0.

0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-20
-10
0
10 20 30
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

q
/
pV
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

v

[
%
] Axial strain
a
[%]
r0 = 0.4
monotonic drained shear
under constant sr = 50 kPa
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
e0 = 0.6
y0 = 0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 30 V
o
i
d

r
a
t
i
o

e
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10 20 30
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

r
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0 10 20 30
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

y
Axial strain
a
[%]
a = 4.5x10
-4
%/hr
a = 4.5x10
-2
%/hr
a = 4.5x10
-1
%/hr
a = 4.5x10
1
%/hr
.
.
.
.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-20
-10
0
10 20
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

q
/
pV
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

v

[
%
] Axial strain
a
[%]
r0 = 0.4
monotonic drained shear
under constant sr = 50 kPa
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
e0 = 0.6
y0 = 0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 V
o
i
d

r
a
t
i
o

e
Axial strain
a
[%]
b = 5
b = 20
b = 80
b = 160
0.0
0.1
0.2
10 20
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

y
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10 20
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

r
Axial strain
a
[%]
Fig. Simulation results of the efect of
parameter b on decaying rate in monotonic
shear test under triaxial consolidated
drained condition
Fig. Simulation results of the effect of strain
rates on decaying rate in monotonic shear
test under triaxial consolidated drained
condition
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-20
-10
0
24 48 72 96 120
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

q
/
pV
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

v

[
%
] Time t [hr]
0.0
0.1
0.2
24 48 72 96 120
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

y
Time t [hr]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
24 48 72 96 120
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

r
Time t [hr]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
24 48 72 96 120 V
o
i
d

r
a
t
i
o

e
Time t [hr]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
2nd slide
3rd slide
4th slide
Slide-hold-slide simulation
under constant sr = 50 kPa
1st hold
24 hrs
2nd hold
48 hrs
3rd hold
48 hrs
1st slide
r0 = 0.4
y0 = 0.1
healing during
holding period
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-20
-10
0
10 20 30
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

q
/
pV
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

v

[
%
] Axial strain
a
[%]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
0.0
0.1
0.2
10 20 30
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

y
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 30 V
o
i
d

r
a
t
i
o

e
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10 20 30
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

r
Axial strain
a
[%]
r0 = 0.4
e0 = 0.6
y0 = 0.1
1st slide 2nd slide 3rd slide 4th slide
structural healing
during holding period
Slide-hold-slide drained test
under constant sr = 50 kPa
1st hold
2nd hold
3rd hold
.
a = 2.5 %/hr
Fig. Simulation results of shear-hold-shear test
(variations in relation to axial strain)
Fig. Simulation results of shear-hold-
shear test (variations in relation to time)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-20
-10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

q
/
pV
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n

v

[
%
] Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

y
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
10 20 30 40 50 60 V
o
i
d

r
a
t
i
o

e
Axial strain
a
[%]
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10 20 30 40 50 60
S
t
a
t
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

r
Axial strain
a
[%]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
r0 = 0.4
e0 = 0.6
y0 = 0.1
2.5
a =
2.0E
-3
2.0x10
-3
2.5 2.0x10
-3
2.5
2.0x10
-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 4320 8640 12960 17280
A
x
i
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

a

[
%
]
Time t [hr]
a = 2.5 %/hr
1
a = 2.0x10
-3
%/hr
.
1 year 2 years
Fig. Simulation results of shear-hold-shear test with strain rate variation
Background Results
Conclusion
Mamoru Kikumoto*, N.P.Q. Vu, Masato Ohno, Kiyoshi Kishida, Hideaki Yasuhara , Derek Elsworth
Structural Healing and Decay of Soft Rock
in Triaxial Slide-Hold-Slide Process
- Develop a continuum constitutive model incorporating the
friction and dilatancy characteristics of rocks including healing
and decay of the rock structure based on a critical state soil
model.
Objective
Monotonic shearing test
Slide-hold-slide triaxial test
Strain-rate changing triaxial test
Continuum rock friction model
- Rate and state friction law (RSF) [Dieterich (1979) and Ruina
(1982)] has been widely applied in various researches to study
mechanical factor of earthquake mechanism.
- However, dilatancy which is very important factor in stress-
strain relationship is not considered in this RSF.
The continuum rock friction model is developed base on a
critical state soil model.
This model is an innovative alternative method to study rock
friction
Soil model
Healling of rock friction
The recover, the increase of rock friction
Decaying of rock friction
The decrease of rock friction
Rock friction model considering healing and decaying effect
Healing and decaying phenomenon of rock is made by the upper
and lower movement of the normal consolidated plane
Principle assumption
Added in the yield function of the soil model
Describe the upper and lower movement of the normal
consolidation plane
State variable y
Rock friction model considering the healing and decay
effect
Evolution law of state variable
Time-increment effect on y
ymax : a maximum value of y
tref : a parameter describes the
convergence rate of y from y0 to ymax
t : time