Rock

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Mechanics

3
TOPIC 3: ROCK MASS
BEHAVIOUR
DISCONTINUITY
STRENGTH

3.1 Introduction
As we already know, the two main mechanical components of a rock
mass are:

1. the rock material (or intact rock)

2. the defects (or discontinuities)
In Topic 2 we covered intact rock material yield models. In this Topic we
will examine the shear behaviour of the rock defects (discontinuities).
The combined properties will be addressed in Topic 4 (Rock Mass
Strength and Behaviour). Having stated that shear behaviour is one part
of rock mass behaviour, it must also be emphasized that shear
behaviour of rock defects can be a controlling mechanism alone. The
stability of open pit slopes may be strongly influenced by the presence of
major defects (such as bedding planes or faults) dipping out of the face
and thus the slope stability will be calculated on the basis of the shear
behaviour of the defects. In the underground situation, dilution in an
open stope may be affected by the presence of local defects in the
hangingwall, or defect infill may influence the stability of the backs.

All rock masses contain discontinuities such as bedding planes, joints,

shear zones and faults. At shallow depth, where stresses are low, failure
of the intact rock material is minimal and the behaviour of the rock mass
is controlled by sliding on the discontinuities. In order to analyse the
stability of this system of individual rock blocks, it is necessary to

3-1
MINING GEOMECHANICS

understand the factors that control the shear strength of the

discontinuities which separate the blocks.

3.1.1 Learning Objectives

By the time you have completed this topic you will be able to:

Describe the typical shear resistance-displacement behaviour of

smooth and rough joints.
Explain the effect of increasing normal stress on joint behaviour.
Describe the effect of surface roughness on joint shear strength
and explain the concept of roughness angle and its effect on
initial shear resistance according to Patton.
Explain the effect of roughness on dilation during shear on a joint
and its effect on rock stability in confined and unconfined
situations.
Describe qualitatively the effect of infilling on joint strength.
Explain direct shear testing methods and data analysis required
to estimate shear strength.

3.2 Shear Strength of Planar Surfaces

Suppose that a mine site sends a number of samples of rock to a
commercial testing laboratory for shear testing. Each sample contains a
perfectly planar (absolutely planar, having no surface irregularities or
undulations), through-going (continuous) bedding plane that is
cemented. Each specimen is subjected to a stress n normal to the
bedding plane, and the shear stress , required to cause a displacement
.

The resulting behaviour is illustrated on the next page. Shear stress will
increase rapidly until the peak strength is reached, and as the
displacement continues, the shear stress will fall to some residual value
that will then remain constant.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-2

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Shear stress

Repeating the test at various normal stresses and plotting the peak and
residual shear strengths for these different normal stresses results in the
two lines illustrated below. For planar discontinuity surfaces the
experimental points will generally fall along straight lines. The peak
strength line has a slope of and an intercept of c on the shear strength
axis. The residual strength line has a slope of r.

The relationship between the peak shear strength Tf and the normal
stress n can be represented by the Coulomb strength criterion:

f n tan c

where f = shear strength (Nm-2)

n = normal stress component across incipient failure
plane (Nm-2)
c = apparent cohesion (Nm-2)
= apparent angle of friction ()

In the peak strength plot above, the line extended back to the vertical
axis determines the cohesion. The extension of the locus to the vertical
axis is fictitious (as a clean defect would have no cohesion), so for clean
defects, consider this an apparent friction, which is often the case for
intact or rock material as was discussed in the previous Topic.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-3

MINING GEOMECHANICS

3.3 Shear Strength of Rough Surfaces

3.3.1 Dilatancy Models: Patton

A sawn or ground surface is often used to determining the basic friction
angle (as described above). However, a natural discontinuity surface in
hard rock is never as smooth as this ideal. The undulations and
asperities on a natural joint surface have a significant influence on its
shear behaviour. Generally, this surface roughness increases the shear
strength of the surface, and this strength increase is extremely important
in terms of the stability of excavations in rock.

Patton was the first researcher to relate the shear behaviour of joints to
normal load and roughness, based on his work of a model of a joint in
which roughness is represented by a series of constant-angle triangles
or saw-teeth, as shown below.

In his model, the dilatancy angle, i, is defined as the arc tangent of the
ratio between vertical and shear displacement of the sample during the
shearing. The model assumes the rock is rigid and the dilatancy angle
constant. Patton observed;

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-4

MINING GEOMECHANICS

at low normal loads, when there was practically no shearing of

asperities, the shear strength of the joints was:

f n tanb i

Where b = basic angle of friction ()

at high normal loads, when the tips of most asperities were

sheared off, he found reasonable agreement with experimental
results using a different failure criterion:

f n tanr c

Where r = residual angle of friction ()

Combining the two failure criteria together, Patton obtained a bilinear

envelope (in the figure below) that describes the shear strength of plane
surfaces containing a number of regularly spaced teeth of equal
dimensions.

This model takes into account the effect of the asperities, however, the
criteria are not satisfactory for describing the shear behaviour of irregular
rock surfaces. Patton explains the discrepancy with real joints by
suggesting that the failure envelope for rock surfaces reflects changes in
the intensities of different modes of failure occurring simultaneously
(Graselli, 2001).

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-5

MINING GEOMECHANICS

3.3.2 Dilatancy Models: Ladanyi & Archambault

Again looking at two-dimensional saw-tooth profiles, the transition from
dilatancy to shearing was studied theoretically and experimentally by
Ladanyi & Archambault (1970) who approached the problem of joint-
shear strength by identifying the areas on the joint surface where sliding
and breaking of asperities are most likely to occur. They define as to be
the area where shearing through the asperities takes place. Over the
rest of the surface (1- as ), the asperities are assumed slide over each
other without damage. The proposed expression for the total resisting
force is given as:

4

(1 )1.5 1 tan i tan 0.232 1 (1 )1.5 (1 10 )0.5
J J J J J


J
1- (1 )5.5 tan i tan
J

where

/ J = ratio of effective normal stress on the joint to the

uniaxial compressive strength of the joint wall
/ J = ratio of joint shear strength to the uniaxial
compressive strength of the joint wall

3.3.3 Dilatancy Models: Bartons Model

Pattons equation is valid at low normal stresses where shear
displacement is due to sliding along the inclined surfaces. At higher
normal stresses, the strength of the intact material will be exceeded and
the teeth will tend to break off, resulting in a shear strength behaviour
which is more closely related to the intact material strength than to the

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-6

MINING GEOMECHANICS

frictional characteristics of the surfaces. In reality, changes in shear

strength with increasing normal stress are gradual rather than abrupt.

An alternative approach to the problem of predicting the shear strength

of rough joints was proposed by Barton (1977). Based on tests carried
out on natural rough joints, Barton derived the following empirical
equation:

JCS
p n tan b JRC Log10
n

where

n = normal stress

b = the basic friction angle of a smooth (saw-cut) joint

surface,

JRC = Joint Roughness Coefficient (ranges from 0 to 20)

JCS = Joint-wall Compressive Strength (equivalent to j in

previous equations).

That is, at a particular scale:

JCS
i JRC log10


n

JRC (Joint Roughness Coefficient) is a parameter that represents the

roughness of the joint and JCS (Joint Compressive Strength) is the
compressive strength of the rock on the joint surface, taking into account
possible reductions in resistance resulting from fatigue, chemical
alteration, or other processes that weaken the rock at the interface.
NOTE that units of JRC are degrees, whilst both JCS and n must be
the same in this equation.

Bartons equation is probably most applicable for stresses in the range;

0.01 0.3
j

This is also the range into which most slope stability problems fall, so
Bartons equations are applicable to slope stability.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-7

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Estimates of JCS
When the joint is fresh, JCS is equal to the compressive strength of the
rock (i.e. JCS= c). Where joint walls are weathered to a moderate
depth, methods of point load testing and Schmidt Hammer techniques
can be used as outlined in Hoek (2000) and shown below (using
uniaxial compressive strength values for JRC). Where no direct
measurements are available, a ratio of JCS/c = 0.25 may be used.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-8

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Estimates of JRC
The joint roughness coefficient JRC can be estimated by;

Back analysis of shear tests (if JCS is known), or

Comparing the appearance of a discontinuity surface with
standard profiles

Back analysis of shear tests

arctan / n b
JRC
JCS
log10
n

Back analysis via field tilt tests:

b
JRC
JCS
log10
n

Note that very low normal stresses are usually involved in field tilt tests.
In a tilt test, two blocks (1 fixed to the bottom and one resting on top) are
placed on the apparatus. The blocks are tilted until top block begins to
slide. The angle at which this movement begins is read as angle

Standard profiles have been published by Barton and others. One of

the most useful profile sets was published by Barton and Choubey
(1977) and shown on the next page.

The appearance of the discontinuity surface is compared visually

with the profiles shown and the JRC value corresponding to the
closest match is chosen.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-9

MINING GEOMECHANICS

In the case of small scale laboratory specimens, the scale of the surface
roughness will be approximately the same as that of the profiles
illustrated. In the field, the length of the joint surface may be much larger
and the JRC value must be estimated for the full scale sliding surface,
using the chart on the next page.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-10

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-11

MINING GEOMECHANICS

3.3.4 Practical application of dilatancy models

Note that Bartons criteria is also only valid for rock-to-rock contact
and;

0 n JCS

and the peak shear strength curves should be truncated for design
purposes at a maximum allowable strength given by;

arctan

70 i.e r JRC log 10 JCS 70

n n

Bartons equation is in close agreement with Ladanyi and Archambault

at very low normal stress levels, however the equations diverge as the
normal stress increases. This is because Bartons equations reduce to f
= tan as J tends to 1; where as Ladanyi and Archambaults
reduces to f= R, the shear strength of the rock material adjacent to the
joint surface. Bartons equation therefore tends to be more conservative
at higher stress levels.

Scale effects
Surface topography of joints varies widely and features can be
distinguished into;

Asperities (small scale roughness)

Larger protrusions (intermediate scale roughness)
Undulations (large scale roughness) as shown below relative to
sheared length D.

Effects of these broad classes is related to the sheared length. For

example, sampling/measuring inclinations i over increasing D gives an

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-12

MINING GEOMECHANICS

inverse relationship. Now consider the results of a series of shear tests

on a single rough surface, 600mm by 600mm (shown on the next page)
which has been split into various sizes:

Referring to each sample;

1. The first test examines the shear behaviour of 100mm diameter

samples similar in size to a core sample. The shear behaviour
is determined by small bumps and ripples (i.e. Pattons 2 nd
order projections).
2. If we group these surfaces in pairs, the surfaces are now
(roughly) 200mm in diameter. The effect of the very small
bumps and ripples becomes less pronounced.
3. Now if we examine half the total surface area of the sample,
the second order bumps and ripples have almost no effect and
the behaviour is dominated by the first order waviness
4. Now finally examine the behaviour of the whole surface.

The contribution of the various components (asperity, geometric and

basic frictional) are shown below;

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-13

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Another effect of the scale effect is the increased mobilisation required

to reach peak strength (for any constant normal load). This means that
as the defect area increases, the defect needs to move increasingly
larger distances to achieve that value. In the figure below, the defect
depicted by sample 4 achieves peak strength after a greater
displacement than that of 1. For a given normal load, the larger the scale
the longer the defect must move before it reached peak strength.

Thus, the following scale corrections for JRC are used:

0.02 JRCo
L
JRCn JRCo n
Lo

And for JCS

0.03 JRCo
L
JCSn JCSo n
Lo

Where

JRCo & Lo: 100mm lab scale

JRCn & Ln: in situ block size

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-14

MINING GEOMECHANICS

3.4 Joint Infilling

Up to now, we have been discussing situations where there is rock-rock
contact across the joint. This shear strength can be reduced drastically
when part or all of the surface is not in intimate contact, but covered by
soft filling material such as clay gouge. For planar surfaces, such as
bedding planes in sedimentary rock, a thin clay coating will result in a
significant shear strength reduction. For a rough or undulating joint, the
filling thickness has to be greater than the amplitude of the undulations
before the shear strength is reduced to that of the filling material.

Consider a joint with an asperity dimension a and a filling thickness

of t. As the gouge or infill increases in thickness, for a planar
surface (a = o), there will be no rock contact and shear strength
reduces to that of the infill. For non-planar surfaces;

t << a, almost immediate rock contact, shear strength may be 10-

20% lower due to smaller b.
t < a, rock interaction possible after some shear displacement
t > a, no rock contact; possible development of high pore
pressures
t >> a, the surface roughness ceases to exert any influence and
the shear strength is controlled by the infill alone

Important aspect is rock wall and infill interaction (if any) as rock-rock
strength is far greater than infill material strength. Published data can be
used to assist in quantifying this reduction in shear strength, by referring
to the shear strength parameters of typical rock with commonly found
filling materials as given on the next page.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-15

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Rock Description Peak Residual Residual

Peak
c (MPa) c (MPa)
Basalt Clayey breccia, wide
0.24 42
variation from clay to
Bentonite Bentonite seam in chalk 0.015 7.5
Thin layers 0.09-0.012 12-17
Triaxial tests 0.06-0.1 9-13
Bentonitic shale Triaxial tests
0-0.27 8.5-29
Direct shear tests 0.03 8.5
Clays Over-consilidated, slips,
0-0.18 12-18.5 0-0.003 10.5-16
joints and minor shears
Clay shale Triaxial tests
0.06 32
Stratification surfaces 0 19-25
Coal measure rocks Clay mylonite seams, 10 to
0.012 16 0 11-11.5
25mm
Dolomite Altered shale bed,
0.04 14.5 0,02 17
150mm thick
Dolorite,granodiorite and Clay gouge (2% clay, PI =
0 26.5
porphyry 17%)
Granite Clay filled faults 0-0.1 24-45
Sandy loam fault filing 0.05 40
Tectonic shear zone,
schistose and broken
0.24 42
granites, disintegrated rock
and gouge
Greywacke 1 2mm clay in bedding
0 21
planes
Limestone 6mm clay layer
10-20mm clay fillings 0.1 13-14 0 13
<1 mm clay filling 0.05-0.2 17-21
Limestone, marl and Interbedded lignite layers 0.08 38
Lignites Lignite/marl contact 0.1 10
Limestone Marlaceous joints, 20mm
0 25 0 15-24
thick
Lignite Layer between lignite and
0.014-0.3 15-17.5
clay
Montmorillonite Bentonite 80 mm seams of bentonite 0.36 14
0.08 11
clay (montmorillonite) clay in 0.016-.02 7.5-11.5
Schists, quartzites and 100-15-mm thick clay
0.03-0.08 32
siliceous schists filling
Stratification with thin clay 0.61-0.74 41
Stratification with thick clay
0.38 31
Slates Finely laminated and
0.05 33
altered
Quartz/kaolin/pyrolusite Remoulded triaxial tests 0.042-.09 36-38

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-16

MINING GEOMECHANICS

3.5 Testing: Direct Shear Tests

Depending on the testing machine, direct shear tests may be conducted
upon full sized rock specimens in either lump (irregular) or prepared
cylinder forms. The specimens are failed in shear through the intact rock
or along discontinuities. This test can measure peak and residual
strength as a function of stress normal to the shear plane.

The plane is selected so that is coincides and/or reflects a plane of

weakness in the rock, for example a joint, bedding plane or cleavage.
Samples are tested after subjecting them to confinement within cement
or other grout media and thereafter placing the confined sample within a
split jig assembly. A constant normal stress is applied to each sample
and then an increasing shearing load is applied, In each test, the normal
and failure shear stress conditions are recorded.

For each test specimen graphs of shear stress (or shear force) vs shear
displacement are plotted. Values of peak and residual strength are
extracted from the graph.

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-17

MINING GEOMECHANICS

250
a
P Peak strength
k 200
,
s
s
e
rt
s 150
r
a
e
h 100
S

50
Residual strength
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Shear displacement, mm

Values of residual strength should only be interpreted if the sample is

sheared at constant normal stress and at least four consecutive
readings show 5% variation over a displacement of 1cm.

250
Peak strength
Shear str ess, kPa

200

150 >5% fluctuation

Cannot determine residual
100 strength

50

0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Shear displacement, mm

Multistage tests refer to the case when several tests are undertaken at
different normal stresses. The same discontinuity is often used for
multistage testing, however testing should only be at low normal
stresses as high normal stresses may cause shearing and result in
unreliable results. Due to the variability in results, the International
Society for Rock Mechanics suggests at least 5 such tests to gain a
result.

After plotting the peak shear stress with the appropriate normal stress,
the Coulomb failure locus for the rock defect can be determined. Even
with a large set of results as in the figure below, selecting the line of best
fit is a difficult task. In this case a line straight line of best fit has been
used as well as a comparison to Bartons criteria. However close
inspection may find a bilinear approach (according to Patton); or a
second (and more conservative) alternative would be to use the lower
bound values (the line connecting the lower most values).

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-18

MINING GEOMECHANICS

Many analytical and numerical methods in rock mechanics, however,

require the Coulomb parameters: that is, c and . The mathematical
approach to exactly show how a Barton curvilinear envelope is re-stated
in terms of linear Mohr Coulomb parameters is dealt with in more detail
in the following Topic, but at this stage it is possible to estimate the Mohr
Coulomb parameters by obtaining a tangent to the curve; that is;

i arctan
n

and

ci f n tani

to derive the straight line representative of the range of normal stress.

The subscript i in this case refers to instantaneous cohesion and friction
which would apply ONLY across the range of normal stress levels at
which the tangent to the envelope was drawn. If the range of normal
stress levels is n1 to n2 and the corresponding shear stress values are
1 and 2, then;

f 2 f 1
i arctan
and ci f 1 n1 tani
n 2 n1

Version 1.10: Jan 2011:WASM:RJT 3-19