118

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

area, Saskatchewan, Canada. Can. J. Earth Sci. 5, pp.

1167-1173.
E. A., and MENELEY,
W. A. 1970. Slope
CHRISTIANSEN,
instability. I n Physical environment of Saskatoon,
Canada. Edited by Christiansen, E . A., National Research Council ofCanadaPubl. No. 11378, pp. 51-52.
J. J. 1969. Effects of environment on the perHAMILTON,
formance of shallow foundations. Can. Geotech. J.
6(1), pp. 65-80.
MICKLEBOROUGH,
B. W. 1970. An experimental study of
the effects of freezing on clay subgrades. Unpubl.
M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Saskatchewan Library, Saskatoon, Sask.

PETERSON,
R. 1954. Studies of the Bearpaw shale at a
damsite in Saskatchewan. Proc. A.S.C.E., Soil Mech.
Found. Div. 80, Separate 476.
PETERSON,
R., JASPAR,
J. L., RIVARD,
P . J., and IVERSON,
N. L. 1960. Limitations of laboratory shear strength in
evaluating stability of highly plastic clays. A.S.C.E.
Conf. Shear Strength Cohesive Soils, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 765-791.
SAUER,E . K. 1974. Geotechnical implications of Pleistocene deposits in southern Saskatchewan. Can.
Geotech. J. 11(3), pp. 359-373.

Failure along Planes of Weakness

E. 2. LAJTAI
Department of Geology, UniversiQ of New Br~mswick,Fredericton, New Br~mswick
Received August 13, 1974
Accepted October 7, 1974

The importance of the micro stress field in the failure of discontinuous rocks is emphasized.
The factors controlling failure are identified as, the micro stress set up at the ends and at
irregularities ofjoint segments, the macro stress which controls the growth of the microfracture to
macroscopic dimensions, and the external constraint which may arrest the propagating failure
surface. By causing microfracture, the micro stress is largely responsible for the destruction of
the rock bridges and the asperities occurring along the plane of weakness. In the initial stages of
failure, the various types of tensile and shear microfractures form a zigzag pattern which on
continued deformation becomes incorporated in a wide shear zone running along the original
plane of weakness.
L'importance des champs de contraintes locaux dans la rupture des roches discontinues est
mise en evidence. Les facteurs controllant la rupture sont identifies comme Btant les concentrations de contraintes aux extremites et k proximite des irr6gularit6s des joints, les contraintes
globales qui controlent la croissance de microfractures jusqu'k des dimensions macroscopiques,
et les conditions aux limites qui peuvent arrster la propagation de la surface de rupture. En
provoquant des microfractures, les concentrations de contraintes sont largement responsables de
la destruction des dalles rocheuses jouant le rBle de ponts et des asperites presentes dans les plans
de glissement. Dans les phases initiales de la rupture, les differents types de micro fractures d e
tension et de cisaillement foment un reseau en zig-zag qui, avec le developpement des
dCformations, est progressivement incorpore B une large zone de cisaillement suivant le plan de
faiblesse initial.
[Traduit par la Revue]

Introduction
The course of a failure surface across a mass
of discontinuous rock depends chiefly on the
pattern of preexisting planes of weakness. In a
simple situation, a single plane of weakness
itself may lead to failure. In more complex rock
structures, however, a developing failure surface shifts from one set of discontinuities to
another, cutting across solid rock bridges in the
process. The shear strength along the eventual
failure surface therefore consists of a combination of solid rock strength in rock bridges and
Can. Geotech. J., 12,118 (1975)

discontinuity strength along the initially fractured or already sheared sections.

The determination of the contribution of
solid rock to the total shear strength is a major
and usually unsolvable problem. The difficulty
of its evaluation is sometimes so overwhelming
that the practical step is to neglect it altogether.
This, however, has the same effect as assuming
that the strength of a rock mass is no more
than that of sand. Consequently one could not
allow slopes steeper than a few degrees over
30, despite the fact that most rock slopes, even

NOTES

in heavily jointed rocks, will stand over 45"

with no signs of instability. Since few rocks
have a friction angle ( 4 ) greater than 40, and
most are between 25 and 35", the significance
of solid rock strength besides friction on the
plane of failure is clearly indicated. The 'engineering term' for this extra strength, which is
additional to frictional resistance, is 'cohesion
(c)' or 'fundamental shear strength (So)'. Both
terms are elusive not only of description but
also of understanding. The main reason for this
is that cohesional strength can only be overcome by fracture, a process that is too complex
to be described through a single parameter. The
main purpose of this paper is to indicate in
some detail the source and the nature of this
problem.
Possible Approaches
There are two commonly used approaches to
rock mechanics. One is through continuum
mechanics, primarily elasticity, and the other
through discontinuum mechanics. Continuum
mechanics finds its application chiefly in geomechanics, the geological application of rock
mechanics, and in mining, while discontinuum
mechanics is used extensively in engineering
rock mechanics, particularly in near surface,
geotechnical processes (e.g. slope stability and
foundation works). Both approaches have produced useful results by indicating the overall,
mainly qualitative and occasionally quantitative,
nature of rock behavior.
The discontinuum approach presumes that
rock is so highly fractured that all deformation
is taken up by sliding on fracture surfaces and
that the strength of the total rock mass is adequately represented by strength along planes of
weakness. In the usual engineering application,
this should reduce to the problem of finding
the strength parameters of cohesion (fundamental shear strength) and friction ( 4 ) of the
Coulomb equation (Fig. l a ) :
The strength parameters, c and 4, and the components of the stress vector, T and U, all refer
to the plane of weakness. When applying this
equation to a practical problem, the best one
can expect is to have a reasonable 'average'
value of the four parameters because in detail
both the strength parameters and also the com-

119

ponents of the stress vector vary from point to

point.
The strength parameter, cohesion is generally
attributed to joint roughness, interlocking asperities on the joint surface and to unsheared
rock bridges separating joint segments. Determining the actual value of cohesion would require, as a first step, an accurate description of
all these factors, rarely obtainable under natural
(in situ) conditions. Even if these were available, the problem of evaluating their individual
and combined influence would be beyond the
competence of present day knowledge. For
these reasons, Hoek (1970) advises not to use
cohesional strength in design unless it was d e ~
termined through the 'back-analysis' of an
actual large-scale rock failure.
The frictional component of the Coulomb
equation is less difficult to determine since the
angle of friction for the large majority of materials ranges between 25 and 35". Nonetheless,
the amount of available frictional strength is
not a simple linear function of normal stress
when the fracture of asperities is involved as
well. In addition, frictional strength depends on
displacement through wear on the slide surface.
At large normal stresses, the additional problem
of stick-slip may appear, but this would not be
significant in near-surface applications.
Because of the stress concentrations around
asperities of the plane of weakness, the stress
parameters 7 and (7 vary from point to point.
For the Coulomb equation, the parameters used
are the average values (macro parameters) obtained by simple resolution of the total force
into plane-parallel and plane-normal components.
An additional problem arises from the uncertainty about the way the cohesional and
frictional terms combine to determine the total
strength along the plane of weakness. This depends greatly on the amount of displacement
which may occur before the maximum strength
is reached. In tightly interlocking planes of
weakness, friction may not develop until the
asperities are sheared to some degree allowing
sufficient displacement for the frictional component to become mobilized. In spite of all the
uncertainties, the use of the Coulomb equation
does produce acceptable results as long as the
stress and strength parameters are well chosen.
There have been attempts to improve on the

CAN.

GEOTECH. J. VOL.

12. 1975

FIG. 1. Empirical relationships among strength and stress parameters belonging to a single
plane of weakness; (a) Coulomb, (b) Patton, (c) Barton.

Coulomb equation. Patton ( 1966) incorporated

the influence of surface roughness by increasing
the value of the friction angle by an angle of i,
representing the inclination of surface undulation. The underlying assumption is that at low
normal stress sliding should occur over the
undulations producing a fictitious friction angle
of (+ i) while at a higher normal stress the
shearing of asperities should take place (Fig.
I b ) . This would produce two different conditions of failure:

sliding

T =

shearing

(T

=c

tan(+

(T

+ i)

tan

In the rock mechanics literature the two relationships are very commonly applied to results
derived from both the direct shear and the
triaxial test. This is justifiable in the case of
sliding, but for the shearing process the shearing
equation in direct shear cannot be a straight
line (Lajtai 1969). The strength of solid rock
bridges in direct shear is determined by three
limit curves corresponding to tensile failure at
low normal stress ( a parabola), shear failure
at intermediate values of normal stress (an
ellipse), and the condition of residual strength
(a straight line) at higher values of normal
stress. Replacing these with a common straight
line is an inexcusable oversimplification.
A further modification was added to the
Patton criteria by Barton ( 1971) who replaced
the two straight line sections with a parabola
defined through
T

= u tan{20/1og(CO/~) 30)

where Co is the uniaxial compressive strength

of the material. As long as this is regarded as
strictly empirical, one which has no mechanistic
implications whatsoever, there should be no
objection to it. The parabolic shape, if it has
general validity, may be due to several factors
including those controlling the fracture of asperities and rock bridges.
None of these proposals has real theoretical
status. The difficulty in developing a theory of
discontinuous rock lies in the fact that any
process which involves fracture depends not on
the large-scale or the average stress and
strength parameters, but on those which exist
at a smaller scale, at points where fracture
actually takes place. It is convenient to call the
former the macro-scale and the latter the microscale. Although, the distinction between the two
size levels introduces a considerable degree of
complexity, the understanding of its implications is indispensable for the development of
any theory of discontinuous rocks.

Controlling Factors of Failure

Whether or not ultimate failure occurs along
a plane of weakness depends on several factors
which relate to three general conditions:
( 1 ) The micro stress field,
(2) The macro stress field,
( 3 ) External constraints.
The Micro Stress Field
Standard analyses of the influence of planes
of weakness on the stability of engineering
structures tend to ignore the micro stress field

NOTES

121

completely and conduct the analysis solely in

terms of macro parameters. This is essentially
a continuum approach which is modified to
accept a planar discontinuity. A good example
of this is Jaeger's method (Jaeger 1969, p.
159). The analysis is conducted by using two
strength equations. One defines the strength of
solid rock through a Coulomb equation, which
is valid for all potential failure planes in the
material excepting the plane of weakness. For
the latter, the strength parameters are defined
differently through a second Coulomb equation.
At the same time, the stress field is assumed to
be unaffected by the presence of the plane of
weakness with the consequence that the existence of the micro stress field is ignored. This
approach is proper for the rather special and
trivial case where no rock asperities or rock
bridges exist at all. In all other cases, the fracFIG. 2. Fracture types generated by the micro
ture of rock is eventually involved, a process stress field around a joint segment.
which is controlled by the micro stress field
existing around asperities, irregularities and the At the compressive stress concentration, crushends of preexisting fractures along the plane of ing of the material occurs which produces an
initially narrow shear zone (the normal shear
weakness.
The differentiation between stresses con- fracture or shortly NS) trending approximately
sidered at two different scales is common to all perpendicularly to the direction of maximum
branches of fracture mechanics. It is a con- compression. At higher P1 (the maximum prinvenient technique which is, however, of dubious cipal stress of the macro stress field) the crush
theoretical status. Stress by definition is referred zone becomes wider. This process is usually
to an infinitesimal volume and therefore cannot followed by the formation of a second tensile
be considered to act at any but the smallest of fracture (T2). Further stages of fracture evoluscales. The purpose of the distinction is only tion depend greatly on physical conditions away
to point out the difference between the 'average' from the pre-existing fracture segments (the
stress which could in fact exist only in a con- macro stress and the external constraint), but
tinuum (the macro stress), and stress which is the usual step is the formation of inclined shear
set up locally around material imperfections of fractures (IS) in the crushed regions of the
a real material (micro stress). The macro stress material. The example given in Fig. 2 gives the
field would in a real material exist only at points most complete pattern of fracture evolution.
which are located far from imperfections. The The other two controlling factors, the macro
relevant experience in fracture mechanics sug- stress field and the system of external congests that it is the micro stress which is respon- straints may, however, depress the development
sible for the initiation of fracture.
of some of the features. Were P1 a tensile macro
With reference to fracture initiation, both stress, for example, only T1 would form. A
the tensile and the compressive stress concentra- large PP, on the other hand, could eliminate TI
tions of the micro stress field are of significance. completely. In addition, the preexisting fracture
Each can be represented by the extreme value may not be completely planar and smooth so
of the stress concentration and the stress gra- that stress concentrations could be set up at
dient belonging to it. These two factors define several points. The fracture pattern of Fig. 2
the condition of fracture initiation (Lajtai 1972; could then be repeated several times along a
Nesetova and Lajtai 1973). The tensile stress single preexisting fracture.
The fracture pattern just described has been
concentrations may produce a tensile microfracture (TI) in the manner shown in Fig. 2. used by the writer to explain fracture in solid

122

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

joint

segments

/ \

FIG.3. The influence of the macro stress field on failure as illustrated by the two extreme
cases of uniaxial tension and compression. Fracture symbols are as in Fig. 2.

rock as developing from material flaws of

microscopic size, traditionally called Griffith
cracks. There is no reason why the same process could not be applied to a macroscopic
joint segment. To be quite proper one should
work at three size levels: the microscopic scale
of Griffith cracks, the macroscopic scale of the
joint segment and the megascopic scale of the
total failure surface which could involve several
joint segments. This would, however, introduce
an extra element of complexity the inclusion of
which is not really necessary. Because of the
'size-effect' (Lajtai 1972) one may neglect the
heterogeneous microscopic stress field associated with the Griffith cracks and concentrate
on the larger scales of the joint segment (micro
stress) and that of the failure surface (macro
stress). Considering that most rock designs are
now conducted at only one size level (the
macro), the two size level approach should
already represent a significant (not necessarily
practical) increase in sophistication.

microfractures initiated by the micro stress field

extend automatically requiring no further increase in the macro stress. This is called unstable fracture propagation (Fig. 3a).
In compression, on the other hand, all microfracture types require a continuously increasing
macro stress t o grow in size. The result is that
the material may go through the full chain of
events involved in the evolution of fracture
(Fig. 3b). Fracture propagation in which
growth is achieved only by raising the macro
stress is called stable fracture propagation. Between the two extreme examples, illustrated in
Fig. 3, there should exist a number of gradational cases. One may, for example, use a confining pressure PB. The essential difference between compression in uniaxial and in confined
conditions is that the tensile microfracture from
the initial tensile stress concentration (TI) is
depressed leaving the development of second
tension (T2) and the shear fractures (NS, I S )
as the dominant mechanism of failure.

The Macro Stress Field

Although the micro stress field is responsible
for the initiation of fracture from the tensile
and the compressive stress concentrations
around joint segments, the actual propagation
or growth of the fracture and its course depend
chiefly on the macro stress field. If, for example,
the macro stress field is basically tensile, tensile

External Constraints
A fracture, propagating in a stable or unstable manner, can be blunted at boundaries
between materials of widely different mechanical properties. Generally referred to as constraints, boundaries of this type produce stress
conditions which are unfavorable for the propagation of the fracture surface. External con-

NOTES

(a)

(b)

FIG.4. The influence of external constraints in tension: (a) a neutral constraint, ( b ) the
preventive constraint of the shear box blunts a tensile fracture propagating in an unstable
manner. The ultimate fracture surface forms in the shear direction.

straints represent the third and the last, after

the micro i n d the macro stress. obstacle to the
full development of the ultimate failure surface.
When a brittle material is placed in a tensile
stress field, fracture ( T I ) propagates in an unstable manner which may result in instantaneous failure. This is ceriainlv, the case in the
conventional tension test (Fig. 4a), where the
testing arrangement does not interfere with the
free formation of the tensile fracture. Unstable
fracture propagation can also be generated by
the direct shear test since one' of the principal
macro stresses is generally tensile. The resulting
tensile fracture, however, is blunted at the shear
box boundary. Clearly the material cannot fail
in this direction aria the material must 0
PO
through a whole sequence of events allowing
failure to take place in the shear direction
(Fig. 4b).
The tensile loading is rather uncommon in
geotechnical applicat~ons.External constraints,
however, are important in compression as well.
The biaxial test, using a cubic test specimen
confined between rigid plates illustrates the
interaction among the plane of weakness, the
macro stress and the external constraint (the
loading plates). The quantitative influence of
the micro stress is not included in the examples

to keep the description simple. The most favorable condition for failure is when the plane of
weakness lies in the plane of the most effective
macro shear stress of the Coulomb theory, as
in Fig. 5a, and the constraints do not interfere
(neutral constraint) with the development of
the natural failure surface along the plane of
weakness. Alternatively, the plane of weakness
may not be oriented favorably to the macro
stress (Fig. 5b), or the constraints stop the
development of the failure process (Fig. 5c).
The fourth case, not shown, is when neither the
orientation nor the constraints favor the growth
of an ultimate failure surface along the plane
of weakness.
Even if the plane of weakness lies in an unfavorable position, its influence cannot always
be neglected. In Fig. 5c, the failure surface
seems to cut across solid rock. Actually at least
part of it should propagate through areas which
have already been severely damaged through
the microfracture associated with the joint segments as indicated in Fig. 3b. As a result, the
influence of a plane of weakness cannot simply
be restricted to its plane alone but should be
expected to affect a whole zone of orientations.
This is especially important for planes of weakness occurring in sets. In such cases, there

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 12, 1975

(a)
(b)
(c)
FIG. 5. Three cases of interaction among plane of weakness, macro stress and external
constraint; (a) favorable macro stress orientation with neutral constraint, (b) unfavorable
macro stress orientation with neutral constraint, and (c) favorable macro stress orientation
with preventive constraint.

FIG. 6. Photographs illustrating the complex process of shearing across a rock bridge
modelled in plaster blocks; (a) to (c) fracture evolution at an intermediate stage showing the
microfractures which eventually disappear in the (d) shear zone along the plane of weakness.
Loading was in polyaxial compression at small confining pressure (PI > PZ > P3, P J P J = 10).

NOTES

should be numerous severely damaged pockets

in the material through the coalescence of which
a failure surface compatible with the macro
stress and the system of external constraints
could develop with much greater ease than one
would expect by neglecting the influence of
microfracture.

Failure of Discontinuous Rocks

The formation of a failure surface in discontinuous rocks is controlled by the three basic
factors of micro stress, macro stress, and external constraints. The influence of the last two
is well recognized in design. The effect of the
micro stress, however, has been long ignored
through the common assumption of macro
analysis that the strength of rocks containing
planes of weakness can be described through
two sets of strength equations; one which relates
to the solid rock and the other to the plane of
weakness. The plane of weakness is assumed
to have no influence in directions other than
its own.
Considering the evolution of fracture driven
by the micro stress around joint segments and
at internal or external constraints suggest a
different approach. In the initial stages of failure, each joint segment extends without appreciable interference from neighbouring joint
segments. As already described this could involve all the microfracture types: TI, Tz, N S ,
and IS. Model experiments suggest that TI is
the least important especially when there is at
least a small confining pressure.
It would seem that eventually the ultimate
failure surface develops through the coalescence
of the inclined shear fractures which in turn
form in the crushed zone of joint eads and
other irregularities, that is, at the compressive
stress concentrations along the joint segment.
Figure 6 shows a collection of photographs
illustrating the coalescence of two joint segments cast in a plaster block. When the model

125

is stressed to ultimate failure, the joint segments

disappear in the intensely crushed shear zone
which cuts across the model along a more or
less straight line (Fig. 6d). The significance of
the micro stress induced fracture becomes
apparent only if the test is stopped at an earlier
stage of fracture evolution (Fig. 6a, b, c). One
then finds a zigzag shaped fracture surface
which consists of elements of the microfracture,
usually Tz, NS, and IS depending on the advance of the fracture process. It may not be
obvious from the photographs, but the rock
bridge in the middle by this stage is already
severely crushed. It is not quite clear yet at
what stage the strength of the plane of weakness
is overcome. In the model tests, the initiation
of the normal shear fractures is marked by the
yielding of the test block. The formation of the
other fractures tends to accelerate the yielding
process, but their actual contribution to the
failure process is still far from clear.

Adknowledgments
The author expresses his gratitude to the
National Research Council of Canada for continuing financial assistance. The figures and
photographs were prepared by Darlene Quigg.
BARTON,N. R. 1971. A model study of the behaviour of
steep excavated rock slopes. Ph.D. thesis, University
of London, London, Engl.
HOEK, E. 1970. Estimating the stability of excavated
slopes in opencast mines. Trans. Inst. Min. Met. 79,
pp. A109-A132.
JAEGER,
J. C. 1969. Elasticity, fractureand flow. Methuen,
London, Engl.
LAJTAI,E. 2.1969. The strength of discontinuous rocks in
direct shear. Geotechnique, 19, pp. 218-233.
-1972. Effect of tensile stress gradient on brittle
fracture initiation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9, pp.
569-578.
NESETOVA,V., and LAJTAI, E. Z. 1973. Fracture from
compressive stress concentrations around elastic
flaws. Int. J. Rock Mech. M b . Sci. 10, pp. 297-304.
PATTON,F. D. 1966. Multiple modes of shear failure in
rock. Proc. 1st. Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. 1, pp.
509-5 13.