International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

A theoretical model for rock joints subjected to constant normal

stiffness direct shear
Julian P. Seidela,b, Chris M. Haberfielda,c,*
a
Foundation QA Pty Ltd, Croydon, Victoria 3136, Australia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
c
Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Hawthorn West, Victoria 3122, Australia

at ly
in on
n
Abstract

io
em se
The authors have conducted an investigation into the behaviour of rock joints subjected to direct shear. Both concrete/rock and
rock/rock joints were investigated. The behaviour of rock/rock joints is important for the assessment of stability issues involving

ss u
rock masses (e.g. rock slope stability). Concrete/rock joints are vital to the assessment of performance of concrete piles socketed into
rock, rock anchors and concrete dam foundations.
di ch
This investigation included an extensive series of direct shear tests under a range of stress boundary conditions. The rock used for
the tests was a soft artificial siltstone, called Johnstone. The results from the tests on concrete/Johnstone joints have been presented
or ar
in Seidel and Haberfield (Geotech. Testing J. (2002), accepted for publication) and on Johnstone/Johnstone joints in Fleuter
(MEngSc Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia, 1997) and Pearce (Ph.D. dissertation,
e

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia, 2001, in preparation). This paper describes the theoretical models
ng s

developed to simulate the observed behaviour, including asperity sliding, asperity shearing, post-peak behaviour, asperity
yi re

deformation and distribution of stresses on the interface. These models have been combined into a micro-mechanical simulation of
joint shear. Comparisons between program predictions and measured performance are presented and discussed. r 2002 Elsevier
op al

Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

r c on
fo rs

1. Introduction tested [3], this paper will concentrate on joints contain-

ot pe

ing two-dimensional roughness profiles—that is, rough-

As part of an investigation into the performance of ness in the shearing direction only.
piles socketed into weak rock, the authors have under- In essence, the experimental program comprised two
N r
Fo

taken a laboratory-based experimental investigation
based on direct shear testing. As discussed in Seidel
and Haberfield [1], these tests were all performed under
constant normal stiffness conditions. The tests con-
ducted for this investigation were performed on
concrete/rock samples with a range of geometries and
stress boundary conditions. Fleuter [2] and Pearce [3]
completed a similar set of tests on rock/rock joints. The
rock used in the tests reported herein is a reconstituted
siltstone known as Johnstone. Johnstone has been
demonstrated to have strength and deformation proper-
ties close to the natural siltstone from which it is derived
but without the inherent variability [4]. Although joints
containing three-dimensional roughness have been
*Corresponding author. Golder Associates Pty Ltd, PO Box 6079,
Hawthorn West, Victoria 3122, Australia. Tel.: +61-3-8862-3500;
fax: +61-3-8862-3501.
E-mail address: chaberfield@golder.com.au (C.M. Haberfield).
parts—testing of simple and regular triangular idealiza-
tions of a rough interface, and testing of interfaces with
complex roughness, which are referred to as fractal
profiles. Profiles of both types are shown in Fig. 1. The
genesis of the fractal profiles [5] is not central to the
purpose of this paper. The triangular profiles were tested
in order to provide experimental data for the develop-
ment of the theoretical micro-mechanical models. It was
hypothesized that profiles with complex geometry could
be idealized as a series of simple triangular asperities. It
followed that if appropriate consideration was made for
interaction between these individual asperities, the shear
behaviour of the more complex fractal profiles could be
predicted from the models developed from triangular
asperities. The fractal profiles were tested to validate this
hypothesis.
The tests on simple regular triangular profiles
indicated that shear behaviour involved two basic and
apparently independent mechanisms; initial sliding

1365-1609/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 6 - 4
540 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

1200
5 x 3.75 mm high regular triangles

10 x 7.5 mm high regular triangles 900

12.5 x 6 mm high regular triangles

τ(kPa)
600
15 x 7.5 mm high regular triangles

17.5 x 9.5 mm high regular triangles

300
Triangular profile
22.5 x 9.5 mm high regular triangles Fractal profile

0
27.5 x 11.5 mm high regular triangles 0 10 20 30 40 50

at ly
(a) X (mm)
Fractal Class A

in on
n
1200

io
Fractal Class B
Triangular profile

em se
Fractal profile
900

ss u
Fractal Class C

Fractal Class D
di ch τ(kPa)

600
or ar
Fractal Class E
e
ng s

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 300
yi re

Length (mm)
Fig. 1. Roughness profiles used in direct shear testing.
op al

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
r c on

along the surface of the asperities and then simultaneous (b) X (mm)
shearing through all of the intact asperities. These two
fo rs

Fig. 2. Typical shear stress–displacement responses for triangular and

mechanisms have been reported previously by several fractal profiles. (a) J/C joints (regular 101 asperity profile with 42.5 mm
ot pe

researchers including Patton [6], Ladanyi and Arch- chord length and Class B fractal profile with 16 mm chord length tested
ambault [7] and Lam and Johnston [8]. Post-peak with initial normal stress, sn0 ¼ 300 kPa and normal stiffness,
behaviour is also important to the overall performance K ¼ 300 kPa/mm). (b) J/J joints (regular 101 asperity profile with
N r

48 mm chord length tested with initial normal stress, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa,
Fo

of the joint. Typical shear stress–displacement responses
for Johnstone/Concrete (J/C) and Johnstone/Johnstone
(J/J) joints containing 101 regular triangular roughness
profile are shown in Fig. 2.
Although the shear behaviour of joints with more
complex geometry is also controlled by these same two
basic mechanisms, the mechanisms cannot be readily
isolated in the joint response. Shear displacement is
initially affected by sliding on the steepest asperities. The
consequence of this sliding is joint dilation, which causes
shallow asperities to be lifted out of contact, and stresses
to be localized on the steep asperities in contact. At a
critical displacement, the shear stresses on the steepest
asperity exceed the asperity strength. The asperity fails,
and its load is shed to other asperities. Dilation is then
controlled by the next steepest asperity until it too fails
in shear. Thus, sliding, progressive asperity shear and
post-peak sliding occur simultaneously in complex
profiles. Fig. 2 also shows typical shear–stress displace-
normal stiffness, K ¼ 267 kPa/mm and fractal profile with a mean
asperity angle of 51, chord length of 16 mm, length tested with initial
normal stress, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa and normal stiffness, K ¼ 450 kPa/mm).
ment responses for Concrete/Johnstone and J/J joints
containing fractal roughness profiles. The sliding and
shear mechanisms cannot be separately identified.
This paper deals only with the shear displacement
behaviour of clean rock joints and in particular, the
micro-mechanical models developed by the authors to
simulate the behaviour observed in constant normal
stiffness direct shear tests. The influence of joint infill
and joint degradation have not been considered and the
reader is referred to Indraratna and Haque [9] (for
example) for a review of other joint shear models and
the effects of infill and degradation. The paper
concludes with a comparison of measured and predicted
joint shear responses.
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553
2. Triangular asperity models
2.1. Asperity sliding
The direct shear tests [1–3] confirmed the sliding
models of Patton [6] and Ladanyi and Archambault [7]
for unbonded purely frictional surfaces. The average
shear stress for sliding, t, is given by
t ¼ s tanðfb þ yÞ;
where s is the average normal stress applied to the joint,
fb is the base friction angle of the joint and y is the
asperity inclination. It should be noted that Eq. (1) was
derived for rigid asperities, which may be a reasonable
at ly
representation of hard rock. However, for the soft rock
in on
(uniaxial compressive strength of about 3.5 MPa) used
n
in this investigation, the compressibility of the rock is
io
significant and cannot be neglected. Seidel and Haber-
em se
field [10] adopted the energy approach used by Ladanyi
and Archambault [7] to show that Eq. (1) also holds for
ss u
elastic asperities. This result in itself is not startling, but
di ch
as demonstrated later, it is important when considering
the shear behaviour of irregular profiles consisting of
or ar
multiple asperities of varying angle.
The results from the tests on regular triangular
e
asperity profiles indicated an average sliding or base
ng s
yi re
friction angle of 24.51 [1,2]. This angle compares
favourably with the residual sliding friction angle for
op al
horizontal concrete/Johnstone interfaces of 231 deter-
mined by Lam [11] and the residual angle of 241
r c on
reported by Kodikara [12] for flat J/J interfaces. The
tests did not indicate any appreciable difference between
fo rs
peak and residual angles of friction.
ot pe
The purely frictional behaviour is contrary to the
behaviour reported by Lam and Johnston [8] and
Kodikara and Johnston [13] for tests on similar J/C
N r
Fo
joints. Both of these investigations reported significant
levels of cohesion during sliding. The reason for the
cohesion observed by these researchers is not well
understood.
σn = (
opposing
interface
ψ
x
Fig. 3. Reduction of asperity contact area with progressive shear displacement.
541
2.2. Asperity shearing
Initially, before the commencement of sliding, the two
halves of the joint are assumed to be in intimate contact
with both faces of each asperity in full contact. After the
initiation of interface slip, the contact area between the
two halves of the joint is restricted to one asperity face,
and progressively reduces as shear displacement pro-
gresses. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3 for an interface
ð1Þ comprising regular triangular asperities. Local normal
stresses increase both as a consequence of the reduced
contact area and as a result of the increasing normal
stress due to the constant normal stiffness (CNS)
condition. A critical normal stress is reached at which
the asperity can no longer sustain the loading and
individual asperity failure results.
The asperity shearing mechanism was observed to
differ between J/C and J/J joints. For J/C joints, the
much stronger half of the joint constrained failure over
the full contact length of each asperity. However, for J/J
joints the material on both sides of the interface is
similar, allowing failure to occur at localized regions of
high stress that occur at the leading and trailing points
of contact of each asperity. Failure gradually progressed
from these localized regions until complete failure of
each asperity (and therefore of the whole interface)
occurred. This resulted in a significant reduction in the
measured strength. The finite difference program FLAC
was used to investigate the failure of both J/J and J/C
interfaces. The results of this analysis indicated that the
ultimate failure mode in J/J joints was similar to that of
J/C joints, but failure occurred at a lower stress. A stress
reduction factor of 1.38 was found to be appropriate for
J/J joints [3].
Observation of video records of the direct shear tests
of both the J/C and J/J joints clearly shows asperity
failure to be rotational. This is in direct contrast to other
models, such as Patton [6] and Johnston and Lam [14],
which were based on a planar failure surface. Similar
observations of rotational failures are attributed to
Nelson [15].
2λ ). ( σ + Kψ)
no
λ–x
rock
2λ
542 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

The form of the failure planes observed in the direct w

shear testing, along with geometric considerations, δ q
suggested the use of slope-stability methods to model
Y
the shear failure of the rock asperities. However, the
θo
implementation of a slope-stability analysis within an r = ro exp [ tanϕ .(θ–θo )] θ µ
µ
overall computer program designed to predict the
µ– ρ –ρ
behaviour of complex joint geometries is very cumber- so
some. As a result, a closed-form solution for the failure Major
principal stress
of a weightless slope with slope angle g in a c2f soil
subjected to an inclined load [16] was adopted. Given
µ Failure Surface
the negligible influence of self-weight on the strength of
the asperity, the assumption of weightlessness is not
ψ
significant. Fig. 4 shows the principal features of X
Sokolovsky’s solution. Sokolovsky’s original axis con-
Fig. 4. Solution for weightless c
f soil (after Sokolovsky [16]).
vention, which comprises an X-axis vertically down and

at ly
a Y-axis horizontally away from the slope is retained.

in on
The analytical solution comprises two failure planes

n
connected by a log-spiral as shown in Fig. 4. In the case solution is valid. However, if the ratio is smaller, the

io
under consideration, the load inclination is assumed to ‘‘free’’ failure mechanism will be affected, and a

em se
be equal to the sliding friction angle of the joint. The ‘‘constrained’’ failure mode, at a higher failure stress
solution is obtained indirectly by the simultaneous will result. It can be seen from Fig. 5, that s=wos0 =w in

ss u
solution of the following three equations: the initial mated position, but then equals and exceeds
q cos d ¼ sð1 þ sin f cos 2rÞ
H;
di ch ð2Þ s0 =w as shear displacement proceeds. Values of s0 =w are
listed in Table 1 for different slope angles. As no
or ar

q sin d ¼ s sin f cos 2r ð3Þ analytical solution exists for such constrained modes of
failure, a numerical approach was adopted to extend the
e

and analytical solution for unconstrained failure to cases

ng s
yi re

H where a limited slope length to load width ratio exists.

q¼
cos
d A parametric study was conducted using the multiple-

op al

1 þ sin f cos 2r wedge slope-stability program EMU [18]. EMU is based

 exp½ðp
2g þ 2rÞ tan f
1 ; on an upper-bound energy method approach, and has
1
sin f
r c on

been found to agree closely with available analytical

ð4Þ
solutions [19]. Analyses were performed varying the
fo rs

where s ¼ ðs1 þ s3 Þ=2 and H ¼ c cot f: slope angle, the ratio of slope length to load width, and
ot pe

For the case of regular asperities considered here, d ¼
fb ; g ¼ 2a (a=asperity angle), and c and f are the
intact strength parameters of the rock. The solution
N r
Fo
the Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters. The analyses
for slope to load width ratios in excess of s0 =w; were
found to be in good agreement with the analytical

for q is obtained numerically by application of the solution. On the basis of this parametric study, a
Newton–Raphson method [17], for which there is rapid constrained failure correction factor, k; was defined to
convergence. relate failure stress, qc to Sokolovsky’s [15] failure stress
It should be noted that the Sokolovsky solution is for for a long slope, qf (k ¼ qc =qf ):
a slope of infinite length and assumes that the failure  s0 
envelope intersects the slope above the toe. Any sos0 ; k ¼ 0:85 exp 0:16
s
constraint imposed by a limited slope length would
increase the predicted failure stress. The solution, and
however, does allow the theoretical ratio of the distance, sXs0 ; ks ¼ 1: ð6Þ
s0 (from the crest of the slope to the point of intersection
of the failure plane with the slope) to the width of the As indicated in Fig. 5, the minimum value of s=w for
loaded area, w, to be determined as an asperity is 1.0, which occurs in its undisplaced, fully

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s0 2 cos m tanðp=2
m
jrjÞ 1 þ tan2 ðp=2
m þ jrjÞ expftan fðp=2
g
jrjÞg
¼ : ð5Þ
w tanðp=2
m
jrjÞ
tanðp=2
m þ jrjÞ

If the actual slope length to loaded area width ratio, mated position. The maximum value of s0 =s occurs
s=w (as shown in Fig. 5) exceeds s0 =w; the closed-form when s ¼ w: From Table 1, for a 12.51 asperity, the
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553 543

opposing interface
opposing σn
w s interface

so
τ
ψ Rock
Mated position (constrained failure-worst case)
x θ

opposing interface 2λ
w
s Fig. 6. Simplified rigid asperity model for slope-stability analysis
predictions.
rock so

Critical shear displacement for transition from

constrained to unconstrained failure. argument, asperities will fail when the local stress is
equal to the ‘‘constrained’’ failure stress, qc ; computed

at ly
by the corrected Sokolovsky solution.

in on
At the failure shear displacement, xf ; the joint

n
opposing interface
w dilation, c; for the rigid asperity is given by c ¼

io
s xf tan y and the global normal stress, sn ¼ sn0 þ

em se
rock so Kxf tan y: From the frictional asperity sliding model,
the global failure shear stress, tf ; is given by tf ¼

ss u
General position-unconstrained failure. sn tan ðfb þ yÞ:
di ch
Fig. 5. Determination of the ratio s=w in mated and displaced At failure, the local stress perpendicular to the face of
positions. the asperity, snl ; can be determined as
or ar
snl ¼ ðsn0 þ Kxf tan yÞ
e

Table 1  ðcos y þ sin y tanðfb þ yÞÞ2l=ðl
xf Þ: ð7Þ

ng s

Comparison of EMU and Sokolovsky solutions

yi re

Defining a shape factor, zy ¼ cos y þ sin y tanðfb þ

Asperity s0 Predicted failure stress, qf EMU yÞ; and equating the local stress and the normal
w
op al

angle a1 (MPa) Sokolovsky component of the corrected Sokolovsky failure stress,

scr ; allows the failure shear displacement to be obtained
r c on

EMU Sokolovsky
as
0.0 1.86 16.35 15.89 1.029
fo rs

5.0 1.73 12.93 12.62 1.025 lðscr
2zy sn0 Þ

10.0 1.62 10.27 10.03 1.024 xf ¼ : ð8Þ
scr þ 2lzy k tan y
ot pe

12.5 1.58 9.14 8.94 1.023

15.0 1.54 8.10 7.96 1.018 The global failure shear stress, tf ; can hence be
17.5 1.51 7.16 7.09 1.010 computed as
N r

22.5 1.45a 5.54 5.61 0.986

Fo

27.5 1.41a 4.37 4.42
a
Extrapolated values, as s0 =w undefined for a > 22:51:
maximum value of s0 =s is therefore 1.58, which implies a
maximum correction factor, k ¼ 1:09 for this asperity
angle. That is, corrections necessary to the Sokolovsky
solution are relatively modest.
In order to validate that the Sokolovsky solution
(with correction as necessary) was appropriate to model
asperity failure, this approach was applied to prediction
of the global shear stress at failure, tf ; for the triangular
asperity tests. For the purposes of this validation, a
simplified rigid asperity model was adopted. The
interfaces are assumed to comprise regular symmetrical
asperities of angle, y; and half-length, l (Fig. 6). The
initial global normal stress is designated, sn0 ; and the
global stiffness, K. On the basis of the preceding
0.986 tf ¼ tanðfb þ yÞðsn0 þ Kxf tan yÞ: ð9Þ
Fig. 7 compares the experimentally determined global
failure shear stresses for the regular triangular asperity
tests with predictions from the rigid asperity model. The
stress reduction factor of 1.38 has been applied to the J/J
tests. In general, predicted peak shear stress values are
within 5–10% of the experimental values, which is
considered to be within the expected scatter of the
experimental results.
Deformations have not been taken into account in
this simple model. Dilation in the shear test will be
reduced by asperity elastic compression. This results in a
slower development of normal and shear stresses than
assumed in the ideal rigid assumption. Experimental
evidence confirmed that contact lengths at failure were
shorter than those predicted by the simple model.
This comparison supports the contention that the
failure mechanism of regular triangular asperities in
544 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553
2000
5 deg (J/C)
10 deg (J/C)
12.5 deg (J/C)
15 deg (J/C)
1600
Predicted Shear Stress (kPa)
17 deg (J/C)
22.5 deg (J/C)
27.5 deg (J/C)
5 deg (J/J)
1200 10 deg (J/J)
20 deg (J/J)
800
400
0
0 400 800
Measured Peak Shear Stress (kPa)
Fig. 7. Predicted and measured global failure shear stresses for J/C
and J/J joints containing regular triangular asperities.
weak rocks such as Johnstone is analogous to a slope-
stability failure, and can be modelled using the
Sokolovsky analytical solution. It is recognized that
this failure mechanism will be affected in natural rock by
unfavourably oriented planes of weakness. This ap-
yi re
proach has been found to be applicable to other weak
rocks, but does not appear to apply to harder rocks such
op al
as basalt and granite [3].
It should also be noted from Fig. 4 and Eqs. (2)–(4)
r c on
that the Sokolovsky solution is a function only of the
material strength parameters, the load orientation and
fo rs
the asperity angle. As the solution involves no dimen-
ot pe
sional term, the solution is scale-independent. This
suggests that this approach can be applied equally to the
evaluation of joints with small scale roughness, e.g. pile
N r
Fo
sockets or rock blocks in an underground excavation, or
to large scale roughness, such as at the interface of a
concrete gravity dam with the founding rock or for a
major rock slide.
2.3. Post-peak behaviour
The Sokolovsky closed-form solution described in the
previous section is also convenient in that it defines the
geometry of the failure surface (Fig. 4). As pointed out
in the previous section, the failure surface geometry, and
the failure strength are functions of asperity angle,
independent of any linear dimension. It follows that all
the material bounded by the failure surface, the slope,
and the loaded portion of the crest will simultaneously
reach failure, and reach residual strength. However, the
rigidity of the opposing asperity which imposes the crest
load superimposes a kinematic restraint on the failure
mechanism which ensures that the failure surface must
emanate from the rear of the applied load.
%
Observation of video camera records of the shear tests
0
+1
on profiles comprising only regular triangular asperities
0% confirms the development of a curved failure surface
-1 emanating from the apex of the loading concrete
asperity, and intersecting the trailing face of the rock
asperity, as shown in Fig. 8. The geometry of the
observed failure surfaces, and in particular the location
of the intersection point on the trailing rock face, are
predicted reasonably well by the closed-form solution of
Sokolovsky.
However, during the laboratory tests, it was observed
that further shear displacement did not occur on the
curved failure surface, but rather on a chord linking the
at ly
1200 1600 2000 intersection points of the initial failure surface with the
in on
leading and trailing asperity faces (see Fig. 8). The
n
inclination of this chord is defined in Sokolovsky’s
io
method by the angle of the slope, and the relative
em se
lengths of slope distance, s0 ; to load width, w; as given in
Eq. (5). This chord defines the lower planar surface for
ss u
shear movement. As noted, this model has been
di ch postulated on the basis of experimental observation
alone, and has not been derived from theoretical
or ar
considerations.
e
ng s
2.4. Post-peak friction angle
It is apparent from the previous discussions that the
planar shear surface along which the rock wedge moves
is entirely within failed material at residual strength
(f ¼ 24:51; c ¼ 0 kPa). The failed rock between this
shear surface and the opposing asperity is effectively a
granular material, held in place by the high local
confining stresses. Fig. 9 shows the sheared asperity
after some post-peak displacement has already occurred,
and it is evident that part of the zone of sheared material
extends beyond the trailing face of the failed rock
asperity, where it is unconfined, and spalls as debris
down the trailing face.
Careful examination of the video records reveals that
the zone of granular material exhibits a rolling motion
at the contacts with both the opposing intact asperity
and the rock shear plane. This is accompanied by
relative motion both of the zone of granular material
with respect to the intact rock, and of the opposing
intact asperity with respect to the granular zone.
As shown in Fig. 10, a relative post-failure movement
of dx between the opposing and rock asperities is
composed of movements of both the opposing asperity
and the failed rock, and between the failed and intact
rock. For the sake of analysis, the movement on the
post-peak shear plane (angle b) is denoted as e dx.
The movement between the opposing asperity and the
compressed granular material (angle y) is then
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553 545

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of post-peak shear failure.

at ly
in on
n
io
em se
ss u
di ch
or ar

Fig. 9. Schematic representation of post-peak shear displacement.

e
ng s
yi re
op al
r c on
fo rs
ot pe
N r
Fo

Fig. 10. Relative sliding movements of failure wedge.

ð1
eÞ dx. The ratio, e; is dependent on the relative
angles of the two planes.
In order to determine the value of e; two idealized
limiting cases are shown in Fig. 11. For the two parallel
planes separated by rollers, a movement dx of the upper
plane relative to the fixed plane will cause a movement
dx=2 of the rollers. For this limiting case, therefore,
e ¼ 0:5: For the two planes inclined at a relative angle of
ðp=2
fÞ; dilation of the upper plane is not possible,
and a movement dx of the upper plane relative to the
fixed plane, therefore causes a movement dx of the
rollers. In this case, e ¼ 1:0:
From the limiting cases, it can be seen that the relative
movement between the rollers and each plane is a
function of the friction angle, and the inclination of the
planes. The general equation which applies is found to
be
e ¼ tanðfb þ yÞ=½tanðfb þ yÞ tanðfb þ bÞ: ð10Þ
Using an energy approach similar to Ladanyi and
Archambault [7], Seidel and Haberfield [9] were able to
derive the following expressions for the required
components of shear force.
For the component required to dilate (or contract)
against the normal force:
t1 ¼ sn ðe tan b þ ð1
eÞ tan yÞ: ð11Þ
546 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

Table 2
Post-peak friction angles for regular triangular asperities

Asperity Failure plane angle b1 Post-peak friction angle (1)

angle a1
Predicted Observed Predicted Observed

5.0
1.3
4.2 25.9 27.5

10.0
2.4
6.5 26.8 27.5
12.5
2.9
2.6 27.0 27.0
15.0
3.3
3.4 27.2 27.2
17.5
3.7
6.3 27.5 27.5
22.5
4.2
5.9 27.8 27.5
27.5
4.6
5.7 27.8 o30a
a
Residual had not been reached when the test was terminated.

at ly
Simple application of Patton’s Eq. (1) in the post-

in on
peak phase during which the joint contracts (implying a

n
negative value of y) would result in a predicted post-

io
Fig. 11. Limiting cases for sliding between two planes.
peak friction angle less than the residual friction angle of

em se
24.51. In fact, all the observed post-peak friction angles
It should be noted that where b is a negative angle, exceed the residual friction angle, and are relatively

ss u
this implies some release of energy. constant for all asperity angles (27.01 to 27.51). The
di ch
The additional friction due to contraction on the values predicted by Eq. (15) are also in excess of the
shear plane (or dilation if the shear plane is a positive residual friction angle and on average only 0.41 less than
or ar
angle), is given by observed (range from 25.91 to 27.81).
e

t2 ¼ t tan fjtan bj: ð12Þ

ng s
yi re

As the concrete asperity of the opposing interface 2.5. Multiple asperity model
physically follows the post-peak shear plane, no
op al

component due to additional work from dilation at As argued in the introduction to this paper, the fractal
the angle of the concrete asperity is needed. model of roughness [5] allows one to simulate complex
r c on

The final component of sliding friction, t3 ; remains profiles as a series of triangular asperities of constant
unchanged, i.e. length. Both the included angle of the asperities and the
fo rs

orientation may vary, as dictated by the particular

t3 ¼ sn tan f ð13Þ
ot pe

profile being simulated [1]. The behaviour of the profile

leading to can be determined by accounting for interaction effects
between asperities and summing the responses from
N r

sn ftan fb þ e tan b þ ð1
eÞ tan yg

Fo

t¼ ð14Þ individual asperities. This approach has been used to

½1 þ tan fb tan b
extend the single asperity model to irregular profiles
and by substitution from Eq. (10): containing multiple asperities.

sn ftanðfb þ yÞðtan fb þ tan bÞ þ tanðfb þ bÞðtan fb þ tan yÞg

t¼ : ð15Þ
½1 þ tan fb tan b½tanðfb þ yÞ þ tanðfb þ bÞ

The Sokolovsky failure plane angles and the predicted
post-peak friction angles (computed from Eq. (15)) for
regular triangular concrete/Johnstone joints are com-
pared with observed values in Table 2. The predicted
failure plane angles, b; progressively increase from
1.31
to
4.61 for asperity angles from 51 to 27.51. By
comparison, the observed failure plane angles vary in an
irregular manner from
2.61 to
6.31. On average, the
predicted failure plane angles are 1.81 less than those
observed.
In a theoretical profile comprising rigid asperities of
varying angle, shear displacement is accompanied by
dilation on the steepest asperity face. All other asperities
are lifted out of contact. The total sample load is
concentrated on a single asperity (the steepest), resulting
in very high local stresses. By contrast, in the same
profile comprising compressible asperities, the deform-
ability of the sample ensures that load is shared between
asperities of different angles. If the high local stress
computed for the steepest asperity in the rigid profile
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553
were imposed on the equivalent compressible asperity,
the accompanying deformations would result in recon-
tact with other asperities of lower inclination. As a
consequence, sliding occurs not only on the currently
steepest asperity slope, but also on asperities of lower
slope angles [20].
The energy approach of Ladanyi and Archambault [7]
can be used to establish the sliding resistance of an
individual asperity of angle y; within an interface
dilating at angle y0 ; which is greater than y: The imposed
asperity normal stress is sn (Fig. 12). This problem
differs from the solution for a rigid asperity only in as
much as the dilation angle is y0 ; not the asperity angle y:
By assuming that the deformation of the asperities is
elastic, it can be shown that the additional increment of
at ly
work, dW ; required to dilate against the imposed
in on
normal stress over a shear displacement, dx; and the
n
increment of strain energy, dU; released by the faster
io
rate of dilation are equal and opposite, i.e.
em se
dW ¼
dU ¼ dxðtan y0
tan yÞsn : ð16Þ
ss u
As there is no change in the energy requirement for
di ch
shear displacement, the shear force required to slide on
the elastic asperity is shown to be a function of the
or ar
asperity geometry, independent of the interface dilation
angle. The global shear force required for sliding of an
e
elastic joint profile comprising n asperities of variable
ng s
angles, yj ; will be the sum of the individual asperity
yi re
shear forces. The global shear stress is then given by
1X
op al
n deformation profile in a one-dimensional zone of
t¼ aj snj tanðfb þ yj Þ; ð17Þ
A j¼1
r c on
where A is the total joint plan area, and aj and anj are
fo rs
the contact areas of, and normal stresses acting on the
ot pe
individual asperities. As it is a general equation, no
distribution of asperity angles is implied. The equation
holds for elastic asperities, because the potential energy
N r
Fo
components in Ladanyi and Archambault’s rigid asper-
ity analysis which reduce due to elasticity effects are
exactly compensated for by an increase in stored strain
energy in the asperity [9].

n
dψ
 implementation of these solutions into a micro-mechan-
ψ A more practical solution is to adopt the analogy of a
′

x technique used by geotechnical engineers for the
Fig. 12. Schematic representation of general asperity geometry.
547
A further consequence of the deformations in an
elastic profile is that the distribution of stresses between
adjoining asperities is non-uniform. The distribution of
loads between individual asperities is a complex function
of asperity angles, the relative position of asperities, and
the ratio of contact area to sample depth. Under the
assumption of elasticity, the deformation field and the
distribution of loads are uniquely related. It follows
therefore, that if the deformation field can be estab-
lished, the distribution of loads to individual asperities
can be computed using matrix methods and enforcing
global compatibility.
2.6. Asperity deformations
The deformation of individual asperities is derived
from two components; the deformation due to stresses
applied directly on an asperity’s surface and the
concomitant deformations resulting from loading of
other surrounding asperities. The zone of influence of
deformations around an individual asperity is a function
of the interface geometry. Again, deformations are
assumed to be elastic.
The CNS laboratory shear test samples are profiled in
such a way that the asperities are prismatic elements
which extend the full width of the sample. When these
asperities are loaded, the load will be applied in a strip
across the full face of the asperity. The load strip on
each contacting asperity face will produce an elastic
influence (along the length of the sample) about that
asperity. The deflection of every asperity in the profile
will be affected by the load on each asperity (including
itself).
In order to establish the distribution of load on
individual asperities in the test sample, it is necessary to
determine the compatible and unique set of asperity
elastic deformations and asperity stresses that match the
applied global stress. This distribution will be a function
of interface and individual asperity geometry, the
current shear displacement and contact lengths.
Unfortunately, the influence of a finite loaded area on
an elastic medium of finite depth is beyond simple
analysis and, to the knowledge of the authors, general-
ized elastic solutions are not available. Solutions could
be obtained from numerical techniques such as finite
element or boundary element solutions. However, the
ical solution approach would be cumbersome.
footing at the surface of a finite elastic medium
underlain by a rigid base. The approximate and
numerically convenient method of Steinbrenner [21]
was adopted. Steinbrenner’s method is a widely known
determination of the settlement of surface footings
548 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

situated on an elastic layer of finite depth. The method is of asperities in the profile. It is believed that violation of
based on the assumption that the vertical deflection, the assumption of a horizontal bounding surface will
DrD ; below the corner of a uniformly loaded rectangular not significantly affect the computation of relative
area on the surface of an elastic medium of finite depth, deflection profiles. Second, the computation only relates
D; is equal to the difference between the vertical to elastic deformations normal to the interface, and
displacement at the surface, Dr; and the vertical takes no account of shear deformations. Taking
displacement Dr0 at a depth D below the same loaded simultaneous account of normal and shear stresses,
area. although ideal, would add a significant level of
The settlement of points both within a uniformly computational complexity, and analysis time. It is
loaded area, and outside the loaded area can be rationalized that the distribution of shear stresses in
determined by algebraic summation. Thus, deforma- the sample will reflect the distribution of normal
tions in the zone of influence around each asperity can stresses, and that as a result, the net effect on
be estimated by this method. The method is particularly computation of relative deformations (and stresses)
attractive as a wide range of load width to depth ratios should be small.
can be accommodated.

at ly
The deflection profiles predicted by the Steinbrenner
2.7. Stress distribution determination

in on
method for a strip load are compared with the results of

n
a plane strain linear elastic finite element analysis using

io
As discussed in the previous section, the interface
the Strand6 package [22] in Fig. 13 for a the load width

em se
stress and deformation distributions are uniquely
to elastic depth ratio shown. The FE analyses were
related. By applying a unit stress to each asperity in
performed for rigid loaded areas, whereas the Stein-

ss u
turn, a vector of compliance values can be established to
brenner method assumes a uniform load (i.e. flexible
di ch relate displacements at every other asperity to the
area). The average deflections over the loaded area are
applied unit stress. A global compliance matrix can
used for comparison with the FE analyses. It can be seen
or ar
then be compiled for the entire profile. The stresses,
that the comparative deflection profiles, although not
however, are not known but must be determined. This
exactly in agreement, show reasonably close correlation
e

requires a reformulation of the problem by inversion of

for a variety of depth to load width ratios.
ng s

the compliance matrix to give a stiffness matrix-relating

yi re

Two limitations in the use of this approach are noted.

load on any asperity to a unit displacement of any other
First, the Steinbrenner method assumes an elastic layer
asperity. The relative displacements of the asperities are
op al

with horizontal upper and lower bounding surfaces.

fixed by geometrical considerations, and the absolute
Clearly, the asperity surface in this case is not
r c on

displacements can be determined using the equilibrium

horizontal. The authors adopted the average sample
equation established by the CNS condition which relates
height as the layer thickness. It is stressed, however, that
fo rs

global normal stress to dilation.

the Steinbrenner analysis is only undertaken in order to
A generalised interface profile is shown in Fig. 14 of
ot pe

establish the relative rather than absolute deformations

length, LT ; comprising n chords of equal horizontal
projected length, s: The depth of the elastic medium, D is
N r

adopted as the average depth of the rock sample, and

Fo

120 the load width, Lbs; to simulate the plane strain

conditions in a CNS direct shear test.
Percentages of loading strip deflection

Finite Element (Strand6)

Consider chord i loaded with stress, si : The stress
100
Steinbrenner Method applied to this chord alone will result in a displacement
profile such as that indicated in Fig. 15. The displace-
80 ment, rji ; of chord j due to the stress at chord i can be
evaluated from
si D
60 rji ¼ Iji ; ð18Þ
E

where the displacement influence factor, Iji is non-zero

40
within the zone of influence of chord i; and zero
elsewhere. By the form of this relationship, it can be seen
20 that this influence factor is essentially a multiplier of the
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 one-dimensional compression displacement. From con-
Distance from strip centreline (inhalf-width multiples) siderations of symmetry, it can also be shown that the
Fig. 13. Comparison of deflection profiles as determined from influence factor for the displacement of chord i due to
Steinbrenner and finite element analysis. loading of chord j is identical, i.e. Iji ¼ Iij :
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553 549

2000

2.00

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

1500

Dilation (mm)
1.00

1000

0.00
500
Normal stress (or dilation)
Shear stress
Predicted normal stress / dilation
Predicted shear stress
0

at ly
0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Shear Displacement (mm)

in on
n
io
1600 3
Fig. 14. Generalized CNS test profile parameters used in Steinbrenner Shear stress

em se
Predicted shear stress
method.

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Normal stress (or dilation)
Predicted normal stress/dilation

ss u
1200 2
di ch
Assuming the zone of influence extends for k chords1

Dilation (mm)
about the loaded chord i; the displacement influence
or ar
factors can be calculated at the mid-point of chords 800 1
i
k through to i þ k: Thus a stress at chord i will cause
e

displacements from chords i
k through to i þ k:

ng s
yi re

Conversely, the total displacement of chord i; ri ; will 400 0

result from the influence of stresses on chords i
k
through to i þ k:
op al

X 0 -1
r c on

iþk
Iij sj D 0 10 20 30 40 50
ri ¼ : ð19Þ
i
k
E (b) Shear Displacement (mm)
fo rs

Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and predicted responses for regular

If a uniform stress s ¼ si were applied to all chords,
ot pe

triangular joints. (a) J/C joint with 51 asperities and K ¼ 600 kPa/mm,
then the resultant one-dimensional compression of all sn0 ¼ 600 kPa. (b) J/J joint with 51 asperities and K ¼ 400 kPa/mm,
chords, r; would be given by sn0 ¼ 400 kPa.
N r

si D
Fo

r ¼ ri ¼ : ð20Þ
E
Since under these conditions, r ¼ ri ¼ rj and s ¼ From Eq. (18), it can be seen that the influence factors
si ¼ sj ; it can be shown that are multiplied by D/E to obtain the compliance factors,
Cji : The compliance factors, Cji ; are assembled in the
X
iþk X
iþk
Iij ¼ Iji ¼ 1: ð21Þ global compliance matrix, ½C; to represent the relative
i
k i
k influence of stress on any chord on the displacement of
any other chord, i.e. frg ¼ ½Cfsg:
That is, the sum of the influence factors pertaining to The stiffness matrix, ½S; is determined by matrix
any loaded chord must be equal to unity. It is noted that inversion in order to establish the stresses as a function
this is an artificial enforcement of Steinbrenner’s method of chord displacements, i.e.
on a finite sample. Any error in this summation due to
the effects of discretization of the profile or other fsg ¼ ½Sfrg where ½S ¼ ½C
1 : ð22Þ
inaccuracies are corrected by proportional adjustment The individual chord displacements, ri ; can be
of the individual influence factors. established from ri ¼ x tan yi
c; where x is the shear
1 displacement, yi ; is the angle of chord i; and c is the
The value of k is chosen such that the influence factors of asperity
i+k are extremely small. For the CNS samples, no limit was defined, total dilation of the interface, which must be deter-
and the influence of each asperity on every other asperity was taken mined. The dilation can be established from considera-
into account. tion of equilibrium normal to the interface. The global
550 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

normal stress boundary conditions including the initial Table 3

normal stress, sn0 and the global stiffness, K give rise to Engineering properties of Johnstone
the following equation: Saturated water content 15.5%
Secant Young’s modulus (50% peak load) 360 MPa
X
n
si wi ¼ LT ðsn0 þ KcÞ; ð23Þ Poisson’s ratio 0.25
Uniaxial compressive strength 3.5 MPa
i¼1
Drained cohesion 750 kPa
where wi is the load width on chord i; si is the projected Peak drained friction angle 361
Residual friction angle 24.51
length of the chord, and wi =si
x:

3. Comparison with laboratory test results 1600

4.00
The analytical models described above have been

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

incorporated into a computer program called Rocket

at ly
1200 3.00
[23] which allows the complex interactions to be solved

Dilation (mm)
in on
quickly. Comparisons between the computer simula-

n
tions and the laboratory tests are detailed hereafter.

io
2.00
These simulations do not purport to be ‘‘Class A’’ 800

em se
predictions [24]—they are made in hindsight, with the
tests on regular triangular asperities forming the 1.00

ss u
basis for the models which have been adopted.
di ch
However, since the various components of the models,
which cover asperity sliding, shearing and elastic
400
Normal stress (or dilation)
Shear stress
0.00
or ar
Predicted normal stress / dilation
distribution of stresses are based only on theoretical Predicted shear stress
concepts, it does not matter that the predictions are
e

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
made a posteriori.
ng s

(a) Shear Displacement (mm)

yi re

In order to carry out simulations of the direct

shear tests, the following basic input parameters are 1500 4
required:
op al

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

r c on

* Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the rock (for 1200 3

concrete/Johnstone joints the assumption is made

Dilation (mm)
fo rs

that the concrete is rigid relative to the rock);

900 2
peak drained cohesion and friction angle of the rock;
ot pe

* residual friction angle of the rock;

* geometry of the roughness profiles, i.e. chord length 600 1
N r

and inclination of each chord; and

Fo

* test boundary conditions; i.e. initial normal stress and

normal stiffness. 300 Shear stress 0
Predicted shear stress
Normal stress (ordilation)
Predicted normal stress/dilation
The following predictions are based on the average 0 -1
rock properties listed in Table 3, and the actual 0 10 20 30 40 50
roughness profiles and boundary conditions used in (b) Shear Displacement (mm)
the tests. Typical comparisons between actual and Fig. 16. Comparison of measured and predicted responses for regular
predicted responses of selected CNS tests on regular triangular joints. (a) J/C joint with 151 asperities and K ¼ 300 kPa/
triangular asperity profiles are presented in Figs. 15 and mm, sn0 ¼ 300 kPa. (b) J/J joint with 101 asperities and K ¼ 300 kPa/
mm, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa.
16. The shear stress, normal stress and dilation vs. shear
displacement predictions are compared in a single graph
for each test in these figures. In all cases, the left-hand
ordinate is in stress units; shear stress and normal stress evaluated from a single curve (using left and right
plots can be referred to this axis. In addition, the right- ordinates, respectively).
hand ordinate is in displacement units, and the interface Although predictions have been carried out for all
dilation can be determined from this axis. Because of the tests (which include regular triangular asperities varying
relationship between normal stress and dilation in a from 51 to 27.51 and a range of stress and stiffness
CNS test, both normal stress and dilation can be conditions), only comparisons for four tests on regular
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553 551

1200 1.00 1200 3.00

Normal stress (or dilation) Normal stress (or dilation)

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Shear stress Shear stress
Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Predicted normal stress / dilation Predicted normal stress/ dilation

900 Predicted shear stress 0.67 900 Predicted shear stress 2.00

Dilation(mm)

Dilation (mm)
600 0.33 600 1.00

300 0.00 300 0.00

-0.33 0 -1.00
(a) 0

at ly
0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20
(a) Shear Displacement (mm)

in on
Shear Displacement (mm)

n
io
1600 3 1600 3

em se
Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Shear stress Shear stress

ss u
Predicted shear stress Predicted shear stress
1200 Normal stress (ordilation) 2 1200 Normal stress (ordilation) 2
di ch
Predicted normal stress/dilation Predicted normal stress/dilation
Dilation (mm)

Dilation (mm)
or ar
800 1 800 1
e
ng s
yi re

400 0 400 0
op al
r c on

0 -1 0 -1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
(b) Shear Displacement (mm) (b) Shear Displacement (mm)
fo rs

Fig. 17. Comparison of measured and predicted responses for fractal Fig. 18. Comparison of measured and predicted responses for fractal
ot pe

joints. (a) J/C joint with Class A fractal profile and K ¼ 300 kPa/mm, joints. (a) J/C joint with Class B fractal profile and K ¼ 300 kPa/mm,
sn0 ¼ 900 kPa. (b) J/J joint with fractal profile with mean asperity sn0 ¼ 300 kPa. (b) J/J joint with fractal profile with mean asperity
angle of 51 and K ¼ 400 kPa/mm, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa. angle of 101 and K ¼ 400 kPa/mm, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa.
N r
Fo

triangular asperity profiles are included here. Similarly 4. Conclusions

close comparisons were obtained for all of the other
tests on regular asperity profiles. These figures clearly This paper describes the theoretical models developed
demonstrate that the sliding and shearing models to predict the shear behaviour of soft rock joints. The
adopted capture the essential behaviour of regular physical processes modelled include sliding between
triangular asperity profiles. rough surfaces of essentially elastic materials, asperity
Figs. 17–19 present corresponding observed and shearing, post-peak behaviour and load sharing between
predicted behaviour for fractal profiles [5] for various asperities in a complex interface.
constant normal stiffness and initial normal stress It has been shown that the analytical techniques are
conditions. All predictions are reasonably close. Close able to simulate the shear behaviour of interfaces
predictions were also obtained for the remaining fractal comprising simple triangular asperities. Furthermore,
tests. by taking account of elastic interactions between
Fig. 20 compares the measured and predicted asperities of varying angles, the shear behaviour of
peak shear stress for all tests on fractal profiles profiles with complex and random roughness can also be
involving Johnstone. Predictions lie within expected simulated with reasonable success.
experimental scatter and within 710% of the observed The simplicity of the models which underlie this
values. micro-mechanical simulation are duly acknowledged,
552 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553

1200 3.00 however, what is significant about the results is that the
Normal stress (or dilation)
shear behaviour of complex laboratory joint profiles in
Shear stress an artificial siltstone has been predicted on theoretical
Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Predicted normal stress / dilation

900 Predicted shear stress 2.00
grounds alone.

Dilation (mm)
600 1.00
Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding of this

work by the Australian Research Council, and the
300 0.00 financial support for Dr. Seidel’s Ph.D. candidature by
the Sir James McNeil Foundation.

0 -1.00
0 5 10 15 20

at ly
References
(a) Shear Displacement (mm)

in on
n
[1] Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. Laboratory testing of concrete–rock

io
1600 3
joints in constant normal stiffness direct shear. Geotech Test J,

em se
Shear stress
2002, accepted for publication.
Shear and Normal stress (kPa)

Predicted shear stress

Normal stress (ordilation) [2] Fleuter WF. Analytical and experimental investigation into the
Predicted normal stress/dilation

ss u
1200 2 shear performance of joints in soft sedimentary rocks. MEngSc
dissertation. Australia: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash
di ch University, 1997.
Dilation (mm)

[3] Pearce H. A micro-mechanical approach to the shear behaviour of

800 1
or ar
rock joints. Ph.D. dissertation. Australia: Department of Civil
Engineering, Monash University, 2001, in preparation.
e

[4] Johnston IW, Choi SK. A synthetic soft rock for laboratory
model studies. Geotechnique 1986;36(2):251–63.
ng s

400 0
[5] Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. Towards an understanding of joint
yi re

roughness. Int J Rock Mech Rock Eng 1995;28(2):69–92.

[6] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. Proc 1st
op al

0 -1 Cong Int Soc Rock Mech Lisbon 1966;1:509–13.

0 5 10 15 20 25 [7] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of shear behaviour of a
r c on

(b) Shear Displacement (mm) jointed rock mass. In: Somerton WH, editor. Rock mechanics;
theory and practice. Proc 11th Symp on Rock Mechanics,
Fig. 19. Comparison of measured and predicted responses for fractal
fo rs

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, New York 1970.

joints. (a) J/C joint with Class C fractal profile and K ¼ 300 kPa/mm, p. 105–25.
ot pe

sn0 ¼ 300 kPa. (b) J/J joint with fractal profile with mean asperity [8] Lam TSK, Johnston IW. Shear behaviour of regular triangular
angle of 151 and K ¼ 400 kPa/mm, sn0 ¼ 400 kPa. concrete/rock joints—evaluation. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
1989;115:728–40.
N r

1000 [9] Indraratna B, Haque A. Shear behaviour of rock joints.

Fo

Class A (J/C) Rotterdam: Balkema, 2000.

%

Class B (J/C) [10] Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. The application of energy principles to
0
Predicted Shear Stress (kPa)

+1

Class C (J/C)
the determination of the sliding resistance of rock joints. Int J
800 Class D (J/C)
5 deg (J/J) Rock Mech Rock Eng 1995;28(4):211–26.
10 deg (J/J) 0% [11] Lam TSK. Shear behaviour of concrete–rock joints. Ph.D.
15 deg (J/J) -1
dissertation. Australia: Department of Civil Engineering, Monash
600 University, 1983.
[12] Kodikara JK. Shear behaviour of rock–concrete joints, side
resistance of piles in weak rock. Ph.D. dissertation. Australia:
400 Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, 1989.
[13] Kodikara JK, Johnston IW. Shear behaviour of irregular
triangular rock–concrete joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1994;31(4):313–22.
200 [14] Johnston IW, Lam TSK. Shear behaviour of regular triangular
concrete/rock joints—analysis. ASCE J Geotech Eng 1989;
115(5):711–27.
0 [15] Nelson J. M.Sc. thesis. MIT, 1977.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 [16] Sokolovsky VV. States of soil media, 2nd ed. [Jones DH,
Measured Peak Shear Stress (kPa) Schofield AN, Trans.]. London: Butterworth Scientific Publica-
tions, 1960.
Fig. 20. Predicted vs. measured peak shear stress for J/C and J/J [17] Kreyzig E. Advanced engineering mathematics, 3rd ed. New
joints. York: Wiley, 1972.
 J.P. Seidel, C.M. Haberfield / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 539–553 553

[18] Giam PSK, Donald IB. Soil stability analysis by an upper bound
plasticity method. Civil Engineering Research Report No. 2/1989,
Monash University, ISSN 0155-6282, ISBN 0 86746 914 5, 1989.
[19] Donald IB, Chen Z. Slope stability analysis by the upper bound
approach: fundamentals and methods. Can Geotech J 1997;
34(6):853–62.
[20] Haberfield CM, Johnston IW. A mechanistically based model for
rough rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1994;31(4):279–92.
[21] Steinbrenner W. Tafeln zur Setzungsberechnung. Die Strasse
1934;1:121–4.
[22] G and D Computing. STRAND6, Version 6.0 Manual—Elastic
and non-linear finite element software package, 1991.
[23] Seidel JP. Rocket Ver 1.0 manual. Software package for
the simulation of drilled shaft load deflection response,
1994.
[24] Lambe TW. Predictions in soil engineering. 13th Rankine lecture.
Geotechnique 1973;23(2):149–202.

at ly
in on
n
io
em se
ss u
di ch
or ar
e
ng s
yi re
op al
r c on
fo rs
ot pe
N r
Fo