Chapter 1 Rock Strength and Fracture Properties Which properties of rock are important in the context of blasting, and how do ‘we measure them? The two questions are not easily answered, because the physical ‘and mechanical processes involved in the blasting process are not entirely clarified and understood. However, it is obvious that the structural characteristics of the rock mass and the strength and fracture properties of its ingredient rocks are important to know ae basis for understanding the blasting process. The following brief introduction to some selected areas of rock mechanics and geological engineering is intended to give a person not previously acquainted with these subjects a feeling for the way the rock materials and rock masses may react to the forces released by the detonation of explosive charges in driltholes Paradoxically, rock is both a weak and strong material. In tension, granite has only a small percentage of the strength of steel. The unconfined compressive strength is higher; for granite, about 5 or 10 times higher than the tensile strength. With increasing confinement, however, rock becomes very strong. For example, the strength of granite under conditions of uniaxial strain is very much above that of hard steel. Because there is an element of creep involved in the mechanism of failure of rock materials, there is also an influence of the time of loading, so that for a short time, rock can stand up to @ higher stress than that equivalent to its normal static strength, measured with times of loading of the order of minutes. When we talk of shock wave loading, the typical times under stress are in the microsecond to millisecond range, and this results in about a factor of 2 increase in strength over the static value. Thus, for a plane shock wave, where the material cannot expand laterally, granite will stand a compressive stress of 30004000 MPa elastically before failing, This is 6 to 8 times the strength of steel. The degree of brittleness of rock and the ability of the rock to release elastically stored deformation energy by crack propagation constitute another set of rock proper ties that we need to know and understand in order to understand the mechanism of rock blasting. The material property of fundamental importance in this context is the fracture toughness, and the tool for the mathematical treatment of crack propagation problems is called fracture mechanics, An even more important property of rock in the context of blasting is the rich structure of fissures, bedding planes, cracks, flaws, or faults, generally called weak planes ot joints, that are practically always present in a natural rock mass. ‘The result of a blast in a rock mass cannot be properly understood without reference to the character, strength, orientation, size, and frequency of joints. This is particularly true when we seek to explain the degree of fragmentation of the rock mass broken loose oF the extent of damage caused to the remaining rock.6 — Chapter 1. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties 1-1 Rock Strength Measurements Figure 1.1 shows schematically the different strength tests that are used to get ‘a basis for understanding the strength and fracture properties of rock The weakness of rack is demonstrated by the tensile test. ‘This test is made using a necked specimen to avoid fracturing at the jaws of the testing machine, Because the tensile strength is so low, for granite only about 1/10 that of steel, the deformation to fracture is quite small (on the order of 1%) and, consequently, even small bending. strains set up by the testing machine can cause large errors in the test result A simple and for some purposes quite useful test is the unconfined compressive test, in which a short cylinder (L/d = 2) is placed in a press that applies a uniform load to the cylinder’s end surfaces. ‘The test result is dependent on the uniformity of the load, and care must be taken to use a wafer material such as cardboard or leather between the contacting surfaces to accommodate the different moduli of the press platens and the rock. The compressive strength of many rock materials is a factor of 5 or more greater than their tensile strength. ‘The scatter of the strength values from a series of test specimens of the same rock material is considerable, This is a result of the randomly distributed weak planes, microcracks, or flaws in the rock which greatly influence the rock strength. ‘The flaws are often so small and the microcracks so fine that they are difficult to detect by the naked eye, There is also an element of creep in the strength and deformation characteristics of rock, as evidenced by the ability of rock to flow and deform plastically under tectonic stress over long periods of time (hundreds of thousands to millions of years) ‘Experiments have shown that the strength of rock is time dependent, so that the compressive strength when the load is applied in 1 msec is a factor of 2 or 2.5 greater than when the load is applied in 10 see. (Figure 1.2.) With confinement, that is when lateral expansion is restricted, rock in compression becomes stronger, This is because deformation to failure takes place as a shearing of weak planes. ‘The action of confinement is to resist shearing, partly by creating lateral forces that resist the shear motion, and partly by increasing the friction on potential shearing surfaces by increasing the normal load thereby also increasing the rock strength, In the confined shear tests, the cylindrical test specimen, which is often necked to avoid the influence of end-effects, is sheathed by a thin rubber or copper cover to prevent penetration of hydraulic fluid into the pores of the rock. Axial load is applied by pistons inside a pressure vessel where the lateral confining load is by the hydrostatic pressure of oil surrounding the sheathed specimen. From tests of this kind, the compressive strength (which is equal to the major principal stress) can be mapped out as a function of lateral pressure. In these tests, the two minor principal stresses are equal and also equal to the lateral pressure. Even more complicated tests have been devised to study rock strength behavior three principal stresses ate different. The most interesting region from a prac- tical engineering point of view, and also when we want to understand the fracture modes of rock in the complicated dynamic stress situation around a detonating charge in a drillhole in rock, is that in which the minor principal stress is small and the interme: diate principal stress varies. In this region of the principal stress space, the compressive strength of rock varies with the magnitude of the intermediate stress, One of the tesis used in this region, commonly called the triaxial test, is the hollow ylinder test. A sheathed hollow cylinder of rock is exposed to different internal and external hydrostatic pressures at the same time as an axial piston load is applied. In ‘a further complication of the test, torsion can be applied, often as an alternative to1.1. Rock Strength Measurements 7 bo - : eK 4 215 mm Ae 7 sample KR — Figure 1.1. Different strength tests principles: (a) tensile; (b) unconfined compressive; (©) confined compressive: (d) confined shear; (e) triaxial using hollow cylinder under torsion; (f) triaxial using piston loads on faces of a cubic specimen having the internal pressure different from the external. Similar results have been obtained by piston-loading the square surfaces of a cubic rock specimen with opposing piston loads that are different in the three principal directions. ‘The information available on the influence of the intermediate principal stress on the strength of rock comes from experiments of this kind. These tests are, however, cumbersome and expensive to carry out.8 Chapter 1. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties or ef e Wr. 6 a) Limestone Figure 1.2. Unconfined compressive strength of granite (a) and limestone (b) at different temperatures vs, loading cycle time. A comparatively simpler test which has proved very useful in the study of rock strength at very high confining pressures is the confined double shear test, developed by Lundborg (Pigur ‘A cylindrical test specimen is inserted in the yoke-like loading lI made of hardened steel. ‘The normal load F, is applied via pistons to the end Surfaces of the cylinder. The cylinder is then sheared off by applying the shear load F, to the hardened steel plate enclosing the middle patt of the cylinder inside the yoke.1.1. Rock Strength Measurements 9 Talkb) 10 6+2pq/(1#2p_/9-1) 0 Patkb) 0 5 10 15 Figure 1.3, The shear strength of granite and steel as a function of normal pressures Although the stress concentrations at the edges of the shear surfaces are a complicating factor, the double shear test has given reproducible results that in general agree with ‘other confined shear tests. It has a tendency to give strength values somewhat on the high side, This has been ascribed to the fact that the exact location of the two shear zones within the specimen volume is predetermined in this test. Therefore, shear is forced to occur in that location — which is not necessarily in the weakest shear plane. In other shear tests, the shear occurs at the weakest plane within the specimen volume. Figure 1.3 shows the shear strength of granite compared to that of steel, Shear strength is thus composed of two parts: the friction between sliding crack surfaces characterized by a friction coefficient 1; and the fracturing or plastic defor ‘mation of the crystal grains, which approach a limiting shear strength 7, when the deformation is entirely plastic. Based upon this simple assumption, Lundborg (1972) has succeeded in describing the confined double shear strength 7 as a function of normal pressure @,, by the three parameters, 1, 7, and the unconfined shear strength r, by the expression t=—h+— ay The confined double shear test has proved to be a useful source of strength data for use in rack blasting computations. Table 1.1 shows values of y, 75, and 7, for a number of rock materials10 Chapter J. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties ‘Table 1.1, The constants j4 7, and 7 for disierent kinds of rocks and ores. No, Material Locality “ (bar) (kbar) Granite chal 20 06 oF 2 Peymatite-gneissValdemarsvik 2.505 ur 3 Granite Bredscleforeen 20 OA. 102 4 Gneisegranite Valdemarsvik 2506, 65. 5 Quarerite Gautojaure 2008, ea & Grey Slate Granbofowen 1803. Bi 7 Skarnbreccia Malmberget, 15 04 3 Micagneiss Vindelforsen 12 s 7 9 Limestone 1 Granboforsen 1203, 5 Black Slate Gautojoore 08 48 Lead Ore Laisvall 25 OB sa Magnetite Grangesberg «1803, 83 Leptite Grangesberg 2403 63. Toon Pyrites Rutjebacken 702 5s Granite Rize 1803 Limestone I Borghamn 1902 Sandstone Gotlana o7 02 90 Flintstone Skane te aa Glass 250s 20 ‘Table 1.2. Comparison of strong. Typical Strength Values Strength Granite Steel (Pa) (ibar) (kbar) Tensile strength a Compressive strength (unconfined) 200 3 Compressive strength (confined) 3000 20 3 Hugoniot Elastic Limit, HEL 3000-4000 30-408 Elastic Modulus 50000-80000 500-800 2100 Shear strength (unconfined) » 30 os: 6 Shear strength (confined) rt 1000 10 6 Coefficient of friction » 2 at The ultimate degree of confinement (which occurs in the case of uniaxial strain in which no lateral expansion is allowed) can be produced in a triaxial compressive test. ‘The two minor principal stresses are adjusted to keep the lateral strain at zero. ‘The “infinite confinement” compressive strength ,, measured in this case is about an order of magnitude greater than the unconfined compressive strength 0... The case of compressive loading in uniaxial strain occurs in the shock compression in a plane shock wave. For small enough shock pressures, the uniaxial deformation is clastic, With increasing shock pressure, the material finally cannot accommodate the deformation elastically, and the strain is relieved by microscopic shear failure. ‘The the Hugoniot Blastic Limit (HEL). Because of th high loading rate in the shock wave that leads to a dynamic strength higher than the static strength, the HEL is another factor of 1.5 to 2 times greater than o, ‘Table 1.2 gives typical values for the different characteristic strengths of granite, compared to that of steel.1.2. Three-Dimensional Rock Strength and Deformation Energy 11 109,909 tbar) a og,9V temn®) Figure 1.4. Strength-size relationship of granite, ‘The strength of rock is also size dependent, in that a large test specimen will fail at a lower stress than a small one, Weibull [1939] showed that several materials follow the formula 3 mnogo (2) = tos, (4) ata) o (7) = 28.0 () / where p,, is the strength of a sample of volume V,, Py that of a sample of volume V;, and m is a constant. Figure 1.4 shows the size dependence of the tensile strength ¢, and compressive strength a, of granite on the test specimen volume V 1.2 Three-Dimensional Rock Strength and Deformation Energy The strength properties of rock when confined and stressed in different directions simultaneously have a profound importance on the understanding of the whole technol- ogy of rock fragmentation in drilling, boring, and blasting, Figure 1.5 shows a model of the strength of granite in the principal stress space. In the following, o,, ¢,, and, are the three principal stresses; o,, 03, and o represent the principal stresses in order of decreasing size (¢, > 7, > ¢). Along the space diagonal, all three principal stresses are equal. ‘Thus, the diagonal is the axis of increasing hydrostatic pressure. Fracture occurs for all stress combinations that lie on the surface of the projectile; for those within it the materia! holds. We can see that as long as at least one of the principal stresses are small, the strength of the material is small, But for large compressive stresses, the granite is strong. This is seen perhaps better in a plot of shear strength vs. normal pressure obtained ftom the Lundborg confined shear test (Figure I.ld). It is interesting and thought provoking to compare, as in the figure, the strength of granite at a confin- ing pressure of 10 kbar with that of hard steel, When we allow a rock cutting tool to work in such a geometry that it creates mainly compressive stresses, in effect it must cut a material that is considerably stronger than steel. ‘The apparent ease with which rock breaks in tension is only partly the result of the tensile strength of rock being small compared to the compressive strength. It is also the result of the small energy required for deformation to fracture in tension, which is much smaller than that in compression. In fact, the energies of deformation of granit Point of fracture for the three stress systems —~ uniaxial tension, uniaxial comm to the12 Chapter 1. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties ‘Table 1.3. Strength aud deformation energies of granite. rent Bar nto fracture Tawile 30300 Uniaxial tension 1 Compressive 200 2000 Uniaxial compression 100 nina strain 10,000 Figure 1.5. A model of the tvi-axial strength of rock. Stresses, ‘The space diagoual represents hydrosta yeand os are the three principal je pressure (22 = oy = r= 2) and uniaxial strain — have the relative magnitudes of 1, 100, and 10000 , respectively (Table 13), ‘Thus, in order to fracture rock with minimum force and energy, the rock de | as pressure in a drillhole, working from the inside of the material, does create mainly tensile stresses, particularly When there is a free surface nearby. This explains why rock fragmentation by explosives material sh ded mainly in tension. The explosion energy-conservative method1.3, The Random Microcrack Model for Rock Strength 13 1.3 The Random Microcrack Model for Rock Strength The reasons for the strength behavior of rock and other brittle materials can be sought in the presence of microscopic cracks and flaws in the base material that is in itself strong, Most rock materials are aggregates in which separate crystal grains of different strength, different elastic and thermal moduli, and different size are cemented cor grown together. Any deformation of sufficient magnitude will lead to local cracking, or the development of microscopic flaws, pores, or weakened regions. Such flaws are cetials because of the deformation the rock has undergone under the influence of tectonic forces and temperature changes. Int microcracks grow, join, and ultimately lead to fracture at a low load. In compression, the friction on such microcracks that are stressed in shear leads to increased strength. With confinement, the crack growth is further restricted and frie- tion is increased. ‘This leads to a further increase in strength. In the limit, with in- creased hydrostatic confining pressure, we approach the real strength of the aggregate base material. It is conceivable, with a sufficiently high hydrostatic pressure, that the deformation of the weaker part of the aggregate grains will be plastic, while the hard grains still only deform elastically. ‘The random distribution in space, size, and direction of the microcracks or flaws is the reason for both the scatter of experimental strength measurement data and the dependence of strength on the size of the specimen. In a large specimen, it is more probable than in small specimen that a sufficiently large flaw will have a direction favoring fracture in a given stress situation. Therefore, a large specimen or rock volume has a lower strength than a small specimen. Lundborg [1972] has formulated a statistical theory of the strength of brittle ma- terials based on the random microcrack model. This theory agrees very well with the available experimental data on tensile strength, compressive strength, triaxial strength, the strength/volume dependence, and the scatter of experimental strength data for several rock material Lundborg assumes that the local shear strength of a brittle material is randomly distributed over both space and spatial angle of shear, in the same way as we may assume the microcracks to be randomly distributed within the piece of rock and to have a randomly varying size and direction in space. Therefore, fracture under a given load may not always occur in the direction where the shear stress is highest, but in a slightly different direction where the local shear strength happens to be low. Lundborg used Weibull’s statistical approach to model and describe mathematically the statistical nature of rock strength, putting the probability of fracture in the form also nearly always present in most natural rock 1 Sx) =1-e** (1.2) er xa f (ut =00e)” an aa) ve stres 1s in and across a plane of a given direction, ate the shear and nermal compres and the integration is carried out. over all directions in space where | 7, be regarded as an average of the coefficient of friction between the two surfaces of a microcrack. M represents the degree of statistical scatter of the shear strength as a function of solid angle. The subscript n refers to a stress in a direction normal to the shear direction. > Hoy. Hea14 Chapter 1. R Strength and Practure Properties Figure 1.8, Strength ar a when w= 1 function of the intermediate princ 1 is the strength o when oy = 23 I streas a2 at different M By using experimental values of uniaxial compressive strength, say those for 50% rupture, the value of &X can be found from Equation 1.2. Then, if u and M are known, the strength at any The calculation requires the use of a small computer. combination of stresses can be calculated by letting X be constant. Figure 1.6 shows the vatiation in strength according to Lundborg’s theory. 7, and o, are the principal stresses in order of decreasing size, and the calculation is made for the case when o', Land M = oo, 5,3, and 2. The classical strength criteria, such as those named after Mohr-Coulomb, von Mises, and ‘Tresca, respectively, can be derived as special cases of the Lundborg theory (Figure 1.7). There is a simple relationship between 4 and M when the uniaxial and biaxial compressive strengths 7, and do are known (2 Vi-w +n (a) For high compressive stresses, js is not constant, but decreases with the normal stress , — (15) where 7, approaches the limiting shear strength 7, when ¢,, tends to infinity Figures 1.8 through 1.11 show the comparison between experiment and the Lund- borg theory for two different rock materials, (Lundborg [1974]). ‘The agreement with experiment is excellent. The Lundborg theory is unique in that it contains as special cases the well-known fracture criteria widely used in engineering to explain the differ cent fracture points under combined stresses for different types of materials. Each of the Mohr-Coulomb, von Mises, Tresea, and other strength criteria thus correspond to different sets of special values of the parameters z and M in the Lundborg theoryStress relations tor the deviatoric plane when 20 and 6 ea [ED [eins with o | 2 | von Mises 0 | co | Tesce + [eo | Mone-couloms 1 | 2 | buna % & Figure 1.7, Comparison between different strength theories. ‘The figure shows cuts through the strength projectile at right angles to the hydrostatic pressure axis. The four different strength criteria according to von Mises, Tresca, Mohr-Coulomb, and Lundborg represent different shapes of the projectile: von Mises represents a ro- tationally symmetric projectile, Tresca a symmetric hexagonal cross-section with sharp edges, while Mobr-Coulomb represents a deformed hexag which also has sharp edges, The Lundborg model for y= 1, M =? yields a projectile shape with rounded edges which has features of all these criteria, 1.4 Fracture Mechanics ‘The most important aspect of the strength of brittle materials is their ability to break by crack propagation. Because the tensile strength of these materials is so much lower than the compressive strength, and possibly also beea yy already contain microcracks, cracks form easily and, once formed, expand hecause of the concentration of tensile stresses at the crack tip (Figure 1.12). We will limit this discussion to cracking under biaxial ‘ions where two principal stresses are equal and the third is 2eto The stress concentration in front of the crack tip can be represented by the expression Vine where the stress intensity factor KC, is a function of the crack length and the load o, The nek just starts moving is a material constant Kj< itical value of K, when the16 Chapter J. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties 1:10 6, (kb) 8 ox (kb) Figure 1.8. Comparison between calculated strength and Hoskins’ [1960] experimental values on syenite. Tho symbols indicate different values of the smallest principal stress ¢, used by Hoskins corresponding to the calculated lines in the fign ‘As the crack propagates, energy is absorbed by deformation work by the material at the crack tip or dissipated as clastic wave energy radiating out through the material from the crack tip. The work done per unit new crack surface is G, which is coupled to Kyo through the relation Le c= where v is Poisson's ratio and £ is Young's modulus. Gis called fracture toughness and is the fundamental material constant, Some authors also refer to Ky as the fracture toughness. Table 1.4 shows some typical fracture toughness values. Fracture mechanics is at work in most processes of practical rock fragmentation (Figure 1.13). G, Kg a7)4.5. Rock Mass Strength and Structure 17 Table 1.4. Typical fracture toughness values. Maierial E(GPa]_ Giclee] Kae [MPa Steet 21010000 30 Aluminum 70-8000 2% Plexiglas 3 00 1s Granitel st 150 5 Granite 20 98 14 Marble 30 10 o7 Marble 80 M4 Ler 15 65 vo 50 12 025 6, _—}— BOR(KD) 225 og tkb) Figure 1.9 Calculated strength criteria of syenite for the deviatoric plane in the priucipal stress space at different mean strosses 4p. The Reseale shows the radius of the yield surface, and the v-axes the direction of the principal stresses.18 Chapter 1. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties Sytkb) 40 6 kb) S ~ \ 1-00 © Ox(kb) Figure 1.10. Comparison between calculated strength and experimental values from Akai ‘snd Mori (1967] on sandstone. 1.5 Rock Mass Strength and Structure ‘A rock mass, as distinguished from a rock strength test specimen, is a body of rock with its naturally occurring network of flaws and discontinuities, cracks, joints, and planes of weakness, ‘These are important for a proper understanding of the real ability of a rock mass volume to withstand load, of how and why it fails, and of the resulting. fragment size and shape (Figure 1.14), Whether we want to know if an overhanging body of rock is likely to break and come down on a road to be constructed, of we want to know the stability of a tunnel or the stability of pillar in a mine, we must of necessity know the major structure and orientation of weakness planes in that rock mass. Mapping out the rock mass structure is not very difficult. Make a point of looking, for features on rock faces along the road as you pass by; stop and draw a sketch of what you see. Quickly yon begin to distinguish recurring discontinuities in the form of bed- ding planes, foliation partings, cracks, fissures, or joints. You begin to see intersec: groups of parallel planes, or random, irregular structures. Because we are dealing with 1 three-dimensional network of intersecting planes, the description of each plane has to nnclude the cornpass bearing (called the strike) of its intersection with reference plane (normally the horizontal), and the slope angle (dip) between the plane and the hotizon- al. For regular or recurring cracks we need two further descriptors, namely the average rack lengtit and the average distance between parallel cracks. A good description of one1.5, Rock Mass Strength and S Figure 1.11. Calculated strength criteria of sandstone for the deviatoric plane in the ‘principal stress space at different mean stresses vp. The R-scale shows the radius of the yield surface, and the c-axes the direction of the principal stresses. ystem of parallel cracks reads like this: strike N30E, dip 20°SB, crack length 2 m, crack spacing 0.3 m. For a statistical treat of the scatter around its mean value, usually the standard deviation ‘The strength of joints is normally considerably less than that of the adjacent rock. It is deseribed by two nt, each of these four may be given a measure mple measures, the tensile or adhesive strength (often zero) at right angles to the plane, and the shear strength or friction angle along the plane. For a detailed understanding of t ‘ock mass behavior under stress and vibration, we also need a measure of the elastic or plastic deformability of the joint (its “spring constant”) and the way the shear strength or friction angle varies with shear deformation and crack separation, Numerical modeling of rock mass strength and stability has to be based on simplified structures that retain the major and most important features of the real joint structure. Such models tend to become very cumbersome to deal with in three dimen- sions because of the complexity of the geometrical description, Therefore, wherever20 Chapter 1. Rock Strength and Fracture Properties tttttt. i) Vhdbdls, Figure 1.12, Stress concentration at the crack tip. possible, two-dimensional modeling is preferred, using structure models such as in Fig. ure 1.15. ‘Another very useful simplification in the modeling of rock mass behavior under Jow stress loads, such as in slope stability modeling, is to consider the rock material between the joints to be incompressible, so that all deformation is assumed to take place within the joint, as shear movement, elastic or plastic compression, tension, ot separation. Cundall [1971] used this approach, which he called the block model, to calculate problems of slope stability, where the rock mass in a slope was under stress caused by gravity. The block model of rock mass deformation and fracture was later very successfully applied by Cooper [1981] to the dynamic stresses set up by the gas pressure in blasting. In Cooper's caleulations (shown in Figure 1.16), the model yielded the throw trajectories and final positions of each block in the final muckpile.Ine 1.5. Rock Mass Strength and Structure fk Tunnet boring Bench blasting | 211.5. Rock Mase Strength and Structure Figure 116, Computer modalng (in two-dimenvions) [Cooper 1 throw, and back break due to the instantaneo il [3871] vigid block model modified by Coope gravity.) 23 | of the dynamic frag- plosion in a slit (using to allow inertial effects in