2015
DOI: 10.1002/2014jb011805
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visco‐poroelastic damage model for brittle‐ductile failure of porous rocks

Abstract: The coupling between damage accumulation, dilation, and compaction during loading of sandstones is responsible for different structural features such as localized deformation bands and homogeneous inelastic deformation. We distinguish and quantify the role of each deformation mechanism using new mathematical model and its numerical implementation. Formulation includes three different deformation regimes: (I) quasi-elastic deformation characterized by material strengthening and compaction; (II) cataclastic flow… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous numerical studies on brittle‐ductile transition have successfully developed macroscopic phenomenological models, in particular, cap plasticity models, to replicate the brittle‐ductile behavior at the continuum scale [ Sun et al , ; Lyakhovsky et al , ]. Nevertheless, since the brittle‐ductile transition is originated from a combination of microstructural deformation mechanisms of discrete natures (e.g., crushing and rolling of particles), discrete models, such as the lattice spring model [ Katsman et al , ] and the discrete element method [ Cundall and Strack , ], may shed light on connecting the macroscopic mechanical responses to the microstructural origins.…”
Section: Dem Model For Bonded Cohesive‐frictional Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous numerical studies on brittle‐ductile transition have successfully developed macroscopic phenomenological models, in particular, cap plasticity models, to replicate the brittle‐ductile behavior at the continuum scale [ Sun et al , ; Lyakhovsky et al , ]. Nevertheless, since the brittle‐ductile transition is originated from a combination of microstructural deformation mechanisms of discrete natures (e.g., crushing and rolling of particles), discrete models, such as the lattice spring model [ Katsman et al , ] and the discrete element method [ Cundall and Strack , ], may shed light on connecting the macroscopic mechanical responses to the microstructural origins.…”
Section: Dem Model For Bonded Cohesive‐frictional Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The deviatoric elastic strain tensor e e i is expressed as e e i = e i − 1 3 e v i . In a similar way as discussed by Lyakhovsky et al (2015), we adopt the following description of the elastic moduli as a function of damage:…”
Section: Thermodynamics For Damage Rheologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…wherep ′0 and̄0 e are the projections of the undamaged effective pressure and equivalent stress, respectively, on the yield function. Note that from equation (17), the yield function is formulated in the undamaged stress space, which is equivalent to the elastic strain formulation as adopted by Lyakhovsky et al (2015).…”
Section: Flow Laws and Damage Rheologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After integration over [0, t], we use the Gronwall inequality and exploit the control of the initial condition |θ 0ε | ≤ 1/ε due to (26b). The last boundary term in (42) can be controlled as |θ ,ε | ≤ 1/ε, again due to (26b).…”
Section: Convergence Of Galerkin Approximationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such extension was suggested in [4] and later augmented by the nonlinear (also called non-Hookean) γ-term in [5] at small strains. The special form of this last term was suggested in [40] (alternatively considered as −γI 1 I 2 −I 2 1 /3 in [41]), validated, and used in series of works [23,25,34,35,38,42]. The reader is referred to [26] for a comprehensive discussion on such choices.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%