Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 50, Issue 9, pp 2277–2296 | Cite as

Comparison of Visual and Acoustic Emission Observations in a Four Point Bending Experiment on Barre Granite

  • Bing Qiuyi Li
  • Herbert H. Einstein
Original Paper

Abstract

We present an experimental study in which a pre-notched specimen of Barre Granite was subjected to four point bending under crack mouth opening displacement control. The experimental observations consisted of load–displacement measurements, acoustic emissions, and photography on a macroscopic (~cm) as well as microscopic (~μm) scale. These observations were compared and analysed to better understand process zone development and crack propagation. Load–displacement data showed that the load reaches its maximum at crack initiation, and the machine input work is constant while the crack propagates. AE moment magnitudes between Mw = −6 to −10 were observed, and focal mechanisms consisted of both shear and tensile components. During process zone development, AE formed a large cloud of events located near the notch tip and then tended to occur away from the notch tip as the crack propagated. Image analysis at the microscopic scale showed that microcracks formed and coalesced during process zone development; specifically, the microcracks initiated in tension and then propagated as a series of en-echelon cracks. In general, the synthesis of the three observations showed that a wider bulb of activity at lower energy tended to occur during process zone development, while crack propagation tended to be more spatially concentrated and contained higher energy.

Keywords

Acoustic emissions (AE) Digital image correlation (DIC) Rock fracture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper was supported by TOTAL SA. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude for this support. We would also like to thank Professors Brian Evans, John Germaine and German Prieto, and Dr. Ulrich Mok for the insights and suggestions.

References

  1. Alam S, Loukili A, Grondin F, Roziere E (2015) Use of the digital image correlation and acoustic emission technique to study the effect of structural size on cracking of reinforced concrete. Eng Fract Mech 143:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM C1161 (2013) Standard test method for flexural strength of advanced ceramics at ambient temperature. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  3. Backers T, Stanchits S, Dresen G (2005) Tensile fracture propagation and acoustic emission activity in sandstone: the effect of loading rate. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:1094–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazant Z, Kazemi M (1990) Determination of fracture energy, process zone length and brittleness number from size effect, with application to rock and concrete. Int J Fract 44:111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaber J, Adair B, Antoniou A (2015) Ncorr: open-source 2d digital image correlation matlab software. Exp Mech 55:1105–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins DS, Pettitt WS, Young RP (2002) High-resolution mechanics of a microearthquake sequence. Pure appl Geophys 159:197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Fortin J, Stanchits S, Dresen G, Gueguen Y (2009) Acoustic emissions monitoring during inelastic deformation of porous sandstone: comparison of three modes of deformation. Pure Appl Geophys 166:823–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goncalves da Silva BM (2016) Fracturing processes and induced seismicity due to the hydraulic fracturing of rocks. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. Grosse CU, Ohtsu M (2008) Acoustic emission testing. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gutenberg B, Richter C (1954) Seismicity of the Earth, 2nd edn. Princeton Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin Q, Huina Y, Biolzi L, Labuz JF (2014) Opening and mixed mode fracture processes in a quasi-brittle material via digital imaging. Eng Fract Mech 131:176–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maeda N (1985) A method for reading and checking phase times in autoprocessing system of seismic wave data. J Seismol Soc Japan 38:365–379Google Scholar
  14. McLaskey GC, Lockner DA, Kilgore BD, Beeler NM (2015) A robust calibration technique for acoustic emission systems based on momentum transfer from a ball drop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan S, Johnson C, Einstein H (2013) Cracking processes in barre granite: fracture process zones and crack coalescence. Int J Fract 180:177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olson JE (2004) Predicting fracture swarms—the influence of subcritical crack growth and the crack-tip process zone on joint spacing in rock. Geological Society, London, pp 73–88 (Special Publications) Google Scholar
  17. Pais JC, Harvey JT (2012) Four point bending. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. Shearer PM (2009) Introduction to Seismology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stanier S, Blaber J, Take W, White D (2016) Improved image-based deformation measurement for geotechnical applications. Can Geotech J 53:727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tal Y, Evans B, Mok U (2016) Direct observations of damage during unconfined brittle failure of carrara marble. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121:1584–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Topic J, Bartos J, Kopecky L, Seps K, Pros Z, Trejbal J (2016) Cement composite reinforced with synthetic fibers: comparison of three-point and four-point bending test results. Appl Mech Mater 827:332–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vermylen J, Zoback MD (2011) Hydraulic fracturing, microseismic magnitudes, and stress evolution in the barnett shale. In: SPE Hydraulic fracturing technology conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Viegas G, Urbancic T, Baig A, von Lunen E (2015) Rupture dynamics and source scaling relations of microseismic hydraulic fractures in shale reservoirs. In: Proceedings of the 13th international ISRM congress 2015Google Scholar
  24. Wong L, Einstein H (2009) Crack coalescence in molded gypsum and carrara marble: part 1—macroscopic observations and interpretation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42:475–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoshimitsu N, Kawakata H, Takahashi N (2014) Magnitude– 7 level earthquakes: A new lower limit of self-similarity in seismic scaling relationships. Geophys Res Lett 41:4495–4502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang J, Peng W, Liu F, Zhang H, Li Z (2016) Monitoring rock failure processes using the Hilbert-Huang transform of acoustic emission signals. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:427–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations