Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Four fracture phases and load-displacement curve of granite under 3-p-b tests.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

(a) The specimen size of granite with different notched lengths and (b) stress distribution in the crack tips under 3-p-b test.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Different notched lengths for 3-p-b test.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

(a) Test loading system of granite under 3-p-b test and (b) Peak loads of three kinds of grain sizes under 3-p-b test.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Different fracture phases of granite under 3-p-b test.

(a) Formation of fictitious crack (b) Instable growth of micro-cracks (c) Macro-crack growth and coalescence.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Granite acoustic emission of 3-p-b test with different grain sizes.

(a) Fine grain (b) Medium grain (c) Coarse grain.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of 3-p-b fracture types in granite with three kinds of grain sizes.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

The strength and fracture toughness asymptotic limits under quasi-static load of 3-p-b test.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Fractal dimension characterization of granite specimen with three kinds of grain sizes.

(a) Grain size = 3mm (b) Grain size = 2.12mm (c) Grain size = 1.01mm.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 2.

Average nominal strength σn for different fictitious crack growth Δafic.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 9.

Linear regression results for determination for tensile strength ft and fracture toughness KIC.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 3.

Tensile strength and fracture toughness for different fictitious lengths at peak load.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 10.

(a) Digital image of coarse grain and (b) Simulation model based on digital image of specimen.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Threshold value (I) change in the scanning line.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

The results contrast between numerical simulation and physical experiments under 3-p-b tests.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Granites with three kinds of grain sizes processed by digital image.

(a) grain size = 1.01mm (b) grain size = 2.12mm (c) grain size = 3mm.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

The 3-p-b numerical model of three kinds of granite with notched length.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

The grain size distribution of three kinds of granite samples.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Table 4.

Micro-mechanical parameters in RFPA [41].

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 16.

Failure process of 3-p-b test (notch length = 1mm) of granite disc with numerical simulation.

(a) 200th load step (b) 348th load step (c) 380th load step (d) 500th load step.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

The relation curve of applied load and loading step under 3-p-b numerical test.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

The values of fictitious crack growth Δafic at the peak load under 3-p-b test.

(a) Fine grain size = 1.01mm (b) Medium grain size = 2.12mm (c) Coarse grain size = 3mm.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

The contrast of the nominal strength σn between numerical tests and model prediction.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Contrast of the peak load between model prediction and numerical experiments under 3-p-b test.

More »

Fig 20 Expand