4.7 Article

Experimental calibration of ISRM suggested fracture toughness measurement techniques in selected brittle rocks

期刊

ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 453-475

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-006-0107-6

关键词

fracture toughness; test methods; rock fragmentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A wide variety of specimen types and methods are employed in fracture toughness measurement of rocks, which result in scattered values for the same rock type. In order to provide some consistency to the values, the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) recommended three suggested methods using core based specimens, the Chevron Bend (CB) test, the Short Rod (SR) test and the Cracked Chevron Notch Brazilian Disc (CCNBD) test. This standardization helped obtain more consistent values but still a variation of 20-30% was observed in the values of fracture toughness obtained with the CB and SR methods. The values obtained with the CCNBD method were found to be consistently lower (30-50%) than those of the other two methods (CB and SR). Many reasons have been offered to explain this deviation. These include size of the specimen, anisotropy of rock, a dimensionless parameter in the fracture toughness calculation equation for the CCNBD test, etc. A comprehensive test program was initiated to identify the cause of these discrepancies between the CB and CCNBD methods. Three brittle rock types were selected for the study and more than 200 tests were conducted to measure the values of fracture toughness. A rigorous statistical analysis was carried out to determine the confidence level and find the significance of the test results. It was found that the CB and CCNBD methods were very comparable provided the correct equation for fracture toughness calculation was used for the CCNBD method and the size of the specimens was selected carefully. The error in the ISRM 1995 formula of fracture toughness for the CCNBD method could be the major factor responsible for the consistently lower values obtained with the method.

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