International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

A new 2D discontinuity roughness parameter and its correlation with JRC

Bryan S.A. Tatone, Giovanni Grasselli n
Lassonde Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 16 November 2009 Received in revised form 28 May 2010 Accepted 13 June 2010 Available online 23 July 2010

1. Introduction It has long been recognized that the roughness of rock discontinuities, when clean and unlled, can have a signicant impact on both the hydraulic and shear strength characteristics of discontinuous rock masses. In response, several approaches to parameterizing roughness have been proposed over the years, including empirical (e.g. [1,2]), statistical (e.g. [3,4]), and fractal methods (e.g. [5,6]). As noted by recent publications by the authors [7,8], the majority of discontinuity roughness evaluations to date have been based on the analysis of 2D proles rather than the 3D surface topography. It was noted, in agreement with several other researchers, that this approach can lead to incomplete and biased roughness estimates. To overcome these drawbacks, a 3D evaluation methodology was developed based on the prior work of Grasselli [911], in which the associated roughness metric was dened in terms of the maximum apparent asperity inclination, * y* max and an empirical tting parameter C as, ymax/(C + 1) [7,8]. Despite the relative merits of the 3D roughness evaluation methodology, estimates of roughness obtained using 2D approaches cannot be abandoned. Considering the analysis of 2D proles formed the conventional approach to roughness estimation in rock engineering for many years, it is valuable to understand how 2D parameters compare to 3D parameters. The objectives of this paper are as follows: (1) present a 2D roughness evaluation methodology analogous to a previously developed 3D methodology [8]; (2) compare pseudo-3D roughness estimates obtained with the 2D methodology with those obtained with the 3D methodology described in [8]; and (3) establish empirical relationships between the new 2D roughness parameter, y* max/(C +1)2D, and the well-known joint roughness coefcient

(JRC) to enable shear strength estimation according to the Barton Bandis shear strength criterion. In accomplishing these objectives, several points of progress in roughness quantication will be realized. Firstly, it will be possible to analyze 2D roughness proles in the direction of shearing (i.e., forwards or backwards), which is a step forward compared to other 2D methods. Secondly, insight will be gained into the suitability of using the 2D methodology to characterize 3D roughness, giving those without access to 3D measuring systems a potential alternative approach to characterize roughness anisotropy comparable to the 3D methodology. Lastly, by relating the new 2D parameter to JRC, new users of the parameters can quickly grasp relative differences in roughness associated with different values of y* max/(C +1)2D.

2. Rationale When shearing rock joints, only a small fraction of the total joint surface area is damaged [1115]. The shape, extent and distribution of these damaged zones are controlled by many factors including: the roughness of the surface, which accounts for the size, and the shape of the asperities; the shear direction; the applied normal stress; the total displacement; and the mechanical properties of the intact asperities. Nevertheless, the damaged areas are strictly related to the specic surface topography and are typically restricted to those asperity faces that have a local dip-direction opposite the shear direction [11,16] and preferentially develop in areas comprised of the steepest faces [11,1619]. Thus, it follows that a roughness parameter describing the topography of the surface should be based on the distribution of the local apparent dip of the asperities with respect to the shear direction to capture its inuence on shear strength. Considering the previously developed 3D methodology [8], the distribution of the local apparent asperity dip was characterized by evaluating the apparent inclination of each triangular facet of a

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 416 978 0125; fax: + 1 416 978 3674. E-mail address: giovanni.grasselli@utoronto.ca (G. Grasselli).

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.006

1392

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

triangulated surface model with respect to a selected analysis direction. The roughness metric for the surface was based on the shape of the resulting distribution. Considering a 2D prole from a rough surface, there are only two possible directions to choose from (i.e. forward and reverse). Thus, the degree of shear resistance offered by the roughness of the surface in a specic direction must be approximated by evaluating the relative proportion of steeply dipping line segments in a 2D prole oriented in the direction of interest. Based on the shape of this distribution, an analogous 2D roughness metric can be dened. The following section of this article presents a step-by-step description of the 2D evaluation methodology.

measured directly with a prolometer, a best-t linear regression line can be created through the points dening the prole. Afterwards, the prole can be rotated such that the best-line is horizontal. Alternatively, if proles are extracted from a TIN surface, the surface can be aligned by setting a best-t plane through the surface to be horizontal. Proles can then be extracted and analyzed without any further alignment. If the latter approach is employed, the coordinate axes of the TIN model should be rotated such that the x-axis is oriented along the length of the prole being extracted. In doing so, the coordinates dening the proles can be expressed by x and z coordinate pairs (i.e. y 0 along the prole), which simplies the analysis of the prole. 3.3. Analysis of 2D proles

3. 2D roughness evaluation methodology The methodology for estimating the roughness of 2D proles can be divided into four steps similar to the 3D methodology [8]. These steps include: (1) acquisition of 2D proles; (2) alignment of the proles; (3) analysis of the aligned proles; and (4) evaluation of the roughness metric for each prole. A detailed description of these steps is provided in the following subsections. 3.1. Acquisition of 2D proles Similar to the 3D methodology, the rst step in analyzing the 2D roughness involves measuring the discontinuity surface. Two-dimensional proles can either be measured directly from a discontinuity surface using a prolometer or they can be extracted from triangulated irregular network (TIN) surface models acquired with 3D measurement systems, such as: laser scanners, photogrammetry systems, or structured light projection instruments (e.g., Fig. 1). The coordinates dening these proles, whether collected directly or extracted from a TIN, can subsequently be utilized for roughness analysis. 3.2. Alignment of 2D proles Following acquisition, the 2D proles must be aligned to establish a line of reference to measure the inclination of the line segments dening the asperities. There are two approaches that may be used to establish this reference line. First, if proles are Given the cumulative distribution of the normalized length, Ly*, as a function increasing threshold values of y*, it is possible to estimate the 2D equivalent of the 3D roughness parameter * y* max/(C+ 1), termed ymax/(C+ 1)2D. To do so, Eq. (1) is t to the cumulative distribution with length terms replacing the

To begin analyzing a 2D prole, an analysis direction must be specied. Unlike a 3D surface where any direction between 01 and 3601 can be considered, there are only two possible analysis directions for a 2D prole: forward and reverse. After selecting the forward or reverse analysis direction, the inclination, y*, of the individual line segments forming the proles can be evaluated. Following the same approach as the 3D methodology, but where prole length replaces surface area, it is possible to distinguish the fraction of the total prole length that is more steeply inclined than progressively greater threshold values of y*. This fractional length is referred to as the normalized length, Ly*, in that it is dened by the length of the prole inclined more steeply than y* divided by the total length of the prole, Lt. Fig. 2 further illustrates the characterization of a 2D prole (Section 1 from Fig. 1) based on the inclination of the individual line segments. As shown in the gure, when threshold values of y* equal to 01, 51, 101, 201, and 301 are considered, the corresponding values of Ly* are 0.490, 0.328, 0.225, 0.071, and 0.022, respectively. 3.4. Calculation of 2D roughness

Fig. 1. Extraction of 2D proles from a triangulated surface: (a) triangulated surface showing location of sections to be extracted and (b) prole view of Sections 1 and 2. Note the dashed line in (b) represents the best-t plane through the surface rather than the best-t lines through the individual sections.

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

1393

negative y-direction and positive and negative x-direction, respectively. Since the positive x- and y-directions correspond to analysis directions of 01 and 901 in the 3D evaluation methodology, it is possible to plot 2D and 3D roughness parameters on the same polar plot for comparison. If several additional proles in multiple orientations are analyzed, these too can be plotted on the same polar plot to obtain a pseudo-3D roughness estimate for the discontinuity surface. This section of the paper compares pseudo3D roughness parameters obtained using the 2D methodology with those obtained using the 3D methodology proposed in [8]. This comparison is accomplished via the analysis of a 200 mm2 tensile fracture in limestone. Additional pseudo-3D and 3D roughness values for other discontinuity surfaces can be found in [7]. 4.1. Roughness magnitude To compare the values of y* max/(C+ 1) obtained with the 3D methodology with the corresponding values of y* max/(C + 1)2D, 6 groups of 11 2D proles oriented in directions between 01 and 3601 at increments of 301 were extracted from a digitized surface, as shown in Fig. 4a. The 2D roughness values for each of these proles are plotted in Fig. 4b. As shown by the gure, the 2D values bracket the corresponding 3D values in all analysis directions while the mean 2D values are in approximate agreement with the 3D values. The deviation between the 2D and 3D roughness values varies depending on the analysis direction. The mean 2D roughness value and corresponding 3D value in each analysis direction vary from a minimum of 1% to a maximum of 11%. 4.2. Roughness anisotropy The shapes of the roughness polar plots are indicative of roughness anisotropy. Roughness values that are approximately the same in all directions (i.e. isotropic) produce a nearly circular polar plot while, roughness values that display a distinct difference with direction can result in elliptical or sinusoidalshaped plots. A simple quantitative description of the anisotropy in surface roughness can be obtained by considering the ratio between the maximum and minimum roughness values on the polar plot [8]. For the limestone fracture depicted in Fig. 4, the polar plots of the 3D and pseudo-3D roughness display an elliptical shape. Considering the 3D roughness values, the major and minor axes of the ellipse are oriented in the 1753551 and 852651 directions, respectively, and the maximum and minimum 3D roughness values of 12.85 and 11.06 produce an anisotropy value of 1.16. Considering the pseudo-3D roughness, as dened by the mean 2D roughness in each analysis direction, the major and minor axes of the ellipse are oriented in the 1503301 and 602401 directions, respectively, and the maximum and minimum values of 13.28 and 10.67 produce an anisotropy value of 1.24. In general, the orientation and degree of roughness anisotropy dened by the 3D and pseudo-3D roughness values were in reasonable agreement. Despite the limited area of the fracture surface that was sampled by the 66 2D proles and the limited analysis orientations considered, the major and minor axes of the polar plots varied by only 251 and the anisotropy values varied by less than 7%. Thus, reasonable estimates of directional anisotropy like that characterized by the 3D methodology can be obtained by considering the average 2D roughness of multiple proles in varying orientations. With the addition of more proles in more orientations, the discrepancies between the 3D and pseudo-3D roughness could potentially decrease.

Fig. 2. The use of the angular threshold concept to characterize a 2D prole (Section 1 from Fig. 1) in the forward analysis direction (left to right). The various colours are indicative of the line segments that are steeper than the given threshold value of y*. The normalized length, Ly*, corresponding to each threshold value is also given.

analogous areal terms of the 3D methodology ! * C y* max y Ly* L0 *

ymax

where L0 is the normalized length of the prole corresponding to an angular threshold of 01 in the chosen analysis direction (i.e. the length of the prole dened by an apparent dip greater than 01 divided by the total prole length); y* max is the maximum inclination of the prole in the chosen analysis direction; and C is a dimensionless tting parameter, calculated via a non-linear least-squares regression analysis, that characterizes the shape of the cumulative distribution [11]. Typical cumulative distributions of Ly* in forward and reverse directions of a 2D prole (Section 1 from Fig. 1) are illustrated in Fig. 3a and b, respectively. Also shown are the best-t lines dened by Eq. (1) along with the values of C, y* max, and resulting values of y* max/(C + 1)2D.

4. Comparison of results from 2D and 3D analyses Considering Sections 1 and 2 shown in Fig. 1, the forward and reverse analysis directions correspond to the positive and

1394

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

Fig. 3. Example of the distribution of normalized length, Ly*, as a function of the angular threshold, y*, for a 2D prole (Section 1 from Fig. 1): (a) analysis in the forward direction and (b) analysis in the reverse direction.

Fig. 4. (a) Location of 2D proles extracted from a 3D TIN surface. (b) Polar plot containing 3D roughness values obtained from the triangulated surface and corresponding 2D roughness values obtained from the 2D proles.

4.3. Limitations of 2D analyses Although the preceding sub-sections of this paper have shown that roughness values based on 2D proles can be used to obtain reasonable approximations of the 3D roughness, the limitations of using 2D proles over 3D surfaces must be recognized. It is important to appreciate that when using 2D proles, only topography encountered by the proles is considered. Hence, some important geometric features of the surface may be neglected if they are not transected by one of the proles. The exclusion of such features could lead to a misrepresentation of roughness, anisotropy and, consequently, a misrepresentation of relative shear resistance. In addition, considering the variability of the 2D values in each analysis direction, it can be seen that roughness estimates based on 2D proles of the same orientation and in close proximity can both overestimate and underestimate the 3D roughness value. Therefore, it is suggested that several proles in each direction be collected and analyzed to establish upper bound, lower bound and mean estimates of the 2D roughness. In doing so, one can reduce the risk of obtaining misleading estimates of surface roughness. Nevertheless, caution must always be exercised when using any roughness parameter based on 2D proles; even if several proles are considered.

5. Correlation with JRC 5.1. Background The joint roughness coefcient (JRC) in conjunction with the BartonBandis shear criterion is the most widely used description of roughness and discontinuity shear strength, respectively. Reliable estimates of the JRC for a rock discontinuity can be determined through back-calculation via the results of a tilt/pull test or direct shear test. However, in many cases such testing may be limited by time and budgetary constraints. Therefore, to facilitate estimation of a JRC value without back-calculation, Barton and Choubey [2] published a set of ten standard roughness proles corresponding to different ranges of JRC values. These ten standard proles were taken as the most representative of 136 specimens sheared in the laboratory [2]. A description of these samples and the corresponding back-calculated JRC values is provided in Table 1. Shortly after the initial publication of the 10 standard proles many researchers and practitioners realized the subjective nature of visually comparing joint surfaces to the standard proles [20]. To overcome the subjective nature of using the standard proles, several researchers have attempted to establish correlations

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

1395

Table 1 Description and back-calculated JRC value of the rock joints that dene the ten standard JRC proles [2]. Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rock type Slate Aplite Gneiss Granite Granite Hornfels Aplite Aplite Hornfels Soapstone Description of joint Smooth, planar: cleavage joints, iron stained Smooth, planar: tectonic joints, unweathered Undulating, planar: foliation joints, unweathered Rough, planar: tectonic joints, slightly weathered Rough, planar: tectonic joints, slightly weathered Rough, undulating: bedding joints, calcite coatings Rough, undulating: tectonic joints, slightly weathered Rough, undulating; relief joints, partly oxidized Rough, irregular: bedding joints, calcite coatings Rough, irregular: articial tension fractures, fresh surfaces JRC back-calculated 0.4 2.8 5.8 6.7 9.5 10.8 12.8 14.5 16.7 18.7

between the standard JRC values and other objective measures of roughness. Generally, this task was accomplished by digitizing the standard proles, assessing the roughness of the proles with an objective parameter, and attempting to establish an empirical relation between the standard JRC value and the objective roughness parameter. Over the years, empirical equations relating the statistical parameter, Z2 [2124]; the roughness coefcient, RP [2325]; and the fractal dimension, D [24,2631] to JRC have been developed to provide a method of objectively quantify JRC values. The most commonly cited equations are those of Tse and Cruden [21] and Maerz et al. [25], which consider the relation of Z2 and RP to JRC, respectively: JRC 32:2 32:47 logZ2 JRC cRP 1, where c 400411 2 3

5.2. Digitization of standard JRC proles To digitize the ten standard JRC proles of Barton and Choubey [2] in this study, a copy of the original printed publication was scanned in black and white with a 1200 DPI atbed scanner. The image was saved in TIFF format and imported into AutoCAD 2006 for digitization. In AutoCAD, the image was scaled to real-world dimensions using the 10 cm scale bar in the original gure. Next, a series of vertical lines spaced 0.5 mm apart were constructed across the length of the proles and polylines were used to trace the proles with the intermediate points falling on the intersection of the vertical lines with the prole. Once each prole was traced, the coordinates dening the polylines were exported to ASCII les using a LISP function. Following digitization of the proles, it was noted that the original JRC proles were not aligned such that the average plane (best-t straight line) was horizontal. Instead, the best-t line through all but the JRC 46 prole had a non-zero slope. To realign the proles, the slopes of the best-t lines were used to calculate degrees of rotation required to make them horizontal. With required angular rotations between 11 counter-clockwise to 21 clockwise, differences between many of the original and realigned proles before and after rotation are nearly imperceptible (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, the aligned proles were selected to establish a relation with y* max/(C + 1)2D as the evaluation methodology requires a best-t line through the prole be established to serve as reference for measuring asperity inclinations. For the convenience of further use, listings of the x, y coordinates representing both the original and realigned proles are available in [7].

In establishing the above relationships, the standard JRC proles were digitized with a sampling interval of approximately 0.5 mm. As noted by Yu and Vayssade [23], the values of Z2 and RP are sensitive to the sampling interval used to digitize the proles. Thus, when using equations such as (2) and (3) to estimate JRC, it is imperative that the sampling interval used to obtain 2D proles is consistent with that used to initially develop the equations. The work of Hsiung et al. [32] further illustrates the importance of sampling interval when using empirical relations to estimate JRC, albeit indirectly. In their work, estimated JRC values for the same proles are shown to vary by up to 100% when using empirical equations originally developed using 2D proles acquired with different sampling intervals. In addition, it is important to note that the ten standard proles were originally obtained from laboratory specimens using a prole comb similar the one illustrated in Fig. 5a. As illustrated in Fig. 5b, a prole comb is only capable of obtaining measurements at a xed horizontal interval over the continuous discontinuity surface, typically between 0.5 and 1 mm. As a result, some features of the surface with a base length less than this interval will be neglected. At the same time some step-like features may be added upon tracing the prole comb to paper, as illustrated in Fig. 5c. In an attempt to obtain improved empirical relationships for JRC, some researchers decreased the sampling interval used to digitize the standard JRC proles to values less than 0.5 mm. However, because the instrument initially used to create the proles was only capable of obtaining measurement points every 0.51.0 mm, smaller sampling intervals will not yield any additional information. In fact, decreasing the sampling interval may result in the inclusion of some of the small-scale step-like features introduced by the prole comb into the calculation of objective roughness parameters.

5.3. Verication of digitization To verify the digitization of the standard proles, the roughness parameters Z2 and RP for the proles were calculated and compared to previously published values. Bearing in mind the intrinsic sampling limitations of a prole comb, only studies utilizing sampling intervals of 0.5 and 1.0 mm were considered. The Z2 values obtained in the current study were compared to those given by Tse and Cruden [21], Yu and Vayssade [23], and Yang et al. [22], while the RP values were compared to those given by Maerz et al. [25] and Yu and Vayssade [23]. Note that comparisons of these values are presented graphically herein, while tabulated values are available in [7]. For sampling intervals of 0.5 and 1.0 mm, the current and previously published values of Z2 and RP for each standard JRC prole are plotted in Fig. 7a and c and Fig. 8a and c, respectively. As indicated by the plots, the data from the current study is in agreement with the previously published values for both sampling intervals. Using the new values, new empirical

1396

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

Fig. 5. The use of a prole comb to obtain 2D proles of a rough rock joint: (a) comb applied to a surface such that the pins conform to the rock surface; (b) zoomed-in view of pins contacting rock surface illustrating the tools sampling interval and how it is unable to capture surface features smaller than this interval; and (c) recorded prole demonstrating how step-like features may be added to the prole when tracing the prole comb.

Fig. 6. The ten standard JRC proles of Barton and Choubey [2] re-digitized with a horizontal point spacing of 0.5 mm. The proles as printed in the original publication are shown by the dotted lines, while the proles realigned such that a best-t linear regression line through each prole is horizontal are shown by the solid lines. Note that the angles of rotation required to realign the proles are shown in the right-most column of the gure (clockwise + ve).

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

1397

equations were derived to estimate JRC from Z2 as JRC 51:85Z2 0:60 10:37 JRC 55:03Z2 0:74 6:10 and from RP as " JRC 3:36 10
2

0:5 mm sampling interval 1:0 mm sampling interval #1

4 5

1:27 103 lnRP

0:5 mm sampling interval 6

" JRC 3:38 102

1:07 103 lnRP

#1 1:0 mm sampling interval:

7 A graphical comparison of these new equations with previous relations are shown in Fig. 7b and d and in Fig. 8b and d. For both roughness parameters and sampling intervals, all the empirical relations are in close agreement. The agreement between the RP and Z2 values and the corresponding empirical JRC relationships indicate that the digitization procedure adopted in the current study accurately captured the geometry of the ten standard JRC proles. 5.4. New empirical relation: JRC versus y* max/(C+ 1)2D With the Z2 and RP values for the digitized proles in agreement with previously published values, a relationship

between JRC and y* max/(C +1)2D could be investigated. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the values of y* max/(C +1)2D for the standard JRC proles digitized with a sampling interval of 0.5 and 1.0 mm, respectively. The tables include the results of analyzing the proles in the forward and reverse directions according to the methodology described in Section 3. The results of forward and reverse analyses are not always equal indicating the presence of anisotropy with respect to shear direction. These observations are in agreement with previous research (e.g., [33]), where directional 2D roughness parameters for 2D proles were found to vary in the forward and backward directions. The values of y* max/(C +1)2D in the forward and backward directions alongside the mean of both values were plotted against their corresponding JRC values in Fig. 9. Empirical equations in the form of a power law were found to best relate the mean values of y* max/(C +1)2D to JRC. The resulting equations to estimate JRC for sampling intervals of 0.5 and 1.0 mm can be expressed as  0:7 * JRC 3:95 ymax =C 12D 7:98 for 0:5 mm sampling interval 8
JRC 2:40 ymax =C 12D 
*

0:85

4:42

for 1:0 mm sampling interval

9 These above equations in relation to the measured values are shown by the solid lines in Fig. 9.

Fig. 7. JRC versus Z2 as measured from the ten standard JRC proles: (a) Z2 values for the standard JRC proles digitized with a 0.5 mm sampling interval; (b) comparison of empirical equations for JRC based on a 0.5 mm sampling interval; (c) Z2 values for the standard JRC proles digitized with a 1.0 mm sampling interval; and (d) comparison of empirical equations for JRC based on a 1.0 mm sampling interval.

1398

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

Fig. 8. JRC versus RP as measured from the ten standard JRC proles: (a) RP values for the standard JRC proles digitized with a 0.5 mm sampling interval; (b) comparison of empirical equations for JRC based on a 0.5 mm sampling interval; (c) RP values for the standard JRC proles digitized with a 1.0 mm sampling interval; (d) comparison of empirical equations for JRC based on a 1.0 mm sampling interval.

Table 2 Summary of y* max/(C + 1)2D values for the ten standard JRC proles digitized with a sampling interval of 0.5 mm and realigned such that the best-t line through the proles is horizontal. JRC prole Actual JRC value y* max /(C + 1)2D (0.5 mm sampling interval) (from Table 1) Forward directiona Reverse directionb Average 02 24 46 68 810 1012 1214 1416 1618 1820 0.4 2.8 5.8 6.7 9.5 10.8 12.8 14.5 16.7 18.7 2.69 5.20 5.43 8.27 10.36 9.37 10.03 10.63 13.48 17.03 2.98 4.14 5.12 7.66 6.17 9.31 9.48 12.96 13.04 14.44 2.83 4.67 5.27 7.97 8.26 9.34 9.75 11.80 13.26 15.74

Table 3 Summary of y* max/(C + 1)2D values for the ten standard JRC proles digitized with a sampling interval of 1.0 mm and realigned such that the best-t line through the proles is horizontal. JRC prole Actual JRC value (from Table 1)

y* max/(C + 1)2D (1.0 mm sampling interval)

Forward directiona 02 24 46 68 810 1012 1214 1416 1618 1820 0.4 2.8 5.8 6.7 9.5 10.8 12.8 14.5 16.7 18.7 2.44 4.02 5.25 8.51 8.70 8.84 8.67 10.21 12.22 14.94

Reverse directionb 2.02 3.41 5.31 5.88 6.14 9.35 9.57 13.32 13.22 13.81

Average

a Analysis direction is from left to right with respect to the standard JRC proles. b Analysis direction is from right to left with respect to the standard JRC proles.

2.23 3.71 5.28 7.20 7.42 9.10 9.12 11.77 12.72 14.37

6. Summary and conclusions This paper has developed a roughness evaluation methodology for 2D roughness proles. The methodology was adapted from the 3D roughness methodology previously presented in [8]. However, instead of basing the roughness metric on the cumulative

a Analysis direction is from left to right with respect to the standard JRC proles. b Analysis direction is from right to left with respect to the standard JRC proles.

distribution of the apparent dip of the individual triangles of a TIN surface, the 2D roughness metric, termed y* max/(C+ 1)2D, is based on the cumulative distribution of the inclination of the line segments forming a prole. Comparison of the 2D roughness

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

1399

Fig. 9. JRC versus y* max/(C + 1)2D as measured from the ten standard JRC proles: (a) for proles digitized with a sampling interval of 0.5 mm and (b) for proles digitized with a sampling interval of 1.0 mm.

values of several proles with 3D values for the same surface showed that the 2D values bracketed the 3D values, while the mean 2D roughness value in a specied orientation was found to be in closer agreement with the 3D values. Based on this result, it was recommended that an average roughness values from several proles in the same orientation be taken as the representative roughness value to reduce the likelihood of obtaining misleading roughness estimates with the 2D methodology. In addition, y* max/(C+ 1)2D was correlated with the well-known joint roughness coefcient (JRC). To do so, the ten standard proles of Barton and Choubey [2] were digitized with sampling intervals of 0.5 and 1.0 mm and analyzed according to the 2D evaluation methodology. By plotting the JRC value for each prole versus the corresponding value of y* max/(C + 1)2D, empirical equations for JRC were derived. These equations serve as a useful addition to previously published empirical equations developed to objectively quantify JRC. Moreover, these relations allow users of the new 2D roughness parameter to quickly grasp the relative differences in roughness represented by different values of y* max/(C+ 1)2D.

Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada in the form of Discovery Grant No. 341275 and RTI Grant no. 345516 held by G. Grasselli and an Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship held by B.S.A. Tatone. The authors would also like two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which helped improve this paper. References
[1] Barton N. Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol 1973;7:287332. [2] Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 1977;10:154. [3] Myers NO. Characterization of surface roughness. Wear 1962;5:1829. [4] Maerz NH, Franklin JA. Roughness scale effects and fractal dimension. In: Pinto Da Cunha A, editor. Scale effects in rock masses. Proceedings of the rst international workshop on scale effects in rock masses, Loen, Norway, 78 June 1990. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1990. p. 12125. [5] Kulatilake PSHW, Balasingam P, Park J, Morgan R. Natural rock joint roughness quantication through fractal techniques. Geotech Geol Eng 2006;24:1181202. [6] Lanaro F. A random eld model for surface roughness and aperture of rock fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:1195210.

[7] Tatone BSA. Quantitative characterization of natural rock discontinuity roughness in-situ and in the laboratory. MSc thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, 2009. /http://hdl.handle.net/1807/18959S. [8] Tatone BSA, Grasselli G. A method to evaluate the three-dimensional roughness of fracture surfaces in brittle geomaterials. Rev Sci Instrum 2009;80:110. [9] Grasselli G. Manuel Rocha Medal recipientshear strength of rock joints based on quantied surface description. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2006;39: 295314. [10] Grasselli G, Egger P. Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints based on three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40:2540. [11] Grasselli G, Wirth J, Egger P. Quantitative three-dimensional description of a rough surface and parameter evolution with shearing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:789800. chine K, Flamand R, Archambault G. Binary images of [12] Riss J, Gentier S, Laffre sheared rock joints: characterization of damaged zones. Microsc Microanal M 1996;7:5216. [13] Re F, Scavia C. Determination of contact areas in rock joints by X-ray computer tomography. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:88390. [14] Fardin N. Inuence of structural non-stationarity of surface roughness on morphological characterization and mechanical deformation of rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2008;41:26797. [15] Jaeger JC. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. Geotechnique 1971;21:97134. [16] Gentier S, Riss J, Archambault G, Flamand R, Hopkins D. Inuence of fracture geometry on shear behavior. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37: 16174. [17] Habereld CM, Johnston IW. A mechanistically-based model for rough rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1994;31:27992. [18] Yang ZY, Chiang DY. An experimental study on the progressive shear behavior of rock joints with tooth-shaped asperities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37: 124759. [19] Seidel JP, Habereld CM. A theoretical model for rock joints subjected to constant normal stiffness direct shear 2002;39:53953. [20] Beer AJ, Stead D, Coggan JS. Estimation of the joint roughness coefcient (JRC) by visual comparison. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2002;35:6574. [21] Tse R, Cruden DM. Estimating joint roughness coefcients. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1979;16:3037. [22] Yang ZY, Lo SC, Di CC. Reassessing the joint roughness coefcient (JRC) estimation using Z2. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2001;34:24351. [23] Yu XB, Vayssade B. Joint proles and their roughness parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1991;28:3336. [24] Kim D-Y, Lee H-S. Quantication of rock joint roughness and development of analyzing system. In: Kulatilake PHSW, editor. Proceedings of the international conference on rock joints & jointed rock masses, Tucson, 78 January 2009, paper 1019. [25] Maerz NH, Franklin JA, Bennett CP. Joint roughness measurement using shadow prolometry. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1990;27: 32943. [26] Carr JR, Warriner JB. Relationship between the fractal dimension and joint roughness coefcient. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 1989;26:25363. [27] Jang B-A, Jang H-S, Park H-J. A new method for determination of joint roughness coefcient. In: Proceedings of the IAEG 2006: engineering geology for tomorrows cities, Nottingham, 610 September 2006. London: Geological Society of London; 2006. paper 95. [28] Lee YH, Carr JR, Barr DJ, Haas CJ. The fractal dimension as a measure of the roughness of rock discontinuity proles. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1990;27:45364.

1400

B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 13911400

[29] Turk N, Grieg MJ, Dearman WR, Amin FF. Characterization of rock joint surfaces by fractal dimension. In: Farmer IW, Daeman JJK, Desai CS, Glass CE, Neuman SP, editors. Proceedings of the 28th US rock mechanics symposium, Tuscon, 29 June1 July 1987. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1987. p. 122336. [30] Wakabayashi N, Fukushige I. Experimental study on the relation between fractal dimension and shear strength. In: Myer LR, Cook NGW, Goodman RE, Tsang CF, editors. Proceedings of the conference on fractured jointed rock masses, Lake Tahoe, CA, 35 June 1992. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1992. p. 11924.

[31] Xie H, Pariseau WG. Fractal estimation of joint roughness coefcients. In: Myer LR, Cook NGW, Goodman RE, Tsang CF, editors. Proceedings of the conference on fractured jointed rock masses, Lake Tahoe, CA, 35 June 1992. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1992. p. 12531. [32] Hsiung SM, Ghosh A, Ahola MP, Chowdhury AH. Assessment of conventional methodologies for joint roughness coefcient determination. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1993;30:8259. [33] Kulatilake PHSW, Shou G, Huang TH, Morgan RM. New peak shear strength criteria for anisotropic rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1995;32:67397.