4.7 Article

Finite element analyses of constitutive models performance in the simulation of blast-induced rock cracks

Journal

COMPUTERS AND GEOTECHNICS
Volume 135, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104172

Keywords

Rock; Constitutive model; Elastodynamics; Crack propagation; Failure criterion; Finite element method

Funding

  1. Yalong River Joint Fund of National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1965101]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the performance of the RHT model and the HJC model in numerical simulations of blast-induced cracks in granite, and found that the RHT model is more suitable for simulating cyclic blasting problems.
This study analyzed the performance of the Riedel-Hiermaier-Thoma (RHT) model and the Holmquist-JohnsonCook (HJC) model in the numerical simulations of blast-induced cracks in granite. The two models implemented in the LS-DYNA software were firstly adopted to simulate a single blasting process in granite. Further, the HJC model was improved by coupling an additional failure criterion and used to describe the tensile damage of rock materials. The feasibility of the two models in simulating the extent of damage zone and fracture patterns in rock mass under cyclic blast loading was explored based on the field blast tests. The results show that both the RHT model and the improved HJC model are able to describe the formation of crushed zone and the propagation of tensile cracks in single blasting problems. For cyclic blasting problems, the simulation results based on the RHT model are consistent with experimental ones, but the improved HJC model is not applicable. Both the RHT and the improved HJC models are suitable for the numerical simulation of single blasting problems and the RHT model should be the first choice for the simulation of cyclic blasting problems.

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