On the Residual Strength of Rocks and Rockmasses
- 340 Downloads
The design and construction of structures in rock depend heavily on knowledge of rock strength and deformation characteristics (Cai et al. 2007). A commonly adopted method for assessing these characteristics is to utilize standard laboratory tests, including triaxial compression tests (ASTM 2015). Since the development of stiff servo-controlled testing machines and procedures in the 1960s and 1970s (see, for example, Cook 1965; Rummel and Fairhurst 1970; Wawersik and Brace 1971; Hudson et al. 1971), such tests have been capable of maintaining stability beyond peak strength and recording post-peak material parameters (Brady and Brown 1985).
Generally speaking, the stress–strain behaviour of rocks as observed in compression tests can be separated into four phases: (1) pre-yield, where behaviour is approximately elastic; (2) post-yield but pre-peak, where short term frictional strengthening effects lead to an artificial strain-hardening behaviour; (3) post-peak weakening,...
KeywordsResidual strength Rock friction Triaxial testing
The authors would like to acknowledge Luke Weidner for proofreading a version of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
G Walton declares that he has no conflict of interest. D. Labrie declares that he has no conflict of interest. L. Alejano declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- ASTM (2015) D7012 Standard Test Method for Compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken (USA), p 9Google Scholar
- Brady BHG, Brown ET (1985) Rock strength and deformability. Rock mechanics for underground mining. George Allen & Unwin, London (UK), pp 86–134Google Scholar
- Crowder JJ, Bawden WF (2004) Review of post-peak parameters and behaviour of rock masses: current trends and research. RocnewsGoogle Scholar
- Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Geoenviron EngGoogle Scholar
- Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. Proc NARMS-Tac 1:267–273Google Scholar
- Hudson JA, Brown ET, Fairhurst C (1971) Shape of the complete stress–strain curve for rock. In: Proceedings of the 13th symposium on rock mechanics. University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
- Jaeger JC (1969) Behavior of closely jointed rock. In: The 11th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
- Kemeny JM, Cook NGW (1987) Crack models for the failure of rocks in compression. Constitutive laws for engineering materials: theory and applications, vol II. Elsevier, New York, pp 879–887Google Scholar
- Labrie D (2017) Frictional properties of rocks as a function of rock type, specimen size and confining pressure. In: The 51st US Rock Mechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
- Labrie D, Conlon B (2008) Hydraulic and poroelastic properties of porous rocks and concrete materials. In: The 42nd US rock mechanics symposium (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
- Masoumi H (2013) Investigation into the Mechanical Behaviour of Intact Rock at Different Sizes. In: Ph.D. Thesis. University of New South Wales: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Niu S, Jing H, Hu K, Yang D (2010) Numerical investigation on the sensitivity of jointed rock mass strength to various factors. Min Sci Technol 20(4):530–534Google Scholar
- Rosengren KJ (1968) Rock mechanics of the Black Star open cut, Mount Isa. Ph.D. Thesis. The Australian National University: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Vermeer PA, De Borst R (1984) Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron 29:1–64Google Scholar
- Walton G (2017) Scale effects observed in compression testing of Stanstead granite including post-peak strength and dilatancy. Geotech Geol Eng 36:1091–1111Google Scholar