~ l ) ' ~

@ SOCIETY FOR
PREPRINT
MINING, METALLURGY,
AND EXPLORATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 625002 LITTLETON. COLORADO 80162-5002
97-130
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF ROCK STRENGTH TESTING
A. J. Basu
M. D. Kuruppu
Western Australian School of Mines
Kalgoorlie, WA, Australia
For presentation at the SME Annual Meeting
Denver, Colorado - February 24-27,1997
Permission is hereby given to publish with appropriate acknowledgments. excerpts or
summaries not to exceed one-fourth of the entire text of the paper. Permission to print In more
extended form subsequent to publication by the Society for Mining. Metallurgy. and Exploration
(SME). Inc. must be obtained from the Executive Director of the Society.
If and when this paper is published by the SME. it may embody certain changes made by
agreement between the Technical Publications Committee and the author so that the form in
which it appears is not necessarily that in which it may be published later.
Current year preprints are available for sale from the SME. Preprints. P.O. Box 625002.
Littleton. CO 80162-5002 (303-973-9550). Prior year pre prints may be obtained from the Linda
Hall Library. 5109 Cherry Street. Kansas City. MO 64110-2498 (8oo}662-1545.
PREPRINT AVAILABILITY LIST IS PUBLISHED PERIODICALLY IN
MINING ENGINEERING
Abstract. Rock mass properties testing for determining
strength parameters is an integral part of geomechanics.
These tests are performed either in a laboratory
environment or in a field (in-situ). The authors share their
experience in using numerical modelling in simulating the
laboratory test procedures. This approach helps studying
the rock breakage and failure mechanism more efficiently
and provides a high degree of visualisation. Moreover,
imperfections and discontinuities can be easily incorporated
in these models. This capability of providing arbitrary
fractures and discontinuities facilitates in building a large
knowledgebase of rock strength and failure mechanisms.
This knowledgebase may then be used to generate
heuristics for determining rock strengths for rock mass
with fractures and discontinuities.
Introduction And Background
Numerical simulation for rock strength determination
provides a non destructive testing mode. The current
objective is to develop a significant understanding of
mechanism of rock behaviour during its failure while
performing standard laboratory testing for rock strength
determinations (Brown, 1981). Numerical simulation of
the standard laboratory test procedures also helps in
understanding the progressive failure mechanism.
Moreover, the graphical interface and animation features of
the finite element analysis software ANSYS (Basu and
Kuruppu, 1996) helps in visualising the failure mechanisms.
The research work by the authors has just started and
progress is relatively slow as there is no funding available
for this work (authors priorities are currently with the
existing funded research projects). The authors expect that
the research outcome in the proposed area will be the
availability of a tool to perform nondestructive testing to
analyse and determine rock strength parameters. A large
number of rock testing scenarios including cracks,
discontinuities can also be modelled very easily.
Moreover, cost of expensive sample preparation can be
avoided.
Numerical Model
There are standard procedures available for rock
properties testing in a laboratory set up (Brown, 1981).
These procedures provide testing guidelines and reporting
procedures. This paper does not include listing of these
procedures. The presentation here is of demonstrative
nature. The authors picked Indirect Tensile Testing
(Brazilian Test) for modeling and analysing numerically.
The obvious reason is in the simplicity in modeling.
Therefore, the results obtained were analysed faster and
also checked by standard calculation. Moreover, a fracture
mechanics test model was also developed and its results
were derived using a hybrid finite element analysis and
experimental procedure.
1
Model for Indirect Tensile Test
The tool used for this numerical simulation was a finite
element analysis software ANSYS. The software selection
and features of ANSYS were addressed by the authors
earlier (Basu and Kuruppu, 1996). Figure 1 shows the
tensile stress in the model after applying a point load of
30 Kn. The maximum stress is approximately 10 Mpa
which is very close to the value obtained from laboratory
testing.
.....n'!io.;J
OCT 11"6
16:ll:ft
'loOTIO. 1
IIOOALIOt1l"TICI
11'''=1
lUI '"1
fl"'-l
"
Figure 1. Tensile stress distribution (Mpa) in the model.
Please note that the solution method used was simplistic.
The loading rate was not modelled. It was assumed that the
entire load was applied at once. A more realistic solution
step following the prescribed testing will be carried out in
future. Moreover, by incorporating a parametric language
macro the progressive failure may be modelled. The
ANSYS software has a birth and death feature (for
elements) available and it will be used to model the
progressive failure. The process will be written such that
all the elements exceeding certain stress level, (e.g., 9 Mpa)
will be inactive and the model would assume a crack in
place of those elements exceeding the prescribed level and
solution will be continued and the process will be repeated.
The authors are currently engaged in modeling these
features and if possible will be presented at the meeting.
Figure 2 shows shear stress distribution (Mpa). The
points under applied loading and restraints experience high
shear stress and it also confirms our existing knowledge
that we observe shear failure close to these points.
r-------------- AMNII" $,J
DC"!' 11996
11: l!l
IUI_l
!UII:=l
RIYI*O
010( *.
-112.0"
62, 93'
"'IX-J.DI.'"
.MXII .... 'O.:lJ4
_-llZ.D4'
!Z;;J -'1.49'

-H.::t!!3
0-13.121
B H:H:
_ 8LJ93
108.'48
Figure 2. Shear stress distribution (Mpa) in the model.
Model for Fracture Toughness Test
Rock fracture mechanics deals with the crack initiation
and propagation in rock subjected to various types of
loading. Most rock are weak in tension and therefore the
crack opening mode of fracture is quite significant.
Fracture toughness is a material property which is related
to the critical level of the stress intensity factor, KI , in the
crack opening mode. It is used as a parameter for
classification of rock material, an index of fragmentation
processes such as rock cutting and blasting, and as a
material property in the modelling of rock fragmentation
like rock cutting, hydraulic fracturing and crater blasting
(ISRM, 1988).
Figure 3 shows finite element analysis model of the semi-
circular bend (SCB) test specimen (suggested by Chong
and Kuruppu, 1984) showing tensile stress distribution. A
SCB test specimen was also used in laboratory for
determining the fracture toughness of rock. International
Society for Rock Mechanics (lSRM) committee on testing
methods has suggested methods for determining the
fracture toughness of rock using the chevron bend
specimen (ISRM, 1988 and Ouchterlony, 1980) and the
short rod specimen (Barker, 1977). The SCB specimen is a
core based, compact specimen which is tested under three-
point bending.
Figure 3. Tensile stress distribution in Semi-Circular Bend
(SCB) test model.
2
It is complimentary to other suggested methods and is
useful for the complete characterisation of transversely
isotropic, sedimentary rock such as oil shale due to the
necessity to determine the properties in orthogonal
directions using more than one specimen. It is particularly
good from the point of view of nonlinearity as compared to
many other specimens.
The SCB specimen is analysed using the finite element
method to determine the elastic stress intensity factors. The
specimen with straight crack through the thickness is
modelled using PLANE82 two-dimensional eight-noded
elements in ANSYS. One half of the specimen is modelled
by taking advantage of the symmetry. Crack-tip singularity
is represented using quarter-point isoparametric elements
around the crack tip (Barsoum, 1976). ANSYS provides
special routines named KSCON and KCALC for such
analysis. Figure 4 shows non-dimensional stress intensity
factor versus crack length resulting from a number of finite
element analyses. Fracture toughness can be roughly
evaluated based on the maximum load achieved during
testing and the non-dimensional stress intensity factor
shown in Figure 4 and the experimentally determined
fracture load are used to calculate the fracture toughness,
K1C. A more precise determination requires the continuous
measurement of both the load and the displacement
(Ouchterlony, 1980). Table 1 gives the results of a recent
study (Ngo, 1996) on the determination of the fracture
toughness of some commonly found rock types in the
Goldfields region of Western Australia. These results
require to be verified using the other ISRM suggested
methods. However, they agree with some of the previous
results when the variation due to local inhomogeneities are
taken in to account (lSRM, 1988).
KI
<To";;;
14r-------------------____
12 .
10 ..
8
6
4 {:. =====:::::.
2 .. sir = 0.67 (Lim et al. 1994)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
aiR
Figure 4. Mode I stress intensity factor for the semi-
circular bend specimen under three point bending
loading.
3
Table 1. Fracture toughness (laboratory testing results) oflocal rock samples.
Rock type
Quartz-feldspar
porphyry
High magnesium
basalt
Ultramafic schist
Dolerite
Future Research Plan, Methods And
Techniques
The parameter most widely used in engineering design is
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS). The UCS is often
quoted as a major design parameter in mining and civil
engineering. The other tests used for strength prediction of
a rock mass are direct and indirect tensile tests, direct shear
and triaxial tests. Numerical models of the standard
laboratory procedures for detennining rock strength
parameters (e.g., uniaxial compressive testing, indirect and
direct tensile testing, direct shear and triaxial testing) will
be built.
A numerical model of the stiff testing instrument may also
be created to help simulate the laboratory testing
procedure. Loading will be applied at the specified rates
for each testing procedure. A parallel set oflaboratory
tests will also be carried out and the results will be used to
validate the numerical models.
The initial numerical models will be free from any
imperfections. Progressive failure mechanism under
loading will be studied. A visual record can also be made
using the animation feature ofthe numerical analysis tool
ANSYS. The models will then be modified to contain
cracks and discontinuities and results will be obtained for
these models. These results can then be compared with the
earlier results with ideal conditions. This comparison will
facilitate to quantity a scaling factor for converting strength
parameters for intact rock sample to its corresponding in-
situ condition.
Conclusions
The mechanical behaviour of rocks during progressive
failure plays a predominant role in the geotechnical design.
Laboratory testing ofrock mass samples is the only
available practice to predict the rock strength properties.
This practice is not always adequate to model in-situ
condition and may prove very expensive. Currently rock
strength parameters obtained from standard laboratory
testing procedures are scaled down for use in design (to
take care of in-situ conditions, cracks, and discontinuities)
using a scaling factor (Cunha, 1990). This scaling factor is
arbitrary and has no supporting analysis. Numerical
analysis will allow creating an ideal sample as well as
K
1C
(MN/m
312
)
1.44 0.08
1.61 0.10
0.68 + 0.12
1.75+0.13
sample with imperfections. The results from these analysis
will lead to establish design guidelines in using a scaling
factor for adjustment to in-situ strength parameters.
Moreover, a numerical model for a rock properties testing
procedure may help in increasing confidence on the initial
results obtained from a standard laboratory test.
Acknowledgments
The software has been leased through the funding by the
W ASM Education Fund. The authors also acknowledge
the technical support and help provided by Mr. Joseph
Corvetti of Worley Limited.
References
Barker, L. M., 1977, "A Simplified Method for Measuring
Plane Strain Fracture Toughness", Eng. Fracture Mech.,
Vol. 9, pp. 361-369.
Barsoum, R. S., 1976, "On the Use ofIsoparametric Finite
Elements in Linear Fracture Mechanics", Int. J. for
Num. Meths. in Engrg., Vol. 10, pp 25-37.
Basu, A. J. and Kuruppu, M., 1996, "Numerical Modelling
in Mining Geomechanics", SME Annual Meeting,
March, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Brown, E. T. (ed.), 1981, Rock Characterisation Testing
and Monitoring - ISRM Suggested Methods.
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Chong, K. P. and Kuruppu, M. D., 1984, "New Specimen
for Fracture Toughness Detennination of Rock and
Other Materials", lnt. J. Fracture, Vol. 26, pp.
R59-R62.
Cunha, A.P., 1990, "Scale Effects in Rock Mechanics",
Proceedings, Conference on Scale Effects in Rock
Masses, Balkema.
ISRM, 1988, " Suggested Methods for Detennining the
Fracture Toughness of Rock", F. Ouchterlony, ed.,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.,
Vol. 25, pp 71-96.
Ngo, B.T., 1996, "Mode I Fracture Toughness
Detennination of Rock Materials using SCB
Specimen", Project Thesis, WA School of Mines,
Cutin Univ., Western Australia.
OuchterIony, F., 1980, "A New Core Specimen for the
Fracture Toughness Testing of Rock", Swedish
Detonic Research Foundation, SveDefo Report DS
1980: 17, Stockholm.
Lim, 1. L., Johnson, 1. W., Choi, S. K., and Boland, 1. N.,
1994, "Fracture Testing of a Soft Rock with Semi-
Circular Specimens under Three Point Bending. Part 1-
Mode I ", Int. Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining
Science and Geomechanics Absstr., Vol. 31,
pp 185-197.
4