Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00603-011-0161-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 24 January 2011 / Accepted: 27 May 2011 / Published online: 17 June 2011
Springer-Verlag 2011
1 Introduction
For most engineering design, material properties such as
strength, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio are of
critical importance. Establishing these parameters often
proves problematic when considering materials such as
concrete, and more acutely rock, where the size of the
engineering structure far exceeds the size of any laboratory
test specimen.
A great deal of research has been focused on upscaling
laboratory measured strength parameters to field problems.
This has been done in a number of ways. Empirical studies
have concentrated on finding size-dependent relations
between laboratory measured properties using small size
laboratory specimens (e.g. 30150 mm diameter cylinders). To establish the properties of specimens larger than
this, and thus make sizestrength comparisons with laboratory measured values, in situ testing or back analysis of
large structures is often used.
The results of these are generally well known and
accepted. The most commonly cited; the general work of
Hoek and Brown (1980), Brace (1981) and the original
work of Weibull (1951) form either the basis or what is
directly used in many rock mechanics designs today.
123
514
123
W. J. Darlington et al.
515
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3 Normalised UCS of well-graded sand-cement mortar correlated with specimen diameter (after Symons 1970). The size effect
relations of Hoek and Brown (1980) and Carpinteri et al. (1995) are
also plotted (the MFSL has only been fitted to the 14% well-graded
sand data in order to preserve clarity of the figure)
(c)
1.04
4.1
1.02
1
3.9
0.98
3.8
0.96
3.7
0.94
0.92
3.6
0.9
3.5
0.88
0.86
3.4
0
50
100
150
123
516
123
W. J. Darlington et al.
517
123
518
123
W. J. Darlington et al.
519
123
520
W. J. Darlington et al.
123
2 Experimental Method
In order to explore the effect of specimen size, high
strength cylindrical mortar specimens with a range of
diameters were manufactured. The diameters of the specimens are listed in Table 1. The 63.5 and 83.5 mm diameters were chosen in line with standard diamond drill rock
core sizes; HQ and PQ, respectively, while 150 mm
specimens are sometimes used in the initial stages of deep
drilling or in weak, weathered or fractured rock, and are
also commonly used during concrete testing. The 300 mm
521
100
Diameter (mm)
Length (mm)
10
63.5
127
10
83.5
167
150
300
200
400
300
600
90
Percentage Passing
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Sand
(kg)
Cement
(kg)
Water
(kg)
Plasticiser
(Glenium 27) (ml)
85
34
13.6
150
10
100
1000
10000
123
522
W. J. Darlington et al.
ea
; and k b
50k
123
b
fc2
523
70
rcd rc63
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-1500 -1000
-500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
MicroStrain
63
d
0:08
10
90
85
1.20
80
1.10
75
1.00
70
65
0.90
60
0.80
55
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.70
450
123
524
W. J. Darlington et al.
Table 3 95% confidence intervals for the power relationship in the form of Hoek and Brown (1980) and Cunha (1990) considering cement
stabilised materials
Reference
Material tested
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
-0.005
0.123
0.074
0.125
0.058
0.136
Symons (1970)
-4.353
4.273
Symons (1970)
-1.780
1.727
Symons (1970)
-0.927
0.765
Symons (1970)
-0.824
0.882
Symons (1970)
-0.425
0.724
Symons (1970)
Symons (1970)
-0.036
-0.320
0.362
0.695
Symons (1970)
-0.421
0.555
Cement mortar
0.017
0.100
Plaster of Paris
-0.078
0.060
Plaster of Paris
0.039
0.080
123
Reference
525
Material tested
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Hawkins (1998)
Pilton Sandstone
-0.138
0.127
Hawkins (1998)
-0.318
0.241
Hawkins (1998)
Purbeck Limestone
-0.437
0.134
Hawkins (1998)
Pennant Sandstone
-0.340
0.122
Hawkins (1998)
Bath Stone
-0.313
0.119
Hawkins (1998)
Burrington Oolite
-0.311
0.139
Hawkins (1998)
Hollington Sandstone
-0.335
-0.047
Kansas Limestone
-0.068
0.046
Longmont Sandstone
-0.047
0.013
Limestone (yellow)
0.951
1.714
Pells (2004)
-0.244
0.039
Limestone
-0.329
0.220
Hawkins (1998)a
Pilton Sandstone
0.139
0.421
Hawkins (1998)b
0.249
0.493
Hawkins (1998)b
Hawkins (1998)a
Purbeck Limestone
Pennant Sandstone
0.177
0.185
0.444
0.547
Hawkins (1998)a
Bath Stone
0.132
0.727
Hawkins (1998)a
Burrington Oolite
0.274
0.461
Hawkins (1998)a
Hollington Sandstone
0.053
0.253
Kansas Limestone
-0.061
0.119
Longmont Sandstone
-0.021
0.024
Reference
Material tested
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Salida granite
-0.380
0.567
-0.003
0.157
Granite
-0.251
0.314
-0.308
0.133
-0.134
-0.012
Saajome andesite
-0.010
0.282
Ogino tuff
Inada granite
-0.088
-0.098
0.242
0.354
Shinkomatsu andesite
-0.163
0.262
-0.128
0.134
Carthage marblea
-0.027
0.080
Carthage marblea
-0.042
0.165
123
526
W. J. Darlington et al.
Table 6 R2 values and comparative model ranking for various relational forms obtained from regression analysis of publish data of cement
stabilised materials
Reference
R2 (rank)
Material tested
Linear
Linear
(1/diam)
Power
(1/diam)
MFSL
Expon.
0.518 (3)
0.286 (4)
0.525 (2)
0.273 (5)
0.533 (1)
0.808 (5)
0.872 (3)
0.954 (1)
0.884 (2)
0.825 (4)
0.738 (5)
0.962 (2)
0.923 (3)
0.968 (1)
0.761 (4)
Symons (1970)
0.001 (5)
0.063 (2)
0.014 (3)
0.065 (1)
0.001 (4)
Symons (1970)
0.001 (5)
0.099 (1)
0.036 (3)
0.097 (2)
0.002 (4)
Symons (1970)
0.433 (5)
0.708 (1)
0.596 (3)
0.695 (2)
0.447 (4)
Symons (1970)
0.274 (2)
0.071 (4)
0.161 (3)
0.065 (5)
0.285 (1)
Symons (1970)
0.985 (1)
0.847 (5)
0.916 (3)
0.863 (4)
0.979 (2)
Symons (1970)
0.994 (2)
0.960 (5)
0.991 (3)
0.970 (4)
0.997 (1)
Symons (1970)
0.866 (5)
0.991 (1)
0.957 (3)
0.989 (2)
0.876 (4)
Symons (1970)
0.621 (4)
0.861 (2)
0.755 (3)
0.864 (1)
0.616 (5)
Cement mortar
0.215 (5)
0.294 (1)
0.258 (3)
0.293 (2)
0.216 (4)
Plaster of Paris
0.004 (4)
0.148 (1)
0.029 (3)
0.137 (2)
0.002 (5)
Plaster of Paris
0.932 (5)
0.944 (3)
0.967 (1)
0.947 (2)
0.934 (4)
123
527
Table 7 R2 values and comparative model ranking for various relational forms obtained from regression analysis of publish data of sedimentary
rocks
Reference
R2 (rank)
Material tested
Linear
Linear
(1/diam)
Power
(1/diam)
MFSL
Expon.
Hawkins (1998)
Pilton Sandstone
0.073 (3)
0.105 (1)
0.002 (5)
0.100 (2)
0.072 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
0.051 (3)
0.117 (1)
0.018 (5)
0.061 (2)
0.020 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
Purbeck Limestone
0.009 (5)
0.320 (1)
0.220 (2)
0.188 (3)
0.045 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
Pennant Sandstone
0.003 (5)
0.373 (1)
0.182 (3)
0.285 (2)
0.016 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
Bath Stone
0.009 (5)
0.246 (1)
0.167 (3)
0.176 (2)
0.026 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
Burrington Oolite
0.000 (5)
0.314 (1)
0.128 (3)
0.240 (2)
0.003 (4)
Hawkins (1998)
Hollington Sandstone
0.301 (5)
0.794 (1)
0.638 (3)
0.723 (2)
0.327 (4)
Kansas Limestone
0.001 (5)
0.200 (1)
0.069 (3)
0.195 (2)
0.001 (4)
Longmont Sandstone
0.573 (5)
0.881 (1)
0.749 (3)
0.881 (2)
0.573 (4)
Limestone (yellow)
0.307 (5)
0.625 (2)
0.638 (1)
0.525 (4)
0.540 (3)
Pells (2004)
0.923 (1)
0.571 (4)
0.830 (3)
0.561 (5)
0.913 (2)
Limestone
0.053 (5)
0.088 (1)
0.071 (3)
0.086 (2)
0.055 (4)
Hawkins (1998)a
Pilton Sandstone
0.959 (2)
0.894 (5)
0.930 (3)
0.914 (4)
0.960 (1)
Hawkins (1998)
Hawkins (1998)b
0.795 (5)
0.746 (5)
0.974 (1)
0.959 (1)
0.947 (3)
0.912 (3)
0.952 (2)
0.934 (2)
0.858 (4)
0.802 (4)
Hawkins (1998)a
Pennant Sandstone
0.888 (5)
0.940 (2)
0.932 (3)
0.943 (1)
0.914 (4)
Hawkins (1998)a
Bath Stone
0.758 (5)
0.911 (1)
0.876 (3)
0.892 (2)
0.799 (4)
Hawkins (1998)a
Burrington Oolite
0.920 (5)
0.988 (2)
0.981 (3)
0.989 (1)
0.941 (4)
Hawkins (1998)a
Hollington Sandstone
0.888 (3)
0.878 (5)
0.888 (2)
0.892 (1)
0.887 (4)
Kansas Limestone
0.376 (2)
0.139 (3)
0.257 (5)
0.136 (4)
0.381 (1)
Longmont Sandstone
0.250 (5)
0.429 (2)
0.339 (3)
0.429 (1)
0.250 (4)
Restricted data sets: includes only specimens with diameter [54 mm, [38 mm, [50 mm
Table 8 R2 values and comparative model ranking for various relational forms obtained from regression analysis of publish data of igneous
rocks
Reference
Material tested
Salida granite
R2 (rank)
Linear
Linear
(1/diam)
Power
(1/diam)
MFSL
Expon.
0.954 (1)
0.772 (5)
0.863 (3)
0.782 (4)
0.948 (2)
0.474 (3)
0.379 (4)
0.478 (1)
0.377 (5)
0.474 (2)
Granite
0.103 (2)
0.097 (4)
0.104 (1)
0.095 (5)
0.102 (3)
0.731 (1)
0.433 (5)
0.594 (3)
0.452 (4)
0.708 (2)
0.963 (1)
0.830 (4)
0.930 (3)
0.815 (5)
0.963 (2)
Saajome andesite
Ogino tuff
0.801 (2)
0.396 (2)
0.628 (4)
0.062 (4)
0.745 (3)
0.224 (3)
0.618 (5)
0.048 (5)
0.813 (1)
0.427 (1)
Inada granite
0.662 (2)
0.272 (4)
0.520 (3)
0.243 (5)
0.700 (1)
Shinkomatsu andesite
0.329 (2)
0.013 (4)
0.154 (3)
0.008 (5)
0.354 (1)
0.001 (4)
0.009 (1)
0.002 (3)
0.008 (2)
0.000 (5)
Carthage marblea
0.615 (2)
0.280 (4)
0.451 (3)
0.279 (5)
0.617 (1)
Carthage marblea
0.783 (1)
0.745 (5)
0.767 (3)
0.751 (4)
0.783 (2)
A single metamorphic rock has also been included as only one example exists in the literature
123
528
4 Conclusion
Assessing the available Youngs modulus and Poissons
ratio data it cannot be confirmed whether a size effect
exists. Given the limited quantity of data on these properties relationship with specimen size no conclusion can
be considered statistically significant and further research
is warranted in this area.
Considering the new and previously published data
presented in this paper on the strengthsize effect, it is
clear that large variations in the magnitude of any relationship exist. Possible reasons for this variation must be
established. It is hypothesised that no consistent result can
be seen in the published experimental data due to one or
more of the following issues: (a) the testing method/
apparatus used; (b) specimen preparation; and/or (c) the
type of material under examination (not-excluding the
possibility of anisotropic or load orientation strengthsize
relationships).
The particulars of any testing method and apparatus will
inevitably generate some variation in results. It is possible
that the variations seen in the published data are due to a
high sensitivity to the testing methodologies. Specifically,
high sensitivities may be associated with boundary conditions including platen friction, the effect of capping
materials (if used) and specimen end preparation (including
flatness, perpendicularity and smoothness). Other experimental peculiarities such as test rig stiffness, load rate, etc.
may also be a cause for this variability between different
researchers results. It is hypothesised that these factors
have a strong influence in causing some of the high variability, and low strengths seen in specimens \50 mm in
diameter, where stress concentrations due to poor end
preparation will lead to a comparatively dramatic effect on
123
W. J. Darlington et al.
References
ASTM (2001) Standard practices for preparing rock core specimens
and determining dimensional and shape tolerances, Designation:
D 454301. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
529
Jackson R, Lau JSO (1990) The effect of specimen size on the
laboratory mechanical properties of Lac du Bonnet grey
gragranite. In: Cunha P (ed) Scale effects in rock masses.
Balkema, Rotterdam
Mogi K (1961) The influence of the dimensions of specimens on the
fracture strength of rocks. Bull Earthq Res Inst 40:175185
Natau O, Frolich BO, Mutschler TO (1983) Recent development of
the large scale triaxial test. In: ISRM Congress, Melbourne, pp
A65A74
Nishimatsu Y, Yamaguchi U, Motosugi K, Morita M (1969) The size
effect and experimental error of the strength of rocks. J Min
Mater Process Inst Jpn 18:10191025
Pells PJN (2004) On the absence of size effects for substance strength
of Hawkesbury Sandstone. Aust Geomech 39:7983
Pratt HR, Black AD, Brown WS, Brace WF (1972) The effect of
specimen size on the mechanical properties of unjointed diorite.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 9:513529
Rey CCM-VD, Galindo MP, Velarde MAA (2001) Effects of using
mean scores in regression models: an example from environmental psychology. Qual Quant 35:191202
Symons IF (1970) The effect of size and shape of specimen upon the
unconfined compressive strength of cement-stabilized materials.
Mag Concr Res 22:4550
Thuro K, Plinninger RJ, Zah S, Schutz S (2001) Scale effects in rock
strength properties. Part1: Unconfined compressive test and
Brazilian test. In: Rock mechanicsa challenge for society, June
3-7 2001. ISRM, Espoo, pp 169174
Weibull W (1951) A statistical function of wide applicability. J Appl
Mech 18:293297
Yuki N, Aoto S, Yoshinaka R, Yoshihiro O, Terada M (1995) The
scale and creep effect on the strength of welded tuff. In:
Yoshinaka R, Kikuchi K (eds) International Workshop on Rock
Foundation. Balkema, Tokyo
123