Rock Mechanics Contributions and Challenges, Husb'ulid & Johnson (eds)

1990 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 6191 123 0

A mathematical model for the shear behavior of a dilatant rock
joint
S.Saeb
International Technology Corporation Albuquerque, N3'lex.
B.Amadei
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
ABSTRACT: A mathematical model is presented to determine the effect of
boundary conditions on the shear behavior of a dilatant rock joint. The model
relates the normal load-deformation response of a joint to its shear
load-deformation and dilatant behavior.
1 INTRODUCTION
In two recent papers (Saeb and Amadei, 1989 and 1990), the authors
presented a graphical method to predict the shear response of a dilatant rock
joint under constant or variable applied stiffness boundary conditions. The
method used the joint shear stress-shear displacement curves and
corresponding dilatancy curves for different constant normal stress levels and
the joint normal stress-normal displacement curve. The proposed method was
also verified using the results of constant stiffness tests previously reported in
the literature.
In this paper, the graphical method has been shaped into a more general
mathematical form that can be included in the numerical modeling of jointed
rock masses. The mathematical model presented herein makes use of existing
formulations such as that of Bandis et al (1983) for joint normal behavior and
those of Ladanyi and Archambault (1970), Goodman (1976) and Goodman
and St. John (1977) for joint shear behavior and dilatancy. At the outset,
these formulations are summarized. Then, they are coupled to relate the
normal load-deformation response of a joint to its shear load-deformation and
dilatant behavior. This coupling is used to predict the increase in
deformability of an initially mated joint as it traverses a range of unmated
conditions during shearing. Then the model is presented in an incremental
form that can be implemented in non-linear finite element programs. Finally,
an example illustrates how the model can predict the shear response of a
dilatant joint under boundary conditions other than constant normal stress.
237
2 EXISTING JOINT FORMULATIONS
2.1 Joint Normal Deformation
Curve i in Figure I is a typical normal stress a, versus normal displacement v
curve for a joint. The curve is hyperbolic and becomes asymptotic to a
vertical line v -- -V,, corresponding to maximum joint closure. Note that in
Figure i and in this paper joint opening and compressive stresses are taken as
positive. Curve I in Figure i can be described using the model of Bandis et al
(1983), where for the sign convention used here, a, and v are related as follows
(1)
a, - V., + v
- a. (2)
In eqs. (1) and (2), i. is the initial normal tangent stiffness of the joint
and is negative for the sign convention adopted herein. At any normal stress
level, the joint tangent normal stiffness k.. is equal to
The model presented above accounts for two basic physical constraints on
the normal deformations of a joint. First, the joint has a negligible tensile
strength. Secondly, there is a limit to the mount of possible compression, a
maximum closure, which must be less than or equal to the joint thickness.
This maximum closure is defined with respect to a zero initial normal stress
level and can be determined by subjecting a joint specimen to an increasing
normal stress in the laboratory.
2.2 Joint Shear Deformation and Dilatancy
Figure 2a shows a typical shear stress r versus shear displacement u curve for
a rough joint under a constant normal stress a, . The curve is characterized
by pre-peak, peak, and post-peak regions. Let k, be the unit shear stiffness in
the pre-peak region and rp and r, be the peak and residual joint shear
strengths. As shearing takes place under constant normal stress, the joint is
free to dilate in the normal direction. Figure 2b shows a typical dilation
curve. The joint is shown to contract at first and then starts to dilate. The
rate of dilation is maximum at the peak shear strength for which r = rp and
u = up. Then, the joint continues to dilate until the residual shear strength is
reached at which r = r, and u = u,.
In general, the values of the shear stiffness and peak and residual shear
strengths are normal stress dependent. Goodman (1976) proposed two models
to represent joint shear stress versus shear displacement behavior under
changing normal stress. One model assumes that the shear stiffness is always
constant (constant stiffness model) whereas the other keeps the peak and
238
0' n
-V m 0
-closing-
O'
-opening-
Figure 1. Normal stress vs. normal displacement curves for a mated joint
(curve 1) and an unmated joint (curve 2)
T
Tp
1 ks r (a)
Up u r u
Up u r
(b)
Figure 2. (a) Shear stress vs. shear displacement curve, (b) Dilatancy curve
residual shear displacements constant (constant displacement model). The
variation of the peak shear strength with the normal stress has been modeled
by many authors. Consider, for instance, the modified version of Ladanyi and
Archambault's (1970) failure criterion proposed by Saeb (1989) in which rp
and tt are related as follows:
rp = r, tan (q - i) (1 - a,) -F a,ar. (4)
In eq. (4), a, is the proportion of the total joint area sheared through the
asperities and 1 - ao is the proportion on which sliding occurs; b is the angle
of friction for sliding along the asperities; ar represents the shear strength of
the asperities which is also equal to the intact rock strength. The latter can
be approximated by the Mohr-Coulomb criterion or Fairhurst's parabolic
criterion as suggested by Ladanyi and Archambault (1970). Finally,
239
i = arctan (9) where 9 represents the secant rate of dilatancy at the peak
shear stress. According to Ladanyi and Archambault (1970), a, and/ are
normal stress dependent with
aT !
- tanio
(6)
where k and k2 are empirical constants with suggested values of 1.5 and 4,
respectively. tan io is the secant dilatancy rate at zero normal stress and aa' is
a transitional stress beyond which shearing through joint asperities is the
dominant mechanism of shear. Thus, for an > aa,, 9 = 0 and a, = 1. The
uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock can be used as an estimate to
aa. (Goodman, 1976).
For the variation of the residual shear strength with the normal stress,
consider the model of Goodman (1976) where
r, rv ( Bo + l-B )
= an when an < or (7)
aT
and
rr=rp when an_>ar. (8)
In eq. (7), B0(0 _< B0 <_ 1) is the ratio of residual to peak shear strength at
zero (or very low) normal stress and aa. is a transitional stress that can again
be estimated by the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength.
Finally, the model of Goodman and St. John (1977) is used to quantify
dilatancy during shearing. With reference to Figure 2b and eq. (6), the
is related to the normal stress as follows:
dilatancy rate
uu = 1- .tanio when u_<ur and On <aT (9)
Ou 0 when u > Ur or On > aT. (10)
3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Using the terminology of Gerrard (1985), consider the behavior of a fresh
rough joint undergoing first normal compression then shearing starting from a
mated position. In general, the total normal displacement v of that joint will
be a function of the shear displacement u and the normal stress an. Hence,
integrating eq. (9) leads to
.... tanio + .f(an) (11)
24O
Since eq. (11) must also represent the joint behavior under a mated condition
(u = 0) , it follows that f(on) must be equal to the right hand side of eq. (2).
Then, eq. (11) takes the following form
u (10n'" On V,
.... tanio + (12)
When u > u, and crn < at, the joint ceases to dilate and v is equal to its value
obtained by substituting u = u, in eq. (12). When crn _ at no dilation is
possible during shearing.
If the first term in eq. (12) is called w, then eq. (12) becomes
v-to= on.V. (13)
k. V. - on
or
- to). kn,- (14)
Comparing eqs. (13) and (14) to eqs. (1) and (2), it appears that v - to has
now been substituted for v. In other words, eqs. (13) and (14) now model the
normal stress-normal displacement behavior of the joint after having been
sheared or mismatched by an amount equal to u. Equation (14) has been
plotted as curve 2 in Figure 1 for an arbitrary value of u with u _ u,. Curves
1 and 2 are a distance to apart as long as crn < crT and coincide when crn _>
If it is assumed that the maximum closure V, is a good estimate of the
aperture of the joint in its mated position, then the value of to at crn = 0, that
is u tan io shown as distance 00 ' in Figure 1, represents the additional
aperture of the unmated joint created through dilatancy. The maximum
additional aperture will be equal to u, tan to. Figure 1 also shows that an
unmated joint is more deformable than a mated one.
An incremental formulation can be obtained by differentiating eq. (12).
After rearrangement, this gives
-'2 1- . tardo +
Equation (15) relates the change in normal stress to the changes in
normal and shear displacements. Since crn depends on v and u, eq. (15) can
be rewritten in a more compact form as
dan = knndv + kntdu (16)
where knn oa_ and knt = o are stiffns ccients that depend on o d
u. eq. (16), k,, is now the joint tgent norm stiffns (slope of curve 2
in Figure 1) when the joint hm bn sheed by ount equal to u. The
expression of k,, reduc to that of eq. (3) when u = 0, that is, when the joint
is in a mated pition.
241
It should be mentioned here that when u > ur or o, _ oT, the joint does
not dilate anymore and as a result dv - 0. Therefore, there will be no change
in normal stress (do, = 0) as shearing of the joint takes place.
An equation similar to eq. (16) can be written for the shear stress r since
the latter also depends on v and u,
dr = kt,dv + kttdu (17)
where kt.
= and ku = e two she stiffns ccients. the
literature, it is sumed that kt = 0 d ktt= k,. This sumption is not
corrt shown by Amadei d Sb (19) since kt d ktt depend on both
and u. Equations (16) d (17) provide an incremental non-near
formulation of rk joint deformabiliW.
As a direr application of eq. (12), the rponse of a rk joint under
applied constant or viable normal stiffness bound conditions can be
predicted. This c be done by writing that = K dv where K is the
applied stiffns of the system, which can be constant or also va with u and
,. Substituting = K dv in eqs. (16) and 07) gives the following
relationshi between chges in normal stress, normal displacement d
shear displement
K.
d = k
general, knowing the initial normal stress ross a dilatant joint and its
she stress vers shear displement and dilatcy cues at different
constant normal strs levels, the above formulation can be used to predict
the joint she rponse under vious boundary conditions. For example,
Figures 3a-3c show the rponse of a rk joint under vious constant normal
stresses rangi between 0 and 20 units and for several applied constant
normal stiffness K of 0.1, 10 and 10 units. The units c be arbitrily
chosen long they e consistent. The joint peak shear strength w
sumed to follow modified Ldnyi nd Archambault's criterion (eq. (4))
with = 20 units, io = 10 degrees, = 30 degr, and s w defined by
using Fairhurst's parabolic criterion. The ridual she strength w obtained
by taking B0 = 0.7 in eq. (7). A constant displement model w selected for
the joint she behavior under constant norm stress with = 4 units and
u = 14 units. An initial norl stress of 4 units w sumed a starting
point for all three constt stiffness paths. Equation (12) w used to
construct the normal strs-normal displement curv of Figure 3c for
different levels of shear displement rging between 0 d 14 units. The
normal strs-shear displement curves and the norm displement-she
displement curves in Figu 3b were obtained using eq. (18) and
dv = /K with small shear displement increments. Then, the she
242
17.5
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
15 20
o
18
16
14
1.o _- looo.o
8
f lO.O
--o.1
5 10 25 30
u
(a)
2.5
v 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
4
,f = 0.1
6
-f{ = 10.0
f -- 1000.0
2O
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
u
(b)
22.5
20.0
17.5
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
--
-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(c)
Figure 3. Response curves for constant normal stress and stiffness paths
(K = 0.1, 10, 1000) (a) Shear stress vs. shear displacement,
(b) normal displacement vs. shear displacement,
(c) normal stress rs. normal displacement
243
stress-shear displacement curves of Figure 3a for the three constant stiffness
paths were determined using eq. (19). These figures show clearly that joint
shear strength is affected by the applied normal stiffness.
4 CONCLUSIONS
A mathematical model was proposed in this paper to predict the response of a
dilataa-xt rock joint for various boundary conditions. The model couples the
joint normal load-deformation response to its shear load-deformation aa-xd
dilataa-xcy behavior. It predicts the change in normal deformability aa-xd
aperture of an unmated joint as it undergoes shear displacement starting from
a mated position. Finally, the model was presented in aa-x incremental
non-linear form that can be implemented in existing finite element progrm..
Example of such an implementation can be found in Saeb (1989).
5 REFERENCES
Amadei, B. & Saeb, S. 1990. Effect of boundary conditions on the
constitutive modeling of a dilataa-xt rock joint. Key note lecture. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Rock Joints. Loen. Norway.
Bandis, S.C., Luresden, A.C. & Barton, N.R. 1983. Fundamentals of rock
joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol 20, No. 6,
pp. 249-268.
Gerrard, C. 1985. Formulations for the mechaa-xical properties of rock joints
Proc. Int. Syrup. on Fund. of Rock Joints, pp. 405-422. 249-268.
Goodman, R.E. 1976. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous
rocks. West Publ. Company
Goodman, R.E. & St. John, C. 1977. Finite element analysis for discontinuous
rocks, in Numerical Methods in Geotech. Eng., pp. 148-175.
Ladanyi, B. & Archambault, G. 1970. Simulation of shear behavior of a
jointed rock mass. Proc. 11th Syrup. on Rock Mech., pp. 105-125.
Saeb, S. 1989. Effect of boundary conditions on the behavior of a dilatant
rock joint. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder.
Saeb, S. & Amadei, B. 1989. Effect of boundary conditions on the shear
behavior of a dilataa-xt rock joint. Proc. 30th U.S. Syrup. on Rock Mech.,
pp. 107-114.
Saeb, S. & Amadei, B. 1990. Modeling joint response under constaa-xt or
variable normal stiffness boundary conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech.
(in press).
244