Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
Login
Register
Reset Password
Cart
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Home
Journals
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 42 (2020): Issue 1 (April 2020)
Open Access
Modelling of Rock Joints Interface under Cyclic Loading
Jan Maciejewski
Jan Maciejewski
,
Sebastian Bąk
Sebastian Bąk
and
Paweł Ciężkowski
Paweł Ciężkowski
| Mar 19, 2020
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 42 (2020): Issue 1 (April 2020)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Research Article
Published Online:
Mar 19, 2020
Page range:
36 - 47
Received:
Mar 01, 2019
Accepted:
Sep 02, 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0030
Keywords
cyclic shear test
,
asperity degradation
,
elliptic yield surface
,
material interface response
,
rock joint interface
© 2020 Jan Maciejewski et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Figure 1
Shear test of rock joint interface[12]
Figure 2
Types of rock joints: a) natural joint,[15] b,c) artificial rock interfaces[13,16]
Figure 3
Primary and secondary asperities
Figure 4
Dilation and stress in cyclic shear test: a) cyclic reversible dilatancy, b) cyclic dilatancy degradation, c) experimental data[22]
Figure 5
Scheme of the load of joint interface
Figure 6
a) Elliptical failure surfaces and critical state line (csl) on plane σn, τn, b) change of ellipse center σ0 and semi-major and semi-minor axes size (a, b) as the function of density ρ
Figure 7
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy
Figure 8
Configurational rearrangement of particles after the change of sliding direction
Figure 9
Change of the failure surface position by rotation through an angle θ
Figure 10
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy
Figure 11
Shape of primary asperities depending on g0 parameter
Figure 12
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°, asperities) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy, c) asperity shape assumed for calculations
Figure 13
Third body granular layer generation due to cyclic loading
Figure 14
Evolution of asperity profile due to wear process
Figure 15
Simulation results for different normal loads (σ1 < σ2 < σ3, ρini = 2.3·103kg/m3, θmax = 25°, asperity degradation, interface layer frictional wear) depending on the tangential displacement ut: a) variations of shear stress, b) variations of dilatancy, c) variations of rotation angle θ
Figure 16
Supplement to simulation results given in Fig. 15 for normal load σn = 10 MPa: a) variations of contact layer height, b) asperity shape degradation, c) third body layer dilation
Figure 17
Simulation vs. experiment: a) simulation results, b) results obtained in experiment for normal load σn = 0.5 MPa
Figure 18
Simulation versus experiment: a) simulation results, b) results obtained in experiment for normal load σn = 4 MPa
Preview