Friction and degradation of rock joint surfaces under shear loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The morpho‐mechanical behaviour of one artificial granite joint with hammered surfaces, one artificial regularly undulated joint and one natural schist joint was studied. The hammered granite joints underwent 5 cycles of direct shear under 3 normal stress levels ranging between 0.3 and 4 MPa. The regularly undulated joint underwent 10 cycles of shear under 6 normal stress levels ranging between 0.5 and 5 MPa and the natural schist replicas underwent a monotonics shear under 5 normal stress levels ranging between 0.4 and 2.4 MPa. These direct shear tests were performed using a new computer‐controlled 3D‐shear apparatus. To characterize the morphology evolution of the sheared joints, a laser sensor profilometer was used to perform surface data measurements prior to and after each shear test. Based on a new characterization of joint surface roughness viewed as a combination of primary and secondary roughness and termed by the joint surface roughness, SRs, one parameter termed ‘joint surface degradation’, Dw, has been defined to quantify the degradation of the sheared joints. Examinations of SRs and Dw prior to and after shearing indicate that the hammered surfaces are more damaged than the two other surfaces. The peak strength of hammered joint with zero‐dilatancy, therefore, significantly differs from the classical formulation of dilatant joint strength. An attempt has been made to model the peak strength of hammered joint surfaces and dilatant joints with regard to their surface degradation in the course of shearing and two peak strength criteria are proposed. Input parameters are initial morphology and initial surface roughness. For the hammered surfaces, the degradation mechanism is dominant over the phenomenon of dilatancy, whereas for a dilatant joint both mechanisms are present. A comparison between the proposed models and the experimental results indicates a relatively good agreement. In particular, compared to the well‐known shear strength criteria of Ladanyi and Archambault or Saeb, these classical criteria significantly underestimate and overestimate the observed peak strength, respectively, under low and high normal stress levels. In addition and based on our experimental investigations, we put forward a model to predict the evolution of joint morphology and the degree of degradation during the course of shearing. Degradations of the artificial undulated joint and the natural schist joint enable us to verify the proposed model with a relatively good agreement. Finally, the model of Ladanyi and Archambault dealing with the proportion of total joint area sheared through asperities, as, once again, tends to underestimate the observed degradation. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".