International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Shear-related roughness classification and strength model of natural rock

joint based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
Yanlin Zhao a, Chunshun Zhang b, *, Yixian Wang c, Hang Lin d
a
Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Safe Mining Techniques of Coal Mines, Work Safety Key Laboratory on Prevention and Control of Gas and Roof Disasters for
Southern Coal Mines, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia
c
School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China
d
School of Resource Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigated shear-related roughness classification based on Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and
Rock joint established a new strength model of natural rock joint. The joint profiles were extracted from 3D data to evaluate
Shear strength criterion roughness, and a series of direct shear tests were carried out on three kinds of natural rock joints. The height
Morphological parameters
statistical parameters Sm, Sq, Ss and Sk, and the textural statistical parameters Si, Sc, and Z2 were measured by
Direct shear
Talysurf morphology instrument. Considering the existence of strong positive relations between Sm and Sq, and
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
Z2 and Si, the four morphological parameters of Si, Sq, Sc, and Sk are considered as the main influencing factors
related with rock joint shear behaviors. A new fracture roughness coefficient FRC is proposed based on fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation (FCE), which considers that the influence of multi morphology parameters on the
roughness of rock joint surface, and generally, the FRC is higher than the JRC. Compared with the previously
published shear strength models, the proposed FRC-JCS shear strength model, which can more comprehensively
reflect the influence of joint surface morphology parameters to shear strength, are in better agreement with the
experimental data.

1. Introduction
Rock joints are encountered commonly in rock engineering projects,
where the shear behavior of rock joints is a key issue to the stability of
rock engineering structures. As such, a large number of direct shear tests
have been conducted on rock joints to study their shear behaviors.1–10
These experimental results have confirmed that the shear strength of
rock joints is strongly related to the roughness of the joint surfaces. To
date, many shear strength model related with joint roughness have been
proposed to estimate the peak shear strength of rock joints.11–32 In
particular, Barton2 and Barton and Choubey3 developed the JRC–JCS
model, by introducing joint roughness coefficient (JRC), which has been
widely used in engineering; According to the Boyle’s law of thermody­
namics, Maksimović17 put forth the peak shear strength criterion that is
applicable to all normal stress ranges. Patton10 developed the shear
strength calculation formula, which included the effects of morphology
and divided the sliding and shearing of asperities; Zhao20 showed that
the different matching degrees of the upper and lower joints can affect
shear strength, normal closure, aperture, stiffness, and hydraulic con­
ductivity and used the joint matching coefficient (JMC) to quantify these
effects, subsequently developing the JRC–JMC formula; Grasselli and
Egger5,23 proposed a shear strength model that considered the roles of
normal stress, tensile strength, and morphological properties of three
dimensional rock joints under shearing; Tang et al.27 came up with an
empirical formula for calculating the joint peak shear strength based on
a 3D morphology parameter. Review of these models shows that
although a unified and widely accepted model is still not available, the
JRC-JCS model proposed by Barton2 and Barton and Choubey3 are the
most commonly used formulations because of their simplicity and ease
to estimate the shear strength. The limitations of JRC-JCS model have
been stated by many researchers, including the roughness parameter of
joint surface,4,18,33–35 the strength parameter of rock material,6,22,25,26
and the peak dilatancy function.25 Although some limitations still
remain, the JRC was suggested as a useful index for describing rock
discontinuities.34 It should be noted that the suggested estimation
method of JRC is not quantitative but subjective,34 and cannot fully

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yanlin_8@163.com (Y. Zhao), ivan.zhang@monash.edu (C. Zhang), wangyixian2012@hfut.edu.cn (Y. Wang), hanglin@csu.edu.cn (H. Lin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104550
Received 29 May 2020; Received in revised form 27 September 2020; Accepted 6 November 2020
1365-1609/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Yanlin Zhao, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104550
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

represent joint surface morphology.31 To quantitatively assess the joint perfectly in the specimen holder, they were encapsulated in cement to
roughness, various attempts have been made to quantify roughness by ensure a tight fit. Specimens were encapsulated inside split molds with
statistical methods,36–44 and fractal methods.45–51 In spite of these ef­ internal dimensions of 200 × 150 × 150 mm3 to fit to the specimen
forts, many experimental results have indicated that the JRC-JCS holder (see Fig. 1a). Encapsulation allows the discontinuity plane to be
strength model has a tendency to underestimate shear strength of nat­ aligned with the shear plane. Necessary treatments were undertaken
ural rock joints.42–55 The main reason for such underestimation may be over next 28 days to harden the casting materials up to the desired level,
attributed to no comprehensive consideration of the effect of and the side of specimen was ensured to keep free (5–7 mm for each half
multi-morphology parameters, which includes such morphological of the block) from encapsulating material (see Fig. 1b). Three specimens
characteristics as magnitude (surface point elevations), angularity with natural joint were prepared for each rock type.
(slopes and angles), and curvature.22,24,53,56 Therefore, the challenge To determine the basic mechanical properties of the three rocks, two
today is finding ways to quantify joint surface morphology character­ types of cylindrical specimens, one with a diameter of 50 mm and a
istics and incorporating new parameters into expressions of shear height-to-diameter ratio of 2.0 and the other with a diameter of 50 mm
strength. and a height-to-diameter ratio of 0.5, were produced for uniaxial
The fuzzy set theory originally introduced by Zadeh57 provides a compression and Brazilian splitting tests, respectively. Moreover, saw-
mathematical (satisfactorily approximation) solution for complex deci­ cut planar joints of three rocks are prepared for direct shear tests to
sion problems with subjective, incomplete and imprecise information determine the basic friction angle of planar joints. To minimize the
which cannot be easily described with classical methods. In comparison deviation of results, each shear test was repeated four times using
with conventional statistical method, fuzzy models can efficiently be different specimens and the average values were adopted.
used to solve multivariable problems,58–60 and are applicable in the In order to compare with the standard profiles by Barton and
systems with vague (qualitative) parameters that cannot be represented Choubey3 (see Fig. 2), in this study, ten original standard profiles were
by crisp sets. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method has been digitized with a sampling interval (SI) of 0.5 mm to obtain the
applied to many problems in rock mechanics and rock engineering, morphological parameters of standard profiles, where, each standard
including rock engineering stability,61–63 rock mass classification,64–67 profile was composed of 201 (xi, yi) dots.
rock mass properties,68–73 discontinuity geometry,74,75 and the inter­
pretation of numerical modelling results.76,77
Rock joint roughness classification is a complex issue in rock me­ 2.2. Measurement of morphological parameters
chanics and its prediction is very difficult due to the complexity of
roughness conditions and variability in morphology parameters. So the As a result of the significant influence of joint roughness on shear
evaluation of rock joint roughness is a fuzzy concept with multiple
indices. The main goal of this research was to design a fuzzy model to
evaluate rock joint roughness and further esstablish the relationship
between shear strength and joint roughness. For this purpose, a series of
direct shear tests on natural rock joints under various normal stresses
were performed and the surface morphologies of rock joints were
measured by means of 3D laser scanning. Subsequently, the FCE method
was introduced to assess the degree of joint surface roughness based on
comprehensive consideration of the effect of multi-morphology param­
eters. Finally, based on the introduction of fracture roughness coefficient
(FRC), a new FRC-JCS shear strength model was proposed to modify the
JRC-JCS strength model. The proposed FRC-JCS shear strength model
was compared with the previously published models, which showed that
the new shear strength model has considerable accuracy in predicting
the shear strength of natural rock joint.

2. Specimen preparation and testing

2.1. Specimen preparation

The marble, lherzolite and amphibolite are three common rock types
in the Jinchuan Mining Area in China. It is necessary to study the shear
behavior of the three rock joints to optimize the caving method. The
three types of rock specimens with natural joint were from the roadway
at the 1098 level of Jinchuan Mining Area, where the rock masses are
broken under high in-situ stress at the deep depth. The natural rock
joints were clean and non-weathered without cohesive infill. The rock
specimens with natural joint were saw-cut in order to obtain specimen
dimensions suitable for direct shear test. The lower blocks, as moving
half during shear tests, are 10–12 cm in length, 7–10 cm in width, and
5–7 cm in thickness. The upper blocks, which remain fixing during shear
tests, have greater length than the lower blocks, and almost the same
width and thickness with the lower blocks in compliance with ISRM
suggested method.78 The outline of the cross-section of rock joints were
traced on paper and the area of the cross-section was measured using
CAD software. To test a discontinuity specimen, each half of the spec­
imen must be secured in each half of the specimen holder (i.e., shear Fig. 1. (a) Encapsulation of specimens and (b) specimen with natural rock joint
rings or shear boxes). As discontinuity specimens are rarely cut to fit being scanning by Talysurf CLI (2000) morphology instrument.

2
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. The ten JRC profiles selected by Barton and Choubey (1977) to represent the full JRC range [0, 20] and their specific JRC values. Reproduced from a dataset
digitally sampled at 0.5 mm intervals and slightly rotated to align the mean planes.

behavior, quantitative assessment of the joint roughness is essential to √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅

̅
√ ∫
predict the shear strength accurately. Over the years, numerous pa­ √1
Sq = √ Z2 (x)dx (2)
rameters have been proposed to describe the roughness of rock joints. L
The published roughness parameters for rock joints can be generally
L

classified into three categories: the empirical parameter JRC suggested The Sm, and Sq measure relative deviation of the profile from the
by ISRM,79 statistical parameters obtained by using statistical methods mean line. While Sm is a simple average deviation, Sq provides a more
to characterize the joint morphology,36–44 and parameters based on familiar elevation measure as it is essentially the standard deviation of
fractal methods.45–51 the amplitude distribution.
In present study, A Talysurf CLI (2000) morphology instrument was The kurtosis of the height distribution Sk is used to quantify the
employed to scan joint surface before the shear tests to capture three- flatness of the height distribution and indicates the concentration degree
dimensional morphology of joint surface (see Fig. 1b). The of the height distribution.
morphology instrument consists of a range of platforms and gauges of­ ∫∞ 4
fering rapid non-contact 3D measurements, simple calibration, and z ϕ(z)dz
Sk = − ∞ 4 (3)
powerful Talymap analysis. The height of a surface point was deduced Sq
by sensing the position of a laser spot on the surface. The resolution is
0.5 μm in the z-direction, and the scan spacing can be 0.5 μm in both the where，ϕ(z) is a probability density function for the height distribution
x- and y-directions. In the test, each half of the rock specimen was placed z(x). Sk can describe the difference between broad and wavy and sudden
on the laser scanner table. Data collection and analysis were automati­ peaks or valleys as a measure of profile sharpness. This parameter is
cally completed by the Talymap analysis software. Each spot had cor­ referenced against the normal amplitude distribution that has Sk = 3.
responding x, y and z coordinate values, with z being the vertical height The spread of the amplitude distribution is broader when Sk < 3 and
above the reference plane. A sampling interval (SI) of 0.5 mm (both in x sharper when Sk > 3.80
direction and y direction) was selected to measure the three-dimensional The skewness of the height distribution Ss is used to quantify the
morphology of joint surfaces. A number of statistical parameters along symmetry of the height distribution of the fracture surface. A zero Ss
shear direction were selected to quantify the morphology, as described indicates that the height distribution is symmetrical. A negative Ss in­
below. dicates that the fracture surface has many deep and fine valleys. How­
ever, a positive Ss indicates a fracture surface with numerous peaks.
∫∞ 3
2.3. Amplitude parameters z ϕ(z)dz
Ss = − ∞ 3 (4)
Sq
The arithmetic mean height Sm is a parameter representing the mean
roughness:
∫
1 2.4. Textural parameters
Sm = |Z(x)|dx (1)
L
L
Amplitude parameters are too simplistic to fully describe roughness.
They do not consider the local waviness and sloping of the profile, which
where, z is the distance of the profile from the mean line, or the least-
play important roles in the mechanical behavior of surfaces.
squares line crossing the profile, x is the length axis, and L is the
The RMS gradient of the fracture surface Z2 is connected with the
length of the profile.
average local slope of a surface.
The root-mean-square (RMS) deviation of the surface Sq is the stan­
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
dard deviation of the height distribution: √ ∫(
√1
)2
dz(x)
Z2 = √ dx (5)
L dx
L

The Z2 as an index of local slope is the closest roughness descriptor

3
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

based on the correlations to the JRC.36,38,39,42 mm parallel to the shear direction were extracted along the shear di­
The RMS of asperity angle that faces the shear direction Si, as a rection as shown in Fig. 3b.53,55 The aforementioned morphological
developed parameter closely related with rock joint shear parameters were calculated by using Eqs. (1)–(6) for each individual
behaviors.29,40 profile, and their averages of all profiles was obtained as the morpho­
[ ]12 logical parameters of the whole joint surface along shear direction.
1 ∑n− 1 ( z − z )2
(6)
i+1 i
Si = arctan max 0,
n − 1 i=1 Δx
2.5. Test setup and procedure

where n is the number of sampling points facing the shear direction, Zi
are the discrete algebraic values of heights along the profile, Δx is the
sampling step along shear direction (see Fig. 3a and b). Previous study
indicated shear resistance increases with the increasing area of steeply
sloped contact points.4,15,20,22 So the asperities facing the shear direc­
tion, but not the opposite direction, should be considered when quan­
titatively evaluating the roughness for shear strength estimation.
The arithmetic mean summit curvature Sc is the mean value of the
curvatures of the profile at the summit points.
∫⃒ ⃒
1 ⃒⃒d2 z(x)⃒⃒
Sc = ⃒ dx (7)
L dx ⃒
2
L upper and lower shear boxes. The upper shear box was fixed in the
While the laser scans every peak point, the statistics for the curvature
of all peak-point curves is recorded. It reflects the overall curvature of
the peak points on a profile. The greater Sc implies the rougher profile.
Since the sheared surface is composed of many individual parallel
profiles, the entire surface roughness is then described by averaging the
roughness of all of the profiles. As suggested by ISRM79 the roughness of
a rock joint surface can be estimated by sectional profiles parallel to the
shear direction. The sectional profiles with an equal spacing of 8.0–10.0
The direct shear tests were conducted on the RMT150 Rock Me­
chanics Test (Fig. 4). The servo-hydraulic testing machine is composed
of shear and normal load actuators with a 300 kN and 500 kN load ca­
pacity, respectively. The maximum stroke is 100 mm in the vertical
direction and ±50 mm in the shear direction. The direct shear apparatus
consists of two shear boxes with maximum internal dimensions of 200 ×
200 × 200 mm3. The internal dimensions of both shear boxes can be
adjusted by removing or adding the lining plates. In this study, both
shear boxes were adjusted to internal dimensions of 200 × 150 × 150
mm3, which were suitable for the size of joint specimens. During the
shearing process, specimens of mated joint blocks were installed in the
horizontal direction and could only move in the vertical direction, while
the lower box could be pulled by the horizontal loading unit to perform
shear on the joint specimens. The shear load was applied through a
horizontal hydraulic jack and a shear load cell, and the normal load was
applied through a normal load cell. All the measurements were recorded
continuously.
Multi-stage shear tests under different normal loads are followed
with repositioning of the joint in its initial natural matching position
before each shearing stage. Each joint specimen was subjected

Fig. 3. (a) Typical sectional profiles parallel to the shear direction, and (b) asperity angle Si that faces the shear direction.

4
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Fig. 4 RMT150 rock mechanics test apparatus.

respectively to four different normal stress levels, i.e., 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, and
1.6 MPa. When the joint specimen was ready to be tested, the normal
load was applied and raised steadily to the specified level. Then the
shear force was applied to complete the shear test. All shear tests were
carried out until the shear displacement reached to about 10 mm at a
shear displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min. Note that throughout the shear
test, the applied normal load remained constant, which is called a CNL
condition. The direct shear tests were followed by ISRM suggested
method.78
To obtain the mechanical properties of marble, lherzolite and
amphibolite blocks, the uniaxial compression and Brazilian splitting
tests on three rock intact specimens were undertaken using an MTS815
test machine before direct shear tests. These tests were followed by
ASTM 170 D293881 and ASTM D3967,82 respectively.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Basic mechanical properties
The basic mechanical parameters of the three rocks are shown in
Table 1. For marble, the two basic strength parameters of average UCS
and tensile strength values are 66.9 MPa and 2.10 MPa, respectively,
and the corresponding standard deviation (SD) values are 7.00 and
0.486. For lherzolite, the above basic strength parameters are 67.7 MPa
and 1.97 MPa, with the SD values of 3.55 and 0.421 respectively. For
amphibolite they are 53.9 MPa and 1.78 MPa, with SD values of 7.25
and 0.377, respectively. Further, the measured basic friction angles ϕb of
the saw-cut planar joints for three rocks are 28.1◦ , 29.7◦ , and 31.2◦ ,
respectively.
3.2. Morphological characteristics
Fig. 5a–i shows the joint surface morphologies diagrams of the lower
blocks of specimens. The morphological parameters of typical sectional
profiles parallel to the shear direction at a SI of 5.0 mm can be obtained.
For each joint, the 12–24 sectional profiles are selected according to
various joint surface widths. However, due to space constraints, only the
morphological parameters of five profiles are listed in Table 2. Among
the morphological parameters, the RMS of asperity angle Si ranging from
8.27◦ to 17.8◦ is considered as the extme important parameters related
with joint shear behaviors.7,10,22,23,30 The relations between the other
parameters and Si are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. In general, the Sm and Sq
ranging from 0.410 mm to 2.85 mm, and 0.402 mm–3.00 mm, respec­
tively, are independent of the Si. Moreover, the ratio of Sq/Sm, is
approximately 1.13 (see Fig. 6a). The Ss, Sk, and Sc which fall in range
from − 1.67 to 1.81, 1.30 to 4.05, and 0.098 mm− 1 to 0.401 mm− 1,
respectively, also have no obvious dependence relation with the Si.
It is noted that the Z2 has strong positive relation with the Si. i.e. the

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the three rocks with the standard deviation values shown in the parentheses.
Rock Specimena UCS Elastic modulus Poisson’s ratio Tensile strength

Value Avg. (Std. dev.) Value Avg. (Std. dev.) Value Avg. (Std. dev.) Value Avg. (Std. dev.)

Marble M1, 4 66.3 66.9 (7.00) 34.1 33.7 (2.32) 0.234 0.260 (0.023) 2.07 2.10 (0.486)
M2, 5 52.9 35.8 0.271 2.60
M3, 6 63.5 31.2 0.276 1.63
Lherzolite L1, 4 60.4 67.7 (3.55) 24.7 25.2 (1.90) 0.219 0.241 (0.021) 1.96 1.97 (0.421)
L2, 5 55.3 27.3 0.248 2.40
L3, 6 46.1 23.6 0.259 1.55
Amphibolite A1, 4 60.4 53.9 (7.25) 16.3 17.8 (1.55) 0.296 0.294 (0.007) 1.79 1.78 (0.377)
A2, 5 55.3 19.4 0.300 2.15
A3, 6 46.1 17.7 0.287 1.40
a
M1, M2, M3, L1, L2, L3, A1, A2, and A3 specimens are used for uniaxial compression testing, while M4, M5, M6, L4, L5, L6, A4, A5, and A6 specimens are used for
Brazil split testing.

5
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5. Lower joint surface morphologies diagrams for marble joints (a) M1, (b)M2, and (c) M3, lherzolite joints (d) L1, (e)L2, and (f)L3, and amphibolite joints (g)
A1, (h)A2, and (i) A3.

6
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Measured morphological parameters and the corresponding FRC and JRC values.
lithology No. profiles Sm (mm) Sq (mm) Ss Sk Si (◦ ) Sc (mm− 1) Z2 FRC JRC

Marble M1-1 2.11 2.68 0.880 2.35 15.4 0.211 0.313 16.3 15.8
M1-5 1.19 1.60 1.18 2.83 11.2 0.379 0.196 11.7 9.24
M1-10 1.67 1.73 − 0.900 1.91 14.3 0.351 0.285 15.6 14.5
M1-15 1.98 1.70 − 0.340 1.61 14.6 0.297 0.286 15.4 14.6
M1-20 2.17 2.33 − 1.34 1.59 12.8 0.299 0.242 14.0 12.2
Surface average 1.50 2.01 − 0.100 2.06 13.7 0.320 0.265 15.1 13.3
M2-1 2.37 1.99 − 0.960 1.72 16.0 0.322 0.292 16.9 14.8
M2-4 1.88 2.48 − 0.979 1.56 13.4 0.328 0.277 14.5 14.1
M2-7 2.66 2.83 − 1.26 1.37 15.0 0.373 0.236 16.5 11.9
M2-10 2.52 2.64 − 1.24 1.30 16.9 0.293 0.323 17.7 16.3
M2-12 2.85 3.00 − 1.10 1.48 17.8 0.401 0.340 19.2 17.0
Surface average 2.77 2.59 − 1.11 1.49 16.4 0.321 0.305 17.4 14.8
M3-1 1.28 1.65 1.14 3.85 13.3 0.309 0.237 13.4 11.9
M3-4 2.05 2.92 1.64 3.10 12.8 0.133 0.221 14.4 10.9
M3-7 0.990 1.22 1.39 2.30 8.98 0.270 0.176 8.97 7.70
M3-10 1.18 1.30 1.25 1.86 10.1 0.241 0.179 9.92 7.97
M3-13 1.64 2.14 0.330 2.91 13.1 0.314 0.242 13.8 12.2
Surface average 1.43 1.85 1.15 2.80 11.7 0.204 0.211 12.9 10.1
lherzolite L1-1 0.730 1.23 0.720 2.16 11.7 0.170 0.185 11.0 8.43
L1-4 1.23 0.970 1.23 1.97 8.87 0.206 0.213 8.64 10.4
L1-7 1.02 1.23 − 0.271 2.18 10.9 0.208 0.171 10.8 7.28
L1-10 0.811 1.01 1.46 2.77 12.1 0.112 0.196 11.4 9.24
L1-13 2.04 2.32 1.27 1.97 12.7 0.242 0.222 13.9 11.0
Surface average 1.17 1.33 0.880 2.21 11.2 0.165 0.197 11.6 9.26
L2-1 0.590 0.402 0.790 2.29 8.45 0.152 0.166 7.49 6.88
L2-6 0.661 0.757 − 0.769 2.73 10.5 0.138 0.187 9.06 8.56
L2-11 0.849 1.01 1.37 2.67 11.0 0.139 0.182 10.6 8.17
L2-16 0.412 0.560 1.81 3.96 8.27 0.124 0.156 7.26 6.03
L2-21 1.03 1.20 − 1.29 2.29 10.9 0.128 0.185 10.7 8.43
Surface average 0.711 0.780 0.380 2.79 9.62 0.136 0.177 9.58 7.61
L3-1 2.73 2.80 − 1.67 3.85 11.4 0.129 0.187 12.3 8.54
L3-4 1.27 1.67 1.67 4.00 13.9 0.154 0.274 13.7 14.0
L3-7 1.65 2.38 1.12 4.05 13.0 0.135 0.246 13.8 12.4
L3-10 1.72 1.89 − 1.28 2.46 9.17 0.106 0.169 10.2 7.09
L3-13 2.26 2.76 − 1.03 2.64 12.5 0.125 0.231 14.0 11.5
Surface average 2.10 2.11 − 0.240 3.77 12.0 0.122 0.246 13.2 10.7
Amphibolite A1-1 2.12 2.42 1.26 1.68 15.7 0.258 0.291 17.0 14.8
A1-4 2.37 2.65 1.19 1.47 14.1 0.191 0.247 15.7 12.4
A1-7 1.82 1.95 1.16 1.42 12.7 0.253 0.218 13.3 10.8
A1-10 0.701 0.830 − 0.401 2.24 13.0 0.243 0.225 12.7 11.2
A1-13 0.779 0.910 − 1.28 1.74 12.7 0.137 0.228 11.5 11.3
Surface average 1.56 1.75 0.390 1.71 13.6 0.216 0.242 14.7 12.1
A2-1 2.24 2.59 − 1.36 2.07 12.7 0.114 0.205 14.4 9.87
A2-4 0.991 1.32 1.48 3.34 9.15 0.128 0.170 9.34 7.23
A2-7 1.51 1.96 − 1.63 3.58 12.3 0.188 0.203 12.7 9.70
A2-10 2.25 2.56 − 1.24 1.69 11.9 0.245 0.231 13.1 11.5
A2-13 2.01 2.42 − 1.42 2.26 13.6 0.176 0.294 14.4 14.9
Surface average 1.89 2.18 − 0.830 2.59 11.9 0.170 0.265 13.3 10.7
A3-1 1.53 1.65 − 1.03 3.19 17.2 0.212 0.313 15.7 15.8
A3-5 0.740 0.899 − 1.06 3.29 13.9 0.109 0.232 11.9 11.6
A3-10 0.728 0.901 0.261 3.70 12.4 0.0980 0.215 11.3 10.5
A3-15 1.48 1.75 0.580 2.80 16.1 0.170 0.239 16.9 12.0
A3-20 1.90 2.13 − 0.491 2.13 17.4 0.251 0.307 18.0 15.6
Surface average 1.19 1.47 − 0.350 3.02 15.4 0.107 0.261 15.7 13.1

Z2 tends to linearly increase with the increase of the Si (see Fig. 7). where, JRCi is the calculated value of the JRC for the ith profile, m is the
( 2 ) number of the selected profiles on the joint surface. The calculated JRC
Z2 = 0.0182Si R = 0.992 (8)
values of some representative profiles and the whole rock joint surfaces
The Z2 is a most widely used parameter. Tse and Cruden36 proposed a are listed in Table 2. The calculated JRC values of nine rock joint sur­
relationship between Z2 and JRC, based on digitizing at a SI of 0.5 mm. faces are in range from 7.61 to 14.8.
For the standard profiles by Barton and Choubey,3 the acquisition of
JRC = 32.2 + 32.47 log Z2 ​ (9) morphological parameters requires the standard profiles to be digita­
Based on the data obtained by the 3D laser scanner, the coordinates lized. By exporting point coordinates of standard profiles to MATLAB,
of the discrete points on representative parallel profile lines are ob­ the profiles are divided into several parts at a SI of 0.5 mm. Based on the
tained. The JRC of each profile can be calculated according to Eq. (9). coordinates of each crossing point, the morphological parameters of
The calculated JRC values of whole rock joint surface can be calcu­ standard profiles can be calculated by using Eqs. (1)–(6). The ranges of
lated by averaging the calculated JRCs of representative profiles. amplitude parameters Sm, Sq, Sk and Ss and textural parameters of Z2, Si,
and Sc of the standard profiles are listed in Table 3. The measured results
1 ∑ are generally consistent with the previously published results.7,30,43 The
m
JRC = JRCi (10)
m i=1 ranges of these parameters are chosen as important indexes to grade the
evaluation ranks of joint roughness.

7
Y. Zhao et al.
Fig. 6. Relationships of Sm, Sq, Ss, Sk, and Sc versus Si for natural rock joints,
where, horizontal lines represent the minimum and maximum measured values
and represents the average value for Sq/Sm.
Fig. 7. Relationship of Z2 versus Si for natural rock joints.
8
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 3
Ranges of morphological parameters of the standard profiles by Barton and
Choubey.
Range Sm (mm) Sq (mm) Ss Sk Si (◦ ) Sc (mm− 1) Z2
Minimum 0.12 0.18 2.0 − 2.0 3.51 0.05 0.135
Maximum 2.78 3.21 6.0 2.0 16.9 0.54 0.430
3.3. Shear behavior
Fig. 8a–i presents the shear stress versus shear displacement curves
for 36 sets of direct shear tests under normal stresses of 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 and
1.6 MPa. The experimental results indicate except for several shear
stress-displacement curves which show continuous growth at very low
rate, apparent peak strength and residual strength were visible in most
experimental curves, moreover, the higher the normal stress is, the
higher the peak shear strength and residual strength will be. The re­
lationships between shear stress and normal stress are shown in Fig. 9.
It is common that the shear behaviors of rock joint are closely related
with the morphologies of joint surface. Considering the existence of
strong positive relations between Sm and Sq; and Z2 and Si, as well as, the
fact that the Ss only used to quantify the symmetry of the height dis­
tribution of the fracture surface, and less influences the shear charac­
teristics, the four morphological parameters of Sq, Sk, Si and Sc are
proposed as the influencing factors related with rock joint shear be­
haviors. It is widely agreed that the shear resistance of rock joints mainly
related to asperity angle Si facing the shear direction, which has been
used in the previous shear strength criterions as a parameter.4,29,30 On
the other hand, Cao et al.83 pointed out that in various shear tests, the
shear strengh of rock joints decrease with the change of morphological
parameters (Sq, Sc and Sk). These changes have been quantified in
Fig. 10, where under the same shear conditions, the maximum, mod­
erate, and minimum changes are Sq, Sc and Sk, respectively. Therefore,
the sensitivity of the morphology parameters to the shear strength may
be regarded as: Si > Sq > Sc > Sk.55,83–85
4. Shear-related classification of natural rock jiont based on FCE
The Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method is based on the
Fuzzy set theory proposed by Zadeh,57 and aims to comprehensively
evaluate the membership of the objective at different hierarchies.
Through FCE, fuzzy and qualitative problems can be converted to
quantitative problems. There are mainly four steps to use the FCE
method: determining the sets of evaluation factors and evaluation levels,
constructing evaluation matrix, determining the weight vectors, and
construct a comprehensive evaluation vector.
Shear-related classification of natural rock jiont based on fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation (FCE) can be divided into the main steps as
follows:57–59,63,65
(1) Determine the evaluation factors set of shear-related classifica­
tion of natural rock. The evaluation factors set is a common set
composed of all the factors determining the evaluation object. It
is expressed using the vector U:
U ​ = ​ {u1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ u2 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ up} (11)
where, each element ui denotes the corresponding evaluation factor.
These factors usually have certain degree of fuzziness. As mentioned
earlier, the evaluation factor set can thus be expressed as U = {u1, u2, u3,
u4} = {Si, Sq, Sc, Sk}.
(2) Determine the evaluation grades set. Evaluation grades sets are
composed of the elements of various comprehensive evaluation
results of the evaluated object. It is denoted by V, that is：
V ​ = ​ {V1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ V2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ Vp} (12)
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 8. Curves of shear stress τp versus shear displacement δ for marble joints (a) M1, (b)M2, and (c) M3, lherzolite joints (d) L1, (e)L2, and (f)L3, and amphibolite
joints (g) A1, (h)A2, and (i) A3.

where, each element Vi denotes the corresponding possible compre­ ⎡

r11 r12 ​ ..... ​ r1n
⎤
hensive evaluation grade. To comapare wirh Bartan standard profiles, ( ) ⎢ r21 ​ r22 ​ ..... ​ r2n ⎥
the grade of natural rock jiont roughness is classified into ten categories R = rij m×n = ⎢
⎣ ...................
⎥
⎦ (13)
from very smooth to extreme roughness. This classification scheme es­ rm1 ​ rm2 ..... ​ rmn
tablishes the criteria set as V = {V1, V2, V3, …., V10} = {1, 2, 3, …., 10}.
where, r1j, r2j, r3j, and r4j is the membership degree of evaluation factors
(3) Construct single-factor evaluation matrix. A single-factor evalu­ Si, Sq, Sc, and Sk corresponding to the jth grade of rock jiont roughness in
ation matrix R is constituted by numbers of single-factor evalu­ the evaluation set V. The membership function was used to describe the
ation vector put together. fuzziness of the evaluation factors by assigning each evaluation factor a
grade of membership ranging between zero and one.57,58 The Gaussian
function is a useful tool in describing membership function of
multi-factors nonlinear issue.62,63 In this case, Gaussian function is used

9
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

to calculate the membership degree of evaluation factors Si, Sq, Sc, and Sk
corresponding to the jth grade of rock jiont roughness (see Fig. 11):
( )2
xi − mij
− cij
rij = uj (xi ) = e (14)

xiju + xijl
mij = (15)
2

where, xi (i = 1,2,3,4) represent the value of Si, Sq, Sc, and Sk, respec­
tively; xiju and xijl are the upper and lower boundaries of the Si, Sq, Sc,
and Sk corresponding to the jth grade of rock joint roughness, respec­
tively. If the xi is the boundary of two grades, the membership degree
corresponding to two grades should all be 0.5:
( )2
xiju − xijl
− 2cij
uj (xi ) = e = 0.5 (16)

xiju − xijl
cij = (17)
Fig. 9. Relationships of shear strength versus normal stress for natural 1.67
rock joints. When evaluation factor value belongs to the minimum or maximum
grade, the membership functions can be adopted as follow:
⎧
⎪ 1 xi ≤ xijmin
⎨ ( )2
uj (xi ) = xi − mij
(18)
⎪
⎩ − cij xi >xijmin
e
⎧
⎪ 1 xi ≥ xijmax
⎨ ( )2
uj (xi ) = xi − mij
(19)
⎪
⎩ − cij xi <xijmax
e
If the value of the evaluation factor is mid-grade, the membership
function can be calculated in Eqs. (18) and (19)). Especially, if
∑m
i=1 uj (xi ) ∕
= 1, the membership degrees will be normalized. It is impo­
tant to determine the boundaries xiju and xijl. In the study, the minimum
xijmin and maximum xijmax boundaries of factors Si, Sq, Sc and Sk are
determined as listed in Table 4, taking into account that the minimum
and maximum boundaries from standard profiles by Barton and Chou­
bey and the present measured results. The ten grades and the four
evaluation factors related with natural rock jiont roughness, as well as,
the relevant parameters of the membership function were listed in
Table 5, where the influential degree of the evaluation factors on rock
jiont roughness related with shear behaviors can be reflected
quantitatively.

(4) Determine evaluation factor weight vector A=(a1,a2, …,an). To

fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model, how to select an appro­
priate weight calculation method for your research fields for the
model has been one of the difficulties. Commonly used weighting
methods are over standard weighting method, biasing weighting
method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP)57,58 and so on. Each
weight should satisfy normalization and the non-negative
conditions:
∑
m
0 ≤ ai ≤ 1, ai = 1 (20)
i=1

The steps to calculate the factor weight based on analytic hierarchy

process (AHP) are described as follows:
Step 1. Constructing the judgment matrix. The judgment matrix is
Fig. 10. The change of morphological parameters of (a) Sq and Sc, and (b) Sk expressed as follows:
for rock joint subjected to various shear tests from Cao et al.83. ⎡ ⎤
a11 a12 ​ ..... ​ a1n
⎢ a21 ​ a22 ​ ..... ​ a2n ⎥
P=⎢⎣ ...................
⎥
⎦ (21)
an1 ​ an2 ..... ​ ann

10
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 11. Membership degree based on Gaussian function.

Table 4 where R.I. is the average random index which depends on the value of n.
Minimum xijmin and maximum xijmax boundaries of evaluation factors. When C.R. < 0.1, it is considered that the consistency of judgment
matrix is acceptable.57,58,77
Range Si (◦ ) Sq (mm) Sc (mm− 1) Sk
The eigenvector of matrix P is [0.56 0.26 0.12 0.06] with the
Minimum 3.0 0.15 0.05 1.0
maximum eigenvalue of 4.12. The R.I. and C.I. are 0.89, and 0.04,
Maximum 18 3.3 0.45 6.0
respectively. The C.R. is 0.045 < 0.1, which indicates the evaluation
matrix exhibits satisfactory consistency, and therefore, the weight vec­
Based on the AHP, the 1–9 scale method that Saaty recommended is tor A for the Si, Sq, Sc and Sk are determined: A=(0.56 0.26 0.12 0.06).
used to decide the weights86–90 (see Table 6) and the judgment matrix
can be expressed as P=(aij)n×n (n = 4) (aij is the ratio measuring the (5) Comprehensive evaluation. The single-factor fuzzy evaluation
importance degree between each factors). The judgment matrix ele­ only reflects the influence of the single-factor on the evaluated
ments should have the following characteristics: object. The aim of FCE is to comprehensively consider the in­
fluences of all factors. The FCE set for all factors can be expressed
aii = 1/ i = 1, 2, ..., n
(22) in the form:
aij = 1 aji i, j = 1, 2, ..., n

According to the contribution of every factor to shear strength, a

quantitative weight is designated to every factor. Since the contribution
of morphological parameters on the shear strength from strong to weak
is considers as Si > Sq > Sc > Sk, it is assumed that Si is moderately,
strongly, and very strongly, preferred over Sq, Sc, and Sk, based on Table 6
Table 5. So the judgment matrix of AHP can be built, as listed in Table 7 The 1–9 scale method.86–90
(i.e. Eq. (23)). Degree Descriptions
⎡ ⎤
1 3 5 7 1 Two factors are equally preferred
⎢ 1/3 1 3 5⎥ 3 One factor is moderately preferred over another
P=⎢ ⎣ 1/5 1/3
⎥ (23) 5 One factor is strongly preferred over another
1 3⎦
7 One factor is very strongly preferred over another
1/7 1/5 1/3 1
9 One factor is extremely preferred over another
2, 4, 6, 8 The intermediate values

Step 2. Solving the eigenvalues and eigenvectors and checking con­

sistency. The largest characteristics root λmax is obtained by solving the Table 7
eigenvalues of judgment matrix P. The consistency check index C⋅I., and Judgment matrix based on AHP.
calculation consistency ratio C.R. are defined as follows: Influencing factor Si Sq Sc Sk

λmax − n Si 1 3 5 7
C.I. = Sq 1/3 1 3 5
n− 1
(24) Sc 1/5 1/3 1 3
C.I.
C.R. = Sk 1/7 1/5 1/3 1
R.I.

Table 5
Parameters of membership functions of evaluation matrix.
Grade Si Sq Sc Sk

m1j c1j m2j c2j m3j c3j m4j c4j

1 3.000 1.001 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.027 6.000 − 0.334

2 4.667 1.001 0.50 0.21 0.094 0.027 5.444 − 0.334
3 6.333 1.001 0.85 0.21 0.139 0.027 4.889 − 0.334
4 8.000 1.001 1.20 0.21 0.183 0.027 4.333 − 0.334
5 9.667 1.001 1.55 0.21 0.228 0.027 3.778 − 0.334
6 11.333 1.001 1.90 0.21 0.272 0.027 3.222 − 0.334
7 13.000 1.001 2.25 0.21 0.317 0.027 2.667 − 0.334
8 14.667 1.001 2.60 0.21 0.361 0.027 2.111 − 0.334
9 16.333 1.001 2.95 0.21 0.406 0.027 1.556 − 0.334
10 18.000 1.001 3.30 0.21 0.450 0.027 1.000 − 0.334

11
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

⎡ ⎤
r11 ​ r12 ​ ⋅⋅⋅ ​ r1m
⎢ r21 ​ r22 ​ ⋅⋅⋅ ​ r2m ⎥ FRCi = 2.16JRCi 0.747 (31)
⎢
B = A ⋅ R = (a1 , a2 , ..., an )⎣ ⎥ = (b1 , b2 , ⋯, bm ) (25)
.................... ⎦ By fitting the relationship between FRC and JRC values of whole
rn1 ​ rn2 ​ ⋅⋅⋅ ​ rnm joint surfaces yields (see Fig. 13):

where bi is defined as membership degree of the ith evaluation index to FRC = 2.26JRC0.747 (32)
the jth factor in the alternative set when considering the influence of all
Generally, for whole joint surface, the FRC is near 20% higher than
factors. The comprehensive evaluation grade can be determined by
the JRC. Compared with the conventional JRC, the proposed new FRC
weighted mean method synthetically considering all membership
can reflect the influence of multi morphological parameters to the
contribution, given by:
roughness of rock joint surface and considers the different contribution
∑
m
of each profile to shear resistance.
bkj Vj
(26)
j=1
Q= ∑m
bkj 5. New shear strength model
j=1
Barton and Choubey3 proposed the JRC–JCS shear strength criterion
91
where, Vj = j, and k is set to be 2.0. of rock joint:
To well compare with the JRC of joint surface, for single joint profile,
a new rock fracture roughness coefficient (FRC) related with shear be­ τp = σn tan ϕp = σn tan[JRC ⋅ log(JCS / σn ) + ϕb ] (33)
haviors based on FCE can be calculated:
where τp is the peak shear strength of the joint; σn is the normal stress
∑
10 acting on the joint; JRC is the joint roughness coefficient; JCS is the
2 b2j j
joint-wall compressive strength, which is considered as the UCS of rock
(27)
j=1
FRC = 2Q =
∑
10 for nonweathered rock joint; ϕb is the basic friction angle of planar joint.
b2j By replacing JRC in Eq (33) with FRC, A new FRC-JCS shear strength
j=1
model based on FCE can be proposed:
For the whole joint surface, the shear resistance mainly comes from
the friction of steeply sloped contact areas,4,15,20,22,92 which implies the τp = σn tan ϕp = σn tan[FRC ⋅ log(JCS / σ n ) + ϕb ] (34)
contribution of joint profile roughness to shear resistance comes from The proposed FRC-JCS shear strength model by modifying the JRC-
that how many steeply sloped contact areas there are in the profile. So JCS model can more comprehensively reflect the influence of joint
the contribution of each joint profile roughness to shear resistance of surface morphological parameters to shear strength by introducing the
whole joint surface is different. The roughness coefficient of joint surface FRC based on FCE.
obtained by averaging the roughness coefficients of all joint profiles
cannot reflect the actual roughness degree related with shear resistance.
6. Comparison and discussion
It is believed that among all profiles on rock joint surface, the rougher
joint profile will make greater contribution to shear resistance. To obtain
The proposed FRC-JCS model based on FCE is a modification of the
the FRC of whole joint surface, according to the importance of contri­
JRC-JCS model. In the modification, the new index FRC is used to
butions, different weights should be assigned to each profile, the
describe the roughness of rock joint. In previous study, some shear
rougher profile correspond to higher weights, and less rough with lower
strength models have been proposed by modifying JRC-JCS model. For
weights. The FRC of whole joint surface can be expressed:
example, Jang et al.21 performed a number of direct shear tests on
∑
m gypsum duplicates. Through comprehensive analysis of the experi­
FRC = w(i)FRCi (28) mental results and joint roughness, the JRC-JCS model was modified by
Eq. (35) (Jang et al.‘s model)
i=1

where, FRCi is the value of the FRC of each profile, m is the number of
the selected profiles on the joint surface, w(i) is the weight of the ith
profile. The Gaussian function F(i) is used to calculate weight w(i) cor­
responding to the ith profile.
( )2
fi − fmax
−
(29)
fmax − fmin
F(i) = e

where, fi is the FRC of the ith profile, fmax and fmin are the maximum and
minimum values among FRCs of all profiles. After normalization, the
weight w(i) of the ith profile is given:
Fi
w(i) = ∑
m (30)
Fi
i=1

Considering the weight of each profile, The FRC of whole joint sur­
face can be calculated according to Eqs. (28)–(30), The FRC values of
representative profiles and whole joint surface are listed in Table .2,
where the corresponding JRC values are listed.
Generally, the proposed new roughness parameter FRCi values of
each profile are higher than the conventional JRCi values. By fitting the
relationship between the FRCi and the JRCi can be expressed as (see
Fig. 12):
Fig. 12. Relationship of the FRCi versus JRCi.

12
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

[ ]
τp = σn tan 3.15JRC0.5 × log(JCS/σn )+jb (35)
26
Lee et al. defined a new index SRI (SRI = τ/σ) to describe the effect
of roughness on peak shear strength. Based on a large number of shear
tests on rock joints and their mortar replicas, Lee et al.‘s model (Eq. (36))
for peak shear strength can be expressed as
[ ]
τp = σn 0.017JRC0.89 ⋅ (JCS/σn )0.42 + tan ϕb (36)

The proposed shear strength model (FRC-JCS model) (Eq. (34)), JRC-
JCS model (Eq. (33)), Jang et al.‘s model (Eq. (35)), and Lee et al.‘s
model (Eq. (36)) are used to predict the shear strength of natural joints
studied. The measured shear strengths, predictions from various models
and their estimation errors are shown in Table 8, where, the estimation
errors are obtained with the following equation:
⃒ ⃒
⃒τpe − τpp ⃒
Error = × 100% (37)
τpe

where, τpe, and τpp are the experimental results and the predicted results
from shear strength models, respectively.
The measured results and predictions for different rock joints are
shown in Fig. 14 (a)–(i). From Table 8 and Fig. 14 (a)-(j), it can be found
Fig. 13. Relationship of FRC versus JRC of whole joint surface.
that the proposed shear strength model is closer to the Lee et al.‘s model,
moreover, the average estimation error is 6.83% for the proposed model
while the average estimation error are 18.1% for the JRC-JCS model,

Table 8
Measured shear strengths, predictions from various models and their estimation errors.
Lithology No. specimen σn (MPa) τpe (MPa) Proposed model (FRC-JCS model) JRC-JCS model Jang et al. ‘s Lee et al. ‘s model
Eq. (34) Eq. (33) Model Eq. (36)
Eq. (35)

τpz (MPa) Error (%) τpb (MPa) Error (%) τpj (MPa) Error (%) τpl (MPa) Error (%)

Marble M1 0.4 0.66 0.74 11.47 0.63 4.63 0.54 20.88 0.78 13.35
0.8 1.38 1.23 10.87 1.08 21.74 0.96 30.43 1.27 7.97
1.2 1.76 1.67 5.11 1.49 15.34 1.34 23.86 1.71 2.84
1.6 2.02 2.08 2.63 1.88 7.22 1.70 19.32 2.12 0.83
M2 0.4 1.01 0.92 7.48 0.72 28.01 0.57 44.96 0.84 19.61
0.8 1.43 1.47 2.11 1.21 15.86 1.00 32.88 1.36 8.94
1.2 2.14 1.94 9.35 1.64 23.33 1.39 37.52 1.82 18.28
1.6 2.58 2.38 7.52 2.05 20.49 1.76 34.30 2.25 15.99
M3 0.4 0.56 0.61 8.76 0.49 12.76 0.49 16.90 0.66 12.92
0.8 0.98 1.06 7.80 0.88 10.35 0.87 14.49 1.10 7.40
1.2 1.59 1.46 8.06 1.24 22.06 1.23 25.62 1.49 9.98
1.6 1.83 1.84 0.41 1.58 13.78 1.57 17.67 1.86 2.56
lherzolite L1 0.4 0.55 0.58 5.89 0.48 12.61 0.50 13.85 0.65 13.74
0.8 1.10 1.03 6.83 0.87 20.76 0.89 22.18 1.09 4.92
1.2 1.59 1.43 9.81 1.24 22.05 1.26 23.6 1.49 10.00
1.6 1.93 1.82 6.11 1.59 17.96 1.62 19.71 1.86 7.45
L2 0.4 0.46 0.5 7.37 0.42 8.03 0.46 3.88 0.59 22.03
0.8 1.04 0.89 13.82 0.78 24.54 0.84 22.06 0.99 8.26
1.2 1.25 1.26 0.71 1.12 10.73 1.20 8.39 1.36 4.14
1.6 1.75 1.62 7.88 1.45 17.64 1.54 15.88 1.71 6.30
L3 0.4 0.71 0.67 6.17 0.54 24.03 0.52 29.35 0.71 4.05
0.8 1.22 1.15 6.04 0.96 21.1 0.94 26.25 1.18 7.31
1.2 1.83 1.58 13.57 1.35 26.06 1.32 30.69 1.60 16.07
1.6 2.18 1.99 8.94 1.72 21.12 1.68 25.93 2.00 12.27
Amphibolite A1 0.4 0.78 0.75 4.45 0.6 23.55 0.55 32.91 0.73 11.01
0.8 1.24 1.25 0.89 1.05 16.45 0.97 25.53 1.20 7.73
1.2 1.86 1.7 8.28 1.45 21.69 1.36 29.63 1.63 15.54
1.6 2.16 2.12 1.93 1.84 15.08 1.73 23.27 2.04 9.61
A2 0.4 0.64 0.66 3.17 0.53 16.63 0.52 22.16 0.67 0.90
0.8 1.01 1.13 12.10 0.95 5.93 0.93 11.77 1.12 6.76
1.2 1.77 1.56 11.64 1.34 24.39 1.31 28.90 1.53 16.66
1.6 2.04 1.96 3.67 1.70 16.48 1.67 21.34 1.92 9.48
A3 0.4 0.83 0.82 1.59 0.65 21.99 0.57 34.67 0.76 12.19
0.8 1.42 1.34 5.57 1.12 21.42 1.02 32.55 1.26 15.20
1.2 2.07 1.81 12.29 1.54 25.28 1.40 35.05 1.70 20.88
1.6 2.32 2.24 3.22 1.94 16.32 1.77 26.64 2.12 12.30
Average error 6.83 18.1 24.8 10.4

Note: τpe, τpz, τpb, τpj and τpl are the experimental results, the predictions from proposed shear strength model, JRC-JCS model, Jang et al.‘s model, and Lee et al.‘s
model, respectively.

13
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. Measured results and predictions from various shear strength models for marble joints (a) M1, (b)M2, and (c) M3, lherzolite joints (d) L1, (e)L2, and (f)L3,
and amphibolite joints (g) A1, (h)A2, and (i) A3.

14
Y. Zhao et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison between the measured results and predicted results from
various shear strength models.
24.8% for the Jang et al.‘s model, and 10.4% for Lee et al. ‘s model. A
comparison between the measured results and predicted results from
various shear strength models is presented in Fig. 15. The relations be­
tween the measured results and predicted results from the proposed
shear strength model, JRC-JCS model, Jang et al.‘s model, and Lee
et al.‘s model can be expressed as
⎧ ( ) 287–332.
⎪ τpe = 0.94τpz ( R2 = 0.99 ) (the ​ proposed ​ model)
⎪
⎨ 2
τpe = 0.81τpb ( R = 0.98) (JRC − JCS ​ model)
(38)
⎪
⎪ τ = 0.76τpj ( R2 = 0.97) (Jang ​ et al.’s ​ model)
⎩ pe 2
τpe = 0.92τpl R = 0.99 (Lee ​ et al.’s ​ model)
where, τpe, τpz, τpb, τpj, and τpl are the measured shear strength, the
predictions from proposed shear strength model, JRC-JCS model, Jang
et al.‘s model, and Lee et al.‘s model, respectively. It can be found that
the JRC-JCS model and Jang et al.‘s model obviously tend to underes­
timate the shear strength of natural joints. Among the four shear
strength models, the predictions from proposed shear strength model are
closest to the measured results. The proposed model is more accurate
than the other models. So the proposed shear strength model has
considerable advantages for estimating the shear strength of natural
rock joints. In addition, the new model has the following advantages: (1)
the FRC can be determined by the surface morphologies based on FCE,
and the acquisition of FRC is practicable; (2) the new model compre­
hensively considers the effect of various morphological parameters on
shear strength; (3) Generally, the new FRC in proposed model is higher
than JRC, which overcomes disadvantages that the JRC-JCS model tends
to underestimate shear strength of natural rock joints.
7. Conclusions
In this study, a series of direct shear tests on natural rock joints under
various normal stresses were performed and the surface morphologies of
rock joints were measured by means of 3D laser scanning. The FCE
method was introduced to assess the degree of joint surface roughness,
and a new FRC-JCS shear strength model was proposed to modify the
JRC-JCS strength model by introduction of fracture roughness coeffi­
cient (FRC). The following conclusions can be drawn:
15
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
(1) The height statistical parameters Sm, Sq, Ss and Sk, and the
textural statistical parameters Si, Sc, and Z2 are measured by the
morphology instrument. Z2 has a robust positive relationship
with the Si; however, the Ss, Sk, and Sc have no obvious depen­
dence relation with the Si. The ratio of Sq/Sm, is approximately
1.13.
(2) A new fracture roughness coefficient FRC is proposed based on
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, where the Gaussian
function is used to calculate the membership degree and
weighting contribution of each profile to joint shear resistant. The
proposed FRC highlights the roles of the main morphological
parameters including Si, Sq, Sc, and Sk on the joint shear strength.
As a result, the proposed FRC-JCS model improves the lower-
estimate of JRC-JCS model and some other popular models in
predicting the joint shear strength.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China (Nos.51774131, 51774107, 51774322).
References
1 Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of the shear behavior of a jointed rock mass.
In: Proceedings of the 11th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), Berkeley,
California. 1969:105–125.
2 Barton N. Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol. 1973;7:
3 Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock
Mech. 1977;10:1–5.
4 Kulatilake PHSW, Shou G, Huang TH, Morgan RM. New peak shear strength criteria
for anisotropic rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1995;32:673–697.
5 Grasselli G, Egger P. Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints based on
three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2003;40:25–40.
6 Xia CC, Tang ZC, Xiao WM, Song YL. New peak shear strength criterion of rock joints
based on quantified surface description. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2014;47:387–400.
7 Ban L, Qi C, Lu C. A direction-dependent shear strength criterion for rock joints with
two new roughness parameters. Arab J Geosci. 2018;11(16):466, 2018.
8 Zhao Y, Zhang L, Wang W, Liu Q, Tang L, Cheng G. Experimental study on shear
behavior and a revised shear strength model for infilled rock joints. Int J GeoMech.
2020;9, 04020141.
9 Lin H, Sun PH, Chen YF, Zhu YY, Fan X, Zhao YL. Analytical and experimental
analysis of the shear strength of bolted saw-tooth joints. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2020.1726822.
10 Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proceedings of the 1st Congress
of the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal. vol. 1. September/
October 1966:509–513.
11 Zhao Y, Wang Y, Wang W, Tang L, Liu Q, Cheng G. Modeling of rheological fracture
behavior of rock cracks subjected to hydraulic pressure and far field stresses. Theor
Appl Fract Mech. 2019;101:59–66.
12 Lin Hang, Zhang Xing, Wang Yixian, Yong Rui, Fan Xiang, Du Shigui, Zhao Yanlin.
Improved nonlinear nishihara shear creep model with variable parameters for rock-
like materials. Adv Civ Eng. 2020, 7302141.
13 Xie S, Lin H, Wang Y, Chen Y, Xiong W, Zhao Y. A statistical damage constitutive
model considering whole joint shear deformation. Int J Damage Mech. 2020;29:
988–1008.
14 Schneider HJ. The friction and deformation behaviour of rock joints. Rock Mech.
1976;8:169–185.
15 Plesha ME. Constitutive models for rock discontinuities with dilatancy and surface
degradation. Int J Numer Anal Methods GeoMech. 1987;11(4):345–362.
16 Jing L. Numerical Modeling of Jointed Rock Masses by Distinct Element Method for Two,
and Three Dimensional Problems. PhD thesis. Lulea: Lulea University of Technology;
1990.
17 Maksimovic M. New description of the shear strength for rock joints. Rock Mech Rock
Eng. 1992;25(4):275–284.
18 Kulatilake PHSW, Shou G, Huang TH. Spectral-based peakshear-strength criterion for
rock joints. J Geotech Eng. 1995;121:789–796.
19 Kulatilake PHSW, Um J, Panda BB. Development of new peak shear-strength
criterion for anisotropic rock joints. J Eng Mech. 1999;125:1010–1017.
20 Zhao J. Joint surface matching and shear strength part B: JRC–JMC shear strength
criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1997;34:179–185.
Y. Zhao et al.
21 Jang BA, Kim TH, Jang HS. Characterization of the three dimensional roughness of
rock joints and proposal of a modified shear strength criterion. Appl Environ
Microbiol. 2010;63:4612–4616.
22 Grasselli G, Egger P. Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints based on
three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min. 2003;40(1):25–40.
23 Grasselli G. Manuel Rocha medal recipient shear strength of rock joints based on
quantified surface description. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2006;39:295–314.
24 Tatone BSA. Quantitative Characterization of Natural Rock Discontinuity Roughness In-
Suit and in the Laboratory. Toronto, Canada: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto;
2009.
25 Ghazvinian AH, Azinfar MJ, Geranmayeh Vaneghi R. Importance of tensile strength
on the shear behavior of discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2012;45(3):349–359.
26 Lee YK, Park JW, Song JJ. Model for the shear behavior of rock joints under CNL and
CNS conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2014;70(9):252–263.
27 Tang ZC, Wong LNY. New criterion for evaluating the peak shear strength of rock
joints under different contact states. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2016;49(4):1191–1199.
28 Yang J, Rong G, Hou D, Peng J, Zhou C. Experimental study on peak shear strength
criterion for rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2016;49:821–835.
29 Zhang X, Jiang Q, Chen N, Wei W, Feng X. Laboratory investigation on shear
behavior of rock joints and a new peak shear strength criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
2016;49:3495–3512.
30 Liu Q, Tian Y, Liu D, Jiang Y. Updates to JRC-JCS model for estimating the peak
shear strength of rock joints based on quantified surface description. Eng Geol. 2017;
228:282–300.
31 Tian Y, Liu Q, Liu D, Kang Y, Deng P, He F. Updates to Grasselli’s peak shear strength
model. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0060 3-018-1469-2.
32 Singh HK, Basu A. Evaluation of existing criteria in estimating shear strength of
natural rock discontinuities. Eng Geol. 2018;232:171–181.
33 Tang H, Ge Y, Wang L. Study on estimation method of rock mass discontinuity shear
strength based on three-dimensional laser scanning and image technique. J Earth Sci.
2012;23(6):908–913.
34 Beer AJ, Stead D, Coggan JS. Estimation of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) by
visual. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2002;35(1):65–74.
35 Hong ES, Lee JS, Lee IM. Underestimation of roughness in rough rock joints. Int J
Numer Anal Methods GeoMech. 2008;32(11):1385–1403.
36 Tse R, Cruden DM. Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1979;16:303–307.
37 Reeves MJ. Rock surface roughness and frictional strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1985;22:429–442.
38 Maerz NH, Franklin JA, Bennett CP. Joint roughness measurement using shadow
profilometry. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1990;27:329–343.
39 Yu XB, Vayssade B. Joint profiles and their roughness parameters. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 1991;28:333–336.
40 Belem T, Homand-Etienne F, Souley M. Quantitative parameters for rock joint
surface roughness. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2000;33(4):217–242.
41 Kim DY, Lee HS. Quantification of rock joint roughness and development of
analyzing system. In: Kulatilake PHSW, ed. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Rock Joints and Jointed Rock Masses, Tucson. 2009.
42 Tatone BSA, Grasselli G. A new 2D discontinuity roughness parameter and its
correlation with JRC. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2010;47:1391–1400.
43 Jang HS, Kang SS, Jang BA. Determination of joint roughness coefficients using
roughness parameters. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2014;47(6):2061–2073, 2014.
44 Zhang GC, Karakus M, Tang HM, Ge YF, Zhang L. A new method estimating the 2D
joint roughness coefficient for discontinuity surfaces in rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 2014;72:191–198.
45 Brown SR, Scholz CH. Broad bandwidth study of the topography of natural rock
surfaces. J Geophys Res. 1985;90:12575–12582.
46 Huang SL, Oelfke SM, Speck RC. Applicability of fractal characterization and
modeling to rock joint profiles. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1992;29:
89–98.
47 Odling NE. Natural fracture profiles, fractal dimension and joint roughness
coefficients. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 1994;27:135–153.
48 Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. Towards an understanding of joint roughness. Rock Mech
Rock Eng. 1995;28(2):69–92.
49 Xie HP, Wang JA, Kwaśniewski MA. Multifractal characterization of rock fracture
surfaces. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1999;36:19–27.
50 Jiang YJ, Li B, Tanabashi Y. Estimating the relation between surface roughness and
mechanical properties of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43(6):837–846.
51 Yang ZY, Taghichian A, Huang GD. On the applicability of self-affinity concept in
scale of three-dimensional rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2011;48:1173–1187.
52 Hsiung SM, Ghosh A, Ahola MP, Chowdhury AH. Assessment of conventional
methodologies for joint roughness coefficient determination. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1993;30:825–829.
53 Liu QS, Tian YC, Ji PQ, Ma H. Experimental investigation of the peak shear strength
criterion based on three-dimensional surface description. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2018;
51:1005–1025.
54 Ram BK, Basu A. A modified JRC-JCS model and its applicability to weathered joints
of granite and quartzite. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2019;78:6089–6099.
55 Fan W, Cao P. A new 3D JRC calculation method of rock joint based on laboratory-
scale morphology testing and its application in shear strength analysis. Bull Eng Geol
Environ. 2020;79:345–354.
56 Zhao Y, Zhang L, Wang W, Tang J, Lin H, Wan W. Transient pulse test and
morphological analysis of single rock fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2017;91:
139–154.
57 Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Contr. 1965;8(3):338–353.
58 Dombi J. Membership function as an evaluation. Fuzzy Set Syst. 1990;35(1):1–21.
16
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
59 Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive strength
and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2014;17(1):
61–72.
60 Grima AM, Babuska R. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive
strength of rock samples. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1999;36:339–349.
61 Ferrero AM, Harrison JP, Scioldo G. Evaluation of sliding instability of safety using
fuzzy analysis of discontinuity orientation. In: Proceedings of the ISRM International
Symposium Eurock ‘96, Torino, Italy. September 1996.
62 Gao Y, Gao F, Zhou k. Evaluation model of surrounding rock stability based on fuzzy
rock engineering systems (RES)-connection cloud. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-017 44-8.
63 Wang Xintong, Li Shucai, Xu Zhenhao, Xue Yiguo, Hu Jie, Li Zhiqiang, Zhang Bo. An
interval fuzzy comprehensive assessment method for rock burst in underground
caverns and its engineering application. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2019.
64 Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. An application of fuzzy sets to the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) system used in rock engineering. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2003;16
(3):251–269.
65 Iphar M, Goktan RM. An application of fuzzy sets to the Diggability Index Rating
Method for surface mine equipment selection. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43(2):
253–266.
66 Tzamos S, Sofianos AI. Extending the Q system’s prediction of support in tunnels
employing fuzzy logic and extra parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43(6):
938–949.
67 Hamidi JK, Shahriar K, Rezai B, Bejari H. Application of fuzzy set theory to rock
engineering classification systems: an illustration of the rock mass excavability
index. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2010;43(3):335–350, 2010.
68 Gokceoglu C, Yesilnacar E, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. A neurofuzzy model for modulus
of deformation of jointed rock masses. Comput Geotech. 2004;31(5):375–383.
69 Karakus M, Tutmez B. Fuzzy and multiple regression modelling for evaluation of
intact rock strength based on point load, schmidt hammer and sonic velocity. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 2006;39(1):45–57.
70 Harrison JP, Hudson JA. Incorporating parameter variability in rock mechanics
analyses: fuzzy mathematics applied to underground rock spalling. Rock Mech Rock
Eng. 2010;43(2):219–224.
71 Ghasemi E, Yagiz S, AtaeiM. Predicting penetration rate of hard rock tunnel boring
machine using fuzzy logic. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2014;73(1):23–35.
72 Saedi B, Mohammadi SD, Shahbazi H. Application of fuzzy inference system to
predict uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of migmatites. Environ
Earth Sci. 2019;78(6):208.
73 Sari M. Incorporation of uncertainty in estimating the rock mass uniaxial strength
using a fuzzy inference system. Arab J Geosci. 2019;12(2):18.
74 Harrison JP. Fuzzy objective functions applied to the analysis of discontinuity
orientation data. In: Proceedings of the ISRM Symposium Eurock ‘92, Chester, UK.
September 1992.
75 Hammah RE, Curran JH. Fuzzy cluster algorithm for the automatic identification of
joint sets. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1998;35(7):889–905.
76 Harrison JP, Ferrero AM, Cravero S. Fuzzy partitioning algorithms applied to the
interpretation of distinct element modelling results. Geotechnique. 2001;51:677–686.
77 Zhang L, Wu L, Xu C, Wu S. Modification of Hoek–Brown criterion and its application
based on fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Indian Geotech J. 2014;45(1):35–42.
78 Muralha J, Grasselli G, Tatone B, Blümel Manfred, Chryssanthakis P, Jiang YJ. ISRM
suggested method for laboratory determination of the shear strength of rock joints:
revised version. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2014;47:291–302.
79 ISRM. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring—ISRM suggested methods. In:
Brown ET, ed. Suggested Methods for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in
Rock MassesOxford: Pergamon; 1981:3–52.
80 Magsipoc E, Zhao Q, Grasselli G. 2D and 3D roughness characterization. Rock Mech
Rock Eng. 2020:1495–1519.
81 ASTM D2938. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock
Core Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards; 2020.
82 ASTM D3967. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core
Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards; 2005.
83 Cao P, Mei H, Ning G, Fan X, Liu X. Evolution analysis of surface topography of rock
joints under different shear deformation histories. J Railw Sci Eng. 2012;9(2):99–104
(in Chinese).
84 Sun D, Li Q. Morphology variation analysis for rock surfaces before and after
shearing. Geotech Geol Eng. 2019;37:1029–1037.
85 Zhang XY, Cao P, Cheng R, Zhou H, Yong WX. Micromechanics research on triaxial-
torsional for morphology texture and deterioration law of rock strength. Nonferrous
Met. 2019;71:81–87 (in Chinese).
86 Saaty TL. Applications of analytical hierarchies. Math Comput Simuin. 1979;21(1):
1–20.
87 Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res.
1990;48(1):9–26.
88 Wu Q, Liu Y, Liu D, Zhou W. Prediction of floor water inrush: the application of GIS-
based AHP vulnerable index method to donghuantuo coal mine, China. Rock Mech
Rock Eng. 2011;44:591–600.
89 Li SC, Zhou ZQ, Li LP, Xu ZH, Zhang QQ, Shi SS. Risk assessment of water inrush in
karst tunnels based on attribute synthetic evaluation system. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol. 2013;38:50–58.
Y. Zhao et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx

90 Li Liping, Lei Ting, Li Shucai, Zhang Qianqing, Xu Zhenhao, Shi Shaoshuai, 92 Zhao YL, Zhang LY, Liao J, Wang WJ, Liu Q, Tang L. Experimental study of fracture
Zhou Zongqing. Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels and software toughness and subcritical crack growth of three rocks under different environments.
development. Arab J Geosci. 2015;8:1843–1854. Int J GeoMech. 2020;20(8), 04020128.
91 Fu JX, Song WD, Tan YY. Analysis on parameter correlation of joint surface
morphology and study on quantitative classification of roughness. J Hunan Univ.
2016;46:124–132 (in Chinese).

17