Advertisement

Macro- and Microstructural Characteristics of the Tension–Shear and Compression–Shear Fracture of Granite

  • Jun Chen
  • Hui ZhouEmail author
  • Zhiquan Zeng
  • Jingjing LuEmail author
Technical Note

Introduction

In various complicated geological conditions, the redistribution of stress in rock masses due to excavation unloading activities causes many failure accidents and is a critical issue in the safety and stability of rock structures (Durrheim et al. 1998; Wu et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2017). Tensile stress concentrations often occur in fractured rock masses under unloading conditions, which will lead to the tension–shear failure. For fractured rock masses, different types of mechanical tests have been conducted (Huang and Li 2014; Huang and Huang 2014) to explore the fracture mechanism of rocks and the evolution of cracks. The results indicate that rock usually fails in three modes: tension, tension–shear and shear. In recent decades, a number of researches (David et al. 2005; Maximiliano et al. 2014; Meng et al. 2016, 2018a, b, 2019) have been conducted to study the shear mechanical behaviors and deformation characteristics of rock joints under compressive...

Keywords

Tension–shear test Compression–shear test Fracture characteristic Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 

List of Symbols

\(\sigma\)

Normal stress

\(\tau\)

Shear strength

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Key Projects of the Yalong River Joint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1865203) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51427803, 51709257 and 51609121). Partial support from the Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS is gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to thank Dr. Fanzhen Meng and Professor of Chuanqing Zhang for their valuable and constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Also, the authors would like to thank the journal editor and the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions to this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work.

References

  1. Aimone-Martin CT, Oravecz KI, Nytra TK (1997) A mechanical device for the measurement of combined shear and tension in rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(1):147–151Google Scholar
  2. Bobich JK (2005) Experimental analysis of the extension to shear fracture transition in Berea Sandstone. MS thesis, Texas A & M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Brace WF (1964) Brittle fracture of rocks. In: Judd WR (ed) State of stress in the earth’s crust. American Elsevier, New York, pp 111–180Google Scholar
  4. Cen DF, Huang D (2017) Direct shear tests of sandstone under constant normal tensile stress condition using a simple auxiliary device. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(6):1425–1438Google Scholar
  5. David S, Lars M, Erling N (2005) Laboratory tests on shotcrete-rock joints in direct shear, tension and compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):275–297Google Scholar
  6. Durrheim RJ, Roberts MKC, Haile AT et al (1998) Factors influencing the severity of rockburst damage in South African gold mines. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 98(3/4):53–57Google Scholar
  7. Huang RQ, Huang D (2014) Evolution of rock cracks under unloading condition. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(2):453–466Google Scholar
  8. Huang D, Li Y (2014) Conversion of strain energy in triaxial unloading tests on marble. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 66(2):160–168Google Scholar
  9. Maximiliano RV, Peter K, Theodoros T (2014) Large scale tests on jointed and bedded rocks under multi-stage triaxial compression and direct shear. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(1):75–92Google Scholar
  10. Meng FZ, Zhou H, Li SZ et al (2016) Shear behavior and acoustic emission characteristics of different joints under various stress levels. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(12):1–10Google Scholar
  11. Meng FZ, Zhou H, Wang ZQ et al (2018a) Characteristics of asperity damage and its influence on the shear behavior of granite joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(2):429–449Google Scholar
  12. Meng FZ, Wong LNY, Zhou H et al (2018b) Comparative study on dynamic shear behavior and failure mechanism of two types of granite joint. Eng Geol 245(1):356–369Google Scholar
  13. Meng FZ, Wong LNY, Zhou H et al (2019) Shear rate effects on the post-peak shear behaviour and acoustic emission characteristics of artificially split granite joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52(7):1–20Google Scholar
  14. Ramsey JM, Chester FM (2004) Hybrid fracture and the transition from extension fracture to shear fracture. Nature 428(6978):63–66Google Scholar
  15. Rodriguez E (2005) A microstructural study of the extension-to-shear fracture transition in Carrara Marble. MS thesis, Texas A & M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Wu FQ, Liu T, Liu JY et al (2009) Excavation unloading destruction phenomena in rock dam foundations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(2):257–262Google Scholar
  17. Xu NW, Wu JY, Dai F et al (2017) Comprehensive evaluation of the stability of the left-bank slope at the Baihetan hydropower station in southwest China. B Eng Geol Environ 77(4):1–22Google Scholar
  18. Zhang CQ, Feng XT, Zhou H et al (2012) Case histories of four extremely intense rockbursts in deep tunnels. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(3):275–288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil MechanicsChinese Academy of SciencesWuhanChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Powerchina Huadong Engineering Corporation LimitedHuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations