The Effects of Water Saturation on Dynamic Mechanical Properties in Red and Buff Sandstones Having Different Porosities Studied with Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)

Abstract:

Dynamic mechanical behavior of geomaterials has been widely observed in tunneling, oil and gas extraction, and blasting in civil and mining applications. It is important to understand how much energy is necessary to break or fail geomaterials to optimize the design of blasting patterns, oil and gas extractions, demolition, military defense, etc. However, there is little understanding for quantifying the required energy to break geomaterials under dynamic loading. More importantly, as typical geomaterials tend to hydrate, it is necessary to understand how much energy will be needed to break the structures under water saturation. Thus, in this study, we analyzed the consumed energy used to deform geomaterials using a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB), enabling to measure stress and strain responses of geomaterials under dynamic loading condition of high strain rate (10²–10⁴/sec). Two different saturation levels (dry vs. fully saturation) in two sandstone samples having different pore sizes were tested under dynamic loading conditions. Our results demonstrate that dynamic mechanical strength (maximum stress) is greater in the dry geomaterials when compared with the saturated samples, and Young’s modulus (or maximum strain) can be a useful parameter to examine porosity effects between dry and saturated geomaterials on dynamic mechanical properties.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 752-753)
• Pages: 784-789
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.752-753.784
• Online since: April 2015
• Authors: Eun Hye Kim*, Davi Bastos Martins de Oliveira
• Keywords: Dynamic Mechanical Strength, Porosity, Sandstones, Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar, Water Saturation

References

[1] H. Kolsky, An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at very High Rates of Loading, Proceedings of the physical society, Section B, 62 (1949) 676-700.

DOI: 10.1088/0370-1301/62/11/302

[2] J.E. Field, S.M. Walley, W.G. Proud, H.T. Goldrein and C.R. Siviour, Review of experimental techniques for high rate deformation and shock studies, Int. J. Impact Eng. 30 (2004) 725-775.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.03.005

[3] D. Grady, J. Lipkin and L. Costin, Energy and particle size effects in the fragmentation of oil shale with a torsional split hopkinson bar, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1981).

[4] U.S. Lindholm, Some experiments with the split hopkinson pressure bar, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 12 (1964) 317-335.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-5096(64)90028-6

[5] H. Changani, A. Young and E. Kim, Effect of L/D ratio on dynamic response of Aluminum 7076 and the Natural Motoqua Quartzite Sandstone in Saint George, UT using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB), San Francisco, CA, USA, (2013).

[6] M.P. Luong, Direct Tensile And Direct Shear Strengths Of Fontainebleau Sandstone, American Rock Mechanics Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, (1988).

[7] I.N. Lomov, M. Hiltl, O.Y. Vorobiev and L.A. Glenn, Dynamic behavior of berea sandstone for dry and water-saturated conditions, Int. J. Impact Eng. 26 (2001) 465-474.

DOI: 10.1016/s0734-743x(01)00097-5

[8] Y.J. Xie, Q. Fu, K.R. Zheng, Q. Yuan and H. Song, Dynamic mechanical properties of cement and asphalt mortar based on SHPB test, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 217-225.

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.092

[9] T. Saksala and A. Ibrahimbegovic, Anisotropic viscodamage–viscoplastic consistency constitutive model with a parabolic cap for rocks with brittle and ductile behaviour, Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 70 (2014) 460-473.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.05.019

[10] T.F. Wong and P. Baud, The brittle-ductile transition in porous rock: A review, J. Struct. Geology. 44 (2012) 25-53.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jsg.2012.07.010

[11] J.V. Ross and P.D. Lewis, Brittle-ductile transition: semi-brittle behavior, Tectonophysics, 167 (1989) 75-79.

DOI: 10.1016/0040-1951(89)90295-3