Stan Vitton, PhD, PE

Professor
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Michigan Technological University
ISEE 34th Annual Conference
January, 2008
Jake’s Law
“Anything hit with a big
enough hammer will fall
apart”
Dynamic Strength & Fracture
Research for Rock Drillability &
Aggregate Production
 High Strain Rate Behavior
 Dynamic Aggregate Testing
 Other Transportation Materials Applications
 Blasting/Crushing /Grinding

 Rock Socket Drillability

 Conclusions
Strain Rate Behavior?
 Aluminum

 Steel

 Ceramics

 Geologic and Concrete Materials

Dynamic Effects??
Strain Rate??
L

L
Strain 
Lo
Lo
Strain
  Strain Rate 
Time
Dynamic Strength
Strength

10-6/second 100/sec 102/second

ASTM Concrete Blasting
Testing Strain Rate
 Fragmentation
Fragmentation

10-6/second 100/sec 102/second

ASTM Concrete Strain Rate Blasting

Testing
Why? Slow Fast
Why? Fast
Slow
 Nicolet Digital Oscilloscope

Wheatstone
Striker Bridge
Bar Specimen

Incident Bar Transmission Bar

“Modified” Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar

(MSHPB) Equipment Setup
75 mm Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
Dynamic Strength & Fracture Research
for Rock Drillability & Aggregate
Production

 High Strain Rate Behavior

 Dynamic Aggregate Testing
 Other Transportation Materials Applications
 Blasting/Crushing /Grinding

 Rock Socket Drillability

 Conclusions
Aggregate Source Location

Ontario
Lake Superior Canada
Moyle Quarry
Algoma Steel Co.

Ontario Traprock
Port Inland Quarry
Quarry Cedarville
Quarry
Presque Isle Stone

Bay County Road

Commission Quarry

Michigan
USA
EDW. C. Levy Company
Denniston Farms Quarry
France Stone Co. Rockwood Stone Quarry
Aggregate Type and Specific Gravity
Source Orientation to Porosity
# (MDOT ID) Material Type Bedding Gab GB GB,SSD (%)
1. Air-Cooled Blast Porous Region 2.973 2.09 2.41 30
Algoma Steel
Furnace Slag Dense Region 2.888 2.40 2.57 17
2 Algoma Steel Water Quenched Blast
Furnace Slag Random 2.942 2.43 2.61 17
3 Levy Co. Water Quenched Blast
Furnace Slag Random 2.985 2.42 2.61 19
4 Presque Isle Stone
Limestone Random 2.687 2.51 2.58 6
5 Bay County
Limestone Perpendicular 2.697 2.63 2.68 2
6 Port Inland
Limestone Random 2.69 2.68 2.68 <1
7 Cedarville
Dolomite Random 2.770 2.71 2.75 2
8 Denniston
Dolomite Perpendicular 2.828 2.48 2.65 12
9 Rockwood
Dolomite Parallel 2.836 2.49 2.63 12

Perpendicular 2.834 2.60 2.70 8

10 France Stone
Dolomite Perpendicular 2.818 2.78 2.82 1
11 Moyle
Flood Basalt Random 2.938 2.89 2.91 1.6
12 Ontario Traprock
Diabase Random 2.931 2.91 2.92 <1
Air-Cooled Slag
Water-quenched Slag
Presque Isle Limestone
Bay County Limestone
Port Inland Limestone
Cedarville Dolomite
Dennison Farms Dolomite
France Stone Dolomite
Basalt - Rapid Geologic Cooling (Flood Basalt)
Diabase - Slower Geologic Cooling (Traprock)
 Dynamic & Static Compression Strength Results
700

Dynamic
Dry Aggregate
600 Static 3.0
Bulk Density

500

Bulk Density rB (Mg/m3)

Failure Strength (MPa)

400 2.5

300

200 2.0

100

0 1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Sample Type
 A' -- Super High Strength
Deere - Miller Rock Classification A -- Very High Strength
700 Dynamic B -- High Strength
C -- Medium Strength
Static D -- Low Strength
600 E -- Very Low Strength
Limestone Igneous
Slag Dolomite
500
Failure Strength (MPa)

A' next geometric progression

400
Limestone
Slag Dolomite
300

A A
200

B B
100
D C Igneous C
D
E
E 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Sample Type
 Compressive Strength vs Density
500

Dynamic
400
Mean Compressive Strength (MPa)

Static
300

200

100

0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0

Bulk Density rB (Mg/m3)

 500
Strength (MPa)

400 Dynamic
Static

300
Mean Compressive

200

100

0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
Bulk Density rB (Mg/m )
3
Dynamic to Static Strength Ratio, D/S

Dynamic Strength D d
 
Static Strength S s
Strain Rate Sensitivity Factor, 
df d  s
 
d(log )  d 
log  
 s 
Dynamic to Static Strength Ratios
Dynamic/Static Dynamic/Static
Material (Dry) (Saturated)

Slag
1.93 2.68
Limestone
2.30 2.23
Dolomite
1.64 1.83
Igneous
1.78 2.55
 Strain Rate Sensitivity  Values
ID
Number
Strain Rate Sensitivity,   
Aggregate
Average
1.0 Algoma air cooled blast furnace slag – porous section 3.00
1.2 Algoma air-cooled blast furnace slag – dense section 9.81
2 Algoma water-quenched blast furnace slag 4.2 Slag
2.93
3 Levy water-quenched blast furnace slag 1.27
4 Limestone, Presque Isle 9.97
5 Limestone, Bay County 13.59 16.4 Limestone
6 Limestone, Port Inland 25.52
7 Dolomite, Cedarville 10.27
8 Dolomite, Denniston 8.77 Dolomite
9 Dolomite, Rockwood 4.52 8.6
10 Dolomite, France Stone 10.81
11 Basalt, Portage Lake Lava Series, Moyle 26.90
Igneous
12 Diabase, Ontario Traprock 31.30 29.1
 35
Igneous (12)
Rate Senstitivity Parameter 

30
Igneous (11)

25 Limestone (6)

20

15
Limestone (5)

Limestone (4) Dolomite (10)

10
Dolomite (7)
Dolomite (8)

5 Dolomite (9)
Slag (1) Slag (2)
Slag (3)
0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0

rB
Bulk Density
3
(Mg/m )
 35
Igneous (12)
Rate Sensitivity Parameter 

30 Slag
Limestone Limestone (6)
25 Igneous (11)
Dolomite
20 Igneous

15 Limestone (5)

Limestone (4)
Dolomite (10)
10
Dolomite (8) Dolomite (7)

5 Dolomite (9)
Slag (2)
Slag (1) Slag (3)
0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0

Bulk Density rB (Mg/m3)

 60
Maximum LA Abrasion Value

Slag

50
Carbonates
Limestone (4)
Dolomite (10)
Slag (1)
Igneous
40
Slag (3) Dolomite (7)
Dolomite (9)
Dolomite (8)

30 Limestone (6)
Limestone (5)

20

Basalt (11)
Diabase (12)
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Rate Sensitivity Parameter
Aggregate Dynamic & Static Strength
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
Aggregate Dynamic & Static
Strength Conclusions Continued
 Strain Rate Sensitivity Parameter, :
• Igneous:  = 29.1
• Limestone:  = 16.4
• Dolomite:  = 8.6
• Slag:  = 4.2
 Variations in  appear to be due to the
aggregate's microstructure, e.g.,
• Limestone primary precipitate
• Dolomite secondary replacement
Dynamic Strength & Fracture Research
for Rock Drillability & Aggregate
Production

 High Strain Rate Behavior

 Dynamic Aggregate Testing
 Other Transportation Materials Applications
 Blasting/Crushing /Grinding

 Rock Socket Drillability

 Conclusions
 Effects of Blasting on Rock
Recent International Society of Explosive
Engineers (2001-2004):
 The Effects of Blasting on Crushing and Grinding Efficiency and
Energy Consumption
 Effects of Blasting on the Strength of Rock Fragmentation
 Small Scale Study of Damage Due to Blasting and Implication 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 Using the RHT
Constitutive Model for Brittle Materials
 Damage to Rocks and Cementitous Materials from Solid Impact –
Erosion (wear) of rock and concrete
Crushing & Grinding – Aggregate Production
Shape and Size Distribution Important
Crushing  Grinding (wear/friction)
 LA Abrasion
Hammer  Micro-Deval
Cone  Aggregate Interlock
(PCC)
Jaw  Handling & Storage
VSI  Resilient Modulus
 Friction-Polishing
Cone, Jaw, Hammer Crushers
Vertical Shaft Impact (VSI) Crusher
Differential Breakage Rate
Autogenous
Grinding Mill

Abrasion
(Wear)

Crushing

Large (<1m) Size Small (20 m)

Rock Socket Drillability
Rock Sockets
 Rock Quality Designation
(RQD)
 Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
 Rock Mass Classification,
Q
 GSI (Hoek et al., 2002)
 Point Load Test
 Uniaxial Compressive
Strength
Rock Socket Drills
Rock Auger
Core Barrels
Down Hole
Hammer
Reverse
Circulation
Core Barrel/ Down Hole Hammer
Reverse Circulation Drill
Rock Socket Drill Selection
Rule-of-Thumb Criteria
 Based almost solely on uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock
 NCHRP 360
 Rock Auger (1.7 m (36”)) < 70 MPa (10 ksi)
 Core Barrels – 70 MPa to 100 MPa (10 ksi to 15 ksi)
 Down Hole Hammers - > 100 MPa (15 ksi)
 Research suggests that the strain rate parameter, ,
might be useful in assessing the drillability of rock
for rock socket construction
Dynamic Strength & Fracture Research
for Rock Drillability & Aggregate
Production

 High Strain Rate Behavior

 Dynamic Aggregate Testing
 Other Transportation Applications
 Blasting/Crushing /Grinding

 Rock Socket Drillability

 Conclusions
General Conclusions:
 Field and experimental observations indicate that blasting
has a significant impact on crushing and grinding

 Blasting affects both the strength and fragmentation of

rock

 An important component of optimum fragmentation is the

development of micro-fracturing within individual
fragments
 Conclusions/Thoughts
 Rock (aggregate) and concrete materials are rate sensitive

 The D/S ratio appears to indicates the type of rock type

 The rate sensitivity parameter, , appears to correlate with

microstructure
Conclusions/Thoughts
 Dynamic fracture testing may provide a means to test
micro-structure to better understand friction (wear) and
other properties

 There are a number of areas in transportation materials

where high strain rate behavior has significant
application e.g., Blasting, crushing, and rock socket
drillability
Thank You