0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

3 vues8 pagesApr 23, 2018

ISRM-EUROCK-1996-031_Rock Joint Shear Mechanical Behavior With 3D Surfaces Morphology And Degradation During Shear Displacement.pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

3 vues8 pagesISRM-EUROCK-1996-031_Rock Joint Shear Mechanical Behavior With 3D Surfaces Morphology And Degradation During Shear Displacement.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

ISBN 90 5410843 6

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

Joelle Riss - Centre de Developpement des Geosciences Appliquees, Universite de Bordeaux I, Talence, France

Colette Sirieix -ANTEA, Direction de /0 Geotechnique, Orleans, France

ABSTRACT: Joint 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 a joint 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.

during sliding. A recent review of the literature on

The prolific literature on characterization and behavior rock joints testing and modelling (Stephansson &

of single, irregular rock joints submitted to various ling 1995) pointed out that there is still a large

normal and direct shear loading conditions, to eva- number of problems to solve before having an overall

luate the needed mechanical and hydraulic parameters understanding of the phenomenon, particularly the

In hydromechanical stability analysis of workings in roughness morphology and the difficulty of its

fractured rock masses (Stephansson 1985; Barton & characterization and modelling.

Stephansson 1990; Myel' et al. 1995; to cite only the In this paper, an approach is reviewed for geo-

three organized symposium of the .ISRM commission metrical description of joint surfaces morphology on

On rock joints) show their inextricable complex the basis of a 3D statistical description and modelling.

behavior and characteristics. These numberless A contribution to the characterization of damaged

research works on various rock joints problems areas in relation with shear displacement under

Confirm Scholtz (1990) statement that there is no constant normal stress is also presented, in which the

constitutive law for friction quantitatively built upon evolution and geometrical characteristics of the

micromechanical framework because of the com- damaged zones are evaluated in relation with the

plexity of shear contacts, the topography of con- normal stress magnitude, for given shear displace-

247

damaged zones are evaluated in relation with the wheter we are interrested in the 3D spatial reality of

normal stress magnitude, for given shear displace- each joint wall surface or to each joint wall surface

ment. recording directions related respectively to:

a) the total variance of all profiles set of points,

the residual variance and correlation coefficient after

2 JOINT ROUGHNESS CHARACTERIZATION linear regression of the altitudes z in function of the

coordinates (x,y) on the reference plane, the azimuth

Joint walls morphology characterization means here and colatitude in a given reference system of the

that a 3D quantitative description of roughness evolu- regression plane and of the principal plane resulting

tion on the joint surfaces was done during laboratory from the diagonalization of variance and covariance

shear tests performed on a series of identical replicas matrices of the whole set of points; or

from the walls of a natural fracture in a granite b) the linear roughness coefficient RL, the z2, z3

(Gueret, France) for which a detailed study of the and z4 coefficients and the linear regression parame-

morphology was done (Gentier 1986; Riss & Gentier ters (8rcgrcssion and residual variance ~.~ ).

1990, 1995). The replicas were submitted to direct As the total variance is an invariant for a given

shear tests under three different normal stress and set of points (x , y, z referred to given reference

each shear test was stopped at a defined shear dis- systems: VI01al = V x+Vy+ V z) the spatial dispersion of

placement for five displacements (Flamand et a!' the set of recorded points and its evolution during

1994). This procedure permits a control on the shear displacement can be measured and compared

evolution of the joint wall surfaces morphology with providing profiles are recorded at the same positions

shear displacement. on each wall surfaces of the fracture replica and kept

The shear stress, shear displacement, normal constant in each shear test. Taking into account both

stress and normal displacement being available at the variances and covariances, it is also possible to

end of each test; a morphological analysis was compute estimations of the local mean plane of the

performed using five profiles, z=f(x,y), recorded on fracture that could be slightly different from the

the joint wall surfaces 15.26 rnm apart in four direc- regional one. They are based firstly on a linear

tions, digitized at a constant step (L'l.x=0.5 rnrn) and regression of z on x and y and secondly on deriving

kept constant for all shear tests (Flamand et a!' 1994; the first principal plane from the diagonalization of the

Riss et a!' 1995). The analysis of these data consists variance-covariance matrix. The following analysis

first in the deduction of parameters characterizing the performed on the joint wall surfaces under study

whole set of recorded points, i.e. the joint wall permits to establish that the local mean plane dips

surface expanding in a 3D space and, secondly, in slightly (5°) in a direction perpendicular to the shear

detailed distribution analysis of the 82 angles between direction, that the upper wall dips slightly more than

a reference plane and a line segment linking two the lower one and that the lower wall is rougher than

successive points on the recorded profiles. This the upper one. The detail of these analyses and

analysis is fundamental to restore the true 3D colati- computations are given in Riss et a!' (1995).

tude (83) distribution of elementary plane facets From the computed linear roughness coefficient

composing the joint wall surfaces before and after (RL) (Table I), dependent on 82 distributions, and on

testing and correcting by the same way the bias intro- the basis of experimental 20 colatitudes distributions

duced by the profiles. characteristics, it is observed that probabilities of 82

is slightly higher than for the negative 82, but the

2. I Statistical description and analysis of the joint mean values of the latter are smaller than the other

surfaces one. In average, there are more asperities in the

positive direction than in the opposite one but these

The overall analysis of the joint wall surfaces gives a asperities are smoother than in the negative direction.

global view of the morphology and depends on On the whole, repartitions of positive and negative

Table I. Classical linear roughness coefficients measured on profiles parallel to the shear direction.

Profile RL Z2 Z3 8rcgrcssion

z=f(x)

S/x mm2 Z4

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 59

0

1 63

0

0.108 0.092 0.089 0.190

2 1.030 1.031 0.249 0.254 0.528 0.551 0056 0064 0.281 0.286 0.111 0.220

3 1.033 1.033 0.263 0.264 0.597 0.581 -0074 -0076 0.327 0.321 -0.018 0.024

4 1.041 \ .036 0.300 0.283 0.611 0.521 0 05

0

0 02

0

0.585 0.552 0.057 0.101

5 1.022 1.030 0.212 0.254 0.448 0.56\ -1 88

0

-1 68

0

0.702 0.637 -0.017 0.048

6 1.042 1.043 0.300 0.306 0.556 0.590 -0034 -0037 0.493 0.485 0.136 0.103

248

angles can be considered as identical for wall A and

slightly more dispersed for wall B. Experimental 20 A)

colatitudes (82) for both walls are quite similar and

the mean fW> is 10.31 for wall A and 10.08 for wall

0 0

respectively. Also, from Table I, the parameters (prOfil~e

Facet

8rcgrcssion and residual variance S;.x indicate the trend

of the profiles to dip and the latter measures the part

of the elevations z that are not explained by the global Line of

reference T

"'-

8] I

dip of the fracture replica. The dipping trend of rue ang e

8,

profiles can indicate probable zones of contact where Apparenl angle

profiles dipping towards the shear direction and

against the sense of shear displacement while, for B)

3.5

oppositc dipping, there will be a trend of the surfaces (IN l(Jc

to separate in creating voids between them. But these 1.0

3.0

situations depend also on asperities heights (CLA or

R¥S), profile roughness (RL), roughness dispersion '"••

~ 25

(S;.x) and other linear coefficients, So, looking at .c 0.75

o

one of them without taking into account informations 0.20

from the others can introduce large errors and biased '0'

informations on the morphology of the surfaces. ~ 0.5

Moreover, 20 roughness parameters are insufficient

o

•.

.~ 1.5

IllOllJhology changing from to point to point. 0.25

0.5

2.2 Statistical modelling in 3D of roughness

angularities o

10 20 30 40 50 60

Digitized profiles look like polygonal lines and a 3D Cotaliludes

polygonal surface results from a joint wall inter-

section wih a set of contiguous hexagonal prisms

K ~ RA I Model fh

orthogonal to the mean regional plane. Then, the WaliA 16.58 1.10 1.0634 13° 16°11

surface is subdivided into small facets, small enough WallB 15.08 1.25 1.0625 [ 13° 15'96

to be considered as planar (Fig. IA). Angles between

the normal to facets and z axis are the real colatitudes

A+B 12.06 1.65 1.0632 13° I 15°88

I

(83). As shear direction is parallel to the local mean

Figur-e I. AlDcfinitions of 02 and 03 and stercogrnphic projection showing

plane horizontal direction, it is assumed that 20 the dependence of 02 on 03 the direction of the vertical section plane; ll) 3D

colatitudes (82), measured in vertical planes in this reconstructed distributions and models for colatitudcs 83 with characteristics

of the filled models for 3D distribution.

direction, can represent any colatitude measured in a

plane perpendicular to the local mean plane. Using

classical method of 3D colatitude reconstruction

Exp (Kcos~83)

(Gentier 1986), inference of the 3D colatitudes distri- F(e3) = fl sin 03

butions is done (Fig. IB). The reconstructed distri- o Exp(Kt~)dt

butions are not strictly similar for each wall, like the Models derived from the fitting process are shown in

20 distributions. Then areal roughness (RA) is Figure IB with the parameters used and the charac-

computed from these distributions in order to teristics deduced for RA, the mode and the mean (83).

evaluate, by comparison, the reconstructed distribu- The most important result is that the 3D elementary

uons F(83) using RA values deri ved from a stereo- facets dip in any direction with a mean angle of 16°

logical method. The F(83) distributions being and this angle is obviously greater than the 20 mean

acceptable, then theoretical models must be fit to them angle of individual segments (Riss et al. 1995).

In order to have an expression useful for further These statistical analyses and deduced physical

developments such as a simulation of the fracture wall conditions of the joint walls permit to establish that a

Surfaces and for estimating RA. Inference is done perfect matching between the surfaces is highly

either by fitting the 3D empirical distribution derived improbable with the differential variation between

frOIll the 20 (82) distribution to a model or by filling walls dipping and roughness as well as between 20

the 20 experimental (82) to a 20 distribution from a and 3D colatitudes (82 and 83) or asperities slopes

3D model (Riss & Gentier 1989, 1990). The 3D distributions on both walls. Moreover, Gentier

mOdels used are generalized axial distributions: (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. Fi~urc 2. Example ofkrigcage of a joint surface based 011 an isotropic

spherical variogram model. ({lJler Gcnticr, /986)

the more sophisticated 3D statistical modelling and 3 JOINT SHEAR BEHAVIOR PHASES WITH

characterization of joint roughness angularities giving SHEAR DISPLACEMENT

a more realistic figure than the 2D statistical evalua-

tion, no spatial structural information is given 3.1 Direct shear testing and results

regarding asperities structures (shape, size, jogs,

waviness and others) for an adequate modelling of The direct shear test results come from a shear test

joint shear deformation and strength. Asperities spa- program (Flarnand et al. 1994) on joint replicas

tial distribution and shape on joint wall surfaces are submitted to three different constant normal stress (7,

not necessarily at random and the presence of super- 14 and 21 MPa). The 15 shear tests were performed

posed structures cannot be detected on 3D angularities and stopped at various shear displacements (0.35,

distribution (Fig. IB) and the presence of a major 0.55, 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0 rnrn) and the results are

structure like a jog showing high angularity (>45°), summarized in Figure 3. In Figure 3A the shear

this will not change appreciably the distribution stress-shear displacement-dilatancy relationships arc

shown. But the mechanical shear behavior will be recorded for the shear tests done. These results arc

greatly affected by this structure which will control plotted, for the main characteristics, in a Mohr

the joint shear strength and the related dilatancy diagram (upper part, Fig. 3B) while the lower

behavior. Various methods are available to do it and diagram shows the dilatancy rate (or angle) in relation

among them geostatistics with which variograms and with normal stress (ON)' These results are compared

variographic analysis of profiles permit to characterize with LA DAR model (Ladanyi & Archambault 1969)

the size of asperities structures (range) related to the for io values of 15° and 30° and with Barton's model

heights, curvature radii and angularity distributions (Barton 1973) for JRC values of 10 and 14, values

while krigeage modelling and simulation can restitute estimated with the Z2 coefficient in Table I (Tse &

the topographic surfaces (Fig. 2) (Gentier 1986; Cruden 1979). A good agreement between experi-

Gentier & Riss 1990). mental results and io values of LADAR model

As an example, the variograms analyses applied between 15° and 17° very near the mean ih value of

to heights, curvature and angularity statistical 16° (Fig. IB) evaluated statistically for the 3D

distributions on various samples of Gueret granite angularity of asperities on the joint surfaces. The

joint surfaces show at least two overlapping asperity same observation regarding dilatancy rate (or angle

structures: 4 to 6 rnrn and 18 to 20 mm, and also a dnr) behavior with the normal stress where dl~r took

large one (40 mm) causing a 5° dipping of the joint values of 14.1°,11.7° and 10.4° for ON = 7,14 and

plane sample. The chosen shear direction was 21 MPa respectively for very low ON/Oc (values

parallel to the principal structure, so that only the between 0.1 and 0.3). This also is in better

roughness morphology represented by the 3D agreement with the reconstructed 3D distribution of

colatitudes (83) distributions (Fig. IB) are controlling asperity angularity discussed in detail in Archambault

the joint shear behavior. et al. (1995). A compilation of peak dilation angles

250

and 1/(JN values from direct shear test results • Phase I: Elastic mobilization of shear stress by

performed on various rock joints by different workers friction, with the shear load gradual application from

(Barton 1973) including Barton's own results as well zero level causes a new closure (negative dilatancy).

as those from Ladanyi & Archambault (1980) on It results in an increase of the real contact area until

irregular tensile fractures and more in the last decade gross slippage is imminent and it may reach three

confirm a certain trend for io values to be between ISO times the initial static area without change in the

and 35° limits and for dnf, variation between 0° and normal load. However for any two surfaces, the final

25° at peak, was observed. area is a numerical constant times the initial area

developed with the normal load only, so that the

3.2 Shear behavior phases proportionality between both forces (shear and

normal) at the point of slipping is maintained, and this

The shear process and mechanisms of a joint with increase in contact area was called "junction growth"

irregular surfaces, on the basis of the previous by Tabor (1959). This phenomenon was indirectly

results, may be summarized in the following phases observed by an increase of induced interstitial

(Fig.3A): pressure (Poirier 1996) in this phase of shear

• Pre-phase: Normal loading on the mean shear displacement on joints. This phase of increasing

plane of the joint concentrates the normal stress on shear load give rise to a transfer of the stresses on

very few points (contact areas) with a normal closure asperities positive slopes defined by their angularity

depending on normal load magnitude and joint and friction is mobilized on their inclined planes and

surfaces asperities morphology well studied in the accompanied by their deformation.

literature (Goodman 1976; Gentier 1986; Bandis et al. • Phase 11: A non-linear shear stress-shear dis-

1981 ). placement-dilatancy hardening mobilization phase to

A B

35 35 Fairhurst

IV V

30 30 Ladar (i = 30)

l.adar (i = 15)

"'

~ 25

lJl

25 ~,,/' Barton (JRC = 14)

/ ..,< Barton (JRC = 10)

lJl

20 (JN3 (21 MPa) ,," .....

;/ Basic friction

e

Vi

:;; 15

'"

.c:

(J)

10

(JN2 (14 MPa)

fr;;~~i><!· : i',':m

5

(JNl (7 MPa)

?{

/)- .... .3.5 mm

I. ....

+ 5.0mm

o I I

o 1 234 5 -10 0 10 20 30

Shear displacement (mm) Normal stress (MPa)

30

25

60 III

IV V (JNI (7 MPa)

III dn

..,

N"

20

~ (JN2 (14 MPa)

>< 40 15

.sE

:..c 10

c:

'" 20 II-.

]1

Q 5

.... -v , --. ___ •

dnr al5 mm

__~I~placemenl

0- 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30

Shear displacement (mm) Normal stress (MPa)

Figure 3. Direct shear lest results: A) shear srress-displnccrncnt-dilntancy relationships and U) calculated peak strength envelopes ami dilatancy

variation with normal stress according 10 models and test results.

251

peak shear stress with increasing dilatancy rate, Asperities with lower angularity are creating voids by

decreasing area of contact on the joint plane separation of the two surfaces of the joint in thesc

depending on aN, increasing contact normal stress on areas and the increase in void spaces depends on dila-

it, in addition to friction on the Facets slope of asperi- tancy rate. The selection process of asperities angu-

ties involved, till failure occurs. larity in Friction on the distribution is done by the

• Phase III: Peak shear stress (or shear strength) normal stress magnitude, as illustrated alternatively

phase, following a behavior between constant peak by aN = aNa < aNb < aNe < aNd and by the curve

displacement and constant stiffness models aN/ae giving an hypothetical magnitude variation in

(Goodman 1976) in relation with aN, at maximum relation with angularity density of probabilities (Fig.

dilatancy rate with more or less asperities failure and IB), that depends on angularity statistical distribution

reincreasing contact areas with aN. This phase was model used and on asperities structures at different

well studied and a large number of models were scales. The 3D colatitudes (83) distribution show for

formulated to predict joint shear strength. 83 ~ 30° a very low density of asperities having these

• Phase TV: Progressive softening phase of angularities so that their failure will occur at extremely

unstable yielding with a progressive degradation of low normal stress. As observed From results (Fig.

asperities on the joint surfaces by microfracturing, 3), normal stress as low as aN < 0.1 ac (-7 MPa)

crushing, ploughing, identation or asperities failure at already show shear strength corresponding to io

the base (for high aN); a decreasing shear stress values near 83 mean = 16° corroborated by dilatancy

towards residual strength under a given shear stress angle dl~r == 14°_15°. So, to mobilize 83 value (or io)

gradient (softening modulus) with increasing contact beyond the mean (83 > 16°) in friction, without

area, releasing the highly concentrated contact normal asperities failure, need lowest normal stress (aN <

stresses towards the joint mean normal stress; dila- 0.05 ac or less than 4 MPa). These low o-, values

tancy still increasing at reduced rate for low to are almost the rule from literature experimental results

moderate aN values. of direct shear test on joint and this correspond to a

• Phase V: Residual strength phase of stable certain range of stress level observed in the design of

sliding in which shear and normal stresses are rela- workings in jointed rock masses.

tively stable on a large surface of contact but degrada- Such conditions do not permit to observe all the

tion on the joint surfaces is still operating with shear mechanisms related to joints shear behavior. This

displacements by ploughing, wear, friction and means that at a given very low normal stress

grinding of asperities and particles on the joint shear (aN :s;0.05 ae), io values selected in Friction will be

plane to produce gouge material filling valleys and 83 ~ 30°, almost no asperities will be sheared off',

troughs so that the area of contact trends towards friction and dilation will be the only mechanisms.

mean shear plane area. Dilatancy may still be present Shear strength will be given by Patton's model

but at a very reduced rate for low to very low oj, (1966) or LADAR's model (Ladanyi & Archambault

values but will disappear with shear displacement. 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

4 rMPLICA TIONS OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS

ad in which the values tested are, mobilize in Friction

lower io values near 83 mean == 16° with usually an

ON JOINT FRICTIONAL MECHANISMS

increasing proportion of asperities sheared off at peak

proportional to aN/ad ratio. Further increments (aN

4.1 Selecting process of asperities angularity in > 0.3 ad must lower io values mobilized in friction

friction and failure below mean (16°) and mode (13°) progressively with

aN/aC increasing very rapidly towards transition

The normal stress magnitude (aN) is the main stress (1.0). This behavior is for asperities

selecting factor of asperities angularity in the simulta- distribution at random on the joint mean plane without

neous friction and failure mechanisms on asperities of the presence of major structures such as jogs, steps or

the joint surfaces during the shear process. As others with high angularity not detected in the

shown in Figure IB, under a given normal stress (say distribution, then all the shear process will be

for exemple aN = aNb), asperities within a restricted controlled by these structures even if their colatitude

domain of angularity, depending on the joint surfaces 83 > 30°. The limits given by the LADAR model of

asperities angularity distribution, their structures and io value between 15° and 30° are only indicative, the

contact areas, are mobilized in friction and their angu- model was developed for regular sawtooth planar

larity control the rate or angle of dilatancy in the shear asperities for one angularity distribution of teeth on

process on the joint plane. Asperities with higher the mean joint plane and full contact between the joint

angularity than the range of those mobilized in friction wall surfaces. There is major differences in behavior

are deformed and sheared off for very small shear between these joint planes and irregular joint

displacement and show frictional behavior thereafter. surfaces.

252

4.2 Contact and damaged areas and their variation are evaluated in relation with the normal stress, for

with normal stress and shear displacement given shear displacement.

In general, there is an increasing degradation of

Contact area between irregular joint plane surfaces, surfaces asperities by damage area extension with

after normal loading, is quite small in regards with the increasing roughness, normal stress and particularly

total joint area (Gentier 1986). Phase I of friction with shear displacement. The analysis can produce a

linear mobilization with the raising shear load slight underestimation of the damaged zones because

increases the contact area (Tabor 1959) by a factor as of gouge sticking from one wall to the other without

large as three times, as stated previously, while change in color or by transfer of material without

mobilization of dilatancy in phase II reduces it crushing. From the analysis of results (Fig. 4), the

progressively to peak shear strength corresponding to sequence of joint wall degradation may be summa-

around 0.55 rnm of shear displacement. Following rized as follow: first, for a given normal stress,

this scenario the post-peak phases will show a material from superficial parts of one wall is broken

progressive degradation of the joint wall surfaces. To away and crushed with shear displacement during

quantify asperities degradation on the joint wall which the number of these deteriorating parts

surfaces, after each shear test performed on the fifteen increased and the size of the degradation zones

samples, an image analysis was undertaken on the enlarged both depending on stress level. As normal

thirty images (15 replicas and 2 images per replica) stress increased gouged material is crushed more

and the geometrical characteristics of the damaged densely and sticked plastically on the surfaces with a

zones are measured: shape, size, position and/or transfer of material from one wall to the other. The

orientation. The whole process is detailed in Riss et anisotropy of the joint surfaces morphology show

al. (1996). The damaged areas being defined, it was degradation zones location depending on shear direc-

Possible, with the sequence of five shear tests (for a tion. After 5 mm of shear displacement and in rela-

given normal stress) stopped at different shear tion with the applied normal stress (7, 14 and 21

displacement, to analyze the evolution of the damaged MPa) the total damaged area evaluated, combining the

areas with shear displacement under constant normal degraded zones of both walls (upper and lower) is at

stress (Fig. 4). Also the evolution of damaged areas most 23%, 33% and 58% respectively. With

7 MPA 21 MPA

50

40

tel

Ql

:;: 30

Ql

Cl

tel 7 M~a.

c:

tel 20

c

"g0

Walls

10 % Area sheared

Upper: --

Lower: -----

0

0 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 Gentier S. 1986. Morphologie et comportement

extending from the initial ones and by linking them to hydrornecanique d'une fracture naturelle dans Ie

become larger zones nearly perpendicular to shear granite sous contrainte normale; etude experimen-

direction. More details on areas of damaged zones tale et theorique. Documents du BRGM n° 134,

and on position, orientation and spatial correlation BRGM, Orleans, France, 597 p.

Gentier S. & Riss J. 1990. Quantitative description

between upper and lower damaged areas are

and modelling of joints morphology. Rock

discussed in Riss et al. (1996).

Joints: 375-382. Barton & Stephansson (eds).

Observed sheared area proportions at peak shear Rotterdam: Balkema.

strength (phase III) are extremely low, between 2 and Goodman R.E. 1976. Methods of Geological

3%, for the three aN values tested (7, 14 and 21 MPa) Engineering. West Publishing Co. 472 p.

(Fig. 4) and there was little variation with aNlaC in Ladanyi B. & Archambault G. 1969. Simulation of

this range varying from 0.1 to 0.3 on them as if aN shear behavior of a jointed rock mass. Rock

has no influence on sheared area. It is shown (Fig. mechanics - Theory and practice, Proc. l l tli

4) that most of asperity degradation resulting in Sytnp. on Roch Mech., California: 105-125.

damaged (sheared) area occurs between peak and 3 Ladanyi B. & Archambault G. 1980. Direct and

mm of shear displacement corresponding to the indirect determination of shear strength of rock

progressive softening phase IV of joint shear mass. Proc. SME o/AIME Annual Meeting, Las

Vegas, Nevada, Preprint No. 80-25, 16 p.

behavior. Thus, at peak shear strength the normal

Myer L.R., Tsang CF., Cook N.G.W. & Goodman

stress on contact areas is much higher than the

R.E. (editors) 1995. Fractured and Jointed Rock

average joint applied normal stress, but despite this Masses. Balkema, 772 p.

fact for the three relatively low o-, values used, very Patton F.D. 1966. MUltiple modes of shear failure in

few asperities were sheared off. If equating contact rock. Proc. l st Congress ISRM, Lisbon: 583-

and sheared areas, it means for aN = 7, 14 and 21 590.

MPa and contact area of I to 3%, contact normal Poirier S. 1996. Etude experirnentale du comporte-

stress of around 700 MPa (or 8 ac) an irrelevant ment de la pression interestitielle et de son

value. More appropriate values related to aN::; 2ac influence sur Ie comportement physico-rnecani-

means contact areas between 5 and 15%, so the que d'un materiau poreux intact ou fracture par

difference must be in friction giving no damaged area essais triaxiaux non draines. Unpublished M.Sc.

at failure. Thesis, UQAC.

Riss J. & Gentier S. 1989. Linear and areal rough-

ness of non planar rock surfaces of fracture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acta Steorol 8: 677-682.

Riss J. & Gentier S. 1990. Angularity of a natural

This is a BRGM contribution n° 94059; this work

fracture. Proc. lilt. Con]. on Mech. of Jointed

was financially supported by a BRGM research pro-

and Faulted Rock, Rossmanith P. (Ed.),

ject, an NSERC of Canada research grant and an Balkema, pp. 399-406.

NSERC graduate student followship. Riss J., Gentier S., Archambault G., Flamand R. &

Sirieix C 1995. A reevaluation of irregular joint

REFERENCES shear behavior on the basis of 3D modelling of

their morphology. Part I: Morphology descrip-

Archambault G., Gentier S., Riss J., Flamand R. & tion and 3D modelling. Mechanics of Jointed

Sirieix C 1995. A reevaluation of irregular joint and Faulted Rock (MJFR-2) Proc., Balkerna, pp.

shear behavior on the basis of 3D modelling of 157-163.

their morphology. Part II: Joint shear behavior Riss J., Gentier S., Sirieix C, Archambault G. &

mechanical modelling. Proc.Mcchauics of Flamand R. 1996. Degradation characterization

Jointed and Faulted Rock (MJFR-2): 163-168. of sheared joint wall surface morphology. Proc.

Rotterdam: Balkema. 2nd HARMS Symposium, Montreal.

Bandis S.C., Lumsden A.C & Barton N.R. 1981. Scholtz CH. 1990. The mechanics of eartquakes

Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. lilt. 1. and faulting. Cambridge Univ. Press, 439 p.

Ruck Mech. Sci. & Geomech. 13: 255-279. Stephansson O. (Ed.) 1985. Fundamentals of Rock

Barton N. 1973. Review of a new shear-strength Joints. Proc. of the lnternational Symposium all

criterion for rock joints. Eng. Geol. 7: 287-332. Fundamentals of Rock Joints. Bjorkl iden,

Barton N. & Stephansson o. (Eds.) 1990. Rock Sweden, September 15-20.

Joints. Proc. International Symposium on Rock Stephansson O. & Jing L. 1995. Testing and

Joints, Loen, Norway, June 4-6. modeling of rock joints. Proc. Mechanics of

Flamand R., Archambault G., Gentier S., Riss J. & Jointed and Faulted, Rossmanith (Ed.),

Rouleau A. 1994. An experimental study of the Balkema, pp. 37-47.

shear behavior of irregular joints based on Tabor D. 1959. Junction growth in metallic friction.

angularies and progressive degradation of the Proc. Roy. Soc. A. 251, 378.

surfaces. Proc. 47th Canadian Geotechnical Tse R. & Cruden D.M. 1979. Estimating joint

Conference of the c.G.s., Halifax, Nova Scotia, roughness coefficients. Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min.

253-262. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 16: 303-307.

254