Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

ARMA 15-157

Numerical Modeling of Rock Brazilian Test: Effects of Test


Configuration and Rock Heterogeneity
Gheibi, S.
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

Holt, R.M .
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway and SINTEF Petroleum Research, Trondheim, Norway

Lavrov, A.
SINTEF Petroleum Research, Trondheim, Norway

Mas Ivars, D.
Itasca Consultants AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Copyright 2015 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 49th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June- 1
July 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT:
The Brazilian Test was modeled with FLAC to investigate the effect of loading angle on stress distribution and failure mechanisms
in homogeneous and heterogeneous rock samples. The model was first calibrated to data of a Standard Brazilian test of a PMMA
sample, found in the literature. Then several numerical Brazilian tests were performed using virtual materials with different
deformability. The numerical results indicated that the loading angle (i.e. contact length between the jaw and the disc) is not
constant in the Standard Brazilian test and changes depending on the amount of applied load and the deformability of the disc. This
means that the contact length will be larger for materials with higher tensile strength and lower Youngs modulus. The contact
length affects the distribution of both tensile and compressive stresses in the disc. Therefore, it can influence the failure mechanism
of the disc. If the contact length is low, probability of shear failure increases close to the loading region, and if it is high, tensile
failure is more probable at the center of the disc.
Furthermore, Uniaxial Tensile (UT), Standard Brazilian (SB) and Brazilian tests with constant loading angle of 300 (CLAB) were
simulated. Heterogeneities were introduced as inclusions with their tensile strength and Young's modulus randomly selected from a
normal distribution with different standard deviations. The analysis indicated that as the standard deviation of the Young's modulus
and tensile strength distribution increases, the recorded peak load and peak tensile strength decreases for the three tensile test
configurations. However, UT is much more sensitive to the variability of tensile strength than of Young's modulus. In contrast, the
SB and CLAB tests indicated more sensitivity to Young's modulus variability.

1. INTRODUCTION
Direct measurement of rock tensile strength has
been a challenge for engineers. Since it is
practically easy and cheap to perform, Brazilian test
has been performed extensively to obtain tensile
strength of rocks instead. According to Griffith
criterion, Brazilian test is valid when the tensile
fracture initiates at the center of the testing disc.
However, some researchers have questioned its
validity in determining the tensile strength of rocks.
According to Fairhurst [1] failure may occur away
from the center of the test disc for small angles of
loading contact area and the calculated tensile

strength from a Brazilian test is lower than the true


value of the tensile strength. Hudson et al. [2]
observed that failure always initiated directly under
the loading points if flat steel plates were used to
load the specimen, an approach that actually
invalidates the test for the determination of tensile
strength. Li and Wong [3] cited that Yu [4] did a 3D
finite element method (FEM) numerical analysis
and concluded that the largest equivalent stress was
not at the center of the end surface of the disc but
always at the loading point of the end surface and
the Brazilian test was not suitable to measure the
tensile strength of rock-like materials. Pandey and
Singh [5] found that the Brazilian tensile strength

was almost double the value obtained in uniaxial


tension. Yue et al. [6] presented a digital image
processing-based finite element method for twodimensional mechanical analysis of geomaterials
and concluded that the heterogeneities of the
material have significant effects on the tensile stress
distribution along the loading axis of Brazilian
specimens. Zhu and Tang [7] investigated the
deformation and failure process of a Brazilian disk
of heterogeneous rock with numerical simulation
based on rock failure process analysis (RFPA).
Lanaro et al. [8] used a boundary element method to
model the Brazilian tests. They discussed the
influence of initiated cracks on the stress
distribution, and modeling the crack initiation and
propagation in Brazilian rock specimen. It is mostly
assumed that the contact area between loading plate
and the disc is very small. Recently, Erarslan et al.
[9] used steel arcs to apply the load with constant
contact area. They investigated the difference
between Standard Brazilian test and various loading
arc angles experimentally and numerically. They
proposed that the loading angle should be from 200
to 300. Markides and Kourkoulis [10] presented an
analytic full-field formula for the components of the
stress field developed in a Brazilian disc under four
types of loading distribution on the actual contact
length.
In this paper, Standard Brazilian test was modeled
with FLAC [11] to investigate the effects of loading
angle on stress distribution, failure mechanisms in
homogenous and heterogeneous Brazilian test. It is
to be noted that contact angle and loading angle are
used interchangeably in this text.
2. NUMERICAL
TEST

MODELING

OF

BRAZILIAN

Brazilian test was modeled with FLAC. Figure 1


indicates the configuration of Standard Brazilian
test modeled in FLAC. The contact surface was
defined as an interface with a normal stiffness (kn).
In FLAC, the elements in two sides of an interface
can penetrate to one another when two pieces are
moved toward each other. Therefore, the contact
area starts to increase from zero at first touch to
final value at failure load. The contact area between
sample and the plate is dependent on the applied
load, stiffness of the two pieces and the interfaces
properties. The interface was assumed to have zero
friction and zero shear stiffness. It was assumed that

the normal stiffness is a single and constant value in


our simulations.

Fig.1. Brazilian test model in FLAC (2 is loading angle or


contact angle/length)

In order to minimize the effect of normal stiffness


on simulation results, the model was calibrated to a
Brazilian test done on PMMA with radius R = 0.05
m and thickness t = 0.01 m.
Kourkoulis et al. [12] did a Brazilian test of PMMA
and measured the contact angle versus external
applied load. The same test was modeled with
FLAC. Figure 2 indicates the variation of contact
angle for experimental and numerical tests with
different values for kn = 50, 100 and 250 GPa, and
kn = 100 GPa was selected for the rest of the
simulations in this paper. It is noted that the contact
angle increases as the external load increases
(Figure 2).
Kn= 50 GPa
Kn= 100 GPa
Kn= 250 GPa

Fig. 2. Relation of external applied load and contact


angle between plate and PMMA (symbols are
experimental data)

2.1

Effect of rock stiffness on stress distribution in the


disc and failure mechanism

The contact angle is dependent on applied load and


stiffness of both the plate and the sample. Stiffness
of the plate is constant (E = 200 GPa and = 0.3);
therefore, there are two factors that control the
contact angle, i.e. strength of sample and its
stiffness. Therefore, it looks reasonable to
investigate the effect of deformability on stress
distribution in the disc and its effect on Standard
Brazilian (SB) tests result. Figure 3 indicates the
radial and circumferential stresses on the vertical
diameter (AA) of the disc for two cases with E = 5
GPa (case A) and E = 90 GPa (case B). The loading
angle (2) is above 180 and 8.50 for case A and B
respectively (Figure 4).

Fig. 3. Radial and circumferential stress (MPa)


distribution on diameter (AA), the lower figure indicates
the zoomed region shown by dashed ellipse in above
figure

As it is clear from the figure, radial stress starts


from its minimum value at discs center to its
maximum value at near the loading plate. The
radial stress value on the diameter (AA) is almost
equal for both A and B cases up to r/R = 0.6,
however, the difference becomes higher and higher
as it approaches the discs top. The reason for this is
that the contact angle is much higher in case A than
B and at equal load; the induced stress is lower for
case A than B. The same trend is also seen for
circumferential stress. As Figure 3 indicates, the
tensile circumferential stress is more uniform in
case B than A. According to Erarslan et al. [8] the
concentration of the tensile stress is higher in case
A which increases the likelihood of failure initiation
at disc center. Therefore, the chance the failure to be
initiated at the disc center is higher for case A.
From the other side, the loading region experiences
a higher stress concentration in case B and
depending on the compressive strength/tensile stress
of a rock sample; shear failure is also possible at
loading region. Figure 5 indicates the plot of
maximum and minimum principal stress in the disc
in A and B cases (on AA). We assumed that
Coulomb criterion is valid, m = UCS/TS, = 0.25,
the internal friction angle and tensile strength are
300 and 10 MPa respectively. As it is seen in Figure
5, Coulomb criterion was plotted for compressive
strength equal to 80 MPa and 150 MPa for case B.
The failure mechanism is tensile for compressive
strength above 150 MPa and shearing for below 150
MPa for case B. In case A, the failure mechanism is
tensile for compressive strength above 80 MPa and
shearing for compressive strength below 80 MPa
(Figure 5). This indicates how the stiffness of the
sample can influence the failure mechanism and
consequently cause unreliable results in Brazilian
test.
The radius and thickness of the disc in the two A
and B cases discussed above are different than that
of ISRMs Standard test. To investigate the effect of
deformability on the stress distribution inside the
Standard size disc (R = t = 26 mm, R is radius and t
is thickness), four examples were analyzed where
the tensile strength was 4.7 MPa for all and the
compressive strength was high enough to be sure
that we will not have shear failure. The Youngs
modulus was 15, 25, 60 and 90 GPa. The Figure 6
indicates the normalized circumferential stress on
AA.

As it was expected, if the sample is much


deformable, the tensile stress concentration is much
higher at the disc center.
Erarslan et al. [8] used steel loading arcs with 150,
200 and 300. As mentioned above, when loading
angle is higher concentration of compressive stress
will be higher compression region (close to loading
plate) in the disc. Therefore, depending on the
strength and stiffness of the sample, failure
mechanism may be shearing rather than tensile.
Using higher constant loading arcs will guarantee to
some extent the occurrence of tensile failure and its
initiation at the disc center.

Stress

Fig. 5. Principal stress pairs on disc diameter (AA)


for a sample with 10 MPa tensile strength in SB test

Fig.4. Force-contact length relation, contact stress


distribution obtained by modeling for samples with E = 5
GPa and 90 GPa and tensile strength 10 MPa.

Brazilian test was performed in FLAC with steel


loading arc with 300 which is called CLAB. As it
was expected, the circumferential stress is more
concentrated toward the center of the disc and radial
stress is not as high as for Standard Brazilian test in
compression region. This type of testing was
recommended by Erarslan et al. [8] to be used
instead of Standard Brazilian test (SB). Based on
the analysis done in this paper and the ones by
Erarslan et al [8], the CLAB gives better results for
homogeneous rock samples.

Fig. 6. Normalized circumferential stress on AA for four


examples with different Youngs modulus in SB test

The next section of this paper investigates the


differences between the Standard Brazilian (SB) test
and the one with constant loading angle of 300 in
samples containing heterogeneities.
2.2

Effect of heterogeneity on indirect measurement of


tensile strength

In the following analysis the models were the same


as for the previous section (SB and CLAB).
However, it was assumed that the tensile strength
or/and Youngs modulus of elements were selected
randomly from a normal distribution to investigate
the effect of heterogeneity on testing results.
However, to track the concept easily we start with a
single heterogeneity in the sample with a very small
size.
As mentioned in previous section, stress distribution
is different for materials with different stiffness
even with equal strength for SB test. What Figure 6
basically shows us is that for example in location
r/R = 0.75 the tensile stress is 15% higher for the
cases E = 60 GPa and 90 GPa than for case E = 15
GPa. If we assume that there is a small
heterogeneity (with tensile strength 75% of the rest
of the sample) the likelihood of crack initiation at
this location may be lower for cases E =15 GPa than
for E = 90 GPa in SB test. Therefore, we conclude
that if the Youngs modulus is lower and

consequently the contact angle is higher,


heterogeneities may not play role in some cases. It
is worthy to note that if we go to lower values of
r/R, this effect diminishes and if we go to higher
values for r/R this effect increases. Two numerical
samples are shown in Figure 7 in which the tensile
strength of the heterogeneity is 75% of the rest of
the sample (4.7 MPa) and E= 15 GPa and 90 GPa.
As it is seen, the tensile crack initiates in both cases
however, the initiation location is the heterogeneity
element r/R = 0.75) and the center (r/R = 0) for
cases E = 90 GPa and 15 GPa respectively in SB
test. The recorded failure load for the two above
cases is different (7.5 kN and 8.57 kN for E = 90
GPa and 15 GPa respectively). Therefore, the
calculated value for tensile strength is highly
affected (4.1 MPa and 4.7 MPa for E = 90 GPa and
15 GPa respectively). Table 1 indicates other tests
with different parameters in terms of strength of
heterogeneity, and deformability of rock in SB test.
The recorded load, calculated tensile strength,
cracks initiation locations are given for different
cases. Of course more scenarios could be analyzed
like changing the location, size and strength of the
heterogeneity etc. Not only the tensile strength but
also deformability of the heterogeneity can
influence the indirect tensile tests in this case. In
some examples, the effect of Youngs modulus of
the
heterogeneity
was
also
investigated.
Heterogeneity with lower Youngs modulus will
increase the stress in its vicinity. As indicated in
Table 1, for case no. 6 where E=90 GPa, the
heterogeneity has Youngs modulus 75% of that of
the surrounding elements. When the load is applied,
higher stress is induced in the vicinity of the
heterogeneity and crack is initiated in the vicinity of
the heterogeneity. In contrast, in case no. 5 where
every parameter is the same except ER (Youngs
modulus Reduction of the heterogeneity), the crack
initiation point is the heterogeneity itself.
Consequently the recorded load and calculated
tensile strength are different in these two cases. If
the same procedure is repeated for case E=15 GPa
(cases no. 11 and 12) one can see that the
heterogeneity does not play role. What can be
concluded is that as the Youngs modulus
decreases, stresses distribute in such a way that the
heterogeneity does not play role depending on
several factors such as heterogeneity strength,
deformability and strength of the surrounding grains
in SB test.

As we discussed in previous section, Erarslan et al.


[8] used steel arcs with constant loading angle to
perform the Brazilian test (CLAB). Since the
contact angle is higher, we expect the above
mentioned heterogeneity effect will not play a
significant role in CLAB. To investigate this, the
same procedure was adopted as above. The model
has heterogeneity (a weak point) at r/R = 0.75. The
E and T were 90 GP and 4.7 MPa for surrounding
elements. E of the heterogeneity was the same as
rest of the surroundings and its tensile strength was
changed between 590% of that of the surrounding.
The tensile failure initiated at the center for the
cases in which the strength of the heterogeneity was
above 5% of the surrounding. The tensile crack
would initiated at location r/R = 0.75 only if the
heterogeneity was very weak (Th < 5% of 4.7 MPa).
This indicated that if the loading angle is higher, it
can reduce the effect of the heterogeneity. One
should note that this result is valid only when the
stiffness of the heterogeneity equals to the
surrounding element.

5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% of the mean value)


and Youngs modulus kept constant (90 GPa). In
the second set, the tensile strength was constant (4.7
MPa) and Youngs modulus was randomly selected
from a normal distribution (mean = 90 GPa and
different Standard Deviation values). In the third
set, both tensile strength (Mean=4.7 MPa and
different Standard Deviation values) and Youngs
modulus (Mean=90 GPa and different Standard
Deviation values) were randomly distributed.
CLAB

SB

UT

Fig. 8. Three test types and distribution of heterogeneity in the


samples

Fig.7. Location of small heterogeneity and tensile failure


initiation in cases (E=15 GPa and 90 GPa) in SB test
(Green line shows the crack and the small violet spot is
the heterogeneity)

One may ask whether it is an advantage that CLAB


reduces the role of some of the heterogeneities
depending on their properties and location or not.
To answer this question, one way may be to model
uniaxial tensile test in FLAC and compare its results
with those of SB and CLAB. Figure 8 indicates the
three testing configurations. Analyses were
performed in three sets. In the first set, the tensile
strength was randomly selected from a normal
distribution (Mean =4.7 MPa and different Standard
Deviation values i.e. the standard deviations were

It should be noted that for example in the first set,


for one group of analysis the tensile strength was
randomly selected from a normal distribution
(Mean = 4.7 MPa, STD = 5% of 4.7 MPa) and
model was ran for several times. In each of the runs
the mean and standard deviation values were
constant however; the spatial distribution of the
tensile strength was different for each run.
Therefore, each data point in Figures 9 and 10 is
average of several runs. Increase of standard
deviation of Youngs modulus (set 2) also decreases
the final tensile strength; however, CLAB gives
slightly better results than SB (Figure 9). Figure 9
also reveals that the tensile strength is more
sensitive to the heterogeneitys strength than its
Youngs modulus in UT test. However, this is
opposite for CLAB and SB in which reduction of
the final tensile strength of the specimen is higher
when the standard deviation of Youngs modulus
distribution increases. This sensitivity to increase of
standard deviation of Youngs modulus is not equal
for both CLAB and SB. This may be caused by
existence of compressive stress component in
Brazilian test. Suppose that there is a soft grain
surrounded by located in a region close to the

Table 1. Different testing scenarios to investigate the effect of rock stiffness in presence of heterogeneity in SB test
E (GPa) TSR

ER

Th (MPa)

r/R

Crack ini. point

final force (N)

Num. tens. stress at center (MPa)

90

0%

0%

8582

4.69

90

10%

0%

4.23

0.75

8578

4.69

90

15%

0%

0.75

8578

4.69

90

20%

0%

3.76

0.75

8173

4.47

90

25%

0%

3.53

0.75

7522

4.12

90

25% 25%

3.53

0.75

H'

7890

4.33

67.5

25% 25%

3.53

0.75

H'

7927

4.35

45

25% 50%

3.53

0.75

H'

6344

3.47

18

25% 80%

3.53

0.75

H'

5084

2.78

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

15
15
15
15
13.5
3
7.5

0%
25%
25%
35%
25%
25%
25%

4.7
3.53
3.53
3.06
3.53
3.53
3.53

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

C
C
C
H
C
H'
H'

8563
8563
8563
7478
8562
5387
6940

4.69
4.69
4.69
4.1
4.69
2.96
3.81

0%
0%
25%
0%
25%
80%
50%

C: disc center
H: Heterogeneity/inclusion
H': In rock in vicinity of the inclusion

TSR: Tensile Strength Reduction of the inclusion


ER: Youngs Modulus Reduction of the inclusion

vertical diameter (likelihood of failure is higher on


diameter). The radial stress component is
compressive and the circumferential stress is
tensile. Therefore, the softer grain will act like a
hole and the radial stress will induce tensile stress in
the crown of the hole. This increase (minus) adds up
to the circumferential tensile stress where it can
exceed the tensile strength of the surrounding and
initiate failure. On the other hand, stress
concentration is lower in CLAB than in SB,
therefore, CLAB gives slightly closer result to the
UT test.
In the third set, both the Youngs modulus and the
tensile strength were selected from normal
distributions with the same mean values as before
and UT, SB and CLAB were performed
numerically. Figure 10 compares the results of
CLAB and SB in the third set. The y-axis is the
normalized tensile strength according to the tensile
strength obtained from UT. Therefore, closer to
value 1 in y-axis indicates the better result. The
figure indicates that the effect of heterogeneity in

Fig. 9. Effect of strength and Youngs modulus variability on


UT, SB and CLAB test results

However, it looks that if the variability of Youngs


modulus is high CLAB is better than SB because of
lower compression stress in CLAB disc. In contrast,
SB may be better for rocks that have less Youngs
modulus variability although with higher strength
variability. CLAB has another advantage which
guarantees the tensile failure more than SB when
compressive/tensile strength ratio is low. Another
advantage of CLAB is that it is more or less
independent of samples stiffness; in contrast, SB
shows dependency on sample stiffness which can
influence the results in some cases.
3. CONCLUSION

Fig. 10. Effect of strength and Youngs modulus variability on


final tensile strength (comparison of SB and CLAB), Trdev
and Erdev are standard deviation of tensile strength and
Youngs modulus respectively

terms of its Youngs modulus and strength is


nonlinear and it is not possible to conclude if CLAB
or SB gives better result. For some realization of
strength and Youngs modulus variability, CLAB
gives better and for some other realizations it gives
worse results.
Therefore, it is not possible to prescribe any of these
two indirect Brazilian tests for different rock types
in terms of heterogeneity effect.

The Brazilian Test was modeled with FLAC to


investigate the effect of loading angle on stress
distribution
and
failure
mechanisms
in
homogeneous and heterogeneous rock samples. The
model was first calibrated to data of a Standard
Brazilian test of a PMMA sample. The numerical
results indicated that the loading angle (i.e. contact
length between the jaw and the disc) is not constant
in the Standard Brazilian test and changes
depending on the amount of applied load and the
deformability of the disc. The contact length is
larger for materials with higher tensile strength and
lower Youngs modulus. The contact length affects
the distribution of both tensile and compressive
stresses in the disc. Therefore, it influences the
failure mechanism of the disc. If the contact length
is low, probability of shear failure increases close to
the loading region, and if it is high, tensile failure is
more probable at the center of the disc. For two
specimens, A and B, with equal tensile strength of
10 MPa but different Youngs modulus (of EA = 90
and EB = 5 GPa), the loading angle was 8.50 and
18.50 for A and B, respectively. Results indicated
that in specimen A the failure mechanism was
tensile at the center for m > 15 and shearing at top
of the disc for m < 15. For Specimen B, it was
tensile at the center for m > 9 and shearing at the
top for m < 9. Furthermore, Uniaxial Tensile (UT),
Standard Brazilian (SB) and Brazilian tests with
constant loading angle of 300 (CLAB) were
simulated. Heterogeneities were introduced as
inclusions with their tensile strength and Young's
modulus randomly selected from a normal
distribution with different standard deviations. The
analysis indicated that as the standard deviation of
the Young's modulus and tensile strength
distribution increases, the recorded peak load and

peak tensile strength decrease for the three tensile


test configurations. However, UT is much more
sensitive to the variability of tensile strength than of
Young's modulus. In contrast, the SB and CLAB
tests indicated more sensitivity to Young's modulus
variability. Analysis indicates that it is not possible
to prescribe any of these two indirect Brazilian tests
for different rock types in terms of heterogeneity
effect. However, it looks that CLAB is better than
SB if the variability of Youngs modulus is high
because of lower compression stress in CLAB. SB
may be suitable for rocks that have less Youngs
modulus variability. CLAB has two advantages
over SB. First advantage is that CLAB guarantees
the tensile failure more than SB when
compressive/tensile strength ratio is low. Second
advantage is that CLAB is more or less independent
of samples stiffness; in contrast, SB shows
dependency on sample stiffness which can influence
the results in some cases.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This publication has been produced with support


from the BIGCCS Centre, performed under the
Norwegian research program Centers for
Environment-friendly Energy Research (FME). The
authors acknowledge the following partners for
their contributions: Gassco, Shell, Statoil, TOTAL,
GDF SUEZ and the Research Council of Norway
(193816/S60). Access to FLAC2D was provided by
the Itasca Educational Partnership (IEP, Itasca
International Inc.).

REFERENCES
1. C. Fairhurst 1964. On the validity of the Brazilian test for
brittle materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
1:4,535546.
2. Hudson, J.A., E.T. Brown and F. Rummel.1972. The
controlled failure of rock discs and rings loaded in diametral
compression. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
9:2, 241248.
3. Li D. and L.N.Y. Wong. 2013. The Brazilian Disc Test for
Rock Mechanics Applications: Review and New Insights. J.
Rock Mech. Rock Eng.46:2, 269-287
4. Y. Yu. 2005. Questioning the validity of the Brazilian test
for determining tensile strength of rocks. Chin. J. Rock Mech.
Eng. 24:7, 11501157 (in Chinese).
5. Pandey, P. and D.P. Singh. 1986. Deformation of a rock in
different tensile tests. Eng. Geol. 22:3, 281292.

6. Yue, Z.Q., S. Chen and L.G. Tham. 2003. Finite element


modeling of geomaterials using digital image processing.
Comput. Geotech. 30:5, 375397.
7. Zhu, W.C. and C.A. Tang. 2006. Numerical simulation of
Brazilian disk rock failure under static and dynamic loading.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43:2, 236252.
8. Lanaro, F., T. Sato and O. Stephansson. 2009. Microcrack
modelling of Brazilian tensile tests with the boundary element
method. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46:3, 450461.
9. Erarslan, N., Z. Z. Liang and D. J. Williams. 2012.
Experimental and numerical studies on determination of
indirect tensile strength of rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 45,
739-751
10. Markides, C.F. and S.K. Kourkoulis. 2012. The stress field
in a standardized brazilian disc: the influence of the loading
type acting on the actual contact length. Rock Mech. Rock
Eng. 45:2,145158.
11. Itasca. FLAC2D fast Lagrangian analysis of continua.
Version 7.00. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2011.
12. Kourkoulis S.K., Markides Ch.F., and G. Bakalis. 2013.
Smooth elastic contact of cylinders by caustics: the contact
length in the Brazilian-disc test, Archives of Mechanics, 65: 4,
313338.

S-ar putea să vă placă și