4.7 Article

Strength degradation of sandstone and granodiorite under uniaxial cyclic loading

Journal

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.09.005

Keywords

Rock fatigue; Cyclic loading; Strength degradation; Fatigue life

Funding

  1. Geomechanics Laboratory, Mining Research Institute of Western Australia (MRIWA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Change in mechanical properties of rocks under static loading has been widely studied and documented. However, the response of rocks to cyclic loads is still a much-debated topic. Fatigue is the phenomenon when rocks under cyclic loading fail at much lower strength as compared to those subjected to the monotonic loading conditions. A few selected cored granodiorite and sandstone specimens have been subjected to uniaxial cyclic compression tests to obtain the unconfined fatigue strength and life. This study seeks to examine the effects of cyclic loading conditions, loading amplitude and applied stress level on the fatigue life of sandstone, as a soft rock, and granodiorite, as a hard rock, under uniaxial compression test. One aim of this study is to determine which of the loading conditions has a stronger effect on rock fatigue response. The fatigue response of hard rocks and soft rocks is also compared. It is shown that the loading amplitude is the most important factor affecting the cyclic response of the tested rocks. The more the loading amplitude, the shorter the fatigue life, and the greater the strength degradation. The granodiorite specimens showed more strength degradation compared to the sandstone specimens when subjected to cyclic loading. It is shown that failure modes of specimens under cyclic loadings are different from those under static loadings. More local cracks were observed under cyclic loadings especially for granodiorite rock specimens. (C) 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available