Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 754

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Seventeenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock strength

C. Derek Martin·1997·Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Abstract

Stress-strain curves for brittle rocks show three characteristic stress levels: crack initiation, long-term strength, and peak strength. Damage-controlled testing at low confining stresses has shown that the long-term and peak strengths are sensitive to the amount of induced damage, i.e., the greater the amount of damage, the lower the long-term and peak strengths. These tests also showed that the brittle-failure process is characterized by a loss of cohesion as friction is mobilized. Excavation of a circular test tunnel in massive brittle rock resulted in failure around the tunnel. The back-calculated strength for the failed rock around the tunnel is approximately one-half of that measured in laboratory tests. Crack-induced damage of Lac du Bonnet granite, both in the laboratory and in situ, begins when the load exceeds approximately one-third of the unconfined compressive strength. However, the stress level associated with failure is a function of loading path. In the laboratory, where the loading path monotonically increases, the ultimate strength of an unconfined sample is 225 MPa. Numerical studies suggest that in situ the loading path around the tunnel is more complex, involving stress increase and decrease and stress rotation. For this loading path, failure initiates at a stress between 100 and 120 MPa. Conventional frictional failure criteria did not adequately predict the extent of brittle failure measured around the circular tunnel. The results from the damage-controlled laboratory tests and the microseismic monitoring carried out during tunnel construction indicate a constant-deviatoric-stress criterion is a reliable indicator for predicting the onset of damage. This criterion was also found to give a reasonable prediction for the maximum depth of failure around the test tunnel. The fundamental assumption in the constant-deviatoric-stress criterion is that at low confining stresses, such as those which occur around underground openings, the brittle-failure process is dominated by cohesion loss.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1139/cgj-34-5-698

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 754

Metadata

Authors
Martin, C. D.
Venue
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Publisher
NRC Research Press
Published
1997-01-01
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
698-725
ISSN
0008-3674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169095719
Cited by
754
References
1
FWCI
9.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Seventeenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock strength. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/cgj-34-5-698
The paper
Martin, C. D. (1997). Seventeenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: The effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock strength. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-34-5-698

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.