Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading Cover

Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 42 (2020): Issue 1 (April 2020)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2020

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Shear test of rock joint interface[12]
Shear test of rock joint interface[12]

Figure 2

Types of rock joints: a) natural joint,[15] b,c) artificial rock interfaces[13,16]
Types of rock joints: a) natural joint,[15] b,c) artificial rock interfaces[13,16]

Figure 3

Primary and secondary asperities
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]
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
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
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
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
Configurational rearrangement of particles after the change of sliding direction

Figure 9

Change of the failure surface position by rotation through an angle θ
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
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
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
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
Third body granular layer generation due to cyclic loading

Figure 14

Evolution of asperity profile due to wear process
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
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
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
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
Simulation versus experiment: a) simulation results, b) results obtained in experiment for normal load σn = 4 MPa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0030 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 36 - 47
Submitted on: Mar 1, 2019
Accepted on: Sep 2, 2019
Published on: Mar 19, 2020
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
cyclic shear test,
asperity degradation,
elliptic yield surface,
material interface response,
rock joint interface
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2020 Jan Maciejewski, Sebastian Bąk, Paweł Ciężkowski, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 42 (2020): Issue 1 (April 2020)Next article