Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Interpretation
of directsheartestsonrockjoints
S. R. Hencher
Department
of EarthSciences,
TheUniversity
of Leecls,UK
ABSTRACT: The originsof shear strengthare reviewedin the context of direct sheartesting of rock
discontinuities.A methodof analysingdata to correctfor dilationover differentincrements of horizontal
displacement throughouta test is demonstrated and variousformsof presenting data are discussed.It is
arguedthat the correctedstrengthenvelopefor the testas a wholecanbe usedto deriveappropriate lower
boundstrengthparametersfor design.Additionalstrengthmay be allowableto accountfor roughnessat the
field scale,but as an alternativeapproach,it is recommended that the dilation-corrected
strengthbe used
directlyfor designwith a lowerfactorof safetyon shearstrength thanwouldnormallybe adopted.
99
toBarton
& Bandis,
1990).Thestrength 1989). Furthermorethis correctiondoesnot allow
contribution from roughness is estimatedwith for freshsurfaces whichhavea highnaturalpolish
referenceto a seriesof joint roughness profiles or surfaceswhichhavea low frictioncoatingboth
(JRC)modifiedac, co•g to rockwail strength of whichmayhavepeakshearstrengths far lower
andstresslevel.Over twentyyears,thecriterion than• aspreviouslydefined.
hasbeenrevisedseveraltimes,mostimportantlyto A conceptual problemwiththeempirical
incorporate effectsof scaleonJRCandrockwall approach is thatByerlee(1985)notesthat,whilst
strength (JCS)andalsoto makeit clearthatit may theshearstrength of rockjointsat low stresses is
be appropriate to allowfor additionalfield extremelyvariable(dueto variableroughness), at
roughness onceJRC hasbeencorrected for scale. higherstresses, wheretheeffectof roughness is
Many recentpaperson rockshearhave assumed to be essentially
lost,shearstrengthis
concentrated on testingtheJRCconceptor on frictionalandthatfor themajorityof rocksthe
waysof betterdefiningJRC(seefor example frictioncoefficientis 0.85 (40.4ø) for normal
Hsiunget al. 1993;Kulatilakeet al., 1994;Odling, stresses
below200 Mpa. Bartonsequationpredicts
1994).Very little attentionhasbeengivento the thatshearstrengthshouldapproach •r (about10
'basic'frictioncomponent. degreesless)asthenormalstresslevel approaches
In themethodof analysisof sheartestdatafor thecompressive strength
of thewail rock.
naturaljoints,presented below,theeffectsof
external work due to dilation are corrected for. It
shouldbe emphasised
thatthedilation-corrected 2.2 Physicaloriginsof shearstrength
frictional resistance thus determined is not the
equivalent
of •r in Bartonsempiricalcriterionas Fundamental workon thephysicaloriginsof rock
suggestedby Bandis(1993). frictionincludesthatof Byerlee(1967),Engelder
Oneof thepotentialproblems withtheempirical & Scholz(1976),Ohnaka(1975) andmanyothers.
approachis thatengineersmay assume thatthe A veryuseful,recentreviewfroma fundamental
"basic" or "residual" friction determined from a viewpointispresented by Scholz(1990).
sawcut,sand-blasted surfaceor following The componentsof shear strength are
considerable sheardisplacement of a naturaljoint represented schematically
in Table 1 anddiscussed
is a uniqueparameterfor a particularrockor rock brieflybelow:
joint.Moreimportantly, theymayalsowrongly 1. The lowerboundstrengthfor anydiscontinuity
assumethatthatvalueis thelowestpossible throughrock is probablyderivedfrom chemical
strengthfor the rocktype. andphysicalbondswhichare continually formed
It is well established
thatthe shearstrengthof and brokenduring shearover the true area of
planarsurfacesthroughthe samerockcanbe quite contactasoriginallyproposedby Terzhagi(1925)
variabledepending uponsurfacefinish(Coulson, and establishedexperimentallyfor metals by
1971).Frictionanglesmuchlower thanthosefor Bowden & Tabor (1964). It has not yet been
typicalsaw-cutandsandblastedsurfaces canbe confirmedthat the adhesional theoryof frictionis
measured fromartificiallypolishedsurfaces entirelyappropriateto rocks(Boitnottet al., 199'2)
(Byerlee,1967)or followinglongdisplacements butfor manyrocksit is clearthatthelower-bound
andthe removalof debris(Fiericher,1976). frictionalstrength
is likelyto be of the orderof ten
Similarly,measured shearstrengths for natural degrees. Certainly values this low can be
jointscanbe muchlowerthanfor a sawcut approached
for artificiallyor naturallypolished
surfacethroughthe samerock.Datareportedby rock surfaces.
Richards(1975)indicatingfrictionanglesaslow 2. Additionalfrictionalstrengthat a texturalscale
as 12øfor weatheredsandstones werenotedby is derivedfrom the interactionof minorasperities
Barton& Choubey(1977)whosuggested thata which are deformedand damagedlocally during
correction factorcouldbe appliedto •r when shear without causingdilation of the whole
dealingwith weatheredrocks.This is doneby discontinuity(by definition). In the case of a
usingtheratio of the Schmidthammerrebound typical test on saw-cut surfacesfor which a
value for a weathered surface to that of a fresh friction angle of 30 degreesis measured,it is
surface.In practice,weathered
rockjointscan estimatedthat perhaps2/3 of shearresistance is
exhibit
higher
shear
strengths
thantheirless due to surfacetextural damageand deformation
weathered
counterparts
(Hencher& Richards, processes. Surfaces whichhaveevenrougher
100
Table1 Factors
contributin•
to theshearstrensth
of rockdiscontinuities
(afterHencher,
1987)
1. ADttESION (lower boundfriction)
increasing
normalload-• - Bondingovertrueareaof contact(At, Az)
N1
ß proportionalto normalload
ß doesnotcausedilation(by definition)
ß no reductionwithdispl•ent
ß samefor differenttexturalsurfaces
androughness
3. OVERRIDING
- Work donedueto dilationor compression
4. COHESION
-Shearing
of rockbridges
andlockedasperities
ß notproportionalto normalload
ß independentof dilation
ß lostafterpeakstrength
surfacetexturesthanproduced by a diamondsaw, 1990; Kutter & Otto, 1990; Hencheret al., 1993;
yet still haveplanarmorphologies, will give even Papaliangaset al., 1994). From experienceof
higherstrengths withoutdilating. testingnaturaldiscontinuities,
this contributionto
3. Wherea discontinuity
is roughat a coarser' shearstrength
is essentially
frictional
(proportional
scale,additionalstrengthis derivedfrom work to normalload)andinseparablefromcomponent 2
done by overridinglarge asperities(dilation)and above. Nevertheless the detailed interaction of
thiscanbe accounted for by carefulmeasurement largeasperities
in any situationwill be complex
andanalysisasdiscussed later.Work is alsodone anddependupongeometry(and thusscale)and
in deformingor damagingthose same large asperitystrengthrelativeto stresslevel much in
asperities which cause dilation and this the ways envisagedby Ladanyi & Archambault
contributionis a matterof somedebate(Barton, (1970)andBanon& Choubey (1977).
lol
4. True cohesionresultsfrom the shearingof 5 e
intact rock bridges or healed sections of
discontinuities but will not be considered here;
discussion will instead concentrate on continuous
fractures.Lockingof steepasperitiescanalsogive
750
t•sheaz
500 st;zess-4
riseto a true cohesivestrengthinvolvingsheafing
of the asperities,the work involvednot being
250 1
represented as an equivalentdilationangle(as is
the case for asperity deformationand damage ent 0
duringtheoverridingof asperities,factor3.).
No accountwill be givenof the specialproblems
0 5
associated with infilledjoints.
hozizonta]. displa½smsnc,
In practice,thereare two stagesin determining
shear strengthfor design. Firstly, the friction
available at a textural scale needs to be determined Figure1 Measureddatafrom a directsheartest
(factors 1 & 2 above). This dependsupon the on a naturaldiscontinuity
finishand mineralogyof the naturalsurfacesand
may be higheror lower thanfor saw-cutsurfaces
throughthe parentrock. Secondly,someaccount work done throughoutthe test. After correction,
can be taken of the strength contributedby the underlyingfrictionalresistanceof effectively
roughness interaction andirapersistence
(factors3 planarsurfacesof naturaltextureand mineralogy
& 4 above)at the field scale. is revealed.
102
Quartz syenite dilation --
calculated over 0.18mm steps
T--
0.68
+1.450
6OO
(r2'0.98) •
• ß
r•-.• m
330
400 • m
t (#60)
103
750 - Tensile fracture (measured) occurswhenthe dilationangleis only
quarbz syenite
about 5ø and that, by the time the maximum
500-
dilationangleof about 15ø is reached,measured
strengthis alreadyreducing.
Thisis contraryto the
commonbeliefthat the dilatencyrate is greatestat
250 - [] runs1,2,4,6,8 peak measured strength (see for example
+ (cozzecbed) Goodman,1989) and would not be seenwithout
e zu• 9
0 (corrected)
carefulinsuumentation andanalysis.
0 250 500 750 1000
104
ßmeasured data. This is generallydue to sample- ISRM suggested methods. p.135-137.
dependentand direction-dependent roughness. Pergamon Press.
During testing, continuaUyresolving stresses Byeflee,J.D. 1967. Theoryof frictionbasedon
relativeto the actualplaneof sliding,allowsdata brittlefracture.J Appl.Phys.38: 2928-2934.
to be plotted to reveal the underlyingshear Byeflee,J.D. 1978. Frictionof rocks.Pure Appl.
strength of an effectively planar yet natural Geophys.116:615-626
surface.This frictionangleis generallyquitewell Coulson,J.H. 1971.Shearstrengthof fiat surfaces
defined for a set of discontinuities of similar of rock. Proc. 13th Symp. on Rock Mech.,
surfacetexture and mineralcoatingand may be Illinois: 77-105.
much lower or much higher than the strength Engelder,T. & C.H. Scholz. 1976. The role of
determinedfor a saw-cut surfacethroughthe asperityindentationand ploughingin rock
parentrock. friction, 2, Influence of relative hardnessand
It is suggestedthat, for design,the corrected normal load. Ink. JI. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
strengthcanbe useddirectlyasa lowerboundand Geomech.Abstr., 13: 155-163.
thatin thiscaseonlya low factorof safetyneedbe Fecker,E. & N. Rengers.1971. Measurement of
adoptedfor shearstrength. largescaleroughness of rock planesby means
of a profilograph
andgeological compass.Proc.
Syrup.onRockFractureISRM, Paper1-8.
REFERENCES Gyenge,M. & G. Herget.1977.Determination of
strengthpropertiesof rock discontinuities
by
Bandis, S.C. 1993. Engineeringpropertiesand directsheartest.Pit slopemanualsupplement
characterisationof ro•k discontinuities.In 3-2: Laboratorytestsfor designparameters,
Hudson,J.A. (ed.in chief) Comprehensive
Rock Canmetreport77-26:37-44.
Engineering,1: 155-183.Pergamon Press. Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to Rock
Bandis,S.C., A.C. Luresden& N.R. Barton. 1981. Mechanics. 2ndedition,New York:Wiley.
Expertmentalstudiesof scale effectson the Hencher,S.R. 1976.A simpleslidingapparatus for
shearbehaviourof rock joints. Ink. JI. Rock the measurement of rock friction (discussion).
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.Abstr., 18:1-21. Geotechnique, 26, 4: 641-644.
Barton,N.R. 1990.Scaleeffectsor sampling
bias? Hencher,S.R. 1987.Theimplications of jointsand
Proc. 1st Int. Workshopon Scale Effects in structures for slope stability. In M.G.
Rock Masses, Loen: 31-55. Rotterdam: Anderson.& K.S. Richards(eds.), Slope
Balkema. Stability,p.145-186.Chichester: Wiley.
Barton, N.R. & K. Bakhtar. 1987. Description Hencher,S.R.& L.R. Richards. 1989.Laboratory
and modellingof rockjoints. Report TR-418 direct shear testing of rock discontinuities.
by TerraTek Engineering
for AtomicEnergyof GroundEngineering, 22, 2: 24-31.
Canada Ltd. Hencher,S.R., J.P.Toy, & A.C. Luresden. 1993.
•Barton, N.R. & S.C. Bandis. 1990. Review of Scaledependentshearstrengthof rock joints.
predictivecapabilitiesof JRC-JCSmodel in Proc. 2nd Ink. Workshopon ScaleEffectsin
engineeringpractice.Proc. Int. Symp.on Rock Rock Masses, Lisbon: 233-240. Rotterdam:
Joints, Loen: 603-610. Rotterdam: Balkema. Balkems.
Barton, N.R. & V. Choubey.1977. The shear Hsiung,S.M., A. Ghosh,M.P. Ahola & A.H.
strengthof rock joints in theoryand practice. Chowdhury.1993. Assessment
of conventional
Rock Mech. 10: 1-54. methodologies for joint roughness
Boitnott, G.N., R.L. Biegel, C.H. Scholz, N. determination.
Proc. 34th US Syrup.on Rock
Yoshioka& W. Wang. 1992. Micromechanics Mech., 2: 661-664.
of rock friction 2: Quantitativemodelingof Huang,T.H. & Y.S. Doong.1990.Anisotropic
initialfrictionwith contacttheory.J. Geophys. shearstrength
of rockjoints.Proc.Ink.Symp.
Res., 97, B6: 8965-8978. on Rock Joints, Loen: 211-218. Rotterdam:
Bowden,F.P. & D. Tabor. 1964.Thefriction and Balkema.
lubricationof solids.Vol.H. Oxford:Clarendon Kulatilake,P.H.S.W., G. Shou& R.M. Morgan.
Press. 1994. A new empiricalpeak shear strength
Brown,E.T. [ed.] 1981. Suggested methodsfor criterionfor rock joints. Proc. 1st NARM
determining shear strength. Rock Symp.,Austin:565-572.Rotterdam:Balkema.
characterisation,testing and monitoring - Kutter,H.,K. 1974. Resultsof laboratory
direct
105
sheartestsonfourrocktypes.ImperialCollege
RockMechanicsReportNo. 28.
Kutter,H.K. & F. Otto. 1990. Influenceof parallel
and cross joints on shear behaviourof rock
discontinuities.Proc. lnt. Syrup. on Rock
Joints, Loen: 243-250. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Ladanyi,B. & G. Archambault.1970. Simulation
of shearbehaviourof a jointedrockmass.Proc.
11thSyrup.onRockMech.,AIME, New York:
105-125.
Nicholson, G.A. 1994. A test is worth a thousand
guesses - A paradox. Proc. 1st NARM
Symposium,P.P. Nelson & S.E. Laubach
(eds.):523-529. Rotterdam:Balkema.
Odling, N.E. 1994. Natural fracture profiles,
fractal dimensions and joint roughness
coefficients.Rock Mech. and Rock Engng. 27,
3: 135-154.
Ohnaka, M. 1975. Frictional characteristicsof
typicalrocks.J. Phys.Earth.,23: 8%112.
Papaliangas,T., S.R Hencher& A.C. Luresden.
1994.Scaleindependent shearstrengthof rock
joints.Proc lnt. $ymp.Integral Approachto
Applied Rock Mechanics,Santiago,1: 123-
134.Santiago:Editec.
Patton,N.D. 1966.Multiplemodesof shearfailure
in rock.Proc. 1st linternationalConferenceon
Rock Mechanics, Lisbon: 1509-513.
Richards,L.R. 1975. The shearstrengthof joints
in weatheredrock. PhD Thesis,Universityof
London,ImperialCollege
Richards,L. IL & J.W. Cowland. 1982. The effect
of surfaceroughness on the fieldshearstrength
of sheetingjointsin Hong Kong granite.Hong
KongEngineer,10,10:39-43.
Ross-Brown, D.M. & G. Walton. 1975. A
portableshearbox for testingrockjoints.Rock
Mechanics 7: 129-153.
Scholz, C.H. 1990. The Mechanics of
Earthquakes and Faulting. Cawabridge
UniversityPress.
Terzhagi, K. 1925. The physical causes of
proportionality
betweenpressureandfrictional
resistance. From Erdbaumechanic, translated
by A. Casgrande
in From Theoryto Practicein
SoilMechanics,1960:173-174.Wiley.
106