Influence of lithophysae geometry on mechanical properties of Hydro-Stone®

Publications (YM) Yucca Mountain

1-11-2007

Influence of lithophysae geometry on mechanicalproperties of Hydro-Stone®Moses KarakouzianUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected]

Doug RigbyUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn_pubs

Part of the Geology Commons, and the Materials Science and Engineering Commons

This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Yucca Mountain at Digital Scholarship@UNLV. It has been accepted for inclusion inPublications (YM) by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Repository CitationKarakouzian, M., Rigby, D. (2007). Influence of lithophysae geometry on mechanical properties of Hydro-Stone®.Available at: http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn_pubs/8

http://library.unlv.edu/?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://library.unlv.edu/?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn_pubs?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn_pubs?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/156?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/285?utm_source=digitalscholarship.unlv.edu%2Fyucca_mtn_pubs%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/yucca_mtn_pubs/8

mailto:[email protected]

DOE Task 13 Briefing January 11, 2007 1

Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering

Influence of Lithophysae Geometry on Mechanical Properties of Hydro-Stone®

Task: ORD-FY04-013

Co-op Briefing to the U.S. Department of EnergyPresented by:Moses Karakouzian and Doug Rigby

January 11, 2007 – Harry Reid Center Auditorium


Outline

1. Background2. Purpose3. Methodology4. Results5. Future Work


1. Background

85 percent of YM drift tunnels will be constructed in lithophysal volcanic tuff

Rock behavior depends on porosityLimited experimental data exists to characterize

rock porosity and dependencies on properties such as σc , E, and n.


Lithophysal Rock

Lithophysal Cavities

Random shapes, sizes, and locations

Uncertain lithophysal porosity


Properties of Lithophysal Rock

introduce holes

Continuous Matrix(intact rock)

Solid with Holes(lithophysal rock)

E, σcEo, νo, σco


Previous Project (Task 27)

Analog Rock (Plaster of Paris) Testing



0 10 20 30 40 50

Porosity, %

0

100

200

300

400

500

E, k

si

E - uniformE - random

Deformation Modulus, E

Plaster of Paris



0 10 20 30 40 50

Porosity, %

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

σ c, p

si

σc - uniform

σc - random

Compressive Strength

Plaster of Paris



0 10 20 30 40 50

Porosity, %

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

E/E

o

TubesStyrofoamTuffNumerical

0 10 20 30 40 50

Porosity, %

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

σ/σ o

TubesStyrofoamTuff

Results of Specimen Tests


Yucca Mountain Tests

Deformation Modulus

y = 20.245e-4.1815x

R2 = 0.9779

y = 17.866e-3.457x

R2 = 0.9981

y = 19.684e-3.1677x

R2 = 0.9938

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Fractional Lithophysal Porosity

Youn

g's

Mod

ulus

(GPa

)

10.5 and 11.5-in lithophysal tuff lab tests, room dryPFC2D (AR=2:1, Davg=17.1 mm, 166-mm circles)PFC3D (AR=2:1 cyl, Davg=52.3 mm, 166-mm spheres)UDEC (AR=1:1, Davg=17 mm, 90-mm circles)PFC2D (Stenciled lithophysae from panel maps, 1m X 1m)10.5 and 11.5-in lithophysal tuff lab tests, saturated


Yucca Mountain Tests

Uniaxial Compressive Strength

y = 52.167e-5.9159x

R2 = 0.943y = 38.467e-4.792x

R2 = 0.9898

y = 51.648e-6.202x

R2 = 0.9344

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Fractional Lithophysal Porosity

Uni

axia

l Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

10.5 and 11.5-in lithophysal tuff lab tests, room dryPFC2D (AR=2:1, Davg=17.1 mm, 166-mm circles)PFC3D (AR=2:1 cyl, Davg=52.3 mm, 166-mm spheres)UDEC (AR=1:1, Davg=17 mm, 90-mm circles)PFC2D (Stenciled lithophysae from panel maps, 1m X 1m)10.5 and 11.5-in lithophysal tuff lab tests, saturated


2. Purpose

Find an analog rock similar to YM tuffCarry out a systematic experimental study to

determine the affects of lithophysal geometry on the properties of a strong analog rock.

Obtain data to help validate YM numerical models and assumptions

* Details of task plan worked out with DOE, BSC, and UNLV personnel


3. Methodology

Task 1: Experimental Test PlanTask 2: Analog Rock Material ScopingTask 3: QA Specimen PreparationTask 4: QA Uniaxial Compressive TestingTask 5: Analysis of Results including some numerical modeling


Experimental Test Plan

Material Selection: Hydro-StoneTB®

YM Solid Rock E = 20 GPa, σc= 60 MPaPlaster of Paris E=0.34 GPa, σc=11.7 MPaHydro-StoneTB Ave. E=16 GPa (2.3x106 psi)Hydro-StoneTB Ave. σc= 55.0 MPa (8000 psi)

Hole patternsCircular, Square, DiamondRandom locations to mimic actual rock



A B C



Circular Hole

Pattern A Set

12 x 3 = 36 blocks

Pattern B: 36 blocks

Pattern C: 36 blocks

Circular total: 108

Square hole blocks: 24

Diamond blocks: 24

Solid blocks: min 7


QA Uniaxial Compression Tests

NDOT Test Facility


4. Experimental Results



Progressive Failure, RepeatabilityE 9.95 GPa 7.40 8.58σc 11.4 MPa 11.6 13.2




Results

Best Fit Young's Modulus (25-50%) vs Void Porosity

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25Void Porosity

Bes

t Fit

You

ng's

Mod

ulus

(25-

50%

) (G

Pa)

Circular Pattern ACircular Pattern BCircular Pattern CDiamond Pattern ADiamond Pattern BSquare Pattern ASquare Pattern B


Helps Validate YM Model ?

y = 19.067e-3.6915x

R2 = 0.9884

y = 18.86e-4.5241x

R2 = 0.984

y = 19.16e-7.0437x

R2 = 0.9746

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35void porosity, nv

E (G

Pa)

Lith. tuff (2002)circles (90 mm diam.)triangles (139 mm diam.)stars (197 mm diam.)


Results

UCS vs Void Porosity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25Void Porosity

Uni

axia

l Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (U

CS)

(MPa

) Circular Pattern ACircular Pattern BCircular Pattern CDiamond Pattern A

Diamond Pattern BSquare Pattern ASquare Pattern B





y = 52.482e-5.1493x

R2 = 0.9434

y = 53.585e-7.1352x

R2 = 0.9409

y = 54.737e-11.579x

R2 = 0.8927

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35void porosity, nv

q u (M

Pa)

Lith. tuff (1985 & 2002)circles (90 mm diam.)triangles (139 mm diam.)stars (197 mm diam.)



y = 10.004e0.0579x

R2 = 0.6479

y = 5.9043e0.1225x

R2 = 0.9635

y = 6.3088e0.1171x

R2 = 0.9548

y = 6.3234e0.1159x

R2 = 0.9258

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25modulus, E (GPa)

q u (M

Pa)

Lith. tuff (Price, 2002)circles (90 mm diam.)triangles (139 mm diam.)stars (197 mm diam.)


Results

UCS vs Best fit curve (25-50%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15

Best fit modulus (25-50%) (GPa)

Uni

axia

l Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (U

CS)

(MPa

)

Circular Pattern ACircular Pattern BCircular Pattern CDiamond Pattern ADiamond Pattern BSquare Pattern ASquare Pattern B


5. Future Work


Future Work – This Task

For Task 13:Submission of Data (Electronic)Some numerical modelingFinal Report

Future study as part of UNLV Theses:Seek understanding! Bridge length analysisExplore problems with YM numerical modelStudy progressive cracking (stress redistribution modeling and significance)


Future Work – New

Tensile Hydro-StoneTB Tests:No tests exist for lithophysal rockNeeded to produce Rock Failure Criterion for lithophysal rock (none exist)Needed to carry out applications in analog rock

Confined Tests of Hydro-StoneTBRock Bolt Performance in Lithophysal RockCharacterization of Ballast/Fill Material Derived from Lithophysal Rock


Reference Slides


Drift Proportions

Lithophysal Rock comprises 85%


Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion

Non-lithophysal Rock (Tptmn, Tptln)


Reliance on Numerical Modeling

Tensile, Triaxial Tests are numerical onlySolid Rock Lithophysal Rock


Numerical Rock Criterion

Hoek-Brown Criterion: Lithophysal Rock

UCS

Documents

Influence of lithophysae geometry on mechanical properties of Hydro-Stone®