Abstract

Using a discrete-element approach and a bonding interaction law, we model and test crushable inherently anisotropic structures reminiscent of the layering found in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. By systematically modifying the level of inherent anisotropy, we characterize the evolution of the failure strength of circular rock samples discretized using a modified Voronoi tesselation under diametral point loading at different orientations relative to the sample’s layers. We characterize the failure strength, which can dramatically increase as the loading becomes orthogonal to the rock layers. We also describe the evolution of the macroscopic failure modes as a function of the loading orientation and the energy consumption at fissuring. Our simulation strategy let us conclude that the length of bonds between Voronoi cells controls the energy being consumed in fissuring the rock sample, although failure modes and strength are considerably changing. We end up this work showing that the microstructure is largely affected by the level of inherent anisotropy and loading orientation.

Highlights

  • 1 Introduction suring energy consumption as fissures appears within the bulk

  • The failure strength of rock cores presenting an anisotropic inner structure is tested under diametral point load, known as the brazilian test in which the loading orientation is varied from totally aligned to the layering up to orthogonal

  • We explore the mechanisms behind this strong di↵erence in failure strength among samples and loading orientations

Read more

Summary

Failure strength

The failure strength of the samples is found as the loading reaches a critical force value Fc, for which the structure can no longer bear load and collapses. For loading orientations in the range [0 , 70 ] the strength is lower than Cn and very similar between values of ⌘. For orientations beyond 75 , the failure strength rapidly increases and reaches higher values for larger ⌘. This behavior is consistent with laboratory testing as well as the minimum failure strength for an orientation around 30 after simple stress considerations [15]. We explore the mechanisms behind this strong di↵erence in failure strength among samples and loading orientations

Failure modes
Energy consumption
Cells’ connectivity
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call