Rock Mech Rock Eng (2011) 44:629634
DOI 10.1007/s00603-011-0151-8
TECHNICAL NOTE
Dynamic Properties of Intact Rock Samples Subjected to Cyclic
Loading under Confining Pressure Conditions
EnLong Liu Siming He Xinhua Xue
Jin Xu
Received: 20 October 2010 / Accepted: 11 April 2011 / Published online: 27 April 2011
Springer-Verlag 2011
Keywords Dynamic properties  Cyclic loading 
Confining pressure  Dynamic stiffness
1 Introduction
Recently, attention has focused on the dynamic properties
of rocks with the goal of understanding their dynamic
mechanical features under different loading histories and
conditions (e.g., Stavrogin and Tarasov 2001; Bagde and
Petros 2009). Researchers have carried out studies on dif-
ferent types of rocks to examine the loading effects and
loading strain rates on their strength and deformation
characteristics (e.g., Zhao 2000; Cho et al. 2003; Mahm-
utoglu 2006; Wang et al. 2009; Liang et al. 2010). More
extensive work on cyclic loading has explored whether
rocks are subject to weakening from fatigue (e.g., Burdine
1963; Prost 1988; Singh 1989; Tien et al. 1990; Li et al.
2001; Fuenkajorn and Phueakphum 2010).
The experimental studies cited above primarily focus on
the influence of loading rates or uniaxial cyclic loading on
the dynamic mechanical properties of rock samples (e.g.,
Bagde and Petros 2005, 2009; Fuenkajorn and Phueakp-
hum 2010; Liang et al. 2010), but few studies have
addressed rock samples subjected to cyclic loading under
E. Liu  S. He (&)
Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Surface Process,
Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS,
Chengdu 610041, Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: hsm112003@yahoo.com.cn
E. Liu  X. Xue  J. Xu
School of Hydraulic and Hydropower Engineering, Sichuan
University, Chengdu 610065, Peoples Republic of China
confining pressure conditions. Rock masses encountered in
applied engineering are usually in a stressed state and are
confined by pressure. Therefore, it is necessary to study the
effects of confining pressures on the dynamic mechanical
characteristics of rock samples upon cyclic loading, which
is the type of study performed here.
In this work, sandstone samples were subjected to axi-
ally cyclic loading to experimentally determine the effects
of confining pressures on their dynamic residual deforma-
tion and dynamic mechanical properties. Five levels of
confining pressure (10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 MPa) were
applied for axial cyclic loading. Finally, the influence of
confining pressures on the dynamic features of sandstone
samples with cyclic loading was comprehensively
analyzed.
2 Equipment and Test Scheme
Dry sandstone samples were cut to a diameter to length
ratio of 1:2, with an average diameter of 48.9 mm and an
average rock mass density of 2.33 g/cm3. The samples
were prepared and tested according to ISRM testing pro-
cedures and all relevant guidelines.
An MTS-815 Rock and Concrete Test System was used
for testing. The MTS controller consists of hardware
components and software applications that provide a
closed-loop control of the servo-hydraulic test equipment.
This test equipment consisted of the following three parts:
a compression loading frame, an axial dynamic loading
system and a data acquisition system. The equipment was
capable of conducting triaxial static and dynamic com-
pression testing of rock specimens. The axial dynamic
loading system was driven hydraulically with a 40-lpm
flow rate and 21 MPa of output pressure. The data
123
630 E. Liu et al.

acquisition system consisted of signal and acquisition units
that interfaced with a computer. Multiple and single data
acquisition processes were able to collect data on all
channels at a sampling rate up to 6 kHz with a 16-bit
resolution.
The tests were conducted with an axial displacement-
controlled loading system. The static and dynamic triaxial
tests were performed at the following confining pressures:
10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 MPa. For the dynamic test, the axial
dynamic load was specified as the sinusoidal cyclic com-
pressive load. The loading frequency was set to 1.0 Hz, and
the load path that was employed is illustrated in Fig. 1.
During the axial dynamic loading process, cyclic loading
was applied at a constant controlled stress rate of 60 kN/
min. The samples that were tested are summarized in
Table 1.
3 Test Results and Discussion
3.1 Triaxial Compressive Tests
Triaxial compression tests were conducted to obtain the
empirical basis for the sandstone sample and to determine
the test parameters for subsequent cyclic loading tests. The
test procedure followed the relevant ASTM standard
practices (ASTM D 7012). The uniaxial compressive
strength of the sandstone was 71.7 MPa. Figure 2 presents
the stressstrain curves of tests with confining pressures of
10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 MPa. The sandstone samples
exhibited brittle behavior, which changed to ductile
behavior at confining pressures ranging from 10 to 50 MPa
(Jaeger et al. 2007). All the samples first contracted and
then dilated. The lower the confining pressure, the more
dilatant the sample was. Table 2 lists the magnitudes of the
principal stresses from the triaxial compression tests under
static loading conditions at the point of failure.
3.2 Cyclic Dynamic Tests
In the dynamic tests, deviatoric stress, axial strain and
lateral strain were obtained for the loading duration when
confining pressures of 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 MPa were
applied. For example, Fig. 3ac present the experimental
effects of a 30 MPa-confining pressure when the axial
dynamic load changes from the peak value to the valley
value. From the test results, we deduced the following
conclusions: (1) during initial axial cyclic loading, the
samples were almost elastic, and with an increase in the
number of cycles, the samples became elasticplastic and
developed irreversible deformations, including axial, vol-
umetric and lateral strains, and their magnitudes became

Fig. 1 Load path: a typical deviatoric stress q = 1-3

stress path and b loading
Deviatoric stress q

Deviatoric stress q

sequence

Variable q

Mean stress p dozens to thousands cycles Time

(a) (b)

Table 1 Summary of the samples tested

Test no. Confining Loading type Loading condition
pressure (Mpa)

S10 10.0 Static Triaxial, compression

D10 10.0 Cyclic, dynamic Triaxial, 1 Hz, stress path (a), axial dynamic loading 20230 kN, failed after 161 cycles
S20 20.0 Static Triaxial, compression
D20 20.0 Cyclic, dynamic Triaxial, 1 Hz, stress path (a), axial dynamic loading 20280 kN, failed after 257 cycles
S30 30.0 Static Triaxial, compression
D30 30.0 Cyclic, dynamic Triaxial, 1 Hz, stress path (a), axial dynamic loading 20320 kN, failed after 629 cycles
S40 40.0 Static Triaxial, compression
D40 40.0 Cyclic, dynamic Triaxial, 1 Hz, stress path (a), axial dynamic loading 20350kN, failed after 241 cycles
S50 50.0 Static Triaxial, compression
D50 50.0 Cyclic, dynamic Triaxial, 1 Hz, stress path (a), axial dynamic loading 20380 kN, failed after 347 cycles

123
Dynamic Properties of Intact Rock Samples 631

Fig. 2 Results of triaxial tests with static loading: a stressstrain

curves and b volumetric strain-axial strain curves

Fig. 3 Results of triaxial tests upon axial dynamic loading (D30):

Table 2 Summary of the stress state at failure a dynamic deviatoric stress-axial strain curves (value of peak/valley),
b dynamic volumetric strain-axial strain curves and c dynamic lateral
Test no. The maximal The minimal
strain-axial strain curves
principal stress (MPa) principal stress (MPa)

S10 132.8 10.0 Table 3 Summary of the axial strain and volumetric strain when
S20 173.4 20.0 dilatancy happening
S30 208.9 30.0 Test no. The axial strain (%) The volumetric strain (%)
S40 228.7 40.0
S50 259.6 50.0 S10 0.517 0.323
D10 0.707 (0.209) 0.208 (0.094)
S20 0.640 0.359
D20 0.832 0.284
greater; and (2) with increased confining pressure, the axial S30 0.751 0.387
strain at failure increased. Table 3 presents the volumetric D30 0.935 (0.237) 0.413 (0.162)
strain when dilatancy occurred and the corresponding axial S40 0.880 0.447
strain under static and dynamic triaxial loading conditions. D40 1.137 (0.533) 0.516 (0.229)
When the samples became dilatant, the corresponding axial S50 0.987 0.507
strain was greater for dynamic loading. When dilatancy D50 1.230 (1.180) 0.579 (0.309)
took place, the volumetric strains of the samples at 10 and The values in parentheses are residual strain
20 MPa confining pressures were lower for dynamic
loading conditions, but they were higher for those at con-
fining pressures of 30, 40 and 50 MPa for dynamic loading
conditions. The reason for this phenomenon is that when When the confining pressure is high and when dynamic
the confining pressure is low, the brittleness of the sample loading is applied, the ductility of the sample fosters
impedes contraction when dynamic loading is applied. contraction.

123
632
Fig. 4 Strain-N curves: a strain-N curves (D10), b strain-N curves
(D30) and c strain-N curves (D50), where N is the number of cycles
3.3 Effects of Confining Pressures on Dynamic Strain
Residual strain is defined as the strain (including axial and
volumetric strains) at which the axial load reaches the
valley value during the process of cyclic loading.
Figure 4ac present the relationship curves for the residual
strain, including residual axial and residual volumetric
strains, and the number of cycles (N) for samples D10, D30
and D50. As N increases, the residual axial strain gradually
increases during its initial cycles, and then it rapidly
increases until failure. The residual volumetric strain con-
tracted during the initial loading cycles and then dilated
until failure. The lower the confining pressure, the greater
the dilatancy of the sample was. With an increase in the
123
E. Liu et al.
Fig. 5 Effects of confining pressures on dynamic mechanical prop-
erties: a residual strain (%) at different confining pressures, b axial
stiffness versus residual axial strain (%) and c the number of cycles at
failure with Rs under different confining pressures
confining pressure, the residual volumetric strain increased
when dilatancy occurred (Table 3). With the increase of
confining pressure, the residual axial and volumetric strains
increased, as well.
Figure 5a presents the residual axial strain and residual
volumetric strain with different confining pressures. For
residual axial strain ea;re , we can use the following equation
to describe how ea;re varies with confining pressure rc :


ea;re 0:29e0:045rc R2 0:98 : 1
For residual volumetric strain ev;re , we can use the
following equation to describe how ev;re varies with
confining pressure rc :
Dynamic Properties of Intact Rock Samples
Table 4 Summary of the failure modes of the sandstone samples tested
Failure mode Pictures of samples at failure
Test no.S10
Shear failure. Localized failure
bands exist. Compared with
static loading with the same
confining stress, the localized
failure bands are wider upon
dynamic loading under higher
confining pressure


ev;re 0:021rc  1:304 R2 0:984 : 2 failure under different confining pressures. When Rs is
In Eqs. 1 and 2, the residual strain is a percentage, and
rc is presented in MPa.
3.4 Effects of Confining Pressures on Dynamic
Mechanical Properties
The average dynamic axial stiffness (Asd) throughout
loading is calculated using the following formula (Bagde
and Petros 2005):
Asd Dstress =Dstrain ; 3
where Asd is the average dynamic axial stiffness (i.e., the
modulus of deformation or Youngs modulus over the elastic
interval) presented in GPa, Dstress is the stress difference
presented in GPa, and Dstrain is the strain difference obtained
from the corresponding peak-valley data under dynamic
conditions. The calculated dynamic axial stiffness using
Eq. (3) is plotted against the residual axial strain, as shown in
Fig. 5b. The dynamic axial stiffness of the rock sample
decreases with an increase in the residual axial strain
(Fig. 5b). This decrease in stiffness is the result of micro
fracturing and a fatiguing phenomenon in the sample. Rocks
subjected to dynamic cyclic loading respond with a signifi-
cantly higher initial strength and stiffness at higher confining
pressures than at lower confining pressures. The stiffness
decreases more rapidly at lower confining pressures than at
higher confining pressures because the latter can increase the
strength and stiffness of the samples upon dynamic loading.
Rs is defined as the stress ratio and is calculated as
follows:
qmax;dyn
Rs ; 4
2sstat
where qmax;dyn is the maximal deviatoric stress upon axial
dynamic loading, and sstat is the strength upon static triaxial
loading at the same confining pressure of the axial dynamic
loading. Figure 5c presents Rs, the number of cycles at
633
Test no.D10 Test no.S30 Test no.D30
large, the sample fails after only a small number of cycles
under confining pressure conditions.
3.5 Effects of Confining Pressures on Failure Models
Table 4 presents the failure modes of the sandstone sam-
ples tested with confining stresses under static and dynamic
loading conditions. Compared with static loading under the
same confining stress, the localized failure bands were
wider upon dynamic loading under higher confining
pressures.
4 Conclusions
From these tests, we draw the following conclusions: (1)
with increased confining pressure, the residual axial and
volumetric strain of the rock samples and the residual
volumetric strain when dilatancy occurred both became
larger; (2) the rock samples subjected to dynamic cyclic
loading responded with a significantly higher initial
strength and stiffness at higher confining pressures than at
lower confining pressures, and the stiffness decreased more
rapidly at lower confining pressures than at higher con-
fining pressures; (3) when the stress ratio (Rs) was larger,
the sample failed after fewer cycles under confining pres-
sure conditions; (4) when the samples had dilatant behav-
ior, the corresponding axial strain was greater for dynamic
loading than for the static triaxial tests; and (5) the failure
modes of the samples were shear failure. Compared with
static loading under the same confining stress, the localized
failure bands were wider upon dynamic loading under
higher confining pressures.
Acknowledgments The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for
their careful review, contributions and critics which led to the
improvement of the manuscript and the funding of Key Laboratory of
Mountain Hazards and Surface Process, Chinese Academy of
Sciences.
123
634
References
Bagde MN, Petros V (2005) Fatigue properties of intact sandstone
samples subjected to dynamic uniaxial cyclical loading. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 42:237250
Bagde MN, Petros V (2009) Fatigue and dynamic energy behavior of
rock subjected to cyclical loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
46:200209
Burdine NT (1963) Rock failure under dynamic loading conditions.
Soc Petr Eng J 3:18
Cho SH, Ogata Y, Kaneko K (2003) Strain-rate dependency of the
dynamic tensile strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
40:763777
Fuenkajorn K, Phueakphum D (2010) Effects of cyclic loading on
mechanical properties of Maha Sarakham salt. Eng Geol
112:4352
Jaeger JC, Cook NGW, Zimmerman RW (2007) Fundamentals of
rock mechanics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Li N, Chen W, Zhang P, Swoboda G (2001) The mechanical
properties and a fatigue-damage model for jointed rock masses
subjected to dynamic cyclical loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38:10711079
123
E. Liu et al.
Liang WG, Zhao YS, Xu SG, Dusseault MB (2010) Effects of strain
rate on the mechanical properties of salt rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.012
Mahmutoglu Y (2006) The effects of strain rate and saturation on a
micro-cracked marble. Eng Geol 82:137144
Prost CL (1988) Jointing at rock contacts in cyclic loading. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 25(5):263272
Singh SK (1989) Fatigue and strain hardening behavior of graywacke
from the flagstaff formation, New South Wales. Eng Geol
26:171179
Stavrogin AN, Tarasov BG (2001) Experimental physics and rock
mechanics. Balkem, Rotterdam
Tien YM, Lee DH, Juang CH (1990) Strain, pore pressure and fatigue
characteristics of sandstone under various load conditions. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(4):283289
Wang QZ, Li W, Xie HP (2009) Dynamic split tensile test of flattened
Brazilian disc of rock with SHPB setup. Mech Mater
41:252260
Zhao J (2000) Applicability of Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown
strength criteria to the dynamic strength of brittle rock. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 37:11151121