Table 5.

14: ISRM-suggested characterisation of defect roughness

Scale
Class Intermediate Minor Typical roughness profile JRC2 JRC10
0 0
I Rough 20 11
Stepped
II Smooth 14 9

III Slickensided 11 8

IV Undulating Rough 14 9

V Smooth 11 8

VI Slickensided 7 6

VII Planar Rough 2.5 2.3

VII Smooth 1.5 0.9

IIX Slickensided 0.5 0.4

Notes
The length of the roughness profiles is intended to be in the range of 110 cm

The vertical and horizontal scales are identical

JRC20 and JRC100 correspond to joint roughness coefficient when the roughness
profiles are scaled to a length of 20 cm and 100 cm respectively
Source: Modified from Brown (1981) and Barton & Bandis (1990) by Flores &
Karzulovic (2003)
Figure 5.24: Summary of scale effects in the shear strength components of non-planar
defects. fb is the basic friction angle, dn is the peak dilation angle, sa is the strength
component from surface asperities, and i is the roughness angle
Source: Bandis et al. (1981)

ment condition (the predominant condition in the benches of an open pit mine)
is defined by nil to very low values of cohesion and friction angles in the range
of 4560;
at low confinement and scales from 50200 m, structures with centimetric
clayey fillings have typical peak strengths characterised by cohesions ranging
from 075 kPa and friction angles ranging from 1825;
at low confinement and scales from 2550 m, sealed structures with no clayey
fillings have typical peak strengths characterised by cohesions ranging from
50150 kPa and friction angles ranging from 2535.

Both JRC and JCS values are influenced by scale effects and decrease as the
defect size increases. This is because small-scale roughness becomes less
significant compared to the length of a longer defect and eventually large-scale
undulations have more significance than small-scale roughness (Figure 5.24).
Bandis et al. (1981) studied these scale effects and found that increasing the size
of the discontinuity produces the following effects:

the shear displacement required to mobilise the peak shear strength

increases;
a reduction in the peak friction angle as a consequence of a decrease in peak
dilation and an increase in asperity failure;
a change from a brittle to a plastic mode of shear failure;
a decrease of the residual strength.

To take into account the scale effect Barton and Bandis (1982) suggested
reducing the values of JRC and JCS using the following empirical relations:

JRCF=JRCO(LF/LO)^-0.02/JRCO (enq 5.34)

JCSF=JCSO(LF/LO)^-0.03/JRCO (enq 5.35)
where JRC and JCS are the field values, JRC and JCS are the reference values
F F O O

(usually referred to a scale in the range 10 cm1 m), LF is the block size in the
field and LO is the length of reference (usually 10 cm1 m).
These relationships must be used with caution because for long structures they
may produce values that are too low. Ratios of JCSF /JCSO < 0.3 or JRCF /JRCO <
0.5 must be considered suspicious unless there are very good reasons to accept
them.
The Barton-Bandis strength envelopes for discontinuities with different JRC
values are shown in Figure 5.25, which also shows the upper limit for the peak
friction angle resulting from this criterion.
From Table 5.14, the following values can be assumed as a first estimate for
the joint roughness coefficient:

Figure 5.25: Barton-Bandis shear strength envelopes for defects

with different JRC values
Source: Modified from Hoek & Bray (1981)
Figure 5.26: Examples of discontinuities with matching and
mismatching rock walls
Source: Flores & Karzulovic (2003)
rough undulating discontinuities: JRC 1520
smooth undulating discontinuities: JRC 10
smooth planar discontinuities: JRC 2
5.3.2.7 Stress, strain and normal stiffness
Numerical slope stability analyses require, in addition to the strength properties,
the stress-strain characteristics of defects. Detailed discussions on the stress-
strain behaviour of defects can be found in Goodman (1976), Bandis et al. (1983),
Barton (1986), Bandis (1993) and Priest (1993).
The loading of a discontinuity induces normal and shear displacements whose
magnitude depends on the stiffness of the structure, defined in terms of a normal
stiffness, kn, and a shear stiffness, ks. These refer to the rate of change of normal
(sn) and shear (t) stresses with respect to normal (vc) and shear (us)
displacements (Bandis 1993):
 Therefore, a discontinuity subjected to normal and shear tresses will suffer
normal and shear displacements that dependo n the following factors:
the initial geometry of the discontinuitys rock walls;
the matching between the rock walls, which defines the variation of the
apertura and the effective contact rea (Figure 5.26);
the strength and deformability of the rock Wall material;
the thickness and mechanical properties of the filling material (if any);
the initial values of the normal and shear stresses acting on the structure.

It is assumed that the defect cannot sustain tensile normal stresses and that there
will be a limiting compressive normal stress beyond which the defect is
mechanically indistinguishable from the surrounding rock (Figure 5.27).
The normal stiffness of a defect can be measured from a compression test with
the load perpendicular to the discontinuity (Goodman 1976), or from a direct shear
test if normal displacements are measured for different normal stresses (Figure
5.12). The following comments can be made.

1. Normal stiffness depends on the rock wall properties and geometry, the
matching between rock walls, the filling thickness and properties (if any), the
initial condition (before applying a normal stress increment), the magnitude of
the normal stress increment and the number of loading cycles.
2. Generally, normal stiffness is larger if the rock wall and filling material (if any)
are stronger and stiffer.
3. For a given set of conditions, normal stiffness is larger for defects with good
matching than for mismatching ones.
4. Normal stiffness increases with the number of loading cycles. Apparently, the
increment is larger in the case of stronger and stiffer rock walls.
5. The values quoted in the geotechnical literature indicate that normal stiffness
ranges from 0.001 2000 GPa/m. It typically takes the following values:
defects with soft infills: kn < 10 GPa/m;
clean defects in moderately strong rock: kn = 1050 GPa/m;
clean defects in strong rock: kn = 50200 GPa/m.
 The normal stiffness of a defect increases as the defect
closes when sn increases, but there is a limit that is reached when the defect reaches
its maximum closure, v
cmax. Assuming that the relationship between the effective
normal stress, sn, and the defect closure, vc, is hyperbolic (Goodman et al. 1968) it
is possible to define the normal stiffness (Zhang 2005):

Figure 5.28: Definition of kn and kni in an effective normal stressdiscontinuity

closure curve

us,peak Shear displacement,

u
s

Figure 5.29: Determination of secant peak shear stiffness of a defect from a direct
shear stress Source: Goodman (1970)

Kn = kni (1+ on/knivcmax) (eqn 5.38)

where kni is the initial normal stiffness, defined as the initial tangent of the normal
stress-discontinuity closure curve (Figure 5.29). As the defects tensile strength is
usually neglected, kn = 0 if sn is tensile.
 Hence, to determine the normal stiffness of a defect it is necessary to know the
initial value of this stiffness and the defects maximum closure. From experimental
results, Bandis et al. (1983) suggested that kni for matching defects can be
evaluated as:

kni = -7.15 + 1.75 JRC + 0 02(JCS/ei ) (eqn 5.39)

where kni is in GPa/m units (or MPa/mm), JRC and JCS are coefficients of the
Barton-Bandis failure criterion and ei is the initial aperture of the discontinuity, which
can be estimated as:

ei = JRC[(0.04/JCS) - 0 02] (eqn 5.40)

where ei is in mm, and sc and JCS are in MPa.

For the case of mismatching structures, Bandis et al. (1983) suggested the
following relationship:

kni mm = kni / ( 2.0 + 0.0004 x JRC x JCS x on (eqn 5.41)

where kni,mm is the initial tangent stiffness for mismatching defects. Regarding the
scale effect on the normal stiffness, it can be implicitly considered by using scaled
values for JRC and JCS, and an adequate value for ei. Although these
relationships have several limitations there are few practical tools to estimate kn.
Some reported values for the normal stiffness of discontinuities are listed in Tables
5.17 and 5.18.
Table 5.17: Reported values for normal stiffness for some rocks
Rock Discontinuity Load kni kN Comments Reference
cycle (GPa/m) (GPa/m)
 Fresh to slightly 1 423 1.7 sni = 1 kPa Bandis et
weathered, 2 1135 al.
good matching 3 1862 (1983)
of rock walls 1 426
2 927
Moderately Estimated from
3 1545
weathered, data in reference,
1 25
good Wittke
assuming a 3 cm
2 914 (1990)
matching of thickness
SANDSTONE

3 1120
rock walls

Weathered,
good
matching of
rock walls
Shear zone
with clay
gouge
Bedding planes, 1324 Direct shear tests Rode et
good matching with sn ranging al. (1990)
(JRC = 1016) from 0.40.9 MPa
Bedding planes, 712
good matching
(JRC = 1016)
Fresh fractures, 1725
good matching
(JRC = 1217)
Fresh fractures, 812
poor matching
(JRC = 1217)
 Fresh to slightly 1 831 sni = 1 kPa Bandis et
weathered, 2 54134 al.
good matching 3 72160 (1983)
1 570
Moderately
2 2691
LIMESTONE

weathered,
3 53168
good
1 413
matching
2 4050
Weathered, good
matching
3 4265

Joints in weathered 0.51.0 sn = 5 MPa Bandis

limestone (1993)
Joints in fresh 45
limestone
Clean 1530 sn = 1020 MPa Ludvig
QUARTZIT

With clay gouge 1025 (1980)

E

Fresh, good 1 2127 sni = 1 kPa Bandis et

matching 2 5975 al.
DOLERITE

3 103 (1983)
Weathered, good 1 119
matching 2 813
2492
3 37130
 Clean joint (JRC = 1 121 Estimated Makurat
1.9) 1 74 from ref. et al.
Clean joint (JRC = Biaxial (1990)
352
3.8) tests sn :
635 Martn et
2530
Clean joint 50110 al. (1990)
MPa Mes.
2224
Shear zone Sist. Pac-
GRANITE

ex. sn:
8.69.3
MPa
Mes. Sist.
Pac-ex. sn:
0.51.5
MPa
7266 Mes. Sist.
Pac-ex. sn
: 1820
MPa
kn = Normal stiffness
sn = Normal stress
kni = Initial normal stiffness
sni = Initial normal stress
Pac-ex: Measured by the system Pac-ex, a special instrumentation system
developed in the Underground Research Laboratory by Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. Source: Flores & Karzulovic (2003)
Table 5.18: Reported values for normal stiffness for some rocks
Rock Discontinuity Load kni kN Comments Reference
cycle (GPa/m) (GPa/m)
 Fresh, good 1 1426 sni = 1 kPa Bandis et
SILTSTONE matching 2 2264 al. (1983)
3
2270
1
Moderately 1011
2
weathered, good 2022
3
matching 2026
Weathered, good 1 714
matching
2 2729

3 2941

Clean 15.3 Triaxial testing (?) Goodman

MONZONIT

&
QUARTZ

Dubois
(1972)
E

Clean, artificial 2.75.4 sn: 3.524 MPa Barton

PLASTER

fractures (1972)
2.7
Karzulovic
Clean, artificial
(1988)
fractures
Fresh, good 1 2447 sni = 1 kPa Bandis et
matching 2 98344 al. (1983)
SLATE

3
185
1
Weathered 424
1114
2 1940

3 4978
 Clean 16.4 Triaxial testing (?) Goodman
RHYYOLITE &
Dubois
(1972)
With clay gouge 540 Increases with sn Barton et
WEAK
ROCK

al. (1981)

Soft clay filling 0.01 Typical range Itasca

Clean 0.1 Triaxial testing. (2004)
3793 Increases with Rosso
number of (1976)
Clean fracture
899
loading cycles
HARD ROCK

Good match, 1620 Direct shear Rutqvist et

interlocked tests al.
> 100
Estimate for (1990)

numerical Itasca
analysis (2004)

Typical value
Fault with clay 0.005 30150 cm thick Karzulovic
gouge (1988)
Rough structure 0.8 Mismatching
with a fill of rock
powder
Fresh joints (JRC 1 311 sni = 0.2 MPa Rode et al.
= 11) > (1990)
GYPSUM

1013
1
Fresh joints (JRC
= 11)
kn = Normal stiffness
sn = Normal stress
kni = Initial normal stiffness
sni = Initial normal stress
Pac-ex: Measured by the system Pac-ex, a special instrumentation system
developed in the Underground Research Laboratory by Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. Source: Flores & Karzulovic (2003)