13.08.2013 Views

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

STRENGTH OF ANISOTROPIC ROCK MATERIAL IN TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION<br />

Substituting for n in equation 4.29, putting s = , <strong>and</strong> rearranging, gives the criterion<br />

for slip on the plane of weakness as<br />

(1 − 3)s =<br />

2(cw + 3 tan w)<br />

(1 − tan w cot ) sin 2<br />

(4.31)<br />

The principal stress difference required to produce slip tends to infinity as → 90 ◦<br />

<strong>and</strong> as → w. Between these values of , slip on the plane of weakness is possible,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the stress at which slip occurs varies with according to equation 4.31. By<br />

differentiation, it is found that the minimum strength occurs when<br />

or when<br />

tan 2 =−cot w<br />

= w<br />

+<br />

4 2<br />

The corresponding value of the principal stress difference is<br />

(1 − 3)min = 2(cw + w3) 1 + 2 1/2 <br />

w + w<br />

where w = tan w.<br />

For values of approaching 90 ◦ <strong>and</strong> in the range 0 ◦ to w, slip on the plane of<br />

weakness cannot occur, <strong>and</strong> so the peak strength of the specimen for a given value of<br />

3, must be governed by some other mechanism, probably shear fracture through the<br />

rock material in a direction not controlled by the plane of weakness. The variation of<br />

peak strength with the angle predicted by this theory is illustrated in Figure 4.34b.<br />

Note that the peak strength curves shown in Figure 4.33, although varying with <br />

<strong>and</strong> showing pronounced minima, do not take the same shape as Figure 4.34b. (In<br />

comparing these two figures note that the abscissa in Figure 4.33 is = /2 − ).<br />

In particular, the plateau of constant strength at low values of , or high values of<br />

, predicted by the theory, is not always present in the experimental strength data.<br />

This suggests that the two-strength model of Figure 4.34 provides an oversimplified<br />

representation of strength variation in anisotropic rocks. Such observations led Jaeger<br />

(1960) to propose that the shear strength parameter, cw, is not constant but is continuously<br />

variable with or . McLamore <strong>and</strong> Gray (1967) subsequently proposed that<br />

both cw <strong>and</strong> tan w vary with orientation according to the empirical relations<br />

<strong>and</strong><br />

cw = A − B[cos 2( − c0)] n<br />

tan w = C − D[cos 2( − 0)] m<br />

where A, B, C, D, m <strong>and</strong> n are constants, <strong>and</strong> c0 <strong>and</strong> 0 are the values of at which<br />

cw <strong>and</strong> w take minimum values, respectively.<br />

119

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!