On the Residual Strength of Rocks and Rockmasses.
Saved in:
| Title: | On the Residual Strength of Rocks and Rockmasses. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Walton, G.1 (AUTHOR) gwalton@mines.edu, Labrie, D.2 (AUTHOR), Alejano, L. R.3 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering. Nov2019, Vol. 52 Issue 11, p4821-4833. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Rock deformation, Rocks, Crystalline rocks |
| Abstract: | Building on the approach by Cai et al. ([13]), if the residual strength of a rockmass can be computed from a residual GSI value and this strength is similar to that of intact rock, an equivalent GSI SB I r i sb value for rock samples can be derived from residual lab intact rock strengths. Because cohesion is largely lost during the post-peak weakening phase of rock deformation due to fracture formation, residual strength is primarily controlled by the frictional properties of the rock (or rockmass) being considered (Jaeger [23]; Martin [31]). This is a clear indication that among the tested rocks, the peak to residual strength loss is significantly larger for crystalline brittle rocks than for granular more ductile rocks. This analysis revealed that although in many cases, the GSI-based model for strength degradation of Hoek et al. ([21]), first applied to the residual strength of rockmasses by Cai et al. ([13]), was capable of matching the observed residual strength data, there were several rock types for which the model-data fit was poor. [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Building on the approach by Cai et al. ([13]), if the residual strength of a rockmass can be computed from a residual GSI value and this strength is similar to that of intact rock, an equivalent GSI SB I r i sb value for rock samples can be derived from residual lab intact rock strengths. Because cohesion is largely lost during the post-peak weakening phase of rock deformation due to fracture formation, residual strength is primarily controlled by the frictional properties of the rock (or rockmass) being considered (Jaeger [23]; Martin [31]). This is a clear indication that among the tested rocks, the peak to residual strength loss is significantly larger for crystalline brittle rocks than for granular more ductile rocks. This analysis revealed that although in many cases, the GSI-based model for strength degradation of Hoek et al. ([21]), first applied to the residual strength of rockmasses by Cai et al. ([13]), was capable of matching the observed residual strength data, there were several rock types for which the model-data fit was poor. [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07232632 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00603-019-01879-5 |
