See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280627766

Stress Paths Effects on Multistage Triaxial Test

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATION READS

1 789

5 authors, including:

Sari Melati Ridho K. Wattimena

Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Bandung Institute of Technology
18 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Soeseno Kramadibrata Ganda M. Simangunsong

Bumi Resources Minerals Bandung Institute of Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS   166 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic tensile strength View project

Physical Model Test of Slope Failure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ganda M. Simangunsong on 04 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Stress Paths Effects on Multistage Triaxial Test

S. Melati, R.K. Wattimena, S. Kramadibrata, G.M. Simangunsong, R.G. Sianturi

Laboratory of Geomechanics and Mining Equipment, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

sarimelati.22112006@gmail.com

Abstract

Nowadays a multistage triaxial test using one specimen has been widely implemented in
laboratory of rock mechanics as a substitution of the single stage (conventional) triaxial test which
requires three or more rock specimens. However, the result of multistage triaxial test sometimes
different with the single stage triaxial test. It is suspected that the second stage and the next stage have
been affected by the loading path (stress path) of previous stage.
This research was carried out in laboratory to investigate whether different stress paths will give
significant influence on the multistage triaxial testing results. Two different stress paths were
proposed in transition period from on going stage to the next stage. The first scenario was both axial
load and confining pressure simultaneously increased. The second scenario was an axial load is kept
constant while a confining pressure increased. Measured stress-strain rate during the multistage
triaxial test is used to identify fracture initiation for each stage. The test results were evaluated in term
of strength envelope and stress-strain curve. Numerical simulation was performed to validate the test
result.
Increasing of axial loading and confining pressure simultaneously in first scenario prevents more
cracks propagation. It has been proven by comparing the ultrasonic velocity while concrete samples
loaded in multistage triaxial test. The first scenario stress paths result shows higher triaxial
compressive strength. Generated failure envelopes were also closer to the conventional triaxial test
than the second scenario. Excessive sample damage of the second scenario can be seen both directly
and from stress-strain curve that showing longer axial strain. Modified modulus used in numerical
modeling by validation of stress-strain curve has been compatible with lab test result whereas the first
stress paths scenario made sample behave stiffer. This description analysis will expectively enrich
multistage triaxial testing references.

Keywords : Stress paths, Multistage triaxial

1. Introduction
Many rock sample testings in laboratory were conducted to determine the behavior of rocks under
certain stress conditions. Test results are used to design excavation and structure in rock mass.
Considering that triaxial test can represents actual loading condition in the nature where the rock is
stressed in three dimensions, it is of importance to perform triaxial testing, primarily for geotechnical
design of the underground mine.
Conventional triaxial test requires at least 3-5 testings at different confining pressures to obtain a
failure envelope of rock. When samples obtained from the site are in-adequate or the available cost
and time for testings are limited, multistage triaxial test might be an alternative solution because
requires only one specimen to get the same objective.
In the multistage triaxial test is the earlier stages loading will affect the behavior of rock specimen
on the next stage. Different loading treatment in multistage triaxial test will produce different stress
paths experienced by sample that affect the test result. Therefore, investigating rock samples behavior
in multistage triaxial tests using different stress paths is significantly important.
The purposes of this research are to study the behavior of claystone under different stress paths by
comparing stress-strain curve of conventional and multistage triaxial tests, to validate the results using
numerical modeling, and to evaluate the proposed stress paths in multistage triaxial based on failure
criteria.
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

2. Theories and Experiments

2.1 Theories
Multistage triaxial test was first introduced by Kovari and Tisa in 1975. In a method called
Multiple Failure State Test (Fig. 1a.), they used two methods with three cycles of testing in each
method. In the first method, the first cycle began with a low confining pressure. The confining
pressure was then increased in the second cycle. In the third cycle, axial stress and confining pressure
were partially lowered. Afterwards, axial stress was lowered to obtain triaxial compressive strength as
in the first cycle. In contrast, the second method began with high confining pressure, lower pressure at
the second cycle, and back to the high pressure again in the last cycle. From their research it is known
that the reduced strength of the rock when the peak strength is reached can be ignored. The other fact
is multistage triaxial tests easier performed on ductile rock (relative error of Carrara marble strength
was 2-5%), as brittle rock sample may suddenly failed (relative error of Buchberg strength sandstone
was 8-14%). Similar results were obtained from studies on Piere and Raton shale that showing
constants of failure criteria are closer with single stage triaxial test results than the testing resulted
from Lyons sandstone (Kim and Ko, 1979).
The stress path in multistage triaxial tests modification has been conducted by Wylie and Crawford
(1987). When the specimen was about to fail on the first stage, axial stress was lowered back to the
similar value as the confining pressure. The confining pressure and axial stress were then increased
again at the same time (Fig. 1b). The peak strength resulted by this modified multistage triaxial test
was lower than conventional triaxial test. Furthermore, testing was conducted with the same stress
paths on Berea sandstone and smaller error than the previous study which was about 7% (Pagoulatos,
2004).
ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics) suggested method for triaxial compression
testing is Conventional or Single Stage Triaxial Test (SSTT). This method requires 3-5 rock
specimens to obtain the strength envelope. Each specimen is tested with a particular confining
pressure. The stress paths used are, at the start of the test, the confining pressure and axial stress is
increased simultaneously (so that the deviatoric stress is kept at zero) until the required confining
pressure value. Then the axial stress is countinously increased until it reaches a peak value of
compressive strength (Fig. 1.c).
The first method proposed by Kovari & Tisa was adopted by ISRM as suggested method for
triaxial compression test type II. The rock specimen was tested with 3-5 different confining pressure
value, from the lowest to the highest, so the strength envelope acquired. Right before the rock
specimen fail, axial load is stopped while the confining pressure is raised to the next stage of
confining pressure value, resulting a deviatoric stress reduction as much as the confining pressure
intercalation (Fig. 1.d). Several literatures shows that the error varies between multiple failure state
test result with the single-stage triaxial test result (Kramadibrata et al, 2008; Baumgarteun and
Koenitzky, 2013). Generally, triaxial compressive strengths at early stages tend to be closer to that of
the conventional test and greater in the later stages. Furthermore, the triaxial compressive strength
values obtained from the multiple failure state test is more precise on the strength envelope line when
compared with the single stage triaxial test result.
Strain controlled test method which is more difficult and requires more effort to maintain pre
failure condition continuously (Kovari and Tisa, 1975) was adopted by ISRM as suggested method for
triaxial compression test type III. After reaching the peak axial strength of the first stage, the axial
load is continuously increased while applying the appropriate confining pressure in order to keep the
slope of plastic stress-strain curve until achieve peak strength. Fig. 1.e. shows the stress paths with
two different confining pressure values. The peak strength of sandstone resulted by countinous failure
state test tend to be lower than the multiple failure state test (Baumgarten and Koenitzky, 2013).
Multistage triaxial test using fixed deviatoric stress while adding the confining pressure has been
performed on Edward limestone. Triaxial compressive strength resulted by the first stage of this
method is similar with the single triaxial test, but higher strength and greater difference were found in
the later stages (Youn and Tonon, 2010).
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Axial Stress

Axial Stress
Cycle 1
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Cycle 2 Cycle 3
Cycle 3 peak strength
peak strength deviatoric stress
deviatoric stress

Confining Pressure Confining Pressure

(a)
hydrostatic line hydrostatic line
MMTT I SSTT I
MMTT II SSTT II
MMTT III SSTT III
MMTT IV SSTT IV
MMTT V SSTT V
peak strength envelope peak strength envelope
Axial Stress

Axial Stress

Confining Pressure Confining Pressure

(b) (c)

hyrostatic line hydrostatic line

MFST I CFST I - axial stress
MFST II CFST II - axial stress
MFST III peak strength envelope
MFST IV CFST I - deviatoric stress
MFST V
CFST II deviatoric stress
peak strength envelope
Axial Stress

Stress

Confining Pressure Confining Pressure

(d) (e)
Fig. 1. Stress paths in : (a) multistage trixial test by Kovari and Tisa, 1975; (b) modified multistage
trixial test by Wylie and Crawford, 1979; (c) ISRM suggested method for triaxial compression testing
type I : single stage triaxial test; (d) ISRM suggested method for triaxial compression testing type II :
multiple failure state test; (e) ISRM suggested method for triaxial compression testing type III :
continous failure state test
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

2.2 Experiments
Samples used in this experiment were concrete with mixing of aggregate : cement = 1 : 1 and
Tanjung claystone with 85% clay material, 5.67% quartz, and 8.67% cavity (Fig. 2). Concrete sample
was used for studying rocks with uniform properties whereas claystone was used for determining the
termination point on the multistage triaxial test by observe changes in stress-strain rate which can be
easily done on the ductile rocks (see their properties in Table 1).
Single stage triaxial test as reference for validating multistage triaxial test result was conducted on
five concrete and three claystone specimens. Confining pressure was applied through a hydraulic
pump that flow the high-pressure oil into the triaxial cell. Axial stress was applied by defining fixed
displacement velocity using compression machine that connected to computer in order to observe the
stress-strain curve in real time (Fig. 3).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Photomicrograph of Tanjung claystone under ; (a) and (c) co-polarized light, (b) and (d)
cross-polarized light, scale box at right-bottom is 500 m

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of samples

Dimension (mm) Young Ultrasonic Natural Water Void
Poisson’s
Sample UCS (MPa) modulus velocity density content ratio
Diameter Length ratio
(GPa) (m/s) (gr/cm3) (%) (%)
Concrete 43 97 27.1 5.01 0.24 3730.51 2.41 9.41 24.99
Claystone 55 115 21.48 4.22 0.33 4308.64 1.97 1.69 5.63

Fig. 3. Apparatus for triaxial compression testing in Laboratory of Geomechanics and Mining
Equipment, Institut Teknologi Bandung
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Two methods were utilized in this research and five specimens were used in each method. The
methods as shown in Fig. 4 were :

a. Multistage Triaxial Test I

When the termination point of on going stage has been reached, 1 and 3 were simultaneously
raised to 3 value of the next stage. 1 was then increased again up to termination point.
b. Multistage Triaxial Test II
When the termination point of on going stage has been reached, 1 was kept constantly, 3 was
increased to 3 value of the next stage. 1 was then increased again up to termination point.

Fig. 4. Stress paths in this study :

(left) multistage triaxial test I, (right) multistage triaxial test II

3. Results & Discussion

3.1 Failure mechanism
Failure mechanism of rock samples in triaxial test can be detected by observing alteration of
ultrasonic velocity (Fig. 5.a). In the early stage, closing cracks process is characterized by an
increasing of ultrasonic velocity. Next stage is elastic stage where the decreasing rate of ultrasonic
velocity is relatively stable and influenced by confining pressure. In the last stage, when about 85% of
maximum strain is reached, ultrasonic velocity curve dropped drastically. The higher confining
pressure cause more ductile behavior on the stress-strain curve, which is indicated by higher strain
rate after the yield point.
In multistage triaxial test I, simultaneous increasing of axial stress and confining pressure after the
yield point caused the sample confined in all directions and the crack propagation was prevented. It is
characterized by ultrasonic velocity curve that tends to remain stable and finally increased at the later
stages. Otherwise, in multistage triaxial test II, confining pressure addition without axial stress
increasing causes deviatoric stress down and the depressed sample can also release the stress in form
of greater axial strain as the consequence. Greater axial strain and crack propagation can be detected
by ultrasonic velocity curve reduction (Fig. 5.b). This opposite phenomenon has seen clearly after the
third peak strength was reached. Even multistage triaxial test II sample is stronger than multistage
triaxial test I sample, but the ultrasonic velocity curves shown the lower failure value.
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

100 4300 100 4400

3 = 12 MPa

90 90 4200
4100

3 = 10 MPa
80 80
3900 4000

70 70
3800

Ultrasonic Velocity (m/s)

3700

Ultrasonic velocity (m/s)

3 = 7.5 MPa

Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Stress (MPa)

60 60

3500 3600
3 = 5 MPa
50 50

3300 3400

40 40

3100 3200
30 2.5 MPa - axial stress 30
5 MPa - axial stress 3 = 2.5 MPa MS I - peaks
7.5 MPa - axial stress MS II - peaks
2900 3000
10 MPa - axial stress 20
20 MS I - axial stress
12 MPa - axial stress
2.5 MPa - UV MS II - axial stress
5 MPa - UV 2700 10 2800
10 7.5 MPa - UV MS I - UV
10 MPa - UV MS II - UV
12 MPa - UV
0 2600
0 2500
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

Fig. 5. Stress-strain-ultrasonic velocity curve of concrete in :

(left) conventional triaxial test, (right) multistage triaxial test

3.2 Stress paths effect to constitutive behavior in triaxial test

In general triaxial test, the addition of confining pressure increase triaxial compressive strength and
the sample behave more ductile. Different stress paths in multistage triaxial test affect the stiffness.
The compressive strength of multistage triaxial test I tend to be higher than multistage triaxial test II
and closer to conventional triaxial test result. This is due to the fact that the sample which is confined
by axial and lateral stress behaves stiffer. Also, the occurred axial strain is smaller. On the contrary,
multistage triaxial test II result shows more ductile behavior of specimen, as visible from a greater
axial strain but lower axial stress. The difference of stiffness between multistage triaxial test I and II
on concrete sample is greater than in Tanjung claystone. This might be due to the ductility of
claystone. The area under the stress-strain curve resulted by conventional triaxial test with highest
confining pressure, and both of multistage triaxial tests are generally very similar (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
This is confirmed by stress-strain energy principle.
Concrete specimens ruptured in homogeneus shear (Fig. 7.a), whereas Tanjung claystone
specimens failed in combination of shearing and several axial splittings (Fig. 7.d), because claystone
posseses loose and very fine grain size will be easily cracked in the low water content condition. By
focusing on the shearing only, the angle of shear plane formed by multistage triaxial test I is less than
multistage triaxial test II. The specimens for multistage triaxial test I were compacted (Fig. 7.b and
Fig. 7.e) while the specimens for multistage triaxial test II were crushed and lose contact on the
sliding plane (Fig. 7.c and Fig. 7.f).
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

100 90
Concrete samples Tanjung Claystones
90 3 = 2.5 - 5 - 7.5 - 10 - 12 MPa 3 = 3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - 10 MPa
80

80
70

70
60
Axial Stress (MPa)

Axial Stress (MPa)

60
50
50
40
40

MS I (A)- peaks 30 MS I (A)- peaks

30 MS I (B) - peaks MS I (B) - peaks
MS II (A) - peaks MS II (A) - peaks
MS II (B) - peaks 20 MS II (B) - peaks
20
MS I (A) MS I (A)
MS I (B) MS I (B)
10 10 MS II (A)
MS II (A)
MS II (B) MS II (B)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

Fig. 6. Stress-strain curve from multistage triaxial test on :

(left) concrete samples, (right) Tanjung claystone

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 7. Failure mode of samples resulted by : (a) single stage triaxial test on concrete with 3
= 7.5 MPa; (b) multistage triaxial test I on concrete; (c) multistage triaxial test II on concrete;
(d) single stage triaxial test on claystone with 3 = 7 MPa; (e) multistage triaxial test I on
claystone; (f) multistage triaxial test II on claystone

3.3 Failure criteria

Hoek-Brown empirical failure criterion is the most widely use to evaluate testing result data,
generated by conducting triaxial test. The results of triaxial tests conducted in this research are shown
in Table 2.
Table 2. Triaxial compressive strength
Concrete Tanjung claystone
Triaxial test Confining Pressure (MPa)
2.5 5 7.5 10 12 3 5 7 9 10
Single stage 43.92 58.56 75.83 85.80 91.14 47.98 - 78.26 - 89.20
Sample A 46.49 61.42 73.74 87.09 97.61 48.81 58.06 66..48 74.05 83.31
Multistage I
Sample B 44.80 59.74 69.24 83.48 92.06 47.75 61.01 69.42 73.63 79.63
Sample A 41.82 57.39 71.72 84.29 88.78 48.33 60.12 67.32 72.79 78.75
Multistage II
Sample B 44.87 54.39 63.91 74.79 84.30 47.42 59.78 66.48 74.89 80.03
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Data in Table 2 can be plotted using Hoek-Brown criterion for intact rock :

’1 = ’3 + ci √( 
) (1)

and shown in Fig. 8 where the Hoek-Brown constants are listed in Table 3.

120
UCS-C
Hoek-Brown Criteria of Concrete
SSTT = + 21.14 UCS-TC
100
MS I = + 23.07
SS-C (data)
MS II = + 24.38
80 MS I-C (data)
Axial Stress (MPa)

MS II-C (data)

60
SS-TC (data)

MS I-TC (data)
40 Hoek-Brown Criteria of Tanjung Claystone
MS II-T (data)
SSTT = + 22.85

MS I = + 29.62 SS-C (HB)

20
MS II = + 30.87 MS I-C (HB)

0 MS II-C (HB)
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Confining Pressure (MPa) SS-TC (HB)

MS I-TC (HB)
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Test, C = Concrete, TC = Tanjung Claystone,
SS = Single Stage, MS = Multistage, HB = Hoek-Brown Criteria MS II-TC (HB)

Fig. 8. Comparison of single-stage and multistage triaxial test results in terms of strength envelopes

Table 3. Hoek-Brown constants of conventional and multistage triaxial test results

Concrete Tanjung claystone
Triaxial test ci ti ci ti
mi mi
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Single stage 21.14 24.30 -0.87 22.85 21.78 -1.05
Constant 23.07 22.15 -1.04 29.62 13.56 -2.18
Multistage I
Relative error 9.11 -8.85 19.71 29.60 -37.73 108.15
Constant 24.38 16.98 -1.44 30.87 12.27 -2.52
Multistage II
Relative error 15.30 -30.14 65.04 35.07 -43.69 139.88

3.4 Numerical modeling

Numerical modeling based on finite difference method in this study used Flac3D as the tool. The
principle of this modeling is to record the stress-strain on elements of models in certain time units.
The stress strain curves from the model were then compared to the laboratory triaxial test result.
Model used the same geometry with samples tested in laboratory, which was a cylinder with a
length twice its diameter. Such as in triaxial test, initially the specimen was loaded hydrostatically
from zero to the required confining pressure. Further, fixed displacement velocity was given as
downward axial stress, by 10-4 m/s displacement velocity as upper and zero (no axial load) as lowest
boundary conditions and confining pressure (xx = zz) was applied as boundary condition in lateral
direction. Model used elastoplastic Hoek-Brown criterion. The resulted stress-strain curves from the
models were shown in Fig. 9.
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

100
Concrete samples
3 = 2.5 - 5 - 7.5 - 10 - 12 MPa

80 Tanjung Claystone
3 = 3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - 10 MPa
Axial Stress (MPa)

60

40
SS-TC SS-C
MS I-TC MS I-C
20 MS II-TC MS II-C
TC (peaks) C (peaks)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial Strain (%)
Fig. 9. Stress-strain curves of numerical modeling using Hoek-Brown elastoplastic constitutive

4. Conclusions
Two multistage triaxial tests using different stress paths were successfully performed on concrete
and Tanjung claystone samples. This first stress path scenario resulted higher triaxial compressive
strength for both concrete and Tanjung claystone. The failure envelope was also closer to the
conventional triaxial test. Based on this research, it is recommended to use stress paths by maintaining
the deviatoric stress for the addition of confining pressure in conducting of multistage triaxial test.

Acknowledgements
Great appreciations go to Mr. Sudibyo, Mr. Sugito, Mrs. Sari Rosman, Mr. Iwan Sofyan, Mr.
Kurnia, Mr. Purwanto, and Mr. Nurman for their assistance in this research. Special thanks to Mr.
Radiansyah and Mr. Fahrin Noor Zain for providing the Tanjung claystone samples from the mine site
of PT Dasa Karya.

References
Anonim, 2005, Manual Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions (FLAC3D) Version
3.0., User Guides, Theory and Background, 1:1-32, 2:94-96
Baumgarten, L. and Konietzky, H., 2013, Investigation on the fracture behaviour of rocks in a triaxial
compression test, Proc. of Eurock 2013 Sympo. Rock Mechanics for Resources, Energy, and
Environment, 10, 861-866.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B., 2002, Hoek-Brown criterion 2002 edition, Proceeding
NARMS-TAC Conference, Toronto, 1, 267-273.
ISRM Suggested Methods for Triaxial Compression Testing, 1978, 285-290.
Kim, M.M. and Ko, H.Y., 1979, Multistage triaxial testing of rocks, ASTM Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 2, 98-105.
Kovari, K. and Tisa A, 1975, Multiple failure state and strain controlled triaxial tests, Springer-Verlag
Rock Mechanics, 7, 17-33.
Pagoulatos, A., 2004, Evaluation of Multistage Triaxial Testing on Berea Sandstone (thesis).
Kramadibrata, S.,Wattimena, R.K., Simangunsong, G.M. and Prassetyo S.H., 2008, Failure Criteria
Development Using Triaxial Test Multistage and Conventional, Proc. of International Symposium
on Earth Science and Technology, 15-20.
Youn, H. and Tonon, F., 2010, Multi-stage triaxial test on brittle rock, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 47, 678-684.

View publication stats