Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

LECTURE 24

7.2.4 Joint Roughness coefficient (JRC)

An empirical index quite widely used for surface roughness characterization is the Joint
Roughness coefficient, JRC, as proposed by Barton and Bandis, (1983). JRC ranges from 0
(for smooth planar surfaces) to 20 (for rough undulating surfaces). It can be measured by
conducting self weight tilt tests to determine the inclination (aº) of a joint at the instant of
sliding
a° − φr
JRC = (7.3)
log(σ c /σ n )
Where, σ n = normal stress = W cos2( a )/(cross sectional area), σ c = uniaxial compressive
strength of asperities, φ r = angle of residual friction.
Since very high tilt angles present experimental difficulties (toppling before sliding) and
theoretical difficulties (cohesion intercepts), the use of tilt tests for joints with JRC values
greater than about 10 is generally impossible and horizontal pull or push tests be used.
Three points need to be considered while calculating JRC:
1) The index has a physical characteristic, as deduced from geometrical analysis of the
joint surfaces tested to establish the aforementioned range of JRC. Apparently, JRC is
closely corrected with the mean roughness amplitude ‘a’ to profile length L ratio.
2) JRC is scale dependent as shown in Figure 7.9 and allowances should be made when
assigning field values from laboratory determined JRC values. The following
approximate scaling has been suggested by Barton and Bandis (1983),
−0.002 JRC o
L 
JRC n = JRC o  n  (7.4)
 L0 
Where, subscripts refer to laboratory (o) and field (n) scales. Some guidelines of the
expected variation of JRC for different types of joints and lengths from 20 to 100 cm
are shown in Figure 7.10. The profiles correspond to those included in the ISRM
suggested methods for visual description of joint roughness.
3) JRC characterization should be based on a large number of individual tests to
avoid sampling bias.

208
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

Figure 7.9: Scale effect correction for JRC 0 (Bandis et al., 1990)

Figure 7.10: Guidelines for selecting appropriate JRC values for different types
of joints at scales of 0.2m and 1.0m (Barton and Bandis, 1990)

209
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

7.2.5 Wall Strength

The strength of rock at the joint walls is an important component of shear strength and
stiffness. The actual contact area between the asperities on the opposed walls of a joint is
very small. Hence stress concentrations are high and strength can be easily exceeded.
However the exact mode of failure is not clear. Intuitively, the tips of asperities may fail in
tension when gross normal stresses are very low. When stresses are high, tensile cracking and
wedging followed by lateral shear failure probably occur.
In view of these uncertainties, rational compromises have to be made when introducing the
wall strength or the shear strength determinations. Usually, the uniaxial compressive strength
or the shear strength of the rock material or a combination of the two are adopted. Joint
surfaces may be altered and hence measurements should be conducted directly on the wall
material to allow for any weathering effects. The use of the Schmidt hammer is a convenient
method for direct joint wall strength determination (Coulson,1972). The term joint
compressive strength can be used for distinction from the rock matrix strength (σ n ), which
could be considerably higher.
Most strength indices of intact rock appear to be scale dependent, although interpretations of
the observed scale effects differ widely (Bandis, 1990). The following approximate scaling
function has been suggested for the JCS index of joints, in accord with the experimentally
deduced trends in Figure 7.11.
−0.002 JRC o
L 
JCS n = JCS o  n  (7.5)
 L0 
Where JCS 0 corresponds to a nominal joint length L0 = 100mm with roughness coefficient
JRC o .

210
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

Figure 7.11 Scale effect correction for JCS o (Bandis et al.,1990)

7.2.6 Aperture
Figure 7.12 presents the ratio of real aperture (E) to equivalent conducting aperture (e) with
theoretical smooth wall aperture values for different JRC 0 values. This model implies that the
cubic law (E = e) may only be valid when aperture are very wide, or when the joints are
exceptionally smooth. Estimates or measurements of initial (E 0 ) values from sampled joints
yield values of disturbed apertures. An improved approximation may be possible by cyclic
pre-consolidation of the joint, although it must be clear that the real stress history can never
be known. More realistic estimates are inferred from insitu pumping tests in isolated bore
hole sections. Assuming that radial flow is channelled through one conductor, values of e 0
can be obtained from:
6µ Q ln( R / r ) 0.33
e0 = (7.6)
π g ( Pr − PR )
Where, Q = flow rate, μ = kinematic viscosity, g is gravity acceleration, P r and P R = excess
water pressure at bore hole wall and at distance R, respectively. Once the distribution of

211
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

conducting apertures (e 0 ) has been obtained, estimates of the insitu mechanical apertures (E 0 )
can be calculated according to the model in Figure 7.12.

E o = (e o JRC 02.5 )
1/ 2
in μm (7.7)

Figure 7.12: Relation between conducting aperture (e), mechanical aperture

(E) and Joint roughness (Barton and Bandis, 1990)

7.2.7 Gouge
Rock discontinuities that are filled with plastic materials represent one of the greatest
problems in rock engineering. The fill material between the joint faces is termed as gouge
which influences the joint resistance based on the nature and thickness of gouge and the
character of joint walls. If the gouge is thick and the joint walls do not touch, then the
strength properties are of the gouge strength. Whereas, if the gouge is thin and not present at
all, then the shear strength is dependent only on the properties of the rock faces. An
increasing degree of complexity is introduced into the problem when the clay fillings are less
thick than the roughness amplitude of the wall. A limited shear displacement will then result
in marked stiffening when opposed rock asperities make contact. A number of investigators

212
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

conducted tests using different type of gouge materials which indicated that the strength of
filled joints is influenced by the relative thickness of the fill with respect to asperity height,
type of fill material and grain size of the fill material.
Barton (1976) has given a comprehensive review of the shear strength of filled
discontinuities in rock. He has tabulated the direct shear tests reported in the literature for
filled discontinuities in a tabular form. Lama (1978) gave a logarithmic relationship between
thickness of the gauge peak shear strength τ and normal stress σ n based on tests on filled
joints. Roy (1993) based on experiments on gauge filled joints has quantified a joint strength
parameter ‘r’ similar to joint roughness for unfilled joints. The value of ‘r’ depends on the
friction angle of the gauge material in the filled joints. He has determined the joint strength
parameter ‘r’ for different gauge material and is given in Table 7.3.

7.2.8 Scale Effect

Series of unconfined compression tests were conducted on quartz, diorite specimen of
length ranging from 5 to 275 cm by Pratt et al., (1972) to determine the scale effects on
compressive strength. The compressive strength reduced for specimens of length 5 to 90 cm.
Further increase in specimen length from 100 cm to 275 cm did not indicate any scale effect.
Subsequently scale effects on the shear strength were determined by Pratt et al. (1974) for
quartz diorite specimen and it was found out that the strength reduces by 40% over a surface
area of 60 cm2 to 5000 cm2. Beiniawski and Van Heerden (1975) and many others also have
shown that there is significant scale effect on σ c upto sample size of about 100 cm. Barton
(1976) has come out with an empirical relation to determine the scale effect. Bandis et al.
(1981) studied the scale effect on the shear strength of rock joints and gave a result that the
scale effect is significant on both shear strength and deformation characteristics. The scale
effects are absent for planar joints and are significant for rough undulated joints. Moomivand
et al. (1994) based on laboratory testing of rock specimens have shown that the compressive
strength as a function of discontinuities decreases with an increase in the size of rock
specimens. The type of discontinuities in different kinds of rock is different and the
compressive strength size relationship of rock is different. Vutukuri (1995) has shown that
when the size of the specimen is so small that relatively few cracks are present, failure is
forced to involve new crack growth, whereas a large specimen may present pre-existing
cracks in critical locations. Thus uniaxial compressive strength of rock is size dependent.

213
 Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks

7.2.9 Discontinuity type

There can be Planar discontinuity or no infilling discontinuity, where usually the

cohesion would be zero and the shear strength will defined solely by the friction angle. A
fined grained rock with high mica content (e.g. Phyllite) will tend to have low friction angle
while course grained rock like granite usually have high friction angle. There are filled
discontinuities, the behaviour will depends on the type of filling material and their relative
thickness. They can be categorized in five different groups,
1. The infilling is clay or fault gauge - Infilling friction angle is likely to be low but there
may be some cohesion if the infilling is undisturbed. If the infilling is a strong calcite,
possibly produces a healed surface, there may be some cohesion even at residual
stage.
2. Smooth/clean discontinuities- tend to have zero cohesion and friction angle will be
that of the rock surface. Grain size play an important role, large grain size mean
higher friction angle.
3. Rough clean discontinuities- usually have zero cohesion and the friction angle will
have two components, ϕ r (rock material friction) angle and 'i' (related to the
roughness or asperities). As the normal stress increases- asperities are progressively
sheared off and total friction angle diminishes.
4. Fractured rock mass - the shear strength of fractured rock mass, in-which the sliding
surface lies partially on discontinuity surface and partially passes through intact rock,
can be expressed as a curved envelope. At low normal stresses where there is little
confinement of the fractured rock and the individual fragments may move and rotate,
the cohesion is low but the friction angle is high. At higher normal stresses, crushing
of the rock fragments begins to take place with the result that the friction angle
diminishes. The shape of the envelope is related to the degree of fracturing and the
strength of intact rock.
5. Weak intact rock - Rock such as the tuff - composed of fined grained material that has
a low friction angle. But, if contains no discontinuity, cohesion can be high.

214