Advertisement

Effect of environmental relative humidity in the tensile strength of layering in slate stone

  • C. C. Garcia-Fernandez
  • M. I. Alvarez-FernandezEmail author
  • R. Cardoso
  • C. Gonzalez-Nicieza
Review Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Slate is a natural stone widely used for building, for which is subjected to regulations and standards in order to be commercialized. As far as the influence of water is considered, only detailed studies are compulsory when the water absorption is higher than 0.60%. However, the mechanical behavior of this layered material depends on water content, which is function of the relative humidity of the environment, and not considered in existing standards. In order to investigate its influence on foliation tensile strength, an experimental study was performed, which consists on carrying out Brazilian tests in slate samples with known water content, applied and controlled by using vapor equilibrium technique. This technique allows controlling the relative humidity of the environment surrounding the material and that of the air on its pores. Relative humidities between 55% and 92% were applied during the tests and defined considering climate data from the north of Spain. Despite the maximum water content tested in the slates was low (0.10%) in comparison with its saturation content (0.57%), the experimental results show a decreasing of the foliation tensile strength that reaches up to three times less with an increment of the environmental relative humidity of 37%. The results achieved can be important in order to quantify the layering weakness due to a natural alteration factor such as the environmental relative humidity. Moreover, the procedure employed is proposed as a convenient method for adequating each variety of slate stone to different climates according to its vulnerability to water.

Keywords

Slate stone Tensile strength Mechanical properties Foliation Environmental relative humidity Control suction test 

Notes

Acknowledgments

C.C. Garcia-Fernandez is grateful to Banco Santander for his Mobility Programme for researchers of the University of Oviedo.

Funding information

The authors received the financial support of the PhD fellowship Severo Ochoa Program of the Government of the Principality of Asturias (PA-14-PF-BP14-067).

References

  1. ASTM C406 / C406M-15 (2015) Standard specification for roofing slate. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D3967-95a (1995) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM D6836–02 (2002) Standard test methods for determination of the soil water chararcteristic curve for desorption using a hanging column, pressure extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, and/or centrifuge. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Blatz JA, Cui YJ, Oldecop L (2008) Vapour equilibrium and osmotic technique for suction control. Geotech Geol Eng 26:661–673.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8819-3_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cárdenes V, Monterroso C, Rubio A, Mateos FJ, Calleja L (2012a) Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the bending strength of roofing slate tiles. Eng Geol 129-130:91–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cárdenes V, Mateos FJ, Rubio-Ordóñez A, Monterroso C (2012b) Standard tests for the characterization of roofing slate pathologies. Mater Constr 62:251–268.  https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2011.64010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardoso R, Romero E, Lima A, Ferrari A (2007) A comparative study of soil suction measurement using two different high-range psychrometers. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Mechanics of unsaturated soils, T. Schanz (ed.). Volume 113 of springer proceedings in physics, p. 79-93, springer, Germany, 1ª edition.  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69873-6_8
  8. Dobereiner L, De Freitas MH (1986) Geotechnical properties of weak sandstones. Géotechnique 36:79–94.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 12326-1 (2004a) Slate and stone products for discontinuous roofing and cladding. Part 1: product specification. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. EN 12326-2 (2004b) Slate and stone for discontinuous roofing and external cladding. Part 2: methods of test for slate and carbonate slate. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. EN 1925 (2000) Natural stone test methods—determination of water absorption coefficient by capillarity. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. EN 1936 (2006) Natural stone test methods. Determination of real density and apparent density, and of total and open porosity, European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Franzen C, Mirwald PW (2004) Moisture content of natural stone: static and dynamic equilibrium with atmospheric humidity. Environ Geol 46:391–401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1040-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470172759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gholami R, Rasouli V (2014) Mechanical and elastic properties of transversely isotropic slate. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1763–1773.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0488-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISRM (1979) Suggested methods for determining: water content, porosity, density, absorption and related properties. Swelling and slake-durability index properties. Int J Roch Mech and Min Sci 16:141–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(79)90287-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lade PV, DeBoer R (1997) The concept of effective stress for soil, concrete and rock. Géotechnique 47:61–78.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.1.61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsal RJ (1967) Large scale testing of rockfill materials. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 93:27–43Google Scholar
  19. Momeni A, Abdilor Y, Khanlari GR, Heidari M, Sepahi AA (2016) The effect of freeze–thaw cycles on physical and mechanical properties of granitoid hard rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:1649–1656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0787-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oldecop LA (2000) Compresibilidad de escolleras. Influencia de la humedad, PhD Thesis, University of California, Department of Civil EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  21. Oldecop LA, Alonso EE (2001) A model for rockfill compressibility. Géotechnique 5:127–140.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.51.2.127.40283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oldecop LA, Alonso EE (2003) Suction effects on rockfill compressibility. Géotechnique 53:289–292.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.53.2.289.37265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oldecop LA, Alonso EE (2007) Theoretical investigation of the time-dependent behaviour of rockfill. Géotechnique 57:289–301.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.57.3.289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ridley AM (1993) The measurement of soil moisture suction, PhD thesis University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Romero E (2001) Controlled-suction techniques. In: Gehling WYY, Schnaid F (eds) 4° Simpósio Brasileiro de Solos Nâo Saturados. Porto Alegre, Brasil, pp 535–542Google Scholar
  26. Romero E, Alonso EE, Hueso O (2005) Effect of water composition on rockfill compressibility, In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vanapalli SK, Fredlund DG, Pufahi DE, Clifton AW (1996) Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Can Geotech J 33:379–392.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veiga Pinto AA (1983) Prediction of the structural behaviour of rockfill dams. PhD Thesis, National Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Portugal (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  30. West G (1994) Effect of suction on the strength of rock. Q J Eng Geol 27:51–56.  https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEGH.1994.027.P1.07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wong LN, Maruvanchery V, Liu G (2016) Water effects on rock strength and stiffness degradation. Acta Geotech 11:713–737.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0407-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yavuz H (2011) Effect of freeze–thaw and thermal shock weathering on the physical and mechanical properties of an andesite stone. Bull Eng Geol Environ 70:187–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-010-0302-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. C. Garcia-Fernandez
    • 1
  • M. I. Alvarez-Fernandez
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Cardoso
    • 2
  • C. Gonzalez-Nicieza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mining Exploitation and Prospecting, School of Mining, Energy and Materials EngineeringUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain
  2. 2.CERIS, ICIST, IST, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations