Fig 1.
Illustration of the parallel bonding model and Numerical model with joints in PFC2D.
(a) Prallel bonding model [33]. (b) Numerical model with joints in PFC2D.
Fig 2.
Schematic diagram of different roughness joints as well as loading.
Fig 3.
Presents a schematic diagram of the RMT-301 loading meter and uniaxial compression test site.
Fig 4.
Presents a comparison of experimental and numerical results under uniaxial compression and damage modes.
Fig 5.
Comparison between Brazilian splitting tests and numerical results.
Table 1.
Presents a comparison of mechanical parameters between rock-like materials and those that have been numerically modelled.
Fig 6.
Numerical simulation and comparison of experimental stress-strain curves at different joint inclinations.
Fig 7.
Parameter calibration process and comparison of simulation results with indoor test results.
(a) Calibration process, (b) Peak shear strength.
Table 2.
Micro parameters determined in the simulation.
Table 3.
Numerical simulation scheme.
Fig 8.
Shear stress-shear displacement curves for different roughness samples of the numerical model with joints (a) α = 0°, (b) α = 30°, (c) α = 60°, (d) α = 90°, (e) α = 120° and (f) α = 150°.
Fig 9.
Variation in peak shear strength of specimens with different roughnesses.
Fig 10.
Number of cracks in the specimen under forward shear and the crack extension paths.
Fig 11.
Number of cracks and crack extension path of the specimen under reverse shear.
Fig 12.
Destruction penetration patterns.
Fig 13.
Types of crack consolidation.