4.5 Article

Particle Flow Modeling of Rock Blocks with Nonpersistent Open Joints under Uniaxial Compression

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000649

关键词

Particle flow modeling; Rock mass; Nonpersistent joints; Joint geometry; Joint gap

资金

  1. State Key Laboratory for Geo-mechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining Technology [SKLGDUEK1416]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11102224, 51374198]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia [200-2011-39886]
  4. Chinese Scholarship Council
  5. National Basic Research 973 Program of China [2013CB036003]
  6. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, China [NCET-12-0961]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, numerical simulation of rock blocks with nonpersistent open joints under uniaxial compression was undertaken using the particle flow modeling method. First, the micromechanical parameter values of intact material were calibrated through a trial-and-error process using macromechanical laboratory test results. Then, a back-analysis procedure was used to calibrate the joint gap and joint micromechanical parameter values using laboratory test results conducted on jointed rock blocks. Afterward, the effects of joint dip angle, joint persistency, and joint gap on the mechanical behavior of block models having nonpersistent open joints was investigated using the calibrated micromechanical parameter values. The joint dip angle and joint persistency were found to play significant roles in the failure mode, strength, and stress-strain relationship of jointed blocks. The joint gap played a significant to negligible role in the mechanical behavior of jointed block models gradually when the joint dip angle was increased from 0 to 90 degrees. The contact and interaction of joint surfaces were found to have a significant influence on the mechanical behavior of jointed blocks. (C) 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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