Scholarlink

Abstract <p>The authors compare the strength characteristics of rocks, determined by standards GOST 21153.8-88 and ASTM D7012-04. The research involved 7 rock lithotypes (shale, diabase, metasomatic rock, marble, gneiss, quartzite, garnet) and bulk compression, uniaxial compression and indirect tension testing. Mohr’s circles and failure envelopes are plotted for each rock lithotype. The differences between the standards are found in terms of adhesion factors and internal friction angles: ASTM yields higher adhesion factors; internal friction angles vary depending on the rock type. The calculation formula allows predicting the uniaxial compressive strength at an error of 10.5%. The failure envelopes are updated using the calculated data. The results highlight the significance of proper selection of a failure envelope plotting procedure in engineering design.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Analysis of Failure Envelopes Plotted According to Different Standards

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月1日

查看全文
  • P. A. Tsoi,
  • O. M. Usol’tseva

摘要

Abstract

The authors compare the strength characteristics of rocks, determined by standards GOST 21153.8-88 and ASTM D7012-04. The research involved 7 rock lithotypes (shale, diabase, metasomatic rock, marble, gneiss, quartzite, garnet) and bulk compression, uniaxial compression and indirect tension testing. Mohr’s circles and failure envelopes are plotted for each rock lithotype. The differences between the standards are found in terms of adhesion factors and internal friction angles: ASTM yields higher adhesion factors; internal friction angles vary depending on the rock type. The calculation formula allows predicting the uniaxial compressive strength at an error of 10.5%. The failure envelopes are updated using the calculated data. The results highlight the significance of proper selection of a failure envelope plotting procedure in engineering design.