Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp 2175–2195 | Cite as

Dynamic Mechanical and Fracture Behaviour of Sandstone Under Multiaxial Loads Using a Triaxial Hopkinson Bar

  • K. Liu
  • Q. B. ZhangEmail author
  • G. Wu
  • J. C. Li
  • J. Zhao
Original Paper
  • 652 Downloads

Abstract

Variations in stress conditions of rocks have been observed during blasting for excavation or large-scale seismic events such as an earthquake. A triaxial Hopkinson bar is developed to apply initial pre-stresses achieving various in situ stress conditions, including uniaxial (principal stresses σ1 > σ2 = σ3 = 0), biaxial (σ1 ≥ σ2 > σ3 = 0) and triaxial (σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 ≠ 0) confinements, and then to determine properties of materials under multiaxial pre-stress states at high strain rate. A series of tests was conducted on sandstone specimens to investigate dynamic responses under multiaxial pre-stress states. A high-speed camera at the frame rate of 200,000 fps with a resolution of 256 × 256 pixels was used to capture the fracture characteristics rocks under biaxial compression tests. Experiments show that under the same impact velocity, dynamic properties (e.g. dynamic strength, elastic modulus, fracture modes) of sandstone exhibit confinement dependence. Dynamic strength decreases with increasing axial pre-stress σ1 along the impact direction, while it increases with the increase of lateral pre-stresses σ2 and σ3. The elastic modulus increases with the confinement varying from uniaxial, biaxial to triaxial compression. Rocks are pulverised into powder under uniaxial pre-stress impact, and fragments are ejected from the free face under biaxial compression, while they show slightly damaged or a macroscopic shear fracture under triaxial compression. The 3D imaging of fracture networks in the damaged/fractured specimens was acquired via the X-ray computed tomography system.

Keywords

Triaxial Hopkinson bar Dynamic loading Triaxial compression Strain rate Multiaxial loads 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The triaxial Hopkinson bar and high-speed DAQ system were sponsored by Australian Research Council (LE150100058), and the corresponding author was mainly responsible for its development. We would like to thank Dr. Songlin Xu of University of Science and Technology of China and Mr. Xiaoyong Song of Luoyang Liwei Technology Co., Ltd. for helping us develop the triaxial Hopkinson bar. The costs of specimen preparation and CT scanning were supported by Engineering Seed Funding Scheme at Monash University 2018 and National Nature Science Foundation of China (no. 41525009). The first author acknowledges the financial support from Australian International Postgraduate Research Scholarship and Monash Graduate Scholarship.

References

  1. Ahorner L (1975) Present-day stress field and seismotectonic block movements along major fault zones in Central Europe. Tectonophysics 29:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akers SA, Reed PA, Ehrgott JQ (1986) WES high-pressure uniaxial strain and triaxial shear test equipment. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Structures LaboratoryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al Mahbub A, Haque A (2016) X-ray computed tomography imaging of the microstructure of sand particles subjected to high pressure one-dimensional compression. Materials 9(11):890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albertini C (2013) Physical principles and feasibility study of a 3D-modified Hopkinson bar for the impact testing in compression of rock specimens at EPFL-LMR. First Phase Report of Contract between SUPSI/Dynalab and Ecole Politechnique Federale de Lausanne, Laboratoire de Mecanique des RochesGoogle Scholar
  5. Albertini C, Montagnani M (1994) Study of the true tensile stress–strain diagram of plain concrete with real size aggregate; need for and design of a large Hopkinson bar bundle. J Phys IV 04:C8–C113.  https://doi.org/10.1051/jp4:1994817 Google Scholar
  6. Bailly P, Delvare F, Vial J, Hanus JL, Biessy M, Picart D (2011) Dynamic behavior of an aggregate material at simultaneous high pressure and strain rate: SHPB triaxial tests. Int J Impact Eng 38:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barton N, Shen B (2017) Risk of shear failure and extensional failure around over-stressed excavations in brittle rock. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown E, Hoek E (1978) Trends in relationships between measured in-situ stresses and depth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 4:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadoni E (2010) Dynamic characterization of orthogneiss rock subjected to intermediate and high strain rate in tension. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadoni E, Albertini C (2011) Modified Hopkinson bar technologies applied to the high strain rate rock tests. Advances in rock dynamics and applications. CRC Press, USA, pp 79–104Google Scholar
  11. Cadoni E, Cadoni E, Dotta M, Forni D, Riganti G, Albertini C (2015) First application of the 3D-MHB on dynamic compressive behavior of UHPC. EPJ Web Conf 94:01031.  https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159401031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai M (2008) Influence of intermediate principal stress on rock fracturing and strength near excavation boundaries—insight from numerical modeling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cai M, Kaiser P, Suorineni F, Su K (2007) A study on the dynamic behavior of the Meuse/Haute–Marne argillite. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 32:907–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang C, Haimson B (2000) True triaxial strength and deformability of the German Continental Deep Drilling Program (KTB) deep hole amphibolite. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 105:18999–19013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen W, Ravichandran G (1996a) An experimental technique for imposing dynamic multiaxial-compression with mechanical confinement. Exp Mech 36:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen W, Ravichandran G (1996b) Static and dynamic compressive behavior of aluminum nitride under moderate confinement. J Am Ceram Soc 79:579–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen W, Ravichandran G (1997) Dynamic compressive failure of a glass ceramic under lateral confinement. J Mech Phys Solids 45:1303–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen W, Song B (2010) Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar: design, testing and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen R et al (2016) Dynamic fracture properties of rocks subjected to static pre-load using notched semi-circular bend method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3865–3872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen R, Yao W, Lu F, Xia K (2017) Evaluation of the stress equilibrium condition in axially constrained triaxial SHPB tests. Exp Mech 2017:1–5Google Scholar
  21. Chester FM, Chester JS (2000) Stress and deformation along wavy frictional faults. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 105:23421–23430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Christensen RJ, Swanson SR, Brown WS (1972) Split–Hopkinson-bar tests on rock under confining pressure. Exp Mech 12:508–513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02320747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cnudde V, Boone MN (2013) High-resolution X-ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth Sci Rev 123:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dai F, Huang S, Xia K, Tan Z (2010) Some fundamental issues in dynamic compression and tension tests of rocks using split Hopkinson pressure bar. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:657–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-010-0091-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Descamps F, da Silva MR, Schroeder C, Verbrugge JC, Tshibangu J (2012) Limiting envelopes of a dry porous limestone under true triaxial stress states. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 56:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doan ML, Gary G (2009) Rock pulverization at high strain rate near the San Andreas fault. Nat Geosci 2:709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Du K, Tao M, Li XB, Zhou J (2016) Experimental study of slabbing and rockburst induced by true-triaxial unloading and local dynamic disturbance. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3437–3453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Engelder T, Sbar ML (1984) Near-surface in situ stress: introduction. J Geophys Res 89:9321–9322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farbaniec L, Hogan JD, Xie KY, Shaeffer M, Hemker KJ, Ramesh KT (2017) Damage evolution of hot-pressed boron carbide under confined dynamic compression. Int J Impact Eng 99:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferrarini F, Lavecchia G, de Nardis R, Brozzetti F (2015) Fault geometry and active stress from earthquakes and field geology data analysis: the Colfiorito 1997 and L’Aquila 2009 Cases (Central Italy). Pure Appl Geophys 172:1079–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forquin P, Gary G, Gatuingt F (2008) A testing technique for concrete under confinement at high rates of strain. Int J Impact Eng 35:425–446.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frew D, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2001) A split Hopkinson pressure bar technique to determine compressive stress–strain data for rock materials. Exp Mech 41:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frew DJ, Akers SA, Chen W, Green ML (2010) Development of a dynamic triaxial Kolsky bar. Meas Sci Technol 21:105704.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/21/10/105704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gary G, Bailly P (1998) Behaviour of quasi-brittle material at high strain rate. Experiment and modelling. Eur J Mech A Solids 17:403–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gong J, Malvern L (1990) Passively confined tests of axial dynamic compressive strength of concrete. Exp Mech 30:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Green S, Perkins R (1968) Uniaxial compression tests at varying strain rates on three geologic materials. In: The 10th US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  37. Haimson B (2012) True triaxial testing reveals hitherto unknown rock mechanical properties. True Triaxial Test Rocks 4:159Google Scholar
  38. Hast N (1969) The state of stress in the upper part of the earth’s crust. Tectonophysics 8:169–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. He M, e Sousa LR, Miranda T, Zhu G (2015) Rockburst laboratory tests database—application of data mining techniques. Eng Geol 185:116–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hokka M et al (2016) Effects of strain rate and confining pressure on the compressive behavior of Kuru granite. Int J Impact Eng 91:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hopkinson B (1914) A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high explosives or by the impact of bullets. Proc Camb Philos Soc 213:437–456.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1914.0010 Google Scholar
  42. Huang R, Wang X (1999) Analysis of dynamic disturbance on rock burst. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ingraham M, Issen K, Holcomb D (2013) Response of Castlegate sandstone to true triaxial states of stress. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118:536–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jaeger JC, Cook NG, Zimmerman R (2009) Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Wiley, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Kabir ME, Chen WN (2009) Measurement of specimen dimensions and dynamic pressure in dynamic triaxial experiments. Rev Sci Instrum 80:125111.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3271538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaiser PK, Cai M (2012) Design of rock support system under rockburst condition. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 3:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Karl T, Richart Jr (1952) Stresses in rock about cavities. Geotechnique 3:57–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kawakita M (1981) The dynamic fracture properties of rocks under confining pressure. Mem Fac Eng Hokkaido Univ 15:467–478Google Scholar
  49. Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc 62:676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kolsky H (1953) Stress wave in solids. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Kumar A (1968) The effect of stress rate and temperature on the strength of basalt and granite. Geophysics 33:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kwasniewski M, Takahashi M, Li X (2003) Volume changes in sandstone under true triaxial compression conditions. In: 10th ISRM congress. International Society for Rock MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  53. Kwaśniewski M (2012) Mechanical behavior of rocks under true triaxial compression conditions—a review. True Triaxial Test Rocks 4:99Google Scholar
  54. Lankford J (1976) Dynamic strength of oil shale, vol 16Google Scholar
  55. Lankford J (1994) Utilization of the split Hopkinson pressure bar under hydrostatic confining pressure to characterize the compressive behavior of ceramics and ceramic composites. ASME Appl Mech Div Publ 197:1Google Scholar
  56. Lee FT, Abel JF Jr, Nichols TC Jr (1976) The relation of geology to stress changes caused by underground excavation in crystalline rocks at Idaho Springs, Colorado. US Govt. Print. OffGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee H, Haimson BC (2011) True triaxial strength, deformability, and brittle failure of granodiorite from the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:1199–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Li XB, Lok T, Zhao J (2005) Dynamic characteristics of granite subjected to intermediate loading rate. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Li XB, Zhou ZL, Lok T-S, Hong L, Yin T (2008) Innovative testing technique of rock subjected to coupled static and dynamic loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:739–748.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Li XB, Zhou ZL, Zhao FJ, Zuo YJ, Ma CD, Ye ZY, Hong L (2009) Mechanical properties of rock under coupled static–dynamic loads. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 1:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Li XB et al (2017) Failure mechanism and coupled static–dynamic loading theory in deep hard rock mining: a review. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:767–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lindholm US (2012) Mechanical behavior of materials under dynamic loads: symposium held in San Antonio, Texas, September 6–8, 1967. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. Lindholm US, Yeakley LM, Nagy A (1972) A study of the dynamic strength and fracture properties of rock. Southwest Research Institute, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  64. Lindholm U, Yeakley L, Nagy A (1974) The dynamic strength and fracture properties of dresser basalt. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 5:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liu K, Zhang QB, Zhao J (2018) Dynamic increase factors of rock strength. Rock dynamics: experiments, theories and applications: proceedings of the 3rd international conference on rock dynamics and applications (RocDyn-3). CRC Press, p 169Google Scholar
  66. Malvern LE, Jenkins D (1990) Dynamic testing of laterally confined concrete. DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  67. Malvern LE, Ross C (1986) Dynamic response of concrete and concrete structures. Florida Univ Gainesville, Dept of Engineering Sciences, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  68. Martin B, Kabir ME, Chen WN (2013) Undrained high-pressure and high strain-rate response of dry sand under triaxial loading. Int J Impact Eng 54:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McGarr A, Gay N (1978) State of stress in the earth’s crust. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 6:405–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mogi K (1971) Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J Geophys Res 76:1255–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mudau A, Govender R, Stacey T (2016) A step towards combating rockburst damage by using sacrificial support. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 116:1065–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nemat-Nasser, Isaacs J, Rome J (2000) Triaxial Hopkinson techniques. ASM International, Materials ParkGoogle Scholar
  73. Olsson W (1991) The compressive strength of tuff as a function of strain rate from 10– 6 to 103/s. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Paliwal B, Ramesh KT, McCauley JW, Chen M (2008) Dynamic compressive failure of AlON under controlled planar confinement. J Am Ceram Soc 91:3619–3629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Paterson MS, Wong T-F (2005) Experimental rock deformation: the brittle field, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  76. Perkins R, Green S, Friedman M (1970) Uniaxial stress behavior of porphyritic tonalite at strain rates to 103/s. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 5:527IN5529–5528IN6535Google Scholar
  77. Read R (2004) 20 years of excavation response studies at AECL’s Underground Research Laboratory. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:1251–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rome J, Isaacs J, Nemat-Nasser S (2000) Hopkinson techniques for dynamic triaxial compression tests. Recent Adv Exp Mech.  https://doi.org/10.1361/asmhba0003301 Google Scholar
  79. Schwartzkopff AK, Priest S, Melkoumian N et al (2013) Design and fabrication of a low cost true triaxial cell for testing multiple size specimens[J]. True Triaxial Test Rocks 2013:83–93Google Scholar
  80. Seager J (1964) Pre-mining lateral pressures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 3:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Takahashi M, Koide H (1989) Effect of the intermediate principal stress on strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks at the depth shallower than 2000 m. In: ISRM international symposium. International Society for Rock MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang S, Liu KX (2011) Experimental research on dynamic mechanical properties of PZT ceramic under hydrostatic pressure. Mater Sci Eng A 528:6463–6468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2011.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang L, Yu YL (1992) Study on dynamic characteristic of rocks using triaxial. SHPB Chin J Geotech Eng 14:76–79Google Scholar
  84. Wu BB, Chen R, Xia KW (2015) Dynamic tensile failure of rocks under static pre-tension. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wu BB, Yao W, Xia KW (2016) An experimental study of dynamic tensile failure of rocks subjected to hydrostatic confinement. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3855–3864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Xia KW, Yao W (2015) Dynamic rock tests using split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar system—a review. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7:27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Xia KW, Nasseri M, Mohanty B, Lu F, Chen R, Luo S (2008) Effects of microstructures on dynamic compression of Barre granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Xing HZ, Zhang QB, Braithwaite CH, Pan B, Zhao J (2017) High-speed photography and digital optical measurement techniques in geomaterials: fundamental and applications. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(6):1611–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Xing HZ, Zhang QB, Ruan D, Dehkhoda S, Lu GX, Zhao J (2018a) Full-field measurement and fracture characterisations of rocks under dynamic loads using high-speed three-dimensional digital image correlation. Int J Impact Eng 113:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Xing HZ, Zhang QB, Zhao J (2018b) Stress thresholds of crack development and Poisson’s ratio of rock material at high strain rate. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(3):945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yin ZQ, Li XB, Jin JF, He XQ, Du K (2012) Failure characteristics of high stress rock induced by impact disturbance under confining pressure unloading. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 22:175–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1003-6326(11)61158-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yuan FP, Prakash V, Tullis T (2011) Origin of pulverized rocks during earthquake fault rupture. J Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jb007721 Google Scholar
  93. Zhang QB, Zhao J (2013) Determination of mechanical properties and full-field strain measurements of rock material under dynamic loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:423–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhang QB, Zhao J (2014) A review of dynamic experimental techniques and mechanical behaviour of rock materials. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1411–1478.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0463-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhao J, Cadoni E (2011) Triaxially compressed Hopkinson bar (TriHB) for geomaterial and construction material testing. The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), R’EQUIP Scheme: 206021_128734 http://p3.snf.ch/project-128734
  96. Zhao J, Zhou YX, Hefny AM, Cai JG, Chen SG et al (1999) Rock dynamics research related to cavern development for ammunition storage. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 14:513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhao J, Ranjith PG, Khalili N, Dyskin AV, Liyanapathirana S, Williams DJ, Einav I, Karakus M, Sanjayan JG, Shen L, Ma G, Wu C, Xu C, Scheuermann A, Pasternak E, Leo CJ, Zhao GF, Perera S (2015) Three dimensionally compressed and monitored Hopkinson bar. Australian Research Council (ARC), Linkage Infrastructure, Australian, LE150100058Google Scholar
  98. Zhou ZL, Li XB, Ye ZY, Liu KW (2010) Obtaining constitutive relationship for rate-dependent rock in SHPB tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:697–706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-010-0096-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhou YX, Xia K, Li XB, Li HB, Ma GW, Zhao J et al (2012) Suggested methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and mode-I fracture toughness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 49:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zhou ZL, Li XB, Zou Y et al (2014) Dynamic Brazilian tests of granite under coupled static and dynamic loads. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations