2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2008.11.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical modelling of observed fallouts in hard rock masses using an instantaneous cohesion-softening friction-hardening model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many methods have been proposed to capture the failure shape around the excavation boundary [22,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. These researchers demonstrate that cohesion and frictional strength components in the Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown criteria cannot be mobilized simultaneously at low confinement during brittle failure.…”
Section: Influence Of Dilation On Brittle Rock Failurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many methods have been proposed to capture the failure shape around the excavation boundary [22,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. These researchers demonstrate that cohesion and frictional strength components in the Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown criteria cannot be mobilized simultaneously at low confinement during brittle failure.…”
Section: Influence Of Dilation On Brittle Rock Failurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This value was selected based on the methodology of Walton & Diederichs [12] and through comparison with the results obtained using the mobilized dilation angle model. The "predictive" CWFS parameters were obtained based on the laboratory UCS and the correlation with CI proposed by Perras & Diederichs [13] as well as a review of back analyzed brittle strength parameters for granitic rocks available in the literature [4][5][6]14]. The strength parameters for the perfectly plastic model were obtained using values of UCS = 220 MPa and mi = 17 obtained from laboratory compression testing data and a GSI of 80 as per the methodology of Hoek et al [1].…”
Section: Comparison Of Modelling Results Obtained Using Different Conmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be due to the differences of the rock properties between the two mines. Notes: A1 (rock drill) and B1 (feeder) are components used in machine 1 in mine X, while A2, A3 and A4 (rock drill), B2, B3, and B4 (feeder) are components used in machines 2, 3 and 4 in mine Y Confidence log-log plot comparison between three machines used in mine Y 320 JQME 20,4 (Edelbro, 2008) while the GSI of mine X varies between 30 and 50 (Sjöberg, 2003 as cited in Edelbro, 2008). Figure 7 compares the downtime of component hoses C in four machines in different mines.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%