Rock Mechanics in Civil and Environmental Engineering – Zhao, Labiouse, Dudt & Mathier (eds)

© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-58654-2

Effect of normal load on shear behavior and acoustic emissions of rock

joints under direct shear loading

Z.A. Moradian, G. Ballivy, P. Rivard & C. André

Civil Engineering Department, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

ABSTRACT: In order to evaluate the applicability of Acoustic Emission (AE) as an indicator of instability of
active joints in dam structures, an extensive feasibility study was done on 40 joint samples. To this end, direct
shear tests were conducted under different conditions (in various normal loads and displacement rates) and
different joint characteristics (with various roughness and bonding percentages) and AE signals were acquired
using attached sensors to the samples. In this study two methods were used to verify the effect of normal load
as one of the most important parameters affecting shear behavior and consequently generated AE signals during
direct shear test of rock joints. In the first method several samples were tested under normal stress of 0.5, 1
and 2 MPa respectively. In the second method, normal stress was changed from 0.5 to 2 MPa in the residual
section of the same sample. The results showed that when normal load increases, the AE signals show a more
significant peak in maximum shear stress point. Increasing and decreasing normal load during residual section
make significant changes in corresponding AE signals.

1 INTRODUCTION Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of the rock

samples.
Beside conventional instrumentation methods, acous-
tic emission (AE) has been recently used as one of Bulk P-wave Elastic
the most precise and the fastest methods for moni- specific velocity modulus Poisson UCS
gravity (m/s) (GPa) ratio (MPa)
toring cracks and damaged zones in structures. AE is
defined as rapid release of elastic waves by cracking Granite 2.63 4675 58.1 0.30 179
and damaging of materials under load. Instability and
failure is associated with a large number of AE events,
so that the greater AE activity the greater is the degree
of the instability.
Table 2. Surface roughness parameters of the joint samples.
Previous researches have addressed application of
AE for monitoring rock joints both in laboratory Z2 Z3
(Moradian et al. 2008, Hong & Seokwon 2004, Li & RL (Root mean (Root mean
Nordlund 1990) and in site (Sasao et al. 2003, Shiotani (real square of the square of the
et al. 2001). profile first derivative second derivative
Among several parameters affecting shear strength length) of the profile) of the profile)
of rock joints, the magnitude of the normal stress has
the most important role (Barton & Choubey 1977). S. 15 1.047 0.323 0.751
Any change in this parameter makes a significant S. 25 1.059 0.381 0.840
change in shear behavior and, consequently, in the gen- S. 44 1.054 0.355 0.848
S. 33 1.053 0.346 0.785
erated AE signals (Li & Nordlund 1990, Filimonov
S. 34 1.051 0.342 0.815
2005). In order to apply AE technique for stability
monitoring of rock joints successfully, it is necessary
to understand the effect of normal stress on AE activity
in rock joints.
properties of the rock used for direct shear testing of
the joints. In order to have three similar joint samples,
2 SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TESTING joint surfaces were compared visually and those which
PROCEDURE were similar were separated. Finally by measuring
the roughness parameters of the selected joints, three
Joint samples were prepared by tension splitting of samples with same roughness parameters (Table 2)
rock cores. Table 1 shows physical and mechanical were selected for this study. Two other joint samples

219
Figure 1. Shear stress vs. shear displacement.

Figure 2. Normal displacement vs. shear displacement.

were chosen for studying the effect of normal load on

residual behavior of rock joints.
Samples were tested according to ASTM standard
(2002) and using a MTS loading system with a shear
displacement rate of 0.15 mm/min. Normal load was
fixed during direct shear testing of three samples, but
it was changed in residual shear section for two other
samples.
A PAC µ-SAMOS AE system with four 3α gen-
eral purpose sensors was used for detecting AE events.
The frequency range of sensors was 25–530 KHz.
The amplification of pre-amplifier was 40 db, and AE
exceeding 50 db was measured.
3 APPLYING DIFFERENT CONSTANT
NORMAL LOADS ON SAMPLES WITH
SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS
Experimental results (Figures 1 and 2) show that shear
stress and shear stiffness are increased while dilation
is decreased by increasing normal load. On the other
hand, shear stress graph has more significant peak
strength and it drops markedly at higher values of
normal load.
Figures 3 and 4 show shear stress, rate and cumu-
lated values of the AE count vs. shear displacement
under different values of constant normal load. Com-
paring the graphs, it can be seen that between the start
point of the test and maximum shear stress, AE events
Figure 3. Shear stress and AE count rate vs. time for a)
sample #44 b) sample #25 c) sample #15.
under lower values of normal stress (0.5 MPa) are
higher than AE events under higher values of normal
stress (1 and 2 MPa).
AE signals shows a more significant peak in max-
imum shear strength when normal load is increased.
At low values of normal load, AEs decrease gradu-
ally after maximum shear stress whilst they decrease
suddenly at higher values of normal load.
For joints under high values of normal load (Figure
3c) time interval between AE increasing and rupture
is too small for putting remedial measures to prevent
the failure. In the case of joints under low values of
normal load (Figure 3a), AEs increase gradually and
one can be aware about failure point and prevent the
rupture.
Since asperities under low values of normal load
don’t shear off completely, the asperities continue to
shear off during residual section and they show some

220

Figure 4. Cumulative AE count vs. shear displacement.
Figure 5. Shear stress and normal displacement vs. shear
displacement for sample #33, 1) normal stress = 0.5 MPa, 2)
normal stress = 1 MPa, 3) normal stress = 2 MPa, 4) normal
stress = 1 MPa, 5) normal stress = 0.5 MPa.
AE events (Figure 3a). Meanwhile at higher values of
normal load all of the asperities are sheared off after
maximum shear strength and they show low values of
AE events during residual section (Figure 3c).
4 CHANGING NORMAL LOAD AT RESIDUAL
SECTION OF THE SAME SAMPLE
Previous section showed that normal stress has a sig-
nificant effect on AE events radiated from rock joints
during direct shear test. Although it was tried to select
samples with similar physical and mechanical charac-
teristics however, difference in AE response of rock
joints might be due to difference in coupling condi-
tions of AE sensors. To eliminate the negative effect of
coupling conditions of AE sensors, AE measurement
were done on same sample which coupling conditions
of the AE transducer remained unchanged. With this
attempt, direct shear test was carried out on a sam-
ple by increasing and decreasing of normal stress for
several times during the residual section of the shear
stress-shear displacement graph.
Figures 5 and 6 show shear stress and normal dis-
placement vs. shear displacement for samples #33 and
#34. Increasing and decreasing normal load is shown
in these figures.
221
Figure 6. Shear stress and normal displacement vs. shear
displacement for sample #34, 1) normal stress = 2 MPa,
2) normal stress = 1.5 MPa, 3) normal stress = 0.5 MPa, 4)
normal stress = 1.5 MPa, 5) normal stress = 2 MPa.
Figure 7. Shear stress and AE count rate vs. shear displace-
ment for sample #33.
Looking at Figures 7 and 8, it can be seen that
increasing normal load causes a high amount of AE
events but not immediately at the jumping point of
shear stress graph. This means that AE signals are
generated by shearing and damaging of asperities not
jumping of shear stress. In the contrary, dropping of
shear stress graph caused by reduction of normal load,
generates a significant peak in AE signals. It sug-
gests that these peaks come from releasing of joints
halves from interlocking. The more dropping in nor-
mal load the more releasing of joint halves is happened
and consequently the more significant AE peaks are
generated.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Direct shear tests were carried out on rock joints in two
ways. At first, three samples with same physical and
mechanical properties were tested under three differ-
ent but constant normal loads. Then different values of
normal loads were applied on same sample during its
residual behavior of the shear stress graph. The exper-
imental results showed that normal load has a very

Figure 8. Shear stress and AE count rate vs. shear displace-
ment for sample #34.
large effect on AE events generated from rock joints
under direct shear loading.
In the initial phase of the loading (between start
point of the test and ultimate shear stress) samples
under lower values of normal load show more AE
events than samples under higher values of normal
load.
By increasing normal load, samples show a more
significant peak in maximum shear stress and AE
count rate graphs and they show a more marked drop
of shear stress and AE count rate.
Increasing normal load always generates more AE
events but not at the jumping time. AE events are
increased by shearing off of the asperities caused by
increased normal load. Whilst decreasing normal load
produces a significant peak in AE count rate. It is
believed that this phenomenon is due to releasing of
joint halves from interlocking.
222
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
This study was made possible by financial assistance
provided by Hydro-Quebec and NSERC grant as well
as the extensive participation of Université de Sher-
brooke. The authors would like to thank Georges
Lalonde, technician of the rock mechanics labora-
tory, Clermont Gravel and Baptist Rousseau for their
contribution in this study.
REFERENCES
ASTM. 2002. Standard test method for performing laboratory
direct shear strength test of rock specimens under con-
stant normal force. Designation D5607-02, Annual book
of ASTM standards:1358–1369.
Barton, N. & Choubey, V. 1977. The shear strength of rock
joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics;10:1–54.
Filimonov, Y. Lavrov, A. & Shkuratnik, V. 2005. Effect of
Confining Stress on Acoustic Emission in Ductile Rock,
Strain 41:33–35.
Hong, C. & Seokwon J. 2004. Influence of shear load on the
characteristics of acoustic emission of rock-concrete inter-
face. Key Engineering Materials 270–273:1598–1603.
Li, C. & Nordlund, E. 1990. Characteristics of acoustic emis-
sions during shearing of rock joints, Rock joints, Barton &
Stephanson, eds. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Moradian, Z.A. Ballivy, G. Gravel, C. & Saleh, K. 2008.Anal-
ysis the Shear Strength of the active Joints Using Results
of the Constant Normal Load Shear Test. 4th Asian Rock
Mechanics Conference, Tehran, Iran.
Sasao, H. Hirata, A. & Obara, Y. 2003. Measurement of
acoustic emission and interpretation of its results dur-
ing excavation of a rock cliff with opening joints, ISRM
Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South Africa.
Shiotani, T. Masayasu, O. & Kenji, I. 2001. Detection
and evaluation of AE waves due to rock deformation,
Construction and Building Materials 15:235–246.