International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 182, Issue 2, pp 167–186 | Cite as

Modeling of crack initiation, propagation and coalescence in rocks

Original Paper

Abstract

One of the most successful criteria proposed so far to describe the initiation and propagation of cracks under quasi-static loading in rock-like materials is a stress-based criterion developed by Bobet (Fracture coalescence in rock materials: experimental observations and numerical predictions. Sc. D, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1997) which is embedded in FROCK, a Displacement Discontinuity code that was developed by the rock mechanics group at MIT. Even though the predictions obtained with this criterion generally correspond to the experimental results, there are cases in which the quasi-static crack propagation results obtained with FROCK are not satisfactory. For this reason, a qualitative study using the Finite Element code, ABAQUS, was conducted to analyze stress-, strain- and energy-based criteria used for modeling crack development. Based on the ABAQUS relative quantitative analysis, it was found that the strain- and stress-based criteria may be more appropriate than the energy-based criterion to model quasi-static crack development. Thus, a strain-based and a normal stress-dependent criterion were implemented in FROCK. The cracking patterns obtained with these proposed criteria were compared with those obtained using Bobet’s original stress-based criterion and with experimental observations made in molded gypsum specimens. The proposed strain-based criterion implemented in FROCK appeared to yield better results than Bobet’s stress-based criterion. The influence of the friction angle (\(\upvarphi \)) on the cracking patterns was studied with the proposed normal stress-dependent criterion and showed that friction angles closer to \(0^{\circ }\) yielded the best results, which may indicate that, at least for the microscale, the critical shear stress at which rock fails does not depend upon the normal stresses applied.

Keywords

Crack propagation Modeling Boundary element method Finite element method Rock fracturing Crack initiation and propagation criterion 

References

  1. Agwai A et al (2011) Predicting crack propagation with peridynamics: a comparative study. Int J Fract 171:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobet A (1997) Fracture coalescence in rock materials: experimental observations and numerical predictions. Sc.D, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobet A (2000) The initiation of secondary cracks in compression. Eng Fract Mech 66:187–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobet A, Einstein HH (1998a) Numerical modeling of fracture coalescence in a model rock material. Int J Fract 92:221–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobet A, Einstein HH (1998b) Fracture coalescence in rock-type materials under uniaxial and biaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(7):863–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks Z et al (2010) A nanomechanical investigation of the crack tip process zone. In: Proceedings of the 44th U.S. rock mechanics and geomechanics symposium, Chicago, paper 10-301Google Scholar
  7. Chan M (1986) Automatic two-dimensional multi-fracture propagation modeling of brittle solids with particular application to rock. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan M et al (1990) Hybridized displacement discontinuity and indirect boundary element method to model fracture propagation. Int J Fract 45:263–282Google Scholar
  9. Erdogan F, Sih GC (1963) On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear. J Basic Eng 85:305– 321Google Scholar
  10. Fagerström M, Larsson R (2008) Approaches to dynamic fracture modelling at finite deformations. J Mech Phys Solids 56:613–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonçalves da Silva B (2009) Modeling of crack initiation, propagation and coalescence in rocks. S.M, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonçalves da Silva B, Einstein HH (2012) Study of stress and strain fields around a flaw tip in rock. In: Proceedings of the 46th U.S. rock mechanics and geomechanics symposium, Chicago, paper 12-593, 2074–2089Google Scholar
  13. Guo ZK, Kobayashi AS (1995) Dynamic mixed mode fracture of concrete. Int J Solids Struct 32:2591–2607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingraffea AR, Heuze FE (1980) Finite element models for rock fracture mechanics. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 4:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isaksson P, Ståhle P (2002) Prediction of shear crack growth direction under compressive loading and plane strain conditions. Int J Fract 113:175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobayashi AS (1999) Hybrid method in elastic and elastoplastic fracture mechanics. Opt Lasers Eng 32:299–323Google Scholar
  17. Liu ZL et al (2011) An XFEM/spectral element method for dynamic crack propagation. Int J Fract 169:183–198Google Scholar
  18. Martinez AR (1999) Fracture coalescence in natural rock. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller JT (2008) Crack coalescence in granite. S.M, Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan S et al (2013) Cracking processes in Barre granite: fracture process zones and crack coalescence. Int J Fract 180:177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramulu M, Kobayashi AS (1985) Mechanics of crack curving and branching—a dynamic fracture analysis. Int J Fract 27:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ravi-Chandar K, Knauss WG (1984) An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: II. Microstructural aspects. Int J Fract 26:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reyes O (1991) Experimental study and analytical modeling of compressive fracture in brittle materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  24. Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 35:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shen B, Stephansson O (1993) Numerical analysis of mixed mode I and mode II fracture propagation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 30(7):861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sih GC (1974) Strain-energy-density factory applied to mixed mode crack problems. Int J Fract 10(3):305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silling SA, Askari E (2005) A meshfree method based on the peridynamic model of solid mechanics. Comput Struct 83(17–18):1526–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vásárhelyi B, Bobet A (2000) Modeling of crack initiation, propagation and coalescence in uniaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 33(2):119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wong NY (2008) Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara marble. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong LNY, Einstein HH (2009a) Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara marble: Part 1—macroscopic observations and interpretation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(3):475–511Google Scholar
  31. Wong LNY, Einstein HH (2009b) Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and Carrara marble: Part 2—microscopic observations and interpretation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(3):513–545Google Scholar
  32. Xu Y, Yuan H (2011) Applications of normal stress dominated cohesive zone models for mixed-mode crack simulation based on the extended finite element methods. Eng Fract Mech 78:544–558Google Scholar
  33. Yu C, Kobayashi A (1994) Fracture process zone associated with mixed mode fracture of \(\text{ SiC }_{\rm W}/\text{ Al }_{2}O_{3}\). J Non-Cryst Solids 177:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Gonçalves da Silva
    • 1
  • Herbert H. Einstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations