4.7 Article

Modification of a generalized three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.009

关键词

Hoek-Brown strength criterion; 3D strength criterion; Failure surface; Lode dependence; Smoothness; Convexity

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining Technology [SKLGDUEK1011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To take account of the influence of the intermediate principle stress, Zhang and Zhu [1,2] proposed a three-dimensional (3D) version of the generalized Hoek-Brown strength criterion. The generalized Zhang-Zhu strength criterion is a true 3D version of the Hoek-Brown criterion, not only inheriting the advantages of the Hoek-Brown strength criterion, but predicts the same strength as the two-dimensional (2D) Hoek-Brown strength criterion at both triaxial compression and extension states. However, the failure surface of the generalized 3D Zhang-Zhu strength criterion is not smooth at either the triaxial compression or extension state and concave at the triaxial extension state, which may have problems with some stress paths and cause inconvenience for numerical applications. In this paper, the reason for the non-smoothness and non-convexity of the generalized 3D Zhang-Zhu strength criterion was first discussed by studying its Lode dependence. Then the criterion was modified by utilizing three different Lode dependences with characteristics of both smoothness and convexity to replace its Lode dependence. Finally the smoothness, convexity and prediction accuracy of the modified criteria were evaluated by applying them to analyze both intact rocks and jointed rock masses. The modified criteria not only keep the advantages of the generalized 3D Zhang-Zhu strength criterion, but solve the non-smoothness and non-convexity problem with no loss of accuracy for strength prediction. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据