4.7 Article

Water saturation effects on dynamic behavior and microstructure damage of sandstone: Phenomena and mechanisms

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105760

关键词

Water saturation; Dynamic behavior; Split Hopkinson pressure bar; Water-rock interaction; Fracture mechanisms

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB060200]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41772313]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan [2015JJ4067]
  4. Graduated Students' Research and Innovation Fund Project of Central South University [2018zzts210]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Underground rock structures are frequently subjected to water erosion and dynamic disturbance simultaneously. Herein, in order to study the coupled effects of water and high strain rate on the mechanical behavior and microstructures of sandstone, we conducted a series of dynamic unconfined compressive tests on oven-dried and water-saturated sandstone core samples using a split Hopkinson pressure bar. Test results revealed that, three macroscopic final patterns, namely unbroken, axial split and pulverization, were observed. At given strain rates, the presence of water weakens the dynamic peak stress and the dissipated energy density (the ratio of energy dissipation to residual axial strain) of rock sample but enhances the elastic modulus regardless of the failure pattern. Additionally, the saturated sample owns a higher rate dependence of dynamic strength compared to the dry one under the explored range of strain rate (43.9-156.7 s(-1)), which indicates that water-weakening on rock strength gradually attenuates with the increase of strain rate. Interestingly, thin sections analysis microscopically showed that the failure of dry samples is characterized by the intra-granular fracturing in larger quartz grains while that of saturated samples by the inter-granular fracturing. The underlying mechanisms were interpreted with two micro-mechanical damage models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据