A comprehensive peak shear strength criterion for rock joints

Critsre de resistance maximum complet pour les fractures des roches Umfassende Spitzenfestigkeits-Kriterien fOrGesteinsfugen
T.T. PAPALIANGAS, Department of Civil Engineering, Technological Educational Institution, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Department of Earth Sciences, University of Leeds, UK S. R. HENCHER & A.C. LUMSDEN, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Leeds, UK

ABSTRACT : The basic principles of a new simple peak shear strength criterion for rock joints based on well-documented theory of friction and deformation of rough surfaces are presented. According to this criterion, the peak shear strength of a rock joint at any nennal stress is interpreted as comprising two components, one purely frictional and one geometrical. The first is due to the shear strength of rock junctions sheared under high nonnal stress and is independent of roughness and scale. The second is due to surface roughness which causes dilation. Under a given nonnal stress, the joint is first deformed and then sheared along an inclined plane defined by the deformed asperities. The magnitude of the frictional component is detennined from the shear strength of the rock wall material, whereas the magnitude of the geometrical component, which is normal stress dependent, is predicted from consideration of surface roughness and contact theory. The new criterion is supported by the results of a series of direct shear tests on modelled rock joints. Changes in peak friction angle due to nonnal stress, scale effects or roughness anisotropy are interpreted in terms of change in the geometrical component only. Cet article presente les principes de base d'un nouveau critere, le maximum de resistance au cisaillement des joints de roche, bases sur les theories connues de frottement et de deformation des surfaces irreguliers, Selon ce critere, Ie maximum de resistance au cisaillement d'un contact rocheux sous contrainte nonnale comprend deux composantes; une purement de frottement, et une autre geometrique, La premiere est due ~ la resistance des joints rocheux soumis au cisaillement sous haute contrainte nonnale, et eUe est independante de la rugosite et de l'~helle; la deuxieme est due ~ la rugosite de la surface, qui entraine la dilatation. Sous une contrainte normale donnee, le joint est d'abord deforme, puis cisaillee le long d'un plan incJ.iOO defini par les asperites ainsi d~fo~. La grandeur de la composante de frottement est ~te~ ~ partir de la resistance au cisaillement du materiau de roche, alors que la grandeur de la composante geometrique, qui depend de la contrainte nonnale, est predite en consideriant la rugosite de la surface et les contacts. Le nouveau critere est vali~ par les resultats d'une serie de tests de cisaillements directs sur des joints de roches. Le changement de l'angle du maximum de frottement dus ~ la contrainte normale, les effets d' echelle
~lThffi:

ZUSSAMENFASSUNG: Die Grundprinzipien fUr cine neue einfache Regel fUr sie Spitzenuerscherungskraft von GesteinsklUften, basiennd auf gut dokurnuntierter Theorie der Reibung und Deformation von unebenen ober-flllchen werden vorgestellt Die Regel besagt, daB die spitzenscherkraft einer Gesteinskluft unter Normal-druck als aus zwei komponenten bestehend auf gefasst werden kann: einer Reibungs komponente und einer geometrinschen komponente. Die Reibungskomponente ist bedingt durch die scherkraft der kontakt punkte unter hohem Nonnal-druck und ist unabhUngig von der ober-flllchenbeschaftenheit und dem maBstab. Die geometrische Komponente ist bedingt durch die oberflllchenbeschaffenheit (Ranheit?), welche eine Mfnung der Gieitflllchen veruvsachen. Unter einem gegebenen Nonnal-druck wird die kluft zuerst deformiert und dann geschhert entlang einer Neigungsebene, die durch die deformierten Asperitatan definiert ist. Die GrOBe der Reibungs-komponente ist bestimmt durch die scherkraft des Gesteinmaterials, wohingegen die Scherkraft des Gesteinmaterials, wohingegen die GrOBe der geometrischen komponente, welch abhungig vom Nonnaldruck ist, vorherbestimant werden kann ans Uberlegungen Uber die oberflllchenbeschaffenheit und der Kontakttheorie. Die neue Regel beruht auf den Ergebnissen einer Rihe von Scherversuchen an Modelgestuns verklUflugen. Verllnderungen des spitzenreibungswinkels auf Grund des Nonnaldruckes, MaBstabseinflusse oder ober-flachenanistropic werden nur als Verllnderungen der geometrischen komponente angeschen. 1. INTRODUCTION Analysis of rock mechanics problems often requires reliable prediction of joint behaviour based on quantitative descriptions. Shear strength of rock joints is of primary importance and is associated with dilatancy which depends on the geometrical properties of the joint surface. These properties are random which makes it difficult to model shear behaviour accurately. Most existing theoretical models use idealised surfaces such as sawtooth, sine-tooth etc.; the required parameters are not easily obtained and often fail adequately to predict real behaviour. For this reason most rock engineers use simple empirical models, which are based on the analysis of experimental data or backanalyses. and may be of limited use or site-specific. The simple theoretical criterion briefly described below allows accurate prediction without relying on empiricism. 2. PROPOSED CRITERION 2.1 Mechanism of shearing The actual area of contact between two rough surfaces is a very small fraction of the gross area of contact and consequently the nonnal stresses at the contacts are much higher than the conventional stress calculated from the gross area (e.g. Bowden & Tabor, 1950). Terzaghi (1925) suggested that the actual contact stress is of the order of the unconfined compressive strength; Jaeger (1971) estimated that the actual area of contact Aa for a rough joint is of the order of I % of the apparent area of contact A, with the normal stress at the contacts 100 times higher than the apparent nonnal stress. Barton & Choubey (1977) suggested that real nonnal stress at contacts may be as high as one thousand times the averaged stress. Logan & Teufel (1986) measured

359

fractional area of contact AeJA during sliding as 18% for limestone at 25 MPa and about 2% for sandstone at 50 MPa averaged nonnal stress, the approximate values of real normal stress at contacts being 200 MPa and 2,200 MPa respectively. Stesky & Hannan (1987, 1989) measured 15% area of contact at 19 MPa normal stress for marble, and I % at 49 MPa for quartzite. They noticed that cataelastic flow is the main mode of defonnation under normal stress and commented that the actual contact stresses may be close to the differential stress needed for the rock to deform by bulk cataclastic flow, i.e. close to the brittle-ductile transition stress. Terzaghi (1925) and Bowden & Tabor (1950) suggested that the shear strength between two surfaces arises from the shearing of local junctions. It is postulated that the normal stresses at junctions between rock surfaces are sufficiently high locally to induce a brittle-ductile state. Depending on the apparent nonnal stress level, this state will be reached by material at contacts to a shallow depth either side of the junction; away from that zone the rock material will remain essentially undefonned. The actual nonnal stress at contacts will always be of similar magnitude, because the actual contact area adjusts proportionally to carry the applied load. It is suggested that the average inclination of the mean planes of all junctions will define the plane along which shearing will take place, as shown in Figure I. The plane may be inclined depending upon the initial roughness of the joint and the stress level. Simply then, and as proposed in broad terms by various authors, the peak friction angle of a rock joint can be considered as comprising two components: a) a purely frictional (independent of normal stress) component attributable to shearing of rock wall material junctions which are under high normal stress and b) a dilational component 'If, related to the average inclination of the shear plane of all contacting asperities, or:

(lA ..v :
- "'

Rock junction

Figure 1. Contact of rock asperities of 39 found by Mogi (1966) for a number of silicate rock types and 40 found by Byerlee (1978) for many rock types independent of lithology. However, the assumption that the brittle/ductile transition pressure is equal to the unconfined compressive strength is an approximation only. Some strong rocks, such as granites, may have transition pressure five times the unconfined compressive strength or even higher, whereas limestones and marbles may have a transition pressure lower than the unconfined compressive strength (Mogi, 1966, Paterson, 1978). An accurate determination of friction angle of intact rock requires knowledge Table 1. Examples of typical brittle-ductile transition pressures (Paterson, 1978) Rock Limestones and marbles Dolomite
Gypsum

+m,

(1)

where 'tp is the peak shear strength, an is the averaged, effective normal stress, the friction angle of the joint wall material and 'If the dilation angle at the instant of peak shear strength. Determination of the two basic parameters and 'If, is discussed briefly below and in more detail by Papaliangas (1995).

+m

+m

2.2 Friction angle of rock wall material Orowan (1960) suggested that the shear strength of the intact rock material at the brittle-ductile transition stress is equal to the frictional resistance of the surface along which the material fails. Therefore the fracture strength envelope of the intact rock material will intersect with that for frictional sliding at the brittleductile transition stress. IT the transition stress is known, then the friction angle of the material can be determined, as shown in Figure 2. According to the parabolic criterion proposed by Fairhurst (1964), the shear strength 't of the intact rock material at a normal stress an is given by:
C0 (~-l)Rl n
on) +nCo

Anhydrite Rocksalt Talc Serpentinite Chloritite Argillaceous sandstone (-10% porosity) Siltstones and shales (medium to high porosity) Porous lavas

Approximate transition pressures (MPa) 30-100 100-200 or higher 40 100

<20
400 300-500

300
200-300

< 100
30-100

't-

(2)

where Co is the unconfined compressive strength and n the ratio of compressive to tensile strength. IT the transition pressure is taken equal to the unconfined compressive strength, then the coefficient of friction will be
~-l +n J.lm----<i1 n

Brittle-ductile transition stress

m:
=

(3)

Normal stress
Figure 2. Determination offriction angle of intact rock material from triaxial tests

For a ratio of compressive to tensile strength n IS, which is typical for many rocks, the calculated coefficient of friction is ~m= 0.8 (+m = 38.7). This value is very close to the measured values

360

of the shear strength at the brittle-ductile transition stress. Mogi found that the friction angle fOj carbonate rocks may be as high as 49, markedly higher than that of silicate rocks. Table I, adapted from Paterson (1978), gives the brittle-ductile transition pressures for several rock types. Papaliangas (1995) provides a compilation of data on brittle-ductile transition stresses and friction angles predicted on this basis for a larger number of rock types. 2.3 Dilation angle According to the proposed mechanism of shearing, sliding will take place along a plane which is defined by the deformed asperities; the orientation of this plane depends on the original roughness characteristics of the joint surface and the normal stress. A method is presented below for estimating the dilation angle at peak shear strength, based on the principles of normal contact theory and assuming that the surface characteristics remain essentially constant up to peak strength, which is a reasonable assumption for the small shear displacements generally involved. Greenwood & Williamson (1966) proposed an analytical model for the contact between rough and flat surfaces. The basic assumptions of this model are: a) that the asperities, at least at their summits, are spherical. b) all asperity summits have the same radius and c) the summits deform independently. Based on the Hertzian contact theory. they found that. for a surface with an exponential distribution of asperity peaks, the closure under a normal stress an is given by:
Ii-A+Blna.

(b)

Figure 3. Simplified geometry of asperity deformation example 1 kPa. When an=anT ' the normal stress at which all dilation is suppressed, tan'l'=O. Using these two boundary conditions equation (6) yields:
Ian", -Ian",o In a.T lin anT
On

(4)

where A and B are constants. This relation is independent of the mode of deformation (elastic or plastic) or the shape of the asperities and results in exact proportionality between normal load and real area of contact, so that Amonton's second law is obeyed. Brown & Scholz (1985) generalised the theory of Greenwood & Williamson and found that relation (4) holds in the case of contact between two rough surfaces, whether or not they are mated. The heights of asperities on most rough surfaces are essentially of Gaussian distribution rather than exponential (Greenwood & Williamson, 1966, Swan, 1983). However. as suggested by Greenwood & Williamson, an exponential distribution is a fair approximation to the upper quartile of a Gaussian distribution of asperity heights. This quartile is most relevant to frictional behaviour (Halling. 1978) and an exponential distribution of heights can offer a reasonable approximation for rock joint contacts at low to medium normal stresses (Swan. 1983. Sun et al., 1985). Consider the case of a contact between two single asperities inclined at an angle '1'0 to the horizontal (Figure 3a). Under zero normal load sliding will occur without any deformation along the plane AB defined by the angle '1'0' but under a given normal stresses an, the asperity deforms and responds with a closure 5. Sliding will then take place along the plane AB' defined by the deformed asperity, inclined at an angle 'I' to the horizontal (Figure 3b). The closure f> can be expressed as:
Ii- L(lan",o -Ian",)

(7a)

0no

or

(7b)

From equations 7a and 7b. the dilation angle at any normal stress an is given as a function of the dilation angle '1'0 at very low normal stress. and the two boundary normal stresses a no and anT. These relations suggest that for a particular joint surface, the dilation rate reduces logarithmicaly with normal stress, as confirmed experimentally by Barton (1971) and other authors. It must be emphasised that anT, the transition stress from dilatant to purely frictional sliding, is generally different from the brittleductile transition stress, as discussed later. Assuming that anT = 10MPa, and ano = 1kPa, equations (7a) and (7b) become:
Ian", _ Ian "'0 In anT 9.21 a.

(8a)

or

(8b)

(5)

where L is the base length over which '1'0 is calculated. For an exponential distribution of asperity heights:
L(lan",o -Ian",)A+Blna.

(6)

At normal stress levels greater than anT only non-dilational friction operates and the shear strength Of the joint remains proportional to normal stress until the brittle-ductile transition stress, beyond which the shear strength envelope of the joint is the same as that of the intact material. Figure 4 shows the general shape of the criterion for a friction angle +m=39, anT = 10 MPa and three different values of '1'0 (40, 30 and 10). 3. EXPBRIMENTAL RESULTS

When an = ano~ 0, tan'l' ~ tanwo, where '1'0 is the average asperity angle with negligible deformation. The lower boundary for normal stress ano can not be mathematically equal to zero. and is therefore set at a low value which causes minimal deformation, for

A series of direct shear tests on modelled rock joints has been carried out to test the applicability of the new criterion. A medium

361

3.0
2.5 2.0

'.= ~ )10 J..

; ~. :

150 '"o=...,.. 40
0

25MPa 125
,

30
10
1.5 . .... ..; 1.0 0.5
0.0

.-..
'-'

100
75

MPai
f
+

i t3
~

:a

-f

...

50 0 25

i;

...!...

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 1.0 2.0

3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0

Nonnal stress (MPa)

Figure 4. Typical shape of predicted 't-eJ curves for cIlm=39. anT = 10 MPa and three different '1'0 values strength cement-based rock substitute having a density of 2.45 Mg/m3, unconfined compressive strength 47 MPa, tensile strength 4.5 MPa and friction angle of saw-eut surfaces 33 was used to prepare replicas of different rock joints. These joints were tested in direct shear under normal stresses in the range 0-2 MPa. in a Golder Associates shear box, using a sophisticated system for recording loads and displacements. Detailed description of the material and experimental procedure is presented in Papaliangas (1995). The behaviour in triaxial compression of the model material is similar to that of most limestones. According to the criterion proposed by Hoek & Brown (1980) the coefficient m is equal to 5.9. Stress-strain curves at different confining pressures are shown in Figure 5. At low confining pressures, the material behaves in a brittle manner, which is evident from the stress drop shown by the axial stress-axial shortening (01-1) curve; as the confining pressure increases the curve flattens and at a confining pressure of 20 MPa it becomes horizontal, which suggests that the brittle-ductile transistion stress has been reached. At higher confining pressures the behaviour becomes purely ductile which is evident from the continuing increase of 01 with e 1. The Mohr envelope corresponding to the stress state at the brittle-ductile transition stress is shown in Figure 6. The friction angle of the intact rock material can be calculated from the tangent to the Mohr circle passing through the origin (Orowan, 1960), which has a slope given by: (9) With 03= 20 MPa and 01=123 MPa a friction angle of the rock material of 46 and the normal stress at the fracture plane of 34.5 MPa is derived (Figure 6). The value of 46 may seem high, but it is typical for carbonate rocks (Mogi, 1966). Figure 7a shows the measured peak shear strength from tests on two different joints (designated A and B) tested in the normal stress range 02 MPa. When the dilational component was separated in the manner suggested by Hencher & Richards (1989), the best fit line for the non-dilational friction angle was 46.4 as shown in Figure 7b. This value is very close to the friction angle for intact material as determined from triaxial testing. This suggests that asperities are sheared under conditions which are similar to the brittle-ductile transition and that the frictional component of peak shear strength can be determined either from direct shear test results after correction for dilation or from triaxial testing of the rock wall material under confining pressure

Axial shortening (%)

Figure 5. Stress-strain curves at different confining pressures shown on each curve sufficient to produce a brittle-ductile transition stress. The fact that the value of the non-dilational component is identical for joints with quite different roughness, emphasises its frictional origin and fully supports the shearing mechanism proposed. The nondilational friction angle is 13.4 higher than the friction angle of saw-eut surfaces and somewhat higher than the residual friction angle. The variation of dilation rate with normal stress for the two series of tests is shown in figure 8. Dilation was calculated over a stepsize of 0.2mm which is approximately 0.2% of the sample length. The angle '1'0 was calculated from direct shear tests under the self weight of the sample (normal stress 0.6kPa for joint A and 0.8 kPa for joint B, average of 5 tests). The rate of dilation tan'l'o reduces logarithmicaly with normal stress, as predicted from the preceding theory, over a range of four orders of magnitude and is fully suppressed at a normal stress of about 3.8 MPa for both joints. This stress is only about 8% of the unconfined compressive strength and 11% of the brittle-ductile transition stress. Assuming that at the brittle-ductile stress there is 100% contact between the two surfaces and proportionality between area and load exists, as it is for the exponential distribution of asperity heights, these data indicate that dilation is fully suppressed when the area of contact is approximately 11% of the gross area. The experimental results presented in Figures 7 and 8 fully support the proposed mechanism of shearing. The curves on Figure 7a were fitted using equation (1) with the values for V, cIlm and anT determined from equation 7b and Figures 7b and 8 respectively (i.e, cIlm = 46.4 and anT = 3.8 MPa). 100

50

aT 50 C 100 Normal stress (MPa)

150

Figure 6. Stress state at the brittle-ductile transition pressure

362

2.5
.11I

" ,/
0

LO

"""'

Joint A ('10= 35.6) Joint B ('1 = 23.3~)_; .... 2.0 <Pm= 46.4 /
0aT=

;;."r.
. ~
0

Joint A (r = 0.950) Joint B (r~=0.958)

3.8 MPa

-=

f tl
lil
0

1.5
/

.. )T __ ....;... ./

/., ./

1.0
/

/'
./

~.._.....

i/

..........

...
0

E s::

0.4 0.2
0.0 -0.2 0.001 om 0.1 Normal stress (MFa)

'i
0.5 ..._ ....

. :AI-:_L .... _..+

0.5

~
....

.4~--Dila~ion-oorrected ~eak s.s. 1.0 1.5 2.0 Normal stress (1vIPa) 2.5 1 10

Figure. 7a. Measured peak shear strength

Figure 8. Variation of dilation rate tan'l' with normal stress

2.5

2.0

Joint A JointB

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.5

1.0 1.5 2.0 Normal stress (MPa)

2.5

and 4 corresponding to marl-shale, marl-sandstone and shalelimestone contacts respectively, the line 39 provides a lower boundary of peak shear strength. Similar results are shown in Figure 9b, for 13 different natural discontinuities, tested in the nonnal stress range o-2.5MPa. Friction angles lower than 39 are shown only by phyllite and cl.l::h schist If a joint surface has been smoothened by a natural (or artific.ial) process, or coated by low friction minerals, a lower value of'the non-dilational component is expected, especially at low normal ,tresses. It is then essential that non-dilational friction be determined from shear tests. The angle '1'0 is the average asperity angle of the joint and can be obtained from direct measurements of the surface roughness. This angle is equivalent to dilation angle of the joint when all the roughness is mobilised (negligible surface damage); for a rock sample it can alternatively be estimated by performing a shear test under very low normal load, for example under its self weight Methods employing photogrammetric techniques, profilometry or the plate and compass method (Peeker & Rengers 1971, Richards & Cowland, 1982) can be used to provide an appropriate value of

+=

Figure 7b. Dilation-corrected peak shear strength 4. DISCUSSION The proposed non-linear peak criterion has the simple fonn: (10) where is the friction angle of the rock wall material and dilation angle at peak strength which is given by:

+m

'I' the
(11)

The angle is the non-dilational component of peak friction angle and can be determined either from triaxial tests at sufficiently high confining pressure to produce a brittle-duetile transition state as shown in Figure 6, or from the dilation-eorrected shear strength-normal stress data (Hencher & Richards, 1989) as shown in Figure 7b. From an analysis of published experimental data, typical values of for rough textured joints are 39 for silicates and 45 for carbonates but they may be lower for rocks like schists and phyllites and in general for rocks rich in low friction minerals (e.g. mica or other sheet minerals). As an example, shear strength envelopes for 20 different natural rock contacts, including contacts between different rock types, published by Baldovin (1970) are shown in Figure 9a. With the exception of the envelopes No I, 3

+m

+m

'1'0 in the field. A base length of 0.2% of the full length of the joint appears to be appropriate for the determination of the angle '1'0' This angle can then be used directly in equations (10) and (11) to give an estimate of the shear strength. Finally, the nonnal stress anT which gives the transition from dilational to purely frictional behaviour can be estimated from a tanw vs. logan graph as shown in Figure 8. This graph will show a wide scatter at low normal stresses as different samples have different roughness and exhibit different dilation angles, but as the normal stress increases, this scatter is reduced, allowing a reliabll" estimate of anT, as shown in Figure 10, for the experimental dati. sets published by three different authors. A better correlation between dilation angle and nonnal stress is obtained if a graph of the normalised dilation rate tanwltan'l'o and logan is plotted. In this way individuality of joints at low normal stress is lost and anT can be estimated more confidently, as shown in Figure 11 for the data plotted in Figure 8. The value of '1'0 required for each individual sample in this case can be obtained by self-weight tests prior to main testing at the appropriate normal stress. Figures 8 and 10 suggest that the transition stress anT from dilatant to purely frictional sliding may be more than one order of magnitude lower than the unconfined compressive strength. Data published by other workers such as Goodman & Dubois (1972), Martin & Millar (1974), Schneider (1976), Bandis et al. (1981), Denby & Scobie (1984), Leichnitz (1985) and Kutter & Otto

363

1.0

0.8

Data from

'

......+ .. Leichnitz
~
! GI

:1lI

Gyenge & Herget (1977)

.
................. ,........................ '

,-..
tlS

0.8

(1985)~ , Kutter & Otto (l ?90)

............... .Ii!.................

'-'

0.6 0.4 0.4

0.2

tan'l1 = 0.206-0:20310go Iii: (r2 0.816)'11

..

~ ~ til

....

.. 1

..

0 ..c

;
;.
..i

U)

0.2

Q2
4
~ paragneiss

Q4

Q6

Q8

1.0

0.0

Normal stress (MFa)

schist '1"aphltous dolomit.lllll!stone

Ql 1 10 Normal stress (MPa)

100

o clay shale + lIlicaschist

3
phyllite I1l1ltstone X granite ca Ich schist . orthognei 55

Figure 10. Variation of dilation angle with normal stress for joints in different rock types

shale ~ sandstone ~ serpentine

*"

L2

tan'l1/~n'l1o = L~Oo-O.2791ogol1

LO
0.8

!(?~O:955)

0.6
0.4
_i

0.2
1

_f-

0.0 ..
(b) 123 Normal stress (MFa)
Figure 9. Peak shear strength data for natural joints a) after Baldovin (1970) (b) after Giani (1993) (1990) support this argument The last authors suggested that this stress is equal to the tensile strength of the rock material. For the model material used in the present study (tensile strength 4.5 MPa and anT = 3.8 MPa) this may be a reasonable approximation. The assumption that dilation is fully suppressed only when the averaged normal stress is equal to the unconfined compressive strength, as assumed in some models, is not confirmed and may be unrealistic for most natural joints. It is not clear whether anT depends upon roughness, although it is reasonable to assume that it increases with the degree of interlocking. This is a matter that requires further study. The results shown in Figure 8 suggest that anT may be independent of roughness; similar results were obtained by Kutter & Otto (1990). Data published by Bandis et al, (1981) and Denby & Scobie (1984) indicate that a small dependence of anT on roughness may exist However, this small dependence does not introduce serious errors in the determination of peak shear strength because of the logarithmic form of the equation (II). For example, in the case of the data presented in Figure 8, an increase or decrease in anT by

-0.2

0.001 0.01

0.1

10

Normal stress (MPa)

Figure 11. Normalised rate of dilation vs, normal stress

50% results in an overestimation or underestimation of the dilation angle by 1 approximately for a normal stress range an = 0.11.0 MPa, assuming '1'0=30. The new criterion has been tested against well documented, published data from a variety of authors and for a range of rock types and found to be generally applicable. A basic implication of this criterion is that any variation in shear strength is attributed to changes in the geometrical component. Accordingly, changes due to sample size, roughness anisotropy and normal stress are explained in terms of variations only in dilation as demonstrated by Papaliangas et al. (1994). The importance of relation (II) for determining the dilation angle at any given normal stress lies in its use of only one single surface parameter, the average asperity slope, which can be directly measured for any surface,. The strong correlation between this parameter and shear strength has been emphasised by several authors, including Tabor (1975) and Koura & Omar (1982). The form of the new criterion is similar in some respects, and probably explains the proven usefulness of Barton's empirical formula (Barton. 1973). However, the new criterion has a sound theoretical base and employs physically meaningful parameters which can be readily established through careful testing,

'I'

364

5 1- Proposed criterion <p m ... = i . ........ _ 39 "_ 'II0, = 40 '

0aT=

suggested for use either to predict or extrapolate strength data.

peak shear

6. REFERENCES Baldovin, G (1970). The shear strength of some rocks by laboratory tests. Proc. 2nd Congr. ISRM. V5, Belgrade. pp. 165-172. Bandis S., Lumsden A.C. !t Barton N. (1981). Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear behaviour of rock joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 18, 1-21. Barton N. (1971). A relationship between joint roughness and joint shear strength. Proc. ISRM Symp. on Rock Fracture, Nancy, France, Paper 1-8. Barton N.R. (1973). Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Engng Geology, 7, 287332. Barton N. (1976). The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 13, 255-279. Barton N.R. and Choubey V. (1977). The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech., Vol. 10, pp. 1-54. Bowden F.P. and Tabor D. (1950). The Friction And Lubrication 0/ Solids. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Brown S.R. & Scholz C.H. (1985). Closure of random elastic surfaces in contact. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 5531-5545. Byerlee J.D. (1968). Brittle-ductile transition in rocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 4741-4750. Byerlee J.D. (1978). Friction of rocks. Pure & Appl. Geophys. 116, 615-626. Denby B. & Scobie M.J. (1984). Quantification of power law indices for discontinuity shear strength prediction. Proc. 25th US Symp. on Rock Mech., Evanston, pp. 475-482. Fairhurst C. (1964). On the validity of the "Brazilian" test for brittle materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1,535-546. Fecker E. & Rengers N. (1971). Measurement of large scale roughness of rock planes by means of profilograph and geological compass. Proc. Symp. on Rock Fracture. Nancy, France. Paper 118. Giani G.P. (1992). Rock Slope Stability Analysis. Balkema, Rotterdam. Goodman R. E. & Dubois J. (1972). Duplication of dilatancy in analysis of jointed rock. J. Soil Mech. & Found. Div. , Proc. ASCE 98, SM4, 399-422. Greenwood J.A. & Williamson J.B.P. (1966). Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc. Royal Society, A 295, 300-319. Gyenge M. & Herget G. (1977). Mechanical Properties. Pit Slope Manual, Chap. 3, CANMET, CANMET Report 7712, 87p. Halling, J. (1978). Principles 0/ Tribology. MacMillan. London, 401p. Hencher S.R. & Richards L.R. (1989). Laboratory direct shear testing of rock discontinuities. Ground Engng 22, 24-31. Hoek E. & Brown E.T. (1980b). Fmpirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Engng Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engnrs 106, 1013-1035. Jaeger J.C. (1971). Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. 11th Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 21, 97-134. Koura M.M. & Omar M.A.(1981). The effect of surface parameters on friction. Wear 73, 235-246 Kutter H.K. & Otto F. (1990). Influence of parallel and cross joints on shear behaviourof rock discontinuities. Rock Joints; Proc. Int. Symp. on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway (Barton N. & Stephansson 0., Eds), pp.243-2S0. Balkema, Rotterdam. Leichnitz W. (1985). Mechanical properties of rock joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 22, 313-321. Logan J.M. & Teufel L.W. (1986). The effect of normal stress on the real area of contact during frictional sliding of rocks. Pure & Appl. Geophys. 124, 471-485.

10 MPa

'2 - Barton's equation :,r<p 30 ,

.......... IRC JCS

= = 10L. .... = 100 MPa

(. )

Normal stress (MFa)

100

1- Proposed criterion <p= 39 80'-"-'II~ m.,= 40 .._;_. -_....-. oaT=:' 10 ~a

-t

- .Barto.:"~_~~~<:l~. 60 .~<p 30 : r, ' IRC = 10 : 40 .....JCS = 100 MFa

(b) 00 oaT 20 40 60 80 Normal stress (MFa) 100

Figure 12. Comparison of proposed criterion with Barton's model (a) Low normal stress (b) High normal stress .measurement and analysis. There is no need for any index tests or preparation of surfaces. A comparison between the two models is shown in Figure 12. The two models may give identical results at low normal stresses, but at higher normal stresses, where Barton's formula is known to underestimate the measured strength (Barton, 1976), the new criterion predicts peak friction angle value equal to the friction angle of the rock wall material (+p= +m)'

5. CONCLUSIONS This new simple non-linear criterion for peak shear strength is based on realistic mechanisms of shearing and widely accepted theory of asperity deformation. The basic assumption is that shear strength is derived from shearing of rock junctions which are under high normal stress. For quantification the criterion requires evaluation only of the average asperity angle (function of joint roughness) and the friction angle of the rock wall material (basic rock property) together with the normal stress at which dilation is fully suppressed. The assumptions made are reasonable and the required parameters can be easily determined through a series of direct shear tests. The criterion is simple, has been tested against experimental data and found to make accurate predictions. It is

365

Martin G.R & Millar PJ. (1974). Joint strength characteristics of a weathered rock. In Advances in Rock Mechanics, Proc. 3rd Congr.lnt. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver, Colorado, pp. 263-270. Mogi K. (1966). Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from brittle fracture to ductile flow. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 44, pp. 21S-232. Orowan B. (1960). Mechanism of seismic faulting. Geol. Soc. Amer. Memoirs 79, 323-34S. Papaliangas T. T., Hencher S.R. & Lumsden A.C. (1994). Scale independent shear strength of rock joints. Integral Approach to Applied Rock Mechanics (M. Van Sint Jan, ed. in chief), Santiago, Chile, Vol. I, pp.123149. Papaliangas T. T. (I99S). Shear behaviour of rock joints and rocksoil interfaces. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Leeds, U.K. (in preparation). Paterson M.S. (1978). Experimental Rock Deformation - Brittle Field. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Rengers N. (1970). Influence of surface roughness on the friction properties of rock planes. Proc. 2nd Congr. of the ISRM, Belgrade, Vol. I, paper 31, pp. 229234. Richards L.R. & Cowland J.W. (1982). The effect of surface roughness on the field shear strength of sheeting joints in Hong Kong Granite. Hong Kong Engineer 11, 39-43. Stesky RM. & Hannan S.S. (1987). Growth of contact area between rough surfaces under normal stress. Geophys. Res. Lett. 14, SSo-SS3. Stesky R.M. and Hannan S.S. (1989). A new theory for the static contact between rough, unmated surfaces in non-elastically deforming rock and its implications for rock friction. J. Struct. Geol.ll, 787-798. Sun Z., Gerrard C. & Stephanson O. (198S). Rock joint compliance tests for compression and shear loads. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 22, 197213. Swan G. (1983). Determination of stiffness and other properties from roughness measurements. Rock Mech. Rock Engng. 16, 19-38. Tabor D. (I97S). A simplified account of surface topography and the contact between solids. Wear 32,269-271. Terzaghi K. (I92S). The physical causes of proportionality between pressure and frictional resistance, from Erdbaumechanic, transl. by A. Casagrande in: From theory to practice in soil mechanics. Wiley and Sons.

366