Connexion
S'inscrire
Réinitialiser le mot de passe
Publier & Distribuer
Solutions d'édition
Solutions de distribution
Thèmes
Architecture et design
Arts
Business et économie
Chimie
Chimie industrielle
Droit
Géosciences
Histoire
Informatique
Ingénierie
Intérêt général
Linguistique et sémiotique
Littérature
Mathématiques
Musique
Médecine
Pharmacie
Philosophie
Physique
Sciences bibliothécaires et de l'information, études du livre
Sciences des matériaux
Sciences du vivant
Sciences sociales
Sport et loisirs
Théologie et religion
Études classiques et du Proche-Orient ancient
Études culturelles
Études juives
Publications
Journaux
Livres
Comptes-rendus
Éditeurs
Blog
Contact
Chercher
EUR
USD
GBP
Français
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Panier
Home
Journaux
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Édition 42 (2020): Edition 1 (April 2020)
Accès libre
Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading
Jan Maciejewski
Jan Maciejewski
,
Sebastian Bąk
Sebastian Bąk
et
Paweł Ciężkowski
Paweł Ciężkowski
| 19 mars 2020
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Édition 42 (2020): Edition 1 (April 2020)
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Résumé
Article
Figures et tableaux
Références
Auteurs
Articles dans cette édition
Aperçu
PDF
Citez
Partagez
Article Category:
Research Article
Publié en ligne:
19 mars 2020
Pages:
36 - 47
Reçu:
01 mars 2019
Accepté:
02 sept. 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0030
Mots clés
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
Aperçu