Shear behavior of greenschist along foliation plane considering anisotropy

  • Qingzhao Zhang
  • Chuangzhou WuEmail author
  • Bo-An Jang
  • Xunchang Fei
Short Note


The shear behavior of rock mass along its structural plane, i.e., joint, bedding plane, and foliation plane, plays a key role in determining rock strength which is highly anisotropic. The shear behavior along the foliation plane is rarely addressed from engineering geology point of view in the effect of anisotropy of on the shear behavior along foliation plane, not to mention the effect of anisotropy. In this study, the direct shear behavior of greenschist along the foliation plane is investigated using both intact and sheared greenschist samples. Identical concrete replicas for the sheared greenschist samples are prepared using 3D scanning and printing, in this study, and sheared in four directions, i.e., 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°, under four normal stresses \(\left( {\sigma_{\text{n}} /\sigma_{\text{c}} = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4} \right).\) The intact greenschist samples show significantly higher shear strength compared to the sheared samples due to the bonding strength along foliation plane. The shear behavior of greenschist along foliation plane is anisotropic due to the 3D roughness of foliation plane, and the anisotropic behavior diminishes as the normal stress increases. Moreover, the replicas of sheared greenschist samples shows same shear strength as the sheared greenschist samples, thus suggesting that the concrete is suitable for simulating greenschist shear behavior, including the peak shear strength, residual shear strength and stiffness, which also hints that the shear behavior of the sheared greenschist is dramatically controlled by surface roughness of the joint rather than rack by comparing the results of the shear greenschist with concrete replicas.


Foliation plane Shear strength Rock joint Roughness 3D printing 



This work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos: 41602287, 51578408, 51509219). Soumyajit Mukherjee handled this article and reviewed twice. Anonymous reviewers are thanked for detail comments in two rounds.


  1. Beer AJ, Stead D, Coggan JS (2002) Technical note estimation of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) by visual comparison. Rock Mech Rock Eng 35(1):65–74Google Scholar
  2. Belem T, Homand-Etienne F, Souley M (2000) Quantitative parameters for rock joint surface roughness. Rock Mech Rock Eng 33(4):217–242Google Scholar
  3. Fan LF, Wu ZJ, Wan Z, Gao JW (2017) Experimental investigation of thermal effects on dynamic behavior of granite. Appl Therm Eng 125:94–103Google Scholar
  4. Fan LF, Gao JW, Wu ZJ, Yang SQ, Ma GW (2018) An investigation of thermal effects on micro-properties of granite by X-ray CT technique. Appl Therm Eng 140:505–519Google Scholar
  5. Ge Y, Kulatilake PH, Tang H, Xiong C (2014) Investigation of natural rock joint roughness. Comput Geotech 55:290–305Google Scholar
  6. Gentier S, Riss J, Archambault G, Flamand R, Hopkins D (2000) Influence of fracture geometry on shear behavior. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37(1–2):161–174Google Scholar
  7. Grasselli G, Egger P (2003) Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints based on three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(1):25–40Google Scholar
  8. Grasselli G, Wirth J, Egger P (2002) Quantitative three-dimensional description of a rough surface and parameter evolution with shearing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39(6):789–800Google Scholar
  9. Ikari MJ, Trütner S, Carpenter BM, Kopf AJ (2015) Shear behavior of DFDP-1 borehole samples from the Alpine Fault, New Zealand, under a wide range of experimental conditions. Int J Earth Sci 104(6):1523–1535Google Scholar
  10. Kłopotowska A (2018) Ultrasonic constraint of the microfracture anisotropy of flysch rocks from the Podhale Synclinorium (Poland). Int J Earth Sci 107(6):1941–1953Google Scholar
  11. Li Y, Oh J, Mitra R, Hebblewhite B (2016) A constitutive model for a laboratory rock joint with multi-scale asperity degradation. Comput Geotech 72:143–151Google Scholar
  12. Li Y, Wu W, Li B (2018) An analytical model for two-order asperity degradation of rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 51(5):1431–1445Google Scholar
  13. Menegon L, Pennacchioni G (2010) Local shear zone pattern and bulk deformation in the Gran Paradiso metagranite (NW Italian Alps). Int J Earth Sci 99(8):1805–1825Google Scholar
  14. Mukherjee S (2017a) Review on symmetric structures in ductile shear zones. Int J Earth Sci 106(5):1453–1468Google Scholar
  15. Mukherjee S (2017b) Shear heating by translational brittle reverse faulting along a single, sharp and straight fault plane. J Earth Syst Sci 126(1):1Google Scholar
  16. Oh J, Li Y, Mitra R, Canbulat I (2017) A numerical study on dilation of a saw-toothed rock joint under direct shear. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(4):913–925Google Scholar
  17. Park JW, Song JJ (2013) Numerical method for the determination of contact areas of a rock joint under normal and shear loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 58:8–22Google Scholar
  18. Re F, Scavia C (1999) Determination of contact areas in rock joints by X-ray computer tomography. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 7(36):883–890Google Scholar
  19. Shang J, Duan K, Gui Y, Handley K, Zhao Z (2018a) Numerical investigation of the direct tensile behaviour of laminated and transversely isotropic rocks containing incipient bedding planes with different strengths. Comput Geotech 104:373–388Google Scholar
  20. Shang J, Zhao Z, Ma S (2018b) On the shear failure of incipient rock discontinuities under CNL and CNS boundary conditions: insights from DEM modelling. Eng Geol 234:153–166Google Scholar
  21. Sharifzadeh M, Mitani Y, Esaki T (2008) Rock joint surfaces measurement and analysis of aperture distribution under different normal and shear loading using GIS. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(2):299Google Scholar
  22. Tatone BS, Grasselli G (2013) An investigation of discontinuity roughness scale dependency using high-resolution surface measurements. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(4):657–681Google Scholar
  23. Wu Z, Fan L, Liu Q, Ma G (2017) Micro-mechanical modeling of the macro-mechanical response and fracture behavior of rock using the numerical manifold method. Eng Geol 225:49–60Google Scholar
  24. Wu C, Chen Q, Basack S, Karekal S (2018) Laboratory investigation on rheological properties of greenschist considering anisotropy under multi-stage compressive creep condition. J Struct Geol 114:111–120Google Scholar
  25. Zhang W, Goh AT (2016) Multivariate adaptive regression splines and neural network models for prediction of pile drivability. Geosci Front 7(1):45–52Google Scholar
  26. Zhang QZ, Shen MR, Jang BA, Ding WQ (2016) Creep behavior of rocks with rough surfaces. J Mater Civ Eng 28(9):04016063Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geologische Vereinigung e.V. (GV) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qingzhao Zhang
    • 1
  • Chuangzhou Wu
    • 2
    Email author
  • Bo-An Jang
    • 2
  • Xunchang Fei
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of GeophysicsKangwon National UniversityChuncheonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations