Triaxial Strength of Rocks

Prepared For: Akshay Chowdu & Shane Lee

April 25th, 2017

Ryan Wright, David Cabrera and Abhishek Ray

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-3.1.. 6
Table 2-3.2.. 7
Table 3-2.3.. 7
Table 1-4.0 10
Table 2-4.0 10
Table 3-4.0 11
Table 4-4.0 12
Table 5-4.0 12
Table 6-4.0 13
Table 1-5.0 14

3
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-3.1 8
Figure 1-A. 15
Figure 2-A. 15
Figure 3-A. 16
Figure 4-A. 16
Figure 5-A. 17
Figure 6-A. 17

4
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Direct shear test has some major problems with it i.e. you can only know the shear and normal
test during the experiment. So we have no clue about the magnitude and direction of the stress
prior to failure are unknown. This is where Triaxial Strength tests are extremely helpful. Triaxial
compression refers to a test with simultaneous compression of a cylindrical rock specimen and
application of axisymmetric of confining pressure. The cylindrical specimen is subjected to a
fluid pressure. The strength of the rock is quantifying only when the rock is enclosed
impenetrable jacket.
OBJECTIVE
This experiments purpose is to determine the triaxial strengths for a group of rock specimens,
each at different confining pressures.

5
 2.0 SAMPLE PREPARE
2.1 SAMPLES
The samples were blasted and brought here from Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. located off of Universal
Drive in between Black Hawk and Rapid City South Dakota. They were taken to South Dakota
School of Mines and Technology for testing.
2.2 SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS
The sample requirements for this lab procedure was the specimen had to be greater than the
thickness of the shear test zone. The sample can be any shape as long as the cross-sectional area
can be determined. The least cross-sectional dimension of the specimen had to be at least 10
times the largest grain size of the sample.

6
 LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT

2.3 EQUIPMENT

The equipment used for this experiment were:

- GCTS Rapid Triaxial Rock Testing System-Model 1000
- 3 DC LVDTs- 1x for shear displacement & 2x for normal displacement (to measure
deformation)
- Data Acquisition System-SCON-2000
- 3 rock specimens

Figure (1-3.1) GCTS- Model 1000

7
2.4 SPECIMEN PREPARATION

The specimen is levelled in such a way in the lower piece of the shear box so that discontinuity
surface is aligned parallel to the direction of the shear force according to the 4543-08
requirements. The lower half of the specimen is encapsulated using the grout. Then the spacer
blocks are inserted after which the upper half is encapsulated. The confining pressure should
cover the range of stresses being investigated.

2.5 PROCEDURE
After the samples dimensions are measured and weighed, they were placed on the lower platen
and were aligned with the top platen. A heat gun was used to heat shrink the sample to make sure
along the O-rings. Then all the deformation measurements were used to zero out all the LVDT
readings and pushing the entire assembly into the loading frame. The door was closed and the
hydraulic pump was switched to high setting after which the loading piston was lowered to
minimize the gap between the top platen and the spherical seat. Lower the Cell Wall till it locks
into place. The cell was filled containing fluid isolating the pressuring circuit. The sample was
set at an initial confining pressure of 100 psi and deviatoric stress of 100 psi.
DATA COLLECTION
Using the CATS software, the Triaxial Test was setup for the required confining pressure along
with the strain rate. The test was executed after the sample parameters were put in. Once the test
failed, it was stopped and it was executed. Finally, the failure plane angles were measured with
respect to the Axial loading direction and the data was exported to Excel.

8
 3.0 Test Results
A total of three samples were tested but only three sample were property recorded and used in
this report.
Data Analyses
Triaxial Data
Max Stress Min Stress
(1) (3)
psi psi
TX#16
-1 27615.9 3001.9
TX#16
-2 29593.5 4001.6
TX#16
-3 24632.8 2001.7
TX#16
-4 33562.8 5005.7
TX#17
-1 14551.9 494.9
TX#17
-2 16601.2 999.6
TX#17
-3 34217.6 1501.6
Figure 1 TX#17-3 is cannot be used when plotting sigma 1 vs sigma 3 because it is an outlier due to
inconsistent results

9
 Max Stress vs Min Stress

P-Q Space Data

P Q
psi psi
TX#16
-1 15308.9 12307
TX#16 16797.5 12795.9
-2 5 5
TX#16 13317.2 11315.5
-3 5 5
TX#16 19284.2 14278.5
-4 5 5
TX#17
-1 7523.4 7028.5
TX#17
-2 8800.4 7800.8
TX#17
-3 17859.6 16358
Figure 2 TX#17-3 is cannot be used when plotting sigma 1 vs sigma 3 because it is an outlier due to
inconsistent results

10
 Triaxial Data in p-q Space

f(x) = 0.63x + 2471.98

Apparent Mohr Coulumb Failure

Parameters
d 2472 psi
32.03 degrees

Actual Mohr Coulumb Failure

Parameters
316
Cohesion (C) 8 psi
38. degree
Friction Angle () 7 s

Hoek Brown Failure Criterion

Parameters
ci 16235.8 psi
Mi 7.5478 degrees

The trend line equation to find d and alpha.

= arctan(slope) (From Fig 1)
d=y intercept (From Fig. 1)

Friction angle= arcsin(tan())

Cohesion= d/(cos(friction angle))

11
ci and Mi were calculated using the solver add-in in Excel.

ANALYSIS
Literature value that we found for limestones cohesion was 19.8 MPa (2871.47 psi) 1 and
friction angle being 38.1 . Our actual cohesion was slightly different because that value vastly
depends on the nature of the rock but our friction angle was almost the same because that doesnt
change heavily across the type of rock.

Summary of all tests specimens

35000
30000 TX 16-1
25000 TX 16-2
20000 TX-16-3
Deviatoric Stress(psi) TX-16-4
15000
TX 17-1
10000
TX-17-2
5000 TX-17-3
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Axial Stress (psi)

The graph shown above shows that the two set of specimen had very close Youngs modulus and
failed at a similar devatoric stress except for TX-17-3 which was an outlier.

1 Karaman, K., Cihangir, F., Ercikdi, B., Kesimal, A., & Demirel, S.. (2015). Utilization of the Brazilian test for
estimating the uniaxial compressive strength and shear strength parameters. Journal of the Southern African Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, 115(3), 185-192. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?
script=sci_arttext&pid=S2225-62532015000300005&lng=en&tlng=en.

12
 Conclusion
Out of the three rock specimen that we tested for one was very hard and did not coincide with
any of the other two. The reason why we know that we cant use that data is because when we
look at the data from the last year results it clearly shows that we most of the specimens plots
were close to each other so we can all that an accurate data. Thus we can use them to calculate
friction angle or cohesion from the corresponding data set.
In the real world rocks mostly contain discontinuity, which is why triaxial test if so important.
The possibility of controlling the specimen drainage while taking measurements of pore water
pressure makes it a valuable tool. Although we used it only to calculate cohesion and friction
factor, it can also be used to calculate undrained shear strength, shear stiffness, compression
index, and permeability.

13
Figure 3 TX Before

14
Figure 4 TX After Failure (front side)

15
Figure 5 TX After failure (back side)

16