Advertisement

Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 245–250 | Cite as

Dynamic Fracture Test of Laurentian Granite Subjected to Hydrostatic Pressure

  • W. Yao
  • K. XiaEmail author
  • T. Zhang
Brief Technical Note
  • 139 Downloads

Abstract

Dynamic fracture failure of rocks subjected to static hydrostatic pressure is commonly encountered in deep underground rock engineering. The static fracture behavior of rocks under hydrostatic stress has been well studied in the literature. However, it is desirable to investigate the dynamic fracture failure of rocks under various hydrostatic pressures. In this study, a triaxial split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system is used to measure the dynamic fracture toughness of rocks under five hydrostatic pressures. The results show that dynamic fracture toughness under a certain hydrostatic pressure enhances with the increase of the loading rate, and the dynamic fracture toughness at the similar loading rate increases with the hydrostatic pressure due to the closure of microcracks in rocks. An empirical formula is proposed to describe the influences of the loading rate and the hydrostatic pressure on the rock dynamic fracture toughness.

Keywords

Triaxial SHPB Dynamic fracture toughness Hydrostatic pressure NSCB Fracture failure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through the Discovery Grant # 72031326. This work was supported by Mitacs through the Mitacs Accelerate program. Shengwei Li and Zhili Tang helped conduct the experiments. Qi Zhao at University of Toronto helped conduct the CT scanning.

References

  1. 1.
    Schmidt RA, Huddle CW (1977) Effect of confining pressure on fracture toughness of Indiana limestone. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abst 14(5):289–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(77)90740-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thiercelin M (1987) Fracture toughness under confining pressure using the modified ting test. Paper presented at the 28th U.S. Symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS), Tucson, Arizona, 29 June - 1 July 1987Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Shayea NA, Khan K, Abduljauwad SN (2000) Effects of confining pressure and temperature on mixed-mode (I–II) fracture toughness of a limestone rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37(4):629–643.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(00)00003-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Backers T, Stephansson O, Rybacki E (2002) Rock fracture toughness testing in mode II—punch-through shear test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):755–769.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00066-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Shayea N (2002) Comparing reservoir and outcrop specimens for mixed mode I–II fracture toughness of a limestone rock formation at various conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 35(4):271–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-002-0027-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ko TY, Kemeny J (2007) Effect of confining stress and loading rate on fracture toughness of rocks. Paper presented at the 1st Canada - U.S. rock mechanics symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 27-31 May 2007Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kataoka M, Mahdavi E, Funatsu T, Takehara T, Obara Y, Fukui K, Hashiba K (2017) Estimation of mode I fracture toughness of rock by semi-circular bend test under confining pressure condition. Paper presented at the ISRM European Rock Mechanics Symposium - EUROCK 2017, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 20-22 June 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashida T, Oghikubo H, Takahashi H, Shoji T (1993) Numerical simulation with experimental verification of the fracture behavior in granite under confining pressures based on the tension-softening model. Int J Fract 59(1):227–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00012363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sato K, Hashida T (2006) Cohesive crack analysis of toughness increase due to confining pressure. Pure Appl Geophys 163(5):1059–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-006-0060-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao G, Kazerani T, Man K, Gao M, Zhao J (2015) Numerical study of the semi-circular bend dynamic fracture toughness test using discrete element models. Sci China Tech Sci 58(9):1587–1595.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-015-5887-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu Y, Dai F, Xu NW, Zhao T (2016) Numerical investigation of dynamic rock fracture toughness determination using a semi-circular bend specimen in Split Hopkinson pressure Bar testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(3):731–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0787-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xia K, Yao W (2015) Dynamic rock tests using split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar system – a review. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7(1):27–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dai F, Huang S, Xia K, Tan Z (2010) Some fundamental issues in dynamic compression and tension tests of rocks using split Hopkinson pressure bar. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43(6):657–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-010-0091-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nasseri MHB, Mohanty B (2008) Fracture toughness anisotropy in granitic rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45(2):167–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xia K, Yao W, Wu B (2017) Dynamic rock tensile strengths of Laurentian granite: experimental observation and micromechanical model. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(1):116–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen R, Li K, Xia K, Lin Y, Yao W, Lu F (2016) Dynamic fracture properties of rocks subjected to static pre-load using notched semi-circular bend method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(10):3865–3872.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0958-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
     Zhou YX, Xia K, Li XB, Li HB, Ma GW, Zhao J, Zhou ZL, Dai F (2012) Suggested methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and mode-I fracture toughness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 49:105–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu BB, Yao W, Xia KW (2016) An experimental study of dynamic tensile failure of rocks subjected to hydrostatic confinement. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(10):3855–3864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0946-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu B, Chen R, Xia K (2015) Dynamic tensile failure of rocks under static pre-tension. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:12–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tatone BSA, Grasselli G (2015) Characterization of the effect of normal load on the discontinuity morphology in direct shear specimens using X-ray micro-CT. Acta Geotech 10(1):31–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-014-0320-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yin T, Li X, Xia K, Huang S (2012) Effect of thermal treatment on the dynamic fracture toughness of Laurentian granite. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(6):1087–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0240-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yao W, Xu Y, Yu C, Xia K (2017) A dynamic punch-through shear method for determining dynamic mode II fracture toughness of rocks. Eng Fract Mech 176:161–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dai F, Chen R, Xia K (2010) A semi-circular bend technique for determining dynamic fracture toughness. Exp Mech 50(6):783–791.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-009-9273-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen R, Xia K, Dai F, Lu F, Luo SN (2009) Determination of dynamic fracture parameters using a semi-circular bend technique in split Hopkinson pressure bar testing. Eng Fract Mech 76(9):1268–1276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Mineral EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations