4.7 Article

Experimental study of the hydro-mechanical response of Opalinus Clay - Part 1: Pore pressure response and effective geomechanical properties under consideration of confinement and anisotropy

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 237, 期 -, 页码 32-41

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.02.012

关键词

Laboratory testing; Triaxial tests; Consolidated undrained/drained tests; Opalinus Clay; Clay shale

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate ENSI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consolidated drained and undrained tests with pore pressure measurements were conducted on back-saturated specimens of a clay shale to characterize the influence of confinement and anisotropy on the pore pressure response and effective geomechanical properties (i.e. first-loading E-modulus, stress at onset of dilation and peak strength). Opalinus Clay, a clay shale chosen as host rock for high level nuclear waste in Switzerland was utilized. The result showed that there is a dependency on the confinement of Skempton's pore pressure parameter A and B, the stress at the onset of dilation, and the first-loading E-modulus. Additionally, a change in behavior of the material was observed at effective consolidation stresses between 5 and 8 MPa. The specimens at lower effective consolidation stresses (i.e. heavily overconsolidated specimens) showed a dilatant behavior in the pre-peak region and a significant post-failure stress drop. Specimens consolidated at higher effective consolidation stresses (i.e. slightly overconsolidated to normally consolidated specimens) showed compaction from initial loading until post-peak and a brittle-ductile post-failure behavior. These observations were manifested in pore pressure response curves, effective stress paths and stress-strain curves. Furthermore, they could be correlated to a non-linear appearance of the peak strength failure envelope. An explanation for the non-linear failure envelope related to the dilatant structure of the material is suggested.

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