Journal Pre-proofs

Linear energy storage and dissipation laws during rock fracture under three-
point flexural loading

Song Luo, Fengqiang Gong

PII: S0013-7944(20)30333-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107102
Reference: EFM 107102

To appear in: Engineering Fracture Mechanics

Received Date: 13 March 2020

Revised Date: 11 May 2020
Accepted Date: 11 May 2020

Please cite this article as: Luo, S., Gong, F., Linear energy storage and dissipation laws during rock fracture under
three-point flexural loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.
2020.107102

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Linear energy storage and dissipation laws during rock fracture under
three-point flexural loading
Song Luoa, Fengqiang Gonga,b*
a School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
b School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
* Corresponding author

E-mail address: fengqiangg@126.com

Abstract

To investigate the energy storage and dissipation characteristics during rock flexure
fracturing, a series of single cyclic loading–unloading flexural fracture tests was
conducted on rectangular rock beams using the three-point loading technique. The
results show that under different experimental unloading levels, the elastic and
dissipation energies increase linearly as the input energy increases. On this basis, the
linear energy storage and dissipation laws were obtained, which were immune to the
experimental unloading level. The flexural energy storage coefficient and flexural
energy dissipation coefficient were subsequently introduced to characterize the
potentials of the rock for storing and dissipating energy, respectively. A positive or
negative relationship between the two coefficients and the rock mechanics properties
(the brittleness index and average flexural strength) was observed. The influence of pre-
existing rock flaws on the linear energy storage and dissipation laws was discussed. In
addition, highly quadratic increases in the elastic energy, dissipation energy, and input
energy were observed with an increasing experimental unloading level. For the energy
characteristics at rock failure (the failure point of the rock specimen), the peak input
energy, peak elastic energy, and peak dissipation energy varied considerably under
different experimental unloading levels, while the associated peak elastic dissipation
index (the ratio of peak elastic energy to peak dissipation energy) remained constant.
Similar to the flexural energy storage coefficient, the mean value of peak elastic
dissipation index is also positively related to the rock mechanics properties. The linear
evolution law of energy storage and dissipation not only permits a quantitative
determination of the energy parameters at rock failure (the peak elastic energy and peak
dissipation energy), but also relates the energy properties with the rock mechanics
properties.

Keywords: Rock mechanics; Flexural fracture; Energy storage; Linear energy storage
law; Three-point loading

Nomenclature

A flexural energy storage coefficient

B flexural energy dissipation coefficient

c constant term of the linear regression

D deformation of the rock specimen along the loading direction

D1 permanent deformation of the rock specimen after unloading

D2 deformation of the rock specimen at the unloading point

Df deformation of the rock specimen at the failure point (or at rock failure)

E absolute value of the difference between WRk and WR

Ed dissipation energy at rock failure (peak dissipation energy)

Ee elastic energy at rock failure (peak elastic energy)

Et input energy at rock failure (peak input energy)

Edk dissipation energy at a determined k

Eek elastic energy at a determined k

Etk input energy at a determined k

F force imposed on the rock specimen

Fmax peak force on the rock specimen

Fu force at the unloading point

k experimental unloading level

R coefficient of determination

Rb flexural strength of the rock specimen

Rvb average flexural strength (average value of Rb)

 WED elastic dissipation index at rock failure (peak elastic dissipation index)

average peak elastic dissipation index (average value of WED)
WED index)
WR residual elastic energy index at rock failure (peak residual elastic energy

index)
ex)
WRk residual elastic energy index at a determined k
energy index)
LESD linear energy storage and dissipation

RBB rectangular beam bending

SCB semi-circular bending

SCLUFF single cyclic loading–unloading flexural fracture

TS tensile strength

UCS uniaxial compressive strength

1. Introduction

Rock material is most prone to fracture in tension due to its low tensile strength. Thus,
the characterization of tensile properties of rock materials is paramount in geological
engineering applications [1]. Although a direct pull test seems to be most appropriate
for measurement of rock tensile properties, it is not adequately applicable because of
the axial stress deviation that is difficult to eliminate. As a result, the three-point
bending technique has been used to indirectly determine the tensile strength, fracture
toughness, and compressive strength of rock materials, owing to easy application and
control [2-6]. Flexure-related instability of rock or rock mass frequently occurs in rock
engineering structures and some in situ scenarios. It is an instability course that can
occur in natural or excavated overhanging rock slopes, and in conditions related to the
stability of a tunneling roof or interlayer in a mining area [7]. It has also been recognized
as a common failure mode in actual rock engineering [8]. A failure mode associated
with rock flexure (or bending), flexural toppling, is closely related to the instability of
rock structures, such as slopes and underground excavations in a wide range of layered
rock mass [9-12]. In addition, the bending technique was also proposed to measure the
liquid permeability of rock materials [13-14]. There is a pressing practical demand for
studying rock flexure phenomena [15].

Recently, the investigation of rock failure from an energy perspective has gained
popularity. It has been generally acknowledged that the rock fracture process can be
essentially characterized by energy evolutions, including energy absorption, energy
storage, and energy dissipation [16-18]. The appropriate manner of using the energy
approach to reasonably interpret the deformation and failure of rock materials has
always been a focus of research [19-20]. Further research of rock mechanics
considering energy interpretation is necessary to establish a complete energy-related
research system and address rock mechanics issues more effectively [16, 20]. In view
of the existing literature, research related to rock flexure has been widely conducted,
but the use of energetic analysis to gain insights into rock failure or deformation has
not kept pace. Over the past few decades, several studies on rock flexure have been
conducted. However, these studies were confined to characterization of the mechanical
properties [21-23] and failure behaviors [24-29] of rock materials from the perspective
of fracturing mechanics, generally via physical experimentation and numerical
modeling analysis, supplemented by acoustic emission technology [30-31]. Few studies
have involved energy interpretation as an alternative approach useful for studying rock
failure.

The three-point bending technique is normally employed in rock fracturing tests

and can be mainly classified into semi-circular bending (SCB) or rectangular beam
bending (RBB). In our previous research, a series of SCB tests, uniaxial compression
tests, and preset angle shear tests were conducted on various rock types. The linear
energy storage and dissipation (LESD) laws were identified, and some relevant energy
indices for rock mechanics were introduced [17, 32-33]. Thereafter, Peng et al.
performed a uniaxial cyclic loading–unloading test to investigate the effect of the crack
angle on the energy characteristics of sandstone with cracks; they also obtained the
LESD laws [34]. However, the energy evolution characteristics of rock materials when
using the RBB method have not yet been investigated. A clear identification of the
energy evolution characteristics during rock flexure under this loading method is
desirable.

This study investigates the energy storage and dissipation characteristics during
rock fracture using the three-point flexural loading method. A series of single cyclic
loading–unloading flexural fracture (SCLUFF) tests on three rock materials (marble,
red sandstone, and granite) was conducted by varying the experimental unloading level.
The energy conversion patterns of rock specimens were visualized by interpreting the
force and deformation information via the area integral method. Strong linear
correlations between the input energy and elastic energy, and between the input energy
and dissipation energy were identified experimentally. Based on the LESD laws, a
method to quantitatively determine the elastic energy and dissipation energy at rock
failure under three-point flexural loading conditions was demonstrated. In addition, the
relationship between the rock energy properties and mechanics properties was obtained.
This finding verifies that the energy indices and parameters are closely comparable to
the mechanical ones, and can be regarded as quantitative indicators for describing the
failure behaviors of homogenous rock materials.

2. Experimental details

2.1 Experimental instrument and specimen preparation

The flexure experiments were performed on an electromechanical testing machine (23

MTS Insight tester) that allows the force applied (F) to be varied from -30 kN to +30
kN. The testing machine includes a data acquisition component, an electromechanical
controlled loading frame, and a manufactured three-point loading mold, as shown in
Fig. 1. The Insight tester is capable of conducting tension, compression, and flexure
and fracture tests for material with relatively low strength. During testing, the force–
deformation signals can be displayed on a personal computer.

In this study, marble, red sandstone, and granite bodies, which are metamorphic,
sedimentary, and magmatic rocks, respectively, were prepared as rock beams for the
flexure experiments. Covering the three rock classifications is beneficial, to some extent,
in identifying universal energy evolution laws in the fracturing process of rock
materials. The three rocks used in the experiment exhibit good homogeneity with no
macroscopic cracks on the rock specimens, and they have been commonly used in the
laboratory tests [35-37]. Fig. 2 illustrates the dimensions of a typical rock beam, with a
length of 120 mm, and a cross-section area of 40 mm × 20 mm. The loading span (S)
between the two bottom rollers was set to 100 mm. For each rock type, all rock beams
were sampled from the same extracted block to ensure similar physical and mechanical
properties. Before the flexure experiments, the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
and tensile strength (TS) of the three rock materials were measured via uniaxial
compression and Brazilian tests, respectively (see Table 1, wherein the brittleness index
is defined as the ratio of UCS to TS). The rock specimens were labeled and classified
according to the three rock types, and were named by “rock category + serial number”.
Accordingly, M-N, R-N, and G-N labels were used for marble, red sandstone, and
granite specimens, respectively; M, R, and G denote marble, red sandstone, and granite,
respectively, and N refers to the serial number.

Table 1. Physio-mechanical properties of the three rock materials

Density P-wave Young’s UCS TS Brittleness

Rock type
(kg/m3) velocity (km/s) modulus (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) index
Marble 2823.37 3.79 41.10 54.56 2.53 21.57
Red
2442.18 3.18 24.67 100.66 4.16 24.20
sandstone
Granite 2630.95 4.20 46.48 198.14 5.08 39.00

Testing frame
Upper rigid roller

Three-point loading mold

Bottom rigid roller

Data acquisition software

Fig. 1. Photograph of 23 MTS Insight tester

 Rock beam F Rigid roller

w=40 mm

Granite Marble Red sandstone

S=100 mm h=20 mm
l=120 mm

Fig. 2. Schematic and photograph of rock beams used in SCLUFF tests

2.2 Details of experimental arrangement

Three groups of SCLUFF tests were conducted to characterize the energy evolutions in
the rock fracturing process. Each group of tests was conducted by varying the
experimental unloading level (k) from 0 to 1. The k value was designated as the ratio of
the force at the unloading point to the force at the failure point of a rock specimen. The
unloading point was defined as a coordinate on the force–deformation curve acquired
from a SCLUFF test, at which the initial loading was completed and the unloading
began (see Fig. 3a). A force control model was employed throughout the SCLUFF test
to capture the anticipated k in the loading procedure. A force rate of 500 N/min was
adopted to properly determine the time required to complete the test (see Fig. 3b). In a
SCLUFF test, the specimen undergoes four segmented paths, described as initial
loading, unloading, reloading, and post-peak loading. When a rock specimen is initially
loaded to the previously devised unloading point, the unloading process continues until
the force is unloaded to zero. At that point, the reloading procedure initiates to cause
the ultimate failure of the rock specimen. A SCLUFF test with a nonzero k is
successfully completed when the pre-peak process of initial loading, unloading, and
reloading is smoothly achieved. Otherwise, a SCLUFF test with k = 0 is conducted,
with the applied force increasing nonstop until specimen failure. In this case, no
segmental unloading appears on the resultant force–deformation curve.

(a)

F (N) Fmax

Unloading point
Fmax k

500 N/min

Initial loading
Unloading
Reloading
Post-peak loading
0
D (mm)
F（N）

(b)

Fmax
ni
/m

Fmaxk
0N
50
ni

50
/m

0
0N

N/
50

mi
n

0 Initial loading Unloading

Reloading duration T (s)
duration duration

Fig. 3. Diagrams of (a) force–deformation path and (b) force history in a SCLUFF test

2.3 Determination of the energy parameters

The theory of energy conservation states that energy can never be created or lost;
energy can only be transferred between different bodies or can be transformed from one
type to another. The combined specimen-machine system includes energy input, energy
storage, and energy dissipation during rock fracturing. To calculate energy parameters
at a given k, the elastic energy and dissipation energy are quantitatively determined by
the area integral on the force–deformation curves. Accordingly, integrating the area
below the unloading path (enclosed by AD1D2A) can visually determine the elastic
energy (Eek), as demonstrated in Fig. 4a. The relevant dissipation energy (Edk) is
equivalent in value to the area integral enclosed by the initial loading path, unloading
path, and the abscissa axis (given by the area OAD1O). In accordance with the theory
of energy conservation, the corresponding input energy (Etk) is interpreted absolutely
by the region (OAD2D1O) under the initial loading path. The energy equivalence
relation at a determined k can be described as

 E  D2 F dD
 ek D1
 D2
 Etk  0 F dD (1)
 D D
 Edk  2 F dD  2 F dD
  0 D1

where D1 is the permanent deformation after unloading, and D2 refers to the total
deformation at the experimental unloading level k. Similarly, the input energy at rock
failure (peak input energy) can also be obtained via the area integral method. There are
two scenarios for the calculation of the peak input energy in a SCLUFF test, as
illustrated in Fig. 4b. Fig. 4b-1 shows the integrated peak input energy when k is equal
to zero, and Fig. 4b-2 displays the integrated peak input energy with a nonzero k.
F（N）

(a) Edk
Eek A
Fu
Initial loading path

Unloading path

0
D1 D2 D (mm)
 F（N）

F（N）
（b） （b-1） （b-2）
Et Et
Fmax Fmax
Illustration of Et in a SCLUFF Illustration of Et in a SCLUFF
test with the k equal to zero test with a nonzero k (k≠0）
(k=0)

Fu

0
0 0
Df D (mm) Df D (mm)

Fig. 4. Analytic plot of energy determination: (a) at a given unloading point, and (b) at the failure
point
3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1 Force–deformation curves and fracture patterns

The failure locus of rock specimens was traced using the axial force and deformation
information collected by a data acquisition system. To obtain the true specimen
deformation, the deformation of the testing machine was removed from the total
deformation (the combined deformation of the rock specimen and testing machine) by
referring to the stiffness of the testing machine. Fig. 5 shows the typical force–
deformation curves of the three rock materials in the SCLUFF tests. For the three rock
materials at an unloading point, the reloading path essentially intersects the initial
loading path and the unloading path. For the force–deformation curve obtained from
marble and red sandstone, the reloading path proceeds with an increasing trend similar
to the initial loading path but is somewhat lower. This indicates that the rock specimen
possesses a kind of memory that can create the original response, when subjected to a
secondary loading. The reloading path of granite nearly overlapped the initial loading
curve, suggesting that granite may have a stronger memory than marble and red
sandstone. After the failure point, the red sandstone and granite disintegrated suddenly,
indicated by a steeper decline in the post-peak response on the force–deformation
curves. The post-peak decline of the tested marble was visually different, with a
comparatively gentle decline in post-peak force–deformation.
 Fig. 6 shows the rock failure patterns after the SCLUFF tests. Most of the rock
beams fractured into two halves nearly along the middle, and some failed into two
portions with comparatively different dimensions. Therefore, the different sizes of
fracture surfaces are displayed in photographs (e.g. view 3 of specimens M-1, R-6, and
G-3). After specimen failure, minimal granular debris was produced on the fracture
surfaces, which is an obvious feature of rock tensile failure. The fracturing cracks in
view 1 did not develop along the axial direction of the upper rigid roller that generally
symmetrized the rock beam. Thus, a slight deviation between the orientation of the
fracture surface and the upper rigid roller was observed. This deviation may be
attributed to the natural heterogeneity of rock materials. In addition, the crack
morphology in views 1 and 2 is different due to the difference in local stress states.
(a) 2500

2000
G-1 (Granite)

1500
R-1 (Red sandstone)
F (N)

M-1 (Marble)
1000

500

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
D (mm)
M7 (marble)
(b) 3000 R6 (red sandstone)
G6 (granite)

2500 G-6 (Granite)

2000

M-7 (Marble)
F (N)

1500
R-6 (Red sandstone)

1000

500

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
D (mm)

Fig. 5. Representative force–deformation curves of the three rock materials: (a) with k equal to zero,
and (b) with a nonzero k
 View 1

View 2

M-1 M-2
(a)

View 1 View 1

Dimensional difference
View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3
M-3 M-4

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

M-6 M-7

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

M-8

View 1

View 2 View 3
 R-1 R-2
(b)

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

R-3 R-4

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

R-5 R-7

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

R-6 R-8

View 1 View 1

Dimensional difference
View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3
 G-1 G-2
(c)

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

G-3 G-4

View 1 View 1
Dimensional difference

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

G-5 G-6

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

G-7 G-8

View 1 View 1

View 2 View 3 View 2 View 3

Fig. 6. Fractured rock beams after SCLUFF tests: (a) marble, (b) red sandstone, and (c) granite

3.2 Energy evolutions with varying k during rock fracture

The input energy, elastic energy, and dissipation energy under different experimental
unloading levels were derived according to the calculation method presented in Section
2.3; these energy calculations are summarized in Table 2. To illustrate the energy
evolution characteristics more clearly, the three energies were plotted against k for each
rock material. As depicted in Fig. 7, the input energy, elastic energy, and dissipation
energy all increase nonlinearly with an increase in k. A higher rate of increase was
observed in elastic energy than in dissipation energy; elastic energy and input energy
seem to have similar increasing trends. These nonlinear increasing relations can be
appropriately expressed using quadratic functional equations (see Table 3).
 Table 2. Energy calculations under different experimental unloading levels

Rock type Specimen ID Fu (N) Fmax (N) k Etk (10-3 J) Eek (10-3 J) Edk (10-3 J)

M-1 0.00 635.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

M-2 66.60 962.09 0.07 0.25 0.21 0.04

M-3 280.61 635.64 0.44 16.56 12.18 4.38

Marble M-4 376.79 1038.65 0.36 6.47 4.81 1.66

M-6 574.43 980.71 0.59 20.32 14.53 5.79

M-7 631.54 998.49 0.63 32.98 22.06 10.92

M-8 660.00 855.18 0.77 40.61 28.70 11.91

R-1 0.00 937.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R-2 96.30 1304.34 0.07 7.23 6.23 1.00

R-3 338.02 1140.75 0.30 20.10 13.47 6.63
R-4 566.31 974.27 0.58 34.95 26.00 8.94
Red
sandstone R-5 763.75 1294.34 0.59 31.79 24.11 7.68
R-6 1018.20 1139.23 0.89 65.28 47.00 18.28
R-7 792.31 1268.46 0.62 52.55 39.18 13.37
R-8 1074.41 1150.76 0.93 85.13 61.69 23.44
G-1 0.00 1872.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
G-2 189.23 2368.80 0.08 3.52 2.86 0.67
G-3 639.35 2431.96 0.26 22.55 19.12 3.43
G-4 1113.69 2478.41 0.45 48.34 40.88 7.46
Granite
G-5 1602.8 2322.25 0.69 130.54 106.64 23.90
G-6 2581.13 2067.71 0.80 170.07 144.49 25.59
G-7 0.0000 2300.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
G-8 2164.10 2518.19 0.86 180.53 148.48 32.04
 (a) 45 Etk of marble
Eek of marble
36 Edk of marble
Fit of Etk
Fit of Eek
Energy (10-3J)
27
Fit of Edk
18

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
k

(b) 100 Etk of red sandstone

Eek of red sandstone
80 Edk of red sandstone
Fit of Etk
Fit of Eek
Energy (10-3J)

60
Fit of Edk
40

20

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
k

(c) 200 Etk of granite

Eek of granite
160 Edk of granite
Fit of Etk
Energy (10-3 J)

120 Fit of Eek

Fit of Edk
80

40

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
k

Fig. 7. Energy evolutions of (a) marble, (b) red sandstone, and (c) granite versus the experimental
unloading level
 Table 3. Polynomial fitting functions of the energies versus k

Rock type Etk versus k Eek versus k Edk versus k

Marble Etk=69.35k2+1.11k-0.26 Eek=46.77k2+1.91k-0.26 Edk=22.58k2-0.80k-0.10
(R2=0.94) (R2=0.96) (R2=0.90)
Red sandstone Etk=53.19k2+31.18k+2.70 Eek=36.20k2+24.69k+2.04 Edk=16.93k2+6.49k+0.67
(R2=0.93) (R2=0.93) (R2=0.92)
Granite Etk=231.90k2+19.58k-0.12 Eek=191.04k2+17.71k-0.13 Edk=40.86k2+1.87k+0.01
(R2=0.99) (R2=0.99) (R2=0.98)

3.3 Linear energy storage and dissipation (LESD) laws

For further data interpretation from an energy perspective, the relations between the
elastic energy, dissipation energy, and input energy are presented in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
The most striking observation to emerge from the data was the linear relations between
these energy parameters. Specifically, the elastic energy and dissipation energy were
closely related to the input energy by positive linear relations. The linear relations show
that the input energy is proportionally distributed during the rock fracturing process.
Using the data fitting method, fitting functions describing the linear energy relations
were obtained (Figs. 8 and 9). In view of the data fitting results, these functions can be
expressed using a general regressed model:

 Eek  aEtk  c
 (4)
 Edk  bEtk  c
1  a  b


where a, b, and c are three constants yielded in the data regression.

In the regressed model, the input energy, elastic energy, and dissipation energy are
assumed to be zero at the coordinate origin (0, 0). The slopes a and b reflect the energy
storage and dissipation capacities for a rock material. The greater a is, the greater is the
energy-storing potential of a rock material. Conversely, a greater b represents a greater
capacity for a rock to dissipate energy. To better characterize the energy conversion
laws of rocks under flexural loading, the flexural energy storage coefficient and flexural
energy dissipation coefficient were introduced, corresponding to a and b in the
regressed model, respectively. The LESD laws were revealed for the three rock
materials, reflecting that the elastic energy and dissipation energy are proportionally
distributed during the fracture process.

Although the three rock materials all satisfied the LESD laws, the specific energy
activities varied with rock type. Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 display the linear energy storage and
dissipation correlations for the three rock materials. Clearly, the input energy of granite
is highest, followed by red sandstone, and marble, which requires the least energy to
induce failure. This sequence is in agreement with the peak forces of the rock beams;
the energy storage ability appears to be closely related to the peak force. That is, rock
material with a higher peak force requires more input energy to induce failure. In
addition, the unloading level in the testing plan was designed to vary from 0.1 to 0.9
with an interval of 0.2, whereas the experimental unloading level was arbitrarily
distributed in the range of 0~1, and did not coincide with the testing plan (e.g. for tested
granite, the experimental unloading levels were 0.08, 0.26, 0.45, 0.69, 0.80, and 0.86.).
The inconformity results from the dispersion of specimen strengths. The analysis also
indicates that the LESD laws are immune to the experimental unloading level. Fig. 10
illustrates a and b for the three rock materials. The values of a corresponding to granite,
red sandstone, and marble are 0.83, 0.72, and 0.69, respectively. Consequently, it is
concluded that granite has the strongest ability to store elastic energy, followed by red
sandstone and marble. Because a is generally greater than b for the three rock materials,
the failure processes were characterized by a higher energy storage and a comparatively
lower energy dissipation.
 (a) 30
Data point from marble
25 Linear fit

20

Eek (10-3 J)
15

10 Eek= 0.69Etk+0.21
(R2= 0.99)
5

0
0 9 18 27 36 45
Etk (10-3 J)

(b) 70
Data point from red sandstone
60 Linear fit

50

40
Eek (10-3J)

30
Eek= 0.72Etk+ 0.37
20
(R2= 0.99)
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-3
Etk (10 J)

(c) 160
Data point from granite
140 Linear fit
120

100
Eek (10-3J)

80

60 Eek=0.83Etk+0.12
(R2=0.99)
40

20

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
-3
Etk (10 J)

Fig. 8. Linear relation between Etk and Eek

 (a) 14
Data point from marble
12 Linear fit

10

8
Edk (10-3 J)
6
Edk= 0.31Etk - 0.21
4
(R2= 0.99)
2

0
0 9 18 27 36 45
-3
Etk (10 J)

(b) 25
Data point from red sandstone
Linear fit
20

15
Edk (10-3J)

10
Edk= 0.28Etk - 0.37
(R2= 0.99)
5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Etk (10-3J)

(c) 35
Data point from granite
30 Linear fit

25

20
Edk (10-3 J)

15
Edk=0.17Etk- 0.12
10
(R2=0.98)
5

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
-3
Etk (10 J)

Fig. 9. Linear relations between Etk and Edk for the three rock materials
 Flexural energy storage and dissipation coefficients
1.0
a
b
0.83
0.8
0.72
0.69

0.6

0.4
0.31
0.28

0.2 0.17

0.0
Marble Red sandstone Granite

Fig. 10. Illustration of a and b for different rock materials

3.4 Energy variation characteristics at rock failure
The energy storage and energy dissipation capacities of a rock are closely related to its
damage and failure evolutions [38]. Therefore, a reliable scientific determination of the
elastic energy and dissipation energy at rock failure is of great importance.
Theoretically, the peak elastic energy and peak dissipation energy cannot be directly
obtained from the unloading curve at the failure point of a rock, because at the failure
point, timely unloading is not achievable [17]. In the previous analysis, it was found
that the rock flexure process can be characterized by the LESD laws. Table 4 details
the results of the input energy of rock specimens at failure (peak input energy)
according to the calculation method shown in Fig. 4b. On the basis of peak input energy,
the LESD laws provide a quantitative measurement of the peak elastic energy and peak
dissipation energy. The three energies at rock failure are determined using Eq. (5).
 E  a D f FdD
 t 0

 Ee  aEt  c (5)
 E  bE  c
 d t

where Df is the deformation at the failure point of the specimen; Et, Ee, and Ed are the
peak input energy, peak elastic energy, and peak dissipation energy, respectively.
Fig. 11 demonstrates the variations in the peak elastic energy and peak dissipation
energy under different experimental unloading levels. The ratio of the peak elastic
energy to the peak dissipation energy, known as the peak elastic dissipation index WED,
was used to characterize the data results at rock failure. For the same rock material with
different experimental unloading levels, the peak elastic energy is generally more
discrete than the corresponding peak dissipation energy is. This observation is
particularly evident in granite specimens. However, WED does not appear to change with
the experimental unloading level, although slight or sharp fluctuations were observed
in the peak dissipation energy and peak elastic energy. For identical rock materials, WED
shows no significant difference, although the rock specimens were tested under
different experimental unloading levels. This may indicate that WED can be used to
characterize energy properties at rock failure. The WED of granite is approximately
twice that of red sandstone and marble. Thus, WED may also be used to evaluate the
energy storage capacity of rock materials; a higher WED results from a greater energy
storage capacity.
Table 4. Energy calculations at the failure point of rock specimens

Rock type Specimen ID Et (10-3 J) Ee (10-3 J) Ed (10-3 J) WED W ED

M-1 39.71 27.67 12.04 2.30

M-2 50.46 35.10 15.36 2.29
M-3 47.64 33.15 14.49 2.29
Marble M-4 55.30 38.45 16.85 2.28 2.28
M-6 58.31 40.53 17.78 2.28
M-7 77.57 53.85 23.72 2.27
M-8 61.08 42.45 18.63 2.28
R-1 90.10 65.51 24.59 2.66
R-2 136.65 99.16 37.48 2.65
R-3 110.71 80.41 30.30 2.65
Red R-4 82.09 59.72 22.37 2.67
2.66
sandstone R-5 110.02 79.91 30.11 2.65
R-6 87.79 63.84 23.95 2.67
R-7 117.30 85.17 32.12 2.65
R-8 100.43 72.98 27.45 2.66
G-1 371.33 308.58 62.75 4.92
G-2 244.26 202.99 41.27 4.92
G-3 239.98 199.43 40.55 4.92
G-4 230.71 191.72 38.98 4.92
Granite 4.92
G-5 249.20 207.10 42.11 4.92
G-6 269.15 223.67 45.48 4.92
G-7 225.26 187.20 38.06 4.92
G-8 251.56 209.05 42.51 4.92
 8.0
WED of marble samples
WED of red sandstone samples
7.0
WED of granite samples

6.0

5.0
WED
4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
k
Fig. 11. Energy characteristics at the peak point of rock beams

The experimental unloading level used in this study varies from 0~1. This range
covers almost the entire pre-peak stage of the force–deformation curves. To investigate
the energy evolution characteristics during the entire loading stage before rock failure,
the three energy indices were determined as

 k ( Eek  Ed k )
WR  Etk

 ( Ee  Ed ) (6)
WR 
 Et
E  W k  W
 R R

where WRk is the residual elastic index at an experimental unloading level k; WR is the

peak residual elastic energy index representing the residual energy index at rock failure;
and E is the absolute value of the difference between WRk and WR .

Fig. 12 presents the variations in the three energy indices versus different

experimental unloading levels. For rock specimens of the same origin, a higher k

generally requires more input energy. The difference in the peak input energies is

attributed to the discreteness of the specimen strengths. It is also observed that WRk

fluctuates greatly with the increase of input energy, while WR remains almost constant
(see Fig. 12a-1, b-1, c-1). This suggests that WR can characterize the failure point of

rock materials from an energy perspective. In addition, the variation in E was also
analyzed. Overall, E decreases with an increase in k (see Fig. 12a-2, b-2, c-3). This

finding suggests that to accurately determine the energy parameters at rock failure, it is
necessary to move the unloading point as close as possible to the failure point. Thus,

using the energy indices obtained at any experimental unloading level to replace its

counterparts at rock failure is inappropriate. This further demonstrates that it is not

feasible to directly obtain energy parameters at rock failure using an unloading test.

(a) 0.75 (a-1) 0.75

k
M-2
W (k=0.07) M-3
0.70 R
0.70
M-4
M-6 0.65
0.65
M-7
M-8
0.60 0.60
k
W (k=0.36)
0.55 R
0.55
WkR

WR
WkR (k=0.44)
0.50 0.50
WR (at the failure point)
0.45 0.45

0.40 WkR (k=0.59) 0.40

WkR (k=0.77)
0.35 WkR (k=0.63) 0.35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-3
Input energy (10 J)

(a) 0.75 (a-2) 0.75

M-2
0.70 M-3 0.70
M-4
0.65 M-6 0.65
M-7
M-8
0.60 0.60
  0.2864

0.55 0.55
WkR

WR

0.50 0.50
0.0964

0.45 0.45
0.0790

0.40 0.40
0.0234
0.0508
0.0400

0.35 0.35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-3
Input energy (10 J)
(b) 0.75 (b-1) R-2 0.75
R-3
0.70 R-4 0.70
R-5
0.65 R-6 0.65
WkR (k=0.07) R-7
R-8
0.60 0.60
k
W (k=0.59）
0.55 R
WkR (k=0.62) WR (at the failure point) 0.55

WR
WRk

0.50 0.50

0.45 WRk (k=0.58) 0.45

k
W (k=0.89)
0.40 R 0.40
WRk (k=0.93)
WRk (k=0.30)
0.35 0.35

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

-3
Input energy (10 J)

(b) 0.75 (b-2) 0.75

R-2
R-3
0.70 0.70
R-4
R-5
0.65 R-6 0.65
E = 0.2723

R-7
0.60 R-8 0.60

0.55 0.55
WkR

WR
0.0643

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45
0.0332

0.0145
0.0390
0.1122

0.0040

0.40 0.40

0.35 0.35

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Input energy (10-3 J)
 (c) 0.71 (c-1) 0.71
WkR (k=0.80) G-2
0.70 G-3 0.70
WRk (k=0.45) G-4
0.69 G-5 0.69
G-6
0.68 G-8 0.68
WRk (k=0.26)

0.67 0.67
WkR

WR
0.66 0.66

0.65 0.65
WR (at the failure point)
0.64 0.64
WkR (k=0.08) WkR (k=0.86)
0.63 0.63
WkR (k=0.69)
0.62 0.62

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

-3
Input energy (10 J)

(c) 0.71 (c-2) 0.71

G-2
0.70 G-3 0.70
G-4
0.69 G-5 0.69
0.0370

G-6
0.0334

0.0294

0.68 G-8 0.68

0.67 0.67
WR
WRk

0.66 0.66
0.0171
0.0282
E = 0.0408

0.65 0.65

0.64 0.64

0.63 0.63

0.62 0.62

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

-3
Input energy (10 J)

Fig. 12. Energy indices under different experimental unloading levels for (a) marble, (b) red
sandstone, and (c) granite
 Table 5. Calculations of energy indices

Specimen ID K WRk WR E

M-1 0.00 - 0.39 -

M-2 0.07 0.68 0.39 0.29
M-3 0.44 0.47 0.39 0.08
M-4 0.36 0.49 0.39 0.10
M-6 0.59 0.43 0.39 0.04
M-7 0.63 0.34 0.39 0.05
M-8 0.77 0.41 0.39 0.02
R-1 0.00 - 0.45 -
R-2 0.07 0.72 0.45 0.27
R-3 0.30 0.34 0.45 0.11
R-4 0.58 0.49 0.46 0.03
R-5 0.59 0.52 0.45 0.06
R-6 0.89 0.44 0.45 0.01
R-7 0.62 0.49 0.45 0.04
R-8 0.93 0.45 0.45 0.00
G-1 0.00 - 0.66 -
G-2 0.08 0.62 0.66 0.04
G-3 0.26 0.70 0.66 0.03
G-4 0.45 0.69 0.66 0.03
G-5 0.69 0.63 0.66 0.03
G-6 0.80 0.70 0.66 0.04
G-7 0.00 - 0.66 -
G-8 0.86 0.65 0.66 0.02

3.5 Relationship between energy properties and mechanical properties

In laboratory conditions, measurement of rock mechanics properties using the three-

point loading method assumes that pure tensile stress is generated along the bottom
edge of a rock beam. In the three-point flexural loading test, the flexural strength can
be described as

3Fmax S
Rb  (7)
2 wh 2

where Rb is the flexural strength of the rock specimen; Fmax is the failure load of the
rock specimen; S, w, and h are the span between the two bottom pivots, the specimen
width, and the specimen height, respectively.
 It has been reported that rock mechanics properties and energy indices are closely


interrelated [20]. Accordingly, the data results of three energy indices (a, b, WED ) and
two rock mechanics parameters (Rvb, and the brittleness index) of different rock
materials shown in Table 6 are plotted in Fig. 13. Evidently, positive correlations exist
between the brittleness index, Rvb, and a (see Fig. 13a). Fig. 13c indicates a positive


correlation between the brittleness index, Rvb, and WED . In contrast, the b index is
negatively related to the brittleness index and Rvb (see Fig. 13b). The brittleness index
exhibits an increasing or decreasing tendency similar to Rvb as the three energy indices
change. These correlations signify that the energy indices can be effective indicators of
rock mechanics properties.

Table 6. Energy indices and rock mechanics properties of the three rock materials

Rock type Marble Red Sandstone Granite

A 0.69 0.72 0.83
B 0.31 0.28 0.17
Brittleness index 21.57 24.20 39.00
Rvb (MPa) 8.20 10.96 21.22

WED 2.28 2.66 4.92

Marble Red sandstone Granite

(a) 30

40
25
Brittleness index

20
Rvb (MPa)

30

15

20
Brittleness index
10
Rvb

10 5
0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84
Flexural energy storage coefficient, a
 Marble Red sandstone Granite
(b) 45 30
28
40 26
24
35
22
Brittleness index 20

Rvb (MPa)
30
18
25 16
14
20 12
Brittleness index 10
15 Rvb
8
6
10
0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32
Flexural energy dissipation coefficient, b

Marble Red sandstone Granite

(c) 45 30

40
25
35
Brittleness index

20

Rvb (MPa)
30

25
15

20
Brittleness index
Rvb 10
15

10 5
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Average peak elastic dissipation index, WED

Fig. 13. Brittleness index and Rvb correlated with (a) the flexural energy storage index, (b) the

flexural energy dissipation index, and (c) the average peak elastic dissipation index

3.6 Influence of pre-existing flaws on the LESD laws

Semi-circular [42] and rectangular beam-shaped specimens have been commonly used
in rock flexure tests via the three-point loading technique, as illustrated in Fig. 14.
Accordingly, two types of rock specimen have been frequently used for laboratory tests:
(I) a rock specimen with a prefabricated notch (see Fig. 14a and 14b), and (II) an intact
rock specimen (no prefabricated notches, see Fig. 14c and 14d). In this research, single
cyclic loading–unloading flexural fracture tests on intact rectangular rock beams were
conducted to analyze the relationships between the input energy, elastic energy, and
dissipation energy during rock fracturing (see Fig. 14c). The LESD laws were observed
through data regression analysis. In our previous study, single cyclic loading–unloading
tests were performed on notched semi-circular specimens (see Fig. 14b), and the LESD
laws were obtained [17, 41]. In addition to the different shapes and dimensions of the
rock specimens tested, one visible difference between these two specimen types is the
existence of a prefabricated notch. The previous and current test results show that the
LESD laws are observed regardless of whether a prefabricated notch exists in the rock
specimens. All rocks tested currently and previously had good homogeneity. Thus, if
notched beams and intact semi-circular specimens (see Fig. 14a and 14d) are used to
conduct rock flexure tests, it is inferred that the LESD laws will also appear in the
fracturing process of homogenous rocks.

Natural rock materials often contain some pre-existing flaws [39, 40] that act as
artificial incisions, such as the prefabricated notch. Both natural flaws and artificial
incisions can influence the fracturing behaviors, including crack initiation, propagation,
and formation of the eventual fracture surface. Insights into the influence of pre-existing
flaws on fracture mechanics and energy evolution characteristics are important. The
analysis provides assurance that original flaws do not hamper the emergence of the
linear property of energy storage and dissipation. However, compared with a rock
without visible flaws (considering intact rock), the presence of flaws may affect the
particular flexural energy storage or dissipation coefficient (a or b). The linear property
of energy storage and dissipation will emerge, despite the pre-existence of flaws in a
rock. This may provide further evidence for the LESD laws in rock materials tested in
a wider experimental campaign; the LESD laws can serve as a pervasive rock property
under flexural loading conditions. Whether the presence of pre-existing internal flaws
or artificial incisions exerts an influence on a and b remains uncertain. To determine if
a and b are sensitive to the absence of rock defects, more experiments must be
conducted for verification.
Fig. 14. Rock specimens with and without a prefabricated notch under single cyclic loading–

unloading

4. Conclusions

To investigate the energy storage and dissipation characteristics during rock fracturing
under three-point flexural loading, a series of SCLUFF tests on three rock materials
was performed using a 23 MTS testing machine. From this study, several important
conclusions were reached.

(1) With increasing experimental unloading level, the input energy, elastic energy,
and dissipation energy increase in highly nonlinear relationships. These
relationships can be described by quadratic functions.

(2) The LESD laws in the rock flexure process were experimentally identified; a
positive linear increase characterizes the correlation between the input energy
and the elastic energy, and between the input energy and the dissipation energy.
Using the identified LESD laws, the peak elastic energy and peak dissipation
energy were quantitatively determined for each rock beam. For identical rock
types, with experimental unloading level ranging from 0 to 1, the peak elastic
dissipation index remained unchanged.
 (3) The flexural energy storage coefficient and flexural energy dissipation
coefficient were proposed to represent rock capacities for storing energy and
dissipating energy, respectively. Furthermore, a positive or negative correlation
between the energy properties and the rock mechanics properties (including the
brittleness index and the average flexure strength) was obtained.

(4) The influence of pre-existing flaws on the LESD laws was discussed. Under
three-point loading conditions, it is inferred that the LESD laws will clearly
emerge, regardless of whether there are visible flaws or prefabricated notches
in a homogenous rock.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported and financed by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No.41877272).

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Dai F, Xia KW, Tang LZ. Rate dependence of the flexural tensile strength of
Laurentian granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010; 47(3):469-475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.05.001.
[2] Zhang QB, Zhao J. Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness and failure
micromechanisms in marble. Eng Fract Mech 2013; 102: 288-309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.02.009.
[3] Biolzi L, Cattaneo S, Rosati G. Flexural/Tensile strength ratio in rock-like materials.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 2001; 34(3):217-233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s006030170010.
[4] Morel JC, Pkla A. A model to measure compressive strength of compressed earth
blocks with the 3 points bending test. Constr Build Mater 2002; 16(5): 303-310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00023-5.
[5] Efimov VP. Determination of tensile strength by the measured rock bending
strength. J Min Sci 2011; 47(5): 580-586.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062739147050066.
[6] Almerich A, Fenollosa E, Cabrera I. GFRP Bar: Determining tensile strength with
bending test. Adv Mater Res 2015; 90-96.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1083.90.
[7] Caceres C, Moffat R, Pakalnis R. Evaluation of flexural failure of sill mats using
classical beam theory and numerical models. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2017: 21-
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2017.09.002.
[8] De Freitas MH, Watters RJ. Discussion: Some field examples of toppling failure.
Géotechnique 1973; 23: 495-514. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1974.24.4.691.
[9] Adhikary DP, Dyskin AV, Jewell RJ, Stewart DP. A study of the mechanism of
flexural toppling failure of rock slopes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1997; 30(2): 75-93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01020126.
[10] Amini M, Majdi A, Aydan ö. Stability analysis and the stabilisation of flexural
toppling failure. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2009, 42(5): 751-782.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-008-0020-2.
[11] Cho N, Martin CD, Sego DC, Jeon J. Dilation and spalling in axially compressed
beams subjected to bending. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2010; 43(2), 123-133.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-009-0049-x.
[12] Feng K, He C, Wang J, Qi C, Liu SJ. Bending behavior of segmental joint structure
of under-river shield tunnel. Adv Mater Res 2012; 2132-2138. https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.446-449.2132.
[13] Scherer GW. Measuring permeability of rigid materials by a beam-bending
method: I, theory. J Am Ceram Soc 2000; 83(9):2231-2239.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.2000.tb01540.x.
[14] Zhang J, Scherer GW. Permeability of shale by the beam-bending method. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2012; 53(none):179-191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.05.011.
[15] Aydan ö, Kawamoto T. The stability of slopes and underground openings against
flexural toppling and their stabilisation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1992; 25(3): 143-
165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01019709.
[16] Li TT, Pei XJ, Wang DP, Huang RQ, Tang H. Nonlinear behavior and damage
model for fractured rock under cyclic loading based on energy dissipation
principle. Eng Fract Mech 2019; 330-341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.12.010.
[17] Gong FQ, Luo S, Yan JY. Energy storage and dissipation evolution process and
characteristics of marble in three tension-type failure tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng
2018; 51(11): 3613-3624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1564-4.
[18] Gong FQ, Yan JY, Li XB, Luo S. A peak-strength strain energy storage index for
rock burst proneness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2019; 76-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.03.020.
[19] Bernabé Y, Revil A. Pore-scale heterogeneity, energy dissipation and the transport
properties of rocks. Geophys Res Lett 1995; 22(12): 1529-1532.
https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL01418.
[20] Xie HP, Li LY, Ju Y, Peng RD, Yang YM. Energy analysis for damage and
catastrophic failure of rocks. Sci China Technol Sc 2011; 54(1): 199-209.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-011-4639-y.
[21] Ledniczky K, Vásárhelyi B. Brittle-ductile transition of anisotropic rocks during
three-point bending test. Acta Geod Geophys Hu 2013; 35(1): 75-80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03325596.
[22] Kim JHJ, Yi ST, Kim JK. Size effect of concrete members applied with flexural
compressive stresses. Int J Fract 2004; 126(1): 79-102.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:frac.0000025300.66782.38.
[23] Meisuh BK, Kankam CK, Buabin TK. Effect of quarry rock dust on the flexural
strength of concrete. Case Stud Constr Mater 2018; 16-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.002.
[24] Cravero M, Iabichino G. Analysis of the flexural failure of an overhanging rock
slab. Int J Rock Mech and Min Sci 2004; 41(3): 605-610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.107.
[25] Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM, Saghafi H. An improved semi-circular bend
specimen for investigating mixed mode brittle fracture. Eng Fract Mech 2011;
78(1): 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.10.001.
[26] Ding JY, Liu JD, Li C, Yi HY. Failure mechanism of layered salt rock in three-
point bending test. Appl Mech Mater 2012; 48-56.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.256-259.48.
[27] Aliha MRM, Hosseinpour GR, Ayatollahi MR. Application of cacked triangular
specimen subjected to three-point bending for investigating fracture behavior of
rock materials. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2013; 46(5): 1023-1034.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0325-z.
[28] Mardalizad A, Manes A, Giglio M. The numerical modelling of a middle strength
rock material under flexural test by finite element method-coupled to-SPH.
Procedia structural integrity 2017; 395-401.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2017.04.050.
[29] Lin Q, Wan B, Wang SQ, Li SY, Fakhimi A. Visual detection of a cohesionless
crack in rock under three-point bending. Eng Fract Mech 2019, 11; 17–31.
https://doi.org/211. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.02.009.
[30] Prasad BKR, Sagar RV. Relationship between AE energy and fracture energy of
plain concrete beams: experimental study. J Mater Civil Eng 2008; 20(3): 212-
220. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:LLLL3(212).
[31] Agioutantis Z, Kaklis K, Mavrigiannakis S, Verigakis M, Vallianatos F, Saltas V.
Potential of acoustic emissions from three point bending tests as rock failure
precursors. Int J Min Sci tech 2016; 26(1): 155-160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.11.024.
[32] Gong FQ, Yan JY, Luo S, Li XB. Investigation on the linear energy storage and
dissipation laws of rock materials under uniaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2019; 52, 4237–4255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01842-4.
[33] Luo S, Gong FQ. Energy storage and dissipation laws of rocks under preset angle
shear conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-
020-02105-3.
[34] Peng K, Wang YQ, Zou QL, Liu ZP, Mou JH. Effect of crack angles on energy
characteristics of sandstone under a complex stress path. Eng Fract Mech 2019;
218: 106577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106577.
[35] Luo Y, Gong FQ, Li XB, Wang SY. Experimental simulation investigation of
influence of depth on spalling characteristics in circular hard rock tunnel. J Cent
South Univ 2020; 27(3): 891-910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-020-4339-5.
[36] Si XF, Gong FQ. Strength-weakening effect and shear-tension failure mode
transformation mechanism of rockburst for fine-grained granite under triaxial
unloading compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2020: 131:104347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104347.
[37] Wu WX, Gong FQ, Yang WM. Experimental simulation study of spalling in deep
rectangular tunnel with plastic fine grain marble. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2020; 98:
103319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103319.
[38] Wang CL, He BB, Hou XL, Li JY, Liu L. Stress–energy mechanism for rock
failure evolution based on damage mechanics in hard rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng
2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01953-y.
[39] Zhu ZM, Wang LG, Mohanty B, Huang CY. Stress intensity factor for a cracked
specimen under compression. Eng Fract Mech 2006; 73(4): 482-489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2005.08.008.
[40] Liu RF, Zhu ZM, Li YX, Liu B, Wan DY, Li M. Study of rock dynamic fracture
toughness and crack propagation parameters of four brittle materials under
blasting. Eng Fract Mech 2019, 225: 106460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech .2019.04.034.
[41] Gong FQ, Luo S, Li XB, Yan JY. Linear energy storage and dissipation rule of red
sandstone materials during the tensile failure process. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
2018; 37(2): 352-363.
[42] Xu Y, Dai F, Xu NW, Zhao T. Numerical investigation of dynamic rock fracture
toughness determination using a semi-circular bend specimen in split Hopkinson
pressure bar testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2016; 49(3):731-745.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0787-x.
Highlights:
(a) The linear energy storage and dissipation laws during rock flexure fracture are
experimentally identified.
(b) Using the identified linear energy storage and dissipation laws, the values of
elastic energy and dissipation energy at rock failure are quantitatively determined.
(c) The relationship between the energy properties and rock mechanics properties is
obtained.
(d) The influence of pre-existing flaws on the linear energy storage and dissipation
laws is discussed.