Rock mass plasticity

Plasticity theory for rocks is concerned with the response of rocks to

loads beyond the elastic limit. Historically, conventional wisdom has
it that rock is brittle and fails by fracture while plasticity is identified
with ductile materials. In field scale rock masses, structural
discontinuities exist in the rock indicating that failure has taken
place. Since the rock has not fallen apart, contrary to expectation of
brittle behavior, clearly elasticity theory is not the last work.[1]

Theoretically, the concept of rock plasticity is based on soil plasticity

which is different from metal plasticity. In metal plasticity, for
example in steel, the size of a dislocation is sub-grain size while for
soil it is the relative movement of microscopic grains. The theory of
soil plasticity was developed in the 1960s at Rice University to
provide for inelastic effects not observed in metals. Typical behaviors
observed in rocks include strain softening, perfect plasticity, and
work hardening.

Application of continuum theory is possible in jointed rocks because

of the continuity of tractions across joints even through
displacements may be discontinuous. The difference between an
aggregate with joints and a continuous solid is in the type of
Boudinaged quartz vein (with strain fringe) showing
constitutive law and the values of constitutive parameters. sinistral shear sense, Starlight Pit, Fortnum Gold
Mine, Western Australia

Contents
Experimental evidence
Governing equations
Constitutive relations
Yield surfaces for rocks
Plasticity theory
Three-dimensional plasticity
Flow rule
Consistency condition
Notes
References
External links

Experimental evidence
Experiments are usually carried out with the intention of characterizing the mechanical behavior of rock in terms of rock strength.
The strength is the limit to elastic behavior and delineates the regions where plasticity theory is applicable. Laboratory tests for
characterizing rock plasticity fall into four overlapping categories: confining pressure tests, pore pressure or effective stress tests,
temperature-dependent tests, and strain rate-dependent tests. Plastic behavior has been observed in rocks using all these techniques
since the early 1900s.[2]

The Boudinage experiments [3] show that localized plasticity is observed in certain rock specimens that have failed in shear. Other
examples of rock displaying plasticity can be seen in the work of Cheatham and Gnirk.[4] Test using compression and tension show
necking of rock specimens while tests using wedge penetration show lip formation. The tests carried out by Robertson [5] show
plasticity occurring at high confining pressures. Similar results are observable in the experimental work carried out by Handin and
Hager,[6] Paterson,[7] and Mogi.[8] From these results it appears that the transition from elastic to plastic behavior may also indicate
the transition from softening to hardening. More evidence is presented by Robinson [9] and Schwartz.[10] It is observed that the
higher the confining pressure, the greater the ductility observed. However
, the strain to rupture remains roughly the same at around 1.

The effect of temperature on rock plasticity has been explored by several teams of researchers.[11] It is observed that the peak stress
decreases with temperature. Extension tests (with confining pressure greater than the compressive stress) show that the intermediate
principal stress as well as the strain rate has an effect on the strength. The experiments on the effect of strain rate by Serdengecti and
Boozer [12] show that increasing the strain rate makes rock stronger but also makes it appear more brittle. Thus dynamic loading may
actually cause the strength of the rock to increase substantially. Increase in temperature appears to increase the rate effect in the
plastic behavior of rocks.

After these early explorations in the plastic behavior of rocks, a significant amount of research has been carried out on the subject,
primarily by the petroleum industry. From the accumulated evidence, it is clear that rock does exhibit remarkable plasticity under
certain conditions and the application of a plasticity theory to rock is appropriate.

Governing equations
The equations that govern the deformation ofjointed rocks are the same as those used to describe the motion of acontinuum:[13]

where is the mass density, is the material time derivative of , is the particle velocity, is the particle
displacement, is the material time derivative of , is the Cauchy stress tensor, is the body force density, is
the internal energy per unit mass, is the material time derivative of , is the heat flux vector, is an energy source per
unit mass, is the location of the point in the deformed configuration, andt is the time.

In addition to the balance equations, initial conditions, boundary conditions, and constitutive models are needed for a problem to be
well-posed. For bodies with internal discontinuities such as jointed rock, the balance of linear momentum is more conveniently
expressed in the integral form, also called theprinciple of virtual work:

where represents the volume of the body and is its surface (including any internal discontinuities), is an admissible variation
that satisfies the displacement (or velocity) boundary conditions, thedivergence theorem has been used to eliminate derivatives of the
stress tensor, and are surface tractions on the surfaces . The jump conditions across stationary internal stress discontinuities
require that the tractions across these surfaces be continuous, i.e.,

where are the stresses in the sub-bodies , and is the normal to the surface of discontinuity
.
Constitutive relations
For small strains, the kinematic quantity that is used to
describe rock mechanics is the small strain tensor
If temperature effects are
ignored, four types of constitutive relations are typically
used to describe small strain deformations of rocks. These
relations encompass elastic, plastic, viscoelastic, and
viscoplastic behavior and have the following forms:

1. Elastic material: or
. For an isotropic, linear
elastic, material this relation takes the form
or
. The quantities
are the Lamé parameters.
2. Viscous fluid: For isotropic materials,
or Stress-strain curve showing typical plastic behavior of rocks
where in uniaxial compression. The strain can be decomposed into
is the shear viscosity and is the bulk viscosity. a recoverable elastic strain ( ) and an inelastic strain ( ).
3. Nonlinear material: Isotropic nonlinear material The stress at initial yield is . For strain hardening rocks
relations take the form (as shown in the figure) the yield stress increases with
or increasing plastic deformation to a value of .
. This
type of relation is typically used to fit experimental
data and may include inelastic behavior.
4. Quasi-linear materials: Constitutive relations for these materials are typically expressed inrate form, e.g.,
or .

A failure criterion or yield surface for the rock may then be expressed in the general form

Typical constitutive relations for rocks assume that the deformation process is isothermal, the material is isotropic, quasi-linear, and
homogenous and material properties do not depend upon position at the start of the deformation process, that there is no viscous
effect and therefore no intrinsic time scale, that the failure criterion is rate-independent, and that there is no size effect. However,
these assumptions are made only to simplify analysis and should be abandoned if necessary for a particular problem.

Yield surfaces for rocks

Design of mining and civil structures in rock typically involves a failure criterion that is cohesive-frictional. The failure criterion is
used to determine whether a state of stress in the rock will lead to inelastic behavior, including brittle failure. For rocks under high
hydrostatic stresses, brittle failure is preceded by plastic deformation and the failure criterion is used to determine the onset of plastic
deformation. Typically, perfect plasticity is assumed beyond the yield point. However strain hardening and softening relations with
nonlocal inelasticity and damage have also been used. Failure criteria and yield surfaces are also often augmented with a cap to avoid
unphysical situations where extreme hydrostatic stress states do not lead to failure or plastic deformation.

Two widely used yield surfaces/failure criteria for rocks are the Mohr-Coulomb model and the Drucker-Prager model. The Hoek–
Brown failure criterion is also used, notwithstanding the serious consistency problem with the model. The defining feature of these
models is that tensile failure is predicted at low stresses. On the other hand, as the stress state becomes increasingly compressive,
failure and yield requires higher and higher values of stress.

Plasticity theory
The governing equations, constitutive models, and yield surfaces
discussed above are not sufficient if we are to compute the stresses
and displacements in a rock body that is undergoing plastic
deformation. An additional kinematic assumption is needed, i.e., that
the strain in the body can be decomposed additively (or
multiplicatively in some cases) into an elastic part and a plastic part.
The elastic part of the strain can be computed from a linear elastic
constitutive model. However, determination of the plastic part of the
strain requires a flow rule and a hardening model.

Typical flow plasticity theories (for small deformation perfect

plasticity or hardening plasticity) are developed on the basis on the
following requirements: View of Mohr–Coulomb failure surface in 3Dspace
of principal stresses for
1. The rock has a linear elastic range.
2. The rock has an elastic limit defined as the stress at which
plastic deformation first takes place, i.e., .
3. Beyond the elastic limit the stress state always remains on
the yield surface, i.e., .
4. Loading is defined as the situation under which
increments of stress are greater than zero, i.e., . If
loading takes the stress state to the plastic domain then
the increment of plastic strain is always greater than zero,
i.e., .
5. Unloading is defined as the situation under which
increments of stress are less than zero, i.e., . The
material is elastic during unloading and no additional
plastic strain is accumulated.
6. The total strain is a linear combination of the elastic and
plastic parts, i.e., . The plastic part
View of Drucker–Prager yield surface in 3D space
cannot be recovered while the elastic part is fully
recoverable. of principal stresses for
7. The work done of a loading-unloading cycle is positive or
zero, i.e., . This is also
called the Drucker stability postulate and eliminates the possibility of strain softening behavior
.

Three-dimensional plasticity
The above requirements can be expressed in three dimensions as follows.

Elasticity (Hooke's law). In the linear elastic regime the stresses and strains in the rock are related by

where the stiffness matrix is constant.

Elastic limit (Yield surface). The elastic limit is defined by a yield surface that does not depend on the plastic strain
and has the form

Beyond the elastic limit. For strain hardening rocks, the yield surface evolves with increasing plastic strain and the
elastic limit changes. The evolving yield surface has the form

Loading. It is not straightforward to translate the condition geology to three dimensions, particularly for rock
plasticity which is dependent not only on thedeviatoric stress but also on the mean stress. However, during loading
 and it is assumed that the direction of plastic strain is identical to thenormal to the yield surface ( )
and that , i.e.,

The above equation, when it is equal to zero, indicates a state of neutral loading
where the stress state moves along the yield surface without changing the plastic
strain.

Unloading: A similar argument is made for unloading for which situation , the material is in the elastic domain,
and

Strain decomposition: The additive decomposition of the strain into elastic and plastic parts can be written as

Stability postulate: The stability postulate is expressed as

Flow rule
In metal plasticity, the assumption that the plastic strain increment and deviatoric stress tensor have the same principal directions is
encapsulated in a relation called the flow rule. Rock plasticity theories also use a similar concept except that the requirement of
pressure-dependence of the yield surface requires a relaxation of the above assumption. Instead, it is typically assumed that the
plastic strain increment and the normal to the pressure-dependent yield surface have the same direction, i.e.,

where is a hardening parameter. This form of the flow rule is called an associated flow rule and the assumption of co-
directionality is called thenormality condition. The function is also called a plastic potential.

The above flow rule is easily justified for perfectly plastic deformations for which when , i.e., the yield surface
remains constant under increasing plastic deformation. This implies that the increment of elastic strain is also zero, , because
of Hooke's law. Therefore,

Hence, both the normal to the yield surface and the plastic strain tensor are perpendicular to the stress tensor and must have the same
direction.

For a work hardening material, the yield surface can expand with increasing stress. We assume Drucker's second stability postulate
which states that for an infinitesimal stress cycle this plastic work is positive, i.e.,

The above quantity is equal to zero for purely elastic cycles. Examination of the work done over a cycle of plastic loading-unloading
[14]
can be used to justify the validity of the associated flow rule.
Consistency condition
The Prager consistency condition is needed to close the set of constitutive equations and to eliminate the unknown parameter
from the system of equations. The consistency condition states that at yield because , and hence

Notes
1. Pariseau (1988).
2. Adams and Coker (1910).
3. Rast (1956).
4. Cheatham and Gnirk (1966).
5. Robertson (1955).
6. Handin and Hager (1957,1958,1963.)
7. Paterson (1958).
8. Mogi (1966).
9. Robinson (1959).
10. Schwartz (1964).
11. Griggs, Turner, Heard (1960)
12. Serdengecti and Boozer (1961)
13. The operators in the governing equations are defined as:

where is a vector field, is a symmetric second-order tensor field, and are the components of an orthonormal
basis in the current configuration. The inner product is defined as

14. Anandarajah (2010).

References
Pariseau, W. G. (1988), "On the concept of rock mass plasticity", In The 29th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS), Balkema
Adams, F. D.; Coker, E. G. (1910), "An experimental investigation into the flow of rocks; th
e flow of marble",
American Journal of Science, 174: 465–487, doi:10.2475/ajs.s4-29.174.465
Rast, Nicholas (1956), "The origin and significance of boudinage.",Geol. Mag., 93: 401–408,
doi:10.1017/s001675680006684x
Cheatham Jr, J. B.; Gnirk, P. F. (1966), "The mechanics of rock failure associated with dril
ling at depth", In
Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Fairhurst C, editor , University of Minnesota: 410–439
Robertson, Eugene C. (1955),"Experimental study of the strength of rocks", Geological Society of America Bulletin,
66 (10): 1275–1314, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1955)66[1275:esotso]2.0.co;2
 Handin, John; Hager Jr., Rex V. (1957), "Experimental deformation of sedimentary rocks under confining pressure:
Tests at room temperature on dry samples", AAPG Bulletin, 41 (1): 1–50, doi:10.1306/5ceae5fb-16bb-11d7-
8645000102c1865d
Handin, John; Hager Jr., Rex V. (1958), "Experimental deformation of sedimentary rocks under confining pressure:
Tests at high temperature", AAPG Bulletin, 42 (12): 2892–2934, doi:10.1306/0bda5c27-16bd-11d7-
8645000102c1865d
Handin, John; Hager Jr, Rex V.; Friedman, Melvin; Feather, James N. (1963), "Experimental deformation of
sedimentary rocks under confining pressure: pore pressure tests" , AAPG Bulletin, 47 (5): 717–755,
doi:10.1306/bc743a87-16be-11d7-8645000102c1865d
Paterson, M. S. (1958),"Experimental deformation and faulting in W ombeyan marble", Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 69 (4): 465–476, doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1958)69[465:edafiw]2.0.co;2
Mogi, Kiyoo (1966), "Pressure Dependence of Rock Strength and T ransition from Brittle Fracture to Ductile Flow"
(PDF), Bulletin of the earthquake research institute, 44: 215–232
Robinson, L. H. (1959), "The effect of pore and confining pressure on the failure process in sedimentary rock",In
The 3rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS)
Schwartz, Arnold E (1964), "Failure of rock in the triaxial shear test",In The 6th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS)
Griggs, D. T.; Turner, F. J.; Heard, H. C. (1960). "Deformation of rocks at 500 to 800 C". InGriggs, D. T.; Handin, J.
Rock deformation: Geological Society of America Memoir . 39. Geological Society of America. p. 104.
doi:10.1130/mem79-p39.
Serdengecti, S.; Boozer, G. D. (1961), "The effects of strain rate and temperature on the behavior of rocks subjected
to triaxial compression",In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Rock Mechanics : 83–97
Anandarajah, A. (2010),Computational methods in elasticity and plasticity: solids and porous media , Springer

External links
Microstructures and deformation mechanisms

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_mass_plasticity&oldid=798298403

"

This page was last edited on 1 September 2017, at 02:57.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.