Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
Most problems faced by the practicing rock engineer involve the evaluation of rock mass strength and deformability. The theoretical
evaluation of the mechanical properties of fractured rock masses has no satisfactory answer because of the great number of variables
involved. One of these variables, the inuence of which over rock mass behavior is poorly documented, is the degree of fracture
persistence. This paper presents the results of biaxial tests performed on physical models of rock with non-persistent joints. The failure
modes and maximum strengths developed were found to depend on, among other variables, the geometry of the joint systems, the
orientation of the principal stresses, and the ratio between intermediate stress and intact material compressive strength (s2/sc). Tests
showed three basic failure modes: failure through a planar surface, stepped failure, and failure by rotation of new blocks. Planar failure
and stepped failure are associated with high strength behavior, and small failure strains, whereas rotational failure is associated with a
very low strength, ductile behavior, and large deformation.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Failure through a planar surface; Stepped failure; Failure by rotation of new blocks; Non-persistent joints
1. Introduction
The design of high rock slopes, typical of open pits, often
requires the evaluation of the rock mass strength along
failure surfaces partly along existing joints and partly
through the intervening intact rock. Collinear joints
separated by volumes of intact rock are often referred to
as non-persistent or discontinuous joints. Jennings [1]
proposed to compute the combined strength of joint and
rock bridges from the simple linear weighing of the
strength contributed by each fraction of material:
t kcj s tan fj 1 kcr s tan fr ,
(1)
where (cj, fj) and (cr, fr) represents the cohesion and
friction angle of the joint and of the intact rock,
respectively, and k is the joint continuity factor given by
k Lj =Lj Lr ,
where Lj and Lr are the length of the joint and of the rock
bridge, respectively (Fig. 1).
Eq. (1) disregards the inuence of the joints on the
stress distribution, and assumes simultaneous failure of
the intact material and the joints; it thus disregards the
possibility of progressive failure. Jennings criterion can
also be expressed in terms of the major principal stresses, as
follows:
2= sin2b kcj 1 kcr s2 1 k tan fj 1 k tan fr cot b
s1
.
1 tan b k tan fj 1 k tan fr
Corresponding author.
(2)
(3)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
1
A
Lr
Lj
d
1
891
cement mortar mold before the mortar sets. Lajtai [9] ran
direct shear tests on model material with non-persistent
joints and observed that the failure mode changed with
increasing normal stress; he proposed a composite failure
envelope to describe the transition from the tensile strength
of the intact material to the residual strength of the
discontinuities. He thus recognized that maximum shear
strength develops only if the strength of the solid material
and the joints are mobilized simultaneously. Other
investigators conducted further experimental research to
understand, in a qualitative way, the beginning, propagation, and coalescence phenomena between two joints
[1013].
1.3. Tests with a set of non-persistent joints
Jamil [14] tested biaxial models with a single set of
parallel non-persistent joints. He mostly varied the
continuity factor (k) the spacing between joints (d) and
the orientation of the joints with respect to the principal
stress axes (b) (Fig. 1), maintaining a joint step angle (g) of
901 in all tests. Cording and Jamil [15] identied four
modes of failure for non-persistent joints, depending on the
geometry of the joint system and the conning stress:
sliding on a single plane, stepping, multiplane stepping, and
shearing through intact rock. They found that the strength
along a stepped joint failure, including the tensile strength
of the intervening rock bridge, could be approximated by
the expression
t st
d
sn tan fj i,
Lj
(4)
sc
1 tanfj i tanb i
(5)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
892
Marble
1.0
0.8
Norite
Sandstone
0.6
Quarzite
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
(%)
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Table 1
Joint geometries and conning stresses of the samples tested
Serie
Lj (cm)
Lr (cm)
d (cm)
g1
b1
e (cm)
s2/sc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
90
135
45
15
30
45
60
0.01
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.5
3
2
117
127
112.5
135
90
45
0.00
0.01
0.050
0.026
0.043
0.017
0.040
0.011
0.169
0.040
0.047
0.023
0.064
0.025
0.050
0.103
0.053
0.126
0.035
0.096
0.169
0.091
0.103
0.169
0.060
0.077
0.079
0.011
0.030
0.042
0.099
0.020
0.055
0.066
0.039
0.075
0.123
0.058
0.100
0.086
0.176
0.199
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
893
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S7
S8
S9
S 10
S 11
S6
PROB 41
July 6
= 15
3=0
Fig. 5. Observed failure modes: (a) through a plane, series 3, s2 =sc 0:00; (b) stepped, series 2, s2/sc 0.00; (c) rotation of new blocks series 5,
s2/sc 0.00; (d) interaction between rotation and stepped, series 8, s2/sc 0.01.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
894
Table 2
Dominant failure modes
Lj (cm)
Lr (cm)
d (cm)
1
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
4
5
6
5
5
5
7
8
9
Serie
10
11
g1
b1
1
90
45
45
135
15
90
2
2
2
2
2
2
135
135
135
30
45
60
90
90
90
5
5
2
3
4
4
117
127
45
89,5
89,8
113
59,6
5
2.5
2
1
2
1
135
90
90
45
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
895
1.25
1.00
1/c
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(%)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Fig. 8. Principal stress difference vs. axial strain curves. (a) series 1, (b) series 2, (c) series 3, (d) series 4, (e) series 5 and (f) series 6, (g) series 7, (h) series 8,
(i) series 9, (j) Series 10, (k) series 11. R, Rotation failure mode; P, sliding on a single plane; S, stepping failure mode, I, Shearing through intact material.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
896
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
Fig. 8. (Continued)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
1.50
1.50
1.50
1
1.25
1/c
1/c
1.00
2
4
0.75
1.25
0.50
0.75
R
0.50
1.00
1/c
1.00
1.25
897
P
2
0.75
0.50
R
R
0.25
0.00
0.00
=45
R
0.05
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
0.25
R
RR
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.25
=30
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
=15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
Intact Material
Fracture Strength
Jennings Criteria
Best linear fit
R:
P:
S:
I :
Experimental Data
Rotation Failure Mode
Sliding on a Single Plane
Stepping Failure Mode
Shearing Through Intact Material
Fig. 9. Change in strength and failure mode with the orientation of the major principal stress.
1.50
1.40
1
1.20
1.25
1/c
0.75
S
0.50
1/c
P+S
1.00
P
2
1 Intact Material
2 Fracture Strength
4 Fracture Strength
Experimental Data
P : Sliding on a Single Plane
S : Stepping Failure Mode
S
P
S
S
0.25
S
0.00
0.00
Symbol
P+S
1.00
Lj/e
Model
0.80
250
0.60
0.40
0.20
S
S
0.00
0.00
500
0.05
0.10 0.15
2/c
0.20
Intact Material
Fracture Strength
P : Sliding on a Single Plane
S : Stepping Failure Mode
1
0.05
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
1.50
1.50
1.25
1/c
1/c
0.25
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.75
1.25
I
R
0.50
0.05
0.25
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.05
0.10
2/c
0.15
RR R
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.20
0.25 R
0.75
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.00
0.75
R
R R
1.25
1.00
0.50
1.50
1
1/c
898
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
1.50
1
1.25
3
R+I
4
0.75
R+I
0.50
0.25
R+S
R+S
R R+S
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
2/c
Intact Material
Fracture Strength
Jennings Criteria
Best linear fit
R:
P:
S:
I :
Experimental Data
Rotation Failure Mode
Sliding on a Single Plane
Stepping Failure Mode
Shearing Through Intact Material
0.15
Series Properties
Series
1/ci
c/ci
4.56
40
0.078
0.018
4.56
40
0.058
0.014
5.93
45
0.137
0.028
9.48
54
0.116
0.019
0.20
Serie 8.k=0.63,Lr/d=1,=45,=127
Fig. 12. Strength envelopes for rotational failure mode.
1.50
1.25
R
3
1.00
1/c
1/c
1.00
1
2
3
4
0.75
0.50
0.25
R
0.00
0.00
R R
R
0.05
0.10
2/c
0.15
0.20
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
899
5. Numerical analysis
6. Conclusions
Our laboratory tests on articial rock models with nonpersistent joints illustrate the large anisotropy in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
900
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
80
70
60
30
SyP
50
40
S&P
S
S&P
20 P+S
10
S
R
MS
S
R
R+S
Lr
R+S
Failure Mode
P : Planar
S : Stepping
R : Rotation
P+S : Mixed mode P y S
R+S : Mixed mode R y S
MS : Multi stepping
R
5
-10
-20
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Lr/d
Zone
Failure Mode
Transition zone between sliding on a single plane and stepping failure mode.
if 2/c>0.04 planar failure
if 2/c<0.04 stepping
Stepping
Rotation
=90
1.0
=135
1.0
Joint closure
0.6
0.8
Joint closure
0.4
0.2
1/c
1/c
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Tensile fracture
0.0
Tensile fracture
0.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2/c Symbol
Tensile fracture
0.00
0.15
Joint closure
0.00
0.15
Fig. 16. Major principal stress needed to induce tensile failure at the joint tips and to achieve joint closure.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902
901
v=1 Kg/cm2
15
h= 0.3 Kg/cm2
From
Numerical
Analysis
From
Jennngs
Hypothesis
0.3
0.97
0.35
Area of study
2)
2.0
1.5
0.0
-5.0
-1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
-5.0
-1.0
h=0.3
2)
g/cm
n (k
2.0
g/cm
n (k
h=0.3
L r (c
Lr(cm
m)
2
[2] Brown ET, Trollope DH. Strength of a model of jointed rock. J Soil
Mech Found Div ASCE 1970;96:685704.
[3] Brown ET. Strength of models of rock with intermittent joints. J Soil
Mech Found Div ASCE 1970;96:193549.
[4] Einstein HH, Hirschfeld RC. Model studies on mechanics of jointed
rock. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 1973;99:22948.
[5] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of shear behavior of a jointed
rock mass. In: Proceedings of the 11th symposium on rock
mechanics, 1970. p. 10525.
[6] Kulatilake PH, He W, Um J, Wang H. A physical model study of
jointed rock mass strength under uniaxial compressive loading. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34:62333.
[7] Singh M, Seshagiri RK, Ramamurthy T. An approach to evaluate
strength and modulus of rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2000;
33:1417.
[8] Reik G, Zacas M. Strength and deformation characteristics of jointed
media in true triaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1978;
15:295303.
[9] Lajtai EZ. Strength of discontinuous rocks in direct shear.
Geotechnique 1969;19:21833.
[10] Reyes O, Einstein HH. Failure mechanisms of fractured rock
a fracture coalescence model. In: Proceedings of the seventh
international congress rock mechanics, 1991. p. 33340.
[11] Shen B, Stephansson O, Einstein HH, Ghahreman B. Coalescence of
fractures under shear stress experiments. J Geophys Res 1995;6:
597590.
[12] Bobet A, Einstein HH. Fracture coalescence in rock-type materials
under uniaxial and biaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1998;35:86388.
[13] Vallejo LE. Fissure parameters in stiff clays under compression.
J Geotech Eng 1989;115:130317.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
902
M. Prudencio, M. Van Sint Jan / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 890902