Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1627-6

ISRM SUGGESTED METHOD

ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Basic Friction Angle

of Planar Rock Surfaces by Means of Tilt Tests
L. R. Alejano1 · J. Muralha2 · R. Ulusay3 · C. C. Li4 · I. Pérez‑Rey1 · H. Karakul5 · P. Chryssanthakis6,7 · Ö. Aydan8

Received: 25 September 2018 / Accepted: 13 October 2018

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Keywords  Tilt test · Basic friction angle · Planar rock surface · Laboratory testing · Joint strength

1 Introduction by acceleration on the testing machine are also briefly pre-

The basic friction angle plays a key role when estimating the
shear strength of discontinuities for rock engineering pro-
jects, since a large body of research has shown that rock joint
shear strength models that consider it are able to provide
realistic results (Barton 1973; Barton and Choubey 1977;
Kulatilake et al. 1995; Grasselli and Egger 2003; Xia et al.
2014; Tang and Wong 2016).
The concept behind the basic friction component of shear
strength is related to the angle of repose observed for solid
bodies on inclined surfaces or granular materials. Based on
this analogy, the basic friction angles of planar rock sur-
faces can be determined by means of tilt tests. Gravity pro-
vides both the shear and normal stress components in tilt
tests. In this suggested method, the testing device, speci-
men preparation, shapes and sizes, and testing procedure are
described. In addition, other issues related to the tilt test and
basic friction angle, such as the effect of vibrations caused
* L. R. Alejano
alejano@uvigo.es
1
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Engineering, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
2
National Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal
3
Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe
University, Ankara, Turkey
4
Department of Geoscience and Petroleum, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
5
Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering,
İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University, Izmir, Turkey
6
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway
7
Present Address: COWI, Oslo, Norway
8
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan
sented in the last section.
2 Scope
The main purpose of this suggested method (SM) is to pro-
vide laboratory procedures to determine the basic friction
angle component of the shear strength of unfilled rock dis-
continuities by means of tilt tests of planar rock surfaces.
This SM only makes reference to the determination of the
quasi-static basic friction angle, which corresponds to the
use of constant tilting velocities of the testing platform. Rec-
ommended velocities are provided in this document.
Two arrangements are proposed in this SM with regard
to the type of contact provided by the specimens: two slab-
like specimens (Coulson 1972; Hencher 1977; Aydan et al.
1995; Alejano et al. 2012; Ulusay and Karakul 2016; Kim
et al. 2016) and lengthwise-cut rock core specimens (Barton
1973) each of the above with reference to a pair of planar
surface contacts, and three-core (Stimpson 1981; González
et al. 2014; Li et al. 2017) and two-core arrangements (Bar-
ton 2011; Ruiz and Li 2014) corresponding to linear con-
tacts. Examples of these types of contacts and arrangements
are presented in Fig. 1.
3 Testing Equipment
3.1 Apparatus
Determination of basic friction angle of planar rock dis-
continuities can be carried out by means of various appa-
ratuses differing in some characteristics, but essentially
consisting of a rigid plane, which can be rotated around an
axis (Fig. 2). This plane must be horizontal at the start of

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1  Different tilt-test arrange-
ments depending on the type
of contact. Surface contacts:
rectangular-based specimens
(a); lengthwise-cut-core speci-
mens (b) and linear contacts:
three-core set-up, usually
referred to as Stimpson method
(c); two-core set-up (d)
Fig. 2  Schematic description of
the device INPUT (MOBILIZATION)
• manually–operated
• electric motor
• compressed air
• …
rotational movement and a pre-established, ideally constant
tilting velocity must be used. The machine has to be able
to stop the tilting process when desired. The main differ-
ences between machines relate to the mobilization system
(by means of an electrical motor, a lifting cylinder operated
by compressed air or a manually operated screw or reduction
gear, among other possibilities).
Based on previous studies on the impact of the velocity
of testing on results with different tilting tables, it has been
observed that, whereas the tilting rate has little effect on
the results using tilting tables with smooth movement of
the inclined platform, it may have a significant effect on the
results when vibrations occur in the platform while testing
(USBR 2009; Pérez-Rey et al. 2016; Alejano et al. 2017).
Accordingly, tilting velocities between 10º and 20º/min are
recommended for smoothly moving machines (where maxi-
mum horizontal accelerations due to vibration are smaller
13
L. R. Alejano et al.
OUTPUT
Tilt test • basic friction angle
device • temperature
• humidity
• accelerations during run
FEATURES
• constant lifting velocity
• 5 to 20 °/min
than 0.01g) and lower tilting rates in the range of 5º–10º/min
are recommended for hand operated platforms where larger
vibrations (over 0.01g) can be excepted.
3.2 Complementary Devices and Material
The tilting table has to hold a device to measure the tilt-
ing angle with a minimum resolution of ± 0.5°. It is rec-
ommended to have a device to register both vertical and
horizontal accelerations. Currently, a good number of smart-
phone apps can perform both tasks.
Complementary materials to position and level the
specimen, and to hold its lower part, prior to tilting are also
required. Small wedges of light materials (e.g., wood, card-
board, plastic) and mouldable materials (e.g., plasticine)
have proved effective for this task, though the latter are rec-
ommended since they make the lower sample more stable.
ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Basic Friction Angle of Planar Rock Surfaces by Means…
4 Specimens
4.1 Shapes and Sizes
Rectangular-based specimens are characterised by three
dimensions: length (l), width (w) and height (h), as presented
in Fig. 3a. Concerning the top sample, the length-to-height
ratio (l/h) of this type of specimens must be greater than
4, but values greater than 6 are highly recommended, and
width-to-height (w/h) greater than 4 is suggested. The con-
tact surfaces (l × w) must be greater than 50 cm2 and speci-
men width (w) should be larger than 10 times the rock grain
size, with a minimum of 50 mm.
Rock cores can be used to prepare lengthwise-cut core
specimens. This type of geometry is similar to rectangular-
based specimens. Rock cores should have a diameter equal
to or greater than 50 mm, and they should have a length-to-
diameter ratio l/d ≥ 2.
Rock cores drilled by means of impregnated diamond
drill bits, either in the laboratory or in the field, can be
used to prepare specimens for linear contact tests. These
specimens should have a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 or
larger. Rock cores of at least 50 mm diameter are preferred,
to avoid deficient contact associated with irregularities in
the core surface, which tend to be more relevant in smaller
specimens.
4.2 Specimen Preparation
The specimens and testing surfaces for rectangular slabs
and lengthwise-cut cores have to be obtained using a circu-
lar sawing machine. Recommended saw blades for obtain-
ing rock specimens should present teeth or rim grits on the
range of 60–100 US Mesh and tooth diamond counts within
0.6–0.8 carat/cm3. Additionally, the saw blade should have a
diameter large enough to cut the testing surface with a single
operation. The relative speed of the block against the saw
blade should be as constant as possible.
Planarity of the surface to be tested can be visually
checked and further controlled using more elaborate means
Fig. 3  Characteristic dimensions of rectangular-based slabs (a) and
cylindrical cores (b) for tilt tests
(e.g., roughness profilometer, surface scanner). Smooth-
ness of the surface and the occurrence of grooves resulting
from cutting should also be examined, and consequently,
non-planar and rough surfaces should be discarded.
Ordinary impregnated diamond drill bits are acceptable
to core the rocks in place or at the laboratory. Similar char-
acteristics as those recommended for saw blades (teeth/rim
grits on the range of 60–100 US Mesh and tooth diamond
counts within 0.6–0.8 carat/cm3) can be applied. The sides
of the specimen shall be smooth and free of abrupt irregu-
larities and straight to within 0.3 mm over the full length
of the specimen. Cores with irregular surfaces associated
to drilling, for instance diameter changes, coarse grooves
or indentations, should be discarded.
5 Testing Procedure
Each test encompasses various repetitions of the following
tilting sequence.
(i) The lower part of the specimen(s) is fixed to the tilt-
ing platform and the horizontality of the surface or
contacts have to be ensured by means of a spirit-level
or electronic level.
(ii) Before each tilt-test repetition (five tests are recom-
mended on each sample) the surface must be cleaned
and rock powder must be removed using a soft paint-
brush.
(iii) The upper part of the specimen has to be placed on
top of the other piece(s) with their corresponding
surfaces in contact and the relative position of all
pieces of the specimen has to be verified, in order to
be reproducible in subsequent repetitions. The slid-
ing direction should be along the maximum dimen-
sion of the specimen (l).
(iv) Record the angle of the tilting table at the start of the
sliding-movement to a minimum accuracy of 0.5°.
(v) Temperature (°C) and relative air humidity (%)
should be recorded during repetitions.
(vi) A constant fixed rotational-velocity, selected from the
interval of 5°–20°/min, is used for tilting the speci-
mens until the upper part of the specimen starts to
slide. At this point, the process is stopped.
(vii) Maximum sliding distance should not exceed 10% of
the maximum length of the specimen (l), as shown in
Fig. 4, aiming to minimize the wear or polishing of
the contact surface.
(viii) Record the tilt angle β, as the difference between the
angle when sliding begins and the angle at the hori-
zontal position.
13

Fig. 4  Scheme to limit the
sliding of the upper part of the
specimen
It is recommended to conduct five repetitions on each
contact surface and to use the median to obtain a final result.
The median is recommended instead of the mean or average
to avoid errors associated with the occurrence of outliers.
6 Calculations
6.1 Rock Surfaces (Surface Contact)
For rock surfaces, the basic friction angle (ϕb) shall be the
calculated as the median value of the tilt angles of the five
repetitions performed (Eq. 1):
𝜙b = median 𝛽i=1,…,5 . (1)
If more than five repetitions are performed, change the
equation accordingly.
6.2 Rock Cores (Linear Contact)
For three-core contacts, the basic friction angle (ϕb) shall
be calculated using Eq. (2), as the median value of the tilt
angles of the five repetitions performed:
� �√ ��
3 such as the angle of repose, and reproduce the conditions
𝜙b = median tan−1 tan 𝛽i=1,…,5 . (2)
2 of free-sliding rock blocks on slopes. However, it has been
If more than five repetitions are performed, change the
equation accordingly.
7 Reporting of Results
The report containing results of a particular tilt testing pro-
gramme should include the following information.
(a) Lithological description of tested rock(s).
(b) At least, one photograph of the specimens involved in
each test; name/identification of testing surfaces should
be clearly shown in the photograph.
(c) Source of the specimens: geographic location of the
rock formation, date of cutting from original rock
blocks and storage conditions [temperature (°C), rela-
tive air humidity (%)].
13
L. R. Alejano et al.
(d) For rock-core specimens: project no., borehole no. and
depth of specimen from borehole collar.
(e) Characteristics of saw blade used for cutting the speci-
mens: this section should include blade diameter, tooth/
rim width, grit size and diamond count.
(f) Number of specimens tested.
(g) Dimensions of all specimens—length, width, height
and diameter (for rock core). These values should be
measured with a device (a caliper gauge is recom-
mended) allowing a resolution of at least1 mm. Three
measurements have to be performed of the three dimen-
sions.
(h) Tilting rate selected for performing all tests.
(i) Date of testing.
(j) Environmental conditions during testing: temperature
(°C) and relative air humidity (%).
(k) Results from tests (ϕb), including all repetitions (βi)
(a suggested example is presented in the “Appendix”).
8 Notes and Recommendations
Tilt tests replicate at a small-scale the basic principles of
sliding behaviour, regarding the definition of friction angle,
recognized that adhesion and interlocking of microscopic
roughness may influence the results from tilt tests contrib-
uting to their non-reproducibility and excessive variability
(Hencher and Richards 2015). Results from a benchmark
experiment suggest that tilt tests show a good degree of
reproducibility when tilt testing is carried out under con-
trolled conditions (Alejano et al. 2017).
Surface finishing (‘polishing’) and wear, tilting velocity
and equipment vibration, relative humidity and adhesion are
some issues that may affect the results of tilt tests. In this
section, several notes and recommendations are given to
minimize the impact of these potential problems.
Surface finishing is strongly influenced by the rock min-
erals, grain size and hardness, by the saw blades or disks
and the cutting equipment, and particularly by the expertise
of the personnel. Though this SM recommends a particu-
lar type of saw blade, planarity and smoothness of the final
ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Basic Friction Angle of Planar Rock Surfaces by Means…
Fig. 5  Detailed view of bad matching observed between two speci-
mens representing undesirable cutting
surfaces can be achieved with different tools and careful
cutting.
So, examining planarity of the rock surfaces is important,
and for this purpose, the rock surface should be positioned
on top of a flat surface and the contact inspected against
a light source. If a perfect contact is not seen (Fig. 5), the
surface should be discarded.
Surface wear resulting from successive repetitions may
yield unreliable results. Small hard debris rolling may cause
premature sliding and decrease the tilt angle, while very fine
rock powder resulting from surface milling or hard rock pol-
ishing may increase the tilt angle. Thus, cleaning of the sur-
faces prior to all test repetitions is essential. This rather sim-
ple task should be carefully performed using such a brush
that neither damages the rock surface nor leaves brush mate-
rials on the surface. Soft tissues are also not recommended
as cleaning materials since they may leave small threads on
the rock surfaces. Limiting sliding of the upper part of the
specimen to 10% of the contact length (Fig. 4) ensures less
variable and more representative results. It should be noted
that the normal stress acting when sliding occurs is likely to
be less than 0.01 MPa if the sample dimension (h) is limited
to a few centimetres.
According to recent studies (Pérez-Rey et al. 2019; Jang
et al. 2018), scale-effect has been reported to have negligi-
ble influence on tilt-test results at a laboratory scale (speci-
men lengths ranging from 10 to 20 cm-length and l/h ratios
greater than 3). A minimum contact surface (50 cm2) has
been established as a lower limit (Alejano et al. 2012) to
avoid poor contact of surfaces. Consequently, setting a mini-
mum contact surface better assures a completely compres-
sive-stress distribution on the contact surface when carrying
out the tilt test.
It has been established that the angular velocity does not
affect the results of tilt tests conducted under mechanically
controlled conditions (Pérez-Rey et al. 2016). However,
results may be significantly affected when manually operated
tilting platforms are used due to vibrations associated with
imperfectly controlled testing procedures or to mismatching
in the mechanical tilting system. Accordingly, for manually
operated tilting tables, a low tilting velocity between 5º and
10º/min should be used to control acceleration and ensure
comparable results.
Vibrations of the tilting equipment may also influence the
results of tilt tests (Alejano et al. 2017). It is recommended
to use common portable measuring devices to determine
the maximum vibrations of the equipment. Values below
0.005 g can be considered negligible. Nevertheless, hand-
operated 1:100 or 1:200 reduction-gear tilt-tables are largely
without vibration since the rotating mechanism weighs sev-
eral kilograms. A concrete laboratory floor area and heavy
and stable benches/tables are recommended.
Moisture activates adhesion surfaces of several rock lith-
ologies, such as friable limestones, mudstones or gypsum
(Mehrishal et al. 2016, 2017). Since it is not fully recognized
if relative humidity influences the results of tilt tests, it is
recommended, whenever possible, to perform the tests under
environmentally stable conditions (e.g., relative humidity
between 50 and 55% and temperature around 20° ± 2º).
In the cases where tests have to be performed in situ or in
uncontrolled environmental conditions, results should be
treated with caution.
Recent studies by Li et al. (2017) revealed a small mean
difference (2°) between results from tilt tests using three
core linear contacts and surface contacts (Fig. 6). Such
45
Test data
(González et al 2014) +5.5o
40
-5.5o
35
φ3C (o)
30
mean
25
In average
20 φ 3C= φSC+ 2o
45o line
15
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
φSC (o)
Fig. 6  Friction angles measured on three-core linear contact speci-
mens (φ3C) samples and on lengthwise-cut-core (surface contact)
specimens (φSC) (Li et al. 2017)
13
 L. R. Alejano et al.

differences between the different types of tests require fur-
ther research and adequate recognition by practitioners that
utilize the values of tilt tests to determine the basic friction
angle. In the three-core test, it is important to maintain a
tight contact between the two lower cores. The upper core
will eventually get wedged if the two lower cores are allowed
to separate. Two-core tests with loose vertical guiding walls
are recommended in preference to three-core tests. The core
axes in both two-core and three-core tests must be parallel to
the dip direction of the tilt table. A deviation of the core axes
would lead to an increase in the measured friction angle.
In tests with cores in hard rocks, grooves or irregular pro-
files are sometimes observed on the core surfaces due to
poor drilling. In these cases, quick sand-blasting has shown
to produce more reliable results.
One of the aims of this suggested method is to provide
guidelines to avoid the common mistakes made when car-
rying out these simple tests without due care. Although the
test is apparently a very simple one, it may involve vari-
ous physical phenomena associated with the behaviour of
the contact surfaces, which may result in complex sliding
results. The tilt test results may be associated not only with
frictional but also with adhesion and textural (micro-rough-
ness) phenomena under particular circumstances (Mehrishal
at al. 2017; Hencher and Richards 2015; Aydan et al. 1995).
Therefore, a cautious application of the basic friction angle
values obtained is recommended.
Acknowledgements  The authors acknowledge the five reviewers (Dr.
Nick Barton, Prof. Anna Maria Ferrero, Dr. Dong-Hyun Kim, Dr. Fre-
drik Johansson and Dr. Mostafa Sharifzadeh) for their critical reviews
and constructive comments that led to significant improvements to
the Suggested Method. The authors also thank all members of the
ISRM Testing Commission for guidance and, particularly, Dr. Suseno
Kramadibrata for his useful comments and Prof. Xia-Ting Feng, for
his kind help throughout the review process of the Suggested Method.
The authors finally acknowledge the members of the ISRM board and
particularly Doug Stead and Petr Konicek for final corrections to this
document.
Appendix
See Table 1.

Table 1  Suggested table for Test arrangement: choose between the following: surface contact, linear contact between two cores or
reporting basic friction angle linear contact between three cores
results obtained from tilt tests
Date: Tilting rate (°/min):
Rock type: Specimen identification:
Series β1 β2 β3 β4 β5 T W ϕba
(°) (°) (°) (°) (º) (°C) (%) (º)

Series 1
Series 2
…
Series i
a
 Estimated using Eq. 1 in the case of surface contact and linear contact between two cores, or using Eq. 2
for linear contact between three cores

13
ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Basic Friction Angle of Planar Rock Surfaces by Means…

References Li CC, Zhang N, Ruiz J (2017) Measurement of the basic friction angle
of planar rock discontinuities with three rock cores. Bull Eng Geol
Environ. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1006​4-017-1045-0
Alejano LR, González J, Muralha J (2012) Comparison of different
Mehrishal S, Sharifzadeh M, Shahriar K, Song JJ (2016) An experi-
techniques of tilt testing and basic friction angle variability assess-
mental study on normal stress and shear rate dependency of basic
ment. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1023–1035
friction coefficient in dry and wet limestone Joints. Rock Mech
Alejano LR, Muralha J, Ulusay R, Li CC, Pérez-Rey I, Karakul H,
Rock Eng 49(12):4607–4629
Chryssanthakis P, Aydan Ö, Martínez J, Zhang N (2017) A bench-
Mehrishal S, Sharifzadeh M, Shahriar K, Song JJ (2017) Shear model
mark experiment to assess factors affecting tilt test results for
development of limestone joints with incorporating variations of
sawcut rock surfaces. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(9):2547–2562
basic friction coefficient and roughness components during shear-
Aydan Ö, Shimizu Y, Kawamoto T (1995) A portable system for in situ
ing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50(4):825–855
characterization of surface morphology and frictional properties
Pérez-Rey I, Alejano LR, Arzúa J, Muralha J (2016) The role of tilt-
of rock discontinuities. In: Proceedings of 4th international sym-
ing rate and wear surfaces on basic friction angle testing. In:
posium field measurements in geomechanics, pp 463–470
Ulusay R, Aydan Ö, Gercek H, Hindistan MA, Tuncay E (eds)
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock
EUROCK2016 symposium, Cappadocia, vol 1, pp 29–31
joints. Eng Geol 7:287–332
Pérez-Rey I, Alejano LR, Muralha J (2019) Experimental study of fac-
Barton N (2011) From empiricism, through theory, to problem solving
tors controlling tilt-test results performed on saw-cut rock joints.
in rock engineering. In: Qian Q, Zhou Y (eds) Proc 12th ISRM
Geotech Test J.  https​://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20​17037​5
international congress on rock mechanics: harmonising rock
Ruiz J, Li CC (2014) Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock
engineering and the environment, Beijing, China, 16–21 October
by three different tilt test methods. In: Alejano LA, Perucho A,
2011, 6th ISRM Müller lecture, pp 3–16
Olalla C, Jimenez R (eds) EUROCK 2014 symposium. CRC
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory
Press, Vigo, pp 261–266
and practice. Rock Mech 1/2:1–54
Stimpson B (1981) A suggested technique for determining the basic
Coulson JH (1972) Shear strength of flat surfaces in rock stability of
friction angle of rock surfaces using core. Int J Rock Mech Min
rock slopes. In: Cording EJ (ed) Proc 13th symposium on rock
Sci Geomech Abstr 18:63–65
mechanics, 1972. ASCE, New York, pp 77–105
Tang ZC, Wong LNY (2016) New criterion for evaluating the peak
González J, González–Pastoriza N, Castro U, Alejano LR, Muralha
shear strength of rock joints under different contact states. Rock
J (2014) Considerations on the laboratory estimate of the basic
Mech Rock Eng 49(4):1191–1199
friction angle of rock joints. In: Alejano LA, Perucho A, Olalla
Ulusay R, Karakul H (2016) Assessment of basic friction angles of
C, Jimenez R (eds) Proc. EUROCK 2014 symposium. CRC Press,
various rock types from Turkey under dry, wet and submerged
Vigo, pp 199–204
conditions and some considerations on tilt testing. Bull Eng Geol
Grasselli G, Egger P (2003) Constitutive law for the shear strength of
Environ 75:1683–1699
rock joints based on three–dimensional surface parameters. Int J
USBR (2009) Procedure for determining the angle of basic friction
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:25–40
(static) using a tilting table test (Designation USBR 6258–09).
Hencher SR (1977) The effect of vibration on the friction angle
http://www.usbr.gov/. Accessed 15 Jan 2017
between planar rock surfaces. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Imperial
Xia CC, Tang ZC, Song YL (2014) New peak shear strength criterion
College of Science and Technology, London University
of rock joints based on quantified surface description. Rock Mech
Hencher SR, Richards LR (2015) Assessing the shear strength of rock
Rock Eng 47:387–400
discontinuities at laboratory and field scales. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 48:883–905
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Jang HS, Zhang QZ, Kang SS, Jang BA (2018) Determination of the
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
basic friction angle of rock surfaces by tilt tests. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 51:989–1004
Kim DH, Gratchev I, Hein M, Balasubramaniam A (2016) The applica-
tion of normal stress reduction function in tilt tests for different
block shapes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3041–3054
Kulatilake PSHW, Shou G, Huang TH, Morgan RM (1995) New peak
shear strength criteria for anisotropic rock joints. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 32(7):673–697

13