4.6 Article

A new nonlinear empirical strength criterion for rocks under conventional triaxial compression

期刊

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIVERSITY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 1448-1458

出版社

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIV
DOI: 10.1007/s11771-021-4708-8

关键词

rock mechanics; conventional triaxial compressive strength; empirical strength criterion; statistic evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposed a nonlinear empirical strength criterion based on Mohr-Coulomb criterion, which was validated through triaxial test strength analysis of 11 rock materials. The prediction results obtained by applying this new criterion to 97 conventional triaxial compression tests of 11 different rock materials were highly consistent with the experimental data, providing a new reference and method for determining the triaxial compressive strength of rock materials.
The failure criterion of rocks is a critical factor involved in reliability design and stability analysis of geotechnical engineering. In order to accurately evaluate the triaxial compressive strength of rocks under different confining pressures, a nonlinear empirical strength criterion based on Mohr-Coulomb criterion was proposed in this paper. Through the analysis of triaxial test strength of 11 types of rock materials, the feasibility and validity of proposed criterion was discussed. For a further verification, six typical strength criteria were selected, and the prediction results of each criterion and test results were statistically analyzed. The comparative comparison results show that the prediction results obtained by applying this new criterion to 97 conventional triaxial compression tests of 11 different rock materials are highly consistent with the experimental data. Statistical analysis was executed to assess the application of the new criterion and other classical criteria in predicting the failure behavior of rock. This proposed empirical criterion provides a new reference and method for the determination of triaxial compressive strength of rock materials.

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