4.7 Article

Crack coalescence between two non-parallel flaws in rock-like material under uniaxial compression

Journal

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages 74-90

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.10.007

Keywords

Crack coalescence; Joint; non-parallel flaws; Bonded-particle model (RPM)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41302235]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB10030304]
  3. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project Stability Analysis and Safety Monitoring on Complicated Geotechnical Engineering [2011CDA119]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crack coalescence between parallel flaws has been extensively studied in brittle rock and rock-like materials. Due to the nature of rock masses that contain more than one joint set, the cracking process cannot be completely studied using specimens that contain parallel flaws. To address this area of research, crack coalescence between two non-parallel flaws is studied numerically using parallel bonded-particle models in which one flaw does not overlap or partially overlaps the other (varying alpha) and in which one flaw completely overlaps the other (varying (beta). Five types of linkage are observed between two flaws: tensile crack linkage, tensile crack linkage with shear coalescence at tip, shear crack linkage, mixed (tensile-shear crack) linkage and indirect crack linkage. The geometries of the two non-parallel flaws strongly influence the crack trajectories and coalescence patterns. At large angles of alpha (135 degrees) and beta (60 degrees), coalescence occurs more easily by tensile crack(s) before the peak stress is reached. The stress distribution in bridge area of the non-parallel flaws is more complicated than that of the parallel flaws. This difference affects the stress for crack initiation as well as the pattern for coalescence. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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