Fock Jains, Brton 8 Saphansson (es) © 199 Bama, tram. SBN 8061911095 Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-ICS model in engineering practice Barton & S.Bandis| Norwegian Geotechnical Instinae, Oso, Norway & Avisorelan University Thessaloniki, Greece ABSTRACT: The database used in developing the Barton-Bandis Joint model 1s reviewed Ttts shown how tiTt testing to obtain JRC 1s extrapolated both in terms of stress and sample size. Field measurement of RC is deronstrated, and relationships with Jr in the Q-system are developed. constitutive modeling of shear’ stress-aisplacenent, la tion and shear reversal are also described. 1. INTRODUCTION ‘The gRC-ICS oF Barton-Bandts Joint moder started inconsptcuousiy sone 20 years ago 5-2 means of descrip tng the peak shear Strength of more than 200 artificial ten ‘Sion fractures, These were developed with alguiligtine in various weak model hnatertais, whien had unconfined compres- Sion strengths (oc) as low as 0.05 Wa. Linear piots of peak friction angle (arctan w/oq) versus peak ditatton angle (dq) tngicafea' the following simple expressions 1 = on tan(2dy + 30°) Tt was found that, the peak dilation a was" proportional to the logarithm of te ratto (G¢/aq): Gq = 10 1o09(0¢/eq) @ By elimination, the following sinple form vas obtained T= op tanf20 Yea(oe/oq) + 30°] (3) Thus the first form of the "JRC-JCS" model was actually the "20"~ o¢" model, whe! the roughness coerficien€ (JRC) was equal to 20 far these rough tension fractures. The Joint wall strength (JCS) was equal to ig (the unconf ined. compression strength). ‘he original fam of the equation 1s, therefore perfectly consistent with todays equation: oy tan[aRC 109(9CS/0q) + #7] a) “ land represents the three Timiting values of the three input paraneters 1 JRC = 20 (roughest possible Joint without actual’ steps) JES = o¢ (Teast possible weathering grade, Se. fresh fracture) tr = 6p (fresh unweathered fracture With baste. friction angles in the'range 284 to. SIM"). In addition, the smt1 size of the samples (60 mm Vength) meant that botn oC and oCS were truely laboratory scale paraneters 4nd would novagays be given the subscripts ‘Reg ana ves. (Barton at 8l. (1985), to ‘atstinguish Ehem from the scale-cortected full seate valves JRCy and dCSq (see later}. 2 PEAK STRENGTH OF ROCK JOINTS AND 17S PREDICTION Figure 1 {itustrates the results of direct shear tests, on 130 rock Joints, reported by Barton and Choubey (1977). Eight rock ‘types were represented, The statistics ‘for dC, JCS and gr are given in Figure 2. ‘The mean values of these parameters GRE = 0.9 JCS = 92 WPL oy = 20 were used as input paraneters to derive the central strength envelope tn Figure 1. ‘A key aspect of this study wis the Giscovery that self-weight E11t testing, 603Shear stress (Pal Fig. 1. Peak shear strength of 130 rock Joints’ ang strength prediction with equation 4. such as thet s}iustrated 19 Figure 2, Geul'be used to prediet peak sheer SSrenoth. 'Saseg Sneehit Sests of the 57 gine sonptes with ORC ¢ 8:0, a mean value af peak friction angle (o> arctan t/oy) or osSeTves predictes for the 57 direst Shear tests that. folfoved the 11 felting fneneasred ean vas 40.8", The ti tested joint sample generatty reaches fasiure when the normal ferese 1 45 on 25 0.001 Wess Remarkably, equation ‘Poivesreasonely accurate edtinate of peak friction angie ut to normal stress feves approaching ve orders of ragnt- te higher ft sbresi tevels approaching the level af Se (or dts)s suosttution oF the cane fine Strenoth' (ens oe). imreqation 6 in place of ac (or és) gives" a: very good fit fo" she’ tne Steengtn of fresh ractares. ASpericies apparently cevelop higner SeFengen aue to these sneresed gone Finenane with the greater areas of con tect Garton. ef! The togarithmic form of equations 4 and 5 means that the peak friction angle ‘increases by oRC degrees for every order of magnitude reauetion in nomal stress. = ane y= IRC omy (7a) Figs 2. RC, JCS and gy statistics for 130 Joints: Table 1 t)lustrates ents with example Values of JR = 5 and 10,"and JS = 100 Wea. Typical tsit angled (ae) at failure would be expected to be about $5° and 60° respectively, Since tiit angles Approaching’ §0° present experimental dif- Ficuities (toppling before sttaing) and theoretical gifticulties. (cones{on, intercept), the use of tilt tests tor Joints with JRC vaTues greater than about 1D ts generally inpossibie ang horizental pull tests must oe used. The general for- fula for evaluating tilt tests: 1s are © 3. DILATION OF ROCK JOINTS ANO ITS PREDICTION Asperity angles (1) of about 60° wil be sufficient to give true cohesion Inter ets and prevent tiit testing. In effect the joint experiences a peak dilaton angle of equa} magnitude to the (1) value, Peak dilation angles recorded 19 the rect shear tests shown in Figure 1 Varied fron 0 to 60° with an average Value of 20.0%. AE low normal stress, Tevelsy with Tittle aspertty samage, the peak ditatton angle can be approximated iy = JRC 109(CS/en) ” At higher normat stress, with inereasing asperity canage the peak dilation angle may reduce to-88 Tow a 608Tablet Effect of large stress changes on k Friction angles for example values oF dRC'= Sor 10, uC8 = 100 MPa and #y = 30"~ arctan (c/on)* arctan (t/on) TREE [RCo] enttPe) | Coments >be paar | 930° 100 uss - 0, | Or + Re 35 10 Yogic | bet 2 are ‘0 1 be 3 aR a5 Ou oe a oR 50 o:01 OC 4 5 aR 55° 0.001 | THe test Fig. 3. THE test for ORC and pe iy = WORE T09(ICS/oq) @ To illustrate the importance of dilation angles to the benaviour of rock Joints. in confined situations, the strength envelo= pes dravn In Figure'é nave been appended the mininun Tikely values of dp (From equation 8). It fs Tikely thal the dit {lon angles’ are even higher for envelope 1 thereby enphasising the great importance of oth Joint. roughness and. joint. walt Strength nthe stability oF underground openings. Fig. 4. Peak dilation angles appended to shear Strength envelopes. (Barton, 1987). 4 SCALE EFFECT AND 1TS PREDICTION Pratt et al. (1974) indicated sn their tests on Joints tn quartz aiorite that peak rriction angles reduced tron 63° to 448° when sample: length was increased from 14 to 71 ens” A common normal: stress of 1.5 Pa was enptoyed. Aecording to, theoretical coleulations by Barton and Choubey (1977) utiTizing equation 4, sone 12° to 15° of this scale effect my’ have been caused by reduced JCS, the remaincer by scale effects on JRC. The last authors ‘reported JRC values of 8.5 for tsit tests, of a 45 om Tong Jotnt in granite. Tit and push tests on 18 snail samples of 10 605Fig. Sa. Scale effect correction for URC. en length cut from the larger sample, gave Sean JRC of B18, The predictea mein Yalue’of 8(peak) fram direct shear tests an these 48" sonptes was 48.6, whtTe the Seasured mean was. 4808". ‘These feantestTbie seale effects for rock" joints have Been conttrned by exten ive work wien moulaed. joint madelse {Genets, 1880, Sancts et.al. 1981). ihn eitenstve review of sone 650"gata points fron 35 sourees by Berton (1982) Eorfiras an even more marked scale effect for shear stiffness (Kg), since both shear Sirength (e) end di splacanent-to-peak (Spege) oF separately effected by jnb#88Sed block size. ‘As a result of extensive testing of joints, Joint rept eas, and review of Teeraiure, Barton anaeansis. (2962) pro- aged seale correction curves for JRC and SES ts shown in Figure S and In equations Sand 10. rhe Fig. Sb. Scale effect correction for JCSp- ateg = eal | 7 He oO) esese it ]°°* on vere subscripts (0) and (n) refer to tab Scale (100-mm) and in situ block stzes. ‘he effect of these Seale factors on Stress-aisplacenent curves 13 shown in Figure 8. 5 FIELD ESTIMATION OF ROUGHNESS A quick way of obtaining an approximate Ieasure Of oRCy using a straight edge 1s Shown in Figure 7. The roughness of 8 = [ Boumonren ses | Fig. 6, Components, shear strength and their reduction with increased block size ‘indicates the complexity of Patton's "1" value in practice, Gandis. (1980). 606JOINT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (uRCD S| [Eber cas | Ta] 7 a e | a ee yl =. 8 rom fs fy 2 is Stee | - . pis |e Ew! 1 y see rier fT » | at sa 5 _—wbistea| || 2s ae 15 25/23 a) 1 1s 09 5 x Mien as es fou Fig. 8. Relationships between Jy tn the O- fydien eng dRGy for, 200'mm and {000 em Samples, (Garton, 1987). (Table 3) from the Q-system also provides LENGTH OF PROFILE (m) Fig, 7. Field estimate of oR, prior to eA testing (Barton 1982). joint tn the field can also be described By the parameter Je, Borrowed fran the Q- system (Barton et ai. 1974). Suggested Values are sumarszed in Table Zand Figure 8. The fielé method of estimating ORey. shown in Figure 7 has been usea ‘irdctly to suggest ORC, vatues for 20 on {and 100” on sized blocks" (Figure 8, right hand columns). Combined use of J; and Jg Table 2. The Q-system paraneter Jp. A neans of obtaining a first estimate of peak friction angles for unweathered and Iineral coated Joint walls using the Simple relation in Table &. Field estimation of input paraneters for the twa simple constitutive models ‘Mustrated in Figure 8, can be supple mented with t11t tests on extracted blocks Containing the joint in question (Figure 10). Alternatively, joints in dri! core can'be tilt tested, using standard arti? Core or using dedicated large dianeter Cores drilled parallel with Joint planes. Table 3, The Q-system paraneter Jae 607Figure 11 tTustrates three axially Jointed cores with the actual measured Toughness profiles placed at the measured tile anghes (69.8" to 72.1"). JRC values Calculated using equation 6 ranged from Toto 8.3. © SHEAR STRESS ~ DISPLACENENT AND ITS PREDICTION A dimensionless formulation for estina the correct shape of shear ‘stress disp ceenent curves for any practical normal Table 4. Estimate of (peak) fram Jy and BES SIRES SARTON-BANDS (cle) satan fitgon 5). XY GAY PS PENS AS RX ERA ZAR PRON RERNY BARTON-LEN-LUNDE 74) Fig, 9. Shear strength eriterta for rock Fig. 10. Tit tests of blocks in situ, Large cores can be dritied where insuf- ficient joint sets are present to release blocks. Fig. 11, Reconstructed t11t test results for’ thrée parallel core sanples drilled ddovn the sane Joint plane. 608| splacenant modeling, after Barton (1962). In this example op/t «= 2. stress level or block size, 1s in'Figure 12. Three exanpies a Figure 13. The value of JRC (nobi11zed) 15 btained fron the generalized form of equation 4; where (mob) 1s the trfction angle mobilized at any given shear displa- cenent' (8): lustrated ‘shown in SHEAR STRESS MPa SHEAR DISPLACEMENT mm Fig. 13, Examples of stress-dtsplacenent curves calculated fron the model in Figs 12. Fig. 16. A preliminary model for stmu- lating the effects of cyclic shear and Accunilated shear for rock Joints: ta = tes] oe ‘The magnitude of 6(peak) represent ing the displacement. needed to mobilize peak shear strength, 1s approximated by the equat to Ln [aRcn]®=33 et ay equation as 2 sonevhat poor "best fit" to 4650 test data potnts obtained by the authors and gleaned fran the 1iterature, ‘Shear reversal, with or without enange of normay’ stress, "can be approximated with the'ainenstontess formulation shown tn Figure 14, were (a) 1s the initial gra tent in Figure 12: oe To.3y 43) 7 NUMERICAL MODELLING OF JOINTED ROCKNASSES ‘The above formulations (equations 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and Figures 12 ang 14) are Iintorporatéd in the special version of Cundall's UDEC code (Cundal1, 1980). operated by NGI. The non-linear, scale dependent Joint model described in the above 1s also developed for normal closure and aperture modeling (Bandis et al. 608Fig. 15. Five basic Joint behaviour modes. 1983) and for futd flow along the Joints (Garton et a1. 1985). The operating code, ‘termed UDEC-B8, nas & subroutine for Joint behaviour that’ includes the features shown in Figure 18: A= shear stress-aisplace- sent, B= dllatton-aisplaconent, C= per tmeabitity-displacenent, D = nanmal stress Closure (multiple eyclés) and € = permea bittty-normal stress. wade! lee rock masses dtsplay comtnations of these modes (See Figure 16). The UDEC-98 model of ‘win tunnels shown tn Figure 17, shows the stabilizing effect of shear displacement and atlation which causes. increased normal stress (Makurat et al. 1990). Fig, 16. Normal (N) and shear (S) con ponents’ im rock mass deformation behaviour Fig. 17. Wax. displacenent 5.5 mj UDEC-20 REFERENCES: Bandis, S. 1980. Experimental studies of scale effects on shear strength, and deformation of rock Joints. Ph:0. Thesis, Univ. of Leeds, England, 385. Bandis, $., A. Lunsden and Ws Barton 198i, Experimental “studies of Seale effects on the shear behaviour of rock Joints, Int. 3, of Rock Mech. Min. Scir'&’ Geonech. aostr. 18, 1-21. Banais, 5., Avc. Lumsden and N. Barton 1963, “Fundamentals of Rock Joint. Deformation. Int, J. Rock Mech. Min. Sei. & Geemech. Abstr. 20, 6, 249-268, Barton, Ne, Re Lien and J. Linde 1974, Engineering classification of rock: masses. for the design of tunnel Support, ROeK Mechanics, 6, 4, 189-236. jarton, N.'1976. The shear’ strength of Fock and rock Joints, Int. Jour Rock Mech. Min. Sct & Geonech. Abstr. 12, 9, 255-278. Also NGt-Publ: 119, 1378. Barton, Nand V. Choubey 1977. The shear strength of rock Joints in theory and practice, Rock Mecnantes, 1/2, 1-58, ‘iso NGI-publ, 119, 1978: Barton, N. 1962. HodeiTing rock Joint behavior tron in situ Block tests: Inplications for nuclear waste respost- {ory design, ONWI-208, Columbus, OH, 96 Barton, Ne and’Bandts, §, 1982. Efrects of Brock size on the Shear Genavior of Jointed Rock, 23rd U.S. Symp. on Rock ech. Berkeley, CA. 738-760. Barton, i, Sandis, S. and saknéar, Ke 1985. "Serength’ Derarmation and Condietivity Coupling of Rock doints, Int. J. Rock Mech, & Hin, Sele & Geonech. Abstr. 22, 3, 121-140. Barton, N. 1987. ‘Predicting the Behaviour ‘of Underground Opentngs in Rock. Manvel Rocha Memorial Lect., Lisbon. NGI-Publ 172, Barton, Ne and Bakhtar, K. 1987. Description and mode! ing of rock Joints for the hyarothermalmechan cat ‘gesign of nuctear waste vaults. AECL, Canada, TR-41B, 1 and 11, 1-429. Cundal, B.A. 1980. A Generalized Distinct Erenent Program for Modeling ‘Jointed Rock PCAR-1-80. Peter Cundal! ‘Assoc. European Research Office, U. Armys Wakurat, A. Ne Sarton, 6. Vik, P. Chryssantnakis, ke Wonsen 1990. aointed Rockmass modeling.” Proc: Loen Cont. Rock doints, Norvayy Pratt, Hake ADs Black, and Wer. Brace 1934." Friction and’ oeformation of ‘Jointed Quartz Diorite, Proc. of 3rd Int. Cong. on Rock Mech. Denver, CO, 2h, 306-30. 610