4.6 Article

Seepage-stress combined experiment and damage model of rock in different loading and unloading paths

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/10567895231193056

关键词

Different stress paths; permeability; seepage-stress coupling; failure mode; damage constitutive model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the excavation of water-related underground projects, the complex stress path and stress state redistribution of the surrounding rock can cause damage and failure under the hydro-mechanical coupling condition. However, the understanding and theoretical models of rock hydro-mechanical coupling characteristics under complex stress paths are limited. This study conducted a series of tests to investigate the effects of different stress paths, stress levels, and seepage pressure on rock deformation, strength, failure, and permeability.
In the excavation of water-related underground projects such as hydropower and energy reserves, the surrounding rock surfers complex stress path and stress state redistribution, resulting in damage and failure under the hydro-mechanical coupling condition. However, the rock hydro-mechanical coupling characteristics under complex stress paths are unclear and corresponding theoretical models are scarce. In this study, a series of tests such as triaxial compression, unloading confining pressure and cyclic loading and unloading were carried out to study the effects of different stress paths, stress levels and seepage pressure on rock deformation, strength, failure and permeability. Based on test results, the damage evolutions under three different testing paths were analyzed, a new seepage-stress coupling statistical damage model which can better simulate the compaction stage is proposed. The prediction results of the proposed model under different stress paths are in good agreement with the experimental results. Under different stress paths, the fitting relationship between parameters R0 and n and & sigma;eff is similar and has good correlation.

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

4.6
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