ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE

Shear strength of discontinuities

FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE
E P F L - LM R

1. Rock behaviour modelling

Shear strength of
discontinuities 2. Plane smooth joint

3. Idealised rough joint

J. Abbruzzese, V. Labiouse

LMR
LABORATOIRE DE 4. Real rough joint
MÉCANIQUE DES ROCHES
Rock mechanics

Shear strength of discontinuities Rock behaviour modelling

E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

1. Rock behaviour modelling A rock mass is a complex natural system

constituted by:

g a solid matrix (composed by minerals),

2. Plane smooth joint whose characteristics mainly depend on its
origin and interaction with physical and
chemical agents;
3. Idealised rough joint g discontinuities : any cessation of continuity
into the rock mass (such as joints, shear
zones, bedding planes, fractures) originated
4. Real rough joint by physical, chemical, geological and
geomorphological factors.

1
 Rock behaviour modelling Shear strength of discontinuities
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

At shallow depths, where stresses are low,

the behaviour of a rock mass is highly
1. Rock behaviour modelling
influenced by the discontinuities.

In these conditions, rupture of the intact 2. Plane smooth joint

mass hardly happens and the rock failure is
controlled by sliding on the discontinuities.
3. Idealised rough joint
Æ For stability analyses: necessity to
evaluate the factors that control the shear
strength of the discontinuities 4. Real rough joint

Plane smooth joint Plane smooth joint

E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

τ τ
Hypothesis: τ = σ tanϕ
n plane and smooth joint surface σ2 > σ1 τ2
σ1 > σ0 τ1
σ0 τ0 ϕ
δ σ0 σ1 σ2 σn
Observed mechanical behaviour:
Stress vs. strain diagram Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
n shear stress quickly increases τ
with deformation level, until a σ2 > σ1 - Linear friction model without cohesion: c* = 0
maximum value is reached; σ1 > σ0 - Failure criterion (pure friction): τ = σn tan ϕ
then, such value remains σ0
approximately constant Æ Peak strength equal to residual strength
δ
Æ No dilatancy

2
 Shear strength of discontinuities Idealised rough joint (Patton, 1966)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

Hypothesis:
1. Rock behaviour modelling
n regular « saw-tooth »
roughness (asperities with
inclination i);
2. Plane smooth joint
Observed mechanical τ
τp
behaviour: τr
σ1 >> σ0
3. Idealised rough joint n Shear stress quickly reaches a σ0
peak value. Then, increasing
the deformation level, the δ
σ1
4. Real rough joint shear stress stabilises to a σ0
residual value d

Dilatancy Sliding and dilatancy for low normal stresses

E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
τp
When a shear stress is applied on a rough « Low » normal stresses: τ
surface joint, sliding occurs by climbing ¾ if the applied normal stress σn τr
σ1 >> σ0
the asperities: remains below a critical value σn,crit σ0
- to trigger a slide, it is at first required ¾ the upper rock block slides
that the shear stress is capable to remove on the joint surface by climbing
τp σ1 δ
the embedding condition due to the τ the asperity angle (in i direction) σ0
asperities on the contact surface; τr d
- the stress to apply is consequently σ1 >> σ0
higher than on a smooth surface. σ0 τ ϕr
¾ the peak strength during sliding τp
ϕr
Æ The shear strength of the joint
σ1 δ τp = σn tan (ϕ + i) τr
will consequently increase; σ0 ¾ the residual strength after sliding c* τp
Æ The material (rock) will expand d τr = σn tan ϕr ϕ + i σn,crit σn

3
Shearing of asperities for high normal stresses Idealised rough joint (Patton, 1966)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
τp τp
« High » normal stresses: τ « Low » normal stresses: τ

¾ if the applied normal stress σn is τr

σ1 >> σ0 τp = σn tan (ϕ + i) σn ≤ σn,crit τr
σ1 >> σ0
above the critical value σn,crit σ0 σ0
¾ the asperities are sheared and the Æ Friction angle (ϕ + i)
Æ Dilatancy d
upper rock block moves almost δ δ
σ1 Æ No cohesion σ1
horizontally (no dilatancy) σ0 σ0
d « High » normal stresses: d

τ ϕr τp = σn tan ϕr + c* σn ≥ σn,crit τ ϕr
¾ the peak strength before shearing τp τp
ϕr ϕr
τp = σn tan ϕr + c* τr Æ Friction angle ϕr τr
Æ No dilatancy
the residual strength after shearing c* τp c* τp
¾
Æ Cohesion c*
τr = σn tan ϕr ϕ + i σn,crit σn with σn,crit the critical normal stress ϕ + i σn,crit σn

Idealised rough joint (Patton, 1966) Shear strength of discontinuities

E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
τp
Given: τ

ϕ = friction angle on asperities surface τr

σ1 >> σ0
1. Rock behaviour modelling
ϕr = friction angle on the joint surface σ0

it can be assumed: 2. Plane smooth joint

σ1 δ
ϕ = ϕr σ0
d

The residual strength after the shearing τ ϕr 3. Idealised rough joint

τp
of the asperities is: ϕr
τr

τr = σn tan ϕr c* τp 4. Real rough joint

ϕ + i σn,crit σn

4
 Real rough joint (Barton, 1973) Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
τp
τ Barton’s failure criterion
Hypothesis:
τr
n the joint surface presents an Laboratory results obtained Test performed on a gneiss sample

irregular roughness (asperities by means of a shear testing

with variable inclination i);
Observed mechanical behaviour:
n progressive rupture of the
asperities and some dilatancy
n The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is
not fully applicable to describe
the relation between shear
strength and normal stress.
machine.
δ The test is performed
keeping a constant applied
d normal stress.
τ The circles represent the
τp peak value of the shear
ϕr
τr strength, while the crosses
describe the residual strength
level.
σn

Real rough joint (Barton, 1973) Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

Barton’s empirical model: Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)

⎛ JCS ⎞
τp = σ n tan ⎜ JRC ⋅ log10 + ϕr ⎟
⎛ JCS ⎞ ⎝ σn ⎠
τ p = σ n tan⎜ JRC ⋅ log10 + ϕr ⎟
⎝ σn ⎠
JRC is a number varying in the interval 0 ÷ 20 and represents
the relevance of roughness in defining rocks’ shear strength
(smooth surfaces: JRC = 0; very rough surfaces: JRC = 20).
τp = peak shear strength JRC can be estimated by:
τ
σn = applied normal stress 1. comparing the real profile of the asperities with standard
τp
JRC = Joint Roughness Coefficient ϕr profiles
τr
2. performing a « tilt test »
JCS = Joint wall Compressive Strength
3. measuring length and amplitude of the asperity profile
ϕr = residual friction angle and using a graphic correlation with JRC.
σn

5
 Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
1. Comparing the real profile of the
corresponding JRC values
asperities with standard profiles
- « Barton comb » is used on site
to reproduce the real roughness
profile;
- the obtained profile is
compared with the standard
profiles;
- a value of JRC is assigned to
evaluate the joint’s roughness.
Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
3. Measure of asperity profile’s
length and amplitude
- the length of the asperity profile is
measured;
- the maximum amplitude of the
asperity profile is measured;
- a graphic correlation allows to
determine the corresponding value of
the Joint Roughness Coefficient.
Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
Roughness profiles and 2. « Tilt test »
- rock sample constituted by two parts
separated by a joint;
- the sample is placed on a plane, slowly
tilted until sliding between the parts occurs;
- the angle of inclination α is measured;
- JRC is calculated by means of the
equation: −1
⎛ JCS ⎞ σn0 = γh cos2α
JRC = (α − ϕr )⎜⎜ log10 ⎟ normal stress in situ on a
σ n 0 ⎟⎠
surface inclined by α.
⎝
Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R
Joint wall Compressive Strength (JCS)
⎛ JCS ⎞
τp = σ n tan ⎜ JRC ⋅ log10 + ϕr ⎟
⎝ σn ⎠
JCS represents the compressive strength of the joint,
measured on the wall of the joint itself.
JCS can be estimated by:
1. comparing the alteration degree of the joint with the
degree of alteration of the rock;
2. performing on site measures with the Schmidt rebound
hammer.
6
 Real rough joint (Barton, 1973) Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)
E P F L - LM R E P F L - LM R

Joint wall Compressive Strength (JCS) Joint wall Compressive Strength (JCS)
1. Comparison between degrees of 2. Schmidt rebound hammer
alteration
The Schmidt rebound
The degree of alteration of the joint is compared to the one of hammer is used in field
the rock. The value of JCS is then determined by means of a observations to evaluate
relation with the compressive strength of the intact rock. the Joint Compressive
Strength. Depending on the inclination of
Degree of alteration of the joint surface: the hammer, the measure allows to know
- equal to rock: JCS = σc (rock) the Schmidt hardness. This parameter is
- slighly higher than rock: JCS = 0.5 σc (rock) combined with the unit weight of the rock
- much higher than rock: JCS = 0.1 σc (rock) to obtain the value of JCS.

Real rough joint (Barton, 1973)

E P F L - LM R

Barton’s empirical model:

⎛ JCS ⎞
τ p = σ n tan⎜ JRC ⋅ log10 + ϕr ⎟
⎝ σn ⎠
- the first term in parentheses represents the dilation angle δ
(contribution of dilatancy to the shear strength)
- the more the joint surface is altered, the lower is the value of
JRC and JCS and (as a consequence) of τp
- the less the joint’s surfaces are embedded, the lower is the
value of JRC (and τp)
- higher values of JRC give high dilation angles