Int. J. Rock 3,lech..t, lin. Sci. & Geomech+ Abs,'r. Vol. 18. pp. 47 to 62 0020-7624 81 0201-GR)47.$02.

00 0
Pergamon Press Ltd 1981. Printed in Great Britain

Effect of Strain Rates from 10 --+ to 10 s e c '

Triaxial Compression Tests
on Three Rocks
T. L. B L A N T O N *

Room-temperature, compression tests at strain rates from 10- 2 to 10 sec-

hare been run on Charcoal Granodiorite to 0.45 GPa confinimd pressure and
on Berea Sandstone and Indiana Limestone to 0.25 GPa confinin9 pressure.
For each rock at each confinin 9 pressure, the differential stress at fitilure is
rehtticely constant up to a strain rate of 1 sec - I and apparently increases
abruptly aboce this strain rate. Dynamic analysis of the testinq apparatus
indicates that the apparent sudden increase in strenyth is due to machine
inertia and does not reflect a real increase in the strength of the rocks.
Takin 9 inertia into account, the actual failure stresses oJ'the three rocks are
relaticely independent of strain rate between 10-2 and 10 sec t. ht the same
interval, the strains ctt which the unconfined rocks beyin to j}'agment tend to
be lower at higher strain rates. The combination of decreasin 9 strains and
relatit'ely constant stresses with increasing strain rate suggests that the
energy necessary to fi'agment the unconfined rocks is lower at hi#her strain
rates.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to investigate the mechan-
ical behavior of three rocks deformed at strain rates
intermediate to those achieved in conventional static
and dynamic tests. This involves a relatively narrow
range of strain rates from 10-t to 10sec-~, but these
strain rates are important because the strength of rock
has been reported to increase rather abruptly with
increasing strain rate across this interval. Inertial forces
play an important role at these strain rates, and the
findings of this study suggest that inertia in the testing
apparatus can account for apparent increases in
strength similar to those reported.
Interest in the behavior of rocks deformed at these
strain rates stems mainly from engineering problems in
rock excavation. Two concerns of the engineer are time
involved and energy consumed in fragmenting the rock.
Suppose, for example, that the technique is drilling. If
the fracture stress of the rock increases at higher strain
rates, then drilling techniques involving higher strain
rates will consume more energy in removing a given
amount of rock. The additional energy requirements at
the higher rates may not be offset by the time saved. If,
on the other hand, the rock becomes more brittle at
higher strain rates, so that the strain before fragmenta-
* Science Applications Inc.. P.O. Box 8800010. Steamboat Springs,
CO 80488, U.S.A.
47
tion of the rock is lower, then with higher strain rate
techniques the energy required to remove a given
amount of rock may be lower. If so, these drilling tech-
niques would be advantageous with respect to a savings
of both energy and time.
PREVIOUS WORK
The problem of achieving these intermediate strain
rates in the laboratory is formidable, and as a result,
information on the behavior of rocks in this range is
sparse. Screw-driven and hydraulic devices used in con-
ventional static tests commonly operate at strain rates
less than I0 - t sec - t , whereas the impact techniques
used in dynamic tests usually produce strain rates
greater than 10sec - t . Table 1 summarizes papers
which give rock strengths for strain rates between 10- t
and 10 sec-i.
The usual method of predicting rock properties at
intermediate strain rates is by interpolating between
static and dynamic tests [3,4,5,6,8,9, 12, 15, 16]. On the
low side of the intermediate range, the effect of changes
in strain rate is not dramatic. The strength is either
constant or slightly increasing with increasing strain
rate. The results of three studies suggest that this trend
continues at higher strain rates. Shockey et al. [15]
report a constant tensile strength for the Arkansas
Novaculite between strain rates of 10-* and 10"~sec-i.
48 T . L . Blanton

~.= = =~ = = "~ :_,=

-=.~ =_ ==:: =: & ..1= .=;

~=
0

<

888 88888 88 88 888 88 888 :o =

<

z_
<

U
~ ~" ~" ,'~,~ _22 s°
~'~'~ ~ I ' °
~ ° ~ ~ =

L~

< .e

m
~×~ __ : T, o __+, ~
~.=~;~
o~,o
xx .~ ~ ~ x o_ x x
--oo~oo-_
V T . ~ -xx~
oo
T.
~--
-~ x

~-'o x -- --~ ¢-4 ---- ~ x

z -
x ~ :~--- c: x ,=
=_=_~
- ~,,

i
.JP.~ P. "=~ =_ .- _
~4
b"
M

<

?. -- ._= ~_
:n

<

.-= ~ -~ -~ =
~ ~ o = ._= ~ o
E~ L~ v v _~ ~ ~_ #.
 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 49

08 vWESTERLY GRANITE,~ N ar'~ HANDIN[iO]

x WESTERLY ~ I T E , GREENond PERKINSF4] •
+ VOLCANIC TuFF. GREEN ond PERKINS[4] 4 •
0 SOLENHOFEN LIMESTONE, GREEN ond PERKINS [ ] /
• PORPHYRITIC TONALITE, PERKINS et ol El2]
07 [] GRANITE, KUMARC8]
BASALT, KUMAR E8]
06~ •& BASALT, STOWE ond AINSWORTH D6]
DRESSER BASALT, LINDHOLM • ~
et ol. [9]

o.,
0.3

j@
i
0.2

Oi L "--F +-- --+"

, , . , , . , , ,

-6 -@ -4 -3 -2 -t 0 2 3 4

LOG STRAIN RATE

Fig. 1. Uniaxhtl c o m p r e s s i o n tests f r o m earlier studies s h o w i n g different s t r a m - r a t e sensitivities of c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h

The Dresser Basalt studied by Lindholm et al. [9] and appears to be some tendency for increasing strength
a volcanic tuff tested by' Green & Perkins [4] show a with increasing deformation rate, but what seems to be
constant rate of increase in compressive strength with more characteristic of these tests are the fluctuations in
increasing log strain rate over a range of strain rates strem, th at the hi~her rates.
from t 0 - * to 103 sec - t (Fig. 1). If this were the case in To summarize, three different types of beha~ ior have
general, there would be little reason for expending been observed with increasing rate of deformation: (1)
effort on tests at intermediate strain rates, but other either a constant strength or a constant rate of increase
studies [4,6,8, 12, 16] show a significant change in this in strength, (2) a sudden increase in strength above a
trend at higher strain rates (Figs 1 and 2). Somewhere certain rate, and (3) apparent fluctuations in strength
between 10-~ and 103 s e c - L depending on the study, above a certain rate.
the compressive strength begins to increase more I- 3O
(.o
rapidly with increasing strain rate. hi
l'--
In anticipation of the results to follow, some previous
work by Mellor & Hawkes Fll] (Fig. 3) and Price & S~
Knill [13] (Fig. 41 is presented here. Because these g

investigators have plotted loading and displacement

~ ,o
rates, respectively, their tests cannot be directly com- BEREA SAN DSTON % _ _ o~....o.~l
pared to others in terms of exact strain rates. Neverthe- • --0-- 0
(3.
less, some relative comparisons can be made. There
i0-5 i0 -4 10-3 i0"2 iO-~
07"F

06-
! /rl I IWAKI SANDSTONE
NOMINAL HEAD SPEED (cm/s)

Fig. 3. Experimental variation of apparent Brazil-test strength with

2 TAKO SANDSTONE displacement rate by MeiIor & Hawkes [1 l].
n
(D 05-
I 3 CEMENT MORTAR
4 KIMACHI SANDSTONE
[ f IO
3: 5 0 G I N O TUFF
Z 6 EMOCHI ANDESITE
7 TOHOKU MARBLE
2¢
8 AKIYOSHI MARBLE Z LIMESTONE I I f
w
9 IZUMI SANDSTONE rr
I0 INADA GRANITE
ISHIKOSHI ANDESITE
¢t3 J 'T'
:S' taJ
J
8 Z
w
. . . . . . . ;'1, i- i i i i
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -I o I 2 I01 I0 2 103 I0 4
LOG STRA;N RATE ( s " ) RATE OF LOADING IN/s)
Fig. 2, E x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a t i o n of c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h with s t r a i n - Fig. 4. E x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a t i o n of tensile s t r e n g t h with l o a d i n g rate
rate f r o m K o b a ~ a s k i [6]. f r o m ring tests by Price & Knill [ t 3 ] .

R.M?,1S. 15 I--D
50 T.L. Blanton

EXPERIMENTS ram acts together with the dampening cylinder to give a

Apparatus
The apparatus (Fig. 5) is the same as that described
by Logan & Handin [10]. Its design and operation are
discussed in detail in that paper, but three features are
of particular interest in the analysis of the results of the
present paper.
The first is the loading ram which provides the inter-
mediate strain-rate capability. The ram is activated by
dumping gas pressure from the lower side the the load-
ing cylinder through a quick-acting valve. Helium is
used because its low density and viscosity give the rapid
flow necessary to achieve the high loading rates. The
constant loading rate as measured by the external force
gage.
Also of concern is the aluminum yoke which couples
the loading and compensating pistons. This yoke car-
ries the load exerted by the confining pressure on the
two pistons so that the ram is not needed to support
the force of the confining pressure on the loading pis-
ton. When the ram loads the specimen, the yoke is free
to move, and the compensating piston moves out of the
vessel as the loading piston moves into the vessel. This
maintains a constant volume in: the vessel and hence a
constant confining pressure. The mass of the yoke and
the pistons is 74 kg. In unconfined tests only an upper

~-~",-C)A MPE R CYL1NOER

_PILGRIM NUT

~
~QUICK - ACTING VALVE
PILGRIM

J TOP PLATEN

"-~ EXTERNAL FORCE

GAGE

DISPLACEMENT ] j- COLUMN
TRANSDUCER

LOADING ~ T I E ROD
i] INTERNAL
SPECIMEN . _ If'I-F°RcE °AGE
PRESSURE vESSEL
PRESSURE COMPENSATING
PISTON

BOTTOM PLATEN
-/

Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of intermediate strain-rate apparatus. For scale, bottom platen is 15 cm thick (after Logan &
Handin [lb]).
 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 51

platen and upper piston are engaged and moving. The
mass of these two pieces is 2 !, kg.
The third feature of interest is the controlled-clear-
ance packing. The pressure in this system is controlled
independently so that it can be adjusted to provide a
minimum friction between the packing gland and the
piston. This frictional force is measured before each
te.~t. In building up the confining pressure, the specimen
is lifted off its seat 1-2 mm. Before the test, a regulating
valve on the loading ram is used slowly to reseat the
specimen. The force measured during this free travel is
the frictional force on the pistons. For confining press-
ures below about 0.1 GPa, this force is too small to be
measured by the force gage. For confining pressures of
0.25 and 0.45 G P a the frictional forces are not greater
than 0.02 and 0.03 MN, respectively.
Rocks
The three rock types investigated are part of a stan-
dard rock suite for rapid excavation selected by the
Bureau of Mines [-7] (Table 2). These rocks represent
three major categories of failure processes: brittle frac-
ture, cataclasis, and intracrystalline gliding*. The Char-
coal Granodiorite is typical of crystalline, igneous rocks
that have been shown to fail by brittle fracture at least
to 0 . 5 G P a confining pressure and 500~C [2]. The
Berea Sandstone is representative of clastic rocks that
can deform by cataclastic flow. The Indiana Limestone
represents carbonate sedimentary rocks that can
deform by intracrystalline gliding as well as cataclasis.
A "dogbone' specimen-configuration was used to
achieve more homogenous end conditions. In prelimi-
nary tests with straight cylinders, the deformation
tended to be concentrated at the ends. The 'dogbone'
geometry produced more consistent results with defor-
mation occurring away from the ends. For the Berea
Sandstone and Indiana Limestone this shape was pro-
duced by grinding the rocks with an 80 grit wheel while
* A fourth category, recrystallization flow, does not occur at the
test conditions of this study.
they were turned in a lathe. Because of the difficulty of
grinding the Charcoal Granodiorite, a different
method had to be used. Epoxy fillets were formed by
setting the ends of the specimen in epoxy and then
grinding them to the "dogbone" shape. The ends of each
specimen were surface-ground and lapped with 400-grit
silicon-carbide powder within 0.075 of parallel.
Measurements
During each test, force and displacement were
measured externally to the pressure vessel (see Fig. 5t.
Records were made on two storage oscilloscopes, one
plotting force versus displacement and the other plot-
ting force and displacement versus time.
The material property most frequently measured in
previous work is "strength'. In most of these studies the
specimens were unconfined, and the rocks failed by
brittle fracture. Thus, there was little problem with the
definition of strength. Because of the variety of behav-
ior encountered in this study, however, it is necessary to
define more precisely just what is measured in the dif-
ferent tests.
The phenomenon of concern is macroscopic failure,
which is taken to mean the onset of permanent defor-
mation on the scale of the specimen. This cannot be
exactly determined from the records, so that a practical
criterion must be decided upon for each type of result.
The following definitions are used: (li For specimens
that fail by brittle fracture (total loss of load bearing
capacity) or that work-soften after reaching a maximum
load, the failure point is taken at the highest toad
achieved during the test (Figs 6 and 7, all tests except
119, 141, and 147). (21 For those tests in which the
stress-strain curve has a well-defined 'knee', the failure
point is taken at the mid-point of the knee (Fig. 7, test
147). (3) In tests on the Indiana Limestone at 0.05 and
0.25 G P a confining pressure, no well-defined break
occurs in the stress-strain curves. For the purpose of
comparing "failure stresses' among tests on this rock.
the failure point is taken at a strain of 0.01 (Fig. 7, tests
119 and 141).

TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIONAND PROPERTIES OF THREE ROCKS USED IN THIS STUDY.*

Dynamic
Young's Compressive
Porosity Density modulus strength
Rock Composition (percent) Texture (percent) gcm 3 iGPa) IGPal

Charcoal tSt. Cloud Quartz 16.7 medium-grained 0.08 + 0.05 2.72 -_ 0.003 48.4 + 4.9 0.282 z 0.006
Grayl Granodiorite Microcline 20.0 crystalline
Plagioclase 40.8
Biotite-Chlorite 9.5
Hornblende 11.7
Magnetite 1.2
Rutile-appatite 0.1
Berea Sandstone Quartz 77.5 medium-grained 19.1 _+ 0.5 2.ll _* 0.01 8.5 _* 0.S 0.046 _- 0.004
Feldspar 16.0 elastic
Kaolinite 5.0
Muscovite 0.5
Carbonates 0.5
Indiana ISalem) Fossilferous calcite 69.0 medium-grained 12.5 _+_0.6 2.34 -' 0.005 37,9 z 0.8 0.044 _- 0.009
Limestone Calcite cement 31.0 bioclastic

* Data from Bureau of Mines report, "A standard rock suite for rapid excavation research' IKrech et aL [7]).
52 T. L. Blanton

02
15 INI~ANA LIMESTONE 0 2~C4:~3
-- CHARCOAL~ I T E I- F~.ILUREPOINT - ~
+ FAILURE POINT /+90 0 0'3r..Pa
/ 0.45 GF~
/.~ -I.76s-I
b O;

n,.
I.,.-
,c
/ //d GPo -zoe,-, L ~ ~ 4s'1

o3 '~=~" PC - 0 GPa
"6 Log e - - I . 5 9 s-'
o_
.J
9 2 3
< /~+44 b

,.F' o:
/ J/O05 GF~
-tgos-, BEREA SANDSTONE
+.A, LU.E O,.T
It. t-
~ - TEST NUMtBER 65 03 .-+ -L:~s"
f Pc-O G ~ O2
Log ql= -I.85 s-a
I * • i 1 l i . i i i i I i I
2 3 z
AXIAL STRAIN (xlO'Zl laJ
LI.
t~ QJ
Fig. 6. Representative stress-strain curves for Charcoal Granodiorite. Q

I/ resr~ 6o
Two measurements, strain and apparent differential 11/+ Pc • 0 C.~_o
stress, were calculated at the failure point of each test. V Log 1~"-1.45 S-'

The strain is not a total axial strain in that it does not I

2 3

include the shortening of the specimen due to appli- AXIAL STRAIN (xlO "z }
cation of confining pressure alone. The differential Fig. 7. Representative stress-strain curves for Indiana Limestone and
stress is referred to as 'apparent' because, as will be seen Berea Sandstone.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS ON CHARCOAL GRANODIORITE

Apparent
differential
Confining Log average Strain at stress at
Test pressure strain rate failure failure
No. (GPa + 0.0005) Isec-t) I x 10-") GPa)

+0,03 +0.03 +0.007

65 0 - 1.85 0.50 0,276
64 0 - 1.77 0.53 0.286
78 0 - 1.20 0.47 0.286
127 0 -0.71 0,53 0.296
132 0 -0.07 0.59 0.296
58 0 0.31 0.45 0,317
66 0 0,34 0.32 0,368
59 0 0.36 0.53 0.348
80 0 0.44 0.37 0,409
_+0.02 +0,04 +0.01
44 0.05 - 1.90 1.09 0,59
17 0.05 - 1.88 1.10 0.56
135 0.05 - 1.23 1.18 0.55
126 0.05 - 0.65 1,22 0.56
I0 0.05 -0.02 1.05 0.59
20 0.05 0.41 l. 18 0.56
21 0.05 0.46 1.26 0.67
22 0.05 0.54 1.33 0.84
48 0.05 0.56 1.11 0.84
+0.02 +0.06 +0.02
148 0.25 -2.12 2.13 1.02
47 0.25 - 2.06 2.16 1.08
134 0.25 - 1.44 2.05 t .02
125 0.25 - 0,45 2.26 1.00
131 0.25 0.18 2,02 I r00
186 0.25 0.57 2.26 1.08
130 0.25 0.71 2.03 1 27
m 0.02 +_0.07 + 0.02
16 0.45 - 1.80 2.46 1 27
90 0.45 - 1,76 2.77 1.31
123 0.45 - 1,09 2.63 1.25
124 0.45 0.47 2.70 1.25
171 0.45 0.19 2.78 1.35
128 0.45 0.52 2.70 1.27
82 0.45 0.78 2.77 1.37
 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 53

in later discussion, the axial force used to calculate this
stress may contain inertial and dampening forces. The
axial force does not contain the load due to confining
pressure because this pressure is supported by the yoke.
The strain rate given for each test is an average value.
See Appendix A for formulae used.
RESULTS
Room-temperature compression tests at strain rates
from 10 -2 to 10 sec-~ were run on Charcoal Grano-
diorite to 0.45 GPa confining pressure and on Berea
Sandstone and Indiana Limestone to 0.25 GPa confin-
ing pressure. The results are presented in Tables 3-5
and Figs 8-10. For each rock at each confining press-
ure, the apparent differential stress at failure is rela-
tively constant up to a strain rate of about 1 sec- t and
increases rapidly above this strain rate. The stresses for
the unconfined tests at the slowest strain rates in this
study fall within the margin of error of the compressive
strengths given by the Bureau of Mines [7] (Table 2).
The strains at failure are relatively insensitive to
changes in strain rate except for the unconfined tests
where they begin to decrease above a strain rate of
about 1 sec- t.
An additional observation made for each test is the
mode of failure. The Charcoal Granodiorite is brittle
under all test conditions (Fig. 6). With increasing con-
fining pressure the Berea Sandstone and the Indiana
Limestone pass from brittle to ductile behavior in three
stages: (1) brittle fracture where the specimen looses
cohesion (Fig. 7, tests 60 and 63), (2) shear fracture or
faulting where most of the shortening occurs as dis-
placement on a shear fracture without loss of cohesion
(Fig. 7, tests 45 and 95; Fig. 11, tests 42, 45. 99, 104,
106), and (3) ductile behavior where there is no loss of
cohesion and deformation is pervasive (Fig. 7. tests 119,
141, 147; Fig. 11, tests 91, 101, 108). With increasing
strain rate the Berea Sandstone and Indiana Limestone
become more brittle. At a strain rate of
2.5 x 10-" sec-t (log strain rate of - 1 . 6 s e e - I ) the
Berea Sandstone enters the third stage of the transition

TABLE 4. SUMMARYOF EXPERIMENTSON BEREA SANDSTONE

Apparent
differential
Confining Log average Strain at stress at
Test pressure strain rate failure stress at
No. (GPa _+ 0.0005} {sec -1} ( x 10 -2 } {GPa}

+ 0.03 + 0.02 __+0,004

60 0 - 1.45 0.46 0,047
61 0 - 1.43 0.52 0,047
77 0 -0.78 0.45 0,053
76 0 -0.19 0.43 0,065
72 0 0.28 0.32 0,077
70 0 0.30 0.37 0,083
56 0 0.37 0.40 0.107
57 0 0.37 0.44 0,112
69 0 0.44* 0.18 0,095
68 0 0.47 0.28 0.118
_+0.02 _+0.05 +_0.004
45 0.05 - 1.62 1.32 0. I89
29 0.05 - 1.60 1.25 0.184
138 0.05 -0.95 1.23 0.184
152 0.05 - 0.34 1.25 0.184
162 0.05 0.12 1.25 0.225
42 0.05 0.52 1.32 0.255
43 0.05 0.58 1.31 0.260
27 0.05 0.74 1.20 0.308
__+0.02 +0.06 ±0.005
93 0.0625 - 1.60 1.46 0.201
92 0.0750t - 1.59 1.51 0.213
108 0.0875t - 1.64 1.68 0.237
91 0.10t - 1.61 1.82 0.249
149 0.0875 - 0.'40 1.54 0.231
151 0.1000"~ -0.35 1.66 0.249
169 0.0625 0.60 1.66 0.337
106 " 0.0750 0.58 1.52 0.326
103 0.0875 0.62 1.65 0.332
104 0.0875 0.64 1.84 0.332
I01 0.1000t 0.52 1.66 0.343
146 0.25t - 1.74 1.44 0.237
147 0.25t - 1.33 1.40 0.225
137 0.25t - 1.02 1.31 0.219
150 0.25t -0.36 1.41 0.123
163 0.25t 0.42 1.56 0.266
164 0.25t 0.58 1.30 0.320

* __+0.05.
t Cataclastic flow, otherwise specimen contains shear fracture.
54 T. L. Blanton

at a confining pressure of about 75 MPm whereas at a
strain rate of 4.0 sec- t (log strain rate of 0.6 sec- t) it
enters this stage at about I00 M P a (Fig. 11). The tran-
sition in the Indiana Limestone occurs at a lower con-
fining pressure and is not quite as sensitive to changes
in strain rate. It shifts from a confining pressure of
15 M P a at a strain rate of 2.5 x 10--' sec -~ (log strain
rate of - 1.6 sec- 1) to 25 MPa at 3.2 sec- t (log strain
rate of 0.5 s e c - t, see Table 51.
ANALYSIS
Model
Stresses and strain rates reported for an experiment
are not usually measured directly within the specimen
but are calculated from iorce and displacement
measurements made some distance from the specimen.
At high strain rates the calculated value for stress con-
tains inertial forces related to the loading frame and
piston as well as the load carried by the specimen. The
following analysis is undertaken to separate the inertial
effects from the specimen response.
A mechanical model of the test system is shown in
Fig. 12. The force. F(t). and the displacement, u(t), are
shown adjacent to one another as they would be
measured in a test (compare to Fig. 5). The mass of the
yoke and piston assembly is represented by the box
marked m. The springs marked k,. and k, represent the
elastic response of machine and specimen, respectively.
A general dampening of the system is indicated by the

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS ON INDIANA LIMESTONE

Apparent
differential
Confining Log average Strain at stress at
Test pressure strain rate failure failure
No. I G P a _ 0.0005) ~sec -~) ~x I0--') ,GPa)

4-0.04 ___0.02 +0.004

63 0 - 1.59 0.33 0.059
62 0 - 1.54 0.34 0.053
[39 0 - 0.91 0.36 0.053
73 0 -0.26 0.35 0.059
74 0 -0.11 0.39 0.059
71 0 0.16 0.25 0.071
52 0 0.19 0.25 0.083
53 0 0.19 0.25 0.101
54 0 0.24 0.28 0.089
67 0 0.24 0.22 0.130
79* 0 - 0.97 0.36 0.059
75* 0 - 0.25 0.50 0.083
161 * 0 - 0.09~ 0.24** 0.065
55* 0 0.05 0.25 0.142
x 0.05 ___0.05 _4-0.004
97 0.005 - 1.57 0.47 0.071
118 0.005 - 1.27 0.48 0.065
95 0.010 - 1.54 0.48 0.065
112 0.015+ - t.66 0.46 0.077
94 0.020+ - 1.58 0.55 0.083
155 0.020 - 0.39 0.61 0.095
156 0.025t - 0.34 0.78 0.101
117 0.005 0.294 0.34 0.160
116 0.015 0.46.[ 0.38 0.148
115 0.020 0.49 0.62 0.166
170 0.025+ 0.52 0.76 0.178
4-0.04 ___0.05 _+0.04
141 0.05t - 1.42 1.02 0.101
142 0.05t - 1.42 t.02 0.107
140 0.05t -- 0.83 1.03 0.095
154 0.0St - 0.24 1.04 0.101
t60 0.05 + 0.28 1.05 0.136
166 0.05t 0.50 1.04 0.201
__.0.03 + 0.05 4-0.004
143 0.25t - 1.29 1.06 0.107
119 0.25t - 1.24 1.03 0.107
146 0.25t -0.82 1.05 0.107
153 0.25 ÷ -0.28 1.03 0,124
157 0.25t 0.29 1.06 O,136
165 0.25 0.50 1.04 0.207

* With yoke.
÷ Ductile. otherwise specimen contains shear fracture.
$ +0.05.
,~ +0.07.
z0.06.
~f 4-0.10.
 t r~t .rm~4; its. Strain-R:,tc Tests on Three Rocks
............... ¢,';
- -

=0 25 3 ms
.-: :: $ - : . ".: 2L

L +

~. -.2 2
T
2_
-7. :- : ": s 2 o o~ c : : L5
7
c
2

_2
$5 : _~ & S

~,~ i Pc: 0 0 5 GPs D

D 2L +
- .? ;? b-,'

O 05 ~ z
-q 025 c
045 a Z
~T. F
-2 0 -2 3 I
E,q
LOG AVER&GE STRAm~ ~,'.TE i I i

o 9 e {s -~} -2 -I 0
Z
~-I~ " Str.iI:]-l-4::2 d e D C n d c . r l c e O[ : t p p 4 r C I i [ d i f f e r e n t i a ~,trc,,, und
. ' r . u r - Jz f m l u r e h)r C h a r c o a l O r a n o d J o r l t e .
m 02~ Pc:OGPa
< [
L
,04- ~c-~,-'~ }='c 3~ L
/_ } :,7.2 o o~"
7
o <
303 ~ v
I_ 5 i ~ i - i
<_- -
@
z 2 LOS A'~ERLC--E S T - % L : h ~L~E :l; e s~
z -
8
8
Fig. !0 S t r a i n - r 4 t ¢ depc[',dcn:e ,,t :~[',!'uwcn: di:L_'rcntiu! -,tress x : ' d
~a - 5 ,2 : o ~ str~i[~ at f a i l u r e f>r h>.iiur, a h m ] o s : o n c .

z- z
dashpot marked ~. It si~euid bc pointed out that this
t+ dashpot does not correspond to ti~e dampening
cylinder on the apparatus !Fig. 51. Tius dampening
2 0 -2 0
cylinder is part of the system producing the input, hit).
_ $ 3 A',/ER,L3E ST'R.&% n ~ - E og e s-'
and not part o[ th,- s~,stem R~ be modeled. Other
b,.~ ~i S t r ' P . i n - r x t e dependence of 4pparem differentLd stress and models were considered and ~;ill be disc-,ssed after first
s [ r [HI LIE [4i[llI'C FOr B e r c a Sandstone developing the characteristics of the chosen model.

42 99 106 104 I01

50 62 5 75 87.5 ........ ~ t00

Pc (MPa)

l-ig [I Efibct o f s t r a i n ra:e o n the b r i ' t l e - d u c t i l e t r a n s i t i o n in Bere:~ $ a n d s t " n c

56 T . L . Blanton

where

2m
2
'~ I ]u(r) n z =_ t
m 2 In I

Some examples of uitl t\~r different loading rates are

/11/-7//
Fig. I-." Mcch0.ntcal model
An equation of motion ~s developed by considering
the dynamics of the system. The driving force. Fit),
must be balanced by the sum of the forces From the
~arious components of the system According to New°
ton's Second Law. the mass. m. exerts an inertial force
equal to m d 2 u : d t 2 The dampening force is taken as
Newtonian viscosity, which is equal to c d u / d t , where c
is the dampening constant. The two elastic memocrs
exert a force according to Hooke's Law. This is equal
to ku, where k is the effective stiffness for elastic
members in series given by k = k,,k~:(k,, - kO. Adding
these terms gives the following equation of m o u o n :
shown in Fi¢. 13. The oscillations are due to the inertial
term. which has the following form:
dZu r
m~ = ~ exp ( - a t l sin bt. ,3)
//
of the apparatua.
At slow rates and long times this term is small, the
oscillations are dampened out. and linear behavior
dominates the form of t~{tt. At high rates and short
times the amplitude of the oscillations becomes lareer
reflecting the increased influence of the inertial term.
To calculate the stress al some time during a test. one
would ordinarily divide the force measured by. the force
gage by the area of the specimen, as follows:
(L, = F i l l ,4 *J,I
Stress calculated in this way u, ill be referred ~o as
apparent stress. A more realistic value for stress on the
specimen can be obtained by subtracting the inertial
term from Fit). as follows:

d" d )uit). (t)

F ( t ) = I~ ,n ~ _ - C d t + k" a = F ( t t - m dt~J .4 ~5~

NOW the motion of the system can be found for a The difference between a~ and ~ will depend on ho,a
given force function. As mentioned in the apparatus big the inertial term is relative to the force being
section, the loading rate is constant during a test. so the measured.
force function is taken as To compare ~ and a. equation (5) is solved for F(ti.
and the resulting expression is substituted into equation
F(t) = rt
(4). This gives ~, as a function of cr~ as follows
where r is the loadin~ rate. With initial conditions for a
system at rest, a,=la r- ~exp(-at)sin _ t6)
.3

du[ = d-'u = 0. For slow tests where r is large, the exponential term
u(0) = "~--/L = ° d t 2 ,=0
approaches zero and so a, --- a. In this case the error
The Laplace transform method can be used to obtain due to inertia would be negligible. For the higher rate
the following solution to equation (1) (see Appendix BI), tests, t becomes smaller, and or, would oscillate about
according to equation (6). More important, for times
where 0 < t < ~/b, a, increases monotonically above ~.
u(t)= ~ t- 1-exp(-at) cosbt
\
In this case the apparent stress could greatly overesti-
mate the true stress on the specimen.
The question now is how would the inertial term
"- 2a/~ sin bt (2)
affect a plot of apparent stress at failure versus log

~ !004I
S M/ N/66'sMN~
3 r =I2.4MN/s
~ ~ . -
13MN/s
oo
u

u3 , . . . i i , , i i , , , , J L
~ 1o ~5 zo a5
TIME f (rm)

Fig. 13. Theoretical displacement-time curves for different loading rates.

 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 57

strain rate. To answer this question, a stress-strain re-
lation for the model is derived so that strains and strain
rates can be calculated. Then some type of rate depen-
dency for failure is specified.
The derivation of a stress-strain relation is given in
Appendix B2a. What is done is to take equation (5) as
the stress on the specimen and find a simultaneous dis-
placement from equation (2). This displacement must
be separated into a displacement for the machine and a
displacement for the specimen. The displacement for
the specimen is used to calculate a strain, e. This gives
the following constituitive relation:
L k, 1+ e (7)
0"= A
where
L - specimen length
p - t - 1 - exp ( - at) cos bt +
This procedure yields expressions for vo. e and 6 as
functions of time, but this is not just any time during a
test: it is by definition the time at failure because either
o1 or et has already been reached. By varying the fail-
ure time, a continuous series of "experiments" corre-
sponding to different values of the loading rate r can be
run on the model at different strain rates.
Figure 14 shows the results of such a series of "experi-
ments'. The most outstanding feature of these curves is
the sharp rise in apparent stress at failure above a cer-
tain strain rate. In the elastic case, where c = 0, there is
no difference in the two failure criteria. In this case, the
sharp rise in G is due solely to the inertial effect. When
some dampening is introduced, this sharp rise occurs
slightly earlier.
The main difference in the two criteria shows up in
the plot of the strains. For the strain criterion the fail-
ure strains are constant by definition, but for the stress
criterion the strains drop off rather abruptly at the
2ab sin bt
higher strain rates.

q-= 1 - e x p ( - a t ) cosbt + ~ s i n b t . Comparison with experiments

The average strain rate is given by:
~; = e t
Two ways of expressing the rate dependency of speci-
men failure are considered. One way takes the stress at
failure to be independent of strain rate. The other takes
the strain at failure to be independent of strain rate.
For both criteria, expressions for G, e, and ~ as func-
tions of time are developed in the following manner.
The stress criterion is expressed by setting the stress
as defined by equation (5) equal to a constant, a,. The
apparent stress at failure is found by substituting a~ for
o- in equation (6). The corresponding strain is found by
making the same substitution in equation (7) and solv-
ing for e {see Appendix B2b).
For the strain criterion, the strain at failure is set
equal to a constant, e~. This constant is substituted into
equation (7) to find the stress on the specimen. This
stress is used in equation (6) to find the apparent stress
at failure (see Appendix B2c). The corresponding strain
rate is given by equation (8).
The model shown in Fig. 12 was chosen o~er two
other models because it showed characteristics ob-
served in the experiments which the others did not. The
{8)
first model considered was an elastic one the same as
the one chosen except without the dashpot. The dash-
pot was added for two reasons. First it caused the oscil-
lations in the displacement-time curves to decay in a
manner similar to that observed in the experiments,
whereas in the elastic model the oscillations continued
indefinitely. Second, the elastic model showed no de-
crease in strain at failure with increasing strain rate, as
was observed in the unconfined tests. When the dash-
pot was added, the model with the stress criterion pre-
dicted a decrease in strain at higher strain rates. The
second model considered was one with a dashpot in
series with springs. This model gave displacement-time
curves that showed oscillations superposed on a para-
bolic curve. The displacement-time curves for the
model chosen show oscillations superposed on a
straight line, which is the behavior observed in the ex-
periments.
In order to compare the model with the experimental

W
tr
~- o5 ,: 1.0
.Ao- t! uJ
n~
U - - 0.4 ' D 0.8
z _J
We
Ww 03
•,- i/ ~ ~-
: ~b_. o~
u_~
o_-A
Q; 0.4
z -- STRESS CRITERION
- - - STRAIN CRITERION rr
...... ELASTIC ~ 0.2

I I I P I I l

LOG AVERAGE STRAIN RATE Log e (s-')

Fig. 14. T h e o r e t i c a l strain-rate d e p e n d e n c e of a p p a r e n t stress a n d strain at failure.

58 T . L . Blanton

results, actual values must be assigned to the various

constants in the equations. 07
ol
,30//,,i68
Constants associated with the machine are m and k,,. 0.1

For the unconfined tests m = 21 kg. For the confining o iot

pressure tests with yoke assembled m = 74kg. The
values used for k,, are given in Appendix A2a.
Constants associated with the specimen involve its
dimensions and strength. The lengths are 5.3 cm for the
°°'I
.~ o.ce

Charcoal Granodiorite and 5.0 cm for the Berea Sand- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 ~4 15

I-- olE
stone and Indiana Limestone. The cross-sectional areas z 130
are 1.24cm z for the Charcoal Granodiorite and =E
u~ ol~ /,' .-7"
2.14cm z for the Berea Sandstone and the Indiana OIC
Limestone. The values for a~ and e~ are empirically OOE
determined by the static or quasistatic tests. For each
confining pressure, they are taken as the average of the O04 i~;35xIO 3s..-~..--
.
failure stresses or strains for tests at rates less than XPERiIIENT WrrH TE~ M.1MSERi3_/
oo;
10- ~ sec- ~.
For convenience the dampening is expressed as a
TIME i (ms)
decay time defined as:
Fig. 15. Displacement-time curves for experiments on Charcoal Gra-
to ~ 2re~c= l , a nodiorite at 0.25 GPa confining pressure compared with theoretical
curves for two different decay times.
This is the time it takes for the amplitude of the wave
to decay to exp( - 1) of its original value. Only a rough
estimation of to is made based on the decay of the The curves for apparent stresses and strains at failure
waves in the experimental displacement-time curves. are compared to the experiments in Figs 17, 18. and 19.
The author does not believe that the model and data For each rock only the unconfined tests show the
are refined enough to warrant a more exacting phenomenon of decreasing strains at higher strain rates.
approach. It will be shown that the value of to can be Thus, for these tests the stress criterion is used. The
varied considerably without affecting the results much. other curves are based on the strain criterion.
The displacement function, u(t), is compared with the The decay times for Charcoal Granodiorite and
displacement-time records of selected experiments in Berea Sandstone are noted on Figs 17 and t8. The
Figs 15 and 16. In Fig. 15 the theoretical curves with decay time used for the Indiana Limestone in Fig. 19 is
two different decay times are compared with the same 4 x 10 -3 sec. The different values for to used in Fig. 17
set of experiments on Charcoal Granodiorite. As can be emphasize the tendency for the inertial term to domin-
seen, decreasing to by almost three-fold only decreases ate the higher strain-rate behavior.
the amplitude of the oscillations. It does not change the The effect of changes in m was experimentally exam-
period, nor does it seem to have much effect on the ined in the unconfined tests on Indiana Limestone.
higher strain-rate tests. Tests were run with and without the yoke assembled.

o.o31- BERIEA SANDSTONE

°7 /
- i Jj EX~t~l~m" ~ rESt ~8(,_7,__
I,- 2 3 4 5 6
Z
bJ

LIJ
I,J
--J
03 INDtANA LIMESTONE /
OI 71 l# 7,
° ,s/
S " 3

If.-.~" Exm~tx~r w~TH WSr NUM~R.Z~_

i 2 3 • 5 6
TIME t (ms)

Fig. 16. Displacement-time curves for unconfined experiments on Berea Sandstone and Indiana Limestone compared ~vith
theoretical curves.
 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 59

i5 r-
n 02! Pc = 0 2 5 G::'a +

,t" / i
p- L
L~J
tr o,f ++--,-+-~+ : ~ --
--J "S F
(3.. F
{.9
i 0 e F
io 0
Ld
b_
8~
UJ
3
rr
I--
BA
<h
J Pc=O 0 5 GPa
,.< t J

Z
UJ o.E / la_

h
05 Z I
0.1
-,---r--'~+ Z
L~ <

I--
Z
hi

O-
-#~-t I +
J
P c ' O GPa +
t~lIOxlC)'Zs - 0.0'5 0
_++ +
+
+

+\
Z
w
n-

-2
L --I I
0
cr
F-
o3
-i ' 4 ; '

0.25 0 Z Pc =0 GPo
3 .SxlOSs --- 0.45 a w
_~ ~ ~ , ~
o i
', n

Fig.
LOG AVERAGE STRAIN

theoretical and experimental strain-rate

17. C o m p a r i s o n of
dependence of apparent differential stress and strain at failure for
Charcoal Granodiorite.
RATE log e (s-')

°.I - i
0.1 i
°i
Q~ 0

- 2i L _ i[ i ; -2i - iI ; ' I

LOG AVERAGE STRAIN RATE -c~e (s-,)

The correlation is not as good for m = 74 kg (with the
Fig. t9. C o m p a r i s o n
of theoretical and experimenta[ strain-rate
yoke) as it is for m = 21 kg (without the yoke), but the d e p e n d e n c e of apparent differential stress and strain at failure for
points are shifted in the right direction and by roughly Indiana Limestone.
the right amount {Fig. 19).
appearance of wave motion in the displacement-time
records. In this model, the sudden increase in apparent
DISCUSSION
failure stress can be directly attributed to inertia, thus
The model developed in the previous section predicts the inertial effect affords the best explanation for the
(11 the critical strain rate at which the rapid increase in observed behavior.
apparent stress begins and how steep the increase Attributing the variations in apparent failure stress to
should be, (2) the effect of a change in the mass of the inertial effects in the machine leads to the conclusion
loading system on the critical strain rate, and (3) the that the true failure stress of the material is relatively

F.--

bq
w
I...-
~013

:7
w
04

o
Pc°o o~, ,.,5.o,lo2
o

W
3
0

D Z

5~
or: 0
~k
< + -,t +-....~+~

-2i II
b i
, -~ I~l L
b i
LOG AVERAGE STRAIN RATE Io9 e (s-I }

Fig. 18. C o m p a r i s o n of theoretical and experimental strain-rate d e p e n d e n c e o.f apparent differential stress a n d s t r a i n at
failure for Berea Sandstone.
60
independent of strain rate in the range from I0--" to
I0 sec- t.
One suggestion for reducing the inertial effect would
be to lower the mass involved either by reducing the
mass of the yoke or by making measurements closer to
the specimen. Theoretically, the effect of a change in
mass is to shift the curve to the right an order of magni-
tude in strain rate for a two order-of-magnitude de-
crease in mass (Fig. 20). As mentioned earlier, this shift
was tested in unconfined tests on Indiana Limestone
(Fig. 19). It is significant that relatively small masses
still produce a sharp increase in apparent stress, the
only difference being that the increase begins at a some-
what higher strain rate.
There is a tendency for the strain necessary to frag-
ment the rock to decrease with increasing strain rate.
This effect is obvious in the unconfined tests for all
three rocks. It is also suggested by the shift in the
brittle-ductile transition in the Berea Sandstone and
Indiana Limestone. In both cases the rocks are more
brittle at higher strain rates. A more brittle rock would
tend to fragment at a lower strain. The combination of
relatively constant stress with decreasing strain at
higher strain rates suggests that the energy necessary to
break the rock may be lower at higher strain rates. To
the engineer interested in more rapid excavation of
rock, a higher deformation rate may be advantageous
from the point of view of both excavation rate and
energy consumption.
The experiments show the effect of some viscous
dampening, but the author does not believe that the
model or data are refined enough to form a basis for
any conclusions about its exact magnitude or nature. A
more general viscoelastic model is being developed, and
it is hoped that it will yield a clearer picture of rate-
dependent effects on rock properties at intermediate
strain rates.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The apparent sudden increase in failure stress
above a strain rate of about 1 sec-t is due to machine
inertia and does not reflect a real increase in material
strength,
(2) The failure stresses of the three rocks tested in this
m * 10z kg J6a IO'"
i' -,
i
o
i
, ~ ;
LOG AVERAGE STRAIN RATE k~ 6 Is-'l
Fig. 20. Effect of change in mass on plot of apparent stress at failure
versus log average strain rate.
T.L. Blanton
study are relatively insensitive to changes ~n strain rate
between 10-" and 10 s e c - i
I31 The failure strains tend to decrease above a strata
rate of about 1 sec-t for the unconfined tests for all
three rocks. At confining pressure the failure strains
remain relatively constant between 10 -2 and 10 sec-
(4) The two sedimentary rocks tend to be more brittle
at the higher strain rates.
(5) The energy necessary to fragment these rocks is
either constant or tends to decrease with increasing
strain rate.
Acknowledgements--I wish to thank Dr John M. Logan for his guid-
ance and advice throughout this project. Special thanks go to Dr
Richard A. Schapery who originally suggested that I look at the
problem of inertial effects. Additional gratitude is due to Dr John W.
Handin. Dr C. Branning Johnson. Dr Wayne M. Saslow and Dr
Melvin Friedman for their thoughtful criticism and helpful sugges-
tions. This work was supported financially by Sandia Corporation.
contract No. 82-9473. and submitted as a Ph.D. dissertation at Texas
A & M University.
Receit'ed 21 March 1977: in revised for 30 November 1979.
REFERENCES
1. Birkimer D. L. A possible fracture criterion for the dynamic ten-
sile strength of rock. Dynamic Rock Mechanics-Proc. 12th S,vmp.
on Rock Mechanics (Edited by Clark G. B.). p, 573. AIME. New
York (1971).
2. Borg I, & Handin J. Experimental deformation of crystalline
rocks. Tectonophysics 3, 249 (t966).
3. Brace W. F. & Jones A. H. Comparison of uniaxial deformation
in shock and static loading of three rocks. J, Geophvs. Res. 76,
4913 (1971).
4 Green S, J. & Perkins R. D. Uniaxial compression tests at strain
rates from 10-'* sec-10 "Lsec on three geological materials. Basic
and Applied Rock Mechanics--Proc. lOth Syrup. on Rock Mech-
anics (Edited by Gray K. E.), p. 35. AIME, New York (1972).
5. Green S. J.. Leasia J. D., Perkins R. D & Jones A. H. Triaxial
stress behavior of Solenhofen Limestone and Westerly Granite at
high strain rates. J. Geophys, Res. 77, 3711 f1972).
6. Kobayashi R. On mechanical behavior of rocks under various
loading-rates. Rock Mech. Jap. l, 56 (1970).
7. Krech W. W., Henderson F. A. & Hjetmstad K. E. A standard
rock suite for rapid excavation research. Bureau of Mines Report
of Investigations 7865 {1974).
8. Kumar A. The effect of stress rate and temperature on the
strength of basalt and granite. Geophysics 33, 501 (1968).
9. Lindholm U. S, Yeakley L. M. & Nagy A. The dynamic strength
and fracture properties of Dresser Basalt. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci, & Geomech. Abstr. 11, 181 (1974).
I0. Logan J. M. & Handin J. Triaxial compression testing at inter-
mediate strain rates. Dynamic Rock Mechanics--Proc. 12th Syrup.
on Rock Mechanics (Edited by Clark G. B.), p. 167. AIME. New
York (1971).
II. Mellor M, & Hawkes I. Measurement of tensile strength by dia-
metrical compression of discs and annuli. Engino Geol. 5, 173.
12, Perkins R. D.. Green S. J. & Friedman M: Uniaxial stress behav-
ior of porphyritic tonalite at strain rates to 103/second. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 7, 527 (I970).
13. Price D. G. & Knill J. L. A study of the tensile strength of
isotropic rocks. Proc. 1st Congr. tnt. Soc. on Rock Mechanics.
Lisbon. p. 439 (1966).
14. Schock R. N & Heard H. C. Static mechanical properties a.nd
shock loading response of granite. J. Geophys. Res. 79, 1662
(1974).
15. Shockey D. A,, Petersen C. F., Curran D. R. & Rosenbcrg J. T.
Failure of rock under high rate tensile loads. New Horizons in
Rock Mechanics--Proc. 14th Syrup. on Rock Mechanics (Edited
by Hardy H. R. Jr), p. 709. AIME, New York (t973l.
16. Stowe R. L. & Ainsworth D. L. Effect of rate of loading on
strength and Young's modulus of elasticity of rock. Basic and
Applied Rock Mechanics--Proc. lOth Syrup. on Rock Mechanics
tEdited by Gray K. E.), p. 3. AIME. New York (1972).
 Intermediate Strain-Rate Tests on Three Rocks 6t

A P P E N D I X A: Data reduction D3----~ LT3/2

The following formulae are used to obtain the numbers in Tables L,/2
3-5 from the experimental records (Fig. 21).
I 1) .4pparent differential stress ar jililure
G~ = (Ft - Fo):,4
t2) Strain at failure
_~ DI i, L.,
I,.l) Charcoal Gram)diorire
e = U~/g
where the displacement between the ends of the specimen is given by

("Ft
,,,=tq-uo- - F o - m ~ d2u) k~. (9) L2/2

The machine stiffness was determined for each confining pressure

by testing a steel slug of known modulus in place of the rock speci- Fig. 22. Dimensions used in correcting for effect of dogbone configur-
men. The results of these tests are expressed in the following formulae ation on strain.
which are used for data reduction.
k~ = 14.24 - 6.40 P¢)-t 10 MN~cm for where
0 G P a _< PC _< 0.05 G P a
k~ = (3.99i - 1.45 pc)-1 10 M N / c m for AL t + AL., + AL 3 = u, (1l)
0.05 G P a < PC <_ 0.45 G P a
F -= axial force
No correction is made for the effect of the epoxy fillets because the
modulus of the epoxy is about 2 G P a as compared to about 5 0 G P a E -= modulus
for that of the Charcoal Granodiorite.

(d) Berea Sandstone and Indiana Limestone

A correction is made for the dogbone configuration based on the
following analysis. The strains in each segment of the specimen, as
A, -= ~, 4 ]
shown in Fig. 22. are given by

L~L ~ F
et - \ -
Lt EAt
The four equations, (10) and (IlL have four u n k n o ~ n s , F E. AL l, ALz
&L: F and ,5L3, so that the system is exactly determined, and the following
e, -- (10)
L: EA, solution can be obtained for the strain in the portion of the specimen
with the reduced diameter:
AL 3 F
e3 5L t u,
L3 EA3 ~1 = - - =
L, c,

(3) Lo 9 average strain rate

/
log/' = log(e4~)

(4) Error propagation

# i
Let xl + Ax~ be the individual measurements used to calculate the
results, yj + Ayi, in Tables 3-5.
The errors, ,3.yv are calculated by the following formulae.
LI o U,
(a) Sum and Difference
DISPLACEMENT u

yj = xl +_'" +_ x,
&vj = I , ~ x f + . . . + ~ x ~ ) ~ 2

(b) Product and quotient

x t --. X k
Y)
Xk- I " " " Xn

la.U_.I
z UI -
)'j
Ob,.l

g~ (el Log fimction

q-)
yj = log xi
~u t
* I d d ( In x,~
F I Ay./= A log xi = &'q - - 1o~ x~ = 5-vi
TIME t t,

Fig. 21. Idealized experimental records. - xi In 10

62 T.L. Blanton

APPENDIX B: Derivation of equations Let the strain be

used in model
elf ~ tq,r! L 12[!
( 1) Sol,aion o f equation o f motion
From equations 1141. t201 and {211. we have the following stress-
With the force function used in the model, equation (I) becomes strain relation

L ~q
rt = m~-~. + c ~ + k u(t) 1121 ~ltl= ~k~l i - - l ectL

With initial conditions tb) Stress criterion

The condition for failure under this criterion ts
u(O) = d~tt ,=0 = dZul
~ = 0
dt-l,~o GIrl) ~ O*I (__1

the Laplace transform method can be used to solve equation (12). Combining this with equation 171 gives the strain as a function of
The following notation is used for the Laplace transform, failure time. as follows:

f(s) = t)exp(-st)dt. Ao" I

e(ttt ~231

The Laplace transform of equation (12) is

r s: = (ms 2 + cs + k)~(s) in order to calculate the strains from the model in the same way as
they are calculated from an experiment an equation for strain slightly
r different from equation 1231 is derived. Ideally one would like to use
ii(s}= sZ(ms' + cs + k ) (13) the displacement u, associated with the specimen given by equation
(19) to calculate the strain from an experiment. This is not practical.
The inverse Laplace transform of equation (13)is found by however, because equation (19~ requires a foreknowledge of the stiff-
ness of the specimen ks to use in the term k. and ks cannot be found
1 ;c+i~ without knowing u,. Therefore, an expression for strain in the model
u(r) = ~ / , ¢-i,~ ~(s)exp(st) ds.
will be derived starting with the empirical relation for specimen dis-
placement given by equation 191. Equation (9) corrects the measured
This yields the following solution to equation (12/. displacement for machine stiffness and inertia only. The development
begins with equation 19) in the following form:
r a'-b" .
ult) = ~ t - I - exp(-at)
(cosbt +
'2--~--smbt
)]t . u,(t) = uln - ( F i t ) - mdZu")k.
12) Failure criteria
= u(t} -flt)/k,,, by equation 115).
(a) Constitutive relation Combining this with equation (18)gives
Let
I l
alt) -- f l t ) / A (14) uAn = { I f , t). (24)
k + c q- k.j
dZu P
f(t) =-- F(t) - m dt--T
An equation for strain can now be derived from equations t141. (2D.
(22) and (24):
= k + c u(t). (15)
A ( 1 1 / ~25~
e(ql=-~l k Z.c q - k--~
From equation (2), we have
Y
du r A graphical comparison of equations (23) and (251 is shown in Fig. 23.
= rq (16)
a7 k The general form of these two curves is the same. and the difference
between them does not affect any of the conclusions of this paper.
and
(c) Strain criterion
k The condition given by equation (1 I) is
r = - u(t). (171
P
ettt) =---el,
Combining equations (161 and (17) gives
Combining this with equation (7) gives
du = _qu(t).
dt p a(tt, = L k , ( 1 + ~qp)e,.

Thus equation (15) becomes

06
f(t) = ( k + c ~)u(t). ,18)
23
The displacement associated with the specimen is
~ 04
u,(t) = 1 - u(t). l L91
~C3
Combining equations (18) and (19) gives
-, b
LOG ,~VERAGE STRAIN RATE{s")

f(t) = k , ( l + c q'~ u,(t). (201 Fi~ 23. Comparison of curves For strain at failure given by equations
\ (231 and r25).