Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By: Daniel Delgado, Michael Devlin, John Herrin, and Sam Mast
characteristics of the Clark and Wilma rock samples. This was done experimentally using three
different tests; the uniaxial compressive test, the triaxial compressive test, and the indirect
shear test. The findings of this report are that Clark has a higher initial shear strength and
internal angle of friction while intact and jointed. This means Clark is stronger than Wilma in
either intact or jointed rock masses. This makes Clark the superior rock for structural
applications.
Summary of Results
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...2
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………..3
Introduction.…………………………………………………………………………………….4
Sample Preparation……………………………………………………………………………..6
Discussion of Results………………………………………………………………….21
Indirect Shear……….....……………………………………………………………………....24
Theory………………………………………………………………………………....24
Experimental Apparatus and Procedures……………………………………………....25
Tabulation of Data……………………………………………………………………..26
Discussion of Results…………………………………………………………………..29
References ……………………………………………………………………………………..32
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………A-1
Sample Calculations……….…………………………………………………………...A-1
Raw Data …………….………………………………………….……………………..A-3
List of Tables
Table C: Results for both Wilma and Clark rocks for compressive strength test……………....11
2
List of Figures
Figure 9: Graph of shear versus normal stress for the Clark rock from triaxial test……………...………22
Figure 10: Graph of principal stresses sigma 1 versus sigma 3 for Wilma from triaxial test…………….22
Figure 11: Graph of principal stresses sigma 1 versus sigma 3 for Clark from triaxial test……………...22
Figure 12: Graph of shear stress versus normal stress for Clark for indirect shear test…………………..28
Figure 13: Graph of shear stress versus normal stress for Wilma for indirect shear test ………………...28
3
Introduction
One of the most important properties of rocks is the compressive strength. Almost all
stresses on rock masses are compressive stresses. For most methods of comminution the
compressive strength is what determines the amount of energy required to break the rocks.
Most in situ stresses act in compression on pillars and openings as well so the compressive
The triaxial compressive test and the indirect shear test can both be used to determine
failure criterion for a rock mass. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion relates the normal stress
to the shear strength of the rock. Three different methods for calculating the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion are going to be used and compared to each other. A p-q diagram, the principle
stresses, and a graph of the normal stress versus shear on the failure plane will each be used to
This report is divided into three separate tests. The theory behind each test, the
procedure, results, and a discussion of results will be included for each test. The results are
displayed in tabular format. Significant results and recommendations are included in the
conclusions section.
This report shows a comparison between two rock types, a limestone (Clark) and a
granitic rock (Wilma). The purpose of these experiments is to determine several failure
criterion for the rock masses. Three different tests are performed to determine the failure
criterion, the Uniaxial compressive test, the triaxial compressive test, and the indirect shear
test. The triaxial test and indirect shear test are used to determine failure criterion for the
4
rocks and the uniaxial compressive test is used to determine compressive strength of the rocks
5
Sample Preperation
Samples for this lab used in the triaxial compression test and the uniaxial compression
6
Uniaxial Compressive Test
Theory
Arguably the most important property of rocks for mining engineers is compressive
strength. Compressive strength is very important in determining the factor of safety of pillars in
a mine. The compressive strength also plays an important role in the comminution and blasting
of the rock. The compressive strength is determined by finding the peak stress on the sample
P
C 0=
A
where P is the peak load on the sample, A is the cross sectional area of the sample, and C 0 is
ΔL
ε=
L
where ΔL was the deflection and L was the length of the sample. This can be used to determine
The Moduli for rock can be determined several ways. The elastic modulus can be
σ
E=
ε
where σ is the change in stress on the sample and ε is the change in strain of the sample while
the rock deforms elastically. Es, the Secant Modulus, can be found from a graph of stress versus
7
strain over the entirety of the stress strain curve. It is calculated by determining the slope of a
line from the start of the graph of stress versus strain to the fracture point.
The angle of internal friction, Ф, is related to the angle of failure, θ, and is found using
the formula:
θ
Ф=45+
2
The cohesion of the core sample, Si, is related to the compressive stress at failure and
C 0=2∗Si∗tan ( θ )
To perform the uniaxial compressive strength test, an MTS (Material Test System) was
used. An MTS consists of a hydraulic piston that can apply a maximum load of 1,000,000
pounds. For the uniaxial compressive test, the MTS was set to have a maximum load of
200,000 pounds of force. The piston is controlled by a computer which allows the tester to
monitor the load on the sample and the amount of deformation the sample is experiencing.
The samples were placed lengthwise beneath the piston with a metal disk above and below the
8
The test was performed using a displacement control of 0.00012 inches per second. The
piston was gradually loaded until the sample failed. The piston was reset and the shield and
sample removed. The peak load was then recorded for the sample. After the sample failed, the
pieces of the sample intact enough for analysis were then used to determine an angle of failure
by taking a protractor and determining the angle between the failure plane and the bottom of
Tabulation of Data
Ten samples of both the Wilma and Clark rocks were tested. The results of the tests are
in the tables below. The samples were all roughly four inches in length with diameters of about
1.87 inches. The first table includes the data for the Wilma rocks, the second table includes the
data for the Clark rocks, and the third table includes data for both the Wilma and Clark rocks.
9
Table A: Results for Wilma from uniaxial compressive strength test
Length Compressive
Specimen Diameter (inch) (inch) P (lbs) Ɵ Area (inch^2) Strength (Psi) Ɵ in Radians
W-4-20 1.873 3.922 24669 60 2.755 8953 0.04809
W-5-6 1.871 4.008 47733 68 2.749 17361 0.04799
W-4-22 1.871 3.926 31857 61 2.749 11587 0.04799
W-4-23 1.884 3.990 36705 68 2.788 13167 0.04866
W-4-7 1.872 3.997 21738 61 2.752 7898 0.04804
W-4-4 1.867 3.961 25000 62 2.738 9132 0.04778
W-4-5 1.872 4.057 12361 71 2.752 4491 0.04804
W-4-6 1.869 3.969 19000 -------- 2.744 6925 --------
W-4-17 1.871 3.930 20121 63 2.749 7318 0.04799
W-4-9 1.873 4.061 37355 59 2.755 13558 0.04809
Average 1.872 3.982 27653.9 63.6667 2.753 10039 0.04807
Std. Dev. 0.0042673177 0.047834 10066.42 0.0125761693 3641.909732
10
Table C: Results for both Wilma and Clark rock for compressive strength test
Discussion of Results
The compressive strength of Clark was 32220 psi while the compressive strength of the
Wilma was only 10039 psi. The Clark also had a much larger elastic modulus, 3.84*10^6 psi,
than the Wilma, 1.44 *10^6 psi. From previous experiments, two other methods were used to
determine uniaxial compressive strength. First, a Schmidt hardness test was used to determine
compressive strength. A compressive strength of 13500 psi was determined for Clark and
12500 psi for Wilma. A point load test was then performed and compressive strengths of
11
23677 psi for Wilma and 26258 psi for Clark. The uniaxial compressive test is going to be the
most accurate determination of the compressive strength because it tests the compressive
strength directly. Figure 2 shows how the secant and elastic moduli were determined
6000
5000 E Tangential
4000 Linear (E Tangential) perform better than the Wilma rock
3000 Linear (E Tangential)
2000 Linear (E Tangential)
1000 given the same stresses. The Clark
0
00 03 02 rock also had a much larger elastic
0 E+ 0 E- 0 E-
0 0 Strain .0
0. 5. 1
modulus than the Wilma rock. The
Figure 3: Graph of stress versus strain curve with moduli
Clark will deform much less than
the Wilma under the same stresses, which is better for a mine’s stability.
The compressive strength of the Clark rock as determined by the uniaxial compressive
strength test was higher than either one of the other compressive strength calculations. This is
good because it means that if either one of the other strength calculations were used to design
a mine then the mine likely wouldn’t have any failures because both other estimates were
more conservative. The Wilma rock on the other hand had a lower compressive strength
determined through the uniaxial compressive test than either one of the other methods. This is
bad because if either one of the other tests were used for a mine plan as the compressive
12
strength, then, as the factor of safety approaches one, failure will occur because the
compressive strength is drastically lower than the strength determined through either other
methods.
A t-test was performed on the data sets to determine if they were part of two separate
data sets with a degree of significance of the .05 level. The null hypothesis for all of the tests
was that the two data sets were part of the same set. The required t-score to reject the null
hypothesis using a two-tailed test was 2.2622. The t-scores for the peak load, compressive
strength, elastic modulus, and secant modulus were 4.838, 4.855, 4.971, and 4.423
respectively. The remaining t-scores were not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. The
four scores listed above are large enough to reject the null hypothesis meaning that the two
sets of samples came from different data sets at a level of significance of .05.
13
Triaxial Compressive Test
Theory
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion of a rock is one of the most important modeling
tools that a mining engineer has at their disposal. The failure criterion allow the engineer to
predict the shear strength of the rock based on how the rocks are stressed. The Mohr-Coulomb
τ =S i +σ n∗tan (φ)
where τ is the critical shear stress, Si is the cohesion of the rock, σ n is the stress normal to the
There are several different methods that can be used to determine the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion of the rock samples. First, a p-q diagram can be analyzed. The values for p are
graphed horizontally and the values for q are graphed vertically. The slope of the line of best fit
determined from the p-q diagram can be used to determine the angle of internal friction for the
rocks. The y-intercept of the line of best fit from the p-q diagram can be used to determine the
σ 1−σ 3 σ 1 +σ 3
q= p=
2 2
where σ 3 is the minor principle stress, and σ 1 is the major principle stress. The cohesion of the
14
si=d /cos ( φ)
where d is the y-intercept for the p-q diagram. The angle of internal friction is determined
φ=arcsin ( tan ( ϑ ) )
where tan ( ϑ ) is the slope of the line of best fit from the p-q diagram. Another method used to
determine Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion of a rock is by graphing the principle stresses acting
tan ( ω )−1
φ=arcsin ( tan ( ω )+ 1 )
is used to determine the angle of internal friction based on the graph of sigma1 v. sigma3
where tan ( ω ) is the slope of the line of best fit of the graph. The equation:
C 0 (1−sin ( φ ))
Si=
2 cos (φ)
is used to determine the initial cohesion, Si, in the failure criterion where C 0 is the y-intercept
of the graph of the principle stresses and φ is the angle of internal friction determined using the
equation above. Another way to find the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is by plotting the
shear stress acting on the failure plane against the normal stress to the failure plane. The y-
intercept of the graph is the cohesion, Si, and the slope is equal to tan ( φ ). The stress normal to
1 1
σ n= ∗( σ 1 +σ 3 ) + ∗( σ 1−σ 3)∗cos (2 ϑ)
2 2
15
The shear stress acting on the plane is determined using the equation:
1
τ = ∗( σ 1−σ 3 )∗sin (2 θ)
2
where τ is the shear stress acting on the plane, σ 1 is the major principle stress, σ 3 is the minor
The triaxial compression test is performed using a Material Test System, or MTS, a
Franklin-Hoek triaxial chamber, and a hydraulic pump. A triaxial chamber, as seen in Figure 3,
to a reservoir of hydraulic
connected to an accumulator,
a container filled with a mixture of a gas and a fluid under pressure. The accumulator allows
16
the MTS to compress the sample, which forces the sample to expand diametrically, without
increasing the confining pressure on the sample. The seals were placed on the chamber and
the chamber was placed in the MTS. The pump was used to put a confining pressure, which
was no clear failure plane, no angle was recorded. The failure plane for a sample can be seen in
Figure 4.
Tabulation of Data
Ten samples of both the Wilma and Clark rocks were tested. The results of the tests are
in the tables below. The samples were all roughly four inches in length with diameters of about
1.87 inches. The first table includes the data for the Wilma rocks, the second table includes the
17
data for the Clark rocks, the third table includes data for the Wilma rocks, and the fourth table
18
Table D: Sigma 1 and sigma 3 results for the Wilma rock for the triaxial test
19
sigma3 sigma1 theta
Specimen D (in) (psi) P (lbs) (psi) (degrees) comments
w-4-15 1.872 600 48482 17615 67
failed along
w-15-6-148.2 1.875 800 53179 19260 56 foliation
failed along
w-4-25 1.872 800 30297 11008 65 foliation
w-4-12 1.872 1500 50824 18466 60
w-4-14 1.884 1400 52143 18704 62
failed along
w-4-24 1.874 1000 25608 9284 60 foliation
w-5-6-142.6 1.874 1000 60613 21975 68
w-5-6-157.7 1.874 1500 113886 41290 70
w-4-1 1.874 840 30928 11213 60
w-4-16 1.874 1200 56414 20453 68
average 1.8745 1064 52237.4 18927 63.6
20
sigma n
Specimen p (psi) q (psi) (psi) phi (degrees) tau (psi)
w-4-15 9107 8507 3198 44 6120
w-15-6-
148.2 10030 9230 6572 - -
w-4-25 5904 5104 2623 - -
w-4-12 9983 8483 5741 30 7346
w-4-14 10052 8652 5214 34 7173
w-4-24 5142 4142 3071 - -
w-5-6-
142.6 11488 10488 3943 46 7285
w-5-6-
157.7 21395 19895 6155 50 12788
w-4-1 6027 5187 3433 30 4492
w-4-16 10827 9627 3902 46 6687
21
sigma3 sigma1 theta
Specimen D (in) (psi) P (lbs) (psi) (degrees) comment
c-4-12 1.872 550 95721 34778 -
failed on
c-4-11 1.873 900 65540 23787 77 discontinuity
c-4-17 1.871 1000 58693 21348 66
c-4-1 1.868 1250 74514 27189 65
c-4-14 1.87 600 75338 27431 -
failed on
c-4-24 1.869 1100 74514 27160 66 discontinuity
c-4-16 1.872 1200 57427 20865 66
c-4-6 1.874 1500 132417 48008 -
c-4-10 1.874 2300 139835 50698 68.5
c-4-19 1.873 800 91590 33242 -
average 1.8716 1120 86558.9 31450 68.083333
sigma n
specimen p (psi) q (psi) (psi) phi (degrees) tau (psi)
c-4-12 17664 17114 -------- -------- --------
c-4-11 12344 11444 2058 -------- --------
c-4-17 11174 10174 4366 42 7561
c-4-1 14220 12970 5883 40 9935
c-4-14 14015 13415 -------- -------- --------
c-4-24 14130 13030 5411 42 --------
c-4-16 11032 9832 4453 42 7307
c-4-6 24754 23254 -------- -------- --------
c-4-10 26499 24199 8801 47 16504
c-4-19 17021 16221 -------- -------- --------
average 16285 15165 31450 42.6 12097
22
Discussion of results
25000
20000 f(x) = 0.94 x − 108.3 Coulomb failure criterion for the rock samples.
R² = 0.99
15000
10000 The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the
5000
0 Wilma samples based on the p-q diagram, as
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
p (sigma1+sigma3)/2) seen in figure 5, is:
20000
f(x) = 0.96 x − 659.13
15000 R² = 1
τ =310+σ n∗tan (69.6)
10000
5000
0
0 5000 10000150002000025000
p ((sigma1+sigma3)/2)
23
where τ is the shear strength of an intact rock, and
Tau v. Sigma Normal for
Wilma σ n is the stress normal to the plane of failure. The
15000
10000
failure criterion for the Clark rocks from the p-q
Tau (psi)
5000
criterion. One that uses the principle
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
stresses and the shear stress, and another
Sigma Normal (psi)
that uses the stress normal to the failure
The shear and normal stress were plotted together, as seen in Figures 8 and 9, and used to
Figure 9: Graph of shear versus normal stresses for the Clark
rock from triaxial test
derive failure criterion for the rocks. The failure criterion
derived from the normal stress and the shear stress for the
30000
20000 f(x) = 15.62 x + 2306.43
10000 R² = 0.31
24
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
sigma 3 (psi)
The failure criterion determined from the normal stress and shear stress for the Clark rock is:
τ =1799+σ n tan(64.1)
60000
50000
best fit was used to determine failure criterion.
Sigma 1 (psi)
The Clark rock was typically weaker than the Wilma rock. The failure criterion for the
Clark would expect a higher maximum shear strength than that for the Wilma in every case
except for when the p-q diagram was used to determine the failure criterion.
Figures 7 and 8 show plots of sigma 3 versus sigma 1, which can be used to determine Mohr-
25
Indirect Shear Test
Theory
Shear strength is a very important rock property that is used extensively in mine design.
Shear along with compressive strength determine what excavations may be made in a rock
mass. Shear strength in rock is determined by the imperfections such as joints or foliations
present within the rock. These imperfections are normally the weakest part of a rock mass and
The shear strength can be defined in a rock mass by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
This criterion is defined by two characteristic values initial shear strength ( Si) and the angle of
internal friction (ϕ s). When the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is used in a rock with
discontinuities the initial shear strength of the discontinuity ( Ss ) must be used. The initial
strength of a discontinuity plane is the maximum shear stress that can supported along the
discontinuity plane without failing when no normal stress is applied to the plane. The tangent
of the angle of internal friction acts as a friction coefficient for the discontinuity plane and thus
defines the amount of frictional stress present based upon the normal stress applied to that
plane. These values can be found by graphing the normal (σn) and shear (τ ) stresses which are
σ 1 +σ 3 σ 1−σ 3
σn= + cos 2 β
2 2
σ 1−σ 3
τ= sin 2 β S i
2
26
Using the normal vs. shear stress graph and an added linear trend line the initial shear
strength ( Ss ) of the discontinuity can be found by locating the y-intercept. Next the slope of the
graph can be used to find the angle of internal friction(ϕ s) with the following equation:
ϕ s=tan−1 ( slope)
Once the angle of internal friction and the initial shear strength have been determined
they can be plugged into the following equation which defines the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion.
|τ| = Ss + σn tanϕ s
The indirect shear test uses the same experimental apparatus as the triaxial stress test.
However there are significant differences in the procedure. The sample was placed in the
Franklin-Hoek triaxial chamber with care so that the tape around the sample did not break.
The indirect shear test differs in its modulation of the confining pressure. A sample was
placed under a specific confining pressure and then stressed axially until failure. The samples
were run through the test several times at different confining pressures. The axial and
27
Tabulation of Data
Three samples of Clark and Wilma were tested. The results are recorded in the tables
below. The first table contains the data for the Clark samples and the second table contains the
results for the Wilma samples. The graphs necessary to finding the Mohr-Coulomb failure
Specimen No. Diameter (in) σ3 (psi) Peak P (lbs) σ1 (psi) β (degree) σn (psi) τ (psi)
C-A4-2 1.854 700 4585 1698 58 980.4 448.7
850 5763 2135 58 1211 577.3
1100 7899 2926 58 1613 820.6
1300 9667 3581 58 1940 1025
1500 11730 4346 58 2299 1279
1700 13470 4988 58 2623 1477
1900 15300 5668 58 2958 1693
2100 17010 6302 58 3280 1888
1000 4900 1815 58 1229 366.3
1200 9789 3626 58 1881 1090
1500 13400 4963 58 2473 1556
1800 16280 6030 58 2988 1901
2000 18290 6775 58 3341 2146
C-A2-B 1.877 1400 11390 4117 58 2163 1221
1600 12900 4663 58 2460 1377
1800 14440 5219 58 2760 1537
2000 16000 5782 58 3062 1700
C-3-0 1.858 1000 4915 1813 58 1228 365.3
1200 6215 2292 58 1507 490.9
1400 7346 2709 58 1768 588.4
1600 8362 3084 58 2017 667
1800 9504 3505 58 2279 766.4
2000 10550 3890 58 2531 849.4
2200 11680 4307 58 2792 946.9
2400 12670 4674 58 3039 1022
28
Table G: Results for Wilma rocks from indirect shear test
Specimen No. Diameter (in) σ3 (psi) Peak P (lbs) σ1 (psi) β (degree) σn (psi) τ (psi)
W-3-0 1.875 2000 10940 3961 58 2551 881.1
2200 13610 4928 58 2966 1226
2400 16120 5837 58 3365 1545
2650 18720 6779 58 3809 1855
W-5-6 1.871 500 3476 1264 58 714.6 343.5
700 4714 1715 58 984.9 455.9
900 6135 2231 58 1274 598.3
1100 7456 2712 58 1553 724.4
1300 9102 3311 58 1865 903.5
1500 10580 3847 58 2159 1055
1700 12260 4458 58 2474 1239
1900 13770 5009 58 2773 1397
1000 5451 1983 58 1276 441.6
800 4200 1528 58 1004 327
1000 7143 2598 58 1449 718.1
1200 8800 3201 58 1762 899.1
1400 10330 3757 58 2062 1059
1600 12100 4401 58 2387 1259
1800 14100 5128 58 2735 1496
W-8-8 1.871 600 3876 1410 57 840.2 369.9
800 5576 2028 57 1164 561
1000 7296 2654 57 1491 755.4
1200 9272 3372 57 1844 992.3
1400 11000 3999 57 2171 1187
1600 12790 4653 57 2506 1394
1800 14890 5417 57 2873 1652
2000 16640 6050 57 3201 1850
800 4981 1812 57 1100 462.1
1000 5900 2146 57 1340 523.4
1200 6990 2542 57 1598 613.2
1400 8476 3083 57 1899 768.7
1600 9985 3632 57 2203 928
1800 11420 4153 57 2498 1075
29
Sigma n vs. τ for Clarke
2500
2000
500
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Sigma n
Figure 12: Graph of shear stress versus normal stress for Clark from indirect shear test
Figure 13: Graph of shear stress versus normal stress for Wilma from indirect shear test
30
Table H: Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion determined by indirect shear test
Failure Criterion
Clarke |τ| = 262.8 + σn *tan(30.93)
Wilma |τ| = 93.7 + σn *tan(27.63)
Discussion of Results
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion of the discontinuity plane present in the Wilma
samples is |τ| = 93.7 + σn * tan(27.63). The criterion of the discontinuity plane in the Clark
samples is |τ| = 262.8 + σn * tan(30.93). When the criterions are compared two significant
comparisons can be made. The first is that Clark has greater initial shear strength. This means
that when no normal stress is applied to the discontinuity plane Clark rock will be
approximately 2.8 times stronger. The second is Clark has a greater angle of internal friction
than Wilma. This is significant because it means that the normal stress applied on the
discontinuity plane of Clark will have a larger affect on its shear strength than in Wilma. This
fact is further evidenced by the larger slope seen in Figure 11 as compared to Figure 12. This
information is useful to engineers planning excavations in highly jointed rock masses of Clark
and Wilma. The accuracy of these results is somewhat difficult to determine. This is due to the
relatively number of samples tested. Based on Figures 11 and 12, the results found for Wilma
are far more accurate than Clark as can be seen by the R² value of 0.9031 which is far closer to
1 which indicates a perfect fit of the trend line to the data than the R² value associated with the
31
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the tests performed in the lab, five conclusions and comparisons can be
reached regarding the failure criterion as well as strength characteristics of Wilma and Clark.
First the initial shear strength of Clark is greater than that of Wilma.
Third, Clark has an elastic modulus of 3.84*10^6 psi which is far greater than the
Fourth, the initial shear strength of a discontinuity in Clark of 262.8 psi is 2.8
27.63 degrees.
The initial shear strength of Clark as found by the triaxial stress test are 1799 psi for σ n
versus τ , 2326 psi for p-q diagram, and 2339 psi for σ 1 versus σ 3 . These values are clearly larger
than the Wilma shear strengths found using the triaxial test of 178.3 psi for σ n versus τ , 310 psi
for p-q diagram, and 292 psi for σ 1 versus σ 3 . This is significant because it means when no
normal stress is placed on the plane of failure Clark will be significantly stronger than Wilma.
Thus it is far less likely to fail in shear and a better host rock for almost any underground
application. The same is true of the uniaxial compressive strength of Clark 32220 psi when
compared to Wilma 10040 psi. Again the data demonstrates that Clark is the stronger of the
32
two rocks. This trend extends into jointed rock masses where the internal shear strength of
The internal angles of friction mirror the same trends as the internal shear strength.
They are consistently larger in Clark where the triaxial test yielded the following values: 64.1
degrees for σ n versus τ , 73.5 degrees for the p-q diagram, and 59 degrees for σ 1 versus σ 3 .
These values are clearly larger than the internal angles of friction found during the triaxial test
for Wilma of: 59.3 degrees for σ n versus τ , 69.6 degrees for the p-q diagram, and 60.6 degrees
for σ 1 versus σ 3 . As with the initial shear strength this trend is also present within jointed rock
masses of Clark and Wilma. Finally because the Elastic Modulus of Clark is significantly larger
than Wilma Clark will deform less under the same stresses. All this information when put
together leads to the conclusion that Clark is a stronger and therefore better host rock in
33
References
Karfakis, Mario. Rock Mechanics Notes. Virginia Tech. 2009
Delgado et al. Comparison Between Wilma and Clark Stones. Virginia Tech. 2009
34
Appendix
Sample Calculations
The following represents a set of sample calculations for sample w-4-15, the p-q diagram for
Clark from the triaxial test, sample w-4-20, the plot of the principle stresses for the Wilma rock,
Principle Stress
P 48482
σ1= = =17615 psi
A 1.872 2
2 ( ∗π )
Angle of Internal Friction
σ 1+ σ 3 17615+600
p= = =9107 psi
2 2
σ 1−σ 3 17615−600
q= = =8507 psi
2 2
1 1 1 1
σ n= ∗( σ 1 +σ 3 ) + ∗( σ 1−σ 3)∗cos ( 2 θ ) = ∗( 17615+600 )+ ∗( 17615−600 )∗cos ( 2∗67 )=3198 psi
2 2 2 2
σ 1 −σ 3 tan ( θ )2 17615−600∗tan ( 67 )2
Si = = =3032 psi
2∗tan ( θ ) 2∗tan ( 67 )
1+sin ( φ )
Si=
σ 1 −σ 3∗( 1−sin ( φ ) ) =¿
cos ( φ )
2∗ (
1−sin ( φ ) )
Angle of Internal Friction (from p-q diagram)
A-1
φ=arcsin ( tan ( α ) )=arcsin (.959 )=73.5 degrees
a 695.7
Si = = =2326 psi
cos ( φ ) cos ( 73.5 )
Strain
δL 0236
ε= =. =.00602
L 3.922
C0 8953
Si= = =2585 psi
2∗tan ( θ ) 2∗tan (60 )
D 2 1.873 2
A=
2 ( )
∗π =
2 ( )
∗3.141592=2.755 in2
Elastic Modulus
δσ 6046.382−3549.688
E= = =2.40∗10 6 psi
δϵ 4.50∗10 −3.46∗10
−3 −3
Secant Modulus
σ 8953
E sec = = =1.51∗106 psi
ϵ .006024
Raw Data
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11