Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Strength - Limestone
Strength - Limestone
R. L. Stowe
grew
¡01 I0S
ÉBflnsl
January 1969
Sponsored by
Conducted by
APR 15 1969
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado
R. L Stowe
January 1969
Sponsored by
Conducted by
3
ABSTRACT
ing slow (specimens loaded at rates of less than 2,251 psi/sec) and
5,000 psi. Granite, basalt, limestone, and tuff from the Atomic
tests indicated that the rock within each rock type was quite uni
ing rate was increased. Results of triaxial tests indicated that the
maximum deviator stress and total axial strain increased as the con
between the slow and the rapid rates of loading for the rocks tested
granite was less than 1; for the basalt, 1.35; for the limestone,
1.52; and for the tuff, 1.7^-« The compressional wave velocity of
5
PREFACE
Support Agency and funded under the Nuclear Weapons Effects Research
The work was conducted during the period October 1965 through
October 1967 under the direction of Mr. Bryant Mather, Chief, Concrete
Division, WES, conducted the rapid loading tests. Mr. Stowe, who
Directors of WES during the conduct of this study and the prepa
ration of this report were COL John R. Oswalt, Jr., CE, and
6
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT---------------------------------------------- 9
PREFACE----------------------------------------------- 6
NOTATION---- - ------------------ ----- ---------------------------- 12
1.1 Background------------------------------------------------- 15
1.2 Objective and Scope--------------------------------------- 16
1.3 Literature Survey------------ l8
TABLES
7
FIGURES
8
Dynamic stress versus strain curves for limestone
(200-kip loader) Specimens L-17> L-l8? and L-20------- 93
Stress versus straincurves for tuff Specimen T-7----- 94
Stress versus straincurves for tuff Specimen T-25----- 95
Stress versus straincurves for tuff Specimen T-26---- 96
Dynamic stress versus strain curves for tuff (drop
tower) Specimens T-ll, T-2U? and T-27----------------- 97
Ultimate strength versus loading rate for basalt in
unconfined compression------------------- -------------- 98
Ultimate strength versus total vertical strain at
failure for basalt tested in unconfined compression at
loading rates from 1 to 1.6 x 107 psi/sec------------- 99
Loading rate versus total axial strain at failure for
basalt-------------------------------------------------- 100
Loading rate versus total horizontal strain at failure
for basalt---------------------------------------------- 101
Loading rate versus modulus of elasticity for basalt- 102
Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite
Specimen G-20----------------------------------------- 103
Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite
Specimen G-7------------------------------------------ 104
Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite
Specimen G-k------------------------------------------ 105
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-lU--------------------- -------------------- io6
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-23----------------------------------------- 107
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen 2b------------------------------------------- 108
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-U------------------------------------------ 109
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-5------------------------------------------ 110
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-19------------------------------------ ----- 111
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-13--------*--------------------------------- 112
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-26--------------------------------------- - 113
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen B-27----------------------------------------- ll4
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen 28------------------------------------------- 115
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen 30------------------------------------------- ll6
Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt
Specimen 31-------------------------------------------- 117
Increase in deviator stress and axial strain with
increase in loading rate at confining pressures av of
250 , 1,000, and 5 >000 psi for basalt------------------- 118
Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone
Specimen L-U------------------------------------------- 119
Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone
Specimen L-7--------------- ---------------------------- 120
Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone
Specimen L-12---------------------------------------- 121
Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen
T-21------------------------------------------------- 122
Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen
T-20-------- --------------------- ------------------- 123
Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen
T-]J+........... ................................... - .................. ........................................ 12k
Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for
granite------------------------------------------------ 125
Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for
basalt------------------------------------------------- 126
Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for
limestone------ ----------------------------------------- 127
Mohr circles for granite------------------------------- 128
Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of
1 psi/sec---------------------------------------------- 129
Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of
50 psi/sec----- ---------------------------------------- 130
Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of
500 psi/sec-------------------------------------- ------ 131
Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of
2,7^0 psi/sec------------------------------------------ 132
Mohr circles for limestone----------------------------- 133
Mohr circles for tuff---------------------------------- 13U
Average stress-strain curves for basalt at various rates
of loading showing increase in ultimate strength and
strain at failure-------------------------------------- 135
Mohr envelope at various loading rates for basalt------ 136
Engineering classification for intact rock at a loading
rate of 50 psi/sec--------------------- ---------------- 137
Engineering classification for intact rock at a rapid
loading rate of >50 psi/sec---------------------------- 138
Engineering classification for intact rock for basalt
at loading rates from 1 to l6 X 10^ psi/sec------------ 139
10
3.7*+ Relation of axial stress to lateral stress at failure in
triaxial compression tests of rock cores--------------- l*+0
3.75 Relation of axial stress to lateral stress at failure in
triaxial compression at different loading rates for
basalt------------------------------------------------- 1*+1
11
NOTATION
A Area
strength
P Force
T Shearing stress
u Pore pressure
V Velocity
e Axial strain
a
Diametral strain
d
e Unit volumetric change
v
e Loading rate, psi/sec
12
(ji PoissonTs ratio
normal stress
a T Effective stresses
stress
13
CONVERSION FACTORS, BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Multiply By To Obtain
ib
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
There has been, and still is, a great need for information con
sary to know the mechanical properties of rock since they are used to
predict and control the behavior of the in situ rock mass. Past
was increased.
ties. The approach used for the work reported herein was one in
which intact specimens were extracted from the joint blocks and
upper (or lower) limit of the in situ strength value that would apply
15
natural discontinuities present. There is no reduction factor pre
often only a few tests may be conducted, and the results may not be
16
and sonic equipment in an effort to simulate the field in situ stress
rocks were granite from the Operation Flint Lock, Shot Pile Driver
Experiment, dense basalt from Buckboard Mesa, limestone from the Flat
Top Experiment, and tuff from the Red Hot-Deep Well Experiment. The
2
MSlow loading” in this report denotes that specimens were loaded
17
During the literature survey, particular attention was given to
those articles and papers that pertained to the following: (l) the
of rock.
1• 3 LITERATURE SURVEY
from other tests with increased loading, such as impact and sonic
tests, show that the strength and YoungTs modulus of elasticity can in
10 to about 1011 psi/sec. The maximum stress rate used for the rapid
n
testing reported herein was about 10 psi/sec. Figure 1.2 shows the
l8
dependence of the stress-strain curve on time of loading and shows a
There were many articles found during the literature survey that
steel jacket restricted the lateral expansion of the rock, and a pres
both to the testing apparatus and the method of constraining the rock
19
(Reference 8) . From tests on marble and sandstone, a relation be
tween confining pressure and rock strength was established. The re
found that both axial and lateral strain increased with increasing
20
as well as in many other materials (References l8 through 2k).
sures below 500 bars (7,250 psi); they are not reliably reproducible
almost all rocks increase toward failure and usually remain constant
rocks increase sharply, level off, and then decrease toward failure.
though the velocities parallel to the load are not affected by the
cracks, the velocities normal to the cracks must travel around the
cracks and are, therefore, slower. Figure 1.3 shows the variation of
21
wave v e l o c i t i e s w ith s t r e s s in th e a x i a l and t h e t r a n s v e r s e d i r e c
t i o n s u n d er v a r i o u s c o n f in in g p r e s s u r e s .
In t h e l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h , a c o n s id e r a b le amount o f r o c k p ro p
d if fe r e n t ro ck ty p e s . A t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s h as b een com
t i o n c o n t a in s 58 d i f f e r e n t p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s a lo n g w ith some r a t i o s
s o u r c e f o r t h o s e w o rk in g i n t h e f i e l d o f r o c k m e c h a n ic s .
22
S tr e s s R ate, p s i/ s e c
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
U ltim ate S tre n g th , k ip s /s q in
F ig u r e 1 . 1 E f f e c t o f lo a d in g r a t e on u lt im a t e c o m p re s siv e s t r e n g t h
( a f t e r R e fe r e n c e l ) .
23
Stress, psi
ro
4 =-
19,680
16,400 T7'
Figure 1.3 Effect of compressional stresses on the wave velocity in the axial
and transverse directions under confining pressures.
CHAPTER 2
The four rock types used in this program were to meet the fol
lowing criteria: (l) they were to be taken from sites where weapons
tests had been performed or were to be performed, and (2) they were
nois (Reference 32). The rocks are classified according to their un
high strength rocks, above 32,000 psi; Group B is for high strength
rocks, which range from, 16,000 to 32,000 psi; Group C is for medium
strength rocks, which range from 8,000 to 16,000 psi; Group D is for
low strength rocks, which range from U,000 to 8,000 psi; and Group E
is for very low strength rocks, which range from zero to U,000 psi.
feet, was used for both Groups A and B. The unconfined compressive
strength of the rock varied from about 19^000 to 3^5000 psi; this
26
Reference 33> this rock is called a granodiorite or granite. The
andesine range, orthoclase, and quartz were the most abundant con
disseminated throughout the rock and were present, along with quartz,
in sealed fractures.
Dense basalt from Buckboard Mesa, NTS, taken from depths of 13.2
to 157.1 feet was used for Group B rocks. The rock was a light gray,
Limestone from the Flat Top Experiment, NTS, taken from depths
of 5-5 to 82.0 feet, was used for Group C rocks. The rock was a
stylolite seams. The seams were not planes of weakness within the
27
sections, the rock consisted of fine-grained calcite and coarser
tightly cemented.
Tuff from the Red Hot-Deep Well Experiment, NTS, taken from
a dark red. It was composed of volcanic ash and was fairly well
welded.
The rock cores used for this program were NX (2 -l/8 -inch diam
After the cores had been cut to proper size, the ends were surface
ground with a machine shop surface grinder. The core ends were then
hand lapped with No. 320 Carborundum abrasive to obtain plane' end
surfaces; the end surfaces were within 0.001 inch planeness, were
2 .3 STRAIN GAGES
core; three gages were placed vertically 120 degrees apart, and three
28
were placed horizontally 120 degrees apart. All gages were located
bulk specific gravity of a rock core is the ratio of the weight in air
— 2 X 100i
Ur
S
where,
29
A through-sample method is used to measure compressional wave
the transit time through the sample. From this measurement of time
ting tests were conducted in accordance with Test Method CRD-C 77-6l
ducted in accordance with Test Method CRD-C 19-65, except that the
30
Based on nondestructive and destructive test results, the basalt rock
ing; that is, loading rates of 1, 500, and 2,250 psi/sec for confined
tests and 1, 500, 2.00 X 10^, 3-00 X 10^, and 1 X 10^ psi/sec for un
ducted in accordance with Test Method CRD-C 93-6U, except that com-
principal stress and the minor principal stress <j are assumed
to be identical and are equal to the lateral pressure used in the test.
31
Confining pressures of 250, 1,000, and 5^000 psi were selected as
ing the triaxial chamber and the accessories used inside the chamber
this study, aluminum end plates and bearing plates were used because
any other material available. The traveltime through the end plates
through the plates and rock sample. The equation V = •— was used to
u
with no change except for light hand lapping of the flat surfaces
core end surfaces to fill any small irregularities that may have
32
been present on the specimen ends. The aluminum plates were the
tions between the transducers and the recording equipment were made
with coaxial cables; 50-ohm cables about 0.08 inch in diameter were
used.
altered to produce a peak voltage of 200 volts. This was needed for
Type 55I * dual beam, with a Tektronix 1121 amplifier. This system
built into the falling mass prevented any rebound of the mass after
33
was placed on top of the rock sample to mitigate the pulse. The tuff
below the piston, and between the rupture disks. The rupture disks
surized by slow buildup of pressure above and below the piston while
is built up in the volume between the two rupture disks; the pressure
sure below the ram, thereby enabling half the total pressure below the
When the machine is triggered, the rupture disks burst and move the
loading ram onto the specimen, which is positioned below the ram.
to date have been about 2.0 X 10^ psi/sec. Total stroke of the
ram is k inches.
The load is measured above and below the test specimen by means
35
Loading Head
Loading Ram
Transducer
End Plate
Bearing Plate
Sample
Bearing Plate
End Plate
Transducer
Base Plate
36
_ Piston
Rupture Disk No. 1
Ram
Specimen
Pedestal
Concrete
L v -v ~ i I— Foundation
37
CHAPTER 3
rock type are best explained by (l) the slight change in mineral con
tent and inherent structure from one sample to the next; (2) the dif
(h) the chance for human error in sample preparation and in conducting
the tests.
to use cores from six different boreholes. The basalt cores were ob
from which they were taken was small. Based on a visual examination
were deemed very nearly the same. The limestone cores were taken
from three separate boreholes, and the tuff cores were taken from
one borehole.
38
properties of the cores, 13 samples were used for destructive testing.
used for destructive testing. Tables 3*1 through 3 -^- list the nonde
low and high specific gravity values, the average specific gravities,
and the density difference are given in the following tabulation for
the four :
rock types tested. Similar data with regard to specific
39
gravity of solids are given below for the four rock types tested.
0.16
03
O
o^
Tuff 2.33 to 2.1+9 2-39
The range in the calculated porosity for the granite was 0.10 to
the 20 samples selected for destructive testing was 0.30 percent. The
range in the calculated porosity for the basalt was 3*07 to 5*37 per
cent; the average porosity for the 16 samples selected for destructive
testing was 1+.60 percent. The range in the calculated porosity for
the limestone was 0.18 to O .85 percent; the average porosity for the
range in the calculated porosity for the tuff was 15-90 to 23-30 per
cent; the average porosity for the 12 samples selected for destructive
ical property that varied greatly for the four rock types. The
1+0
following tabulation gives the range in velocity, the difference, and
the average velocity for those rock samples that were destructively
tested.
this was accomplished by placing the core between the transducers, re
cording the velocity, and then removing the core. The difference in
the velocities for the granite was 2.6 percent and for the basalt was
3.0 percent. This difference is attributed to the fact that the first
most cases? however, the signal was fairly sharp; Figures 3-1 and 3-2
are typical photographs of the wave velocity trace recorded for the
four rock types used in this work. The signal arrival for the tuff
samples was less distinct than that for the other three rock types.
The average results of three tensile splitting tests for the four
tensile splitting test (see Figure 3-3 for stress-strain test results).
individual data is greater for the tensile splitting test than for the
direct tension test. There is very little data from which to conclude
any distinct advantage of one method of tensile testing over the other
however? the test results indicate that the direct pull method is more
consistent. Logically, the direct method should give a truer tensile
strength because when the sample is pulled, it will fail along its
weakest plane, wherever that plane may be. In the tensile splitting
test, the plane selected for testing need not necessarily be the
3.13 X i d , 1.29 X 107 , 1 .3^ x 107 , and 1.60 X 107 psi/sec. A modulus
of elasticity E ’
and a Poisson1s ratio q were calculated for each
unconfined compression specimen tested. The modulus of elasticity is
A ct
a value calculated at one-half the ultimate strength, i.e., E = ,
a,
where is the change in a,xial stress, and
a, is the change ^
Act Ae
fined compression tests run on the granite rock compare quite closely
with the in situ values reported in Reference 35. The work in Refer
for the granite cores tested during this project was 10.70 x 10^ psi.
The unit volumetric strain was also calculated for the unconfined
value was plotted with the stress versus axial and diametral strain
when the slope of the volumetric strain curve changes sign. Unit vol
tor stress versus compressional wave velocity curve. It was felt that
when the volumetric strain was constant, possibly indicating that in
44
, = 1 (<Ti + + a3 ) (3.1)
V E
i.e., in the triaxial compression test. Figure 3*^- shows the change
the tuff samples, and Figure 3*5 shows the 'V data obtained from
triaxial testing. A comparison of Figures 3*^ and 3*5 shows that the
1,320 ft/sec. The average initial velocity for samples tested under
combined stresses was 7>3^-0 ft/sec, while the average velocity at fail
bined stresses than under axial stress only. This was due to the fact
^5
that a confining pressure tends to consolidate the specimen uniformly,
granite and the basalt, was probably caused by localized stress con
then possibly the failure angle would develop in the specimen midsec
tion outside the constrained regions. Typical basalt shear breaks are
showed that brittle rock, such as granite and basalt, fails by verti
the case at the WES laboratory in the past. However, it was found
that when the specimen ends of brittle rocks were surface ground, hand
k6
compressive strengths and pronounced shear failures were obtained.
samples were held within close tolerances; the ends were ground plane
The dynamic stress-strain curves for the limestone are highly irreg
ular; however, there is no clear explanation for this. Both the slow
and rapid stress-strain curves for the tuff rock behave plastically,
Flint Lock, Shot Pile Driver, NTS) used for the unconfined compressive
strength tests was weaker than the same granite tested in the past at
the Concrete Division, WES, and at the Missouri River Division Labora
tory, Omaha, Nebraska. Previous tests have shown that the slow com
pressive strength of the Pile Driver granite ranges from about 19,000
Evidently, the granite cores used for testing in this program were
Both strength and total axial strain at failure for the lime
stone and the tuff increased under rapid loading. The f^ for the
loading was approximately 2.6 times greater than the strain under
slow loading. The f^ for the tuff was I.7U, and the increase in
axial strain at failure was about 2,267 M*in, or about 1.6 times
compared with that of the other two rock types; however, additional
this factor.
As stated earlier, the basalt rock was selected for further con
were run at loading rates of 1, 500 , and 2,250 psi/sec, and addi
2.06 X lCr psi/sec. In summary, the loading rates for the basalt
7
rock ranged from 1 to 1.60 x 10 psi/sec. The average slow compres
sive strength of the basalt was 21,460 psi, and the rapid compressive
the average rapid and the average slow axial strain at failure was
2 ?9^-0 |j,in/in, with the rapid strain being greater. Slow diamet
ral strain at failure was slightly greater than the rapid strain at
failure, i.e., l40 (jin/in greater. Figures 3*32 and 3 «33 show the
It can be seen from these graphs that loading rates up to 500 psi/sec
Figure 3*32 is a plot of the relation between loading rates and ulti
of best fit for the data is very good for both ends of the curve;
The data were fitted with a least-squares polynomial curve fit pro
gram taken to the third order, GE program No. CD 225H6.004, with the
2 3
form y .= a + bx + cx + dx .
Intuitively one might expect that total axial strain at failure
cally shown in Figure 1.1 for relatively low rates of loading. How
ever 5 the test data presented herein show this not to be true at
rates ranging from 7*1 to 1.7 X 10^ psi/sec. Results of tests re
over slow axial strain at failure may be the fact that as the rock
the strain gages are bonded breaks away intact and continues to
rapid loads show that the core fails in a cone break. This type
50
e q u a tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s o f th e l i n e o f b e s t f i t f o r th e in p u t d a t a .
in lo a d in g r a t e , th e t o t a l d ia m e tr a l s t r a i n a t f a i l u r e d e c r e a se s
a d d i t i o n a l d a ta sh o u ld be d ev elo p ed t o v e r i f y th e in c r e a s e in modu
a to r s t r e s s . F ig u r e s 3 .6 2 th rough 3 .6 8 a re p l o t s o f Mohr c i r c l e s th a t
show th e r e l a t i o n o f norm al s t r e s s t o s h e a r in g s t r e s s ; th e a n g le o f
in te r n a l f r ic t io n and th e sh e a r in g s t r e s s c a re g iv e n fo r each
ro ck ty p e . These f i g u r e s a l s o show th e o b se rv ed f a i l u r e p la n e in th e
t o th e lo a d in g r a t e s a t a s p e c i f i c c o n fin in g p r e s s u r e o^ . F ig u re
stre ss ct in c r e a s e d w ith in c r e a s e d lo a d in g r a t e ex ce p t f o r th e
51
specimens loaded at 50 psi/sec. At a of 5,000 psi, a in
creased throughout the full range of loading rates used. Total axial
rate of 50 psi/sec.
increase.
The tuff rock was the only one tested that showed a decrease in
pressure and axial loading probably caused the pore pressure to break
conducted along with the triaxial compression tests, agree quite well
52
w ith th e t e s t r e s u l t s foun d in th e l i t e r a t u r e search . T h e re w ere
v e l o c i t y i n c r e a s e d s h a r p ly when t h e a x i a l s t r e s s was i n c r e a s e d t o
a b o u t o n e - h a lf o f t h e u l t i m a t e s t r e s s . The v e l o c i t i e s th e n l e v e l e d
o f f u n t i l j u s t b e f o r e f a i l u r e ; a t f a i l u r e , t h e y e i t h e r rem ain ed co n
s ta n t or d ecreased s l i g h t l y . V e l o c i t i e s a l s o i n c r e a s e d w ith i n
c r e a s e d c o n f in in g p r e s s u r e . The i n c r e a s e s in v e l o c i t y from z e r o t o
maximum d e v i a t o r s t r e s s f o r th e r o c k s t e s t e d a r e g iv e n b e lo w :
Rock F a c t o r by W hich V e l o c i t i e s I n c r e a s e d a t I n d ic a t e d
C o n fin in g P r e s s u r e s
p si p si p si p si p si p si
G r a n it e 1.0 9 — 1 .1 0 — 1.0k —
B a s a lt 1 .0 3 — 1.0 6 — — 1.12
T u ff — 1 .2 3 1.21 1 .2 7 — —
No d i s t i n c t c o r r e l a t i o n c o u ld be made b e tw e e n t h e c o m p r e s s io n a l
wave v e l o c i t y v e r s u s d e v i a t o r s t r e s s and th e v o lu m e t r ic s t r a i n v e r s u s
v e l o c i t y c u r v e was a t a c o n s t a n t l e v e l , o r a t i t s h i g h e s t v a lu e when
t h e v o lu m e t r ic c u rv e was e x p a n d in g , i . e . , j u s t a f t e r t h e v o lu m e t r ic
ch ange was c o n s t a n t .
53
For all practical purposes, the straight-line relation described
of the stress circles presented for the granite and basalt. A curvi
linear analysis would best fit the stress circles presented for the
limestone rock. No envelope was drawn for the results of the tuff
Nearly all the observed shear failure planes did approach those pre
following tabulation.
Granite 50 250 52 72 5b
Granite 50 U ,000 50 72 5b
Basalt 1 1,000 6l 77 —
Basalt 1 5,000 — — —
Basalt 50 250 60 72 5^
Basalt 50 1,000 63 72 5b
Basalt 50 5,000 63 72 5b
Basalt 500 25 O 71 70 50
(Continued)
Rock Loading Observed Predicted Envelope
ff3
f
Rate Failure Failure Angle
Angle = 90 - 2-Oi
1,000- and the 5?000-psi cr^ stress circles are presented below.
1 -- 1 --
50 5^ 50 16
500 50 500 ^7
2,250 55 2,250 k6
55
The data on the previous page indicate that basalt under triaxial
failure fits the basalt rock quite well. Generally, the observed
rather crude and not taken as very accurate. The cohesion values for
psi/sec psi
1 —
50 3,800
500 3,900
2,250 3,700
classification for the intact rock specimens tested during the proj
Reference 32. Generally, the data reported herein fell very close
56
lateral stress at failure in triaxial compression at various loading
rates for the rock tested during this program. The data shown in
Figure 3*3^ are consistent with data found in the literature search.
However5 there were no data found during the literature search on any
57-58
TABLE 3 .1 TEST RESULTS FOR GRANITE
Spec Hole No. Depth Specific Poros Compres- Direct Tensile Slow Compression Rapid Compression
imen Gravity ity sional Tension Splitting
No. Wave Strength Unconfined Compressive Triaxial Compressive Strength with Unconfined Compressive
Bulk Solids Velocity Strength Test Compressional Wave Velocity (V^) Strength Test
Dry
Loading Strength Y oung* s Pois Strength at Confining Young’s Pois Initial High Loading Strength Young *s
Rate Modulus son* s Pressures of 2 5 0 , Modulus son *s V V Rate Modulus
Ratio 1,000, and t,000 psi Ratio P P
feet pet ft/sec psi psi psi/sec psi_ 106 psi psi psi psi 106 psi ft/sec ft/sec psi/sec psi 106 psi
G-l U-1501 -U2 11.1 to 11.7 2.69 2.70 0 .3 3 18,8I+0 — 1,5^0 — — — — — — — — — — — --
G-2 U-1501 -U2 73.2 to 2.69 2.70 0 .3 3 1 8 ,5 9 0 — — 50 19,790 10.20 0.22 — — — — -- — — —
G -h U-I5-I7 52.6 2 .7 1 2.71 0.10 18,820 — — -- — — — — 5 2 ,5^0 10.00 O.29 20,660 21,8t0 — —
G-5 U-I5OI-UI 728.0 to 730.2 2.68 2.70 0.63 18,270 — 1,630 — — — — — — — — — -- — —
g -6 U-I5-27 121.0 2.69 2.70 O.29 1 8 ,5 5 0 1 ,7 7 0 — — — — — — — — — . -- — — —
G-7 U-15 E-01 9 9 .b 2.68 2.70 0 .6 3 18,000 — — — — — — — 29,320 11.30 0.22 18,000 1 9 ,9^0 —
G-8 U-I5OI-UI 728.0 to 730.2 2.68 2.69 0 .3 3 1 7 ,5 0 0 1 ,7 7 0 — — — — — — — — — -- — — —
G-IO U-I5OI-UI 728.0 to 730.2 2.68 2.69 0.29 1 9 ,2 3 0 — ~ 50 2 0 ,ltO II.60 0.22 — — — — — — — —
G-ll U-I5OI-UI I7O9.O to I7IO.7 2.70 2.70 0.11 6
19,220 — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.03 x 10 18,070 IO.5I
G-13 U-I5OI-UI 1709;o to 1710.7 2.66 2.68 0 .7 5 17,1+00 — — — -- — — — — — — — — 6.95 x 106 20,960 1 0 .0 3
G-15 U-I5OI-UI 1759.9 to 1760.9 2.70 2.71 0.11 19,M+o ~ — 50 22,290 IO.3O 0.22 — — — — — -- — --
G-16 U-I5-27 178.0 2.68 2.69 0 .3 7 18,720 — 1,920 — — -- — — — — — — -- -- --
G-17 U-15 E-01 106.5 2.70 2.70 0.11 17,860 — — — — — — — — — — — -- — --
G-18 U-I5OI-UI 1759.9 to 1760.9 2.70 2.71 0.11 18,380 — — — — — — — — — — -- — -- --
G-19 U-1501 -U1 — 2.69 2.69 0.22 18,660 — — — — — — -- — — — -- — -- --
G-20 U-I5OI-UI — 2.68 2.69 0 .7 7 18,250 — — — — — — 2t,120 — 10.70 O.25 18,250 20,050 — —
59-60
TABLE 3.2 TEST RESULTS FOR BASALT
250 1 ,0 0 0 5 ,0 0 0
B - ll C a le x 2 .7 0 - - 16,730 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 .0 6 x 1 0 5 2 7 ,5 2 0 3-^2 O .3 9 -
B -13 DA - 2 95.0 t o 9 6 .5 2.7k 2.83 3.11 1 7 ,7 6 0 - - - - - 5OO 2 5 ,6 2 0 -- - 1+.1+6 0.37 - - - -- - -- Shear a t 71 d egrees fro m h o r i z o n t a l
B -25 C a le x - 2 .6 8 - - 1 6 ,2 5 0 2 ,0 9 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
B -29 C a le x -- 2 .6 9 - 15,990 - 50 2 1 ,2 5 0 5 .0 0 0 .2 6 - - - - - - - - - -- - —
L \.i iQ
61-62
TABLE 3.3 TEST RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE
Spec Hole Depth Specific Poros Compres Tensile Slow Compression Rapid Compression
imen No. Gravity ity sional Splitting
No. Wave Strength Unconfined Compressive Triaxial Compressive Strength with Unconfined Compressive
Bulk Solids Velocity Strength Test Compressional Wave Velocity U p ) Strength Test
Dry
Loading Strength Young's Pois Strength at Confining Young's Pois Initial Highest Loading Strength YoungTs Pois
Rate Modulus son Ts Pressures of 2 5 0 , Modulus son^ V V Rate Modulus son's
Ratio Ratio P P
1,000, and U,000 psi Ratio
feet pet ft/sec psi psi/sec psi 10^ psi psi psi psi 106 psi ft/sec ft/sec psi/sec psi irß psi
10
L- 2 FT-1 . 3 5.5 to 6.5 2.68 2.70 0.81 19,890 -- 50 9,500 10. k2 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
L-k FT-1 . 1 12.1 to 12.8 2.71 2.73 O.69 20,580 -- -- -- -- -- 1 5 ,1 ^ 0 10.80 0.35 20,220 22,250 -- -- -- --
L- 7 FT - 1 69.O 2.72 2.73 o lo 20,690 -- 50 12,750 12.00 0.29 -- 25,200 11.80 0.32 21,060 21,960 — -- -- --
L- 1 2 FT-1 . 0 8 1 to 9.1 2.71 2.73 0.55 20,250 -- -- -- — -- -- 31,630 9.82 0.32 19,880 21,930 — -- -- --
L- 1 7 FT - 1 18.6 2.70 2.71 OlO 22,320 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — -- 1.87 x 107 37,290 12.03 o.ko
L-l8 FT - 1 62.8 2.71 2.72 0.29 20,930 -- -- -- — -- -- — — -- -- 5.80 X 106 29,000 II.76 0.35
£
L- 2 0 FT - 1 27.8 2.71 2.72 0.18 21,150 -- -- — -- -- -- -- — — -- 1 I 9 x 10 1^,930 7.61 0.U6
Average 2.70 2.72 0 1 6 20,710 1,210 11,180 11.23 0.26 27,070 1016 o lo
63-6b
TABLE 3 . li- TEST RESULTS FOR TUFF
Speci Hole No. Depth Specific Poros Natural Water Compres- Tensile Slow Compression Rapid Compression
men Gravity it y Content sional Splitting
No. Wave Strength Unconfined Compressive Triaxial Compressive Strength with Unconfined Compressive
Bulk Solids Before After Velocity Strength Test Compressional Wave Velocity ( 7p) Strength Test
Dry Test Test
Loading Strength YoungTs Pois Strength at Confin YoungTs Pois In itia l Highest Loading Strength Young' s Pois
Rate Modulus son^ ing Pressures of Modulus son's V Rate Modulus son Ts
Ratio VP P
Patio 250, 1,000, and Patio
1,500 psi
250 1,000 1,500
feet pet ft/sec psi psi/sec psi 10^ psi psi psi psi 1 rß psi
10 ft/sec ft/sec psi/sec psi 106 psi
T-7 U12 GO 6ul+ 1 0 .0 to 1 2 .0 1-93 2-39 19.38 23.2 17 -!+ 6,600 -- 50 1,560 0.k3 0.13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
T -ll U12 GO 6ui+ 31.5 to 37.0 1.85 2.3!+ 21.77 22.1+ l6 .6 8,61+0 -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.1+6 x 105 l+,230 0 .9 1 0.36
T-13 U12 GO 6ui+ 31.5 to 37.0 1.92 2.1+1+ 2 1 .1 0 2 1 .0 17.1 7,190 210 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
T-ll+ U12 GO 6\Jb 1+1. b to 1+2.9 I.9I+ 2.35 17.60 19.7 15.7 8,810 -- — -- -- -- -- - 3,560 0.878 0.19 7 ,5 7 5 9,61+1+ -- -- -- --
T-15 U12 GO 6ul+ 1+1.1+ to 1+2.9 I.9I+ 2 . 1+3 20.30 19-7 15.6 7 , 1+70 130 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
T-20 U12 GO 6uk 67.7 to 72.0 1.92 2.35 18.39 20.1+ 17.1 7,610 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,610 0.333 0 .1 7 6 ,9 ^ 8M 3 -- -- -- --
T-21 U12 GO 6ui+ 67.7 to 72.0 1.92 2.1+0 20.29 17.1 ll+.l 7,670 — -- -- -- -- U,910 -- 0.91+7 0 .25 7 ,5 3 2 9 ,8 5 9 -- -- -- --
T-23 U12 GO 6vb 67.7 to 72.0 I.98 2.35 15.90 21+.7 2 0 .6 8,060 250 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
T-21+ U12 GO 6ul+ 67.7 to 72.0 1.89 2.33 18.95 23.5 17.6 8,190 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 . 6 8 x io 5 1,850 0 .3 3 0.^2
T-25 U12 GO 6ul+ 67.7 to 72.0 1.91 2.1+9 23.30 2 0 .2 16.3 8,190 -- 50 .1,670 0 .7 7 0.2k -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
T-26 U12 GO 6ul+ 67.7 to 72.0 1.91 2.1+1+ 21.80 2 0 .2 16.5 8,000 — 50 1,680 0.1+0 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- --
T-27 U12 GO 6uk 67.7 to 72.0 1.91 2.36 19.06 21.9 19.1 8,280 -- -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- 3.11 x 105 2,1+90 0.1+1 0.^9
Average 1.92 2.39 19.82 21.1 16.9 7,891 197 1 , 61+0 0.53 0.19 2,860 0.55 0.1+2
65-66
b. Basalt.
67
a. Limestone.
b. Tuff.
Figure 3.2 Photographs showing traces of compressional wave veloc
ity for limestone and tuff.
68
Tensll* 8trut| p*i
Strain, pin/in
Figure 3.h Compressional wave velocity versus axial stress, tuff in unconfined compression*
Compressional Wave Velocity, ft/sec
0 2 4 6
Deviator Stress, 10 psi
72
/
1JOOO 2,000
Strain, |iin/in
0 .1
Strain, percent
Figure 3.7 Stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G-2.
Stress, 10° psi
0 ipoo 2,000
Strain, pin/in
Strain, percent
Figure 3.8 Stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G-10.
Stress, lCr psi
0 .1
Strain, percent
Figure 3*9 Stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G-15.
5 G-13
20
> G-ll
/
psi
Dynamic Stress, 10
/
Specimen Ultimate Modulus of
No. Strength Elasticity Rise Time L o a d i n ig R a t e
Figure 3.10 Dynamic stress versus strain curves for granite (200-kip loader) Specimens
G-ll and 0-13.
Stress, lCr p si
Strain, Mdn/in
Expansion*«— Strain, percent — ^Contraction
Figure 3.11 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-l.
psi
Stress, 10
0 2,000 4,000
Strain, l-iin/in
- 0.4 - 0.2 0 0.2
Expansion <-- Strain, percent -- p Contraction
Figure 3.12 Stress versus strain curve for basalt Specimen B-21.
Stress, lCr psi
Figure 3.13 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-22.
S tr e s s , lCr p s i
Figure 3.1^- Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-29.
20
15
10
Figure 3.15 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-20.
psi
Stress, 10
Figure 3«l6 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-9*
psi
Stress, 10
0 2,000 4>000
Strain, pùn/in
- 0.2 - 0.1 0 0.1
Expansion 1— Strain, percent Contraction
Figure 3.17 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-7.
psi
Stress, 10
Figure 3.19 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-6.
Stress, 10^ psi
Figure 3.20 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-15.
Stress, lCr psi
Figure 3*21 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-8.
Stress, lCr psi
Figure 3.22 Stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-ll.
Stress, lCr psi
Figure 3.23 Dynamic stress versus strain curves for basalt (200-kip loader) Specimens
B-10, B-l6, 3-1..', and B-l8.
Specimen No. L-2
Loading Rjite 50 psi/sec
Ultimate strength 9,500 psi
os
H*
Modulus o E elasticity 10.42 x 10
CD
Poisson's ratio 0.19
psi
L
3©
10
Stress 5
0 400 800
Strain, pin/in
0 0.4
Strain, percent -- ► Contraction
Figure 3.21+ Stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-2.
Specimenj No. L-7
Loading Rate 50 psi/se c
Ultimate strength 12,750 ps i
Modulus >f elasticit r 12.0 x 10 6 psi
Poisson* i ratio 0.29
Diametra 1
?
psi
>Axial )Volumetric
Stress, 10
rr
( >
o ipoo
Strain, pin/in
0 0.4
Expansion#— Strain, percent— #• Contraction
Figure 3.25 Stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-7.
psi
Stress, 10
Figure 3.26 Stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-8.
psi
Stress, 10
Figure 3-27 Dynamic stress versus strain curves for limestone (200-kip loader)
Specimens L-17, L-l8, and L-20.
VO
■P-
0 2p00 4,000
S tra in , lJtin/in
o a .2
Strain, percent
Figure 3.28 Stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-7.
20
15
10
Figure 3.29 Stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-25.
psi
Stress, 10
0 2p00 4,000
Strain, pin/in
0 0.1 0.2
Strain, percent-- T Contraction
Figure 3.30 Stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-26.
Dynamic Stress, 10° psi
Figure 3.31 Dynamic stress versus strain curves for tuff (drop tower) Specimens T-ll,
1-2k, and 1 -27.
I O 3 PSI
STRENGTH,
ULTIM ATE
Figure 3*32 Ultimate strength versus loading rate for basalt in unconfined compression.
psi
Ultimate Strength, 10
Figure 3.35 Loading rate versus total horizontal strain at failure for "basalt.
psi
Young1s Modulus of Elasticity, 10
(unconfined compression)
0 0
0
1 io io 2 io 3 io 4 io 5 io 6 10 7
Loading Rate, psi/sec
Strain, percent
Figure 3*37 Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G-20.
Specirae n No, G - 7 : Loading Iate 50 psi/sec
Confining pressure 1,000 psi
Maximum d eviator stre ss 29,320 psi
Maximum p rincipal str ass 30,320 psi '
Modulus 0 f elasticity 11.3 x L0& psi
Poisson*s ratio 0.22
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
30
/
/
20
0
/
.1
Strain, percent
Figure 3.38 Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G--7.
V /
i
/
i
/////// / /*
Diametral
/ /
/
A xial
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
Volumetric
/
/ /
/
p'
/
/
/
/
V Spec in en No. G-4
Load ir g Rate 50 psi/sec
/ ^ / 'J /"
/
/ //
Confin Lng pressure 4,0 30 psi
Maxima n deviator s :ress 52,5 ^0 psi
’j
:/ Maxima a principal stress 56,5 ^■0 psi
/
_______
2,000 4,000
Strain, pin/in
0 0.05 0.10 0.15
Strain, percent
Figure 3.39 Deviator stress versus strain curves for granite Specimen G-U
20
15
Volumetric
10
Specimen Nd. B-14
Loading Ratfe 1 psi/sec
Confining pressure 250 psi
Maximum D e l a t o r Stress 21,240 psi
Maximum Pri ncipal Stress 21,490 psi
5
Modulus of Elasticity 5.18 x 106 psi +
Poisson* s Ratio 0.41
0 2,000 4,000
Strain, pin/in
- 0.2 - 0.1 0
Expansion Strain, percent --- 1 Contraction
3.^-0 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-lU.
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
Figure 3.kl Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-23.
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
0 0.1 0.2
Expansion 4— Strain, percent — ► Contraction
Figure 3.^2 Deviator stress versus strain curves for ba s a l t Specimen 2k.
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
Figure 3.^-3 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-^.
Deviator Stress, 10J psi
Strain, percent
Figure 3 . b k Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-5.
Deviator Stress, IO0 psi
Figure 3.^5 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-19.
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
Figure 3.^6 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-13.
24
y
^ ---------------
7
\
o
\
_________ ______
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
18
/
Diametral
^ Axial
©
12 d & Specimen No . B-26
Loading Rat!a 500 psi/se : Volumetric
Confining f:ressure 1P00 psi
Maximum Dev*lator Stress 31,290 psi
Maximum Prijicipal Stres s 32,290 psi
J >
{/
Modulus of 1Elasticity 3.94 x 106 ?si f
Poisson's B atio 0.27
Figure 3.^-7 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-26.
Deviator Stress, 10J psi
Figure 3.^8 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen B-27.
Specimen - Basalt 28
Loading Rate 2,740 psi/se<
Confining Pressure 250 psi
Maximum Deviator Stress 25,700 psi
Maximum Principal Stresi i 25,950 psi
40
Modulus of ]Ilasticity 4,00 x 106 psi
Poisson's R itio 0.25
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
30
.0
%
20 --------gCygS.. 0
O
A
s * '
Diametral
® Axial
10 .. /
A
..... G
O
> /
A
/
J, )
(
^'1
< Volumetric
t _________ ii
2P00 4,000 6,000
Strain, Mln/in
-o.i o 0.1 0.2
Expansion f -- Strain, percent ►Contraction
Figure 3.^9 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen 28.
i-----------
Specimen, Basalt 30 J
Loading R$te %250 psi/sec
Confining ^Pressure 1,000 psi
Maximum Deviator Stress 35,01.0 psi
Maximum Principal Stress 36,01L0 psi
40
Modulus o i\ Elasticity/ ; 4.71 X 106 psi
Poisson’s Ratio , 0.25
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
_-0
X ) o-
30
. 0
A Axial
:0
Diametral
(V
s X' Volumetric \
r-Y ..
20 x> )-- — -----
/
c
10
f ó
r -°
i 07
/
4,000 8,000 12,000
Strain, p-in/in
- 0.2 0 0.2
Expansion 4-- Strain, percent »Contraction
Figure 3*50 Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen 30.
-----------1
-----------
Specimen Basalt 31
Load Rate " 2,250 p ïi/sec
Confining Pressure 5,000 psi
Maximum Deviator Stress 54,000 psi
Maximum Principal Stres 3 59.000 osi
60
Elasticity
Modulus of 1 5.03 X IO6 )SÌ
Poisson's latio
i 0.15
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
%
45
Diametral
V
Volli letne 0
Axial
á
30
— f
ê
CÏ j
A_
15
^ O
à G> Gj
\ (j
Figure 3 .5 I Deviator stress versus strain curves for basalt Specimen 31«
60
<73 = 2 50 PS 1
50
40
30
A - 5C1 P S U S EC
/ 1
I
5 0 P S //S E C
5 0 0 P S l/S E
/ P S U S E C -y
20
10
0
< 4,000 8,000 12,000 0 4 ,0 0 0 8 ,0 0 0 12,000 0 4 ,0 0 0 8 ,0 0 0 12,000
A X IA L S T R A IN , JLLIN /IN
gure 3.52 Increase in deviator stress and axial strain with increase in loading rate
confining pressures a ■ of 250 , 1,000, and 5,000 psi for basalt.
Spec itilen No. L-4
Loadiiig Rate 50 psi/sec
Confin Lng pressure 250 psi
Maximui i deviator st ress 15, L40 psi
Maximui i principal stress 15. 390 psi
Modulu \ of elastici ty 10.8 x 106 psi
Poisso i's ratio 0.35
/
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
rr\
j Diametral
/Axial
/ Volumetric
/,
V
7
1
0 500 ip00 1^00
Strain, |iin/in
0 .04
Strain, percent
Figure 3.53 Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-U.
Deviator Stress, lCr psi
0 ipOO 2p00
Strain, nin/in
0 .04 .08
Strain, percent
Figure 3.5^- Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-7
Deviator Stress, 10° psi
Figure 3.55 Deviator stress versus strain curves for limestone Specimen L-12.
Deviator Stress, 10J psi
Figure 3.56 Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-21
psi
Deviator Stress, 10
Strain, percent
Figure 3«57 Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-20.
psi
Deviator Stress, 10
Figure 3.58 Deviator stress versus strain curves for tuff Specimen T-]J+.
Compressional Wave Velocity, ft/sec
Figure 3*59 Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for granite.
— ---------
Compressional Wave Velocity, ft/sec
©
B-19
-G® —
— __________ l
J --- Gì
B-5
■>— -i
-0 \
— o-
Specimen No » Confinine Pressure
(i) B-4
B-4 250 psi
B-5 1,000 psi
B-19 5^000 psi
Figure 3.60 Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for basalt.
Compressional Wave Velocity, ft/sec
Figure 3«6l Compressional wave velocity versus deviator stress for limestone.
Shearing Stress, psi
Figure 3.63 Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of 1 psi/sec.
Shearing Stress,
Figure 3.6^4 Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of 50 psi/sec.
Shearing Stress
Figure 3.65 Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of 500 psi/sec.
Shearing Stress, osi
Figure 3.66 Mohr circles for basalt tested at loading rate of 2,7^0 psi/sec.
Shearing Stress, psi
Figure 3.69 Average stress-strain curves for basalt at various rates of loading showin
increase in ultimate strength and strain at failure.
S H E A R I N G S T R E S S , PSI
0 1 0 ,0 0 0 20,000 30,000
N O R M A L S T R E S S , PSI
136
NOTE: I E t = TANGENT M O D U L U S AT 5 0 % U LT IM A T E STRENGTH
«o
o 2 C L A S S IF Y ROCK AS B, BH, BL, ETC.
X
CD
o 8 16 32 P S I X 10°
2
U
\
o
E D c B A
V ER Y LO W LO W MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH
STREN G TH STRENGTH STRENGTH STRENGTH 1STRENGTH
16 i -
20 1 1 1 1 T~ 1 1 I 1 111 7~
I O /
I A
G RA N IT E
BASALT
/ \
/’
A*
I □ LIM ESTO N E
10
“ □ TUFF
□D /. □ ;Y /
9
8 // “7/
7 /
6 / /
W
. o
A / -- 1
^7
^/ --
/ / ALi--
MODULUS
/ / A
?
\ /
/
Z
c / D /y
A /
Y O U N G 'S
/ <
5
' ? >
/ /
/
j
/
1
0*'
____ 4
u/.
/ J/
'A
/
.5 - ____ / □ /
V
P
/ /
--/---
/ *
/
/
V
(D
□
-TT__ /
.2 — f z
Z l . I N I . J_LL
5 6 7 8 9 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 P S I X 10-
_L _L
75 125 250 500 1,000 2 ,0 0 0 4,000 K G / C M 2
U N IA X IA L C O M P R E S S IV E STRENGTH y CTa ( U L T )
137
NOTE: I Et = TANGENT M ODULUS AT 50% U L T IM A T E STRENGTH
«o
o 2 C L A S S IF Y ROCK AS B, BH, BL, ETC.
MODULUS
YOUNG'S
U N IA X IA L C O M P R E S S IV E S T R E N G T H f CTa ( U L T )
138
NOTE: I E t = TANGENT M O D U L U S AT 5 0 % U LT IM A T E STRENGTH
10
o 2 C L A S S IF Y ROCK AS B, BH, BL, ETC.
X
4 8 16 32 P S I X I0J
2
U
\ E _D_ c B \
o
¥ V ER Y LO W L.OVV IVIE DIUM l-IIG »H VIERY H IGH
ST R EN G T H ST■REN(3TH ST■RENGTH STR :e n <j TH S'FREh4G;t h
16 |-
7—
20 _________ 1
______ 1
____ 1
___ 1
___ 1
__
E 0 G RA N IT E 7 “ j
- A BASALT *'
I □ LIM ESTO N E /
- □ TUFF Cl 0 7
10 0,. / /
9 / //
8
7
7 j? /
6 /
K 1
Ui 5 /
. o.
A
A ^u
u
r
MODULUS
4
/ / A
A
* A 7
7 A
A /
p
£
J 7
YOUNG'S
,>
■/ _ ^7 /
' >✓
/ ? /
j,/ 4
/
/ o* /
/ & 7 °
/
/ OJ 1—1 7
T—l
r---- / 7
/ / AV*0°
/
0
1
t
/ V
7 /
V
t
1
/
.3 / □ l i l t . 1.11
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 P S I X 10°
_L ______ I_________ L_
75 125 250 5 00 1,000 2 ,0 0 0 4,0 00 KG / C M '
U N IA X IA L C O M P R E S S IV E S T R E N G T H ^ 0"a ( U L T )
139
Figure 3.7^ Relation of axial stress to lateral stress at failure
in triaxial compression tests of rock cores.
A X I A L S T R E S S , 1 0 ° PSI
l4l
CHAPTER 1+
4.1 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of results obtained from the various slow and rapid
and compressional wave velocity tests, indicate that all rock speci
For the basalt rock, the total axial strain and the Young's modulus of
the slow and the rapid rates of loading for the rocks tested varied
granite was less than 1; for the basalt, 1.35; for the limestone,
142
have a pronounced effect on maximum deviator stress with lateral pres
up to 5^000 psi. Mohr!s theory of failure fits the basalt rock quite
creases in both the applied axial stress and confining pressure. Ve
within about one-half of the maximum deviator stress and then generally
b.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
rock with a high water content (such as tuff) is tested in the future
lbs
REFERENCES
Unknown; Unclassified.
Colorado School of Mines, July 1959; Vol. 5^-? No. 3? Pages 3-31;
Unclassified.
Royal Society of London, 1901, Ser. A, Vol 195 5 Pages 363 -^d;
Unclassified.
Ibk
1956; Pages 1-15; Shell Development Company Exploration and Produc
Unclassified.
1^5
12. K. S. Lane and W. J. Heck; "Triaxial Testing for Strength
Unclassified.
Rigidity of Rock"; Journal of Geology, 1938, Vol. b6, Pages 59-87 and
113-1^1; Unclassified.
1 b6
18. D. S. Hughes and H. J. Jones; nVariât ions of Elastic Moduli
Unclassified.
Unclassified.
lb7
2b. M. P. Volarovich and D. B. Balashov; "Study of Velocities
Nauk, SSSR), Geophysics Ser. (English ed.), 1957> Vol. 3> Pages 56-69
Unclassified,
Journal of Applied Physics, 1958, Vol. 29 , No. 12, Pages 1736 -1738 ;
Unclassified.
known; Unclassified.
and Index Properties for Intact Rock"; Technical Report No. AFWL-TR-
Unclassified.
150
DISTRIBUTION LIST
No. of
Address___________________________ Copies
Army
151
No. of
Address Copies
Army (Continued)
152
No. of
Address Copies
Army (Continued)
Navy
153
No. of
Address Copies
Navy (Continued)
Air Force
Headquarters, USAF 1
ATTN: AFRSTG, Washington, D. C. 20330
15 ^
No. of
Address Copies
AFWL
ATTN : Library 2
WLDC 1
Kirtland AFB, N. Mex. 87117
155
No. of
Address Copies
H H
ATTN: Technical Library
Mr. Frank J. Thomas
Washington, D. C. 20301
156
No. of
Address Copies
Other Agencies
157
No. of
Address Copies
158
Wo. of
Address Copies
159
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR CONCRETE RESEARCH REPORTS
No. of
Office Copies Remarks
OCE (ENGCW-E) 2
OCE (ENGAS-I) 2
OCE (ENGSA) 1
Bd of Engrs for
Rivers & Harbors 1
Engr School Library
Fort Belvoir 1
CERC 1
l60
No. of
Office Copies Remarks
NCD 1 DE
1 ATTN: Chief, Soils & Mtls Branch
Buffalo 1 ATTN: Chief, Engineering Division
Chicago 1 ATTN: Chief, Engineering Division
1 ATTN: Chief, Operations Division
Detroit 2 ATTN: Library
Rock Island 1 DE
St. Paul 1 DE
1 ATTN: Chief, Design Branch
l6l
No. of
______Office Copies ____________________Remarks
ORD 1 DE
2 Director, ORDL
Huntington 1 ATTN: Library
1 ATTN: Mr. David Deeds
Louisville 1 ATTN: Chief, Construction Division
Nashville 1 ATTN: Chief, Design Branch, Engrg Div
1 ATTN: Chief, Construction Division
1 Res Engr, J. Percy Priest, Res Office
1 Res Engr, Cordell Hull Project
1 Res Engr, Laurel River Reservoir Project
Pittsburgh 1 ATTN: Engineering Div Tech Library
1 ATTN: Chief, Design Branch
1 ATTN: Chief, Construction Division
1 ATEN: Chief, District Laboratory
162
No. of
Office Copies Remarks
Corps of Engineers
Personnel 100
Abstract of report 80
Consultants:
Mr. Byram W. Steele
Mr. R. L. Blaine
Professor Raymond E. Davis
Dr. Roy W. Carlson
Dr. Bruce E. Foster
Automatic:
Engineering Societies Library
Library, Div of Public Doc, U. S. Govt Printing Office,
Washington, D. C.
Library of Congress, Doc Expd Proj, Washington, D. C.
Bureau of Reclamation, ATTN: Code 2$k, Denver, Colo.
COL C. T. Newton
Mr. Ralph Lane, TVA, Materials Engrg Lab, Knoxville, Tenn.
163
Exchange Basis:
Magill University, Canada (ERG-271) 1
Dir of Road Res, Road Res Lab, Ministry of Transport,
Crowthorne, Berks., England (ERG-299) 1
Swedish Cement & Cone Res Inst, Stockholm, Sweden (ERG-121) 1
Rational Research Council, Ottawa, Canada(ERG-17) 1
The Librarian, Ministry of Technology at Kingsgate House,
London, England (ENG-46) 1
Inst of Civil Engineers, London, England (ERG-47) 2
Institution of Engineers, Australia (ERG-162) 1
Cement and Concrete Assoc, London, England (thruERGTE-AS) 1
M. P. Dutron, Bruxelles 5> Belgium (ENG-304) 1
Director, Public Works Research Inst, Ministry of Constr,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan (ENG-324) 1
Instituto Mexicana del Cemento y del Concreto, A.C.,
Mexico 20, D.F. (ENG-329) 1
APPLIED MECHANICS REVIEWS, San Antonio, Tex. 2
Dept of Civil Engineering, The University ofArizona 1
Dr. Rex K. Rainer, Auburn Univ, Auburn, Ala. 1
Library, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. 1
Engineering Library, Univ of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. 1
Central Records Lib, Dept of Water Resources, Sacramento, Calif. 1
Prof. H. R. Nara, Engrg Div, Case Inst of Tech, Cleveland, Ohio 1
Central Serial Record Dept, Cornell Univ Lib, Ithaca, N. Y. 1
Engrg & Ind Experi Sta, Univ of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 1
Price Gilbert Memorial Lib, Georgia Inst of Tech, Atlanta, Ga. 1
Gordon McKay Library, Harvard Univ, Cambridge, Mass. 1
Gifts & Exchange Div, Univ of 111. Library, Urbana, 111. 1
Library, Iowa State Univ of Science & Tech, Ames, Iowa 1
Engrg Experi Sta, Kansas State Univ of Agric & Applied Science,
Manhattan, Kans. p
University Library, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. 1
Librarian, Fritz Engineering Lab, Lehigh Univ, Bethlehem, Pa. 1
Hydrodynamics Lab, 48-209, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 1
Mr. Robert T. Freese, Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1
Engrg & Industrial Research Station, State College, Miss. 1
College of Engrg, Univ of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1
Librarian, Univ of Mo., School of Mines & Metallurgy, Rolla, Mo. 1
National Sand & Gravel Assoc, Silver Spring, Mi. 1
Dept of Engrg Research, N. C. State College, Raleigh,N. C. 1
New York University, ATTN: Engrg Lib, University Heights,
Bronx, N. Y. p
Dept of Civil Engrg, Technological Inst, Northwestern Univ,
Evanston, 111. p
Gifts & Exchange, Main Library, Ohio State Univ, Columbus, Ohio 1
College of Engrg, Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark. 1
Engrg Experi Station, Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, Oreg. 1
Engrg Lib, Pennsylvania State Univ, University Park, Pa. 1
Periodicals Checking Files, Purdue Univ Lib,Lafayette, Ind. 1
Engrg Library, Stanford Univ,Stanford, Calif. p
Tennessee Valley Authority p
164
Exchange Basis: (Continued)
Research Editor, Texas Transportation Inst, Texas A&M Univ,
College Station, Tex. 1
Office of Engrg Res, Pubs., Univ of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 1
Allbrook Hydraulic Lab, Washington State Univ, Pullman, Wash. 1
Engineering Library, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1
Portland Cement Assoc, Skokie, 111. 1
Serials Acquisitions, Univ of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, Iowa 1
Prof. S. P. Shah, Dept of Mtls Engrg, Univ of Illinois, Chicago, 111. 1
Abstract of Report:
Commandant, USAREUR Engineer-Ordnance School, APO New York 09172
U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, ATTN: Mr. Lorman
Mr. William A. Maples, American Concrete Institute
Bureau of Public Roads, ATTN: Harold Allen
Highway Research Board, National Research Council
National Crushed Stone Assoc, Washington, D. C.
CG, Fourth U. S. Army, Fort Sam Houston, Tex., ATTN: AKAEN-OI
Princeton University River & Harbor Library, Princeton, N. J.
Duke University Library, Durham, N. C.
Princeton University Library, Princeton, N. J.
Serials Record, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.
Louisiana State University Library, Baton Rouge, La.
The Johns Hopkins University Library, Baltimore, Mi.
University of Kansas Libraries, Lawrence, Kans.
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal
University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
University of California Library, Berkeley, Calif.
Mr. C. H. Willetts, Alabama Power Co., Box 2641, Birmingham, Ala.
Mr. David A. King, Manager, Quality Control Dept., Maule Industries,
Inc., 2801 N. W. 38th Ave, Miami, Fla.
Amman and Whitney, Consulting Engineers, j6 Ninth Ave, New York, N. Y.
Engineering Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Lab,
Morgantown, W. Va.
165-166
U n c la s s ifie d
Security Classification
3. R E P O R T T IT LE
D E SC R IP T IV E N O T E S (T y p e o t re p o rt a n d in c lu s iv e d a te s )
F in a l re p o rt
8- A U T H O R ( S ) ( F i r s t n a m e , m id d le i n i t i a i , l a s t n a m e )
R ic h a r d L . Stow e
6. p r o j e c t n o . UWER S u b t a s k 1 3 .1 9 1 A M is c e lla n e o u s P a p e r C - 6 9 - l
Ob. O T H E R R E P O R T N O ( S ) ( A n y o th e r n u m b e r s th a t m a y b e a e a id n e d
t h i s r e p o r t)
1 0. D I S T R I B U T I O N STATEM ENT
11. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES 1 2. S P O N S O R I N G M I L I T A R Y A C T IV IT Y
D e fe n s e A to m ic S u p p o rt A g e n c y
W a s h in g to n , D. C.
13. A B S T R A C T " '
DD .1473 U n c la s s ifie d
S ecu rity C la s s ific a t io n
Unclassified
Security Classification
13. A B S T R A C T
factor for the granite was less than 1; for the basalt, 1.35; for the limestone, 1 .5 2 ;
and for the tuff, 1.7^* The compressional wave velocity of rock is affected by in
creases in both the applied axial stress and confining pressure. Velocities recorded
in the direction of applied stress increase sharply within about one-half of the maxi
mum deviator stress and then generally level off until failure.
Granite
Basalt
Limestone
Tuff
Rock properties
Unclassified
Security C lassification
168