Direct shear tests under constant normal stiffness and fluid flow \.

Essais de cisaillement direct avec rigidite normale constante et ecoulement de fluide

Direkter Scherversuch bei konstanter Steifigkeit und FIOssigkeitsstrom
I

R.OLSSON, Gr0ner AS, Lysaker, Norway (Formerly: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden)
U. LINDBLOM, Chalmers University of Technology, Goth~nburg, Sweden '

j • ' ~

••

ABSTRACT: Mechanical and hydromechanical direct shear tests under different surrounding conditions were performed on both
natural granite joints and replicas of high strength concrete. These tests showed that the rock mass stiffness mostly affected the be-
haviour at shear displacements beyond the peak shear strength. Further, the joint was more and more constrained at increasing shear
displacement, with increasing normal stress due to the stiffness. Of this reason, the dilation also decreased. Thus affected the void ge-
ometry and thereby the joint aperture and the fluid flow. .
RESUME: Des essais mecaniques et hydromecaniques de cisaillement direct sur des joints de granit naturel et lurs repliques en beton
a haute resistance furent effectues sous differentes conditions. Ces essais montrent que la raideur de la masse rocheuse influence
principalement Ie comportement au-dela de la valeur maximum de la resistance au cisaillement. De plus, Ie joint devient de plus en
plus contraint durant l'augmentation du cisaillement, a cause de l'augmentation de la pression normale due a la rigidite. A cause de
cela, la dilatation diminue aussi. La diminution de la dilation influence l'indice des vides et par consequent l'ouverture du joint et Ie
flux du fluide.
ZUSAMMENF ASSUNG: Unter verschiedene Rahmenbedingungen wurden Scherversuche an naturliche GranitklUfte durchgefuhrt
und an hoch festen Beton reproduziert. Die Versuche zeigten, daB die Gebirgssteifigkeit einen EinfluB auf die Scherdeformationen
hauptsachlich erst nachdem die peak Scherfestigkeit erreicht wurde ausUbt. Wegen der steigenden Kluften Normalspannung von der
Dilatanz verursacht, steigt die erforderliche Scherkraft mit der Scherdeformation. Die steigende Normalspannung beeinfluBt die
Dilatanz und damit die Kluftenoffnung und den Flussigkeitsstrom.
, r

1 INTRODUCTION On one of the granite samples, a rubber mould was cast. this
was then used for fabrication of 36 identical replica samples,
Excavations in rock masses affect the normal and shear stresses made of high-strength concrete. The concrete had mechanical
in the system of joints. Rock joints near a rock slope are subject parameters similar to the granite, see Table I.
to relatively constant normal load. Joints located deep below the
surface behave differently, since the dilation is affected by the Table 1. Mechanical properties for the granite joints and replicas.
stiffness of the surrounding rock mass. In the laboratory, con-
Material Granite Replicas
stant normal load tests and constant normal stiffness tests repre-
sent the situations described above. Mechanical laboratory tests Uniaxial compressive strength (a,): 169 ± 5 MPa 192 ± 13 MPa
with constant normal stiffness have for research purposes been Young's modulus (E): 59 ± 3 GPa 52 ± 1 GPa
Poisson's ratio (v): 0.25 0.25
performed since the mid 1970's (Obert, Brady & Schmeche
Tensile strength (aJ: J' 13.6 ± 2 MPa 14.9 ± 2 MPa
1976, Leichnitz 1985, among others). Hydromechanical shear Denity (p): 2760 kg/m? 2625 kg/rn'
tests have only been performed with constant normal load (Ma- ,1

kurat 1985, among others). Only seven equipments are known to

exist, as reported in the literature; Makurat (1985), etc. For fur- Performed tests also showed similar basic friction angles; 310
ther references, see Olsson (1998). for the granite and 320 for the replicas, Back-calculated IRC
values from the shear tests of granite joints varied between 6 and
19 with a mean value around 10.
2 SAMPLES J

I •

A laboratory investigation of rock joints under constant stiffness 3 EQUIPMENT

and fluid flow was performed by the authors. For the study, both
natural granite joints and high strength concrete replicas were
used. The granite samples were taken from thr~e closely spaced
joint planes situated at 224 m depth at the Aspo Hard Rock
Laboratory (HRL). The cores were drilled parallel to the centre
axis of the joints. To obtain relatively undisturbed samples, two
hose clips were applied around each drilled core when the inner
end was still fixed in the rock mass. Thereafter, the cores were
broken at the inner end. '"
The direct shear experiments were performed with a servo-
hydraulic equipment. In principle, the equipment is a shear box
inside a very stiff steel frame, see Figure 1. The normal and
shear loads were applied by one respectively two hydraulic ac-
tuators equipped with servo-valves. The normal load is trans-
ferred via a spherical and a hydrostatic bearing. This insures that
the upper sample holder can move during shearing, with a
minimum of friction and bending movement. ., .
j '.... .J

Four 12 mm holes were cored in the lower sample half, two at
each end, were 10 mm copper pipes were installed for water in-
and outlet. : '
During the hyromechanical shear tests, a water pressure head
of 4 m was applied at one end of the joint. After passing the inlet
pipes, the water was evenly distributed over the whole sample.
At the other end of the joint, the water was collected and
weighed for flow rate estimate. .'
 proportional to the normal displacement, as measured by four
gauges attached on the samples. After a total shear displacement
of 15 mm, the shear movement was halted and the normal load
removed. c .

,
6 RESULTS \

, !
D/A
6,1 Shear stress
In Figure 2, the shear stress versus shear displacement is shown
for 18 shear tests on replicas (with identical roughness and
strength).
Controller AID

/C~8\ 6.'

6.0
Logging
s.s
Controller '.0

4.'
Figure 1. Schematicblockdiagramfor the sheardevicecontrolsystem.\ 4.0
~ H

R
<Il 3.0
4 ROCK MASS STIFFNESS
j 1.5
<Il
knn-OkN/mm
Although direct shear tests with normal stiffness have been per- 2.0

formed for 25 years, very few recommendations appear in the U

literature about which system stiffness to use, related to the field 1.0

rock mass stiffness. O.S

0.0

If a restricted range of normal stress is applied over a joint, a 1 2 3 .• , 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 IJ 14 IS

J Shear Displacement (mm)
one can assume a linear normal joint stiffness (kn). From a one-
'dimensional elastic model of a single joint plane, the rock mass Figure2, Shearstressversusshear displacementfor shear tests on repli-
stiffness (krm) can be estimated as: ' cas with differentstifthesses (Ie",. - 0, 37 and 75 kN/mm) and initial
normalstresses.Tests with solid lines had an initial normal stress of 2
Erm (I)
MPaand testswithdashedlineshad an initialstressof 4 MPa.
k =--
rm 2. L J •.•
• ~ I <
As expected for the CNL tests, the peak shear stress increased
at augmenting,normal stress, In the CNS tests on replicas, how-
where Erm is the elastic rock mass modulus and L is the influ- ever, no shear stress peak was obtained, which was the case for
enced rock mass thickness. This model is similar to a model for the granite joints, see Figure 3.
in-situ testing of single joint planes, suggested by Rutqvist
(1995). For equipment design, the following expression can be
I·
used for the constant normal system stiffness (CNS): 6.11

krm = 75 kN/mm
.d (Tn 5.0
k =- (2)
rm L1
un
where .dun is the mean change of opening or closing of the joint
and .aO'n is the normal stress added to the initial normal stress
(O'ni) due to the stiffness.
....•
u
<I:l
2.11 krm-OkN/mm

The elastic rock mass modulus to be used can be interpreted 1.0

either from in-situ deformation tests, rock mass classifications or
be calculated using a simple mechanical model for layered 0,0

rocks. The influenced rock mass thickness can probably be as- o I 2 3 4 S 6 '7 • 9 HI \I 11 13 14 IS
sumed to be between the joint length and the joint spacing. Shear Displaumenl (mm)
J .1 \ ~ . /

~ig~r~3. S~earstressversus shear displacementfor shear tests on gran-

I~ JOintsWIthdifferentstiffnesses(Ie",. '" 0, 37 and 75 kN/mm)and ini-
5 PROCEDURES
tial normalstresses.Tests with solid lines had an initialnormalstressof
.2 MPaand testswithdashedlineshad an initialstressof 4 MPa.
Before the mechanicil1'and hydromechanical shear tests, two and
Or \; , 1 • I •
a half normal loading-unloading cycles were performed to con-
All CNS tests showed increasing shear stress ;versus shear
solidate the joints, The maximum load was the same as later
displacement at elevated normal stiffness. Further, at same nor-
used for the shear tests, The shear tests were performed at two
mal stiffness but higher initial normal stress, a lower increase in
normal stresses (O'c = 2 MPa and 4 MPa) and with three loading
shear stress was obtained. .
conditions; Constant Normal Load (CNL) where kr';' = 0, and
Constant Normal Stiffness (CNS) at krm = 37 and 75 kN/mm,
respectively. .' 6.2 Normal displacement ' ,
• I .
During the CNL tests, the normal load was kept constant; the
The normal displacement is an arithmetic, measured mean value
joint was allowed to dilate without any increase in normal stress.
from the four normal displacement gauges. Most of the defor-
During the CNS tests, a hydraulic spring load was applied,
mation curves first show a small contraction and thereafter a di-
simulating the constant normal stiffness, The load was linearly
", lation of the joints, see Figure 4.

774
 2.0 8.0
E 1.8
S 1.6
C 1.4
7.0
"S 1.2
V Peak value for CNL tests
~
c.. 1.0 6.0

6"iil 0.8
0.6
E ';' '.0
0 0.4
:z ~
; 0.2
0.0 4.0
~ ~
.0.2
, 6 7 8 9 '0 II 12 13 14 "
She~r Displacement (mm) ~
.c
rIl 3.0

Figure 4. Typical mean normal displacement versus shear displacement

curves for direct shear tests on replicas with different stiffnesses (I<".= 2.0
0, 37 and 75 kN/mm) and initial normal stresses. Tests with solid lines
had an initial normal stress of 2 MPa and tests with dashed lines had an 1.0
initial stress of 4 MPa.

As one can see in the figure, the normal displacement de- 0.0
creased with increasing rock mass stiffness. This was more visi- 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 S.O 6.0 7.0 8.0
ble for a normal stress of 4 MPa than for 2 MPa. Such a decrease Effective nonnal stress (MPa)
in dilation also affects the joint void geometry and the flow
through the joint. . Figure 6. Shear stress versus shear displacement for shear tests on gran-
i~ejoints with different stiffnesses (k". = 0, 37 and 75 kN/mm) and ini-
" tial normal stresses. Tests with solid lines had an initial normal stress of
6.3 Stress paths during shearing
- ,
..
. 2 MPa and tests with dashed lines had an initial stress of 4 MPa.
Because the normal stress is constant during CNL tests, the
stress follows a vertical path, reaching a maximum value (peak In Figure 6, a best-fit line has also been drawn for the maxi-
shear stress) and thereafter decreases, The maximum value is mum stress values of the CNL tests. Further, four shear strength
commonly used for estimation of shear strength curves. In Fig- curves were calculated and plotted in the figure. For these, the
ure 5, the maximum stress values are marked with squares and a parameter values oc=169 MPa, +~b=31 0 and back calculated
best-fit line is drawn. IRC values from shear tests were used. The best fit line for the
CNL tests agrees well with the pattern of the peak shear strength
curves, i.e. first along the curve for IRC=lO and then IRC=12,
S.O
Peak shear strength
which are close to IRC estimated from back-calculations of
• f
according to Barton shear tests. Most of the tests displayed maximum shear stresses
1&C-89 1CS-192 MPa •...•. as predicted by the corresponding IRC .
7.0

o Peak value for CNL testa

6.0 6.4 Hydraulic behaviour
Initially, most of the hydromechanical shear tests were under
'.0
laminar flow, but after shearing beyond the peak shear stress by
~ /. r. about 1-2 mm, the flow gradually transferred to turbulent. .
~ ".0
li!.
]
V> 3.0 r.. 6.5 Hydromechanical
~. ..../ '.; ...'
behaviour
.
A usual hydromechanical coupling during shear tests is between
2.0 the shear displacement and the hydraulic conductivity (K) (or
) l'
transmissivity' T). As the fluid flow was not always laminar
L() during the shear tests, the cubic law could not be used for cal-
culation of the hydraulic aperture. Since consequently a proper
0.0
value of the hydraulic aperture was not possible to obtain and
7.0 S.O
since the transmissivity does not require knowledge about the
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 '.0 6.0
Nonnal stress (MPa) hydraulic aperture, figures with transmissivity versus shear dis-
placement are plotted. Typical transmissivity curves are shown
Figure 5. Shear stress versus shear displacement for shear tests on repli- in Figure 7. .. ;, r, .
Cas with different stiffnesses (I<". = 0, 37 and 75 kN/mm) and initial "As one can see in Figure 7, the transmissivity decreased with
normal stresses. Tests with solid lines had an initial normal stress of 2 higher rock mass stiffness and initial normal stress. This is be-
MPa and tests with dashed lines had an initial stress of 4 MPa.
cause the joints closed due to the normal stress increase under
the CNS tests.
In Figure 5, a peak shear strength curve (Barton & Choubey, One can also see that the transmissivity increased 2-3 times
1977) is also shown. For developing this, the parameter values
around t~e pe~ shear stres~ (usp=1.5-3 mm). The CNL tests had
crc=215 MPa, +~b=32° and IRC= 9.5 were used. As one can
see, the envelope corresponds well with the best-fit line for the a mo~e linear mc.rease, while tlie CNS tests displayed a slightly
CNL tests. The stress paths for the CNS tests are plotted with non-I~near behavior, as. was also obtained for the granite joints,
see FIgure 8. . ' ',' . r
solid lines; after being initially straight, they bend off at in- I" ~.

creasing normal stress.

6.6: Mechanical and hydraulic apertures " '.' s .", ,,';'r.;: :',.
A similar figure for granite joints is shown in Figure 6. As one Com~on.ly in rock mechanical modeling, the joint closure or
Can see in the figure, there is a clear difference between the re- opemng ISassumed as a mechanical aperture. For calculation of
sults of CNS tests compared to those of CNL tests. The granite fluid flow, hydraulic conductivity or transmissivity changes,
joints tested with CNS obtained a peak shear stress; this was however, the knowledge of hydraulic aperture is 'of main inter-
however not to be seen in the CNS tests on replicas.

775
 1.10
4.lIE·S

HE·S . - - krm 0
.~
3.6E·S
1.00
. - - - krm 37 N/mn
krm = 75 N/mn ~
3.4E·S
3.2E-S
3.0E·S
knn = 37 kN/mm /
? E
5 , 0.80
0.90

'.
-.
t;."'/
~~~ . .1,/ ../
1
2.BE-S .;~~
0.70
~ 2.6E·S ,/ -n' ~
..
"',8,
_ 2.4E·S lU
.\.2 0.60
~ 2.2E·S '3 ~
'"'i:j
.~
2.0E·S
IKE-S
~
£'
O.SO
Peak sh ar st ess
. ,I
../
,/

~ 1.6E·S , ~ 0.40 Hy rauli ape ure

~ 1.4E-S \ $ 0.30
/ 1/ ~ - ::-
1.2E·S \
, ~ J:! .,/.>.
:-
~ 'rf
U V
I.OE-S
C 0.20 , I

rN" ~
I"~ ,
8.0E-6
..,
'0 I..
6.0E-6
4.0E-6
"0.10

0.00
v ..."
"t/ ,
2.0E-6
f'"'- ~ i i ,
S 6 7 8 9 10 \I 12 13 14 IS .0.10
Shear displacement (mm) 6
o % • 3 4 S '
Shear displacement(mm)
Figure 7. Typical transmissivity ve'rsu~shear displacement forhydrome-
chanical shear tests on replicas with different stiffnesses (k",. = 0, 37 and Figure 9. Measured joint closure and calculated hydraulic aperture ver-
7S kN/mm) and initial normal stresses. Tests with solid lines had an ini- sus shear displacement for hydromechanical direct shear tests (0'01=2
tial normal stress of 2 MPa and tests with dashed lines an initial stress of MPa) on granite joints tests (k",.=0 had JRC=9.7, k",,=37 kN/mm had
4 MPa. ,~. JRC=7.2 and k",,=7S kN/mm had JRC=8.8). .
, , , ". ',', I 1
4.0£.5 ,,:'\ , i ' i 'p
UE-5 knn - 0 a parabolic shear strength curve can be used both for CNL and
].6£.!5 (JRe 12.2)_"
. HE-5
J oJ"' CNS conditions .:
••
-~ • ~I
}-1E-5
),O£..'
~ ... \
/'
.- 1.1E~'
0'" . (1 ·1" ) 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
~ . 1.6M
!. 1.4f...S (;....
.
~
t. J I >lil .
~

:~ 1.oM
1.1E-5
, \ I -', j I, The authors wish to thank the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste

i
.11 ,.. !.IE-'
1.6E-' ; ..•. ",r-'J '.r
•• Management Company (S~) for their financial support.
"
~ ::;~:
l.nE·'
8.0E-6
knn ."
knn-
kN/mm ORe 126)
.
-c 9 REFERENCES
6.uE-6
I U,' ,\ Barton, N. & Cho~bey, V. 1977. The shear strength of rock joints in
4.lJE.6
1.0£.6
theory and practice, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 10: 1-54.
1.0£.8 Makurat, A. 1985. The effect of shear displacement on the permeability
S 6 1 B lJ 10 II 11 13 14 IS of natural rough joints. In. Hydrogeology of rocks of low
Shear displacement (mm) permeability; Proc.17th intern. Congress, Tucson J 985: 99-106. ."
Obert, L., Brady, B.T. & Schmechel, F.W. 1976. The effect of normal
Figure ~. Typical transmissivity versus shear'displacement for hydrome- stiffness on the shear resistance of rock. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 8: 57-
chanical shear tests on natural (granite) joints with different stiffnesses 72.
(k". F 0,37 and 75 kN/mm) and initial normal stresses. Tests with solid Olsson, R. 1998. Mechanical and hydromechanical behaviour of hard
lines had an initial normal stress of2 MPa and tests with dashed lines an rock joints - A laboratory study. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
initial stress of 4 MPa. . I .. : , Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology,
Goteborg, Sweden.
Rutqvist, J. 1995. Coupled stress-flow properties of rock joints from
est. For. a complete hydromechanical understanding, the relation hydraulic field testing. Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Engineering
between the mechanical and hydraulic apertures is of prime in- Geology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
terest. In Figure 9 it is possible to see how the apertures change
during shearing of rock joints. As one can se in Figure 9, the de-
", I. " ,
viation between the apertures increases by increasing shear dis-
placement and hydraulic aperture (from flow calculations).
.1> '
...
. .
, ,
7 CONCLUSIONS i. • J.l <~ , ) 1

Unde~ .CNS' conditions, th~ shear stres~~s con'tinu~ to i~cr~ase

after passing the peak stress, due to the increase in normal stress
caused by the stiffness (rock mass stiffness). This also decreases
the rock joint dila~ion slightly, dependent on the rock joint
roughness and the size of the rock mass stiffness. Further a de-
creasing dilation also decreases the fluld flow through the joint.
This is most evident after passing.the peak shear stress, Gradu- .'
, ,."
. ally les~ devia~ion betwee? the mechanical and hydraulic eper-
tu~e at mcreasmg shear displacement occurred with increasing i , I.'
stiffness. Plotted stress paths showed that, as an approximation, ,,, ,./' \,1" 1. -. r,