Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology

Faculty of Geology & Petroleum Engineering

Subject: GeoMechanics

Lecture
ROCK FAILURE

Dr. Nguyen Huynh Thong

1
 Outline

The Mohr Circle and Compressive Strength

Tensile Strength

Assignment in class

2
 Objectives

Explain the differences between laboratory rock

strength tests.
Read and construct a Mohr Circle and calculate the
stresses and strength of a failed rock sample.
Explain the behavior of the Mohr Circle during
depletion or injection.

3
 The Mohr Circle &
Compressive Strength
The Mohr Circle and Compressive Strength
Tensile Strength

Assignment in class

4
Types of Rock Mechanics Tests

5
Shear Failure of Sandstone

a = 1
High quality
cylinder
L = 2D

6
Flat ends r = 3
High angle shear
plane
Zone of dilation and
crushing a

M Dusseault
 Scale Effects on Sample Strength

Field scale: grains to kilometers. Lab scale: grains to 100 mm diameter specimen.

a = 1 slip
Field max planes planes
stresses
Z
r = 3 r

7
cores
Triaxial
Test
a Stresses

faults Scale differences and flaws mean

joints that direct extrapolation of test
fractures results to the field is difficult in
grains Petroleum Rock Mechanics
bedding Sample damage can change properties larger rock masses typically
appear to be less strong due to larger number of flaws sampled!
 Scale Effects on Rock Strengths

Rock strengths generally

Specimen Size Effect decrease with increasing
(after Bienawski and Van Heerden, 1975) specimen size.
This effect is related in
140 part to the presence of
discontinuities in a larger
Compressive Strength [MPa]

Calcareous Iron Ore

120 Jahns, 1966 volume of rock sampled.
100 Cedar City Quartz Diorite, Besides inherent
Pratt et. all, 1972. geological features,
80 Coal, Bienawski, 1968 damages due to sampling
process can also alter
60 rock properties.
40 Scale differences and
flaws mean that direct
20 extrapolation of test
results to the field is
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 difficult.
Specimen Length [m]
Stress-Strain Curves for Random Quartzite
Strength Depends on Confining Pressure

9
3: Minimum effective stress [MPa]
Mohr Circles in Two Dimensions

11
3

1: Maximum effective stress [MPa] : Shear stress [MPa]

3: Minimum effective stress [MPa] n: Effective normal stress [MPa]
Mohr Envelope in Two Dimensions

12
S0: Cohesion [MPa] 1: Maximum effective stress [MPa]
C0: Uniaxial compressive strength [MPa] 3: Minimum effective stress [MPa]
C0 UCS : Shear stress [MPa]
mi: Internal friction coefficient [ ] n: Effective normal stress [MPa]
 Rock Strength Measurements

Once the failure envelope is defined the

UCS is determined by fitting a circle beneath
the envelope with the minimum stress set
equal to zero. The maximum stress defines
the UCS (C0).

13
Practical Calculation of C0 and mi

m i2 1 m i
m
m i2 1 m i

14
m 1
mi
2 m
C0: Uniaxial compressive strength [MPa]
mi: Internal friction coefficient [ ]
m: m coefficient [ ]
 Example: Samples A-E

A B C D E
Core depth (m) x097 x097 x097 x097 x097
Log depth (m) x100.2 x100.2 x100.2 x100.2 x100.2
Diameter (cm) 2.605 2.603 2.604 2.606 2.604
Length (cm) 5.178 5.110 5.302 5.097 5.061
L/D 1.99 1.96 2.04 1.96 1.94
Sample Density 2.28 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.3
(g/cc)
Confining Pressure 2 5.5 9.6 14.48 2.01
(MPa)
Max. Axial Stress 50.3 72.6 109.6 143.5 76.7
(MPa)

Sample plug E retests conditions of A. The maximum axial stress

reached by sample E is significantly greater than A.
 Sample C Stress-Strain

13C Axial Strain 13C Radial Strain 13C Volume Strain

120

100

Axial Stress (MPa)

80

60

40

20

0
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Radial strain (-) Axial

Sample C
Core Depth (m MD) x097
Confining Pressure (MPa) 9.6
Maximum Axial Stress (MPa) 109.6
 Sample C : Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio
Young's Modulus

72
Axial Stress (MPa)

70
y = 14.148x - 0.036
68 2
R = 0.9997
66
64
62
60
Sample C
58 Core Depth (m MD) x097
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Axial Strain (mstr) Youngs Modulus (GPa) 14.1
Poisson's ratio Poissons ratio 0.26
0.8
Radial Strain (mstr)

0.7
0.6
0.5 y = 0.2573x - 0.5963
2
0.4 R = 0.969
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Axial Strain (mstr)
 Samples A B C D E at x097mMD

Samples (C D E)
Strain curves for samples A & B Core Depth (m MD) x097
display initial failure before UCS (MPa) 59.9
catastrophic failure and were not
used to determine UCS and other Friction Angle () 44.19
elastic parameters stated in table. Friction Coefficient 0.97
Cohesion (MPa) 12.7
Samples E C D : Elastic & Strength Parameters

E C D
Core depth (m) x097 x097 x097
Log depth (m) x100.2 x100.2 x100.2
Diameter (cm) 2.604 2.604 2.606
Length (cm) 5.061 5.302 5.097
L/D 1.94 2.04 1.96
Sample Density (g/cc) 2.3 2.29 2.29
Confining Pressure (MPa) 2.01 9.6 14.48
Max. Axial Stress (MPa) 76.7 109.6 143.5
UCS (MPa) 59.9
Friction Angle (deg) 44.19
Cohesion (MPa) 12.7
Youngs Modulus (GPa) 11.7 14.1 16.2
Poisson ratio 0.28 0.26 0.39
Comments Retest of A
 Tensile Strength

The Mohr Circle and Compressive Strength

Tensile Strength

20
Compressive and Tensile Strength Compared

21
Tensile strength of rock is
much smaller than
compressive strength;
~10% or less of the
compressive strength of
the same rock.
 Tension Test

Direct tension test

T a
Indirect tension
(Brazilian) test r r
T
Bending (3 point a
Direct Tension Test Triaxial Extension Test
or 4 point) test To = Tmax r > a
Triaxial extension
test P

Special
stress/strain path
test (4 point) Bendding Test Brazilian Indirect Tension Test
To = 2Pmax/ptD
 Tensile Strength
Tensile strength (To) is
Capacity of a material to support tensile stress extremely difficult to
measure due to its
direction-, flaw-,
T sample size-,
Direct Tension Test dependency
An indirect method, the
To = Tmax Brazilian tension test, is
T commonly used.
Tensile strength from
Bending Test lab specimen can be
very different from rock
mass strength.
For a large reservoir, To
P
Brazilian Indirect may be assumed to be
Tension Test zero because of joints,
bedding planes, etc.
To = 2Pmax/ptD
 T
Mohr Failure Envelope a

r r
T a
Direct Tension Test Triaxial Extension Test
To = Tmax r > a

(4 point) Bendding Test Brazilian Indirect Tension Test

To = 2Pmax/ptD

D
C

An empirical criterion of failure defined by the envelope of a series of Mohrs
circles: A, direct tension; B, Brazilian; C, unconfined compression; D, triaxial
compression.
 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

Mohr Coulomb Failure Criterion

So m So tan or
1 UCS 3 tan 2 ( p4 2 )

The relationships between So , , and UCS are:

1 sin
tan( p4 2 ) 1 m 2 m , and
1 sin
UCS 2So tan( p4 2 ), m tan
UCS Unconfined compressive strength,
So Cohesion or inherent shear strength
Internal friction angle
m Friction coefficient tan
Reference

Mark D. Zoback
Professor of Geophysics