Rock Mass Model 107

Table 5.14: ISRM-suggested characterisation of defect roughness

Scale

Class Intermediate Minor Typical roughness profile JRC20 JRC100

I Stepped Rough 20 11

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
VIII Smooth 1.5 0.9
IX Slickensided 0.5 0.4
Notes
The length of the roughness profiles is intended to be in the range of 1–10 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)

Table 5.15: Estimating JRC from the maximum unevenness Table 5.16: Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength, s c, of
amplitude and the profile length the defect rock wall from Schmidt hardness values
400 20
Joint Roughness Coefficient, JRC

16
300 UNEVENESS AMPLITUDE (mm)
12
200 10
1
8
PROFILELENGTH
PROFILE LENGTH (m)
(m)
6
100 5
80 4
3
50
2
30
Uneveness Amplitude (mm)

20 1

10 0.5
8

1
0.8

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1 2 3 5 8 10

Profile Length (m)

Source: Barton (1982)

Source: Hoek (2002)

108 Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

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

LF - 0.03JRC
JCS F = JCS O e o
O

benches of an open pit mine) is defined by nil to very (eqn 5.35)

low values of cohesion and friction angles in the range LO
of 45–60°;
Q at low confinement and scales from 50–200 m, struc- where JRCF and JCSF are the field values, JRCO and JCSO
tures with centimetric clayey fillings have typical peak are the reference values (usually referred to a scale in the
strengths characterised by cohesions ranging from range 10 cm–1 m), LF is the block size in the field and LO is
0–75 kPa and friction angles ranging from 18–25°; the length of reference (usually 10 cm–1 m).
Q at low confinement and scales from 25–50 m, sealed These relationships must be used with caution because
structures with no clayey fillings have typical peak for long structures they may produce values that are too
strengths characterised by cohesions ranging from low. Ratios of JCSF /JCSO < 0.3 or JRCF /JRCO < 0.5 must be
50–150 kPa and friction angles ranging from 25–35°. considered suspicious unless there are very good reasons to
accept them.
Both JRC and JCS values are influenced by scale effects The Barton-Bandis strength envelopes for
and decrease as the defect size increases. This is because discontinuities with different JRC values are shown in
small-scale roughness becomes less significant compared Figure 5.25, which also shows the upper limit for the peak
to the length of a longer defect and eventually large-scale friction angle resulting from this criterion.
undulations have more significance than small-scale From Table 5.14, the following values can be assumed
roughness (Figure 5.24). as a first estimate for the joint roughness coefficient:
Bandis et al. (1981) studied these scale effects and
found that increasing the size of the discontinuity
produces the following effects:
Q the shear displacement required to mobilise the peak
shear strength increases;
Q a reduction in the peak friction angle as a consequence
of a decrease in peak dilation and an increase in
asperity failure;
Q a change from a brittle to a plastic mode of shear
failure;
Q 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:
Figure 5.25: Barton-Bandis shear strength envelopes for defects
LF - 0.02/JRC with different JRC values
e o
O

JRC F = JRC O (eqn 5.34) Source: Modified from Hoek & Bray (1981)
LO
 Rock Mass Model 109

of change of normal (sn) and shear (t) stresses with

respect to normal (vc) and shear (us) displacements
(Bandis 1993):
d sn k 0 dv
' 1 = = n G) c 3 (eqn 5.36)
dt 0 k s du s
where:
2sn
kn = f p (eqn 5.37a)
2v c u
s

Figure 5.26: Examples of discontinuities with matching and
mismatching rock walls
Source: Flores & Karzulovic (2003)
Q rough undulating discontinuities: JRC ≈ 15–20
Q smooth undulating discontinuities: JRC ≈ 10
Q 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
2t
ks = d
2u s nv
(eqn 5.37b)
c
Therefore, a discontinuity subjected to normal and
shear stresses will suffer normal and shear displacements
that depend on the following factors:
Q the initial geometry of the discontinuity’s rock walls;
Q the matching between the rock walls, which defines the
variation of the aperture and the effective contact area
(Figure 5.26);
Q the strength and deformability of the rock wall
material;
Q the thickness and mechanical properties of the filling
material (if any);
Q 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).

Figure 5.27: Determination of the normal stiffness of an artificial defect by means of uniaxial compression tests on specimens of
granodiorite with and without a discontinuity. (a) Normal stress-total axial displacement curves. (b) Normal stress-discontinuity closure
curves
Source: Goodman (1976)
110 Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

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 t max
if normal displacements are measured for different

Shear stress, t
normal stresses (Figure 5.12). The following comments sn
can be made. t
ks,peak
1 Normal stiffness depends on the rock wall properties
and geometry, the matching between rock walls, the 1 us
filling thickness and properties (if any), the initial
us,peak Shear displacement, us
condition (before applying a normal stress increment),
the magnitude of the normal stress increment and the Figure 5.29: Determination of secant peak shear stiffness of a
number of loading cycles. defect from a direct shear stress
2 Generally, normal stiffness is larger if the rock wall and Source: Goodman (1970)
filling material (if any) are stronger and stiffer.
3 For a given set of conditions, normal stiffness is
2
larger for defects with good matching than for sn
mismatching ones. k n = k ni f 1 + p (eqn 5.38)
k ni v c max
4 Normal stiffness increases with the number of loading
cycles. Apparently, the increment is larger in the case of where kni is the initial normal stiffness, defined as the
stronger and stiffer rock walls. initial tangent of the normal stress-discontinuity closure
5 The values quoted in the geotechnical literature curve (Figure 5.29). As the defect’s tensile strength is
indicate that normal stiffness ranges from 0.001– usually neglected, kn = 0 if sn is tensile.
2000 GPa/m. It typically takes the following values: Hence, to determine the normal stiffness of a defect it
→ defects with soft infills: kn < 10 GPa/m; is necessary to know the initial value of this stiffness and
→ clean defects in moderately strong rock: kn = the defect’s maximum closure. From experimental results,
10–50 GPa/m; Bandis et al. (1983) suggested that kni for matching defects
→ clean defects in strong rock: kn = 50–200 GPa/m. can be evaluated as:

k ni . - 7.15 + 1.75JRC + 0.02 d e n (eqn 5.39)

The normal stiffness of a defect increases as the defect JCS
closes when sn increases, but there is a limit that is reached i
when the defect reaches its maximum closure, vcmax .
Assuming that the relationship between the effective where kni is in GPa/m units (or MPa/mm), JRC and JCS are
normal stress, sn, and the defect closure, vc, is hyperbolic coefficients of the Barton-Bandis failure criterion and ei is
(Goodman et al. 1968) it is possible to define the normal the initial aperture of the discontinuity, which can be
stiffness (Zhang 2005): estimated as:

e i . JRC d - 0.02 n
0.04sc
(eqn 5.40)
JCS

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:

Figure 5.28: Definition of kn and kni in an effective normal stress-
discontinuity closure curve
k ni
k ni, mm =
2.0 + 0.0004 # JRC # JCS # sn
(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.
 Rock Mass Model 111

Table 5.17: Reported values for normal stiffness for some rocks
Load kni kN
Rock Discontinuity cycle (GPa/m) (GPa/m) Comments Reference
Fresh to slightly weathered, 1 4–23 s ni = 1 kPa Bandis et al.
good matching of rock walls 2 11–35 (1983)
3 18–62
Moderately weathered, 1 4–26
good matching of rock walls 2 9–27
3 15–45
Weathered, 1 2–5
good matching of rock walls 2 9–14
SANDSTONE

3 11–20
Shear zone with clay gouge 1.7 Estimated from data in Wittke (1990)
reference, assuming a 3 cm
thickness
Bedding planes, good matching 13–24 Direct shear tests with s n Rode et al. (1990)
(JRC = 10–16) ranging from 0.4–0.9 MPa
Bedding planes, good matching 7–12
(JRC = 10–16)
Fresh fractures, good matching 17–25
(JRC = 12–17)
Fresh fractures, poor matching 8–12
(JRC = 12–17)
Fresh to slightly weathered, 1 8–31 s ni = 1 kPa Bandis et al.
good matching 2 54–134 (1983)
3 72–160
Moderately weathered, 1 5–70
LIMESTONE

good matching 2 26–91

3 53–168
Weathered, good matching 1 4–13
2 40–50
3 42–65
Joints in weathered limestone 0.5–1.0 s n = 5 MPa Bandis (1993)
Joints in fresh limestone 4–5
QUARTZITE

Clean 15–30 s n = 10–20 MPa Ludvig (1980)

With clay gouge 10–25

Fresh, good matching 1 21–27 s ni = 1 kPa Bandis et al.

(1983)
DOLERITE

2 59–75
3 103–119
Weathered, good matching 1 8–13
2 24–92
3 37–130
Clean joint (JRC = 1.9) 1 121 Estimated from ref. Makurat et al.
Clean joint (JRC = 3.8) 1 74 Biaxial tests (1990)
s n : 25–30 MPa
GRANITE

Clean joint 352–635 Mes. Sist. Pac-ex. Martín et al. (1990)

50–110 s n: 8.6–9.3 MPa
Shear zone 2–224 Mes. Sist. Pac-ex.
s n: 0.5–1.5 MPa
7–266 Mes. Sist. Pac-ex.
s n : 18–20 MPa
k n = Normal stiffness
s n = Normal stress
k ni = Initial normal stiffness
s ni = 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)
112 Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

Table 5.18: Reported values for normal stiffness for some rocks
Load kni kN
Rock Discontinuity cycle (GPa/m) (GPa/m) Comments Reference
Fresh, good matching 1 14–26 s ni = 1 kPa Bandis et al. (1983)
2 22–64
3 22–70
SILTSTONE

Moderately weathered, good 1 10–11

matching 2 20–22
3 20–26
Weathered, good matching 1 7–14
2 27–29
3 29–41
MONZONITE

Clean 15.3 Triaxial testing (?) Goodman &

QUARTZ

Dubois (1972)

Clean, artificial fractures 2.7–5.4 s n: 3.5–24 MPa Barton (1972)

PLASTER

Clean, artificial fractures 2.7 Karzulovic (1988)

Fresh, good matching 1 24–47 s ni = 1 kPa Bandis et al. (1983)

2 98–344
SLATE

3 185–424
Weathered 1 11–14
2 19–40
3 49–78
RHYOLITE

Clean 16.4 Triaxial testing (?) Goodman &

Dubois (1972)

With clay gouge 5–40 Increases with s n Barton et al. (1981)

WEAK
ROCK

Soft clay filling 0.01–0.1 Typical range Itasca (2004)

Clean 37–93 Triaxial testing. Increases with Rosso (1976)
number of loading cycles
HARD ROCK

8–99 Direct shear tests

Clean fracture 1620 Estimate for numerical Rutqvist et al.
analysis (1990)
Good match, interlocked > 100 Typical value Itasca (2004)
Fault with clay gouge 0.005 30–150 cm thick Karzulovic (1988)
Rough structure with a fill of 0.8 Mismatching
rock powder
Fresh joints (JRC = 11) 1 3–11 s ni = 0.2 MPa Rode et al. (1990)
GYPSUM

Fresh joints (JRC = 11) >1 10–13

k n = Normal stiffness
s n = Normal stress
k ni = Initial normal stiffness
s ni = 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)