Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Fracture mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Structural integrity and failure wikipedia , lookup
Paleostress inversion wikipedia , lookup
Hooke's law wikipedia , lookup
Viscoplasticity wikipedia , lookup
Strengthening mechanisms of materials wikipedia , lookup
Fatigue (material) wikipedia , lookup
Deformation (mechanics) wikipedia , lookup
Proposed Henry Krumb Lecture Abstract: High Strain Mechanics and Its Importance in Crushing and Grinding Technology Abstract: The legendary Greek Parthenon was constructed between 447 and 438 BC. In 1687 a mortar bomb fired from a Venetian battery besieging the Acropolis of Athens struck gunpowder stored inside the Parthenon. Damage to the Parthenon was extensive reducing the structure to what we see today. A 2012 study by Caltech, “Explosion at the Parthenon: can we pick up the pieces?” utilized high strain rate testing of the Parthenon’s marble to understand how the marble stonework fragmented due to the massive explosion. Brittle materials behave differently when subjected to high strain rates as opposed to quasistatic strain rates. Quasi-static loading occurs when the stress pulse is slow enough for the system to remain in internal equilibrium. That is, material fracture develops as the stress pulse moves through the material. In high strain rate loading, however, the stress pulse moves through the material before fracturing has time to develop. This generally results in higher strength, stiffness and smaller fragment sizes. High strain testing, using a split Hopkinson pressure bar, was conducted on a series of carbonates from three limestone quarries and four dolomite quarries. Quasi-static testing showed that the dolomites have a slightly higher compressive strength than the limestones. High strain rate testing, however, showed significant differences between the dolomite and limestone with the limestone having significantly higher compressive strength and stiffness. It is hypothesized that the intercrystalline interface strength of limestone, which forms as a primary precipitate, is significantly stronger than dolomite. Dolomites in turn would have lower interface strength due to enlargement of the dolomite crystal during magnesium replacement. Further, it is hypothesized that the post depositional changes creating dolomites would have healed existing macro-defects causing slightly higher compressive strength than limestones during quasistatic loading. This suggests that quasi-static loading is controlled in part by the macro-defects since fracturing would start first with macro-fractures as the load moves through the rock. High strain rate testing, though, would be dominated by the rock’s intercrystalline interface strength and micro-defects. This research has implications for utilizing high strain rate testing for developing a better understanding of the energy requirements and fragmentation behavior in crushing and grinding operations as well as for rock fragmentation using explosives, which can all be viewed as dynamic fracturing processes. Word Count: 373