Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rock Slope Stability Analysis
Transféré par
jug_mgisCopyright
Formats disponibles
Partager ce document
Partager ou intégrer le document
Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?
Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?
Signaler ce documentDroits d'auteur :
Formats disponibles
Rock Slope Stability Analysis
Transféré par
jug_mgisDroits d'auteur :
Formats disponibles
Nv (Ibs) bo)
360
A
} $ (ads) "
400
|
300
7 4
TL. restauet
200 a
100
3 kaolinitesplaster (1:1)
tp a
o 190 700 300
Figure 4.8. Shear strength envelopes for specimens with different teeth inclination (a); and for
different numbers of teeth (b) (after Patton, 1986).
=~ Wh Obs) (o) 108 Rock slope stability analysis
The Patton results, obtained by increasing the number of asperities, are shown
in Figure 4.8b, by means of shear strength envelopes for specimens with different
teeth numbers. The initial envelope curves sti)] have the same inclination of the
(6, + angle. Doubling the number of asperities from two to four and maintaining
the specimen size constant, results in an abrupt change of the strength envelope
slope up to a higher normal load. The upper part of the strength envelope/almost’
doubles. oes
The Patton (1966) bi-linear relationship which describes the strength envelopes
shown in Figure 4.8a-b was related to two different modes of failure.
A first linear tract of the envelope is obtained at low normal loads where the
maximum shearing strength is related to the frictional resistance along the
inclined surface. The frictional resistance along the inclined surface is equal to the
internal shearing resistance of the teeth at failure point. Shearing strengths related
to the first tract are accompanied by displacements perpendicular to the shearing
force direction (dilatant behaviour). A second linear tract is obtained at high
normal loads, where the maximum shearing strength is unrelated to sliding along,
the.inclined surfaces. The horizontal displacements occurred when the teeth were
sheared at their base. Displacements perpendicular to the shearing force are very
small in comparison to those occurring for tests in the first tract range
It can be seen that ifougly there is no cohesion interception, there is a real
contribution of the interwaI“cohesive’ strength of the teeth to all normal loads
other than zero. This contribution of the internal ‘cohesive’ teeth strength reaches
a maximum value when the teeth are sheared off at their base and remain constant
for higher normal loads. For the first tract, the mobilized cohesion is directly
proportional to the normal load, for the second tract it is independent.
The second envelope line can be represented by the equation:
S=K+Nian oy
where K. previously called ‘cohesive strength’, is constant and equal to the
ordinate of the intersection with the shear force axis of the straight line of the
second part of the envelope.
However (Patton, 1966) such a bi-linear relationship is not obtained in natural
joint shear tests because there are different teeth superimposition types anda more
complicated nature of asperity failure.
4.2.4 Ladanyi & Archambault criterion
Two failure modes occur simultaneosly during shearing along an irregular
surface: Shearing and sliding. In Figure 4.9 the two specimen halves which
include an irregular discontinuity surface are schematized as triangles in a vertical
section. A, (A, = LA A,) is the rough surface projected area portion where the
asperities are sheared off; A-A, is the remaining portion of the projected area
where the sliding occurs, Shear strength 109
s
=
a
Figure 4.9. Definition of the dilation rate v and the shear area ratio: as V = dy/dx, as
S=AASA
The shear force mobilized for sliding may be divided into three components
(Rowe et al., 1964) SS, and Sy
S, is the shear force component due to external work carried out in order to
dilate against the external normal force N;
Sy is the shear force component due to the additional friction dilatancy intemal
work:
Sy is the shear force component due to the work of intemal friction, if the
specimen does not change in volume during shearing.
The three component expressions can be obtained (Figure 4.9) as:
dy
S\=N jtan i= MV,
dv
V being the rate of dilation at failure dy /dx;
S.
tan /tan 6, = SV tan 6,
Vian 6,
The sum of these three shear components gives:
S$, #5, +S,=N tani + Stan itand, +N tan 6, =S
or
S/N =tani+S/N tani tan, + tan 6, =tan (9, +4)
which is the same as the result obtained by Patton (1966).
‘The shear force $, which occurs as a result of the teeth shearing may be
determined by assuming thas the portion A, of the teeth are sheared off at the base,
thereby obtaining:
Sy=
3K +Mtan 6, 110. Rock slope stability analysis
where K and 6, are the Coulomb parameters related to the strength of the rock
substance.
The following expression can be obtained for shear strength by adding all the
four components:
S_6,(1-a,)V + tan $,) +(G, tan, + K)a,
A 1-(-a,)Vtand,
when V = 0 (flat surfaces and persistence lower than 100%):
156,(1-a,) tang, +.,(6, tang, + K)
To overcome the difficulty of determining the value of K and 9, and taking into
account that the Mohr envelope is an initially curved shape as a result of different
multiples of asperity heights and inclinations which are sheared off at different
stages, Ladanyi & Archaumbault (1969) used the parabolic law proposed by
Fairhurst (1964) to describe the shear resistance of the material ‘adjacent’ to the
discontinuity surfaces 1:
o =} [i ey
tS
n G,
7
Where ois the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material ‘adjacent’ to the
discontinuity which may be lower than that of the uniaxial compressive strength
of intact rock because of weathering or alteration of the discontinuity surface; nis
the ratio between uniaxial compressive 6, and uniaxial tensile 6, strength of the
intact rock.
Hoek (1968) suggested that, for most hard rocks, 1 is approximate equal to 10.
The two extreme situations of the strength envelopes are:
= Extremely low normal stress and no shearing of the asperities;
— Normal stress high enough to completely shear off the asperities
In the fist situation:
s 470 A,30 Votani
while in the second: A, 1 and V— 0. Approximate values of a, and V can be
obtained from the following relation within the extreme situations 0< 6, <6,
o,\°
1-[1-=] ani
6
i
a,
and
\K
1 s| tani
\ 6)
where, for rough surfaces, the empirical values found by Ladanyi & Archam-
bault, on the basis of a large number of shear tests, are: K=4,L = 1.5, Shear strength 41
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 12 Pe
Figure 4.10. Shear strength envelopes for the cases where 6 = 30° and i= 10°: a) Fairhurst
equation for the rock material failure; b) Ladanyi & Archambault criterion equation;
€) Pation equation: &) Residual strength for stickenslide and planar surface equation. The
ratio between the effective normal stress acting on the discontinuity and the unisxial
compressive strength af the material forming such a surface is reported in the abscissa; the
ratio berveen the shear resistance and the uniaxial compressive swengih is yeporied in
ordinate (afier Hock & Bray. 1981).
Figure 4.10 reports (Hoek & Bray, 1981) different shear strength envelopes
obtained by using: The Fairhurst equation for rock material failure, the Ladanyi &
Archambault criterion equation, the Patton cquation for dilation of rou
and residual strength of slickenside and planar surface equation
‘As can be seen from Figure 4.10. the assumption of a bilinear envelope for
discontinuity shear strength may be described for the firsi (dilatant) line using the
Patton equation and for the second using the Fairhurst equation for rock material
failure. The Ladanyi & Archambault equation represents a criterion more adhe-
rent to the reality of the physical phenomenon which involves a transition zone
due to progressive shearing of the asperities and superimposition of the teeth of
the upper wall discontinuity surface.
h surfaces
4.2.5 Rough discontinuity surfaces
In nature, the discontinuity surface shape is not as regular as that which is
described in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 but is almost random (Plate 4.2) 112 Rock slope stability analysis
BETAS,
Plate 4.2. Above: Mechanical messurement of roughnesses un discontinuity surfaces. By
A.M, Ferrero, Below: Roughness contour diagram.
The standard discontinuity profiles proposed by Banton & Choubey (see
Chapter 3) are typical examples of randomly distributed asperities and undula~
tions along a surface profile.
Natural discontinuity shear strengih can be described as a function of sev
parameters (Cunha, 1990): Shear strength 13
— Applied normal stress or staie of stress in general terms;
~ Wall roughness characteristics;
~. Strength and deformability of'the asperities and of the walls in general;
~ ‘Thicknessaype and physical properties of any filling material:
Contact area (fatchedsor mismatched joints) and distribution of
apertures and contacts between the walls;
— Orientation of the shearing piane and direction of shearing forces:
~ Discontinuity dimension with respect to the shear direction and the cross
direction.
Itis difficult both to evaluate these parameters and to analytically formulate a
strength criterion equation which takes all these parameters into account.
Empirical approaches relate shear behaviour observations to a limited number
of parameters which mainly govem the phenomenon.
4.2.6. Barton criterion
The Barton criterion (1971, 1973, 1976. 1980, 1982, 1988 and 1990) is empirical
and able-to:predict'and:describe the peak.shear strength of roekediscontinuities.
One of the advantages of using this criterion is the relative facility of determining
the parameters which govern the criterion equation. The analytical expression is:
t=6, tan (IRC log,,JCS/o,) +6,]
where JRC is the joint roughness coefficient representing a scale roughness factor
and which varies approximatively within the range 0 and 20 increasing with wall
surface roughness; JCS is the joint compressive strength already defined in
Chapter 3 (the JCS estimation, using the Schmidt hammer, is also reported in
Chapter 3); 6, is the residual friction angle which represents the theoretical
minimum strength value of a planar and slickenside surface obtained when the
roughness is completely worn away, ‘The basic friction value obtained on ar-
tificially cut discontinuities is sometimes used for practical:purposes due to the
difficulties of the last residual value, even though the two angle values are not
always equal
Barton considered the shear strength of natural discontinuities as being made
up of three components:
1. A basic frictional component given by 6,5
2. A geometrical component controlled by surface roughness JRC);
3. An asperity failure component controlled by the ratio (JCS/o,).
The shear strength envelopes using the Barton equation, for different joint
roughness coefficients, are illustrated in Figure 4.11
Shear strength envelopes for rough-undulated surfaces (class (a) of Figure
4.11) are steeper for low values of normal effective stress.
However. by taking the safety factors required for roc structure engineering
into account. Barion suggested not considering artan t/G,, values greater than 70° 114 Rock slope stability analysis Shear strength 115
or every possible intercept cohesion. Consequently, the envelopes in the left part
of Figure 4.11 are characterized by a lower linear part (when JCS/o,, > 100) and
by a second upper non-linear tract
The uniaxial compressive strength of the joint wall JCS strongly infuences the
shear sirength of rough joints (Figure 4.1L) where the normal stress levels are as
low as in the largest part of the rock slope stability problems.
The wide shear strength envelope variation obtained for the class A JRC value
is analogous to those experimentally determined (Figure 4.12).
The peak shear strength is less influenced by the JCS values with smoother wall
surfaces. as the asperity failure is of an importance which decreases with the JRC
value.
The joint shear strength mainly depends on the rock mineralogy for sniooth and
slickenside planar surfaces.
© paragneiss
O clay shale
+ micaschist
© phyllite
© jimestone
% granite
© calch schist
orthogneiss
B schist graphitous
= dolomit. limestone
4f shale
sandstone
& serpentine
3
o [MPa]
a
Figure 4.12. Peak shear resistance envelopes for natural discontinuities. (experimental data
obtained from direct shear tests carried out at the laboratories of ISMES and the ‘Georisorse ¢
Territorio’ Department, Technical University of Torin), 116 Rock slope stability analysis
Because the geometrical component of shear strength controlled by the JRC
value and the asperity failure component controlled by the ratio JCS/o, are not
independent of the scale effect, it is important to determine shear strength
parameter measurements free of scale effect and scale correction factors for the
scale-dependent parameters.
4.2.7 Scale effects
Bandis et al. (1981) examined the scale effects of the shear behaviour of
discontinuities by means of experimental studies.
The examined scale effects are as follows:
~ Scale effect on peak displacement;
— Scale effect on dilatancy value;
Scale effect on JRC value;
Scale effect on asperity failure;
— Scale effect on size and distribution’of the contact area;
— Scale effect on limit size of Specimens; on ultimate shear resistance and on
strongly jointed rock mass, for different values of normal stress.
Figure 4.13 shows the scale dependence of the laboratory specimen size on the
three components of the shear strength of natural discontinuities.
Figure 4.13, in particular, illustrates how, by increasing the size of a specimen
with a discontinuity, one obtains:
~ A gradual increase of the peak displacement;
Figure 4.13. Dependence of the specimen size on the three components of the shear strength
natural discontinvities. A: Component due 10 asperity failure; B: Dilatance component; C:
Residual frictional component; D (D = A + B) represents the contribution to the shear
resistance given by the wall discontinuity roughness; E (E=A + B + C) represents the peak
resistance angle: = 6, + (afier Bandis etal. 1981), Shear strength 117
= An apparent transition zone from a “brittle® to “plastic” mode of shear
failure;
— Adecreasing of the peak friction angle as a consequence both of the decrease
of the peak dilotation angle d, and of the component 5, due to the asperity
failure: :
— A decrease of the ultimate shear strength (the term ultimate is used with
reference-fo the friction angle definition reported in Section 4.2.1).
Adfurthehscale effect has been examinated (Bandis et al., 1981) bY comparing
the behaviour of the joints: 1) By shearing a block on a singlejoint, and 2) by
shearing multiple blocks on a joint with the same roughness-f€atures.
A heavily jointed rock mass exhibits a reduced gtiffnes® by increasing the
degree of freedom of the individual joint blocks which are able to rotate and
mobilize all the roughness resistences at different scales. Consequently, as
demonstrated by joimed model experiments (Bandis et al.. 1981), small blocks in
a densely jointed mass may mobilize higher JRC values than larger blocks in a
mass with wider-spaced joints.
The scale effect on peak shear strength implies that there should be a minimum
size concerning the lest specimen considered as technically acceptable. Barton &
Choubey (1977) suggested considering, as a first approximation, the natural block
size of the rock mass or more specifically, the spacing of cross-joints.
4.2.8 Joint Roughness Coefficient measurementsfrom large scale index tests
Tilt, pull and push (ests represent (Bandis et al., 1981) a very Cheap:method of
assessing a JRC value such as a large scale index test. The drawing of the tilt and
pull tests are reported in Figures 4.14 and 4.16.
In a tilt test, the JRC value may be obtained (Figure 4.15) by using the
following equation:
where 0: isthe tilt angle for which the upper half slides on the lower half: G,, is the
normal stress which occurs when sliding takes place.
Ina pulitest. the JRC values may be obtained by pulling the block from the
rock wall with an external force directed parallel to the deepest line of the block
base plane,
The pull tests are prefentially carried out for block contact joints with high [RC
values
The JRC value may be obtained (Figure 4.16) by using the following equa-
tion: M8 Rock slope stability analysis Shear strength 19
Figure 4.16. "In sits’
pull test (after Bandis et
a al., 1981)
two adjacent blocks opened with a drilled tine: Vis the normal component of the
block weight (I and: Ay is the joint area.
“The Schmidt hammer may be used for JCS estimation. The roughness surface
“Slope angle dependence on joint length L is shown in the tilt test by means of a
modification of the Patton (1966) law:
T=6, tan (0, + i(L))
where, by referring to the Barton criterion:
i{L) = JRC log, (ICS/o,)
Consequently, the reduced tilt angle & may be attributed to an effective reduction
in fand therefore to a joint roughness reduction with an increase in length.
The size of this scale effect for a tilt test can be calculated using the empirical
formulas given by Barton & Bandis (1982) and Banton & Bakhtar (1983) and
based ona large number of ‘in situ’ and laboratory experiments (Plates 4.3-4.4):
IRC = IRCA IL, /Lgh OR
44)
cs .
JCS = 1, IL, Lg} 209RCH 320 Rock slope stability analysis
Plate 4.3, Different sizes of rock specimens used to assess discontinuity shear strength scale
effect by means of tilt tests. By L, Reinavdo.
Plate 4.4. Laboratory tiltiest. By
L.Reinaudo, Shear strength 121
where L, and Ly are the lengths referring to ‘in situ* scale and to the laboratory
scale respectively.
By taking the Patton law into account:
IRC g(L/L py ROflog.g(ICSp /6,) + log(L/L gy Ro]
and when L = Ly
i
ig = IRCy log g(ICSo/6,)
Ina tlt test the normal siress acting on the joint when sliding accurs may be given
approximately by: WV cos «/A, where Wis the weight of the upper block, @ is the
till angle and A is the sliding area. In the hypothesis of a block which slides at a
66° tilt angle with a unit weight of 25 kN/m* and a height of 0.1 m one obtains:
Weose _yhA cos &
AA
Therefore tor a JCS value of 100 MPa, the value of 5 is obtained for log, ICS,/6,
and therefore. ig = SIRCp.
Jig = (L/L gy 0860 [5 + logyp(L/ Ley O¥R 0} /5
h cos &= 0.001 MPa
Referring to Figure 4.15, the tilt angle «is given by the expression:
a=o.47
andathen L=Lo,
Op = 0, + ig
from which one obtains
Gl Gy = O,10%9(1 = Hig) + HHiy
The above equation stows that the surface slope or angle i decreases with an
increase of L. as 6, is not considered scale dependent.
Atthis point it is important to note (Swan & Zongai, 1985) that f
has been assumed that
1. The value of /, for a given normal load. is a single value;
2. The reference line MM defining the shear plane (Fi
remains parallel to the measured surface A-A.
Prediction of tilt angle is therefore based on a triangular roughness representa-
tion and the scale effect is evaluated by assuming a roughness median line.
constant in inclination (always horizontal), for each joint length,
Before continuing with the objective and the free of scale methods for JRC
assessment, it ig important to determine the influence of JRC on the slope
stability,
If one considers the equilibrium of the block resting on a 30° inclined joint
plane (Figure 4.17), the parameters of the Barton criterion have been obtained by
ure 4.15) always 122 Rock slope stability analysis
Figure 4.17, Equilibrium of a block analyzed using the Bunion criterion equation.
means of tilt test measurements with: Ly = 10. em, JCSp = 50 MPa. Oy = 612, 6, =
(0, — 20°) + 20°r/R) = 25°, where g, = 30° and r/R =075.6,, = 0.00126 MPa
o,
IRCy= = 78
ICS,
5,
lozyy
The scale effect on the length of the joint may be examined by means of Equation
4.1 and the JRC value for the examined block stability is:
IRC = IRCy(L/Lpy ORO = 4.88
the correspondent ICS value is:
ICS = ICSy(L/Lyy007RC0 = 24.80 MPa
where L = 2m.
The safety factor for the block sliding is:
Fe Wcos ct [tan URC log) ICS/6, + $,)]
- W sin o
=1.36
where 6, = 0.052 MPa
A safety factor calculated without taking into account the scale factor and by
using JRC =7.8 and JCS = 50 MPa should give F = 1.94, with a difference of 42%
with respects to the scale corrected safety factor.
The JRC parameter, determined on a potentially sliding surface, greatly
influences the safety factor estimation. An objective estimation and a correct
evaluation of the scale effect on the JRC length is consequently fundamental in
order (o obtain reliable resulis,
Tilt tests carried out at larger scale than the laboratory ones involve a slight Shear strength 123
difference between the determined JRC value and the real scale JRC value and
therefore a limited error of the mere application of Equation 4.1 empirical
relationships on the scale effect. Equation 4.1 refers (0 JRC and JRCy in
exponential forms. As the joint profiles are rougher, the scale effect increases. IF
one considers, for example, a L/Lg ratio of 20 and a JRC = 20, and using
Equation 4.1, JRC becomes:
IRC = 20-204 =6
which is more than three times lower than 20.
4.2.9 Statistical methods for JRC determination and shear behaviour prediction
Statistical representations of joint roughness (Wu & Ali, 1978; Tse & Cruden,
1979: Reeves. 1985) are carried out in order to reach a JRC objective estimation
and 10 predict shear discontinuity behaviour. The main purposes of the statistical
parameter introduction, to describe discontinuity roughness profiles, are:
— Toavoid the subjectivity of the estimation based on the comparison between
the examined profiles and the Barton & Choubey siandard profiles;
— To include the effects of different asperity sizes and profile undulations on
shear behaviour in a statistical mode! of roughness profile
Statistical parameters (Swan & Zongqi, 1985), determined on roughness
profiles were applied in order to individuate periodic roughness components
which occur because of the incrementing of the surveyed profile and to determine
the statistical arigin of the scale effects.
Tse & Cruden (1979) proposed mathematical formulations to characterize
numerically the roughness of discontinuity surfaces and to determine an objective
estimation of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC).
Two statistical parameters Z, and SF (respectively the root mean square and the
mean square of the first derivative of the profile) were found in particular to be
closely correlated with values of the joint roughness coefficient
The equations:
IRC = 32.20 + 32.42 log Z,
IRC = 37.28 + 16.58 log SF
have been proposed for the JRC estimation
The parameter Z) may be numerically determined on a roughness profile
(Figure 4.18a) by using the following expression:
pug yr
[wor
where © is the number of amplitude discrete measurements; y is the amplitude of
the roughness about the center line and Dx is a constant distance lag. 124 Rock slope stability analysis
y B
en)
Re
URC
c)
Figure 4.18. 2) Asperity height mea-
surement; b) Relationship between
JRC and Z,: c) SF parameters for the
10 Barton & Choubey standard rock
discontinuity profiles (after Tse &
Cruden, 1979).
6
where Lis the let
atthe dictance y
jane length L.
h of the profile and f(x) is the amplitude of the asperity height Shear strength 125
Figure 4,18b illustrates the relationship between the JRC and log (Z;) parame-
ters for the Barton & Choubey standard roughness protiles whilst Figure 4.18¢
illustrates the relationship between JRC and log SF.
Swan & Zongqi (1985) set up a tribological model based upon the roughness
statistics and mechanical properties of real joints to predict shear joint behaviour.
They considered three parameters for the scale effect analysis and a numerical
characterization of roughness profiles: The mean roughness profile slope j,
the standard deviation i_,, and all the ordinate standard G, deviations
‘The mean roughness profile slope is defined by the least square line fitted to the
ordinate data profile (Figure 4.192)
THC fue Value, called the roughness envelope angle, may be calculated with the
Rengers (1971) method which provides information approximately equivalent 10
the perfonning of a shear test with nominal normal load (i.e. with negiigible
asperity damage).
i mean ay
a
NS
ime 1)
(a)
>
5 i)
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 io.
shear displacement, (mm)
alculated using
gitized profile (2)
Figure 4,19, a) Roughness profife and reference line: b) Dilatancy enveloy
ihe Rengers method (1) and with a numerical simulation of sliding on 2
(after Swan & Zongqi, 1985). 126 Rack slope stability analysis
An altemative method of computing ipa, values is to use a numerical model
developed for simulating sliding obtained from given digitized profilometric data
(Swan, 1983). In either case, the simulation is a good representation of the tilt test
(Figure 4.19b).
The three parameters means ing, APG G, are Measured on roughness profiles with
a length Lo: subsequently, in order to determine scale effects, scaled lengths L of
the base length Ly are obtained by successive divisions. such as Lo/2. Lg/4 etc.
Scale effects were investigated on experimental joint profiles for two line
definition reference cases:
— A least square line obtained for the profile length Ly was taken to be common
toll scaled lengths of L. L <0 (Case §):
- A least square line was Hitted consistently to each scaled length L (Case 2)
Swan & Zonggi determined average tilt angles o& for forward and reverse ideal
shear conditions by assuming a near interlocked state of wall joint surfaces. In the
hypothesis of simulating tilt tests upon rock blocks with discontinuities and
examining profile different lengths L (L< Ly) one obtains:
@ 0,43
Where = £ fgg + Kling! «and 6, is considered independent of the length and
K=1
The determined variations of Gye, and of G, with the dimensionless joint
length ratio L/L, allowed Swan & Zongqi to arrive at the following conclusions
on the JRC joint length scale dependency’
— The abserved mean profile slope is not constant with the length inclination
and the assumption that 7 = fjy,- With fyeaq = 0. for every length of the same profile
may lead to the underestimation of the tilt angle variation:
= The assumption of a simple triangular profile model to predict the tilt angle
does not produce conclusive evidence of a scale effect:
= For the roughness defined using a consistent reference line (Case 2). scale
effects are primarily of statistical origin, i.e. the larger the asperity sample. the
greater the probability of finding asperities with extreme heights.
Thus. an increased roughness with scale was obtained and this increase
depends on the random or periodic character of roughness with scale.
The Swan & Zonggi statistical joint protile analysis showed that roughness
amplitude exhibits an increase of magnitude with scale in contrast to the Barton-
Bondis model. Swan & Zongqi. in particular, pointed out thal the reference line of
a discontinuity wall surface which determines the shear plane is not a constant
slope with increasing joint surface and conscquently, there are larger scale
roughnessess which should be considered in wider scale discontinuity shear
behaviour,
The author is not able to give a conclusive answer on the reliability of the
different examining formulations to predict joint roughness surface scale effect
but only to offer some observations. Shear strength 127
The geologic: origin of a discontinuity can help to assess if a reference line
maintains a constant slope over determined joint lengths such as those assumed in
the Barton-Bandis model
This may represent a biased condition from some statistical model points of
view: but may occur. ie. in laminated structures, schistosities. or in tension joints,
where roughness symmetry characteristics exist and only some scales of rough-
ness are present in joint surfaces.
The application of the Barton empirical equation for peak shear strength to
slope stability analysis leads to the determining of safety factors which decrease
for triangular slopes with the increase of the sliding surface area.
Consider the example of Figure 4.20 and the following gcometrical and
physical characteristics of the slope stability problem: IRC = & (assumed to be
constant with length), ¢, = 25°, JCS = 50 MPa (assumed to be constant with
Jength), @=45°. sliding surface L, = 141 m, sliding surface Ly = 14.14 m. weight
force W, = 1.31, weight force Wy = 1301
f, =Wicosatan GRC ogi9(ICS/5,.)*6) _ 4g
W, since
where
W, S
o= 154. 0,065 MPa
4
IV, cos oetan URC logyg ICS/S,2) +9.) _ | 4
W, sina
\here 6,, = 0.065 MPa.
The safety factor decreases, being constant JRC and JCS values, with normal
stress increasing. according to the non linearity of the shear strength envelope.
10 m
Figure 4.20. Triangular slope with
parallel sliding surfaces. 128 Rock slope stability analysis
Figure 4.21. Siability of rock stabs with differ-
ent lengths: 9) L= 0.1 m:b) L = 2m
Two different slope stability analysis schemes may be examined in the hypo-
thesis of maintaining constant normal stress and varying JRC and JCS with the
length (Figure 4.21).
Firstly consider the case of Figure 4.21a in which a cubic block set rests on an
inclined plane. The physical and geometrical characteristics of the slope stability
problem are: IRCy=8. JCSy = 50 MPa. 6, = 25°
cos
= 0.00184 MPa
1
where &=45°.L,=0.1 m=Ly. WV, =0.1841
The safety factor of a cubic block is given by:
p_RURC Ios UCSIOI+8_ | 166
tan a
Using the Barton-Bandis model for the scale length effect for the stability
problem of Figure 4.21b, the JRC and JCS values become for a joint length of
2m:
IRC = IRC (L/L) PPR = 4.95
ICS = ICS (L/L g)0 9/80 = 24.36 MPa
and the correspondent safety factor F = 1.01.
The Barton-Bandis model assumption, in order to take JRC scale effect on joint
lengths into account, leads to the determining of the safety factor as being lower
on a surface on which a monolith rests than on a surface on which an adjacent and
contacting blocky system rests. A realistic hypothesis, to justify the experimental Shear strength 129
(a) (bo)
2) Monolith resting on a rough surface: b) System of blocks resting on 3 rough
Figure 4.
surface.
evidence on which the Barton-Bandis model is based, is that of considering that
the joint surface match decreases with joint length and consequently the inter-
locked state between the joint surfaces also decreases (see Figure 4.22). The
applicability of the Swan & Zongqi tribological model is limited te fresh and
clean joints analysis.
4.2.10 Fractal characierization of joint surface roughness for estimating shear
strength
Several works have been carried out (Turk et al., 1987; Carr & Warriner, 1987;
MacWilliam et al., 1990; etc.) to estimate joint shear strength by means of a
fractal characterization of joint roughness profiles.
The fractal method was firstly applied to coastal length determination (Man-
delbrot, 1967) and an example of the use of the coastal Jength fractal calculation is
here described.
Figure 4.23 shows the outline of an imaginary island. A ruler could be used to
measure the length of the coast and could be placed end to end around the coast
The Jength L of the coast will then be:
L=Nvy
where y is the ruler length and N the number of rulers. If the process of measuring
the length of the coastis repeated, but with a shorter ruler, itis found that length L,
measured with the shorter ruler is greater than that measured with the longer ruler,
since shorter rulers allow one to better follow the most indented coast lines.
The relationship between the total coast Jength and the ruler length can be
expressed as
L=N-y?
where D is the fractal dimension (Mandelbrot. 1982). The equation can be
rewritten (Carr & Warriner. 1987) as:
Ly-PsN
and, by nonwalizi
1 L = I, one obtains: 130 Rock slope stability analysis
Figure 4.23. Coastal length computed using differ-
ent length rulers: 1) Natural profile; 2) Length ruler
= yy 3) Length moles
and taking the base logy,
=D logy()
Fractal dimensions of rock joint surfaces may also be described using the ruler
technique. Thus. the joint roughness coefficient or the roughness angle of the joint
profile is related to the fractal dimension of the rough surface,
Different correlations between JRC and fractal dimensions have been pro-
posed. Carr & Warriner (1987) proposed wo linear correlations determined on
the basis of experimental rock joint profile analysis:
JRC =-1022.55 + 1023.92D JRC = 1000(D - 1)
Turk et al. (1987) devcloped a procedure tor the estimation of the roughness angle
of a rock surface from the fractal dimension. This procedure was applied to the
Barton & Choubey standard profiles and to the Silurian sandstone joint profile
analysis,
This procedure refers to the profile length of the fractal dimension and the unit
step length (ruler) yz
logy L = logy) K+ (1 ~D)logiyy
Where K is a constant,
The Barton & Choubey standard joint profiles were analyzed using the unit
sizes of 2, 6. 20 and 60 mm. The log-plot of the measuring steps and {otal joint
profile length for different profiles are shown in Figure 4.24. From a study of
Figure 4.24 it was decided to estimate the fractal dimensions of the joint profiles
from the slope of the line corresponding to a6 mm measuring step length.
The estimation of the roughness angle / of the rock surface was determined as:
i=cos Ii?
where 1, is the considered direct length of the joint profile or, for the general case:
sexp se?
where x is a constant. Shear strengih 131
standard Leg t
JRC profile
profile number
2
4
6
9
1 pee L —_ ~
2 8 LO, 1 18
Log &
Figure 4.24, Log-plot of step size (E) versus measured lengih (L) for JRC standard profiles
(after Turk et al.. 1987),
Table 4.1. The roughness angles and fractal dimension of the Barton & Choubey standard
joint roughness coefficients (after Turk etal., 1987)
JRC i=cos4/1,(°) Fractal dimension
0-2 0 1.0
24 4a 1.0019
46 41 1.0027
68 16 1.0049
8-10 66 1.0054
10-12 46 1.0045
1214 42 1.0077
14-16 9.2 1.0070
16-18, V2 1.0104
18-20 120 1.0170
+1 is the joint trace lengih.
This equation (Turk et al., 1987) is the fundamental equation for estimating the
joint roughness angle from the fractal dimension
Table 4.1 gives the estimated roughness angles and fractal dimensions of the
Barton & Choubey standard profiles. 132 Rock slope stability analysis
The following comments can be made on the fractal method application to the
Joint shear strength estimation:
~ Two correlation methods between joint surface roughness and fractal dimen-
sion of roughness profiles have been proposed. The first (Carr & Wariner, 1987)
correlates the fractal dimension to the JRC value: the second, the fractal dimen
sion to the average roughness angle of the joint surface.
= The first correlation was empirically determined.
~ The roughness angle determined by the second correlation takes not only the
primary but also the secondary asperities into account and gives the upperbound
valves.
— The joint roughness is expected to be constant, irrespective of the joint size.
Moreover (Turk et al., 1987) this makes it possible to determine the roughness
of large rock joints from the fractal dimension of small joint profiles.
= The fractal method was applied to the estimation of the IRC of the Barton &
Choubey standard profiles. Empirical data given by Barton & Choubey and
fractal method application results are not always in agreement.
Because of the difficulty in finding a better correlation between the joint
roughness coefficients and the fractal dimensions of joint profiles, some research
ers in this field (MacWilliams, 1990) are not convinced that the 2-D work profile
is able to solve the 3-D problems of rock joint shear strength estimation.
4.2.11. Geostatistical operators applied 10 the rock joint shear strength
prediction
Practical geostatistic applications to rock slope engineering problems have
mainly deen carried out recently for spatial variability analysis and modelling of
the characteristics of rock joints. Geostatistical operators such as the variogram or
covariance and geostatistical methods such as different types of kriging have then
been applied to rock mechanics regionalized variables.
The geostatistical application to rock joint modelling and to the estimation of
regional average joint orientation input parameters for stability analysis are
discussed in Chapter 6 together with some outlines of the basic principles of linear
geostatistics.
Methods based on the analysis of the variogram function for joint roughness
profile characterization are here discussed.
Variogram analysis has been carried out (Ferrero & Giani, 1990; Giani &
Ferrero, 1990) in order to relate the particular structure of the geostatistic operator
to the shear strength resistance components given by the roughness and waviness
of the joint profiles.
The regionalized variable of the problem is the asperity height at every point of
the examined profile, while the reference axis for height measurements is
assumed to be horizontal. If this axis, which represents the mean height line is not
horizontal and the discontinuity profile is therefore inclined, the application of the Shear strength 133
geostatistical method foresees a preliminary rotation of the discontinuity profile
Lill the horizontal position is reached. The slope angle jnean 18 Positive when it
corresponds to a shear resistante increase. On the other hand, it is negative where
it decreases.
It is therefore possible to construct the experimental variogram by knowing the
regionalized variable and assuming it is quasi-stationary.
‘The variogram is a linear operator which is, in this case, defined along the
profile length for all the h vectors which lie on the length. It is expressed as the
variance of the increment Y(x + ht) ~¥(x):
2y(h) = E{ [Yea + h)- YQ)? } Vx
where .v is the abscissa value along the length f: ¥(1) the valve of the asperity
height in x and El-] represents the expected value of the quantity inside the
brackets.
The characteristic variogram of the ten standard Barton & Choubey profiles is
then determined (Figure 4.25a) and the expression which relates the variogram
function to the roughness angle. for different roughness widths is:
y=
Subsequently. Fersero & Giani determined. by means of an analytical formula-
tion. that the profile roughness angle i may be related to the JCS/o, value. It was
determined that. for each h(lag) value, the JCS/G,, value may be evaluated as:
JCS/o, =1/2h
a (o
Figure 4.25. a)
results: 2) Geosti
cam of u roughness profile: b) Shear strength envelope: 1) Experimental
I model use. 134 Rock slope stability analysis
Plate 4.5. Artificial rough discontinuity in a specimen composed of mortar mixed with sand
By S. Givglardo
where / is the length of the asperity area in contact and consequently. for each fh
valve. a JRC/G,, ratio and a correspondent i(h) value may be determined
A laboratory set of tests was carried out (Giani. 1991) in order to confirm the
shear resistance prediction expressions determined by working with asperity
height variograms
Morar and sand mixed specimens with rough discontinuities were constructed
in the laboratory for this purpose (Plate 4.5). The shape of the artificial disconti-
nuities reproduced the Barton & Choubey standard profiles. Each specimen valve
was ten centimeters long and four centimeters wide
The , and JCS values of the discontinuity material were determined by means
of direct shear and uniaxial compressive tests carried out on the mortar and sand
mixed specimens. The comparison between the shear resistance envelopes ob-
tained by direct shear tests on the artificial rough discontinuity and by geostat-
istical model application were found to be in good agreement (Figure 4.25)
4.2.42 Influence of the wall discontinuity interlock level on the shear resistance
The contact mode between interface asperities during shearing movements of
wall discontinuities was analyzed by Roko & Daemen (1988).
Two analytical methods were used to characterize the joint interface roughness
profile: The variogram function and the gamma density distribution. The joint Shear strength \35
interface smoothness, which occurs with successive joint shearing at increasing
normal loads, was correlated to the decrease in the sil! of the variogram function
which describes the roughness height distribution of joint profiles.
The contact mode between the partially indented interface asperities during
shear movements have also been examined by Giani (1991) (Figure 4.26).
The cross variagram function was examined in order to predict the shear
behaviour of partially indented rough discontinuities.
Cross-variogram analysis is used when geostatistics is applied to mineral
reserve estimation to determine the correlation between the grades of two
minerals present in the same orebody.
The cross variogram is positive when an increasing grade of the first mineral
corresponds to an increasing grade of the second mineral. Cross variogram is
negative in the opposite case.
In rough surface analysis, the asperity heights refer to the surface median line
(see Figure 4.27).
A discontinuity with a perfect interface indentment is characterized by the
same values of the interface asperity height along all the examined discontinuity
profiles,
The cross variogram is defined for all the h lags as:
2y() = Et Lz)
srt [FOI - 2064+)
where =(0) and =/(x) are the heights of the upper and lower interfaces.
The cross-variogram coincides with the variogram when the joint interfaces are
perfectly indented
_l
Figure 4.26. Different indentment levels of a wall discontinuity surface.
Figure 4,27. Asperity height measu-
rement 136 Rock slope stability analysi
s=0
0.5
-0.8{f -
[ae ee (a)
cm
123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s 2-33 cm
0.5
cm ()
12 3 45 67 8 9 10
8 =.175 em
0.5
- 0.5.
a rn Os
12 3 4 5 67 8 3 10
Figure 4.28, Standard JRC 18-20 profile: a) Perfect indeniment: b) After a horizontal
movement of 6.33 cm and a vertical movement of 0.5 mm: c) Afier a horizontal movement of
0.175 cm snd a vertical movement of 0.25 mm. The length of the profiles is 10 em,
Figure 4.28 shows three different discontinuity indentment interface degrees.
The roughness profile of the interface is the (JRC 18-20) Barton & Choubey
standard profile.
Cross variograms of the three discontinuities with a different interface indent-
ee are reported in Figure 4.293,
-variograms are positive and exhibit analogous trends.
The cross-variogram functions decrease with the increase of the relative joint
interface displacements.
The same procedure for determining a correlation between the variogram
function and joint roughness angle has been extended to the case in which the
cross-variogram has been correlated to the roughness angle of partially indented
discontinuity interfaces
The relationship i (roughness angle) and / (iength of asperity areas in contact)
may be determined (Figure 4.29c) by using the equation:
Vych)
h
ith) = tan” Shear strength 137
1 2 3 4 5 9 9.2 0.4 2.6
(ec) experimental (g) + thecretical
Figure 4.29. a) Cross variogram of the three discontinuities reported in Figure 4,28;
b) i-ICS/o, diagrams: c) Correspondent i-! diagrams: d) Shear strength envelopes obtained
by the geostatistical method and by shear test data (after Giani, 1991).
and the relationship i - JCS/o, may also be determined for each /i(lag) value by
using the equation:
Jcs_!
3, oh 138 Rock slope stability analysis
Plate 4.6. Sheared speci-
men composed of mor-
iar mixed with sand.
The shear resistance of each pantially indented discontinuity interface may be
predicted from the relationship i - JCS /o,, (Figure 4.29b) and from the value of 6,
and JCS.
Direct shear tests (Plate 4.6) were carried out on rough discontinuities with
partially indented interfaces (Giani, 1991); results of shear strength laboratory
tests and of data obtained with the geostatistical mode! application are reported in
Figure 4.20d
4.2.13 Filled discontinuities
Principat tvpes of filling discomtinuity materials. geometrical and physical filling
and rack discontinuity characteristics are reported in Section 3.10 with reference Shear strength 139
to a rock slope exposure survey. Filling materials influence shear discontinuity
resistance by generally causing a decrease in strength and stiffness.
The presence of low friction materials, such as chlorite or graphyte, decreases
the discontinuity frictional component. whilst mineralized filled veins, such as
quanizile, may increase rock discontinuity shear resistance.
The mechanical behaviour of a major filled discontinvity is defined by the
mechanical properties of the filling material. When the mechanical behaviour of
these materials is similar to clay or silt behaviour. the shear resistance of
discontinuities is defined by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion expressed in terms of
effective stresses.
Ladanyi & Archaumbault (1977) reached the following conclusions on the
basis of laboratory tesis carried out on filled discontinuities:
1. The peak shear resistance envelope is. for a large number of filled disconti-
auities. within the filling material and the clean discontinuity wall behaviour;
. The shear resistance and stiffness of a filled discontinuity decrease with the
increase of the filling width, while always remaining greater than that of the filling
material:
3. The filled discontinuity shear stress-horizontal displacement diagrams are
often characterized by two different trends; one reproduces the filling material
behaviour before the rock to rock contact occurs, the second reflects the rock
asperity failure and the deformation of the discontinuity walls in comact;
4. The shear resistance of a filled discontinuity is not always dependent on the
filling width. If the discontinuity walls are plane and slikenside the shear sliding
surface is found at the contact line between the filling and one of the rock walls;
5. The shear resistance of a swelling clay filling discontinuity decreases with
the swelling increase: if swelling is obstructed, very high swelling pressures can
occur.
A further factor which has to be considered in filled discontinuity analysis is the
influence of the filling material on rock mass penneability. Clay filling permeabil-
ity can be much lower than that of the jointed rock mass and can be the cause of
instability phenomena in rock slopes. Seepage or flow in rock masses can cause
high neutral pressure values in filled discontinuities which isolate rock blocks or
potentially unstable rock mass by lowering stope safety factors.
4.2.14 Discontinuity shear behaviour under dynamic conditions
The purpose of rock slope stability analysis in earthquake loading conditions is
usually to assess if the shear stress accumulation, due to cyclic loading, may cause
instability along discontinuities. In this case, a constitutive model of joint behav-
iour should be set up by determining the joint strength mobilized at each forward
and reverse loading cycle (Figure 4.30) and the shear stress-displacement law.
In dynamic loading conditions joints exhibit a different shear behaviour with
respects to the statical conditions. 140 Rock slope stability analysis
ro forward reverse
Figure 4.30. Idealized jointing in a rack slope.
Z
Ad
=
A
The rough joint shear behaviour is influenced by the dynamic load according to
the joint physical conditions:
~ The phase previous to the peak shear strength mobilization:
~ The post peak phase (Forlati & Zaninetti, 1988).
Dynamic joint shear behaviour is influenced, in the pre-peak phase, by the normal
and tangential loading frequency and by the number of loading cycles. In
post-peak conditions, shear behaviour is only influenced by the joint wall sliding
rate.
General feature constitutive models for cycle loaded joints which relate the
variation of the statical shear resistance parameters to the loading cycle intensity
and shear displacement velocity are not yet available for carrying out rock slope
stability analysis in dynamic conditions.
A few of the following observations, with reference to various scientific papers
in this field, may be useful in order to assess the joint shear resistance in the
dynamic field. These observations refer to the inluence of a dynamic load on
shear displacement velocity and on joint shear behaviour.
a) Shear displacement velocity:
= Shear resistance greatly decreases with the number of forward and reverse
loading cycles because of the fatigue phenomenon which arise (Atewell, 1973;
Haimson. 1978).
— Loading application velocity increasing leads to remarkable increments of
peak shear resistance with respects to the static peak resistance (Ishihara &
Nogao. 1981).
= Peak shear resistance increases for smooth surfaces with loading application
frequency (Mencher, 1981). Shear strength 141
~ In post-peak conditions, shear resistance is independent of the dynamic
loading feature and is lower than the static shear resistance (Hencher. 1981).
b) Joim shear behaviour;
— The true contact area between joint interfaces increases with the contact time
logarithm because of the asperity interlocking phenomena; as the shear velocities
are higher, the contact times are shorter and the shear resistance decreases.
However, ploughing phenomenon, typical of joint surface hardness heterogene-
ity. can modify the nature of the foreseen phenomena (Dieterich. 1978).
~ Heat generated between the discontinuity walls in contact during shear
action is dissipated on the whole joint surface. Dissipation time decreases with
shear displacement velocity by determining the contact melting zone and conse-
quently the shear resistance decrease (Forlati & Zaninetti. 1988).
— The joint interface asperities in contact are subjected to reciprocal impacts
which are more substantial as the surfaces are rougher and the shear displacement
velocities are higher. This effect determines a shear resistance increment in the
dynamic ficld
Joint wall hardness plays a determining role in dynamic shear behaviour
assessment.
The friction angle of weak rocks increases, for low normal loads. up toa critical
velocity value, Beyond this value. the friction angle remains almost constant. with
normal load increments, up to a second critical velocity value. beyond which,
shear resistance decreases (Crawford & Curran, 1981). The dynamic shear
resistance of very hard rocks maintains the same value of the statical value for low
velocilies up to a critical velocity value. Beyond this limit, shear resistance
decreases with the velocity logarithm (Crawford & Curran, 1981; Curran &
Leong. 1983).
In hard rocks, the shear displacement velocity is independent of the normal
stress level and roughness coefficient (Curran & Leong, 1983).
4.2.15 Conchiding remarks on joint shear resistance
Stability conditions of potentially unstable rock masses may be analyzed in peak
shear strength conditions when the discontinuities on which rock masses may
slide are closed and unfilled.
The principal parameters required for the natural unfilled discontinuity shear
strength according (o the methodology of Barton and his colleagues are reported
in Table 4.2.
4.3 SHEAR STRENGTH OF ROCK MASS
Discontinuities play a fundamental role in slope stability analysis since they can
isolate potentially unstable solid rock and can be sliding planes themselves.
The discontinuity shear strength definition is then necessary in order to study 142 Rock slope stability analysis
Table 4.2, Principal parameters for natural discontinuity shear strength determination.
Quantity Description Notes
6, Basic friction angle obtained in the laboratory on anifcially cut ,>6,
discontinuities
%, Residual friction angle, the minimum value of friction resistance $,
obtained in the laboratory after several forward and reverse shear
cycles. 6, is correlated 10 6, and the JCS of the examined (r) and
correspondent sound (R) wall as:
0, = (0,—20)+207/R
ICSy Joint compressive strength obtained with the Schmidt hammer tests JCS, > ICS
in the laboratory scale (Ly)
JRC) Joint roughness coefficient obtained in the laboratory scale (Ly) by: IRC, >JRC
~ Comparison with standard profiles:
= Tiltlests
IRC IRC free of scate obtained by:
~ Statistical. geostatistical and fractal application procedures:
= Correlation to JRC, and referring 10a length L, as:
IRC =IRCy (L/L gy RO
Ics ICS free of seale correlated 10 JCSy and IRC, as:
ICS = ICS L/L gl AON
The interlocking degree which can decrease with rock mass relaxa-
tion in slope excavation. erosion, etc. should be considered in the
design phase by cautiously decreasing the JRC and JCS values
the equilibrium condition of the rock which can be subjected to slide along
discontinuity planes present in a rock slope.
Shear and deformation features of a rock mass as a whole system of disconti-
nuities and intact rocks are required for the problems involving stress
Vous aimerez peut-être aussi
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceD'EverandHidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (895)
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeD'EverandThe Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (5794)
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeD'EverandShoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (537)
- Grit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceD'EverandGrit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (588)
- The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)D'EverandThe Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (98)
- The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingD'EverandThe Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingÉvaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles3.5/5 (400)
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItD'EverandNever Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (838)
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureD'EverandElon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (474)
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryD'EverandA Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryÉvaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles3.5/5 (231)
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerD'EverandThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (271)
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaD'EverandDevil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (266)
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersD'EverandThe Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (345)
- On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealD'EverandOn Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (74)
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyD'EverandThe World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyÉvaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles3.5/5 (2259)
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnD'EverandTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnÉvaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (234)
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaD'EverandThe Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (45)
- The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreD'EverandThe Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (1090)
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)D'EverandThe Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles4.5/5 (121)
- Her Body and Other Parties: StoriesD'EverandHer Body and Other Parties: StoriesÉvaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles4/5 (821)
