dynamic damage

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

dynamic damage

© All Rights Reserved

- ACI
- Ice and Construction Rilem Report 13
- A4
- COMPRESSION PARAMETERS INVOLVED IN POWDER COMPRESSION AND MANUFACTURING OF TABLET
- Structural Health Monitoring
- A Rigorous Analytical Model for Shrinkage Cracking of Reinforced Concrete
- Lok and Capo Test Correlation
- Crack Conc
- Fatigue Assessment
- 1-s2.0-S135983680600120X-main
- Physico-Chemical Aspects of ... Use of Additives
- 15 IronSteelAccess Covers
- Wheelchair Manual Final
- Zhao Cai Cai 2010 Dilation Effects on Failure and Deformation of Hard Rocks
- sesion 6
- Determination of far-field stress from localized stress concentra.pdf
- Doc100_03H2CylindersandTransportVessels
- Investigation of Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Steel in Water
- Stress Concentration.pdf
- Failure

You are on page 1of 13

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijengsci

of rock materials under explosive loading

Yong-Qiang Zhang

a,*

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798

Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Western Australia Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia

Received 16 September 2002; accepted 11 October 2002

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a constitutive model for predicting dynamic anisotropic damage

and fragmentation of rock materials under blast loading. In order to take account of the anisotropy of

damage, a second rank symmetric damage tensor is introduced in the present model. Based on the mechanics of microcrack nucleation, growth and coalescence, the evolution of damage is formulated. The

model provides a quantitative method to estimate the fragment distribution and fragment size generated by

crack coalescence in the dynamic fragmentation process. It takes account of the experimental facts that a

brittle rock material does not fail if the applied stress is lower than its static strength and certain time

duration is needed for fracture to take place when it is subjected to a stress higher than its static strength.

Numerical results are compared with those from independent eld tests.

2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Anisotropic damage; Fragmentation; Second rank damage tensor; Rock material

1. Introduction

It is well known that rock fragmentation by blasting is a dynamic fracture process. In rock

blasting, it is generally understood that the stress waves have signicant contribution to damage

and fragmentation. The propagation, reection and interaction of the stress waves result in

crushing, spalling and fragmentation of rock materials.

E-mail address: cyqzhang@ntu.edu.sg (Y.-Q. Zhang).

0020-7225/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0020-7225(02)00378-6

918

Due to the extreme complexities of the phenomena in dynamic fracture and fragmentation, the

majority of blasting models today are based on empirical or semi-empirical formulas. They tend

to overlook the physical laws governing the processes in blasting. Blasting models based on

constitutive relationships are of special interest because of their capabilities in describing the main

features of fracture and fragmentation. With the advance of high-speed computer methods, eorts

have been directed toward developing continuum descriptions of fracture, fragmentation, and

wave propagation to evaluate complex fracturing events. Shockey et al. [1] have pursued models

based on the activation, growth, and coalescence of inherent distributions of fracture-producing

aws, predicting crack and fragment size spectra resulting from explosive rock fracture. In recent

years, a number of microcrack-based constitutive blasting models have been published [27].

Grady and Kipp [2] presented a description of dynamic fracture and fragmentation of rock that

emphasizes the strain-rate dependence of measurable fracture properties such as fracture strength,

fracture energy and fragment size. Taylor et al. [3] developed a damage model to simulate stress

wave induced rock fracture during blasting based on the analysis of cracked systems [8,9].

In some early continuum models [24], it is assumed that microcracks initiate and grow immediately when the strain becomes tensile. However, it is observed from the experimental results

that rock materials do not fail at tensile stresses below their static tensile strength. Furthermore,

Bawden et al. [7] pointed out that, in dynamic loading, the tensile stress that exceeds the material

strength may not damage the material if its duration is too short. Blast damage is accumulated as

a function of time and applied stress. The fact is supported by the recent experimental work of Li

et al. [10]. In the dynamic damage models proposed by Liu and Katsabanis [5] and Hao et al. [6], a

critical strain value and certain time duration are introduced to model the damage initiation and

accumulation.

It is observed that the cracks by blasting are strongly oriented. The inuences of the shape, size,

orientation and distribution of cracks in a rock mass, which usually result in dierent material

properties in dierent directions owing to their usual predominant orientation in certain direction,

cannot be captured by an isotropic damage scalar. To this end, an anisotropic damage model is

presented for dynamic damage of initially isotropic rock materials under blasting loading in this

study. The description of anisotropic damage behavior of rock mass under explosive loading is

developed by employing a second rank symmetric damage tensor [11] in the irreversible thermodynamic frameworks. The model provides a quantitative method to estimate the fragment

distribution and fragment size generated by crack coalescence in the dynamic fragmentation

process. Numerical results are compared with those from independent eld tests.

2. Damage variables

Under applied stresses, microcracks can nucleate and grow. These microcracks are generally

distributed in some preferential orientations. Consequently, the growth and nucleation of microcracks not only result in the reduction of elastic moduli, but also in anisotropic behaviour. For

most initially isotropic rocks, induced anisotropy can reasonably be simplied in the orthotropic

case produced by three orthogonal principal sets of microcracks. Damage in rock materials is

usually induced by nucleation, growth and coalescence of microcracks. Since the development

of these microcracks is governed by the action of applied stress and strain, material damage is

919

essentially anisotropic. This feature is especially important in rock materials damaged by the

development of distributed and oriented microscopic cracks [12].

As scalar damage variables often have serious limitation to the description of actual material

damage, a number of theories have been developed to model the anisotropic damage state by

means of damage variables ranging from a vector to higher rank tensors. Vector damage variables

[1316] can be applied to describe the distributed plane cracks by describing the normal direction

of each plane crack and the crack density of the specic plane. However, the vector damage

variables cannot represent the eect of a set of plane cracks of dierent orientations by means of a

simple addition of the corresponding vectors. Moreover, odd rank tensors in general can be excluded from the set of internal variables, since they do not conform to the invariance with respect

to the rotation of the frame [17]. Consequently, in spite of the complexity of their mathematical

structures, more elaborate theories have been proposed for the description of the state and the

eect of the distributed cavities by use of higher and even rank tensors. Among them, second rank

symmetric damage tensors [11,17,18] are most commonly employed because they are mathematically simpler than the higher rank tensors, and yet can describe most essential features of

anisotropic damage.

To develop a feasible damage theory in this paper, it is postulated that the anisotropic damage

state can be described by a damage tensor

D

3

X

Di ni ni

i1

where Di and ni are the principal value and the unit vector of principal direction of the tensor D.

The damage tensor D of Eq. (1) was derived by Murakami [11] by postulating that the principle

eect of the material damage consists in the net area reduction due to three-dimensional distribution of microscopic cavities in the material. Hence, Di in Eq. (1) can be interpreted as the ratio

of area reduction in the plane perpendicular to ni caused by the development of microcracks.

Though the second rank symmetric damage tensor D cannot describe more complicated damage

state than orthotropy, it has been often employed in the development of anisotropic damage

theories [11,1921].

3. Constitutive equations

A rock material usually suers damage by the development of distributed microscopic cracks

and leads to the nal fracture by their coalescence. In order to represent the state of anisotropic

damage characterized by these cracks, a second rank symmetric damage tensor D dened in

Section 2 will be employed.

As a point of departure, we postulate that the total strain tensor e can be decomposed into

elastic and plastic parts

e ee ep

and the free energy function can be expressed as [21]

920

where C is the damaged elasticity tensor, q denotes a suitable set of plastic variables, and according to Clausius Duhem inequality, it has

e

e_ : r C : e

owpd

1 e _ e owpd _

e

p

e :C:e

: C e : C : e_

q_ P 0

2

oC

oq

r

ow

C : ee

oe

For the damage-dependent elasticity tensor C, a great many expressions have been proposed [22

24]. By introducing an intermediate second-order tensor U, Swoboda [25] dened the elasticity

tensor as

C kU U 2lUU

where the symbol denotes the dyadic product of two tensors, the symbol denotes the

symmetrized dyadic product dened as AB : C A C CT =2 BT for any arbitrary second

order tensors A, B, C, and

U A1 I A2 D A3 D D

where A1 , A2 and A3 are functions of the invariants of D, k and l are Lames constants of virgin

material, and I is the second-order identity tensor. As the elasticity tensor must satisfy the positive

denite condition, it requires the elastic potential function

1

k

wed ee ; C ee : C : ee U : e2 le U : U e P 0

2

2

denite problem reduced to a second-order one.

Although not necessarily, the normalized damage variable is convenient to use. Here it is

postulated that

C

C0

0

if D 0

if D I

where C0 is the isotropic elasticity tensor of the virgin material, which can be expressed as

C0 kI I 2lII

10

921

A1 1;

A1 A2 A3 0

11

Assuming that A1 , A2 and A3 are material constants and noting the positive denite requirement

on U, we know that

A1 1;

A2 k;

A3 1 k

06k61

12

Hence, there is only one independent material constant k. Under the hypothesis of complementary

energy equivalence, it has k 1. Then the elasticity tensor takes the form

C I D C0 I D

13

ri 1 Di kh n 2l1 Di ei

i 1; 2; 3; no summation

14

where

h e1 e2 e3 ;

n D1 e1 D2 e2 D3 e3

4. Damage evolution

Under high-rate loading, microcracks will be initiated and grow in a rock mass, and damage

will be accumulated. As a certain time duration is needed for fracture to take place when a rock

material is subjected to a stress higher than its static strength, according to the denition of the

damage variable, the evolution of damage in the ith principal direction (i 1, 2, 3) can be determined by the number of cracks which activate at the time t as follows:

Z t

N_ i sAt s ds

15

Di t

tci

where tci is the time duration needed for fracture to take place, and At s is the stress-relieved

area which is determined by a microstructural law for the growth of cracks activated at past time

s. Assuming the microcracks are penny shaped, it has

At s pc2g t s2

16

growth velocity, and by studying the dynamic crack propagation, the relation

where cg is

pthe

crack

cg 0:38 E=q is usually assumed [26]. It should be noted that the derivation of Eq. (15) is based

on the assumption that the growth velocity reaches cg very quickly as soon as a crack activates.

As for the variable Ni in Eq. (15), it is the number of microcracks per unit area in the plane

perpendicular to the ith direction, and the rate of microcrack activation can be calculated by

b

N_ i ahei ecr i

17

922

which is obtained by extending that dened by Yang et al. [27]. In Eq. (17), the angular bracket hi

denotes a function dened by hxi jxj x=2, and in which a and b are material parameters, and

ei is the principal strain in the ith direction. Substituting Eqs. (17) and (16) into Eq. (15) gives

Z t

2

Di t apcg hei ecr ib t s2 ds

18

tci

5. Fragmentation

Fragments are associated with crack initiation, propagation and coalescence, thus it is necessary to know the crack size in order to predict the fragment size. For this reason, the damage

dened by Eq. (15) is given in terms of the distribution of crack size r by setting r cg t s,

Z cg ttci

xi r; t dr

19

Di t

0

where

xi r; t

pr2 _

Ni s

cg

20

is the damage distribution in the ith direction, in which the variable s t r=cg .

Full fragmentation in the ith direction is dened to occur when the damage

Di tfi 1

21

which corresponds to fracture coalescence at time tfi . At fracture coalescence, it is assumed that

the fragment sides are formed by the fracture faces. Therefore, at time tfi there is a correspondence

between the fragment size distribution function and the damage distribution function in the ith

direction

F Li 12xLi =2; tfi

22

where Li is the fragment size in the ith direction corresponding to crack radius r Li =2.

6. Identication of the parameters

In the present damage and fragmentation model, four parameters, namely a, b, cg and ecr , need

to be determined from the dynamic fracture properties of rock materials. Since most ratedependent rock tests performed are uniaxial, the static failure strain ecr can be easily determined

from uniaxial static tensile test results,

ecr

rst

E

23

923

where rst is the static tensile strength and E is Youngs modulus for intact material. The crack

growth velocity cg can be obtained from the relation equation shown in Section 5. The other two

parameters can be determined by using results obtained from uniaxial tensile test. This is discussed in the following.

Assuming the uniaxial strain rate is constant, the tensile strain can be expressed as

24

e e_0 t

where e_0 is the constant strain rate of uniaxial tension, and the axial damage can be derived from

Eq. (18)

Dt me_b0 ht tc ib3

25

m

2apc2g

b 1b 2b 3

26

In the case of uniaxial tension, a rock material is damaged by the development of distributed

microscopic cracks and leads to the nal fracture by their coalescence without signicant inelastic

deformation [28]. Thus for this case, ignoring the plastic strain, namely e ee , the axial stress can

be obtained from Eq. (14) as follows:

r 1 D2 Ee

27

If the tensile strain and damage scalar corresponding to the fracture stress rF are denoted by eF

and DF , respectively, from Eqs. (27) and (24), it has

rF 1 DF 2 EeF

and eF e_0 tF

28

where tF is the total time to reach the fracture stress. From Eq. (25), it has

tF tc

DF

m

1=b3

b=b3

e_0

29

Combining Eqs. (28) and (29), and using the relation ecr e_0 tc , the fracture stress at a certain

strain rate in uniaxial tensile can be obtained as

2

rF 1 DF rst E1 DF

DF

m

1=b3

3=b3

e_0

30

924

Dependence of the fracture stress on strain rate is provided by the above equation. Since

fracture stress for many brittle materials such as rock and concrete depends on the cube root of

the strain rate [5,2931], b can be taken as equal to 6.

It is evident that the fragment size distribution is also dependent on strain rate. As for the

fragment size predictions for the case of uniaxial tension with a constant strain rate, from Eq. (20)

it has

xr; t

apr2 b

e_ ht tc r=cg ib

cg 0

31

b=b3

tf m1=b3 e_0

tc

32

The axial fragment size distribution, Eq. (22), can be maximized with respect to the axial fragmentation size L. Specialized to a uniaxial tension and a constant strain rate the axial fragment

distribution is

F L

apL2 b

e_0 tf L=2cg tc b

8cg

33

Lm

4cg

tf tc

b2

34

Lm

m

e_0

b2

35

This is the expression for the dominant fragment size (fragment size corresponding to the largest

volume fraction of material) that is dependent on the strain rate.

The parameter a can be determined by using the predicted dependence of fracture stress on

strain rate from Eq. (30) and dominant fragment size on strain rate from Eq. (35) to obtain a best

t with the data obtained by experiments. According to the numerical investigations and some test

results of rock materials under explosive loading [27,32,33], the damage value is about 0.22 when

the dynamic tensile stress reaches the dynamic failure stress, namely DF 0:22, which is also the

minimum damage value for the beginning of fragmentation.

7. Application

7.1. One-dimensional loading

In this section, the response of oil shale subjected to a tensile stress is studied to verify the above

theoretical derivations. The oil shale with kerogen content approximately 80 ml/kg is used for the

925

analysis. The representative properties of 80 ml/kg oil shale are: elastic modulus E 17:8 GPa,

yield strength rs 50 MPa, density q 2260 kg/m3 , Poissons ratio m 0:27, elastic wave speed

of cl 2:8 km/s, and static tensile strength rst 5 MPa.

Using the above oil shale properties and the test data reported by Grady and Kipp [2], the

material parameters in the model will be determined for oil shale. The parameter b is taken to be

equal to 6 so that the fracture stress is cube root dependent on the loading rate, and the crack

growth velocity cg is 1066 m/s that is calculated from the above relation expression. The parameters

a is taken to be a 1:2
1025 /m2 s that is determined by tting Eqs. (30) and (35) to the test data

shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

Using these parameters and Eqs. (30) and (35), the fracture stress and dominant fragment size

as functions of strain rate are estimated. The corresponding curves are also shown in Figs. 1 and

2. As can be seen, the predicted values of the fracture stress and the dominant fragment sizes agree

reasonably well with the test data.

926

Fragment distributions calculated from Eq. (33) for the three constant strain rates are shown in

Fig. 3. As can be seen, the fragment sizes at the strain rate of 104 s1 are very small with a

dominant size of about 0.77 mm. On the other hand, at lower strain rates of 103 s1 and 102 s1 the

dominant fragment sizes are about 3.6 and 17 mm, respectively.

A single borehole blasting experiment was conducted in the nominal 80 ml/kg oil shale [33,34].

The blasthole was perpendicular to the ground surface with a diameter of 0.162 m. The explosive

column had a length of 2.5 m and the stemming length was 2.5 m. The detonation point was

positioned at the bottom of the explosive column and on the line of symmetry, and the explosive

used in the test was IREGEL 1175 U. In this section, the crater created from this test is numerically simulated to further verify the above theoretical derivation.

The present damage and fragmentation model is implemented into the commercial program

AUTODYN2D [35] as its user subroutine. The model parameters have been determined at

Section 7.1. Fig. 4 shows the conguration of the numerical model, in which explosive was

simulated by Euler processor and was modeled using the JonesWilkensLee (JWL) equation of

state in AUTODYN2D. The oil shale was assumed to satisfy the linear EOS and simulated by

Lagrange processor. The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is used to calculate the plastic ow of the

oil shale. The whole domain is assumed to be axial symmetric. The transmitting boundary

technique is used in AUTODYN to reduce reection of shock wave from the specied boundaries. These transmitting boundaries allow outward traveling waves to pass through without

reecting energy back into the computational grid. Only the normal component of velocity of the

wave is dealt with and the velocity component parallel to the boundary is assumed to be unaffected by the boundary.

The JWL equation of state models the pressure generated by chemical energy in an explosive. It

can be written in the form

927

P C1

x

1

r1 V

x

xw

r1 V

C2 1

e

er2 V

r2 V

V

36

where C1 , C2 , r1 , r2 and x are constants. P is the pressure, V is the relative volume q0 =q, and q0

and q are the initial density and the current density respectively. w denotes the internal energy.

The parameters in JWL equation of state for IREGEL 1175 U used in the present study are listed

in Table 1, in which w0 is initial ChapmanJouguet (CJ) energy per volume as the total chemical

energy of the explosive, and VOD is CJ detonation velocity of the explosive.

The region of signicant rock damage in the oil shale is usually measured by excavating the

rock loosened by the blast. The crater formed in the experiment was excavated and its dimensions

surveyed [3]. The radius of the crater is about 4.9 m, the depth of the crater on the line of

symmetry is about 1.75 m. This is compared to the calculated rock damage regions dened by the

contour in the material where the damage scalar X exceeds 0.22. The damage scalar X is dened as

X min Di t, and here we assume that the rock is loosened enough for us to be excavated when

the damage scalar X exceeds 0.22.

The damage zone where the damage scalar X exceeds 0.22 is shown in Fig. 5 at a time close to

terminal damage growth. As can be seen, the predicted radius on the ground of the predicted

crater is approximately 5.02 m which is very close to the experimental value 4.9 m. The predicted

depth of the crater on the line of symmetry is approximately 1.68 m which is rather close to the

experimental result of 1.75 m.

Table 1

JWL parameters used for modelling IREGEL 1175 U in the present study

C1 (GPa)

C2 (GPa)

r1

r2

w0 (MJ/m3 )

VOD (m/s)

q0 (kg/m3 )

47.6

0.524

3.5

0.9

1.3

4500

6178

1250

928

Fig. 5. Calculated damage zone where the damage variable X exceeds 0.22.

8. Conclusions

By employing a second rank symmetric damage tensor in the irreversible thermodynamic

frameworks, a model for dynamic anisotropic damage and fragmentation of rock materials under

explosive loading has been developed. It considers the experimental facts that a brittle material

does not fail if the applied stress is lower than its static strength and certain time duration is

needed for fracture to take place when it is subjected to a stress higher than its static strength.

Based on the mechanics of microcrack nucleation, growth and coalescence, the evolution of

damage is formulated. The model provides a quantitative method to estimate the fragment distribution and fragment size generated by crack coalescence in the dynamic fragmentation process.

The various damage activation parameters involved in the model can be easily determined. The

model has been calibrated by a eld blasting test.

References

[1] D.A. Shockey, D.R. Curran, L. Seaman, J.T. Rosenberg, C.F. Petersen, Fragmentation of rock under dynamic

loads, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 11 (1974) 303317.

[2] D.E. Grady, M.E. Kipp, Continuum modelling of explosive fracture in oil shale, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.

Geomech. Abstr. 17 (1980) 147157.

[3] L.M. Taylor, E.P. Chen, J.S. Kuszmaul, Micro-crack induced damage accumulation in brittle rock under dynamic

loading, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng. 55 (1986) 301320.

[4] J.S. Kuszmaul, A new constitutive model for fragmentation of rock under dynamic loading, in: 2nd International

Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Keystone, Colorado, 1987, pp. 412423.

[5] L. Liu, P.D. Katsabanis, Development of a continuum damage model for blasting analysis, Int. J. Rock. Mech.

Min. Sci. 34 (2) (1997) 217231.

[6] H. Hao, G.W. Ma, Y.X. Zhou, Numerical simulation of underground explosions, Int. J. Blast. Fragment. 2 (1998)

383395.

929

[7] W.F. Bawden, P. Katsabanis, R. Yang, Blast damage study by measurement and numerical modelling of blast

damage and vibration in the area adjacent to blast hole, in: W.F. Bawden, J.F. Archibald (Eds.), Innovative Mine

Design for the 21st Century, Proceeding of the International Congress on Mine Design, Kingston, Ont., Canada,

1993, pp. 2326.

[8] B. Budiansky, R.J. OConnell, Elastic moduli of a cracked system, Int. J. Solids Struct. 12 (1976) 8197.

[9] L.G. Margolin, Elasticity moduli of a cracked system, Int. J. Fract. 22 (1983) 6579.

[10] X.B. Li, S.R. Chen, D.S. Gu, Dynamic strength of rock under impulse loads with dierent stress waveforms and

durations, J. CentralSouth Inst. Min. Metall. 25 (3) (1994) (in Chinese).

[11] S. Murakami, Mechanical modeling of material damage, J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 55 (1988) 280286.

[12] J.L. Chaboche, Continuum damage mechanicsI and II, J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 55 (1988) 5572.

[13] D. Krajcinovic, G.U. Fonseka, The continuous damage theory of brittle materialsI and II, J. Appl. Mech.,

Trans. ASME 48 (1981) 809.

[14] D. Krajcinovic, Constitutive equation for damaging materials, J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 50 (1983) 355.

[15] D. Krajcinovic, S. Selvraj, Creep rupture of metalsan analytical model, J. Engng. Mater. Technol., Trans. ASME

106 (1984) 405.

[16] R. Ilankaman, D. Krajcinovic, A constitutive theory for progressively deteriorating brittle solids, Int. J. Solids

Struct. 23 (1987) 1521.

[17] E.T. Onat, F.A. Leckie, Representation of mechanical behavior in the presence of changing internal structures,

J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 55 (1988) 1.

[18] J. Betten, Damage tensor in continuum mechanics, J. Mec. Theor. Appl. 2 (1983) 13.

[19] C.L. Chow, T.J. Lu, On evolution laws of anisotropic damage, Engng. Fract. Mech. 34 (1989) 679.

[20] J.C. Simo, J.W. Ju, Strain- and stress-based constitutive damage modelsI and II, Int. J. Solids Struct. 23 (1987)

821869.

[21] J.W. Ju, On energy-based coupled elastoplastic damage theories: constitutive modeling and computational aspects,

Int. J. Solids Struct. 35 (7) (1989) 803833.

[22] S. Murakami, Notion of continuum damage mechanics and its application to anisotropic creep damage theory,

J. Engng. Mater. Technol. 105 (1983) 99105.

[23] M. Stumvoll, G. Swoboda, Deformation behavior of ductile solids containing anisotropic damage, J. Engng. Mech.

ASCE 119 (1993) 13311352.

[24] S.C. Cowin, The relationship between the elasticity tensor and the fabric tensor, Mech. Mater. 4 (1985) 137147.

[25] G. Swoboda, Q. Yang, An energy-based damage model of geomaterialsI. Formulation and numerical results.

II. Deduction of damage evolution laws, Int. J. Solids Struct. 36 (1999) 17191755.

[26] M.F. Kanninen, C.H. Popelar, Advanced Fracture Mechanics, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985.

[27] R. Yang, W.F. Bawden, P.D. Katsabanis, A new constitutive model for blast damage, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.

Geomech. Abstr. 33 (1996) 245254.

[28] S. Murakami, K. Kamiya, Constitutive and damage evolution equations of elastic-brittle materials based on

irreversible thermodynamics, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 39 (1997) 473486.

[29] F.R. Tuler, B.M. Butcher, A criterion for the time dependence of dynamic fracture, Int. J. Fract. Mech. 4 (1968)

431437.

[30] B. Steverding, S.H. Lehnigk, The fracture penetration depth of stress pulses, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.

Geomech. Abstr. 13 (1976) 7580.

[31] D.E. Grady, M.E. Kipp, Dynamic rock fragmentation, in: B.K. Atkinson (Ed.), Fracture Mechanics of Rock,

Academic Press, London, 1987, pp. 429475.

[32] M.L. Green, Laboratory tests on salem limestone, in: Report of Geomechanical Division, Structures Laboratory,

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Department of Army, Vicksburg, MS, 1992.

[33] R.L. Parrish, J.S. Kuszmaul, Development of a predictive capability for oil shale rubblization: results of recent

cratering experiment, in: Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium Proceedings, Golden, CO, 1984.

[34] J.S. Kuszmaul, Numerical modeling of oil shale fragmentation experiments, in: Proceedings of the Society of

Explosive Engineers, Mini Symposium on Blasting Research, San Diego, CA, 1985.

[35] Autodyn User Manual, revision 3.0, Century Dynamics, San Ramon, CA, 1997.

- ACIUploaded byshak543
- Ice and Construction Rilem Report 13Uploaded byparecpro
- A4Uploaded byBilal Al-Muhtaseb
- COMPRESSION PARAMETERS INVOLVED IN POWDER COMPRESSION AND MANUFACTURING OF TABLETUploaded byShu Chen
- Structural Health MonitoringUploaded bymadhu vit
- A Rigorous Analytical Model for Shrinkage Cracking of Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byHa Läm
- Lok and Capo Test CorrelationUploaded byasingh400
- Crack ConcUploaded byTinwin Htut
- Fatigue AssessmentUploaded byRamchandra
- 1-s2.0-S135983680600120X-mainUploaded bySérgio Patinha
- Physico-Chemical Aspects of ... Use of AdditivesUploaded bydoxamaria
- 15 IronSteelAccess CoversUploaded bycokiaa
- Wheelchair Manual FinalUploaded byFiras H Saqer
- Zhao Cai Cai 2010 Dilation Effects on Failure and Deformation of Hard RocksUploaded bySteve Hughes
- sesion 6Uploaded byMartin Y. Kou
- Determination of far-field stress from localized stress concentra.pdfUploaded byDedipya
- Doc100_03H2CylindersandTransportVesselsUploaded byMomous Kamel Oussadit
- Investigation of Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Steel in WaterUploaded byMuchamadAsyhari
- Stress Concentration.pdfUploaded bymoosa raza
- FailureUploaded byLalit Baviskar
- reap posterUploaded byapi-337827496
- 5r mUploaded byDanangSetiawan
- Engineering Structures_33_2_2011.pdfUploaded byNikola M
- Paper ChileUploaded byAlberto Astorayme Valenzuela
- Tide 2000Uploaded byarjun
- BEHAVIOR TO DAMAGE OF TWO HARDENING PRECIPITATION COPPER ALLOYS: EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION AND NUMERICAL STUDYUploaded byIAEME Publication
- 394Uploaded bylijiabinbin
- 4-4Uploaded bySiddharth Patel
- A938.3002-1Uploaded byAlejandro Valdés Rojas
- Engineering MechanicsUploaded byFranklin Esguerra

- Detonation Short Course LeafletUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Book Review crackUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- SierraWireless AirLink GX450 DatasheetUploaded bywh0cares
- The Dynamics of Three-dimensional Underwater Explosion BubbleUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- ExpertSystemforHydrolicHammerUploaded byikaruskanatlari
- An equivalent method for blasting vibration simulation.pdfUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- 1 - Thermodynamic Theory of Dynamic FragmentationUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Crack Propagation AnalysisUploaded byIman Raoofian
- 1 - Anisotropic dynamic damage and fragmentation of rock materials under explosive loading.pdfUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Harris - Toxic Fume Comparison of a Few Explosives Used in Trench BlastingUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- RiemamUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Jacobs1968 - On the EOS of Compressed Liguids and Solids.pdfUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- 1 - Directed Fracture of Rocks by BlastingUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- chenmian324853-200809-1Uploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Contact Mechanics of Cylinders and SpheresUploaded byadnanhasanovic
- Sizing of Rock Fragmentation Modeling Due to Bench Blasting Using Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System and Radial Basis Function 2012 International JUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Delay Time Optimization in Blasting Operations for Mitigating the Vibration Effects on Final Pit Walls Stability 2011 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Introduction to Scientic Computing in PythonUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Determination of fragments of multiaxial service loading strongly influencing the fatigue of machine componentsUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- V Murariu and D. Jacobson - Copper2013_Paper_version2Uploaded bypaulocouceiro
- New Prediction Models for Mean Particle Size in Rock Blast FragmentationUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Simulation of Loading and Haulage of Fragmented Rock in a Typical Granite Quarry in Ondo State, Nigeria 2Uploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Impact of Blast Fragmentation on Truck Shovel Fleet PerformanceUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Optimization and Control of a Crushing Circuit.pdfUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Groundwater Management in Mining AreasUploaded byAnonymous T3RqJggnn
- Frank Chiappetta Interview - Improving Fragmentation – What You Can Do to Reduce Costs AndUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Influence of Blasted Muck on the Performance of Loading EquipmentUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Excavatability Assessment of Rock Masses Using the Geological Strength Index (GSI)Uploaded bypaulocouceiro
- Vibration Standards for Different CountriesUploaded byNalla Perumal

- Gambica Bs en 61439 Guide Ed2 2013Uploaded byOsama_Othman01
- Chord SymbolUploaded bydevabharathi
- Best Practice Guide PumpUploaded bycuervohijoguacho
- Asean EmblemUploaded byHarvin Julius Lasquero
- Houston Task Force Report of RecommendationsUploaded byLindsay
- Applications of random matrix theory to condensed matter and optical physicsUploaded byThongkool Ctp
- PLP AU Substations 2014Uploaded byShuhan Mohammad Ariful Hoque
- 60 MinutesUploaded bySheri Deterling
- Chemistry NYA Class Notes and Exercises Part 2Uploaded byqwerty514
- Decade-wise sectoral contribution to GDP of BangladeshUploaded byraihans_dhk3378
- Title Page.PDFUploaded byPalak Agarwal
- TOPIC 2Uploaded bymarianneco77
- license.txtUploaded byAdrianodeRosa
- Atomic Structure and Bonding MenuUploaded bySheryl Kalalo Tumamac
- HIPPSUploaded byAhmed Mohamed Khalil
- Case Study on Feasibility Analysis of Real Estate ProjectUploaded byPulkit Aggarwal
- Father Tilly - EscaladeUploaded byJenna April
- Background Information Wizzit Bank 2009Uploaded byapi-25927199
- Keith Wicks Revised Grocery Study 03-17-14Uploaded bycottswdrb
- Chemistry Solved Sample Paper1Uploaded byKunal Rohitas
- Godwin's LawUploaded byAngel Mercado
- RFS Microwave Antenna System Solutions Brochure February 2011Uploaded bynikhom_dk1565
- Migration ASM on Raw to ASMLibUploaded bySuhas Dwarakanath
- 70 EEG in focal epilepsies-handout.pdfUploaded byDragutin Petric
- DeVry Keller ACCT 504 Chapter 3 Homework SolutionsUploaded bybaseballjunker4
- D5777 Guide for Using the Seismic Refraction .pdfUploaded bysergio rochs
- 12 Dragon Scales - exploring pentatonic scales.pdfUploaded byAndyBrooke
- A Design and Implementation of Graphical User Interface (GUI)Uploaded bynedjmou
- K ITP - PLC.docUploaded byOzin Trung
- ECE45 RegulationsUploaded bypsghoward