4.7 Article

Dolomite fracture modeling using the Johnson-Holmquist concrete material model: Parameter determination and validation

Journal

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.09.007

Keywords

Johnson-Holmquist concrete (JHC) model; Rock modeling; Dolomite; Constitutive modeling; Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB); Fracture; Triaxial compression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Johnson-Holmquist concrete (JHC) constitutive model was used to simulate the fracture of dolomite in this paper. A detailed procedure for determining parameters was proposed based on experiments, and the model was validated through various compression tests. The simulation results were shown to be in good agreement with experimental data, indicating the model's effectiveness for further blasting simulations.
In this paper, the Johnson-Holmquist concrete (JHC) constitutive model is adopted for modeling and simulating the fracture of dolomite. A detailed step-by-step procedure for determining all required parameters, based on a series of experiments under quasi-static and dynamic regimes, is proposed. Strain rate coefficients, failure surfaces, equations of state and damage/failure constants are acquired based on the experimental data and finite element analyses. The JHC model with the obtained parameters for dolomite is subsequently validated using quasi-static uniaxial and triaxial compression tests as well as dynamic split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests. The influence of mesh size is also analyzed. It shows that the simulated fracture behavior and waveform data are in good agreement with the experimental data for all tests under both quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions. Future studies will implement the validated JHC model in small- and large-scale blasting simulations. (C) 2021 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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