Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351

Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics

Laboratory Triaxial Testing from Historical Outlooks to Technical

Aspects
Deepak Amban Mishra*, Ivan Janeek
Institute of Geonics of the CAS, Studentska 1768, Ostrava-Poruba, 70800, Czech Republic

Abstract

One major objective of rock mechanics testing in a laboratory is to characterize strength and deformational behaviours under
in-situ stress state. It is a well-known fact that in-situ rock masses are under a stress state with three principal stresses i.e. triaxial
stress state. Knowledge of the mechanical behavior of rocks under triaxial stress conditions comes mainly from the Karman-type
triaxial tests (conventional triaxial test) where a cylindrical specimen is axially loaded keeping the lateral load constant.
However, the stress path that is specific to these tests is certainly not unique in practical situation. Loading direction in-situ rock
masses subjected to engineering or tectonic processes can be arbitrary orientation where principal stress axes can have arbitrary
orientation with respect to vertical and horizontal direction. It is difficult to carry out these types of tests because
of the difficulties in controlling the stress in those arbitrary orientations and also due to the fact that no detailed guideline
on the methodologies of these tests is available in literature. Therefore, with due need, starting from the background
of the triaxial testing, this paper will discuss the technical aspects of developed experimental methodologies for these tests in our
servo controlled rock mechanics system from MTS corporation and are verified with the case study of deformational behavior
in selected special stress regimes. This article will also address the difficulties that one can face during the testing along
with their possible solutions.
2017
2017TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
Keywords:Triaxial testing; Conventional triaxial compression; Conventional triaxial extension; Reduced triaxial compression; Reduced triaxial
extension

1. Introduction

Determination of in-situ stress conditions along with the deformational behaviors are the key activities
of geo-engineering projects. It is well established that in-situ rock masses are under a stress state with three principal

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +420-596-979-231; fax: +420-596-919-452.

E-mail address: mishra@ugn.cas.cz

1877-7058 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.190
 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351 343

stresses i.e. triaxial stress state. Laboratory tests corresponding to the in-situ stress condition can give necessary
experimental background for understanding the mechanical effects in the earth crust. The triaxial test, which closely
corresponds to the in-situ state of stress, is one of the most worthwhile and widely performed geotechnical
laboratory tests which allows the strength and stiffness of rock to be determined for their use in engineering design.
In a typical triaxial test, a cylindrical rock specimen ranging from as small as 38 mm to around 100 mm diameter
is placed into a cell that can be pressurized [1]. Height-to-diameter ratio of these test specimens have
an approximate ratio of 2:1, and are wrapped within a rubber membrane. After this preparation, specimen is loaded,
allowing the material response to be observed under conditions that may approximate the in-situ state of stress.
Although triaxial testing is very common in routine rock engineering environment, however, it is mostly
restricted to conventional triaxial compression (CTC) tests. Other not so common confined compression
and extension tests has not gained significant attention particularly because of the technical difficulties involved
with the tests. Therefore, with due need, starting from the background of the laboratory triaxial testing, this article
presents the experimental methodologies for the non-standard tests along with the technical aspects of the tests.
These methodologies are tested in our servo controlled rock mechanics system from MTS corporation and are
verified with the case study of deformational behavior of rocks in those special stress regimes. This article also
addresses the technical difficulties one can face during the testing along with their possible solutions.

2. Laboratory triaxial testing

For laboratory approximation of triaxial stress conditions, two conceptually different technical systems are
generally used: true triaxial test [2] and more commonly triaxial axisymmetric testing [3].

2.1. Conventional Triaxial Test (CTT)

Conventional triaxial apparatus and related CTT methodology was first developed by Karman [4]. Therefore, this
test is also known as the Karman-type triaxial tests and is very commonly used test in rock engineering environment
mainly because of the simplicity of the equipment and test method. This is of the most convenient methods
for determining the triaxial strength of rock is to apply a uniform hydraulic pressure to the curved surface
of a cylindrical specimen and then to apply an axial compressive force to the specimen until failure occurs.
Therefore it can be said these triaxial tests consists of two stages: First stage: specimen is set in the triaxial cell
and confining stress (c) is then applied. Second stage: additional axial is applied to the specimen. During both
the stages, the applied stresses and there corresponding strains can be measured. In this type of test, all three
principal stresses are applied to the cylindrical specimen, out of which two are applied inside the confining cell
and are equal.
The conventional triaxial testing apparatus designed by Karman represents a special construction
with independent control of axial and confining pressures. Cells of this type are often expensive and slow to operate
[1]. Therefore, to speed up the testing process, Hoek and Franklin [5] developed a simpler compact design of the cell
utilizing removable ends of sample diameter. First a small confining pressure is applied in this cell, which is then
included to appropriate conventional compression uniaxial testing machine and a small axial load is applied. Finally,
confining pressure is used in conjunction with the uniaxial machine to prepare condition of the conventional triaxial
test [1]. Unfortunately the small inner space in the chambers of classical Hoek construction does not allow
installation of large extensometers. In addition, commercially available Hoek cells are limited typically by maximal
in-chamber pressures below 100 MPa, while e.g. original Karman design could operate at pressures over 600 MPa,
which substantially extend the range of test conditions and spectrum of investigated rock materials in triaxial
strength tests.

2.2. True Triaxial Test (TTT)

The vital assumption of conventional triaxial test was stress paths are limited only to certain planes in stress
space and thus there is no role of intermediate principal stress on rock failure [5]. However, a large number of in-situ
stress measurements have shown that all three principal stresses are different at shallow part of earths crust
344 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351

(1 2 3) i.e. actual state of stress is different from the assumption of conventional triaxial tests. Researchers
like Rummel [6]; Stephanson [7] etc. has also demonstrated that intermediate principal stress can be several times
higher than the minimum principal stress in the areas which are not disturbed by mining or constructions. Therefore,
a test where 2 and 3 can be controlled independently started gaining importance. These types of tests are known
as True Triaxial Test (TTT). The true triaxial testing started from 1960s when Akai and Mori [8]; Hojem and Cook
[9] and Mogi [10] built polyaxial cells which are otherwise known as true triaxial testing apparatus. These TTT
apparatuses cab be classified in to three types on the basis of their loading method: Rigid platen type (Type-I);
Flexible medium type (Type-II); Mixed type or Mogi type (Type-III) [11]. A detailed comparison between these
types was presented in [2] and concluded that Type-III apparatus is highly versatile without any fatal drawbacks.
True triaxial testing apparatus are capable to control all the three principal stresses: 1, 2 and 3 independently.
Construction of these cells typically uses three independent axial actuators (predominantly hydraulic), sometimes
also combination of two axial pistons with Pascal pressure of a liquid medium acting on sample.
Mogi [12] demonstrated that for an ideal TTT apparatus three conditions should be considered: (1) Three
principal stresses can be applied independently; (2) High stress can be applied and (3) No stress concentration
should be there i.e. stress distribution in the specimen should be uniform. However, there are still problems
in achieving these considerations. Li et al. [2] concluded that each TTT apparatus is more or less affected
by the factors like corner effects, end frictions loading eccentricity and loading capacity. These factors greatly
reduce the reproducibility and reliability of results of TTT. It can also be noted that the deformational response
of rock sample can usually be determined only indirectly through movement of the pistons, therefore strains are
measured with less precision [13].

Fig. 1. Stress paths realized in triaxial apparatus through 3D stress space (ITC, CTC/RTC, CTE/RTE) drawn as 2D plot in coordinates (d, p)
defined in the text. (Photo taken from [13]).

3. Axisymmetric triaxial testing

Due to the problems associated with the reliability of resultsfrom a TTTas discussed in [4], more frequent
solution preferred in rock-mechanics laboratories is the triaxial cell, which consists of pressure chamber with single
axial piston. The device generates only axisymmetric subset of possible triaxial states, therefore the role
of intermediate principal stress (2) on mechanical behavior of rocks can be appreciated only from the two extreme
cases: 1 = 2 and 2 = 3 i.e. from confined compression and confined extension tests. Unlike majority of true
triaxial systems, in the pseudo triaxial setup (axisymmetric triaxial testing), strains can be measured with high
precision directly at free sample surface through glued-on strain gauges. Alternatively, in big chambers with high
 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351 345

volume, a set of axial/lateral extensometers can be installed directly on sample for very precise strain measurement
[13].
The effect of intermediate principal stress on the failure stress of rock materials can be estimated from confined
compression (conventional triaxial compression (CTC) and reduced triaxial compression (RTC)) and confined
extension tests (conventional triaxial extension (CTE) and reduced triaxial extension (RTE)). During the all these
tests, a solid cylindrical specimen is subjected to hydrostatic stress to generate an isotropic pressure (1 = 2 = 3)
first, and then axial stress (a) is gradually increased for CTC and decreased for RTE tests keeping other two
principal stresses (confining stresses - c) constant. The confining stress is increased for CTE tests and decreased
for RTC tests keeping axial stress constant. These tests/stress paths are graphically represented in Fig. 1.
The first studies on confined compression and confined extension were carried out on marble sample from
Carrara in [14, 15]. His results showed that the intermediate principal stress has a significant role on rock failure.
This finding was again confirmed by Murrell [16] while analyzing the test results of confined compression
and confined extension from [4] and [15]. He concluded that, for the studied marbles, the strength of the rock
increases on increasing the intermediate principal stress. He again confirmed his finding from the experimental test
results from solid cylindrical specimens of feldspathic Darley Dale sandstone tested under CTC and RTE test
conditions [17]. A similar behavior was also observed by Mogi [18] from his tests on Westerly granite and Dunham
dolomite. He also found that for limestone, the importance of intermediate principal stress can be substantially low
due to the ductile behavior of rocks under very high confining pressure. Zhu et al. [19] focused on influence
of radial stress on porosity and permeability of different types of sandstone. The triaxial extension tests used
the CTE path and it was found that axial extension of the sandstone specimens is increased with differential stress,
but decreases for given sandstone with increase of the initial effective minimum principal stress.
Ramsey and Chester [20] demonstrated the transition from extension to shear fracture in dog-bone shaped
specimens under confined extension conditions. Mogi [21] tested similar type of specimens of quartzite, granite,
diabase and dolomite to conclude that the preliminary results showed a negligible dependence of intermediate stress
on failure of rocks. Takahashi et al. [22] investigated the deformational and failure behavior of Kimachi sandstone
during confining compression and extensions tests. In their research, they observed that extension tests were more
brittle than compression tests and a positive correlation between volumetric strain and mean principal stress.
The same Kimachi sandstone was again investigated through all four non-standard compressive (CTC, RTC)
and extension (RTE, CTE) paths [23]. Authors found that failure limits for axial compression or extension, at same
final mean stress is not dependent on stress paths (loading or unloading). However, the limits are smaller
for compression than for extension.
In literature, though, few research works focused on the importance of confined compression and extension,
knowledge of the mechanical behavior of rocks under triaxial axisymmetric stress conditions comes mainly from
the CTC tests. However, the stress path that is specific to these tests is not unique in practical rock engineering
environment. Other stress paths like in RTE, CTE and CTC tests are possible and, therefore, information only from
CTC tests is not enough to fully understand the behavior of rocks under triaxial stress conditions. Thus all four
mentioned paths are equally important. However, there is no stipulated methodology for these not so common tests.
Therefore, methodology and technical difficulties that can arise during the tests with possible solutions are described
in the following sections.

4. Methodology

4.1. Device

Developed methodology was used to carry out the tests on above mentioned stress paths on our servo-controlled
rock mechanics test system comprised of triaxial cell combining pressure chamber with hydraulic axial piston [13].
The device follows general provisions for reliable measurements along special stress paths:
a) The loading frame is sufficiently stiff and robust to minimize the effect of undesired sudden release
of mechanical energy accumulated in the system.
b) Triaxial cell withstands high confining pressures.
c) For very precise measurement of axial force, in-chamber load cell is used.
346 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351

d) Servo-valves in the system are controlled through feedback channels, which are managed through computer
controller, which also ensure continual data collection from measuring channels connected to appropriate
detectors (load cell, pressure detectors, extensometers etc.).
e) Detectors are calibrated for used measuring ranges, and PID feedback is tuned for given conditions and type
of samples. Actuators have sufficiently short reaction time to control the test by defined stress or strain rates.
f) Hermetical pressing ends are used to realize indirect axial extension of samples through pressure of confining
fluids.

4.2. Samples

For considered special triaxial tests solid cylindrical test specimens should be prepared as suggested in ISRM
[24] for standard triaxial tests. For example, compliance of suggested sample dimensions efficiently suppresses
influence of friction at ends. The samples must be isolated by appropriate way through hermetical jackets to prevent
inclusion the confining fluid.

4.3. Suggested procedure for CTC, RTE, CTE and RTC tests

Presented test procedure for all variants of tests comes from basic procedureand suggestions for standard triaxial
test as suggested in [24]. All pre- and post-test information/observations are same like standard triaxial tests.
As mentioned above, these tests consist of two stages:
I. Isotropic compression to selected final hydrostatic pressure
II. Followed additional increasing of the differential stress

Procedure for stage I - isotropic compression:

1. Install cylindrical sample with jacket and hermetical ends (fixed bottom and free top)in pressure chamber
2. Move axial piston to obtain the initial touch to force about 1 kN (indicated by internal load cell)
3. Fix the free hermetical end to the opposite free part of axial piston column and close the chamber
4. Remove the air from confining pressure intensifier
5. Fill pressure chamber by oil and check that no air in form of bubbles is confined in the oilin chamber
6. Start simultaneous loading of vertical and horizontal stresses (  ) , through increasing
of pressure of confining fluid under condition of zero differential stress . Use the stress rate (typically
from 0.1 to 1 MPa/s), which is equivalent to suggested stress or strain rate for standard triaxial test.
7. Stop isotropic loading at selected final value

Procedure for - stage II increasing the differential stress:

1. Start from isotropic stress state (the last item of stage I), and start increasing differential stress by one from four
variants
a) for CTC path, increase the vertical stress under condition of constant horizontal stress
b) for CTE path, increase the horizontal stress under condition of constant vertical stress
c) for RTE path, decrease the vertical stress under condition of constant horizontal stress
d) for RTC path, decrease the horizontal stress under condition of constant vertical stress
Suggested rate of increasing the differential stress is the same as for ramping the isotropic stress, or for given
material can be deduced from the suggested limits of strain rates for standard triaxial test.
2. Stop increasing of differential stress at failure or alternatively at stress limit of the device
3. Unload applied vertical and horizontal stress to zero

4.4. Determination of moduli

For samples under hydrostatic compression, mechanical moduli can be calculated from deformational
characteristics measured along the special loading paths bythe method extending that for uniaxial test suggested
 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351 347

in ISRM [24] and [25]. Necessary condition for determination of linear moduli is presence of almost linear sections
on stress strain curves. Then, for CTC and RTE tests the Young modulus and Poisson ratio can be calculated
through formula similar to the uniaxial tests, while for CTE and RTC, obtained relations are different [13]:

, and  ,  ,

where is increment of the differential stress and and are corresponding increments of axial and lateral
strains respectively.

5. Technical aspects

Published articles on preparing and performing the non-standard tests are rare in the literature mainly because,
realization of tests that models the extensional conditions meets with serious technical difficulties [22]. In this
section therefore, problems, those can be met during the non-standard triaxial tests along with their possible
solutions are discussed.

Fig. 2. Command and signal of average axial deformation of a triaxial test on sandstone, Fig.1.

5.1. PID control

To reliably control the tests with back loop channels, we need to tune the channels for a particular test
and particular type of samples. If they are not tuned properly then command and signal can differ significantly
causing an error in the test. Example of tuning procedure for test control by feedback driven through absolute axial
displacement measured by axial extensometer on sample i.e. how the command and signal varies before tuning
and after tuning can be seen in Fig. 2. For our work, we have controlled the tests through two feedback channels:
- stress difference detected through in chamber load cell and -pressure of confining fluid measured
at intensifier [13]. We have these channels well-tuned, and are demonstrated in Fig. 3A and 3B respectively.
348 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351

(A) Signal
Command
(B) Signal
Command
60
75

40

Confining Pressure (MPa)

60

Axial Stress (MPa)

20
45

30
-20

15
-40

-60 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500

Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

Fig. 3. Command and signal with respect to time (A) for axial stress and (B) for confining pressure of a triaxial test on sandstone.
(Rate: 0.25 MPa/Sec).

5.2. Role of pressing ends (platens)

Standard tests use CTC path increasing , therefore axial stress is higher than the lateral component.
In this case therefore, both normal ends, combined with the top platen having spherical knuckle, and alternatively
rigid hermetically sealed pressing ends (as shown in Fig. 4) can be used. We have compared the stress-strain
characteristics from the tests carried out with both types of pressing ends. Results of the comparison are presented
in Fig. 5. From the figure, it is observed that there is no significant difference between the results obtained from
the tests carried out with normal ends and hermetically sealed pressing ends. In the CTE and RTE tests, lateral stress
is higher than that of axial stress. In this case therefore, it is necessary to use hermetically sealed pressing ends
to prevent the loss of contact with the piston and rupture of jacket when is decreased below the value equal to
[13].

Stress Difference

Fig. 4. Pressing ends: standard ends (on the left) and hermetical ends Fig. 5. Stress versus strain curves for sandstone where solid lines
(on the right). are with normal ends and dotted lines are with hermetically sealed
ends.

5.3. Jacket compressibility

Jacket is used to prevent the confining liquid from entering in to the specimen. The method for jacketing must
persist without a jacket rupture up to maximal intended confining pressures and also should minimize the influence
on detectors, especially strain detectors. Selection of the jacket depends on method of measuring the strain.
For strain gauges installed directly at sample surface, an elastic jacket prepared on sample through solidification
of applied liquid material or foam can be appropriate. For jacketing a flexible casing of suitable material can also
be used. Plastic shrinking jackets supplied along with our rock mechanics test system very often breaks down during
 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351 349

experiment at sample ends or at sample surface defects. Therefore, the suggested jackets for experiment are rubber
(or any polymer of suitable elasticity and thickness). Diameter of the jacket should be such that when stretched
slightly, it should be same as that of the specimen to be measured. The jacket should not be too thick or too thin,
because if thick material is used the jacket will also be compressed along with the specimen resulting an erroneous
measurement of lateral strain. If jacket is too thin then it may rupture at high load or it may penetrate
in to the surface pores of the specimen. In any case it is suggested to check the influence of a jacket on detected
lateral strain by comparative measurement on a standard i.e. well defined materials like steel with and without
jacket. In Fig. 6, we have presented the lateral strain of steel without jacket, and with a thick rubber jacket
(thicknes - 1.7 mm), which was used for our early measurements. It can be seen from the Fig. 6, compression
of the rubber jacket is high and systematic and influence cannot be neglected. In this case therefore, systematic error
should be estimated and then subtracted from signal of circumferential extensometer. It is advised to use
any material with suitable diameter, elasticity and thickness as jacket, however, its compression with the stress must
be checked. For the new measurements we have preferred the thinner (0.7 mm thick) rubber jacket, effect of which
on lateral strain measurement can be neglected.

Fig. 6. Stress versus Lateral strain curves of steel specimens tested without jacket and with thick rubber jacket.

6. Results

Plenty of tests and pilot studies on selected materials were carried out for technical purpose. These testes were
focused on reliability checking of feedback channels; simultaneous control of active channels; stability of tested
stress paths/conditions; role of pressing ends; selection of jackets and their influence on strain measurements.
Results of these tests are illustrated in preceding sections. The experimental methodology developed for all four
stress paths were then tested through many loading/unloading tests on various materials. Results of the pilot study
on sandstone were introduced in [13] and extended results are presented in [26]. Few representative results obtained
from tests along all four stress paths (CTC, RTE, RTC and RTE) on sandstone, granite, and nylon are presented
in Fig. 7. All these tests started with initial isotropic compression up to 60 MPa. Stress-strain characteristics
represents the relations of stress differences and strain differences from their values at initial isotropic stress.
Performed experiments produced reproducible data. However, for measurements on rocks, their natural variability
most be considered.
350 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351

Fig. 7 Stress difference ( )vs axial and lateral strains for sandstone, granite, and nylon tested with presented methodology for CTC
and RTC (positive stress difference); CTE and RTE (negative stress difference) at isotropic pressure of 60 MPa. 'Y' axis of all graphs are stress
difference  (MPa), which absolute value is equivalent to the differential stress  .

7. Conclusions

A tested and verified methodology for laboratory modeling for given stress paths (CTC, RTE, RTC and RTE)
in 3D stress space and for measuring the strength and deformational response of rock sample is presented.
In the form of procedures, we have prepared suggested methods for performing experiments using all four stress
paths. For our rock mechanics system we have implemented the corresponding measuring algorithms in form
of MTS MPT software procedures. The methodology enable to test the deformational behavior of rocks in variable
conditions, which can be inspired by evolution of in-situ stress states. If necessary, from linear parts of stress strain
curves the analogs of mechanical moduli can be determined. Several technical aspects, which are important
for reliable measurements in these special loading conditions were discussed. The methodology presented above,
was verified by performing all tests on sandstone, granite, nylon and steel, on a servo controlled testing machine
from MTS at rock mechanics laboratory of Institute of Geonics. Wider application of the presented methodology
in laboratory research on rocks is to provide new strain data, which will extend knowledge about the deformational
behavior of that particular rock which in-situ undergo different types stress conditions.
 Deepak Amban Mishra and Ivan Janeek / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 342 351 351

Acknowledgements

The research was supported through project Institute of clean technologies for mining and utilization of raw
materials for energy use Sustainability program, identification code: LO1406 of the National Programme for
Sustainability I (20132020) financed by the state budget of the Czech Republic and the project RINGEN+, reg. no.
CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001792 supported by Research, Development and Education Operational Programme.
We sincerely thank late Prof. Kwasniewski from University of Gliwice in Poland (former member of our research
group) for encouraging us to for this work and sharing his expertise on this subject with us.

References

[1] J.A. Franklin, E. Hoek, Developments in triaxial testing technique, Rock Mech Rock Engg. 2.4 (1970) 223-228.
[2]X. Li, L. Shi, B. Bai, Q. Li, D. Xu, X. Feng, True-triaxial testing techniques for rocksState of the art and future perspectives,
in: M. Kwaniewski et al. (Eds.), True Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 2012, pp. 3-16.
[3] M.S. Paterson, T. Wong, Experimental rock deformation-the brittle field, Sprng Sc. & Business Media, 2005.
[4] T. Krmn, Strength under pressure (in German), Z. Ver. dtsch. Ing. 55 (1911) 1749-1757.
[5] E. Hoek, J.A. Franklin, Simple triaxial cell for field or laboratory testing of rock, Instn Min. Metall. 77 (1968) A22- 26.
[6] F. Rummel, Stresses and tectonics of upper continental crusta review, in: O. Stephansson (Ed.), Proc. int. symp. Rock stress and rock stress
measurement, Stokholm Lulea, Centen, 1986, 177-186.
[7] O. Stephansson, Rock stress in Fennoscandian shield, in: J.A. Hudson (Ed.), Comprehensive rock engineeringprinciples, practice & projects
(rock testing and site characterization) 3 (1993) 445-459.
[8] K. Akai, H. Mori, Study of failure mechanism of a sandstone under combine compressive stresses (in Japanese), Proc. Japan Soc. Civil Eng.
147 (1967) 11-24.
[9] J.P.M. Hojem, N.G.W. Cook, The design and construction of a triaxial and polyaxial cell for testing rock specimens, South Afr. Mech. 18
(1968) 57-61.
[10] K. Mogi, On a new triaxial compression of rocks, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Japan No. 3 (1969).
[11] M. Takahashi, T. Narita, Y. Tomishima, R. Arai, Various loading systems for rock true triaxial compression test (in Japanese), J. Japan Soc.
Eng. Geol. 42 (2001) 242-247.
[12] K. Mogi, Experimental rock mechanics, Talylor & Francis/Balkema, Leiden, 2007.
[13] I. Janecek, D.A. Mishra, Non-standard in-situ loading paths in 3D stress space through laboratory triaxial experiments, in: E. Johansson,
V. Raasakka (Eds.), Proc. 7th Int. Symp, In-Situ Rock Stress, 2016, 482-491.
[14] R. Bker, Tests to correlate the failure envelops of wrapping tests and uniaxial compression tests (in German), Dissertation, Technical
University, Aachen, 1914.
[15] R. Bker, The mechanics of plastic deformation in crystalline solids (in German), Ver. dtsch. Ing. Mitt. Forsch, 175 (1915) 1-51.
[16] S.A.F. Murrell, A criterion for brittle fracture of rocks and concrete under triaxial stress and the effect of pore pressure on the criterion, in:
C. Fairhurst (Ed.), Rock Mechanics (Proc. 5th Symp. on Rock Mechanics, The University of Minnesota), Pergamon Press, New York, 1963,
563-577.
[17] S.A.F. Murrell, The effect of triaxial stress systems on the strength of rocks at atmospheric temperature, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 10 (1965)
231-281.
[18] K. Mogi, Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure, J. Geophys. Res. 72 (1967) 5117-5131.
[19] W. Zhu, L. Montesi, T. Wong, Shear-enhanced compaction and permeability reduction: Triaxial extension tests on porous sandstone, Mech.
Mater. 25 (1997) 199-214.
[20] J.M. Ramsey, F.M. Chester, Hybrid fracture and the transition from extension fracture to shear fracture, Nature 428 (2004) 63-66.
[21] K.Mogi, Seismic quiescence and fore shock activity preceding the 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki earthquake (M6.8) in Japan, in:
M. Kwaniewski et al. (Eds.), True Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden. 2012, pp. 267-280.
[22]N. Takahashi, M. Takahashi, H. Park, Y. Fujii, T. Takemura, Deformation and strength characteristics of Kimachi sandstone under confined
compression and extension test conditions, in: M. Kwaniewski et al. (Eds.), True Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden,
2012, pp. 235-242.
[23] T. Takemura, K. Suzuki, A. Golshani, M. Takahashi, Stress path dependency of failure mechanism from the viewpoint of dilatant behavior,
in: M. Kwaniewski et al. (Eds.), True Triaxial Testing of Rocks, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, 2012, pp. 203-210.
[24] ISRM, The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 19742006, in: R. Ulusay, J.A. Hudson
(Eds.), Commission on testing methods, International Society of Rock Mechanics, ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, 2007, p 628.
[25] P.M Santi, J.E. Holschen, R.W. Stephenson, Improving elastic modulus measurements for rock based on geology, Environ. Eng. Geosci.
6(4) (2000) 333-346.
[26] I Janecek, D.A. Mishra, Deformational response of uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial loading or unloading regimes and their role in constitutive
modeling of rock materials, in: Eurock-2017, Symposium of the International Society for Rock mechanics, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
(Accepted).