Date received:

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

COVER SHEET FOR CONTINUOUSLY ASSESSED WORK

Course Code ………EP4015……………

SECTION 1: Student to complete

SURNAME/FAMILY NAME: …………Batayev ………………………..

FIRST NAME: ……… Bauyrzhan ..………..

ID Number: ……………51658029…………….

Date submitted: ………25/10/2018………………….

Please:
 Read the statement on “Cheating” and definition of “Plagiarism” contained
over page. The full Code of Practice on Student Discipline, available in the
Academic Quality Handbook is at:
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/infohub/study/student- discipline.php

 attach this Cover Sheet, completed and signed to the work being submitted

SECTION 2: Confirmation of Authorship

The acceptance of your work is subject to your signature on the following declaration:

I confirm that I have read, understood and will abide by the University statement on cheating
and plagiarism defined over the page and that this submitted work is my own and where the
work of others is used it is clearly identified and referenced. I understand that the School of
Engineering reserves the right to use this submitted work in the detection of plagiarism.

Signed: Bauyrzhan Batayev

Date: 25/10/2018

Note: Work submitted for continuous assessment will not be marked without a completed
Cover Sheet. Such work will be deemed ‘late’ until a completed cover Sheet is submitted
and will be subject to the published penalty for late submission.

Students who wish to use a proof-reader should consult the Proofreading Guidance available
HERE.
Cheating in any assessment, whether formative or summative, can result in disciplinary
action being taken under the University’s Code of Practice on Student Discipline. For these
purposes “Cheating” includes:

(a) Possession in an examination of material or electronic device which has not been
authorised in writing by the relevant Course Co-ordinator. Students whose first language is
not English may, however, refer to a dictionary where this is approved by the Head of the
School responsible for the examination;

(b) Copying from another student in an examination;

(c) Removing an examination book from an examination room;

(d) Impersonating another candidate in relation to any assessment;

(e) Permitting another person to impersonate oneself in relation to any assessment;

(f) Paying or otherwise rewarding another person for writing or preparing work to
be Submitted for assessment;

(g) Colluding with another person in the preparation or submission of work which is to be
assessed. This does not apply to collaborative work authorised by the relevant course
coordinator.

(h) Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the use, without adequate acknowledgment, of the intellectual
work of another person in work submitted for assessment. A student cannot be found to have
committed plagiarism where it can be shown that the student has taken all reasonable care
to avoid representing the work of others as his or her own.
 Introduction:
The Triaxial test is known as one of the best method for determining the stress-strain behaviour
and shear strength of the rock and soil. The test can provide data on the fundamental response
characteristics of soil and rock under a variety of controlled states of stress. For this laboratory
practical a cylindrical shaped, weakly consolidated sand is tested under undrained condition. For
this test, the loads are exerted quickly, and the sample is not permitted to drain. The stresses are
applied at a constant rate. The sample has the following dimensions: 38 mm diameter × 76 mm
length.

Objectives:
The results obtained from the experiment are used in the identifying MohrCoulomb failure
envelope where cohesion ( C ) and angle of internal friction ( ϕ ) can be found.

Results:
The instructions were followed from the manual and the following table is presented (highlighted
results are for my group):

Table 1. Group C data.

Group Confining Maximum Maximum Principal Centre of Radius

Pressure ( kPa ¿ Deviatoric Stress Stress Circle ( kPa ¿
( kPa ¿ ( kPa ¿ ( kPa ¿
C.1 100 51.94 151.94 126 26
C.2 200 61.44 261.44 231 31
C.3 250 26.60 276.60 263 13
C.4 300 46.24 346.24 323 23
C.5 350 68.40 418.40 384 34

Based on the information on the table, the MohrCoulomb envelope was constructed:

Figure 1. MohrCoulomb Envelope

It can be implied from the graph that the specimen used by the third group showed unusually low
force reading. This could be due to poor compaction of the sample that results in the voids
development within it. Also, the measurements from the mechanical gauge by one of the members
might not be correctly recorded. The same problems can be applied for group 4 as their ram force
values are less than it is expected.
 Stress vs Strain
80.00

70.00

60.00
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

50.00

40.00

30.00
f(x) = 3321.37x + 3.04
20.00

10.00

0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Devi atori c Stres s vs Axi a l Stra i n El a stic Deformation Regi on
Li near (El a stic Deformation Region)
Strain (-)

Figure 2. Stress vs Strain Curve based on the data from group C.5

Stress-strain figure plotted above demonstrates the characteristic of the sample. The first four
points in the graph were taken because the sample is assumed to be in the elastic region (while
afterwards, the elastic-plastic region is expected). The slope of the black line displays the elastic
modulus of a sample which is equal to 3.321 MPa and y-intercept of 3.0402 kPa shows
pore-fracture closure.

Discussion:
Q 1: At a confining pressure σ 3 =350 kPa , the sample clearly shows the barrelling deformation.
Also, as can be seen from the picture, the deformed sample shows a sign of a shear deformation.
This result might be explained because our group was the last to perform the experiment with the
highest value of confining pressure.

The Figure 1 shows that internal friction angle in the MohrCoulomb envelope is zero. This might
be explained because the sample is weakly consolidated sand and tested in an undrained condition.
Therefore, the shear strength is a result of cohesion only.

Figure 3. Tested Sample

Q 2: The laboratory experiment with the triaxial method testing gives an insight into how geologic
formations react to the well drilling process including mud selection and cementation processes.
The MohrCoulomb envelope graph demonstrates the minimum and maximum stresses that can be
applied without having a near wellbore failure. Mohr’s failure envelope can also be used to
prevent the sand production which can seriously harm the production facilities. Also, the results
obtained might be useful during hydraulic fracturing where the injection pressure of the fracking
fluid can be measured to initiate the cracks in the rock and soil formations.

Q 3: Several Improvements can be made for this test:

 Due to a time constraint and inaccurate communication between the team members (we
had 4 members instead of 3), some values of the ram force at specific displacement were
not recorded. Therefore, the performance of the experiment multiple times at the same
confining pressure would reduce the human error during the experiment. The replacement
of a mechanical gauge to an electrical one could increase the accuracy of the obtained
values.
 The value of the confining pressure could be increased to observe any shear failure of the
sample.
 Different rock samples might be tested to compare how the same pressure influences at
different specimens.
 Since the experiment also can be useful at hydraulic fracking, the injected water can be
changed to any fracking fluid used in the industry to see the improvement in porosity and
permeability after the test.

Q 4: A strain rate increase could affect the rock strength, but it will take sufficient time for rock
sample to be strengthened. Therefore, for this experiment it can be assumed that the change in the
strain rate have a negligible effect on the results.

Q 5: The following errors might influence our obtained data:

 Inadequate understanding of the instructions given by the lecturer of one member which
lead in loss of recording parameters.
 Due to human factor and not calibrated parts (and absence of an electrical gauge) of the
equipment, the miscommunication between members could cause a small error in the
actual reading and the recorded one.

List of Reference:

[1] P.V. Lade. (2016). Triaxial Testing of Soils. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated [Online].
Retrieved at 23rd October 2018 from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/abdn/reader.action?
docID=4451906&query

[2] J.Q. Ehrgott (1971). Circulation of Stress and strain from Triaxial Test Data on Undrained
Soild specimen. National Technical Information Service [Online]. Retrieved at 22nd October
2018 from: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/724619.pdf

[3] S. Rees, 2013, Introduction to triaxial testing, GDS journal [Online], Retrieved at 22 nd
October from:https://www.gdsinstruments.com/__assets__/pagepdf/000037/Part
%201%20Introduction%20to%20triaxial%20testing.pdf