Specimen Slenderness and the Influence of Joint Orientation on the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Singly Jointed Rock
Publication: Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
Volume 26, Issue 6
Abstract
Limitations on the joint orientations for which a joint is free to fail exclusively by sliding (without the need for rupture of intact material), for a given specimen height-to-diameter ratio (), can influence the results obtained from uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) testing of jointed rock. For example, a jointed specimen with can only possibly fail exclusively by sliding for joint angles up to from the plane perpendicular to the axial direction. For joints greater than , intact material rupture is required to accommodate failure and UCS is likely to be overestimated. Experimental work was performed to determine the UCS of jointed rock containing various joint orientations, for sample sets with and 4. Only joint orientations that allowed joint formats for which failure could occur by sliding on the joint for the sample set (i.e., up to 75°) were considered. For joint orientations greater than , the sample set produced significantly higher UCS values than the sample set. Additionally, specimens with joint orientations in excess of 63° displayed failure mechanisms involving intact-material rupture for the sample set. Only sliding failure was observed for the same tests on the sample set. Care must be taken to ensure methodologies adopted for UCS testing of jointed rock do not influence the mechanisms by which failure can occur. In some cases, strict adherence to methods set out in popular testing standards may need to be reconsidered.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for compressive strength and elastic modulus of intact rock core specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures.” ASTM D7012-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard practices for preparing rock cores as cylindrical test specimens and verifying conformance to dimensional and shape tolerances.” ASTM D4543-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
Hawkins, A. B. (1998). “Aspects of rock strength.” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 57(1), 17–30.
International Society for Rock Mechanics. (1979). “Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials–Part 1. Suggested methods for determination of the uniaxial compressive strength of rock materials.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 16(2), 137–138.
John, M. (1972). “The influence of length to diameter ratio on rock properties in uniaxial compression: A contribution to standardisation in rock mechanics testing.”, Cape Town, South Africa.
Mogi, K. (2007). Experimental rock mechanics, Taylor and Francis, London.
Standards Australia. (2007). “Methods of testing rocks for engineering purposes: Determination of uniaxial compressive strength.” AS 4133.4.2.1-07, Canberra, Australia.
Thuro, K., Plinninger, R. J., Zah, S., and Schutz, S. (2001). “Scale effect in rock strength properties. Part 1: Unconfined compressive test and Brazilian test.” Proc., Int. Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Regional Symp., Taylor and Francis, London, 169–174.
Unlu, T., and Yilmaz, O. (2008). “Investigation of the shape effect on the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock.” Proc., Regional Rock Mechanics Symp., N. Turk, A. H. Deliormanli, and C. Kincal, eds., Izmir, Turkey, 121–141.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 12, 2013
Accepted: Jul 26, 2013
Published online: Jul 27, 2013
Published ahead of production: Jul 29, 2013
Published in print: Jun 1, 2014
Discussion open until: Aug 4, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.