Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 495–508 | Cite as

A Comparative Evaluation of Stress–Strain and Acoustic Emission Methods for Quantitative Damage Assessments of Brittle Rock

  • Jin-Seop Kim
  • Kyung-Soo Lee
  • Won-Jin Cho
  • Heui-Joo Choi
  • Gye-Chun ChoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the crack initiation and damage stress thresholds of granite from the Korea atomic energy research institute’s Underground Research Tunnel (KURT). From this, a quantitative damage evolution was inferred using various methods, including the crack volumetric strain, b value, the damage parameter from the moment tensor, and the acoustic emission (AE) energy. Uniaxial compression tests were conducted, during which both the stress–strain and AE activity were recorded simultaneously. The crack initiation threshold was found at a stress level of 0.42–0.53 σ c, and the crack damage threshold was identified at 0.62–0.84 σ c. The normalized integrity of KURT granite was inferred at each stress level from the damage parameter by assuming that the damage is accumulated beyond the crack initiation stress threshold. The maximum deviation between the crack volumetric strain and the AE method was 16.0 %, which was noted at a stress level of 0.84 σ c. The damage parameters of KURT granite derived from a mechanically measured stress–strain relationship (crack volumetric strain) were successfully related and compared to those derived from physically detected acoustic emission waves. From a comprehensive comparison of damage identification and quantification methods, it was finally suggested that damage estimations using the AE energy method are preferred from the perspectives of practical field applicability and the reliability of the obtained damage values.

Keywords

Damage parameter Acoustic emission Crack stress threshold b value Moment tensor Crack volumetric strain AE energy Granite 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Nuclear Research & Development Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through a grant funded by the Korean government (MEST).

References

  1. ASTM (1981) Acoustic emissions in geotechnical engineering practice. ASTM Special Technical Publication 750, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM (1994) Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards 04.08(I)-D2845: 242–246Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson BK (1987) Fracture Mechanics of Rock. University of College London, Academic Press Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown ET (1981) Rock characterization testing and monitoring ISRM suggested method. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai M (2010) Practical estimates of tensile strength and Hoek-Brown strength parameter mi of brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Maejima T, Morioka J, Minami M (2004) Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress thresholds of brittle rock masses near underground excavation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:833–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpinteri A, Lacidogna G, Niccolini G (2011) Damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings by the acoustic emission technique. Struct Control Hlth 18(6):660–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang SH, Lee CI (2004) Estimation of cracking and damage mechanisms in rock under triaxial compression by moment tensor analysis of acoustic emission. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:1069–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho WJ, Kwon S, Park JH (2008) KURT, a small-scale underground research laboratory for the research on high-level waste disposal. Ann Nucl Energy 35:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho WJ, Kwon S, Choi JW (2009) The thermal conductivity for granite with various water contents. Eng Geol 107:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colombo IS, Main IG, Forde MC (2003) Assessing damage of reinforced concrete beam using ‘b-value’ analysis of acoustic emission signals. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 15:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox SJD, Meredith PG (1993) Microcrack formation and material softening in rock measured by monitoring acoustic emission. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30(1):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damjanac B, Fairhurst C (2010) Evidence for a long-term strength threshold in crystalline rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diederichs MS (2000) Instability of hard rockmasses: the role of tensile damage and relaxation. Ph.D thesis, University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  15. Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK, Eberhardt E (2004) Damage initiation and propagation in hard rock during tunneling and the influence of near-face stress rotation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:785–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B, Read RS (1998) Identifying crack initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Can Geotech J 35(2):222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B (1999) Quantifying progressive pre-peak brittle fracture damage in rock during uniaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EC (2004a) Geological disposal of radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. European Commission, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (2004b) Thematic network on the role of monitoring in a phased approach to geological disposal of radioactive waste. Final report to the European Commission Contract FIKW-CT-2001-20130, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  20. Frohlich C, Davis SD (1993) Teleseismic b values; or, much ado about 1.0. J Geophys Res 98:631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghazvinian E, Perras M, Diederichs M, Labrie D (2012) Formalized approaches to defining damage thresholds in brittle rock: Granite and limestone. In: 46th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium 2012, vol 2. Chicago, pp 966–974Google Scholar
  22. Grosse CU, Ohtsu M (2008) Acoustic emission testing. Springer, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1942) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 32:163–191Google Scholar
  24. Hardy HR (1994) Geotechnical field applications of AE/MS techniques at the Pennsylvania state university: a historical review. NDT E Int 27(4):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatton CG, Main IG, Meredith PG (1993) A comparison of seismic and structural measurements of scaling exponents during tensile subcritical crack growth. J Struct Geol 15(12):1485–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hidalgo KP, Nordlund E (2013) Comparison between stress and strain quantities of the failure-deformation process of Fennoscandian hard rock using geological information. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IAEA (2001) Monitoring of geological repositories for high level radioactive waste. IAEA-TECDOC-1208, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. ISRM (1979) Suggested method for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16(2):135–140Google Scholar
  29. Itasca (1995) PFC-particle flow code. Modelling software Ver. 1.0. Itasca Ltd, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Kachanov LM (1958) Time of the rupture process under creep conditions. IVZ Akud Nauk S.S.R. Old Tech Nauk 8:26–31Google Scholar
  31. Kachanov M (1980) Continuum model of medium with cracks. J Eng Mech ASCE 106(EM5):1039–1051Google Scholar
  32. Kranz RL (1980) The effects of confining pressure and stress difference on static fatigue of granite. J Geophys Res 85(B4):1854–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lajtai EZ, Bielus LP (1986) Stress corrosion cracking of Lac du Bonnet granite in tension and compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 19(2):71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lajtai EZ, Lajtai VN (1974) The evolution of brittle fracture in rocks. J Geol Soc London 130(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landis EN, Baillon L (2002) Experiments to relate acoustic emission energy to fracture energy of concrete. J Eng Mech 128(6):698–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lau JSO, Chandler NA (2004) Innovative laboratory testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:1427–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lockner DA (1993) The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30(7):883–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin CD (1993) The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground openings. Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, ManGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin CD (1997) 17th Canadian geotechnical colloquium: the effect of cohesion loss and stress path on brittle rock strength. Can Geotech J 34(5):698–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin CD, Chandler NA (1994) The progressive fracture of Lac du Bonnet granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 31(6):643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin CD, Christiansson R, Söderhäll J (2001) Rock stability considerations for siting and constructing a KBS-3 repository. University of Alberta, SKB TR-01-38, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  42. Mazars J, Pijaudier-Cabot G (1996) From damage to fracture mechanics and conversely: a combined approach. Int J Solids Struct 33(20–22):2242–3327Google Scholar
  43. Mogi K (1962) Magnitude frequency relation for elastic shocks accompanying fractures of various materials and some related problems in earthquakes. Bul Earthquake Res Inst 40:831–853Google Scholar
  44. Ohtsu M (1995) Acoustic emission theory for moment tensor analysis. Res Nondestr Eval 6:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ohtsu M, Ono K (1984) A generalized theory of acoustic emission and Green’s functions in a half space. J AE 3(1):124–133Google Scholar
  46. Qiaoxing L (2006) Strength degradation and damage micromechanism of granite under long-term loading. Ph.D thesis, University of Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  47. Rao MVMS, Lakshmi KJP (2005) Analysis of b-value and improved b-value of acoustic emissions accompanying rock fracture. Curr Sci 89(9):1577–1582Google Scholar
  48. Rao MVMS, Ramana YV (1992) A study of progressive failure of rock under cyclic loading by ultrasonic and AE monitoring techniques. Rock Mech Rock Eng 25(4):237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholz CH (1968) The frequency–magnitude relation of micro-fracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(1):399–415Google Scholar
  50. Shigeishi M, Ohtsu M (2001) Acoustic emission moment tensor analysis: development for crack identification in concrete materials. Constr Build Mater 1(15):311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. SKB (2005) ASPO Pillar stability experiment: acoustic emission and ultrasonic monitoring. SKB Report R-05-09, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  52. SKB (2007) RD&D-Programme 2007. SKB TR-07-12, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  53. Su K, Ghoreychi M, Chanchole S (2000) Experimental study of damage in granite. Geotechnique 50:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vilhelm J, Rudajev V, Lokajicek T, Veverka J (2008) Correlation analysis of the ultrasonic emission from loaded rock samples-the study of interaction of microcracking nucleation centres. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(5):695–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Watanabe T, Sassa K (1995) Velocity and amplitude of P-waves transmitted through fractured zones composed of multiple thin low-velocity layers. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 32:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yun HD, Choi WC, Seo SY (2010) Acoustic emission activities and damage evaluation of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP sheets. NDT E Int 43:615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin-Seop Kim
    • 1
  • Kyung-Soo Lee
    • 1
  • Won-Jin Cho
    • 1
  • Heui-Joo Choi
    • 1
  • Gye-Chun Cho
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Radioactive Waste Disposal Research DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI)DaejeonKorea
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)DaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations