ARMA 17-0008

A new model for failure and yield envelopes of anisotropic porous sandstone
Louis, L.
New England Research, White River Junction, VT, USA
Baud, P.
Institut de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg (UMR 7516 CNRS), EOST, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Wong, T.-f.
Earth System Science Programme, Faculty of Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Copyright 2017 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 51st US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, California, USA, 25-
28 June 2017. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and
critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of a new data-based approach to understanding and modeling
strength anisotropy in porous sandstone with potential application to a wider range of geomaterials. The rationale for the contribution
is the interest in quantifying the impact of mechanical anisotropy in practical industrial applications such as the prediction of
mechanical behavior of hydrocarbon reservoirs during depletion or injection. The onset of yielding can have profound impact on
flow and elastic properties, and it is still unclear to what extent anisotropy may affect those predictions. After recalling an extensive
mechanical data set obtained previously on samples of Rothbach sandstone, we define our modeling strategy using other experimental
and theoretical work from the literature. This results in the necessity of determining what an appropriate isotropic yield envelope
might be. We propose an approach whereby isotropic and anisotropic models are defined and parametrized sequentially. We obtain
a consistent framework where the microstructural controls on strength, including anisotropy, may be understood better than
previously, allowing the revisiting of legacy data sets as well as the designing of better informed geomechanical testing programs in
core analysis.

and its bedding plane does not appear to constitute a plane

1. INTRODUCTION
Mechanical anisotropy is known to adversely affect
strength predictions, especially when associated with the
presence of weak layers [1-3], which can result in
unexpected borehole failure. In homogeneous materials,
anisotropy has been showed to directly affect the shape of
yield surfaces [4-7] and can also cause the strain field to
be oblique to the macroscopic stress tensor. In this latter
case, an important question to be answered is to what
extent mechanical anisotropy should be incorporated into
geomechanical models, and how does it ultimately
compare with work that has been done on the effect of
true triaxial states of stress [8].
The present paper builds on an extended petrophysical
and mechanical data set that was acquired over the years
in the Rothbach sandstone, a Triassic 20% porosity cross-
bedded fluvial sandstone belonging to the Buntsandstein
Formation in Northern Europe [4; 9-16]. The Rothbach
sandstone is anisotropic with respect to key physical
properties such as permeability, acoustic velocities and
mechanical strength. As far as mechanical strength is
concerned, this sandstone presents the particularity of
being stronger when loaded perpendicular to the bedding,
of weakness when favorably oriented with respect to the
maximum compressive stress. Samples cored at 45
degrees to the bedding exhibit intermediate strength with
respect to the ones cored parallel and perpendicular to it
[4].
The objective of this work is to provide a framework
capable of handling anisotropic data sets. In order to do
so, we use the concept of modified stress tensor detailed
in Tobita (1988) [17] and used by Oda (1993) [7] on
anisotropically consolidated sand. This approach
proposes to use a contact tensor (considered as the source
of the observed mechanical anisotropy) to rewrite the
stress tensor that is applied to an otherwise isotropic
material. Though this modification of the stress tensor is
straightforward, the problem then hinges on the choice of
an appropriate isotropic model.
Instead of resorting to popular yield loci geometries
derived from plasticity models such as cam clay and yield
cap [18-20], we focus on determining the stress
conditions for failure in a simple 2D granular lattice. This
results in the definition of a new set of yield surfaces for
an isotropic aggregate. This approach allows us to extract
from the available data a stress sensitivity curve for the
effective grain contact area, and also interpret the corner
that is observed at the junction between brittle and
compactive yield surfaces in terms of a ratio between the
idealized shear and compactive strengths of the
intergranular contacts.
As a result, we demonstrate that: (1) The geometry of the
yield surfaces of an isotropic material strongly depends
on the ratio between microstructural shear and
compactive strengths, as well as on the sensitivity of the
intergranular contacts to confining stress; (2) Anisotropy
essentially affects the yield surfaces by introducing a
multiplier in the principal stress space compared to the
reference isotropic case; (3) At relatively high confining
stress, anisotropy results in a drastic change in the shape
of the compactive yield surface due to a rotation of the
principal shortening direction.
2. MECHANICAL DATA
The mechanical data set used here was presented in its
entirety in Louis et al. (2009) [4]. Parts of it had been
previously obtained by Wong et al (1997) [10], Baud et
al. (2004; 2005) [13-14] and Louis et al. (2007) [16]. The
sandstone tested, which is named Rothbach after a quarry
in Alsace (France) is also known as the “Vosgian
sandstone” and is found in numerous outcrops on either
side of the Rhine Graben in Northern Europe.
c.
a.
d.
e.
b.
Fig. 1. a. Strasbourg Cathedral, Strasbourg, France. b. Block of
Vosges sandstone with laminations. c. Intergranular contacts
length (grey line) and orientation (black line) statistics from thin
section analysis. d-e. SEM and cathodoluminescence image of
a grain contact.
The Vosgian sandstone has long been used as building
material (Fig. 1a). In Figure 1b, a picture of the block
tested by Louis et al. (2003) [12] exhibits mm to cm thick
cross lamination with slight compositional and grain size
variations. Its porosity is about 20% and David et al.
(1994) [9] provides a modal mineralogical composition of
68% quartz, 16% Feldspar, 12% clays and about 3%
oxides and mica.
Despite a clearly visible layering, the Rothbach sandstone
presents a larger strength as well as static and dynamic
stiffness perpendicular to the bedding compared to
parallel to it. This has been proposed to originate from the
substantial anisotropy that is observed in the
microstructure and more specifically in the intergranular
contacts length and orientation statistics (Fig. 1c). This is
also supported by SEM and cathodoluminescence
observations that have suggested a relatively intense
compaction history (Fig. 1d-e).
180
Perpendicular
160 Oblique
140 Parallel
Differential stress (MPa)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Effective mean stress (MPa)
Fig. 2. Peak stress and onset of inelastic compaction in samples
of Rothbach sandstone cored perpendicular, oblique (45
degrees) and parallel to the bedding (Louis et al. [4]).
The failure data showed in Figure 2 consist of strength test
results obtained over a wide range of effective pressure
conditions (from 5 to 250 MPa) in series of plugs cored
perpendicular, oblique (45 degrees) and parallel to the
bedding plane. Contrary to what is often seen in foliated
rocks [1-3], the bedding surface does not constitute a
plane of weakness and the plugs cored at 45 degrees fail
at intermediate level of differential stress between the
ones for parallel and perpendicular samples. In their
study, Louis et al. [4] proceeded to investigate in greater
depth the respective roles microstructural anisotropy and
heterogeneity on strength and spatial distribution of
damage. When analyzing the compaction behavior of the
three sets of samples in the differential stress vs. effective
mean stress space (later referred to as the P:Q space), (1)
the yield envelopes were all fitted individually as would
have been done for data coming from different materials,
and (2) elliptical caps were used for the initial yield loci
as well as at prescribed levels of volumetric strain. While
this approach was considered satisfactory in terms of fit
to the experimental data, this unique data set was not
analyzed through a single theoretical anisotropic
framework.
The present paper is an attempt to establish this
framework.
3. MODELING APPROACH
3.1. Two stress-sensitive strength envelopes
We first replot the data of Figure 2 in the principal stress
space (axial and radial). In this space, the hydrostatic
loading path lies of the 1:1 line. Focusing on the data
obtained on the plugs cored parallel to the bedding -
which are here the weaker ones - we can separate the yield
envelope into two regions.
300
250
200
B
sAx (MPa)
150
A Perpendicular
100
Oblique
Parallel
50
0 crushing pressure also referred to as P*. What is the
0 50 100 150 200 250
sRad (MPa)
Fig. 3. Mechanical data of Figure 2 plotted in the principal
stresses reference.
In region A, as the radial (i.e. confining) stress increases,
it is necessary to apply an increasing amount of
differential stress in order to attain failure. In other words,
in that region, the radial stress is a hindrance to failure.
On the other hand, in region B, as the radial stress
increases, progressively lower amounts of differential
stress are necessary to attain failure. In this case we
consider that the radial stress is promoting failure. This
observation is consistent with the concept that,
microstructurally, distinct failure mechanisms are at play
with a domain dominated by shear failure at grain
contacts, which is logically hindered by an increase of
confining stress (results in larger normal stress on
contacts), and a domain dominated by grain fracturing and
crushing, in which the confining stress plays a promoting
role for failure since confining and differential stresses
add up to increase normal stress at contacts, which is in
this case responsible for the initiation of compaction.
Note that in the compactive regime (region B), if one
assumed that the strength and size of the grain contacts
were fixed, and neglecting porosity changes, the axial
stress should be solely responsible for failure. As a result,
the compaction yield curve should be perfectly horizontal
in the principal stresses space (and show a slope of -1.5 in
the P:Q space). As it only would seem to constitute an
extreme case, this means that another critical element is
needed, and that is the stress sensitivity of the grain
contacts, which causes contacts surface area to increase as
the stresses rise. This element must thus be incorporated
into the model as a function of the applied stresses.
From the observation of the data obtained on the plugs
parallel to bedding, we retain that two distinct
mechanisms must be honored (i.e. two yield envelopes, as
in the series of models introduced by DiMaggio and
Sandler [20]), and also that the contact surface area must
be present in the model as a stress sensitive parameter. It
can be easily shown that ignoring stress sensitivity would
produce two straight lines for yield surfaces, the one for
compaction being horizontal in the principal stresses
space and at a slope of -1.5 in the P:Q space.
3.2. Anisotropy and oblique compaction
Another important feature to notice in the data of figure 3
is the peculiar behavior of the yield curve for plugs cored
perpendicular to bedding (red curve). In the compaction
domain at high stresses, there is a decrease in the axial
stress needed for failure down to the hydrostatic grain
300 microstructural mechanism that allows the initiation of
compaction at lower total axial stress under higher
confinement? The answer lies in anisotropy and similarly
shaped envelopes are commonplace in normally
consolidated soils (Wood [21]).
90 75 60 45 30 15 0
Fig. 4. Experiment of Allirot et al. (1977) [21]. Samples of
diatomite with different coring orientations deform
anisotropically and mainly perpendicularly to the bedding in
hydrostatic stress conditions.
A convincing illustration of a possible mechanism at play
that involves anisotropy can be found in the work of
Allirot et al. (1977) [22]. Their experiment consisted of
deforming under hydrostatic stress up to 40 MPa
cylindrical samples of highly porous diatomite that had
been cored in different directions with respect to the
bedding. Figure 4 summarizes the results obtained at the
highest pressure for all orientations starting from nearly
identical size cylinders. The diatomite exhibiting a much
weaker strength perpendicular to the bedding compared
to parallel to it, regardless of the plug orientation,
isotropic stress loading resulted in a strongly anisotropic
strain field with the largest compactive distortion always
observed perpendicular to the bedding.
These observations materialize the fact that compactive
deformation is the result of the interplay between the
macroscopic stress state and intrinsic sample anisotropy.
To that regard, the experiment of Allirot et al. [22]
isolated the effect of intrinsic anisotropy.
Let’s now consider an anisotropic sample being loaded
triaxially along its stronger direction. The transverse
orientation being weaker, it is expected that lateral
compaction may initiate at lower stress than it would
vertically. If the axial and confining stresses are close
enough, then the anisotropy can result in meeting the
failure conditions first along a direction oblique to the
sample axis. In this case, the sample may compact at a
lower macroscopic axial stress – i.e. the yield envelope
goes down in the principal stresses space. As the
confining pressure increases and the macroscopic stress
state approaches hydrostatic conditions and P*, the
apparent strengths of samples cored in any orientation
converge since they are all reflecting the onset of grain
crushing along the weaker direction. We propose this
mechanism to be the reason for the shape of the
compactive yield envelope in the vicinity of the
hydrostatic grain crushing pressure P* for samples that
were not cored along their weakest direction.
Note that Oda (1993) used this concept along with a
modified Cam Clay plastic model (elliptical yield locus)
to successfully map the yield envelopes of anisotropically
consolidated Aio sand from Yasufuku [6]. More recently,
Oda’s results have been showed to compare favorably to
the more elaborate MIT-E3 plastic model (Akl and Louis
[23]).
Here, the concept of modified stress will be used in its
simplest form where we will assume collinearity between
the grain fabric and macroscopic stress tensor, and reduce
our problem to finding a unique coefficient responsible
for the behavior of the perpendicular samples relative to
the parallel ones. The complexity that arises for the case
of a microstructural fabric oblique to the macroscopic
stress tensor is beyond the scope of this study and will be
addressed in a separate work.
4. ISOTROPIC MODEL
4.1. General scheme
We find that the behavior observed macroscopically for
the samples cored parallel to bedding in Figure 3 can be
reproduced using a simple 2D analog of three contacting
spheres. This conceptual model is showed in Figure 5.
Looking at the spheres arrangement, forces can be
virtually applied in order to simulate (1) dilatant behavior
by reaching the tensile strength ST* of the lower vertical
contact, (2) shear failure by reaching the shear strength SS*
on the two oblique contacts or (3) compaction by attaining
the grain crushing stress SN* on these same contacts.

3.3. Modified stress tensor

sAx
As we are proposing that, in addition to stress sensitivity
at intergranular contacts, intrinsic anisotropy also
2R
contributes to the shape of the yield envelopes, a
framework is needed to incorporate this anisotropy into a
sRad sS sRad
model. To that effect, the concept of modified stress used
by Oda [7] and detailed in Tobita [17] is going to be used.
sN 2r
The modified stress concept consists of assuming that sT
intrinsic anisotropy arises from a fabric at the level of
intergranular contacts, which is precisely the case for the
Rothbach sandstone. A fabric tensor is determined and
used to recompute the stresses applied to an otherwise
isotropic material. Introducing a fabric tensor F of trace 1
sAx
reducing to I/3 in the case of isotropy, a modified stress
tensor T can be written from the macroscopic stress tensor Fig. 5. Scheme used for the analog aggregate.
s as follows:
1 1 Note that the star symbol ‘*’ is being used throughout this
Tij  Fik s kj (1) paper to signify that the stress considered is associated
3
with material yielding. As sketched in Figure 5, the
transmission of forces between the macroscopic and Hertz model for normal compression of two identical
microscopic scales is not explicitly resolved and is spheres (see for instance Mavko et al., 1998 [24]).
parametrized in the model by using a multiplier that
a. b.
combines porosity and a loosely defined structural 300 300

intensification factor . We will see later that the 250 250

Differentail Stress Q (MPa)

characteristic parameters extracted from the mechanical

Axial Stress (MPa)

Dilatancy
200 200
Shear
data are in fact algebraically insensitive to this scaling Compaction
150 150
factor.
100 Dilatancy 100
The equation obtained for the tensile, shear and normal Shear
Compaction
50 50
stresses applied on the intergranular contacts write as Hydrostatic Line

follows: 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Radial Stess (MPa) Mean Stress P (MPa)

Fig. 6. Graphical expression of the isotropic model of Figure 5

3  R2
sN   s Ax (2) through equations (2) to (4). (a) In the principal stresses
4 1 r2 reference. (b) In the P:Q space.

1  R2
sS   (s Ax  s Rad ) (3)
4 1 r2
3  R2 3 1
sT   ( s Rad  s Ax ) (4)
4 1 r 2
2 2
where  is the intensification factor which honors the
effect of the structural arrangement of the aggregate,  the
porosity, R the grain radius, r the radius of the
intergranular contacts, and sAx and sRad the macroscopic
axial and radial (i.e. confining) stresses. As mentioned
earlier, the radius of the intergranular contact is stress
sensitive. It is straightforward to rewrite equations (2) to
(4) to isolate the axial stress term and make them suitable
for plotting in the principal stresses space. Also, it is
assumed that there is only one microscopic strength
criterion for each mechanism and that this criterion is
satisfied all along each respective yield curve. The
equations for the envelopes in the principal stresses space
write:
The features of the yield envelopes in Figure 6
satisfactorily honor what is traditionally observed in
mechanical data sets. The successive failure hindrance
and failure promotion effects of the two yield functions is
clearly represented. The following sections are focused on
analyzing these envelopes in greater depth. Note that the
modeling of the onset of dilatancy is going to be ignored
from here and on as it does not reflect ultimate
macroscopic failure in the data analyzed.
4.2. Envelopes intersect point
At the transition between the two failure envelopes, which
would correspond to the location where the slope of the
best fitting curve is equal to 1 in Figure 6a or to zero in
Figure 6b (the role of the confining stress changes from
hindrance to promotion of failure), both equations are
true. This means that at this specific location, a ratio
which we name  can be defined between the normal and
shear contact strength. This ratio writes:

sN
*
s *Ax
4 1 r *
2   3  (8)
s*  s (5) sS
*
s *Ax  s Rad
*

3  R
Ax 2 N

This ratio is independent of the contact radius, hence of

1 r2 * the contact law that is being used. This coefficient locates
s* 4 s  s Rad (6)
Ax
 R2 S on a yield envelope the stress conditions for which it
becomes easier to yield in compaction than in shear, and
8 1 r2 * thus represents the brittle-ductile transition within the
s *
 3s Rad  s (7)
3  R framework of our model.
Ax 2 T

The ratio  also provides a valuable characteristic

For illustrative purposes, Figure 6 provides a result
obtained both in the principal stresses space and in the
P:Q space using these equations. For the stress sensitivity
of the intergranular contact radius, we used the classical
parameter for the material being tested. This ratio should
be essentially controlled by the degree of cementation and
the predisposition of the grains to internally develop
cracks and fail.  should be low in the case of cemented
weak grains and high in the case of strong non cohesive
grains. In the first case, the observed yield envelope
should be mainly one of compaction with a relatively
small brittle domain, and in the other case, mainly one of
brittle failure, i.e. a nonlinear Coulomb envelope, up until
the compaction domain is attained.
 is a key parameter and constitutes a direct output of our
model as long as the transition from shear dominated to
compaction dominated yielding is covered by the data set.
4.3. Data analysis and stress sensitivity
Starting from a given data set, the equations for two yield
envelopes need to be retrieved. This is going to be
achieved through curve fitting. Let us define the function
 extracted from equation (5) or (6) as follows:
1 r2 *
4 sS (9)
 R2
The values of at each failure point can be obtained by
writing   s *Ax  s Rad for the points on the shear
dominated yield envelope and   3s *Ax /  on the
compaction dominated yield envelope. These data can
now be fitted as a function of radial (confining) stress.
Once a function has been obtained, the expression for
  f (s Rad ) can be redistributed in the two failure
regimes following s *Ax  (s Rad )  s Rad for the ‘shear’
envelope and s *Ax  (s Rad ) / 3 for the ‘compactive’
envelope.
The function   f (s Rad ) not only represents the core
behavior of the material studied. Within the frame of our
model, aside from stresses, the only parameter that is
allowed to vary as a function of the confining stress is the
intergranular contact radius r, assuming that porosity
variations in the elastic domain are comparatively
negligible. Hence,  is also a function that describes the
evolution of the intergranular contact surface area with
confining stress. It is easy to verify from the equations just
provided that if were made insensitive to stress
(constant intergranular contact radius), the two yield
envelope would be two straight lines in either principal
stresses or P:Q spaces.
The example of Figure 6 used a hertzian contact law for
illustrative purposes. Without formulating any such
theoretical assumption, our approach allows studying the
relationship that emerges from the data.
In the following section, all the elements mentioned here
are used to analyze the Rothbach parallel data set.
4.4. Application to the Rothbach parallel data set
The Rothbach data set is anisotropic (as would likely be
most sandstones if investigated as thoroughly), but the
results obtained on samples cored parallel to the bedding
provide an example of a material that fails along the main
loading direction under any stress conditions. For
simplicity, we will seek the modeling of the equivalent
isotropic material, with implications that have no impact
on the present demonstration. A complete analysis, which
will be conducted elsewhere, needs to approach the data
sets obtained along all orientations together.
The first step of the envelope retrieval is to identify in the
data set the location at which the transition between the
two failure regimes occurs in order to properly distribute
the data points. This has already been done in Figure 3
where the data point between regions A and B is
considered as belonging to both regimes. In practice, this
point must be located where the data trend transitions
from a slope greater than 1 to a slope smaller than 1.
Based on the finding of the intersect point, the parameter
 can be calculated. This parameter represents the ratio of
the contact compaction strength vs. contact shear
strength. In the Rothbach parallel data set, we obtain a
value of   S N* / S S*  3.7 .
Then, the function can be retrieved as outlined in 4.3.,
the illustration of which is provided in Figure 7. Here,
since only the grain contact area is considered sensitive to
stress, it is also responsible for the nonlinear relationship.
140
120
100
 (MPa)
80
Shear
60
Comp
40 Hertz:   63.5  1.43s Rad 2 / 3
Power:   38 .6  s Rad 0.203
Ln:   22 . 6  16 . 6  Ln (1  s Rad )
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Confining Stress (MPa)
Fig. 7. Sensitivity of to the confining stress in the Rothbach
parallel data set.
A significant assumption that is made in our model and
needs to be mentioned here is that we consider the
intergranular contact surface area to be only sensitive to
the minimum stress, i.e. the hydrostatic component of the
stress field. And it is assumed that the addition of a
deviatoric stress is mostly handled at the microscopic
scale by shear motion on contacts of constant surface area.
This assumption does not affect the process of finding a 
function since it is data-based and we only suggest what
it might represent. But it allows us to compare the newly
found relationship to the classical hertzian result. In
Figure 7, several trends are compared. The one that is
called ‘Hertz’ is a power law function of the form
  0  A(s Rad
*
) n that honors an exponent of n=2/3 to
the confining stress. Then the exponent n is allowed to
deviate from 2/3 (‘Power’). Finally, a natural logarithm
relationship of the form   0  BLn(1  s Rad*
) is also
proposed, with the virtue of locking-in the nonlinearity,
thus reducing the number of fitting parameters to two.
Note that  in the relationships used actually represents
the UCS strength.
Picking the natural logarithm among the relationships
obtained for , we now fit the failure envelopes of the
Rothbach parallel data set. The result is showed in Figure
8. And the final equations obtained in the principal
stresses space are as follows:
(Shear) s *Ax  22.6  s Rad  16.6Ln(1  s Rad )
3.7
(Comp.) s *Ax  [22.6  16.6 Ln(1  s Rad )]
3 stresses space (material fails at a fixed axial stress
a.
300
250
Axial Stress (MPa)
200
Shear
150
Comp
100
50
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Confining Stress (MPa)
Fig. 8. Shear and compactive yield envelopes in the Rothbach
parallel data set. a. Principal stresses reference. b. P:Q space.
Note that the multiplier in front of the natural logarithm
represents the stress sensitivity factor for the rock studied
and should be identified and reported as an output of the
model. We thus propose to identify this stress sensitivity
factor by the letter .
In summary, the simple scheme of Figure 5 allows us to
use the strength data of a given granular material to
retrieve:
 An intergranular contact strength ratio  that also
acts as a relative scaling coefficient for the brittle
and compaction domains.
 A stress sensitive function  that comprises two
fitting parameters recognized as the UCS strength
and the stress sensitivity factor .
 A value for the hydrostatic grain crushing
pressure P* if not already available. P* can be
easily obtained by solving for sAx=sRad in
equation (11).
Therefore, within the frame of our model, the three
parameters UCS,  and  are able to fully define the brittle
and compaction yield envelopes of an isotropic sandstone.
The stress sensitivity factor  has a critical importance in
shaping the yield envelopes. That includes the slope of the
compaction line at the hydrostatic crushing pressure P*.
This element is worth mentioning since it has been a
matter of discussions in recent studies (Gueguen and
Fortin, 2013 [25]; Baud et al., 2015 [26]). Though
anisotropy is going to add complexity to that picture, as
far as the envelope of an isotropic material is concerned,
we see here that the slope of the compaction line in the
(10) P:Q space can theoretically vary between 0 and -1.5, the
latter reflecting the absence of stress sensitivity
(11) represented by a straight horizontal line in the principal
regardless of the confining pressure).
b.
300
250
5. ANISOTROPIC MODEL
Deviatoric Stress Q (MPa)
200
Shear
150
Comp
100 Using the isotropic model defined previously and
50
recalling the concept of modified stress used in Oda [7],
we are now in a position to model the mechanical
300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
anisotropy of the Rothbach sandstone. For simplicity, we
Mean Stress P (MPa) will only focus on the parallel and perpendicular data sets.
The oblique data set was very useful in showing that the
bedding plane does not constitute a plane of weakness,
thus allowing the use of a homogeneous anisotropic
approach. Note also the cross-bedded nature of the
sandstone and associated potential challenge in obtaining
a true 45 degrees orientation. Another working hypothesis
here is that the principal axes of the internal fabric are
perfectly aligned with the macroscopic stress reference in
both parallel and perpendicular data sets.
Equation (1) taken from Oda [7] can be explicitly written
as follows:
  T11 T12 T13  1 / F11 0 0  s 11 s 12 s 13  controlled by sample strength anisotropy. In these
  1   (12)
 T21 T22 T23    0 1 / F22 0  s 21 s 33 s 23  circumstances, we actually have T33>T11, what the yield
T  3
 31 T32 T33   0 0 1 / F33  s 31 s 32 s 33  envelope must reflect by essentially mirroring itself
across some line of symmetry since sRad or PConfining is now
The modified tensor Tij is non-symmetric in general and
the stress that is responsible for failure.
the obliquity of the stress and fabric references adds some
complexity that is not addressed in this paper. As we That line of symmetry in fact constitutes the ‘true’
assume here a perfect alignment between the fabric and hydrostatic stress state, which is not on the 1:1 line but
the stress tensor references, the non-diagonal stress terms rather oblique to it since a little more stress needs to be
are equal to zero and we can simply rewrite the effect of applied in the axial direction to achieve T11=T33.
anisotropy as: Another practical consequence of this understanding of
1 1 1 the effect of anisotropy is the fact that under traditional
T11  s 11 ; T22  s 22 ; T33  s 33 (13) hydrostatic loading (sAx=sRad), the value of P* should be
3F11 3F22 3F33
about the same regardless of plug coring angle since
Let’s identify better the applied stresses by writing failure always initiates along the same (weaker) direction.
s11=sAx and s22=s33=sRad=Pconfining. Equation (13) shows
a.
that the fabric is responsible for some amount of stress 300
anisotropy in the transverse plane whereby the applied
stresses s22 and s33 are equal but not the ones seen by the 250
isotropic aggregate T22 and T33.

Axial Stress (MPa)

200
As our model is two-dimensional, the workflow consists
of retaining the two stresses leading the maximum 150
differential stress, which can be named Tmax and Tmin, and
use them in place of sAx and sRad in equations (10) and 100
Parr Shear
(11). Parr Comp
50 Perp
Because of the microstructural fabric present in the 'True' Perp Hydro Line
Rothbach sandstone, for a given state of applied stress, 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Tmax will be different among parallel and perpendicular
Confining Stress (MPa)
samples. And for most yield conditions, Tmax is also going b.
to be aligned with sAx. 300

For simplicity, we propose here to consider that both 250 Parr Shear
parallel and perpendicular samples respond in the same
Differential Stress Q (MPa)

Parr Comp
manner to the applied radial stress as far as contact surface 200 Perp
area goes, and focus on the difference in axial stress at 'True' Perp Hydro Line

failure (height of the envelopes in the principal stresses 150

space) which is governed by the ratio between F11 and F33.
Concretely, this equates to retrieving the multiplier that 100

brings the data points from the parallel samples onto the
50
ones of the perpendicular samples. Algebraically, this
multiplier is simply appended to equations (10) and (11).
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Before introducing the figure displaying our results, we
Effective Mean Stress P (MPa)
need to address the other fundamental expression of
anisotropy in yield envelopes, which is the decrease of
Fig. 9. Result of the modeling of anisotropic yield envelopes for
axial yield stress in the vicinity of the hydrostatic crushing
the perpendicular and parallel Rothbach data sets. a. Principal
pressure P*. stresses space. b. P:Q space.
The assumption of collinearity between the fabric and
applied stress tensor allows the description of the
anisotropy effect to be provided in a very simple form. Figure 9 presents the final result of the modeling of the
Looking at the factors used for T11 and T33, if s11 and s33 anisotropic yield envelopes in the Rothbach sandstone.
are close to one another, the fabric may cause T33 to The envelope for the perpendicular samples is a scaled up
actually become greater than T11, leading the sample to version (along sAx) of the one for the parallel samples up
respond to the radial stress for failure as opposed to the until the modified lateral stress becomes greater than the
axial one. This is what the results of Allirot et al. [22] in modified vertical stress. There, the scheme is rotated to
Figure 4 illustrates: a preferential strain direction reflect a lateral compaction. Such singularity at the
junction between the two compaction curves is a direct
effect of the approach taken whereby the maximum and
minimum stress directions are instantaneously swapped.
Practical cases where perfect collinearity between fabric
and stress references should not be expected, not to
mention the fact that real grain size and contact statistics
are also expected to have a strong smoothing effect.
The envelopes for the perpendicular samples were
obtained using a ratio of vertical to horizontal contacting
surface of F11/F22=1.19, which corresponds to a
mechanical anisotropy of 17%. This number is consistent
with the cement radius ratio obtained by Louis et al. [12]
from unconfined P-wave velocity data using a slightly
altered version of the cemented spheres model of Dvorkin
and Nur (1996) [27].
In the discussion that follows, we recapitulate the
findings of this paper including some implications for
rock properties modeling, then provide a practical
engineering workflow that can be applied to a data set
obtained on plugs cored along one direction only.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This paper presented a new approach to modeling strength
envelopes in anisotropic porous sandstone, taking
advantage of a unique data set that comprised fully probed
failure stresses for plugs cored in three different
orientations with respect to the bedding. Though a
strategy was already available for honoring anisotropy
(the modified stress tensor), observation of the data set
obtained parallel to the bedding plane led to defining a
new isotropic model that attempts to better relate the
macroscopic strength to the microstructure.
Taking into account both the isotropic and anisotropic
parts of our model, the yield envelopes of plugs cored in
various direction can be fully defined using:
 The three parameters UCS, , and .
 A 3D fabric tensor (of which the anisotropy ratio
determined earlier is just one component).
A more thorough derivation including a general approach
to anisotropy for oblique fabric and stress tensor
references will be provided elsewhere. As proposed here,
our model directly challenges the assumption of
normality during plastic deformation since anisotropy is
postulated to occasion compaction increment that are
oblique to the loading axis. In fact, it appears that the
yielding of both consolidated porous rocks and soils
(sands and clays) could potentially be approached as
presented in this study. Our model also comprises the
basic elements to defining a path towards plastic
modeling in the sense that envelopes can be easily
redrawn upon some prescribed changes in porosity and
fabric, the evolution of which must be closely tied to the
kinematics of the deformation.
Lastly, in order to take full advantage of the work, it is
also necessary to define a practical engineering workflow
to apply to a data set. The most important aspect of it is
that only one coring direction should be available and it is
unknown a priori how that direction is oriented relative to
maximum and minimum strength angles. Therefore, if
any anisotropy arises in the data set in the form of a
decrease of the axial strength towards P*, it is only an
indication of apparent anisotropy between the loading
direction and the minimal strength direction.
The proposed workflow is as follows:
Replot strength data in the axial and radial stress space
Select data points up to the maximum axial stress and
not past it (exclude decrease towards P*)
Identify the transition between regimes by sliding a 1:1
line onto the data set
Compute  using the stress conditions at the transition
Rewrite the stresses to fit a unique  function using:
  UCS   . Ln(1  s Rad )
Write the equations for the yield envelopes as in (10)
and (11)
Assuming P* is available as an experimental data
point, determine the multiplier to append to equation
(11) in order to intersect P*. This multiplier is the
apparent anisotropy ratio
We believe such workflow should allow revisiting
numerous existing mechanical data sets as well as
designing more sensible geomechanical testing programs
in core analysis.
7. REFERENCES
1. Donath, F.A.. 1972. Effects of cohesion and
granularity on deformational behaviour of anisotropic
rock. In Studies in mineralogy and Precambrian
geology, Geol Soc Am Mem 135, ed. B.R. Doe and
D.K. Smith, 95-128.
2. McLamore, R., Gray, K.E.. 1967. The mechanical
behaviour of anisotropic sedimentary rocks. J Eng
Ind-T ASME 89: 62–73.
3. Rawling, G.C., Baud, P., Wong, T.-f.. 2002.
Dilatancy, brittle strength, and anisotropy of foliated
rocks: Experimental deformation and
micromechanical modeling. Journal of Geophysical
Research. 107(B10): ETG8-1.
4. Louis, L., Baud, P., Wong, T.-f.. 2009. Microstructural
inhomogeneity and mechanical anisotropy associated
with bedding in Rothbach sandstone. Pure appl.
Geophys.. 166: 1063-1087.
5. Baud, P., Meredith, P., Townend, E., 2012.
Permeability evolution during triaxial compaction of
an anisotropic porous sandstone. Journal of
Geophysical Research. 117: B05203.
6. Yasufuku, N., Murata, H., Hyodo, M.. 1991. Yield
characteristics of anisotropically consolidated sand
under low and high stresses. Soils and Foundations
31(1): 95-109.
7. Oda, M.. 1993. Inherent and induced anisotropy in
plasticity theory of granular soils. Mechanics of
Materials 16(1-2): 35-45.
8. Ma, X., and Haimson, B.C.. 2016. Failure
characteristics of two porous sandstones subjected to
true triaxial stresses, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth,
121, 6477–6498, doi:10.1002/2016JB012979.
9. David, C., Wong, T.-f., Zhu., W., Zhang, J.. 1994.
Laboratory measurement of compaction induced
permeability change in porous rocks: Implication for
the generation and maintenance of pore pressure
excess in the crust. Pure Appl. Geophys. 143: 425–
456.
10. Wong T.-f., C. David, W. Zhu. 1997. The transition
from brittle faulting to cataclastic flow in porous
sandstones: Mechanical deformation. J. Geophys.
Research. 102: 3009-3025.
11. Besuelle, P., Baud, P., Wong, T.-f.. 2003. Failure
mode and spatial distribution of damage in Rothbach
sandstone in the brittle-ductile transition. Pure Appl.
Geophys. 160 (5–6): 851–868.
12. Louis, L., C. David, P. Robion. 2003. Comparison of
the anisotropic behavior of undeformed sandstones
under dry and saturated conditions. Tectonophysics
370: 193-212.
13. Baud, P., Klein, E.,Wong, T.-f.. 2004. Compaction
localization in porous sandstones: spatial evolution of
damage and acoustic emission activity. J. Struct. Geol.
26 (4): 603–624.
14. Baud, P., L. Louis, C. David, G.C. Rawling, T.-f.
Wong. 2005. Effects of bedding and foliation on
mechanical anisotropy, damage evolution and failure
mode. Geol. Soc. London Special Publ.. 245: 223-249.
15. Louis, L., David, C., Metz, V., Robion, P., Menendez,
B., Kissel, C.. 2005. Microstructural control on the
anisotropy of elastic and transport properties in
undeformed sandstones, Int. J. Rock Mech. 42(7–8):
911–923.
16. Louis, L., Wong, T.-f., Baud, P., 2007. Imaging strain
localization by X-ray radiography and digital image
correlation: Deformation bands in Rothbach
sandstone. J. Struct. Geol. 29 (1): 129–140.
17. Tobita, T.. 1988. Contact tensor in constitutive model
for granular materials. In Studies Applied Mechanics,
ed. Elsevier, London, 263-270.
18. Roscoe, K.H., and Burland, J.B.. 1968. On the
generalized stress-strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. In
Engineering Plasticity, Eds J. Heyman and F.A.
Leckie, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 535-
609.
19. Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P.. 1968. Critical state
soil mechanics. London: McGraw-Hill.
20. DiMaggio, F.L. and I.S. Sandler. 1971. Material
model for granular soils. J. Eng. Mech. Div. Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng.. 97: 935-950.
21. Wood, D.M.. 1990. Soil behaviour and critical state
mechanics. New-York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Allirot, P., J.P. Boehler, A. Sawczuk. 1977.
Irreversible deformation of an anisotropic rock under
hydrostatic pressure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 14: 77-83.
23. Akl, S.A. and L. Louis. 2013. Using asymmetric yield
surfaces to model material anisotropy. In Proceedings
of the 47th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics
Symposium, San Francisco, 23-26 June 2013,
ARMA13-149.
24. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J.. 1998. The rock
physics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis of
porous media. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
25. Gueguen, Y. and Fortin, J.. 2013. Elastic envelope of
porous rock. Geophysical Research letters.
DOI:10.1002/grl.50676.
26. Baud, P., Reuschlé, T., Ji, Y., Cheung, C., Wong, T.-
f.. 2015. Mechanical compaction and strain
localization in Bleurswiller sandstone. J. Geophys.
Res. Solid Earth, 120, doi:10.1002/2015JB012192.
27. Dvorkin, J. and A. Nur. 1996. Elasticity of high
porosity sandstones: theory for two North Sea data
sets. Geophysics 61(5): 1363-1370.