You are on page 1of 9

Rock Mechanics, Nelson & Laubach (eds) 1994 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 54103808

An investigation of rock joint models on prediction of joint


behavior under pseudostatic cyclic shear loads
Sui-Min (Simon) Hsiung, Amitava Ghosh & Asadul H.Chowdhury
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, San Antonio, Tex., USA
Commonly used empirical representations of jointed rock behavior under cyclic loading conditions
reside in the Mohr-Coulomb, Barton-Bandis, and Continuously-Yielding models. These models
were developed based on data obtained under unidirectional loading conditions, and their ability
to predict joint performance under cyclic loading conditions has not been tested. Analysis has
indicated that these models are not capable of predicting joint behavior observed in the laboratory
during pseudostatic shear reversal.
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1987, the United States Congress designated Yucca Mountain, in southern Nevada, as the only
site to be characterized to determine its suitability for a high-level nuclear waste repository. The
proposed repository horizon is about 300 m beneath the surface, in a densely welded prominently
vertically and subvertically jointed tuff. An important phenomenon that could affect the preclosure
and postclosure performances of a repository is repeated ground motion due to seismic activities
(Kana et aI., 1991). The fundamental failure mechanism for an excavation in a jointed rock mass
subjected to repetitive seismic loading is the accumulation of shear displacement along joints
(Hsiung et aI., 1992).
Conditions for joint slip or for sliding of individual blocks from the boundaries of excavations
are governed by the shear strengths of the discontinuities concerned. The conditions for
behavior to be considered explicitly in assessing the response of the jointed rock mass surrounding
an opening include: (1) pseudostatic loadings, (2) dynamic loadings, and (3) repetitive episodes
of dynamic loadings arising from a series of earthquakes or underground nuclear explosions.
The Mohr-Coulomb, Barton-Bandis, and Continuously-Yielding models are three commonly
used empirical representations of rock joint behavior. These models were developed based
primarily on data taken under unidirectional pseudostatic loading conditions. The ability of these
models to predict joint performance under cyclic pseudostatic loading conditions as well as the
second and third conditions listed above has not been tested. This paper assesses these models and
their ability to predict joint behavior under cyclic pseudostatic shear loads by comparing with
experimental results.
2 LABORATORY OBSERVATION OF JOINT CYCLIC SHEAR BEHAVIOR
Two important, distinct features have been identified through the examination of laboratory-scale
direct shear experiments on rock joints of Apache Leap (in Arizona) tuff under cyclic loading
conditions; one is that the shear strength upon reverse shearing is smaller than that during forward
111
5
4
tf 3
2
0
1
'" 2
3
-4
HI"'"

.-
,-
r-----
2_
,-
...
J
l--"'
o 10 20 30 40 so
SHEAR DISPlACEMENT.1llIIl
(a)
,-
:tS
E
2.0
E
i
loS
1.0
0.5
0.0
1---
I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 SO
SHEAR DISPlACEMENT. mm
(b)
Figure 1. A typical experimental result of joint (a) shear stress response and (b) dilation under
pseudostatic cyclic loading condition as a function of normal stress.
shearing, and the other is that the joint dilation resulting from forward shearing recovers during
reverse shearing (Hsiung et aI., 1993). These two features of joint behavior are independent of
the environmental conditions under which the jOint is tested. Figure l(a) shows a typical shear
stress response of a rock joint under various normal stress levels. The test sequence followed an
ascending order with respect to normal stress. The curve with the I-MPa normal stress (the first
cycle of shearing) illustrates the shear behavior of an originally undamaged (fresh) joint and shows
a distinct peak shear strength at the early stage of the shear cycle. The shear strength of the joint
gradually reduces to a residual value as shear displacement increases. No distinct peak shear
strength was observed for other cycles of shearing. Another feature that can be observed in this
figure is that the shear strength during the reverse shearing is smaller than that during the forward
shearing. The relation between normal displacement (dilation) and shear displacement for the same
specimen is given in Figure 1(b). This figure indicates that joint dilation at various levels of
normal stress increases with shear displacement during forward shearing. For reverse shearing,
there is some degree of hysteresis in the jOint dilation, with the reverse-shearing dilation curve
being below that of forward shearing and decreasing towards zero. In general, for repeated shear
cycles, the amount of joint dilation decreased with increasing normal stress. The same behavior
has also been reported by other researchers (ling et al., 1992; Wibowo et aI., 1992; Huang et aI.,
1993) for rock joint replicas under cyclic pseudostatic loads.
3 EVALUATION OF MOHR-COULOMB JOINT MODEL
The simplest model for joint strength and deformation is the Mohr-Coulomb model, a linear
deformation model that includes a shear failure criterion for a rock joint
'To = C + lIn tan t/l
where 'To is shear strength along the joint, lIn is normal stress across the joint, C is cohesion, and
t/l is friction angle. Once 'To is reached, the joint deformation is perfectly plastic. This equation
suggests that the joint strength is the same in forward and reverse shearing directions. The joint
shear response is governed by a constant shear stiffness K.
(2)
tI.'T = K. tl.u.
e
112
where /:;.T is incremental shear stress and /:;.u/ is an elastic component of the incremental shear
displacement. Based on Eqs. (I) and (2), /:;.T becomes zero after the condition I TI = To is reached,
where T is the shear stress on the joint.
The Mohr-Coulomb joint model in its basic form does not consider joint wear and dilation
behavior. However, the dilation behavior may be added. For example. the dilation may be
restricted (that is, the dilation angle ift is zero) until shear stress has reached the shear strength of
the joint, that is, joint dilation starts after the joint begins to deform plastically. Since there is no
wear of the joint, joint dilation angle should remain constant with shear displacement. The dilation
angle becomes zero after a critical shear displacement is reached. A form of the model has been
given by ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc., 1992
(3) if ITI < To, then ift 0
and
(4)
if ITI To and I <!: u
cs
then ift = 0
where Us is the joint shear displacement and u
cs
is the critical shear displacement. Eq. (4) suggests
that joint dilation should continue to increase even during reverse shearing.
Figure 2(a) shows the predicted joint shear behavior using the Mohr-Coulomb model compared
to the actual experimental results. For clarity. results using normal stresses of 1. 3, and 5 MPa
are shown. Results using intermediate normal stresses 2 and 4 MPa are omitted. A friction angle
of 40.7
0
and zero cohesion were assumed for each computation. A shear stiffness, K., of 16.65
GPafm and a dilation angle, ift, 3.6
0
were used when the normal stress, un' was 1 MPa. A K. of
9.18 GPafm and a ift of 2.6
0
were used when un was 3 MPa. For 5 MPa normal stress, 10.14
GPafm and 2.3
0
were the values of K. and ift, respectively. These values were determined from
the experimental results of each cycle. It is ch;:ar from the figure that the Mohr-Coulomb joint
model simulates the residual shear phenomenon in the forward direction quite well but cannot
simulate the peak behavior. As there is no damage accumulation. the predicted strength is
independent of shear displacement. Although the Mohr-Coulomb model simulates the 'first-order'
shear behavior in the forward direction very well, it overestimates the strength in the reverse
direction. This has been observed in each of the sixteen specimens tested.
Figure 2(b) shows the dilation response of the joint when a constant dilation an!1le of 3.6
0
was
2
<If 1
0
'"
1
!i! .2
en
3
-4
s
\t.
I
____ 1
. -.--:-. . ;E-;.. .
10 1S 20 2S 30 3S 40 4' SO
SHEAR DISPI..ACEMENT. mm
(a)
"-
Ii " I
I
. ':i1" MPa Normal S", ...
"rIii,/"-,
,
30
'" 2S '
is '
2.0 ...... _._..:?--::J
IS' ..... """",./""".
o
% 0.5 . :;:::---;;'1
0.0
.().s .. -L-
o 5 10 I' 20 2$
SHEAR DISPI..A 30 3' 40 4' '0
CEMENT. !DID
(b)
Figure 2. Comparison of simulated joint (a) shear response and (b) dilation using Mobr-Coulomb
model with experimental results.
113
used with a normal stress of 1 MPa. The figure shows that the Mohr-Coulomb model predicts the
dilation behavior in the forward direction reasonably well. In the reverse direction, the dilation
curve predicted by Eq. (4), shown as Modell, does not show any dilation recovery (joint
compaction) with increasing shear displacement. But the joint compaction can be simulated
numerically if the dilation angle is assumed negative while shearing in the reverse direction. This
is shown as Model 2 in Figure 2(b). In this case, the dilation curve for reverse direction overlaps
the dilation curve for forward direction, as shown in Figure 2(b).
4 EVALUATION OF BARTON-BANDIS JOINT MODEL
The Barton-Bandis model was proposed with the intent to take into consideration the effect of joint
surface roughness on joint deformation and strength. The nonlinear Joint strength criterion can be
expressed as (Barton et al., 1985)
(5) To = an tan [JRC log10 [ ~ S 1 + !/I,]
where JRC is joint roughness coefficient, JCS is joint wall compressive strength, and !/I, is residual
joint friction angle. The attrition of the surface roughness or reduction of the JRC is represented
in a piece-wise linear manner (Barton et al., 1985). When the joint is not sheared, it has a
maximum JRC value, JRCpe<lk' As the joint is sheared, the JRC decreases as a result of attrition
of asperities on the joint surface. The peak shear stress (shear strength) is reached at a joint shear
displacement up that can be calculated using the following equation (Barton and Bandis, 1982)
(6)
n JRC
L [ ] 0.33
Up = 500 Ln
where Ln is the length of a test specimen.
Based on Eq. (5), the joint shear stress under a constant normal stress depends solely on the
JRC value. When a joint is sheared in one direction, its roughness is reduced from JRCpeak to a
value, say JRC
c
If, at this point, the direction of the shear is reversed, the initial shear stress
required for the Joint to be sheared in the reverse direction is controlled by the JRCc value,
following Eq. (5), which serves as the maximum JRC in the reverse direction. In other words, the
Barton-Bandis model assumes that the shear strength at initiation of the shear in the reverse
direction is equal to the shear strength when the forward shearing was stopped. Also, Eq. (5)
suggests that joint wear will stop after the JRC becomes zero. This condition will be reached when
the ratio of the actual shear displacement u. to the shear displacement lip is greater than 100
(Barton et al., 1985). Once the JRC becomes zero, the joint shear essentially resumes the Mohr-
Coulomb type of behavior.
The Barton-Bandis joint model also recognizes the dilatant nature of joints and suggests that the
angle of dilation should be a function of the JRC. The relation between the JRC and dilation angle
1ft is (Barton et al., 1985)
(7)
1ft = 0.5 JRC log10 [ ~ S 1
This equation indicates that, as joint surface roughness wears, its angle of dilation decreases. In
other words, the rate of dilation becomes smaller as joint shearing progresses. The dilation angle
will eventually become zero, that is, there will be no further dilation if uiup becomes greater than
100. Judging from the nature of Eq. (7), 1ft is always positive. Joint dilation will continue to
increase, although at a gradually slower rate, even after the direction of shear has been reversed.
Figure 3(a) illustrates the shear response of the joint for a JCS of 106.8 MPa, a JRC of 11.9,
and a residual friction angle, !/Ir. of 28.4 with normal stresses of 1, 3, and 5 MPa. Responses for
114
5
4
~ 2
~ 0
~ 1
'"
2
3
-4
5MPa -
1 MPa
__ ...e::::::-::
3MPa
~
SMPa
o 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 4S SO
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mrn
(a)
6.0
B
g S.O
r
4.0
3.S
i 3.0
2.S
Q 2.0
~ J.S
1.0
~ 0.5
0.0
0.5
0
__ 1 __ ....._ I L . ~ . - - ~ - - . . . . . . . J
5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 SO
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT. mrn
(b)
Figure 3. Comparison of simulated joint (a) shear response and (b) dilation using Barton-Bandis
model with experimental results.
intermediate an of 2 and 4 MPa are not shown in the figure for clarity. JRC was back-calculated
from Eq. (5) after measuring ICS and <Pr independently. The damage accumulation model reduces
the IRC value as shear displacement increases. The figure shows that the predicted shear stress
in the first cycle is quite close to the actual during forward shearing but overestimates the strength
in the reverse direction. The predicted shear strength at the beginning of reverse shearing is
exactly the same as the strength at the end of forward shear. This phenomenon is true for all
subsequent cycles. This figure also shows that the damage to the joint surface in the Barton-Bandis
model accumulates much faster than that observed in actual experiments. As a result, the rough
joint surfaces quickly become smooth (Le., JRC value becomes zero) and the shear response is
controlled by the residual friction angle afterwards. Consequently, the strengths achieved in
subsequent cycles with higher normal stresses are significantly lower than that observed in actual
experiments.
Figure 3(b) shows the dilation of the jOint for only the first cycle when the applied normal stress
was 1 MPa. The figure shows that the Barton-Bandis model overestimates the dilation in the
forward direction. Dilation in the reverse direction was calculated using Eq. (7) and is shown as
Modell. This curve does not show any joint compaction. Contrary to the experimental
observation, Model 1 actually shows further increase in dilation while the top block is moved in
the reverse direction. Curve designated as Model 2 was calculated assuming negative of the
dilation angle in the reverse direction. This curve shows compaction of the joint in reverse
shearing but the dilation recovery is far from that observed. The rate of damage accumulation in
the Barton-Bandis model is so high that the IRC at the end of forward shear is significantly less
than the initial value. As result, the dilation recovery calculated using Eq. (7) while shearing in
reverse direction is not sufficient to return the dilation close to zero, as observed in experiments.
5 EVALUATION OF CONTINUOUSLY-YIELDING JOINT MODEL
The Continuously-Yielding model for rock joint deformation was developed by ITASCA
Consulting Group, Inc. (ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc. 1992; Cundall and Lemos, 1988). The
115
model can simulate progressive damage of the joint surface during shear and displays irreversible
nonlinear behavior from the onset of shear loading. The shear stress increment is
(8)
(1 - Tiro)
t:.T = F KS t:.U
S
= KS t:.u
s
(1 - r)
where t:.u. is the incremental shear displacement and the shear stiffness Ks may be a function of
normal stress. F is a factor that governs the shear stiffness. It depends on the difference between
the actual stress curve and the bounding strength curve To' The factor r in Eq. (8) is initially zero.
It restores the elastic stiffness immediately after load reversal. That means r is set to Tiro (F
becomes 1). In practice, r is restricted to a maximum value of 0.75 to avoid numerical noise when
the shear stress is approximately equal to the bounding strength, To' The bounding strength, To'
is
(9)
To '" (Tn tan m sign (t:.u
s
)
where m is the friction angle that would apply if the joint is to dilate at the maximum dilation
angle and is initially equal to the joint initial friction angle, mo' As damage accumulates, m is
continuously reduced according to
(10)
m = (mo - ) e(-u: I R) -
where u! is the plastic shear displacement and is the basic friction angle of the rock surface.
R is a material parameter with a dimension of length that expresses the joint roughness. A large
value of R produces slower reduction of m and a higher peak stress. The peak is reached when
the bounding strength equals the shear stress. After the peak, the joint is in the softening region
and the value of F becomes negative.
Based on Eq. (9), joint bounding shear strength under a constant normal stress depends solely
on the friction angle, tP
m
When a joint is sheared in one direction and its friction angle, m' is
reduced from its initial value tPmo to a value, say tP
j
; and at this point, the direction of the shear
is reversed, the corresponding bounding shear strength in the reversed direction, according to Eq.
(9), is controlled by the tPp which serves as the maximum m in the reverse direction. In other
words, the Continuously-Yielding model assumes that the maximum bounding shear strength
during reverse shearing is the same as the bounding shear strength at the end of the forward
shearing process.
The formulation of joint dilation angle in the Continuously-Yielding model is expressed as
(11)
~ = tan-I [ I ~ 1 - tP
Dilation takes place whenever the shear stress is at the bounding shear strength level, and is
obtained from the friction angle, m (Cundall and Lemos, 1988). Examining Eq. (11) reveals that
the joint dilation, as treated in the Continuously-Yielding model, should continue to increase
regardless of whether a joint is sheared in the forward or reverse direction. However, the rate of
dilation decreases gradually and is governed by the value of m' After the bounding shear strength
is reached, Eq. (11) can be rewritten as
(12)
~ = (tPmo - ) e(-u: I R)
Note again the increasing nature of joint dilation as shown in Eq. (12).
116
5 3.0
4
_____ ..c:..::...::=...-_

25
3

2
--=- Experiment
I
2.0
.,;
--Model
t

1.5
0
-I
j
05
'" 2
-3
Z
0.0
-4
-E--
-5 -0.5
0 10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45
SO
0 10 IS 20 2S 30 3S 40 45
50
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm
(a)
Figure 4. Comparison of simulated joint (a) shear response and
Yielding model with experimental results.
(b)
dilation using Continuously-
Assuming ajoint with a constant shear stiffness, K., of 19.68 GPalm, initial friction angle, "p"""
of 48.9, basic friction angle, "p, of 36.0, and roughness parameter, R, of 0.0105 m, the
predicted joint shear strength using the Continuously-Yielding model subjected to normal stresses,
(111' of 1,3, and 5 MPa is illustrated in Figure 4(a). These parameters were determined using the
data from the first cycle of forward shearing only. The damage accumulation model adjusts the
"pm value as shear displacement increases.
Figure 4{a) shows that the Continuously-Yielding joint model predicts the shear strength quite
well during the first cycle, although it overpredicts the strength during reverse shearing. The
predicted shear strength in the reverse direction is almost the same as that in the forward direction.
This is a general trend observed in the study. The figure shows another important feature of the
joint model. The shear strength predicted by the Continuously-Yielding joint model quickly
reaches the residual strength value when compared with the experimental curves. In other words,
joint roughness degradation occurs more rapidly in the Continuously-Yielding joint model than in
the actual experiment. As a result, numerically the joint becomes two plane surfaces whose
behavior is controlled by the basic friction angle following Mohr-Coulomb friction law.
Consequently, in subsequent cycles of the experiment, the predicted shear strength is always
smaller than the experimental results.
Figure 4(b) shows the dilation response of the joint using the same parameters. For clarity, only
the first cycle (1n equal to 1 MPa) is shown. The predicted dilation curve in the figure shows
overprediction in the beginning and underprediction thereafter. The dilation angle quickly
decreases to zero with shear displacement. Due to rapid degradation of the joint roughness, the
predicted dilation at the end of forward shearing in the first cycle is smaller than observed
experimentally. In the reverse direction, the dilation curve does not return to zero. It stays almost
at the same level as the peak. value during forward shearing (Modell). This confirms that the
roughness of the joint is completely worn off during forward shearing. Due to the same reason,
the dilation recovery is minimal when the dilation angle is taken as negative in the reverse
direction (Model 2).
117
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Careful examination of the respective equations representing the Mohr-Coulomb, Barton-Bandis,
and Continuously-Yielding rock joint models has revealed that all three models were essentially
developed for unidirectional shearing. They assume the same joint behavior in both forward and
reverse shearing directions. With this assumption, the same shear strength criterion is applicable
in both shearing conditions. This is not consistent with the measured shear strength in laboratory
experiments. The shear strength during reverse shearing was always smaller than that in the
forward direction. Rates of damage accumulation for both Barton-Bandis and Continuously-
Yielding models are much faster than that observed in experiments. As a result, the joint surfaces
are calculated to become smooth at relatively small shear displacement. Consequently, the strength
in subsequent cycles is significantly underestimated.
The Mohr-Coulomb model calculates the dilation based on a constant dilation angle. Dilation
starts when peak shear strength is reached and ceases when a critical shear displacement is
r e a c h ~ The Barton-Bandis and Continuously-Yielding models directly link joint dilation with
shear displacement through the roughness properties. Since a joint continues to wear during
shearing, the dilation angle used to calculate joint dilation continues to decrease. The constant
decrease of dilation angle implies that the joint will eventually stop dilating when it is completely
worn. All three models inherently assume an increase of joint dilation with increasing shear
displacement irrespective of the direction of shearing. This is inconsistent with the joint dilation
behavior observed in the laboratory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Wesley C. Patrick and Dr. Budhi Sagar for their valuable advice and
suggestion during preparation of this paper. This report was prepared to document work performed
by the CNWRA for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Contract NRC-02-93-
005. The activities reported here were performed on behalf of the NRC Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, Division of Regulatory Applications. This report is an independent product
of the CNWRA and does not necessarily reflect the views or regulatory position of the NRC.
REFERENCES
Barton, N.R., and S.C. Bandis. 1982. Effects of block size on the shear behavior of jointed rock.
23rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Berkeley, CA.
Barton, N.R., S.C. Bandis, and K. Bakhtar. 1985. Strength, deformation and conductivity
coupling of rock joints. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences ell:
Geomechanics Abstracts 22(3): 121-140.
Cundall, P.A., and LV. Lemos. 1988. Numerical simulation of fault instabilities with the
continuously-yielding joint model. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Hsiung, S.M., D.O. Kana, M.P. Ahola, A.H. Chowdhury, and A. Ghosh. 1993. Laboratory
Characterization of Rock Ioints. Report CNWRA-93-013. San Antonio, Texas: Center for
Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses. .
Hsiung, S.M., W. Blake, A.H. Chowdhury, and T.L Williams. 1992. Effects of Mining-Induced
Seismic Events on a Deep Underground Mine. PAGEOPH 139(3/4): 741-762.
Huang, X., B.C. Hairnson, M.E. Plesha, and X. Qiu. 1993. An Investigation of the Mechanics
of Rock Ioints--Part I. Laboratory Investigation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences ell: Geomechanics Abstracts 30(3): 257-269.
ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc. 1992. UDEC Universal Distinct Element Code Version 1.8
Volume I: User's Manual. Minneapolis, MN: ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc.
118
Jing, L., E. Nordlund, and O. Stephansson. 1992. An Experimental Study on the Anisotropy and
Stress-Dependency of the Strength and Deformability of Rock Joints. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &: Geomechanics Abstracts 29(6): 535-542.
Kana, D.D., B.H.G. Brady, B.W. Vanzant, and P.K. Nair. 1991. Critical Assessment of Seismic
and Geomechanics Literature Related to a High-Level Nuclear Waste Underground Repository.
NUREG/CR-5440. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 161.
Wibowo, J.T., B. Amadei, S. Sture, and A.B. Robertson. 1992. Shear Response of a Rock Joint
Under Different Boundary Conditions: An Experimental Study. Conference of Fractured and
Jointed Rock Masses. Preprints. June 3-5, 1992. Lake Tahoe, California.
119

You might also like