Iniciar sesión
Registrarse
Restablecer contraseña
Publicar y Distribuir
Soluciones de Publicación
Soluciones de Distribución
Temas
Arquitectura y diseño
Artes
Ciencias Sociales
Ciencias de la Información y Bibliotecas, Estudios del Libro
Ciencias de la vida
Ciencias de los materiales
Deporte y tiempo libre
Estudios clásicos y del Cercano Oriente antiguo
Estudios culturales
Estudios judíos
Farmacia
Filosofía
Física
Geociencias
Historia
Informática
Ingeniería
Interés general
Ley
Lingüística y semiótica
Literatura
Matemáticas
Medicina
Música
Negocios y Economía
Química
Química industrial
Teología y religión
Publicaciones
Revistas
Libros
Actas
Editoriales
Blog
Contacto
Buscar
EUR
USD
GBP
Español
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrito
Home
Revistas
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volumen 42 (2020): Edición 1 (April 2020)
Acceso abierto
Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading
Jan Maciejewski
Jan Maciejewski
,
Sebastian Bąk
Sebastian Bąk
y
Paweł Ciężkowski
Paweł Ciężkowski
| 19 mar 2020
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volumen 42 (2020): Edición 1 (April 2020)
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Resumen
Artículo
Figuras y tablas
Referencias
Autores
Artículos en este número
Vista previa
PDF
Cite
Compartir
Article Category:
Research Article
Publicado en línea:
19 mar 2020
Páginas:
36 - 47
Recibido:
01 mar 2019
Aceptado:
02 sept 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0030
Palabras clave
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
Vista previa