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

net/publication/316090003

Measurement of the basic friction angle of planar rock discontinuities with

three rock cores

Article  in  Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment · April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10064-017-1045-0

CITATIONS READS

6 468

3 authors, including:

Charlie Li Ning Zhang

Norwegian University of Science and Technology North China Electric Power University
71 PUBLICATIONS   1,252 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Design guidelines for Swellex rock bolts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ning Zhang on 16 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bull Eng Geol Environ
DOI 10.1007/s10064-017-1045-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Measurement of the basic friction angle of planar rock
discontinuities with three rock cores
C. C. Li 1 & N. Zhang 1,2 & J. Ruiz 1
Received: 15 February 2017 / Accepted: 30 March 2017
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Abstract The paper presents the results of tilt tests using
a large number of three-core samples, aiming to establish
a method for determining the basic friction angle of planar
rock discontinuities. The three-core tilt test is easy to op-
erate, and the results are comparable with the saw-cut
method after modification. Saw-cut and two-core samples
were also tested for the purpose of comparison. The test
results show that the cylindrical surface of the core is
slightly rougher than the surface of saw-cut samples so
that the friction angle measured on the cylindrical surface
of the core is slightly larger than that measured on saw-
cut samples. The basic friction angle of the planar rock
discontinuity is obtained by decreasing 2° from the fric-
tion angle measured on three-core samples. The appropri-
ate number for test repetitions is 10∼20 in order to obtain
a reliable mean friction angle. Grinding or polishing of
the cylindrical surface of cores is not recommended, since
it will lead to an increase in the friction angle in most of
rock types.
Keywords Basic friction angle . Tilt test . Three-core
method . Saw-cut method . Planar rock discontinuity . Rock
joint
C.C. Li and N. Zhang both contributed equally and are the first author
* C. C. Li
charlie.c.li@ntnu.no
1
Department of Geoscience and Petroleum, NTNU - the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
2
North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China
Introduction
The shear strength of a planar discontinuity in a rockmass is
purely the frictional resistance of the discontinuity. It is asso-
ciated with the apparent frictional angle of the discontinuity
and the normal stress on it. It is expressed as (Barton and
Bandis 1990):
 
JCS
τ ¼ σn tan φr þ JRClog ð1Þ
σn
where τ is the shear strength, σn the normal stress, and φr the
residual friction angle. JRC is the abbreviation of Joint
Roughness Coefficient, representing an angle describing the
roughness of the discontinuity surface. JCS is the abbreviation
of Joint Compressive Strength. The second term in the paren-
thesis represents the roughness angle of the discontinuity sur-
face at a given normal stress. The apparent friction angle is
equal to the sum of the residual friction angle and the rough-
ness angle. The residual friction angle is expressed, according
to Barton and Choubey (1977), as:
 r
φr ¼ φb − 1−  20

ð2Þ
R
where φb is the basic friction angle of the discontinuity, and r
and R represent the numbers of Schmidt hammer rebounds
measured on the discontinuity in question and on an un-
weathered discontinuity of the same type of rock, respectively.
The six parameters, φb, r, R, JRC, JCS and σn, determine the
apparent friction angle and, thus, the shear strength of a dis-
continuity. Among the six parameters, the basic friction angle
φb is the one which is solely related to the minerals and texture
of the rock, that is, the rock type.
The basic friction angle is usually defined as the sliding
angle on fresh surfaces that are neither weathered nor wet

(Ulusay and Karakul 2016). It essentially requires that the
roughness of the un-weathered surfaces must be zero. The
problem is that roughness always exists and would never be
zero on a surface in reality no matter how smooth is the sur-
face. It is simply a matter of scale. A visiblely smooth surface
in macroscopic scale could be still invisibly rough in micro-
scopic scale, as shown in Fig. 1. Another problem related to
testing is that the friction angle cannot be measured if the rock
surfaces are polished so smooth that air is squeezed out of the
space between the opposite surfaces of the two rock pieces in
testing. In this case, the two surfaces are tightly sucked togeth-
er under the atmosphere pressure, as shown in Fig. 2. The
sucking is owing to vacuum between the surfaces.
The basic friction angle of a planar discontinuity is essen-
tially a measure of the adhesion of the discontinuity surface,
and it should be measured on ideally smooth surfaces, such as
on completely flat surfaces, but in reality the measurement
cannot be done by that means in the atmosphere because of
the vacuum effect. A requisite condition for measurement of
friction angle is that the opposite surfaces of the rock pieces
should not contact completely so that air can get into the space
between them to equilibrate the atmosphere pressure on the
opposite sides of the rock pieces. This implies that a certain
degree of roughness needs to exist on the discontinuity sur-
faces. The friction angle measured on such surfaces thus sim-
ply reflects the specific condition of the surface finish
(Hencher 2012). From the point of view of engineering prac-
tice, the friction angle measured on slightly rough surfaces can
be taken as a material parameter as long as the surface finish is
consistent on all rock samples. It is more appropriate to call
such a friction angle as engineering basic friction angle, but
for the sake of simplicity it is still called basic friction angle in
this paper. Saw-cutting is an optional method to make such
surface finishes for the measurement of basic friction angle.
Saw-cut samples have been used in tilt tests for the measure-
ment of basic friction angle for a long time (Cawsey and
Farrar 1976, Cruden and Hu 1988, Bruce et al. 1989,
Alejano et al. 2012, González et al. 2014, Ruíz and Li 2014,
Ulusay and Karakul 2016). Disadvantages of the saw-cut
method are variations in the flatness and roughness of the
cutting surface from laboratory to laboratory and being rela-
tively time consuming for sample preparation. Another issue
is that the cutting may produce different levels of wearing on
Macroscopically smooth Microscopically
rough
Fig. 1 A sketch illustrating the roughness of a surface in macroscopic
and microscopic scales
C. C. Li et al.
Fig. 2 Sucking of two rock pieces on polished surfaces (Courtesy of J.
Muralha)
the surface and plastic strain in the vicinity of the surface,
which may lead to a lower friction angle than an unaffected
surface. Another optional method for estimating the basic fric-
tion angle is to directly use diamond-drilled cores in tilt tests.
The cylindrical surface of diamond-drilled cores is smooth
macroscopically. The roughness on the cylindrical surface is
of high orders so that it would not be much involved in the
measured friction angle, particularly in hard rocks. It is
thought that the angle measured on the cylindrical surfaces
of core samples in tilt test is a good estimate of the basic
friction angle. Either two cores or three cores are used in tilt
tests (Barton 2011, Stimpson 1981). With the two-core meth-
od, the sliding core rests on the base core along the core axes
and lateral support to the sliding core is needed to avoid
rolling. Alignment is an issue with the two-core method.
With the three-core method, the sliding core stably rests on
the two base cores along the core axes so that the tilt test is
easy to operate. With the three-core method, the friction angle
cannot be read out directly from the tilt angle but has to be
obtained after a simple transformation.
The three-core method is a promising method for determin-
ing the basic friction angle of planar rock discontinuities tak-
ing into account its simplicity and the ease in test operation,
particularly when tilt tests need to be carried out on site.
However, previous studies, for instance by Alejano et al.
(2012), show that the three-core tests overestimate the basic
friction angle. A rule is needed to adjust the test results of
three-core samples to be consistent with the results of saw-
cut samples.
The sliding condition of cores differs from those encoun-
tered for sliding on rock surfaces. Cores slide along lines in-
stead of over areas. A wedge effect is present on the upper core
when using the three-core method. There are drilling grooves
on the core surface. All these factors would have an influence
on the apparent friction angle measured with core-based
methods. One of the goals of the tests presented in this paper
is to figure out the deviation caused by these factors.
Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock discontinuities

This paper presents the results of tilt tests on both three- The weight force of the upper core, Wg, is decomposed to a
core and saw-cut samples, aiming to establish a rule to esti- normal force N and a shear force T:
mate the basic friction angle by the three-core method.
N ¼ Wgcosα
Furthermore, a limited number of two-core samples were also :
T ¼ Wgsinα
tested for the purpose of comparison.

The normal force N of the upper core is further

Testing methods decomposed to two normal forces N′ exerted on the base
cores, which is expressed as:
The tilt tests were carried out by three methods using three
0 1 cosα
cores, two cores or one core that was longitudinally cut by a N ¼  Wg:
diamond saw, Fig. 3. 2 cos30
With the one-core test method, a core sample is cut into two The maximum frictional resistance between the cores is
pieces longitudinally along the core axis, Fig. 3a. The sample equal to the shear force T, that is, 2N' tan φb = Wg sin α. It is
is placed in such a way that the cut surfaces of the two core then obtained:
halves are parallel with the lifting table and the core axis is
parallel with and in the vertical lifting plane. With the two- φb ¼ arctanð0:866tanαÞ: ð4Þ
core test method, one core is placed on the top of another core
along the core axes, Fig. 3b. The upper core needs to be sup-
ported in the lateral direction to prevent rolling down. For both
the one-core and two-core test methods, the basic friction an- Sample preparation and testing
gle φb is simply equal to the lifting angle α at which the upper
rock piece (or core) starts to slide (Fig. 3d), that is: Sample preparation
φb ¼ α ð3Þ
All samples in the tests are made of cores. The cores drilled in
For the three-core method, two cores are placed on the the laboratory have a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 or larger.
lifting table and one core is on the top of the two base cores, The majority of the laboratory-drilled cores are 50 mm in
Fig. 3b. The forces on the upper core are illustrated in Fig. 4. diameter. The drill bit (Fig. 5a) is made of a bronze alloy

Fig. 3 Tilt test methods: (a) saw-

cut one-core method, (b) two-core
method, (c) three-core method,
and (d) a sketch illustrating tilt
testing

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
 C. C. Li et al.

Fig. 4 Forces on the upper core

in the three-core test method. (a)
N
Longitudinal projection and (b)
the cross-section of the core
samples

N T
N’ N’

Wg

(a) (b)

matrix containing synthetic diamond grits of approximately
40–60 US mesh with a content of 0.6 ct/cm3. Figure 6a shows
the morphology of a rock core drilled with such a drill bit in
the laboratory. The cylindrical surface of the core is reason-
ably smooth. The diameter of the cores collected on site is in a
range from 28 to 62 mm, and the core lengths are usually
larger than 2.5 times the diameter. Figure 6b shows one of
the cores. The cylindrical surfaces of the cores are also con-
sistently smooth.
A one-core sample is made by cutting the core along the
core axis. The blade of the saw used in the sample preparation
is 2 mm thick. The blade rim is made of a bronze alloy matrix

Fig. 5 (a) Diamond drill bit and (b) Saw blade

Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock discontinuities
Fig. 6 Morphology of diamond-
drilled core samples. (a) A granite
core drilled in the laboratory, (b) a
gneiss core collected on site, and
(c) the cut surfaces of a core
containing synthetic diamond grits of approximately 60–100
US mesh with a content of 0.62 to 0.79 ct/cm3, Fig. 5b. The
saw-cut surfaces of a core are shown in Fig. 6c. In general, the
saw-cut surfaces feel smoother than the cylindrical surfaces of
diamond-drilled cores.
Testing
The tilt table is composed of a tilt platform, an air-driven
cylinder to lift the tilt platform and an angle meter attached
to the tilt plate, Fig. 7. The platform is hinged to the table at
one end. At the start, the platform is placed horizontal. The
free end of the platform is lifted by the cylinder attatched in the
bottom of the platform. The angle meter displays the real-time
angle of the platform with respect to the horizon during lifting.
The On/Off button of the angle meter is pushed to stop the
display change when the upper core starts to move. The value
shown in the display of the angle meter is the tilt angle α of the
sample.
The tilt rate of the table used in our tests is approximately
23° per minute. The influence of the tilt rate was
Fig. 7 The tilt table
experimentally investigated in the range of 2°–25° per minute
(Cruden and Hu 1988; Bruce et al. 1989; Hu and Cruden
1992; Ruíz and Li 2014; Alejano et al. 2012; Pérez-Rey
et al. 2016). The conclusion was that the tilt rate does not have
a significant impact on the tilt angle.
The sliding displacement of the upper core was limited to
approximately 20 mm in the tests in order to reduce the dam-
age on the rock surface. The rock surface was wiped with dry
tissue papers before every subsequent test.
The cylindrical surface of all tested core samples was quite
smooth. Core samples with undulating surfaces were
discarded.
Test results and analyses
Several hundred core pieces of more than 40 different rock
types were collected for testing. The rock types cover sedi-
mentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks. In total, more than
6600 tilt tests of approximately 300 cases (saw-cut core, two-
core, three-core, etc.) were carried out on core samples. The
majority of the tests were by three-core and saw-cut methods.
Only a limited number of two-core tests were conducted for
comparison.
The tilt tests of every test case were repeated ten to 22
times. The mean and standard deviation of every sample were
calculated by discarding the maximum and minimum values
in the data set. The mean and standard deviation of the one-
core, two-core and three-core samples are listed in Tables 1, 2
and 3 in the Appendix.
Three-core method versus saw-cut method
The friction angles measured on three-core samples, φ3C, are
compared with those on saw-cut core samples, φSC, in Fig. 8.
The red thick line represents the mean values of φ3C versus
 C. C. Li et al.

45
Test data The data scattering zone is in a relatively narrow zone of ±3°.
(González et al 2014) +5.5o The mean value of φ3C is 1.5° larger than φ2C, that is:
40


-5.5o
φ3C ¼ φ2C þ 1:5 : ð6Þ
35
(o)

30
3C

mean
Grinded and unground three-core samples
25
Asperities on rock surfaces will be damaged sliding. It is a
20 concern how the rock powder of the asperity damage influ-
ences the friction angle of the surface (Cawsey and Farrar
45o line
15
1976). This issue was investigated on a number of three-core
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 samples. The upper core is pressed on the two base cores by
SC (o) hand and are ground longitudinally back and forth a few times
Fig. 8 The friction angles measured on three-core samples versus SC until rock powder appears on the sliding tracks. Figure 10
samples. (o) shows the cores after grinding. After that, the cores are aligned
along the ground tracks and are tilted. The friction angles of
φSC. In general, the mean value of φ3C is 2° larger than φSC, the ground samples, φ’3C, are plotted versus the friction angles
that is: of the unground original samples, φ3C, in Fig. 11. The data
 scatter in a relatively narrow zone of 3° above and below the
φ3C ¼ φSC þ 2 : ð5Þ mean line. The friction angle of the ground samples is in
average 3° larger than the friction angle of the original core
It means that the cylindrical surface of cores is in average samples, that is:
2° rougher than saw-cut surfaces. The dashed lines bound the φ
0 
¼ φ3C þ 3 : ð7Þ
3C
upper and lower limits of the measurement data. The mea-
sured data scatters in a zone of 5.5° above and below the mean
line. The four triangles in the figure are the test results of Similar results were also reported by González et al.
González et al. (2014). They are in a good agreement with (2014). An explanation for the increase in the friction angle
the test results in this study. after grinding is attributed to the increase in adhesion.
Grinding indeed brings about a reduction in the roughness
on the cylindrical surface of the cores, but it increases the
Three-core method versus two-core method contac area and thus improves the matching between the two
surfaces. These two factors lead to an increase in adhesion.
A limited number of rock types were tested both on two-core The increase in adhesion overwhelms the reduction in the
and three-core samples. The results are presented in Fig. 9. roughness friction angle, and thus, it leads to an increase in
45
the friction angle after grinding.

+3o
40
-3o Discussion
35
Scattering of measurement data
(o)

30
3C

The measurement data of tilt tests always scatter in a range.

25
mean Figure 12 shows the frequency of the friction angle measured
on three-core samples of diorite for 50 test repetitions. The
20
measurement data can be well described by a normal distribu-
45o line
tion. The mean value of the friction angle for the 50 measure-
15
ments is 27.1° with a standard deviation (SD) 1.1°. Standard
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 deviation is a measure describing the scattering extent. A large
o
2C ( ) SD implies that measurement data scatter in a wide range. The
Fig. 9 The friction angles measured on three-core samples versus two- average standard deviations of the friction angles measured on
core samples all samples of the three types are listed in the following:
Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock discontinuities

Fig. 10 Ground granitic-gneiss

cores

0.6∼0.8 ct/cm 3, and the tooth grit was in the range of

Sample type Average SD Source 50∼100 US mesh. The friction angles obtained in four of the
Saw-cut samples: 1.8° Table 1
five laboratories were consistent. It was believed that the
slightly higher friction angle obtained in the fifth laboratory
Two core samples: 1.7° Table 2
was because of an operational reason. Thus, it can be said that
Three-core samples: 1.3° Table 3
the friction angles measured on saw-cut samples are quite
consistent as long as the teeth grit of the saw is in the range
The average standard deviation of the three-core samples is
of 50∼100 US mesh.
the smallest among the three types of samples, indicating that
The friction angle measured on three-core samples is in
the measurement data of the three-core method are least
average 2° larger than the friction angle on saw-cut samples,
scattered.
as shown in Eq. (5). The basic friction angle is calculated from
the friction angle measured on three-core samples as follows:
The basic friction angle

φb ¼ φ3C −2 : ð9Þ
As said in the Introduction section, the friction angle measured
on saw-cut samples is usually treated as the basic friction
angle of planar rock discontinuities, that is, Repetition number
φb ¼ φSC : ð8Þ
As shown in Fig. 12, the measurement data of friction angle
A series of benchmark tilt tests were conducted in five scatters in a zone around the mean value. The mean value of
laboratories to study the influence of several factors on the the friction angle would not be representative if the number of
friction angle measured on saw-cut samples of the same type test repetitions is too small. Three-core samples of three rock
of granite (Alejano et al. 2017). The diamond count in the types, slate, limestone and diorite, were tested to investigate
saws used in the five laboratories varies in a range of the influence of test repetitions on the mean friction angle.
Every three-core sample was tilt tested 50 times. The mean
45
+3o friction angle is calculated with the first 4, 6, 8, … and 50
measurement data, and the mean values are plotted in Fig. 13.
40 -3o

35
15
'3C (o)

Diorite
30 Normal curve
mean 10
Frequency

25

20 5
45o line
15
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
o
3C ( )
Fricon angle, (°)
Fig. 11 The friction angles of the ground three-core samples, φ’3C, 3C

versus the friction angles of the unground original three-core samples, Fig. 12 Histograms of the friction angle based on 50 repetitions of three-
φ3C core tilt tests of diorite. φmean= 27.1°, SD = 1.1°
 C. C. Li et al.

35
number between ten and 20 is appropriate in order to obtain
a reliable mean friction angle but does not cause considerable
(e)
30
damage to the sliding surface.
3C
Fricon angles,

25
Limestone
Oppdal slate
Diorite
20
0 10 20 30 40
Test repeons
Fig. 13 Average friction angles of the three-core samples versus test
repetitions
It is seen that the mean friction angles of the limestone and the
diorite are relatively low for test repetitions of less than ten
times, and then they steadily increase with the repetition
number. This tendency was also observed by Hencher
(2012) and others. Every time sliding causes slight damage
to the surface. As mentioned in the previous section, surface
damage by grinding would lead to an increase in friction angle
owing to the increase in adhesion. It seems that asperity dam-
age is negligible when test repetitions are less than ten times,
but it brings about a meaningful increase in friction angle
when repetitions are higher than 30. Differently from the lime-
stone and the diorite, the mean friction angle of the Oppdal
slate slightly decreases with the repetition number. The reduc-
tion is negligibly less than 0.3°. It seems that a repetition
Conclusions
The basic friction angle of planar rock discontinuities can be
determined by tilt testing using three-core samples. The basic
50
friction angle is equal to the friction angle measured on three-
core samples minus 2° as expressed by Eq. (9).
A large number of repetitions need to be done in tilt tests in
order to obtain a reliable mean friction angle because of data
scattering. However, the sliding surface would be damaged
after repeated sliding. Taking into account these two factors,
it is suggested that the appropriate number of test repetitions is
between ten and 20.
Grinding or polishing of the cylindrical surface of cores led
to an increase in the friction angle in most of the rock types
tested. It is not recommended to grind the cylindrical surface
of cores when the three-core method is used for measurement
of the basic friction angle of planar rock discontinuities.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Mr. Gunnar
Vistnes for his assistance in preparing some of the core samples in the
laboratory. The authors are also grateful to Mr. Rolf Lynum in the
Geological Survey of Norway for his kindness in providing some of the
core samples for testing.

Appendix: Tilt test results Table 1 (continued)

Sample No. Rock type Core Friction angle

diameter (degrees)
Table 1 Tilt test results of one-core samples (mm)
mean St. dev.
Sample No. Rock type Core Friction angle
diameter (degrees) Z9 Kuru granite 50.3 32.3 3.2
(mm)
Z10 Iddefjord granite 50.2 25.5 1.7
mean St. dev.
Z11 Gabbro/262 35.1 29.4 2.1
R3 Greenstone 50.1 31.6 0.7 Z12 Monzonite/Larvikitt/1709 35.3 26.9 1.5
R4 Gneiss 50.2 27.8 1.3 Z13 Monzonite/Larvikitt/1891 35.2 22.9 1.8
R10 Gneiss 50.5 28.7 2.2 Z14 Diorite/2589 35.4 31.6 1.7
R11 Sandstone 37.0 24.9 1.3 Z15 Rhomb porphyry/2034 35.1 25.3 1.9
R14 Soargmite 43.7 27.1 4.2 Z16 Diorite/16 35.3 30.6 1.7
R15 Hauge gneiss 61.7 27.2 0.6 Z17 Pegmatite/266 35.3 24.5 1.1
Z1 Conglomerate/444 35.2 31.9 1.1 Z18 Aplite/2463 35.2 26.0 1.5
Z2 Conglomerate/1705 35.4 30.3 2.6 Z19 Anorthosite/2433 35.4 29.3 1.7
Z3 Limestone/270 35.1 25.2 2.0 Z20 Migmatite/52 35.1 33.0 1.1
Z4 Limestone/1874 35.5 34.0 1.9 Z21 Amphibolite/787 35.3 28.3 2.5
Z5 Sandstone/2614 35.2 26.4 1.0 Z22 Amphibolite/794 35.2 26.1 1.7
Z6 Quartz sandstone/212 35.4 25.8 0.9 Z23 Amphibolite/269 35.1 23.1 1.6
Z7 Granite/234 35.2 29.6 1.9 Z24 Marble/235 35.2 35.0 0.8
Z8 China Granite 50.1 27.3 1.3 Z25 Dolomite-marble/450 35.2 31.7 2.4
Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock discontinuities

Table 1 (continued) Table 2 (continued)

Sample No. Rock type Core Friction angle Sample No. Rock type Core Friction angle (degrees)
diameter (degrees) diameter
(mm) (mm) mean St.dev.
mean St. dev.
R20 Steel 28.5 9.8 0.7
Z26 Quartsite/469 35.1 26.8 2.2 Mean st. dev. = 1.7
Z27 Gneiss/642 35.4 34.6 2.4
Z28 Mica gneiss/484 35.5 31.3 1.6 Test repetitions are ten
Z29 Amphibolite, gneiss 50.1 33.9 2.5
Z30 Granitic gneiss/1674 35.2 30.7 2.8
Table 3 Tilt test results of three-core samples
Z31 Phyllite/760 35.1 29.3 1.6
Z32 phyllite/2591 35.2 29.4 1.0 Sample Rock type Core Friction angle
No. diameter (degrees)
Z33 Slate/777 35.2 27.3 1.9
(mm)
Z34 Green slate/1042 35.3 30.7 2.2 mean St.dev.
Z35 Mica slate/475 35.4 30.9 1.8
Z36 Quartz-mica slate/2039 35.3 22.9 1.5 R1 Iddefjord granite 53.5 31.6 1.6
R2 Limestone 53.8 24.3 1.1
Z37 Garnet-bearing mica 35.4 27.4 1.2 R3 Greenstone 50.1 37.2 0.5
slate/2595 R4 Gneiss 50.2 33.2 0.4
Z38 Oppdal slate 50.2 28.6 2.1 R5 Gneiss 45.0 29.3 1.2
Z39 Soapstone 50.1 30.3 2.1 R6 Marble 44.0 32.6 1.3
R7 Trondhjemmite/gneiss 43.9 34.5 1.8
Z40 Green stone/2443 35.2 30.5 1.7
R8 Trondhjemmite 35.8 35.6 0.7
Z41 Lattit/2029 35.4 35.0 2.5 R9 Gneiss 35.3 35.5 1.1
Z42 Povement concrete 50.2 30.9 1.8 R10 Gneiss 50.5 29.5 1.2
R11 Sandstone 37.0 37.1 1.4
Mean st. dev. = 1.8
R12 Sandstone 38.2 39.6 1.1
R13 Sandstone 37.9 40.5 2.9
Test repetitions are ten for R-samples and 22 for Z-samples R14 Spargmite 43.7 33.9 1.0
R15 Hauge gneiss 61.7 31.0 1.0
R16 Mica-schist 28.8 35.8 1.9
R17 Iddefjord granite 37.9 33.8 1.5
R18 Methacrylate 40.1 27.5 2.3
Table 2 Tilt test results of two-core samples R19 Aluminum 36.3 13.6 1.21
R20 Steel 28.5 10.8 0.6
Sample No. Rock type Core Friction angle (degrees) Z1 Conglomerate/444 35.2 29.6 2.5
diameter Z2 Conglomerate/1705 35.4 35.1 2.6
(mm) mean St.dev. Z3 Limestone/270 35.1 31.1 0.9
Z4 Limestone/1874 35.5 32.5 0.8
R1 Iddefjord granite 53.5 30.8 0.9 Z5 Sandstone/2614 35.2 30.2 1.0
R2 Limestone 53.8 26.4 6.4 Z6 Quartz sandstone/212 35.4 30.1 1.0
Z7 Granite/234 35.2 28.0 1.0
R3 Greenstone 50.1 35.7 0.6 Z8 China Granite 50.1 33.4 1.1
R4 Gneiss 50.2 32.0 0.4 Z9 Kuru granite 50.3 36.1 1.4
R5 Gneiss 45.0 30.1 1.2 Z10 Iddefjord granite 50.2 32.1 1.0
Z11 Gabbro/262 35.1 28.8 0.8
R6 Marble 44.0 32.9 1.4 Z12 Monzonite/Larvikitt/1709 35.3 28.7 0.8
R7 Trondhjemmite/gneiss 43.9 32.2 0.5 Z13 Monzonite/Larvikitt/1891 35.2 25.1 0.8
R8 Trondhjemmite 35.8 31.5 1.4 Z14 Diorite/2589 35.4 32.3 1.2
Z15-1 Rhomb against dip dir. 35.1 30.9 0.9
R9 Gneiss 35.3 30.0 2.2 Z15-2 porphyry/2034 with dip dir. 35.1 32.6 1.4
R10 Gneiss 50.5 27.3 1.5 Z16 Diorite/16 35.3 27.1 1.1
R11 Sandstone 37.0 34.1 1.9 Z17 Pegmatite/266 35.3 33.2 0.9
Z18 Aplite/2463 35.2 32.3 0.8
R12 Sandstone 38.2 38.1 1.3 Z19 Anorthosite/2433 35.4 33.0 1.6
R13 Sandstone 37.9 36.8 1.8 Z20 Migmatite/52 35.1 32.1 2.1
Z21 Amphibolite/787 35.3 34.5 1.3
R14 Spargmite 43.7 31.6 0.9
Z22 Amphibolite/794 35.2 32.7 1.4
R15 Hauge gneiss 61.7 27.1 0.9 Z23-1 Amphibolite/269 against dip dir. 35.1 31.0 2.4
R16 Mica-schist 28.8 32.8 1.1 Z23-2 with dip dir. 35.1 31.3 1.8
Z24 Marble/235 35.2 33.6 2.1
R17 Iddefjord granite 37.9 31.1 1.1
Z25 Dolomite-marble/450 35.2 32.6 1.8
R18 Methacrylate 40.1 23.4 6.8 Z26 Quartsite/469 35.1 31.6 2
R19 Aluminum 36.3 11.2 0.2 Z27 Gneiss/642 35.4 38.2 1.1
 C. C. Li et al.

Table 3 (continued) Barton N (2011) From empiricism, through theory, to problem solving in
rock engineering (Muller lecture). In: Proceedings of the 12th
Sample Rock type Core Friction angle Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics,
No. diameter (degrees) Beijing, China
(mm) Barton N, Bandis SC (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of JRC–
mean St.dev. JCS model in engineering practice. In: Barton N, Stephansson O
(eds) Proceedings of the international conference on rock joints.
Z28 Mica gneiss/484 35.5 31.6 0.8 Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 603–610
Z29 Amphibolite, gneiss 50.1 31.8 0.9 Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory
Z30-1 Granitic against dip dir. 35.2 32.8 2.3 and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54
Z30-2 gneiss/1674 with dip dir. 35.2 34.1 1.3 Bruce IG, Cruden DM, Eaton TM (1989) Use of a tilting table to deter-
Z-31 Phyllite/760 35.1 34.3 0.9 mine the basic friction angle of hard rock samples. Can Geotech J
Z32-1 Phyllite/2591 against dip dir. 35.2 28.0 0.7 26:474–479
Z32-2 with dip dir. 35.2 28.0 1.3
Cawsey DC, Farrar NS (1976) Discussion: a simple sliding apparatus for
Z33 Slate/777 35.2 27.7 1.0
the measurement of rock joint friction. Géotechnique 26(4):641–644
Z34-1 Green slate/1042 against dip dir. 35.3 30.5 2.1
Cruden DM, Hu XQ (1988) Basic friction angles of carbonate rocks from
Z34-2 with dip dir. 35.3 30.5 1.8
Z35 Mica slate/475 35.4 29.6 1.6 Kananaskis country, Canada. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 38:55–59
Z36 Quartz-mica slate/2039 35.3 27.9 0.6 González J, González-Pastoriza N, Castro U, Alejano LR, Muralha J
Z37 Garnet-bearing mica 35.4 28.6 1.4 (2014) Considerations on the laboratory estimate of the basic friction
slate/2595 angle of rock joints. In: Proceedings of EUROCK 2014: Rock
Z38-1 Oppdal slate against dip dir. 50.2 28.5 0.4 Mechnics and Rock Engineering - Structures on and in Rock
Z38-2 with dip dir. 50.2 31.0 1.6 Masses. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 199–204
Z39 Soapstone 50.1 21.3 1.3 Hencher SR (2012) Discussion of Alejano, Gonzalez and Muralha. Rock
Z40 Green stone/2443 35.2 29.1 1.2 Mech Rock Eng 45:1137–1139
Z41-1 Lattit/2029 against dip dir. 35.4 32.0 1.2 Hu X, Cruden DM (1992) A portable tilting table for on-site tests of the
Z41-2 with dip dir. 35.4 33.1 1.7 friction angles of discontinuities in rock masses. Bull Int Assoc Eng
Z-42 Povement concrete 50.2 32.1 1.1 Geol 46:59–62
Mean st. dev. = 1.3 Pérez-Rey I, Alejano LR, Arzua J, Muralha J (2016) The role of tilting
rate and wear of surfaces on basic friction angle testing. In:
Test repetitions are ten for R-samples and 22 for Z-samples Proceedings of EUROCK 2016: Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering – From the Past to the Future. Taylors & Francis
Group, London, p 235–240
Ruíz J, Li CC (2014) Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock by
References three different tilt test methods. In: Proceedings of EUROCK 2014:
Rock Mechnics and Rock Engineering - Structures on and in Rock
Masses. Balkema, Rotterdam, p 261–266
Alejano LR, González J, Muralha J (2012) Comparison of different tech- Stimpson B (1981) A suggested technique for determining the basic fric-
niques of tilt testing and basic friction angle variability assessment. tion angle of rock surfaces using core. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1023–1035 Geomech Abstr 18(1):63–65
Alejano LR, Muralha J, Ulusay R, Li CC, Pérez-Rey I, Karakul H, Ulusay R, Karakul H (2016) Assessment of basic friction angles of var-
Chryssanthakis P, Aydan Ö, Martínez J, Zhang N (2017) A multi- ious rock types from Turkey under dry, wet and submerged condi-
laboratory experiment on tilt testing of saw cut rock surfaces to tions and some considerations on tilt testing. Bull Eng Geol Environ
assess some factors affecting test results. Submitted for publication 75(4):1683–1699

View publication stats