4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

On the Variable Dilatancy Angle in Rocks Around Underground Galleries

期刊

ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 587-601

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-016-1126-6

关键词

Dilatancy angle; Plastic strain; Gallery excavation; Strain localization; Pore water pressure

资金

  1. ONDRAF/NIRAS (Belgian National Agency for Radioactive Waste and enriched Fissile Material)
  2. fruitful cooperation of EURIDICE (European Underground Research Infrastructure for Disposal of nuclear waste in Clay Environment)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correct estimation of the dilatant behavior of a rock has an essential role in a realistic numerical simulation of the fracturing threshold during the rock deformation process and its post-failure response, based on experimental and field observations. This importance has been poorly treated in most of the numerical analyses dealing with the rock engineering common problems such as deep excavations. The dilatancy angle as a commonly used parameter for describing the dilatation response of a rock is mostly simplified to be a constant value. Contrarily, a literature review declares the inadequacy of this approach in those rock mechanics applications. In the present paper, a new formula for considering the variable dilatancy angle is presented which relates this parameter to the plastic shear strain in the course of a loading procedure. It is aimed at characterizing an evolution of the dilatant or contracting volumetric response of a rock as well as giving the possibility to simulate a dilatant/contracting transitional behavior. The model is applied to simulate the development of strain localization, in shear band mode, within the inevitable excavation damaged zone created around an underground opening in rock. It is illustrated that using the model of variable dilatancy angle in a deep excavation modeling could help to better reproduce the fractures development around the opening in the course of tunneling.

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