Vitton Dynamic Fracture Presentation

8/2/2019 Vitton Dynamic Fracture Presentation

1/64

Dynamic Fracture of Aggregate

and Its Importance toSustainable Materials

Stan Vitton, PhD, PE

Associate Professor

Michigan Technological University


2/64

Jakes Law

Anything hit with a big

enough hammer will fallapart


3/64

Dynamic Fracture of Aggregateand Its Importance toSustainable Materials

High Strain Rate Behavior

Dynamic Aggregate Testing

Other Transportation Applications

Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete

Crushing and Grinding

Conclusions


4/64

Acknowledgements

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Graduate Students

Rich Verstrate

Travis Davidsavior

Research Engineer - Torsten Mayberger

Turunen Quarry Pelkie, MI

Michigan Tech University


5/64

Dynamic Effects??Strain Rate??

o

L

Strain L

StrainStrain RateTime

L

Lo


6/64

Dynamic Strength & Stiffness

Strain Rate

Strengthand

/or

Stiffness

10-6/second

ASTM Concrete

Testing

102/second

Blasting

100/sec


7/64

Fragmentation

Strain Rate

F

ragmenta

tion

10-6/second

ASTM Concrete

Testing

102/second

Blasting

100/sec


8/64

Why?

Slow Fast


9/64

Why?

Slow Fast


10/64

Split Hopkinson Pressure BarEquipment Setup

StrikerBar

Incident Bar Transmission Bar

Specimen

Nicolet Digital Oscilloscope

WheatstoneBridge


11/64

Large-Diameter SHPB:

SHPB - Output Bar (left), Input Bar (right)

SHPB - Canon, Striker Bar, Input Bar (left)


12/64

Sample Data Air

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012

StrainGageOutput(V)

Time (s)

Bars Apart

(total impedance mismatch)

3ft Input

6ft Input

3ft Output

6ft Output


13/64

Sample Data Steel

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012

StrainGageOutput(V)

Time (s)

Bars Together

(no impedance mismatch)

3ft Input

6ft Input

3ft Output

6ft Output


14/64

Sample Data Aluminum

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012

StrainGageOutput(V)

Time (s)

6061-T6 Strain Gage Data

3ft Input

6ft Input

3ft Output

6ft Output


15/64

Dynamic Fracture of Aggregateand Its Importance toSustainable Materials


Dynamic Aggregate Testing

Other Transportation Applications

Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete


Conclusions


16/64

Aggregate Location

Ontario TraprockQuarry

Algoma Steel Co.Moyle Quarry

Port InlandQuarry Cedarville

QuarryPresque Isle StoneBay County RoadCommission Quarry

EDW. C. Levy Company

Rockwood Stone QuarryFrance Stone Co.DennistonFarms Quarry

MichiganUSA

OntarioCanadaLake Superior


17/64

Aggregate Type and Specific Gravity

#

Source

(MDOT ID) Material Type

Orientation to

Bedding Gab GB GB,SSD

Porosity

(%)1.

Algoma SteelAir-Cooled Blast

Furnace Slag

Porous Region

Dense Region

2.973

2.888

2.09

2.40

2.41

2.57

30

17

2 Algoma Steel Water Quenched BlastFurnace Slag Random 2.942 2.43 2.61 17

3 Levy Co. Water Quenched BlastFurnace Slag Random 2.985 2.42 2.61 19

4 Presque Isle Stone Limestone Random 2.687 2.51 2.58 6

5 Bay CountyLimestone Perpendicular 2.697 2.63 2.68 2

6 Port InlandLimestone Random 2.69 2.68 2.68


18/64

Water-quenched Slag


19/64

Air-Cooled Slag


20/64

Presque Isle Limestone


21/64

Bay County Limestone


22/64

Port Inland Limestone


23/64

Cedarville Dolomite


24/64

Dennison Farms Dolomite


25/64

France Stone Dolomite


26/64

Basalt - Rapid Geologic Cooling(Flood Basalt)


27/64

Diabase - Slower Geologic Cooling(Traprock)

S C


28/64

Dynamic & Static CompressionStrength Results

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Sample Type

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FailureStrength(MPa)

Dry Rock

1.5

2.5

3.5

AggregateBulkDensityB(g/cm

3)

Dynamic

Static

Bulk Density

A

B

CD

E

A' -- Super High Strength

A -- Very High Strength

B -- High Strength

C -- Medium Strength

D -- Low Strength

E -- Very Low Strength

A'

Sla g Lime stone Dolomite Igneous

next geometric progression

Slag

LimestoneDolomite

Igneous


29/64

0

100

200

300

400

500

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0

Bulk Density B (Mg/m3)

MeanCompressiv

eStrength(MPa) Dynamic

Static


30/64

Dynamic to Static Strength Ratio, D/S

d

s

Dynamic Strength D

Static Strength S

d sf

d

s

dd(log )

log

Strain Rate Sensitivity Factor,


31/64

Dynamic to Static Strength Ratios

Material Dynamic/Static(Dry) Dynamic/Static(Saturated)Slag 1.93 2.68Limestone

2.30 2.23Dolomite

1.64 1.83Igneous 1.78 2.55


32/64

Strain Rate Sensitivity ValuesIDNumber

Strain Rate Sensitivity, Aggregate

Average

1.0 Algoma air cooled blast furnace slag

porous section 3.00

4.2

1.2 Algoma air-cooled blast furnace slag dense section 9.81

2 Algoma water-quenched blast furnace slag 2.93

3 Levy water-quenched blast furnace slag 1.27

4 Limestone, Presque Isle 9.97

5 Limestone, Bay County 13.59 16.46 Limestone, Port Inland 25.52

7 Dolomite, Cedarville 10.27

8.6

8 Dolomite, Denniston

8.779 Dolomite, Rockwood 4.52

10 Dolomite, France Stone 10.81

11 Basalt, Portage Lake Lava Series, Moyle 26.90

29.112 Diabase, Ontario Traprock 31.30


33/64


34/64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Rate Sensitivity Parameter

M

aximumL

AAbrasionValue

Slag

Carbonates

IgneousSlag (1)

Slag (3)

Dolomite (9)

Limestone (5)

Dolomite (8)

Dolomite (7)

Dolomite (10)

Limestone (4)

Limestone (6)

Basalt (11)Diabase (12)


35/64

Aggregate Dynamic & StaticStrength Conclusions

D/S: Ranged from 1.3 to 2.7 Slag and igneous had similar D/S and were

affected by saturation

Carbonates: limestone had a significantly higher

D/S than dolomite while neither were affected by

saturation

Strain Rate Sensitivity Parameter, :

Igneous:

= 29.1 Limestone: = 16.4

Dolomite: = 8.6

Slag: = 4.2


36/64

Aggregate Dynamic & StaticStrength Conclusions Continued

Variations in appear to be due to the aggregate'smicrostructure, e.g.,

Limestone primary precipitate

Dolomite secondary replacement


37/64

Dynamic Fracture of Aggregateand Its Importance to

Sustainable Materials


Dynamic Aggregate Testing Other Transportation Applications

Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete


Conclusions


38/64

Aggregate Interlock Test Setup

0.50 inch

3 kip

3 kip

NormalForceReaction

Test Frame


39/64

Concrete Fracture Device


40/64

Aggregate Interlock System

Vertical Actuator(Shear loading)

Horizontal Actuator(Normal resistance)

a

a

projectedface

Load-bearing holder


41/64



42/64



43/64

High Strain Rate Behavior in

Transportation Materials



Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete


Conclusions


44/64

Reasons

Fast track scheduling

Construction areas arebecoming more dense

Quarries are subjected tourban encroachment

Society is becoming morelitigious


45/64

Time of Concrete Mixing

Used thermocouplesPlaced in concretecylinders

Compare to ambienttemperature

Maturity occurs wheninternal temperaturereturns to ambient


46/64

Concrete Maturity Curve

60

70

80

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (Hrs)

Temp(F)

Cylinder #2 Cylinder #1 Cylinder #3 Cylinder #4 Ambient

Open

Door


47/64

Project Site: Turunen Quarry

Located Near Pelkie, MI

Active Limestone/Dolomite Quarry

Work Area


48/64

Blast Components

BlastingCaps

Explosives

Hole Loading

Seismometers


49/64

Sample Preparation - Field Batch

Components

MixComponents

5-2-4 Minutes

ConsolidateConcrete at10,500 rpm(175 Hz)

PlaceContainers atAppropriateSite

Dynamic Compression Testing


50/64

Dynamic Compression TestingParameters

SHPB was used

35psi chamber

pressure fired striker

bar Pennies were used to

transform square waveto triangular wave

Specimens completelycrushed

Data collected usingoscilloscope


51/64

Conclusions

There is generally no difference in the meansof the data

More evidence supports a gain of strength at

2 hours than a loss at any other age Weak bonds may be broken and concrete

experiences self-healing

Vibrations up to 10.6 in/s MaxPPV have littleor no detrimental affect on this mixof greenconcrete


52/64





Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete


Conclusions

Various Crushing & Grinding


53/64

Various Crushing & GrindingUnits


54/64

Cone, Jaw, Hammer Crushers

Vertical Shaft Impact (VSI)


55/64

Vertical Shaft Impact (VSI)Crusher


56/64

Crushing & Grinding - Aggregate

Crushing

Hammer

Cone Jaw

VSI

Grinding

LA Abrasion

Micro-Deval

Aggregate Interlock(PCC)

Handling & Storage

Resilient Modulus Friction-Polishing

Effects of Blasting on Rock


57/64

gRecent International Society of ExplosiveEngineers:

The Effects of Blasting on Crushing and GrindingEfficiency and Energy Consumption

Effects of Blasting on the Strength of Rock Fragmentation

Small Scale Study of Damage Due to Blasting andImplication on Crushing and Grinding

Effects of Blasting on the Strength of Rock Fragments

Degree of Fragmentation Under High Strain Rates

Blasting Induced Rock Fragmentation Prediction Usingthe RHT Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials

Damage to Rocks and Cementitous Materials from SolidImpact Erosion (wear) of rock and concrete

Autogenous


58/64

Abrasion(Wear)Crushing

Differential

BreakageR

ate

SizeLarge (


59/64

Abrasion(Wear)CrushingD

ifferential

BreakageR

ate

SizeLarge Small (20 m)

Grinding Mill

Size Range

for

Aggregates


60/64

General Conclusions:

Increased evidence indicates that blastinghas a significant impact on crushing andgrinding

Blasting affects both the physical and rockmechanics properties

An important component of optimum

fragmentation appears to be micro-fracturingwithin individual fragments

D i F t f A t


61/64





Aggregate Interlock

Green Concrete


Conclusions


62/64

Conclusions/Thoughts

Aggregate and concrete materials are rate

sensitive

The D/S ratio appears to indicates the

degree of crystalline structure

The rate sensitivity parameter appears to

correlate with microstructure


63/64

Conclusions/Thoughts

Dynamic fracture testing may provide a

means to test micro-structure to better

understand friction and other properties

There are a number of areas in transportation

materials where high strain rate behavior hassignificant application


64/64

Thank You Questions ?

Documents

Vitton Dynamic Fracture Presentation