Laboratory Rock Mechanics

MNG 551-001 Laboratory #6

Elastic Moduli and Constants
ASTM D4543 &7012

Philipe Innecco Rosa

Lab Performed: 10/15/14

Lab Reported: 10/22/14

Purpose
In an excavation rock masses are subjected to natural and induced stresses, knowing and
predicting then it is extremely important to safely extract natural resources from underground. As
important as this is to know how rock masses responds to such stresses. The mechanical response
is based in the elastic theory and it is measured in term of the deformation or strain. The elastic
theory correlates the stress and strain through several elastic moduli and constants including
Modulus of Elasticity; Shear Modulus; Bulk Modulus; Poissons Ratio. The purpose of this lab is
to learn these mathematical terms and their physical meaning. Knowing these properties it
becomes possible to predict the response of rock mass to a given stress field.
Equipment
The following list of equipment was used to complete the lab exercise:

Compression Testing Machine

Samples prepared to ASTM specifications
2 Axial Strain Gauges
1 Circumferential Strain Gauge
Vishay Model P3 Strain Indicator and Recorder

Procedure
This lab was performed according to ASTM D4543 and D7012

Prepare test samples according to ASTM D4543-08 standards

Measure the sample length and diameter and (to the nearest 0.001 in.) at least three times
using the average measurements as the sample dimensions. Calculate the length-todiameter ratio. Compare with ASTM standards.
Weight and record sample mass. Calculate sample density.
Place the chamber housing in the compression testing machine.
Connect the strain gauges to the strain indicator.
Apply a continuously increasing axial load at a constant rate (1,000 psi/min) of loading
until the predetermined stress level of 6,000 psi is reached.
For each 1,000 psi increment of tress, record the axial and circumferential strain from the
strain indicator.
Repeat this process for a total of three (3) trials, resulting in a total o eighteen (18) data
points.

Results
After following the procedures that ASTM standards require for diameter and length
determination, the sample was weighted and then an increasing load were applied to. Sample
properties and strain data are given on table 1 and 2 respectively.

Parameter
Sample #
Diameter

Length
L/D Ratio
Mass

ID

Value Units
1
1
1.986
in.
2
1.981
in.
3
1.979
in.
AVG 1.982
in.
1
4.041
in.
2
4.035
in.
3
4.037
in.
AVG 4.038
in.
AVG 2.037
554
g

Table 1 Sample properties.

Reading

Stress
psi

Axial
strain
x10-6

Circumfe
rential
strain
x10-6

Lateral
strain
x10-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000

0
29
35
44
55
66
77
89
102
114
127
140
153
166
179
193
206
220
233
248
260

0
24
27
31
35
40
45
49
54
59
63
68
72
77
81
86
90
95
99
104
108

0
7.639
8.594
9.868
11.141
12.732
14.324
15.597
17.189
18.780
20.054
21.645
22.918
24.510
25.783
27.375
28.648
30.239
31.513
33.104
34.377

Table 2 Strain Data

Discussion
With the data retrieved from lab testing the stress strain curve was built for both axial and lateral
strain data. Also a linear fitting was made in order to retrieve the rocks average modulus of
elasticity.

Stress-Axial Strain Curve

12000
y = 39,818,786x - 197

Stress (psi)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

Axial strain
Graph 1 Stress-Axial Strain Curve

Comparing the linear fitting equation from graph 1 to the Hookes law, we can see that the rocks
average Youngs modulus is = 39,818,786
or = 275
. The same procedure was
made for the lateral strain data. The slope of this curve is needed to calculate the Poissons ration
according to ASTM standards. The acquired slope value is
= 347,656,268
.

Stress-Lateral Strain Curve

12000
y = 347,656,268x - 1,982

Stress (psi)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0

0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 0.000035 0.00004

Lateral strain
Graph 2 Stress-Lateral Strain Curve

For each data point obtained from testing we can determine a Poissons ratio dividing the lateral
strain by the axial strain. The Poissons ratio value for each reading is shown on table 3.
Reading
Poissons Ratio
1
-0.2634
2
-0.2456
3
-0.2243
4
-0.2026
5
-0.1929
6
-0.1860
7
-0.1752
8
-0.1685
9
-0.1647
10
-0.1579
11
-0.1546
12
-0.1498
13
-0.1476
14
-0.1440
15
-0.1418
16
-0.1391
17
-0.1375
18
-0.1352
19
-0.1335
20
-0.1322
Average Poissons Ratio
-0.1698
Table 3 Stress-Lateral Strain Curve

ASTM standards determine that experimental Poissons ratio should be obtained by dividing the
average elasticity modulus by the slope of the lateral curve. This relationship and the overall
average Poissons Ration are shown below.
=

39,818,786
347,656,268

= 0.1145
As we can see the overall Poissons Ration is lower than the average Poissons Ratio obtained
through data points. This can be explained by the very small lateral strain obtained from the
testing in comparison to the axial strain.
These values can be compared to the typical limestone Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons
Ration, they are 80 GPa and 0.15 - 0.3 respectively. The final values for the limestone sample
tested were = 275
and = 0.1145.

Knowing the rocks Young Modulus and Poissons Ration we can determine the last two elastic
moduli, the shear modulus and the bulk modulus. The calculation for these final values are
shown below.
Shear Modulus
=
=

2(1 + )

39,818,786
2(1 + (0.1145))

= 22,483,787
Bulk Modulus
'=
'=

3(1 2 )

39,818,786
3(1 (3)(0.1145))

' = 9,879,366

Several aspects on this test can influence the final result including improper adhesive application
of strain gauges, improper orientation of the strain gauges relative to the proper axes, and
incorrect calibration of the strain indicator. We are also treating with rock which it is not a
regular engineering material due to the geologic aspects like discontinuities. Discontinuities has
a big impact on the final result, particularly within uniaxial loading.
Conclusion
The purpose of this laboratory exercise was to determine several moduli of elasticity. After
performing the test with the sample available and analyzing the data retrieved we have obtained
an average Young Modulus of 39,818,786
and an overall Poissons Ratio of 0.1145. These
values can be compared with a typical limestone Young Modulus and Poisson Ratio, which they
are 80 GPa and 0.15 0.3 respectively. With this data were possible to mathematically determine
the Bulk and Shear Moduli, which their value are ' = 9,879,366
and = 22,483,787
respectively. In a general aspect these values are close to typical value for a limestone.
Suggested Exercises
1. Poisson effect can be understood as the correlation between the strains in two different
axes. As a sample deforms transversely it also deforms longitudinally. Yes it does. The
maximum theoretical Poissons Ratio value is 0.5. A material whose Poissons Ratio is
0.5, must have infinite deformation in plastic region. The material whose characteristics
best fit this description is rubber.

2. The following table was extracted from:

3. Schellart, W.P (2000). Shear test results for cohesion and friction coefficients for
different granular materials: scaling implications for their usage in analogue modelling.
Tectonophysics 324 (2000) 3-16.
4. Isotropic: The properties of the material are independent of coordinate system;
anisotropic: The properties of the material varies through different directions;
transversely isotropic: The material has constant properties within a plane but when we
move vertically properties change.
5. Due to preferential compaction and alignment sedimentary rocks be placed as a
transversely isotropic material.

Required Reading Exercises;

1) The principal cause of horizontal stress is regional geology caused by tectonic
movements, but topography can also generate local horizontal stresses.
2) A review of horizontal stress measurements in limestone and dolomite formations in the
Eastern and Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Canada [13] shows that the maximum
horizontal stress can vary between 4.1 MPa and 47.6 MPa up to depths of 300 m and the
orientation of the maximum horizontal stress is between N60E and N90E.
3) Roof Damage, Roof Guttering, Beam Instability, Oval Shaped Falls, Failure Propagation,
etc.
4) The panel should be at a 45 degree angle from the maximum horizontal stress direction.
In this way we minimize the stress effects on both entries and crosscuts.