Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01782-z

ISRM SUGGESTED METHOD

ISRM Suggested Method: Determining Deformation and Failure

Characteristics of Rocks Subjected to True Triaxial Compression
Xia‑Ting Feng1,2 · Bezalel Haimson3 · Xiaochun Li2 · Chandong Chang4 · Xiaodong Ma5 · Xiwei Zhang1 ·
Mathew Ingraham6 · Kenichiro Suzuki7

Received: 21 February 2019 / Accepted: 28 February 2019

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The purpose of this ISRM Suggested Method is to introduce a guideline on determining deformation and failure characteris-
tics of rocks subjected to true triaxial compression on different stress path. The true triaxial testing apparatus was reviewed
by means of the function and engineering application. Some key techniques, such as stress and strain measurements, and
reduction of end effect between specimen and metal platens, preventing metal platens interference, were stated and sug-
gested in detail. Methodology of specimen processing, specimen shape, and testing procedure are characterized. There is an
explanation of the experimental data processing on stress–strain curves, strength, and fracture mode.

Keywords  True triaxial apparatus · End friction effect · Volume change measurement · Stiffness · Stress path

Introductory Note
This new ISRM Suggested Method (SM) replaces the pre-
vious version of the SM retracted due to a note published on
Please send any written comments on this ISRM Suggested
Method to Prof. Resat Ulusay, President of the ISRM Commission
on Testing Methods, Hacettepe University, Department of
Geological Engineering, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey.
the journal Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Online-
First on 31 July 2017. Reference should be made to this new
version of the SM as accepted by the ISRM Commission
on Testing Methods, and as approved by the ISRM Board.
Resat Ulusay (President of the ISRM Commission on Test-
ing Methods)

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory

managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering
Solutions of Sandia LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Honeywell International Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy’s
National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-
NA0003525.

5
* Xia‑Ting Feng ETH Zürich, Swiss Competence Center for Energy
fengxiating@mail.neu.edu.cn Research (SCCER-SoE), and Chair for Geothermal Energy
and Geofluids, NO F27, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich,
1
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Safe Switzerland
Mining of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern University, 6
Geomechanics Department, Sandia National Laboratories,
Shenyang 110819, Liaoning, China
Org. 5800, Mail Stop 1033, PO Box 8864, Albuquerque,
2
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical NM 87185‑1033, USA
Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese 7
Technical Research Institute, Obayashi Corporation,
Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, Hubei, China
Shimokiyoto 4‑640, Kiyose‑shi, Tokyo 204‑855, Japan
3
Geological Engineering Program, Department of Materials
Science and Engineering, University of Wisconsin, 1509
University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, USA
4
Department of Geology and Earth Environmental Sciences,
Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305‑764,
South Korea

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1 Introduction
The stress conditions σ1 > σ2 = σ3, or σ1 = σ2 > σ3 (where
σ1, σ2, and σ3 are the maximum, intermediate, and mini-
mum principal compressive stresses, respectively) define
the conventional triaxial stress state. The stress condition
σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 defines the true triaxial stress state. Conven-
tional triaxial testing has been widely used since von Kar-
man (1911) developed a conventional triaxial apparatus,
which offered appealing usability and operability as a result
of maintaining the intermediate principal stress equal to the
minimum principal stress, σ2 = σ3.
Murrell (1963) compared the results from two different
series of conventional triaxial tests conducted on Carrara
marble: compression tests (σ1 > σ2 = σ3) by von Karman
(1911) and extension tests (σ1 = σ2 > σ3) by Böker (1915).
He noted that the rock strength in triaxial extension for any
given σ3 was higher than in triaxial compression and thus
suggested that the intermediate principal stress affected this
mechanical property. Mounting evidence that the role of σ2
cannot be neglected in considering deformation and fail-
ure of rocks prompted Mogi (1971) to design and build a
true triaxial testing apparatus. Mogi’s experimental work
demonstrated the effect of σ2 on the yield and failure char-
acteristics of rocks. Since then, several distinct types of true
triaxial loading machines have been developed for testing
the mechanical behaviour of rocks under a true triaxial stress
state.
True triaxial loading systems have been used to study
rock behaviour under specific stress fields, such as plane
strain, where constant deformation is maintained on the
plane on which the intermediate principal stress is applied
(Labuz et al. 1996; Makhnenko and Labuz 2014), hydraulic
fracturing (Haimson and Fairhurst 1970; Frash et al. 2014),
and permeability measurement (King et al. 1995), among
others. True triaxial loading systems have also been used
in support of 3D failure criterion development (Mogi 1971;
Lade 1993; Ewy 1999; Aubertin et al. 2000; You 2009;
Chang and Haimson 2012; Alejano and Bobet 2012; Meyer
and Labuz 2013; Ingraham et al. 2013; Haimson et al. 2016;
Ma et al. 2017b; Labuz et al. 2018).
This Suggested Method is limited to true triaxial testing
used to determine rock deformation, strength, and post-peak
behaviour under a general state of stress (Kawamoto et al.
1970; Mogi 1971; Esaki et al. 1988; Takahashi and Koide
1989; Haimson and Chang 2000; Oku et al. 2007; Lee and
Haimson 2011; Kwasniewski et al. 2003; Ingraham et al.
2013; Young et al. 2013; Nasseri et al. 2014; Ma and Haim-
son 2016; Feng et al. 2016; Ma et al. 2017a, b; Shi et al.
2017).
13
X.-T. Feng et al.
2 Scope
This Suggested Method focuses on the use of a true triaxial
testing apparatus for the determination of deformation and
failure characteristics of rocks subjected to true triaxial
compression. The true triaxial testing apparatus shall have
the function of servo control and high-precision measure-
ment in volume change and force to ensure the reliability of
mechanical behaviour investigation. The specimen has an
approximate width:length ratio of 1:2 and shall be carefully
machined. The suggested testing procedure, using a loading
path, is suitable for, but not to limited to, the evaluation of
the mechanical behaviour in the fracture process.
3 Apparatus
3.1 General Structure of True Triaxial Testing
Apparatus
True triaxial testing apparatus requires the capability of
applying three mutually perpendicular and independently
controlled loads onto a cuboidal rock specimen. Typically,
a true triaxial testing apparatus consists of a cylindrical
pressure vessel, housing two sets of diametrically opposed
pressure-activated pistons, which apply the maximum and
the intermediate principal stresses (σ1 and σ2) on two pairs of
rock faces; the minimum principal stress (σ3) is applied by a
flexible medium such as a hydraulic fluid (Mogi 1971; Taka-
hashi and Koide 1989; Haimson and Chang 2000; Ingraham
et al. 2013; Feng et al. 2016; Shi et al. 2017). Major benefits
from using hydraulic fluid for the application of the mini-
mum principal stress are: (1) allowing fractures to propagate
and not being stopped by the rigid platens, (2) preventing
a possible interference between rigid platens upon loading,
and (3) enabling the use of the two opposed open faces of the
rock specimen (which are subjected to hydraulic fluid) for
mounting mechanical and geophysical measurement instru-
ments such as strain gauges, acoustic emission transducers,
and acoustic velocity measuring devices.
The three mutually orthogonal loads on the rock speci-
men are generated by three independent hydraulic systems
either manually controlled (Mogi 1971) or preferentially
servo-controlled (Haimson and Chang 2000; Ingraham
et al. 2013; Feng et al. 2016). The servo-controlled hydrau-
lic loading system, along with high loading system stiffness,
facilitates the control and monitoring of post-peak deforma-
tion behaviour.
ISRM Suggested Method: Determining Deformation and Failure Characteristics of Rocks Subjected…

Fig. 1  Strain measurements in the σ3 direction: a beryllium–copper strain-gauged beam method (Haimson and Chang 2000), b spring-loaded
LVDT method (Ingraham et al. 2013), and c split cantilever beam method (Feng et al. 2016)

3.2 Stress and Strain Measurements

The stress–strain relation for rocks subjected to true triaxial

compression is recorded by measuring the three applied
principal stresses and the corresponding three principal
strains during testing. The maximum and the intermediate
principal stresses exerted by piston loading can be measured
using respective load cells built either in the external pistons
outside the pressure vessel or in the internal pistons inside
the pressure vessel. The minor principal stress exerted by
fluid pressure can be measured directly by a pressure trans-
ducer. When using the load cell installed outside the pres-
sure vessel, the effect of friction around the pistons on the
load transmission to the rock specimen should be taken into
account. Some true triaxial testing equipments utilize load
cells both inside and outside the pressure vessel as a backup
(Haimson and Chang 2000; Feng et al. 2016). Fig. 2  Effect of end effect on stress–strain relation in true triaxial
tests with and without anti-friction agent. M–R direct metal–rock
The maximum (ε1) and the intermediate (ε2) principal contact, M–MSV–R lubrication material (mixture of stearic acid and
strains can be measured on the specimen faces subjected to Vaseline) applied at the metal–rock contact
fluid pressure (σ3) using either strain gauges (Haimson and
Chang 2000) or strain-gauge-type displacement transduc-
ers (Mogi 1971; Kwasniewski et al. 2003; Li et al. 2012) 3.3 Reduction of End Effect between Specimen
or LVDT’s (e.g., Young et al. 2013; Feng et al. 2016). The and Metal Platens
strain in the σ3 direction can be measured using a beryl-
lium–copper strain-gauged beam (e.g., Haimson and Chang An important issue in true triaxial compression tests is the
2000), a spring-loaded LVDT (e.g., Ingraham et al. 2013), end effect generated in test specimen faces in contact with
or a split cantilever beam sensor (e.g., Feng et al. 2016), metal platens that transfer the loads applied by the pistons
all of which are directly mounted on the specimen faces to the rock. The end effect results from the stiffness dif-
subjected to fluid pressure (Fig. 1). It should be noted that ference between the metal platens and the rocks, and can
strain gauges and strain-gauged beams mounted directly on result in a non-uniform stress distribution in the specimen.
the specimens provide a rock strain measurement directly. As a result of stiffness differences, the lateral deformation
However, LVDT’s or other indirect measurements provide is different between platens and rock specimens at the con-
a combined strain measure of machine (metal platens) and tact surface. It means that the any contact point will move
rock specimen, and the strain of the metal platens should be relatively at the contact surface, and the relative move is not
subtracted by means of a preliminary calibration. uniform between central point and edge of the specimens

13

Fig. 3  Stress–strain results for the axi-symmetric specimen and true
triaxial specimen of granite under σ2 = σ3 = 30  MPa. CTT​ axi-sym-
metric specimen sealed by the rubber, TTT​ true triaxial specimen
sealed by the platens with lubrication material (mixture of stearic
acid and Vaseline) in the σ2 direction
(i.e., friction coefficient is not equal zero), resulting in the
stress concentration at the surface of specimens. Therefore,
the friction is the direct condition for the stress concentration
and the root cause of end effect is the stiffness difference.
When a lubrication material is used, the stiffness difference
is changed, resulting in more uniform stress conditions in
the vicinity of the sample ends.
Several methods have been used to reduce this end effect,
such as using brush-bearing plates (Liu 1972; Kupfer 1972),
stearin (stearic acid) (Föppl 1900), Teflon sheets, also called
Fig. 4  Different specimen–platen assemblies: a University of Wis-
consin (UW) system (Haimson and Chang 2000), b Sandia National
Lab (SNL) system (Ingraham et  al. 2013), and c Chinese Academy
13
X.-T. Feng et al.
PTFE (Mogi 1971), or a mixture of stearic acid and Vaseline
(Labuz and Bridell 1993; Haimson and Chang 2000; Shi
et al. 2012; Ingraham et al. 2013). Using the stearic acid and
Vaseline mixture as a lubrication material is recommended
because it can reduce the stiffness difference with a lower
friction coefficient (0.018) compared with Teflon sheets
(0.043) (Feng et al. 2017).
The end effect is demonstrated in stress–strain relations
obtained from true triaxial tests using granite specimens
(Fig. 2). Two specimens were loaded under the same stress
conditions (σ3 = 50 MPa and σ2 = 200 MPa), but one with
direct metal–rock contact and the other with lubrication
material (mixture of stearic acid and Vaseline) at the con-
tact. These results show an end effect, especially in the
(σ 1 − σ 3) vs. ε 1 plot. The stress–strain curves for rocks
under true triaxial compression without lubrication mate-
rial also show higher strengths (Feng et al. 2017). To vali-
date the effect of lubrication material to reduce the end
effect, a simple comparison between the results of axi-
symmetric specimen and the true triaxial specimen under
σ2 = σ3 = 30 MPa is conducted (Fig. 3). The axi-symmetric
specimen is sealed by the rubber; the true triaxial speci-
men is sealed by platens with lubrication material (mixture
of stearic acid and Vaseline) in the σ2 direction. As shown
in the Fig. 3, there is a little difference, indicating that
the lubrication material works well to achieve the aim of
reducing the end effect.
3.4 Preventing Metal Platen Interference
In typical true triaxial testing systems, four high-strength
and high-stiffness metal platens are used to transfer loads
to the rock specimen in the directions of the major and
of Sciences and Northeastern University in China (CAS/NEU) system
(Feng et al. 2016)
ISRM Suggested Method: Determining Deformation and Failure Characteristics of Rocks Subjected…
intermediate principal stresses. Steel platens in the form of
discs having a Rockwell Hardness of not less than hardness
58HRC shall be placed at the specimen ends (Bieniawski
and Bernede 1979). To avoid mutual interference between
metal platens during specimen compression, one pair of
platens (typically those applying σ 2) should be slightly
shorter than the length of the rock specimen (University of
Wisconsin system, also known as UW system, Fig. 4a), or
fabricated as a bevelled shape in the 2D projection plane
(Sandia National Lab system, also known as SNL system,
Fig. 4b). For example, in the UW system (Haimson and
Chang 2000), the length of the platens is 0.8 mm shorter
than the specimen length (38 mm) to allow for rock axial
straining up to 2%. Still the stress in the σ2 direction is
nearly uniform based on strain measurements throughout
the specimen (Chang 2001). Differing slightly from the
UW system, the SNL system platens are bevelled with a
contact length of 53.98 mm compared with the specimen
length of 57.15 mm allowing for strains up to 5% in the
σ 1 and σ 2 directions. The unsupported sections are still
subjected to the confining pressure (equal to σ 3). Finite
element modelling results showed that the change in state
of stress due to the unsupported area does not have a sig-
nificant effect on the overall state of stress (Wawersik et al.
1997).
A recent development of the overlapping platen scheme
overcomes the issue of the loading gap effect (Li et al.
2012; Feng et al. 2016). During specimen compression,
the platens fully cover the four surfaces of the specimen
by driving the platen with the edge of another platen, thus
forming an overlapping structure (Fig. 4c). In this system,
the dimensions of the metal platens are slightly larger than
those of the rock specimen. A 0.5-mm margin in σ3 direc-
tion is maintained on each side to cover the specimen faces
during compression.
4 Specimens
4.1 Specimen Processing
The specimens used in true triaxial tests are rectangu-
lar prisms. First, a slightly larger specimen is obtained
from a large block of rock or larger core using a digital
rock sawing machine; then, a grinding machine is used
to process the specimen to the required geometric dimen-
sions and standard tolerance. The standard tolerance is
based on the International Tolerance (IT) grades table
reference as ISO 286-1:2010 (2010). The recommended
standard tolerance grade is IT07, which specifies toler-
ances for associated manufacturing processes and a given
dimension, smaller nominal size and smaller tolerance
zone, such as 25 ± 0.0105  mm, 50 ± 0.0125  mm and
100 ± 0.0175 mm. The recommended perpendicularity
tolerance is 0.025 mm for each side as a datum plane.
Surface roughness Ra is recommended to be ≤ 1.6.
4.2 Specimen Shape
Typically, specimens used in true triaxial tests are rectan-
gular prisms. Since specimens are subjected to stresses
in the three principal stress directions during a true tri-
axial test, the orientation of the specimens with respect to
bedding or foliation planes, and other geological textures
should be taken into consideration. Consequently, the
three pairs of faces in each specimen should be marked
so as to be distinguishable.
Various sizes of specimens such as 15 × 15 × 30 ­mm3
(Mogi 1971), 19 × 19 × 38 ­m m 3 (Haimson and Chang
2000), 35 × 35 × 70 ­m m 3 (Takahashi and Koide 1989),
50 × 50 × 100 ­mm3 (Feng et al. 2016), and 76 × 76 × 178
­m m 3 or 51 × 51 × 114 ­m m 3 (Wawersik et al. 1997) have
been used. In true triaxial tests, the specimen length
parallel to the major principal stress should be twice
the width (such that the specimen has an approximate
width:length ratio of 1:2) to maintain similar ratios sug-
gested by ISRM for conventional triaxial tests (Fairhurst
and Hudson 1999). This is necessary to contain the end
effects to the proximity of the specimen extremities and
prevent interference with the mechanical behaviour of the
remainder of the specimen. This enables a direct com-
parison between results from both true and conventional
triaxial tests, although there are some differences between
the two types of tests resulting from different loading
configuration and rock specimen shape. The number of
specimens tested under the same conditions should be
sufficient to adequately represent the rock being tested.
5 Testing Procedure
Specimen assembly, installation, sensor calibration and
adjustment, and loading path should be carefully carried
out to ensure a successful true triaxial test.
5.1 Specimen Assembly and Sealing
Prior to affixing the specimen to the platens, an anti-
friction agent is applied to the surfaces between the plat-
ens and the specimen to reduce end effect. The exposed
specimen faces perpendicular to the minor principal stress
direction, and all junctions between the platens need to be
sealed to protect against infiltration of the hydraulic fluid
13
 X.-T. Feng et al.

Fig. 5  Common loading path Fig. 6  A novel loading path with one invariant (Lode angle Θ) con-
stant

and to prevent a direct contact with the specimen faces.

Silicone or polyurethane sealant is recommended. 2. Innovating loading paths, in which one or more stress
invariants are held constant during testing, are advanta-
geous when the test results are to be incorporated in
5.2 Sensor Calibration
constitutive models.
To ensure accuracy of the measurement system, all meas-
A typical novel loading path maintains one of the stress
uring equipment should be periodically calibrated to a pre-
invariants, the Lode angle, constant. The Lode angle (Θ) is
cision of 0.1% of its full scale, including LVDTs, load cells
defined as
and so on. In addition, the calibration should be verified
using a dummy specimen, such as an aluminium specimen ( [( )( ) ])/
3∕2
J3 3
with epoxied strain gauges to check that all equipments are 𝛩 = sin−1 3. (1)
properly functioning. 2 J2

5.3 Loading Paths for Determining Deformation

and Failure Characteristics

Different loading paths for determining the deformation

and failure characteristics of rocks have been used, and are
suggested herein. They can be divided into two groups: (1)
common and (2) novel loading paths.

1. The common loading paths consist of first applying a

linearly rising hydrostatic load to the specimen (where
σ1 = σ2 = σ3) until the pre-set magnitude of σ3 is reached;
thereafter, only the other two principal stresses σ1 = σ2
are increased at the same rate until the pre-set magni-
tude of σ2 is reached. From that point on, only σ1 is
raised until failure occurs, and beyond (Fig. 5). This last
sector of the loading path can be conducted in the σ1
stress-control or in the ε3 strain-control. In the σ1 stress-
control, σ1 is increased linearly until the rock fails when
its maximum axial stress is reached. The test ends at this
point. However, in the ε3 strain-control, the rock will Fig. 7  A novel loading path with two invariants (constant Θ and
reach its peak σ1 but will not fail violently. mean stress). In this example: Θ = 0

13
ISRM Suggested Method: Determining Deformation and Failure Characteristics of Rocks Subjected…

Fig. 8  Typical experimental results: a differential stress (σ1 − σ3)–strain relations for a granite; b photograph and sketch of the failed specimen

Fig. 9  Typical experimental results: a differential stress (σ1 − σ3)–strain relations for a marble; b photograph and sketch of failed specimen

It is a function of the second and third invariants of devia- ratio, while maintaining σ3 constant (Ma et al. 2017a, b). A
toric stress (J2 and J3), where J2, J3 and I1 are defined as typical loading path is shown in Fig. 6.
follows: Another novel loading path maintains two of the three
principal
( stress
) invariants, the Lode angle (Θ) and the mean
1 (
[ )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]
J2 = 𝜎 1 − 𝜎2 + 𝜎1 − 𝜎3 + 𝜎3 − 𝜎2 , (2) stress 31 I1  , constant. This is achieved by first loading the
6
specimen hydrostatically to the desired mean stress. Then,
the major principal stress is increased in displacement con-
[( )3 )]
1 1 1 3 1 3
( ) (
J3 = 𝜎1 − I1 + 𝜎2 − I1 + 𝜎3 − I1 , trol to failure, while the other principal stresses change so
3 3 3 3
that the Lode angle and the mean stress are held constant
(3)
(Ingraham et al. 2013). For example, for a Lode angle of 0°
I1 = 𝜎1 + 𝜎2 + 𝜎3 . (4) (pure shear state of stress, shown in Fig. 7), the intermediate
The loading path consists of first increasing the three principal stress is held at the mean stress and the minor prin-
principal stresses hydrostatically to the desired magnitude cipal stress decreases in proportion to the major principal
of the minor principal stress. Then, the intermediate and stress until failure.
major principal stresses are increased at a specified constant

13

Fig. 10  Typical experimental results: a differential stress (σ1 − σ3)–strain relations for a sandstone; b photograph and sketch of failed specimen
Fig. 11  Typical intermediate principal stress effect on rock strength
under true triaxial testing (see red triangles). (Color figure online)
6 Parameters Measured
The true triaxial stresses are obtained from the built-in load
cell data; the strains can be directly recorded from strain
gauges or calculated from displacements depending on the
type of sensors used. Stress and strain are defined such that
a positive value indicates compression.
13
X.-T. Feng et al.
7 Reporting of Test Results
The type of true triaxial apparatus used and the loading path
should be reported; furthermore, the end effect reduction and
loading gap should be mentioned.
The outputs of the test data include stress–strain curves,
rock strength, loading path and failure mode under true tri-
axial compression. In addition, other information such as
Lode angle, octahedral shear stress, and parameters related
to strength and post-failure behaviour should be reported, to
the extent that they are available.
7.1 Rock Information
Information about the source of the rock specimens includes
the following:
1. Project name
2. Location of rock sample origin
3. Lithological description of the rock, including grain size
4. Specimen structure (bedding planes, foliation, flow
banding)
5. Date at which rock sample was extracted
7.2 Specimen Information
Specimen information should include the following:
1. Specimen identification
2. Specimen dimensions (width, length and height)
3. Any observable or available physical data, such as spe-
cific gravity, porosity, and permeability; the method
used to determine each property should be cited
ISRM Suggested Method: Determining Deformation and Failure Characteristics of Rocks Subjected…
4. Water content and degree of saturation of the specimen
at the time of testing, if relevant (or whether oven dry)
5. Orientation of the three loading axes with respect to rock
anisotropy
6. Rate of loading, deformation or strain
7. Date of testing and test duration
7.3 Typical Test Results
1. Stress–strain plots. Typical stress–strain curves for gran-
ite, marble, and sandstone are shown in Figs. 8, 9, and
10, respectively.
2. Failure mode and fracture angle. The fracture angle, θ, is
defined as the angle between the normal to the fracture
plane and the σ1 direction. A photograph and/or a sketch
of the failed specimen should be provided.
3. The intermediate principal stress effect. An example of
the influence of σ2 on rock strength is shown in Fig. 11.
Compliance with Ethical Standards  Haimson B, Chang C, Ma X (2016) True triaxial testing of rocks
Conflict of interest  We wish to confirm that there are no known con-
flicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influenced
its outcome.
References
Alejano LR, Bobet A (2012) Drucker–Prager criterion. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 45:995–999. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/s0060​
3-012-0278-2
Aubertin M, Li L, Simon R (2000) A multiaxial stress criterion for
short- and long-term strength of isotropic rock media. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 37:1169–1193
Bieniawski ZT, Bernede MJ (1979) Suggested methods for determin-
ing the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock
materials: part 1. Suggested method for determining deformability
of rock materials in uniaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr 16(2):138–140
Böker R (1915) Die mechanik der bleibenden formanderung in kristal-
linish aufgebauten Körpern. Verhandl Deut Ingr Mitt Forsch
175:1–51
Chang C (2001) True triaxial strength and deformability of crystalline
rocks. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Chang C, Haimson B (2012) A failure criterion for rocks based on true
triaxial testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1007–1010. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0060​3-012-0280-8
Esaki T, Kimura T, Aoki K, Nishida T (1988) True triaxial test of rock
under stress and strain rate control. In: Donaghe RT, Chaney RC,
Silver ML (eds) Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock. ASTM
International, Philadelphia, pp 834–843
Ewy RT (1999) Wellbore-stability predictions by use of a modified lade
criterion. SPE Drill Complet 14:85–91
Fairhurst CE, Hudson JA (1999) Draft ISRM suggested method
for the complete stress–strain curve for intact rock in uniaxial
compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:279–289. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0148​-9062(99)00006​-6
Feng X-T, Zhang XW, Kong R, Wang G (2016) A novel Mogi type
true triaxial testing apparatus and its use to obtain complete
stress–strain curves of hard rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng
49(5):1649–1662. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0060​3-015-0875-y
Feng X-T, Zhang XW, Yang CX, Kong R, Liu X, Peng S (2017)
Evaluation and reduction of the end friction effect in true tri-
axial tests on hard rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 97:144–148.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmm​s.2017.04.002
Föppl A (1900) Abhangigkeit der Bruchgefahr von der Art des Span-
nungszustandes (Dependence of the risk of breakage on the
type of stress state). Mitth Mech Tech Lab K Tech Hochsch
Munchen 27:1–35
Frash LP, Gutierrez M, Hampton J (2014) True-triaxial apparatus
for simulation of hydraulically fractured multi-borehole hot dry
rock reservoirs. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:496–506. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmm​s.2014.05.017
Haimson B, Chang C (2000) A new true triaxial cell for testing
mechanical properties of rock, and its use to determine rock
strength and deformability of Westerly granite. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 37:285–296. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/S1365​
-1609(99)00106​-9
Haimson B, Fairhurst C (1970) In situ stress determination at great
depth by means of hydraulic fracturing. In: Somerton WH (ed)
Rock mechanics—theory and practice. Soc. Mining Engr. of
AIME, New York, pp 559–584
and the effect of the intermediate principal stress on failure
characteristics. In: Feng (ed) Rock mechanics and engineering,
volume 1: principles. CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, pp 379–396
Ingraham MD, Issen KA, Holcomb DJ (2013) Response of Castle-
gate sandstone to true triaxial states of stress. J Geophys Res
118:536–552
ISO 286-1-2010 (2010) Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—
ISO code system for tolerances on linear sizes—part 1: basis of
tolerances, deviations and fits
Kawamoto T, Tomita K, Akimoto K (1970) Characteristics of defor-
mation of rock-like materials under triaxial compression. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd congress of the international society of
rock mechanics, Beograd, vol 1, 2–2, pp 287–293
King MS, Chaudhry NA, Shakeel A (1995) Experimental ultra-
sonic velocities and permeability for sandstones with aligned
cracks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 32:155–163. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/0148-9062(94)00033​-Y
Kupfer H (1972) Das verhalten des betons unter mehrachsiger kur-
zzeitbelastung unter besonderer berücksichtigung der zweiach-
sigen beanspruchung. Zeitschrift Für Chemie 20(3):111–112
Kwasniewski M, Takahashi M, Li X (2003) Volume changes in sand-
stone under true triaxial compression conditions. In: Technology
roadmap for rock mechanics (proceedings of the 10th ISRM con-
gress, Sandton, September 8–12, 2003), vol 1, pp 683–688, The
South Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg
Labuz JF, Bridell JM (1993) Reducing frictional constraint in com-
pression testing through lubrication. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
30:451–455. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(93)91726​-Y
Labuz J, Dai S-T, Papamichos E (1996) Plane-strain compression of
rock-like materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
33:573–584
Labuz JF, Zeng F, Makhnenko RY, Li Y (2018) Brittle failure of
rock: a review and general linear criterion. J Struct Geol 112:7–
28. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.007
Lade PV (1993) Rock strength criteria: the theories and the evidence.
In: Hudson J, Brown ET (eds) Comprehensive rock engineering.
Elsevier Inc, London, pp 225–284
13

Lee H, Haimson B (2011) True triaxial strength, deformability, and
brittle failure of granodiorite from the San Andreas Fault Obser-
vatory at depth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:1199–1207
Li XC, Shi L, Bai B, Li Q, Xu D, Feng XT (2012) True-triaxial test-
ing techniques for rocks - state of the art and future perspective.
In: Kwasniewski M, Li X, Takahashi M (eds) True triaxial test-
ing of rocks. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 3–18
Liu TCY (1972) Stress–strain response and fracture of concrete in
uniaxial and biaxial compression. ACI J 69:291–295
Ma XD, Haimson B (2016) Failure characteristics of two porous
sandstones subjected to true triaxial stresses. J Geophys Res
Solid Earth 121(9):6477–6498. https​://doi.org/10.1002/2016J​
B0129​79
Ma XD, Rudnicki JW, Haimson B (2017a) Failure characteristics
of two porous sandstones subjected to true triaxial stresses:
applied through a novel loading path. J Geophys Res Solid Earth
122(4):2525–2540
Ma XD, Rudnicki J, Haimson B (2017b) The application of a modi-
fied Lade-Duncan–Matsuoka-Nakai failure criterion to two
porous sandstones. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 92:9–18. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/IJRMM​S.2016.12.004
Makhnenko R, Labuz J (2014) Plane strain testing with passive
restraint. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:2021–2029
Meyer JP, Labuz J (2013) Linear failure criteria with three princi-
pal stresses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:180–187. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijrmm​s.2012.12.040
Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial com-
pression. J Geophys Res 76:1255–1269. https​://doi.org/10.1029/
JB076​i005p​01255​
Murrell SAF (1963) A criterion for brittle fracture of rocks and con-
crete under triaxial stress and the effect of pore pressure on the
criterion. In: Fairhurst C (ed) Rock mechanics: proceedings of
the fifth rock mechanics symposium. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
pp 563–577
Nasseri MHB, Goodfellow SD, Lombos L, Young RP (2014) 3-D
transport and acoustic properties of Fontainebleau sandstone
during true-triaxial deformation experiments. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 69:1–18
13
X.-T. Feng et al.
Oku H, Haimson B, Song S-R (2007) True triaxial strength and
deformability of the siltstone overlying the Chelungpu fault
(Chi-Chi earthquake), Taiwan. Geophys Res Lett 34:L09306.
https​://doi.org/10.1029/2007G​L0296​01
Shi L, Li X, Bai B, Li Q, Feng XT (2012) Numerical analysis of
loading boundary effects in Mogi-type true triaxial tests. In:
Kwaśniewski M, Li X, Takahashi M (eds) True triaxial testing
of rocks. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 19–33
Shi L, Li X, Bai B, Wang A, Zeng Z, He H (2017) A Mogi-type true
triaxial testing apparatus for rocks with two moveable frames in
horizontal layout for providing orthogonal loads. Geotech Test
J 40:542–558. https​://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20​16024​2
Takahashi M, Koide H (1989) Effect of the intermediate principal
stress on strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary
rocks at the depth shallower than 2000 m. In: Maury V, Four-
maintraux D (eds) Rock at great depth, vol 1. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, pp 19–26
von Karman T (1911) Festigkeitsversuche unter allseitigem Druck. Ztg
d. Vereins Deutscher lngenieure, Jg. 55
Wawersik WR, Carlson LW, Holcomb DJ, Williams RJ (1997) New
method for true-triaxial rock testing. Int J Rock Mech Min 34:330.
e1–330.e14. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S1365​-1609(97)00049​-X
You M (2009) True-triaxial strength criteria for rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min 46:115–127
Young RP, Nasseri MHB, Lombos L (2013) Imaging the effect of the
intermediate principal stress on strength, deformation and trans-
port properties of rock using seismic methods. In: Kwaśniewski
M, Li X, Takahashi M (eds) True triaxial testing of rocks. Taylor
& Francis, London, pp 167–179
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.