Energy Evolution Characteristics of Rock Under Different Confining Conditions

Constant stiffness confining condition seems more reasonable than constant stress confining condition to simulate the actual confining stress environment of in situ rock which varies with the lateral strain. Compression tests of sandstone samples with two different confining conditions were conducted to study the energy evolution characteristics of rock under constant stress confining condition and constant stiffness confining condition. Except for the conventional triaxial compression tests, CFRP-confined rock samples were also used to simulate the constant stiffness confinement of the rock specimen in the laboratory. The stress–strain curve and failure mode of the samples under different confining conditions were compared. The influence of confining condition on the characteristics of rock energy evolution was investigated. The results show that the stress–strain curves under the confining conditions of constant stress and constant stiffness exhibited strain softening and strain hardening, respectively. Under constant stress confining condition, the specimen failed in the ductile mode while the specimen exhibited a sudden and brittle failure behavior under constant stiffness confining condition. The evolution trend of the elastic strain energy was greatly affected by the magnitude of confining stiffness. The elastic strain energy of the specimen under low stiffness confining condition decreased slightly after reaching its peak. As the confining stiffness increased, the elastic strain energy would not decrease but continued to increase until the failure of the specimen. The maximum elastic strain energy under the confining condition of the high confining stiffness is greater than that of constant stress. Considering the influence of confining stiffness on the storage and release of the strain energy, to obtain the true mechanical behavior of the rock mass under confining conditions, stiffness confining conditions should be taken into consideration in the laboratory.

[1]  Bing-Rui Chen,et al.  Microseismic characteristics of rockburst development in deep TBM tunnels with alternating soft–hard strata and application to rockburst warning: A case study of the Neelum–Jhelum hydropower project , 2022, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology.

[2]  Bing-Rui Chen,et al.  Quantitative Threshold of Energy Fractal Dimension for Immediate Rock Burst Warning in Deep Tunnel: A Case Study , 2022, Lithosphere.

[3]  Qing-bin Meng,et al.  Effects of Confining Pressure and Temperature on the Energy Evolution of Rocks Under Triaxial Cyclic Loading and Unloading Conditions , 2021, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[4]  Heping Xie,et al.  Experimental study on rock mechanical behavior retaining the in situ geological conditions at different depths , 2021 .

[5]  Fanzhen Meng,et al.  Energy evolution analysis and failure criteria for rock under different stress paths , 2021, Acta Geotechnica.

[6]  Xiating Feng,et al.  Experimental Study of Mechanical Behavior of Gneiss Considering the Orientation of Schistosity under True Triaxial Compression , 2020 .

[7]  Zheqiang Jia,et al.  Energy Evolution of Coal at Different Depths Under Unloading Conditions , 2019, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[8]  Tongbin Zhao,et al.  Rock cone penetration test under lateral confining pressure , 2019, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.

[9]  R. Kaunda,et al.  Assessment of rockburst hazard by quantifying the consequence with plastic strain work and released energy in numerical models , 2019, International Journal of Mining Science and Technology.

[10]  Yunfei Wang,et al.  Energy evolution mechanism in process of Sandstone failure and energy strength criterion , 2018, Journal of Applied Geophysics.

[11]  Xibing Li,et al.  Energy evolution characteristics of hard rock during triaxial failure with different loading and unloading paths , 2017 .

[12]  C. X. Dong,et al.  Effects of confining stiffness and rupture strain on performance of FRP confined concrete , 2015 .

[13]  Zhang Zhizhe.  CONFINING PRESSURE EFFECT ON ROCK ENERGY , 2015 .

[14]  Yang Yu,et al.  A Microseismic Method for Dynamic Warning of Rockburst Development Processes in Tunnels , 2015, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[15]  Yang Ju,et al.  Energy Dissipation and Release During Coal Failure Under Conventional Triaxial Compression , 2015, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[16]  Da Huang,et al.  Conversion of strain energy in Triaxial Unloading Tests on Marble , 2014 .

[17]  Jian Zhao,et al.  A Review of Dynamic Experimental Techniques and Mechanical Behaviour of Rock Materials , 2014, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.

[18]  F. Micelli,et al.  Experimental and analytical study on properties affecting the behaviour of FRP-confined concrete , 2013 .

[19]  Robert W. Zimmerman,et al.  Sliding crack model for nonlinearity and hysteresis in the uniaxial stress-strain curve of rock , 2012 .

[20]  Yang Ju,et al.  Energy analysis and criteria for structural failure of rocks , 2009 .

[21]  M. N. Bagde,et al.  Fatigue and dynamic energy behaviour of rock subjected to cyclical loading , 2009 .

[22]  Jin-Guang Teng,et al.  Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for FRP–confined concrete , 2007 .

[23]  Feng Xia-ting,et al.  TRUE TRIAXIAL EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON ROCK WITH HIGH GEOSTRESS , 2006 .

[24]  Song Zhan-ping,et al.  Cycle loading tests of rock samples under direct tension and compression and bi-modular constitutive model , 2005 .

[25]  Jin-Guang Teng,et al.  ULTIMATE CONDITION OF FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER-CONFINED CONCRETE , 2004 .

[26]  H. B. Li,et al.  Triaxial compression tests on a granite at different strain rates and confining pressures , 1999 .

[27]  H. Laborit,et al.  [Experimental study]. , 1958, Bulletin mensuel - Societe de medecine militaire francaise.