Mechanical Properties and Failure Patterns of Migmatized Gneiss with Metamorphic Foliation Under UCS Test

  • Andrea BerčákováEmail author
  • Rostislav Melichar
  • Kamil Souček
Technical Note


Preferentially oriented, primary structures within the rock matrix such as schistosity, foliation, lamination and/or cleavage are responsible for anisotropic behaviour in rocks (Singh et al. 1989; Ramamurthy 1993; Nasseri et al. 2003; Esamaldeen et al. 2014). For rocks with an anisotropic structure, their mechanical, hydraulic and/or seismic properties change and vary with different directions of loading (Agliardi et al. 2014). The irregular structure can also change the failure mode of the intact rock and influence secondary crack propagation. The mechanical behaviour of anisotropic rocks including the strength and deformation properties, as well as failure patterns of the rocks, has been studied by many researchers (Ramamurthy 1993; Nasseri et al. 2003; Ghazvinian et al. 2012; Basu et al. 2013; Esamaldeen et al. 2014; Plinninger and Alber 2015; Singh et al. 2015; Usol’tseva et al. 2017; Yin and Yang 2018).

Knowledge of the mechanical properties and failure mechanism of...


Mechanical anisotropy Metamorphic foliation Shear fracture Tensile fracture Uniaxial compressive strength 



The research was funded by Project of the Institute of Clean Technologies for Mining and Utilization of Raw Materials for Energy Use under National Sustainability Program I (identification code: LO1406). The article was also supported by a project for the long-term conceptual development of research organisations (RVO: 68145535). The work was also written in connection with a project r/o no. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001792; RINGEN—research infrastructure upgrade, supported by the Research, Development and Education Operational Programme.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Agliardi F, Zanchetta S, Crosta GB (2014) Fabric controls on the brittle failure of folded gneiss and schists. Tectonophysics 637:150–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu A, Mishra DA, Roychowdhury K (2013) Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian and point load tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 72:457–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berčáková A, Melichar R, Obara Y, Ptáček J, Souček K (2017) Evaluation of anisotropy of fracture toughness in brittle rock, migmatized gneiss. Procedia Eng 91:900–907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blès JL, Fuega B (1986) The fracture of rocks. North Oxford Academic, London, pp 50–56Google Scholar
  5. Esamaldeen A, Wu G, Zhao Z, Jiang W (2014) Assessments of strength anisotropy and deformation behaviour of banded amphibolite rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 32:429–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghazvinian A, Geranmayeh Vaneghi R, Hadei MR (2012) Behavior and failure mechanism of angoran schists under uniaxial compression loading. In: Rock Engineering and technology for sustainable underground construction. EUROCK 2012—ISRM International SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 179–220Google Scholar
  8. ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing methods. International society for rock mechanics, compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish national group, Ankara, Turkey, pp 153–156Google Scholar
  9. Kříbek B, Hrazdíra P, Sixta V, Šikl J, Mikšovský M, Vernera Z, Sobotka M (1997) Structural, hydrological and geomechanical evaluation of the rock mass of the Rožná Deposit with respect to waste pond storage. Czech Geological Survey, Prague ((Unpublished report)) Google Scholar
  10. Nasseri MHB, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T (2003) Anisotropic strength and deformational behaviour of Himalayan schists. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:3–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plinninger RJ, Alber M (2015) Assessment of intact rock strength in anisotropic rock—Theory, experiences and implications on site investigations. In: Schubert W (ed) Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Symposium, EUROCK 2015 and 64th Geomechanics Colloquium, pp 297–302Google Scholar
  12. Ptáček J, Melichar R, Hájek A, Koníček P, Souček K, Staš L, Kříž P, Lazárek J (2013) Structural analysis within the Rožná and Olší uranium deposits (Strážek Moldanubicum) for the estimation of deformation and stress conditions of underground gas storage. Acta Geodynam Geomater 10:237–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ramamurthy T (1993) Strength modulus response of anisotropic rocks. In: Hudson JA (ed) Compressive rock engineering 1. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 313–329Google Scholar
  14. Singh J, Ramamurthy T, Venkatappa RG (1989) Strength anisotropies in rocks. Ind Geotech J 19:147–166Google Scholar
  15. Singh M, Samadhiya NK, Kumar A, Kumar V, Singh B (2015) A nonlinear criterion for triaxial strength of inherently anisotropic rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:1387–1405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Usol’tseva O, Tsoi P, Semenov V (2017) The influence of anisotropy angle on the strength and deformation properties of artificial geomaterials and rocks. Procedia Eng 191:512–519. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yin P-F, Yang S-Q (2018) Experimental investigation of the strength and failure behaviour of layered sandstone under uniaxial compression and Brazilian testing. Acta Geophys 66:585–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of SciencesOstrava-PorubaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Geological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations