4.7 Article

Method for Quantification of Wear of Sheared Joint Walls Based on Surface Morphology

期刊

ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 883-910

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-008-0023-z

关键词

Wear; Shearing; Rock joint; Surface roughness; Morphology

资金

  1. IRSST
  2. NSERC
  3. FQRNT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Roughness and wear evolution of three different joint wall surfaces were characterized using surface roughness and surface wear parameters. Parameters were defined by considering the two components of morphology: waviness (primary roughness) and surface roughness (secondary roughness). Two surface roughness parameters are proposed: joint interface (or single wall) specific surface roughness coefficient SRs (0 <= SRs <= 1) for quantifying the amount of pure roughness (or specific roughness), and degree of joint interface (or single wall) relative surface roughness DRr (0 <= DRr <= 0.5). Two further parameters are also proposed in order to quantify the wear of wall surface: joint interface (or single wall) surface wear coefficient Lambda(interface), and the degree of joint interface (or single wall) surface wear D-w(interface). The three test specimens were: man-made granite joints with hammered surfaces, man-made mortar joints with corrugated surfaces, and mortar joints prepared from natural rough and undulated schist joint replicas. Shearing under monotonic and cyclic shearing was performed using a computer-controlled bidirectional and biaxial shear apparatus. Joint surface data were measured using a noncontact laser sensor profilometer prior to and after each shear test. Calculation of specific surface roughness coefficient SRs, and degree of surface wear D-w, indicated that the hammered joint interface with predominant interlocking wears much more (>90%) than the corrugated (27%) and the rough and undulated (23%) joint interfaces having localized interlocking points. The proposed method was also successfully linked to the classical wear theory.

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