4.7 Article

Numerical Simulation of the Rock SHPB Test with a Special Shape Striker Based on the Discrete Element Method

期刊

ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 1693-1709

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-013-0484-6

关键词

SHPB; Special shape striker; Discrete element method; Strain rate effect

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50934006, 51274254, 41272304]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB732004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system with a special shape striker has been suggested as the test method by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) to determine the dynamic characteristics of rock materials. In order to further verify this testing technique and microscopically reveal the dynamic responses of specimens in SHPB tests, a numerical SHPB test system was established based on particle flow code (PFC). Numerical dynamic tests under different impact velocities were conducted. Investigation of the stresses at the ends of a specimen showed that the specimen could reach stress equilibrium after several wave reverberations, and this balance could be maintained well for a certain time period after the peak stress. In addition, analyses of the reflected waves showed that there was a clear relationship between the variation of the reflected wave and the stress equilibrium state in the specimen, and the turning point of the reflected wave corresponded well with the peak stress in the specimen. Furthermore, the reflected waves can be classified into three types according to their patterns. Under certain impact velocities, the specimen deforms at a constant strain rate during the whole loading process. Finally, the influence of the micro-strength ratio () and distribution pattern on the dynamic increase factor (DIF) of the strength DIF were studied, and the lateral inertia confinement and heterogeneity were found to be two important factors causing the strain rate effect for rock materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据