See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328788951

ARMS10-P-0468 FinalSrc KM Edits

Conference Paper · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 87

2 authors, including:

Arturo Maldonado
University of Western Australia
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD thesis of Rock defect shear strength in Pilbara View project

Detrital Characterization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arturo Maldonado on 07 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Comparison of the laboratory and Barton-Bandis derived shear strength of

bedding partings in fresh shales of the Pilbara, Western Australia

Arturo Maldonadoa and Ken Mercerb

a
Principal Geotechnical Engineer, BHP Iron Ore, Western Australia
b
Director of 3rd Rock and Adjunct Professor in Geomechanics at UWA
* Arturo.Maldonado@bhpbillition.com

Abstract

Several direct shear tests were commissioned by the author to research the shear strength of
bedding partings in fresh shale materials of the Pilbara basin in Western Australia. These samples
were selected from one rock unit, i.e. McRae Shale Formation, which is characterized by having an
intact strength within the range 20-80 MPa. Only samples of clean natural partings were prepared at
the laboratory and then tested by single-stage and multi-stage procedures using a servo-controlled
shear box, to ensure the application of constant normal stress throughout each test. This paper presents
the comparison between the observed laboratory dilation and the predicted dilation of the Barton-
Bandis empirical model. The findings show that the Barton-Bandis model tends to predict a larger
dilation than observed. The magnitude of the dilation angle is slightly higher in single-stage than in
multi-stage test procedures, and in consequence the dilation corrected friction angle for single stage is
normally lower than that determined from multi-stage tests. This means that the Barton-Bandis
consistently overestimated the shear strength of the bedding when applying the laboratory determined
JRC, JCS and Øb. These findings are part of the author’s research work at the University of Western
Australia (UWA).

Keywords: bedding partings, fresh shales, constant normal stress, and dilation correction.

1. Introduction

The Pilbara basin is located in the State of Western Australia, and it is well-known for the occurrence
of the enriched Banded Iron Ore Formations (BIF) and form the host rocks within which a large
number of open pit iron ore mines have been established. The geology includes a stratigraphical
column known as the Hamersley group, with rock units of Archean and Proterozoic age, typically
divided by geologists into the Brockman and Marra Mamba Formations (Fig. 1.). The Hamersley rock
formations of the Pilbara have generally been well studied due to their significance within the
Western Australian iron ore industry. These rock masses are characterized by pervasive bedding
which have formed from Archean sedimentary formation processes. These anisotropic rock masses
typically include inter-bedded shale, sandstones and banded iron formations.

These shale units of the Hamersley group are highly anisotropic with respect to shear strength and
therefore the slope stability of most of the mining excavations developed within these formations is
controlled by the relatively low bedding shear strength of the shale groups and shale bands, which are
the weakest rock types. Shale formations range from fresh to highly weathered and are generally
highly fissile when fresh and clayey when weathered. An accurate understanding of the shear strength
of these materials is therefore of key importance for assessing the slope stability of these mines.

The Barton-Bandis model has been used for many years to predict the shear strength of the shale
bedding planes, under the assumption that the model accurately models the actual shear strength of
bedding, throughout the entire weathering spectrum. However, that assumption has never been
verified. This paper shows that laboratory direct shear test results do not align with the Barton-Bandis
model, particularly for fresh shales, where intuitively many practitioners would not expect this
inconsistency.
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Fig.1. Stratigraphy of the Hamersley Group after (RioTinto 2010)

2. The theory of defect shear strength

The strength of soil and rock (geomaterials) is derived from friction between individual grains and
cohesion derived from the cementation filling of pore spaces and from inter-granular bonds. The
strength and deformability of soils is also a function of the closeness of packing of the mineral grains
(Hencher, 2012). For example, a densely pack soil will be forced to dilate (open up) during shear
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

under relatively low confining stress, as the grains override one another and deform. This same
principal can be extended to the understanding of the shearing phenomenon along rough rock joints.
The history of the research into the shear strength of rock defects is lengthy, nevertheless it is
worth highlighting the key theoretical aspects, in particular, the Barton-Bandis criterion, the
application of which forms the focus of this paper. In theory, the shear strength of rock defects is
mostly defined as a function of surface conditions, which can be typified in four major groups: planar
smooth clean surface, clean defects with rough surface, filled defects and partially filled defects.
Hencher (1995) describes that the shear strength of defects in rock to rock contact, like joints or
bedding partings without infilling material, can be attributed to three components, namely;
 The friction between minerals “Strength at actual contact points between grains of soil or
rock which is derived from electrochemical bonds over true area of contact,
 The friction due to texture of the surface in contact, which is a non-dilational component.
This is attributed to the basic friction angle.
 The dilation phenomenon, which is the additional work done against the confining normal
load during shearing as rock joints lift over a roughness feature (i.e. due to joint roughness
coefficient, JRC).
Barton (1976), undertook a major experimental study into the shear strength of rock joints (clean
defects or stained only) and formulated the following non-linear empirical Barton-Bandis criterion;

(1)

Where: σN is the normal stress on the discontinuity, Øb is the residual friction angle of a smooth
(saw-cut) joint surface, JRC is the Joint Roughness Coefficient (ranges from 0 to 20) and JCS is the
Joint-wall Compressive Strength.

The “basic friction angle” was an input parameter in the original Barton and Choubey (1977)
defect shear strength model, later modified to be the “residual friction angle” in Barton and Bandis
(1984). The basic friction angle is only defined for unweathered clean planar smooth defects, and
attributed to the grain size, mineralogy type and surface texture. The existing methods to estimate the
basic friction angle include tilt testing of core and direct shear tests of artificial saw cuts, both
methods are strongly critiqued in literature (Hencher, 2012). Whilst, there are no physical methods to
determine the residual friction angle other than by testing a naturally polished planar surface in a
direct shear box, Barton & Choubey (1977) noted that in fresh conditions the basic friction angle is
equivalent to the residual friction angle and suggested that the residual friction angle for weathered
surfaces can be approximated by the following formula:

(2)

Where: Ør = residual friction angle, Øb = basic friction angle, and r/R is the ratio of readings of
Schmidt hammer for weathered surfaces (r) and unweathered surfaces (R).

Natural defects generally present rough surfaces, which in the laboratory scale are well represented
by the roughness profile (i.e. JRC in the scale of 10-20cm profile). During direct shearing, the work
carried out along the defect surface increases, due to the work carried out against the “irregularities”
of the rough surfaces, which produce a vertical displacement for every horizontal displacement, this is
the “dilation” phenomenon produce by the overriding of the rough surface.
The yield point on the shear stress-horizontal displacement marks the initiation of local micro
cracks growth until failure. Typically, the peak shear stress is reached with only small horizontal
displacements (~1% of area of testing, 6 x 2.5 cm samples; Barton, 1973). The irregularities in contact
with each other may initially deform elastically and then gradually shear /crush during testing, causing
a progressive damage of the surface, with generation of debris and gradual mobilization of JRC. The
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

residual shear stress is only reached when roughness is completely mobilized, this requires greater
shear displacements and is difficult to obtain by direct shear box (i.e. maximum horizontal
displacement is about 10% of diamond core specimens).
Hencher (1995) proposed that the dilation correction of peak stresses can be used to estimate the
basic friction angle, following the equation of Patton (1966).

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Where, p = peak friction angle, b = dilation corrected “basic” friction angle, i = dilation angle, τ =
peak shear strength, v = vertical displacement and h = horizontal displacement at the peak.

Barton (1990) described that the “dilation corrected friction angle” is greater than the “basic
friction angle”, whilst attributing this difference to asperity failure derived from progressive damage
of the JRC. Whist the estimation of “residual friction angle” from direct shear tests may be possible
from Barton-Bandis model relationship, as follows:

(7)
Where, r = “residual” friction angle, = peak shear stress, σ = peak normal stress, JRC = joint
roughness coefficient and JCS= Joint compressive strength.

3. Direct shear box

Direct shear tests conducted from 2014 to the present have been carried out at e-Precision lab in
Perth, following the recommendations by the author and following standard practices of ISRM and
ASTM for this testing. Specific details about the machine type, sample preparation, conditions of
testing, methods of measuring forces and testing readings are briefly described below.

This machine is designed to maintain constant normal stresses during testing using a servo-control
system. The machine includes a ball bearing joint system that cancels out all the extra moments that
may cause changes in test results. Special care is put on sample preparation, where the cutting of
diamond core pieces is set parallel to the defect surface to ensure that samples will be aligned in the
shear box close to horizontal. This is done in a mould so that the samples defect surface align
perfectly.

The first step of the test is the determination of the area of shearing, i.e. one side of the surface
contact is measured to generate an equation that is used to calculate the total area by integration,
rather than the by elliptical approximation. In this manner, tests can be carried out on samples that do
not have an exact elliptical shape. The integration calculation is then reapplied based on the shearing
distance or horizontal displacement, so that the computer recalculates the new normal force to be
applied according to the latest displacement, ensuring a constant normal stress. Note that the
maximum horizontal displacement that the shear box machine can reach is about 10mm in one
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

direction (~10% of the sample length). Three laser profiles are taken in the direction of shearing
before and after testing. The laser accuracy is 0.01mm. This is used to calculate the JRC of the sample
before and after testing.

The test initiates with a consolidation process. Consolidation of open defects or saw cuts depends
on the type of sample and the natural moisture content. The operator of the shear machine looks at the
vertical deformation and waits for that to reach equilibrium under a normal stress, then the shear force
is applied. The time of closure is dependent on material but typically takes between 2-5 hours. The
target normal stress is predetermined by the client, from which the lab can calculate the required load
(as a force) based on the surface area of the defect. Whilst, the servo control machine applies the
normal and shear forces with a precision of +/- 0.001kN.

In multi-stage testing, after shearing of stage 1, the normal stress is unloaded to let the defect
surface settle naturally, and then the sample is loaded again to stage 2. Releasing after stage 1 allows
the sample to return to its natural condition. In single stage tests, after the attainment of the peak, the
shear stress is continuously applied whilst the normal stress is maintained constant. During shearing
the vertical and horizontal displacements are recorded using 4 sensors to monitor length changes with
an accuracy of +/-0.001mm. Afterwards, the dilation component (i) is calculated from the equations
below to correct stresses for dilation (Hencher, 1995).

(8)

(9)
The dilation angle of direct shear tests can be related to the Barton-Bandis equation with the
objective of examining the fitting of the Barton-Bandis model to observe the peak shear strength. This
process requires the knowledge of JRC, JCS and the residual friction angle. The joint roughness
coefficient (JRC) is directly defined from laser profiles (along the direction of shearing), whilst the
JCS is assumed as equal to the UCS of intact rock (acceptable assumption for fresh rocks). The
determination of the residual friction angle from the Barton-Bandis model requires an accurate
estimation of the “dilation” component, which is removed from the peak friction angle to derive the
residual friction angle (see equation 10 below). In this process, it is assumed that the JRC determined
from laser profiles equals to the JRC back-calculated from laboratory dilation, whilst a back-
calculated JRC can be used to align the Barton-Bandis model to fit the laboratory data, by
minimization of errors through non-linear regression.

(10)
4. Direct shear test samples

Thirty-two samples of natural bedding partings in fresh black shales were tested using single stage
normal stress (Table 1) and ten samples were tested using multi-stage normal stress (Table 2). All
samples contained open and clean bedding parting surfaces (with no veneers or infill coating).
The majority of the bedding partings presented some kind of depositional structure, this is catalogued
as “ripple marks”, and a minority presented a tectonic micro-structure like “striation” (or
“slickensides”). These geological structures provide a variety of surface finishing to the bedding
partings that are quantified in terms of roughness.
After testing, the lab produces certificates with the interpretation of the peak of shear stress. The
author has verified the validity of this interpretation. Normally, the peak stress is coincident to the
elastic-yielding point in case of strain softening, or a smooth transition to perfectly plastic behavior,
which reaches a paramount at the maximum stress. The laboratory certificates include peak, dilation
corrected and ultimate strength conditions.
ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Fig. 2. Direct shear test results of sample 16.

Top diagram is a reconstruction from the laser profile, before testing (1), after a horizontal
displacement of 0.5 mm (2) and after 9mm displacement (3). Middle plot represents the shear
stress and horizontal displacement results of the test (typical strain softening. Bottom plot
represents vertical and horizontal displacement.
ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Table 1 - Single stage samples and laboratory results.

Total Peak Peak
JRC JRC Vertical Shear
Sample Horizontal Normal Shear
calculated Observed displacement at displacement at
ID displace- Stress Stress
(before) (after) peak (mm) peak (mm)
ment (mm) (kPa) (kPa)
12 9 8 0.04 1.2 8 75 84
16 7.8 12 0.025 0.5 9 300 116
21 6.8 8 0.05 0.2 2.9 150 57
26 6.2 4 0.14 2.5 7 450 234
27 5.4 2 0.01 0.2 8 250 116
28 11 10 0.08 0.8 8 300 300
31 11.2 10 0.01 0.4 6.5 350 136
32 9.4 10 0.06 1.5 4.5 400 234
36 10.2 12 0.03 0.6 7 450 237
39 5.3 6 0.67 4 6 500 265
41 10.8 8 0.039 0.7 8 425 128
43 4.3 6 0.07 0.6 7.4 515 189
20 4.4 4 0.02 0.5 6.8 300 153
19 9.2 8 0.04 1 6.8 250 83
17 6.4 4 0.07 0.6 7 200 108
15a 7.6 7 0.18 1 7 175 111
15b 3.2 2 0.02 0.2 5.2 50 24
15c 5.4 6 0.01 0.4 5.3 200 103
15d 6.7 8 0.08 0.6 5.2 400 140
14a 3.2 4 0.04 0.4 6 150 73
14b 10.4 10 0.02 0.2 6.5 50 29
14c 4.6 4 0.1 0.8 6.5 200 47
14d 14 16 0.32 4 6.5 400 230
5 2.4 2 0.11 2.2 6.4 550 233
49 12.8 10 0.1 2.5 7 150 145
48 4.8 4 0.05 0.2 7 250 127
35 13.2 8 0.14 2.5 6 500 268
32 3.8 2 0.05 1 6.5 425 231
31 18 16 0.42 3.5 6 475 230
27 8.8 6 0.068 1.6 6.5 450 194
25 12.4 12 0.07 0.6 7 375 142
24 9.6 14 0.01 0.5 7.5 350 277
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Table 2 - Multiple stage samples and laboratory results.

disp. Peak Peak
JRC JRC Shear Total shear
Sample Vertical Normal Shear
calculated Observed displacement displacement Stage
ID peak Stress Stress
(before) (after) at peak (mm) (mm)
(mm) (kPa) (kPa)
9 5.1 6 0.03 0.03 5.8 1 28 13
0.04 0.07 2 154 66
0.07 0.14 3 255 88
12 7.8 8 0.022 0.02 7 1 27 38
0.018 0.04 2 102 80
0.025 0.07 3 254 143
0.016 0.08 4 348 207
27 2.2 2 0.004 0.00 6.2 1 90 48
0.005 0.01 2 181 95
0.018 0.03 3 351 193
32 9.9 10 0.09 0.09 6.8 1 78 17
0.03 0.12 2 202 53
0.025 0.15 3 400 84
0.1 0.25 4 606 140
43 6.4 4 0.015 0.02 6.1 1 51 19
0 0.02 2 150 70
0.006 0.02 3 300 126
0.039 0.06 4 604 211
19 8.0 4 0 0.00 7 1 25 15
0.025 0.03 2 101 41
0.04 0.07 3 252 82
0.26 0.33 4 518 205
15 8.1 6 0.015 0.02 2.5 1 27 16
0.02 0.04 2 104 56
0.02 0.06 3 252 119
0.06 0.12 4 511 227
14 3.4 4 0 0.00 7 1 25 13
0.01 0.01 2 101 43
0.01 0.02 3 251 101
0.018 0.04 4 501 186
35 17.7 12 0.01 0.01 7 1 51 15
0.02 0.03 2 155 52
0.01 0.04 3 312 123
0.02 0.06 4 520 201
24 11.4 8 0.005 0.01 8 1 51 33
0.05 0.06 2 158 50
0.06 0.12 3 362 188
0.04 0.16 4 657 387

5. Analysis of lab results

In single stage tests the dominant shear behavior is strain softening (69%) follow by perfect plastic
behavior (25%). This is attributed to the overriding of irregularities, accumulating a total horizontal
displacement of 6-8mm at the end of the test. In multi-stage, the dominant shear behavior is almost a
perfectly plastic, this is perhaps caused by the hardening of the surface as the normal stress is
constantly increasing over the same surface as a result of the “multiple” stages.
The JRC of each of the samples was calculated from the “amplitude / length” ratio determined
from the original laser scans and then compared against the shear displacement and normal
displacements determined by the direct shear tests. From this comparison, it appears that in both
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

single-stage and multi-stage procedures, the peak shear stress is reached with horizontal
displacements equivalent to 1/3 of the amplitude height. Notably, in the majority of tests (80%) the
peak strength is reached when the vertical displacement is only about 6% of the amplitude, and
horizontal displacement is about 2-3% of the total sample length.

In single stage tests, the magnitude of the horizontal displacement (shear displacement) at the peak
is usually less than or equal to 2 mm, with a few reaching displacements up to 4mm at the peak. In
multi-stage, the horizontal strain gradually increases between stages, during first stage is usually less
than 0.5mm, but at the stage 4 the horizontal displacement reaches up to 3mm, almost similar to the
deformation reached on single-stage tests.

In single stage tests, the comparison of JRC from before and after testing indicates that ~70% of
samples have maintained the roughness coefficient within same class (e.g. JRC = 0 to 2), whilst ~20%
of samples have reduced the JRC after testing, and only two samples become rougher after testing. In
multi-stage, 70% of the samples have maintained the roughness coefficient within same class, and
30% of samples presented reduction on the JRC. It is evident that the damage on JRC increases
slightly from single-stage to multi-stage conditions, i.e. from 22% to 30%, which in practice is a
trivial difference in magnitude. These results are shown in Fig.3. below.

Fig.3. Comparison of JRC before and after testing for Single-stage (left) and Multi-stage (right)

After testing, the lab produces certificates with the interpretation of the peak of shear stress. The
author has verified the validity of this interpretation. Normally, the peak stress is coincident to the
elastic-yielding point in case of strain softening, or a smooth transition to perfectly plastic behavior,
which reaches a paramount at the maximum stress. The laboratory certificates include peak, dilation
corrected and ultimate strength conditions.

6. Comparison of the laboratory and Barton-Bandis derived dilation angles

Fig.4. and Fig. 5 present the dilation angle calculated from laboratory data against the dilation
angle calculated from the Barton-Bandis equation (with JRC calculated from laser profile and JCS =
20MPa). Fig. 4 represents Single-Stage test and Fig. 5 represents Multi-Stage tests. For both test
procedures the dilation angle at peak stress falls within a range of 2° to 10°. In single-stage tests, the
mean dilation angle is about 5.3° degrees, whilst in multi-stage the average dilation angle is
approximately 5°.
Barton-Bandis model predicts a dilation angle ranging from 5° to 35° at the peak (with a mean
value of approximately 14°), assuming an average normal stress about 350kPa, and JCS = 20MPa.
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

These results are consistently higher than the dilation angle determined from the laboratory testing.
Consequently, the back-calculated JRC from dilation is lower than the JRC from the laser profile.
The above is perhaps a consequence of the direct shear test methods. The horizontal displacements are
within a range of 2 to 3% of the total sample length when the peak strength is attained, causing the
indentation at the local contact areas but without significant reduction of the JRC (as overall).
Notably, after reaching the peak, with horizontal displacement up to 10% of sample displacement (7-
8mm), there is no further increase in shear strength (see Fig.2.). However, it is observed that the
sample continues to dilate as though the sample is ‘riding’ over the larger JRC profile.

Using the back-calculated JRC from the dilation angle, it was possible to estimate the average
basic friction angle for all samples, by aligning the Barton-Bandis equation to best fit the actual peak
shear stress. These approaches reached similar residual friction angle for single-stage and multi-stage
tests, within the range of 21° to 22°, whilst the dispersion of data being greater on single-stage tests
(R2 = 0.745) in comparison to multi stage tests (R2 = 0.895).
35

30 25 100%
Laboratory dilation angle

25 20 80%

20 Frequency
15 60%
15
10 40%
10
5 20%
5

0 0 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Barton - Bandis dilation Angle JRC back calc. from dilation

Fig. 4. Dilation angles calculated from Single Stage laboratory vertical and horizontal displacements

Fig.5. Dilation angles calculated from Multi-Stage tests back calculated from the Barton-Bandis
equation

7. Conclusions
 ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

The key conclusion reached in this research work was that the Barton-Bandis consistently
overestimated the shear strength of the bedding when applying the laboratory determined JRC, JCS
and Øb. This was due to the lack of correlation between the dilation angle calculated from the Barton-
Bandis model and the laboratory testing. The reasons for this include the following;

1. Material anisotropy, as it is a multi-layered bedded material the UCS and elastic

deformability along the shear surface could change along the morphology, so simply
averaging JCS and JRC may not fit the dilation observed in laboratory testing.
2. During shearing the actual normal stress experienced by the asperities (or small
irregularities) is rapidly amplified over relatively minimal displacement, due to the
reduction in effective area of surface contact as the asperities start to ride up over each
other. As the normal stress increases the dilation component of the BB model reduces to a
minimal value especially where the JCS of the rock type is already relatively low. This is
almost never considered by geotechnical practitioners.
3. The Barton and Bandis model relies on compressive strength of the surfaces, but actually
the ploughing of asperities may trigger tensile strength before compression strength.
4. The relatively low JCS of the shale materials suggests that the asperities may fail relatively
quickly due to the rapid increase in the normal stress experienced by the asperities. This
may reflect the initial peak shear strength and explain the subsequent phenomenon of
“ploughing” observed in actual laboratory testing.

The difference in shear strength behavior between single and multi-stage tests is most likely
related to the accumulation of damage in multi-stage tests. Thus, the perfectly plastic shear behavior is
typical of multi-stage tests, whilst strain softening shear behavior is typical of single-stage tests.

A minor proportion of samples present reduction on JRC post testing, whilst the damage in JRC is
less than 30% for either single or multiple stage. This minor damage on the JRC is likely related to the
low confinement applied to the samples, in relation to the compressive intact strength of the material
(normal stress is within 25kPa to 700kPa, whilst the intact rock strength is within 20-80 MPa).
Nonetheless, the literature indicates that the concentration of stresses at the contact points of asperities
can be seriously amplified due to the effective area of contact (Cundall, 2000).

After applying dilation correction to planar surfaces, there is still an apparent cohesion resulting
from the best fit linear regression applied to the stress plot, which is typically less than 30kPa. The
laboratory suggested that the cohesion from direct shear tests is probably due to the existence of
ploughing of the harder minerals (e.g. pyrite crystals in shales). Note, that a small “intact” cohesion
would not be impossible (p.c. Hencher, 2017).

Barton suggested that the dilation angle can relate to 1/3 of the asperity component (1/3 * JRC log
(JCS/n)), in situations where the “initial dilation” angle is measured, but not the “peak dilation”
angle at failure. Barton and Chouvey (1977) do not specifically defined how to distinguish the initial
dilation from the peak dilation (this appears open to interpretation), but it is mentioned that the initial
dilation observed by their research was about ≤6.6°for their 136 samples (samples with JRC ≤ 12).

In the data of this paper, the direct shear testing of fresh shales produced an average dilation angle
within the range of 5 to 5.5°, which is surprisingly close to the Barton-Chouvey lower bound
criterion. Thus, the observed dilation in shale samples could be attributed to the “initial dilation” but
not “the peak dilation”. This affirmation can be partially accepted by the fact that the post-failure
JRCs presented minimal damage. In addition, this means that defects during testing have experienced
insufficient horizontal displacement or confining load to realise the full effect of the JRC profile
(especially by considering the maximum amplitude of the whole profile).
View publication stats

ARMS1 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium

29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
0 The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Many of the observation discussed above are difficult to investigate effectively by physical testing,
therefore the authors considers that numerical modelling simulation could be a possible answer as to
why the dilation observed on physical samples were lower than predicted by the models of Barton-
Chouvey or Barton-Bandis model.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Australian Centre of Geomechanics and BHP for continuing the support
of this research since 2014. I want to acknowledge the continued support of several people, special
thanks go to Phil Li for performing the laboratory testing with dedication at E-Precision lab. Also, not
less important was the help of several work colleagues at BHP office.

References

Barton, N. (1973) Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Engineering Geology 7,
287-332
Barton, N. (1976) “The Shear Strength of Rock and Rock Joints”, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol.13, pp.255-279 (1976).
Barton and Choubey (1977) the shear strength of rock and rock joints in theory and practice. J. Rock
Mech. 10, Springer and Verlag, 1-54p.
Barton, N. (1995) “The Influence of Joint Properties in Modelling Jointed Rock Masses”, 8th ISRM
Congress, Tokyo, International Society of Rock Mechanics.
Barton, N. and Bandis, S.C. (1990) “Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in
engineering practice”, Proceedings of International Symposium on Rock Joints, Leon, Norway,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 603-610.
Bieniawski (1989). Rock Mass Classification Engineering, New York, Wiley
Choubey, S. Lumsden, A, and Barton N. (1984) Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear
behaviour of rock joints. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech. Vol. 18, Pergamon Press Ltd. 1-21
p.
Cundall, P (2000) “Numerical Experiments on rough joints in shear using a bonded particle model”.
Special publication on “Aspects of tectonic faulting” Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Franklin, J.A, and Dusseault M, B. (1989) Rock Engineering, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Limited.
Goodman R, (1989). Introduction to rock mechanics, Wiley, New York
Hencher, S. (1995), Interpretation of direct shear tests in rocks, In proceedings 35th US Symposium
of rock mechanics.
Hencher,S. (2012), Practical Engineering Geology, Spon Press, London, Great Britain.
Indraratna, B., Haque, Asadul (2000) Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands.
Jaeger J.C, and Cook, N.G.M, (1979) Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 3rd Editions, Chapman and
Hall, London
Maldonado, A. (2013) – “Interpreting direct shear tests in Pilbara environment” – Workshop in
Anisotropic Materials, Slope stability conference, Brisbane, Australia
Patton, (1966) Multiple modes of shear failure trough rock, Proceedings 1st International congress
ISRM, Lisbon 1, 509-513
Rio Tinto (2010). Geology and mineralogy of the Hamersley Province ores. Unpublished.