Skip to main content
Log in

Elliptical Hertz-Based General Closure Model for Rock Joints

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  • Bahaaddini M, Hagan PC, Mitra R, Hebblewhite BK (2014) Scale effect on the shear behaviour of rock joints based on a numerical study. Eng Geol 181:212–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 22:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeler NM, Hickman SH (2001) A note on contact stress and closure in models of rock joints and faults. Geophys Res Lett 28:607–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SR, Scholz CH (1985) Closure of random elastic surfaces in contact. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 90:5531–5545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Li JC, Cai MF, Zou Y, Zhao J (2015) Experimental study on wave propagation across a rock joint with rough surface. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48:2225–2234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciavarella M, Delfine V, Demelio G (2006) A “re-vitalized” Greenwood and Williamson model of elastic contact between fractal surfaces. J Mech Phys Solids 54:2569–2591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook NGW (1992) Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and seismic behaviour and properties under normal stress. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29:198–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman RE (1976) Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rock. West, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood JA (1984) A unified theory of surface roughness. Proc R Soc Lond 393:133–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood JA (2006) A simplified elliptic model of rough surface contact. Wear 261:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood JA, Williamson JBP (1966) Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc R Soc Lond 295:300–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood JA, Wu JJ (2001) Surface roughness and contact: an apology. Meccanica 36:617–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han D, Zhu JB, Leung YF (2020) Deformation of healed rock joints under tension: experimental study and empirical model. Rock Mech Rock Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02103-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins DL (2000) The implications of joint deformation in analyzing the properties and behavior of fractured rock masses, underground excavations, and faults. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:175–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Rock Mechanics (1978) Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:319–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Rock Mechanics (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. Suggested Methods Prepared by the Commission on Testing Methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Compilation Arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey

  • Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhawy FH (1975) Stress deformation properties of rock and rock discontinuities. Eng Geol 9:327–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanaro F, Stephansson O (2003) A unified model for characterisation and mechanical behaviour of rock fractures. Pure Appl Geophys 160:989–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li JC, Li HB, Jiao YY, Liu YQ, Xia X, Yu C (2014a) Analysis for oblique wave propagation across filled joints based on thin-layer interface model. J Appl Geophys 102:39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li JC, Li HB, Zhao J (2014b) Study on wave propagation across a single rough fracture by the modified thin-layer interface model. J Appl Geophys 110:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li JC, Li NN, Li HB, Zhao J (2017) An SHPB test study on wave propagation across rock masses with different contact area ratios of joint. Int J Impact Eng 105:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Zhou T, Deng J, Yin J, Zhu J (2020) An excess stress model for capturing rate-dependent compressive behavior of rock joint and its validation and applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 128:104267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malama B, Kulatilake PHSW (2003) Models for normal fracture deformation under compressive loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:893–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuki K, Wang EQ, Giwelli AA, Sakaguchi K (2008) Estimation of closure of a fracture under normal stress based on aperture data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:194–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra A (1999) Micromechanical model for anisotropic rock joints. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 104:23175–23187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemoto K, Watanabe N, Hirano N, Tsuchiya N (2009) Direct measurement of contact area and stress dependence of anisotropic flow through rock fracture with heterogeneous aperture distribution. Earth Planet Sci Lett 281:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevostianov I, Kachanov M (2008) Normal and tangential compliances of interface of rough surfaces with contacts of elliptic shape. Int J Solids Struct 45:2723–2736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Z, Gerrard C, Stephansson O (1985) Rock joint compliance tests for compression and shear loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22:197–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan G (1983) Determination of stiffness and other joint properties from roughness measurements. Rock Mech Rock Eng 16:19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang ZC, Zhang Y (2020) Temperature-dependent peak shear-strength criterion for granite fractures. Eng Geol 269:105552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang ZC, Liu QS, Xia CC, Song YL, Huang JH, Wang CB (2014) Mechanical model for predicting closure behavior of rock joints under normal stress. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:2287–2298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang ZC, Jiao YY, Wong LNY (2017) Theoretical model with multi-asperity interaction for the closure behavior of rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 97:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia CC, Yue ZQ, Tham LG, Lee CF, Sun ZQ (2003) Quantifying topography and closure deformation of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:197–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Jackson RL, Marghitu DB (2014) Statistical model of nearly complete elastic rough surface contact. Int J Solids Struct 51:1075–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamada K, Takeda N, Kagami J, Naci T (1978) Mechanisms of elastic contact and friction between rough surfaces. Wear 48(1):15–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu JB, Li H, Deng JH (2019) A one-dimensional elastoplastic model for capturing the nonlinear shear behaviour of joints with triangular asperities based on direct shear tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52:1671–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou L, Li B, Mo Y, Cvetkovic V (2019) A high-resolution contact analysis of rough-walled crystalline rock fractures subject to normal stress. Rock Mech Rock Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-02034-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the support from the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 41672302 and 41977227), and the Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics and Geohazards of Zhejiang Province (no. ZJRMG-2019-08).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing Zhao Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Composite Morphology

As shown in Fig. 8a, contacts are not only formed near the tips of the asperities on single surface, but also between any two points on the surfaces. If the two surfaces are forced to be closer together, new contacts will appear due to the deformation of the existing contacts. Under the un-deformed state, we define two parallel reference planes, which are separated at a distance d0. From these planes we measure the height of each surface z1 and z2. Summing the heights at each point along the surface, we obtain the function \( z_{\text{c}} (x) = z_{\text{upper}} (x) + z_{\text{lower}} (x) \) as shown in Fig. 8b, where, \( z(x) \) is the xth measured topographical height, \( z_{\text{c}} (x) \) is the xth topographical height of composite topography, \( z_{\text{upper}} (x) \) and \( z_{\text{lower}} (x) \) are the topographical heights of the upper and lower surfaces of a joint, respectively.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Sketch of two rough surface profiles of a joint and the derived composite topography (Cook 1992)

Appendix 2: Asperity Spatial Features

The asperity peaks randomly distributed on a rock joint should be first identified when adopting Hertz-based theoretical models to predict the closure process. For three-dimensional rock joint, the peak is defined as a point with height greater than its four closest points (Greenwood 1984), as shown in Fig. 9. Equation (13) is the criterion to identify the asperity peaks on a rough rock joint. The equivalent radius of each identified peak can then be calculated based on the five points using the least-square method. The mean peak density is determined by the ratio of the number of asperity peaks to the nominal area of rock joint; the mean peak radius is determined by the ratio of the sum of all the peaks’ equivalent radii to the peak number; and the mean peak height is determined by the ratio of the sum of all the peaks’ height to the peak number:

$$ Z_{i,j} > Z_{i - 1,j} , Z_{i + 1,j} , Z_{i,j - 1} , Z_{i,j + 1} $$
(13)

where, \( Z_{i,j} \) is the asperity peak height at the point (i, j) in 3D domain; \( i \) and \( j \) are integers.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Schematic diagram for identifying asperity peaks on rock joint (Greenwood 1984)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, Z.C., Zhang, Q.Z. Elliptical Hertz-Based General Closure Model for Rock Joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54, 477–486 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02275-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02275-0

Keywords

Navigation