Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo
Abstract
The presence of lithophysae in some units of Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the U.S. high level nuclear
waste repository, have a detrimental effect on the engineering properties of the rock mass and its performance. The lithophysae
were formed by pockets of gas trapped within the falling volcanic ash that formed the tuff units. The porosity associated with
the lithophysae is termed macroporosity because of the large pore size as compared with traditional rock pores. In this paper,
lithophysae-rich tuff and analog models (both cylindrical and cubic) made of plaster of Paris containing artificially created
cavities were tested to assess the effect of macroporosity on both the uniaxial compressive strength and failure modes of the
specimens. As expected, compressive strength decreases with increasing porosity due to lithophysae in tuff and cavities in
plaster analog specimens. Failure modes of cylindrical specimens were also investigated. The failure modes observed were
grouped into four distinct categories: spalling, axial splitting, shear failure and web failure. The failure modes transition from
spalling through web failure as the percentage of macroporosity within the specimen increased.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tuff; Lithophysae; Porosity; Plaster; Uniaxial compressive strength; Failure modes
1. Introduction
Rocks are composed of both matrix material and
pore space; an increase in porosity reduces their
stiffness and strength. Typically, in rock, porosity is
microscopic and created by spaces between minerals
or individual grains. The pore structure within rock is
usually interconnected and the distribution of pores is
random. The influence of microporosity on the compressive strength of rock specimens has been well
documented for a variety of rock types, such as
sandstones (Dunn et al., 1973; Vernik et al., 1993;
Yale and Nieto, 1995; Palchik, 1999), dolomites
(Hatzor and Palchick, 1997), dolerite (Dearman,
1974) and granite (Dearman et al., 1978).
In some rock types, porosity is also created by
cavities, vugs or vesicles that are visible to the
unaided eye. This type of porosity can be termed
macroscopic porosity or simply macroporosity. Rocks
such as vesicular basalt (Al-Harthi et al., 1999), vuggy
180
2. Specimens
The specimens used in this study include both
lithophysae-rich tuff specimens from outcrops near
Yucca Mountain on the Nevada Test Site and plaster
analogs. Each of the specimen types and materials are
described in detail below.
2.1. Lithophysae-rich tuff
The tuff specimens used in this study were cut
from large irregularly shaped samples from surface
outcrops of the upper lithophysae-rich zone of Topopah Spring Tuff near Yucca Mountain on the Nevada
181
182
and lower lithophysal zones. He determined the microporosity for three different locations within the
matrix material: matrix ground mass, lithophysal
cavity rim, and spots (similar to rims but without
cavities). The microporosity of the rim and spots were
indistinguishable from each other and were grouped
together. He found that the upper lithophysal zone
average microporosity values were found to be 10.3%
and 28.8%, respectively.
Test data from eight cubic specimens of tuff from
outcrops of the upper lithophysal zone, which were
tested by Avar (2002), are used in this study. Each
specimen was roughly cube shaped with edge dimensions between 10 and 15 cm. The size of the lithophysae seen on the surface of the specimens ranged
between approximately 0.1 to 5 cm. The total porosity
of the tuff specimens, including both microscopic and
cavity porosity, ranged between 17% and 32%.
Test data from Sandia National Laboratories and
their subcontractors was also used to augment the tuff
data. This data was from two sources, the North Ramp
Geotechnical (NRG) boreholes NGR-6 and NGR-7/
7A (Martin et al., 1994, 1995) and the upper lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al.,
1984). The specimens from the North Ramp Geotechnical boreholes had length to diameter ratio of 2:1
(10.16:5.08 cm). The total porosities of these specimens ranged between 12% and 24%. The specimens
tested by Price et al. (1984) were large diameter cores,
26.7 cm, and had a length to diameter ratio of 2:1.
These specimens had total porosities ranging between
30% and 40%.
2.2. Plaster models with cavities
Dry plaster has been used alone or mixed with
other materials such as sand, clay or aggregates as a
rock-type analog material (see Stimpson, 1970, for a
summary of modeling materials in rock mechanics).
Lajtai and Lajtai (1975) modeled cavity collapse
using gypsum plaster. Leite and Ferland (2001)
mixed polystyrene spheres with sand, plaster and
water to produce artificial porous rock to determine
compressive strength and Youngs modulus. In this
study, plaster was used as an analog model to
stimulate tuff matrix material. Spherical Styrofoam
inclusions were mixed with plaster in order to represent cavities, similar to lithophysae in tuff. The
Styrofoam is stiffer than air, which fills the lithophysae, but is much less stiff than the plaster. As seen in
Fig. 1, lithophysae are not exactly in spherical shape,
therefore using spherical Styrofoam inclusions in the
analog models is only an approximation for simulating such cavities.
A plaster paste was produced using 2 parts plaster
to 1 part water and the required volume of inclusions.
The water plaster paste was poured into a mold and
allowed to dry overnight. The next day, the mold was
removed and the specimen was weighed daily to
monitor specimen drying. Once a constant weight
was reached, the loading sides of the specimens were
then ground flat to enable a uniform load distribution.
Further details regarding the plaster specimens are
presented below.
2.2.1. Cubic specimens
Fourteen cubic plaster specimens were produced in
an aluminum mold with sides of approximately 15 cm.
The specimens contained macroporosities between 5%
and 35% were produced using spherical Styrofoam
inclusions. Six different diameters of spherical Styrofoam inclusions, ranging between 2.5 to 10.2 cm, were
used in the specimens. Different sizes and numbers of
Styrofoam spheres were mixed with plaster paste and
poured into the mold (see Avar, 2002 for details). This
technique was meant to obtain a random distribution
of the inclusions in the specimen.
2.2.2. Cylindrical specimens
Twenty cylindrical specimens, approximately 10.16
cm in length and 5.08 cm in diameter, were also
produced. Ten of the specimens were produced with
Styrofoam inclusions. The Styrofoam inclusions were
spherical with a nominal diameter of approximately 6
to 8 mm. Plaster water paste was mixed with the
number of Styrofoam inclusions to produce the required porosity and then poured into plastic containers.
Macroporosity of cylindrical specimens ranges from
approximately 7% to 37%.
The cavities in the remaining 10 specimens were
created by injecting air into the plaster paste. To
produce these specimens, the bottom third of the plastic
cylinder was filled with plaster and a graduated syringe
was used to inject air bubbles of a certain volume into
the plaster. Similarly, the middle and top thirds of the
specimen were filled and then air was injected from a
183
3. Porosity calculations
The porosity of tuff specimens and the plaster
specimens were calculated in two different ways.
For the tuff specimens, the porosity was computed
on the assumption that the tuff is made up of both
solids and voids. However, the voids could be in the
form of microporosity within the matrix, macroporosity due to lithophysae, and microcracks and microfractures. In order to determine the porosity, the
specific gravity of the tuff matrix and the dry unit
weight of the tuff specimen were determined according to ASTM D854 (2002) and the total porosity of
each specimen was calculated using the following
equation:
cdry
/1
1
Gs cwater
where /, Gs, cwater, cdry are the macroporosity, specific
gravity, unit weight of water and dry unit weight of
solid, respectively. One drawback of this method is
that calculated porosity does not distinguish between
the microporosity due to spaces between grains in the
matrix, and the macroporosity due to lithophysae,
microcracks and microfractures. Thus, the porosity
of the tuff specimens is termed total porosity. The total
porosity for the lithophysae-rich tuff ranged between
approximately 12% and 35%. Based on the work of
Otto (2003), it is appropriate to assume a presence of
lithophysae in specimens containing greater than
approximately 10% total porosity.
184
R2 0:80
Fig. 2. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength and macroporosity for plaster specimens.
185
Fig. 3. Relationship between unconfined compressive strength and total porosity for lithophysal tuff specimens. Tuff specimens from this study
are roughly cubic with average dimensions of 10 to 15 cm. Tuff specimens of Martin et al. (1994, 1995) are cylindrical with diameters of 5.08
cm; those from Price et al. (1984) are cylindrical with diameters of 26.7 cm.
R2 0:62
R2 0:90
186
Fig. 4. Relationship between normalized compressive strength and macroporosity for plaster specimens and total porosity for four tuff
specimens.
for such behavior may include the presence of nonspherical lithophysae, larger range of lithophysae
sizes within the tuff than the size of cavities within
the plaster, and the presence of unreported microcracks and microfractures within the tuff that are not
present within the plaster.
Porosity values determined by Otto (2003) could
conceivably be used to estimate the portion of
macroporosity from the total porosity of the tuff
specimens used in this study. The effect would be
to shift the tuff data presented in Fig. 4 to the left
and the regression line presented would have a
steeper slope. However, for a heterogeneous material like tuff, it is probably better to measure the
total porosity and microporosity for each tuff specimen and then calculate the macroporosity for each
specimen. This was not conducted as part of this
study. One should note that microporosity is an
intrinsic characteristic of tuff and tuff with zero
microporosity does not exist in Paintbrush stratigraphic units at Yucca Mountain (Martin et al.,
187
188
and porosity. The specimens failed via a combination of the previously mentioned failure modes.
Local failures occurred within the zones that
contained high cavity concentrations. Crack propagation usually initiated at cavities and crossed them.
The main difference in failure between plaster and
tuff specimens is that more localized failures occurred in tuff, most probably because tuff specimens have larger nonspherical cavities that interface
with the outer surface of the specimen, whereas
plaster specimens contained spherical cavities surrounded by the plaster matrix creating a stiffer
structure. Local failures were in the form of severe
cracking that caused irregularly shaped pieces to
break off the specimen at locations with high
concentrations of lithophysae. Specimens continued
to carry load after these localized failures. Such
failures may occur in the field during the lifetime
of the repository tunnels that are under not only the
in-situ stresses but also thermal stresses.
7. Conclusion
Uniaxial compression tests have been performed
on lithophysae-rich tuff and cylindrical and cubic
plaster specimens containing cavities created by using
either injected air or spherical Styro-foam inclusions.
From these tests, the relationships between macroporosity and compressive strength and failure modes
have been determined.
The plaster specimens were characterized by their
macroporosity (the porosity due to the Styrofoam or
injected air inclusions) assuming the plaster portion of
the specimen to be solid. The macroporosity for the
plaster specimens ranged between 0% and approximately 38%. The uniaxial compressive strength decreased non-linearly with increasing macroporosity
(R2 of 0.80). There did not appear to be a specimen
shape effect on the compressive strength of the plaster
specimens.
The tuff specimens were characterized by their
total porosity (the porosity of both lithophysae and
microscopic pores). The total porosity for the tuff
specimens ranged between approximately 8% and
40%. The uniaxial compressive strength decreased
non-linearly with increasing total porosity, however,
there was a wide spread to the data (R2 of 0.62).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. V.
Thummala and Mr. C.D. Herrington of Bechtel
Nevada Material Testing Laboratory, Mercury, NV,
who performed specific gravity tests on tuff specimens and helped during compression testing of tuff
and cubic plaster specimens. Ron Price from Sandia
National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM aided
the authors in finding supporting data on lithophysae-rich tuff. The authors would also like to thank
Dr. Vicki Moon for numerous helpful and insightful
comments from her review of the manuscript.
Table A1. Cubic tuff specimen uniaxial compressive strength and porosity data (after Avar, 2002)
Specimen
number
UC strength
(MPa)
Total porosity
(%)
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1674
1675
1676
15.5
6.1
27.5
14.5
39.5
14.3
52.4
44.9
31.6
28.6
28.3
32.9
30.6
25.9
19.3
17.1
Tests performed at the Materials Testing Laboratory at the Nevada Test Site.
UC strength (MPa)
95.8
50.4
81.8
15.7
36.1
21.1
12.4
15.3
13.4
16.2
17.3
23.3
UC strength (MPa)
14.5
10.3
12.4
12.0
18.2
17.4
18.5
17.5
13.8
27.8
33.5
34.2
30.9
40.0
37.4
32.9
33.5
37.9
35.5
36.4
189
UC strength
(MPa)
Macroporosity
(%)
Air 1
Air 2
Air 3
Air 4
Air 5
Air 6
Air 7
Air 8
Air 9
Air 10
Styrofoam 1
Styrofoam 2
Styrofoam 3
Styrofoam 4
Styrofoam 5
Styrofoam 6
Styrofoam 7
Styrofoam 8
Styrofoam 9
Styrofoam 10
Average Solid
8.50
6.51
10.00
11.67
11.70
11.35
11.95
13.41
8.52
8.87
10.40
11.12
9.54
5.00
6.32
6.38
4.30
3.70
4.05
3.17
16.67
4.0
5.2
5.4
7.0
6.9
7.8
4.4
5.7
5.6
5.3
7.4
9.4
12.0
17.2
15.9
19.6
24.0
26.0
25.4
37.6
0.0
References
Table A4. Cubic plaster specimen uniaxial compressive strength and porosity data (after Avar, 2002)
Specimen
number
UC strength
(MPa)
Macroporosity
(%)
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1663
1664
1665
1666
2.88
4.93
11.17
5.40
5.04
7.73
8.97
3.07
4.93
6.98
33.2
18.9
4.9
11.8
19.9
16.7
5.1
27.1
17.4
23.6
Tests performed at the Materials Testing Laboratory at the Nevada Test Site.
Al-Harthi, A.A., Al-Amri, R.M., Shehata, W.M., 1999. The porosity and engineering properties of vesicular basalt in Saudi Arabia. Engineering Geology 54, 313 320.
Andreev, G.E., 1995. Brittle Failure of Rock Materials: Test Results
and Constitutive Models. A.A. Balkema, Vermont.
ASTM D2938, 1995. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, 04 08.
ASTM D854, 2002. Standard test methods for specific gravity of
soil solids by water pycnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04 08.
Avar, B.B., 2002. Numerical and experimental investigation of deformation and strength properties of lithophysae-rich tuff and
analog materials. PhD dissertation, University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, NV.
Avar, B.B., Hudyma, N., Karakouzian, M., 2003. Porosity dependence of the elastic modulus of lithophysae-rich tuff: numerical
and experimental investigations. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 40, 919 928.
BSC, 2001. Site Recommendation Subsurface Layout. Report No:
ANL-SFS-MG-000001 REV 00 ICN 02, Bechtel-SAIC Company, Las Vegas, NV.
190
Dearman, W.R., 1974. Weathering classification in the characterization of rock for engineering purposes in British Practice.
Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geologists 9, 33 42.
Dearman, W.R., Baynes, F.J., Ifran, T.Y., 1978. Engineering grading of weathered granite. Engineering Geology 12, 345 374.
Dunn, D.E., La Fountain, L.J., Jackson, R.E., 1973. Porosity dependence and mechanism of brittle fracture in sandstone. Journal of Geophysical Research 78, 2403 2417.
Fox, K.F., Spengler, R.W., Myers, W.B., 1990. Geologic framework
and cenozoic evolution of the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada.
International Symposium on Unique Underground Structures,
vol. 2. CSM Press, pp. 56-1 56-18.
Hatzor, T.H., Palchick, V., 1997. The influence of grain size and
porosity on crack initiation stress and critical flaw length in
dolomites. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 34, 805 816.
Howarth, D.F., 1987. The effect of pre-existing microcavities on
mechanical properties on mechanical rock performance in sedimentary and crystalline rocks. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
24, 223 233.
Kachanov, M., Tsukrov, I., Shafiro, I., 1994. Effective moduli of
solids with cavities of various shapes. Applied Mechanics
Reviews 47, S151 S174.
Lajtai, E.Z., Lajtai, V.N., 1975. The collapse of cavities. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 12, 81 86.
Leite, M.H., Ferland, F., 2001. Determination of unconfined compressive strength and Youngs modulus of porous materials by
indentation tests. Engineering Geology 59, 267 280.
Luping, T.N., 1986. A study of the quantitative relationship between strength and pore size distribution of porous materials.
Cement and Concrete Research 16, 87 96.
Mansur, M.A., Islam, M.M., 2002. Interpretation of concrete
strength for nonstandard specimens. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 14, 151 155.
Martin, R.J., Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., Noel, J.S., 1994. Bulk and
mechanical properties of the Paintbrush Tuff recovered from
Borehole USW NRG-6: data report. Sandia National Labs Report, SAND93-4020.
Martin, R.J., Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., Noel, J.S., 1995. Bulk and
mechanical properties of the Paintbrush Tuff recovered from
Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: data report. Sandia National Labs
Report, SAND94-1996.
Mongano, G.S., Singleton, W.L., Moyer, T.C., Beason, S.C., Eatman, G.L.W., Albin, A.L., Lung, R.C., 1999. Geology of the
ERB cross driftexploratory studies facility, Yucca Mountain
Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation and
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. http://www.ymp.gov/
documents/spg42gm3_a/index.htm.