4.3 Article

Analysis of Energy Properties and Failure Modes of Heat-Treated Granite in Dynamic Splitting Test

Journal

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 235-246

Publisher

AMER SOC TESTING MATERIALS
DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20170098

Keywords

granite; thermal treatment; dynamic splitting; energy dissipation; tensile failure

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51379147, 51579062, 51379106]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dynamic Brazilian disc (or splitting) tests were carried out to study the characteristics of energy dissipation and failure behavior of heat-treated granite under impact loading. Six groups of granite samples were treated at the temperatures of 25 degrees C, 100 degrees C, 300 degrees C, 500 degrees C, 700 degrees C, and 900 degrees C, respectively. Each group of heat-treated samples was tested with three impact velocities of 5.4, 7.7 and 13.7 m/s in a modified split Hopkinson pressure bar. An average change rate of incident energy (ACRIE) was proposed to characterize the loading rate effect. The effects of treatment temperature and ACRIE on the energy dissipation and the failure patterns of samples under impact loading were investigated. The results show that the energy dissipation of the granite decreases with the increase of treatment temperature but increases with the increase of the ACRIE. A rise in treatment temperature or ACRIE may lead to smaller size and greater number of sample fragments. The effect of treatment temperature becomes more obvious as the ACRIE increases. The energy utilization ratio of the granite is generally less than 30 % and has an opposite effect when compared to the loading rate. In addition, the dynamic tensile strength of the samples increases almost linearly with the transmitted wave energy. These studies also indicate that the resistance of rock against tensile failure can be well characterized from the perspective of energy dissipation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available