4.7 Article

A constitutive model for modified cable bolts exhibiting cone shaped failure mode

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2021.104855

关键词

Cable bolts; Constitutive model; Pull-out test; Cone shaped failure mode

资金

  1. Australian Coal Association Research Program [ACARP C28020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a novel constitutive model to characterize the mechanical behavior of cable bolts under axial loading and different boundary conditions, and validates the model's credibility by simulating the full load-displacement performance of cable bolts. The cone shaped failure mode of grout is found to significantly affect the load carrying capacity of cable bolts under axial loading.
This study presents a novel constitutive model to characterise the mechanical behaviour of cable bolts under axial loading and subjected to different boundary conditions including constant confining pressure and constant normal stiffness. Such a model is developed based on the modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion as well as a newly proposed non-linear dilation formulae for the development of governing equations. The cone shaped failure mode of grout due to the axial movement of cable bolt is considered as a widely observable failure mode at the cable bolt to the grout interface. The load carrying capacity of the cable bolt under axial loading is significantly affected by both the progressive reduction in the volume of failed cone zone of grout annulus and the continuous degradation of dilation angle at the cable bolt to the grout interface. Hence, the full loaddisplacement performance of different cable bolts under axial loading subjected to both constant confining pressure and constant normal stiffness are simulated. Finally, an acceptable agreement between the model simulations and the experimental data confirms the credibility of proposed constitutive model for predicting the mechanical behaviour of different cable bolts under axial loading.

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