Skip to main content
Log in

Modelling the Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints with Asperity Damage Under Constant Normal Stiffness

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The shear behaviour of a rough rock joint depends largely on the surface properties of the joint, as well as the boundary conditions applied across the joint interface. This paper proposes a new analytical model to describe the complete shear behaviour of rough joints under constant normal stiffness (CNS) boundary conditions by incorporating the effect of damage to asperities. In particular, the effects of initial normal stress levels and joint surface roughness on the shear behaviour of joints under CNS conditions were studied, and the analytical model was validated through experimental results. Finally, the practical application of the model to a jointed rock slope stability analysis is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A :

Area of sliding surface

A b :

Cross-sectional area of bolt

c 0 :

The ratio of shear displacement over peak shear displacement at which dilation is assumed to begin

c 1, c 2 :

Decay constants

E b :

Bolt modulus of elasticity

H :

Height of slope

i :

Dilation angle

JRC:

Joint roughness coefficient

JCS:

Compressive strength of joint surface

K n :

Constant normal stiffness at an external boundary

k ni :

Initial normal stiffness of joint under zero applied normal stress

\({(k_n)}_{\delta_{\text{h}}}\) :

Normal stiffness of joint at any shear displacement

\({(k_n)}_{\delta_{\text{h}}}\)  = 0 :

Normal stiffness of joint prior to shearing

\(\left( {k_{\text{n}} } \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}}\,=\,\delta_{\text{h - peak}} }}\) :

Normal stiffness of joint at peak shear displacement

k s :

Shear stiffness of joint

L :

Effective length of grouted bolt

L n :

Length of digitised joint profile

M :

Damage coefficient

N p :

Number of digitised points along the joint profile

N :

Number of bolts in slope face

s h :

Horizontal bolt spacing

T :

Tension force developed by all grouted bolts

T b :

Tension force developed in a single grouted bolt

V m :

Maximum joint closure

W :

Weight of rock wedge

(x i , z i ):

Digitised coordinates of joint profile

Z 2 :

Root mean square of the first derivative of joint profile

z t :

Depth of tension crack

\(\dot{v}\) :

Dilation rate

\(\dot{v}_{\text{peak}}\) :

Peak dilation rate

(α, β, λ):

Components relating to joint normal stiffness at peak stress ratio

γ r :

Unit weight of rock mass

Δx :

Sampling interval

\(\delta_{\text{h}}\) :

Shear displacement

\(\delta_{\text{h}}\) -peak :

Shear displacement at peak stress ratio

\(\delta_{\text{v}}\) :

Normal displacement

\(\delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}}\) :

Normal deformation of spring

\(\delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{c}}\) :

Magnitude of shortening of spring

\(\delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{d}}\) :

Magnitude of extension of spring

θ j :

Dip angle

θ s :

Slope angle

\(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) :

Applied compressive normal stress to joint at prior to shearing

\(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{{}}\) :

Normal stress at shear displacement \(\delta_{\text{h}}\)

\(\sigma_{\text{n0}}^{{}}\) :

Initial normal stress (at \(\delta_{\text{h}}\) = 0)

\(\tau_{\text{mob}}\) :

Mobilised shear stress

\(\tau\) :

Shear stress

(\(\tau\)/\(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{{}}\)):

Stress ratio

(\(\tau\)/\(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{{}}\))peak :

Peak stress ratio

\(\phi_{\text{b}}\) :

Basic friction angle of joint

\(\phi_{\text{mob}}\) :

Mobilised friction angle

\(\phi_{\text{mob, peak}}\) :

Peak mobilised friction angle

ω :

Bolt angle

References

  • Bandis SC (1990) Mechanical properties of rock joints. In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints: Proc. Int. Conf. on Rock Joints, Loen. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 125–140

  • Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR (1983) Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 20(6):249–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton N (1982) Modelling rock joint behavior from in situ block tests: implications for nuclear waste repository design. No. ONWI-308. Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation Report, Columbus

  • Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech Rock Eng 10(1):1–54. doi:10.1007/bf01261801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K (1985) Strength, deformation and conductivity coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(3):121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):65–74. doi:10.1007/s006030200009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr JR, Warriner JB (1989) Relationship between the fractal dimension and joint roughness coefficient. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 26(2):253–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman RE (1980) Introduction to rock mechanics John Wiley & Sons, New York

  • Haberfield CM, Johnston IW (1994) A mechanistically-based model for rough rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 31(4):279–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuze FE (1979) Dilatant effects of rock joints. In: Proc 4th ISRM congress, Montreux, vol 1, 1979, pp 169–175

  • Hutson RW, Dowding CH (1990) Joint asperity degradation during cyclic shear. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(2):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indraratna B (1990) Development and applications of a synthetic material to simulate soft sedimentary rocks. Géotechnique 40(2):189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indraratna B, Haque A (2000) Shear behaviour of rock joints. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Indraratna B, Haque A, Aziz N (1999) Shear behaviour of idealized infilled joints under constant normal stiffness. Géotechnique 49(3):331–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indraratna B, Oliveira DAF, Brown ET, de Assis AP (2010) Effect of soil-infilled joints on the stability of rock wedges formed in a tunnel roof. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47(5):739–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring—ISRM suggested methods. In: Brown ET (ed) Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 3–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Xiao J, Tanabashi Y, Mizokami T (2004) Development of an automated servo-controlled direct shear apparatus applying a constant normal stiffness condition. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(2):275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston IW, Lam TSK, Williams AF (1987) Constant normal stiffness direct shear testing for socketed pile design in weak rock. Géotechnique 37(1):83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YH, Carr JR, Barr DJ, Haas CJ (1990) The fractal dimension as a measure of the roughness of rock discontinuity profiles. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(6):453–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HS, Park YJ, Cho TF, You KH (2001) Influence of asperity degradation on the mechanical behavior of rough rock joints under cyclic shear loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(7):967–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leichnitz W (1985) Mechanical properties of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(5):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maerz NH, Franklin JA, Bennett CP (1990) Joint roughness measurement using shadow profilometry. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(5):329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohnishi Y, Dharmaratne PGR (1990) Shear behaviour of physical models of rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints; Proc Int Conf on Rock Joints, Loen, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 267–273

  • Olsson R, Barton N (2001) An improved model for hydromechanical coupling during shearing of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(3):317–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet F, Egger P (1996) Analytical model for the mechanical behaviour of bolted rock joints subjected to shearing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 29(2):73–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pells PJN (1974) The behaviour of fully bonded rockbolts. In: Proc 3rd ISRM congress, Denver, 1974, pp 1212–1217

  • Pereira JP, Freitas MH (1993) Mechanisms of shear failure in artificial fractures of sandstone and their implication for models of hydromechanical coupling. Rock Mech Rock Eng 26(3):195–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plesha ME (1987) Constitutive models for rock discontinuities with dilatancy and surface degradation. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 11(4):345–362. doi:10.1002/nag.1610110404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeb S, Amadei B (1990) Modelling joint response under constant or variable normal stiffness boundary conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(3):213–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeb S, Amadei B (1992) Modelling rock joints under shear and normal loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29(3):267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel JP, Haberfield CM (1995) The application of energy principles to the determination of the sliding resistance of rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 28(4):211–226. doi:10.1007/bf01020227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinas CA, Bandis SC, Demiris CA (1990) Experimental investigations and modelling of rock joint behaviour under constant stiffness. In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints; Proc Int Conf on Rock Joints, Loen, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 301–308

  • Tatone BSA, Grasselli G (2010) A new 2D discontinuity roughness parameter and its correlation with JRC. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47(8):1391–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse R, Cruden DM (1979) Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16(5):303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang ZY, Lo SC, Di CC (2001) Reassessing the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) estimation using Z2. Rock Mech Rock Eng 34(3):243–251. doi:10.1007/s006030170012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu X, Vayssade B (1991) Joint profiles and their roughness parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 28(4):333–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao J (1997) Joint surface matching and shear strength part A: joint matching coefficient (JMC). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(2):173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Z (2013) Gouge particle evolution in a rock fracture undergoing shear: a microscopic DEM study. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(6):1461–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Alan Grant (Technical Officer, University of Wollongong) during the modification of the apparatus and the testing program and Ben Tam (Technical officer, Qubic) during the set-up of the 3D laser scanner and calibration. The second author would like to thank the Australian Research Council APAI scheme for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Buddhima Indraratna.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Derivations of Eq. (5)/Joint Normal Stiffness at Peak Shear Displacement

The stiffness of a rock joint is modelled by connecting the upper and lower joint surfaces with two orthogonal springs, which represent the normal stiffness (k n) and the shear stiffness (k s) of the joint (Bandis 1990). Due to the orthogonality of the spring connection, the normal deformation of joint under shear and normal loading can be analysed independently as a spring system using the method of superposition (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16
figure 16

Non-linear spring model for simulating rock joint normal deformation at stages of prior to and peak of shearing

Several experimental results have shown that the normal stress–displacement behaviour of a joint under uniaxial loading is non-linear (Bandis et al. 1983), so it is reasonable to assume that the joint behaves similar to a non-linear spring system. Hence the normal stiffness of spring k n can be derived by differentiating the applied normal stress \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) with respect to the total normal deformation of spring \(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{T}}\):

$$k_{\text{n}} = \frac{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }} = \frac{1}{{\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)}}.$$
(26)

Extension (+\(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{T}}\)) and shortening/compression (−\(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{T}}\)) of the spring are positive and negative as per the sign convention, respectively. Stage I represents the spring system prior to preloading or normal loading where it is assumed that the spring has a finite initial stiffness k ni (i.e. joint initial normal stiffness at \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) is nearly zero). Stage II represents the preloading or normal loading to the matching joint before shearing. At this stage, shortening of spring \(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{C}}\) (i.e. initial joint closure) for any level of \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) can be calculated from Bandis et al. (1983) hyperbolic equation, thus:

$$\delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{c}} = \left( { - \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} } \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} = - \left( {\frac{{\sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} \times V_{\text{m}} }}{{k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}} + \sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} }}} \right),$$
(27)

where V m is the maximum shortening (joint maximum closure). Both k ni and V m are assumed to be negative (closure). By differentiating Eq. (27) with respect to \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\), the spring stiffness (joint normal stiffness) prior to shearing (\(\delta_{\text{h}}\) = 0) for any level of \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) can be obtained as:

$$\left( {k_{\text{n}} } \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} = \frac{1}{{\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} }} = \frac{1}{{\frac{{k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}}^{ 2} }}{{\left( {k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}} + \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} } \right)}}}}.$$
(28)

At stage III, it can be assumed that the joint dilates/opens by \(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{d}}\) due to the peak shear displacement of \(\delta_{\text{h - peak}}\), and the rate of change of normal stress with shear displacement is zero. Hence \(\delta_{\text{V}}^{\text{d}}\) can be calculated by integrating Eq. (4) with respect to shear displacement in the range of 0 < \(\delta_{\text{h}}\) ≤ \(\delta_{\text{h - peak}}\):

$$\left( {\delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{d}} } \right) = \delta_{\text{h - peak}} \times \tan \left( {\frac{1}{M} \times {\text{JRC}} \times \log_{10} \left( {\frac{\text{JCS}}{{\sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)} \right).$$
(29)

Then, the total normal deformation of the spring (\(\delta_{\nu }^{T}\)) for stage III can be expressed as:

$$\left( {\delta_{v}^{T} } \right)_{{\delta_{h} = \delta_{h - peak} }} = \left( {\delta_{v}^{d} } \right)_{{\delta_{h} = \delta_{h - peak} }} - \left( {\delta_{v}^{c} } \right)_{{\delta_{h} = 0}} = \left( {\delta_{v}^{d} } \right)_{{\delta_{h} = \delta_{h - peak} }} + \left( {\delta_{v}^{T} } \right)_{{\delta_{h} = 0}} .$$
(30)

By differentiating Eq. (30) with respect to \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\), the following incremental formulation can be obtained:

$$\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = \delta_{\text{h - peak}} }} = \left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{d}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = \delta_{\text{h - peak}} }} \, + \left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} .$$
(31)

By differentiating Eq. (29) with respect to \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) gives:

$$\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{d}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = \delta_{\text{h - peak}} }} = - \left( {\left( {\frac{{\delta_{\text{h - peak}} \times {\text{JRC}} \times \pi }}{{M \times \ln 10 \times \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} \times 180}}} \right)\sec^{2} \left( {\frac{1}{M} \times {\text{JRC}} \times \log_{10} \left( {\frac{\text{JCS}}{{\sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)} \right)} \right).$$
(32)

By rearranging Eq. (28), the following equation is obtained:

$$\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} = \frac{1}{{\left( {k_{\text{n}} } \right)_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = 0}} }} = \frac{{k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}}^{2} }}{{\left( {k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}} + \sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} } \right)^{2} }}.$$
(33)

By substituting Eqs. (32) and (33) into Eq. (31) and then rearranging, the stiffness of the spring at the peak shear displacement \(\delta_{\text{h - peak}}\) (i.e. normal stiffness of joint at peak shear displacement) is given by:

$$\begin{aligned} \left( k_{\text{n}} \right)_{\delta_{\text{h}}= \delta_{\text{h - peak}}} = \frac{1}{{\left( {\frac{{\partial \delta_{\text{v}}^{\text{T}} }}{{\partial \sigma_{\text{n}}^{*} }}} \right)}}_{{\delta_{\text{h}} = \delta_{\text{h - peak}}}}&=\frac{1}{{ - \left( {\left( {\frac{{\delta_{\text{h - peak}} \times {\text{JRC}} \times \pi }}{{M \times \ln 10 \times \sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} \times 180}}} \right)\sec^{2} \left( {\frac{1}{M} \times {\text{JRC}} \times \log_{10} \left( {\frac{\text{JCS}}{{\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} }}} \right)} \right)} \right) + \frac{{k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}}^{2} }}{{\left( {k_{\text{ni}} \times V_{\text{m}} + \sigma_{\text{n}}^{ *} } \right)^{2} }}}}. \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$
(34)

where \(\sigma_{\text{n}}^{ * }\) = \(\sigma_{\text{n0}}^{{}}\) (initial normal stress in the CNS boundary condition).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Indraratna, B., Thirukumaran, S., Brown, E.T. et al. Modelling the Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints with Asperity Damage Under Constant Normal Stiffness. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48, 179–195 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0556-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0556-2

Keywords

Navigation