Login
Registrieren
Passwort zurücksetzen
Veröffentlichen & Verteilen
Verlagslösungen
Vertriebslösungen
Themen
Allgemein
Altertumswissenschaften
Architektur und Design
Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, Buchwissenschaft
Biologie
Chemie
Geowissenschaften
Geschichte
Industrielle Chemie
Informatik
Jüdische Studien
Kulturwissenschaften
Kunst
Linguistik und Semiotik
Literaturwissenschaft
Materialwissenschaft
Mathematik
Medizin
Musik
Pharmazie
Philosophie
Physik
Rechtswissenschaften
Sozialwissenschaften
Sport und Freizeit
Technik
Theologie und Religion
Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Veröffentlichungen
Zeitschriften
Bücher
Konferenzberichte
Verlage
Blog
Kontakt
Suche
EUR
USD
GBP
Deutsch
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Warenkorb
Home
Zeitschriften
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Band 42 (2020): Heft 1 (April 2020)
Uneingeschränkter Zugang
Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading
Jan Maciejewski
Jan Maciejewski
,
Sebastian Bąk
Sebastian Bąk
und
Paweł Ciężkowski
Paweł Ciężkowski
| 19. März 2020
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Band 42 (2020): Heft 1 (April 2020)
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zusammenfassung
Artikel
Figuren und Tabellen
Referenzen
Autoren
Artikel in dieser Ausgabe
Vorschau
PDF
Zitieren
Teilen
Article Category:
Research Article
Online veröffentlicht:
19. März 2020
Seitenbereich:
36 - 47
Eingereicht:
01. März 2019
Akzeptiert:
02. Sept. 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0030
Schlüsselwörter
cyclic shear test
,
asperity degradation
,
elliptic yield surface
,
material interface response
,
rock joint interface
© 2020 Jan Maciejewski et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Figure 1
Shear test of rock joint interface[12]
Figure 2
Types of rock joints: a) natural joint,[15] b,c) artificial rock interfaces[13,16]
Figure 3
Primary and secondary asperities
Figure 4
Dilation and stress in cyclic shear test: a) cyclic reversible dilatancy, b) cyclic dilatancy degradation, c) experimental data[22]
Figure 5
Scheme of the load of joint interface
Figure 6
a) Elliptical failure surfaces and critical state line (csl) on plane σn, τn, b) change of ellipse center σ0 and semi-major and semi-minor axes size (a, b) as the function of density ρ
Figure 7
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy
Figure 8
Configurational rearrangement of particles after the change of sliding direction
Figure 9
Change of the failure surface position by rotation through an angle θ
Figure 10
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy
Figure 11
Shape of primary asperities depending on g0 parameter
Figure 12
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°, asperities) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy, c) asperity shape assumed for calculations
Figure 13
Third body granular layer generation due to cyclic loading
Figure 14
Evolution of asperity profile due to wear process
Figure 15
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°, asperity degradation, interface layer frictional wear) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy, c) variations of rotation angle θ
Figure 16
Supplement to simulation results given in Fig. 15 for normal load σn = 10 MPa: a) variations of contact layer height, b) asperity shape degradation, c) third body layer dilation
Figure 17
Simulation vs. experiment: a) simulation results, b) results obtained in experiment for normal load σn = 0.5 MPa
Figure 18
Simulation versus experiment: a) simulation results, b) results obtained in experiment for normal load σn = 4 MPa
Vorschau