Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Strength behaviour of a model rock intersected by non-persistent joint

Divya Shaunik*, Mahendra Singh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, 247667, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Several constructions in the field of civil engineering quite often need to deal with rocks. Strength
Received 14 August 2018 behaviour of rock intersected by a discontinuity or a set of discontinuities has been a topic of keen in-
Received in revised form terest for engineering community. The popular attributes of discontinuities that have been given due
31 December 2018
importance are their frequency, orientation and surface characteristics. Non-persistency, however, has
Accepted 9 January 2019
Available online 12 June 2019
been given little attention. This article presents an experimental study wherein focus has been made on
the effect of non-persistency of the joint on the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of a model rock for
various geometries such as orientation, discontinuity length ratio and number of joint segments. The
Keywords:
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
applicability of single plane of weakness theory (SPWT) to assess the strength of jointed specimens has
Joint segment also been evaluated. It has been noticed that SPWT captures the strength behaviour only for a narrow
Non-persistency range of discontinuity orientations. As an improvement, an approach is suggested by extending concepts
Joint factor of degree of persistence and joint factor to have a better understanding towards strength behaviour of
rocks intersected by non-persistent joints.
Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Heavy engineering structures like gravity dams, bridge foun-
dations and high-rise buildings are often founded on rocks. The
engineers and geologists associated with analysis and design of
these structures should have an adequate understanding of
strength behaviour of rocks for safe and economical design. The
rocks encountered in the field are seldom intact and are invariably
intersected by discontinuities. Due to the presence of discontinu-
ities, strength behaviour of rocks becomes complex and difficult to
assess. The most common type of discontinuity is joint, which is
defined as a fracture along which there has been slight or no
displacement occurred in the past. The strength behaviour of a
jointed rock is substantially governed by characteristics of joints.
The joint attributes that mainly influence the strength behaviour
are frequency, orientation and surface roughness characteristics of
the joints. Effect of joint’s frequency and orientation on strength
has been studied by many researchers (Jaeger, 1960; Hayashi, 1966;
Lajtai, 1969; Einstein and Hirschfeld, 1973; Lama, 1974; Kulatilake
et al., 2001; Halakatevakis and Sofianos, 2010; Maji and Sitharam,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shaunik.divya@gmail.com (D. Shaunik).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
2012; Bidgoli and Jing, 2014; Kumar et al., 2017). With increasing
joint frequency, the rock becomes incompetent and its strength
reduces. A specimen, if loaded normal to joint planes, exhibits
strength as high as intact rock strength. As the loading direction
changes, there is a drastic reduction in the strength. Surface char-
acteristics also substantially affect the strength behaviour of jointed
rock. Joint condition, whether clean and rough or filled-up joints,
thickness of the joint and joint alteration due to weathering are the
important aspects affecting joint’s strength (Ramamurthy and
Arora, 1994).
Based on extensive testing on jointed specimens of natural and
model rocks, Ramamurthy and co-workers (Arora, 1987;
Ramamurthy, 1993; Ramamurthy and Arora, 1994; Singh et al.,
2002) combined the three most significant factors and evolved a
weakness coefficient called joint factor (Jf), defined as
Jn
Jf ¼ (1)
nr
where Jn is the joint frequency (number of joints per meter in
loading direction); n is the joint inclination parameter (Table 1);
and r is the joint strength parameter, taken equal to tanfj , where fj
is the friction angle of joints at low normal stress range.
Joint factor is an index that indicates the weakness brought to
intact rock due to the presence of joints. Using results of tests
conducted on jointed and intact specimens, Ramamurthy and Arora

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.01.004
1674-7755 Ó 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1244 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

The present article attempts to cover the limitation of Jf concept

Table 1 and extend its applicability to non-persistent joints. A laboratory
Values of inclination parameter, n (Ramamurthy, 1993). study has been performed by conducting UCS tests on jointed
Orientation of joint, q ( ) Inclination parameter, n specimens with various geometries of non-persistent joints such as
orientation, degree of persistency and number of joint segments. A
0 1
10 0.814 weak discontinuity material different from parent rock was used to
20 0.634 create joint segments. Primarily, applicability of single plane of
30 0.465 weakness theory (SPWT) (Jaeger, 1960) in predicting the strength of
40 0.306
non-persistent jointed specimens was evaluated. To improve
50 0.071
60 0.046
strength prediction, an empirical approach involving DoP and Jf
70 0.105 concepts has been suggested. The conclusions drawn in this study
80 0.46 are valid for closed cracks without infilling.
90 0.81

2. Experimental programme
(1994) showed that there was a good trend of decreasing strength
due to increase in jointing. The following expression was suggested
A laboratory study has been conducted in which jointed speci-
to correlate strength reduction factor (SRF) with Jf:
mens have been tested under uniaxial loading condition. In present

 study, plaster of Paris (POP) was used as a model rock and 48 tests
scj
SRF ¼ scr ¼ ¼ exp 0:008Jf (2) were conducted under uniaxial compression on specimens inter-
sci sected with non-persistent joints. Prismatic specimens of size
45 mm  45 mm  100 mm (length  width  height) were pre-
where scr is the strength reduction factor (SRF), scj is the uniaxial
pared by mixing POP, sand, water and cement mix in a ratio of
compressive strength (UCS) of the jointed rock, and sci is the UCS of
1:1.6:0.6:0.1 by weight. For characterisation of fabricated model
the intact rock.
rock, tests were performed on prismatic intact specimens. The
One major limitation of the studies involved in the evolution of Jf
average UCS and tangent modulus of the model rock were 8.23 MPa
concept has been that the joints were assumed to extend infinitely,
and 1258.3 MPa, respectively. On Deere and Miller (1966)’s classi-
and non-persistency of the joints has not been considered.
fication chart, the strength and modulus ratio fall under the cate-
Studies are available in the literature that have attempted to
gory of very low strength and low modulus ratio; and hence the
investigate failure mechanism (crack initiation and propagation) and
model rock is classified as ‘EL’. To obtain the shear strength pa-
strength behaviour of non-persistent joints (Brown,1970; Jamil,1992;
rameters, triaxial strength tests were performed on intact speci-
Shen et al., 1995; Mughieda, 1997; Wong and Chau, 1997; Bobet and
mens at confining pressures of 1 MPa, 2 MPa, 4 MPa and 6 MPa,
Einstein, 1998; Lin et al., 2000; Tang et al., 2001; Wong et al., 2001;
respectively. Using results of uniaxial and triaxial tests, Fig. 1 shows
Sagong and Bobet, 2002; Gehle and Kutter, 2003; Kim et al.,
the Mohr circles for stresses at failure and failure envelope for
2007a,b; Prudencio and Jan, 2007; Liu et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2011,
intact material.
2012; Bahaaddini et al., 2012, 2013; Xu et al., 2013; Panthee et al.,
The failure envelope is found to be highly nonlinear. If linear
2016; Alshkane et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017; Vazaios et al., 2018). A
Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion is fitted into triaxial test data, the
majority of researchers in these studies have focused their in-
shear strength parameters, i.e. cohesion (ci Þ and friction angle (fi ),
vestigations on failure modes of non-persistent rock joints under
are found to be 2.88 MPa and 31.86 , respectively. The physical and
uniaxial and triaxial conditions. Wasantha et al. (2012) carried out
engineering properties of the model material are presented in
investigations to characterise the influence of single partially-
Table 2.
spanning joint on strength of jointed rock under uniaxial compres-
The jointed specimens have been grouped into two categories,
sion by varying its joint location, orientation and trace length. The
i.e. types-A and B.
experimental results of Wasantha et al. (2012) were utilized to
develop a numerical model having one, two, four and eight joint
segments (Wasantha et al., 2014). By keeping the orientation constant, 12
the effect of more than one joint segment on strength was studied.
They proposed a new parameter, named as degree of persistence 10
Shear stress (MPa)

(DoP), which includes effect of number of discontinuous joint tips 8

within a non-persistent joint:
6
Total length of joint segments 4
DoP ¼
Number of discontinuous joint tips  Length of scan line
2
(3)
0
It was shown by Wasantha et al. (2014) that strength of jointed 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
specimen decreases with increasing DoP. The non-persistency of
Normal stress (MPa)
joint can be expressed by using an index named discontinuity
length ratio (DLR), which is expressed as Fig. 1. Mohr circles for stresses at failure for intact prismatic specimen.

Total length of joint segments

DLR ¼ (4)
Total length of joint segments þ Total length of intact bridges
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255
Table 2
Physical and engineering properties of intact rock material.
Unit weight, g (kN/m3) UCS, sci (MPa) Tangent modulus, Et50 (MPa)
17.12 8.23 1258.3
2.1. Preparation of type-A specimens
For this category of jointed specimens, the number of joint
segments has been kept fixed (equal to one). Drawing sheet paper
was used as a discontinuity material to create non-persistent joint
in the rock specimens (termed as type-A). During casting, a joint
segment of definite length was created in the middle of specimens
at an orientation (q) of 0 , 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 and 90 , respec-
tively. The orientation (q) is defined as angle of normal to discon-
tinuity plane with respect to loading direction. Fig. 2 displays the
prismatic mould and the drawing sheet of definite length is inser-
ted at a specific discontinuity orientation.
The joint length was gradually increased, as shown in Fig. 3, to set
different configurations. Table 3 briefly describes the configurations
at which UCS tests have been performed for type-A specimens.
2.2. Preparation of type-B specimens
As compared to type-A specimens, the type-B specimens have
more than one joint segment, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Fig. 4
displays the arrangement used for preparing the specimens, and
Fig. 5 shows the fabricated specimens.
Fig. 2. Arrangement used for fabrication of type-A specimen.
Fig. 3. Type-A specimens with joint oriented at (a) 45 with 33.3% DLR, (b) 45 with 66.7% DLR, (c) 60 with 22.2% DLR, and (d) 60 with 88.9% DLR.
1245
Cohesion, ci (MPa) Friction angle, fi ( ) Deere and Miller (1966)’s classification
2.88 31.86 EL
Material used for creating joint was of same type that has been
used previously. The specimens have been fabricated by intro-
ducing two or three joint segments having definite lengths at an
orientation (q) of 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 and 90 from horizontal.
The length of intact bridge and joint segment has been kept equal
while casting specimens. The specimens, having two joint seg-
ments, were fabricated in different configurations, as displayed in
Fig. 5a,b. Fig. 5a depicts the configuration ‘I-J-I-J-I’, where ‘I’ stands
for intact bridge and ‘J’ for joint segment and the configuration is
abbreviated as type-B1. Fig. 5b shows the specimen which has two
joint segments in the configuration of ‘J-I-J’ (type-B2). Type-B3 or ‘I-
J-I-J-I-J-I’ was the configuration having three joint segments, as
given in Fig. 5c. For q < 60, it was impossible to incorporate three
joint segments due to smaller traverse length. Table 4 briefly ex-
plains the configurations at which UCS tests have been performed
for type-B specimens.
2.3. Testing of specimens
UCS tests were conducted in rock triaxial testing machine
(maximum capacity of 70 MPa) in a strain-controlled mode. As
shown in Fig. 6, this machine consists of loading unit, pumping unit,
and data acquisition system (data logger).
The loading unit consists of a loading frame, which is made of
steel (Fig. 6a). The base carries a fine finished hydraulic ram and a
lower platen. The top plate has the spherical seating to take care of
any irregularity of the specimen surface or slight misplacement of
Table 3
Configurations of type-A specimens.
q ( ) DLR (%)
0 55.6, 100
15 20, 60, 100
30 20, 60, 100
45 16.7, 33.3, 50, 66.7, 83.3, 100
60 11.1, 22.2, 33.3, 44.4, 55.6, 66.7, 77.8, 88.9, 100
75 20, 40, 60, 80, 100
90 20, 40, 60, 80, 100
1246 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

Fig. 4. Arrangement used for fabrication of type-B specimens having (a) two joint segments and (b) three joint segments.

Fig. 5. Type-B specimens with discontinuity oriented at 60 with (a) two joint segments, each of 18 mm in length, (b) two joint segments, each of 30 mm in length, and (c) three
joint segments, each of 13 mm in length.

the specimen from the central position. Pumping unit (Fig. 6a) is a
multi-plunger pump submersed in the tank and is powered by a
1.5 kW electric motor. This unit is used to apply pressure for triaxial
strength tests. Power pack gives non-pulsating flow to the hy-
draulic ram. A data acquisition system is attached to the machine,
for the purpose of recording the load (Fig. 6b). Fig. 7 shows the
arrangement used for UCS testing in the present study. Prismatic
shaped loading platens were put on top and bottom of specimen.
Teflon sheets were used between specimen and prismatic platen
for minimising end friction. Strain rate was adjusted to 0.402 mm/
min such that the failure occurred within about 15 min from
starting of the experiment. Axial load was increased monotonically
till peak, and then failure occurred, followed by substantial drop in
load. Observations were noted in terms of load and deformation
which were displayed by data acquisition system.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes of jointed specimens
The jointed rock specimens usually undergo a complex combi-
nation of more than one failure mechanisms. It was attempted to
recognise the most prominent mode that has initiated the failure of
specimen. During the tests, the failure initiates near peak load, and
to cease the loading at this moment was impossible. Therefore, the
failure modes shown in the figures and in further discussions are

Table 4
Configurations of type-B specimens.

q ( ) Type Number of joint segments Length of joint segments (mm) Number of intact rock bridges DLR (%)

15, 30 B1 2 10 3 40
B2 2 16 1 64
45 B1 2 12 3 40
B2 2 20 1 66.7
60 B1 2 18 3 40
B2 2 30 1 66.7
B3 3 13 4 43.3
75, 90 B1 2 20 3 40
B2 2 33 1 66
B3 3 14 4 42
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255 1247

plane (SLD), and (iii) failure due to cracks initiating from the tip of
the joint segment (SGR) (similar to crack propagation given in
Griffith (1924)’s theory). Elaboration on the three modes of failure
is presented below.

3.1.1. Type-A specimens

The failure mode observed for type-A specimens are presented
in Table 5, from which variation of failure mode with orientation (q)
and DLR can be observed. As referred from Table 5, for q 
15 and q > 75 , the specimens experience SPL failure mode. At
DLR < 60% and 15 < q  75 , SGR and SPL þ SGR are the pre-
dominant failure modes, and for rest of DLRs, SLD and SLD þ SGR
modes have been observed.
Fig. 8 displays the typical failure modes observed by type-A
specimens.

3.1.2. Type-B specimens

Table 6 presents the failure modes observed for types-B1, B2 and
B3 specimens. As already discussed, types-B1, B2 and B3 specimens
have configurations as ‘I-J-I-J-I’, ‘J-I-J’ and ‘I-J-I-J-I-J-I’, respectively.
As inferred from Table 6, for types-B1, B2 and B3 specimens, SPL
failure mode was observed for q > 75. For type-B1, SPL failure
mode was observed for 15  q  30, SPL þ SGR for q ¼ 45 and
SGR for 60  q  75, respectively. For type-B2, SPL for q ¼ 15,
SPL þ SGR for q ¼ 30 and SLD þ SGR for 45  q  75 were
observed, respectively. For type-B3, mixed failure modes having
SGR and SLD þ SGR were found.
Fig. 6. Rock triaxial testing machine having (a) loading unit and pumping unit and (b)
Fig. 9 displays different failure modes observed by type-B
data acquisition system.
specimens.

the ones observed after the test was over. Out of all the combina- 3.2. Intact rock shear strength parameters
tions available, three distinct and prominent failure modes have
been identified as (i) splitting by vertical fracture planes passing As the strength behaviour of the intact material is found to be
through intact material (SPL), (ii) sliding along the discontinuity nonlinear (Fig. 1), it is more appropriate to model the strength
behaviour through appropriate nonlinear strength criterion. Crit-
ical state concept based parabolic criterion (Singh and Singh, 2005;
Singh et al., 2011) has been stated to work most satisfactorily for
intact rocks. This criterion is expressed as (Singh et al., 2011):
 
2 sinfi0
s1 ¼ sci þ þ 1 s3
1  sinfi0
1 sinfi0
 s2 ð0  s3  scrti Þ (5)
scrti 1  sinfi0 3

or

s1 ¼ sci þ Bs3 þ As23 ð0  s3  scrti Þ (6)

where s1 is the major principal stress at failure, fi0 is the Mohr-

Coulomb shear strength parameter of the intact rock at very low
confining pressure (s3 /0), scrti is the critical confining pressure of

Table 5
Failure modes of type-A specimens.

q ( ) Failure mode

DLR ¼ 20% DLR ¼ 40% DLR ¼ 60% DLR ¼ 80% DLR ¼ 100%

0 SPL SPL SPL SPL SPL

15 SPL SPL SPL SPL SPL
30 SGR SGR SGR SGR SGR
45 SGR SGR SGR SGR SLD þ SGR
60 SPL þ SGR SPL þ SGR SGR SLD þ SGR SLD
75 SGR SGR SLD SLD SLD
90 SPL SPL SPL SPL SPL
Fig. 7. Arrangement on rock testing machine for UCS tests.
1248 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

Fig. 8. Failure modes shown by type-A specimens: (a) q ¼ 15 and DLR ¼ 20%, showing SPL failure mode; (b) q ¼ 75 and DLR ¼ 100%, showing SLD failure mode; (c) q ¼ 60 and
DLR ¼ 11.1%, showing SPL þ SGR failure mode; (d) q ¼ 60 and DLR ¼ 88.9%, showing SLD þ SGR failure mode; and (e) q ¼ 30 and DLR ¼ 20%, showing SGR failure mode.

s1  s3
Table 6 sn ¼ s3 þ (8)
Failure modes of type-B specimens. 1 þ vvss13
q ( ) Failure mode
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Type-B1 Type-B2 Type-B3 s1  s3 vs1
sf i ¼ (9)
15 SPL SPL a
1 þ vvss13 vs3
a
30 SPL SPL þ SGR
a
45 SPL þ SGR SLD þ SGR
60 SGR SLD þ SGR SGR
75 SGR SLD þ SGR SLD þ SGR
90 SPL SPL SPL 3.3. Joint shear strength parameters
a
For q <60 , it was impossible to incorporate three joint segments due to smaller
traverse length.
To obtain joint shear strength parameters, specimens of type-A
having DLR ¼ 100% and joint oriented at q ¼ 60 were prepared.
Triaxial strength tests were conducted on these specimens at
intact rock, sci is the UCS of the intact rock, and A and B are the confining pressures of 0 MPa, 1 MPa, 2 MPa, 4 MPa and 6 MPa,
empirical coefficients depending on fi0 and scrti. Using triaxial tests respectively. The axial and confining stresses at failure were resolved
data from present study, scrti and fi0 were found to be equal to to obtain normal stress and corresponding shear strength along the
5.27 MPa and 46.2 , respectively. The nonlinear strength for plane of joint. The shear strength values were plotted versus normal
describing the intact material strength is obtained as stress values to derive failure envelope (Fig. 10). The variation was
observed to be linear.
By fitting linear Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion, joint’s shear
s1 ¼ 8:23 þ 6:19s3  0:49s23 ð0 MPa  s3  5:27 MPaÞ (7) strength parameters cohesion (cj ) and friction angle (fj ) were ob-
tained to be equal to 0.79 MPa and 22.01, respectively. The joint shear
The nonlinear shear strength of intact rock (sfi) subjected to
strength (sfj ) can be modelled by using the following expression:
given normal stress (sn) cannot be computed explicitly as may be
done for linear response. Balmer (1952)’s expressions, as given sfj ¼ 0:788 þ 0:404sn (10)
below, may be solved to obtain the nonlinear shear strength of
intact rock for given normal stress (sn):

Fig. 9. Failure modes of (a) type-B1 specimen with q ¼ 30 and DLR ¼ 40%, showing SPL failure mode; (b) type-B1 specimen with q ¼ 45 and DLR ¼ 40%, showing SPL þ SGR
failure mode; (c) type-B2 specimen with q ¼ 45 and DLR ¼ 66.7%, showing SLD þ SGR failure mode; and (d) type-B1 specimen with q ¼ 60 and DLR ¼ 40%, showing SGR failure
mode.
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255
5 10
y = 0.4043x + 0.7877
R2 = 0.9886
4 8
Shear strength (MPa)
3 6
2 4
1
0 DLR 90%-100%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal stress (MPa)
Fig. 10. Shear strength vs. normal stress plot for joint planes of type-A specimens for
assessment of joint shear strength parameters. R2 denotes the coefficient of
determination.
3.4. Anisotropy in strength behaviour
Intact rocks, in general, can be regarded isotropic in nature if
they do not consist of bedding planes. The presence of joints ren-
ders anisotropy, and strength is governed by the orientation of joint
plane with respect to loading direction. The extent of anisotropic
behaviour can be characterised through the term ‘anisotropy ratio
(R)’ which is defined as the ratio of maximum to minimum strength
observed over the range of q from 0 to 90 . Based on the value of
anisotropy ratio, a rock can be characterised in the range of
isotropic to highly anisotropic. Table 7 shows a classification of
anisotropic rocks based upon anisotropy ratio (Singh et al., 1989).
3.4.1. Type-A specimens
The specimen under this category is comprised of single joint
segment of varying length and orientation. To study the anisotropy
in strength behaviour of type-A specimens, the UCS obtained from
tests is plotted against orientation, as shown in Fig. 11. The plot has
been arranged for three levels (low, moderate and high) of DLR
ranges: (i) DLR ¼ 16.7%e22.2%, (ii) DLR ¼ 60%e66.7%, and (iii)
DLR ¼ 90%e100%.
For the low range of DLR, the UCS of specimens with different
discontinuity orientations remains almost constant (with a slight
decrease near q ¼ 60 ), giving a value of anisotropy ratio equal to
1.2. This implies that if the DLR is up to about 20%, the orientation of
discontinuity has negligible effect on the UCS and the strength
behaviour is classified under the category of low anisotropy. For the
intermediate range of DLR, the UCS experiences a major drop in the
strength values near q ¼ 45 e60 . The anisotropy ratio is found to
Table 7
Classification of anisotropy (Singh et al., 1989).
Anisotropy ratio, R Class
1  R  1.1 lsotropic
1.1 < R  2 Low anisotropy
2<R4 Medium anisotropy
4<R6 High anisotropy
R>6 Very high anisotropy
1249
UCS (MPa)
2
DLR 16.70%-22.20%
DLR 60%-66.70%
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
θ (°)
Fig. 11. Variations of UCS vs. q for type-A specimens.
be 2, and the behaviour is characterised as low anisotropic. As the
DLR range is increased to 90%e100%, there is substantial effect of
discontinuity orientation on UCS of specimens, resulting in higher
value of anisotropy ratio equal to 3 (medium anisotropy). The
maximum reduction in strength is observed near q ¼ 45 e60 . This
is important to note from Fig. 11 that all the data points of the curve
for DLR ¼ 16.7%e22.2% lie at the top while that for DLR ¼ 90%e100%
are at the bottom. This indicates that for the same discontinuity
orientation, specimens with higher DLR values have lower strength
as compared to those with lower DLR values.
3.4.2. Type-B specimens
The specimens under this category are comprised of two or
three joint segments of varying length, configuration and orienta-
tion. Types-B1 and B2 specimens have two joint segments with
configurations of ‘I-J-I-J-I’ and ‘J-I-J’, respectively. Type-B3 speci-
mens have three joint segments and the configuration is ‘I-J-I-J-I-J-
I’. Variation of strength with q for types-B1 and B2 specimens is
displayed in Fig. 12.
The anisotropy ratios for types-B1 and B2 specimens are found
to be 1.3 and 1.5, respectively. For q ¼ 30 e75 , type-B1 specimens
have greater strength than type-B2. Types-B1 and B2 specimens
have DLRs equal to 40% and approximately 65%, respectively. It is
therefore inferred that DLR has an impact on strength of specimens.
Similar to type-A specimens, for same orientation, specimens with
higher DLR values have lower strength. DLR has a dominating in-
fluence near q ¼ 60, whereas near q ¼ 15 and 90, effect of DLR
is minimum.
To investigate the effect of number of joint segments, keeping
same DLR, the results of types-B1 (two joint segments) and B3
(three joint segments) specimens are plotted in Fig. 13.
Type-B1 specimens have DLR value equal to 40% at all orienta-
tions whereas type-B3 specimens have DLR values as 43.3%, 42%
and 42% at q ¼ 60 , 75 and 90 , respectively. The plot indicates
that, for almost same DLR, if the number of joint segments changes
from 2 to 3, there was an increase of 23.81%, 3.3% and 2.2% in
strength for q ¼ 60, 75 and 90 , respectively. Therefore, it can be
concluded that if discontinuity orientation and DLR are kept con-
stant, and the number of joint segments is varied, then the speci-
mens with greater number of joint segments will exhibit greater
1250 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

9 to initiate at greater applied stresses. The results found in the

present study are in line with the observations of Wasantha et al.
(2014). Fig. 13 also indicates that strength difference due to
8 change in number of joint segments reduces with increasing q. For
specimens with q > 75 , the strength difference is very small. It is
also expected that for orientation q > 75 , if a greater number of
7 joint segments are introduced, then there may be no further change
in strength.
UCS (MPa)

6 3.5. Effect of non-persistency of joints on strength

Effect of non-persistency of joints on the UCS of rock can be

5 studied by varying DLR and observing its effect on the strength with
4 Type-B2
Type-B1
3
15 30 45 60 75 90
θ (°)
Fig. 12. Variations of UCS vs. q for types-B1 (two joint segments with DLR ¼ 40%) and
B2 (two joint segments with DLR ¼ 64%e66.7%) specimens.
strength as compared with the specimens which have lesser
number of joint segments. Theoretically, the aspect ratio and
inclination of joint control the stress concentration (Hoek, 1968;
Cheng et al., 2015). However, Wasantha et al. (2014) argued that
when a brittle material with a discontinuous crack is loaded in
compression, then tensile stress is highly concentrated at the tips of
the crack, and the failure by fracturing initiates from a crack tip
(Griffith, 1924). When there is only one joint segment tip, stress
concentration at that tip induced by the applied stress is very high.
Therefore, failure initiates at lower levels of applied stresses. In
contrast, when there are more discontinuous joint tips within the
specimen, the stress is more diffused, and fractures of failure tend
8
various discontinuity orientations. In the present study, the joint
segment length has been varied in terms of DLR ranging from 11.1%
to 100%. To quantify the effect of non-persistency of discontinuity
on strength behaviour of jointed specimens, UCS has been plotted
against DLR for various specimen types.
3.5.1. Type-A specimens
Fig. 14 shows the variations of UCS of jointed specimens with
DLR. The plots have been presented for various values of disconti-
nuity orientation (q).
It is observed that the jointed specimens having discontinuity
oriented at q ¼ 0 show least variation in UCS with increasing DLR.
Practically, the strength remains almost constant. As discontinuity
orientation increases, the DLR starts influencing the strength
behaviour. For a given q, the strength has been found to be
decreased with increasing DLR. With q increasing from 0 to 60 ,
the strength values are observed to be reduced and the minimum
value is attained at q ¼ 60 . As q is increased further, the strength
values start increasing. In general, at all orientations, increase in
DLR value results in drop of UCS.
3.5.2. Type-B specimens
Fig. 15 presents the variations of UCS with DLR for type-B speci-
mens. The UCS test data for type-B specimens is available for: (i)
DLR ¼ 40% having 2 joint segments (type-B1), (ii) DLR ¼ 42%e43.3%
having 3 joint segments (type-B3), and (iii) DLR ¼ 64%e66.7% having
2 joint segments (Type-B2). When UCS is plotted against DLR, it is
10

7.4
8

6.8
UCS (MPa)

6
UCS (MPa)

6.2
4 0°
15°
Type-B3
5.6 30°
Type-B1 45°
2 60°
75°
5 90°
45 60 75 90
0
θ (°) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 13. Variations of UCS vs. q for types-B1 and B3 specimens (type-B1 specimens DLR (%)
have two joint segments with DLR ¼ 40% and type-B3 specimens have three joint
segments with DLR ¼ 42%e43.3%). Fig. 14. Plot of UCS vs. DLR for type-A specimens.
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255 1251

9 When s  sf , the condition for failure to occur through slip on

the discontinuity is expressed as

Type-B3 specimens

8 s1j sin q cos q  DLRsfj þ ð1  DLRÞsfi (14)

To apply Eq. (14), the values of joint shear strength (sfj ) and intact
rock shear strength ðsfi Þ for given normal stress should be known. For
UCS (MPa)

given normal stress, the joint shear strength was obtained from Eq.
7 (10) using linear strength response. Similarly, for deriving nonlinear
shear strength of intact rock bridge under given normal stress, the
15°
expressions given in Eqs. (7)e(9) were used.
30° SPWT was used to predict the strength of all the jointed speci-
45° mens tested in present investigation. Appendix A consists of pre-
6
60° dicted and experimental results of all the tests carried out. Fig. 16
75° shows the comparison of predicted values (scj;cal ) with experi-
90° mental values (scj;exp ) for types-A and B specimens. The predicted
values are plotted on y-axis and experimental values on x-axis. For a
5 good prediction, the points should lie close to line passing through
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 origin and having gradient 1:1.
The following three indices of error measurements (also shown
DLR (%)
in Fig. 16 were used to evaluate the goodness of prediction: (i)
Fig. 15. Plot of UCS vs. DLR for type-B specimens (type-B1: 2 joint segments with regression (R2) value, (ii) average percent error (AVPE), and (iii)
DLR ¼ 40%; type-B3: 3 joint segments with DLR ¼ 42%e43.3%; and type-B2: 2 joint coefficient of accordance (COA).
segments with DLR ¼ 64%e66.7%). A regression line (thin straight line) depicts the trend in the
data, which is expressed in terms of regression value (R2). R2 in-
creases with the improvement in the predictions.
expected that for the same discontinuity orientation (q), the strength The average percent error is defined as
should continuously decrease with increasing DLR. Fig. 15, however,
shows kinks and abrupt changes in UCS within small variation (or no
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
variation) in DLR values. This trend is mainly due to change in u
u 1 nX test
number of joint segments. The probable reason has been already AVPE ¼ t ðpeÞ2 (15)
explained by Wasantha et al. (2014). n test i ¼ 1

4. Analysis of results where

Jaeger (1960) proposed SPWT to incorporate effect of orienta-

tion of single discontinuity on strength behaviour of jointed rock. scj;cal  scj;exp
pe ¼  100 % (16)
The results obtained from present experimental study was first scj;exp
analysed by using SPWT. Considering a jointed specimen subjected
to uniaxial stress (s1j) in axial direction, the shear stress (s) and where n_test is the number of UCS tests.
normal stress (sn ) on an inclined discontinuity plane may be ob- The coefficient of accordance is defined as
tained as
10
s ¼ s1j sin q cos q (11)

1:1
sn ¼ s1j cos2 q (12) 8
As per SPWT, the failure of jointed specimen will either occur
due to slip along the discontinuity plane or failure of intact rock
6
σcj,cal (MPa)

material. It does not consider any intermediate condition between

these two failure modes. The failure due to slip on the discontinuity
will occur when s  sf , where sf is the shear strength of discon-
tinuity under prevailing normal stress. 4
Assuming normal stress acting uniformly on joint segment as
well as on intact rock bridge, the shear strength of the discontinuity R2=0.7898
can be obtained by adding shear stresses mobilized along joint 2 AVPE=16.2%
segments and intact rock bridge (Jennings, 1970). The shear COA=0.34
strength of the plane along the discontinuity is thus obtained as

sf ¼ DLRsfj þ ð1  DLRÞsfi (13) 0

0 2 4 6 8 10
where sfj and sfi represent the shear strength of the joint segment σcj,exp (MPa)
and intact rock bridge, respectively, and DLR is expressed in deci-
mal form. Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted (using SPWT) vs. experimental UCS values.
1252 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

P
2 discontinuity orientation (q ¼ 45 e60 and DLR  60%). For

scj;exp  scj;cal
COA ¼ P  2
scj;exp  scj;av
where scj;av is the average of all experimental values of UCS,
P this direction using an empirical approach in the following section.
scj;av ¼ ðscj;exp Þ=n test. For a good prediction, COA should tend to
become very small.
For the predicted strength values using SPWT, the three indices,
i.e. R2, AVPE and COA were found to be 0.7898, 16.2% and 0.34,
respectively. The prediction is not found to be satisfactory. COA is
quite large and scatter of data points around the line (diagonal line)
with 1:1 gradient is also wide (Fig. 16). Fig. 17 shows the variation of
predicted results (by SPWT) vs. orientation at DLR ¼ 20% and 100%.
In the same figure, experimental results are also plotted to illustrate
the closeness in predicted and actual experimental results.
The following observations are made from Fig. 17:
(1) For a DLR of 100%, if q < fj , the SPWT essentially predicts the
strength of jointed specimens to be equal to that of intact
rock strength (sci), irrespective of joint segment character-
istics. Also, for orientations near q ¼ 90, the predicted
strength assumes a value equal to sci. Therefore, for these
orientations, the SPWT does not capture the influence of
presence of the joint segment.
(2) The predicted strength of jointed specimens for critical ori-
entations q ¼ 45 and 60 (with DLR  60%) are reasonably
close to experimental results.
It may be concluded that SPWT is able to model the strength
behaviour of jointed specimens for only small range of
specimens with other orientations and DLR values, the theory is not
(17)
able to correctly model the influence of discontinuity on the
strength behaviour of jointed rock specimen. It is felt that there is a
need to improve the results and therefore an attempt is made in
5. Suggested approach to obtain strength of jointed rock
There are three most important discontinuity characteristics
that influence the strength of jointed rock comprised of non-
persistent discontinuity: (i) discontinuity length ratio, (ii) number
of joint segments, and (iii) orientation of discontinuity.
Wasantha et al. (2014) incorporated DLR and number of joint
segments in defining DoP. It was established that strength of
jointed specimen reduces with increasing DoP. To incorporate the
effect of orientation, joint inclination parameter n (Ramamurthy,
1993) has been considered in the study. The parameter n repre-
sents weakness brought in the UCS due to inclination q of the
discontinuity. Considering the fact that strength of jointed rock is
directly proportional to inclination parameter n (Table 1) and
inversely proportional to DoP, an empirical index ‘discontinuity
factor (DF)’ has been suggested as
DoP
DF ¼ (18)
n
For analysis, the UCS of jointed specimen has been normalised
with respect to the strength of jointed specimen having q ¼ 0 and
DLR ¼ 100%. The normalised strength (scn ) of jointed specimens is
defined as

 
UCS of jointed specimen scj
scn ¼   (19)
UCS of jointed specimen having DLR ¼ 100% and q ¼ 0 scj0

The values of DF were computed for tests conducted in this

study and correspondingly normalised strength values were also
calculated. Fig. 18 shows the plot of scn vs. DF.
It can be observed from Fig. 18 that as DF increases, the corre-
sponding scn decreases. The following correlation has been found:

scj
scn ¼ ¼ 1:0402 expð0:108DFÞ (20)
scj0
Using Eq. (18), we have
 
DoP
scj ¼ 1:0402scj0 exp 0:108 (21)
n

1.2
1.0 y=1.0402e-0.108x
0.8 R2=0.8997
σcn

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
DisconƟnuity factor (DF)
Fig. 17. Plot of predicted (using SPWT) and experimental UCS values vs. discontinuity
orientation, at some specific DLR values. Fig. 18. Variation of normalised strength with discontinuity factor.
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255 1253

Eq. (21) was now used to predict the strength values for all 10
specimens except for orientations 45 and 60 with DLR  60%.
These results along with SPWT results (for q ¼ 45 and 60 , having
DLR  60%) are shown in Fig. 19. Fig. 19 displays the experimental as
well as predicted data values for all the configurations of specimens 8
that have been considered in the current study.
When compared with Fig. 16, Fig. 19 indicates substantial
improvement in R2, AVPE and COA values (three error indices) from 6

UCS (MPa)
0.7898 to 0.8729, 16.2% to 10.82%, and 0.34 to 0.12, respectively.
The suggested approach, therefore, has much better prediction as
compared to SPWT (except for orientations 45 and 60 with DLR 
60%). The reason is that the joint inclination parameter (n) proposed 4
by Ramamurthy (1993) was obtained by testing jointed specimens
with different joint orientations, and by obtaining the weakness
brought to intact rock due to presence of joint at specific orientation. Predicted-DLR=20%
2
When joint orientation changes from 0 to 90 , the failure mode Predicted-DLR=100%
shifts from shearing (q ¼ 45 e60 ) to sliding and then gradually to Exp-DLR=16.7% to 22.2%
splitting (qz90 ) (Singh et al., 2002). The joint inclination parameter Exp-DLR=100%
explicitly accounts for change in failure mode with change in 0
orientation. On the contrary, SPWT considers failure only due to slip 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
or intact rock failure. In addition to joint inclination parameter, DoP is θ (°)
incorporated which includes effect of DLR and number of tips of joint
segments. Fig. 20 clearly shows that the predicted values are much Fig. 20. Plot of predicted and experimental UCS values vs. discontinuity orientation for
closer to experimental values, as compared with Fig. 17. some specific DLR. For prediction, SPWT was used for specimens with q ¼ 45 and 60
having DLR  60%. For rest of specimens, suggested approach was used.
For applicability of the suggested approach, to estimate UCS of
jointed rock in field, the value of scj0 (which is the UCS of jointed
or
rock having DLR ¼ 100% and q ¼ 0 ) will be required in Eq. (21). It
can be obtained through concept of joint factor (Ramamurthy and !
Jn
Arora, 1994) as explained below. scj0 ¼ sci exp  0:008 (24)
Using Eq. (1), joint factor (from Table 1, for q ¼ 0 , n ¼ 1) is 1 tanfj
obtained as
By using Eqs. (21) and (24), the UCS of jointed specimen is ob-
Jn tained as
Jf ¼ (22) !
1 tanfj  
DoP Jn
scj ¼ 1:0402sci exp 0:108 exp  0:008 (25)
Now, using Eq. (2): n tanfj
!
scj0 Therefore, the SRF for the rock having non-persistent joint may
Jn
scr ¼ ¼ exp  0:008 (23) be defined as
sci 1 tanfj
  !
scj DoP Jn
SRF ¼ ¼ 1:0402 exp 0:108 exp  0:008
10 sci n tanfj
(26)
1:1
8
6. Conclusions

Assessment of strength behaviour of jointed rocks intersected

6
σcj,cal (MPa)

by non-persistent discontinuity is still a difficult task in rock en-

gineering. To have a better understanding of UCS of the jointed
rocks, an extensive laboratory investigation has been carried out.
4 POP was used as a model rock and 48 tests were conducted under
uniaxial compression on specimens intersected with non-
R2=0.8729
persistent joints. DoP, number of discontinuous joint tips and
AVPE=10.82%
orientation of discontinuity have been varied and their effect on
2 COA=0.12 strength of jointed specimen has been investigated. The following
conclusions are drawn from the study:

0 (1) Non-persistency and discontinuity orientation jointly affect

0 2 4 6 8 10 the failure mode and strength of jointed specimens. A higher
DLR, in general, results in lower strength. However, the effect
σcj,exp (MPa)
of DLR is influenced by discontinuity orientation. A low value
Fig. 19. Comparison of predicted vs. experimental UCS values. For prediction, SPWT
of q (w15 or less) practically exhibits no influence of DLR,
was used for specimens with q ¼ 45 and 60 having DLR  60%. For rest of specimens, while the specimen with qz60 shows maximum influence
suggested approach was used. of DLR.
1254 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255

(2) When discontinuity orientation (q) and DLR are kept con- References
stant and number of joint segments is varied, then the
specimen with greater number of joint segments will exhibit Alshkane YM, Marshall AM, Stace LR. Prediction of strength and deformability of an
interlocked blocky rock mass using UDEC. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
greater strength as compared with the specimen having Geotechnical Engineering 2017;9(3):531e42.
lesser number of joint segments. Arora VK. Strength and deformational behaviour of jointed rocks. PhD Thesis. Delhi,
(3) SPWT, which is a well-established approach for incorpo- India: IIT Delhi; 1987.
Bahaaddini M, Sharrock G, Hebblewhite BK. Numerical investigation of the effect of
rating influence of discontinuity orientation, can only be joint geometrical parameters on the mechanical properties of a non-persistent
applied for a narrow range of discontinuity orientation jointed rock mass under uniaxial compression. Computers and Geotechnics
(for q ¼ 45 and 60 and DLR  60%), when joints are 2013;49:206e25.
Bahaaddini M, Sharrock G, Hebblewhite BK, Mitra R. Statistical analysis of the effect
critically oriented and DLR is very high. In other words, of joint geometrical parameters on the mechanical properties of non-persistent
the theory is appropriate only where failure occurs due to jointed rock masses. In: Proceedings of the 46th US rock mechanics/geo-
pure sliding. mechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA); 2012.
Paper No. 458.
(4) An approach has been suggested in the study based on
Balmer G. A general analysis solution for Mohr’s envelope. In: American Society of
DoP (Wasantha et al., 2014) and joint factor concept Testing and Materials (ASTM) proceeding. ASTM; 1952. p. 1260e71.
(Ramamurthy and Arora, 1994; Singh et al., 2002) to model Bidgoli MN, Jing L. Anisotropy of strength and deformability of fractured rocks.
strength behaviour of rocks intersected by non-persistent Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2014;6(2):156e64.
Bobet A, Einstein HH. Fracture coalescence in rock-type material under uniaxial and
discontinuity (for all configurations except for q ¼ 45 biaxial compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci-
and 60 and DLR  60%). DoP incorporates the effect of DLR ences 1998;35(7):836e88.
and number of tips of joint segments. Joint factor concept Brown ET. Strength of models of rock with intermittent joints. Journal of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundations Division 1970;96(6):1935e49.
incorporates effect of discontinuity orientation through Chen X, Liao Z, Peng X. Deformability characteristics of jointed rock masses under
joint inclination parameter (n). As this parameter was uniaxial compression. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology
obtained by actual testing of specimens with different 2012;22(2):213e21.
Chen X, Liao ZH, Li DJ. Experimental study on the effect of joint orientation and
orientations, the complex interaction of joint and intact persistence on the strength and deformation properties of rock masses under
material resulting in various failure modes was explicitly uniaxial compression. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
accounted. 2011;30(4):781e9 (in Chinese).
Cheng Y, Wong LNY, Zou C. Experimental study on the formation of faults from en-
echelon fractures in Carrara marble. Engineering Geology 2015;195:312e26.
Conflicts of interest Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock.
Technical Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116. Air Force Weapons Laboratory; 1966.
Einstein HH, Hirschfeld RC. Model studies on mechanics of jointed rock. Journal of
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1973;99(3):229e48.
associated with this publication and there has been no significant Gehle C, Kutter HK. Breakage and shear behaviour of intermittent rock joints.
financial support for this work that could have influenced its International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2003;40(5):
outcome. 687e700.
Griffith AA. Theory of rupture. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of
applied Mechanics, Delft; 1924. p. 55e63.
Halakatevakis N, Sofianos AI. Strength of a blocky rock mass based on an extended
List of notations
plane of weakness theory. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2010;47(4):568e82.
Jf Joint factor Hayashi M. Strength and dilatancy of brittle jointed mass e the extreme value
n Joint inclination parameter stochastic and anisotropic failure mechanism. In: Proceedings of the 1st
Congress of International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). Lisbon: ISRM;
q Angle of normal to joint plane with respect to loading 1966. p. 295e302.
direction Hoek E. Brittle fracture of rock. In: Rock mechanics in engineering practice.
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength Wiley; 1968.
Jaeger JC. Shear failure of anisotropic rocks. Geological Magazine 1960;97:65e72.
SPL Splitting failure mode Jamil SM. Strength of non-persistent rock joints. Ph.D. Thesis. Urbana-Champaign,
SLD Sliding failure mode Illinois, USA: University of Illinois; 1992.
SGR Failure mode in which cracks initiate from the tips of the Jennings JE. A mathematical theory for the calculation of the stability of open cast
mines. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on theoretical background to the
joint segment planning of open pit mines, Johannesburg; 1970. p. 87e102.
DLR Discontinuity length ratio Kim BH, Cai M, Kaiser PK, Yang HS. Estimation of block sizes for rock masses with
SRF Strength reduction factor non-persistent joints. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2007a;40(2):
169e92.
I Intact rock bridge Kim BH, Kaiser PK, Grasselli G. Influence of persistence on behavior of fractured
J Joint segment rock masses. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 2007b;284(1):
SPWT Single plane of weakness theory 161e73.
Kulatilake PHSW, Malama B, Wang J. Physical and particle flow modeling of jointed
DoP Degree of persistence
rock block behavior under uniaxial loading. International Journal of Rock Me-
DF Discontinuity factor chanics and Mining Sciences 2001;38(5):641e57.
AVPE Average percent error Kumar M, Rana S, Pant PD, Patel RC. Slope stability analysis of Balia Nala landslide,
COA Coefficient of accordance Kumaun lesser Himalaya, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2017;9(1):150e8.
sci Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock Lajtai EZ. Strength of discontinuous rocks in direct shear. Géotechnique 1969;19(2):
scj Uniaxial compressive strength of the jointed rock 218e33.
scn Normalized uniaxial compressive strength Lama RD. The uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock. Muller L. Festschrift.
Institute of Soil Mechanics and Rock Mechanics. University of Karlsruhe; 1974.
p. 67e77.
Lin P, Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA. Multi-crack coalesence in rock-like material under
Appendix A. Supplementary data
uniaxial and biaxial loading. Key Engineering Materials 2000;183:809e14.
Liu G, Zhao J, Song HW, Li YH. Model experiments on the broken zone in inter-
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at mittently jointed surrounding rock. Journal of China University of Mining and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.01.004. Technology 2008;37(1):62e6 (in Chinese).
 D. Shaunik, M. Singh / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 1243e1255
Liu X, Liu Q, Kang Y, Pan Y. Improved nonlinear strength criterion for jointed rock
masses subject to complex stress states. International Journal of Geomechanics
2017;18(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001072.
Maji VB, Sitharam TG. Testing and evaluation of strength and deformation behav-
iour of jointed rocks. Geomechanics and Geoengineering 2012;7(2):149e58.
Mughieda OS. Failure mechanisms and strength of non-persistent rock joints. PhD
Thesis. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA: University of Illinois; 1997.
Panthee S, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN. Control of rock joint parameters on
deformation of tunnel opening. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 2016;8(4):489e98.
Prudencio M, Jan MVS. Strength and failure modes of rock mass models with non-
persistent joints. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2007;44(6):890e902.
Ramamurthy T. Strength and modulus response of anisotropic rocks. Comprehen-
sive Rock Engineering 1993;1:313e29.
Ramamurthy T, Arora VK. Strength predictions for jointed rocks in confined and
unconfined states. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
and Geomechanics Abstracts 1994;31(1):9e22.
Sagong M, Bobet A. Coalescence of multiple flaws in a rock-model material in
uniaxial compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2002;39(2):229e41.
Shen B, Stephansson O, Einstein HH, Ghahreman B. Coalescence of fractures under
shear stresses in experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Soild Earth
1995;100:5975e90.
Singh J, Ramamurthy T, Venkatappa Rao G. Strength anisotropies in rocks. Indian
Geotechnical Journal 1989;19(2):147e66.
Singh M, Raj A, Singh B. Modified MohreCoulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial
and polyaxial strength of intact rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 2011;48(4):546e55.
Singh M, Rao KS, Ramamurthy T. Strength and deformational behaviour of a jointed
rock mass. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2002;35(1):45e64.
Singh M, Singh B. A strength criterion based on critical state mechanics for intact
rocks. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2005;38(3):243e8.
Tang CA, Lin P, Wong RHC, Chau KT. Analysis of crack coalescence in rock-like
materials containing three flaws, Part II: numerical approach. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2001;38(7):925e39.
Vazaios I, Farahmand K, Vlachopoulos N, Diederichs MS. Effects of confinement on
rock mass modulus: a synthetic rock mass modelling (SRM) study. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2018;10(3):436e56.
Wasantha PLP, Ranjith PG, Viete DR, Luo L. Influence of the geometry of partially-
spanning joints on the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2012;50:140e6.
1255
Wasantha PLP, Ranjith PG, Xu T, Zhao J, Yan YL. A new parameter to describe the
persistency of non-persistent joints. Engineering Geology 2014;181:71e7.
Wong RHC, Chau KT. The coalescence of frictional cracks and the shear zone for-
mation in brittle solids under compressive stresses. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1997;34(3e4):335. e1-12.
Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA, Lin P. Analysis of crack coalescence in rock-like
materials containing three flaws, Part I: experimental approach. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2001;38(7):909e24.
Xu T, Ranjith PG, Wasantha PLP, Zhao J, Tang CA, Zhu WC. Influence of the geometry
of partially-spanning joints on mechanical properties of rock in uniaxial
compression. Engineering Geology 2013;167:134e47.
Divya Shaunik obtained her B.Tech. degree in Civil Engi-
neering from Uttarakhand Technical University, India, in
2011, and M.Tech. degree in Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering from GBPUAT Pantnagar, India, in 2013.
She is currently a PhD candidate in Geotechnical Engi-
neering at IIT Roorkee, India. Her research interests
include strength behaviour of jointed (persistent and non-
persistent) rocks.
Mahendra Singh obtained his Bachelor degree in Civil
Engineering in 1983 from M.N.R. Engineering College,
Allahabad, India and M.Tech. in Water Resources Engi-
neering in 1985 from IIT Kanpur, India. He obtained his
PhD in Rock Mechanics from IIT Delhi in 1997. Dr. Singh
worked as a faculty of Civil Engineering at Allahabad
during 1985e2001 and moved to University of Roorkee
(Now IIT Roorkee) in 2001. Currently, he is full-time Pro-
fessor in Department of Civil Engineering at IIT Roorkee,
India. His core areas of research interest include: (i)
Strength criteria for rocks and rock masses, (ii) Shear
strength of joints under static and cyclic loads, and (iii)
Landslides analysis, and slope instability in soil and rock
slopes.