Rock Mechamcs tn the NattonalInterest,Elsworth,Ttnucct & Heasley (eds), 2001 Swets & ZettlmgerDsse, ISBN 90 2651 827 7

Failuremechanisms, influence functions for equivalent rockproperties

W.G.Pariseau

Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

ABSTRACT: Equivalentproperties modelsare usedwhen joints, faults, fracturesand similar structural discontinuities are too numerous to be individually takeninto account. Suchmodelsare essentially methods tbr averagingbehavior at the joint level of detail up to an aggregate level that can be reasonably accommodated in numericalanalysis.Influence functions allow for the recovery of important but "averaged out"details,suchas failuremechanisms. While equivalent properties models are occurring with increasing frequency in therockmechanics literature, nonedealwithinfluence functions with theexception of theNRVE (non-representative volumeelement) approach. Examples of influence function use,first at the element level andthenat theengineering levelof analysis, using thepopular finiteelement technique, illustrate therecovery of joint failuremechanisms for assessing stability of jointedrock masses.The main conclusion is that the usefulness of equivalent properties in jointedrockmechanics is greatly enhanced whenlinkedto influence
functions that allow failure mechanisms to be taken into account.

I INTRODUCTION

properties, althoughoften necessary, may be

unreliable.

Equivalent properties modelsare usedwhenjoints, faults, fracturesand similar discontinuities are too numerous to be individually takeninto account (e.g.,
Duncan & Goodman 1968, Morland 1973, Gerrard 1982,Chen 1986, Cho et al, 1991). Suchmodelsare

essentially methodsfor averaging behaviorat the joint level of detail up to an aggregate element level thatcan be reasonably accommodated in engineering analysis.Averaging methods rangefrom empirical scaling rulesto more rigorous theoretical treatments that considerrock massesas composite materials composedof joints and intact rock between. Averaging thushomogenizes theconsidered element volume. Regardless of the approach, identityof individual joints is lost with the consequence that mechanisms of yieldingarelostaswell. An openpit mine slope or underground mine stope may be appear safe"on average" just asa tall engineer who hasnot learned to swim may feel safeattempting to crossa streamthat is, on average, one meterdeep. Unfortunately, the consequences of information lost through averaging may be severe. Theremay be a threemeterhole in the streambed. Potential sliding andtopplingfailuresassociated withjoints may go undetected. Ravelingand cavingunderground may occurbecause of joint failure. Thus,design against failure in jointed rock massesusing equivalent

Influence functions (tensors,matrices) relate element averages of constitutive variables, e.g.,stress and strain, to sub-elementaverageswhere joint detailsreside. After an analysis done"on average" using homogenized elements, influencefunctions allow for therecovery, of the important but"averaged out" detailsof joint failuremechanisms. The costis a modestincrease in computational effort, while the savings of not having to representjoint detail explicitlyis considerable. Equivalent rock properties models areoccurring with increasing frequency in the
rock mechanicsliterature. However, none deal with

influence functions with the exception of theNRVE, non-representativevolume element, approach

(Pariseau& Moon 1988, Pariseau1995).

2 NRVE

THEORY

REVIEW

In the NRVE approachto equivalentproperties, joints are considered as thin layersof materialwith properties very different from the intact material betweenjoints. The joints are then embedded sequentiallyinto individual volume elements,as dictatedby joint positionand orientation relativeto the elementof interest. Eachjoint set may have distinct properties. In a finite element analysis, there may be thousands of elements andtensof thousands

1497

of joint segments. Segments from different sets generallyintersect within elements. However,at any stageof joint addition,an elementof interestis a two-materialcomposite, so influencefunctions may

stress-strain relationship {<o>}=[C*]{<

then be written as

e>} can

(f, [C,][,4,]+ fr [Cr][ Ar]){< e >}

alsobe computed provided the equivalent properties = [C*](< e >} areknown.TheNRVE method allowsfor equivalent properties determination. A rigorous, three wheref, [Aj]and[Cj]are jointvolume fraction, joint dimensional analysis of thearbitrarily jointedgeneric straininfluencematrix (6x6) andjoint compliance elementin Fig. I shows

(4)

I (odv=< c>'< o>V+

"
V

NON-REPRESENTATIVE VOLUME ELEMENT

(1)

['{Ae)'

tr, I (heterogeneou
[bITACT ROCK
JOINTS

wherethe superscript-t meanstranspose, (.) mes

average overthetotalvolume V, is a deviation from an overall average,

Equivalent propeies relate the overall element averages.Thus ())=[S*](o)) or in expanded
fo

% = SOoint)l*a= =
ON AVERAGE

< %> = S(equivalent)d =*<

(2)

SAME VOLUME

ELEMENT

< 6e>

Se < Ge

(homogenized)

wherethe subscripts c, e indicatepartitioning into "compatible"and "equilibrium" parts; they range from 0 to 6, but alwaysc+e=6. This partitioning makes all combinations of the product {Ac}'{Ao}=0, sotheintegral ontherightside of(l) vanishes. The classic Reuss and Voight moduli estimates areobtained usingc=0 (uniformstress) and c=6 (uniform strain), respectively(Hill 1952).

ON AVERAGE

< %> = S(equivalent)l=<

Assumption of uniform stress ({Ao}=0) satisfies

equilibrium but violates compatibility of strainand leadsto a lowerboundon the equivalent (isotropic) elastic moduli. Assumptionof uniform strain Figure 1.Schematic of"homogenization" process. ({At}=0) satisfies compatibility but violates equilibrium and leadsto an upperbound. These and the subscript "r" classic bounds are volume weighted averages. matrix (6x6), respectively, stands for the rock portion of the element. The sum However,other partitions do not lead to simple fractions isone.Useof volumeaverages as (4) below shows. The 3-3 of thejoint androckvolume rock interfaces. Equivalent moduli [C*] and compliances [S*] are mutual inverses, so
{<o>}=[C*]{<>}.

(4)and theidentity [I]=fj[Aj]+f[Ar] leads tothe partitioning is optimal (Pariseau, 2001)andsatisfies desired strain influence functions. Thus continuity requirements for elastic stability at joint-

[Ai]=(+1/fj )([C ]- [Cr ])-1 (It*I--[C r])

(5)

The relationship between joint average strain and element average strain is givenby a strain influence
tensor A. Thus

[A r]= (- 1/fr)([Cj]-[C r])-'([C*]-[C r])

Oncethe influence functions (5) arecomputed, joint and rock average strains at the sub-element scale are {g}=[A]{< c>} (3) readilyobtained from the element average strain (3). Jointandrockaverage stresses andtests where the overbar impliesa "local"average overthe using orlocal failure then follow from jointand volume occupied bya given joint material typein the foryielding relations and yield criteriain the consideredelement. The equivalent properties rock stress-strain usual way,butat thesub-element scale.
148

In the eventof yielding,application of plasticity theory allows for inelastic behavior; material nonlinearitythen dictatesdifferentialstress-strain relations {<do>}=[C']{<d>} where the compliances depend on stress andjoint material type (or rock materialtype). The nonlinearity requires updating of elastic compliancesand influence functions duringsolution(Pariseau 1999).

equivalentproperties model was a single element. The average responseobtained from the true (detailedfinite element)solutionis markedEQ; the NRVE approximation is in closeagreement. Both show an almost linear response up to an applied stress more than doublethejoint shearstrength.On average,the element appears"safe". But is it? Examinationof joint stress in the homogenized element usinginfluence functions shows thatseveral joints reachthe elasticlimit and yield early in the 3 FINITE ELEMENT EXAMPLES loading program; others yield later,while twojoints never yield. Yielding of joints is indicatedby Several examples are presented that illustrate departurefrom linearity in Figure 2. Without application of influence functions to determine failure influence functions, joint failure would goundetected mechanisms in jointed rock masses analyzedusing in the homogenized element. equivalent properties. The first exampleis a single element containing several joints at arbitrary orientationbut with all joints 'having the same 3.2 Circular Hole properties.The next exampleillustrates the effects of a steeply dipping joint seton the simpleclassical A circularholeexcavated in a hydrostatic stress field
solution for stress about a circular hole excavated in

a hydrostatic stress field. Another knownexample of a simplebut important classical problem is thatof a simplysupported beamundera uniformly distributed load. Thisexample illustrates thepotential effects of joints in stratified ground where bed separation occurs. A related example follows that involves excavation of a rectangular entry where stress concentration is important rather than roof beam action. In this examplecross joints perpendicular to horizontal joints complicate the situation.
3.1 SingleElement

experiences a stress concentration of two at thehole wall thatdecreases rapidlywith distance awayfrom the hole, while the radial stressincreases. Figure3 shows a graded mesh and joint set used in conjunction with theNRVE approach with influence functionsto examinethe effect of the joints on the classical solution to thisproblem. The joints dip 60 degrees andarespaced 0.55 m apart.
Jointing 60 deg, 0.55 m
g

0.55 m

Figure 2 shows the response of a singlejointed element that was homogenized for equivalent propertiesusing the NRVE approach. A detailed finiteelement meshwith explicit joint representation was also analyzed for comparison. The detailed
mesh contained over 1700 tetrahedrons, while the

Figure 3. Finite element mesh about a circular hole

andsuperimposed joint set.

2.6

' 24-L J1, J2

2 J4
13

The results are shown in Figure 4 where the circumferential andradialstresses areplotted around the holewall asthepolaranglevariesfromzeroto

1.4 J7/
oJ6 0.2 0.4 0
0 0.004

360 degrees. Away from the hole wall, large

elements contain many jointswhile near
the wall where the elements are small for numerical

,
0.008

,
0.012
STRAIN

,
0.016 0.02

0.(24

Figure 2. Elastic-plastic shear response of a single

element containing seven joints.
1499

accuracy,some elements contain a single joint segment. The effectof jointsontheclassical solution is huge; some joints experience a radial tension (joints near the ribs. 0 and 180 degrees). Influence thnctions allow quantification of the joint effects tbllowing (during)an equivalent properties analysis of thehomogenized macro-mesh.

Table 1b. RockandJointStrength ProDerties.

Property Co Material (MPa)

,

To (MPa)
3.31 0.0331

Ro (MPa)
3.48 0.0348

Rock Joint

33.10 0.331

Co=unconfined compressive strength.To=tensile strength, Ro=shear strength.

Figure4. Circumferential and radial rock andjoint stresses nearthe wall of a circularhole in a jointed rock mass excavated in a hydrostatic stressfield.
SRR=radial, STT=circumferential, rck=rock,

Table 2. EquivalentTransversely Isotropic Elastic

Properties.

jts=joints, thy=theory. Hole top is at 90 degrees, bottomis at 270 degrees.

3.3 BeamBending

EH=Eh Ev (CPa) (GPa)

16.38 8.75

O,v=Ohv Gm (CPa) (CPa)

3.45 6.83

VHh VI. iV (-) (-)

0.2 0.1

H, h=horizontal directions, parallelto bedding

perpendicular to bedding Roof beambending is important in stratified rock V=verticaldirection, masses where bed separation may occur. The associated flow ruleswere usedin the calculations classical solution to a simply supported beam under a with tensile strength one-tenth compressive strength. unitbrmly distributed loadiswellknown.Theeffect Thehomogenized, transversely isotropic beam also of the supports is alsoimportant for reinforcement has ananalytical solution thatcould becompared design against diagonal tension (shear), butmaybe with the NRVE solution; the results wouldbe in less familiar.Bedding planes andlaminations parallel good agreement, asseen inthe special isotropic case. tobedding are joint-like structural discontinuities that In theisotropic and equivalent transversely isotropic may have a pronounced effect onsafety inferred from cases, tensile strength of theintact rockis several theclassical solution.Figure 5 shows a one-halfofa timestensilestress; no macroscopic failureoccurs. finiteelement (3D slab)mesh usedin a numerical Of moreinterest is whether joint failureoccurs that solution to this simpleproblem. The depthto span wouldindicate delamination andraveling of theroof ratiois 10 [totalspan=5.1m (16.7ft.), depth=0.51m beam. Influence functions in conjunction with the at the bottomends. Results, withoutjoints, are in

(1.67 ft)]. The applied loadis equalto the beam NRVEapproach allow one to pursue thequestion. weight: 13.8kPa (2 psi). Beam support isprovided In the laminated ("jointed") beamcase,still no

close agreement (within 1% of the tolerance specified) with the knownsolution.Elements in Figure 5 are5.1cm(2 in.)thick.When joints 0.051 cm(0.02) inches thick,spaced 5.1 cm (2 in.) apart, areintroduced intoFigure 5, themesh isa model of a
laminated roof beam with transverselyisotropic

yielding occurs at themacroscopic element scale.

However, at thesub-element scale, extensive joint and safety into question, despite safety onaverage.
, i

yielding inshear occurs near the beam ends as shown inFigure 5. This result would surely bring stability

equivalent elastic moduli andcontains 1000joint segments (one perelement). Properties ofjoints and intact rock aregiven in Table1;equivalent properties aregiven in Table2. Theratios of intact to joint

Ifil
iiiiiiIIllll

Ifil

Iiiiiii

I
I

,,

:
I

moduli andstrengths (modulus andstrength contrast) areboth100. A Drucker-Prager yieldcondition and Figure 5. Extent of joint yielding in a simply
Table la. Rock and JointElasticProperties.

[--

L/2

supported laminated roofbeam under a uniformly

distributednormal load when horizontaljoints
transect everyelement.

Property E Material (GPa)

Rock Joint 16.55 0.1655

G (GPa)
6.895 0.07

v (-)
0.2 0.2

Figure6 shows the results obtained whena

totalthickness is the same as beforeasareall other E=Young's modulus, G=shear modulus, v=Poisson's properties. Slip near the center oftheroof beam is ratio.
1500

compound roof beam composed oftwo identical roof layers joined bya thing bedding plane "joint". The

indicated by the extentof yieldingnearthe neutral surface shown in Figure 6. Thisresultsuggests that the two layers may respond to excavation independently andthus pose a stability question (half
the thickne.. ouadriinle,
Illl:l[111111111i[IlJllLIJil[IJlllllIIlJlllllllll[J

the teninn

ELEMENTS WITH JOINT SHEAR FAILURES

IIIl!lilllll[IJJlllilllJtITlilllJlllJll1111[111111
II[liiJilJllllJ[llllJllllJJlJllllJllJil{llllllltllJ

IJJl

IIIJJlll[JllllJJjllllllllliJJlilllllllJlll iJJl

Illllll[liilll

Illil[llilJlllliJJlllJlJlllllIllllllllllJlll l1111111illl IllilllllllJlll[11 IlJ[jlJJllli 1111]lllJlJlJJlJ Jlllllll11111Jlll[111 IIIl,JlillllJllllJllllllljJll

JllllllllJllllllllllllllllllllllltlllllllllJllllil

lilll

l1
HOR. TENSION Jill

Figure 6. Extent of joint yielding in a simply supported roof beamundera uniformly distributed normalload whena singlehorizontal joint transects
the beam near the neutral surface.

0.3 M
--

114 ENTRY

Figure 7. Yielding in thevicinity of a rectangular

3.4 Rectangular Entry

entry driven ina horizontally jointed rock mass.

A rectangular entry6.10m wideby 3.05m high(20 ft by 10 ft ) isdriven ata depth of 305m (1000ft) in gravity loaded rock. Horizontal jointsspaced 0.61m (2ft) transect the rockmass. The premining vertical stress at entry depth is about -6.9 MPa (compression negative), the horizontal stresses are equalto onefourth theverticalstress, about -1.7 MPa (-1,000psi, -250 psi). Because of symmetry with respect to horizontal andverticalaxesthrough thecenter of the entry,onlythe first quadrant needs to be analyzed. Thequarter-mesh forthisexample is a slab10times entry half-width on edgeand0.3 m (1 ft) thickand
contains 10,000 elements.Every otherelement row is transected by a horizontal joint; thereare 5,000

SHEAR FAILURES

joint segments in the analysis.As in previous examples, the finite element analysis uses NRVE equivalent properties and is elastic-plastic. Macroscopic element failure may occur, while
influence functionsallow for the examinationof sub-

element joint failure.

Figure7 shows the extentof yielding in the vicinity of theentryafterexcavation. Tensile stress
concentration in the vicinityof the immediate roof centerline is sufficientto cause failure of joints and intact rockbetween asshown by thedarksquares in

NSILE IJlJl V Fig.7. No tensile failures areindicated beyond 0.3m LURES lJllJ (1 ft) intotheimmediate roof. Outside thezone of relatively high tensilestress, elements containing joints show failure inshear. Theregion ofjointshear failure migrants towards theribside awayfromthe centerline. If theentire entry where shown, theshear Figure 8.Extent ofyielding about a rectangular entry failure pattern would have a butterfly shape. with horizontal andvertical joints. Underground entries in hardrock mines mayalso in a rockmass beinjointed rockmasses. If theentry is filledwith Accordingly, verticaljoints spacedon 3.3 m (6 concrete priorto a second cutbelow or to theside, ft)centers were introduced into the previous then vertical and horizontal joints are introduced horizontally jointedrock mass. Depth,premining between fills. A step towards analysis is to simply stress, rockproperties andopening sizearethesame excavate a rectangular entryin a rockmass thathas as before. The results of excavation are shown in horizontal and vertical joints at the start. Figure8. Again,a tensile failurezoneappears in the
1501

jjjj

[]

vicinity of the immediate back.

In this zone,

model for jointed media with orthogonal sets of

horizontal joint segments and intactrock fail in

tension. At the edgeof this zone, the verticaljoint
also fails. Further towards the ribside, the failure

joints.Proc. 27th U.S. Sympon RockMechanics.

SME Inc., 862-867.

mode changesto shear on the horizontal joints. Above the immediateback,joints fail in shear. The pattern of elements containing these joints also reflects joint spacing of 0.6 m (2ft) between horizontal joints and 1.8 m ( 6 ft) betweenvertical joints. Extensive regions of joint failures are surprising and showa disturbed zoneof importance beyondthe extent given by the commonrule of thumbof"one-diameter" or about6 m (20 ft) in this case.Thejoint failurepattern shows a potential for liberatinglarge slabsand blocksin the back. This joint block failure threat would require a much different support design thanonebased onthetensile crackingof rock expected near the centerline from
stress concentration alone.

Cho,T.F., M.E. Plesha andB.C. Haimson (1991). Continuum modelling of jointedporous rock. Int.J
Vumer. Anal. MethodsGeomech.15, 333-353.

Duncan,J.M. and R.E. Goodman(1968). Finite element analysis of slopes in jointed rocks. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR No. 1-68.
Gerrard,C.M. (1982). Elasticmodelsof rockmasses

having one,twoandthreesetsof joints.Int. . rock

Mech.Min. Sci.& Geomech. Abstr.19, 15-23.

Hill, R. (1952)The Elastic Behaviour of a Crystalline

Aggregate.Proc. Phys.Soc.(A), 65, 349-354.

Morland,L.W. (1973). Elastic response of regularly jointedmedia.Geophys. J. RoyalAstronomical Soc.

4 CONCLUSION

37, 435-446.

Influencefunctionsallow recoveryof joint failure mechanismsthat are averaged out during the homogenization processof equivalentproperties formation. While equivalent rock massproperties areoftendictated byjoints toonumerous to takeinto account individually,the resultsmay be unreliable because of the lossof joint failuremechanisms. This is especially true of rock equivalent properties based on the assumption of a representative volume element that necessarily containsmany joints. A (non-representative volume element) NRVE approach negates this restriction, andwhencoupled
with strain influence function calculation, recovers

Pariseau, W.G. andH. Moon (1988). Elasticmoduli of well-jointedrock masses. Proc. 6th Int. Conf.on
Vumerical Methods in Geomechanics. Balkema,
815-822.

Pariseau, W.G. (1995). Non-representative volume elementmodelingof equivalent jointed rock mass properties.Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Mechanics of
Jointed and Faulted Rock. Balkema, 563-568.

Pariseau, W.G. (1999) An Equivalent Plasticity Theoryfor Jointed RockMasses. Int. J. RockMech.
Min. Sci. 36, 907-919.

joint failure possibilities during an analysis. Examples using the well-known finite element Pariseau, W.G. (2001) Computational Approaches to method demonstrate the effectiveness of the JointedRock Masses. Proc. 10 'h Int. Conf. On combination in a singleelement,and in the classic Computer Methods andAdvances in Geomechanics., problems of stress concentration about a circular hole 1, Balkema, 93-100. androofbeam bending where elastic-plastic behavior is allowed. Several otherexamples involving joints in the vicinity of a rectangular openingfurther illustrate the capability of the combination approach to quantify the importanceof joints to opening stability.Further development seems warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by the National

Science Foundation under Grant CMS-9610026.

REFERENCES

Chen, E.P. (1986). Two-dimensionalcontinuum

1502