Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 4803–4814 | Cite as

Strength Testing of Sandstone Under Multi-Axial Stress States

  • Feitao ZengEmail author
  • Brian L. Folta
  • Joseph F. Labuz
Original Paper
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

A true triaxial apparatus was designed and fabricated to achieve multi-axial stress states with prismatic specimens. The device, which is a modification of the University of Minnesota plane-strain apparatus, is equipped with piston assemblies that generate the intermediate principal stress. A closed-loop, servo-hydraulic load frame is used to control the major principal stress, while the minor principal stress is developed by fluid pressure. A stress path was developed to perform experiments under various states of stress at constant mean stress. Results from strength testing on Dunnville sandstone under conventional compression and extension are compared with the results performed under multi-axial stress states. Failure data were plotted in principal stress space to investigate the effect of intermediate stress on strength. A plane fitting method was used to obtain the material parameters of two, six-sided Paul–Mohr–Coulomb failure surfaces, which capture the strength characteristics of the sandstone over a range of mean stress.

Keywords

True triaxial testing Constant mean stress Intermediate stress Paul–Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Partial support was provided by the MSES/Miles Kersten Chair and the China Scholarship Council.

References

  1. Bésuelle P, Hall SA (2011) Characterization of the strain localization in a porous rock in plane strain condition using a new true-triaxial apparatus. In: Bonelli S, Dascalu C, Nicot F (eds) Advances in bifurcation and degradation in geomaterials. Springer series in geomechanics and geoengineering, vol 11. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown ET (1981) Rock characterization, testing & monitoring: ISRM suggested methods. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter BJ, Duncan ES, Lajtai EZ (1991) Fitting strength criteria to intact rock. Geotech Geol Eng 9(1):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fontoura SA (2012) Lade and modified Lade 3D rock strength criteria. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(6):1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franklin JA, Hoek E (1970) Developments in triaxial testing technique. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2(4):223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haimson B, Chang C (2000) A new true triaxial cell for testing mechanical properties of rock, and its use to determine rock strength and deformability of Westerly granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37(1–2):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hojem JPM, Cook NGW (1968) The design and construction of a triaxial and polyaxial cell for testing rock specimens. South African Mech Eng 18(2):57–61Google Scholar
  8. Ingraham MD, Issen KA, Holcomb DJ (2013) Response of Castlegate sandstone to true triaxial states of stress. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118(2):536–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaeger JC, Cook NGW (1979) Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Kapang P, Walsri C, Sriapai T, Fuenkajorn K (2013) Shear strengths of sandstone fractures under true triaxial stresses. J Struct Geol 48:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kwaśniewski M, Li X, Takahashi M (2013) True triaxial testing of rocks. CRC Press/Balkema, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  12. Labuz JF, Bridell JM (1993) Reducing frictional constraint in compression testing through lubrication. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30(4):451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Labuz JF, Dai ST, Papamichos E (1996) Plane-strain compression of rock-like materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(6):573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Labuz JF, Zeng F, Makhnenko R, Li Y (2018) Brittle failure of rock: a review and general linear criterion. J Struct Geol 112:7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma X, Haimson BC (2016) Failure characteristics of two porous sandstones subjected to true triaxial stresses. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121:6477–6498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ma X, Ingraham MD (2018) On the applicability of Nadai and Mogi failure criteria to porous sandstones. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51:3835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma X, Rudnicki JW, Haimson BC (2017a) The application of a Matsuoka–Nakai–Lade–Duncan failure criterion to two porous sandstones. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 92:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma X, Rudnicki JW, Haimson BC (2017b) Failure characteristics of two porous sandstones subjected to true triaxial stresses: applied through a novel loading path. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122:2525–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Makhnenko R, Labuz J (2013) Plane strain testing with passive restraint. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(6):2021–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Makhnenko RY, Harvieux J, Labuz JF (2015) Paul–Mohr–Coulomb failure surface of rock in the brittle regime. Geophys Res Lett 42(17):6975–6981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meldahl A (1944) A new graphical method of representing strength characteristics. Brown Bovari Rev 31(8):260–267Google Scholar
  22. Meyer JP, Labuz JF (2013) Linear failure criteria with three principal stresses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mogi K (1971) Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite and limestone. Tectonophysics 11(2):111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niwa Y, Kobayashi S, Koyanagi W (1967) Failure criterion of lightweight aggregate concrete subjected to triaxial compression. Mem Fac Eng Kyoto Univ 29(2):119–131Google Scholar
  25. Paul B (1968) Generalized pyramidal fracture and yield criteria. Int J Solids Struct 4(2):175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reches ZE, Dieterich JH (1983) Faulting of rocks in three-dimensional strain fields I. Failure of rocks in polyaxial, servo-control experiments. Tectonophysics 95(1-2):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Renani HR, Martin CD, Hoek E (2016) Application of the Christensen failure criterion to intact rock. Geotech Geol Eng 34(1):297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smart BDG, Somerville JM, Crawford BR (1999) A rock test cell with true triaxial capability. Geotech Geol Eng 17(3–4):157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Takahashi M, Koide H (1989) Effect of the intermediate principal stress on strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks at the depth shallower than 2000 m. In: Maury V, Fourmaintraux D (eds) Rock at great depth, 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  30. Tarokh A, Detournay E, Labuz J (2018) Direct measurement of the unjacketed pore modulus of porous solids. Proc R Soc A 474(2219):20180602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiwari RP, Rao KS (2006) Deformability characteristics of a rock mass under true-triaxial stress compression. Geotech Geol Eng 24(4):1039–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wawersik WR, Carlson LW, Holcomb DJ, Williams RJ (1997) New method for true-triaxial rock testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3–4):330Google Scholar
  33. Wong TF, Baud P (2012) The brittle–ductile transition in porous rock: a review. J Struct Geol 44:25–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zeng F, Li Y, Labuz JF (2017) Paul–Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion for geomaterials. J Geotech Geoenviron 144(2):06017018CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Geological and Mining EngineeringÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Golder Associates Inc.MilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations