论文部分内容阅读
王明洋等人在“岩石单轴试验全程应力应变曲线讨论”一文中,对岩石单轴试验全程应力应变曲线的分类问题展开了有益的讨论,在列举了解释产生Ⅰ,Ⅱ类曲线的几个典型模型的基础上,给出了他们自己的分析和观点,但文[1]对文[2]似乎存在某些误解,或者说文[2]在对问题的叙述上还有些模糊,因而有必要就文[1]作如下答复。 (1)勿庸置疑,在进行单轴实验时,通过某种控制方式是可以得出那种Ⅱ类曲线的。例如当采用环向应变速率作为控制量时,就可能出现Ⅱ类曲线。然而这仅是岩石试件对外界的宏观表象,从本构上看采用此种控制方式来获得材料的本构曲线是不合适的。因此文[2]在引述文[3]时,说文[3]“……从几个角度证明了Ⅱ类曲线从本质上讲是不存在的,
Wang Mingyang et al. discussed the classification of the whole stress-strain curve of the rock uniaxial test in the article ”Discussion of stress-strain curve in the whole uniaxial rock test“, and enumerated explanations to generate the I and II curves. On the basis of several typical models, their own analysis and viewpoints are given, but there seems to be some misunderstandings in [1] on the text [2], or the text [2] is somewhat vague on the narrative of the problem. Therefore, it is necessary to answer the text [1] as follows. (1) Undoubtedly, when conducting a uniaxial experiment, the type II curve can be obtained through a certain control method. For example, when the hoop strain rate is used as a control quantity, Class II curves may appear. However, this is only a macroscopic representation of the rock sample to the outside world. It is not appropriate to use this control method to obtain the material’s constitutive curve from the constitutive point of view. Therefore, in [2], in quoting [3], the essay [3]”... proves from several angles that the class II curve does not exist in essence,