich domains (Figure
was deformed (Figure 2C) and had experienced grain size reduction and recrystallization forming
2A) alternating with biotite rich domains (Figure 2B). Many samples had significant amounts of
narrow deformation
magnetite andzones. sulphides Theprecipitated
breccia clasts alongwere variablyplanes.
the foliation deformed
Some and hadsamples
of these altered hadtonalite
late and/or
anorthosite clasts.
calcite veinsMost(Figure of the
2A) tonalite
crosscutting andtheanorthosite samplesThe
mylonitic foliation. hadbrecciated
very thinsamples
fractures (Figure 2D–F)
appeared
undeformed
and/or veins that were in handnot specimen.
visible inHowever, thin section
hand specimens. studyof
Many revealed that the matrix between
these micro-fractures formed theconjugate
breccia clasts was deformed (Figure 2C) and had experienced
sets (Figure 2E,F) without any displacement. There were also thin deformation zones between quartz grain size reduction and
recrystallization forming narrow deformation zones. The breccia clasts were variably deformed and
and plagioclase grain boundaries (Figure 2G). Some of the calcite micro veins (Figure 2H) were
had altered tonalite and/or anorthosite clasts. Most of the tonalite and anorthosite samples had very
discontinuous
thin fracturesaligned
and (Figure within a weakly
2D–F) and/or veins defined
that werefoliation.
not visible in hand specimens. Many of these
Three testing methods
micro-fractures were conducted
formed conjugate sets (Figure on 2E,F)specimens
without any from each sample:
displacement. There were thealsoPLT,
thin the ITS
deformation
(also known as thezones Brazilianbetween quartz
test) andand theplagioclase
UCS. The grain boundaries
results (Figure
of these 2G).can
tests Some beofused
the calcite
to calculate
micro veins (Figure 2H) were discontinuous and aligned within a weakly defined foliation.
the point load strength, the tensile strength and the compressive strength for each specimen.
Three testing methods were conducted on specimens from each sample: the PLT, the ITS (also
These quantities are the fundamental parameters that are used to assess rock strength. The cylindrical
known as the Brazilian test) and the UCS. The results of these tests can be used to calculate the point
cores used for testing
load strength, the had diameters
tensile strengthof 47the
and mm or 63 mm.strength
compressive All experiments were recorded
for each specimen. with a GoPro
These quantities
Hero 4 camera (GoPro Inc.,
are the fundamental San Mateo,
parameters that CA, USA)
are used at a frame
to assess rate ofThe
rock strength. − 1
240cylindrical
s . Sample corespreparation
used for and
testing
experiments had conducted
were diameters of following
47 mm or 63the mm. All experiments
procedures were in
outlined recorded with a GoPro
the Australian Hero 4 Testing
Standard
Methodscamera
(ASTM) (GoPro Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) at a frame rate of 240 s−1. Sample preparation and
[32–35].
experiments were conducted following the procedures outlined in the Australian Standard Testing
TheMethods
PLT procedure
(ASTM) [32–35].
is simple and extremely quick. The ASTM [35] requires that the length to
diameter ratio The PLT proceduresamples
for all tested is simple is andone to one.quick.
extremely The ThetestASTM
was carried out using
[35] requires that thethe axial
length to loading
direction; this involved the cylindrical core being held between two conical ends perpendicular
diameter ratio for all tested samples is one to one. The test was carried out using the axial loading
direction;
to the axial plane. thisThe
involved
samplesthe cylindrical
were held coreinbeing held between
the point two conical
load tester endsload
and the perpendicular
was applied to until
the axial plane. The samples were held in the point load tester and the load was applied until failure
failure occurred (Figure 3A). This test is extremely quick as failure usually occurs between 10–60 s.
occurred (Figure 3A). This test is extremely quick as failure usually occurs between 10–60 s. Every
Every sample
sample failure
failure was wasvideovideo recorded
recorded and photographs
and photographs were takenwere taken
before andbefore and after
after failure for each failure for
each sample.
sample.
Figure 3.Figure 3. (A) Photograph

(A) Photograph of the
of the portable
portable pointload
point load tester
testerused
usedforfor
the the
point load tests.
point load (B) Photograph
tests. (B) Photograph
of the jig used to hold the samples in place for the indirect tensile strength (ITS) test. (C) Photograph
of the jig used to hold the samples in place for the indirect tensile strength (ITS) test. (C) Photograph of
of the MTS machine used for the UCS tests. All testing equipment is located in the engineering
the MTS laboratory
machine used forCook
at James the UCS tests.Townsville.
University, All testing equipment is located in the engineering laboratory
at James Cook University, Townsville.
For UCS according to the ASTM [33,34], the length to diameter ratio must be between 2 and 3.
For all tested samples, the length to diameter ratio was 2.5. The UCS testing was conducted using
an MTS (material testing) universal testing machine (Figure 3C). The samples were held in the
MTS between the cells and were subjected to a fixed rate of stress of 17.17 kN/min. The samples
usually reached failure within 5–15 min of applied stress. Every sample failure was video recorded,
and photographs were taken before and after failure. These were used to observe the initiation and
propagation of the developing fracture pattern from the applied stress.
The ITS procedure was a bit more laborious compared to the point load test and the UCS.
The specimen sat in a handmade jig to stop the sample from rolling and had to be re-centered to
the axis of the sample before every test (Figure 3B). According to the ASTM [36] recommendations,
the diameter to length ratio must be 1, which makes all specimens have a disc like shape. The test
was conducted using the MTS machine and was subjected to a fixed rate of stress at 17.17 kN/min
(Figure 3C). The specimens reached failure within 10 min of applied stress. Every sample failure was
video recorded, and photographs were taken before and after each experiment.
3. Results
The three testing methods—UCS, ITS and PLT—were conducted on each specimen type.
After each test, the samples were classified into a failure mode based on the fracture pattern
(Figures 4–6). Five different failure modes were identified for the PLT test (Table 2), five different failure
modes were identified for the UCS test (Table 3), and four different failure modes were identified for
the ITS test (Table 4) The failure mode and strength results for each test were correlated using bar
charts (Figure 7). The bar charts show how the dominant failure mode changes with the increasing
strength of a rock. The failure mode is therefore a characteristic of the amount of strain energy a rock
can withstand. Young’s modulus was computed for each of the specimens and used with the UCS to
further classify the samples’ strengths. This rock strength classification was used to determine how the
textural differences between the samples could influence the strength of the rock.
3.1. Failure Modes

The failure modes in this study were based on [36]. The failure modes for UCS tests were failure
along a pre-existing weaknesses (vein, fracture or foliation), axial splitting, multiple fracturing, double
shear and shear along a single plane (Figure 5). The failure modes for ITS tests were central failure,
central failures with layer activation, multiple central and non-central failure (Figure 6). The failure
modes for the point load test were failure along a pre-existing weakness (vein, fracture or foliation),
twisted, triple junction failure, non-central and single plane failure (Figure 4). For samples that failed
in multiple modes, the dominant or the initial failure mode was used for classification. Slow motion
video recordings of samples failure were used to determine the failure mode where the sample failure
was too quick for normal observation.
3.1.1. Failure under Point Load

The most frequently encountered failure mode for the point load test was twisted (Table 2;
Figure 7A). The fracture initiated in the central area where the load was applied and propagated
away, along curved planes (Figure 4B), giving the failure plane a twisted nature. There were no clear
indications that the fractures propagated along pre-existing weaknesses. When the failure occurred
along a single shear fracture, it originated in the loading point and propagated laterally and across the
pre-existing weaknesses. In the cases where samples failed along triple junctions, the fractures initiated
at the loading point and propagated away in three different directions, forming angles oriented ~120◦
from each other (Figure 4C). At least one of the fractures followed pre-existing weaknesses, and at
least one fracture appeared to be a newly formed fracture. For the two samples that experienced
non-central failure mode, the fracture was initiated at the loading point and propagated across the
sample at a low angle. This occurred along pre-existing veins that were oblique to the loading area.
The samples that failed straight along pre-existing weaknesses developed a single shear plane that
followed the geometry of the pre-existing weakness.
The failures of the samples occurred at relatively low applied stresses (Figure 7A). The twisted
mode of failure covered the entire range of applied stresses, the triple junction mode of failure occurred
only above 4 MPa, the failure along pre-existing weaknesses, and the non-central failure mode occurred
only Geosciences
below 6 2018,
MPa, and the failure along a single plane occurred between 2 and 10 MPa. 8 of 23
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 4. Photographs and schematic drawings showing the failure modes observed during the point
Figure 4. Photographs and schematic drawings showing the failure modes observed during the point
load tests. Red arrows indicate the direction of the maximum principal stress. (A) Example of failure
load tests. Red arrows indicate the direction of the maximum principal stress. (A) Example of failure
along a pre-existing weakness (here, a vein); sample TE/FR4. (B) Example of twisted failure mode;
along a pre-existing weakness (here, a vein); sample TE/FR4. (B) Example of twisted failure mode;
sample TE/BO8. (C) Example of failure by triple junction; sample TE3B. (D) Example of non-central
sample TE/BO8.
failure; sample(C) Example
TE3C. of failure
(E) Example by triple
of failure alongjunction; sample
a single plane; TE3B.
sample (D) Example of non-central
TE1D.
failure; sample TE3C. (E) Example of failure along a single plane; sample TE1D.
Figure
Figure 5. 5. Photographsand
Photographs andschematic
schematicdrawings
drawings showing
showing thethefailure
failuremodes
modesobserved
observed during
duringthethe
UCSUCS
tests. The red arrows indicate the direction of the maximum principal stress. (A) Failure
tests. The red arrows indicate the direction of the maximum principal stress. (A) Failure mode along mode along
pre-existing
pre-existing weakness
weakness (veins,
(veins, fractures
fractures or foliation);
or foliation); sample
sample TE2A.TE2A. (B) Example
(B) Example of axial
of axial splitting
splitting failure;
failure; sample TE3A. (C) Example of failure by multiple fractures; sample TE1A.
sample TE3A. (C) Example of failure by multiple fractures; sample TE1A. (D) Example of failure (D) Example of by
failure by double shearing (along pre-existing planes of weakness and newly developed
double shearing (along pre-existing planes of weakness and newly developed shear planes); sample shear planes);
sample
TE3C. TE3C. (E)of
(E) Example Example of failure
failure along alongplane
a single a single plane
(newly (newly developed
developed failuresample
failure plane); plane);TE2D.
sample
TE2D.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 10 of 23
Figure 6. Photographs and schematic drawings showing the failure modes observed during the ITS
Figure 6. Photographs and schematic drawings showing the failure modes observed during the ITS
tests. Red dashed lines indicate planes parallel to the maximum principal stress. (A) Example of
tests. Figure
Red dashed lines indicate
6. Photographs planes parallel
and schematic drawingsto the maximum
showing principal
the failure modes stress. (A) Example
observed during theofITS
central
central failure where the fracture is parallel to maximum principal stress; sample TE/BO3. (B)
failuretests. Red dashed lines indicate planes parallel to the maximum principal stress. (A) Example of of
where the fracture is parallel to maximum principal stress; sample TE/BO3. (B) Example
Example of failure by central fracture and layer activation. The fractures are sub-parallel and at high
failure by central
central failurefracture
where and layer activation.
the fracture is parallelThe fractures are
to maximum sub-parallel
principal stress; and at high
sample
angles to the maximum principal stress; sample TE/VO1. (C) Example of failure along multiple central
angles
TE/BO3. (B)to the
maximumExample of failure
principal by central fracture
stress; develop and
sample sub-parallel layer
TE/VO1. (C) activation. The fractures are sub-parallel and at high
fractures. The fractures to Example
the maximumof failure along
principal multiple
stress; samplecentral
TE1A.fractures.
(D)
angles to the
The fractures maximum
develop principal stress;
sub-parallel sample
to fracture
the TE/VO1.principal
maximum (C) Example of failure
stress; samplealongTE1A.
multiple
(D)central
Example
Example of non-central failure. The is independent of the maximum principal stress and
fractures. The
of non-central fractures
failure. Thedevelop
fracturesub-parallel to the maximum
is independent principal principal
of the maximum stress; sample TE1A.
stress and (D)
follows
follows pre-existing planes of weakness; sample TE/FO3.
Example of non-central failure. The fracture is independent of the maximum principal stress and
pre-existing planes of weakness; sample TE/FO3.
follows pre-existing planes of weakness; sample TE/FO3.
Figure 7. (A) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of point load (MPa) values in relation to the
failure modes. (B) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of UCS (MPa) values in relation to the
Figure 7. (A) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of point load (MPa) values in relation to the
failure
Figure modes.
7. (A) (C) Bar diagram
Bar diagram showingshowing the different
the different rangesranges of ITS
of point (MPa)
load values
(MPa) in relation
values to theto the
in relation
failure modes. (B) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of UCS (MPa) values in relation to the
failure
failure modes.
modes. (B) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of UCS (MPa) values in relation to the
failure modes. (C) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of ITS (MPa) values in relation to the
failure modes. (C) Bar diagram showing the different ranges of ITS (MPa) values in relation to the
failure modes.
failure modes.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 11 of 23
Table 2. Table with samples grouped based on their failure mode in the point load test (PLT).
Test Type Failure Mode No. of Samples Failed

PLT Single plane 4
PLT Triple junction 5
PLT Invalid 2
PLT Twisted 11
PLT Along pre-existing weakness (fracture, vein or foliation) 4
Total 26
Table 3. Table with samples grouped based on their failure mode during the UCS tests.
Test Type Failure Mode Number

UCS Along pre-existing weakness (fracture, vein or foliation) 29
UCS Axial splitting 4
UCS Shear along single plane 2
UCS Double shear 4
UCS Multiple fractures 1
Total 40
Table 4. Table with samples grouped based on their failure mode during the ITS test.
Test Type Failure Mode No. of Samples Failed

ITS Central 15
ITS Central + layer activation 19
ITS Multiple central 5
ITS Non-central 5
Total 44
3.1.2. Failure under Uniaxial Compressive Test

The majority of samples failed along pre-existing planes of weakness—that is, 29 samples out
of the 40 samples tested (Table 3). Samples that failed by double-shear had a combination of failure
modes—one failure plane propagated along pre-existing planes of weakness and one failure plane
developed along a newly formed shear plane. In all situations, the failure was initiated along
one of the pre-existing planes of weakness, and once the fracture propagated for ~1 cm, a new
failure plane developed at a conjugate angle to the first one. The thin section study did not reveal
any obvious micro-fracturing following the same orientation as the newly developed shear plane,
indicating that most likely of these were newly formed shear planes. Alternatively, the scale of the
micro-fracturing was less than the thin section scale. The sample that failed by multiple fracturing
did not contain through-going fractures but rather, a network of micro-fractures and veins (visible
under microscope; Figure 2H) that eventually controlled the rock failure. The fractures propagated
from one micro-fracture to the next, resulting into a network of coalesced micro-fractures. The samples
that failed by axial splitting had no visible pre-existing planes of weakness parallel to the long axis of
the sample. Some samples had weakly developed micro-veins, foliation or fractures at high angle to
the loading direction. However, these weakness planes were not reactivated and re-used during the
sample failure. Two samples failed along a single plane of shear. Both samples were matrix-supported
breccia. The shear plane cut across the clasts and did not follow the clast-matrix boundaries. The thin
section study did not reveal many visible pre-existing fractures.
The UCS tests results (Figure 7B) show that samples failed under a wide range of compressive
stresses. The majority of samples failed under a compressive stress of less than 75 MPa (Figure 7B).
This was particularly obvious for the samples that failed along pre-existing planes of weakness and
for samples that failed by double-shear as well as multiple fractures. The remaining samples failed at
higher compressive stresses with only one sample failing at stresses above 100 MPa.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 12 of 23
3.1.3. Failure under Indirect Tensile Test

The majority of samples failed along a central shear plane with only five samples failing along
a on-central fracture (Table 4; Figure 7C). The pre-existing planes of weakness controlled the location
of the failure plane for most samples. For example, the samples that failed along a single central shear
plane had micro-fractures or veins oriented parallel to the failure plane. One of these weaknesses,
located near the centre of the samples was reactivated and re-used during loading, thus controlling
the location of the failure plane. The shear fracture propagated across the layering. For samples that
failed due to central shear and layer activation, the fracture was initiated along one of the pre-existing
weaknesses that were oriented parallel to the loading direction, and after propagating about halfway
through the sample, it deviated along the layering at a high angle to the loading direction. The layering
in all samples consisted of pre-existing veins or foliation planes. The samples that failed due to multiple
central fractures were characterised by simultaneous reactivation of weakness planes oriented parallel
to the loading direction. For some samples (Table 1), the pre-existing weakness planes were visible only
under microscope. The few samples that developed non-central shear planes failed along pre-existing
weaknesses that were sub-parallel to the loading direction band and did not have any visible fractures
or micro-fractures parallel to the loading direction.
The ITS test results show that all samples failed under a narrow range of stresses—5 to
30 MPa—with the majority of samples failing between 10 and 20 MPa (Figure 7C). Samples that
developed central or central plus layer activation shear planes failed under a similar range of stresses
while the samples that developed multiple central shear fractures failed within a narrow range of
stress. In general, the non-central failure mode appears to occur at higher stress levels.
3.2. Young’s Modulus

A plot of Young’s modulus vs. the UCS results can be used to classify rocks based on their
strength [37,38]. All tested samples were plotted along a line (Figure 8A) to separate the rocks with
a low modulus ratio (<200) from samples with an intermediate modulus ratio (200–500). In terms
of uniaxial compressive strength, the samples were spread between medium strength and very low
strength. Two samples did not follow this linear relationship. One of the samples, classified as altered,
failed at a medium compressive stress but with a very low Young’s modulus. This sample was highly
silicified and the rock texture was completely overprinted by silicification, rendering the sample, most
probably, very brittle. The other sample, a fractured sample, failed directly along one of the fractures
so that the elastic response of the sample was very low. The controlling factor appeared to be the
pre-existing rock texture (Figure 8B), whereby the veined samples had medium strength, the breccia
and altered samples had medium to low strengths and the foliated and fractured samples had low to
very low strengths. Most samples failed along pre-existing planes of weakness indicating a connection
between the failure mode and rock texture. This was true for most samples. In Figure 8C,D, it can
be seen that the samples that failed along pre-existing weaknesses were spread between medium
strength and very low strength. However, samples that failed mainly along newly formed fractures or
a combination of newly formed and pre-existing fractures were classified as medium to low strength.
low to very low strengths. Most samples failed along pre-existing planes of weakness indicating a
connection between the failure mode and rock texture. This was true for most samples. In Figure
8C,D, it can be seen that the samples that failed along pre-existing weaknesses were spread between
medium strength and very low strength. However, samples that failed mainly along newly formed
fractures2018,
Geosciences or a8,combination
124 of newly formed and pre-existing fractures were classified as medium to
13 of 23
low strength.
Figure 8. Rock strength classification based on UCS and Young’s modulus. (A) Each sample has a
Figure 8. Rock strength classification based on UCS and Young’s modulus. (A) Each sample has
colour representing a texture (foliated, veined, fractured, breccia, or altered). Samples [17] plotted in
a colour representing a texture (foliated, veined, fractured, breccia, or altered). Samples [17] plotted
grey illustrate high strength rocks. (B) The investigated samples are classified into groups: veined
in grey illustrate high strength rocks. (B) The investigated samples are classified into groups: veined
samples, foliated and fractured samples, and breccia and altered samples. The fields are based on the
samples, foliated and fractured samples, and breccia and altered samples. The fields are based on the
cluster of the samples in (A). (C) Each sample has a colour representing a different failure mode:
cluster of the samples in (A). (C) Each sample has a colour representing a different failure mode: failure
failure along a plane of pre-existing weakness, failure along a single plane, axial splitting failure,
along a plane of pre-existing weakness, failure along a single plane, axial splitting failure, double shear
doubleand
failure shear failurefractures.
multiple and multiple fractures.
(D) The samples(D)are The samples
classified intoare classified
four into groups.
main failure four main
Thefailure
fields
groups. The fields are based on the cluster
are based on the cluster of samples in (C). of samples in (C).
3.3. Shear Strength Parameters

The angle of internal friction (phi) and the cohesion (C) were calculated for 44 samples (Table 5)
using empirical equations [15] based on UCS and ITS results. The calculation for the angle of internal
friction revealed positive values for 15 samples, negative values for eight samples and for 21 samples,
the results were inconclusive. The positive values for the angle of internal friction varied between
2.68◦ and 40.73◦ , while the negative values varied between −53.35◦ and −2.1◦ . In terms of cohesion,
23 samples returned positive values while for the remaining 21 samples, the results were inconclusive.
The cohesion values varied between 13.6 MPa and 99.9 MPa.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 14 of 23
Table 5. Table with the calculated angle of internal friction and cohesion based on the UCS and ITS
results [15].
Specimens Measured Parameters Estimated Parameters Ratios

Group Sample ID PLT/Mpa σt/MPa σc/MPa E/GPa Φ◦ C/MPa E/σc σc/σt
1 TE1A 6.37 14.68 48.49 7.4 −32.3 44 152.61 3.3
1 TE/2A 6.13 16.27 42.26 15.2 - - 359.68 2.6
1 TE3A 8.42 19.62 49.65 9.6 - - 193.35 2.53
2 TE1C 4.14 17.90 23.16 6.6 - - 284.97 1.29
2 TE1D 2.09 7.24 23.33 4.8 −39.5 24.7 205.74 3.22
2 TE/FO1 (PA) - 12.65 44.37 1.1 −19.07 31.14 24.79 3.51
2 TE/FO1 (PE) - 15.69 44.37 1.1 - - 24.79 2.83
2 TE/FO2 (PA) - 21.61 90.25 1.7 4.65 41.61 18.84 4.18
2 TE/FO2 (PA2) - 17.33 90.25 1.7 22.12 30.37 18.84 5.21
2 TE/FO3 (PA) - 15.45 15.4 4.7 - - 305.19 1
2 TE/FO3 (PE) - 18.13 15.4 4.7 - - 305.19 0.85
2 TE/FO4 (PE) - 17.07 45.36 10.8 - - 238.1 2.84
2 TE/FO4 (PE2) - 15.99 45.36 10.8 - - 238.1 2.66
3 TE/2B 6.39 14.09 55.11 16.1 −2.7 28.9 292.14 3.91
3 TE/VO1 - 13.86 62.16 15.8 11.25 25.51 254.18 4.48
3 TE/VO2 - 14.95 64.08 15.7 7.19 28.25 245.01 4.29
3 TE/VO3 2.37 15.87 106.66 18.9 35.2 27.6 177.2 6.72
3 TE/VO4 4.7 14.68 81.63 17.9 26 25.5 219.3 5.56
3 TE/VO5 5.33 22.69 70.93 18.3 −50.9 99.9 258.0 3.13
3 TE/VO6 8.21 23.99 52.32 11.2 - - 214.1 2.18
3 TE/VO7 11.71 31.66 70.16 10.3 - - 146.8 2.22
3 TE/VO8 11.86 26.81 54.97 11.3 - - 205.6 2.05
4 TE2C 6.52 19.74 40.00 13 - - 325 2.03
4 TE/FR1 - 5.88 6.81 3.9 - - 572.69 1.16
4 TE/FR2 - 22.05 73.64 12.8 −29.53 63.18 173.82 3.34
4 TE/FR3 2.57 10.34 29.33 2.8 - - 95.47 2.84
4 TE/FR4 1.82 21.2 24.9 7 - - 281.12 1.17
4 TE/FR5 2.97 14.88 35.96 6 - - 166.85 2.42
4 TE/FR6 8.42 14.78 34.23 6.8 - - 198.66 2.32
4 TE/FR7 5.64 24.4 63.52 7.5 - - 118.07 2.6
5 TE2D 2.00 7.79 53.56 17.1 36.1 13.6 319.27 6.88
5 TE/BO1 - 10.76 59.41 11.2 25.6 18.17 188.52 5.52
5 TE/BO2 - 14.59 45.37 12.4 −53.35 68.5 273.31 3.11
5 TE/BO3 - 15.45 60.71 14.3 −2.1 31.49 235.55 3.93
5 TE/BO4 - 13.86 69.53 16.9 19.69 24.48 243.06 5.02
5 TE/BO5 - 8.36 34.26 13.1 2.68 16.35 382.37 4.1
5 TE/BO6 - 11.03 85.55 17.9 40.73 19.61 209.23 7.76
5 TE/BO7 3.52 8.35 44.04 9.9 22.9 14.6 224.80 5.27
5 TE/BO8 5.29 11.85 63.66 11.5 24 20.7 180.65 5.37
5 TE/BO9 5.54 9.59 23.94 5.7 - - 238.1 2.5
6 TE1B 6.82 17.97 78.84 3.1 9.3 33.5 39.32 4.39
6 TE3B 4.81 13.70 40.59 9.6 - - 236.51 2.96
6 TE3C 2.77 14.01 60.81 15.5 8.4 26.3 254.89 4.34
6 TE/AL1 3.01 16.4 45.95 8.7 - - 189.34 2.8
Group 1: reference samples; Group 2: foliated rocks; Group 3: veined rocks; Group 4: fractured rocks; 5: brecciated
rocks; Group 6: altered rocks. PA: foliation was loaded parallel to the maximum principal stress; PE: foliation was
loaded perpendicular to the maximum principal stress.
4. Discussion
4.1. Estimating the UCS from the ITS and the PLT
In general, the UCS can be estimated within a reasonable degree of confidence from PLT and ITS
experimental data [21,23,39–41]. However, this was not the case for the samples investigated during
this study. There were no correlations between the UCS and the PLT and the ITS (Figures 9 and 10).
The anisotropy of the tested samples can be invoked to explain the lack of correlation, but numerous
studies have shown that even for anisotropic rocks, a correlation exists between the UCS and PLT
and ITS [42]. It is important to note that although the majority of experiments in the literature have
reported a good correlation between the UCS and PLT and ITS, the conversion factor is variable.
For example, the PLT to UCS conversion factor can vary from as low as 8 [17] to as high as 30, while the
ITS to UCS conversion factor values vary between 2.7 and 50 [43,44]. This implies that the conversion
factor is a rock characteristic parameter and not a universal value; therefore, its applicability must be
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 15 of 23
assessed on a case by case basis. The protolith of the samples (equigranular tonalite and anorthosite,
Figure 1A,B) used in the present study would have been most likely classified as isotropic from
a geotechnical point of view, but that was not the case in the current study. The samples are variably
altered and deformed to the point that without a detailed petrographic study, their original protolith
cannot be identified. In such situations, the results of the UCS, ITS and PLT experiments should be
analyzed based on rock texture rather than rock composition. To investigate the relationship between
the UCS and the ITS and PLT, the experimental data were plotted based on the samples’ textures
(Figures 9 and 10). There was no correlation between the UCS and the PLT for the veined, brecciated
and altered samples, but there was a good correlation between the foliated and fractured samples
(Figure 9). Similarly, there was no correlation between the UCS and the ITS for the veined, breccia and
the altered samples, but there was a good correlation between the foliated and the fractured samples
(Figure Geosciences
10). 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23
Figure 9. Measured PLT (MPa) vs. measured UCS (MPa) for the investigated rocks. Each plot
Figure 9. Measured PLT (MPa) vs. measured UCS (MPa) for the investigated rocks. Each plot represents
represents a pre-existing texture. The plot for foliated samples also contains data from the literature
a pre-existing texture.
[36,40] for The
schistose plot
rocks. forregression
The foliatedline
samples
of best also contains
fit is only data
applied from
to the the literature
investigated rocks. [36,40] for
schistose rocks. The regression line of best fit is only applied to the investigated rocks.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 16 of 23
Figure
Figure10.10.Measured
MeasuredITS ITS(MPa)
(MPa)vs.vs. measured
measured UCSUCS (MPa)
(MPa) for for the
the investigated
investigatedrocks.
rocks.Each
Each plot
plot
represents
representsa pre-existing
a pre-existingtexture.
texture.The
Thered
redpoint
pointrepresents
representsaasample
samplethatthathas
hasaadifferent
different failure
failure mode to
thetoother samples,
the other causing
samples, thatthat
causing sample to deviate
sample from
to deviate thethe
from trend
trendline.
line.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 17 of 23
The presence or absence of a correlation between the test results can alternately be attributed
to the small sample size, but careful investigation has revealed that it is the failure mode and the
change in the sample anisotropy (due to size difference) that controls whether or not the UCS can be
related to the PLT and the ITS. For example, foliated and fractured samples failed consistently along
foliation or fracture planes, not only during the UCS tests, but also during the ITS and PLT tests. This is
because both the foliation and the fracturing were pervasive and even though the samples were cut
into different sizes for each test, the degree of anisotropy was preserved. On contrary, the brecciated,
veined and altered samples failed in different modes during the UCS, ITS and PLT tests. This is because
the anisotropy of the sample changed with the sample size. For example, the brecciated samples
comprised a few different clasts for the UCS tests, but in most situations, they were formed by only one
or two clasts for the ITS and PLT tests. For example, similar experiments [42] have shown that even
for foliated rocks with failure modes along foliation planes (pre-existing weakness), there is a good
correlation between the UCS and PLT tests. Although only three foliated samples were tested for both
UCS and PLT (Figure 9), a good correlation was found. UCS and PLT data concerning foliated rocks in
the literature [36,42] plotted on the same diagram (Figure 9) confirms that, indeed, for foliated rocks,
the UCS and the PLT can be related to each other. The zero-intercept regression equation obtained for
each data set has given conversion factors of seven (current data set), 12 [36] and 20 [42]. This difference
could be due to different orientations of the foliation planes in relation to the applied load direction.
4.2. The Role of Pre-Existing Planes of Weakness

The investigation into failure modes during the UCS, ITS and PLT show that for the tested samples,
the pre-existing planes of weakness control the failure mode and the rock strength. For example,
previous experiments performed on cleaved rocks have shown that for inclinations of the cleavage as
much as 45◦ , the sample always fails parallel to the cleavage [45]. Only in situations where the plane of
anisotropy is nearly perpendicular to the loading direction, the sample failed along newly developed
fractures. During the current experiments, if the investigated samples had foliations, fractures or
veins inclined more than 45◦ relative to the normal stress of the plane in the loading direction, they
failed along the planes of weakness as opposed to forming new fractures (Figure 11). If the plane of
weakness was at an angle less than 40◦ , the sample failed along newly formed fractures (Figure 11).
The strength of the rock is significantly reduced along the planes of weakness [27]. Therefore, the UCS
is significantly reduced if the sample fails along pre-existing weakness planes, compared to the sample
failing along newly formed fractures. For example, normal UCS results for intact tonalite are in the
range of 200–250 MPa [17,46]. This is in contrast with the results of our experiments, which show
UCS results of less than 100 MPa (Figure 7B), indicating that failure along pre-existing weakness
planes reduces the UCS of tonalite by at least two times, compared to the intact tonalite. However,
different types of weakness planes affect the UCS by different amounts. For example, the UCS (MPa)
vs. Young modulus (GPa) plot (Figure 8B) shows that there is a significant difference in strength
between the foliated or fractured samples and the veined samples. The veined samples are classified
as medium strength, while the fractured and foliated samples are classified as weak to very weak
strength. This behavior is controlled by the cohesive strength of the weakness. For example, the stress
required for frictional sliding along a pre-existing fracture or foliation is much less than for failure to
occur along a vein [27]. Veins are mineral filled fractures, and the vein material influences the strength
of the fracture. The behavior of vein is dependent on various factors, including the strength and
morphology of growing crystals (cohesion) and more importantly, their adhesion to the host rock [47].
Therefore, veins have cohesive and adhesive properties that contribute to the strength of a rock. If the
vein material is stronger than the host rock, the contact between the vein and the wall rock (if the
adhesive strength is lower than the wall rock strength) will control the plane of failure. However, if the
vein material is weaker than the host rock, the failure will be localized along the vein, and the strength
of the vein material controls the UCS. The majority of veins in the studied samples are calcite bearing
and the failure occurs along the veins. The average UCS strength of calcite is 78 MPa [48], which is
and more importantly, their adhesion to the host rock [47]. Therefore, veins have cohesive and
adhesive properties that contribute to the strength of a rock. If the vein material is stronger than the
host rock, the contact between the vein and the wall rock (if the adhesive strength is lower than the
wall rock strength) will control the plane of failure. However, if the vein material is weaker than the
host rock, the failure will be localized along the vein, and the strength of the vein material controls
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 18 of 23
the UCS. The majority of veins in the studied samples are calcite bearing and the failure occurs along
the veins. The average UCS strength of calcite is 78 MPa [48], which is similar to the average UCS
results
similar (66 MPa)
to the for the
average veined
UCS samples.
results This
(66 MPa) forsuggests thatsamples.
the veined it is the This
vein suggests
material that
that it
controls the
is the vein
UCS strength
material of the veined
that controls samples.
the UCS strength of the veined samples.
Figure
Figure 11.
11.(A) Schematic
(A) Schematicdiagram showing
diagram the relationship
showing between
the relationship the orientation
between of a newly
the orientation of aformed
newly
fracture
formed and a plane
fracture andofa aplane
pre-existing weakness.weakness.
of a pre-existing (B) Plot showing that
(B) Plot for samples
showing withsamples
that for pre-existing
with
pre-existing
planes planes ofthat
of weakness weakness
make anthat make
angle an angle
>45° to the>45 ◦ to the
loading loading direction,
direction, failure
failure occurs occurs
along thealong
pre-
the pre-existing planes of weakness. For samples with pre-existing planes of weakness that make
an angle <45◦ to the loading direction, failure occurs along newly formed shear fractures.
4.3. The Angle of Internal Friction and the Cohesion

Laboratory experiments on a large range of rock types have shown that the angle of internal
friction (ϕ) for intact rocks ranges between 20◦ and 45◦ [19,49]. The angle of internal friction and the
cohesion are usually determined from triaxial or shear box experiments [19], which are less convenient
to perform. Based on empirical equations [15], for most samples (21 samples), the angle of internal
friction could not be calculated and for a small number of samples (eight samples), the calculated
angle of internal friction returned negative values, which is unrealistic. The cohesion (c) values are
more realistic, although some values are extremely high. For the fifteen samples that returned positive
values for the angle of internal friction, most values are well below 20◦ , which is still different from the
expected values (between 20◦ and 45◦ ) reported UCS and ITS results for intact granite and sandstone
and for schist. The calculated angles of internal friction for intact granite are between 40◦ and 55◦
and for intact sandstone are between 26◦ and 55◦ which are almost identical to the values obtained
from triaxial and shear box experiments [49]. This suggests that the empirical equations [15] work
very well for intact rock. However, for the schists, the calculated angles of internal friction are mostly
negative, similar to the results obtained during this study. This can be readily explained by the
fact that the samples did not fail by shear fracture but along pre-existing planes of weakness. Thus,
the UCS of the sample is greatly reduced affecting the ratio of UCS to ITS. Figure 12A shows that for
samples with a UCS/ITS ratio of 5 or above, the calculated angles of internal friction fall within the
expected values, while for UCS/ITS ratios between 4 and 5, the calculated angles of internal friction
are unrealistically low. For UCS/ITS ratios less than 4, the calculated angles of internal friction become
negative. This decrease in UCS/ITS ratio correlates very well with the rock strength classification
derived from Figure 12B and shows that the UCS/ITS ratio can be used to classify rock strength. Rocks
with UCS/ITS above 8 are high strength, UCS/ITS between 5 and 8 are medium strength, UCS/ITS
between 4 and 5 low strength and UCS/ITS less than 4 are very low strength.
angles of internal friction are unrealistically low. For UCS/ITS ratios less than 4, the calculated angles
of internal friction become negative. This decrease in UCS/ITS ratio correlates very well with the rock
strength classification derived from Figure 12B and shows that the UCS/ITS ratio can be used to
classify rock strength. Rocks with UCS/ITS above 8 are high strength, UCS/ITS between 5 and 8 are
medium strength, UCS/ITS between 4 and 5 low strength and UCS/ITS less than 4 are very low
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 19 of 23
strength.
Figure 12. (A) (A) Plot

Plot showing
showing the relationship between
between the the calculated
calculatedfriction
frictionangle
angleand
andthe the(σ
(σc c/σ
/σtt)) ratio
ratio
for
for the investigated
investigated samples
samples and
and data
data from the literature. (B) (B) Classification
Classification of
of rocks
rocks basedbased on on their
their
strength. The The rock
rock strength
strength estimate
estimate is
is based
based on on the
the field
field occupied
occupied by
by the
the same
same samples
samplesin inFigure
Figure 8A, 8A,
whereas the fields in (B) are are derived
derived from
from thethe cluster
cluster ofof points
points in
in(A).
(A).Grouping
Groupingof ofthe the(σ(σc /σ
c/σtt) ratio
shows a relationship between the (σcc/σ /σt)t )and

andthe
thestrength
strengthclassification;
classification;therefore,
therefore, itit appears
appears thatthat the
(σcc/σ
/σt)t )can
canpotentially
potentiallybebeused
usedtotoclassify
classifyrock
rockstrength.
strength.
4.4. The
The Role
Role of
of Frictional
Frictional Reactivation
Reactivation
Most
Most of
ofthe
thetested
testedsamples failed
samples duedue
failed to reactivation of pre-existing
to reactivation planes planes
of pre-existing of weakness, such as
of weakness,
fractures, foliationsfoliations
such as fractures, or veins. The Mohr–Coulomb
or veins. criterion describes
The Mohr–Coulomb rock
criterion failure under
describes compression
rock failure under
[50], with the[50],
compression mainwith
assumption
the main being that the
assumption rockthat
being willthe
failrock
by shear fracturing.
will fail by shearTherefore,
fracturing.the Mohr–
Therefore,
the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is not suitable for describing the failure of rocks with pre-existing planes
of weakness, because failure will occur along these planes if they are favorably oriented (Figure 13).
Thus, the failure mechanism is driven by frictional reactivation of pre-existing fractures and not
by shear fracturing. This is because pre-existing fractures have no cohesive strength, only frictional
resistance [27]. The frictional reactivation of the pre-existing fractures for normal stresses up to 200 MPa
is described by the following equation:
σs = 0.85σn
where σs is the shear stress and σn is the normal stress [51]. Thus, frictional reactivation requires much
lower compressive stresses compared to the formation of new fractures [27]. This explains why the
samples have a low UCS (MPa) value when failure occurs along a plane of pre-existing weakness
(Figure 13). As the effective stress increases, frictional reactivation occurs until the orientation of the
pre-existing weakness becomes unfavourable and the angle of frictional lock up is reached (Figure 13),
and new fractures will develop. The reactivation field is defined by the slope (Figure 13) which also
constrains the maximum reactivation angle to ≤50◦ relative to the maximum principal stress. However,
a close look at the failure mode for the tested samples reveals that samples with pre-existing fractures
at ≤10◦ relative to the maximum principal stress failed only by reactivation. However, samples with
pre-existing fractures at >10◦ relative to the maximum principal stress failed due to a combination of
reactivation and new shear fractures.
13), and new fractures will develop. The reactivation field is defined by the slope (Figure 13) which
also constrains the maximum reactivation angle to ≤50° relative to the maximum principal stress.
However, a close look at the failure mode for the tested samples reveals that samples with pre-
existing fractures at ≤10° relative to the maximum principal stress failed only by reactivation.
However, samples with pre-existing fractures at >10° relative to the maximum principal stress failed
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 20 of 23
due to a combination of reactivation and new shear fractures.
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Mohr
Mohr circle
circle with
with the
the envelope
envelope forfor the
the faulting
faulting ofof intact
intact rock
rock and
and the
the envelope
envelope for for frictional
frictional
reactivation of pre-existing fractures. The envelope for failure of intact rock
reactivation of pre-existing fractures. The envelope for failure of intact rock follows the Mohr–Coulombfollows the Mohr–
Coulombσscriterion
criterion σs = cσn,
= c + tan(ϕ) + tan(φ)
and theσenvelope
n, and theof envelope
frictionalofreactivation
frictional reactivation follows
follows Byerlee’s lawByerlee’s
σs = 0.85σlawn.
σs = frictional
The 0.85σn. The frictional reactivation
reactivation envelope canenvelope can be based
be subdivided subdivided
on thebased on the beta
beta angles—if theangles—if
beta angletheis
beta only
<20, anglereactivation
is <20, only reactivation
of pre-existing of pre-existing fractures
fractures occurs andoccurs
higherandbetahigher
anglebeta angle
failure failure
occurs occurs
through
through a combination of reactivation of pre-existing fractures and the
a combination of reactivation of pre-existing fractures and the formation of new shear fractures.formation of new shear
fractures.
The Thesamples
fractured fractured samples
(circles) (circles)
used in thisused in this
study study are
are plotted plotted
along along the reactivation
the frictional frictional reactivation
envelope,
envelope,
blue samplesblue samples
represent represent
only only theof reactivation
the reactivation of pre-existing
pre-existing fractures and thefractures and the
orange samples orange
represent
samplesalong
failure represent failurefractures
new shear along new andshear fracturesofand
reactivation reactivation
pre-existing of pre-existing
fractures. fractures.
The foliated The
samples
foliated samples (triangles) used in this study failed due to a combination of pre-existing
(triangles) used in this study failed due to a combination of pre-existing fractures (i.e., foliation) and fractures
(i.e., foliation)
newly and newly
formed shear formed shear fractures.
fractures.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The results
The results of
of this
this study
study show
show that
that because
because deformed
deformed and
and altered
altered rocks are highly
rocks are highly anisotropic,
anisotropic,
there is no mathematical solution for predicting rock failure modes accurately, making it difficult to
there is no mathematical solution for predicting rock failure modes accurately, making it difficult to
understand deformed rock behaviour under an applied load. However, a series of useful conclusions
understand deformed rock behaviour under an applied load. However, a series of useful conclusions
can be
can be drawn:
drawn:
• Deformed rocks fail by a variety of failure modes, but the dominant failure mode is the reactivation
of pre-existing planes of weakness. Failure by shear is only rarely achieved.
• The UCS is significantly reduced if the sample fails along pre-existing weakness planes, compared
to the sample failing along newly formed shear fractures.
• Thus, the failure mode and the change in sample anisotropy (due to size difference) controls
whether or not the UCS can be related to the PLS and the ITS.
• The Young’s modulus and the UCS can be used to classify the strength of the rocks. Observations
show that veined and breccia samples are medium to low strength rocks. Fractured and foliated
samples are weak to very weak rocks. This strength difference is controlled by the cohesive
strength of the pre-existing planes of weakness.
• The empirical equations derived by [15] for the friction angle and the cohesions from UTS and ITS
tests can be used accurately to calculate the shear parameters for intact rock. However, they yield
unrealistic results for foliated, fractured or veined rocks.
• The UCS/ITS ratio can be used to classify rock strength: UCS/ITS ≥8 indicates high strength
rocks, 5 < UCS/ITS ≤ 8 indicates medium strengths rocks, 4 < UCS/ITS < 5 indicates low strength
rocks and UCS/ITS <4 are very low strength rocks.
• This study confirms previous observations that samples with foliations, fractures or veins inclined
more than 40◦ from the normal to the plane will fail along the planes of weakness as opposed
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 21 of 23
to forming new fractures. However, this study subdivides, for the first time, the failure along
pre-existing structures into two failure modes: (1) if the angle of the weakened plane is ≤20◦
from the maximum principal stress, the sample will fail only along the pre-existing weakness
and (2) if the weakness plane is between 20◦ and 45◦ relative to the maximum principal stress,
the sample will fail along a combination of pre-existing weakness planes and newly formed
shear fractures.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Sivakugan for organizing the samples for the
experiments and for reading an early version of this manuscript.
Author Contributions: T.E. and I.S. conceived and designed the experiments; T.E. performed the experiments;
T.E. and I.S. analyzed the data; T.E. and I.S. wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Himmelberg, G.R.; Haeussler, P.J.; Brew, D.A. Emplacement, rapid burial, and exhumation of 90-ma plutons
in southeastern alaska. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2004, 41, 87–102. [CrossRef]
2. Davis, B.K. Mechanism of emplacement of the cannibal creek granite with special reference to timing and
deformation history of the aureole. Tectonophysics 1993, 224, 337–362. [CrossRef]
3. Jayko, A.S.; Blake, M.C. Deformation of the eastern franciscan belt, Northern California. J. Struct. Geol. 1988,
11, 375–390. [CrossRef]
4. Martinez, L.F.; Zuluaga, C.C.A. Thermal modeling of pluton emplacement and associated contact
metamorphism: Parashi stock emplacement in the Serrania de Jarara (Alta Guajira, Colombia). Earth Sci.
Res. J. 2010, 14, 16–23.
5. Molina, P.G.; Parada, M.A.; Gutiérrez, F.J.; Ma, C.; Li, J.; Yuanyuan, L.; Reich, M.; Aravena, Á. Protracted
late magmatic stage of the caleu pluton (central Chile) as a consequence of heat redistribution by diking:
Insights from zircon data and thermal modeling. Lithos 2015, 227, 255–268. [CrossRef]
6. Bell, T.H.; Sanislav, I.V.; Sapkota, J. The control of deformation partitioning and strain localization on
porphyroblast behaviour in rocks and experiments. Geosci. J. 2018, 22, 65–77. [CrossRef]
7. Sanislav, I.V. Porphyroblast rotation and strain localization: Debate settled!: Comment. Geology 2010, 38, e204.
[CrossRef]
8. Noronha, F.; Cathelineau, M.; Boiron, M.C.; Banks, D.A.; Doria, A.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Nogueira, P.; Guedes, A.
A three stage fluid flow model for variscan gold metallogenesis in northern portugal. Geochem. Eng. 2000, 71,
209–224. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Y.; Hobbs, B.E.; Ord, A.; Barnicoat, A.; Zhao, C.; Walshe, J.L.; Lin, G. The influence of faulting
on host-rock permeability, fluid flow and ore genesis of gold deposits: A theoretical 2d numerical model.
J. Geochem. Explor. 2003, 78–79, 279–284. [CrossRef]
10. Rutqvist, J.; Rinaldi, A.P.; Cappa, F.; Moridis, G.J. Modeling of fault reactivation and induced seismicity
during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2013, 107, 31–44. [CrossRef]
11. O’Brien, G.W.; Lisk, M.; Duddy, I.R.; Hamilton, J.; Woods, P.; Cowley, R. Plate convergence, foreland
development and fault reactivation-primary controls on brine migration, thermal histories and trap breach
in the timor sea, australia. Mar. Pet. Geol. 1999, 16, 533–560. [CrossRef]
12. Klinger, Y.; Etchebes, M.; Tapponnier, P.; Narteau, C. Characteristic slip for five great earthquakes along the
fuyun fault in china. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 389–392. [CrossRef]
13. Brady, B.H.G.; Brown, E.T. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2006; Volume 628.
14. Nomikos, P.P.; Sofianos, A.I. An analytical probability distribution for the factor of safety in underground
rock mechanics. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2011, 48, 597–605. [CrossRef]
15. Sivakugan, N.; Das, B.M.; Lovisa, J.; Patra, C.R. Determination of c and ϕ of rocks from indirect tensile
strength and uniaxial compression tests. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 8, 59–65. [CrossRef]
16. Amini, M.; Majdi, A.; Veshadi, M.A. Stability analysis of rock slopes against block-flexure toppling failure.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2012, 45, 519–532. [CrossRef]
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 22 of 23
17. Sivakugan, N.; Shukla, S.K.; Das, B.M. Rock Mechanics an Introduction; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2013.
18. Kožušníková, A.; Marečková, K. Analysis of rock failure after triaxial testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
1999, 36, 243–251. [CrossRef]
19. Haimson, B.; Chang, C. A new true triaxial cell for testing mechanical properties of rock, and its use to
determine rock strength and deformability of westerly granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2000, 37, 285–296.
[CrossRef]
20. Hoek, E. Rock mechanics laboratory testing in the context of a consulting engineering organization. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1977, 14, 93–101. [CrossRef]
21. Singh, T.N.; Kainthola, A.; Venkatesh, A. Correlation between point load index and uniaxial compressive
strength for different rock types. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2011, 45, 259–264. [CrossRef]
22. Kaya, A.; Karaman, K. Utilizing the strength conversion factor in the estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength from the point load index. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2015, 75, 341–357. [CrossRef]
23. Karaman, K.; Cihangir, F.; Ercikdi, B.; Kesimal, A.; Demirel, S. Utilization of the brazilian test for estimating
the uniaxial compressive strength and shear strength parameters. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2015, 115,
24. Broch, E.; Franklin, J.A. The point-load strength test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1972, 9,
25. Greminger, M. Experimental studies of the influence of rock anisotropy on size and shape effects in point-load
testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1982, 19, 241–246. [CrossRef]
26. Forster, I.R. The influence of core sample geometry on the axial point-load test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 1983, 20, 291–295. [CrossRef]
27. Doglioni, C.; Carminati, E. Structural Style and Dolomites Field Trip; Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica
d’Italia; ISPRA: Roma, 2008; Volume LXXXII ed APATI, p. 301.
28. Attewell, P.B.; Sandford, M.R. Intrinsic shear strength of a brittle, anisotropic rock—I: Experimental and
mechanical interpretation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1974, 11, 423–430. [CrossRef]
29. Lei, X.L.; Nishizawa, O.; Kusunose, K.; Cho, A.; Satoh, T.; Nishizawa, O. Compressive failure of mudstone
samples containing quartz veins using rapid AE monitoring: The role of asperities. Tectonophysics 2000, 328,
30. Cao, R.-H.; Cao, P.; Lin, H.; Pu, C.-Z.; Ou, K. Mechanical behavior of brittle rock-like specimens with
pre-existing fissures under uniaxial loading: Experimental studies and particle mechanics approach.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2015, 49, 763–783. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, Z.; Zhou, D. Mechanical properties and failure modes of rock samples with grout-infilled flaws:
A particle mechanics modeling. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 34, 702–715. [CrossRef]
32. Australia, S. Methods of testing concrete. In Method 10: Determination of Indirect Tensile Strength of Concrete
Cylinders (‘Brazil’ or Splitting Test); Standards Australia International Ltd.: Strathfield, Australia, 2014;
Volume 10, pp. 1–5.
33. Australia, S. Methods of testing rocks for engineering purposes. In Methods 4.2.2: Rock Strength
Tests—Determination of Uniaxial Compressive Strength-Rock Strength Less Than 50 MPa; Standards Australia
Limited: Sydney, Australia, 2013; Volume 4.2.2, pp. 1–3.
34. Australia, S. Methods of testing rocks for engineering purposes. In Method 4.2.1: Rock Strength
Tests—Determination of Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 MPa and Greater; Australia Standards Limited:
Sydney, Australia, 2007; Volume 4.2.1, pp. 1–3.
35. Australia, S. Methods of testing rocks for engineering purposes. In Method 4.1: Rock Strength
Test—Determination of Point Load Strength Index; Standards Australia Limited: Sydney, Australia, 2007;
Volume 4.1, pp. 1–5.
36. Basu, A.; Mishra, D.A.; Roychowdhury, K. Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, brazilian,
and point load tests. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2013, 72, 457–475. [CrossRef]
37. Deere, D.U.; Miller, R.P.; Dentith, M.; Clark, D.; Featherstone, W. Engineering Classification and Index Properties
of Intact Rock; Technical Report; No. AFWL-TR-65-116 AFWL-TR; No. 65–116; Air Force Weapons Laboratory:
Dayton, OH, USA, 1966; Volume 308.
38. Hawkes, I.; Mellor, M. Uniaxial testing in rock mechanics laboratories. Eng. Geol. 1970, 4, 179–285. [CrossRef]
Geosciences 2018, 8, 124 23 of 23
39. Akram, M.; Bakar, M.A.A. Correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and point load index for
salt-range rocks. Pak. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2007, 1, 1–7.
40. Kohno, M.; Maeda, H. Relationship between point load strength index and uniaxial compressive strength of
hydrothermally altered soft rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2012, 50, 147–157. [CrossRef]
41. Nazir, R.; Momeni, E.; Armaghani, D.J.; Amin, M.F.M. Correlation between unconfined compressive strength
and indirect tensile strength of limestone rock samples. Electr. J. Geotech. Eng. 2013, 18, 1737–1746.
42. Basu, A.; Kamran, M. Point load test on schistose rocks and its applicability in predicting uniaxial compressive
strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2010, 47, 823–828. [CrossRef]
43. Sheorey, P.R. Empirical Rock Failure Criteria; A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.
44. Vutukuri, V.S.; Lama, R.D.; Saluja, S.S. Handbook on Mechanical Properties of Rocks: Testing Techniques and
Results, 1st ed.; Trans Tech Publications: Bay Village, OH, USA, 1974.
45. Suppe, J. Principles of Structural Geology; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1985.
46. Perkins, R.D.; Green, S.J.; Friedman, M. Uniaxial stress behavior of porphyritic tonalite at strain rates to
103 /second. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1970, 7, 527–535. [CrossRef]
47. Nicholas, H.S.O.; Paul, D.B. Mechanisms of fluid flow and fluid-rock interaction in fossil metamorphic
hydrothermal systems inferred from vein-wallrock patterns, geometry and microstructure. Geofluids 2001, 1,
137–162.
48. Saliu, M.A.; Akindoyeni, A.F.; Okewale, I.A. Correlation between blast efficiency and uniaxial compressive
strength. Eng. Technol. 2013, 3, 799–805.
49. Jaeger, J.C.; Cook, N.G. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1979; p. 593.
50. Labuz, J.F.; Zang, A. Mohr–coulomb failure criterion. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2012, 45, 975–979. [CrossRef]
51. Byerlee, J. Friction of rocks. Pure Appl. Geophys. 1978, 116, 615–626. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Geosciences 08 00124

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geosciences 08 00124

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geosciences 08 00124

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

geosciences

Keywords: rock strength; failure modes; reactivation; friction angle

Geosciences 2018, 8, 124; doi:10.3390/geosciences8040124 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

2. Materials and Methods

Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Table 1. Summary table of rock descriptions and rock classifications.

Group Sample ID Texture Pre-Existing Structures

Figure 3.Figure 3. (A) Photograph

3.1. Failure Modes

3.1.1. Failure under Point Load

Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

Test Type Failure Mode No. of Samples Failed

Test Type Failure Mode Number

Test Type Failure Mode No. of Samples Failed

3.1.2. Failure under Uniaxial Compressive Test

3.1.3. Failure under Indirect Tensile Test

3.2. Young’s Modulus

3.3. Shear Strength Parameters

Specimens Measured Parameters Estimated Parameters Ratios

4.2. The Role of Pre-Existing Planes of Weakness

4.3. The Angle of Internal Friction and the Cohesion

Figure 12. (A) (A) Plot

shows a relationship between the (σcc/σ /σt)t )and

You might also like