Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 93–104 | Cite as

The Effect of Loading Rates on Crack Dynamic Behavior Under Medium–Low Speed Impacts

  • Peng Ying
  • Zheming ZhuEmail author
  • Lei Zhou
  • Meng WangEmail author
  • Yuqing Dong
  • Hao Qiu


Rock structures are often subjected to dynamic loads, such as blasts, impacts and earthquakes, and their loading rates differ largely. To investigate the effect of loading rates on the dynamic behavior of crack propagation, impact tests were conducted on large single-cleavage semicircle compression (LSCSC) specimens using a drop weight impact test system. Five types of rock materials were selected to prepare the LSCSC specimens, and crack propagation gauges were mounted along the crack propagation paths to measure crack initiation time and propagation speeds. Finite element models were established by using ABAQUS code, and the dynamic stress intensity factors (SIFs) were calculated. The curves of dynamic SIFs versus time were obtained, and the initiation toughness was determined by using these curves and the initiation time measured in the impact tests. The results show that loading rate has a significant effect on crack propagation behavior, and both the crack propagation speed and initiation toughness increase with the loading rate, whereas the delayed fracture time decreases with the increase in loading rate.


Loading rate Initiation toughness Delayed fracture time Crack propagation speed Impact 



This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11672194; 11702181), by Sichuan Administration of Work Safety (aj20170515161307), and the project of Science and Technology of Sichuan province (2018JZ0036).


  1. 1.
    Hu R, Zhu Z, Xie J, Xiao D. Numerical study on crack propagation by using softening model under blasting. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2015;2015:1–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu Z, Mohanty B, Xie H. Numerical investigation of blasting-induced crack initiation and propagation in rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2007;44(3):412–24.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu Z, Xie H, Mohanty B. Numerical investigation of blasting-induced damage in cylindrical rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2008;45(2):111–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu W, Zhu Z, Zeng L. Testing method study of mode-I dynamic fracture toughness under blasting loads. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2015;34:2767–72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang M, Zhu Z, Wang X. The growth of mixed-mode I/II crack under impacting loads. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2016;35(7):1323–32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang M, Zzhu Z, Xie J. Experimental and numerical studies of the mixed-mode I and II crack propagation under dynamic loading using SHPB. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2015;34(12):2474–85.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang QZ, Yang JR, Zhang CG, Zhou Y, Li L, Zhu ZM. Sequential determination of dynamic initiation and propagation toughness of rock using an experimental-numerical-analytical method. Eng Fract Mech. 2015;141:78–94.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reddish DJ, Stace LR, Vanichkobchinda P, Whittles DN. Numerical simulation of the dynamic impact breakage testing of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2005;42(2):167–76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang X, Zhu Z, Wang M, Ying P, Zhou L, Dong Y. Study of rock dynamic fracture toughness by using VB-SCSC specimens under medium–low speed impacts. Eng Fract Mech. 2017;181:52–64.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou L, Zhu Z, Wang M, Ying P, Dong Y. Dynamic propagation behavior of cracks emanating from tunnel edges under impact loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2018;105:119–26.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhu WC, Niu LL, Li SH, Xu ZH. Dynamic Brazilian test of rock under intermediate strain rate: pendulum hammer-driven SHPB test and numerical simulation. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2015;48(5):1867–81.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang T, Bažant ZP, Yang S, Dan Z. Variable-notch one-size test method for fracture energy and process zone length. Eng Fract Mech. 2016;55(3):383–404.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aliha MRM, Ayatollahi MR. Rock fracture toughness study using cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc specimen under pure modes I and II loading—a statistical approach. Theor Appl Fract Mech. 2014;69(2):17–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chong KP, Kuruppu MD. New specimen for fracture toughness determination for rock and other materials. Int J Fract. 1984;26(2):R59–62.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM. Wide range data for crack tip parameters in two disc-type specimens under mixed mode loading. Comput Mater Sci. 2007;38(4):660–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang M, Zhu Z, Dong Y, Zhou L. Study of mixed-mode I/II fractures using single cleavage semicircle compression specimens under impacting loads. Eng Fract Mech. 2017;177:33–44.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang QB, Zhao J. Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness and failure micromechanisms in marble. Eng Fract Mech. 2013;102(2):288–309.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen R, Xia K, Dai F, Lu F, Luo SN. Determination of dynamic fracture parameters using a semi-circular bend technique in split Hopkinson pressure bar testing. Eng Fract Mech. 2009;76(9):1268–76.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou Z, Li X, Liu A, Zou Y. Stress uniformity of split Hopkinson pressure bar under half-sine wave loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2011;48(4):697–701.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W. A split Hopkinson pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress-strain data for rock materials. Exp Mech. 2001;41(1):40–6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Costin LS, Duffy J, Freund LB. Fracture initiation in metals under stress wave loading conditions. West Conshohocken: Astm Special Technical Publication; 1977. p. 301–18.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nasseri MHB, Mohanty B. Fracture toughness anisotropy in granitic rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2008;45(2):167–93.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang R, Chen J, Yang L, Fang S, Liu J. An experimental study of high strain-rate properties of clay under high consolidation stress. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2017;92:46–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Imani M, Nejati HR, Goshtasbi K. Dynamic response and failure mechanism of Brazilian disk specimens at high strain rate. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2017;100:261–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dehghan Banadaki MM, Mohanty B. Numerical simulation of stress wave induced fractures in rock. Int J Impact Eng. 2012;40–41:16–25.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhu Z. Numerical prediction of crater blasting and bench blasting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2009;46(6):1088–96.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang ZL, Konietzky H, Shen RF. Coupled finite element and discrete element method for underground blast in faulted rock masses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2009;29:939–45.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhu ZM, Li Y, Zhou Z, Ran X, Jin X. Dynamic response of defected rock under blasting load. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2011;30(6):1157–67.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu Z, Wang C, Kang JM, Li YX, Wang M. Study on the mechanism of zonal disintegration around an excavation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2014;67(4):88–95.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu R, Zhu Z, Li M, Liu B. Initiation and propagation of mode I crack under blasting. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2017;37(2):392–402.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang X, Zhu Z, Shi Z, Fan Y, Kang J. A method measuring dynamic fracture toughness of rock using VB-SCSC specimens. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2017;37(2):302–11.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang QZ, Feng F, Ni M, Gou XP. Measurement of mode I and mode II rock dynamic fracture toughness with cracked straight through flattened Brazilian disc impacted by split Hopkinson pressure bar. Eng Fract Mech. 2011;78(12):2455–69.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang M, Zhu Z, Hu R. Rock experiments study of crack propagation under I mode and I–II mixed-mode dynamic loading using SCSCC specimens. J Sichuan Univ. 2016;48(2):57–65.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ravi-Chandar K, Knauss WG. An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: IV. On the interaction of stress waves with propagating cracks. Int J Fract. 1984;26(3):189–200.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wei-ping Y. Origin 9.1 science and technology drawing and data analysis. 2015.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou YX, Xia K, Li XB, Li HB, Ma GW, Zhao J. Suggested methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and mode-I fracture toughness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2012;49(1):105–12.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dai F, Xia K, Tang L. Rate dependence of the flexural tensile strength of Laurentian granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2010;47(3):469–75.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou L, Zhu Z, Dong Y, Ying P. Dynamic response of cracks in tunnels under impact loading of medium–low speed. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2017;36(6):1363–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MOE Key Laboratory of Deep Underground Science and Engineering, School of Architecture and EnvironmentSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations