Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:629 | Cite as

Complete stress–strain constitutive model considering crack model of brittle rock

  • Handong Liu
  • Liangdong LiEmail author
  • Shunli Zhao
  • Shaohua Hu
Original Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

The microcrack propagation-coalescence mechanism and stress–strain constitutive model of brittle rock is of great significance for prediction of mechanical properties. To establish a more applicable constitutive model of brittle rock, the crack model based on fracture mechanics was introduced. First, based on the crack slip model and maximum circumferential stress theory, a theoretical equation for crack propagation length was established. The microcrack propagation-coalescence mechanism of brittle rock material under loading was studied. On this basis, a macro-coalescence zone model was proposed. Through the relationship between the deformation characteristics of stress–strain curves at different crack growth stages and the behavior of microcracks, a complete stress–strain constitutive model of brittle rock based on the crack model was theoretically deduced. The constitutive model was verified by the results of a coupling hydro-mechanical test of granite carried out after different heat treatment temperatures. The advanced intelligent algorithm, genetic algorithm, was adopted to simulate experimental data. The research results showed that: (1) The derived stress–strain constitutive model of brittle rock is not only high in accuracy of stress–strain simulation, but also can simulate both the axial and circumferential stress–strain curves. Moreover, the dilatancy and crack initiation stresses can be obtained directly. (2) The parameters of the stress–strain constitutive model not only have clear physical meaning, but the mechanisms of rock mechanical properties, such as dilatancy, acoustic emission, and stress fluctuation, can be explained.

Keywords

Brittle rock Crack model Propagation-coalescence mechanism Stress–strain constitutive model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. U1704243).

References

  1. Amann F, Ündül Ö, Kaiser PK (2014) Crack initiation and crack propagation in heterogeneous sulfate-rich clay rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1849–1865Google Scholar
  2. Anderson TL (2017) Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 25–64Google Scholar
  3. Ashby MF, Hallam SD (1986) The failure of brittle solids containing small cracks under compressive stress states. Acta Metall 34:497–510Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson BK (1987) Fracture mechanics of rock. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 71–211Google Scholar
  5. Bobet A, Einstein HH (1998) Fracture coalescence in rock-type materials under uniaxial and biaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:863–888Google Scholar
  6. Brace WF, Bombolakis EG (1963) A note on brittle crack growth in compression. J Geophys Res 68:3709–3713Google Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Jin Y, Chen M, Yi ZC, Zheng XJ (2017) Quantitative evaluation of rock brittleness based on the energy dissipation principle, an application to type II mode crack. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 45:527–536Google Scholar
  8. Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B, Read RS (1998) Identifying crack initiation and propagation thresholds in brittle rock. Can Geotech J 35:222–233Google Scholar
  9. Erdogan F, Sih GC (1963) On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear. J Basic Eng 85:519–527Google Scholar
  10. Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 221:163–198Google Scholar
  11. Hu DW, Zhou H, Shao JF (2013) An anisotropic damage–plasticity model for saturated quasi-brittle materials. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37:1691–1710Google Scholar
  12. Huang YH, Yang SQ, Tian WL (2019) Crack coalescence behavior of sandstone specimen containing two pre-existing flaws under different confining pressures. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 99:118–130Google Scholar
  13. Krajcinovic D, Fonseka GU (1981) The continuous damage theory of brittle materials, part 1: general theory. J Appl Mech 48:809–815Google Scholar
  14. Li S, Lajtai EZ (1998) Modeling the stress–strain diagram for brittle rock loaded in compression. Mech Mater 30:243–251Google Scholar
  15. Li SY, He TM, Yi XC (2010) Introduction to rock fracture mechanics. University of Science and Technology of China Press, Hefei, pp 144–175Google Scholar
  16. Li XZ, Qu XL, Qi CZ, Shao ZS (2019) A unified analytical method calculating brittle rocks deformation induced by crack growth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 113:134–141Google Scholar
  17. Liu HH, Rutqvist J, Berryman JG (2009) On the relationship between stress and elastic strain for porous and fractured rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:289–296Google Scholar
  18. Liu T, Cao P, Lin H (2014) Damage and fracture evolution of hydraulic fracturing in compression-shear rock cracks. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 74:55–63Google Scholar
  19. Liu XS, Tan YL, Ning JG, Lu YW, Gu QH (2018) Mechanical properties and damage constitutive model of coal in coal-rock combined body. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 110:140–150Google Scholar
  20. Lockner D (1993) The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 30:883–899Google Scholar
  21. Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. WH freeman, New York, pp 109–115Google Scholar
  22. Manouchehrian A, Sharifzadeh M, Marji MF, Gholamnejad J (2014) A bonded particle model for analysis of the flaw orientation effect on crack propagation mechanism in brittle materials under compression. Arch Civ Mech Eng 14:40–52Google Scholar
  23. Martin CD (1993) The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground openings. Dissertation, University of ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  24. Matsushima S (1960) On the flow and fracture of igneous rocks and on the deformation and fracture of granite under high confining pressure. Disaster Prev Res Inst Bull 36:20–26Google Scholar
  25. Mavko G, Mukerji T, Dvorkin J (1998) The rock physics handbook: tools for seismic analysis of porous media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–45Google Scholar
  26. Menendez B, David C, Darot M (1999) A study of the crack network in thermally and mechanically cracked granite samples using confocal scanning laser microscopy. Phys Chem Earth Part A 24:627–632Google Scholar
  27. Peng J, Rong G, Cai M, Zhou CB (2015) A model for characterizing crack closure effect of rocks. Eng Geol 189:48–57Google Scholar
  28. Rowe PW (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc R Soc Lond A269:500–527Google Scholar
  29. Seaman L, Curran DR, Shockey DA (1976) Computational models for ductile and brittle fracture. J Appl Phys 47:4814–4826Google Scholar
  30. Swoboda G, Shen XP, Rosas L (1998) Damage model for jointed rock mass and its application to tunnelling. Comput Geotech 22:183–203Google Scholar
  31. Tang CA, Lin P, Wong RHC, Chao KT (2001) Analysis of crack coalescence in rock-like materials containing three flaws-Part II: numerical approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:925–939Google Scholar
  32. Wang ZL, Shi H, Wang JG (2018) Mechanical behavior and damage constitutive model of granite under coupling of temperature and dynamic loading. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51:3045–3059Google Scholar
  33. Wells AA (1963) Application of fracture mechanics at and beyond general yielding. Br Weld J 10:563–570Google Scholar
  34. Wong RHC, Chau KT (1998) Crack coalescence in a rock-like material containing two cracks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:147–164Google Scholar
  35. Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA, Lin P (2001) Analysis of crack coalescence in rock-like materials containing three flaws—part I: experimental approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:909–924Google Scholar
  36. Yang SQ, Huang YH (2017) An experimental study on deformation and failure mechanical behavior of granite containing a single fissure under different confining pressures. Environ Earth Sci 76:364Google Scholar
  37. Yang SQ, JiangYZ XuWY, Chen XQ (2008) Experimental investigation on strength and failure behavior of pre-cracked marble under conventional triaxial compression. Int J Solids Struct 45:4796–4819Google Scholar
  38. Yuan SC, Harrison JP (2006) A review of the state of the art in modeling progressive mechanical breakdown and associated fluid flow in intact heterogeneous rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:1001–1022Google Scholar
  39. Zhou XP (2006) Triaxial compressive behavior of rock with mesoscopic heterogenous behavior: strain energy density factor approach. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 45:46–63Google Scholar
  40. Zhou XP, Zhang YX, Zhu KS (2003) Study on the complete stress-strain relation for mesoscopic heterogenous rock under triaxial compression with moderate or low lateral compressive stress. Chin J Geotech Eng 25:606–610Google Scholar
  41. Zhou XP, Ha QL, Zhang YX, Zhu KS (2004) Analysis of deformation localization and the complete stress–strain relation for brittle rock subjected to dynamic compressive loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:311–319Google Scholar
  42. Zhou XP, Lian YJ, Wong LNY, Berto F (2018) Understanding the fracture behavior of brittle and ductile multi-flawed rocks by uniaxial loading by digital image correlation. Eng Fract Mech 199:438–460Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Handong Liu
    • 1
  • Liangdong Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shunli Zhao
    • 2
  • Shaohua Hu
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Geosciences and EngineeringNorth China University of Water Resources and Electric PowerZhengzhouChina
  2. 2.Yellow River Engineering Consulting Co., LtdZhengzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Safety Science and Emergency ManagementWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations