You are on page 1of 107

Engineering Geology - Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands


University of Sheffield, Sheffield (Great Britain)
(Received May 7, 1969)


Laboratory testing of rock specimens in uniaxial tension and compression
is reviewed in detail, with the aim of selecting equipment, procedures and tolerances
as a basis for test standardization. Major topics of the review include composition,
condition and preparation of test materials, theoretical background of deformation
and fracture in rocks, detailed mechanics of uniaxial laboratory tests, and practical
test procedures.


There is at present a growing demand for laboratory tests on small samples
of intact rock to determine strength and deformation characteristics. The results
of such tests are directly applicable to studies of mining, tunnelling, drilling,
cutting, crushing and blasting, and indirectly applicable to consideration of the
behaviour of large jointed rock masses. Many types of tests have been devised,
using equipment and techniques that range from the crude and empirical, with
results that are almost impossible to interpret analytically, to the theoretically
elegant, which are almost impossible to execute practically. Between these extremes
lie a number of tests which are both practical and theoretically meaningful. Among
these, distinction might be made between direct tests, in which the stress field of
an isotropic specimen is determined directly by the applied loading and the bound-
ary conditions, irrespective of the material properties, and indirect tests, in which
the stress field depends on the material properties. Indirect tests (e.g., beam flexure,
diametral compression of discs and annuli) have the inherent disadvantage that a
stress-strain relationship must be assumed in order to obtain usable results; the
usual assumption of linear elasticity, with equal moduli in compression and
tension, is invalid for many rocks. Direct tests are therefore of more fundamental
The most convenient type of direct test is that in which one principal stress
is varied while the other two are held constant. Uniaxial tests in compression and

1 Present address: Creare, Inc., Hanover, N.H. (U.S.A.).
Present address: U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,
N.H. (U.S.A.).

Eng. Geol., 4 (1970) 177-285


tension, which are special cases of the triaxial test, are by far the most common
and widespread direct tests for rock properties.
Although enormous use has been made of uniaxial tests, and despite many
attempts to clarify the controlling factors, there are still no generally accepted
standards for equipment and technique. Consequently, it is difficult to make
meaningful comparison of results obtained in different laboratories. In the related
field of concrete testing, for example, SIGVALDASON(1964) gives evidence that the
results of uniaxial compression tests on identical specimens made in eight different
laboratories had wide discrepancies of magnitude and variance, even though all
tests were made on machines conforming to the appropriate British Standards and
A.S.T.M. standards.
Standardization is clearly desirable, but it should be based on a thorough
understanding of the behaviour of the test material and of the detailed mechanics
of the test. The test should also be designed to yield information which can be
applied to research and engineering problems through the medium of theoretical
concepts of deformation and fracture. In spite of the need, premature standardiza-
tion would be inadvisable; improper standards would lead to confusion, and
enforced conformity would inhibit development of sound technique.
For many years some shortcomings of typical test techniques have been
recognized, and there have been numerous studies on particular aspects of test
technique. These studies have highlighted certain problems, but they have not been
fully successful in dispelling controversy. It now appears that interaction of some
of the complicating factors necessitates a broader approach and an overall critical
review embracing the composition, condition, and preparation of the test material,
the theoretical background of testing, and the detailed mechanics of the test.
The following review, which includes original contributions, is offered as a con-
tribution to the reevaluation of uniaxial testing in rock mechanics.


Description and classification of rocks

Rocks. The term "rock" may embrace almost all solid earth materials. There
is often no clear demarcation between "rocks" and "soils", and in rock mechanics
any naturally occurring earth material which has sufficient cohesion to enable it to
be loaded uniaxially can be considered rock. There are many ways of classifying
rocks, but most are based primarily on geological origin or chemical composition,
and are not generally suitable for engineering purposes, where the emphasis is on
mechanical properties.
HANDIN (1966) has suggested that it is possible to categorize rocks on the
basis of their mechanical properties, as follows: (1) the unfoliated igneous and
metamorphic rocks and silica-cemented sandstone; (2)schist, slate and highly

Eng. GeoL, 4 (1970) 177-285


indurated and fissile shale; (3) dolomite and anhydrite; (4) moderately well
cemented sandstone; (5) limestone; (6) poorly fissile shale, mudstone and siltstone;
and (7) salt and gypsum.
Typical values of mechanical constants for these rock types are given by

Classification schemes. As yet there is no generally accepted classification of
rocks based on mechanical properties and suitable for use in rock mechanics, but
a number of schemes have been put forward.
A classification system for intact rock specimens developed by DEERE and
MILLER (1966) is reported to be under consideration by the American Society
for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M.) (DEERE, 1966). This is a simple semiquanti-
tative classification based on compressive strength and Young's modulus, measured


borxlO-3; (MN/m z)xlO -2
- 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I 2 4
i ) , ,i ! i i i , w i ' '1 i
(Ibf/in z )x I0 3
4 8 t6 32 64
Very Low Low Medium High V e r y Hlgt
Strenoth Strength Strenoth Strength Strength
15 / 15

I0 / I0

, -- / / / a

6 / /- 6
4 __ f Q ~ _

~> ; ~ : ,f;o.9.., ~ / ' =.

•, ,,, 4 )
= == o.s
I I ~"l<<'+ I' ..,
#+ I
o.a g
- / / +<><>' - o,
o., / I ,,°4
o., :/ / o.,
I I I I I II , I I I
0.2 I z 4 s e I0 so 40 so 0,5
( I b f / I n 2 ) x 10- 3
, , ,| = i = = I = = i =i J = |
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I 2 4
( k g f / c m t ) ~ I 0 "3

Fig.l. Diagram for classification of rocks on the basis of uniaxial mechanical properties.
(After DEERE and MILLER, 1966.)

Eng. Geol., 4 (1970) 177-285

is given in Table II. or E) giving the strength category and the second letter (H. Eng. B. 1966) 1. 1966. Strength classification Uniaxial compressive strength Description Designation (Ibf/sq.000-32. The rock is then assigned a two-letter designation. the ratio of modulus to strength.000 very high strength A 16. and was later modified (COATESand PARSONS. A classification scheme for use in rock mechanics was proposed by COATES (1964).000 very low strength E 2.000 medium strength C 4. the other based on the ratio of field seismic velocity to sonic velocity measured on intact laboratory specimens. Items 4 and 5 of Table II were criticised by Bt~RTON(1965) who suggested replacements (see note below Table II). MELLOR by uniaxial compressive tests on small samples (diameter 1. one based on core recovery percentages in drilling operations.ERE and MILLER.inch) over 32.000 low strength D under 4. D.5-4 inches. DEUCE.1. The tangent modulus at 50~o of the ultimate stress is plotted against uniaxial strength on the classification chart shown in Fig. or L) giving the "modulus ratio". HAWKES AND M. M.000 high strength B 8. TABLE I ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATIONFOR INTACT ROCK (After Dr. i. The Coates scheme. length/dia- meter 2. Modulus ratio classification Modulus ratio Description Designation over 500 high modulus ratio H 200-500 average modulus ratio M under 200 low modulus ratio L D~va~ (1966) also makes two suggestions for quantifying the description of massive rock. embodying the 1966 modifications.000-16. The numerical limits of the categories are given in Table I. These suggested changes were not adopted by Coates.0-2. 1966). the first letter (A.. x See Appendix 4 for notes on units.e.182 I. Geol. C. 4 (1970) 177-285 .000-8..5) 1.

.. Gross homogeneity (1) homogeneous (2) heterogeneous 5.inch) 3. Gross homogeneity (1) massive (2) layered (i.inch-25.inch. Indeed.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 183 TABLE II ROCK CLASSIFICATION FOR USE IN ROCK MECHANICS 1 (After COATES. 4 (1970) 177-285 .000 lbf/sq.e.1964.) (3) broken (in fragments that would pass through a 3 inch sieve) 1 Changes in items 4 and 5 suggested by BURTON(1965): 4. Until a standardized system for measuring the uniaxial mechanical properties o f rock has been adopted. or permanent strain at failure > 25% of total strain) 4. Geological name (simple field name) 2. Continuity of the rock substance (1) intact (no planes of weakness) (2) tabular (1 group of weakness planes) (3) columnar (2 groups of weakness planes) (4) blocks (3 groups of weakness planes) (5) fissures or seams (planes of weakness irregularly disposed. as well as any other.1966) 1. layering effects which would produce parallel lines of weakness) 5. Continuity of the rock substance in the formation (1) solid (joint spacing greater than 6 ft. Deformation and failure characteristics (1) elastic (2) yielding (creep strain rate > 2 • lO-6/h.DON (1968) has p r o p o s e d an engineering classification based solely on uniaxial compressive strength (Table III). Geol. generally including sedimentary and schistose. at the present time it is rare even to be able to exchange information on the properties o f a rock with any degree o f certainty as to what the figures actually represent. This scheme appears to place more emphasis on distinctions between weak rocks than do the schemes o f Deere or Coates. Uniaxial compressive strength (1) weak (less than 10.000 lbf/sq. Less than 5000 lbf/sq. generally associated with faulting) (6) crushed (in fragments that would pass a 3 inch sieve) STAPLF.inch) (3) very strong (greater than 25. COATESand PARSONS. Eng.000 lbf/sq. it seems unlikely that any major progress will be m a d e towards a universal classification system.000 lbf/sq.inch may be described as "very weak") (2) strong (10.) (2) blocky (joint spacing 3 inch to 6 ft.

For rocks showing planar anisotropy. hard dessicated clays.000-20. cementing materials and alteration products and also the grain structure and texture. is important. The properties of a single crystal are determined by its chemical composition.inch kgf/cm 2 rock materials very weaka VW < 1.g.000 > 1. temperature. the long axis of the samples is normal to the fabric planes. The degree of isotropy. which includes the mineralogical composition of crystals. The relevant information is given by a full petrographic description. and by lattice defects such as vacancies and dislocations.1968) Range of U.S.400 very strong VS > 20. brought about by geologic deformation of the rock (FRmD- RAN. when soils can be remoulded. since mechanical properties are only scalar for isotropic material. 4 (1970) 177-285 . (dry samples~) Range of strength of some common Term abbreviation lbf/sq. but also upon the way in which the crystals are assembled.000 < 70 .~ O strong S 10. Primary anisotropy. shape. grains. distribution and orientation of crystals. and also upon the condition it is in when tested (e.000 700-1.184 i. including size. HAWKESAND M. 1967a). Factors influencing strength and deformability The mechanical properties of a rock depend on its intrinsic composition and structure. by the lattice structure (which determines glide systems). GeoL. it is helpful to work progressively from the scale of the single crystal to that of the rock mass (FRmDMAN. e.000-10.000 200-700 It ~. or anisotropy.C.400 x Samples of fresh rock material tested to Australian Standards.. 1967a). pores and cracks. or by recrystallization during sedimentation or metamorphic processes. brought about by preferential orientation during crystallization. 2 To be defined. grains. water content). The distinction can be made usually by soaking in water. may be distinguished from secondary anisotropy.o medium strong MS 3.g. The deformational behaviour of the crystal also depends on its orientation relative to the applied stress field and on the mode of load application. MELLOR TABLE II[ CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MATERIALS BASED ON UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 1 (After STAPLEDON.. In reviewing the characteristics which influence mechanical behaviour. a Some overlap in strength with very strong cohesive soils. Eng. In bulk specimens of intact rock the mechanical properties depend not only on the properties of the individual crystals.

and finally soaking under vacuum for 24 hours. Geol. and also weighing the saturated sample immersed in water. As an alternative to water saturation. This is usually deter- mined by measuring the maximum volume of water which can be absorbed by unit volume of the rock. The volume of the pore water can then be found by surface-drying the saturated sample. b. gives a strain intercept for zero stress. e. c).UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCKMECHANICS 185 The major factors which influence mechanical behaviour. For rock of a given type and composition. the rock should be saturated by first evacuating in the oven-dry state. KNUDSON. weighing it.many workers regard oven-dryingat moderatetemperature (105°C) as accept- able for most rocks. SIgIL~'S..g. Alternatively. Drying in a desiccatoris slow and inconvenient. limestone or gypsum. apart from those revealed during the usual mineralogical and petrofabrie analysis. but they require sophisticated apparatus and technique. KOWALSKI. such as ceramics (e. Extrapolation of an approximately linear section of stress-strain curve. should be recognized. and deducting the dry weight for the sample of known volume. 1959. Eng. 1966). Other methods exist. 1966. However. 4 (1970) 177-285 . 1958. Density and porosity.. One possibility is to grind the rock and measure grain density in a pycnometer. Relationships between porosity and strength have also been proposed for other brittle materials. True grain density and true porosity are difficult to measure if the rock contains completely sealed pores. The simplest and most direct way to determine dry bulk density of a rock is to weigh an accurately machined cylinder on a precision balance while it is still hot from oven-drying1. MORGLrNSTERNand PHUKAN.1965a. BROWN et al. sand- stone. is of more interest than true porosity. which is supposed to re- present elastic compression of grains after pore closure. 1964). the saturated sample can be weighed while immersed in water. Another suggested method is to compress the rock hydrostatically and obtain a stress-strain curve showing the effects of pore closure and elastic compression after pore closure (VI/ALSH. deduction of the dry weight in air yields the grain and pore volumes.. and to measure with a micrometer its linear dimensions after cooling to room temperature. As an alternative for irregular samples. Hence. and appropriate descriptions should be furnished if maximum value is to be obtained from test results. which gives the volume of interconnected pores. For this measurement. porosity is a useful index property to report in con- junction with strength and deformation data. effective grain density and effective 10BERT and DUVALL(1967) advise against oven-drying. then admitting distilled degassed water under vacuum. 1966. porosity appears to correlate with strength and elastic moduli (SCmLLER. For many purposes the "effective porosity".recommendingdrying in a desiccator instead. bulk density can be found by weighing the sample in air both in the dry and saturated states. and this gives a measure of porosity.g.

mercury intrusion). The surface area of a rock provides a measure of its internal crack and pore structure. which suggests that this "crack" is either within the grain or at the grain boundary. Other methods for measuring effective porosity are available (e. The most sensitive and precise method for measuring surface area is low temperature gas adsorption. HAWKESAND M. The shape of grains and pores can be observed in thin sections cut orthog- onally from the rock. Shape and size of grains and pores. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The writers have found air pycnometer porosities 4-6Yo higher than water saturation values for highly porous rocks. Eng. so it is of interest to record grain and pore sizes. it indicates the probable sensitivity of the rock to water. with sequential photo- graphy.g. Under uniaxial stress conditions it seems likely that grain boundaries and pores are the source of the controlling defects. Both BRACE (1961) and SKINNER (1959) have identified the length of the controlling defect structure ("Griffith crack") with the maximum grain size in rocks. An air comparison pycno- meter appears to give higher values for effective porosity than does the water saturation method. or other defect structures. The significance of this parameter does not appear to have been widely appreciated in rock mechanics. These findings suggest that air penetrates pores which are too small to afford access to water under the pressure differential provided by a simple vacuum saturation apparatus (approx.T. technique (BRUNAUER. In fracture theory the length of the in- herent cracks.. This gives the broad order of grain size. and 7 0 ~ higher for low porosity granite. Pore size distribution can be obtained by the mercury penetration method or by water expulsion in a pressure membrane apparatus. and since it represents the surface available for adsorption of pore fluids. Geol. Grains are some- times "lost" from thin sections. has also been used to give a three dimensional picture of grain and pore structure. leaving apparent pores.5 inches Hg). since not all of the grains are sectioned along their mid-planes. but they are too complicated for routine use in a small laboratory.. MELLOR porosity can be measured in an air/helium pycnometer. 29. Some evidence on the shape of pores can be deduced from the mercury penetration method. Pore sizes are also measured from thin sections by direct scanning. It is customary to measure grain size by direct scanning of a thin section with a graticule under a low magnification petrographic microscope.E. atmospheric moisture.186 I. and similar limitations apply to the results. but special statistical techniques are required in order to produce detailed grain-size distributions. Low temperature gas adsorption and desorption methods are also available. Surface area. following the classical B. in a material is one of the primary para- meters. or other fluids. Series sectioning on a surface grinder.

0 0. perhaps N 10 m2/g.8 20. OBERT et al. limestone and granite as water content varied. 2 Variation of strength with duration of loading. The reasons for variation of strength with water content in unconfined samples 1 are still somewhat obscure.1 15. Eng.20 0. JUMIKIS (1966) found the compressive strength of a saturated shale to be an order of magnitude lower than the dry strength.. there were further small increases of strength when the rock was subjected to high and ultra- high vacuum. There is also a body of evidence demonstrating that the strength of ceramics and fused silicates decreases with increasing water content.105 Berea Sandstone 19. limestone and granite as a function of water content. which may involve reduction of surface energy (BOOZER et al. Rocks such as shales are expected to have greater surface areas than the examples given. The presence of water on internal surfaces of the rock produces static fatigue 2. (1946) showed small changes in compressive strength for sandstone.654 Water content. KROKOSKYand HUSAK (1968) found that the uniaxial compressive strength of basalt was significantly higher when oven-dry than when air-dry.6 1. marble.. the relationships are of the same form as those shown by Colback and Wiid.69 1. Surface areas for some rocks studied by the writers are given in Table IV. More dramatically. showing that in most cases " d r y " strength exceeds wet strength in compression. while a more thorough study by COLBACK and WIlD (1965) defined relationships between uniaxial compressive strength and water content for sandstone and shale. 1938). 4 (1970) 177-285 . Surface area may also be calculated from adsorption isotherms for water vapour. TABLE IV EFFECTIVE POROSITY AND SURFACE AREA FOR THREE ROCK TYPES Rock Effective porosity (%) Surface area (m~/g) water saturation air pycnometer Barre Granite 0. The data obtained by Colback and Wiid showed that the strength of saturated rock was only about half the strength of completely dry rock. The writers have unpublished data for uniaxial compressive strength and Brazil tensile strength of sandstone.25 Indiana Limestone 14.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 187 et al. and therefore this should be given precisely. The common adsorbate is nitrogen. RuIz (1966) has given data for fifteen rock types. GeoL. 1963) or 1 Pore pressure effects are ignored here. although a number of hypotheses have been put forward. The strength of rock is influenced significantly by water con- tent.

H.4 (1970) 177-285 . Strength appeared to be minimum at a pH of approximately 7. admitting distilled degassed water to the vacuum vessel (maintaining vacuum). It is suggested that the water content for nominally dry test specimens should be standardized by equilibrating the samples with air of controlled relative humidity. Temperature. or inter- atomic shielding (PUGH. COLBACKand Wiro (1965) showed that the strength of quartzitic sandstone was negatively proportional to the surface tension of the fluid it was immersed in. depending on the rock type: in a porous sandstone (20% porosity) the water adsorbed from air at 100% R. but fails to stipulate a time limit for the period between removal from the oven and testing). may be only 5% of the total water the rock can hold.T. Saturated test specimens can be obtained by placing oven-dried samples under vacuum.1959). 188 I. and leaving them to soak under vacuum for 24 h. while STREETand WANG (1966) found that the strength of sandstone and glass was sensitive to hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of the wetting solution. atmosphere. Whatever the reasons. HAWKESAND M. percentage of the total saturation water content. in a granite ( < 1% porosity) it may be about 50%. there is no doubt that strength is sensitive to water content. while the term "saturated" can be accepted as an adequate description of water content. These small water contents represent water adsorbed 1 from the surrounding air. MELLOR fracture energy. Water contents may be reported unambiguously as mass of water per unit mass of rock. Engo GeoL. Small water contents can be controlled by exposing oven-dried samples to air which is saturated with respect to saturated solutions of chosen salts. and that the dependence is strongest for small water contents. "stress corrosion" (CHARLES.H.H. and allowing them to soak for 24 h after the bath cools. and the maximum amount of adsorbed water may represent a small. or large. The easiest water content to use as a standard is that obtained by exposing samples to a 100Yo R. highly porous samples can be saturated by placing them in distilled water.) of the environ- ment. The quantity of adsorbed water varies with the relative humidity (R. If tests are to be made on rock which is truly dry. They can be checked by rapid weighing on a modern precision balance.M. C170-50 specifies a drying procedure for natural building stone.S. 1967). maintaining a temperature of about 95 °C for 30-60 min. while in a shale it can be up to 90%. bond modification. Alternatively. This being the case. the term "air-dry" needs qualification. precautions must be taken to ensure that no water is adsorbed by the specimen after it is removed from the oven or desiccator (A. The strength and deformability of rocks are atfeeted by temperature directly and indirectly. 1 Adsorption is used here to denote surface adsorption plus capillary condensation.

. This direct response to temperature is attributed to thermally activated mechanisms on the atomic scale. 1968). However.1968. Items of particular concern include time-dependent strain relaxation after removal from a stressed rock mass. EMERY (1964) and FRIEDMAN (1967b) have shown that high recoverable strains can exist within individual rock grains. KUMAR. increasing temperature has a similar effect on mechanical properties as decreasing strain rate: inelastic components of behaviour become increasingly significant as temperature rises. 1964).UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 189 Direct temperature effects generally cause strength to decrease. 1969). and is usually described by an Arrhenius relation. which may reduce the strength of samples and lead to large scale cracking or actual disintegration. 1961. Dramatic increases in strength can occur if a saturated rock is subjected to subfreezing temperatures (MELLOR and RAINEY. with increasing temperature. Relaxation of these strains with time can give rise to internal microcracking (EMERY. Qualitatively. deterioration of certain rock types as a result of wetting and drying cycles or extreme temperature changes is well appreciated. careful and precise specimen preparation is imperative. Another possible effect is differential thermal strain in the constituent grains. Preparation of specimens In order to obtain valid results from tests on brittle materials. One effect of changing temperature is a change in the equilibrium water content (adsorbed water). and thermal history (e.g. and de- formability to increase.T 1 / T ) . ice. Indirect temperature effects are those which influence the composition or structure of the rock. BOOZER et al. 1965. a more likely source of contamination is the sample preparation shop itself. and detergents. In this respect rock is no different than other solid materials. The properties of a rock sample may alter with time following its removal from the parent rock mass. e. such effects are well known in metals and a range of non-metallic solids.. MISRA and MURRELL. the mechanical effects of which are mentioned under the heading of water content. solvents.4 (1970) 177-285 . where the test material may be subjected to cutting oils. in which stress or strain rate vary with exp ( . where T is absolute temperature and T1 is a constant given by the apparent activation energy for the process in question divided by the gas constant or Boltzmann constant (SERDENGECTIand BOOZER. exposure to high temperatures or freezing conditions).. In general. GeoL. making the rock weaker. The growing use of "rock softeners" (chemical additives to drilling water) increases the danger of receiving contaminated specimens whose mechanical properties have been artificially modified. Sample history. so that its history has a bearing on test results.g. leading to inter-granular displacements and intra-granular strain. fluctuations of water content. less elastic and more viscous (ductile). 1963. Eng. exposure to contaminants.

To get some idea of the order of magnitude of the effects of specimen contamination the writers made Brazil tensile tests on granite.96. The usual procedure for cleansing finished samples of contaminants is to soak them in solvents. average measured strengths relative to the strength of uncontaminated samples were 0. Ideally. marble and sandstone. 0.96 for the granite. An oil-based vehicle for abrasive powders is often used in lapping compounds for automatic lapping machines. respectively. water and other fluids in contact with their internal (crack and pore) surfaces. Half of the contaminated samples were cleansed in clean running water. their properties may alter appreciably and give misleading test results. Samples intended to be representative of fresh. The deformation and fracture properties of rocks are influenced by air. no guarantee that this treatment removes the contaminants completely and leaves the surface of the rock minerals in their original condition. and finally rinsed again in clean water. while the others were first rinsed in clean running water. A set of twelve discs of each rock type was machined using only clean water. however. They should be transported and stored under cover. Oils are occasionally used for field core drilling. All samples were air-dried together for two weeks before testing. Field sampling procedures should be rational and systematic.g. or drilled cores. For the samples cleansed in water Eng. MELLOR Collection and storage. rock which is to be used for precise testing should be handled as a fragile material. or packing in polyethylene bags or sheet. There is. 190 i. Geol. and rock softeners are coming into use. spraying. and generally protected from excessive changes in humidity and temperature. then soaked in acetone. and the material should be marked to indicate its original position and orientation relative to identifiable boundaries of the parent rock mass. Avoidance of contamination. samples should be moisture-proofed immediately after collection. Test material is collected from the field in the form of rough blocks. If these internal surfaces are contaminated by oils or other substances. 4 (1970) 177-285 . HAWKES AND M. For the samples cleansed in water only. in arctic operations. and then to rinse them in water. dressed blocks. for it is possible to introduce internal cracks by rough handling. marble and sand- stone. contamination or weathering. one third of them were then soaked in distilled water. undisturbed rock should not be collected from material which has been modified by blasting... Freezing and thawing during storage should be avoided unless the rock is completely dry. Finally. possibly adding a wash in detergent solution as an intermediate stage. Recirculated mixtures of soluble oils and water are sometimes used as cutting fluids for diamond wheel saws and lathe grinders.97 and 0. either by waxing. e. such as acetone or benzine. while the remaining two-thirds were soaked in a 20% solution of water-soluble cutting oil.

UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 191 and acetone. For cross-cutting. a slabbing saw with 15-18 inch diameter diamond wheel is adequate for most purposes. For heavy sawing.. Sintered-tip diamond abrasive core drills are used for cutting glass and rocks. integral to the core barrel. but the feed rate of the wheel through the work can be controlled. If cutting oils or dirty water must be used.125 inches. Geol.75 inch outside diameter (0. Drilling machines range from small quarry drills to modified machine shop 1 Ultrasonic drillingcan be used for hard rocks.5 inch core). The speed of the wheel is usually fixed. The main objection to cutting and coring with plain water is the danger of machinery rusting. and produce a very smooth finish. they have very thin walls. which are inserted in holes drilled with a hand-held power drill and carbide-tipped masonry bit. By supporting the core on bot~ sides of the cut. and by resting and packing samples only against clean dry surfaces.4 (1970) 177-285 . then the rock should be thoroughly saturated with clean water before machining starts. more commonly. Contamination of the external surface of finished samples should also be avoided by using clean gloves for handling. Curf width is usually about 0. Rough cutting. Sawing. The standard cutting fluid is clean water from a mains supply.0 for granite. they wear well and are capable of producing high quality core. it is strongly recommended that contamination should be avoided from the outset by using only clean water or air in machining operations. cut a narrow curf. is the standard cutting and cooling fluid. For exact sawing. Coring. Clean water. However.90.96 and 1. but the writers have experienced no great problems in this respect when the machines are cleaned and oiled regularly. It has a diamond abrasive wheel about 8 inch diameter and a table with two-way screw traversing and provision for rotation. 0. which may be detachable or. either direct from mains supply or recirculated through a settling tank. respectively. the problem of spalling and lip formation at the end of the cut is largely avoided. a precision cut-off machine is used. Eng. core should be clamped in a vee-block slotted to permit passage of the wheel. "Whole stone" bits find universal application.125 inches.0625 inches are available for piercing samples but with these drills the core is intended to disintegrate. The usual size range for laboratory core drills is from 6 inch diameter down to 0. Typical sample diameters for uniaxial testing are 1-2. Large blocks can be reduced to manageable size and shape by splitting with mason's wedges. Smaller core drills down to 0. Virtually all laboratory coring is done with thin wall diamond rotary bits 1. marble and sandstone. measured strengths relative to the strength of uncontaminated samples were 0.

The minimum speed used on this machine is 350 c/min and the maximum is 2.001--0.192 I. or other shifting. but such machines are quite rare. Finally. but this cannot be relied upon to produce core of consistently high quality. as variations and dis- continuities in feed rate tend to produce ridges in the core.004-0. A speed reducer has been fitted to cut these feed rates by a factor of 4. the automatic feed usually provides constant feed rate rather than constant force and. With constant feed rate there is a danger of damaging the machine or the core barrel if too high a feed rate is used.100 c/min. the drill should have some provision for automatic feed. which can be set for each bit size and rock type. a smaller hand-feed drill press works in the speed range 300-1.500 c/min on 1 inch diameter and smaller work. GeoL. but the operator would prefer an even lower speed.0025 inch feed per bit revolution. In one laboratory used by the writers. rigid machine is desirable in order to assure consistent production of high quality core. 4 (1970) 177-285 . although there are also problems in matching rotational speed and feed rate. it is desirable to have provision for traversing the drill head or the work block. but a heavy. higher drill speeds are sometimes used on softer rocks. Constant force feed can be improvised by means of a weight and pulley arrangement rigged to the feed handle. in general. Almost any kind of drill can be adapted for rock work by fitting a water swivel. On adapted metal-working drill presses. The work block must be d a m p e d tightly to a strong base or table by at least two steel straps so as to prevent any tilting. The drill travel should be sufficient to permit continuous runs of at least 6 inches and preferably of 10-12 inches.000 c/min. and most coring is done with feed rates in the range 0. a heavy machine shop press is run at 1. and an electrical overload breaker should be provided.000 c/min. Some coring drills have hand feed. for hard rocks. Usually. but an experienced operator can easily choose a suitable speed by trial. A suitable feed rate for a given drill size and rock type can Eng. The ideal feed arrange- ment is a constant force hydraulic feed. The broad range of drill speeds lies mainly between 200 and 2. No hard and fast rules can be given.01 inches of feed per revolution of the bit. MELLOR drill presses. To avoid unnecessary unclamping and rearrangement of the work block. say 200 c/min. the standard gear box gives feed rates ranging from 0. and at 500 c/min on 2. a piece of pipe is used as a lever extension on the feed handle and force is applied by "feel". HARDY et al.125 inches and larger cores. which is too fast for hard rocks. oscillation. and to some extent with condition of the bit and the characteristics of the machine. On one press used by the writers. HAWKES AND M. without need for stopping the machine. The general trend is that drill speed increases as drill diameter decreases. Optimum drilling speeds vary with bit size and rock type. also. The main objections to high drilling speeds seem to be "chatter" and vibrations in the machine. (1966) drill at 90 c/min. In another shop. the gear boxes which control feed rate as a multiple of rotational speed give feed rates which are too high for coring rock. Traversing devices must lock securely to eliminate any play between drill and work.

Also. without use of any cutting or cooling liquids. For finishing cuts. but the adverse experimental consequences of this procedure have already been mentioned.. rotated at 200-300 c/min. in the way metal is mounted. a single point diamond tool pivoted on the toolpost is satisfactory only on softer rocks.003 inch maximum to less than 0. and the only modification required on the lathe. Rate of flow is regulated by experience. Some makers of diamond abrasive core drills recommend use of cutting oils when drilling hard rocks. and the grinding wheel. e. which runs about 6. When bits do become polished. A sample is held directly in the chuck. While excessive feed rates are obviously dangerous. apart from toolpost fittings. 4 (1970) 177-285 . and the grinding wheel is passed Eng. taking off up to 0.000-8. For some materials.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 193 be selected on the basis of hand-feed tests and also by switching off the drive motor while drilling with the automatic feed engaged: if the feed rate is too high the drill will stop immediately. Medium size machine shop lathes are satisfactory for rock working but small bench-top lathes are neither large enough nor robust enough to handle rock cores above 1 inch diameter. Geol.003 inch of rock on each pass of the wheel. its axis inclined some 15 o to the sample axis. less than 0. can be used on almost any type of rock. water cannot be used and compressed air is used instead. For the preparation of dumbbell-shaped samples. The grinder. the flow should be just sufficient to carry away the cuttings without the water getting hot. The lathe can also be used for end-grinding cylindrical samples. or they can be held in steel end cups under an axial force exerted by the tailstock. a diamond form wheel is desirable. is passed across the end of the sample while rotating at 6. The actual grinding is performed either by a toolpost grinder or a stationary single point diamond.000 c/min.001 inch should be ground off at each pass.g.000 c/min with 5-3 inch diameter wheels respec- tively. is provision of a dust extractor. Lathe grinding. moisture-sensitive rocks. but if the rate is too low it will continue to spin for a few seconds after power has been cut off.001 inch for finishing. unduly small feed rates tend to polish diamond bits. core samples may be put into the lathe directly. Clean water from a mains supply is the standard fluid for flushing and cooling coring drills. the lathe should be cleaned regularly with a vacuum cleaner and compressed air. they can often be dressed by running a few holes into an abrasive sandstone at an aggressive feed rate. or water soluble substances such as rock salt. For edge grinding. Most work on the lathe can be done dry. Cutting the motor with feed engaged is a good way to interrupt a coring run for the purpose of extending the drill travel.000-8.. The "bite" ranges from about 0. say about 300 c/min for 1 inch diameter to 200 c/min for NX (with high speeds there is danger of over- heating and fusing the surface under the tool). Refrigerated compressed air has been used for coring frozen rocks and soils without thawing them in the process. They are rotated fairly slowly.

002 inch. Surface grinding. and on a lapping wheel. Some automatic lapping machines are intended to be used with oil-carried abrasives. Eng.194 I. Many surface grinders used in rock mechanics are standard metal working machines. Real need for a surface grinder arises when broad surfaces or prismatic samples have to be prepared to close tolerances. and the automatic lapping machine.5 inch/min. At the lower end of this tube is a steel collar which rests on the lapping wheel. Lapping puts a final smooth finish on end-ground samples. with a dust extractor added so that the wheels can be run dry. Comparator used for checking specimen tolerances.2. a cylindrical specimen is placed in a steel carrying tube. surface grinding on small cylindrical samples can be done quite adequately on a lathe with a toolpost grinder. Lapping. H A W K E S A N D M. The two broad kinds of lapping machines are the simple rotating iron disc.. but the use of these oily substances is not advisable. MELLOR across the sample end at about 0. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The lathe is quicker than the surface grinder for end-grinding. which is machined to accept core with a clearance of about 0. which can handle several samples simultaneously. with a minimum of attachments. which is not greatly affected by rusting. even if this means working with the simple lapping wheel. To end-grind on the lap. It is suggested that only water-borne abrasives should be used. The Fig. and it provides an alternative to end grinding in the lathe or the surface grinder. Geol.

Sample measurement . DEFORMATIONAND FRACTURE Fundamental stress-strain relationships Rocks are commonly regarded as elastic materials.quality control Sample dimensions are checked during machining with a micrometer or vernier caliper. stress is directly proportional to Eng. and plasticity.3 illustrates a technique for revealing the roughness of sample end planes qualitatively. the state of stress. carried in water. rocks possess the general rheological properties of elasticity. 4 (1970) 177-285 . viscosity. the relative significance of each component of behaviour varies with the physical environment. and the ends should be fiat. C. GeoL.2). and normal to the long axis. Lapped end. Linear elasticity. End after surface grinding.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN RO~MECHANIC$ "~ 195 Fig. In general terms test specimens should be straight. The upper end of the sample is given a light blow with a rubber or plastic hammer. Fig. and the rate of straining. and an imprint is formed on the white paper. In an ideal elastic material. grinding compound is usually silicon carbide (about 120 grade) and aluminum oxide. The impressions are made by sandwiching a sheet of carbon paper and a sheet of white paper between the sample end and a smooth surface. it has to be recognized that. final dimensions are normally measured with a micrometer and reported to the nearest 0. Carbon paper imprints of specimen ends.0001 inch or better (Fig.3. A. and a summary of recommended values has been given in the section "Practical Proce- dures". B. The question of specimen tolerances will be discussed in detail later. which also implies that their diameter should be constant. Saw-cut. parallel. However. Dimensions and tolerances are best checked on a comparator fitted with a dial micrometer reading to 0. and most structural problems in rock mechanics are approached from theory of elasticity.001 inch. in common with all solid materials.

and Poisson's ratio v (the ratio of lateral strain to axial strain). and 2 can be expressed in terms of E and v: E K- 3(1 . In general. yielding in shear is influenced by the bulk stress. There are various yield criteria applied to different materials. 1952) which may be expressed as: Eng. If the material is homogeneous and isotropic. A linear viscous material is one which deforms continuously under stress. Geol. the coefficients of viscosity.2v) E G- 2(1 + v) vE 2 = (l+v)(1 . the bulk modulus K (the ratio of bulk stress to volumetric strain) and the shear modulus G (ratio of deviatoric stress to deviatoric strain). in such a way that stress and strain rate are directly proportional. 4 (1970) 177-285 . For analysis of continuous materials. HAWKES AND M. MELLOR strain up to rupture. and so the bulk viscosity is infinite and the shear viscosity remains the only finite constant.196 i. the shear modulus G and Lam6's constant 2. its elastic behaviour is fully specified by two constants. its viscous behaviour is fully de- scribed by two constants which express the linear relationships between stress and strain rate. Idealplasticity. These constants.2v) Linear viscosity. The plastic property of the material is defined by a yield criterion which gives the stress condition for yield. If the material is homogeneous and isotropic.. A perfectly plastic material remains completely rigid until a critical yield stress is reached. elastic behaviour may be expressed by an alternative pair of constants. K. are exactly analogous to the elastic constants given above: bulk stress bulk viscosity = volumetric strain rate deviatoric stress shear viscosity = deviatoric strain rate When considering large viscous deformations it is assumed that flow occurs without change of volume. The two constants given directly by uniaxial tests are Young's modulus E (the ratio of axial stress to axial strain). For some types of analyses it may be convenient to work with yet another pair of constants. irrespective of the rate or duration of loading. most are special cases covered by a general criterion (DRUCKER and PRAGER. it then deforms indefinitely without increase of stress. G.

Geol. in parallel (Kelvin-Voigt model) or in a series combination of the Maxwell and I Elasr.4).0-2)2 "[" (0.2 ~l [M.{(0"1 -.xwettl o...kol [N--~.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 197 j1/2 q_ K 11 = constant (1) where K is a constant. viscosity and plasticity must be combined. The combination is best illustrated by rheological models. and plasticity by a friction block (Fig. in which elasticity is represented by a spring. the elements of elasticity..0-3)2 "[" (0-3 -..-v. and 11 and J2 are first and second invariants of the stress tensors: 11 = trl + tr2 + tr3 and: J2 -.4. 4 (1970) 177-285 .. for example.c 2..0'1)2} (2) General theological behaviour of idealized solids To represent the general behaviour of real materials.I [s. visco-elastic bodies can be formed by linking a spring and dashpot in series (Maxwell model). VlKous [No. Eng. Schematic stress-strain-time relations for various rheological models.. viscosity by a dashpot. Thus.=constant nt relaxat~ t|on t Fig.

which is thought to provide a general qualitative representation for rock (HARDY.. Combined in series they make the Burgers model. Thus. Rheological models can be constructed to represent qualitatively the observed behaviour of real rock materials (HARDY. 1967). in principle. Eng.a (3) Ot E Ot t/ or: c = -- E + -- i 0 adt (4) where E is elastic (spring) modulus and ~/ is (dashpot) viscosity 1. 1959b. 4 (1970) 177-285 . or low viscosity. GeoL. The stress-strain relation given by the Kelvin-Voigt model is: de cr = Ee + r / . elastic-plastic or viscous-plastic models can be formed by applying force to a friction block through a spring or a dashpot respectively. M E L L O R Kelvin-Voigt models (Burgers model). or high viscosity. The stress-strain relation given by the Maxwell model is: Oe 1 &r 1 . In a test made at constant loading rate this is equivalent to a direct elastic component tr/E. make the non- linear term significant. where k is the loading rate constant. + -. 1966) and provided that they are not too complicated. This implies that high loading rate. strain at any stress level is made up of one component proportional to the stress plus another proportional to the integral of stress with respect to time. Similarly. thus decreasing the general slope of the stress-strain characteristic and introducing curvature. significant material properties can be determined by orderly inter- pretation of suitably designed tests. 1967. low loading rate. in the conventional uniaxial test. (5) 0t 1 ~/is an "axial viscosity" analogous to Young's modulus. The simplest models representing visco-elastic behaviour under non- destructive stress are the Maxwell (spring and dashpot in series) and the Kelvin- Voigt (spring and dashpot in parallel). plus a component trZ/2k~/. Conversely.198 1. will make the second term relatively insignificant and thus give approximately linear stress- strain response. their responses can be described by differential equations relating stress. viscosity coefficients and yield stresses as constants. and a general stress-strain-time relation (constitutive equation) can be obtained for the conditions specified. strain and time with material properties such as elastic moduli. A visco-plastic body can be represented by force applied directly to a friction block whose motion is restrained by a dashpot. H A W K E S A N D M. KIDYBINSKI. Thus.

1/2 ( E M + EM + E ~ ) _ + I / 2 [ ( E M + EM + Ek) 2 . applied at t = 0. viz.4( EMEz ) i t / 2 (8) \ ~M~k /J Eq.l/e) of its final value when load is removed.7 gives a strain-time relation. Under sufficiently high stress.. This curve shows instantaneous elastic strain.+ tr = E M . the reciprocal of the coefficient in the exponential term (r/k/Ek) is the relaxation time. ae/at = f(tr).0"O + ~ 1 .( e r l t . Taken by itself. + + -. or creep curve.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 199 This again implies that the stress at any given strain will be increased by increasing the strain rate. Solutions of special interest are those for abrupt application or relaxation of a constant stress. the time required for strain to decay to 1/e of its initial value. and E k and r/k are modulus and viscosity for the Kelvin-Voigt unit.e. tr = 0. For constant stress o ° applied at t = O. most rocks show "Burgers body" creep followed by tertiary creep to rupture.. It is: a2¢7 ~ at (EM EM Ek ) t~tr EMEk ~t "~ ~2/~ EMEk ~e + . r2 = . which in turn is succeeded by creep at constant rate (secondary creep). the Kelvin-Voigt model gives the unrealistic result that stress at a given strain can increase indefinitely with increasing strain rate.r ~ + (6) ~M F]k ~]k ~t r]M~k r]k ~t where E M and//M are modulus and viscosity for the Maxwell unit. 4 (1970) 177-285 .?]M. for the standard creep test. t]k t (7) The final two terms define the transient creep which occurs upon application of load and relaxation of load. which is made by applying constant uniaxial stress to a specimen and recording strain as a function of time.e r2t) ( rl . where fig) is of the form ktr ~/n with n >i 2.. the solution is: tr-.exp . Geol. or (1 . Eng. followed by decelerating (primary) creep. i. the required solution is: = 'E-M q. For constant strain rate de/dt = K. It would also give a non-linear characteristic for conditions typically imposed by non-stiff constant-speed testing machines. however. The general equation describing the rheologic response of the Burgers model is more complicated. and for applica- tion of constant strain rate.r~) where: rt. e = O. -K-EM.

and lateral deformation are recorded. can be deduced. and that stress is proportional to strain rate for the dashpots. For example. such as cyclic loading or slow uniaxial tests.e. axial deformation. b). The most obvious departure from ideal behaviour to be shown by this test is non-linearity of the stress-strain characteristic. so that a major aim in testing is the determination of quasi- elastic moduli for rocks which actually are not perfectly elastic. 1966a. Fig. 1965. elastic analysis has by far the most wide- spread application. and the viscosity q can be found from a constant stress uniaxial creep test. Rheological behaviour of rocks in uniaxial tests If. is attributed to progressive closure of cracks and pores under stress. This curvature gradually ceases. linear visco-elastic. The first part of a typical plot of stress (ordinate) against strain (abscissa) for a high-strength crystalline rock curves so as to increase the slope with increasing stress (Stage I. elasticity and viscosity are frequently non-linear if a sufficiently wide range of stress or strain is considered. viscous. response to other loadings. HAWKES AND M. the most practical expedient in engineering problems is to identify the dominant mechanical property of the rock for a particular problem. that stress is proportional to strain for the springs. The most common test for determining quasi-elastic moduli of rocks is the uniaxial compressive test. in which a cylindrical sample is loaded axially at a constant strain rate while load. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The initial curvature in Stage I. for a certain range of loading conditions. Axial stress-strain relations. Of these.. 1965a. which implies "stiffening" of the rock with increasing stress. and then to test and analyse accordingly. They are merely aids in the systematic interpretation and presentation of data. At the present time the only types of mechanical behaviour which can be handled analytically with any generality are elastic.5A). however. and the effect has been analysed in some detail (BRACE. i. until at the mid-portion of the plot there is approximate linear proportionality between stress and strain (Stage II. The linear relation of Stage II is taken to Eng. b. This being the case. the rheological behaviour of a rock can be represented qualitatively by a rheological model.200 I. WALSH. knowing these constants. this approach and the foregoing discussion of rheological models are based on the assumption that the elastic and viscous elements are linear. C. GeoL. WALSH and BRACE. Actually. then tests can be performed to determine the elastic and viscous constants of the model in order to make quantitative predictions of the probable response of the rock when it is subjected to a variety of loading conditions. the elastic modulus E can be found from a fast uniaxial stress-strain test.5A). if the Maxwell model provides a sufficiently close representation. Fig. MELLOR It should be stressed here that rheological models have no direct physical significance. and elastic-plastic responses. In real materials.

5. if the test is made in a "stiff" machine (i. By contrast.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 201 A ... Schematic uniaxial stress-strain diagrams for rock. b. Tension. one which can maintain constant strain rate as sample reaction decreases) the sample does not "blow up". In soft or highly visco-elastic rocks. This effect is associated with formation of micro- cracks. the initial curvature of Stage I is not always measurable.. Fig.. Very little information on the stress-strain characteristics of rock in direct tension is available from the literature.. B. STRESS = BI . the slope of the stress-strain curve decreases (Stage III. c) and WALSH and BRACE (1966a. A.5A).. which progressively destroy the load-bearing capability of the rock and permit irreversible strain to occur. but instead it continues to deteriorate by internal cracking. The test culminates when the slope of the curve approaches zero and the unconfined compressive strength of the rock is reached. /-'.7 \ \ 2t' \ D C STRAIN B \\ \ STRESS // \ / / \\\ /(f/ \""'-.. 2_ . b) have derived "effective" moduli for rocks in terms of the pore geometry and the true elastic moduli for the rock matrix. GeoL.. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Some data on axial stress-strain charac- teristics are given by BURSHTEIN (1967) and BIENIAWSKI (1967) gives a lateral strain plot. WALSH (1965a. but this event often reflects inadequacy of technique rather than an inherent property of the rock... Eng... At this point a test made in a typical machine terminates with the abrupt and violent structural collapse of the specimen. Compression. represent elastic straining of the constituent grains after pore closure has reached a limit for the particular stress system. yielding a continuation of the stress-strain curve of the form shown by a broken line in Fig. L B STRAIN Fig.5A.e. At stresses approaching the uniaxial strength of the rock.

lateral strain in a uniaxial test is directly proportional to axial strain..5B).6. In the initial phases of loading (Stage I. As internal cracking commences (Stage III. Fig. there is little lateral strain and thus the curve of stress against lateral strain rises steeply. Eng. the form of the complete stress-strain curve is indicated by a broken line in Fig. HAWKES AND M. corresponding to the three stages described previously for the relationship between axial stress and axial strain. and sandstone in tension. HUGHES and CHAPMAN (1966) were able to obtain complete tensile stress-strain curves for concrete. This is not the case in most rocks. on the assumption that rock behaves in the same way as concrete.202 I.6) elastic compression of the rock grains is countered by crack formation. limestone. At the onset of "linear" compression (Stage II. 4 (1970) 177-285 . and there are three distinct stages in the relationship between axial stress and lateral strain.6) the slope of the curve decreases. By using a stiff testing machine. and a steady slope is maintained throughout linear compression. with curvature negative throughout the normal "incomplete" curve (solid line in Fig.6). It is non-linear. Lateral and volumetric strains in uniaxial tests. 5B shows the general form of the axial stress-strain relation which has been recorded by the writers for granite. (-ve strain) AXIAL STRESS STRAIN Fig. Fig.5B. in compression. MELLOR Fig. Typical lateral. Fig. when cracks or pores are closing. _ U . Geol. In an ideal elastic material. volumetric and axial strain diagrams for rock. and lateral strain increases rapidly as the bulk density of the L .

if during the progress of a uniaxial compressive test loading is relaxed from point B in Fig.1967).. Fig. and inelastic residual strain on complete removal of load (Fig. Similar behaviour occurs when rock is subjected to cyclic loading in tension. from then on the loading curve tends to follow a path continuous with the original loading curve.5A. This volumetric expansion of the rock by internal cracking is termed dilatancy (BRACE et al. Load cycling tests. not all of this displacement is recovered immediately.. 1965. when the loading is relaxed. The situation is considered to be phenomenologically analogous to a frictional block and a spring in series. For example. BRACE and BYERLEE. which in general differs from both the initial loading curve and the unloading curve. WALSH and BRACE. 1967). Some effects of time-dependent or irreversible strain can be illustrated in a conventional stress-strain curve by cycling the loading or by maintaining a fixed load for a finite time.5A). Departure from linearity between Stages II and III (Fig. Geol. leaving a final permanent set OD. although there is still hysteresis. In many rocks these effects can be attributed directly to the influence of cracks (COOK and HODGSON. Another inelastic characteristic exhibited by rocks is stress- strain hysteresis for alternate loading and unloading. 1966. there may be shear displacement between opposite sides of planar cracks. and after a few cycles the stress- strain curve tends to follow the same path repeatedly. part of which (CD) may be recoverable with time.SB. When a test specimen is cycled repeatedly between zero stress and some given non-destructive stress.6) is taken to indicate the onset of internal cracking. a new loading curve. and conversely there must be a finite drop in stress before any recovery can begin. 1966. The plot of stress versus volumetric strain (given by the sum of the three principal strains) is regarded as a valuable indicator of the deformation and fracture processes (PAULDING. an unloading curve BC. a definite stress must be reached before sliding can start.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 203 rock starts to decrease. 4 (1970) 177-285 . BIENIAWSKI. Eng. as is illustrated in Fig. When rock is loaded uniaxially.6) is taken as an indicator of onset of unstable fracture propagation. The specimen is left with a residual strain OC. From consideration of the Burgers model it can be seen that stress-strain hysteresis and residual strain must occur in such a visco-elastic material. is traced out. there is usually hysteresis and appreciable residual strain at the end of the first cycle. If stress is reapplied immediately at point C. which is different from the original loading curve OB. 1966b). which typically gives rise to "Burgers body" behaviour under non-destructive stress. but subsequent cycles add relatively little to the residual strain acquired during the first cycle. Similar effects can be produced by intra-crystalline creep and grain boundary creep. is followed until the original loading curve is intersected. while the volumetric strain maximum (point A.

7. 4 (1970) 177-285 .7 shows this phenomenon for a sandstone. instead of cycling through stress of one sign. which represents the limiting stress-strain behaviour of rock which is extensively fractured. The rock had previously been subjected to load cycling and therefore the initial compression loading curve in runs 1 and 2 shows no evidence of curvature towards the stress axis. Eng.-6tXI0 "4 STRAIN Fig.5A.8 0 0. in which stress is reversed in sign. HAWKES AND M.6 =0. cyclic loading tests. with a stiff machine. Geol.. Effect of strain rate variations. and creep tests show quite clearly that rocks in general are subject to time-depend- ence in stress and strain. This indicates that the mechanism respon- sible for the residual inelastic strain is reversible. or to explore changes of energy dissipation after large numbers of cycles. This time-dependence is such that stress-strain charac- teristics determined by conventional uniaxial testing typically tend to become steeper and more linear as strain rate or loading rate is increased (REDDY. It is inter- esting to note that. So far there are insufficient data to determine the rate dependence of energy dissipation in the hysteresis loop. Fig. 1966. Tests at varying loading rates.204 I. elastic load relaxation loops can be obtained for the broken section of the curve in Fig. stress is alternated sym- metrically between compression and tension.8 I. MELLOR STR 80 40 STRESS 0 Ibf/in = -40 -80 -2. After the first run the hysteresis loop closes almost perfectly. Stress-strain diagrams for successive uniaxial compression and tension load cycles (Berea Sandstone). it appears from tests carried out by the writers that the residual strain produced at the end of the first half-cycle is eliminated by the second half-cycle. If.4x fO "4 -I.

Furthermore. instead. The physical processes which govern time-dependent straining in rocks have not been well defined. With this interpretation. viscosity and plasticity under typical testing conditions. the suggested mechanism is one of static fatigue involving stress corrosion. In these circumstances it is not strictly proper to use the term Young's modulus. hard. of course. some "brittle" types of rock. As already explained. such a graph for most rocks is not linear. Dense. The slope of the stress-strain curve at some specified stress or strain gives Eng. which can produce deformation of crystal lattices and grain boundary displacement. the thermally activated mechanisms operative at high temperatures and low strain rates. creep at appreciable rates by progressive internal cracking (SCHOLZ. and the slope of the stress-strain curve in a conventional test is highly sensitive to changes of strain rate. For a perfectly elastic material the axial stress-strain relation obtained from a conventional uniaxial test would be a straight line with constant slope E CYoung's modulus). There are.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 205 GREEN and PERKINS. either at a specific point or averaged over a certain section (Fig.1968). there was no evidence of cracking at low strain rates. rock salt. fine-grained rocks tend to be highly elastic. marble. while cracking was intense at high strain rates. wide variations in the extent to which various rocks display inelastic behaviour and rate sensitivity in uniaxial tests at room temperature. c). STOWE and AINSWORTH. and doubling of the loading rate can produce up to 50% change in the slope of the stress-strain curve. including granites. slope varies with rate of loading. and low temperature (typical conditions in uniaxial tests). and some sedi- mentary rocks creep quite readily. readily displays elasticity. While the magnitude and the physical significance of rate effects for various rocks have to be determined experimentally. b. The writers have found a continuous stress/strain-rate relation for compression of polycrystal- line ice over a very wide range of strain rates. E becomes a function of stress (or strain). but for practical purposes it is convenient to regard the slope of the curve. and it differs according to whether load is being applied or removed. but it seems likely that the mechanisms responsible for flow without crack formation are thermally activated processes such as vacancy diffusion and dislocation motion.. as Young's modulus. a broad appreciation of the probable response can be gained from consideration of appropriate rheological models. By contrast. as described earlier. and the microcracking mechanisms operating at low temperatures and high strain rates may well be related. and changes in strain rate of two to three orders of magnitude may be required to produce a significant change in the stress-strain curve. Geol. Actually. 4 (1970) 177-285 .8). and certain definitions are necessary in order to indicate the stress level or stress range for which E is given. Under high deviator stress. which may be regarded as a monomineralic crystalline rock at high homologous temperature. low bulk stress. Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. the slope of the curve varies with the stress level. Ice.1968. 1968a.

1966). Definition of moduli for a non-linear stress-strain diagram. The type of modulus used in analysis of a problem depends upon the nature of the problem (HAWKES. These moduli must also be defined in relation to the direction of loading (application or relaxation). defined by the chord joining them. H A W K E S A N D M. Poisson's ratio v is correspondingly awkward to define for a non-linear material. while the average slope between two specified points. given range of stress or strain. While some of the inelastic properties of rock can be deduced from the results of conventional short-duration tests and from load Eng. The tangent modulus at the origin is the initial tangent modulus. Creep under constant stress. but for purposes of broad comparison of rocks it is suggested that v should be taken as the ratio of the total lateral strain to the total axial strain at 5 0 ~ of the ultimate stress. MELLOR the tangent modulus for that stress or strain. At very low loads v may be close to zero.. When the term "modulus" is used without qualification. it may be seen from the foregoing notes on axial and lateral strain that v will be a function of stress or of strain.5. Geol. whereas at high (Stage III) loads internal cracking and consequent dilation may cause v to exceed the theoretical maximum value of 0. 4 (1970) 177-285 . it is usually taken to be the tangent modulus at 50~o of the ultimate stress. and to the loading rate.206 I. Since v is the ratio of the total lateral strain to the total axial strain at any given stress level. and the chord modulus between the origin and some other point on the curve is termed the secant modulus. gives the chord modulus for a MODULUS M = INITIAL TANGENT P = SECANT Q = TANGENT R = CHORD 0 R STRESS STRAIN Fig.8. Again the value taken for v must depend on the problem under consideration.

followed by decelerating (primary) creep. may be related to stress by a simple power relation of the form = k. Under high deviator stress many rocks display the classic stages of "Burgers body" creep. c) the stress level which separates Kelvin-Voigt behaviour (creep to a stand-still) from Burgers behaviour (continuous creep to failure) can perhaps be identified with the stress for transition from stable crack propagation to unstable crack propagation (BIENIAWSKI. several other empirical and analytical expressions have been used to describe the creep of rocks (e. and other data on apparent viscosity are given by HANDIN (1966). Data from creep tests are used to express strain as a function of time and to determine strain rates for various stages of creep. GeoL.. together with a large amount of experimental data.7 gives one example of the strain-time function. this type of behaviour corresponds qualitatively to the rheologic response of the Burgers model.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 207 cycling tests. b. or creep to a limiting strain (Kelvin-Voigt behaviour). KENNEDY. is given by KIDYBINSKI(1966).1967). The standard creep test is made by applying constant uniaxial stress to a specimen and recording strain as a function of time. Prior to the onset of tertiary creep. "fracture". Eventually. Analytical methods for determining energy storage and energy dissipation properties of rocks 'from results of quasi-static creep tests have been given by KONDNER (I 966). under low stress there are many rocks which either do not creep.. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Eq. This tendency for strain rate to be controlled by increasingly high powers of stress. with a tendency for n to increase with increasing stress. and "strength" are often used without Eng. which in turn is succeeded by creep at constant rate (secondary creep). 1968a. A detailed review of rheological models applied to creep problems in rock. PARSONSand HEDLEY. experimental values for the exponent n are generally in the range 1--4.7. is sometimes represented by poly- nomial or hyperbolic sine relations between strain rate and stress in the fields of metallurgy and ice physics. Strain rate at some stage of creep. creep rate may accelerate (tertiary creep) and destroy the sample. clear and unambiguous data on creep properties are best obtained from direct creep tests. Failure. given earlier by eq. HARDY (1967) has tabulated experimental values of the Burgers constants for representative rock types. as is the case for some other solid materials. 1962). The resulting creep curve for a wide range of solid materials shows instantaneous elastic strain. In the creep of "brittle" rocks.g.g. which eventually is followed by tertiary creep to rupture. 1966) and other solids (e. Some rocks will flow continuously even under very low stress. fracture and strength The words "failure". where the creep mechanism is one of micro- cracking (SCHOLZ. which represents a transition from linear (Newtonian) viscosity to plastic (Saint-Venant) behaviour. particularly secondary creep.trn.

it appears that many discrete cracks form or extend in succession at randomly distributed loca- tions. In broad terms. and unstable crack propagation. In glassy or fine-grained rocks there may be only one or two significant cracks which initially grow steadily in response to increasing stress. These are still quite general terms which say little about the failure mechanism. often producing microseisms (BROWN and SINGH. when strain reaches some limit. a material fails when it ceases to perform satisfactorily: it may be deemed to have failed when it ruptures. HAWKESAND M.e. Fracture may also be described as "brittle" or "ductile". and a continuous input of energy is required to produce fracture. or when strain rate becomes excessive. confused and imprecise termi- nology is obviously unacceptable. which occurs when load-bearing capacity is permanently impaired. Fracture. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Brittle fracture is usually considered to be fracture which is preceded by little or no permanent deformation. Cracking frequency increases with increasing stress. in which cracks grow uncontrollably with no input of energy from external sources. Fracture is the process by which cracks are formed or extended. However. Geol. 1966. MELLOR clear definition of their meaning. but propagation is checked when stress concentration around the crack tip falls or when the cracks encounter pores or grain boundaries. BIENIAWSKI(1967) distinguishes two separate stages in crack growth: stable crack propagation.. when it loses load-bearing capacity. rather than materials.. which occurs when there is a transition from predominantly elastic to predominantly visco-plastic behaviour. yield failure. In rock mechanics the important types of failure are: strength failure. even after peak stress has been reached. i. it is conceivable that cracks might form under stress by some kind of "pile-up" of dislocations (COTTRELL. New surface is created and strain energy is absorbed in the supply of surface energy to the fresh surfaces. BIENIAWSKI(1967) properly points out that the terms "brittle" and "ductile" should be used to characterize processes or behaviour. cracks form and extend from existing defect structures.208 I. In testing work. 1968). definition of failure is largely arbitrary. Thus it is desirable to qualify the term "failure" so as to indicate the type of failure referred to.. In a material which is completely uncracked initially. KNILL et al. and failure by rupture. PUGH. When stress reaches a sufficient level. and which can be halted. all of these can be considered as stress-raisers equivalent to cracks for purposes of fracture initiation. 1959. Failure. Ductile fracture is preceded by appreciable viscous or plastic deformation. In engineering. in which crack growth is a function of the applied loading. 1967). It Eng. pores. which occurs when the material breaks and separates. they usually form abruptly. virtually all rocks contain obvious inherent flaws in the form of cracks. behaviour prior to fracture is elastic. and grain boundaries. In most granular and crystalline rocks.

and probably in tension too. and since it cannot be deduced directly from atomistic considera- tions of the rock's constituent minerals. and it is measured by dividing the maximum load by the cross- sectional area.g. Tensile strength is the most fundamental parameter involved in considerations of rock fracture. These are: Very brittle < 1~o strain up to peak stress Brittle 1 . 1964) but where the uniaxial compressive test is concerned. In rock mechanics. Time-dependent fracture. When such a stress is held constant until failure occurs. it denotes a stress level at which some permanent and detri- mental change occurs. in a quasi-static creep test. rocks will creep and crack until final fracture and failure occur. When the applied stress is uniaxial. The stress required to produce failure under these conditions decreases exponentially with time-to-failure. it should be interpreted as one-half of the compressive strength value. from time of application until final fracture. This latter term is subject to diverse interpretations (EVERLING. e. Geol.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 209 may be taken as axiomatic that all real materials possess all rheological properties under appropriate conditions. if not all. the duration of loading. strength usually means the stress at which the rock fractures. In general. begins at stresses well below the maximum stress which causes structural collapse. In uniaxial testing.8 ~ strain up to peak stress Moderately ductile 5-10Yo strain up to peak stress Ductile > 10~o strain up to peak stress Strength. is termed the "time-to-failure". but HANDIN (1966) has suggested that descriptive terms might be defined on the basis of the total strain which occurs before peak stress is reached. it is defined as a bulk property using the uniaxial tensile test as the basis of definition.. If stressed above a certain level in uniaxial compression or tension some. This may involve a change from elastic to visco-plastic behaviour. and this leads to marked time-dependence and rate-dependence for the measured strength. and values as low as 40% have been quoted for weaker Eng. Strength is another vague term which has different meanings in different contexts.4 (1970) 177-285 . There is no universally accepted measure of relative ductility.. BIENIAWSKI(1967) gives data for norite in uniaxial compression which show that time-dependent strength as time tends to infinity (17 days) is 74% of the "normal" uniaxial compressive strength measured in a short duration test. such as "crushing" strength (compressive strength) and "shear" strength. and it is generally taken as the maximum stress reached before the specimen collapses or separates. Other terms are sometimes used. internal cracking of rock in compression. or it may involve extensive fracture or rupture. reaching a limiting value as time tends to infinity.5 ~ strain up to peak stress Moderately brittle (transitional) 2 . this value is referred to as the compressive or tensile strength.

These facts point up the need for standardization of loading rates in uniaxial testing. Bieniawski associates the long term strength. with the stress for onset of unstable fracture propagation. There are two broad classes of failure criteria: those which are phenom- enological or empirical. GREEN and PERKINS.1 is required. maximum shear stress. H A W K E S A N D M.. Some of these prove satisfactory in describing failure by plastic flow in metals. or maximum shear strain energy. higher strain rates or loading rates.210 I. give higher values for the apparent strength (e. and consequently a criterion similar in form to eq. maximum strain energy. mentioned earlier. in particular. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Two noteworthy ones are the Tresca criterion. however. A comprehensive review of failure criteria for rocks is given by JAEGER (1967). i. Several empirical criteria have been proposed as conditions for failure by fracture or plastic yielding in various types of materials.. which is also the minimum stress level for creep to failure. and they may serve similar functions for certain rocks.g. 1968. The most important requirement is a failure criterion. to have some kind of relationship between the various components of stress for the failure conditions. the Coulomb-Mohr criterion.. To Coulomb's original hypothesis of failure at constant maximum shear stress. or a more general variant. Fracture theories and failure criteria Empirical and theoretical criteria. 1968). MELLOR rocks. STOWE and AINSWORTH.e. some of the more important criteria which are relevant to uniaxial testing are outlined below. KUMAR. Geol. These typically postulate that. it is necessary to have some kind of understanding of the failure mechanism and. which takes the sum of squares of reduced principal stresses as constant at yielding. which decrease test duration. giving as the final criterion: (an . and those which are developed theoretically from physical models. a functional relationship between the principal stresses for the limiting failure condition. This same effect must obviously lead to rate- dependence of apparent strength in conventional uniaxial tests. For failure of rocks by fracture. and the Von Mises criterion. The most widely used empirical criterion for failure by fracture in rock mechanics is the two-dimensional Coulomb-Navier criterion.aa) (al + aa) sin • = C cos • (9) 2 2 Eng. In order to interpret test results and apply them to problems involving fracture and failure in complex stress fields. Navier added the condition that normal stress on the failure plane produces an extra "frictional" resistance. 1968. which takes the maximum shear stress as constant at yielding. there is constancy of such quantities as maximum principal stress. at failure. conditions at failure are influenced by the bulk stress.

Criteria for brittle fracture which are based on physical reasoning stem from the pioneer fracture theories of GRIFFITH (1921..3). so that the compressive stress required to close them is very small.1 -b 30" 3 < 0 (13) This is the Griffith criterion for failure.1) t/2 .3 F(# 2 q. Griffith postulated the existence of minute cracks and examined their effects on the stress field and on the energetics of crack growth. and y is surface energy./A'] ..80-T(0...= (plane stress) L 7"CC d [ E~ ] ½(plane strain) (11) 0"r= 2c(1-Zv 2) where E is Young's modulus.-~-[(/.a > 0 (12) 0. 1924).0"3) and abscissa 0.1) 1/2 q. • and/~ are the angle and coefficient of friction respectively. v is Poisson's ratio. 2c is crack length.0"3) 2 .1 [-(/A2 + 1) 1/2 . The intermediate principal stress 0"2 is not considered to influence the failure.# ] .UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 211 which can also be written: 0. the McClintock-Walsh criterion is given by: 0"1 -~. and 0./A] = 0-T (14) Eng. With the simplifying assumption that the cracks are thin. and they modified the original Griffith criterion to account for the frictional resistance to shear displacement across closed cracks. orders of magnitude lower than the theoretical strength deduced from consideration of interatomic forces. He was able to express tensile strength 0-T in terms of fundamental material properties: aa.1 + 0"3) = 0 if0"1 + 30.3. This envelope is not = necessarily linear. 4 (1970) 177-285 . in general.1 > 0-2 > 0. A similar experimental criterion de- veloped by Mohr takes as the rupture surface (in two-dimensional stress space) the envelope of Mohr circles plotted in the well-known manner with ordinate zm = 1/2 (0-1 .1) 1/2 -Jr. the linear failure envelope can be determined from uniaxial tests in tension and compression. In principle.3 + 0-r = 0 if 0.t 0-3 2 -1. Working from the basic premise that stress concentrations at the tips of critically oriented flaws induce cracking./t'] -./2 "-[. Geol. analysis of crack propagation in a biaxial stress field leads to a relation between the principal stresses 0-1 and 0-3 and the tensile strength o-r: (0"1 . and cannot be established solely from uniaxial tests. Starting from the observa- tion that the bulk strength of materials is. 2C (10) where C is an intrinsic shear strength of the material for zero normal stress on the failure plane... MCCLINTOCKand WALSH (1963) argued that cracks in a rock (assumed to have the shape of flat ellipses) would close under compression.1 + 0.m 1/2 (0.0.. [(I.

In derivation of Griffith fracture relations it is assumed that the material is homogeneous with a random dispersion of inherent cracks. a crack which is initiated will continue to propagate until separation of the material occurs by extension fracturing.10) with C = 2a r. 1/2(a~-~r a) if~ 1 + 3tra > 0 (15) or: fl = n/2 if at + 3tr3 < 0 (16) t g tends to be treated as a curve-fitting parameter. and that the stress tr2 normal to the analysed crack plane (in which ~ and aa ac0 has no influence on the critical stress concentration.. the last assumption mentioned implies that the intermediate principal stress plays no part in fracture initiation. provided that when compressive they do not exceed three times the tensile stress.7 is taken 1. irrespective of the values of the other two principal ~tresses. its value is chosen so as to give best fit between experimental data and the theoretical functions. However. under uniaxial tensile stress. It can be shown that the greatest tensile stress occurs at the tip of a crack whose long axis is perpendicular to the direction of the principal (uniaxial) tensile stress. One important aspect of Griffith's theory is that failure is identified with crack initiation..e. the stress level is maintained. Since the largest stress concentration near a crack is produced by the greatest and the least principal stresses acting in the cross-section plane of the crack. Another implication of eq. whereas the Coulomb-Navier criterion and other empirical criteria treat the condition for complete failure. that the body behaves elastically up to failure. The maximum tensile stresses occur at the boundaries of cracks which are oriented with their long axes inclined at angle fl to the direction of tra where: cos2fl=. Eng. the criteria based on Griffith theory relate to onset of cracking. and no barriers to propagation are encountered. but the identification of crack initiation with failure remains. as will be discussed in the next section. HAWKES AND M. and under these conditions the crack will tend to propagate in a direction normal to the principal stress until failure occurs. MELLOR where/~ is the coefficient of friction of the crack faces. 14) which has been found by HOEK and BIENIAWSKI(1966) to give a close prediction for the onset of cracking in compression when a value of/~ = 0. It is assumed that. provided that the necessary energy requirements are fulfilled. The compressive case may be examined in the light of the McClintock-Walsh modification of the Griffith criterion (eq. Some implications of Griffith theories. This criterion is identical to the Coulomb-Navier criterion (eq.12 and 13 is that a rock will fail when a tensile principal stress reaches the uniaxial tensile strength. i. 4 (1970) 177-285 .212 I. In compressive stress fields the situation is more complicated. Geol.

where: 7~ 6 = 2fl . the tangent to the crack boundary (assumed elliptic) at the point of maximum tensile stress is inclined at angle 6 to the major axis of the crack. When a crack has grown to a certain length. Geol.9. As the general stress level increases. 4 (1970) 177-285 . In clear ice the flaws from which cracks propagate are associated with grain boundaries. The crack therefore tends to grow normal to the surface of the original flaw. B.. Crack growth to failure in a flawed glass slab under uniaxial compression. as shown by broken lines in Fig. It can be seen that the cracks are aligned mainly in the direction of principal compressive stress. A. and the original crack does not extend along its major axis. Fig. This is in agreement with experimental work by HOEK and BIENIAWSKI(1966) and BOMBALAKIS(1964). 11 illustrates the development of such a crack structure in ice. Crack growth from an elliptical flaw.. and in the initial stages of I " II I M T A II Fig.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 213 The location of the point on the crack boundary at which the maximum tensile stress occurs is shown in Fig. these critical points are not at the exact tips of the crack.. Eng. The effect of multiple internal cracking has been reported by many investiga- tors.9. where the process is easy to observe.9. the original stress concentration which started its growth is relieved. For the most dangerously oriented crack. and growth normally ceases as the new crack curves and becomes aligned with the direction of major compressive principal stress. It will be noted that the new crack is no longer oriented at the optimum angle given by eq. in general. Fig. other cracks grow. until the material is cracked extensively throughout its volume. 17. and the crack will only continue to grow as long as the stress concentration produced by its extension is sufficient to overcome interatomic forces. starting from a single initial closed crack in a glass slab. except in the special case of uniaxial tensile stress. 10A shows similar development of multiple tensile cracks in the direction of applied compression. (17) 2 It may be seen that. Theoretical elliptical flaw.

214 t. Inclined crack--low stress. Eng.. HAWKES AND M. C. Vertically aligned crack. B. 4 (1970) 044-444 . Inclinect ~erack high stress. Geol. MELLOR Fig.t0. A. Crack growth in glass under uniaxial compression.

UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN RO~II~MECHANICS 215 Fig. however. nothing hypo- thetical about the flaws in rocks. GeoL. It may be that the first crack to start will propagate continuously until the rock fractures. Griffith theory was applied originally to materials such as glass. nor do they interact to form continuous cracks. Crack growth at grain boundaries in ice. Validity of Griffith theory. and there can be no doubt that they act as stress raisers. 11. 4 (1970) 177-285 . the Eng. while representing irreversible deterioration of the rock. does not necessarily represent failure. There is. which. failure they do not propagate very far. in which there are no obvious flaws. In recent years there have been a number of sweeping criticisms of Griffith theory. they exist in the form of cracks. pores and grain boundaries. They must be reinterpreted as criteria for the onset of cracking. and that the experimental ratio of uniaxial compressive strength to uniaxial tensile strength is different from that predicted by theory. In a uniform uniaxial tensile field there is still some uncertainty about the fracture process. By this token the basic approach of Griffith theory is sound. Griffith theories cannot be used as criteria for complete structural failure of rock. It is now abundantly clear that the onset of cracking in a compressive stress field can occur at stresses far below the maximum stress which the rock can carry before it ruptures or disintegrates. This being so. but the non-linearity of tensile stress-strain relations. based largely on observations that rock does not fail when the first crack occurs.

1966) is strongly suggestive of multiple cracking prior to rupture. and tests on glass filaments did. bear out this prediction. The best known contributor to the study of statistical effects in failure of materials is WEIBULL (1939. Geol.f(a) dV] (18) Eng. However. it is assumed that failure of one element deter- mines the failure of the system. from eq. From eq. In summary. 1951. the predicted ratio of compressive strength to tensile strength is 8. if it is recognised that Griffith theory deals with the onset of cracking. and not necessarily with structural collapse of a test specimen. who applied probability theory to the failure of a body made up of numerous elements. < tr in an elementary volume of the material dV at the moment of failure. This view is in harmony with theoretical concepts of strength. and generation of microseisms in tensile tests (BRows and SB~GH.exp [ . in fact. then: P = 1 . Griflith theories appear to be based on sound physical and mechanical reasoning. Statistical nature of strength. it is obvious that comparison of maximum compressive and tensile stresses measured in uniaxial tests cannot provide a valid test of the theory. but experiments show that for many rocks the ultimate compressive strength is 10-20 times the ultimate tensile strength. but rather a statistical quantity. but they treat the initiation of fracture. A proper test would require comparison of stresses in compression and tension at the onset of cracking. 4 (1970) 177-285 .. 1952). I f P is the probability that tr. It would not be surprising to find crack propagation in a tensile field interrupted by pores.216 I. How- ever. provided the stress concentration is maintained. For example. shape and stress field are varied. cracks or grain boundaries transverse to the direction of propagation. Thus it is inferred that strength is not a unique material constant. the properties of which vary according to some characteristic distribution. Simple failure theory assumes that there is a generalised stress. the so-called "weakest link theory". and the ratio is quite incon- sistent.12 and 13. such that failure occurs when it reaches a definite critical value S at some point in the body. which is by no means synonymous with rupture or final collapse of the material. there tend to be systematic shifts of apparent strength as size. In terms of uniaxial tests this is equivalent to saying that the axial stress at which a sample breaks is a characteristic property of the material. furthermore. from the results of careful tests it is found that measured strength shows a statistical distribution and. Gritiith suggested that reduction of specimen size would lead to increase of strength. HAWKES AND M. MELLOR unarguable existence of tensile creep. In the simplest form of this theory. which implies that the longest crack of critical orienta- tion controls the strength. e.11 it is seen that Griffith theory predicts that strength is inversely proportional to the square root of the length of critically oriented cracks. since the maximum defect size would be limited in very small specimens. which is a function of the principal stresses given by the failure criterion.. which ascribe to defects the control of strength.

< cr in the complete volume of the specimen V = SdV is: Pv = 1 . in general. Weibull points out that since: a m = ~adP (21) its value for a given material can be influenced either by changing V (size and shape of the specimen) or by changing a. Thus both statistical theory and Griffith theory treat the onset of cracking. is neither perfectly plane nor exactly normal to the loading direction. (the type of stress system).. In an ideal material under ideal test conditions the resulting crack would propagate in a plane normal to the loading direction and the two halves of the specimen would finally separate. Eng. Modes of failure in uniaxial tests It is thought that in uniaxial tension fracture begins at the tips of flat cracks lying perpendicular to the direction of principal tensile stress. a function of the co-ordinates of dV.aulm (20) \ a o / in which a o and m are material constants expressing the flaw characteristics. do not provide direct tests for either Griffith theory or Weibull theory. Strength is usually expressed as the arithmetic mean of measured values am. Strength data relating to structural collapse. when a multitude of cracks have formed and many "links" have already failed.exp [ .Sf(a) dV] (19) where f(a) is. A persuasive case for the Weibull approach to failure is made by HUDSON and FAmHURST(1969). and au is a limiting stress below which the probability of failure is zero. The effect of sample size is discussed in more detail later. even in very precise tests. In this respect it is similar to Griffith theory. who illustrate its application to problems in rock mechanics. WEmULL (1951) assumes that f(a) takes a power form: f(a) = ( a . which generally occurs at higher stress levels. The possibility that strength may differ for different systems of stress raises fundamental questions in testing philos- ophy. the failure surface in a uniaxial tensile test ought to occur at some random position within the test section. In reality. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The final fracture surface. there is good reason to believe that propagating cracks are stopped or deflected so that separation occurs either by propagation along irregular paths or by coalescence of cracks. Geol. and not consistently near the ends. It is important to note that the weakest link theory identifies failure with the failure of the weakest element. which assumes that the material fails when the first crack is formed. and not the structural collapse or separation of a specimen.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 217 and the probability that a. In practice..

isotropic rock. MELLOR It should be approximately normal to the loading direction for isotropic rocks.218 I. cup-and-cone breaks. cataclasis. are suspect). For uniaxial compressive tests on cylindrical samples of homogeneous. The first. There are three broad modes of failure which are observed in compression testing. and there should be no systematic deviation from a plane surface (spiral breaks. etc. conical end fragments are left. HAWKESAND M. when the specimen collapses. 4 (1969) 177-285 .. Geol. together with long slivers of rock from around the Eng. consists of a general internal crumbling by formation of multiple cracks in the direction of the applied load. symmetry considerations indicate that the pattern of failure should be either axially symmetric or random under the ideal displacement boundary conditions..

E.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 219 Fig. D. Cataclasis. Axial cleavage--ice. Cataclasis. Combined cataclasis/cleavage--granite. 1969). (After FRIEDMAN et al. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Solenhofen Limestone. A.. B. Cataclasis (Granulated rock not shown). Combined cataclasis/cleavage--marble. Geol. Modes of failure of cylindrical rock test specimens under uniaxial compression.12. I. Axial cleavage--granite. Shear failure.. H. C. F. Berea Sandstone saturated with paraffin wax. Eng. G. under high loading rate. Cataclasis.

and not necessarily intrinsic material properties. including GRAMBERG(1965) and FAIRHURSTand COOK(1966). and ultimately would collapse into loose debris. Failure along a distinct single shear plane has been widely accepted as the normal mode of failure.14A the formation of end wedges (cones) by platen restraint is clearly evident. Similar behaviour in rocks has been reported by many workers. 14A or in Fig.12A. or vertical splitting. in which one or more major cracks split the sample along the loading direction (Fig. and the apex half-angle. Geol.13A shows the initial development of internal cracks in ice under uniaxial compression. However. that the conical or wedge-shaped end segments of the failed specimen reflect the influence of end constraints by the loading platens. the resultant end cones may have height approximately equal to the specimen half-length. it is difficult to see how it can occur in homogeneous isotropic rock if the displacement boundary conditions include the requirements that there should be no platen rotation and no lateral translation of the platens relative to each other (see Fig. Shear plane failure is probably characteristic of a loading system which permits either platen rotation or lateral platen translation. with the ice cracked throughout and coalescence of certain cracks taking place in an axial direction. In Fig.12B. 12C. especially where there is anisotropy in the specimen. If specimens are too short. In Fig. final collapse of the specimen can take place either as shown in Fig. FRIEDMANet al. The mode of failure in which the rock specimen crumbles by internal cracking and then is burst apart by conical or wedge-shaped end segments is generally accepted as a valid mode of failure which represents the true behaviour of most rocks. sometimes taken as the "fracture angle" of the rock.14B provided that there is adequate freedom of the platen. 12F. These two modes of failure can be nicely demonstrated by using ice as a model material. Fig. they would probably fail by progressive internal cracking. The third is the shearing of the test specimen along a single oblique plane (Fig. C. It is recognised. Fig. and it is often depicted as such in introductory texts and lectures in rock mechanics and soil mechanics. cataclasis takes place as multiple Eng. E). There is close similarity between this behaviour and the failure mode illustrated by Fig.21). G). 4 (1970) 177-285 . and failure is obviously taking place by the bursting out of material between the wedges.220 I. MELLOR periphery (Fig. The second is "axial cleavage". this may be compared with Fig.12A). These conditions are discussed later. If specimens could be loaded perfectly uniformly. As load is increased further. and occasionally all three may appear to be present (Fig. This point is discussed later. I). without formation of any discrete shear planes. In some cases it is difficult to distinguish these different modes in a failed specimen.12H. HAWKESAND M. (unpublished) have shown that in certain fine- grained rocks such as Solenhofen Limestone.. 14B the ice is failing along a shear plane. becomes a function of sample length. however. D.13B shows a later stage in crack development. without any end constraint (positive or negative).

UNIAXlAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 221 L Fig. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Geol. Eng. Development of cracks in ice under uniaxial compression.13..

usually of high strength. In sUch cases it is probably fair to regard axial cleavage as an invalid mode of failure which reflects inadequacies of technique.12E shows similar behaviour in a Berea Sandstone specimen. Developingend cones. It has been observed (GRAMBERG. saturated with paraffin wax to maintain cohesion and show the multiple shear fractures. B. but it is still contro- versional.222 I. The result is that axial cleavage may occur in materials which otherwise fail by internal cracking and coning. Mode of final collapse of highly cracked ice test specimen under uniaxial com- pression.12D where a specimen is undergoing failure at very high strain rates in a Hopkinson bar device. Fig. It is known that when some "soft" platen facings are used in the uniaxial compressive test.10 illustrates the development of this type of failure from cracks induced in glass plates. and BOMBALAKIS(1964) have given experimental verification. MELLOR Fig. However. Fig.14. HAWKESAND M. This behaviour is clearly shown in Fig. Geol. lateral strain in this material may induce at the face of the test specimen shear forces directed radially outward. HOEK and BmNIAWSKI(1966). A. which do appear to fail by a genuine axial cleavage which starts internally rather than at the loading surface. there are many fine- grained or glassy materials. The explanation offered for this kind of failure Eng. The axial cleavage failure mode has long been known. Developingshear plane.1965) that internal cracks aligned with the loading direction in uniaxial compressive tests on high-strength fine-grained rocks are capable of propagating completely through the specimen to produce axial cleavage. shear fractures followed by extension fractures related to shear displacement along these fracture planes and finally culminating in axial cleavage.. 4 (1970) 177-285 .

only one actually propagates to the boundaries (Fig. there may not be complete correspondence between the stress field and the strain field. and the strain field would also remain uniform. With an ideal homogeneous material. It will be appreciated that a specimen which has failed by axial cleavage may have lost little of its load bearing capacity in the axial direction.C~MECHA~ICS~ 223 is that crack propagation in the loading direction can take place at lower stress than that required for crack initiation from flaw structures.000 lbf/sq. Continued application of load to such a specimen during a test may cause accelerated cleavages in the separate pieces until collapse occurs. one finite principal stress. a compressive stress of over 80.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN RO . For the example shown in Fig. In practice. especially after the onset of internal cracking. GeoL. which is a function of time. UNIAXIAL TESTS Idealised and actual test conditions In a perfect uniaxial test there would be. while the tensile stress required to propagate a similar crack in similar glass was only about 1. strain. this condition would be maintained for the complete duration of the test. the stress boundary conditions for the specimen end planes demand that the normal stress.4 (1970) 177-285 . and equal in magnitude to the applied load divided by the cross-sectional area of the test sample. for example. the net result being that apart from the absence of end cones there may be little difference between a specimen which has failed by cataclasis or by axial cleavage.10B). The uniaxial test on such a specimen is performed by applying forces or displacements to the end planes. at all points in the specimen. while keeping the cylindrical surface free from normal restraint. directed parallel to the loading and sample axes.inch. Boundary conditions. It has been found by the writers that even when many cracks are present in glass plates. right up to the moment of final failure. should be uniform across the plane at any given time. 10C. or displacement at the boundaries of the specimen.200 lbf/sq. For a typical specimen in the form of a right circular cylinder the boundaries are the cylindrical outer surface and the two plane ends. since there is no guarantee that real rock specimens will be completely homogeneous. They also require that there should be no shear Eng. The tentative conclusion to be drawn from presently available information is that both cataclasis and axial cleavage are valid modes of failure. Also. it is exceedingly difficult to produce a perfectly uniform uniaxial stress field.inch was required to propagate the crack to the boundaries. and it is usually necessary to reach some compromise on perturbation of the stress field in the vicinity of the boundaries to which external load is applied. often occurs when failing glass test specimens. For an ideal test. Such a result. The boundary conditions for a test specimen express the state of stress.

they cease to be neces- sarily equivalent when internal cracking of the specimen begins. Geol. MELLOR stress at the boundary.g. non- rotating platens (displacement boundary conditions). b) that test results may differ for non-rotating platens (locked ball seats) and rotating platens (free ball seats). practical testing techniques are rarely established with explicit reference to the theoretical boundary conditions. in practice.224 I. the sample is free to deform in a non-symmetric manner. In simple terms. and there should be no shear distortion at the end planes. with hydrostatic pressure or a flexible platen on the sample ends (stress boundary conditions). if the ideal stress boundary condition is maintained. in the uniaxial tensile test it is usual to permit rotation of the end planes about all three axes. 1954a. but for practical expediency. it is constrained to deform symmetrically and stress tends to be transferred from weaker to stronger parts of the specimen.~ . TARRAIST. This distinction does not appear to have received explicit recognition in the literature. the spatial distribu- tion of cracks at any given time is not necessarily symmetrical with respect to the specimen axis. the stress boundary con- ditions for the end planes could equally well be replaced by an equivalent set of displacement boundary conditions. While the stress and displacement boundary conditions are equivalent to each other in the initial stages of loading for many rocks. no net lateral displacement of the end planes relative to the centre of the specimen. By contrast. In these circumstances.. The cylindrical surface should also be free of normal stress. Since there is a probabilistic aspect to the occurrence of internal microcracks. the axial displacement of the end planes should be uniform. This technique has not found wide favour so far. HAWKESAND M. hydrostatic loading of the end planes through membranes or flexible platens. These conditions imply that there should be no restriction of lateral strain in the end planes. whereas if the ideal displacement boundary conditions are maintained. whereas with rigid. With a perfectly homogeneous isotropic material. as this is the simplest way to avoid unwanted flexural and torsional stresses.. Actually. The general trend in uniaxial compression testing has been to attempt to satisfy the displacement boundary conditions rather than the stress boundary conditions at the loading planes. The alternative of meeting stress boundary conditions in the compression test involves. 4 (1970) 177-28. as there tends to be a gap between theory and experiment in the testing field. Eng. although it is known (e. These require that. the stress field will be perturbed. which are initially free to align themselves with the specimen ends but later lock under load. and no bending or twisting of the specimen. This is not for theoretical reasons. the strain field will be perturbed. and therefore the specimen may not be effectively homogeneous. at any given time. It has been found that the simplest way to obtain consistent test results is to load a specimen by direct application of rigid platens.

However. The major problems are: (1) Contact problems. some simple calculations can be made. as can be shown experimentally by loading the "plane" surfaces of photoelastic materials. there is the possibility that contact stresses will produce cracking in the contact zone.15) and assume that its profile is spherical with a high point at N. The irregularity may be a general "doming" of the sample end. through ground steel platens. Consider a single irregularity on the loading surface of a test specimen (Fig. Eng. ball seat rotation. the specimen is pressed between metal platens or. it is difficult in practice to induce intimate contact. and that these cracks will propagate to cause premature failure in certain kinds of rock. (2) Radial constraints. which displace the two end planes relative to each other to induce a "racking" distortion. (3) Lateral translations. To obtain some idea of the magnitude of the tensile stresses which might be generated at non-flat surfaces. invoking the Saint-Venant principle. and so the surrounding material is essentially unrestrained. the ideal stress boundary conditions can substantially be met. and introduce shear strains when platens twist. Geol. which restrict or exaggerate radial and circumferential strains at the end plane. however.. The loading platen is assumed to be perfectly plane. that their effects in the mid-section are negligible. or may be an isolated dome-shaped "bump". foreign particles. pulled between metal platens by an adhesive bond. For analytical purposes it is usually assumed that loading platens and end surfaces of test specimens are perfectly plane. in the tensile test. Actually. All of these problems will now be discussed in detail. If. which cause axial stress or displacement to vary across the end plane. such as glass or certain plastics. Contact problems End flatness. and broad departures from flatness can induce non-uniform pressure distribution at the contact. the ideal boundary conditions are likely to be violated.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 225 Violations of ideal boundary conditions. These can be caused by imperfect head travel. or from extrusion of interracial layers. which cause the axial displacements to vary across the end plane when platens tilt. Resulting perturbations of the stress field may be quite localized. 4 (1970) 177-285 . These arise when platen face or sample end are not perfectly plane or parallel. so that intimate contact occurs when they are brought together in parallel alignment. If hydrostatic pressure can be applied to the ends of the sample without introducing problems at the seals and without inducing penetration into the specimen. (4) End-plane rotations. or lack of flexural rigidity in long loading columns of the testing machine. but it is assumed that the platen makes no contact with the rest of the surface until the bump is flattened. Asperities in the surfaces. and it might be argued. These arise from friction between platen and rock.

016 50 0.0 A =1. R Height of bump.0056 100 0.0005 0. (23) 3nR(Kp + Ks) where: 2 Kp.011 70 0.01 0.15.00012 0..15) is: 4a 3 P .00062 0.0071 0.0022 200 0.001 0. Z = D/2 Bump radius.. 1 -. T h e radius o f the spherical b u m p R can be expressed in terms o f the height o f the b u m p ct a n d its p l a n radius A at the intersection with the s a m p l e end p l a n e : A2 R . cm.00025 0.0018 0. a A = 0.5 1.4 AND tl1 FOR A DOMED-ENDSAMPLEOF DIAMETERD.005 0. Tensile ~ vr V//////////~_//_l//////. a n d it is a s s u m e d t h a t b o t h p l a t e n a n d specimen behave elastically t h r o u g h o u t . inches. . (22) 2= TABLE V RELATIONSBETWEENR.000 0. T h e force P required to flatten the b u m p to a n y c o n t a c t radius a (Fig.0025 0. e.-. MELLOR . 226 I. N u m e r i c a l values are given in T a b l e V.0012 0. GeoL.0011 500 0. HAWKES AND M.. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Effect of non-flat specimen ends in uniaxial compression.0025 0.Vp Ep Eng.a Crocks "Or I ~ Rock / ~1 A B Fig. W i t h these a s s u m p t i o n s it is possible to d r a w u p o n results o b t a i n e d for c o n t a c t between a n elastic sphere a n d a n elastic p l a n e surface (TIMOSrmNKO a n d GOODIm% 1951).g.5 A = 1.022 1 In any consistent unit of length.

. Geol. .inch eq. 0.vp + (28) Ep E~ 3 Assuming that vp = vs = 0. 0. As load is applied.000 lbf/sq. and E s = 5" 106 lbf/sq.25. the periphery is in a state of pure shear.inch and a° = 12.° increase quite rapidly up to P ~ 15.000 lbf/sq.r .16.) ~rZ = 0.0025 inch. following eq.000 lbf (Point X). 4 (1970) 177-285 .30 is 0. . The figure shows that 0. with magnitude: P 0 .inch and E~ = 5 • 106 lbf/ sq. ~ --. and if the tensile strength of the specimen is 2. and is given by: 3P ao .29.28 becomes: P = 0.o'0 = 0.a.0 and 0. 2ha2 The significance of these results is best illustrated by means of numerical examples combining the previously given equations: p=5. =a .e. Taking a numerical example.3 R 2 lbf (29) and the maximum tensile stress 0.° (26) 3 i. at which stage 0. F r o m Table V the b u m p radius is seen to be 200 inches.000 lbf/sq. .0 P 0. inch.215.2v~) (27) (o. and then more gradually as P increases further.r rise sharply as P is applied. (25) 2ha 2 The stresses at the periphery of the contact area (B.). .T (at r = a) is: 0.inch circumferential cracks will start to form at this radius. The maximum compressive stress ao occurs at the surface in the centre of the contact area. E~ = 30 • l0 s lbf/sq.1 2 0. 2v. 10 . consider a specimen with a domed end: D = 2A = 2 inches. and the maximum tensile stress there is in the radial direction. The radius of the contact area. aT cannot increase and circumferential cracking will Eng.= 2.x are plotted against P for various parametric values of R.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 227 and 2 Ks _ 1 . = .r and 0.0.0 and 0. Fig.16 3 2[ 1 2 1-v•] 2 ao R .inch. a.15) are: (I . (30) 6 4ha 2 In Fig. .77 inch.. a given by eq. As P increases further.vs (24) Es and the subscripts p and s denote moduli for platen and specimen respectively.

17 gives the maximum tensile stresses induced in domed-end samples of various diameters. Geol. 0 IvO 200 3 . the flatness tolerances for complete freedom from cracking are approximately 0. However.inch and v = 0. I ! nl ..Ioo 100( R. Point Y indicates the stage at which the sample is completely flattened.000 5OOO IOO0 30( 4 0 0 0 . tbf I | . the cracks formed by lack of flatness may well propagate through the body of the specimen at a comparatively low load.228 I.16.0OO 1600 300¢ 1200 . .17 gives the relation between bump height ct and maximum tensile stress for rock having E s = 5 • 106 lbf/sq. MELLOR ~0 I [ | .0005 Eng. . the bump would have been flattened without cracking the rock. Fig. some idea of magnitude can be gained from consideration of the domed-end sample.IOOOIn t 400 .500 lbf/sq. however. I-IAWKESAND M. If. I . If it Is assumed that for this particular rock type the tensile strength is about 1. probably hasten the flattening of the bump." ~ R . N Fig. the contact is lubricated. Ibf/in | Ibf/In 2 bor bar 6O0O 40( 2400 _ 32. Fig.. Replacing the values of R from Fig.25 O'T O'. as will be discussed in a later . As the bump is flattened. 4 (1970) 177-285 .25. and propagation of the cracks may be inhibited until the end load reaches a considerably higher level.oo a.. 0 x 103 APPLI[D LOAD. . . Flatness tolerances cannot be deduced directly from the foregoing since the surface irregularities are rarely known in such detail. o APPLIED LOAD. I I .'o ' 6'o ' .o.'o ' C. or radial restraint is reduced by platen matching. . radial restraints are mobilized at an unlubricated contact. 5 x |0 s Ibf/In | lss • 0.b ' 3'o ' . Theoretical relationships between applied load and stress for various bump dimensions on domed-end samples.24. 5 o o . if av at this point had been less than the tensile strength of the rock.16 by equivalent values of ~ from Table V.inch.

as produced by a saw cut. sandstone. and with surface roughness above 0. The theoretical tolerance is more conservative than the experimental by a factor of about 2. Theoretical peripheral tensile stress as a function of bump height for domed-end samples. Their general conclusion was that shape and spacing of surface irregularities are more critical than height. 4 (1970) 177-285 . In practice the problem is complicated by the fact that surface irregularities are not necessarily dome-shaped. who used specimens of granite.001 0.002 0. there is reasonable agreement between the theoretical and experimental findings.003 inch the granite samples split axially. However. Eng. with a tendency for the dome- shaped irregularity. and limestone with diameter 2. this is compensated by early crushing of small asperities and localized area of influence. Hoskins and Horino also observed that the weaker rocks showed less sensitivity to end roughness than did the stronger rocks. This effect is predicted by eq.002 inch had no great effect on strength or mode of failure. which could be accounted for by inhibition of crack propagation by platen friction in practice.00:5 (2 I inches Fig.17.25 inches. / ES: 5 xlOelbf/inZ / :5 1//===0"25 D= I in//" Ibf/in2 2i I 0 0. but can take the form of general surface rough- ness. The effect of surface roughness on compressive strength and mode of failure has been investigated experimentally by HOSKINS and HORINO (1968). Above this roughness value strength tended to decrease. However. GeoL. Eq.0015 inch for a 3 inch diameter specimen.29 would indicate that under such conditions the stresses would be higher for a given height of irregularity. in which a decrease of Es results in a decrease of ao and hence trx for a given value of P.28. Assuming that the surface roughness takes a domed form (saw-cut or improperly lapped ends: Fig. marble. surface roughness up to 0.3).UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCKMECHANICS 229 inch for a 1 inch diameter specimen and approximately 0. to be the more critical.125 inches and length 4.


The foregoing considerations provide a basis for the establishment of flatness
tolerances. For tests on high modulus rocks, especially when lateral end restraints
are minimized, it seems advisable to aim for end flatness within 0.0001-0.0005 inches.
For tests on low modulus rocks using "rough and rigid" platens (complete lateral
restraint) some small irregularities can be tolerated, provided that any strain
measurements are made over the mid-section of the sample, and not between the
platens. Small isolated bumps can be crushed down while platen restraint inhibits
crack propagation, and flatness within 0.001 inch is probably acceptable for samples
of diameter greater than 1 inch.
Platen "cushions" are sometimes used to compensate for lack of flatness
on the sample ends (LUNDBORG, 1967). A "cushion" consists of a layer of crushable
fibrous material, such as paper or cardboard, which has little tendency to extrude.
Theoretically there are no objections to use of such materials provided that they
are less than 0.010 inch thick, since they are crushed down to the level of the
surface irregularities in the rock during loading and extrusion is precluded. How-
ever, experimental evidence on the matter is not encouraging. GROSVENOR(1963)
found that values of compressive strength measured with "thin sheets" of card-
board as cushions were appreciably smaller than values measured with bonded
steel plate at the interface, but his specimens had LID = 1.0. OBERT et al. (1946)
quote results by KESSLERet al. (1940), who found a reduction in variance when
blotting paper was used, but also a decrease in apparent strength of 12% compared
with results obtained without interfacial material. Thus Obert et al. decided
against the use of cushion material. The use of thick layers (0.25 inch thickness of
fibre wall board is recommended in A.S.T.M. C133-55, Crushing strength of
refractory bricks and shapes) definitely seems inadvisable for tests on rock, as
some extrusion is likely and there may be significant variations in the thickness
of the compressed layer.

Squareness and parallelism. When specimens are loaded by rigid platens, the
platen face and the specimen end plane must be parallel when contact is first made.
HosmNs and HORINO (1968) investigated the effects of lack of end squareness,
or lack of parallelism between ends, for rocks ranging from granite (45,000 lbf/
sq.inch compressive strength) to limestone (7,000 lbf/sq.inch compressive strength).
For a non-adjustable loading head, i.e. one lacking a spherical swivel, a departure
from normality or parallelism of up to 0.13 ° (0.0023 rad., or 0.005 inch in a 2 inch-
diameter specimen) could be tolerated without any noticeable effect on the
measured strength. When a spherical swivel was used, there was no detectable
effect on the results for departures from squareness or parallelism up to 0.25 °
(0.0044 rad., or 0.009 inch in a 2 inch-diameter specimen), the limit investigated
in the experiment. A maximum tolerance for squareness or parallelism of 0.25 °
was proposed for strength tests in which a spherical seat is used. However, the
effects on strain fields were not studied, and since 0.25 ° is a coarse tolerance for

Eng. GeoL,4 (1970) 177-285


specimens of typical size, it is suggested that the aim in specimen preparation
should be to maintain squareness and parallelism within 0.06 ° (0.001 rad., or
0.002 inch in a 2 inch diameter specimen). A spherical seat is almost always
employed in conjunction with rigid loading platens. Its design will be discussed
later, since it has a bearing on some of the end problems still to be outlined.

Hydrostatic loading. The contact problems arising from lack of flatness, squareness,
or parallelism could largely be avoided if the end of the test specimen were to be
loaded hydrostatically. The most practical way to apply hydrostatic pressure is
probably to confine a readily plasticised solid in a cylinder which has a bore
slightly larger than the test specimen, and then to insert the end of the specimen,
using a flexible but non-yielding membrane to prevent intrusion of the "fluid"
into the rock (Fig. 18C). There are problems associated with this technique, which
will be discussed later in connection with lateral end restraints.

i Plo ll.,/,llll~l


c D
Fig.18. End loading arrangements for compression specimens.

Radial constraints at the loading planes
In a typical uniaxial test, a specimen in the form of a right circular cylinder
is pressed, or pulled, between a pair of steel platens. Assuming that contact is made
between perfectly plane parallel surfaces, and that load is applied coincident with,
and parallel to, the sample axis, there will be no perturbation of the desired
uniform stress field if the sample is completely free to strain radially and circum-
ferentially along its entire length. In typical practice, however, friction between the
compression sample and its platens, or adhesive bond between the tensile sample

Eng. GeoL, 4 (1970) 177-285


and its platens, produces radial constraint at the end planes of the specimen. This
is due to mis-match of lateral strain in the specimen and the platen. Various
attempts have been made to eliminate or decrease the frictional restraint in the
compression test by "platen matching", or by the use of lubricants or deformable
interracial layers.

Complete radial restraint. The hardened steel platens of a loading machine are
usually wider than the test sample, and their modulus is higher than that of any
rock. If there is direct unlubricated contact between the platen steel and the rock,
frictional forces are sufficient to provide effective radial restraint. Under these
circumstances the boundary conditions for the end planes of the specimen differ
from the ideal displacement boundary conditions given earlier. At any given time,
the axial displacement will still be uniform across the ends of the specimen, but
the radial and circumferential strains will be zero. Furthermore, there will be
finite gradients of radial and circumferential strain in the axial direction. The
distribution of stresses and displacements for an elastic cylinder with these
boundary conditions has been obtained theoretically by a number of investigators,
including FILON (1902), PICKETT(1944), D'APPOLONIA and NEWMARK (1951), and
BALLA (1960). Balla's results are of special interest, because they permit the effects
of varying friction between platen and rock to be studied and also because they
include relevant numerical results.
Table VI gives Balla's numerical results for stresses in a cylinder of length/
diameter ratio 2.0. The specimen is assumed to be elastic with a Poisson's ratio
of 0.33, there is intimate contact between platen and sample, and there is no slip
at the interface. As a matter of interest, Balla's results for uniaxial compression

, , , , i-o L , , , , J

. . . . . . . . O~.o,o.lo-N..mork ~ ", 0'~ .4

: o. ,¢// - - ........................ ...........

,o ,o .............
. . . . . . . . ,,,
. . . . . . + ~~ ~ ".-"" . i ''°L . . . . . . .. . ~ . . ~,

i ~p. . . . . . . . . i/I °+I~ "'''" "

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0
l i
0.4 0.6
l I
0.8 I,O
j~ Rolio r/R C Rotio r/R

Fig.19. Comparison of results obtained by different investigators for the stress distribu-
tion in a restrained cylinder (length/diameter ratio = 1) under uniaxial compression.

Eng. Geol., 4 (1970) 177-285

184 +0.024 +0. GeoL.020 +1.989 +0. a~ = P/A. ~ r/R 0 0. the ratio favoured in early testing work.012 +1.812 +0.002 +0.001 0 o0 --0.012 Zzr 0 --0.011 --0.016 --0.2 az +1.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 233 are compared in Fig.007 --0.008 --0.018 +0.765 or +0.510 +0.7o --0.8 o~ + 1.995 Or --0.100 +0.012 +0.333 0 o0 +0.006 --0.003 ~zr 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Stresses normalized with respect to the average axial stress. + 1.028 0 o0 +0.198 +0.008 lrrz 0 +0.180 +0. v = ~r.210 +0.210 +0.854 +0.002 +0.002 --0.007 --0.486 +0.590 +0.006 --0.008 --0.030 + 1. L / D = 2.815 +0.006 --0.004 --0.270 +0.611 +0.012 --0.6 o~ + 1.617 +0.8 1. then crack formation will begin when the function C.017 --0.564 +0. 1960) z/H o.034 +0.036 +0.006 --0.009 lrr~ 0 --0. in the form given by eq.975 +0.19 with those of earlier investigators for a cylinder with length/diameter ratio of 1.047 + 1.010 --0.007 --0.012 --0.010 --0.036 +0.2 0.012 + 1.450 0. [(/22 + 1)1/2 + /2-] (31) Eng.164 +0.019 0 0.008 0 o.010 + 0.008 --0.001 0 a0 --0. 4 (1977) 177-285 .999 ar --0.078 + 1.005 --0.999 +0.082 + 1.0 1.018 +1.998 +0.006 --0.0.052 +0.004 +0.009 --0.555 +0.047 + 1.008 --0.004 --0.025 +0.617 +0.0. compressive positive.027 +0.009 --0.007 + 1.010 --0.060 + 1. is valid for the initiation of cracking in a rock sample.943 +1.090 +0.204 +0.004 +0.4 0.090 --0.470 Tr~ 0 +0.011 + 1.008 --0.047 + 1.047 + 1.0 o~ +0.825 +0. /2] .002 0 .020 --0.005 --0. sample length L = 2//. TABLE VI DISTRIBUTION OF STRE.603 +0.360 +0.044 + 1.016 --0.960 try --0.009 --0.4 oz + 1.14.863 or +0. If it is assumed that the McClintock-Walsh failure criterion.054 0 0.010 --0.008 --0.018 0 0.012 --0.021 "rzy 0 --0.041 + 1.003 --0.032 +0.~ IN A CYLINDER IN UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION.063 +0.002 --0.6 0.891 Or +0. WITH COMPLETE RADIAL RESTRAINT OF THE END PLANES1 (After BALLA.148 +0.009 --0.002 0 o0 +0. defined by: C = T [(/22 + 1)1/2 .

relative to the nominal axial stress (load/area).20. MELLOR reaches a value equal to the uniaxial tensile strength aT.~\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Fig. For a specimen under gradually increasing load. calculated from the values given for the stress components in Table VI.. GeoL. Table VII gives the values of the greatest and least principal stresses al and a 3. and ultimately crack density will tend to be highest in the zones where C is highest. 4 (1970) 177-285 . and the broken lines indicate a probable pattern for final collapse of the specimen. Contours of the McClintock-Walsh parameter. .N\N"X \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ =============================================== ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I I ~ . Eng. for uniaxial compression with radial restraint at the sample ends. ' : .234 I.: : . C. shaded areas show the most critically stressed zones. HAWKES AND M. cracking will therefore commence at those points where C is greatest. Values of C corresponding to these ~ N \ N ' .: ~ ~ x II \\ ~~\\\\\'. The numbers give the magnitude of C as a multiple of the mean axial stress.

C r/R 0 0.035 +0.136 +0. however.130 1 Using results by BALLA(1960) see Table VI.102 --0.863 tra +0.135 +0.135 ol +1.190 --0.960 tr8 --0.2 0.060 + 1.120 0.010 +0.137 +0.009 --0.025 --0.20.007 --0.4 trl + 1.139 +0.065 +0.010 --0.047 + 1.126 +0.873 aa +0.045 + 1.0 al +0. 12C). The distribution of C over a diametral plane is illustrated in Fig.136 +0.012 +1.050 + 1.005 +0.197 +0.296 0. Geol.011 --0.343 +0.004 +0.005 --0.136 +0.021 C +0. leaving relatively uncracked end cones which have intruded into cracked regions (Fig.010 --0. from which the probable sequence of internal crack formation and the relative crack density in the early stages of fracture can be inferred.032 +0.012 --0.078 + 1.8 trl + 1.116 0. Fig.027 +0.139 +0. consistent with the failure mode in which the specimen collapses in a radially symmetric pattern.166 --0.002 +0.131 +0. 4 (1970) 177-285 .012 C +0.090 +0.161 +0.997 +1.129 +0.989 + 0.119 +0.047 + 1.004 0 C +0.0 1.059 +0.042 +0.125 +0.925 +0. although the numerical results are not too reliable for this latter region.020 +1.010 --0.137 +0. It can be seen that cracking is most unlikely in the dome-shaped regions abutting the loading platens.4 0.8 1.035 +0.108 C --0.999 a3 --0.131 +0.20 does not necessarily predict the final mode of failure of a test specimen.008 C +0.7 for #.010 --0.016 --0.011 +1. the most critically stressed zones lie between these regions of low crack probability and the central cross-section.163 --0.008 --0.617 +0.123 +0.127 +0. It is.009 C +0.891 aa +0. and also around the perimeter of the platen contact.012 +1.812 +0.135 +0.096 +0.464 +0. pairs of principal stresses have also been calculated and tabulated assuming a value of 0.007 --0.082 + 1.6 0. since the stress field will be modified as internal cracks are formed and deformation is localized.995 tra --0.007 +1.975 +0.024 +0.008 --0.848 +0.6 ol + 1. It is interesting to note that lateral strain measurements made at various points along the length of a test specimen after several load cycles by SELDENaATH Eng.136 +0.047 + 1.139 +0.570 +0.135 0.044 + 1.999 +0.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 235 TABLE VII GREATEST AND SMALLEST PRINCIPAL STRESSES AND MCCLINTOCK°WALSH FUNCTION FOR RESTRAINED- END CYLINDER IN UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION 1 z/H a.030 + 1.210 +0.036 +0.135 +0.131 +0.109 +1.006 --0..008 --0.012 --0.018 +1.998 +0.2 at +1.

leading to an expression which relates the average minimum friction coefficient for no slip. ifv = 0. The main argument against complete restraint is that it could prevent the formation of axial cleavage fractures which might otherwise occur (Gv. MURRELL(1958) suggests that an "average" coefficient of fric- tion between platen and rock of 0. They do compensate to some extent for imperfections in end surface preparation. to the Poisson's ratio of the rock. Geol. It can be seen from Fig. and in Appendix 1 a simple calculation is carried out. ~ 0.. Eng..e.ifv = 0. H A W K E S A N D M. and there have been many attempts to eliminate it. MELLOR and GRAMBERG(1958) show slight variation which can perhaps be associated with these regions of higher cracking tendency (GRAMB~RG.20 that. v: "V /7 .f 0 0 0.450 R ap dr dO (33) Solution of this equation gives a value for the coefficient of friction of 0.v) i.33. Complete radial restraint at the end planes represents a violation of the ideal boundary conditions for the test. The condition for complete frictional restraint of the end plane has not been firmly established./7 = 0.33 is given by: r (z.450 R ap (32) where % is the average normal stress acting across the plane. and they assure consistency of boundary conditions for all types of rock. 4 (1970) 177-285 . it is by no means certain that elimination of radial end restraint is desirable in practical testing. is that attempts to relieve end restraint can result in the opposite effect of the end planes being dragged radially outwards (negative restraint).z across the interface between the rock and platen (z/H = 1) for rock with a Poisson's ratio v = 0./7 = 0.246.3. whereas CHAra~VARTV(1963) gives lower values. end restraints should not greatly affect the onset of internal cracking.2.AMBEam. since gradients of C are quite small in the mid-section of an adequately long specimen. outlined later. However. ~ R2 = .125. It can be deduced by plotting BaUa's results from Table VI that the shear stress z. 1965). ~. Actually it is fairly obvious that the friction coefficient required to prevent radial slip will be some function of Poisson's ratio.z)z= H = 0. which induces axial cleavage when it would not otherwise occur.6 will be sufficient to prevent radial movement. The practical problem.236 I. for Darley Dale Sandstone. The "average" coefficient of friction necessary to prevent slip/7 can thus be estimated by integrating the shear stress across the end plane and equating it to the friction forces: 2~r R /7 el.2. (34) 2(1 . 1965).

inch bar Carbon steel 103" 106 71 • 105 Cast iron 64" 106 44. --tr (35) Ep Es I f lateral strains in the platen and the specimen are equal. unless the platen material is very hard it will need resurfacing from time to time. es = . and the third is to load the end planes hydrostatically: (1) Platen matching. particularly at the low end of the range. 105 Brass. these ratios are not easy to match with materials of sufficient strength for use in platens. 8p = e~ and the platen matching condition is: Ep _ E s (36) Vp Vs TABLE VIII E/~ RATIOS FOR POTENTIAL PLATEN MATERIALS Material E/~ lbf/sq. the second is for the coefficient of friction at every point of the interface to be less than the value which prevents slip.106 lbf/sq. Theoretically there are three ways in which radial freedom of the loading planes can be achieved. The drawback to platen matching is that different platens are required for different rock types. the radial strains e under axial stress tr are: "~p Vs % = . flint glass 32 • 10e 22 • 105 Magnesium alloys 19. The first is for the radial strain of the loading platen to match exactly the radial strain of the test specimen. 10e 13. GeoL.inch. and the reduction of restraint is not consistent from one rock to another. Eng. phosphor bronze 45 • 105 31 • 105 Aluminium alloys. One way of matching the radial strains of the platen and the rock is to make the platen diameter equal to the specimen diameter and then to choose a platen material with certain properties. Table V I I I lists the E/v ratios for some c o m m o n materials which might be considered as platen materials. tr. lOb The problem is to find. for a given rock type. The ratio E/v for typical rocks lies in the range 4" 106 to 40.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 237 Radial freedom. Using subscripts p and s to denote platen and rock. Also. 4 (1970) 177-285 . a platen material with a suitable ratio E/v which will not yield under the highest stresses likely to be imposed by the test.

and the simple right cylinder is likely to remain the most common sample shape for some time to come.47 to 0. from Appendix 2 it may be noted that for a sandstone- steel interface the coefficient of friction can vary from 0.238 ~. HAWKI~ AND M. and after testing specimens of various shapes advocated a dumbbell with fillet radius 1. This shape of specimen. used by CrIAKRAVAgTY(1963). 18B. and also by the amount and type of lubricant used. BRACE (1964) and PAULDING (1966).. however. (2) Friction reduction. Lubrication of the platen interface is intended to allow the laterally expanding rock to slip past the more rigid platen. It does appear. The alternative technique for reducing rock-platen friction is to interpose a layer of low friction polymeric solid (e. CHAKgAVAgTY(1963) did not experience this difficulty. extra cement is used to form a fillet between the platen and rock (Fig. The main argument against the use of lubricants is lack of control over the degree of restraint.25).4D where D is neck diameter (Fig. GeoL.17 when lubricants are used. a "rock platen" is provided in dumbbell shaped specimens. For example. Preparation of dumbbell samples is still too expensive and time-consuming for quantity production in most laboratories. MELLOR Another piece of the same rock is probably the only material that can match the specimen perfectly and. who used rather abrupt fillets giving a stress concentration factor of 1. Some tests carried out by the writers are summarized in Appendix 2. found it necessary to clamp steel rings around the end sections of his samples to avoid premature splitting in uniaxial compression. which presents special problems in end preparation. in soft rock. 25). that the use of lubricants is unlikely to induce axial cleavage fractures by extrusion (negative restraint). The writers have used dumbbell specimens for uniaxial com- pressive and tensile tests on ice. which attempts to simulate the end conditions of a dumbbell specimen. is ground from core sample on a lathe using a toolpost grinder with a form wheel or. and reduces the high stress concentrations which normally occur at the periphery of the contact zone. PTFE/Teflon) or a readily deformable Eng. so that frictional forces on the end plane are held to a minimum. using a stationary single point diamond tool pivoted on the toolpost. The drawback to the technique is the need for false platens and the additional time and trouble associated with the bonding procedures.25). This technique. which flare out to greater diameter at the end sections (Fig. 4 (1970) 177-285 . which vary with the fillet radius (Fig. MOGI (1966) has used a technique in which the ends of the test specimens are bonded with epoxy cement to steel platens which have a slightly larger dia- meter than the specimen. There is very little available information relating to the coefficient of friction between rock and other materials. or to the effects of lubricants on the coefficient of friction. and interposed layers of low friction material or deformable material (Fig. ensures intimate restrained contact between platen and rock. The fillet introduces stress concentrations.18C). 18D).g. PAULDING(1966). Two techniques have been used: interfacial lubricants.25. The coefficient of friction is extremely variable: it is influenced by the nature of the rock and platen surfaces. to some extent.

Approximate axial stresses for plastic yielding (measured by loading the circular end plane of a glass cylinder against a disc of the material until an impression was made) are: lead: 1600 lbf/sq. 4 (1970) 177-285 . then theoretically the shear stress on the end planes will be equal to one-half the axial yield stress of the material (PRANDTL. and to date it has not been resolved.02 inch. This is obviously quite impractical. SKINr~R (1959) suggested that a possible method of reducing end restraint would be to have interposed between the platen and rock a material which has a plastic yield stress just less than the compressive strength of the rock.01 inch) of these materials should only be used with rock types having a lower compressive strength than the plastic yield strength of the interposed material. which was discussed earlier. using a PTFE/Teflon layer 0. Hsu (1967) found that he could eliminate end constraint for tests on copper by using a sheet of PTFE/Teflon only 0..005 inch thick between sandstone and a lapped steel platen.01 inch thick. For example.inch. as the coefficient of friction would always be too high to allow slippage. the situation is complicated by the need to interpose a membrane or diaphragm between the specimen end and the pressure medium. In principle. (3) Hydrostatic loading. and if the coefficient of friction between such material and the steel platen were sufficiently low.004 inch thick. He believed that plastic yielding would relieve the end restraints at the moment of failure.000 lbf/sq. therefore. The question of the effects of thin layers ( < 0. shown schematically Eng. soft brass: 15. mild steel: 36. then platen restraint might be eliminated.000 lbf/sq. lead or copper. hydrostatic loading permits full lateral freedom at the end of the specimen. If such materials are extruded during loading. Geol. while strain hardening would prevent extrusion and the development of high outward radial shear stresses.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 239 solid such as rubber.005 inch) of soft materials interposed between a hard platen and the rock is more complicated. which under certain circumstances would be sufficient to relieve platen restraint (see section on complete platen restraint). thick pads (> 0.000 lbf/sq. Theoretically. CHAKRAVARTY(1963) was apparently able to achieve a reduction in platen restraint for tests on Darley Dale Sandstone using a single sheet of PTFE/Teflon 0. copper: 13. hard brass: 20.2 (Appendix 2). the writers found that the coefficient of friction could be reduced to around 0.inch. It is unlikely that a very thin layer with thickness of the order of the rock surface roughness would extrude. In practice. SELDENRATHand GRAMBERG(1958) devised a technique. There appears to be little merit in using thin metallic sheets between the rock and platen other than as "platen cushions".inch.000 lbf/sq. but found it necessary to interrupt the test eleven times to keep renewing the sheet. 1923) and the specimen will fail by axial cleavage induced by the radial forces. In such a case the pads have no effect other than platen matching.inch. but he induced axial cleavage as a result of extrusion when the layer thickness was increased to 0.inch.

especially in a screw drive machine. In view of the complications introduced by plastic flow. MELLOR in Fig. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Although this technique has been criticised on the grounds that it will induce radially outward tangential forces. diaphragms should also be flexible enough to conform with the contours of the sample end. a new situation arises if the yield stress of the metal is reached.10 and 13C of the paper by SELDENRATHand GRAMBERG. and thereby cause axial tensile splitting. Eng. in which the specimen is loaded through thin metal plate by a plug of soft rubber confined in a steel cylinder.008 inch). they should be made of steel.240 I. With full lateral confinement the plug of deformable material cannot extrude. HAWKESAND M. b) has used a similar technique for creep tests and modulus measurement. This conclusion is based on tests in which the load was cycled 5 or 6 times. or the thin sheets confined between rock and platen just discussed.. i.18C. or from the rotation of an improperly designed spherical seat. then radially outward shear stress will be transmitted to the end of the sample. it will tend to "rack" the specimen.1958) the opposite conclusion could be drawn. but if only the first cycle is considered (fig. As already mentioned in connection with interfacial layers. SELDENRATH and GRAMBERG(1958) and GRAMBERG(1965) have discussed the problem and concluded. it is suggested that diaphragms should have yield stresses considerably higher than the stresses im- posed by testing. As the platens of the loading machine converge (or diverge in the tensile test) there should be no tendency for them to displace relative to each other in a direction normal to the line of travel. Thus the radial restraints are determined by the response of the diaphragm to loading. Lateral platen translation According to the displacement boundary conditions given earlier. cannot be permitted during a test. However. If there is any forced relative lateral transla- tion of this kind. If the benefits of hydrostatic loading are to be reaped.e. lateral movements of the platens relative to one another. and any shear forces which may develop are transmitted to the metal diaphragm and not directly to the rock. If the diaphragm yields plastically and flows into the narrow gap at the rim of the specimen. Seldenrath and Gramberg use a fairly thick diaphragm (0. on the basis of lateral strain measurements. this shear stress is theoretically equal to one half the axial yield stress of the metal. Another problem associated with thin soft diaphragms loaded hydro- statically is the possibility of their being forced into cracks or pores to form "intrusive failures" (BRACE. 1964). and it seems likely that as long as the metal of the diaphragm remains elastic it must provide some restraint. HARDY (1959a. that their technique actually maintains some positive lateral restraint of the sample end up to the point of failure. either forced or free. Geol. Such a forced translation might arise from machine imperfections. it should be recognised that there are significant differences between it and the extruding interfacial layer.

Referring to Appendix 3.001 inch will increase the magnitude of the controlling principal stress by 1~o.03 ° (approx..< .-~ro L (1 + v) (39) 5 E Taking ao/E = 2 • 10-3 at failure and v = 0. (37) i.e.35. GeoL.57°. T -.25: A < 5.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 241 To make a rough estimate of possible tolerances for forced lateral translation between platens. tro/E = 2" 10-3 and v = 0. 112 [1 .35) is approx. where G is the shear modulus.01 >_ . 4 (1970) 177-285 . Eng.G(A/L).3 inches. Under these conditions the magnitude of the finite principal stress changes from its former value go to a new value ½go[1 + {1 + (2"c/tro)2}~r]. Lateral platen translation will change the direction of the principal stress by an angle: fl=l/2tan_l{~ E 1 } (41) ~ro ( 1 + v With A/L = 5" 10-4. 5 • 10-4 rad.e.)2}~. (38) -10G or: A _ ..25. and which are not loaded at the centre of curvature (as discussed in Appen- dix 3) will automatically tend to cause lateral platen translation if there is any unsymmetrical strain in the sample. If it is decided that the maximum tolerable change in magnitude of the principal stress is I X . 0. it is not known whether this rotation is important. angular rotation of the ball seat will be approx.: L ao A < ---. Spherical seats which are heavily greased so that they do not lock under load. the direction of the principal stress in the sample mid-section will change by 0. 69 and Fig. the lateral displacement A for small angular rotation 0 is: A ~hO (42) For some ball seats in current use. h (measured in the opposite sense from h in Fig. with a sample 2 inches long a lateral platen translation of 0. then: 0. . assume that the specimen is subjected to simple shear.001 inch. = AlL.. In the centre section of the sample this induces a shear stress on the former principal planes. eq. If there is a 10~o differential in axial strain across the width of the sample just before failure.{1 + (2"r/a.) and this type of ball seat will tend to displace the platen laterally by more than 0.. with a relative lateral displacement A between the platens distributed over the sample length L so as to give an engineering strain ~.10-4L (40) i.

The degree of freedom for lateral translation clearly influences the final mode of failure of the specimen. then it seems most unlikely that a specimen could fail along a single oblique shear plane. which may arise when platens are not fully restrained from sideways movement. 1969.000 lbf machine.) Eng. MELLOR The other case of lateral platen translation which must be considered is free translation. If there is complete lateral rigidity and no possibility of relative lateral translation between platens. GeoL. "shear plane" fractures occurred quite frequently. shear displacement along them was prevented by the end restraints. state that in conventional testing machines lateral stiffness is less than longitudinal stiffness by a factor of about 100. who found that specimens loaded between heavily Fig. (BIENIAWS~¢I et al.21. Axial cracking in acompression specimen with fully restrained ends. (After HOR1NO. HAWKESAND M.4 (1970) 177-285 . Although there were oblique saw cuts through the specimen.242 I. but when a slender extension column was used to transmit load into an environmental chamber..1968.) In this case irregular deflection of the specimen at any stage of loading may cause the platens to translate. and if there is no possibility of platen rotation during loading (locked ball seat). leading to misalignment of loading and instability of the test. In some recent compressive tests the writers noticed that failure occurred by "coning" when load was applied directly by the platens of a 300. Note that the specimen has attempted to rotate about the lower left corner. More compelling evidence on this point is provided by HORINO (1968).

and non- twist cable or roller drive chains have been used to apply the loads. Platen rotation Two types of platen rotation should be recognised: rotation about the loading axis. BmNIAWSKI et al. GeoL. and rotation about an axis normal to the loading axis. i. Rotation about an axis normal to the loading axis. This effect is most likely to arise in the tensile test when the pulling system tends to twist the specimen (e. Rotation about the loading axis..1/2 + (1 + (2ao.. (45) 40 where P is the applied axial load. in the r-O plane. a shear stress ao~ is induced in the specimen: 16Mr (43) O-#z -. this is a very significant finding. The torque induced by a pulling system can be measured by hanging deadweight from one half of the system and measuring the torque necessary to prevent rotation. 7tO3 and the magnitude and direction of the principal stresses are thus changed from their torque-free values.e.21).e. (1969) have determined that rocks which fail by a typical shear failure mode in soft testing machines (low longitudinal stiffness) fail by axial cleavage when loaded in a stiff testing machine (high longitudinal stiffness). i.g. in which the platen is loaded at its centre by a "load equalizer". It can also arise when using a heavily greased spherical seating. If the twisting moment is Mr. in the r-z plane. To avoid torque in tensile tests.01 (44) i.. Pulling systems have been fitted with thrust bearings or ball-and-socket joints. or when using the technique recommended by Mo¢3I (1966). as in the typical tensile test or in a compres- sion test when a small steel ball is used instead of a spherical seating. If the magnitude of the major principal stress ao is not to change by more than lYo then: . This effect can arise when the load is applied to the platen at a point. certain types of stranded steel cable twist under load). These conditions involve free rotation in response to unsym- Eng.. 4 (1970) 177-285 ./uo)2} ~ < 0.e.: PD Mt < . As it can be inferred that high lateral stiffness will usually be associated with high longitudinal stiffness.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 243 constraining platens refused to fail along a single oblique shear plane even when there were oblique saw cuts through the specimen (Fig. various devices have been used.


metrical strain or cracking in the specimen. There is no explicit prohibition of this
in principle for a stress boundary condition, provided that lateral platen translation
is not produced. However, experiments indicate that results of uniaxial compressive
tests are more consistent and reproducible when rotation is not permitted (e.g.,
TARRANT, 1954a, b; ATHERTON, 1965). This can perhaps be attributed to loss of
symmetry and uniformity in the loading when rotation takes place, leading to even
greater tendency for unsymmetrical strain and hence instability.
It is suggested that free rotation, which is allowed by ball loading and
heavily greased spherical seats, should be prevented in compressive tests. If both
rotation and lateral translation are prevented, failure along a single oblique shear
plane cannot occur.
The other case of end plane rotation to be considered is the "forced"
rotation, which would occur with a machine in which the platens do not remain
perfectly parallel during loading, because of flaws in the platen drive system or
because of unsymmetrical deformation in an insufficiently stiff machine when the
test specimen has not been correctly centred. In many conventional testing machines
there is a considerable degree of backlash on the crosshead which can cause
problems of non-uniform loading. For example, if the specimen is not perfectly
centralized in the machine, when load is applied the crosshead is picked up only
on one side. If the spherical seating locks at this point (as will often happen if the
seating is only lightly oiled and the crosshead is heavy), then when the opposite
side of the crosshead is picked up and held against its stop the effect is to put a
non-uniform stress into the specimen. The net effect is the same as would be
produced by loading a specimen with non-parallel ends in the absence of a spherical
seat, which was discussed in an earlier section. Taking a maximum tolerable
departure from parallelism of 0.002 rad., as discussed previously, the tolerance in
crosshead backlash is given by x/d < 0.002, where x is backlash and d is the
distance between the crosshead support columns. With d --- 20 inch, the maximum
tolerable backlash is 0.04 inch; in the one machine checked by the writers the
backlash was approximately 0.02 inch.

Effect of eccentric loading
If the line of application of the load in a tensile test is not perfectly axial,
the induced bending moment will increase the tensile stress in part of the specimen.
If it is assumed that the load is applied parallel to the sample axis but is off-centre
by a distance A, the distribution of axial stress a~z in the bending plane is:
P + 4PAr P ( 4Ar
az~= - - - _ - - - 1 +_ (46)
A 1rR4 ~zR2 \ R2 ]
where P is the applied load, r is the distance from the neutral axis, R is the sample
radius, and A is a cross-sectional area of the sample. The maximum tensile stress
at the outer radius r = R thus exceeds the mean tensile stress by (4PA/nR3),

Eng. GeoL, 4 (1970) 177-285


and the sample will probably break where the excess stress acts. The error introduced
by eccentric loading is:

peak bending stress 4A 800A
- , or % (47)
mean stress R D
With a 1 inch diameter sample, a misalignment of the loading axis of 0.001 inch
gives a potential error of 0.8%.
In compression testing with completely rigid non-rotating platens, eccentric
loading cannot occur in theory, but when a spherical seating is used there may well
be an eccentric loading if the specimen is not perfectly centred.

Platens and spherical seatings
The design of spherical seatings does not appear to have received much
attention in the literature, although the foregoing considerations indicate that it is
The primary purpose of the spherical seating is to compensate for departures
from perfect parallelism or squareness of the specimen ends. To achieve this, the
two parts of the ball seat should be able to move freely with respect to each other
as the crosshead is brought to bear, and the movement should be such that no
unsymmetrical frictional forces are brought into play as contact is made and load
is applied. As is shown in Appendix 3, this last requirement suggests that the centre
of curvature of the spherical surface should coincide with the centre of the flat
end of the male component, which should also be the surface at which final
contact is made. For practical reasons the seating should be stable and self-
aligning, a requirement which is not easily met in an independent b,all seat when
the cup is placed inverted above the ball (as in A.S.T.M. E9-67), or when the
specimen is placed on top of the spherical seat (as in OB~RT and DUVALL, 1967).
After the spherical seating has performed its initial function of bringing
the loading surfaces into parallel contact it is suggested, for the reasons given in the
foregoing sections, that it should lock so as to prohibit any further rotation during
loading. Tests indicate that seats which are properly centred with respect to the
machine and the specimen will lock effectively under load if the spherical surfaces
are either unlubricated or lubricated lightly with a thin mineral oil. By contrast,
seats lubricated heavily with certain greases can rotate under very high axial
loads--up to 60,000 lbf (see Appendix 2, also TARRANT, 1954a, b; WRIGHT, 1957;
ATHL~TON, 1965). It has been found in tests on concrete that failure occurs at
significantly higher loads when platen rotation is avoided by using light mineral
oil rather than grease in the spherical seating. Other arrangements which permit
effective platen rotation, and which consequently are not recommended, include
loading through a small complete ball, and use of MoGI'S (1966) "load adjuster".
This latter device, which is intended to replace the spherical seat, is simply a
small piece of cellophane adhesive tape placed at'the centre of the contact area

Eng. GeoL, 4 (1970) 177-285


between the machine platen and a false platen on the sample. It probably fulfills the
primary requirement of compensating for misalignments, but it seems likely that
it will permit some rotation.
The surfaces of seatings and other platens which contact the rock specimen
should be hardened to prevent indentation and pitting during loading. HOSKINS
and HORINO(1968) found that platens harder than Rockwell C30 were satisfactory,
although some A.S.T.M. requirements for concrete testing stipulate a Rockwell
hardness greater than or equal to C58. Fig.22 illustrates how a high strength
specimen, in this case a glass prism (~ 105 lbf/sq.inch), can penetrate a soft
(Rockwell C18) steel platen.
The flatness and smoothness of the platens should be within 30 micro-
inches, which is easily met by normal grinding tolerances.

Fig.22. Platen penetration by a glass compressiontest specimen.

Spherical seatings should be suiticiently massive to remove any danger of the
bearing surface distorting out of plane during the test, as it might do if the platens
were too thin or the ball was too small (ball diameter much less than specimen
The diameter of steel platens is frequently larger than the specimen dia-
meter, and HOSKINS and HORINO (1968) have found no difference between the
results obtained with steel platens larger than the sample and steel platens of the
same diameter as the sample. However, BIENIAWSKI(1967) found that quartzite
specimens (40,000 lbf/sq.inch compressive) failed by coning when the platens were
larger than the specimen and by axial splitting when the platens were of the same
diameter as the specimen. This effect reflects changes in radial restraint at the
sample ends, and it has already been discussed under the heading "platen matching".

Eng. Geol., 4 (1970) 177-285

It is believed that this design is preferable to the one given in A. to comparable designs shown in A.T. One version of the spherical seat used by the writers is shown in Fig. In Appendix 3 a design for a spherical seat is offered.S. Rigidity of the loading system Ideally. and to the arrangement illustrated by OBERT and DUVALL (1967). the loading platen is then backed off and brought into fresh contact for the test. been added to facilitate set-up in low temperature tests. The spherical bearing is roughly aligned by bringing the upper platen to bear with a few pounds of load.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 247 To assure consistent test conditions from one rock type to another it is advisable to use platens which are of greater diameter than the specimen. In reality.4 (1970) 177-285 .T.M.S. GeoL.M. reaction to the applied load Eng. E9-67. Independent ball seat on a compression specimen.23: a Lucite ring for easy centring of the seat on the sample has Fig. The ball seat is centred on the specimen by a Lucite ring.23. The lower end of the sample is also positioned on the platen by a template. C93-67 and C133-55. the loads and displacements applied to the test specimen should be fully controlled from an external source.

and the specimen is destroyed with explosive swiftness.$ AND M. elastic strain energy stored in the machine is released abruptly and uncontrollably when the test specimen reaches the limit of its resistance. leading to lack of parallelism or axiality of travel in the loading platens. Whether or not the release of energy leads to violent rupture after the maximum stress (compressive strength) point has been reached therefore depends upon the load- Mochine (Perfecfly RIg.248 I. externally controlled displacements on the sample.ld) I Spring stiffness K Specimen [ (Perfectly Rl(lld ) I A ~* . Eng. MELLOR induces forces and displacements in the loading mechanism. with a machine which is insufficiently "stiff". 4 (1970) 177-285 . The loading platens accelerate violently. the rate of energy released from the machine into the specimen is less than that which can be absorbed by the specimen in propagating cracks. the loading machine should be capable of imposing precise. Failure or collapse can therefore proceed only as energy continues to be fed into the testing machine from its driving source. HAWKE. One consequence of this interaction is that. When the stress in a specimen loaded in a "stiff machine" has reached its maximum value and the specimen begins to collapse. Another possible consequence of insufficient stiffness or rigidity in the loading machine is elastic distortion... almost irrespective of how the sample reacts. In order to define the failure characteristics of the rock fully by a "complete stress-strain curve". Displacement Fi8. Geol. Effectof machine stiffnesson uniaxialcompressiontest. so that there is inter- action between specimen and testing machine.24.-xA-- f ~1~F F Force E~ L. Such a device is termed a "stiff testing machine".

(1969). 1 Stiff loading frames are easily acquired. the machine can be considered as equivalent to a spring of stiffness k loaded in series with the specimen.000 ft.24) must be greater than the slope of the negative portion of the curve AF/AL at every point. When the machine and specimen are in equilibrium it is. whereas "stiff" machines exceed 5 • 106 lbf/inch. The stiffness requirements for testing machines intended to give complete stress-strain curves for rocks are stringent. 1968) that for some rocks it is necessary to reverse the direction of displacement in order to maintain stability during progressive collapse. then the slope of the load-displacement characteristic (stiffness) of the machine k (line ab. however. Referring to Fig. If it is assumed that the complete envelope of the load-displacement behaviour of the specimen is as shown in Fig.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 249 deformation characteristic of the testing machine relative to that of the rock in the negative (load decreasing) region.24. and WAWERS~K(1968) used hydraulic jacks. It is reported (WAWERSIK. As the terminal velocity is very fast ( ~ 5. Essentially these all require a stiffening element to be put in parallel with the test specimen. The amount of the negative portion of the stress-strain curve that can be obtained will.24. of course. The practical upper limit at present is around 10. Eng. Within certain limits the stiffness of the testing machine has little effect on the observed stress-strain characteristics of typical rocks for the "positive" portion of the curve. Typical testing machines have stiffness of the order of 0. although with a soft machine a rock having a significantly non-linear stress-strain characteristic will not be subjected to a constant strain rate.. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The implication here is that strain energy must be released from the sample to prevent spontaneous crack propagation./see for Norite) it seems most unlikely that an externally applied load could be removed by backing off the testing machine at a sufficiently high rate to be able to follow the negative portion of the stress-strain curve. COOK and HOJEM (1966). be related to the testing machine stiffness (BIENIAWSKIet al. However. but actuators and load cells are relatively compliant.. A full discussion of the principle of stiff testing machines has been recently given by BIENIAWSKIet al. so that part of the unloading portion of the curve lies beneath the loading portion. and BIENIAWSKIet al. BIENIAWSKI(1967) suggests that once the peak of the stress-strain curve has been reached. possible to unload the specimen on the negative side of the stress-strain curve and get a hysteresis loop. Geol.5 • 106 lbf/inch. There are several techniques for stiffening commercial testing machines. 10 6 lbf/ineh 1. giving double or triple values of stress for certain strains. (1969) used steel bars. In the technique devised by Cook and Hojem. Fig. so that the load is shared between the specimen and the stiffening element. load is transferred from the bars to the test specimen by thermal contraction produced by pumping a cooling fluid through them. the rate of specific deformation is a function of the terminal crack velocity provided that energy can be fed into the specimen during the deformation. 1969).

However. Geol. low enough to make negligible the thermal effects of adiabatic expansion or contraction. HAWKESAND M. 4 (1970) 177-285 . very low loading rates will give the best measure of long-term strength. C170-50 Compressive strength of natural building stone specifies that loading rate shall not exceed 100 lbf/sq. It is not known how these rates. to the stiff testing machine is a constant strain-rate device embodying a feedback speed control to prevent acceleration as the specimen fails. but they will tend to give more conservative structural design figures than faster tests. This statement serves as a reminder that a fast test tends to be adiabatic. with some rocks it may be impractical to arrange a test which is isothermal but yet fast enough to avoid creep. and they are probably more appropriate than higher rates for tests in connection with problems of sustained loading. whereas high loading rates demand an automatic recording system. since the test sample will be too large to dissipate the heat of straining in the permissible duration of the test. For example. Eng. This being so. or accessory.inch-sec. MELLOR A possible alternative.1966).250 I. which may be less than 10 seconds. Time effects and loading rates As was explained in an earlier section. and high enough to make creep negligible". but for modulus determinations it is not so easy to justify low loading rates. No lower limits are given.05 inch/min.. A. or alternatively that the head speed of the testing machine shall be less than or equal to 0. but for a material exhibiting non-linearity in its stress-strain characteristic and tested in a "soft" machine there can be very great differences.T.M. at the point of maximum stress the stress rate will be zero. were arrived at. and to report these rates in conjunction with test results.T. . In A. both the shape of the stress-strain curve and the maximum stress carried by the test specimen may vary considerably with the loading rate and the duration of the test. . So far there has been little interest in applying the stiff machine philosophy to tensile testing. there is clearly a need to establish rational loading rates or strain rates. stress rate and strain rate are equivalent. For a linearly elastic material.M. They are also sufficiently low to permit force-displacement readings to be made from simple dial indicators during the course of a test. but the strain rate will still have some finite value. E111-65 Determination of Young's modulus at room temperature it is stated that speed of testing should be " .S.S. Such devices have been used successfully to obtain complete stress-strain curves for slow tests on concrete and are now being adapted for rock testing. For strength tests. It also suggests a sensible criterion for a test that will be interpreted elastically: creep should be negligible. especially where highly inelastic materials are to be tested. whereas a slow test tends to be isothermal. although there is evidence that a tensile equivalent of the com- plete stress-strain curve exists for concrete (HUGHES and CHAPMAN. which are similar to those used in concrete testing.

4 • D the S. cylindrical samples are easy to prepare by core drilling.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN R O C K MECHANICS 251 Until the question can be explored in more detail and rational guidelines laid down. 4 (1970) 177-285 . the diameter is normally the minimum Eng. R / >2D Fig. (Stress Concentration Factor) = 1. shape and proportions of test specimens Standardization of sample geometry for routine testing is desirable. From considerations of both principle and practicality. or high rates where test data are to be applied to problems of rapid loading. cylindrical specimens are superior to prismatic specimens.F.25).02 (PAULDING.. crushing. blasting. Experimental studies on the influence of the shape of concrete specimens on strength (HANSEN et al. The simplest type of axially symmetric specimen is the right circular cylinder. The design of this type of spe- cimen has been discussed earlier (Fig.0" D the S. In rock testing. To facilitate comparison of data. Geol.1966).C. 1962) have shown the superiority of cylin- drical specimens. Size. The sharp corners of prismatic samples complicate the distribution of strain.F. = 1. drilling. For radius R = 1. it is clearly necessary to explore the effects of loading rate.. it is most important that any standards adopted should be rational ones based on theoretical and experimental findings. In engineering tests this may lead to choice of very low rates where test data are to be applied to structural problems.g. In a uniaxial test. whereas prisms must be formed by precise sawing and grinding. Specimen diameter. For radius R = 8. At the research level. However. e.. in which the centre section is of reduced diameter. and "time-to-failure" if the mechanical properties of a rock are to be defined thoroughly. as it facilitates comparison of data. An alternative is the "dumbbell" specimen.1963). strain rate. Proportions of a dumbbell test specimen after BRACE(1964) with stress concentra- tion factors for two fillet radii. and geometric considerations suggest that a prismatic shape will influence the final mode of failure (orientation of the shear planes). Specimen shape.05 (CnAKRAVARrV.25. it is suggested that loading rates should be selected on the basis of a logical consideration of the test material and the application intended. which is loaded across the end surfaces. it might be desirable to choose a loading rate at either the top or bottom of the available range.C.

2 I t I A' 0. and hence the smallest permissible diameter for a particular reek type sets the lower limit of absolute size for the sample. in fact. it does suggest that it may be desirable to have Did > 20.0 "K 0. Eng. While the graph gives no direct indica- tion of how Did affects the stress field. Looking at the question more analytically. which suggests a lower limit of Did approximately equal to 10 where D and d are sample diameter and maximum grain diameter respectively. the area of influence of an individual grain extends outwards to a radius of approximately two grain diameters (Low. MELLOR linear dimension of the sample. is: AA . HAWKE~AND M. to the total cross-sectional area. 1953) from which it might be argued that the stress field inside the test specimen is unaffected by the free surface to within two grain diameters of that surface. Since the test is usually intended to measure bulk properties of the rock.252 I. and others) to be approximately equal to the grain size in intact rock. It then follows that the ratio of the area unaffected by proximity to the surface. Area is normalized with respect to total cross-section area. the sample must obviously be big enough to be representative of the bulk material. 1961. Specimen diameter is normalized with respect to specimen grain diameter. A.4 i )]2 (49) 1. In a material made up of randomly oriented grains. A'.. there is some similarity between the unbounded conditions of surface grains in a test sample and surface molecules in a liquid or solid. Geol. This also means that the diameter will be an order of magnitude larger than the size of the controlling defect structure. which is assumed (BRACE.26. Area of specimen cross section which is free from surface effects. it is seen that the proportion of the sample's cross-sectional area made up of surface grains becomes smaller as Did increases.4 20 40 60 80 % Fig. The consideration is akin to a specific surface consideration and. This relation is shown graphically in Fig.[ 1. as a function of specimen diameter.4 (1970) 177-285 .26.

Results from tests in which L/D > 1. THAULOW. GREEN and PERmNS. 1964. 1963. 1946. Practical experience seems to show that values up to L/D = 4 are usually safe.S. usually determine the upper limit of size for test samples. GROSVENOR. MOGI. but it should probably be taken at the point where the (negative) slope of the strength versus L/D curve (Fig.1963. The problem. A safe upper limit of L/D for safety against buckling does not seem to have been established. over-lubricated) platens. square prisms.1969) show this abrupt increase taking place at LID ~ l. but which is too small for buckling or misalignment considerations to be serious. Specimen length. since the entire sample is influenced by end effects. There is also evidence that with lubricated (or.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCKMECHANICS 253 Practical considerations. standard for uniaxial compressive tests on natural building stone (C170-50) specifies that the samples.0 was also suggested by HARDY(1959a). There is ample evidence that. Eng. even with imperfect loading systems. most investigators in rock mechanics would agree that a height to width ratio of unity is too small.0 respec- tively.1963. the length of the specimen can be expressed as a multiple of the diameter: (1) Compression. Geol. which may be cubes. apparent uniaxial compressive strength decreases as LID increases.T. 1966. is to choose some optimum value of L/D at which apparent strength is close to the asymptotic value for large values of L/D. 1925. 1968). The A. more likely. HOSSS. A value of L/D = 1. should be at least 2 inches high with a height to width ratio L/D 1> 1. 1943. HOaBS.4 (1970) 177-285 .. 1964. 1962. on the basis of both theoretical studies and experimental findings. An acceptable lower limit for L/D is debatable. for rough and rigid platens.M. so that this consideration calls for L/D to be minimized. However. GROSVENOR. again tending to an asymptotic value for large values of L/D (at least for coarse-grained materials). apparent uniaxial compressive strength increases as L/D increases. Once the diameter of a specimen has been chosen and found adequate in terms of grain size. conventional strut buckling analyses suggest values which are far too high for practical use. or cylinders.778 + __0"222 (50) ~.0. The load misalignment errors which arise from non- square sample ends are directly proportional to L/D. following some form of hyper- bolic or exponential relation (GONNERMAN. for most rocks. OBERTet al. MELLORand HAWKES. 1925. (L/D) where ~ and at1 are measured strengths at a certain LID and LID = 1. CHAKRAVARTY.27) increases most abruptly. therefore. such as testing machine capacity and expense of sample preparation...125 inches (NX core size).0 are adjusted by means of the formula: ~c _ 0. 1946. Some data for sedimentary rocks and concrete (GoI. JOHNSON. sample diameter rarely exceeds 2. OaERT et al.m-ERMAN.

1966.5 (MoGI. 5. HAWKESAND M.0--2.20) indicate that rough and rigid platens cause significant perturbation o f the stress field to a distance o f D/2 f r o m each end. GREEN and PERI~INS. 6 = Ormond¢ Sandstone and Siltstone. 7. 6: Hones (1964).254 I. A n o t h e r noticeable consequence o f varying specimen length is an apparent dependence o f "fracture angle" on LID for very short samples. 3: MoGI (1966). With rough platens. whereas other data for various rocks. 1 = Westerly Granite. Geol. 1969). 3 = Muzo Trachyte. show it occurring at LID '~ 2. 0. 8 = Berea Sandstone. Theoretical studies (see Fig.. References. 2 = Dunham Dolomite. 9: MELLOn(unpublished). 9 = Saturated Granite. MELLOR and HAWKES. 1. is a function of LID. 8. including hard rocks. 2. Mogi f o u n d Eng. 5 = Kirkby Siltstone. unpublished observations on sandstone by the writers confirm this relation. which can be expressed more simply by saying that the height o f the cone or wedge is half the height o f the test specimen. 4. MOGI (1966) shows that 0 ~ cot -1 (L/D). Influence of length/diameter ratio (L/D) on uniaxial compressive strength. 1968. 7 = Darley Dale Sandstone. 4 = Pennant Sandstone. In short specimens (L/D < 1) the half-angle of the cone or wedge. MELLOR 5 x 104 _= C -3 0 2 ! I I I I I 0 I 2 3 4 % Fig. CnAKRAVARTY(1963).27. most rocks which are not glassy or very fine-grained collapse in uniaxial compression to leave conical or wedge-shaped end fragments. 4 (1970) 177-285 .

while a 4. COATES and GYENGE (1966) recommend L/D = for current testing work.M.5 and 3.0.S. and an absolute lower limit of L/D = 1 is indicated.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCKMECHANICS 255 that the dependence of 0 on L/D ceases for LID > 2. with only a change of sign.50 implies approximate constancy of strength for L/D > 2. i. Since the tensile test is inherently stable.e.0 to be the minimum acceptable ratio. but consider 1. A butt-jointed tensile specimen is essentially similar to a compres- sion sample loaded by "rough" platens. (2) Tension. strength decreases Eng. and this finding is confirmed by the present writers for sandstone.5 for both compressive and tensile tests so as to maintain geometric similarity between the two tests. discussed in another section of this paper.5 inch diameter sample has almost 100 times the volume of a 1 inch diameter sample. Theoretical studies by Balla. If the butt-jointing method is used.T. and absolute volume may vary considerably. Specimens for tensile tests should also be long enough to provide a significant volume of material free from "end effect" perturbations of the stress field. The preceding considerations set certain limits. It is recommended that the test specimen. Mogi also suggests. for most solid materials. have adopted a standard of L/D = 2. Thus "end effects" are likely to perturb the stress field significantly to a distance of D/2 from each end. Specimen volume and size effects. pointing out that a fracture inclined 30 ° to the major principal direction requires that LID = 2.5. FAIRHURST (1961) notes that eq. For example. Fracture angle in this granite becomes independent of L/D for LID > 1. publication NEWMANand LACHANCE (1964) reached the firm conclusion that L/D should be I> 2.5. 4 (1970) 177-285 . give ample grounds for rejecting L/D = 1. on the basis of limited experimental evidence. and rationalises the observation on the basis of Griffith theory. the writers have found that very short granite samples tend to break leaving only one cone.5 in order to traverse the length of sample which is free from end restraint (assumed to be 1/6 of the sample length at each end). and the stress field should be the same for both cases. but do not standardize specimen size. on the limiting fracture angle for LID > 2. or the neck of a dumbbell specimen. that the critical lower limit for LID depends on the intrinsic fracture angle of the rock. but in practice samples which are very long and slender are too fragile for handling and machining. Theoretically the rock property which influences stress distribution in the vicinity of restraining platens is Poisson's ratio. However.0 acceptable. It is an experimental fact that. should have LID between 2. taking into account all the information available to them. there is no upper limit for LID comparable to the buckling limit in the compressive test. The present writers.0 < LID < 2. However. GeoL. and they consider L/D = 2. in another A. the volume of a 2.125 inch diameter sample is about ten times as great as the volume of a geometrically similar sample of 1 inch diameter.5. which is approximately the height of the specimen. it might be desirable to adopt LID = 2.

there is a difference in mean strength between geometrically similar groups of specimens when the size changes. 2 or 3. 1952)..g. The "weakest link" theory of strength can be adapted to give relationships between strength and volume. GeoL. The defects vary in size and orientation. EVANSand POMEROY(1958) found ~t ~ 1. The "weakest link" approach was originated by PEIRCE(1926). which gives the probability of strength lying between given limits. or side length of cube) and 0t is a constant with the value 1. Eng. there is the intrinsic variability of strength in apparently identical specimens of the same size. This line of reasoning was developed more generally by WEmULL (1939. as discussed earlier. and its shape may alter. Secondly.256 I. Two kinds of statistical strength variation might be distinguished.. HAWKESAND M. and if there is no interaction. area or volume respectively. so that for different elements there are different values of the overall stress X at which cracking will occur. A rock specimen can be envisaged as an assemblage of volume elements. the element containing the largest flaw of critical orientation. If P is the probability of failure at stress x for a single element ("link") selected at random. dia- meter. More generally. is pn.. This consideration is based on an applica- tion of the statistical theory of failure which was outlined earlier. the relative probabilities of failure for two geometrically similar specimens at the same stress x can be expressed as: Pb = p(b/a)~ (51) where a and b are characteristic linear dimensions of the two samples (e. First. If the defects are randomly distributed with a given density. depending on whether the strength-controlling factor is distributed with length. each of which contains a defect. and it was applied to strength studies of coal by EVANS and POr~ROV (1958) and to strength studies of anhydrite by S~:I~ER (1959). as specimen size varies. i. strength measurements of a large number of specimens will show a certain characteristic distribution.e. the stress for onset of cracking in the specimen will be determined by the strength of its weakest element. 1951. and therefore it is necessary to consider Size effects in order to compare tests on samples of different size and to apply results to larger masses of material. MELLOR as specimen size or stressed volume increases. the strength distribution curve shifts systematically. Initially it may be assumed that the form of the strength distribution curve will not change with the sample size. and the constants of these relationships may then be determined experimentally for specific rock types. who adopted a model of a chain whose strength is determined by the weakest link for a statistical consideration of strength variations in textile fibres. the probability of failure at stress x for an assemblage of n elements (a chain of n links) P. 4 (1970) 177-285 . From cube crushing tests on coal.

r e -~x dx = 1 . he deduced that modal strength (most probable value of strength) S v for a specimen would be related to its volume V by: k Sv . the probability of finding an element weaker than any of those found in small samples increases. which gives the probability P that an individual chosen at random from a parent population will have a value X . ( x ) (54) so that: P~ = 1 . and ob- serving that the distribution of crystal size in his anhydrite was of Laplacian form.p)n = e . Drawing attention to the connection between flaw size and crystal size. At this stage it becomes necessary to consider the form of the strength distribution curve.53: (1 . and ]~ is a constant.e -~(x) (53) The probability of survival at stress x for the assemblage of n elements (chain of n links) is (1 . a single element which will fail at a stress X which is less than or equal to a stipulated value x.Pn).. which had values of approximately 3 and 6 for the two coal types tested. e -~*(x) (55) Some information on the form of the distribution functions F(x) and ~b(x) has been obtained experimentally. SrdNr~ER (1959) obtained similar distributions for tests on anhydrite.. The statistical problem is concerned with the probability of finding. (57) Eng. From eq. GeoL.ll). 4 (1970) 177-285 . Evans and Pomeroy found that their strength results for coal followed approximately a normal (Gaussian) distribution. he proposed a Laplacian distribution for flaws: F(x) = ( . This involves a distribution function F(x). in a sample of given size chosen at random from a mass containing a population of elements. A basic argument of the weakest link theory is that.P)'.e -ax (56) o Taking this as the distribution for critically oriented flaws. and assuming that these flaws control strength according to the Griffith theory (eq.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 257 They also found experimentally that the mean compressive strength was inversely proportional to a power of the specimen size: cr~ oc a-1/p (52) where a = side length of cube specimen.N< x. The cumulative distribution function F(x) can be written in the form: P = F(x) = 1 . . as sample size increases. but suggested that the probability of occurrence of a flaw was likely to decrease with increase of flaw size. which equals (1 ..

Results of cube compression tests of coal by EVANS and POMEROV(1958) imply values of m of 9 and 18 for two types of coal. As was pointed out in an earlier section.. HAWKES AND M. giving: X -. The writers find values of rn ~ 10 for Brazil tests on three rock types.. MELLOR where k is a constant and p is the flaw density (number of flaws per unit volume). LUNDBORG (1967) found values of m = 12 in compression and m = 6 in tension (Brazil test). For direct tensile tests on concrete. log V (59) m or. Other tests on coal by BIE~AWSKI (1968) failed to yield a simple power relation between strength and volume for a very wide range of size. like Griffith theory.g. denoted by subscripts 1 and 2: so2 .0. which perhaps explains why some investigators (e. Results by DURELLI and PARKS (1967) for tensile tests on Columbia resin indicate a value of m approximately equal to 10. In tests on granite. and not necessarily the structural failure of a test specimen. OBERT et al. If it is assumed that x u --. the size effect is small over the usual range of specimen sizes. SPEXLAand KADLECEK (1967) found values of m ranging from 24 to 48. With m ~ 10. GeoL. exp (58) where Xo and m are constants (expressing flaw characteristics in a strength con- sideration) and Xu is a limiting value at which ~b(x) = 0 (the stress below which probability of failure is zero).m Svl \-~2/ (60) A number of investigators have obtained approximately linear relationships between logarithm of strength and logarithm of volume for both tensile and compressive tests.258 I. the Weibull distribution leads to a relation between the most probable strength S o for a sample of volume V of the form: 1 log Sv = K . WEmULL (1951) reasoned that ~(x) for a wide range of phenomena could be represented by a power function. 1946) have failed to find a significant size effect. Thus.. It might also be noted that a power law exponent as high as 10 automatically casts suspicion on the form of the relationship.Xulm F(x) = 1 . the weakest link theory. thus obtaining values of rn. treats the formation of the first crack. While these results vary quite widely they suffice to indicate the magnitude of the size effect. while the expressions given above may provide an indication of volume effects for direct tensile tests and for compression tests Eng. 4 (1970) 177-285 . comparing strengths for two geometrically similar samples of different volume.

or collapse. if there is a reasonably constant ratio of stress for onset of cracking to stress for specimen collapse. Complete radial restraint at the specimen ends. in which multiple internal cracking precedes collapse. Under the ideal displacement boundary con- ditions axial.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 259 on fine-grained and glassy materials. it tends to take on a barrel shape under load. A. Ex- trusion of an interracial material at the platen/rock contact. with a continuous smooth increase of deformation from the ends to the mid-section. Schematic profiles of lateral deformation in uniaxial compression test. In particular.5) the profile o f lateral deformation is more likely to show approximately uniform deformation along the mid-portion of the specimen (Fig. the original cylindrical shape of the specimen tends to become distorted as a result of end constraints on the specimen. With a short specimen (LID = 1) the profile of lateral deformation may show a true barrel shape. Perfect radial freedom at the specimen ends. Stress-strain measurements It is desirable to have accurate stress-strain records as a routine output from uniaxial tensile and compressive tests. uniformity of lateral strain would permit the specimen to retain its cylindrical shape during loading. B.28.. In reality. most modern testing machines have adequate provision for load recording built in. C. so that its ends are completely restrained radially. With a longer specimen (LID = 2. and when necessary it is easy to add an external load cell and record its output on a potentio- metric device or an oscilloscope. strength will be of the same form. However.28). /1///////////////// (//////////////A NIIIII/ II// / /// II I v Jl J II ~1 I i I I I 1 I I I I I ! I I j ~1 I I '1 Ii I I I I I A I ! ¢ / \ "//Z "//////////7 V//////////7/~ /////////////////// Fig. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Strain distribution in test specimens. then the volume effect on "ultimate". radial and circumferential strains would each be uniform throughout the specimen. Recording load is no problem. Recording strain or displacement in the test section of the specimen is more difficult. When a specimen is pressed between a pair of rough and rigid platens. Geol. Eng. they apply only indirectly to final collapse of most compression specimens.

Provisions are made in many testing machines for recording crosshead displacement as a function of load. from which two diametrically opposite steel points are Eng. which incorporate electrical resistance strain gages. Also.260 I. The gage has a strain resolution better than 10-s and appears to have several advantages over the electrical resistance strain gage. with strain resolution better than 5 • 10-6 when they are installed properly. or light beams. It is also found that strain hysteresis may cause the shape of the specimen to vary from loading cycle to unloading cycle. Strain measurement. if ever. Diametral strain is measured by a third hinged yoke. and thus the device is unsuitable for tests on small rock samples. the gage length would have to be . frictional forces at the interface may play a part. however. Axial strain is obtained by measuring the convergence of two yokes clamped to the sample on a dial micrometer. In general. with one or two circumferential gages.28). Bonded strain gages are not very suitable for tests on saturated or frozen rocks.200). standard C469-65. Geol. due mainly to the bedding-in deformation as asperities on the end planes of the specimens are crushed. 4 (1970) 177-285 .'s). in which the strain readout is in terms of photoelastic interference fringes for strain measurements on rock cores. in which the readout is by dial gages. but for higher rates of loading a potentiometric recorder is needed. These give excellent results.T.S. To obtain the specified sen- sitivity of 5 • 1 0 .D. giving voltage readout. and electrical. and can be attributed to reversal of crack friction (see p. including savings in time and expense. or capacitance gages. In the past. crosshead displacement tends to exceed sample deformation. scale pointers. HAWKES (1966) has described a very simple photoelastic strain gage. For precise work it is common to have three axial strain gages spaced 120 ° apart in the middle third of the sample. as the ends of the specimen tend to flare out (Fig.6 inch per inch of gage length. sometimes to a considerable degree. A simple direct-reading mechanical extensometer is described in A.-~ 10 inches. linear variable differential transformer transducers (L. but when metallic interfacial material is used. For slow loading tests a simple bridge readout can be used. H A W K E S A N D M.M.. most strain records have been obtained from electrical resistance strain gages bonded onto the sample in the axial and circumferential directions. used for precise strain measurement. This effect is pro- bably similar to the hysteresis in axial strain. the lateral deformation profiles are different. as the displacement recording equipment on the machine is relatively insensitive to the small displacements associated with the deformation of rock samples it is rarely. 1958).T.V. The more obvious alternatives to bonded strain gages are demountable extensometers. There are two main classes of these: mechanical. since the best dial gages are graduated down to 10-4 inch. and from one cycle to another during repetitive loading (SELDENgATri and GgAMBEgG. M E L L O R When a specimen is pressed with layers of extrudable interfacial material between platen and specimen.

20.4 (1970) 177-285 . In this case. which are able to trace input voltage changes down to approximately 10/tV. compact and easy to handle. 1966). referring to Fig. A special problem is the clamping of the extensometers at the measuring points. The sensitivity of demountable electrical extensometers can exceed 10-7 inch resolution with a sensitive (1/~V) readout.10 -5 to 2. with maximum chart pen sensitivities in the range 1. 1965). LEBOW. it should be as long as possible. it is suggested that the measuring points should not be closer to the platens or end connections than D/2. 1957). When making measurements of the negative portion of the complete stress-strain characteristic it is not usually practical to mount strain gages or extensometers on the test specimens due to the general breakup of the specimen. Fig. The total strains to be measured will depend upon the nature of the test and the type of rock. Improved sensitivity can be obtained with mechanical or optical magnification. Relative movement of the measuring points is indicated by a dial micrometer at the free end of the yoke. but not less than 5 times the maximum grain diameter of the rock (ROCHA. (3) It is important that the strain measuring system be sensitive. there may be no practical alternative to mounting gages between the loading platens. GeoL. and will vary from 20 to 20. robust and stable.UNIAXlAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 261 screwed into the face of the sample. Almost without exception. (2) The system of support and attachment for extensometers should be light. this shortcoming occurs in other similar gages described in the literature. It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss the many different types of extensometers available (see. The maximum gage length is set by the necessity of keeping clear of the anomalous end zones of the specimen. This middle yoke is supported on the lower yoke. Axial deformation is Eng. but from the experience of the writers it seems that the following factors should be borne in mind when designing extensometers or bonded strain gage systems for strain measurements on rock test specimens: (1) The axial gage length should be symmetrical about the mid-section of the specimen. particularly when testing in compression in non-stiff machines (L~EMAN and GROBBLAAR. but it is difficult to arrange for the automatic recording which is needed in rapid tests. When testing to failure it is also essential that the extensometer be capable of withstanding explosive disintegration of the test specimen.29 illustrates a system which attempts to embody the latest techniques for continuous strain recording on rock test specimens.000 microstrains (2. extensometers designed for Poisson's ratio measurements are mounted across a diameter of the test specimen.0 to 0.10-3). for example. Set screws sometimes used for this purpose have a tendency to bite into the rock surface and create stress raisers which can cause premature failure in tensile specimens. and it is a simple matter to record their outputs automatically on X-Y plotters or potentiometric strip-chart recorders.1 mV/inch. where D is the specimen diameter. which means that it is forced to rotate slightly as the sample strains axially.

so that Eng. The yoke is supported solely by its measuring screws. but is prevented from rocking by lightly strained rubber bands attached to the upper clamping frame.V.T. while the transformer core rods are held by another clamp near the other end of the sample.V. Arrangement of L.D. which is clamped to the mid-section of the sample by two diametrically opposed set screws. HAWKES AND M. The transformer elements are supported in a frame which is clamped near one end of the sample by three set Fig. Elastic bands are also used to couple the upper and lower clamps. The potential resolution approaches 10-7 inch. (The heavy cable to the radial gage was later replaced by a lightweight construction.262 I. Diametral deformation is sensed by a third L. but attainable working sensitivity depends to some extent on the electronic noise in the circuitry.T.T. mounted at the open end of a prestrained U-yoke. MELLOR sensed by a pair of L. 4 (1970) 177-285 . gages for measurement of axial and radial deformation in uniaxial tension.29. A simple split annular spacer is used to mount the clamps symmetrically and parallel to each other on the test piece.V. Geol.D.'s which have a deformation sensitivity better than 10-6 inch when used with a voltage recorder sensitive to 10-s V.) screws..D.

and a full quantitative description of the specimen and its condition. while output from the diametral gage is fed into the second recorder with the output from the axial gages to give a continuous plot of lateral deformation against axial deformation. GeoL. The second requirement is for condensation and presentation of the results in conformance with accepted statistical and graphical conventions.UNIAXIALTESTINGIN ROCKMECHANICS 263 in tensile tests to failure the specimen is held together. When empirical relationships are obtained by graphical linearization of data.. e. a statistical test for significance should be applied before any conclusions are drawn. Calibration of the complete system is carried out on a cylinder of aluminum. recommend at least ten repetitions for any given sample size and rock type to get a representative result) it is usual to give the arithmetic mean of each group of identical tests.T. However. In condensing the results of multiple tests or replications (OBERT et al.. These values range from 3. clear and accessible permanent record of all test data. reducing and reporting data are inadequate. When apparent change of one variable with respect to another is small. The percentage standard deviation of test results provides an index of re- producibility.V. Signals from the L. as they are very robust and there is no mechanical connection between the transformer and probe elements.'s are fed into two X-Y recorders: output from the axial gages is recorded against the load cell output to give a continuous load-axial deformation curve. HOSKINSand HORINO(1968) give results for tests on very carefully prepared compression specimens with standard deviations from Eng.V. for which Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio are known.. and indirectly an index of quality for the test.5~o to 10~o for various rocks. OBERT and DUVALL (1967) give values of standard deviation which they consider to be near the attainable minimum for uniaxial compression tests.g. for the distributions of actual test results tend to be skewed. In graphical presentations the convention of plotting the dependent variable as ordinate and the independent variable as abscissa should be followed. transducers are particularly suitable for tests to failure.e. this helps to avoid confusion when lines or curves are fitted to the data by regression analyses. L. the values of the dependent variable and its derivatives for extreme values of the independent variable. Test results The effort expended on precise testing may be largely wasted if the standards of recording.D. for some purposes it may be useful to give the mode (most probable value) as well as the mean.T. 4 (1970) 177-285 .D. 1946. including details of the equipment and technique. the implications of the resulting relationships should be checked for physical plausibility by examining the boundary conditions. log-log or log-linear plots. i. The first requirement is for a complete. The usual measure of variability for a group of tests is the standard deviation or the variance. but as a general rule the extreme values of a group should also be given.

0. Specimen preparation.195). to less than 5 %. but in the meantime there are a number of points relating to existing techniques which can be settled un- equivocally.06 ° or 0. (see p. HAWKES AND M.0001-0. Eng. When the same testing procedure was used on specimens whose ends were in the condition left by the saw.001 D.5% to 27?/0. where D is specimen diameter.4 (1970) 177-285 . DEKLOTZ(1967) quotes values of coefficient of variance for concrete testing.252). SUMMARY AND PRACTICAL PROCEDURES Compression testing techniques From the foregoing discussion. Samples should be cut and prepared using clean methods (see p. However. ranging from 7. Assuming that uniaxial compressive tests are made in the conventional manner using typical existing equipment.230).180 and 184) and quantitative measure- ments of index properties (see p.001 inch over the length of the sample. and square to within 0. it is suggested that the following con- siderations and procedures should form a basis for sound practice. and the diameter of the specimens should not vary by more than + 0. The ratio of length to diameter should be not less than 2. which is classified as "poor". whether the full conditions are to be imposed up to the point of final collapse. it is necessary to decide whether the test should attempt to satisfy the stress boundary conditions or the displacement boundary conditions and. and preferably 2. depending on the strength and modulus of the rock and the specimen diameter (see p. if displacement boundary conditions are chosen.001 rad. He suggests that in rock testing a coefficient of variance of around 3% should be possible. Dimensions and tolerances should be checked with a eomparator (see p. Specimen ends should be flat to within 0. the standard deviations went up.5 (see p.231). detailed study of the uniaxial compressive test does show that certain arbitrary decisions must be made if standardized testing is to be established.. 184) should match the precision of the mechanical tests.264 I. MELLOR 2. Specimen diameter should be not less than ten times the maximum grain size of the rock. and preferably more than twenty times the grain size (see p. They should be parallel to each other within 0. much of which refers to the compressive test rather than the tensile test.0005 inches. classified as "probably attainable only in well controlled laboratory tests".4% to 3. Generators of the cylindrical surface should be straight to within 0. They range from more than 20 %. Geol. certain firm conclusions concerning test techniques can be drawn. For example. These are questions which ought to be decided by major standardization bodies.254).001 inch.0?/0 for various rocks. The composition and condition of the best specimen should be fully described (see sections beginning on pp. 190).

It is recommended that the platen-specimen contact provide complete radial restraint (see p. Loading rate. It should be lightly lubricated with mineral oil so that it locks after the deadweight of the crosshead has been picked up.243). with surfaces gound fiat within 30 microinches (see p. and they should bear directly onto the sample and not onto the platens. taking into account the rheological properties of the rock under test (see pp. Free play. The gage length for axial strain measurements should be as long as possible.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 265 Platen-specimen contact. either directly or by means of stiffening blocks (p.250). Lateral stiffness should be sufficient to prevent relative lateral displacement of the platens from exceeding about 0. The chosen rate should be maintained constant throughout the test. Eng. Unless the integral spherical seating conforms with the conditions outlined in the section on platens and spherical seatings and Appendix 3. Geol.2% of the distance between the machine columns (see p. No lubricants or inter- facial layers of material should be used. 4 (1970) 177-285 . and maximum head speed should be greater than one inch/min. or backlash. The capacity of the testing machine should be sufficient to assure reasonable longitudinal stiffness (preferably > 106 lbf/inch) for the size of sample tested.005 inch thick (see p. Radial or circumferential strain should be measured in the mid-section of the sample.247). 197. Testing machine. A spherical seat designed in accordance with the section on platens and spherical seatings (p. it should be removed and replaced with a rigid platen and an independent spherical seat of approved design. should be selected to suit the particular purpose of the test (see p.232).239). It should not encroach within D/2 of the specimen ends. where D is diameter. hardness greater than Rockwell C30. and not less than five times the maximum grain diameter of the rock..001 inch (see p. All gages should be placed symmetrically with respect to the mid- point. with the possible exception of a layer of smooth paper less than 0. so that independent load cells and electrical strain gages are likely to be required. not closer than D/2 to the ends. 200).259). Stress-strain measurements (see p. The specimen should be accurately centered with respect to the platens. For all but the slowest or the simplest kinds of tests. Both specimen and spherical seat should be accurately centered with respect to the loading machine.240).245). or strain rate.245) and Appendix 3 should be placed on the upper end of the specimen. The testing machine should provide adequate control of head speed or loading rate over a wide range (2-3 orders of magnitude or more). Loading rate. automatic recording of load and displacement is desirable. Spherical seats. in the cross- head should be less than 0. Platen diameter should be appreciably ( > 25%) greater than the specimen diameter and the platens should be of steel.

which exhibit appreciable ductility in quasi-static tests at temperatures at and above normal ambient. (4) There are often steep stress gradients in the failure zone. MELLOR The required gage sensitivity is of the order of 5 • 10-6 inch or better. but they must be protected against explosive disintegration of the specimen. and by small errors in alignment and application of load. In principle. These difficulties have led many experimenters and most testing laboratories to avoid direct tensile tests on rock. Standard deviation. (3) The percentage volume of the total specimen which is subjected to the peak tensile stresses is often very small. GeoL. accepted statistical and graphical conventions should be followed.S. Indirect tensile tests have an important place in rock testing.263). Attachment of specimens to the pulling system. Indirect tensile tests suffer from four major disadvantages which limit their use for other than comparative purposes: (1) It is usually necessary to compute the peak stresses that are assumed to cause failure from linear elastic theory. which ought to be of the order of 5 ~ for good tests. Tensile testing techniques In practice. Thus the results of a direct tensile test can easily be influenced by small irregularities in sample geometry.266 I.4 (1970) 177-285 . for example. and is unaffected by the values of the other two principal stresses. the condition to be met for a successful direct tensile test is straightforward: a representative specimen should be subjected to a uniaxial stress which is uniform throughout the test volume. with equal moduli for tension and compression. Demountable electrical gages with remote automatic readout are desirable. no stress concentrations arising from geometrical irregularities of the sample and. ideally. Results should be reported in full. no end restraints perturbing the stress field. the direct tensile test for brittle materials is hard to perform to acceptable standards of accuracy. (2) It is usually necessary to assume that failure is determined by the greatest principal tensile stress. should be given. and in many cases is only of the order of the specimen grain or flaw size.S. This implies that there must be no bending or torsional stresses. most rocks are incapable of yielding plastically so as to relieve stress concentrations arising from imperfections of test technique. Unlike metals. When they are condensed for summary presentation. PROTODYAKONOV (1962). Test results (see p. reported that uniaxial tensile tests were "rarely conducted" in the U. HAWKESAND M. A number of methods have been Eng. but their interpretation must be in terms of the uniaxial value obtained by direct tests.R.

It is. however. GROSVENOR(1961) reports that clamped specimens often broke at the grips. The straightforward solution to the problem is to grip the cylindrical end of the rock specimen mechanically in some form of clamp. As an alter- native to grinding a rock cylinder into a dumbbell shape. and judge it to be satisfactory for some purposes. epoxy adhesives. The writers have used a more refined method for attaching metal collars. A tendency towards twisting in the pulling cables or chains. cemented in place. (1946) inserted rock cores into metal collars or cups. the squared ends of rock cylinders can be butted directly against the end faces of connector plugs. with varying degrees of success. GeoL. the roller axes of upper and lower chains are set mutually per- pendicular to give full flexural freedom. it seems advisable to pull rock specimens through additional flexible connectors such as cables or chains. quite unsatisfactory for simple right cylinders. When the tensile test is performed by the butt- jointing method. most testing machines have universal joint couplings provided for tensile testing. it may be possible to cast a simple right cylinder of rock into shaped end plugs of another material which has elastic properties comparable to those of the rock. as the stresses induced by clamping influence the failure. Thus. With a suitably designed grip this method may be acceptable for holding dumbbell samples. (2) Cementing the specimen into a metal collar. collet or chuck. 4 (1970) 177-285 . The resulting dumbbell could be gripped mechanically. stone plaster. They concluded that the method was unsatisfactory for general use. For very strong rocks it may be difficult to develop sufficient bond strength. Roller drive chains have been used as an alter- native to cables. Modern high-strength adhesives permit high tensile stresses to be transmitted across a plane cemented joint. sulphur. (1) Gripping the specimen mechanically. provided that accurate centring can be assured. (4) Casting the specimen into plugs of some other material. The method is described later in this section. A simple but unsuccessful application of this method is described by GROSVENOR(1961). the end conditions become similar to those prevailing in the conventional uniaxial compressive test with complete end restraint. and filled the annular space between core and collar with an adhesive compound. To avoid bending stresses caused by misalignment of crosshead connections. The mechanism used for pulling the test specimen must be such that it cannot introduce any significant bending or torsional stresses into the sample. which introduces torque into the specimen. but they stretch (allowing strain rate to vary when machine speed is constant) and they have a tendency to twist (minimized in non-twist cable). can be avoided to Eng. and pulled. OBERTet al. (3) Cementing the specimen to a metal cap by direct butt-jointing. Stranded steel cables provide excellent flexibility over a short length. Possible substances include sand/cement grout. While these are desirable. Pulling systems. and casting resins. The method is described in detail later.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 267 used for attaching the sample to the pulling device.

This kind of arrangement has been described by FAIRHURST (1961) and GROSVENOR (1961) for rocks. A cylindrical sample (1 inch diameter x 2 inch long) with its ends lapped flat and square is cemented to cylindrical steel end caps of the same diameter. This method is quite satisfactory for tests on many rocks.125 inch diameter) screwed into the end caps. as it may affect the proper- ties of the test specimen. The specimen is pulled by stranded steel cables (0. one of the cables attaches to the loading device through a thrust bearing to eliminate torque from cable twisting. High temperature curing is inadvisable. which appears to obviate the need for platen rotation. Eng. Their opposite ends are drilled and tapped in the exact centre to permit attachment of pulling cables. with only a change in the sign of the major principal stress.31A) indicate that there are no serious stress concentrations near the end planes. For ideal consistency the uniaxial tensile test ought to be identical in form to the uniaxial compressive test. Thus the current compromise is a method in which the specimen is butt-jointed to platens which are free to rotate 1. However. The end caps are grooved on the face which contacts the rock to retain epoxy adhesive and improve the bond. The stress field probably corresponds closely to the stress field developed in the typical compressive test with rough and rigid platens. but in practice it is very difficult to assure complete absence of bending stresses unless the platens are free to rotate. 4 (1970) 177-285 . MELLOR some extent by using ball and socket joints.30 illustrates the set-up. The actual connection between the pulling system and the rock sample must assure coincidence of the line of action of the applied force and the axis of the test specimen. a bond has to be developed between the platen and the specimen. bonded collars 1 HUGHESand CHAPMAN(1965) used a serf-alignment ball race.001 inch (see section beginning on p. The required bond can be formed with modern adhesives. For specimens of typical size the acceptable tolerance for eccentricity is approximately 0. The rock cylinder and the end caps are assembled and cemented in a special jig designed to align them accurately. and observations on photoelastic models (Fig.245). The following notes summarize Fairhurst's version of the method. To obtain an adequate bond for tensile tests on high strength rock it is usually necessary to resort to the use of collars. The butt-jointing method. but a thrust bearing in the system is probably better (air bearings are sometimes used when testing metals). and so modified techniques have to be used for high strength rocks. GeoL. and end conditions corresponding to those of the compression test have to be imposed. To achieve this. For tests on high strength rocks.268 I. HAWKES AND M. Fig. the bonds developed by cold-setting epoxies tend to be inadequate. and by HUGHES and CHAPMAN (1965) for concrete. The collar method.

Note the stress concen- tration in collar mounted specimen. Geol. and by: B. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Eng. Numbers give isochromatic fringe orders.) Fig. Butt jointed specimen. Butt-joint method for uniaxial tensile tests. (After FAmHtngST. Photoclastic study of stresses generated by: A.. Collar mounted specimen.31.30. 1961.crew nnector End Cop Ill or Aluminum) Epoxy Joint Rock Specimen bds Fiat and Square) Fig.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 269 I Cable Bearing p End) .

.32A. B). As an expedient alternative to dumbbells. Eng.270 I. the writers have used aluminum collars designed to approximate the effect of rock fillets.75 inches long) is cemented into chamfered aluminum collars (Fig. Chamfered collar method for uniaxial tensile test. Geol. HAWKES AND M.32. 4 (1970) 177-285 . but even in a dumbbell specimen with long radius fillets there are stress concentrations which would cause the specimen always to break at the base of the fillet in an otherwise perfect test.003 inch (total) between rock and aluminum. The collars are machined to allow a clearance of approximately 0.31B). The most favourable type of collar is the rock collar represented by the flared end of a dumbbell specimen. A length of core (1 inch diameter x 4. MELLOR tend to introduce serious stress concentrations in the specimen (Fig. and they are slotted longitudinally n-twist] ) Connector less steel) A Fig.

M. 1965. 1(4): 343-351. Tectonophysics.. Some experiences with a commercial compression testing machine. identical to those on the testing machine.U. T. the aluminum collars are recovered: the epoxy is softened by heat.A. Mining ScL.. Rock Mech. Engrs. 1964. H. BmNIAWSKI. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory and the Mining Department of Sheffield University. 1968. Rock Mech. A. Mining Sci. Failure of fractured rock. Effects of pore fluids on the deforma- Eng. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock. the surplus epoxy extrudes as a rim when the rock is inserted. Found.. which have an eccentricity with respect to the pulling points of less than 0.22 inch diameter). 17(50): 45--46. and VOGLER. A dummy pair of cable connectors. J.UNIAXIAL TESTINGIN ROCK MECHANICS 271 to minimize hoop stresses and provide some radial and circumferential strain free- dom. 1960. REFERENCES ATrmRTON. J. Rock Mech. Before assembly the bore of the collar and the 1 inch length of core to be inserted into it are smeared with high-viscosity epoxy adhesive. and the collars are cleaned by soaking in trichlor- ethylene. 6(3): 323-341. and this rim is then wiped to form a smooth fillet between the specimen and the chamfer of the collar. 1969.Z: T. BAU. but there is an un- avoidable tendency for fracture to occur at the collar. Photoelastic investigation of brittle crack growth within a field of uniaxial compression. Cir.. J. Intern.K.S.. and the same connectors are used in the comparator for checking dimensions. J. Finished samples.5 inch each) and their allowable load limit is more than twice the expected maximum service load. are pulled by non-twist stainless steel aircraft cables (0. Stress conditions in triaxial compression. Soc. D. G.. B). B1ENIAWSKI. After assembly the specimen is laid in a vee-block. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by members of the technical staffs of these institutions. Div. G. where the collars are weighted to maintain alignment during setting. To avoid undue stretching during loading.0005 inch.H. Soil Mech. 4 (1970) 177-285 .32A.Z. The effect of specimen size on compressive strength of coal.. HILLER.. Intern. 5(4): 325-335. Mining Sci. 4: 395-430.E. Am. rock fragments are withdrawn..Z.G.. both in the testing programs and in the preparation of this paper. BOOZER. J. S. Mag. W. and SERDSNOECTI. 1963. BOMBALAKIS.. 86(SM86): 57-84. GeoL. which are lapped into spherical seats in the screw connectors (Fig.. After testing. BmNIAWSKI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This review is based on studies made at the U.. Intern. T. These are coupled to the specimen connectors by swaged stainless steel balls. the cables are short (4. provide running centres on the lathe to assure complete axiality. The specimen is finally trued by grinding it lightly in a lathe. DENKHAUS. Concrete Res.. This method yields stress-strain data up to failure. 1967.

Minn. BROWN. and BYERLEE. F. N. D. S. Can. Penn. Discussion on rock classification. Principles of Rock Mechanics. Am. L.. Dilatancy in the fracture of crystaline rocks.... COATES. CHAK~VARTY.. and HODGSON. P. Rock Mech. J. Res. D. African Mech.J. BRACE. COOK. 1(3): 421-429. Rock Mech. 402: 19-40. BRACE. Am. and TELLER. W. (3. pp. U. Pa. Ph.S.. J. 1963. COOK. 1st. J. BURTON. and NEWMARK. Wiley.K. Ceram. F. DEEI~a~.D. Some new measurements of linear compressibility of rocks. J. AWRBACKet al. N. Fracture. COATES. U. 1938. Symp. W. F. State of Stress in the Earth's Crust. Symp. W. J. L. 47(7): 320-322.. BIDI)ULPH. MELLOR tion behaviour of rocks subjected to triaxial compression. An investigation of microseismic activity in rock under tension. Ont. 2(1): 105. Wiley. EMMETT.. Rock Mech. Toronto. and MmLER... 1965. Mining Engrs. W. Tension and compression diagrams for sandstone.E... 1966. 1964. Ottawa. 71(16): 3939-3953. 235: 255-265. Experimental criteria for classification of rock substances. New York. Brittle fracture of rocks. Mining Sci. 1966. Eng. 1967: 58-81. Discussion on properties of rocks and rock masses. 1965. London. D. Rock Mech. 1965. B.. The influence of moisture content on the compressive strength rock. 8th. A method for solution of the restrained cylinder under axial compression.A. F. 4th. 70(2): 391-398. Intern.R. M. The adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. R. R. 1965: 65-83. Minn. Congr. Fracture. The failure of rock. In: A. London. Dependence of fracture strength of rocks on grain size.. and WILCOX.. and WnD.. N. Dept.. and PARSONS. New Mex. Proc. D. K... D. 70: 2882-2888. Proc. Soc. D. and HOJEM. BRACE. Spec. Techn. Natl.-Tech. Soc. Trans.. S.20-53. 1966. Res. 3rd.. G. AVERBACK et al. 1st. In: A.. Symp. C. W. CHARLES. Proc. A note on brittle rock in compression. Geophys.. D'APPOLONIA. S. 1963. 60: 309-316. Univ. Surv. Mining Sci. Mining Sci. R. Rock Mech. W. P..F. Intern. 3: 156-158. Probl.. 1964. W. Publ. and GYENGE. Techn. F.. BRACE. Soc. Symp... Geophys. Mech.. F..272 I.N. Chicago. H. Application of the Photoelastic Technique to the Problems of Rock Mechanics. Intern. Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock.. Lisbon. 68(12): 3709-3713. Recent experimental studies of brittle fracture in rocks.. Engr. DEEI~. W. BROWN. Univ. IlL--Am.. Lisbon. Congr. J. In: Testing Techniques for Rock Mechanics--Am. BRACE. J. D. 1966. COLBACK. 3(3): 181-189... BRUNAUER. Rock Mech. P. unpublished. 3: 267-268. Rock Mech. B... GeoL. 1961 : 217-226. J. AFWL-TR-65-116.Y. Testing Mater. Proc. 1959. F. Kirtland A. 1963: 579-624. State Univ. and BOMBALAgaS. B. Razrabotki lskop. pp. 1967. Soc. D.. Classification of rocks for rock mechanics. COATES. J. 1951. Intern.B. Fiz. I. W. Appl. Mech... B. Classification of rocks letter. E. Sheffield Univ. Minnesota. K. D. J. COATES. Rock Mech.225-249.. 1967. Plate-load testing on rock for deformation and strength properties.. Rept.. Res. Air Force Weapons Lab. pp. 874:330 pp. BRACE. Mines Branch Monograph.. The strength of silicate glasses and some crystalline oxides. P. Chapman and Hall..110-178. F. H. S. Chapman and Hall.. M. BURSFITEIN.. Geophys. 1967(1): 24-29. G. Mining Sci... 1961. Minneapolis. JUDD (Editor). W.. Elsevier. (Editors). 1965. COTTRELL. 1966.. Rock Mech. Soc. 1966. DEKLOTZ. Res.. Proc. W. 1961: 99-103.S. G. M. 1959.. 15(11): 389-403. Geophys. Soc... Proc.. Minnesota. P. E.. 5th. F. (Editors). Conf. M. Thesis. and SCHOLZ. 2(4): 389-403. Some detailed stress-strain curves for rock. Mines Tech. U.. In: W. CooK.. Intern. F.. Can. N.. 1964. A strength-porosity relation involving different pore geometry and orientation. J. and SINGH. Theoretical aspects of Fracture. PAULVING. Minneapolis.. Engrs. 1967. 308 pp. Rock Mech. Chem. 1st. Soc. E. A rigid 50-ton compression and tension testing machine. 4 (1970) 177-285 . Intern. A. 1966. N. Proc. C. HAWKESAND M. 1965.. 1965.

Intern. Congr.. GROSVENOR. Soc. Brit. Preparation of small cylindrical test specimens of geologic materials. Roy. 1959a..N. In: W. Congr.R. A..G. 1964. and POMEROY. EMERY. Ser.. J. 24(2): 1036-1065. P. 1967a.. Elsevier. In: W. J. 1969... Trans. R. and KAPELLER. Trans. F. Intern. pp. Mechanical Properties of Non-Metallic Brittle Materials. Inst. and PRAGER. Soc.... Dept.. lOth. Proc. 1961. N. Mines Tech. Am..M.Y.. J. GRIFHTH. 54(3): 36.. Butterworths. EVERLING. Influence of size and shape on the tensile strength of brittle materials..W. Specimen proportion--key to better compressive strength tests.. Petrol. 1st.. Symp.. 198: 147-233. 223-289. London. R. Soc. Mining Sci. Soc. D. Essais Rech. V. 1921. HARDY. New York. A.105-118. 1902. Symp. HARDY. 1966. In: S. G. Rock Mech. Measurement of the state of residual elastic strain on rocks by X-ray diffractometry. PERKINS..182-197.. Eng. Trans.. 1961. State of Stress in the Earth's Crust. Mining Eng. I. 220: 447-449. Phil. Delft. 1968. Rock Mech. Ottawa. L.. E. Congr. Austin. D.H. HAWKES. The strength of cubes of coal in uniaxial compression. Am.. I. J. Ont. and CooK. EVANS. Proc.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 273 DRUCKER. Bull.. GONNERMAN. Report FMP 66/67-P.M. OKULICH. R. Quart. May 1966. in press. Ser.6874/91. 1952. Div. KIELLAND. London. Pa. Handbook of Physical Contacts.H. 1925. H.. 1966. On the elastic equilibrium of circular cylinders under certain practical systems of load.. AppL Phys. 1965. 4 (1970) 177-285 . DURELLI.A. Mines Tech. Constr.. Eng. A.. GeoL. Intern. 1959b. 14: 7-9.. Mater. FRIEDMAN. H. WALTON (Editor). Reunion Intern. I.. Geol.C. 17: 22-30. Discussion on description of rocks and rock masses.. Theory of rupture. Time-dependent deformation and failure of geologic materials.655--660. Soc. Lisbon. in preparation. Proc. FRIEDMAN. Tex. C. 1: 145-154.. 18: 387-388. 10(2): 157-166. 1958. The phenomena of flow and rupture in solids. pp. 1966. Roy. Soc. S. unpublished.5-25. Mining Sci. pp.S. 1967. GREEN. Surv. TB8:108 pp. Proc. V. Lisbon. Intern. Comments upon the definition of shear strength.. Spring Meeting. GROSVENOR. Ont. Bull. GRAMaERG. Laboratory measurements of some physical properties of rocks. J.. Rock Mech. 1967b.. 1966... Congr. A. Moduli measurements on rock cores. M. Soc. and THAULOW. Analysis of the inelastic deformation of geologic materials in terms of mechanical models. FAmHURST. JUDD (Editor). 1st. 1963. 1967. Quart. FRIEDMAN. G. Rock Mech. FAIRHURST. Engrs.. Compressive strength of concrete--cube or cylinder.. 4th.. Standard procedures for the determination of the physical properties of mine rock under short period uniaxial compression. 221: 163-198. W. A. 1964. H. 1st. 1924.. J. Am.. Phil.. A. GRtVHII-I.. Lisbon.. Proc. D. Rock Mech. pp. C. and GREEN. NIELSEN. Rock Mech. State Univ.S. J. Proc. Intern. E. 15: 31-33. HARDY. 1st. ExptL Stress Analysis. Can. Colo. N. pp. C. Effect of end condition of cylinder in compression tests of concrete. R. HARDY. 1924: 55-63. Rock Mech. Strength and ductility. J... Testing Mater. pp. D. N.. Fields Mining Pract. HANSEN. F. Surv. H. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. School Mines. Strain energy in rocks. in press. AppL Mech. New York.. Ottawa Tech. FILON.. A.. AppL Math. The axial cleavage fracture. Norelco Reporter. N. HANDIN.Y.. Dept.C. Ottawa. P. Uniaxial compression tests at strain rates from 10-4/sec to 104/sec on three geologic materials.. Proc. and PARKS.. Penn.235-260. Mines Branch.K. The phenomenon of rock splitting parallel to the direction of maximum compression in the neighbourhood of a surface. and PERKINS. R. Soc. E. 1(1): 31-72. L. Observation of brittle-deformation features at the maximum stress of Westerly Granite and Solenhofen Limestone. CLARK(Editor). GeoL. H. London. pp. Mining Met. R. Lab.. A new method for determining the tensile strength of a rock. C. Intern.. N. 1962.

Geophys. Intern.S. A. Mining Sci... A. Proc. Bur. Extensometers. 1968. M. 7234:16 pp. Rock compressive strength. A.273-275. Fracture propagation mechanism in hard rock.143-144. Engrs.. Soc..163-179.. HOSKINS..C. KROKOSKY. HUDSON. A compressometer for obtaining stress-strain curves of rock specimens up to fracture. and CMAPMAN. F. Syrup. Design Civil Eng. Papers. 34: 279-280. Rock Mech. Congr. A. LEBOW. 4th. 1968. J. J.. Minnesota. Constr. Mech. R. 1st. and BIE~WSKt.. 480 pp. J. 35th. KENNEDY. Cleveland. Bulletin Reunion Intern. G. KUMAR. Influence of spherical head size and specimen diameters on the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks.274 I.G.. G. Tensile strength.. E. W. Proc. Intern. M. Soc. Proc. Energy storage and dissipation properties of rocks from creep test response. Lisbon. Intern.S. Mining Sci. and HISAK. Univ.D.. 26: 77-80. McCLINTOCK. Mech. W. P. Low. L. F. T. Dependence of mechanical strength of brittle polycrystalline specimens on porosity and grain size. The strength-size relation of granite..S. 1966. F. Mines Rept. pp. Exposition. Geophysics. P. Natl. Southampton. Rock Mech. 8th. 1962. Mines Rept. W.. E. Oliver and Boyd. W. B. pp. J. 33(3): 501-510. R. Proc. 5(1): 87-121. mineralogical and durability study on the building and monumental granites of the United States. Soc. pp. JOHNSON.. 41: 287-292. R.. Army Terrest. Lab. Rock Mech. LEEMAN.. Mining Sci. 42(8): 376-387... and GROBBLAAR. U. pp. A study of the compression test for ductile materials. The interdependence between the strength and voids ratio of limestone and marls in connection with their water saturating and anisotrophy. Solid Mech. Mater. J. Rheological models of Upper Silesian carboniferous rocks. 1967. 1966. Metal Congr. Soc. Soc. Rock Mech.S. Essais Rech. Congr. MELLOR.. Am... HUGHES.. The effect of stress rate and temperature on the strength of basalt and granite. Appl.. and CHAPMAN..99-102. 7171:22 pp. k.I"I..G. pp. 3(4): 279-306. J. Center. HAWKES AND M. Lab... J. J.. 1968. 1959..243-246. R. C. Physical.. Proc. P. Rock Mech. 1940. W. F. in relation to microstructure. A. J. Invest. 1964. Note. pp.. Mines Rept.. 1963. Intern.S. A. Direct tensile test for concrete using modem adhesives. 67-WA/MET-11. U. 1957.. Congr. 16 pp. 1966. P. Bur. Essais Rech. J. Soc. HORrNO. Minneapolis. J. Techn.. and HORINO. Hsu. Sci. LtmDnORG. Weibull's theory and a general statistical approach to rock failure. D. The complete stress strain curve for concrete in direct tension.. Intern. B. 1968. Friction on Gritiith cracks in rock under pressure. Am.. Bulletin Reunion Intern. Intern. Effect of end conditions on determining compressive strength of rock samples.. Ohio. Ceram. Struct. Eng. Colliery Eng. N. R.1015-1021. Lisbon. 1st. Proc. A.. 1969. and MALONE. U. 34 pp. J. J. and SLIGH.3-57. Exptl. 1965. Tensile strength of rocks at low temperatures--preliminary data report. Huoi-ms. 30: 95-97. R. 1963. in press. Southampton. 1966. Mech. Brittle fracture of rocks. A study of acoustic emission from stressed rock. J. Berkeley. 6(6): 21A-27A. Sci. 120: 19-21. 73(6): 2237-2247. G.. Lisbon. 1968. 1969. MELLOR Hom3s. Res.E.. Univ.. F. U. JLrmKIS. Edinburgh. Eng. W. HOEK.. 1966. Geol. Mater. and HORINO. Invest. Intern. Bull. HOSKINS. 1966.. Effects of planes of weakness on uniaxial compressive strength of model mine pillars. 4 (1970) 177-285 . J. B. C. Instr. 1320: 161-206. R. Effect of height of test specimen on compressive strength of concrete. KESSLER. Testing Mater. H. and RAINEY. Rock Mech.. pp. KONONER. C. Constr.. unpublished. JAEaER. 4(3): 269-272. Calif. Strength characteristics of basalt rock in ultra high vacuum... KNILL. Am. 1943. Some engineering aspects of Brunswick Shale... Standards Res. Congr. 1st.. Rock Mech. KNUDSON. and FAImtURST. Bur. The relation of microstructure to brittle fracture. C. i . Intern. Congr. 1st. P. INSLEY. Processes of Creep and Fatigue in Metals. A.. Z. KOWALSKI. L. Natl. Mater. New Hampshire.. Proc. J. and WALSH. 7155:24 pp.. 1967. 1967. U.. Invest.. 1968. Bur. Hanover. Conf. Minn. T. KIDYBINSKI.. 1966. Soc. Lisbon. FRANKLIN. Rock Mech. J..

H.. S. SCHOLZ. Butterworths. Congr. Eng. L. F. SCHILLER. Syrup. Rock Mech. Geophys. S. M. 1966. 207: 255-259. Sheffield. The fracture of brittle materials. New York. In: W. G. GeoL. 1968a. 1961. Pergamon. 1966. Proc. An experimental study of the effect of temperature and stress on the creep of rocks. Anwendungsbeispiele zu einen Henckyschen Satz des plastische Gleich- gewicht. C. Univ. 1st. Rock Mech. Mechanical Properties of Non-metallic Brittle Materials.. W. Res. F. H. The testing of brittle materials under uniform uniaxial compressive stress. and HEALEY.. Soc. Z. 1966.. Mining Sci. London.S. 73(10): 3295-3302.. and LACHANCE. Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock. "The weakest link" theorems on the strength of long and of composite specimens. The influence of the testing machine on the compressive strength of concrete.. Proc.. New York. K. 288-292. J. Tech.L. 9(5): 509-535. 2: 176--189. 1966.. Pa. The effects of strain rate and temperature on the behaviour of rocks subjected to triaxial compression. M. pp. M. Concrete Control. 1966. Techn.. pp.S. M. 3891:67 pp. London.TH. Eng. U.73-84. England. A.103-104.. HOLIS- TER (Editors). G. In: G. pp. AppL Phys. 1st.. Mining Research. and RAIS~Y. C. Bur. T.l15-119..62-171. N. 1st. Rocr~. Intern. 650 pp. Rock Mech.Y. pp. A. K. MISRA.. Zmrcrmwicz and G. N. 18: 129-161. J. pp. R. Hanover. J. Res. The analysis of the viscous property of rocks for classification.425--461. Mechanical Properties of Non-metallic Brittle Materials.G. 402.. N. Discussion of paper by Seldenrath and Gramberg. 3: 401--406. Congr.83-97. 73(4): 1417-1432. L. D.. Butterworths. and MURP.. J. 1966. Application of the Fourier method to the solution of certain boundary problems in the theory of elasticity.S. London..Y. Geophys. L. Rock Mech.. H. Am. 1965. 4th. 1964. F. WALTON (Editor). NEWMAN. SERDENGECTI.R. Microfracturing and the inelastic deformation of rock in compression. Testing Mater.. Res. pp.543-548.Y.. R. W...M. Textile Inst. Lisbon. Rutz. PRA~n3TL. C. Soc.O..S.. Porosity and strength of brittle solids (with particular reference to gypsum). Se8OLZ. PubL. 1958. Engineer. In: W.. Proc. WALTON (Editor). Angew. R.649-668. T. REDDY. J. pp. Porosit6. pp.S. Brit.. L.. Spec. I~mCE. Effect of low temperature on compressive strength of rocks. Mech.W... degr6 de saturation et lois de comportement des roches. Note.K.. pp. Standardised tests for determining the physical properties of mine rocks. N. A Study of the Elastic Behaviour of Rocks under Uniaxial Stress. 1926. P. Geol. MOROENSa~RN.79-102. A. Symp. Wiley. Geophys.. Some precise measurements of fracture strength of rocks under uniform com- pressive stress. pp. SKINNER. L. New Hampshire.. Lisbon. J. 1965. Geophys. PAULDrNG. Rock Mech. Res. W. SIRmYS. Intern. 5. 1969.D. Techniques used in studying the fracture mechanics of rock. T. SI~VALDASON. Stress-strain relations on breakage of rocks. R. 1st. and GRAMBERG. 4(1): 41-55. U. Soc. In: W. PI¢I~Tr.. 17: 355. Stress Analysis. 1967. unpublished.. In: Testing Techniques for Rock Mechanics--Am.. PARSONS. K.. Mines Rept. 4 (1970) 177-285 . WALTON (Editor)... and DtrVALL. pp. Methods of studying the strength of rocks used in the U. 3(4): 325-335.. Penn. C. and tMUKAN. Lisbon.. Army Cold Reg. and DUVALL. Thesis. 1946. 1944. K. J. SCnOLZ. F.. Lab. A. 1962.. Intern. Eng. I. 1966. Tensile tests for cotton yams. 1967. Butterworths. R. Mechanism of creeP in brittle rock. 1968c.S. H.JSLL. H. Rock Mech. M. OBERT. London. CLARg (Editor). J. F. D. K. Proc. M. Soc. New York. 73(4): 1447-1454. MURRELL. PUGH. Testing Mater. Proc. Intern.. WINDES.J. State Univ. Imperial College.35-49.. C. and BOOZER.. PaOTODYAKONOV. OBERT. 64: 1044-1067. 1923. 1964.S.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 275 MELLOR. In: O.. J. lnvest. Congr.471-475. Non-linear deformation of a sandstone. Proc. Experimental study of the fracturing process in brittle rock. B. Some technological characteristics of twenty-six Brazilian rock types.S. 1959. Experiments on the compressive strength of anhydrite.. 1958.. MoGI. H. 1968b.. 1958. Math. Wiley. SELDENRATH. In-situ strain and stress measurements.. Mechanical Properties of Non-metallic Brittle Materials. AppL Mech. Soc.. J.

WtmRKER. Eng. Roy. TAartA~rr. L. P. /7 (61) 8 2~ To obtain the shearing forces mathematically is complicated. Proc.. W. Cracks and pores in rock. J. 4 (1970) 177-285 . J. Rev.. N.. Appl.. 1st. Frictional difficulty in concrete testing. Soc... Congr. and WANG. APPENDIX1 Conditions for frictional restraint on the ends of compression specimens With reference to Fig. 202: 157. Effect of rate of loading on strength and Young's modulus of elasticity of rock. A survey of statistical effects in the field of material failure. and GOoDmg. 151: 1-45. 5(11): 449-451. G. WAI. 198(2): 801-802. Considering a segment of the interface (Fig. Symp. 1952. WALSH. Res. 1965a. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. 70(2): 381-389. D. D. Res. Res. THAULOW. Constr. 1962. and AINSWORTn. Lisbon.. 70: 5249-5257. Measuring the tensile strength of rocks. and KADI. Trans. The effect of cracks on the compressibility of rock. WAWERSm. Z. Rock Mech. F. Surface potentials and rock strength.276 i. but the problem can be approached another way by assuming that the average shearing force can be equated to a hydro- static pressure acting around the periphery of the specimen.SH. 1966a. H.. 1966b. 1968. Inst. New York. WEmULL.E. 1966. Mater. 1951. S. 1967.. R. R.. How size and shape of specimens affect the direct tensile strength of concrete. 1: 451-456. B. Engineer. Intern. B. Intern. B. 1954a. W. WRmnT.. J. WEmULL. G. TIMOSrmNKO. Tex. A..33B): D20 D = Ox (62) ~. Proc. Geophys. Rock Mech. J.. 70(2): 399-411. Lab. Proc.. Soc. A statistical theory of the strength of materials. McGraw-Hill. lOth.V. Apparent compressive strength of concrete as affected by height of test specimen and friction between the loading surfaces. 1st.. Theory of Elasticity. F. W.. P 2 Eng. WALSH... Lisbon. Appl. 1968. 1939. STOWE. J.. Mining Sci.x ---if--. B.. J. Geophys. Univ. Compression testing machines for concrete.. in press. The effect of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks. Eng. B.33 the frictional force on the interface between the rock and the platen must equal the average shearing force: D20 Po ¢rx . 1957. B.. 198(2): 262-263. Mech. Rock Mech. of Minnesota. Engineer. 1968. 1965c. Geophys. 372 pp...I/CEK. 18: 293-297. N.. Dig. L. 1: 643--646. MELLOR SPETLA. Bulletin Reunion Intern. Austin.. 1955. d. Thesis. D. Detailed Analysis of Rock Failure in Laboratory Compression Tests. W. Elasticity of rock: a review of some recent theoretical studies. W. HAWKES AND M. 203: 639-641. J. S. 1951. Engineer. Geol. 1954b. Tech. and BgAC~. F. d. A. GeoL..LM. Essais Rech. J. STREET.. Swed. G. J. 5(4): 371-373.. 12: 865-872. WEmULL.. F. TARRArcr.. Proc. Rock Mech. Classification of rock substances-discussion. The effect of cracks in rocks on Poisson's ratio. J.. Measurement of friction at very low speeds.Y. and BRACE. Mech.. 1965b.. WALSH. 4(4): 283-297.. A. Congr. 17: 31-33. Intern. Rock Mech. STAPLEDON.. W. N. WAts~.

vr (p + ~x)} i.4 o'x //I'/////// // / / / / / / / A n I J _IN_ _ i I Rock l 0.33. _ _ -. Geol. this must equal the lateral strain of the rock: 8~ = ep (66) (subscript r .platen).. _ _ O" x (64) Ep ~D 2 Ep (subscript p . 4 (1970) 177-285 .vr Eng. For no sfippage to occur.e.2 J ~ I:= Fig.: { vpE~_ + vr} Ep p= o"x 1 . The hydrostatic pressure to prevent differential platen/rock movement can now be deter- mined: vp 1 ~x = {p . Effect of radial restraint by platen friction in the uniaxial compression test. where x is the distance along the specimen over which the pressure p must be applied to prevent movement at the interface: nDp = x (63) P The lateral strain of the platen under an applied load P is given by: vv 4P Vp £p -.20"~ 0.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 277 Platen ~ TrK 0 0.rock).

An additional test was made to find the effect of friction at the loading ball by applying torque to the steel cylinder while it was held between two identical steel balls. i.63: 4x/ vp E r + Vr } /7 = [ Ep (67) o ( 1 . × 3 inch I. The resuRant frictional force was assumed to act at the "equal area" radius.v3 The problem now is to determine x in terms of the specimen diameter D. was laid concentrically on top of the rock cylinder. the minimum coefficient of friction which will just prevent sliding is approximately 0. Shear stress falls off very rapidly from the interface and varies across the width.~l-off with a diamond tool in a lathe. (Contact pressures ranged from 150 to 700 lbf/sq.278 I. Since shear stress is assumed to decrease linearly. Test results for various contact conditions are given in Table IX. a force of 60 lbf was applied at the end of the lever arm.34.v.68> 2 0 . giving an annular area of contact. If it is assumed that an average value could be represented by the line NM.67" . Geol. This ball friction proved to be negligibly small at the highest axial loads used in the tests. the platen can be considered rigid.2.D. Test components are shown in Fig.D. A hollow cylinder of Darley Dale Sandstone. APPENDIX2 Friction at the platen/specimen contact Since little relevant data could be found in the literature. 6 inch diameter × 4 inch long. Axial load was applied to a predetermined level. HAWKES AND M. and a cylindrical steel block. MELLOR Substituting for p into eq. 4 (1970) 177-285 . 6 inch O. the term vpEr/Ep is very small and can be ignored. Actual contact area was found by examining imprints and scratch patterns. v~) Assuming a Poisson's ratio of 0. measurements were made in order to determine approximate magnitudes of inteffacial friction between rock and platen under various conditions. and the axial load was then slowly relaxed until rotational slip between the rock and steel occurred. then it may also be assumed that the maximum depth of influence is to point M. × 4 inches long was cemented into a machined pipe flange and then fac. where M = 0.3 for the rock..) For all but the strongest rocks. inch).75 inch diameter steel ball set in greased seats. Axial load was applied to the steel block by the testing machine through a 0. Eq.e. Eng.68 simplifies to: -.33C shows the variation of shear stress from the interface into the specimen according to Balla's results (Table VI). Torque was applied to the steel cylinder by a spring balance attached to the end of a 36 inch long lever arm. The flange was bolted to the lower platform of a testing machine. Vr 7 2 (1 .25 D. the value of x is given by: M D 2 8 Substituting for this value in eq. Fig.

Single sheet of paper. 0. 4 (1970) 177-285 .57 thick.39 (ground fia0 and clean steel (lapped fiat) Single sheet of paper.35 0.16 0. Single sheet of PTFE/Teflon.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 279 TABLE IX FRICTION BETWEENDARLEY DALE SANDSTONEAND STEELFOR VARIOUSCONTACT CONDITIONS Contact conditions Effective coefficient of friction first slip maximum subsequent minimum slips Direct contact between dry rock 0. until grease was extruded at 700 lbf/sq. placed between dry rock and clean.47 0.19 0. almost any design of seating can be used for tmiaxial compression testing (HosKrNs and HoRrso.09 0.18 0. 0. Provided that sufficient care is taken with the initial alignments.inch contact pressure. Thick layer of heavy bearing grease Unmeasurably small 0.005 inches thick. 0.004 inches 0.19 0. placed between dry rock and clean. Single sheet of PTFE/Teflon.0025 inches 0. Geol. however.63 0.005 inches thick..17 thick. placed between dry rock and clean steel. Eng. 1968.33 rock and steel. There are. certain basic design features for ball seatings which can be investigated in relation to the possible errors induced by seatings.17 between rock and steel. 1969). so that uniform strain is induced in the specimen as the crossheads move together.33 smeared lightly with graphite grease. Direct contact between rock and steel 0. slightly scratched steel. 0.14 0. and the seating seizes early in the test. freshly ground steel.43 0.50 0.37 0. Thick layer of graphite grease between 0. APPENDIX3 Design of independent spherical seats The purpose of a ball seating is to ensure intimate contact between the testing machine crossheads and the ends of the test specimen. placed between dry rock and steel smeared lightly with graphite grease.39 0.27 0.

as in both cases it is the ball column which rotates and the cup which is fixed. Ball seat geometry. as illustrated in Fig. HAWKES AND M. GeoL.35A. Eng.280 I. I ! I I I I I I I I I --7. l . For ball seatings built into the testing machine crosshead the position is reversed but the same conditions apply. MELLOR Fig. Prior to load application an independent ball seating is only stable when the ball component is set above the cup. A [3 Fig.34. Equipment used for tests on platen friction.35. 4 (1970) 177-285 .

If the seat is placed beneath the sample. Fig. From geometrical considerations: AL= hsin0+ rosin 20/2 = hsin0+ ro(1-cos0) (69) where 0 is the angle between the plane of the crosshead and the plane of the bail column. the greater will be the frictional forces between the crosshead and the edge of the ball column.69 that ro should be as small as possible. 4 (1970) 177-285 . axial load was increased Eng. further rotation of the ball seat (produced. therefore. balancing the moments in the system gives: F R = P { r o .69.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 281 Initially. In this connection it must also be remembered that the higher the value of P. Referring to Fig. Fig. To determine the friction developed in lightly lubricated spherical seatings of different radii..35B) should equal the radius of curvature of the seat (R.5 inch radius bails. as the testing machine crosshead is brought to bear it will contact the bail column at a point on its edge N (Fig..h sin 0 . as the ball column rotates in its seating the locus of a general point on the periphery of the column An is a sphere with centre O and radius O/In where O is the centre of curvature of the seat surfaces. necessitating a horizontal movement AL.35B). If the seat is placed above the sample the height of the ball column (BO. two experiments were made. Another equally important consideration is the force available to rotate the ball column on its seating. c o s 0)} = P(ro c o s 0 . if ro is reduced much below the radius of the test sample there is a danger of platen rotation about the contact region between the bail column and the crosshead. Fig. Two test procedures were followed for each case. i. It is interesting to note that the radius of the ball seating has no direct effect on the magnitude of the lateral translation of the ball column.e. ro is the radius of the ball column OAo (not the ball seat). and in doing so will either displace the point N a distance AL or displace the cup platen. When the ball column is in close contact with the crosshead. However. F r o m eq.35A). and in the second a plate with concave seats on both faces was fitted with two 0. In principle. For this reason it is recommended that the ball column radius ro should be approximately equal to that of the specimen being tested.35B).36 illustrates the equipment. Again from eq. by tilting the crosshead as it is picked up) will tend to cause lateral displacement of the specimen. The considerations which determine the radius of the ball seating R and the radius of the ball column ro are not so precisely defined. Further movement of the crosshead will rotate the ball in its seating. In the first set of tests a 2. h sin 0) (70) where P is the applied vertical force and F i s the frictional force to be overcome in the ball seating.35B. To keep lateral displacements to a minimum it can be seen from eq. A planar displacement through 0 moves An to An'.70 it will be noted that for a given value of ro the moment acting to overcome the friction in the bail seat is at a maximum when h = 0. Geol. when the upper surface in contact with the machine crosshead passes through the centre of curvature of the ball seating. In each set of tests the contact area subtended an arc of approximately 50 ° at the centre of curvature. the minimum lateral translation for a fixed ball column radius occurs when h = 0. In a correctly designed ball seating these lateral movements will be at a minimum. the height of the ball column plus the height of the sample should equal R. the ball seat may be placed above or below the sample. with or without the test specimen. In the first.5 inch radius ball was squeezed between a pair of cups. an equivalent amount. ro(1 . The rim of the ball column should be rounded to reduce contact friction. h is AoAn (Fig. The radius of the ball seating R must be determined from frictional considerations. Referring to Fig.35B. for example.

- ~~l'~. . f _ _ ~ a" ~ - 60.000 Ibs .'~'~Loadi ng V'I I I I I I i 0 400 800 1200 600 TORQUE.37. 4 (1970) 177-285 . HAWKES AND M.. GeoL. Ib in Fig.282 I. I ' I ' I 52 linch Boll 24 Unloading from 60.000 tbl LOAD x I 0 0 0 Ibf Loading 16 5 inch Boll 8 Unloading from ~ A . MELLOR Fig. Equipment used for tests on ball seat friction. Results of friction tests on spherical seats lubricated with light mineral oil. Eng.36.-~o "~'..~.

25 R s h =R.5 inch radius spherical seat will unlock when the resultant reaction moves off centre by a distance of about 0. For this reason the ball seat diameter R should be as large as possible. 0.UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS 283 incrementally and the torque necessary to move the seat was measured. HOSKrNS and HORINO (1968) found that for a wide range of ball sizes with different lubricants and surface finishes there was no evidence in the test results of ball scat movements during testing. It will be noted that torque and load are proportional and that the frictional resistance to rotation increases with the radius of the seating.2 inches. irrespective of the distribution of forces within the test specimens. The cup component of the ball seat must be sufficiently thick to prevent any flexural distortion under load.15 when lubricated with graphite grease. in the second. To sum up the foregoing. Since the ideal displacement boundary conditions stipulate that there should be neither rotation nor lateral displacement of the platen during a test. 4 (1970) 177-285 . It is suggested that the minimum thickness at the base of the cup should be 1. Any error in centring automatically shifts the line of action of the resultant force in the specimen by an equivalent distance and gives rise to bending forces. Using these results it is possible to examine the probability of a lubricated ball seat unlocking during the course of a test as a result of unsymmetrical strain in the specimen.05 inch.37 it appears that a 0. it is recommended that: R ~ 2R~ r o ~ Rs Rc ~ 1. However. b) found that a spherical seat had an effective cocffcient of friction of 0. and as low as 0. The resuRs obtained are given in Fig..25 to. From the results shown in Fig. as discussed in the section on eccentric loading.37. It is important to accurately centre a test specimen in relation to the centre of curvature of the ball scat. and with a 2. 5 R s Eng. it seems reasonable that ball seats should be designed so as to always lock under load.5 inch radius seat by a distance of about 0. a high axial load was applied. a fixed torque was exerted. These results would undoubtedly be altered significantly by changing the lubricant. weight and handling considerations play a part. and the axial load was slowly reduced until the seat was released.04 when lubricated with a grease containing free fatty acids with polar molecules. GeoL. TARRANT (1954a. particularly where centring is con- cerned. and the recommendation of HOSKINS and HORINO (1969) that the radius of the ball seating be around twice that of the specimen radius seems very reasonable.6 when lubricated with mineral oil.~2Rs t /> 0 . The seat will unlock when the line of action of the resultant sample reaction P moves off centre from the sample axis to a radius r~ where: T rl -- P in which T is the torque to unlock the seat under load P.

06895 foot pound (f) (ft-lbf) joule (J) 1.02 pound force (lbf) newton (bO 4. which are working towards its universal application as the sole legal system.452 10-4• square foot (ftz) square meter (m s) 0. the distance from the bottom of the cup to the platen face. while others have worked with English units. Thus it seems reasonable to aim for a gradual transition to SI. in various forms.e. and published data are given in traditional units followed by SI equivalents in parentheses. and worked numerical examples become unduly cluttered when SI equivalents are quoted throughout. In this review paper it has seemed inappropriate to give parenthetic SI equivalents after each numerical value. and new educational texts are using the system.639 • 10-5 cubic foot (ft a) cubic meter (m 3) 0. Scientific and technical journals are now requiring conformance to SI.4536 minute (rain) second (s) 60 degree (plane angle _o. This is in keeping with the 1968 recommendations of the Royal Society Conference of Editors. Re is the plan (or platen) radius of the cup element which bears onto the specimen..356 Eng. re is radius of the ball column. in the early stages of which instrument readings are recorded as read. HAWKF_~AND M. This situation is likely to change soon. SELECTED SI CONVERSION FACTORS English units S I unit Conversion factor F ( F × English unit = SI) inch (in) meter (m) 0.. work in the traditional system of units is more efficient.745 • 10-2 pound/cubic inch (lb/in a) kilogrammes/cubic meter (kg/m a) 2. h is the height of the ball column and t is the minimum thickness of the cup element.768 • 104 pound/cubic foot (lb/ft a) kilogrammes/cubic meter (kg/m 8) 16. quite apart from innate conservatism or logical objection on the part of individuals. measurements in many parts of the world must continue to be made with equipment graduated in English units. This system. but universal acceptance is likely to be slow for. the Conf6rence G6n6rale des Poids et Mesures. MELLOR where Rs is specimen radius. APPENDIX4 S I units in rock mechanics Up to the present time there has been no uniform system of units for physical quantities in rock mechanics. Some investigators have used the traditional metric system. i.02832 pound mass (lb) kilogramme (kg) 0. The SI system must obviously become standard in rock mechanics over the long term. Geol. In 1960 a refined and extended form of the metric system (Syst~me International d'Unit6s) was approved by an international body. Many of the dimensions given are rounded to one or two significant figures in English units. 4 (1970) 177-285 . since deep familiarity with dimensions and physical constants in that system makes easier the recognition of errors and inconsistencies. together with an appropriate conversion factor. Thus the text has been left in English units and the following conversions have been appended.02540 foot fit) meter (m) 0. deg) radian (rad) 1.3048 square inch (in s) square meter (m 2) 6. R is radius of the spherical surfaces.09290 cubic inch (in a) cubic meter (m s) 1.284 I.448 pound force/square inch (lbf/inZ) newton/square meter (N/m s) 6895 pound force/square inch (Ibf/inz) bar (bar) 0. There is also the undeniable fact that for many older men. generally known as "SI Units" has now been formally adopted by many countries.

UNIAXIAL TESTING IN ROCK MECHANICS ' 285 APPROVED SI FRACTIONS AND MULTIPLES Fraction Prefix Symbol Multiple Prefix Symbol 10 -1 deci* d 10 deka* da* 10 -2 centi* c 10 9 hecto* h* 10 -3 milli m 103 ki l o k 10 -6 micro # 10 6 mega M 10 -9 nano n 10 9 giga G 10 -19 pico P 1012 t e ra T 10 -15 femto f 10 -18 atto a * Use to be restricted as far as possible. (Note: the s y m b o l s m a n d M m a y be p r o n e to a l t e r a t i o n in t y p i n g a n d typesetting.) Eng. Geol. 4 (1970) 177-285 ..