4.5 Article

Daily and seasonal activity patterns of a felid assemblage in a forest-grassland mosaic in southern Brazil

期刊

GEOMECHANICS AND ENGINEERING
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 53-63

出版社

TECHNO-PRESS
DOI: 10.12989/gae.2023.33.1.053

关键词

Hoek-Brown failure criterion; infinite slope; limit analysis; rock disturbance; rock slope stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rock disturbance caused by blasting and stress relaxation is commonly observed during excavation. In stability analyses, a single value of disturbance is often applied to the entire rock mass, leading to underestimated results. This study addresses this modeling mistake by considering realistically varying rock disturbance. The safety of infinite slopes in a disturbed rock mass is investigated based on the kinematic approach of limit analysis.
Rock disturbance caused by blasting and stress relaxation is commonly observed during excavation. As the distance from the source of disturbance increases, the degree of disturbance decreases, and rock at a large depth does not experience disturbance. However, in stability analyses, a single value of disturbance is often applied to the entire rock mass, which leads to underestimated results. In this study, this modeling mistake is addressed by considering realistically varying rock disturbance. The safety of infinite slopes in a disturbed rock mass with a strength governed by the Hoek-Brown failure criterion is investigated based on the kinematic approach of limit analysis. The maximum disturbance is assigned to the outermost slope face because it is directly exposed to blasting damage and dilation, and the disturbance progressively decays with distance in the rock mass. The safety analysis results indicate that the assumption of uniform disturbance in the entire rock mass leads to underestimation of the rock strength and safety on infinite rock slopes. A critical slip surface appears to be within the disturbed rock layer as well as the interface between the disturbed upper rock and undisturbed lower rock.

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

4.5
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