ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A new model for effects of impersistent joint sets on rock slope stability
William G. Pariseaua,!, Saurabh Purib, Steve C. Schmelterc
b

a
University of Utah, 135 S. 1460 East, Rm 315, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 0113, USA
Carnegie Mellon University, 119 Porter Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
c
PT Freeport Indonesia, HV-1018-E, Tembagapura, Papua 99930, Indonesia

Received 7 December 2006; received in revised form 18 March 2007; accepted 30 April 2007
Available online 20 June 2007

Abstract
Joints often have profound effects on elastic properties and strength of rock masses and therefore on rock slope stability. In surface
mine slopes, joints are usually too numerous to be taken into account individually, so an equivalent properties approach is necessary.
Previous work that treats a jointed rock mass as an equivalent composite material of joints and intact rock between resulted in excellent
agreement between estimated and true rock mass elastic moduli in case of fully persistent joints, for example, [Pariseau WG. An
equivalent plasticity theory for jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(7):90718]. Rock mass failure mechanisms on
joints and through intact rock were retained using influence functions obviating the need for an equivalent rock mass strength.
Impersistent joints, which are not continuous on a joint plane, can be accommodated [Pariseau WG. Effects of joint persistence on
jointed rock masses. Trans Soc Min Metal Explor 2003;314:1218]. However, slope stability analysis of a large, deep copper mine
indicated a need for computational efficiency even in two-dimensional analysis of vertical sections through pit walls [Puri S. Role of joint
persistence in rock slope stability. MS thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, University of Utah, 2006]. The analyses by the popular
finite element method used small elements of bench size near the pit slopes and much larger elements away from the pit walls. The reasons
for the graded meshes were numerical accuracy (small elements) and computational economy (large elements). Small elements contained
only a few joints, while the larger elements contained hundreds of joints and led to impractical computation run times, on the order of
days. A new modeling procedure that recognizes sufficiently large elements as representative volume elements (RVEs) assists in
overcoming this obstacle. A companion improvement embeds a sufficient number of joints in RVE-size elements that then allows for
recovery of joint failure mechanisms that are lost with the RVE designation. These innovations reduced PC (Pentium-4) run times by two
orders of magnitude to a few hours.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock slopes; Stability; Joints; Equivalent properties; Model; Open pit mine

1. Introduction
Consider the open pit mine photo shown in Fig. 1(a), a
companion plan view in Fig. 1(b), and the problem of slope
stability where high slope angles favor economics but low
slope angles favor safety. These competing factors in
surface mining generally result in some sections of the mine
that have unstable slopes that require monitoring and
perhaps mitigating action to improve stability. Although
stability of a given section may not be easy to quantify with
a single number, useful design guidance can be obtained
!Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 581 5164; fax: +1 801 585 5410.

E-mail address: wgparis@mines.utah.edu (W.G. Pariseau).

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.05.001

from a finite element analysis of a proposed mining

sequence leading to future pit slopes and profiles. The
presence of water from rain and snow melt indicates a need
for a coupled analysis that links water pressure, effective
stress and total stress [4]. In any case, wet or dry, there is a
need to take joints into account in a rational manner such
that joint failure mechanisms are recognized as well as
failure of intact rock between joints.
2. Finite element jointed rock mass model
Several two- and three-dimensional finite element
programs (UTAH2/3) were used for analysis of vertical
sections normal to the pit walls. Sections were represented

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

Fig. 1. (a) Bingham Canyon Mine (from http://www.kennecott.com); and

(b) plan view (after [4]).

as two-dimensional planes or three-dimensional slabs.

Coupled analyses [4] were two-dimensional and were based
on rock mass properties (elastic moduli, strengths) that
were scaled from laboratory test data. Scaling was based on
past observations of pit wall displacements. Thus, joints
were taken into account empirically in a somewhat
traditional manner and for lack of a rational procedure.
Input to a coupled (solid deformation and fluid flow)
analysis of a mine rock slopes includes: (1) preexcavation
stress state, (2) geology (rock type distribution), (3)
structure (major faults), (4) elastic moduli, strengths, and
specific gravities of each rock type, (5) hydraulic conductivities, coupling parameters, fluid (water) specific
gravity, compressibility of each hydro unit, (6) excavation
sequence (desired future pit profiles).
Output from a coupled or wet mine analysis includes
distributions of: (1) total stress, (2) effective stress, (3) fluid
pressure, (4) fluid velocity, (5) strain, (6) displacement, (7)
local factor of safety (element fs) in space and time. The
same input and output apply to analysis of underground
openings in wet ground.

123

Sheik [5] applied UTAH2 coupled code to analysis of

stope stability in wet ground where excavation was below
the water table. Input hydraulic conductivity was determined in situ by borehole packer tests that used a 1.5 m
(5 ft) packed-off length. Tests were done at intervals of
0.3 m (1 ft) down the hole. Stress, strain, fluid pressure, and
displacement results were reasonable. For example, drift
walls were stable as observed underground. However,
predicted water flow was enormous, while in fact, mine
discharge was a mere trickle. The main reason seemed to be
the rock mass hydraulic conductivity. Although determined by borehole packer tests that certainly span some
joints in the blocky, bolted and strapped rock mass at the
mine, such tests do not account for joint persistence and
associated channeling, that is, formation of a few select
flow paths that allow for drainage. In this regard, drip was
observed from a fault of some continuity, but not along
drift walls. The lesson was clearly that conventional
wisdom which claims that the assumption of fully
persistent joints is conservative needs to be reevaluated.
Indeed, the meaning of conservative here is unclear.
What is needed, of course, is greater realism in the model
analysis. This need would also seem to hold in dry or
uncoupled analysis of jointed rock mass stability.
Puri [3] used UTAH3 for analysis of the Bingham
Canyon Mine finite element model sections originated
by Schmelter [4]. These are the two sections indicated in
Fig. 1(b). The FF section is shown in Fig. 2 where the
profile shows the 1991 pit. The use of three-dimensional
slabs allowed for inclusion of equivalent rock mass moduli
developed by Pariseau [2] that takes into account joint set
orientation, spacing, and persistence, in a technically sound
manner. The analyses were experimental and were deliberately kept simple, that is, dry. In dry analyses, fluid
pressure and flow are not factors, nor are the related
inputs. In the wet case, Fig. 2(a), 47 distinct material zones
were formed from 12 rock units and 17 hydrologic units. In
the dry case, Fig. 2(b), the material zones were reduced to
seven. These material properties are shown in Table 1.
However, new input parameters, joint set orientation,
spacing, and persistence, were needed for each of three joint
sets. Joint orientation and spacing were determined from
mapping in the pit; persistence was problematical. After
considerable discussion and examination of cell mapping
data, three joint sets were identified. Table 2 shows the
properties of these joint sets. Joints are treated as thin
layers of material but with elastic moduli and strengths
very different from adjacent intact rock. Tables 1 and 2
show joint properties to be about 1/100th of intact rock
properties. The UTAH2/3 programs use an incremental
elasticplastic stressstrain law based on associated flow
rules and an N-type yield condition [6] that reduces to the
well-known DruckerPrager condition when N 1. Analyses are done here using N 1.
The stress distribution in the 1991 pit from which further
excavation would proceed was determined by application
of gravity forces to the 1991 pit topography. Two cases

ARTICLE IN PRESS
124

W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

8200
11

500 m

7
3

4
10
5

12
9

16,200

-800,0
8200
6

500 m

2
5
3
1

16,200

-800, 0

Fig. 2. (a) Section FF mesh showing geology, rock types, and faults. Corner point coordinates are in ft (after [4]). (b) Section FF mesh showing simplified
geology, rock types, and faults (after [3]).

Table 1
Rock properties for simplified section FF (after [3])
Mat no.

Rock type

Youngs modulus
E (GPa)

Poissons ratio n

Specific weight

Compressive
strength Co (MPa)

Tensile strength
To (MPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Monzonite
Parnell beds
Quartzite
QMP
Garnetite
Waste rock
Fault

32.7
37.1
44.3
39.6
75.1
0.025
60.7

0.31
0.26
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.28

2.53
2.56
2.58
2.53
3.50
2.16
2.53

46.8
86.2
88.9
65.3
93.1
0.138
0.138

4.83
7.44
10.0
5.07
7.38
0.041
0.055

QMPquartz monzonite porphyry, CoUCSunconfined compressive strength.

Table 2
Joint set properties for section FF (after [3])
Joint set dip direction/dip
spacing (deg/deg/m)

Youngs modulus E
(GPa)

poissons ratio n

Specific weight

Compressive
strength Co (kPa)

Tensile strength To
(kPa)

117/89/4.2
154/67/4.7
116/44/4.8

0.345
0.345
0.414

0.31
0.31
0.31

2.53
2.53
2.53

469
469
889

48
48
103

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

were examined, one without joints and one with joints

present. These calculations are time-consuming under a
convergence requirement imposed by a force norm of 10!4.
Convergence is considered obtained when the residual
forces are within 0.01% of the applied forces. Original
times without joints were reduced by more than one-half
by linking corresponding nodes on each slab face. (The
number of nodes in the three-dimensional slab analysis is
twice that seen in Fig. 2.) Even so, application of gravity
forces to generate pre-pit deepening stress distributions
(initial stresses) required several hours of PC computing
time without joints present. Of course, a faster PC would
shorten run times, but not by an order of magnitude which
is desired when considering parametric design studies.
Gravity loading with joints present was unsuccessful after
more than 27 h of run time. The reason is the large number
of elements needed to model joints within a given finite
element; larger elements required more than 70,000
tetrahedrons each. Although this limitation is simply a
function of array dimensions that could be increased (but
there is an addressing limitation that may be exceeded on
32-bit word PCs), the run time was considered impractical.
Accordingly, reconsideration of the approach and the
representative volume element (RVE) concept was indicated.
3. Representative volume element (RVE)
By definition, an RVE of a jointed rock mass (or a
representative elementary volume, REV) is one so large
that another joint more or less does not significantly
change the equivalent properties of the considered volume.
Larger volumes would have the same values of elastic
moduli; much smaller volumes would have very different
moduli. Each element in a finite element mesh contains

different numbers of joints and so has a unique geologic

structure that induces unique equivalent elastic moduli.
However, differences among elements larger than an RVE
would be negligible. Because of the calculational burden
grows rapidly with element size and the number of joints
intersecting larger elements, a significant savings may be
possible, provided there are many large elements in a mesh
and an RVE can be specified in consideration of the given
joint set data.
One approach to definition of the size of an RVE is to
specify a cube, say, with edge length 10 times the maximum
joint set spacing, and then to add joints until the equivalent
properties do not change significantly with further joint
addition. This hypothesis is based on an order of
magnitude estimate and is the one used by Puri [3].
A brief discussion of joint embedment and equivalent
properties is given in Appendix A. Fig. 3 shows the results
for the three joint sets given in Table 2 with a generous
thickness of 0.15 m. (Joints are modeled as thin layers of
material substantially different from the surrounding intact
rock.) The last results in Fig. 3, symbols (no lines), were
obtained by a separate route and are in agreement with the
other results. These results indicate an RVE cube with an
edge length about 10 times or more maximum joint set
spacing. The equivalent Youngs and shear moduli are
about 0.150.30 the original Youngs modulus and shear
modulus. In this regard, the joints lead to fully anisotropic
elastic properties; Fig. 3 results are with respect to the three
orthogonal directions aligned with the cube axes (finite
element axes).
A second approach is to specify the joint sets in advance
and then pick an arbitrary starting point from which to
enlarge an initially small cube. This approach is akin to
imposing a finite element mesh on joint set geometry with
varying element size. Fig. 4 shows the results of this

1.20

NORMALIZED MODULI (E*/Er, G*/Gr)

EQUIVALENT ELASTIC MODULI

E1
E2
E3
G1
G2
G3
E1
E2
E3
G1
G2
G3

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0

125

10

12

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOINTS PER SET (3 SETS)

Fig. 3. RVE estimation by joint addition to a cube of fixed size.

14

16

ARTICLE IN PRESS
126

W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131
EQUIVALENT ELASTIC MODULI

NORMALIZED MODULI (E*/Er, G*/Gr)

1.20
1.00
E1
E2
E3
G1
G2
G3

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

10

12

SAMPLING CUBE SIZE AS A MULTIPLE OF

MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING
Fig. 4. RVE estimated by increasing cube size over space occupied by
three thick joint sets.

approach. The results are surprising because they show

little change in the equivalent elastic moduli when the cube
size becomes greater than about twice the maximum joint
set spacing. Upon reflection this unexpected result makes
sense. The reason is that the jointing pattern of the three
considered joint sets form a series of blocks each much like
the other in brick-wall fashion. Thus, a quasi-periodic
structure is formed and consequently a relatively small unit
cell; a unit cell in a periodic structure is an RVE. A similar
trend was obtained using a thin joint zone just 0.03 m thick.
As expected, the equivalent moduli were reduced less to
about 0.40.6 intact values. A cube about 15 m on edge
would be an RVE in the FF mesh according to these
results. Elements in the vicinity of the pit slope are about
this size, so conceivably, all elements in the mesh could be
assigned equivalent RVE properties. However, explicit
consideration of joints near the pit slope is desirable
because failure on joints is an important mechanism that
may lead to overall slope failure. For this reason, only
elements larger than 20 ! 20 ! 45 m were assigned RVE
properties. The third dimension, 45 m, is the slab thickness.
In this regard, elements near the slope face are about
15 ! 15 ! 45 m while elements well away from the slope
face are about 180 ! 180 ! 45 m. This slab thickness keeps
the aspect ratio of these elements within a range of about 14
to 13, which is favorable to rate of solution convergence.
4. Role and scale of persistence
Joint segments in a joint plane are generally separated by
intact rock bridges, as observed by Terzaghi [7]. Joint
persistence is then defined as the ratio of joint segment area
to total area of joint segments and intact rock bridges.
Persistence p may also be interpreted as the probability that
a joint plane segment or cell is occupied by joint material;
1"p is the probability that a cell on the joint plane is

occupied by intact rock. For example, if p 0.2 and a

random number is drawn on the interval [0,1] is 0.1, then
the considered cell is assigned joint material. If p 0.3,
then rock material is assigned to the joint plane cell.
On a global scale, each joint plane that transects an
element in the model mesh may be considered a cell. Either
an element contains a joint segment or not depending on
joint set persistence and the random number generated. If
an element is large compared with joint spacing, then the
element may contain many or few joint segments from the
same joint set even at low persistence depending on the
outcome of a random number draw. Because a joint is first
assumed present and then removed according to the draw,
the joint set embedment process requires the same
computational effort regardless of persistence. This effort
may be more time consuming than solution to the actual
problem. Recognition of an RVE reduces the effort, of
course.
Persistence may also be considered on a local scale
within an element. For example, a joint plane segment
within an element 15 m on edge could be partitioned within
an element and the partitions or cells assigned joint
properties according to a random number draw and the
specified persistence. If the cells were numerous enough,
then the joint plane segment would be a representative area
element (RAE). An RAE can always be realized by using a
fine enough partition. In any case, the result would be
equivalent elastic moduli that would be higher than those
for a fully persistent joint but lower than intact rock
moduli.
Fig. 5 shows equivalent joint moduli (E*, G*) as a
function of joint persistence. Data in Fig. 5 were generated
using three lattice sizes, 80 ! 80, 40 ! 40, and 20 ! 20.
Fig. 6 shows several of the lattices used. In each case, joint
layer thickness was 1% of the lattice edge length. Joint
properties were 1% of intact rock properties (Er, Gr). The
greatest within lattice spread of moduli is about 15% and
indicates a negligible anisotropy. Between lattice spread is
also about 15% at a joint persistence of 0.25. These results
suggest using a single, master curve for scaling all joint
moduli as a function of persistence as seen in Fig. 7.

5. New jointed rock mass FE model approach

A new approach to finite element modeling of impersistently jointed rock masses is to recognize the possibilities of
RAEs and RVEs. Computation of equivalent joint properties at a given persistence for each joint set is done first. An
RVE is defined next. Incorporation of equivalent joint
properties of each joint set are then introduced into an
RVE computation for each rock type present in the region
of interest. RVE-sized elements are assigned these properties. Sub-RVE size equivalent element moduli are computed at run time for each such element according to the
individual jointelement intersections using intact rock and
joint moduli (direct method). This later procedure has the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

127

EQUIVALENT ELASTIC MODULI OF AN IMPERSISTENT JOINT LAYER

80x80, 404x40, 20X20 LATTICES
1.0

NORMALIZED MODULI (E*/Er, G*)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
PERSISTENCE

0.8

Fig. 5. Equivalent elastic moduli of an impersistent joint layer as a function of persistence at several lattice sizes.

20x20 p=0.00 0 jts

80x80 p=1.00 6400 jts

20x20 p=0.25 100 jts

40x40 p=0.25 400 jts

80x80 p=0.25 1600 jts

20x20 p=0.50 200 jts

40x40 p=0.50 800 jts

80x80 p=0.50 3200 jts

20x20 p=0.75 300 jts

40x40 p=0.75 1200 jts

80x80 p=0.75 4800 jts

Fig. 6. Lattices used for joint layer moduli computation. Lattice thickness is 0.01 times edge length. Dark (pink) regions are cells of joint material that may
obscure white intact rock. Patterns are random.

advantage of retention of joint failure mechanisms when

used with influence functions, for example, [8].
There is a possibility that small, bench-size elements are
RVE-size. This situation is desirable because of the
considerable savings in computation time that may be
realized. However, in this case, joint failure mechanisms
are not recoverable with influence functions. The only

alternative then is to introduce an equivalent strength that

in some way accounts for both intact and joint failure
possibilities. While failure of isotropic intact rock is not
directionally dependent, joint failure certainly is, and one is
led to consider anisotropic strength. In order to proceed,
RVE compressive strengths were assigned at 0.2% of the
equivalent RVE elastic moduli, which are anisotropic.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
128

W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

REV EQUIVALENT MODULI

DIRECT and RAE METHODS

NORMALIZED REV MODULI (E*/Er, G)

1.2
E1
E2

1.0

E3
G1

0.8

G2
G3
0.6

E1
E2

0.4

E3
G1
G2

0.2

G3
0.0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
JOINT PERSISTENCE - 3 SETS

1.2

Fig. 7. Equivalent RVE properties using persistence directly and from scaling of joint properties using a master curve (RAE method). Solid linesdirect
method, and dotted linesRAE method.

Table 3
RVE properties for thin joints in monzonite
Direction FE
axes XYZ

Youngs moduli
E (GPa)

Poissons ratios n

Shear moduli
(GPa)

Compressive
strength Co (MPa)

Tensile strength
To (MPa)

Shear strength
Ro (MPa)

X 1
Y 2
Z3

E1 21:5
E2 13:5
E3 17:2

n12 0:35
n23 0:30
n31 0:22

G12 6:37
G23 6:43
G31 8:00

C1 43:0
C2 27:0
C3 34:4

T1 2:86
T2 1:80
T3 2:30

R1 6:40
R2 4:02
R3 5:14

Tensile strengths were computed using a ratio of unconfined compressive to tensile strength of 15. Shear strengths
were estimated on the basis of an anisotropic quadratic
yield condition. Anisotropy is induced by geometry of the
three joint sets. These RVE data are given in Table 3 and
apply to monzonite. Other rock types have different RVE
properties. An RVE cube 48 ! 48 ! 48 m contains 46 joints
(16, 14, and 16 from joints 1, 2, 3, respectively). This
number was subsequently reduced to 22. RVE properties
are obtained in somewhat less than one minute of
computation time. The FF section mesh contains 13,280
elements. Joint embedment alone would thus require about
221 h. Run time would be proportional. For these reasons,
speed-up is a practical necessity. Coupling of node pairs in
the slab model reduces run time by about one-half.
Utilization of the REV concept reduces combined embedment and run time for gravity loading in advance of
excavation to less than 5 h, a total speed-up by about two
orders of magnitude. A faster computer would reduce all
run times, of course, but the relative speed-up would be
expected to be about the same.
Unfortunately, the averaging out of joint failure
mechanisms that occurs with use of a RVE properties is

not made up by invoking an equivalent strength using a

simple strain to failure criterion. Reduction of rock
strength in this way does lower element safety factors, of
course. Fig. 8(a) shows the distribution of element safety
factors after cutting to the 2013 pit profile in a rock mass
lacking joints. Fig. 8(b) shows results from the same cut in
a rock mass assigned equivalent RVE strengths by rock
type. An expected general lowering of safety factors is
observed in the case of reduced strengths, but whether joint
failure occurs is unknown in this approach because the
joints are averaged out.
By retaining joints (the 22 from sets 1, 2, and 3) in the
element RVEs, joint failure mechanisms are recoverable via
influence functions. There are about 250,000 joint segments
in the mesh; about 40,000 failed. Various combinations of
joint failures are possible: joint 1 failures, joint 2 failures,
joint 1 and 2 failures, and so forth. Fig. 8(c) shows the
region near the slope face and elements that contain joint
failures. Results in Fig. 8 shows that on average the slope is
safe from large-scale failure, although bench details at the
face indicate some local instability. Inclusion of joint
failure mechanisms reveals a large region behind the slope
face where linkage of joints could well form a collapse

ARTICLE IN PRESS
129

W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

2.5
7

ALL
3

ALL
1.75

3
5
4

2.5

Fig. 8. (a) Cut results using rock properties and no joints; (b) cut results using RVE moduli and strengths. No element failures are present in either case;
and (c) cut results showing joint failures. Allfailures on all three joint types, 3failure on joint type 3, and no symbolcombinations of 1 & 2, 2 & 3 or 3
& 1 joint type failures.

mechanism, thus indicating an entirely different slope

stability assessment.
There is much additional information that is useful for
slope stability evaluation and design guidance that would
be accessed before reaching a conclusion. Displacements
are an example. However, such a lengthy deliberation is
beyond the scope of this article. Comparison of results in
Fig. 8 does indicate that the REV concept is quite useful in
these circumstances provided joint failure mechanisms are
retained and not averaged out in the process of defining
equivalent properties. Coupled node pairs reduce run times
by about one-half when examining slab models that allow
for three-dimensional joint patterns to be taken into
account.
6. Conclusion
The dual use of explicit accounting of joints and intact
rock in sub-RVE size elements and implicit accounting in
RVE-size elements is a practical step towards more realistic
finite element modeling of jointed rock mass slope stability
in practical runs times of a few hours. Joint failure
mechanisms in the small, sub-RVE size elements used near
a slope face, allows recovery of joint and intact rock failure
mechanisms. However, this recovery is also possible in the
larger RVE-size elements used away from the slope face,
provided they are assigned joints. In view of a surprisingly
small RVE that develops when multiple joints sets are
present (in this case, three), all elements in a mesh may be
RVE-size. The main advantage over previous work along
the same lines is greatly reduced computer run time, from
hundreds of hours to several hours. This reduction allows
for parametric design analysis, for example, the study of
joint persistence effect. In this regard, there is a distinct
possibility of increased persistence occurring during
excavation that would increase the probability of formation of a linked joint collapse mechanism. Recent work [9]
suggest that progressive elasticplastic damage analysis by
the finite element method may be worthy of further study

with the goal of taking an additional step towards greater

realism by allowing new joint formation and extension
during excavation. The concept of equivalent RVE
strength also needs to be explored in further detail. Finally,
determination of joint persistence is a research issue in rock
mechanics that needs further investigation.
Appendix A. Equivalent properties and joint embedment
Generally, equivalent properties refer to properties that
relate averages of constitutive variables taken over a given
volume, say, a finite element. Here, the equivalent properties of importance are elastic moduli, Youngs moduli (E),
shear moduli (G), Poissons ratios (n) and coupling moduli
that link normal strains to shear stresses and shear strains
to normal stresses. A finite element with embedded joints is
often fully anisotropic with 21 elastic constants. Usually,
the coupling terms are an order of magnitude less than
the other terms in a 6 ! 6 matrix of equivalent elastic
properties.
Consider a finite element of volume V in the shape of a
cube and suppose the element is intersected by a number of
joints belonging to joint sets of different properties as
shown in Fig. 9. When loaded under a uniform boundary
traction, say, in the x-direction, the heterogeneity of the
element leads to a complex distribution of stress within
the element. However, the average stress over V is equal to
the applied traction. Locally, at a point, stress and strain
are related by Hookes law ADVANCE ADVANCE f!g
S$fsg where f g denotes a 6 ! 1 column matrix and [S] is a
6 ! 6 matrix of elastic compliances. Because of heterogeneity,
R [S] is position-dependent. On average, hf!gi
1=V S$fsg dV S' $hfsgi ADVANCE ADVANCE
where hF i is a volume average of variable F over V, and
[S*] is a matrix of equivalent compliances which are not
volume averages because the average of a product (under
the integral sign) is not the product of averages. Rational
computation of equivalent properties is constrained by
requirements of equilibrium and compatibility, that is, by

ARTICLE IN PRESS
130

W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131

Fig. 9. A sample cube 158 units (10 " maximum joint spacing) on edge intersected by 45 joint planes, 15 planes from three joint sets: (a) joint set 1,544
joint segments, dip 891, dip direction #331, spacing 13.3 units, (b) joint set 2, 1050 joint segments, dip 671, dip direction 41, spacing 15.3
units, (c) joints set 3, 1897 joint segments, dip 441, dip direction #331, spacing 15.8 units. Total blocks between joints 701, total joint
segments 3491, total tetrahedrons 50,352. Dark (colored) areas are visible joint faces.

continuity of tractions and displacements at a material

discontinuity in the elastic regime. Conditions for elastic
stability thus constrain equivalent elastic properties of
jointed elements [1].
When joints are treated as thin layers of material with
quite different properties from adjacent intact rock, the
volume fraction (ratio of joint layer volume to element
volume) of each joint segment must be known. In this
regard, joint stiffnesses, elastic moduli, and layer thickness
are related. Thus, for example, kn hE n ADVANCE
ADVANCE in the case of normal stiffness. There may be
hundreds of joint segments created within a large element
as joints from different joint sets intersect; there may be no
joint segments in a small element. When joint segments and
blocks of intact rock between are partitioned into tetrahedrons in the process of generating a detailed finite
element mesh, a single relatively large element in a graded
mesh may contain over 70,000 tetrahedrons. In a small,
effectively two-dimensional slab model of 10,000 brick
elements, the actual element number would be 700 million,
an impossibly large number that points out the need for an
equivalent properties approach to jointed rock mass
mechanics. A detailed mesh is generated when the true
equivalent properties are required through a (numerical)
solution to an appropriate boundary value problem, and
also as joint volume fractions are needed for estimated
equivalent elastic properties that are computed using an
analytical approximation. Computational experience
shows that estimated equivalent properties [1] generally
agree within a few percent of the true properties. However,
the current equivalent properties computation process of
sequential joint embedment may still require an impractical
computation time because of the need for volume fractions.
Volume fractions within each element are also needed for
influence function computation that allows recovery of
joint failure mechanisms. While a volume fraction f is easily
formulated as ADVANCE ADVANCE f V j =V e where j
and e refer to joint and element, respectively, computation
of the joint volume requires finding all points of joint plane
intersections (two planes per joint) with all other joint
planes within an element and the element faces as well. The

computational burden in even a small mesh may quickly

become too large to be practical or even possible.
An alternative approach is to recognize the somewhat
arbitrary specification of joint layer thickness (twice
asperity height?), and simply specify joint fractions outright for elements sufficiently large to be classified as
RVEs. Equivalent properties of an REV do not change
noticeably with the addition of more joints. Smaller
elements that contain few joints and that would be used
near an excavation wall could still be processed in detail.
Specification of the size of an REV can be done by
numerical experiment in which the given joint set data are
used for embedment in a single, ever larger test volume
until the equivalent properties approach constant values.
The number of joints and associated volume fractions may
then be assigned outright to all elements in the mesh at
hand that meet the RVE size requirement. Smaller elements
that do not meet the requirement are processed in the
usual way.
When joints from joint sets rather than random joints
(properties, orientation) are embedded in an element, the
geometry tends to form a quasi-periodic structure of blocks
defined by intersecting joint planes. A unit cell in a periodic
structure is an RVE, so in the case of joint sets, the RVE
may be of the order of joint spacing and only a few joints
may be needed for equivalent properties computation.
Whether this situation is the case can always be determined
during preliminary testing for RVE size.
References
[1] Pariseau WG. An equivalent plasticity theory for jointed rock masses.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(7):90718.
[2] Pariseau WG. Effects of joint persistence on jointed rock masses.
Trans Soc Min Metal Explor 2003;314:1218.
[3] Puri S. Role of joint persistence in rock slope stability. MS thesis,
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Utah, 2006.
[4] Schmelter SC. Coupled finite element analysis of slope stability at the
Bingham Canyon Mine. MS thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, University of Utah, 2001.
[5] Sheik AK. Coupled finite element modeling of wet mine stope stability.
MS thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, University of Utah,
2000.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.G. Pariseau et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 122131
[6] Pariseau WG. Plasticity theory for anisotropic rocks and soils. In:
Gray KE, editor. Proceedings of the 10th US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics. New York: Society of Mining Engineers; 1972. p. 26795.
[7] Terzaghi K. Stability of steep slopes on hard unweathered rock.
Geotechnique 1962;12(4):25170.
[8] Pariseau WG. Equivalent properties approach to jointed viscoplastic
rock slopes. In: Girad J, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 4th North

131

American Rock Mechanics Symposium. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2000.

p. 91925.
[9] Pariseau WG. Direct shear of impersistently jointed plaster blocks
under laboratory test conditions. In: Khan AS, et al., editors.
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Plasticity &
Current Applications. Fulton, MD: NEAT Press; 2006. p. 2024.