ROCK MECHANICS

Experiment 1 Rock Strength Index Tests

A) Qualitive Assessment of Rock Strength The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. A rapid estimate of the samples strength can be done with the use of a geological hummer and a penknife. Geological Hammer test: Required 3 blows by hammer to break the specimen Penknife test: Scratched easily Approximate Compressive Strength 50-100 MPa (Class3) (Table 1)
Table 1

Conclusions The compressive strength of the rock sample lies between 50-100 MPa. Even if this test gives a great range for the value of Compressive strength it still manages to give an idea about the strength of the rock specimen, without any effort and cost.

B) The National Coal Board Cone Indenter This test was developed by British Coals Mining Research as a method to estimate compressive strength of a rock, which may be excavated by roadheading equipment. This is a similar to (CBR) but its pocket size. This mechanism is not used with hard rock, like granite or limestone. The test uses a sharp carbide conical point to indent the rock specimen under a standard load of 40 kN, measured by the deflection of a spring steel beam. The tested specimens are coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. In order to achieve more consistent results, prepared specimens are used and the test was repeated 9.
Table 2, Results sheet for the National Coal Board Cone Indenter

Test No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

P 8 7 6 8 7 8 6 8 9

Is 3.125 3.571 4.2 3.125 3.571 3.125 4.2 3.125 2.777

Co (MPa) Av= 84.7 77.5 88.57 103.3 77.5 88.571 77.5 103.3 77.5 68.9

P = penetration in thousands Is = Standard Index Co = Compressive Strength Conclusions The National Coal Board Cone Indenter is a reliable test and if it is used with the appropriate specimens it can give correct results. The average value of 84.7 Mpa is acceptable.

C) Scleroscope Test This test is based on the Schmidt hammer test used for in situ testing of concrete and rock. It is used to estimate the compressive strength of rocks with a fair amount of success. It is particularly useful when logging boreholes cores as it is basically non destructive and it preserves the core for the records. The test was repeated 50 times in different spots of that area (table 3). An average value H was calculated after discarding the highest five and lowest five readings of rebound height.

The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. It is a prepared plate with an area of approximately 100 cm2 .
Table 3, Readings taken during the test

45 32 10 26 3 56 43 11 0 26

13 29 36 37 6 27 23 22 3 19

36 34 33 26 40 36 9 29 36 40

37 31 40 36 44 11 0 10 31 40

0 9 25 24 3 25 33 23 51 44

H = 26.7 (Average value) Co = 3.54 x (H-12) = 3.54 x 14.7 Co = 52.03 MPa Conclusions The calculated value for the compressive strength is slightly underestimated, due to human error factor, since the readings are not electronically recorded. D. The Point Load Test Objective: This test aims to measure the strength of rock specimen when subjected to concentrated load, which is applied through a pair of conical platens. A point load strength Index Is (50) may be derived from the test results and used for rock strength classification and rock quality mapping. In this experiment it is verified that the load required to break a specimen is controlled by the minimum cross sectional area and not simply the distance between the loading points. The tested specimens are coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. A set of regular and irregular size specimens was used. Regular Specimens: A number of cores near to 50mm diameter were first used. The first specimen was loaded across the diameter to fail (type D). The value for the Is(50) is 3.6 MPa, Co = 79.2 MPa . The second specimen was loaded along the core axis (type A). The value for the Is(50) is 3.1 MPa, Co = 68.2 MPa. (table 4).

Conclusions It can be seen loading across the diameter gives greater values than loading along core axis. This can be justified by the fact that the forces acting across diameter have a greater area to act upon so the compressive strength is higher. Irregular Specimens: A set of varied size irregular specimens was used (type B). Plotting a log-log of Load at Failure P against De2 allows the calculation of the corrected strength index (Is(50)) and the estimation of Unconfined Compression Strength (Co). (Figure 1) For De(50) P(50) = 10 Is(50) = P(50) x 1000/2500 = 4.0 Co = 22 x Is(50) Co = 88 MPa

Table 4 Results Sheet for the Point Load Test

No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Type D A B B B B

W (mm)

D (mm)

P (kN) 9

De2 mm2 2480

De mm 49.5

Is 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.0

F 1 1 0.88 0.77 0.66 0.57

Is(50) USC 3.6 3.1 3.52 2.7 1.98 2.0 79.2 68.2 77.9 59.8 43.56 43.89

49.42 41.23 8 39.25 28.84 5.8 30.7 22.6 19.58 2.7 13.79 1.2

2594.3 50.90 3.1 1441.3 38.0 765.4 396.8 199.9 27.7 19.9

14.59 10.76 0.7

14.13 3.5

W = Specimen Width (mm) D = Specimen Depth (mm) P = Load at Failure (kN) De2 = 4/3.14 (min. c.s.a)= 4/3.14 (WxD) in most cases F = Size Correction Factor = (De/50)0.45 Is = Uncorrected Strength Index Is(50) = Corrected Strength Index

Conclusions 4

It can be seen from table 4, that the load required to break a specimen is controlled by the minimum cross sectional area. Even if the correction size factor is applied the value of compressive strength decreases by decreasing the specimens minimum cross sectional. Plotting a log-log of Load at Failure P against De2 gives a Co value = 88 Mpa, which is in accordance with the one calculated with the use of the National Coal Board Cone Indenter, but overestimated in comparison with the Co of the Scleroscope Test and the Co of the Point Load Test for regular specimens.

Figure 1, Log-log graph of load at failure P against the equivalent De2

Log-log graph of Load at failure P against the equivalent diameter squared De

100
Load at failure P

10

0.1 100

1000
De2

10000

E. Direct Measurement of Compressive Strength The uniaxial compressive strength is considered as standard test for measuring the strength of the rock .The suggested method calls for rocks with cores being at least NX size (about 50 mm diameter) of length about 2.5-3 times the diameter. The tested specimens were coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES.

Specimen 1 The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. D= 24.89mm, (diameter) A= 486.95mm2 (Area) Rate of applied force = 25 N/sec Failure Load = 39.6 kN Co = Load/Cross sectional area = 39600N/486.95mm2 Co = 81.32 MPa

Specimen 2 The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. D= 25.13mm, (diameter) A= 496.12mm2 (Area) Rate of applied force = 25 N/sec Failure Load = 28.7 kN Co=Load/Cross sectional area = 28700N/496.12mm2 Co = 57.75 MPa

Specimen 3 The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. 7

D= 25.15mm, (diameter) A= 496.91mm2 (Area) Rate of applied force = 25 N/sec Failure Load = 35.8 kN Co=Load/Cross sectional area = 35800N/496.91mm2 Co = 72.04 MPa

Specimen 4 The tested specimen is a coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONE. D= 25.15mm, (diameter) A= 496.91mm2 (Area) Rate of applied force = 25 N/sec Failure Load = 38.4 kN Co=Load/Cross sectional area = 38400N/496.91mm2 Co= 77.27 MPa

Average value of Co for specimens 1,2,3,4 = 72.19 MPa

Conclusions The average value of Co calculated with the uniaxial test is in accordance with tat calculated with the Point Load Test, for regular specimens and slightly different from the Co calculated with the Point Load Test, for irregular specimens. The National Coal Board Cone Indenter gave good results. The Scleroscope is not considered to give reliable results due to the human error factor.

Experiment 2. The determination of the Mohr Envelope The purpose of this experiment is the determination of the Mohr envelope and the comparison of some brittle failure criteria. Tensile Strength Method a) Three point Disc Test The tested specimens were coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. The specimens are generally 25 mm discs about 7 mm thick. This test allows the estimation of the Direct Pull Tensile Strength (Toe) The equation Tmr = 3 x P x A x 1000 / 2 x t2 x d (MPa) was used to estimate Toe (Table 5). Tmr = Modulus of Rupture P = Load at failure (kN) A = Beam span (mm) t = Disc thickness (mm) d = Diameter (width) (mm)
Table 5, Result Sheet for the Three Point Disc Test

Test No 1 2

A 40 40

d (mm) 49.36 49.27

t (mm) 6.24 6.92

P (N) 690 300

Tmr 21.5 7.63

Toe 10.75 3.8

b)

Brazilian Test The tested specimens were coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. The specimens are generally 50 mm discs about 25 mm thick. This test allows the estimation of the Brazilian Tensile Strength (Tbr). The equation Tbr = 2 x P x 1000 / x d x t (MPa) was used to estimate Tbr. (Table 6). Tbr = Brazilian Tensile Strength P = Load at failure (kN) t = Disc thickness (mm) d = Diameter (width) (mm)

Table 6, Result Sheet for the Brazilian Test

Test No 1 2

A 40 40

d (mm) 49.36 49.63

t (mm) 24.54 25.7

P (N) 860 967

Tbr 4.57 4.83

Toe 4.5 4.83

1 13.71 14.48

c)

Triaxial Test The tested specimens were coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. The specimens were cylindrical with 25 mm diameter and 50 mm length and were tested under different confining pressures in a triaxial cell. Table 7 shows the recorded readings.
Table 7

Test No 1 2 3 4

P peak (kN) 53.42 61.05 63.46 67.28

P residua l (kN) 12.5 25.5 31 35.13

25.12 25.01 25.11 25.11

50.58 50.56 51.19 51.05

495.60 491.27 495.2 495.2

Confinin g Pressure 3 3 6 9 12

107.8 124.27 130.86 135.86

65 63 73 71

d= diameter L= Length A= Cross Section Area = Failure angle Interpretation

Table 8, Values of 1, 3,

m, rm 3 3 6 9 12 m 55.4 65.14 69.93 73.93 rm 52.4 59.14 60.93 61.93

Test No 1 2 3 4

1 107.8 124.27 130.86 135.86

Mohr Envelope (see Figure 2)

10

11

Testing the validity of the Coulomb Navier Criterion Reading of the values of 2 from selected normals to the curve (see Figure 2) it can be said that the theoretical failure angle are the same with the actual failure angle for the tests with low confining pressure. For the test with higher confining pressure the values are different. This can be explained by the fact that the envelope might not be properly drawn, or that the Coulomb Navier is valid near the tensile region
Table 9 Actual failure angle and theoretical failure angle

Test No

Confining Pressure 3 3 6 9 12

Actual failure angle 65 63 73 71

Theoretical failure angle 62 59 58.5 57.5

1 2 3 4

107.8 124.27 130.86 135.86

Calculation of cohesion So and internal friction angle Plotting a graph of 1 against 3 allows the calculation of the envelopes slope angle () and of the Co (Unconfined Compressive Strength). Calculating tan gives q which is used to calculate the cohesion So and internal friction angle . (Figure 3) angle of slope (): 72.68 tan = 3.20 = q Co = 85 MPa

The equation 1 = C0 + q3 is transformed to 1 = 85 + 3.23 sin = q-1/q+1=0.52= 31.33 So = Co/2q= 23.74 MPa

Validation test of the Tensile Strain Criterion Using the equation 1 = To*/* + (1-*)/* x 3 it can be seen that To*/* = Co and (1-*)/* = q. q = (1-*)/* * = 1/q = 0.238 (Poissons Ratio) Co = To*/* To* = Co x *= 20.23 MPa (Tensile Strength)

12

1 against 3 160 140 120 1 (MPa) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 3 (MPa) 8 10 12 14

13

Comparing the value of To* with Toe and Tmr it can be seen that To*= Tmr = 2Toe. So the tensile strain criterion is valid.

Validity test of extended Griffith Criterion. The equations roc = 2/9(1-3)2 and oc = (1+23)/3 were used to test the validity of the extended Griffith criterion for the lower stress values (1 and 3). For, 1 = 107.8 MPa, 3 = 3 MPa; roc = 2/9(1-3)2 = 2440 oc = (1+23)/3 = 38 roc2 = 8Tog oc Tog = roc2/8oc= 8.02 MPa For, 1 = 124.27 MPa, 3 = 6 MPa; roc = 2/9(1-3)2 = 3108.4 oc = (1+23)/3 = 45.42 roc2 = 8Tog oc Tog = roc2/8oc= 8.55 MPa It can be seen that Tog Toe so the extended Griffith Criterion is valid.

Comparison between estimated and actual graphs for 1 against 3. The equation 1/C0 = A(3/C0 + T0/C0)n was used to estimate values of 1 using values: C0 = 85MPa (from 1 against 3 graph), T0/Co = 0.07 (given), n = 0.61 (given), A = 5.1 (given).
Table 10, Actual and estimated values for 1

3, MPa
3 6 9 12

Actual 1, (Mpa) 107.8 124.27 130.86 135.86

Predicted 1, MPa
108.8 130.98 150.16 167.8

The graph of this can be seen in Figure 3. From the results and the graph there is a clear difference between the measured values and the values predicted, most of which are considerably higher, up to 30MPa in some cases. One reasonable explanation for this non-correlation of results is that the equation is just not right for this type of rock; perhaps a different value of n would have given better results. Furthermore Co was calculated from 1 against 3 graph which implies an error.

14

180 160 140 120 3 (kN) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 1 (kN) 8 10 12 14 Actual values Estimated values

Figure 4 Comparison between actual and estimated values for 1

15

Experiment 3. Strain Gauge Rosettes, Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Two cylindrical rock specimens were provided, each with a rosette of strain gauges attached to the curved surface plus axial and radial gauges. The tested specimens were coarse grained, fresh, light yellow, SANDSTONES. Tables 10 and 11 show the recorded readings for a 60o-60o rosette and a 45o-45o respectively.

Specimen1 60o-60o rosette (A, B, C) Diameter= 49.18 mm

Table 10, The recorded readings for a 60-60 rosette under different loading forces.

Gauges a b c d (axial) e (radial)

10 kN -22 10 -29 -31 9

20 kN -41 15 -51 -51 15

30 kN -62 19 -76 -86 22

40 kN -84 24 -100 -116 28

=F/A = 40 x 103 / x d2 / 4 = 40 x 1000 N / 1899 mm2 = 21.06 N / mm2 = 21.06 MPa =/ E = 21.06 x 106 /116 /106 = 21.06 /116 x 106 x 106 x 10-9 = 181.55 GPa v = - 3 / 1 = 28 / 116 = 0.24 P = (A + B + C) / 3 P = (84 24 + 100) / 3 P = 53

16

Q = (2 / 3) (A-B) 2 + (B-C) 2 + (C-A) 2 Q = (2 / 3) (60) 2 + (124) 2 + (16) 2 = 2 / 3 3600 + 15376 + 256 Q = (2 / 3) 19232 = 77.88 Q = 78 1 = 53 + 78 = 131 = D 2 = 53 78 = - 25 = E

A = P + Q cos2 cos2 = A P / Q = 84 53 / 78 = 31 / 78 = 0.397 2 = 66.58, = 33.29o B = P Q sin2 sin2 = (C B) / 3 Q = (100 + 24) / 3 x 78 = 0.53 2 = 66.60, = 33.30 Therefore = 33.30o

Note The values of E, , are quite high for that type of rock (approximately two times up). There must have been an error with the axial-radial strain gauges, or with the calibration of the data logger.

17

Specimen 2 45o-45o rosette (A, B, C) Diameter= 50.03 mm

Table 11, The recorded readings for a 45-45 rosette under different loading forces.

Gauges a b c d (axial) e (radial)

10 kN -117 -18 -18 -116 7

20 kN -202 -29 -30 -197 13

30 kN -299 -40 -43 -294 19

40 kN -39 -51 -55 -387 25

=F/A = 40 x 103 / x d2 / 4 = 40 x 1000 N / 1964.86 mm2 = 20.35 N / mm2 = 20.35 MPa =/ = 20.35 x 106 Pa / 387 x 10-6 = 20.35 / 387 x 106 x 106 x 10-9 = 52.6 GPa v = - 3 / 1 = 25 / 387 = 0.064 P=A+C/2 P = (391 + 55) / 2 P = 223 Q = (1/2) x (A-B)2 + (B-C)2 Q = (1 /2) x (391 - 51)2 + (51-55)2 = 1 /2 115600 + 16 = 1 /2 x 340 Q = 241 1 = 223 + 241 = 464 = D 2 = 223 241 = - 18 = E

18

A= P + Q xcos2 cos2 = (A P) / Q = (391 223) / 241 = 168 / 241 = 0.697 2 = 66.58o, = 22.9o B = P Q sin2 sin2 = (P B) / Q = 223 51 / 241 = 172 / 241 = 0.713 2 = 45.6o, = 22.8o Therefore = 22.9o

19