Eurock '93, Ribeiro e Sousa & Grossmann (eds) 1993 Balkema, Rotterdam 90 54103396

Strength directionality in cyclic joint shear tests

Directionalit de la rsistance au cisaillement pendant des essais cicliques sur discontinuits rocheuses Richtungsabhngigkeit der Festigkeit bei zykJischen Scherversuchen an Klften
Giovanni Crosta
Dip. Scienze della Terra, Milano.Italy

ABSTRACT: Joint shear strength dependence on shear direction and sense is of major importance during cyclic shear. In fact, cyclic tests are particularly useful to simulate dynamic loads or shear load reversals so frequently observed in nature. Some simple laboratory tests have been performed at constant normal load on a massive serpentinitic rock. Results, in accordance with previous authors, are presented with particular regard to shear strength, shear stiffness and asperity degradation. ~SUME': La dependence entre la resistence au cisaillement a une grande importance pendant un CIsaillement ciclique. En effect, les tests cicliques sont particulierment utiles pour simuler les charges dynamiques et les inversion du charge de cisaillement, qui sont frequentes en nature. On a fait des tests de laboratoire avec des roches serpentiniques massives sous un charge normale et constante. On pre.sente les resultes, qui sont en accord avec les precendes auteurs, avec particuliere attention pour la reSlstence et la rigidit au cisaillement et la degradation des asperites. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Bei wechselnder Scherbeanspruchung h ngt die K1uftscherfestigkeit in hohem Ma13e von der Scherrichtung und dem Schersinn ab. Zur Simulation von dynamischen Belastungen und der Scherspannungsumkehr, die hufig in der Natur beobachtet warden, sind Scherversuche mit ",:echselnden Beanspruchungen besonders geeignet. Unter Normallast wurden an massivem Serpentinit eInfache Laborversuche durchgef hrt. Die Ergebnisse werden, in bereinstimmung mit anderen ~uto~en, unter besonderer Ber cksichtigung der Scherfestigkeit, der Scherungsteifigkeit und der auhlgkeitsverluste vorgestellt.

I. INTRoDUCTION The behaviour of rock joints during cyclic or ~eversal shear has been recognised as anisotropic ~cause of its dependence on both the shear d Ire f G c IOn and the shear sense (Celestino & Moodman, 1979; Hutson & Dowding, 1990; th uralha & Pinto da Cunha, 1990). During shear, e d s.trength and deformability of rock ISCOntmuities are in continuous evolution and the ;eC~anical properties of the discontinuities PamInate the response of the entire rock mass. s~esent and previous normal and shear loads, r ear displacement, shear direction and shear ate camp . d . . , ressive strength of intact rock an JOInt Walls . , together with some scale-dependent

parameters as joint roughness, waviness and infling material, are the main factors influencing joint behaviour under a shearing action. Other parameters influencing joint behaviour are joint asperity degradation and the initial aperture (gap width). The accumulation of shear displacement in laboratory tests by changing the sense of shearing but not the direction represents one of the best ways to model seismic loads, cyclic shear loads or the unloading of previously sheared discontinuity, reaching amounts of displacement large enough to mobilize the entire range of discontinuity shear strength, from the peak up to the residual shear strength. As a consequence, displacement accumulation

519

TABLE I - Val Malenco properties

Serpentinite

mechanical

28.6 kN/m3 Dry Density Schmidt Hammer Hardness (R) - smooth surface 50-;-55 - rough surface 35 Schmidt H. Compressive Strength - smooth surface 188.8 MPa - rough surface 90.\ MPa Point Load Strength (oc) 165.5 MPa - normal to schistosity 83.7 MPa - parallel to schistosity 1.98 - Anisotropy Index Base Friction Angle (<Pb) - Tilt Test 23 - Direct Shear Test 23 Measured Peak Friction Angle (<l>pcak) - Direct Shear Test 26.7747.4 Joint Roughness Coefficient (1RC) - Shape Tracer O~ 13

schistosity plane and hence joint roughness changed from one sample to another. Joint roughness is one of the most important properties of rock discontinuities and for this reason, each joint surface was characterized by estimating the joint roughness coefficient (1RC) by both a shape tracer and a profilometer. This analysis resulted in 1RC and 1RC from Z2 (Tse & Cruden, \979) values adopted for an "a priori" shear strength envelope computation based on Barton's empirical equation (Barton & Choubey, 1977). The mechanical properties of tested rocks are summarized in table 1. A series of tilt tests (three tests for each of the 31 specimens) were executed on rough and smooth joint surfaces. No damage was observedon the joint surface as sliding occurred. A first estimate of friction angle and joint roughness was obtained through the Barton - Choubey's model (1977). Tilt tests pointed out a major limit for 1RC value larger than 8-10 resulting in clearly unreliable shear strength values when the upper half of the sample toppled instead of sliding along the joint surface. Three types of experimental studies have been designed for the simulation of joint dynamiC loadings: shear reversal or cyclic tests (Celestino & Goodman, 1979; Hutson & Dowding, 1990), single high velocity shear, in one or two direction~, and stick-slip experiments. For this work, a cycliC shear methodology was chosen because of apparatus availability, major interest in slow and continuous shear displacement accumulation and in joint behaviour during shear sense reversal. The cyclic shear tests, performed in a conventional shear-box at constant normal load, consisted of a total of three direct (also called push or forward shears in the following) and two reverse shearings (pull or backward shear). Each one of the five shearings, regardless of the shear sense, consisted in a 20 mm displacement amounting to almost 20% deformation for the 100 mm long samples, parallel to schistosity, at constant normal load and shear rate. Consequently, the maximum cumulated f shear displacement was 100 mm. This number 0 cycles can be considered sufficient, for a study on seismic effects, because earthquakes with more than three significant displacement pulses ar; usually considered uncommon (Hutson Dowding, 1990). Normal load (0), constant during each shear,

and joint properties under cyclic shear, could be of major importance for slope stability analyses in seismically active areas, expecially along presheared planes as in corrispondence of faults. In fact, examples of reverse shear movement can be imagined as a consequence of pressure release, due to surficial or underground excavations, where shear displacements were previously induced. In spite of the enourmous importance that cyclic shear and stress-path have in the, stressdeformation behaviour of rock joints few data have been published (Celestino & Goodman, 1979; Barton, 1988; Hutson & Dowding, 1990). In this work, laboratory tests have been performed to obtain some information on the behaviour of serpentinitic rocks under cyclic joint shear.

2. EXPERIMENT AL

WORK

To study the directional dependence of joint friction, a complete series of cyclic shear tests were performed on air dried artificially opened joints with a surface area ranging between 80 and 120 cm2 without actually examine any scale effect. Rock samples consist of green schistose serpentine (greenstones) of a massive variety (chloritic schist) and were collected from a quarry in Val Malenco (Italy) where the material is extracted for construction and craftworks. Artificial joints were created by opening massive blocks along a

520

ranged between 0.98 and 5.88 MPa. In particular, different tests were conducted at 0.98, 1.96, 2.94, 3.92,4.90 and 5.88 MPa. From the reported values (Table f) results that the alae ratio (normal stress to unconfined compressive strength) ranged from 0.006 to 0.036. Velocity, even if important (Crawford & Curran, ) 98), must be considered a secondary factor for shear strength, excepted for eXtremely wide ranges of variation. The relative shear velocity adopted between the two halves of the shear box ranged between 2 and 3 mm/minute. Finally, it is worth mentioning for its influence On experimental results the most common problem with this experimental technique and reported in the literature as "joint seating". Seating Consists of negative bulking or decreasing dilation acCOmpanying continued back and forth shearing as a consequence of loss of shearing produced gauge.

6000

5000

JRC-23 1RC- 6-S

~
~

4000

1RC-SIO
o 1Re 10-12

3000

- - - .- 1RC- 2
; 2000

--1RC-6 ----1RC- 10
1Re 12

1000

--0--

2000
NORMAL

4000
STRESS (kPa)

6000

Fig. 1. Shear stress/normal failure envelopes according Choubey's criterion.

stress plot and to the Barton-

3. PEAK STRENGTH

AND

RESIDUAL

SHEAR

Peak shear strength of rock joints has been a Subject of interest for many years and different equations have been suggested to define shear strength envelopes and their change as a Consequence of scale effects. Tn fact, it is well established that shear strength increases with nOrmal compressive stress, resulting in slightly curved failure envelope. To evaluate the quality of the experimental data, peak shear strength values ;ere Compared with the power law model and the arton-Choubey's model (1977; fig. I). Both rno?els offers a good fit but the last one adopts easily evaluable data to characterize joint ~~ometry and material properties. Figure I shows e extremely good correlation found from the comparison. We see the flattening of the failure envelopes for higher normal load (a) levels, more pronounced in correspondence of (a) 4.90 MPa, and the shear strength dependence from the IRC value F di . rom the shear stress versus shear Isplacement curves (fig . 2a , b) , we see the small rel . 2"h atlve shear displacement (0.7 to 2 mm, 0.7 to O tOh erof csample size) to reach peak resistance. . .eatures are the shear strength peak VanIsh' . e 109 WIth the increase of normal load level, r xcept for samples of small surface area and high coughness coefficients, with increasing number of lCI~s and ultimately the cumulation of shear ISp acement in the same direction. Finally, a

hardening behaviour and a peak migration is often recognized within the tests though the residual shear strength zone of the various curves tend to correspond from one cycle to another. The residual shear strength has been defined for each shear in both directions. Figure 3a shows a strikingly good and regular relationship between averaged values of the residual friction angle and the shear direction and normal load. The residual shear strength slightly increases going through successive shears, both on direct (forward) and reverse (backward) shear while it shows a more regular trend in backward shears. Eventually, one would judge as impressive the extremely low values found for some backward shears, lower than the base friction angle (Ih = 230) determined by means of tilt and direct shear tests, on perfectly smooth surfaces.

4. PEAK SHEAR

STIFFNESS

Joint stress-deformation behaviour, under certain normal and shear stresses, is described by: kM
kIfS

( dv) du

where Jc.n and kss are the normal and shear stiffnesses, respectively. Stiffness parameters are stress (e.g.: log Ksi log an plot subdivided in four zones using friction angle and peak shear displacement; Infanti & Kanji, 1990) and scale

521

12

2.5

'"
E-

E .
-20 20

z,;

."

0-

-20 -10
dh (mm)

-10

10

-0.5
dh (mm)

.-

1st Forward

Sh.

l st Backward Sh.

2nd Forward Sil.

2nd Backward

Sh.

-,

Fig. 2a. Shear strength/shear displacement plot. Displacement is reported as for a cycle even if joints were simply sheared and then backward sheared during the test up to a complete recomposition.

Fig. 2b. Dilation plot for the same sample as in fig. 2a. Closure is negative in sign, dilation is positive.

dependent (Barton, 1990; Bandis, 1990). Furthermore, stiffness is dependent on roughness, joint aperture, infilling properties, test apparatus and is dependent by the initial degree of interlocking which is logically a function of the previous normal and shear stress history and, consequently, of previous shear cycles number and modality (fig. 2a). For example, matched and unmatched joints will result in different behaviors in function also of the experimental stage in which these different conditions are realized. An unmatched joint after forward shear displacement has been completely recovered, will induce dilation and an increase in shear strength during the next forward shear only after the occurrence of some horizontal displacement (fig. 2a, b) in order to engage the most important and controlling (influencing) asperities (Sun et al., 1985; Hutson & Dowding, 1990), unmatched or separated by some just mechanically formed gauge infilling. This behaviour seems typical of joints with increasing infilling thickness, as recently reported by Papaliangas et al. (1990). In fact, during laboratory tests shear stiffness resulted generally decreasing through the cycles in the forward shear direction (from category I to 1IJ according to Sun et al., 1985). Furthermore, it was found that shear stiffness for the first forward cycle is about 1.1 -i- 2.0 times the stiffness of the two following cycles. The average trend followed

by the shear stiffness from the first forward shearto the third one are summarized in figure 3b. An opposite trend was found for stiffness in the backward (reversed) shear direction. The stiffness values for the first backward shear always result ~o lower values with respect to the forward shears, 10 the ratio of about I: 1 up to I :6. A slight increase is always observable for the successive backward shears. From fig. 3b the increase of peak shear stiffness isevident as the convergence of the f averaged recorded values with the increase 0 applied normal loads. Test results show that shear stiffness of rough competent joints and weaker smooth joints converges with the increase of the applied stress level (fig. 3b and especially fig. 4), in accordance with Barton (1990) who speaks also about the block size effect on shear stiffness. ASPERrrY

5. DILATION DEGRADA TIaN

AND

JOINT

Dilation plots for forward shears are usuallY characterised by a first compressive zone, up to the peak shear stress, for a 0.7 -i- 2 mm she~ displacement (see fig. 2b), a second long an regularly steep dilational zone and eventually a third zone, difficult to reach for low normal loads within this range of shear displacements, where deformation continues at constant volume. It haS

522

e ~
~ 30

4000

~ 8 ~
fa
~

20

10

-c
ISI forward I st backward 2nd forward SHEAR STAGE 2nd backward Jrd forward

ISI forward

151bacl:ward

2nd forward
SHEAR STAGE

2nd backward

3rd forward

la:

-.-

9S1 kl'lI

11)61 kP.1

2~2kP.1

3923

kJJa

Fig. 3a. Variation in the measured residual friction angle (averaged from different tests) as a function of the shearing sense and the applied normal load.

Fig. 3b. Variation in the measured shear stiffness (averaged from different tests) as a function of the shearing sense and the applied normal load.

been observed that with the increase of the normal load level the compressive zone becomes more important while the third or constant one v~lume zone becomes flatter and well developed. Dilation Curves are slowly shifted downward from ~ycle to another and increasing normal load. The In~reased importance of the compressive phase is eVident running through the cycles. B~ckward shear dilation curves are always slightly shifted upward with respect to the forward ~orr<?spondent in spite of their parallelism. ~rther, the shifting seems to slightly increase With the applied normal load. Eventually, as a result of the upward shift, the backward dilational ?at~s stop at positive values different from the ~nIlJ.alzero values and remaining roughly constant rom One cycle to another. Such a behaviour was ~ry important in some tests as sometimes it was e change in the starting dilation value for the sUCcessive forward shears. In fact, a compressive Stage shows up during the tests at the beginning of ~ach shear with progressively increased I~Portance <JI.uringthe second and third forward ~hears. This ,compression could be attributed to in;ilr~compaction of mechanically produced gouge Co .lIng at the end of each backward shear and in rnSpondenc~ of the shear load release. During some tests it has been observed, upon a Complete she.ar load release at the end of each

forward shear, a backward horizontal displacement perhaps due to a "downhill" movement under normal load action, resulting in a sudden joint compression successively regained by the consequent reverse shear load application (see fig. 2a, b).

6. DISCUSSION Peak and residual shear strength, as previously reported in literature (Barton & Choubey, 1977; Krahn & Morgenstern, 1979; Bandis, 1990) are functions of various parameters. Besides the classical parameters, shearing direction and sense are probably the most important, together with joint size, because they induce an anisotropic behavior of the joint. Shear strength falls abruptly when shear direction is reversed during a test and the definition of the ultimate friction resistance becomes complicated (Krahn & Morgenstern, 1979), especially when .the load reversal is repeated several times as for seismic loads, but not so many to induce values convergence (fig. 2a,

3a).
Dilation and joint asperity degradation occur at the same rate while shear displacement increases in one direction. We can compute the forward frictional resistance as sum of the residual friction angle (4),), the mobilized dilation angle (dmob)

523

1.6E-!J3 10,7 1961 1.2E-!J3 9.5 981

.10,7

1Re VALUES
aVALUF.S(kP.)

~ ~ ~
~5

8.5 1961

981 8.0E-!J4

~i
i
0 u

~ ~

4,OE-04

6.9 39ZJ 11.6 6.5 3.3 1961 2942 1941 8.9 8.6 .39ZJ 2 1961 39ZJ 4,Q 8.3 2941- 1941 2.5 58lU

'.

.1H1.
8.5 58lU 8.9 12.2 ' 904

.-.

12.8 11.6" 102 39ZJ .904 !I8lu

O.OE+OO 1000 2000 3000

(kPa)

4000

5000

SHEAR STRESS

Fig. 4. Shear compliance component (inverse of the shear stiffness)/shear stress plot. IRC and o values, increasing towards the right hand side of the plot, are reported for each point. (Celestino & Goodman, 1979; Johnston & Lam, 1989; Xu & Freitas, 1990), or geometric component of the friction, and the asperity degradation component, expressed by an angle, corresponding to the frictional resistance induced by wearing, breaking off and grinding of the asperities (w; expressed as R = IRC * Log [JCS/onl by Barton & Bandis, 1982) at different scales (primary and secondary asperities):
lforward

Ir

+ dmob + w.

As a consequence of reversing the shear load direction, according to Celestino and Goodman (1979), a "downhill sliding" occurs and a negative or subtractive dilation takes place (some opposite situation could be imposed by differently inclined shearing planes through the asperities, Johnston & Lam, 1989; Xu & Freitas, 1990), without breaking off minor order asperities, up to values lower then the base friction value, so we write:
lbackward

Ir -

dmob + w.

dependence because of the continuous and progressive change observable in the role of steep and small asperities and of joint waviness with the joint size increase. On the other hand, the contribution given by the asperity degradation will be minimal for smooth surfaces, very low%e ratios and backward shears, in consequence of the directional dependence of asperity failure and of the damages previously tolerated by asperities. What has been observed during the tests, as already reported by Krahn & Morgenstern (1971) and Hutson & Dowding (1990), is a backward residual friction angle constantly lower than the forward one. Dilation curves, for backward shears, are always slightly shifted upward with respect to the forward corresponding curve. Dilation curves, both for forward and backward shears, are slowly shifted downward from a cycle to another and increasing the normal load level. This phenomenon could be explained by a gradual seating of the joint, as mentioned above, or sometimes by a continuous degradation, homogeneization and grain size decrease to give a better compaction of the gauge infilling. Some grain size analysis performed on the gauge material revealed a grain size distribution ranging from sands to silts. The direct shear stress dependence from dilation and joint matching has been proven by a couple of experiments where compression characterized the entire forward shearing instea.d of the reversed one. This situation resulted 10 lower forward and higher backward resistanCes; Finally, this seems to be in agreement with Sun s (Sun et al., 1985) observation about the behaviour of joints with dissimilar or mismatched surfaces. From the experimental results, the main reason for such a behaviour is supposed to be the chan~e of dilational direction, negative (closure). In forward shears and positive (dilation) dunng backward shears, due to initial joint unmatching and to the anisotropy originated by the impo~d shear direction and the consequent asymmetnC joint asperity degradation (Celestino & Goodman, 1979). Furthermore, joints wearing results proba?ly ~~r~r~~tlf~:~~n s~:~~c~ r:~lt d~~t~~'m~;;~f

It is easy to understand how the geometric component of the frictional resistance will reach a maximum for rough joint surfaces, low normal stress and former forward shears, while it will suffer a decrease for higher normal stress levels and decreasing surface roughness. Roughness dependence is connected with sample size

asperities shearing and breakage, functIon 0 inhomogeneities presence and applied normal load level (Johnston & Lam, 1989; Xu & d~ Freitas, 1990), while its effect becomes 0 secondary importance upon shear stress reversal. In fact, the role that asperity recomposition playS,

524

at least during the first backward shear, could be a function of the geometry of the shear planes originated through the asperities. Joint asperity degradation and the formation of filling gauge are between the causes of the shear strength peak vanishing and the decrease in shear stiffness during successive cyclic forward shears. In fact, with an increased infilling thickness and OCcasional rock-to-rock contacts, the peak shear stiffness will tend to be less stress dependent, because of lower shear strength, and almost no ?Jore size dependent. On the contrary, an increase In shear stiffness was commonly observed in laboratory through cyclic backward shears. Cause of Such a behaviour could be the increased mismatching of opposite joint surfaces, recovered through a backward horizontal displacement, and the increased degree of indentation of the grains, forming the infilling gauge, on the joint surface. In fact, after each 20 mm of forward displacement, under normal stress action and shear load release, grains constituting the gauge infilling can settle a lIttle bit and penetrate the joint surfaces (as could be thought from the vertical versus horizontal displacement plots; fig. 2b). The slow and gradual increase of the residual reSiStance (hardening) during successive forward shears, in spite of the increased asperity ?egradation, could be explained by the Interposition of grains between opposite joint Walls that could induce, before of a complete Comminution of the grains, a greater mutual COm penetration like an artificially induced rOughness. The final effect is the one that we all e~perienced walking and scratching a smooth floor ;Hh sand grains under the shoes. About scale Bependence of shear stiffness and of friction angle p,arton (1980) and more recently Muralha and I~to da Cunha (1990) found that no scale effects eXISt when joint area reduction is made parallely tOfthe shear stress direction as evidenced in shear Sb fness . . , I SIze correction by adoption of reference engths (Lo and t.; Barton, 1990; Bandis, 1990) meaSured parallel to the applied shear stress. UI' bmately, the stress-deformation dependence om r the stress-path and the shear sense history C an d' represent a mean to understand past o~eCti?ns ?f movement and the geological history the main . ~Iscontinuity systems, besides to assess stru StabilIty of different natural or man-made Ctures submitted to cyclic shear loads. f

7. APPLICATIONS The directional behaviour of joint shear strength could be of major interest for slope stability analyses in seismic areas, anchor dynamic and foundation design or displacement estimates along previously overloaded discontinuities. In dynamic stability problems the amount of tolerable deformations is considered more important than the istantaneous overload under the action of seismic loads. As a consequence of such deformational dependence and importance, the frictional strength mobilized during each loading and deformational cycle is of major interest for rock slope analysis and design. As already mentioned, it is not difficult to imagine other cyclic load situations and the effects induced upon load reversal, especially considering surficial or underground artificial excavations in rocks with discontinuities already undergone to some shear stress and displacement by artificial or natural (tectonic) activity. The simple release of the confining pressure can trigger displacements higher than expected in the direction opposite to the previous loading direction, even if rock mass stiffness could playa controlling role. An earthquake could represent the source for a compressive or an extensive initial impulse. If we imagine an unconstrained rigid body laying on a slope, it could be pushed uphill or downhill by exceptional accelerations inducing a first shear displacement of the mass in a specific direction. The hypothesis of an uphill movement is commonly excluded in classical slope stability analyses, even for the occurrence of strong uphill acceleration, but it is still possible and it can cover an important role. More simply and realistically, examples of landslide main scarp and sliding surface superimposed on pre-existing faults are not difficult to be retrieved in the field and casehistory literature. At this point, it could be interesting to evaluate the relative influence of directionality on shear strength with respect to the influence of joint size changes. For a compressive uphill impulse, the first shear displacement for unconstrained body will be directed uphill, mobilizing in that direction the maximum shear resistance after small displacements. Upon seismic load reversal, a lower friction angle will be mobilized inducing, for the same time interval of load application, a larger relative displacement in this direction with

525

respect to the uphill one. Continuing, the mass could become unstable through few load cycles, supported by a favourable downhill lower frictional resistance, slightly increasing, through the cycles, up to the ultimate frictional resistance. Under an initial extensional seismic load the slope will be sheared along the discontinuity in a downslope direction mobilizing the higher shear resistance. Opposite to the previous case, we could observe a more stable slope unable, in few cycles, to reach the instability threshold of cumulated displacement or being in need to cumulate higher displacement to mobilize the residual friction angle. Furthermore, not to be forgotten it is the increasing shear stiffness through the backward shears and the regular decrease in forward shears and eventually the computation of the total work done during the tests compared with the dilational trend to evaluate the degree of damage of the sheared surfaces.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research has been funded Project 1.3.2 of the CNR-GNDT. by the Research

REFERENCES Bandis, S.C. 1990. Scale effects in the strength and deformability of rocks and rock joints. In: Scale effects in rock masses, Pinto de Cunha (ed.), 5976. Barton, N. & Y. Choubey 1977. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics, 10, 57. Barton, N. & S.c. Bandis 1982. Effects of blocksize on the shear behaviour of jointed rock. Keynote lecture. Proc. 23rd U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, Ca, 739-760. Barton, N. 1990. Scale effects or sampling bias? In: Scale effects in rock masses, Pinto de Cunha (ed.), 31-55. Celestino T.B. & R.E. Goodman, RE. 1979. Path dependency of rough joints in bi-directional shearing. Proc. Iyth Int. Congo Rock Mech., Montreux, Switzerland, I: 91-98. Crawford, A.M. & J.H. Curran 1981. The influence of shear velocity on the frictional resistance of rock discontinuities. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 18: 505-' SIS.

Goodman, R.E., L.L. Taylor & T.L. Brekke 1968. A model for the mechanics of jointed rock. 1. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 94: 637-659. Hutson, R.W. & C.H. Dowding 1990. Joint asperity degradation during cyclic shear. Int. 1. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 27: 109-119. Infanti, N.Jr. & M.A. Kanji 1990. Estimating the shear stiffness of rock joints. In: Rock Joints, Barton & Stephansson (eds.), Balkema, 799-804. Johnston, LW. & T.S.K. Lam 1989. Shear behaviour of regular triangular concrete/Rock joints. Analysis. J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE. 115,5: 711-727. Krahn, J. & N.R Morgenstern 1979. The ultimate frictional resistance of rock discontinuities. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 16: 127-133. Muralha, J. & A. Pinto da Cunha 1990. Analysis of scale effects in joint mechanical behaviour. In: Scale effects in rock masses, Pinto de Cunha (ed.), 191-200. Papaliangas, T., A.C. Lumsden, S.R. Hencher & S. Manolopoulou 1990. Shear strength of modelled filled rock joints. In: Rock Joints, Barton & Stephansson (eds.), Balkema, 275-282. Sun, Z., C. Gerrard & O. Stephansson 1985. Rock joint compliance tests for compression and shear loads. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 22: 197- 213. Tse, R & D.M. Cruden 1979. Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 16: 303-307. Xu, S. & M.H. de Freitas 1990. Kinematic mechanisms of shear deformation and the validity of Barton's shear models. In: Rock Joints, Barton & Stephansson (eds.), BaIkema 767-774.

526