Kayaçların direkt çekme dayanımlarının indirekt çekme dayanımlarından elde edilmesi için alternatif bir yaklaşım

Öz

Son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalar, kayaçların çekme dayanımlarının, üretim yöntemi ve kazı ekipmanı seçimi, patlatma geometrisinin tasarımı, şev stabilitesi ve yeraltı açıklıklarının boyutlandırılması gibi konularda tasarım parametresi olarak etkin bir şekilde kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir. Kaya malzemelerinin çekme dayanımının belirlenmesine yönelik farklı deney yöntemleri kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemler, doğrudan ve dolaylı yöntemler olmak üzere iki farklı şekilde uygulanmaktadır. Farklı araştırmacılar tarafından raporlanan deney sonuçları doğrudan ve dolaylı çekme dayanımı değerleri arasında ve hatta dolaylı yöntemlerle elde edilen çekme dayanımı değerlerinin kendi aralarında oldukça farklılık olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada doğrudan ve yaygın kullanılan dolaylı yöntemlerden Brezilya testi, 3 ve 4 nokta eğilme deneyleri yapılarak, dolaylı yöntemlerden direkt çekme dayanımını tahmin edecek deneysel katsayılar elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu farklılığın nedenini açıklamak için geometrik bir yaklaşım da önerilmiştir. Bu yaklaşıma göre; çekme hasarının oluşması için, numunenin belli bir bölgede aldığı maksimum değerin değil, numunenin çekme gerilmesine maruz kalan hacmindeki ortalama gerilme değerinin etkili olduğu benimsenmiştir. Farklı deney yöntemlerinde farklı boyutlarda numuneler kullanıldığından numunedeki ortalama gerilme, birim hacim başına düşen gerilme şeklinde ifade edilmiş ve her bir dolaylı yöntemdeki ortalama gerilmeyi kolayca hesaplayabilmek için; numunedeki gerilme dağılımını temsil eden ve “karakteristik birim hacim” diye adlandırılan geometrik şekil belirlenmiştir. Bu geometrik şeklin hacmi o deney yöntemi için teorik katsayı olarak önerilmiştir. Karbonat ve mağmatik kökenli kayaçlar için sırasıyla deneysel katsayılar; Brezilya testi için 0.47/0.55, 3 nokta eğilme deneyi (3NED) için 0.29/0.37, 4 nokta eğilme (4NED) deneyi için 0.37/0.43, teorik katsayılar ise; Brezilya testi için 0.5, 3NED deneyi için 0.33, 4NED deneyi için 0.39-0.42 olarak bulunmuştur. Elde edilen deneysel ve teorik katsayıların birbirleri ile uyumlu olduğu görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çekme dayanımı
• Dolaylı çekme dayanımı
• Brezilya testi
• Eğilme dayanımı
• Karakteristik birim hacim

An alternative approach to obtaining the direct tensile strength of the rocks from the indirect tensile strength

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated that the tensile strength of rocks can effectively be used as a design parameter in some subjects such as production method and excavation equipment selection, design of blasting geometry, slope stability, and dimensioning of underground openings. Different testing methods are used for determining the tensile strength of rocks. These methods can be divided into two groups that are direct and indirect methods. According to test results reported by different researchers, the tensile strength of rocks is varying in relation to testing methods. By conducting direct and indirect tests, experimental coefficients which will estimate direct tensile strength from indirect tensile testing methods such as Brazilian, 3-4 point bending tests, are presented in this study. Besides, a geometric approach has been proposed to explain the reason for this difference. This approach claims that it is more important the average stress per unit volume in the tensile zone of the specimen than the maximum stress in the specimen to develop damage. Average stress in the specimen has been expressed as stress per unit volume because each specimen has a different size in different testing methods. To calculate the average stress in a simply way, a geometric shape, which is related to the stress distribution of the specimen and called "characteristic unit volume" has been defined. The volume of the geometric shape has been defined as the theoretical coefficient of the related testing method. For carbonate and igneous rocks, the experimental coefficient was 0.47/0.55 for the Brazilian test, 0.29/0.37 for the 3 point bending test, 0.37/0.43 for the 4 point bending test, respectively. The theoretical coefficient was found to be 0.5 for the Brazilian test, 0.33 for the 3 point bending test, and 0.39-0.42 for the 4 point bending test. Experimental and theoretical coefficients obtained in this study are in accordance with each other.

Keywords

• Tensile strength
• Indirect tensile strength
• Brazilian test
• Flexural strength
• Characteristic unit volume

Kaynakça

1. [1] Perras MA, Diederichs MS. “A review of the tensile strength of rock: Concepts and testing”. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 32(2), 525-546, 2014.
2. [2] Çelik SB, Çobanoğlu İ, Koralay T. “Leeb sertliğinin kaya malzemesinin bazı fiziksel ve mekanik özelliklerinin tahmininde kullanılması”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(8), 1385-1392, 2020.
3. [3] Brace WF. “Brittle fracture of rocks”. Proceedings of the International Conference on State of Stress in the Earth’s Crust, Elsevier, New York, USA, 13-14 June 1963.
4. [4] Hoek E. “Fracture of anisotropic rock”. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 64(10), 501-518, 1964.
5. [5] Colback PSB. “An analysis of brittle fracture initiation and propagation in the brazilian test”. 1st ISRM Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, 25 September–1 October 1966.
6. [6] Ünlü T, Yılmaz Ö. “Kaya malzemelerinin direkt çekme dayanımının belirlenmesi için geliştirilen yeni bir deney düzeneği”. 11. Bölgesel Kaya Mekaniği Sempozyumu, Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye, 7-9 Mayıs 2014.
7. [7] Tufekci K, Demirdag S, Sengun N, Altindag R, Akbay D. “A new design test apparatus for determining direct tensile strength of rocks”. EUROCK 2016 Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering: From the Past to the Future, Cappadocia, Turkey, 29-31 August 2016.
8. [8] Komurlu E, Kesimal A, Durmus AD. “Dog bone shaped specimen testing method to evaluate tensile strength of rock materials”. Geomechanics and Engineering, 12(6), 883-898, 2017.

9. [9] Mellor M, Hawkes I. “Measurement of tensile strength by diametral compression of discs and annuli”. Engineering Geology, 5(3), 173-225, 1971.
10. [10] Lajtai EZ. “Tensile strength and its anisotropy measured by point and line-loading of sandstone”. Engineering Geology, 15(3-4), 163-171, 1980.
11. [11] Pandey P, Singh DP. “Deformation of a rock in different tensile tests”. Engineering Geology, 22(3), 281-292, 1986.
12. [12] Satoh Y. “Position and load of failure in brazilian test; a numerical analysis by griffith criterion”. Journal of the Society of Materials Science, 36(410), 1219-1224, 1987.
13. [13] Newman DA, Bennett DG. “The effect of specimen size and stress rate for the brazilian test-A statistical analysis”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 23(2), 123-134, 1990.
14. [14] Bazant ZP, Kazemi MT, Hasegawa T, Mazars J. “Size effect in brazilian split-cylinder tests. Measurements and fracture analysis”. ACI Materials Journal, 88(3), 325-332, 1991.
15. [15] Andreev GE. “A review of the brazilian test for rock tensile strength determination. part I: Calculation formula”. Mining Science and Technology, 13(3), 445-456, 1991.
16. [16] Yu Y, Meng C. “3-D distribution of tensile stress in rock specimens for the brazilian test”. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials, 12(6), 495-499, 2005.
17. [17] Yu Y, Yin J, Zhong Z. “Shape effects in the brazilian tensile strength test and a 3D FEM correction”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43(4), 623-627, 2006.
18. [18] Yu Y, Zhang J. “A modified brazilian disk tension test”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 46(2), 421-425, 2009.
19. [19] Chen CS, Pan E, Amadei B. “Determination of deformability and tensile strength of anisotropic rock using brazilian tests”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 35(1), 43-61, 1998.
20. [20] Exadaktylos GE, Kaklis KN. “Applications of an explicit solution for the transversely isotropic circular disc compressed diametrically”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38(2), 227-243, 2001.
21. [21] Claesson J, Bohloli B. “Brazilian test: stress field and tensile strength of anisotropic rocks using an analytical solution”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(8), 991-1004, 2002.
22. [22] Cai M, Kaiser PK. “Numerical simulation of the brazilian test and the tensile strength of anisotropic rocks and rocks with preexisting cracks”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(3), 1-6, 2004.
23. [23] Chou YC, Chen CS. “Determining elastic constants of transversely isotropic rocks using brazilian test and iterative procedure”. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 32(3), 219-234, 2008.
24. [24] Tavallali A, Vervoort A. “Effect of layer orientation on the failure of layered sandstone under brazilian test conditions”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47(2), 313-322, 2010a.
25. [25] Tavallali A, Vervoort A. “Failure of layered sandstone under brazilian test conditions: Effect of micro-scale parameters on macro-scale behaviour”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 43(5), 641-653, 2010b.
26. [26] Lavrov A, Vervoort A. “Theoretical treatment of tangential loading effects on the brazilian test stress distribution”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(2), 275-283, 2002.
27. [27] Xu G, Chen F, Xiao JQ. “Influence of load contact condition on rock tensile strength”. Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 25(1), 168-173, 2006.
28. [28] Markides CF, Pazis DN, Kourkoulis SK. “Influence of friction on the stress field of the brazilian tensile test”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 44(1), 113-119, 2011.
29. [29] Dorogoy A, Banks-Sills L. “Effect of crack face contact and friction on brazilian disk specimens-a finite difference solution”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72(18), 2758-2773, 2005.
30. [30] Yu Y. “Questioning the validity of the brazilian test for determining tensile strength of rocks”. Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 24(7), 1150-1157, 2005.
31. [31] Li D, Wong LNY, “The brazilian disc test for rock mechanics applications: review and new insights”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46, 269-287, 2013.
32. [32] Coviello A, Lagioia R, Nova R. “On the measurement of the tensile strength of soft rocks”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 38(4), 251-273, 2005.
33. [33] Razavi SMJ, Aliha MRM, Berto F. “Application of an average strain energy density criterion to obtain the mixed mode fracture load of granite rock tested with the cracked asymmetric four-point bend specimens”. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 97, 419-425, 2018.
34. [34] Yu M, Wei C, Niu L, Li S, Yu Y. “Calculation for tensile strength and fracture toughness of granite with three kinds of grain sizes using three-point-bending test”. Plos One, 13(3), 1-20, 2018.
35. [35] Fan X, Lin H, Cao R. “Bending properties of granite beams with various section-sizes in three-point bending tests”. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 37(1), 1-11, 2019.
36. [36] American Society for Testing and Materials. “Standard Test Method Direct Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens”. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA, ASTM D 2936-08, 2008.
37. [37] American Society for Testing and Materials. “Standard Test Method For Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens”. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA, ASTM D 3967-08, 2008.
38. [38] International Society for Rock Mechanics. The complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974-2006. Editors: Ulusay R and Hudson JA. Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
39. [39] Türk Standartları Enstitüsü. “Doğal Taşlar-Deney Metotları-Yoğun Yük Altında Bükülme Dayanımı Tayini”. Ankara, Türkiye, TS EN 12372, 2007.
40. [40] American Society for Testing and Materials. “Standard Test Method for Modulus of Rupture of Dimension Stone”. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA, ASTM C99/C99M-15, 2015.
41. [41] Türk Standartları Enstitüsü. “Doğal Taşlar-Deney Yöntemleri-Sabit Moment Altında Eğilme Dayanımının Tayini”. Ankara, Türkiye, TS EN 13161, 2014.
42. [42] American Society for Testing and Materials. “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Dimension Stone”. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA, ASTM C880/C880M-15, 2015.
43. [43] Hondros G. “The evaluation of poisson’s ratio and the modulus of materials of a low tensile resistance by the brazilian (indirect tensile) test with particular reference to concrete”. Australian Journal of Applied Science, 10(3), 243-268, 1959.
44. [44] Chen CS, Hsu SC. “Measurement of indirect tensile strength of anisotropic rocks by the ring test”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 34(4), 293-321,2001
45. [45] Zhu WC, Tang CA. “Numerical simulation of brazilian disk rock failure under static and dynamic loading”. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43(2), 236-252, 2006.
46. [46] Jianbing L, Zhancheng X, Yingmei Y, Miao Y, Zhitao Y, “Study on brazilian splitting test of bedding limestone slope deformation failure”. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2(16), 1-8, 2017.
47. [47] Zhang SW, Shou KJ, Xian XF, Zhou JP, Liu GJ. “Fractal characteristics and acoustic emission of anisotropic shale in brazilian tests”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 71, 298-308, 2017.
48. [48] Wang Y, Li C, Hu Y, Mao T. “Brazilian test for tensile failure of anisotropic shale under different strain rates at quasistatic loading”. Energies, 10(9), 1-11, 2017.