Gowd1980 PDF
Gowd1980 PDF
Gowd1980 PDF
225 to 229
Pergamon Press Ltd 1980. Printed in Great Britain
Initiot Compensating
Pressure
J ===============================================================================
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Displacement Tronsducer ~ ~
To Reguloting Volve
Fig. 1. Pressure compensatingunit to measure radial expansion of the rock specimen in the pressure vessel. Confining
pressure aa is held constantby a regulatingvalve. Resultingpiston displacementis measured by an inductivedisplacement
transducer.
test, Since the diameter of the axial loading piston dV was measured by a pressure compensating unit
within the pressure vessel was equal to the specimen (Fig. 1) which permitted the controlled extraction of
diameter, axial piston advancement and axial specimen pressure fluid from the vessel in order to maintain the
shortening during axial compression have no effect on initially applied confining pressure, 0 3. The unit essen-
the initially applied fluid pressure within the vessel tially consists of a servo-controUed hydraulic cylinder
(neglecting the small effect caused by radial elastic (fluid pressure control), where dV is given by the dis-
expansion of the hardened steel piston due to its axial placement of its piston. The piston displacement was
compression). Thus, any fluid pressure increase in the accurately monitored by an inductive displacement
vessel is due only to radial expansion of the rock speci- transducer. All experimental variables were continu-
men, which may consist of both elastic expansion due ously plotted during each test.
to axial compression as well as expansion due to micro-
fracture development. Thus, the fluid volume dV to EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
be extracted from the pressure vessel to keep the con-
The complete axial stress versus axial strain curves
fining pressure constant during the test is a measure
(crL vs e l ) o f the rock at constant confining pressures up
of the radial volumetric expansion of the specimen,
to 200 MPa are presented in Fig. 2. The rock deforms
dV ~ 2Vodr/ro, where Vo is the initial volume, r0 the
linearly and elastically at axial stresses below a critical
initial radius and dr the mean increase in radius of the
value, trl < try. The value of try, which is called the yield
rock specimen. Therefore, the total volumetric strain 0
strength in the following, is dependent on the confining
of the rock can be determined by measuring the axial
pressure, a3. Further compression leads to inelastic
strain ~ and the radial expansion dV:
deformation. At low confining pressures, tr3 < 90 MPa,
O ~ e t +dV/Vo the curves show a defined peak strength, am, and a
gradual strength decrease in the so-called post-failure
region until final deformation occurs at about constant
axial stress trr, referred to as the residual strength. As
i /(~3 : 200NPQ revealed by visual analysis, inelastic deformation of the
600, / rock in this case consisted of brittle micro-fracturing
during pre-peak deformation, the development of a
~ - ~ ~o macroscopic shear zone at decreasing strength and
macroscopic shear at constant residual strength. At
higher confining pressures, 0"3 >/ 100MPa, the rock
LLI fJP'~--'---'--- 90 LU exhibits work-hardening without the development of
o: 1 . " . ~ 80 p_
macroscopic singular shear fractures. Multiple shear
'
fractures develop at confining pressures between 100
,~ / /l,~'~--'-- 3o and 130 MPa, and the rock exhibits prominent bulging
only at a confining pressure of 200 MPa.
1~'--~" ~ ~~ ~ T ~ Axial stress versus volumetric strain curves (trl vs 0)
0 0 . (b)
0 1 2 3 t. 5 6.10-" of the rock under confining pressures up to 100 MPa
AXIAL STRAIN 1 are given in Fig. 3. The elastic deformation of the rock
(o)
is characterized by the linear decrease of volumetric
strain with increasing axial compression try. The onset
Fig. 2. (a) Axial stress versus axial strain curves (at vs El) of Bunt- of dilation occurs at trl = tr,, which therefore is called
sandstone at constantconfiningpressures a3 up to 200 MPa. (b) Defi-
nition of yieldstrength ~r peak strength or,,and residual strengthat. the dilatancy strength. In contrast to the yield strength,
Confining Pressure on the Fracture Behaviour of a Porous Rock 227
~o
~00 t
rY / ~ 0"3 =loo MPQ
l 90n / _
00tI 60&)'/ ~1 \
/ I
(b)
15.10-3 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15.10 -3
Increase VOLUMETRIC STRAIN 0 Decrease
(o)
Fig. 3. (a) Axial stress versus volumetric strain curves (a I vs 0) of Buntsandstonc at constant confining pressures Ga up to
100 MPa. (b) Definition of dilatancy strength 0", volumetric strain 0,, at 0",., volumetric strain 0, at 0-r. Pre-peak dilation:
0,, - 0~, post-peak dilation: 0r -- 0,,.
% (Fig. 2), the onset of dilation can easily be defined against a 3 in Fig. 4. The plot shows that pre-peak dila-
from the measurement of volumetric strain. tion is about constant at confining pressures of up to
Dilation of the rock is significant at low confining 40 M P a and is negligible at higher pressures. Post-peak
pressures, aa < 10 MPa, and leads to a considerable dilation drastically decreases in the low pressure range,
permanent volume increase (0 ~ 1%) of the rock speci- a3 < 20 MPa, and is progressively inhibited at higher
mens compared to their initial volume. Most of this pressures. This demonstrates that pre-peak brittle
volume increase occurs in the post-failure region. It is microfracturing is a precursory deformation process to
caused by the development of macroscopic shear faults the development of macroscopic shear faults. Multiple
at decreasing strength and by the dilation of fault seg- shear faults which develop at intermediate pressures,
ments during frictional sliding at about constant re- 40 < a3 < 90, still exhibit dilation but are preceded by
sidual strength. Pre-peak dilation is about 2.5%o and is only minor microfracturing. The formation of shear
due to brittle microfracturing of the rock matrix. At fractures at higher confining pressures, o-a > 100 MPa,
higher confining pressures dilation progressively de- occurs without any dilation. Thus, transition from
creases and is zero at aa _> 100 MPa. brittle fracturing to pure ductile shear deformation in
In order to particularly investigate the two stages of the Buntsandstone tested takes place at a pressure of
pre-peak microfracturing and the development of shear about 100 MP&
faults, the values of pre-peak dilation, 0 ~ - 0v, and Similar conclusions may be derived from the strength
post-peak dilation, 0 r - 0m, are plotted separately data of the rock. Numerical values of the peak strength
am, dilatancy strength av and the residual strength
ar are listed in Table 1. Since at transition the differ-
15
| TABLE 1. STRENGTH DATA OF BUNT-
Z SANDSTONE (0"3 confining pressure, 0".
post-failure dilation Or Om
tY peak strength, a, dilatancy strength,
p. o p r e - p e a k d i l a t i o n ( ~ - Or a, residual strength, 0"yyield strength;
t/1
all data in MPa)
~10- 0"3 0-m 0-y O'v 0-r
W
', 0 60 48 -- 10
5 100 75 57 46
\x 10
20
122
154
90
125
72
106
81
105
~s
wz .\. 30
40
193
221
150
180
150
167
139
180
50 253 220 230 212
~ ~--O--o X,~,~ 60
70
275
310
200
250
264
--
239
272
80 323 260 -- 310
90 346 280 331 332
50 100 361 280 -- --
Ix Ix-~
with
I
i I
A = 2tr3(1 - 2v)/E
d O"m -O"v2
\ B = (1 - 2v)/E
\ \
. \
where E is Young's modulus, and v is Poisson's ratio.
bI With K = E/3(1 - 2v) we obtain
\ K = 1/3B.
i i i i i i | i 9 Using Fig. 3 we then obtain 104 < K < 1.3 x 104 MPa,
50 I~
CONFINING PRESSURE.M~ independent of the confining pressure applied to the
specimens for a3 < 100 MPa. The individual data are
Fig. 5. Stress drop (a,. - a,) and pre-peak dilation range (tr,, - a,) as
a function of confining pressure o 3. included in Table 2.
low at the Institute of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum. The induced velocity changes in rock and their relation to frictional
paper was written by F. Rummei during a visit to NGRI in Hydera- sliding PAGEOPH 116, 743-764 (1978).
bad, India. The authors wish to thank DAAD and CSIR India for 4. Sobolev G., Spetzler H. & Salov B. Precursors to failure in rocks
making the exchange .visits possible. Financial support of the experi- while undergoing anelastic deformation. J. geophys. Res. 83,
mental work was provided by the German Science Foundation (SFB 1775-1784 (1978).
77, A.9). 5. Edmond J. M. & Paterson M. S. Volume changes during
deformation of rocks at high pressure. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min.
Sci. 9, 161-182 (1972).
Received 17 May 1979; in revisedform 29 February 1980. 6. Rummel F. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Bruchvorgang
in Gesteinen. Ber. Inst. Geophysik, Ruhr-Univ., Bochum, No. 4
(1975).
7. Zoback M. D. & Byerlee J. D. Permeability and effective stress.
Bull. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. 59, 154-158 (1975).
REFERENCES 8. Logan J. M. Brittle phenomen& Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 17,
1121-1132 (1979).
1. Brace W. F., Paulding B. & Scholz C. H. Dilatancy in the fracture 9. Miachkin V., Brace W. F., Sobolev G. & Dieterich J. H. Two
of crystalline rocks. J. geophys. Res. 71, 3939-3954 (1966). models for earthquake forerunners. PAGEOPH 113, 169-181
2. Hadley K. Azimuthal variation of dilatancy. J. geophys. Res. 80, (1975).
4845--4850 (1975). 10. Rummel F. Laboratory fracture mechanics related to earthquake
3. Rummel F., Alheid H. J. & Frohn C. Dilatancy and fracture source physics. A review. Chron. J.U.G.G. 131, 18-21 (1979).