11th Congress of the International Society for Rock Mechanics Ribeiro e Sousa, Olalla & Grossmann (eds)

2007 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-45084-3

Stress paths in laboratory rock joint shear tests
Jos Muralha
Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT: Laboratory shear tests of rock joints are the common tool to evaluate the shear strength. Their results are
fundamental to assess the safety conditions of Rock Engineering projects. This paper will present the different types of tests
that can be carried out, with a special focus in what concerns the stress paths applied through out the tests. The advantages
and disadvantages of using the same joint sample to perform several slidings will be discussed, along with other issues related
to the joint re-positioning and surface wear. The importance of the stress path of the normal stress prior to each sliding is an
important factor to assure that all slidings are performed under conditions as approximate as possible.
1 INTRODUCTION
Since early days of Rock Mechanics, the shear strength of rock
discontinuities has been a major topic and some well known
papers are frequently quoted (Barton &Choubey 1977, Bandis
et al. 1983). Its relevance arises in Rock Engineering works
where stresses are lowincomparisonwiththe strengthof intact
rock. In these cases, the rock mass stability and the safety con-
ditions are controlled by block movements defined along or
by discontinuities (joints, bedding planes, shear zones, faults,
and cleavage or foliation planes). Safety evaluation of blocky
systems requires the estimation of the shear strength of the
rock discontinuities, which can be determined by shear tests
(Goodman 1989, Hoek 2007). Due to their duration and cost,
it is common practice to perform laboratory shear tests on rel-
atively small samples of rock joints, instead of in situ direct
shear tests.
As in Soil Mechanics, the basic principle of common rock
joint direct shear tests is to subject a joint sample to various
normal stresses andineachcase todetermine the shear stresses
required to produce a certain shear displacement (ISRM1974,
ASTM 1995). This paper discusses the different possibilities
to perform these tests.
2 SHEARTESTS
Rock joint shear tests are often included in the geomechanical
characterization of rock masses for large and relevant projects.
These studies also include the assessment of the main joint
sets and the shear tests should also direct their attention to
the evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of such sets.
The analysis of several groups of joint shear tests from dif-
ferent types of rocks showed that the variability of the results
is quite important. Coefficients of variation higher than 30%
are very common, and smaller values around 10% are only
found for particular joint sets with very low roughness, such
as schistosity or foliation planes (Muralha 1995). If possible,
a statistically significant number of laboratory tests should
be performed to estimate the shear parameters for a given
joint set. A number around 20 usually offers a satisfactory
compromise between statistical significance, sampling diffi-
culties and costs. It has to be stressed that trying to estimate
shear parameters from the results of very few tests (less than
10) can be misleading and turn up to be very dangerous; it
only possible in very particular situations when carried out by
experienced consultants with previous site knowledge.
Several types of equipments can be used to perform such
tests and different procedures can be followed. Since Rock
Mechanics early times, several types of laboratory equip-
ments have been design and built to perform direct shear tests
devised to evaluate the shear strength of joints (e.g. Natau
1980, Franklin 1985, Skinas et al. 1990, Wibowo et al. 1992,
Esaki et al. 1995, Souley 1995, Kerstins 1999).
In most of these equipments the rock joint sample is placed
horizontally in a shear box after being encapsulated with
cement mortar or a synthetic resin, so that it can be tightly
fastened inside the box. Generally, it is the upper half of the
shear box (and of the rock joint) that slides while the lower half
is fixed. The shear box can hold joint samples with sheared
areas ranging from 200 to 400 cm
2
, though in some cases
larger samples can be tested.
The normal and shear forces are usually provided by a cou-
ple of hydraulic jacks that can be actuated by an electrical
pump with or without some kind of servo regulation. In some
cases, a cantilever system is used to apply the normal force
as a dead-weight and a mechanical gear drive system is used
to provide the shear force in others. The jacks are mounted in
a reaction structure or frame that also holds the fixed part of
the shear box.
The normal and shear forces are directly measured by load
cells or indirectly by pressure gauges or transducers. Displace-
ment transducers are used to measure the displacements. It is
commonpractice toperformalmost continuous measurements
of these parameters using computer based data acquisition
equipments.
Boundary conditions are also relevant in these tests, since
as shear displacement (sliding) develops, dilation (normal dis-
placement with joint aperture increase) also has to occur due
to joint roughness that forces one of the halves of the joint to
override the other. It is common to perform tests under con-
stant normal stress, which is maintained during sliding by the
servo-control of the hydraulic equipment or by actuators. The
equipments that use a cantilever and a dead-weight to apply
the normal stress are particularly suited to the analysis of slope
stability, since they reproduce in the laboratory the natural
joint conditions with a constant normal stress and no normal
stiffness (completely unconstrained joint displacement in the
431
normal direction). The servo-controlledequipments alsoallow
to perform tests under particular boundary conditions such as
constant normal stiffness and constant normal displacement
(Johnston et al. 1987, Indraratna et al. 1998). However, these
are not common tests and are usually carried out in research
programs.
It is well known that the principle factors affecting the shear
strength of rock joints are the roughness (at a laboratory scale)
and the waviness (at a natural scale), and the strength of the
joint walls in comparison with the normal stress (Patton 1966,
Barton 1973). The type of rock is not so important, and the
presence of fillings is not considered in this paper. When joints
shear, the shear strength is the sum of a basic friction angle,
a geometric component due to surface roughness and a rock
shearing part. This last component wears the rock walls, pro-
duces small pieces and debris of rock, and is recognizably
more important when the normal stress is larger.
Direct shear tests procedures are described in the ISRM
Suggested Method (1974) and in the ASTM standards
D-5607-95 (1995). Though some differences between the pro-
cedures can be found, both standards define the following
basic mechanism for rock joint shear tests: an external shear
force is increased, while maintaining a normal force constant.
The forces, the corresponding displacements, and the nominal
shear area should be recorded for calculating the results. The
standards pay particular attention to the care to be taken with
the sampling, transport and storage of the discontinuity sam-
ples, since they can be damage the joint surfaces or change
their natural water content.
The purpose of shearing is to establish values for the peak
and residual shear strength. So, the shear force should be
applied as continuously as possible to control the rate of
shear displacement. Using current data acquisition systems
and servo-controlled equipments it is possible to define a con-
stant displacement rate and to take enough readings to define
an almost continuous graph. Hence, the reading rates defined
in the Suggested Method and in the ASTM standards should
be revised.
Frequently, prior to a set of shear tests, rock joints undergo
normal closure tests, consisting of a series of loading-
unloading normal stress cycles with measurement of the joint
aperture (normal displacement) to determine the joint normal
stiffness. This particular part of joint testing is beyond the
subject of this paper.
3 TEST PROCEDURES AND STRESS PATHS
Since the purpose of these tests is to evaluate the relations
between the shear and the normal stresses at failure, several
different normal stresses have to be applied to define a failure
envelope. If each joint could only be tested under a single
normal stress, a large amount of joint specimens would have to
be sampled. So, generallyparticular multistage test procedures
are followed to evaluate the shear envelope from each single
joint. One of the possible procedures for performing several
shear tests under different normal stresses using the same rock
joint is presented in Figure 1. This figure shows that the starts
with an increase of the normal stress up to the 0.5 MPa (1),
followed by the shearing of the joint displayed by the increase
of the shear stress and corresponding shear displacement (2);
when the shear stress appears to reach a constant value, it is
taken back to 0 and the normal stress is increased to 1.0 MPa
(3) and a second shearing is applied (4); the same procedure
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Shear displacement (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0
Shear displacement (mm)
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 1. Test procedure without repositioning.
is followed for a normal stress of 1.5 MPa (5) and (6) and for
the last normal stress of 2.0 MPa (7) and (8).
This type of multi-stage enables to perform several shear-
ings or slidings with the same joint sample, allowing to
determine a failure envelope. However, only the first sliding
starts with the joint placed in its natural and mated position,
and all the following slidings start at different values of the
shear displacement. It is not possible to pre-define the value
of shear displacement required to reach the shear strength and
sometimes it is difficult to define precisely the value of the
shear strength.
Another type of multi-stage shear test is currently per-
formedat LNEC. The procedure is anadaptationof bothISRM
and ASTM procedures. The shear test of a joint sample con-
sists of a series of 4 or 5 slidings at different normal stresses.
The first sliding takes place under the lowest normal stress
and the following slidings are performed under different nor-
mal stresses, each one being carried out under a normal stress
larger than the previous, so that the last sliding will be done
under the highest normal stress. This normal stress sequence
was also followed in the procedure presented above. The main
difference is that all slidings start with the two joint halves
placed or reset in their mated or natural position. This practice
tries to minimize the influence of each repetition that wears
the joint surface and breaks the roughness and asperities. To
further reduce this inconvenient, a special care is put on the
careful removal of all debris from the joint surfaces when it is
432
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Normal displacement(mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Figure 2. Pre-loading of a joint before a shearing under a normal
stress of 1.0 MPa.
positioned in its initial mated position previously to each slid-
ing. To further minimize this effect, the normal stresses are not
chosen covering equally the range of stresses that are expected
to be found in the project (e.g. 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 MPa).
Instead, a geometric progression is used; for instance, for tests
up to a normal stress around 3 MPa, the following normal
stresses would be used: 0.4, 0.8, 1.6 and 3.2 MPa. Bartons
law that that includes a log relation between the JCS and the
normal stress supports this principle of doubling the normal
stress for the next sliding.
Moreover, the wear of the joint roughness will tendtoreduce
the shear strength and to render conservative values for the
shear strength. Since the shear strengthreductiondue torough-
ness wearing does not take effect for the first sliding (under
the lowest normal stress), if a Coulomb linear envelope is con-
sidered, the friction angle is reduced but the apparent cohesion
can display a small increase.
ISRMandASTMprocedures state that the normal load is to
be continuously increased at a constant rate until the selected
normal stress is attained. In order to reach conditions as similar
as possible before all slidings, a loading-unloading cycle up
to a high normal stress is performed prior to the increase of
the normal stress up to the selected value. Figure 2 presents
an example of a normal stress vs normal displacement graph
performed before a joint shearing under a normal stress of
1.0 MPa.
The steps of this type of joint shear test procedure can be
described as follows:
(1) Loading-unloading cycles up to a high normal stress;
(2) Loading of the joint up to the first (lower) normal stress;
(3) Shearing of the joint under this normal stress maintained
constant through out;
(4) Removal of all wear debris and cleaning of the joint
surfaces;
(5) Placing of the joint in its initial and mated position;
(6) Repetition of steps (1) to (5) but with the second normal
stress;
(7) Repetition of steps (1) to (5) but with the third normal
stress;
(8) Repetitionof steps (1) to(5) but withthe last normal stress.
Beyondprovidingregular andsimilar conditions for the suc-
cessive shearings at different normal stresses, plotting just the
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25
Normal displacement (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Figure 3. Pre-loadingcurves of a joint withcommonnormal closure
behaviour.
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25
Normal displacement (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Figure 4. Pre-loading curves of a joint with an unusual normal
closure behaviour.
last loading cycles displayed an important feature: they all fol-
lowed the same plot, revealing that this pre-loading procedure
proved to be very effective in establishing similar conditions
for each sliding. Figure 3 presents an example with a joint
displaying the usual hyperbolic type of curves for its closure.
Figure 4 shows an example with a joint showing an unusual
behaviour. The normal closure graphs of this joint begin with
a decrease of the normal stiffness and display an inflexion
point, and due to the pre-loading they are quite similar though
between each one of them was obtained a shearing was made.
Finally, Figure 5 presents the results of a rock joint shear test
with all shear displacements starting at the same (in this case
initial, mated relative position of the joint), and the normal
stresses with in a geometric progression. If shear strength val-
ues were estimated from each graph and plotted against their
respective normal stresses an almost linear relation would be
found.
4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The determination of rock joint shear strength involves a sig-
nificant number of laboratory shear tests. It is not practical to
use a joint sample to perform a single shearing under a con-
stant normal stress. Instead, several shearings under different
normal stresses are performed on the same joint, enabling the
433
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Shear displacement (mm)
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
0,5 MPa 1,0 MPa 2,0 MPa 4,0 MPa
Figure 5. Rock joint shear test with re-positioning and pre-loading.
assessment of its failure envelope. These multi-stage types
of tests can be carried out according to different procedures
concerning the respective stress paths. In this paper some pro-
cedures were presented and the advantages of repositioning
the joint in the initial position prior to every shearing were
pointed out. It was also shown the relevance of performing
a pre-loading cycle up to a high normal stress before each
shearing to assure that all shearings are performed under the
most similar conditions.
Regarding the stress paths followed by the normal and shear
stresses during the tests, it should be pointed out that they don
not act in accordance with real field conditions. For instance,
in the case of rock slopes what can happen is that the normal
stress decreases while the shear stress is approximately con-
stant, thus producing failure following a quite different stress
path from that of common shear tests (increase of the shear
stress under constant normal stress).
REFERENCES
ASTM 1995. Standard test method for performing laboratory direct
shear strength test of rock specimens under constant normal
force, Designation D5607-95, Annual book of ASTM standards:
384392.
Barton, N. R., and Choubey, V. 1977. The shear strength of rock joints
in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics, 10, 154.
Barton, N. 1973. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock
joints, Engineering Geology, 7, 287332.
Bandis, S., Lumsden, A. C., and Barton, N. R. 1983. Fundamentals
of rock joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr., 206, 249268.
Esaki, T., Nakahara, K., Jiang, Y. and Mitani, Y. 1995. Effects of pre-
ceding history on shear-flow coupling properties of rock joints.
Symp. Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock, Viena, Austria.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Franklin, J.A. 1985. A direct shear machine for testing rock joints.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 8 1: 2529.
Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. 2nd ed. John
Willey & Sons.
Hoek, E. 2002. Practical Rock Engineering. Available on
http://www.rocscience.com.
ISRM 1974. Suggested methods for determining shear strength,
Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests,
Committee on field tests, Final draft, February 1974, Pergamon,
Oxford.
Indraratna, B., Haque, A., and Aziz, N. 1998 Laboratory modelling
of shear behaviour of soft joints under constant normal stiffness
conditions. Geotechnical andGeological Engineering, Volume 16,
Number 1/March, pp. 1744.
Johnston, I. W., Lam, T. S. K., and Williams, A. F. 1987. Constant
normal stiffness direct shear testing for socketed pile design in
weak rock. Geotechnique, 37, 8389.
Kerstins, C.M.D. 1999. A generic UDEC model for rock joint shear
tests, including roughness characterisation, Memoirs Centre Eng.
Geology, No. 182, Faculty Civil Engineering Geosciences, TU
Delft, Netherlands.
Muralha, J. 1995. Statistical description of shear parameters of
rock joints. 8th Congress of the ISRM, Tokyo, Japan. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Natau, O. Leichnitz, W., and Balthasar, K. 1980. Construction of
a computer-controlled direct shear testing machine for investiga-
tions in rock discontinuities, 4th Congress of the ISRM, Vol. 3,
Montreux, Switzerland. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Patton, F. D. 1966. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. 1st
Congress of thr ISRM, Vol. 1, 509513, Lisbon, Portugal.
Skinas, C.A., Bandis, S.C., and Demiris, C.A. 1990. Experimental
investigations and modelling of rock joint behaviour under con-
stant stiffness shearing, Int. Symp. on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Souley, M., Homand, F., and Amadei, B. 1995. An extension of the
Saeb and Amadei constitutive model for rock joints to include
cyclic loading paths. Int. J. Rock Mechanics Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abst., 32 2: 101109.
Wibowo, J.T., Amadei, B., Sture, S., Robertson, A.B., and Price, R.
1992. Shear response of a rock joint under different conditions:
an experimental study, Conf. Fractured and Jointed Rock Masses,
Lake Tahoe, California.
434