Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness Testing for a Coarse Grain Marble


Article Preview

A series of fracture toughness tests have been conducted on a type of coarse grain marble. The tests were carried out either in pure mode I or in pure mode II conditions by using the cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc (CCNBD) specimen. A total number of 44 CCNBD specimens were tested, half in pure mode I and the rest in pure mode II, to obtain reliable values for mode I and mode II fracture toughness (KIc and KIIc) of the tested marble. The average value of KIc for this marble was approximately about 1.12 MPa m showing a good agreement with those reported for similar coarse grain marbles. The mode II fracture toughness was found to be 2.25 MPa m in average which is approximately twice the mode I fracture toughness. However, the conventional fracture criteria suggest that the mode I fracture toughness should be higher than the mode II fracture toughness, (KIc>KIIc). According to these criteria, the ratio of KIIc / KIc is a figure typically between 0.63 and 0.96. It is shown in this paper that enhanced mode II fracture toughness of CCNBD specimen could be due to the effects of highly negative T-stress when the specimen is subjected to mode II. It is also shown that an improved prediction for the ratio KIIc / KIc can be achieved when the effect of T-stress is taken into account.



Edited by:

Patrick Sean Keogh




M.R.M. Aliha et al., "Mode I and Mode II Fracture Toughness Testing for a Coarse Grain Marble", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 5-6, pp. 181-188, 2006

Online since:

October 2006




[1] F. Ouchterlony: Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 25 (1988), 71-96.

[2] R.J. Fowell: Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 32 (1995), 57-64.

[3] H.C. Soo, I.L. Chung and J. Seokwon: Engineering Geology, Vol. 66 (2001), 79-97.

[4] K. Khan and N.A. Al-Shayea: Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 33 (2000): 179206.

[5] M.R. Ayatollahi andM.R.M. Aliha: Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 72 (2005), 493-503.

[6] H. Awaji and S. Sato: Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 100, (1978), 175182.

[7] C. Atkinson, R.E. Smelser and J. Sanchez: International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 18 (1982), 279-291.

[8] G.S. Xeidakis, I.S. Samaras, D.A. Zacharopoulos and G.E. Papakaliatakis: International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 79 (1996), 197-208.

[9] F. Erdogan and G.C. Sih: Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 85 (1963), 519-525.

[10] G.C. Sih: Methods Mechanics of Fracture, Vol. 1, Ed G.C. Sih, Noordhoff, Leiden (1973).

[11] M.A. Hussain, S.L. Pu and J. Underwood: ASTM STP 560. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1974, 2-28.

[12] D.J. Smith, M.R. Ayatollahi and M.J. Pavier: Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 24 (2001), 137-150.

[13] R.A. Schmidt: in Proc 21 st US Symp. On Rock Mech., 1980, 581-90.

[14] I.S. Buyuksagis and R.M. Goktan: Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 169 (2005), 258-262.

[15] Y. Yu, J. Yin and Z. Zhong: Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci., 2005, Article in press.

[16] R.A. Schmidt: Expl. Mech., Vol. 16 (1976), 161-167.

[17] J.F. Labuz, S.P. Shah and C.H. Dowding: Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 24(1987), 235-246.