岩石及类岩石材料的劈裂拉伸与直接拉伸强度

›› 2006, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (S1): 539-543.

岩石及类岩石材料的劈裂拉伸与直接拉伸强度

余贤斌¹，王青蓉²，宋战平³，谢强⁴

1. 昆明理工大学国土资源工程学院，昆明 650093；2. 昆明理工大学交通工程学院，昆明 650093； 3. 西安建筑科技大学土木工程学院，西安710055；4.重庆大学土木工程学院，重庆 400045

收稿日期:2006-05-25 发布日期:2006-12-15
作者简介:余贤斌，男，1953年生，副教授，博后，主要从事岩石力学方面教学与科研工作。

Brazilian and axial tensile strengths of rocks and rock-like materials

YU Xian-bin¹, WANG Qing-rong², SONG Zhan-ping³, XIE Qiang⁴

1. Faculty of Land Resources Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650093, China; 2. Faculty of Communication Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650093, China; 3. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Xi’an Sci-Tech University of Architecture, Xi’an 710055, China; 4. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

Received:2006-05-25 Published:2006-12-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用自行研制的岩石直接拉伸实验装置，对7种（组）岩石和2组混凝土试样进行了直接拉伸和劈裂法（巴西法）间接拉伸试验。试验结果表明，所有岩石和混凝土试样的劈裂拉伸强度SB均大于直接拉伸强度ST，比值SB/ST的范围，在1.06到1.97之间；直接拉伸强度的偏差系数，通常大于劈裂拉伸强度的偏差系数。根据Sundaram等人对圆盘劈裂试验试样内应力分布的有限元分析的结果，当岩石的拉伸弹模ET小于压缩弹模EC时，试样中实际的应力会与经典弹性力学公式所得结果（EC=ET时的情形）不同，需要进行修正。据此对有关岩石的劈裂拉伸强度进行了修正，并发现，在所试验的岩石中，虽然部分岩石的ET与EC的数值相差不大，其SB/ST比却最高。这说明，拉伸与压缩弹模的差别不是造成两种拉伸强度差别的唯一原因。

关键词: 岩石, 直接拉伸, 劈裂试验, 强度

Abstract: Brazilian and axial tension tests were carried out with 7 rock types and 2 groups of concrete samples, with a test apparatus of direct tension developed by the authors. The result shown that the strengths of Brazilian tests, SB, were greater than the strengths of direct tension, ST, for all rock (concrete) types tested, with the ratio of SB/ST varies among 1.06 and 1.97. The Coefficients of variation of the tested data from direct tension were generally greater than those from Brazilian tests. Corrections on strength values of Brazilian tests were performed following the research results of Sundaram et al. (1980) for the rock types having Young’s modulus in tension, ET, much smaller than the modulus in compression, EC. This makes the SB/ST ratio smaller and shown that the difference between ET and EC was one of the reasons of making SB greater than SC. However, it can also be concluded that, the difference between ET and EC was not the only reason of making SB/ST difference, since the SB/ST ratios for some of the tested rock types were the largest ones while their differences between ET and EC were smaller.

Key words: rock, direct tension, Brazilian test, strength

中图分类号:

TU 45

余贤斌，王青蓉，宋战平，谢强，. 岩石及类岩石材料的劈裂拉伸与直接拉伸强度[J]. , 2006, 27(S1): 539-543.

YU Xian-bin , WANG Qing-rong , SONG Zhan-ping , XIE Qiang，. Brazilian and axial tensile strengths of rocks and rock-like materials[J]. , 2006, 27(S1): 539-543.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	周辉, 陈珺, 张传庆, 朱勇, 卢景景, 姜玥, . 低强高脆岩爆模型材料配比试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2039-2049.
[2]	田军, 卢高明, 冯夏庭, 李元辉, 张希巍. 主要造岩矿物微波敏感性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2066-2074.
[3]	金俊超, 佘成学, 尚朋阳. 基于应变软化指标的岩石非线性蠕变模型[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2239-2246.
[4]	洪本根, 罗嗣海, 胡世丽, 王观石, 姚康, . 基质吸力对非饱和离子型稀土抗剪强度的影响[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2303-2310.
[5]	吴关叶, 郑惠峰, 徐建荣. 三维复杂块体系统边坡深层加固条件下稳定性及破坏机制模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2369-2378.
[6]	王蕴嘉, 宋二祥. 堆石料颗粒形状对堆积密度及强度影响的离散元分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2416-2426.
[7]	王鹏飞, 谭文辉, 马学文, 李子建, 刘景军, 武洋帆, . 不同胶结度断层泥强度参数与含水率关系[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1657-1662.
[8]	苏国韶, 燕思周, 闫召富, 翟少彬, 燕柳斌, . 真三轴加载条件下岩爆过程的声发射演化特征[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1673-1682.
[9]	李书兆, 王忠畅, 贾旭, 贺林林, . 软黏土中张紧式吸力锚循环承载力简化计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1704-1712.
[10]	周小文, 程力, 周密, 王齐, . 离心机中球形贯入仪贯入黏土特性[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1713-1720.
[11]	汪杰, 宋卫东, 谭玉叶, 付建新, 曹帅, . 水平分层胶结充填体损伤本构模型及强度准则[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1731-1739.
[12]	张盛, 王龙飞, 常旭, 王东坤, 王小良, 乔洋, . 中心直裂纹半圆盘试样的石灰岩断裂韧度尺寸效应试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1740-1749.
[13]	王东星, 肖杰, 肖衡林, 马强, . 武汉东湖淤泥碳化-固化试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1805-1812.
[14]	罗斌玉, 叶义成, 曹中, 王其虎, 李玉飞, 陈虎, . 基于Mohr-Coulomb准则的缓倾斜层状矿床矿柱强度估算及倾角效应[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1940-1946.
[15]	王凤云, 钱德玲, . 基于统一强度理论深埋圆形隧道围岩的剪胀分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(5): 1966-1976.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed