4.7 Article

Crack Initiation, Propagation and Coalescence in Rock-Like Material Containing Two Flaws: a Numerical Study Based on Bonded-Particle Model Approach

Journal

ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 1001-1021

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-012-0323-1

Keywords

Bonded-particle model (BPM); Crack type; Crack coalescence category; Micro-cracking zone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cracking and coalescence behavior in a rectangular rock-like specimen containing two parallel (stepped and coplanar) pre-existing open flaws under uniaxial compression load has been numerically studied by a parallel bonded-particle model, which is a type of bonded-particle model. Crack initiation and propagation from two flaws replicate most of the phenomena observed in prior physical experiments, such as the type (tensile/shear) and the initiation stress of the first crack, as well as the coalescence pattern. Eight crack coalescence categories representing different crack types and trajectories are identified. New coalescence categories namely New 1 and New 2, which are first observed in the present simulation, are incorporated into categories 3 and 4, and category 5 previously proposed by the MIT Rock Mechanics Research Group, respectively. The flaw inclination angle (beta), the ligament length (L) (spacing between two flaws) and the bridging angle (alpha) (inclination of a line linking up the inner flaw tips, between two flaws) have different effects on the coalescence patterns, coalescence stresses (before, at or post the peak stress) as well as peak strength of specimens. Some insights on the coalescence processes, such as the initiation of cracks in the intact part of specimens at a distance away from the flaw tips, and coalescence due to the development and linkage of a number of steeply inclined to vertical macro-tensile cracks are revealed by the present numerical study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available