Eurock '96, Barfa (ed.)!$;) 1996 Bafkema, Rotterdam.

ISBN 90 5410843 6
Rock joint shear mechanical behavior with 3D surfaces morphology
and degradation during shear displacement
Comportement mecanique avec modelisation 3D d'un joint en cisaillement
Das mechanische Verhalten und die 3D-Modellierung der Morphologie der
Oberflachen und ihrer Beschadigung in Direcktschnitt-Proben
Guy Archambault &Rock Flarnand- Centre d' Etudes sur les Ressources Minerales, Universite du Quebec
d Chicoutimi. Que .. Canada
Sylvie Gentier - BRGM. Direction de /0 Recherche. Or/eons, France
J oelle Riss- Centre de Developpement des Geosciences Appliquees, Universite de Bordeaux I, Talence, France
Colette Sirieix -ANTEA, Direction de /0 Geotechnique, Orleans, France
ABSTRACT: J oint shear behavior is analyzed in relation with profiles 20 statistical description, 3D statistical
modelling of asperities angularity, geostatistical analysis and krigeage modelling to detect superposed structures
and restitute surfaces topography of ajoint roughness morphology on replicas of a natural fracture submitted to
direct shear tests performed under various normal stresses and stopped at defined shear displacements. The
shear processes and progressive degradation on the replicas joint surfaces as well as their evolution are evaluated
through measurements of the damaged areas using image analysis. The evolution of the size and location of the
damaged areas arc analyzed in relation with normal stress for given shear displacement.
RESUME: Le comportement d'un joint en cisaillement est analyse en fonction de la description stanstique 20
des profils, de la rnodelisation statistique 3D de l'angularite des asperites, de l'analyse geostatistique et du
krigeage permenant de detecter la superposition de structures et de restituer la topographie des surfaces de la
morphologie de la rugosite du joint, sur des repliques d'une fracture naturelle sollicitees en cisaillement direct
sous diverses contraintes normales et pour des deplacernents en cisaillement definis. Les mecanismes de cisail-
Iernent et la degradation progressive des surfaces du joint sur les repliques, ainsi que leur evolution sont cvalues
en rnesurant les aires endornmagees a I'aide de la technique d'analyse images. L'evolution de la dimension et de
la localisation des aires endornrnagees sont analysecs en fonction de la contrainte norrnale appliquee pour des
deplacements en cisaillemcnt definis.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Das Verhalten von Kluftscherung wird analysiert in Benzug auf 2D-statitische
Beschreibung del' Profile, 3D-statitische Modellisierung del' Winkel von Asperiten, geostatitische Analyzen und
Krigeagemodellierung, urn aufeinandcrgereihte Strukturen einer rauhen Kluftmorphologie auf Bausteinmodelle
elnes naturlichen Bruches, festzustellen. Scheversuche an diesen Modellisierungsversuch wurden unter
verscheidene norma Ie Spannungen ausgefuhrt und bei hestimmten Scherdeplacierungen angehalten. Del'
Scherungsprozess und progressive Degradierung del' Kluftflachen des Bausteinrnodels wurden in den gestortcn
Zonen durch lmageanalysierung ausgewertet. Die Entwicklung del' Grosse und genaue Stellung diesel'
Storlingszonen wurden analysiert in Bezung auf Norrnalspannung fur einen bestimmten Scherungswert.
fNTRODUCTION
The prolific literature on characterization and behavior
of single, irregular rock joints submitted to various
normal and direct shear loading conditions, to eva-
luate the needed mechanical and hydraulic parameters
In hydromechanical stability analysis of workings in
fractured rock masses (Stephansson 1985; Barton &
Stephansson 1990; Myel' et al. 1995; to cite only the
three organized symposium of the .ISRM commission
On rock joints) show their inextricable complex
behavior and characteristics. These numberless
research works on various rock joints problems
Confirm Scholtz (1990) statement that there is no
constitutive law for friction quantitatively built upon
micromechanical framework because of the com-
plexity of shear contacts, the topography of con-
tacting surfaces and the evolving surfaces topography
during sliding. A recent review of the literature on
rock joints testing and modelling (Stephansson &
ling 1995) pointed out that there is still a large
number of problems to solve before having an overall
understanding of the phenomenon, particularly the
roughness morphology and the difficulty of its
characterization and modelling.
In this paper, an approach is reviewed for geo-
metrical description of joint surfaces morphology on
the basis of a 3D statistical description and modelling.
A contribution to the characterization of damaged
areas in relation with shear displacement under
constant normal stress is also presented, in which the
evolution and geometrical characteristics of the
damaged zones are evaluated in relation with the
normal stress magnitude, for given shear displace-
247
Table I.
Classical linear roughness coefficients measured on profiles parallel to the shear direction.
Profile RL Z2 Z3
8rcgrcssion
S/ x mm
2
Z4
z=f(x)
A B A B A B A B A B A B
I 1.029 1.029 0.251 0.246 0.547 0.608 1
0
59 1
0
63 0.108 0.092 0.089 0.190
2 1.030
1.031 0.249 0.254 0.528 0.551 0
0
56 0
0
64 0.281 0.286 0.111 0.220
3 1.033 1.033 0.263 0.264 0.597 0.581 -0
0
74 -0
0
76 0.327 0.321 -0.018 0.024
4 1.041 \ .036 0.300 0.283 0.611 0.521 0
0
05 0
0
02 0.585 0.552 0.057 0.101
5 1.022 1.030 0.212 0.254
0.448 0.56\ -1
0
88 -1
0
68 0.702 0.637 -0.017 0.048
6 1.042 1.043 0.300 0.306 0.556 0.590 -0
0
34 -0
0
37
0.493 0.485 0.136 0.103
248
damaged zones are evaluated in relation with the
normal stress magnitude, for given shear displace-
ment.
2 J OINT ROUGHNESS CHARACTERIZATION
J oint walls morphology characterization means here
that a 3D quantitative description of roughness evolu-
tion on the joint surfaces was done during laboratory
shear tests performed on a series of identical replicas
from the walls of a natural fracture in a granite
(Gueret, France) for which a detailed study of the
morphology was done (Gentier 1986; Riss &Gentier
1990, 1995). The replicas were submitted to direct
shear tests under three different normal stress and
each shear test was stopped at a defined shear dis-
placement for five displacements (Flamand et a!'
1994). This procedure permits a control on the
evolution of the joint wall surfaces morphology with
shear displacement.
The shear stress, shear displacement, normal
stress and normal displacement being available at the
end of each test; a morphological analysis was
performed using five profiles, z=f(x,y), recorded on
the joint wall surfaces 15.26 rnm apart in four direc-
tions, digitized at a constant step (L'l.x=0.5rnrn) and
kept constant for all shear tests (Flamand et a!' 1994;
Riss et a!' 1995). The analysis of these data consists
first in the deduction of parameters characterizing the
whole set of recorded points, i.e. the joint wall
surface expanding in a 3D space and, secondly, in
detailed distribution analysis of the 82angles between
a reference plane and a line segment linking two
successive points on the recorded profiles. This
analysis is fundamental to restore the true 3D colati-
tude (83) distribution of elementary plane facets
composing the joint wall surfaces before and after
testing and correcting by the same way the bias intro-
duced by the profiles.
2. I Statistical description and analysis of the joint
surfaces
The overall analysis of the joint wall surfaces gives a
global view of the morphology and depends on
wheter we are interrested in the 3D spatial reality of
each joint wall surface or to each joint wall surface
recording directions related respectively to:
a) the total variance of all profiles set of points,
the residual variance and correlation coefficient after
linear regression of the altitudes z in function of the
coordinates (x,y) on the reference plane, the azimuth
and colatitude in a given reference system of the
regression plane and of the principal plane resulting
from the diagonalization of variance and covariance
matrices of the whole set of points; or
b) the linear roughness coefficient R
L
, the z2, z3
and z4coefficients and the linear regression parame-
ters (8rcgrcssionand residual variance ~.~).
As the total variance is an invariant for a given
set of points (x, y, z referred to given reference
systems: VI01al =V x+V
y
+V z) the spatial dispersion of
the set of recorded points and its evolution during
shear displacement can be measured and compared
providing profiles are recorded at the same positions
on each wall surfaces of the fracture replica and kept
constant in each shear test. Taking into account both
variances and covariances, it is also possible to
compute estimations of the local mean plane of the
fracture that could be slightly different from the
regional one. They are based firstly on a linear
regression of z on x and y and secondly on deriving
the first principal plane from the diagonalization of the
variance-covariance matrix. The following analysis
performed on the joint wall surfaces under study
permits to establish that the local mean plane dips
slightly (5) in a direction perpendicular to the shear
direction, that the upper wall dips slightly more than
the lower one and that the lower wall is rougher than
the upper one. The detail of these analyses and
computations are given in Riss et a!' (1995).
From the computed linear roughness coefficient
(RL) (Table I), dependent on 82 distributions, and on
the basis of experimental 20 colatitudes distributions
characteristics, it is observed that probabilities of 82
is slightly higher than for the negative 82, but the
mean values of the latter are smaller than the other
one. In average, there are more asperities in the
positive direction than in the opposite one but these
asperities are smoother than in the negative direction.
On the whole, repartitions of positive and negative
angles can be considered as identical for wall A and
slightly more dispersed for wall B. Experimental 20
colatitudes (82) for both walls are quite similar and
the mean fW > is 10.31
0
for wall A and 10.08
0
for wall
B while 8~-)is -11.91
0
and -12.49
0
for wall A and 8
respectively. Also, from Table I,the parameters
8rcgrcssion and residual variance S;.xindicate the trend
of the profiles to dip and the latter measures the part
of the elevations z that are not explained by the global
dip of the fracture replica. The dipping trend of
profiles can indicate probable zones of contact where
asperities may be damaged, particularly for the
profiles dipping towards the shear direction and
against the sense of shear displacement while, for
oppositc dipping, there will be a trend of the surfaces
to separate in creating voids between them. But these
situations depend also on asperities heights (CLA or
RS), profile roughness (RL), roughness dispersion
(S;.x) and other linear coefficients, So, looking at
one of them without taking into account informations
from the others can introduce large errors and biased
informations on the morphology of the surfaces.
Moreover, 20 roughness parameters are insufficient
to describe adequately the joint wall surfaces
IllOllJ hology changing from to point to point.
2.2 Statistical modelling in 3D of roughness
angularities
Digitized profiles look like polygonal lines and a
polygonal surface results from a joint wall inter-
section wih a set of contiguous hexagonal prisms
orthogonal to the mean regional plane. Then, the
surface is subdivided into small facets, small enough
to be considered as planar (Fig. IA). Angles between
the normal to facets and z axis are the real colatitudes
(83). As shear direction is parallel to the local mean
plane horizontal direction, it is assumed that 20
colatitudes (82), measured in vertical planes in this
direction, can represent any colatitude measured in a
plane perpendicular to the local mean plane. Using
classical method of 3D colatitude reconstruction
(Gentier 1986), inference of the 3D colatitudes distri-
butions is done (Fig. IB). The reconstructed distri-
butions are not strictly similar for each wall, like the
20 distributions. Then areal roughness (R
A
) is
computed from these distributions in order to
evaluate, by comparison, the reconstructed distribu-
uons F(83) using R
A
values deri ved from a stereo-
logical method. The F(83) distributions being
acceptable, then theoretical models must be fit to them
In order to have an expression useful for further
developments such as a simulation of the fracture wall
Surfaces and for estimating R
A
. Inference is done
either by fitting the 3D empirical distribution derived
frOIll the 20 (82) distribution to a model or by filling
the 20 experimental (82) to a 20 distribution from a
3D model (Riss &Gentier 1989, 1990). The 3D
mOdels used are generalized axial distributions:
A)
Section
(prOfil~e
Facet
Line of "'-
reference T 8] I
rue ang e
8,
Apparenl angle
B)
3.5
3.0
(IN l(Jc
1.0
'"

~ 25
.c
o
0.
20
'0'
~
.~ 1.5
.
o
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.5
o
60 10 20 30 40
3D Cotaliludes
50
K
~
R
A
I M odel fh
WaliA 16.58
1.10 1.0634 13
I
1611
WallB 15.08
1.25
1.0625 [ 13 15'96
A+B 12.06
1.65 1.0632 13 1588
I
Figur-e I. AlDcfinitions of 02 and 03 and stercogrnphic projection showing
the dependence of 02 on 03 the direction of the vertical section plane; ll) 3D
reconstructed distributions and models for colatitudcs 83 with characteristics
of the filled model s for 3D distribution.
Exp (Kcos~83)
F(e3) =fl sin 03
o Exp(Kt~)dt
Models derived from the fitting process are shown in
Figure IB with the parameters used and the charac-
teristics deduced for R
A
, the mode and the mean (8
3
).
The most important result is that the 3D elementary
facets dip in any direction with a mean angle of 16
and this angle is obviously greater than the 20 mean
angle of individual segments (Riss et al. 1995).
These statistical analyses and deduced physical
conditions of the joint walls permit to establish that a
perfect matching between the surfaces is highly
improbable with the differential variation between
walls dipping and roughness as well as between 20
and 3D colatitudes (82 and 83) or asperities slopes
distributions on both walls. Moreover, Gentier
(1986), in its evaluation of voids between the joint
249
walls, has illustrated a series of profiles of both walls
adjusted together in which large void spaces and few
contact areas could be seen between them. 3D analy-
sis of enclosed void spaces between the fracture
surfaces to evaluate voids morphology, either by
statistical simulation or casting of voids, show also
few contact areas between joint surfaces (Gentier &
Riss 1990). These studies also show that most of the
contacts seem to be located on the slopes of asperities
and it even may happen that on particular profiles no
contact can be seen. Equally, an anisotropic joint
shear behavior with shear direction and sense may be
deduced from the previous analyses and be attributed
to the slight dip (5) of the tested joint local mean
plane perpendicular to the shear direction used, the
dip variations of the profiles with the recorded direc-
tion, the variability in roughness of each joint wall
and the dissymmetry between the positive and nega-
tive colatitudes (82) on the profiles.
2.3 Geostatistical analysis a/joint sur/aces
Even with all these quantitative statistical analyses and
the more sophisticated 3D statistical modelling and
characterization of joint roughness angularities giving
a more realistic figure than the 2D statistical evalua-
tion, no spatial structural information is given
regarding asperities structures (shape, size, jogs,
waviness and others) for an adequate modelling of
joint shear deformation and strength. Asperities spa-
tial distribution and shape on joint wall surfaces are
not necessarily at random and the presence of super-
posed structures cannot be detected on 3D angularities
distribution (Fig. I B) and the presence of a major
structure like a jog showing high angularity (>45),
this will not change appreciably the distribution
shown. But the mechanical shear behavior will be
greatly affected by this structure which will control
the joint shear strength and the related dilatancy
behavior. Various methods are available to do it and
among them geostatistics with which variograms and
variographic analysis of profiles permit to characterize
the size of asperities structures (range) related to the
heights, curvature radii and angularity distributions
while krigeage modelling and simulation can restitute
the topographic surfaces (Fig. 2) (Gentier 1986;
Gentier &Riss 1990).
As an example, the variograms analyses applied
to heights, curvature and angularity statistical
distributions on various samples of Gueret granite
joint surfaces show at least two overlapping asperity
structures: 4 to 6 rnrn and 18 to 20 mm, and also a
large one (40 mm) causing a 5 dipping of the joint
plane sample. The chosen shear direction was
parallel to the principal structure, so that only the
roughness morphology represented by the 3D
colatitudes (83) distributions (Fig. I B) are controlling
the joint shear behavior.
Fi~urc 2. Example of krigcage of a joint surface based 011 an isotropic
spherical variogram model. ({lJler Gcnticr, /986)
3 J OINT SHEAR BEHAVIOR PHASES WITH
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT
3.1 Direct shear testing and results
The direct shear test results come from a shear test
program (Flarnand et al. 1994) on joint replicas
submitted to three different constant normal stress (7,
14and 21 MPa). The 15shear tests were performed
and stopped at various shear displacements (0.35,
0.55, 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0 rnrn) and the results are
summarized in Figure 3. In Figure 3A the shear
stress-shear displacement-dilatancy relationships arc
recorded for the shear tests done. These results arc
plotted, for the main characteristics, in a Mohr
diagram (upper part, Fig. 3B) while the lower
diagram shows the dilatancy rate (or angle) in relation
with normal stress (ON)' These results are compared
with LA DAR model (Ladanyi &Archambault 1969)
for io values of 15 and 30 and with Barton's model
(Barton 1973) for J RC values of 10 and 14, values
estimated with the Z2 coefficient in Table I (Tse &
Cruden 1979). A good agreement between experi-
mental results and io values of LADAR model
between 15 and 17 very near the mean ih value of
16 (Fig. IB) evaluated statistically for the 3D
angularity of asperities on the joint surfaces. The
same observation regarding dilatancy rate (or angle
dnr) behavior with the normal stress where dl~r took
values of 14.1,11.7 and 10.4 for ON =7,14 and
21 MPa respectively for very low ON/ Oc (values
between 0.1 and 0.3). This also is in better
agreement with the reconstructed 3D distribution of
asperity angularity discussed in detail in Archambault
et al. (1995). A compilation of peak dilation angles
250
and 1/(J N values from direct shear test results
performed on various rock joints by different workers
(Barton 1973) including Barton's own results as well
as those from Ladanyi &Archambault (1980) on
irregular tensile fractures and more in the last decade
confirm a certain trend for io values to be between I SO
and 35 limits and for dnf, variation between 0 and
25 at peak, was observed.
3.2 Shear behavior phases
The shear process and mechanisms of a joint with
irregular surfaces, on the basis of the previous
results, may be summarized in the following phases
(Fig.3A):
Pre-phase: Normal loading on the mean shear
plane of the joint concentrates the normal stress on
very few points (contact areas) with a normal closure
depending on normal load magnitude and joint
surfaces asperities morphology well studied in the
literature (Goodman 1976; Gentier 1986; Bandis et al.
1981 ).
A
35
IV V
30
"'
~ 25
lJ l
lJ l
20
e
Vi
:;; 15
'"
.c:
(J )
10
5
(J Nl (7M Pa)
(J N3 (21M Pa)
(J N2(14M Pa)
o
o 1 234
Shear displacement (mm)
5
60 III
(J NI (7M Pa)
III
IV V
N"
..,
~
(J N2 (14M Pa)
><
40
E
.s
:..
c
c:
'"
20
]1
Q
0-
0 1 2 3 4 5
Shear displacement (mm)
Phase I: Elastic mobilization of shear stress by
friction, with the shear load gradual application from
zero level causes a new closure (negative dilatancy).
It results in an increase of the real contact area until
gross slippage is imminent and it may reach three
times the initial static area without change in the
normal load. However for any two surfaces, the final
area is a numerical constant times the initial area
developed with the normal load only, so that the
proportionality between both forces (shear and
normal) at the point of slipping is maintained, and this
increase in contact area was called "junction growth"
by Tabor (1959). This phenomenon was indirectly
observed by an increase of induced interstitial
pressure (Poirier 1996) in this phase of shear
displacement on joints. This phase of increasing
shear load give rise to a transfer of the stresses on
asperities positive slopes defined by their angularity
and friction is mobilized on their inclined planes and
accompanied by their deformation.
Phase 11: A non-linear shear stress-shear dis-
placement-dilatancy hardening mobilization phase to
B
35
Fairhurst
30
Ladar (i =30)
l.adar (i =15)
~,,/' Barton (J RC =14)
/ .. ,< Barton (J RC =10)
,," ..... ;/ Basic friction
fr;;~ ~ i> < ! : i',': m
?{
/ )- ....
I. ....
25
.3.5mm
+ 5.0mm
-10
I I
0 10 20 30
Normal stress (M Pa)
30
25
dn
20
15
10
II- .
5
....
dnr al5 mm
0
-v , --. ___ __ ~I~placemenl
0 10 20 30
Normal stress (M Pa)
Figure 3. Direct shear lest resul ts: A) shear srress-displnccrncnt-dilntancy rel ationships and U) calculated peak strength envel opes ami dil atancy
variation with normal stress according 10 models and test results.
251
peak shear stress with increasing dilatancy rate,
decreasing area of contact on the joint plane
depending on aN, increasing contact normal stress on
it, in addition to friction on the Facets slope of asperi-
ties involved, till failure occurs.
Phase III: Peak shear stress (or shear strength)
phase, following a behavior between constant peak
displacement and constant stiffness models
(Goodman 1976) in relation with aN, at maximum
dilatancy rate with more or less asperities failure and
reincreasing contact areas with aN. This phase was
well studied and a large number of models were
formulated to predict joint shear strength.
Phase TV: Progressive softening phase of
unstable yielding with a progressive degradation of
asperities on the joint surfaces by microfracturing,
crushing, ploughing, identation or asperities failure at
the base (for high aN); a decreasing shear stress
towards residual strength under a given shear stress
gradient (softening modulus) with increasing contact
area, releasing the highly concentrated contact normal
stresses towards the joint mean normal stress; dila-
tancy still increasing at reduced rate for low to
moderate aN values.
Phase V: Residual strength phase of stable
sliding in which shear and normal stresses are rela-
tively stable on a large surface of contact but degrada-
tion on the joint surfaces is still operating with shear
displacements by ploughing, wear, friction and
grinding of asperities and particles on the joint shear
plane to produce gouge material filling valleys and
troughs so that the area of contact trends towards
mean shear plane area. Dilatancy may still be present
but at a very reduced rate for low to very low oj,
values but will disappear with shear displacement.
4 rMPLICA TIONS OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS
ON J OINT FRICTIONAL MECHANISMS
4.1 Selecting process of asperities angularity in
friction and failure
The normal stress magnitude (aN) is the main
selecting factor of asperities angularity in the simulta-
neous friction and failure mechanisms on asperities of
the joint surfaces during the shear process. As
shown in Figure I B, under a given normal stress (say
for exemple aN =aNb), asperities within a restricted
domain of angularity, depending on the joint surfaces
asperities angularity distribution, their structures and
contact areas, are mobilized in friction and their angu-
larity control the rate or angle of dilatancy in the shear
process on the joint plane. Asperities with higher
angularity than the range of those mobilized in friction
are deformed and sheared off for very small shear
displacement and show frictional behavior thereafter.
Asperities with lower angularity are creating voids by
separation of the two surfaces of the joint in thesc
areas and the increase in void spaces depends on dila-
tancy rate. The selection process of asperities angu-
larity in Friction on the distribution is done by the
normal stress magnitude, as illustrated alternatively
by aN =aNa < aNb < aNe < aNd and by the curve
aN/a
e
giving an hypothetical magnitude variation in
relation with angularity density of probabilities (Fig.
IB), that depends on angularity statistical distribution
model used and on asperities structures at different
scales. The 3D colatitudes (83) distribution show for
83 ~30 a very low density of asperities having these
angularities so that their failure will occur at extremely
low normal stress. As observed From results (Fig.
3), normal stress as low as aN < 0.1 ac (-7 MPa)
already show shear strength corresponding to io
values near 83 mean =16 corroborated by dilatancy
angle dl~r == 14_15. So, to mobilize 83 value (or io)
beyond the mean (83 > 16) in friction, without
asperities failure, need lowest normal stress (aN <
0.05 ac or less than 4 MPa). These low o-, values
are almost the rule from literature experimental results
of direct shear test on joint and this correspond to a
certain range of stress level observed in the design of
workings injointed rock masses.
Such conditions do not permit to observe all the
mechanisms related to joints shear behavior. This
means that at a given very low normal stress
(aN :s;0.05 ae), io values selected in Friction will be
8
3
~ 30, almost no asperities will be sheared off',
friction and dilation will be the only mechanisms.
Shear strength will be given by Patton's model
(1966) or LADAR's model (Ladanyi &Archambault
1969) in which the sheared area ratio as == 0 and i =io
corresponding to the 83 colatitudes selected.
Increasing aN to higher values (0.05 ac < aN < 0.3
ad in which the values tested are, mobilize in Friction
lower io values near 8
3
mean == 16 with usually an
increasing proportion of asperities sheared off at peak
proportional to aN/ad ratio. Further increments (aN
> 0.3 ad must lower io values mobilized in friction
below mean (16) and mode (13) progressively with
aN/aC increasing very rapidly towards transition
stress (1.0). This behavior is for asperities
distribution at random on thejoint mean plane without
the presence of major structures such as jogs, steps or
others with high angularity not detected in the
distribution, then all the shear process will be
controlled by these structures even if their colatitude
83 > 30. The limits given by the LADAR model of
io value between 15 and 30 are only indicative, the
model was developed for regular sawtooth planar
asperities for one angularity distribution of teeth on
the mean joint plane and full contact between the joint
wall surfaces. There is major differences in behavior
between these joint planes and irregular joint
surfaces.
252
4.2 Contact and damaged areas and their variation
with normal stress and shear displacement
Contact area between irregular joint plane surfaces,
after normal loading, is quite small in regards with the
total joint area (Gentier 1986). Phase I of friction
linear mobilization with the raising shear load
increases the contact area (Tabor 1959) by a factor as
large as three times, as stated previously, while
mobilization of dilatancy in phase II reduces it
progressively to peak shear strength corresponding to
around 0.55 rnm of shear displacement. Following
this scenario the post-peak phases will show a
progressive degradation of the joint wall surfaces. To
quantify asperities degradation on the joint wall
surfaces, after each shear test performed on the fi fteen
samples, an image analysis was undertaken on the
thirty images (15 replicas and 2 images per replica)
and the geometrical characteristics of the damaged
zones are measured: shape, size, position and/ or
orientation. The whole process is detailed in Riss et
al. (1996). The damaged areas being defined, it was
Possible, with the sequence of five shear tests (for a
given normal stress) stopped at different shear
displacement, to analyze the evolution of the damaged
areas with shear displacement under constant normal
stress (Fig. 4). Also the evolution of damaged areas
7 M PA
50
40
tel
Ql
:;:
30
Ql
Cl
tel
c:
tel
20
c
"g
0
10
0
0
are evaluated in relation with the normal stress, for
given shear displacement.
In general, there is an increasing degradation of
surfaces asperities by damage area extension with
increasing roughness, normal stress and particularly
with shear displacement. The analysis can produce a
slight underestimation of the damaged zones because
of gouge sticking from one wall to the other without
change in color or by transfer of material without
crushing. From the analysis of results (Fig. 4), the
sequence of joint wall degradation may be summa-
rized as follow: first, for a given normal stress,
material from superficial parts of one wall is broken
away and crushed with shear displacement during
which the number of these deteriorating parts
increased and the size of the degradation zones
enlarged both depending on stress level. As normal
stress increased gouged material is crushed more
densely and sticked plastically on the surfaces with a
transfer of material from one wall to the other. The
anisotropy of the joint surfaces morphology show
degradation zones location depending on shear direc-
tion. After 5 mm of shear displacement and in rela-
tion with the applied normal stress (7, 14 and 21
MPa) the total damaged area evaluated, combining the
degraded zones of both walls (upper and lower) is at
most 23%, 33% and 58% respectively. With
21 MPA
7M ~a.
W alls
% Area sheared
Upper: --
Lower: -----
2 3 4 5
Displacement (mill)
Figure 4. Proportion of damaged area evaluated 011 Lipper and lower joint walls for an ::: 7, 14, 21 MPa and illustrated for three shear
displacements (0.55 111111,2 mill, 5 nun).
253
increasing shear displacement, the damaged zones are
extending from the initial ones and by linking them to
become larger zones nearly perpendicular to shear
direction. More details on areas of damaged zones
and on position, orientation and spatial correlation
between upper and lower damaged areas are
discussed in Riss et al. (1996).
Observed sheared area proportions at peak shear
strength (phase III) are extremely low, between 2 and
3%, for the three aN values tested (7, 14 and 21 MPa)
(Fig. 4) and there was little variation with aNlaC in
this range varying from 0.1 to 0.3 on them as if aN
has no influence on sheared area. It is shown (Fig.
4) that most of asperity degradation resulting in
damaged (sheared) area occurs between peak and 3
mm of shear displacement corresponding to the
progressive softening phase IV of joint shear
behavior. Thus, at peak shear strength the normal
stress on contact areas is much higher than the
average joint applied normal stress, but despite this
fact for the three relatively low o-, values used, very
few asperities were sheared off. If equating contact
and sheared areas, it means for aN =7, 14 and 21
MPa and contact area of I to 3%, contact normal
stress of around 700 MPa (or 8 ac) an irrelevant
value. More appropriate values related to aN: : ; 2ac
means contact areas between 5 and 15%, so the
difference must be in friction giving no damaged area
at failure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This is a BRGM contribution n 94059; this work
was financially supported by a BRGM research pro-
ject, an NSERC of Canada research grant and an
NSERC graduate student followship.
REFERENCES
Archambault G., Gentier S., Riss J ., Flamand R. &
Sirieix C 1995. A reevaluation of irregular joint
shear behavior on the basis of 3D modelling of
their morphology. Part II: J oint shear behavior
mechanical modelling. Proc.Mcchauics of
Jointed and Faulted Rock (MJFR-2): 163-168.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bandis S.C., Lumsden A.C &Barton N.R. 1981.
Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. lilt. 1.
Ruck Mech. Sci. &Geomech. 13: 255-279.
Barton N. 1973. Review of a new shear-strength
criterion for rock joints. Eng. Geol. 7: 287-332.
Barton N. & Stephansson o. (Eds.) 1990. Rock
J oints. Proc. International Symposium on Rock
Joints, Loen, Norway, J une 4-6.
Flamand R., Archambault G., Gentier S., Riss J . &
Rouleau A. 1994. An experimental study of the
shear behavior of irregular joints based on
angularies and progressive degradation of the
surfaces. Proc. 47th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference of the c.G.s., Halifax, Nova Scotia,
253-262.
Gentier S. 1986. Morphologie et comportement
hydrornecanique d'une fracture naturelle dans Ie
granite sous contrainte normale; etude experimen-
tale et theorique. Documents du BRGM n 134,
BRGM, Orleans, France, 597 p.
Gentier S. &Riss J . 1990. Quantitative description
and modelling of joints morphology. Rock
Joints: 375-382. Barton &Stephansson (eds).
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Goodman R.E. 1976. Methods of Geological
Engineering. West Publishing Co. 472 p.
Ladanyi B. &Archambault G. 1969. Simulation of
shear behavior of a jointed rock mass. Rock
mechanics - Theory and practice, Proc. l l tli
Sytnp. on Roch Mech., California: 105-125.
Ladanyi B. & Archambault G. 1980. Direct and
indirect determination of shear strength of rock
mass. Proc. SME o/AIME Annual Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Preprint No. 80-25, 16 p.
Myer L.R., Tsang CF., Cook N.G.W. &Goodman
R.E. (editors) 1995. Fractured and Jointed Rock
Masses. Balkema, 772 p.
Patton F.D. 1966. MUltiple modes of shear failure in
rock. Proc. l st Congress ISRM, Lisbon: 583-
590.
Poirier S. 1996. Etude experirnentale du comporte-
ment de la pression interestitielle et de son
influence sur Ie comportement physico-rnecani-
que d'un materiau poreux intact ou fracture par
essais triaxiaux non draines. Unpublished M.Sc.
Thesis, UQAC.
Riss J . &Gentier S. 1989. Linear and areal rough-
ness of non planar rock surfaces of fracture.
Acta Steorol 8: 677-682.
Riss J . &Gentier S. 1990. Angularity of a natural
fracture. Proc. lilt. Con]. on Mech. of Jointed
and Faulted Rock, Rossmanith P. (Ed.),
Balkema, pp. 399-406.
Riss J ., Gentier S., Archambault G., Flamand R. &
Sirieix C 1995. A reevaluation of irregular joint
shear behavior on the basis of 3D modelling of
their morphology. Part I: Morphology descrip-
tion and 3D modelling. Mechanics of Jointed
and Faulted Rock (MJFR-2) Proc., Balkerna, pp.
157-163.
Riss J ., Gentier S., Sirieix C, Archambault G. &
Flamand R. 1996. Degradation characterization
of sheared joint wall surface morphology. Proc.
2nd HARMS Symposium, Montreal.
Scholtz CH. 1990. The mechanics of eartquakes
and faulting. Cambridge Univ. Press, 439 p.
Stephansson O. (Ed.) 1985. Fundamentals of Rock
J oints. Proc. of the lnternational Symposium all
Fundamentals of Rock Joints. Bjorkl iden,
Sweden, September 15-20.
Stephansson O. & J ing L. 1995. Testing and
modeling of rock joints. Proc. Mechanics of
Jointed and Faulted, Rossmanith (Ed.),
Balkema, pp. 37-47.
Tabor D. 1959. J unction growth in metallic friction.
Proc. Roy. Soc. A. 251, 378.
Tse R. &Cruden D.M. 1979. Estimating joint
roughness coefficients. Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. &Geomech. Abstr. 16: 303-307.
254