Rock Mech Rock Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0365-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock Joints Based
on Three-Dimensional Quantification of Joint Roughness
Jung-Wook Park Yong-Ki Lee
Jae-Joon Song Byung-Hee Choi
Received: 15 May 2012 / Accepted: 29 December 2012
Springer-Verlag Wien 2013
Abstract A new constitutive model to describe the shear
behavior of rock joints under constant normal stiffness
(CNS) and constant normal load (CNL) conditions is pro-
posed. The model was developed using an empirical
approach based on the results of a total of 362 direct shear
tests on tensile fractured rock joints and replicas of tensile
joints and on a new quantitative roughness parameter. This
parameter, the active roughness coefficient Cr, is derived
from the features of the effective roughness mobilized at
the contact areas during shearing. The model involves a
shear strength criterion and the relations between stresses
and displacements in the normal and shear directions,
where the effects of the boundary conditions and joint
properties are considered by the shape indices Cd and Cf.
The model can be used to predict the shear behavior under
CNS as well as CNL conditions. The shear behavior
obtained from the experimental results is generally in good
agreement with that estimated by the proposed model, and
the effects of joint roughness, initial normal stress, and
normal stiffness are reasonably reflected in the model.
Keywords Rock joint  Constitutive model for shear
behavior  Contact area  Joint roughness quantification 
Constant normal load condition  Constant normal stiffness
condition
J.-W. Park  B.-H. Choi
Underground Space Research Team, Korea Institute
of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM),
92 Gwahang-no, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea
Y.-K. Lee  J.-J. Song (&)
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Research
Institute of Energy and Resources, Seoul National University,
599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea
e-mail: songjj@snu.ac.kr
1 Introduction
Joint roughness is the most important factor influencing the
shear behavior of rock joints. Due to the undulating surface
of such joints, their shear behavior is accompanied by
complicated phenomena such as normal dilation, asperity
failure, and changes in contact area. Depending on the
circumstances, normal dilation, especially, can have an
effect on the normal load conditions exerted on the joint. If
a joint is adjacent to a free face, as in a rock slope,
movement in the normal direction is permitted during
sliding, and the normal force acting on the joint is not
changed by the normal displacement. On the other hand,
joints proximal to underground excavations are confined by
the surrounding rock mass. In such cases, the normal
dilation of the joint leads to an increase in normal stress.
These different boundary conditions can be simulated in
the laboratory by maintaining constant normal load (CNL)
or constant normal stiffness (CNS), respectively.
In the last few decades, considerable effort has been
devoted to explaining the shear strength and behavior of
joints in terms of CNL conditions. Following the intro-
duction of Pattons bilinear model based on sawtooth joints
(Patton 1966), peak shear strength criteria were developed
by Ladany and Archambault (1970), Barton and Choubey
(1977), Kulatilake et al. (1995), and Grasselli and Egger
(2003). Several empirical and theoretical models have also
been proposed to explain the postpeak response and
asperity degradation (Bandis et al. 1983; Crotty and
Wardle 1985; Plesha 1987; Lee et al. 2001).
On the other hand, investigations that use models to
explain the shear behavior of rock joints under CNS con-
ditions are very limited; this may be due to the difficulty of
building a suitable apparatus to control normal loads. In
earlier studies, the stiffness of the surrounding rock mass
123

was simulated by inserting a spring assembly with a known
stiffness between a rock specimen and a normal loading
plate. Despite some successful applications reported in the
literature (Johnston et al. 1987; Indraratna and Haque
1997), this method typically encounters problems related to
the replacement of the spring and to possible breakage of
the test sample due to the relatively high normal stiffness
used. More recently, with the development of the servo-
controlled shear machine, experimental studies on shear
behavior under CNS conditions have increased. Johnston
et al. (1987) presented the idealized shear behavior of
joints under CNS conditions using experiments on saw-
tooth rockconcrete joints. Since then, numerous experi-
mental studies of shear behavior under CNS conditions
have been reported (Van Sint Jan 1990; Kodikara and
Johnston 1994; Ohnishi and Dharmaratne 1990; Indraratna
et al. 1998; Seidel and Haberfield 2002a; Jiang et al. 2006).
Most such experimental studies used an artificially gener-
ated sawtooth-shaped joint, and the applied loading con-
ditions were insufficient to fully understand the shear
behavior under CNS conditions.
Saeb and Amadei (1990) proposed a graphical method
for prediction of joint responses to different normal stiff-
nesses and to normal stress, and Skinas et al. (1990) pre-
sented a numerical method for calculation of dilation and
the corresponding normal stress using the BartonBandis
model (Barton et al. 1985). These two methods, however,
were developed based on behavior under CNL conditions.
Son et al. (2006) observed that the stress path (the varia-
tions of shear stress against normal stress) of CNS condi-
tions lay under the peak failure envelopes determined from
CNL conditions. Similar observations have already been
reported by Indraratna et al. (1998). From the comparison
between the friction coefficient curve measured in CNS
tests and that predicted by the BartonBandis model, Son
et al. concluded that the BartonBandis model tended to
overestimate the friction coefficient of CNS tests; this
suggests the necessity for a reliable model to describe the
shear behavior of rock joints under CNS conditions. Seidel
and Haberfield (2002b) proposed a model for shear
behavior under CNS conditions; however, in this model, the
process used to determine the parameters was very com-
plex. Two problems associated with all the models cited
above are that insufficient experimental evidence was pre-
sented and that the complicated behavior observed under
CNS conditions was immoderately simplified from a theo-
retical viewpoint. In addition, there have been few studies to
date that predict postpeak behavior under CNS conditions.
For a constitutive model of the shear behavior of rock
joints to be realistic, proper quantification of joint rough-
ness is a priority, regardless of the boundary conditions.
Several methods have been proposed to quantify joint
roughness; these use indices such as the joint roughness
123
J.-W. Park et al.
coefficient (JRC, Barton and Choubey 1977), statistical
parameters (Tse and Cruden 1979; Maerz et al. 1990), and
the fractal dimension (Huang et al. 1992; Xie et al. 2001).
Despite these efforts, description of joint roughness is a
problem of considerable interest that is still awaiting a
solution. In most analyses of the shear strength and
behavior of a joint, its roughness is characterized by a
single value that remains constant regardless of the shear-
ing area or shearing stage. In fact, only certain fractions of
the joint are in contact during a shearing process, and every
part of the joint surface makes a different contribution to
the shear behavior. Therefore, from a mechanical point of
view, the surface roughness of a rock joint should be
characterized on the basis of these aspects.
In this paper, a constitutive model for the shear behavior
of rock joints under CNL and CNS conditions is proposed.
The model includes a criterion for peak shear strength and
describes the relationships between stresses and displace-
ments in the normal and shear directions. The developed
model is based on a newly proposed roughness parameter
and on a series of direct shear tests of tensile fractured rock
joints and replicas of tensile joints under CNL and CNS
conditions. It is capable of representing the combined
effects of the influencing parameters, such as the initial
normal stress, normal stiffness, joint strength, and joint
roughness. Details of the procedures used to derive the
roughness parameter from the characteristics of the contact
areas during the shearing process are presented, and the
experimental results are summarized and discussed.
2 Description of Experiments
Direct shear tests of tensile fractured rock joints and rep-
licas of tensile joints were carried out under constant nor-
mal load (CNL) and constant normal stiffness (CNS)
conditions, to investigate the effects of normal load con-
ditions, joint properties, and roughness mobilization
according to shear direction.
Rock blocks of Hwangdeung granite, Geumsan lime-
stone, and Onyang gneiss from Korea were prepared, and a
tensile fracture (150 mm 9 118 mm) was generated at the
center of each block. To make replicas of tensile fractured
joints, rectangular aluminum molds (143 mm 9 116 mm)
were manufactured from five granite joints, one limestone
joint, and four gneiss joints. Two molds of gneiss joints
were then cut into circles with 105 mm diameter, as shown
in Fig. 1. The replicas of the rectangular molds were used
to examine the influences of normal load conditions and
joint properties, while the replicas of the circular molds
were used to investigate the effects of shear direction. In
the case of gneiss, there was well-developed schistosity
structure. The tensile fracture was induced by applying a
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
line load on each block in a direction perpendicular to the
schistosity structure such that the anisotropy of the joint
roughness with respect to shear direction could be maxi-
mized. In Fig. 1, line AB indicates the direction parallel to
the schistosity, and the shear direction angle a refers to the
clockwise angle of line AB from the shear direction indi-
cated by the arrow.
Each type of circular replica was tested in 12 different
shear directions at 30 intervals. The specimens are des-
ignated according to rock type and shape: GR, LM, and GN
indicate granite, limestone, and gneiss tensile joints,
respectively, and Rc and Rr indicate circular and rectan-
gular replicas, respectively.
To minimize possible errors and to enhance the repro-
ducibility of the specimens, a complete product of high-
strength grout consisting of cement, sand, plaster, and
additives mixed in weight ratio of 32:50:15:3 was used as
the material for all replicas. To diversify the properties of
the replica specimens, four different weight ratios of the
product to water (100:14, 100:15, 100:17, and 100:19)
were used. All the specimens were cured for 4 days at
room temperature.
Table 1 lists the physical and mechanical properties of
the specimens used in this study. The basic friction angle
was determined from direct shear tests on perfectly flat
surfaces in which five different normal stresses in the range
of 0.22.0 MPa were applied. In the table, the ranges of
JRC according to specimen type are also included. In this
study, the JRC value of each specimen was obtained by two
methods: back-calculation via the results of direct shear
testing, and calculation from correlations between the JRC
of ten standard profiles (Barton and Choubey 1977) and the
statistical parameter Z2. The method of evaluating the JRC
Fig. 1 Circular aluminum molds for specimens Rc-01 and Rc-02;
the shear direction angle a refers to the angle between line AB
parallel to the schistosity and the shear direction indicated by the
arrow
by visual comparison with standard profiles was not con-
sidered due to its subjective nature.
Rearrangement of the shear strength criteria suggested
by Barton (1973) results in the following equation for the
back-calculated JRC:
tan1 spk =rn  /b
JRC ; 1
log10 JCS=rn
where spk is the peak shear strength, rn is the normal stress,
JRC is the joint roughness coefficient, JCS is the joint wall
compressive strength, and b is the basic friction angle. In
this procedure, the JCS was assumed to be equal to the
uniaxial compressive strength of the specimen, because all
the tensile fractures were fresh without weathering (Barton
and Choubey 1977).
The method to relate the coefficient Z2 to the JRC has
been widely used in the literature to overcome the sub-
jectivity of standard profiles, although this method was not
suggested by Barton and his coauthors. We also evaluated
the JRC of each specimen using the correlations between
the JRC and the coefficient Z2 (Eq. 2), which had been
suggested by Yu and Vayssade (1991), where the coeffi-
cient Z2 is expressed as Eq. 3.
JRC 61:79Z2  3:47; 2
" #1=2
1XN 1
zi1  zi 2
Z2 ; 3
L i1 xi1  xi
where L is the length of the profile, (xi, zi) is the ith datum,
and N is the total number of data. In this procedure, the
values of the coefficient Z2 were calculated using data
at 0.5-mm intervals drawn from the raw data measured at
0.1-mm intervals, because Eq. 2 was derived based on
profiles obtained at 0.5-mm intervals. The ranges of JRC
provided in Table 1 are the length-weighted average values
of all the roughness.
For the direct shear tests, a servo-controlled apparatus
that was designed and built to test the shear behavior of
joints under constant normal load (CNL) and constant
normal stiffness (CNS) conditions was used. The body of
the apparatus comprises a main frame, a control program
for data acquisition and operation of the instrumentation
system, a hydraulic power unit, and an analog-to-digital
converter. A number of shear tests have been conducted
using this apparatus and have indicated good performance
(Rim et al. 2005; Son et al. 2006).
In this study, a total of 362 laboratory tests were carried
out on 52 granite joints, 28 limestone joints, 25 gneiss
joints, and 115 replicas. Shear and normal forces were
continuously applied and monitored until the total shear
displacement reached approximately 10 % of the specimen
length: 10 mm for circular specimens and 15 mm for
rectangular specimens.
123
 J.-W. Park et al.

Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of the specimens

Property Granite Limestone Gneiss Replica (Rr & Rc)
(GR) (LM) (GN)
100:14 100:15 100:17 100:19

Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 184.08 79.16 134.30 83.91 74.03 65.33 54.19
Youngs modulus (GPa) 55.43 51.28 54.37 31.10
Poissons ratio 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.24
Brazilian tensile strength (MPa) 8.38 5.24 11.26 5.41 5.04 3.92 3.39
P-wave velocity (m/s) 3,530 5,113 5,209 3,210
S-wave velocity (m/s) 1,949 2,522 2,067 1,800
Porosity (%) 0.63 0.34 0.69 9.15
Dry specific gravity 2.65 2.75 2.74 2.20
Basic friction angle () 34.29 31.41 34.19 31.03 31.94 32.21 31.45
JRC back-calculated from test results 5.9715.49 5.5817.82 5.0613.59 10.0315.79 3.5815.79 10.0315.79 10.0315.79
JRC calculated using Z2 10.1614.71 12.1216.61 6.1210.14 10.17 5.2715.2 10.17 10.17

Normal stresses in the range of 0.12.0 MPa were
applied in the CNL tests; stresses of this magnitude cor-
respond roughly to load conditions at overburden depth
of 1080 m. It is generally considered that, in most rock
engineering (rock slope) problems, the normal stress acting
on rock joints lies within this range (Barton and Choubey
1977). The normal stiffness applied in the CNS tests ranged
from 0.1 to 2.5 MPa/mm. The normal stiffness Kn of the
CNS test depicts the increment in the normal stresses on
the interface between the rock mass and the joint caused by
normal dilation. It can be calculated by expanding the
infinite cylinder theory, as shown in the following equation
(Johnston et al. 1987; Jiang et al. 2004):
E 3.1 Micro-Slope Angle and Contact Areas
Kn ; 4
1 mr
where E and m are the deformation modulus and Poissons
ratio of the surrounding rock mass, respectively, and r is
the influenced radius.
The number of CNL tests conducted in this study was
245; some of these were repeated shear tests on identical
rock specimens with three or four different normal stresses;
25 of 52 granite specimens, 8 of 28 limestone specimens,
and 8 of 21 gneiss specimens were used in the repeated
loading tests. Each rock specimen was tested under a low
normal stress until its residual state was reached; it was
then repositioned to the initial position and tested again
under a higher stress. In terms of the MohrCoulomb
parameters, such repeated testing may cause a decrease in
the friction angle and increase in the apparent cohesion.
However, it was assumed that the asperity damage was of
relatively minor significance because the stress levels
applied in this test were much lower than the joint wall
strength. Observations of the surface conditions after the
shear test showed that only small fractions of the surface
were damaged. To minimize possible errors in data anal-
ysis, the surface of the specimen was measured and the
roughness was evaluated repeatedly before and after each
shear test. The number of CNS tests conducted in this study
was 117. Most of the CNS tests were designed to examine
the effects of initial normal stress and normal stiffness on
the joints shear behavior and were therefore carried out on
the replicas, allowing us to perform several tests on joints
with the same morphology and properties.
3 Quantification of Joint Roughness
During the shearing process, only certain areas of the joint
surface come into contact and contribute to the shear
behavior. If we imagine a sawtooth-shaped joint with dif-
ferent slopes, we can easily infer that some of the faces
leaning towards the shear direction are in contact, and that
of these, the faces with the steeper slopes are more likely to
come into contact. These facts have been reported in pre-
vious experimental observations (Barton 1973; Bandis
et al. 1981; Haberfield and Johnston 1994; Yeo et al. 1998;
Yang and Chiang 2000). Based on these considerations,
joint roughness should be qualified based on the charac-
teristics of the contact areas rather than the whole surface.
Park and Song (2013) studied the relationship between
the location of the contact areas and the steepness of
localized asperities. In their procedure, a joint surface was
modeled as a group of triangular planes, and the contact
condition of each plane was examined by calculating the
relative displacements of both surfaces from their initial
locations. The steepness of a joint surface, including its
contact areas, was represented using the concept of micro-

123
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
slope angle, an extension of the apparent dip angle angle bE between ~ eE and ~
proposed by Grasselli and Egger (2003).
In the present study, the characteristics of the roughness
mobilization at contact areas were examined by adopting
Park and Songs approach, and a three-dimensional
parameter intended to qualify the joint roughness was
derived based on the investigations. Joint morphology was
measured at 0.1-mm intervals using a three-dimensional
laser profiler with precision of 5 lm in the z direction.
The joint surface was reconstructed from the data as a
group of triangular elements. In this procedure, four
neighboring points defined two triangular planes. Figure 2
shows a schematic diagram that explains the definition of
the micro-slope angle of each element. Each element has a
single-valued true dip angle in space, but the apparent dip
varies with the shear direction; For example, element E in
Fig. 2a has a true dip angle of h when it is sheared in a
direction parallel to the x-axis, while it is apparently not
inclined when sheared in a direction parallel to the y-axis.
For the same reason, we obtain a horizontal line with zero
inclination when we measure the profile of element E in
the y direction.
If the relative shear direction vector (S ~) points in the
direction of movement of one block toward the fixed
opposite block, and the shear-direction plane indicates the
plane that includes the vector and the z-axis, the apparent
dip angle of an element can be obtained from the line of
intersection between the element and the shear-direction
plane; For example, on the xz shear-direction plane in
Fig. 2b, elements A and B have apparent angles of hA and
hB, respectively. The elements dipping toward the shear
direction (e.g., A) may come into contact and actively
contribute to the shear behavior of the joint at the initial
stage, and the elements with the opposite inclination (e.g.,
B) may be detached, causing voids in space. To reflect this
directionality, elements are classified into two groups: the
first group contains the active elements, and the second
group contains the inactive elements. If the vector ~ eE
indicates the projection of the outward normal vector of
triangular element E onto the shear-direction plane, the
Fig. 2 Definition of active and
inactive micro-slope angles
(after Park and Song 2013):
a apparent dip angle and
b micro-slope angle
S is less than 90 for an active
element and more than 90 for an inactive one, ranging
between 0 and 180. Then, the apparent slope angle of
element E (hE) with respect to the shear direction can be
calculated as follows:
hE j90  bE j: 5
To distinguish between active and inactive elements, the
micro-slope angle h*E is defined as follows:
hE 90  bE : 6
Note that the micro-slope angle h*E lies within the range
from -90 to ?90. The plus and minus signs denote
active and inactive elements, respectively. The magnitude
(absolute value) and sign of h*E indicate the steepness and
orientation of a surface element E with respect to the shear
direction.
For the circular specimen Rc-01, the micro-slope angles
of the joint surface were calculated according to the
shearing direction; the contact areas at the peak stages were
estimated using the method suggested by Park and Song
(2013). As mentioned in Sect. 2, the circular specimens
were tested in 12 different shear directions (Fig. 1). Fig-
ure 3 shows contour plots of the micro-slope angles when
the shear-direction angle a is 30, 90, and 270. The
arrows and dotted lines in the circles beside each plot
indicate the shear direction (direction of movement) and
the direction parallel to the schistosity. Active and inactive
elements are displayed in warm and cool colors, respec-
tively, with steeper elements indicated by brighter colors.
The regions near the borders of warm and cool colors
indicate elements for which the magnitude of the micro-
slope angle is very low; such low angles create hills and
valleys in the spatial shear-direction plane. In spite of
the identical surface, the distribution of the micro-slope
angle varied with the shear direction angle a. The portion
of elements with large apparent slope angle increased as
the angle between the shearing and schistosity directions
increased. As observed in the reverse images in Fig. 3b, c,
in the opposite shear direction the sign of the micro-slope
123

angle is reversed, while the magnitude remains the same.
Figure 4 shows the contact areas estimated at peak shear
strength; white depicts noncontact areas. Regardless of the
shear direction, the contact areas were almost entirely
made up of active elements, and the locations of the contact
areas were remarkably consistent with those of the active
zones.
Figure 5 shows the areal distributions of the micro-slope
angle on specimen Rc-01 when the shear direction angle
was 0, 30, 60, and 90. The total elements covering the
surface were sorted according to their micro-slope angles at
2 intervals, and the areas of the elements within each
interval were summed. The total surface area was
9,048 mm2, and the projected area on the xy plane was
8,495 mm2 (radius = 52 mm). The distribution of the
micro-slope angle shows common characteristics regard-
less of the shear direction and joint sample; the micro-slope
angles exhibited bell-shaped areal distributions which were
nearly symmetric around approximately 0, although in the
examples of Fig. 5 the active elements occupied slightly
more area than the inactive ones. With increasing a, the
area of the elements with steeper apparent slopes increased
and that of those with low apparent slope decreased.
Figure 6 presents the areal distribution of micro-slope
angle for the element determined as contact areas at the
peak stage when a is 30. The areal ratio of contact surface
to total surface was 57.61 %. As Fig. 4 illustrates, the
active elements made a major contribution to the contact
areas at the peak stage.
3.2 Active Roughness Coefficient Cr
As discussed above, contact areas according to shear
direction are closely correlated with micro-slope angle. In
particular, the distribution of the active micro-slope angle
can capture the features of roughness mobilization with
Fig. 3 Contour plots of the micro-slope angles of specimen Rc-01
according to shear direction angle a: a a = 30, b a = 90, and
c a = 270; active and inactive elements are displayed in warm and
123
J.-W. Park et al.
respect to the shear direction, which may offer a viable
alternative for quantification of the effective roughness of
rock joints.
Figure 7a shows the areal distribution of the active ele-
ments of specimen Rc-01 according to their shear direc-
tions. The active elements were sorted according to their
micro-slope angle at 2 intervals, and the areas of the ele-
ments within each interval were summed. In the figure, the
sum of the columns heights represents the total area of the
active elements, 5,438.2 mm2. Most of the active elements
have a micro-slope angle that is \50. As the micro-slope
increases, the portion of the corresponding area decreases.
If we proportionally adjust the height of each column in
Fig. 7a so that the total area is 1.0, Fig. 7b is obtained.
Assuming the active micro-slope angle as a random vari-
able x, Fig. 7b indicates the probability density function
(PDF) p(x) that describes the relative likelihood of the
active elements exhibiting a particular active micro-slope
angle. In other words, the area of each column in Fig. 7b is
the geometrical probability P(x) that an active element has
a micro-slope angle within the corresponding range:
P(x) = p(x)dx, where dx = 2.
To model the probability distribution of the active
micro-slope angle as a continuous function, the following
PDF, which uses the parameter Cr, was established by trial
and error:
2 2 2
px p ex =Cr x  0; Cr [ 0; 7
Cr p
where
Z1
2 2 2
p ex =Cr dx 1:0: 8
Cr p
0
Most of the characteristics of the proposed probability
distribution can be explained using only the parameter Cr.
cool colors, respectively. The arrow and dotted line in the circle
beside each plot indicate the relative shear direction and schistosity
direction
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock

Fig. 4 Estimated contact areas and their micro-slope angles at the dotted line in the circle beside each plot indicate the relative shear
peak stage according to the shear direction: a a = 30, b a = 90, direction and schistosity direction
and c a = 270; white denotes noncontact areas. The arrow and

The variable x can be any real number C0, while the

active micro-slope angle ranges from 0 to 90. Thus, the
applicability of this distribution model to the analysis of
the active micro-slope angle needs to be examined. If xc is
the x value when the cumulative probability is 99.99 %, it
can be expressed as Eq. 12 by resolving the condition that
the integration of Eq. 7 from 0 to xc is 0.9999.
s
 
1 1
xc C r ln  2:604Cr : 12
2 1  0:99992

In practice, xc can be regarded as the maximum of the

variable x. According to Eq. 12, if Cr is less than approx-
Fig. 5 Areal distributions of micro-slope angle according to shear imately 43.6, the probability P(x [ 90) is nearly zero, and
direction angle a: results obtained with specimen Rc-01 consequently the proposed PDF is applicable to the active
micro-slope angle.
The expectation E(x) and standard deviation r(x) of the All of the joint surfaces used in our experiments were
probability distribution are expressed as Eqs. 9 and 10, analyzed for active micro-slope angle distribution. In this
respectively. procedure, the parameter Cr giving the best fit was calcu-
Z1 lated through nonlinear regression of the joint data using
Cr Eq. 7. The maximum value of the parameter Cr was found
Ex px xdx p  0:564Cr ; 9
p to be 30.64, which suggests that the proposed distribution
0
model can be applied to general rock joints.
v
uZ1 Figure 8 shows the regression results for specimen Rc-02
u
u according to shear direction. In each plot, the best-fit curve is
rx t pxx2 dx  Ex2
presented with the parameter Cr and the coefficient of
0
q determination R2. The proposed PDF corresponds well to the
1=2  1=pCr2  0:426Cr 10 areal distribution of the active micro-slope angle of the rock
joint. As the shear direction angle a varies from 0 to 90, the
The x value at the inflection point of the PDF curve (x0) parameter Cr increases consistently from 13.34 to 24.85; this
can be calculated from the condition that the second suggests that the parameter Cr has the capability to charac-
derivative is zero. terize the effective roughness. Thus, we propose the param-
Cr eter Cr as a new coefficient for quantification of rock joint
x0 p  0:717Cr : 11 roughness and term it the active roughness coefficient.
2

123

In all cases considered in this study, the measured PDFs
of the active micro-slope angles fit well with Eq. 7,
showing high values of R2 [ 0.95. Although the calculated
Cr within the same rock type did not cover a wide range
due to the nature of the tensile fractured joint, the gneiss
joints showed markedly lower Cr than the granite and
limestone joints: 14.0419.62 for the gneiss, 20.9727.79
for the granite, 21.9230.64 for the limestone, and
12.5427.20 for the replicas.
In fact, the active roughness coefficient is only appli-
cable to a rough joint, and its value is always positive.
Because this concept is based on statistical analysis of the
active slope angle, it is technically impossible to evaluate
Fig. 6 Areal distributions of micro-slope angle of the whole surface
and the contact areas at peak stage: results obtained with specimen
Rc-01 when a = 30
Fig. 7 Areal distribution of active micro-slope angle: results obtained with specimen Rc-01 when a = 30
123
J.-W. Park et al.
the active roughness coefficient of a completely planar
joint. However, we assume the active roughness coefficient
of a planar joint to be zero in the following discussion.
4 Experimental Results and Discussion
4.1 Shear Behavior of Rock Joints Under CNL
and CNS Conditions
Based on the experimental results obtained in this study and
those reported in the literature (Goodman 1974; Barton
et al. 1985; Johnston et al. 1987; Son et al. 2006), the shear
behavior of rough rock joints under CNL and CNS condi-
tions can be simplified as shown in Fig. 9. In the figure,
shear stress, normal stress, and the friction coefficient are
indicated by s, rn, and l, respectively, Ks is the shear
stiffness, spk and srs are the peak and residual shear stresses,
lpk and lrs are the peak and residual friction coefficients, dN
and dT are the normal and shear displacements, and dpk is
the shear displacement at the peak stage. The friction
coefficient equals the ratio of shear stress to normal stress.
Under CNL conditions, the shear stress increases line-
arly until the peak strength is passed, and it reaches a
constant value (ultimate or residual shear resistance).
Because the normal stress does not change during the test,
the friction coefficient curve resembles the shear stress
curve. Under CNS conditions, the shear behaviors exhib-
ited prior to the occurrence of the first peak stress are
nearly identical to those that occur under CNL conditions.
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock

Fig. 8 Determination of the active roughness coefficient Cr from the probability distribution of active micro-slope angles according to shear
direction angle a: results obtained with specimen Rc-02 when a a = 0, b a = 30, c a = 60, and d a = 90

Under conditions of constant normal stiffness, once the
normal dilation is initiated around the first peak, an
increase in normal stress occurs (rn = rn0 ? KndN). The
normal stress path resembles the normal dilation path
except that the initial point is rn0, not zero. Because the
increase in normal stress leads to successive increases in
shear stress, the shear stress exhibits a variety of curves
depending on theinitial normal stress (rn0) and normal
stiffness (Kn). Under conditions of continued shear
displacement, the shear stress sometimes shows a second
peak stress due to high normal load, and the stress some-
times increases persistently to the end of the test. In other
cases, the peak shear stress cannot be observed due to great
increase in normal stress at the peak stage. Son et al.
(2006) categorized the shear behavior of joints under CNS
conditions into three types (I, II, and III) based upon the
shear stressshear displacement curves they observed. In
their experiments, the second peak stress was not observed;

123

Fig. 9 Simplified shear behavior of rough rock joints under a CNL and b CNS conditions
however, Johnston et al. (1987) included the second peak
stress in their idealized model of shear behavior under CNS
conditions. Although the shear stress curve plotted in
Fig. 9b cannot represent all possible behaviors under CNS
conditions, it is possible to generalize the features of the
friction coefficient curves. In all the tests conducted in this
study, the curves showed obvious peak and residual stages,
and in spite of the existence of different initial degrees of
normal stress and normal stiffness, the behavior of the
friction coefficient after the peak was nearly consistent
with the curve plotted in Fig. 9b.
In this section, the experimental results obtained are
briefly presented and discussed. Because of the considerable
volume of data, only a summary can be included here. The
CNL and CNS conditions are not treated separately in the
discussion below. Here, the CNL condition is assumed to
represent a CNS condition in which rn0 = rn and Kn = 0.0.
The peak and residual stages were determined based cient lb, where the basic friction coefficient was calculated
upon the friction coefficient curve because, as mentioned
above, the friction coefficient curves exhibited similar
behaviors under CNL and CNS conditions. According to the
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) suggested
methods for determining shear strength (Brown 1981), it is
recommended to determine the residual shear strength when
the variation in shear stress is not more than 5 % over a shear
displacement of 1.0 cm. However, it is difficult to attain the
true residual friction coefficient in laboratory shear testing
unless the normal stress is very high, or unless repeated tests
are made (Barton 1973), even though the friction coefficient
reaches a constant value (ultimate friction coefficient).
123
J.-W. Park et al.
Therefore, it should be noted that the residual friction
coefficient lrs in the following discussion indicates precisely
the ultimate friction coefficient.
Table 2 lists a summary of the shear properties of the
joints tested in this study. The peak friction coefficient lpk
ranged from 0.849 to 4.775; in 228 of 362 cases, it was
between 1.0 and 2.0. The effect of the initial normal stress
was clearly observed. When the initial normal stress was
less than 1.0 MPa, the rock specimens showed higher peak
friction coefficients overall than replica specimens. The
residual friction coefficient (ultimate friction coefficient)
lrs was determined by averaging the data with values
between 80 and 100 % of the shear displacement. In most
of the results we obtained, the friction coefficient over the
considered range showed little variation over this range of
shear displacement. In 303 of 362 cases, the residual fric-
tion coefficient was higher than the basic friction coeffi-
from the basic friction angle b (lb = tan b); the basic
friction coefficients were 0.682 for GR, 0.611 for LM,
0.796 for GN, and 0.623 for replica specimens. The shear
stiffness Ks was calculated by dividing the shear stress by
the shear displacement over the linear portion of the shear
stress curve. In performing this calculation, the range of
values between 30 and 70 % of the peak strength (or the
first peak) in the prepeak stage was taken. The replicas
showed a lower average stiffness with higher variations
than the rock specimens, but it was difficult to demonstrate
the effects of rock type on the shear stiffness. The shear
displacement at the peak stage dpk tended to be affected by
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
the initial normal stress. Under the same normal load
conditions, the rock specimens showed peak coefficients at
larger displacements than the replica specimens.
4.2 Effect of Normal Load Conditions on the Shear
Behavior of Rock Joints
For replica specimens Rr-01 to Rr-07, direct shear tests
under 723 different kinds of normal load conditions were
carried out to investigate the effects of initial normal stress
(rn0) and normal stiffness (Kn) on the shear behavior of
rock joints. Because of the considerable volume of data
obtained, only representative examples are presented here.
Figure 10 shows the experimental results obtained using
specimen Rr-06; it presents the shear stress and friction
coefficient curves when rn0 = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 MPa and
Kn = 0.1 MPa/mm. In all the shear stress curves, the first
peak stress was clearly observed; this may be ascribed to a
small increment in normal stress around the peak stage due to
a relatively low normal stiffness. At high rn0, a stress
oscillation around the peak stage was observed; under these
conditions, the shear stress increased to a certain value, and a
sudden drop then repeatedly occurred. For rough rock joints,
this jerky behavior is known as stickslip; it is thought to
result from instability of sliding due to interlocking and
sudden failure of asperities (Byerlee 1970; Scholz and Eng-
elder 1976) and the difference between static and dynamic
friction (Awrejcewicz and Olejnik 2005).
With increasing rn0, the peak friction coefficient lpk
decreased, and the first peak stress was shifted to a larger
shear displacement. The shear stiffness showed slight
variation with rn0. In choosing between the constant
stiffness and the constant shear displacement models sug-
gested by Goodman (1976), the former seems more con-
sistent with the results we obtained regarding the linear
behavior of rock joints in the prepeak stage. As the shear
displacement reached approximately 9 mm, all the curves
approached the residual state and showed similar behavior.
Figure 11 shows the effect of the normal stiffness Kn on
the shear stress. Panel (a) presents the experimental results
obtained with specimen Rr-01 at rn0 = 0.1 MPa and
Kn = 0.0, 0.2, 1.0, and 2.0 MPa/mm, while panel
(b) presents the results obtained with specimen Rr-06 at
rn0 = 0.5 MPa and Kn = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 MPa/mm.
Table 2 Summary of the shear
Parameter
properties of the specimens
Peak friction coefficient, lpk
Residual friction coefficient, lrs
Shear stiffness, Ks (MPa/mm)
Shear displacement at the peak stage, dpk (mm)
When the same rn0 was applied, the shear stress paths in
the prepeak stages were indistinguishable from one
another. This is because the normal load conditions were
not affected by normal stiffness due to the restricted dila-
tion at this stage. However, after the first peak shear stress
occurred, the shear stress exhibited many different paths
according to Kn. At low Kn, the stress showed a tendency to
decrease after the first peak point, while it showed a ten-
dency to increase at high Kn. Although the parameters Kn
and rn0 are not directly comparable due to the use of dif-
ferent physical units, when rn0 was relatively larger than
Kn, the first peak and the stress softening tendency in the
postpeak stage were clearly observed. In Fig. 11a, the first
peak shear stresses were within a similar range when
Kn = 0.0, 0.2, and 1.0 MPa/mm; when Kn = 2.0 MPa/
mm, the shear stress increased dramatically and showed a
second peak stress. Similar tendencies related to the effect
of Kn on shear stress curves are illustrated in Fig. 11b.
Figure 12 shows the effect of the normal stiffness Kn on
the friction coefficient. Figure 12a and b present the fric-
tion coefficient curves at the normal stiffnesses shown in
Fig. 11a and b, respectively. For both specimens, the
friction coefficient was considerably lower at higher Kn
than at low Kn, and the shear displacement at the peak was
shortened. The reason for this is suggested by the shear
stressnormal stress history of the specimens.
Figure 13 presents the shear and normal stress histories
of the friction coefficient paths shown in Fig. 12a. The
small circles indicate the states of stresses at the peak stage
and at shear displacements of 5, 10, and 15 mm. Consid-
erably higher normal stress on the joint occurred at
every shear stage when Kn = 2.0 MPa/mm than when
Kn = 0.2 MPa/mm. When Kn = 2.0 MPa/mm, the normal
stress at the peak stage was already increased by the normal
dilation, in spite of the very small shear displacement
(0.263 mm). This suggests that Kn can affect the peak
friction coefficient.
Evidence for a decrease in lpk with increasing Kn was
found in many of our experiments, as shown in Fig. 14, in
which the values of the applied rn0 are included in
parentheses. The decrease in lpk was more pronounced at
lower rn0 and higher Kn. Under this boundary condition,
normal dilation begins to occur with a very small shear
displacement. This may cause an increment in normal
Granite Limestone Gneiss Replica
(GR) (LM) (GN) (Rc & Rr)
1.0604.775 0.8494.583 0.9643.491 0.8313.301
0.4541.182 0.4441.283 0.6401.123 0.4221.074
0.2362.307 0.7472.400 0.2632.400 0.2683.126
0.2693.687 0.3862.731 0.4042.099 0.1842.102
123
 J.-W. Park et al.

Fig. 10 Effect of initial normal stress (rn0) on shear behavior: results obtained with specimen Rr-06

Fig. 11 Effect of normal stiffness (Kn) on shear stress: results obtained with specimens (a) Rr-01 and (b) Rr-06

stress and significant damage in asperities before devel-
opment of the peak resistance.
A decrease in lpk with increasing Kn can be observed in
the experimental results reported in the literature (Ohnishi
and Dharmaratne 1990; Van Sint Jan 1990; Indraratna et al.
1998; Olsson and Barton 2001; Son et al. 2006). Most
studies, however, have paid little attention to the decrease in
peak friction coefficient; instead they assume that the first
peak shear stress represents the shear strength and conclude
that the mechanical behavior of rock joints under CNL and
CNS conditions differs only after the peak stage. However,
the shear resistance of rock joints under CNS conditions
cannot be fully described using only the first peak shear
stress. The first peak shear stress does not always represent
the maximum shear resistance. In such cases, the peak
friction coefficient or peak friction angle provides a more
appropriate description of the shear resistance. In terms of
the peak friction coefficient, it can be concluded that the
ratio of shear resistance to normal load decreases with
increasing Kn as well as with increasing rn0.
Figure 15 shows the effects of initial normal stress rn0
and normal stiffness Kn. In most of the experimental
results, normal dilation was initiated around the first peak
shear stress. With increasing rn0 and Kn, the maximum
dilation angle and total amount of dilation were restricted.
The joints initially underwent little dilation or even con-
tracted with increasing normal loads. The point at which
dilation was initiated was delayed by an increase in initial
normal stress, while it occurred earlier with an increase in
normal stiffness.

123
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
Fig. 12 Effect of normal stiffness (Kn) on friction coefficient: results obtained with specimens (a) Rr-01 and (b) Rr-06
Fig. 13 Histories of normal and shear stresses under different normal
stiffnesses (Kn): results obtained with specimen Rr-01
4.3 Effect of Joint Wall Strength on the Shear Behavior
of Rock Joints
To examine the effect of the joint wall strength on shear
behavior, a set of joint replicas with the same roughness
and different properties were generated. The aluminum
mold for specimen Rr-07 was used, and four different
weight ratios of the grout product to water (100:14, 100:15,
100:17, and 100:19) were applied. With increasing water
ratio, the uniaxial compressive strength and tensile strength
decreased, while there were no noticeable variations in the
basic friction angle of the planar surface, as shown by the
data in Table 1.
Fig. 14 Effect of normal stiffness on peak friction coefficient; the
values in parentheses are the initial normal stresses applied to the
respective experiments
Figure 16 shows the normal displacement and friction
coefficient as a function of the applied weight ratio when
CNS tests were conducted at rn0 of 0.1 MPa and Kn of
0.2 MPa/mm. With increasing joint strength (decreasing
water ratio), the shear displacement at which normal dila-
tion was initiated and the peak friction coefficient was
developed was delayed. In addition, the maximum dilation
angle, the final normal displacement, and the peak friction
coefficient tended to increase. Observation of the sheared
surface of the joint specimen with weight ratio of 100:19
showed that its surface was significantly crushed and
damaged.
123

Fig. 15 Effects of initial normal stress (rn0) and normal stiffness (Kn) on normal displacement: results obtained with specimens Rr-06 and Rr-01
Fig. 16 Effect of joint wall strength on shear behavior: results obtained with specimen Rr-07
4.4 Effect of Joint Roughness on the Shear Behavior
of Rock Joints
As mentioned in Sects. 2 and 3, the circular replicas were
generated from gneiss joints to maximize the anisotropy of
the roughness mobilization and the corresponding shear
behaviors according to the shear direction (Fig. 1). The
effective roughness in a direction perpendicular to the
schistosity (a = 90 or a = 270) would be expected to be
much higher than that in a parallel direction (a = 0 or
a = 180).
Figure 17 shows the normal displacement and friction
coefficient curves depending on shear direction angle a in
the range from 0 to 90. In the figure, the active roughness
coefficient Cr of the surface of specimen Rc-02 in each
direction is also presented. Note that the active roughness
123
J.-W. Park et al.
coefficient Cr increases with the angle a. With increasing
Cr, the dilation angle at the peak stage and the final normal
displacement increased consistently, although the cases
with a = 60 and a = 90 showed similar dilation paths.
The peak friction coefficient and residual friction coeffi-
cient also tended to increase with Cr. It was difficult to find
the relationship between the joint roughness and the shear
stiffness Ks. The shear displacement at which normal
dilation was initiated and the peak friction coefficient was
obtained was delayed as the roughness increased. Barton
and Bandis (1990) also reported a positive correlation
between JRC and the shear displacement at peak strength
through fitting of 650 experimental results.
Overall, our experimental results indicated that, as the
roughness of the joint increased, the friction coefficient
tended to show a dramatic decrease after the peak stage.
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
The joint roughness seemed to also affect the residual
friction coefficient; in most of the results we obtained, the
residual friction coefficient was higher than the contribu-
tion by the basic friction angle.
5 Constitutive Model for the Shear Behavior
of Rock Joints
In this section, a new constitutive model for the shear
behavior of rock joints is presented. The model defines a
criterion for the peak friction coefficient, and uses the
relationships between stresses and displacements in normal
and shear directions. It can be used to predict the shear
behavior under CNS as well as CNL conditions; for this
reason, CNL and CNS conditions are not discussed sepa-
rately in the material that follows. Here, the CNL condition
is assumed to represent a CNS condition in which rn0 = rn
and Kn = 0.0. In developing the model, an empirical
approach based on our experimental observations was
taken. The calculations used in developing the model were
performed using the NCSS 2007 software package (Hintze
2007).
5.1 Peak Friction Coefficient
The parameters that influence the peak friction coefficient
(lpk) include normal load conditions such as the initial
normal stress (rn0) and normal stiffness (Kn) and joint
properties such as the asperity strength, roughness, and
basic friction angle (b). In consideration of the effects of
the parameters discussed in Sect. 4, the regression model
for the peak friction coefficient (lpk) was established as
Eq. 13 by trial and error. Note that the proposed model
Fig. 17 Effect of joint roughness on shear behavior: results obtained with specimen Rc-02
predicts the peak friction coefficient of freshly mated joints
under CNL and CNS conditions, according to the following
equation:
 C
B rt
lpk ACr eDKn =rn0 lb ; 13
rn0
in which A, B, C, and D are dimensionless parameters used
to fit the experimental data.
In the model, four terms are used: the ratio of tensile
strength to initial normal stress (rt/rn0), the active rough-
ness coefficient (Cr), the friction coefficient mobilized by
the basic friction angle (lb = tan b), and the ratio of
normal stiffness to initial normal stress (Kn/rn0). The first
three terms are dimensionless to avoid the scale effect and
therefore enhance the applicability of the suggested model,
while the last term has units of reciprocal length. If Cr is
zero, Eq. 13 represents the behavior of a planar joint; the
peak friction coefficient is only attributed to the basic
friction angle.
The results of the laboratory tests indicate that asperity
failure may occur at stress levels that are even lower than
the compressive strength; in such cases, the damaged
thickness can be as small as a fraction of a millimeter up to
a few millimeters. These failures may be ascribed to the
development of tensile forces due to interlocking of the
surfaces rather than to compressive forces. Thus, the tensile
strength (rt) of the specimen was chosen as the represen-
tative asperity strength. The shear strength criteria sug-
gested by Ladany and Archambault (1970), Schneider
(1976), and Grasselli and Egger (2003) also adopted tensile
strength as a parameter for the joint wall strength. As rn0
increases, the peak friction coefficient decreases, even
though the maximum shear stress may increase. Most
experimental studies conducted under CNS conditions have
123

reported that Kn had no influence on the shear behavior
before the first peak stress. The observations from our
laboratory, however, suggest that the peak friction coeffi-
cient decreases with normal stiffness due to the increment
of normal stress around the peak stage. Thus, the ratio of
normal stiffness to initial normal stress (Kn/rn0) is used to
model the decrease in the peak coefficient with the normal
stiffness. Note that Kn/rn0 has units of mm-1 because Kn
and rn0 have dimensions of MPa/mm and MPa, respec-
tively. The ratio Kn/rn0 is only required for the estimation
of the peak friction coefficient under CNS conditions.
The results of multiple regression analysis using all 362
experimental data (GR: 112, LM: 52, GN: 47, Rr and Rc:
151) for the model in Eq. 13 yield the following equation,
where the correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.782:
 0:60
3 1:43 rt
lpk 3:1 10 Cr e0:02Kn =rn0 lb 14
rn0
where CNL conditions apply, Eq. 14 can written as Eq. 15
because Kn = 0.0.
 0:60
rt
lpk 3:1 103 Cr1:43 lb : 15
rn0
The experimental results obtained in this study were
compared with their estimations by the proposed model.
Figure 18 shows the results of the comparisons. In the figure,
the peak shear stress spk is presented instead of the peak
friction coefficient lpk to show the results more effectively,
because more than 62 % of the peak friction coefficients
obtained in the experiments ranged from 1.0 to 2.0. Here, the
peak shear stress under CNL conditions indicates the peak
shear strength, while under CNS conditions it indicates the
first peak shear stress or the shear stress at the peak friction
coefficient. The experimental results agree well with those
estimated using the proposed model, even though the peak
friction coefficients of the replicas tended to be
underestimated when the initial normal stress rn0 was
higher than 1.0 MPa. The root-mean-square relative error
calculated from Eq. 16 was 18.7 %.
v
!2
u
u 1 X 362 lipk; measured  lipk; estimated
RMS of relative error t
362 i1 lipk; measured
16
The measured peak shear strength of the circular spec-
imens Rc-01 and Rc-02 were compared with those esti-
mated from the proposed model and from Bartons
empirical model (Barton 1973). Bartons model is the most
widely used criterion for estimating the shear strength of
rock joints; it can be written as follows in terms of the
friction coefficient:
123
J.-W. Park et al.
 
spk JCS
lpk tan JRC log10 /b ; 17
rn rn
where spk is the peak shear strength, rn is the normal stress,
JRC is the joint roughness coefficient, JCS is the joint wall
compressive strength, and b is the basic friction angle. In
the estimations made using Bartons model, the JCS was
assumed to be equal to the uniaxial compressive strength of
the specimen, because all the tensile fractures were fresh
without weathering (Barton and Choubey 1977).
In fact, reliable estimates of the JRC can be determined
through the results of tilt/pull test or direst shear test. How-
ever, in the case of circular specimens, it does not make sense
to estimate the peak shear strength using the back-calculated
JRC and then to compare it with the measured shear strength
because the specimens were tested only once in each shear
direction; there were no additional shear tests for obtaining
the JRCs; in such cases, the peak shear strength estimated
using the back-calculated JRC naturally equals the measured
peak shear strength. Therefore, as an alternative, the JRC
values calculated using the equation suggested by Yu and
Vayssade (1991) were used for the estimations.
Figure 19 shows the results of the comparisons. The
measured strength of the circular specimens Rc-01 and Rc-02
showed good agreement with those estimated from the two
criteria. In both specimens, the shear strengths were con-
siderably higher when a = 270 than when a = 90. The
proposed criterion can reflect this tendency; it demonstrates
the ability of the active roughness parameter Cr to capture the
anisotropy due to the effective roughness mobilization.
However, Bartons model presents identical strengths in the
reverse shear directions, because the JRCs were evaluated by
Yu and Vayssades equation, not by performing tilt/pull test
or direct shear test according to shear directions.
5.2 Constitutive Model for the Shear Behavior
of Rock Joints
As shown in Sect. 4, the shear behavior of rock joints
under CNL and CNS can be simplified using the relation-
ship between normal displacement and shear displacement
and that between friction coefficient and shear displace-
:
ment. In this study, these relationships were formulated as
functions of the shear displacement on the basis of the
experimental results. In each function, the behavior was
divided into a prepeak stage and a postpeak stage. From the
relationships, the variations in the normal and shear stres-
ses with the shear displacement were also derived.
5.2.1 Modeling of the Normal Dilation Curve
In terms of normal displacement, it was assumed that there
was no contraction or dilation before the peak stages and
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock

Fig. 18 Comparison of shear strengths measured in the laboratory tests with those estimated by the proposed model: the results are displayed
according to (a) rock type and (b) applied initial normal stress

Fig. 19 Comparison of peak shear strengths measured in laboratory the estimations made using Bartons model, the JRC was calculated
tests with those estimated by the proposed model and Bartons using the equation suggested by Yu and Vayssade (1991)
empirical model: results obtained with samples Rc-01 and Rc-02. In

that the dilation curve followed a logarithmically increas- Here, dN, dT, and dpk are the normal displacement, the
ing function in the postpeak stage, as expressed in Eq. 18. shear displacement, and the shear displacement at the peak
dN 0 dT
dpk ; 18a stage, respectively, and Cd is the parameter used to
determine the shape of the normal displacement curve.
Cd
dN ln0:5dT  dpk 1:0 dT [ dpk : 18b Note that the unit of displacement is the millimeter.

123
 J.-W. Park et al.

From the derivative of dN with respect to dT, the

dilation angle dN can be written as Eq. 19. The dilation
angle shows a maximum value of arctan(0.5Cd) when
dT = dpk and gradually decreases with increasing shear
displacement.
   
ddN 0:5Cd
dN arctan arctan :
ddT 0:5dT  dpk 1 19
If dT ! 1; then dN ! 0:

Cd is termed the dilation shape index; it can be a real

number that is positive or zero. Increasing Cd affects the
normal displacement and the dilation angle at a certain
shear displacement. If Cd is zero, normal dilation does not
occur; this indicates the shear behavior of a completely
planar joint. Figure 20 shows normal displacement curves
according to the dilation shape index Cd.
For all dilation curves obtained in the experiments, the
measured data (dT, dN) in the postpeak stage were fitted Fig. 20 Modeling of the relationship between normal displacement
and shear displacement; the shape of each curve is determined by the
using Eq. 18b, and the Cd of the best fit was obtained. In shape index Cd
this procedure, dpk was substituted by the measured value
in each experiment. The calculated Cd of the curves 5.2.2 Modeling of the Friction Coefficient
measured in our study ranged from 0.194 to 2.285. We
attempted to derive the relationship between Cd and the It was assumed that the friction coefficient increases line-
influencing parameters. The effect of each parameter on arly to a maximum value in the prepeak stage, and dra-
Cd was similar to that on lpk except for basic friction matically decreases in the residual stages, following a
angle. Thus, we set the regression model of Cd as negative exponential function in the postpeak stage, as
follows: expressed in Eq. 22.
 C
rt l kl dT dT
dpk ; 22a
Cd ACrB eDKn =rn0 ; 20
rn0
l lpk  lrs eCf dT dpk lrs dT [ dpk : 22b
where A, B, C, and D are dimensionless parameters to fit
the experimental data. In Eq. 22, l, lpk, and lrs are the friction coefficient, the
In comparison with Eq. 13, the model of Cd includes the peak friction coefficient, and the residual friction
same components as the model of lpk, except for basic coefficient, respectively; dT and dpk are the shear
friction angle. The result of the multiple regression analysis displacement and the shear displacement at the peak
using all experimental data for the model of Eq. 20 is as stage, and kl is the slope of the linear portion of the friction
follows, where the correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.748: coefficient curve in the prepeak stage. Note that the unit of
 0:18 displacement is the millimeter.
2 0:96 rt Cf is termed the friction shape index; it can be a real
Cd 4:32 10 Cr e0:1Kn =rn0 : 21
rn0 number that is positive or zero. With increasing Cf, the
In Eq. 21, Cr is the active roughness coefficient, rt is the friction coefficient curve shows a dramatic decrease after
tensile strength, rn0 is the initial normal stress, and Kn is the peak stage and reaches the residual state more quickly.
the normal stiffness. Note that the ratio of normal stiffness If Cf is zero, the friction coefficient does not change in the
to initial normal stress (Kn/rn0) has units of mm-1. postpeak stage (lpk = lrs); this represents the behavior of a
Figure 21 shows a comparison of the dilation index Cd completely planar joint. Figure 22 shows the friction
obtained through curve-fitting of the experimental results coefficient curves according to the friction shape index Cf.
to Eq. 18b with that estimated from the influencing The slope kl has following relationship to the shear
parameters using Eq. 21. Substituting the Cd of Eq. 21 into stiffness, Ks:
Eq. 18, we can predict the normal dilation curve from the Ks l s s
kl *kl ; Ks and l
boundary conditions (Kn and rn0) and the joint properties rn dT dT rn 23
(Cr and rt). dT
dpk :

123
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
Fig. 21 Comparisons of the index Cd obtained through curve-fitting
(Eq. 18b) with the value of Cd estimated from the influencing
parameters (Eq. 21)
In the relationship, the normal stress rn can be substi-
tuted by the initial normal stress rn0 in the case of CNS
conditions because no dilation is assumed in the prepeak
stage.
For all the friction coefficient curves, the measured data
(dT, l) in the postpeak stage were fitted to Eq. 22b, and the Cf
of the best fit was obtained. In this procedure, dpk, lpk, and lrs
are substituted by the measured values in each experiment.
The calculated Cf of the curves measured in our study ranged
from 0.13 to 4.67. Unlike the case for the dilation shape index
Cd, it was difficult to clearly define the relationship between
Cf and the influencing parameters because the friction coef-
ficient curves showed many different shapes in the peak
stages. However, Cf tended to increase with decreasing initial
normal stress and with increasing joint roughness. Thus, from
the multiple regression analysis of the experimental results,
we suggest that the relationship between Cf and influencing
factors is as follows:
 0:2
0:3 rt
Cf 0:19Cr : 24
rn0
Although the friction shape index Cf obtained by fitting
the experimental results to Eq. 22b was not always
consistent with its value estimated by Eq. 24, this
approach may be more reasonable than the use of other
methods (Goodman 1974; Grasselli and Egger 2003) in
which the shape of the friction coefficient curve is
relatively simplified.
Fig. 22 Modeling of the relationship between friction coefficient and
shear displacement; the shape of the curve is determined by the shape
index Cf
As discussed in Sect. 4, the residual friction coefficient
was generally higher than the basic friction coefficient.
Note that the residual friction coefficient was determined
by averaging the data with values between 80 and 100 % of
total shear displacement: 1215 mm for GR, LM, GN, and
Rr (rectangular replica) specimens and 810 mm for Rc
(circular replica) specimens. In the strict sense, the residual
friction coefficient lrs in this study indicates the ultimate
friction coefficient. When we substituted the basic friction
coefficient lb (=tan b) instead of the residual friction
coefficient lrs into Eq. 22b, the model showed a poor fit to
the experimental data in many cases. Therefore, it was
necessary to model the residual friction coefficient.
According to the experimental results, the effects of the
boundary condition and joint properties on lrs were similar
to their effects on lpk except for the basic friction angle. In
the model of the peak friction coefficient expressed as
Eq. 14, lpk - lb indicates the shear resistance contributed
by the combination of the initial normal stress, normal
stiffness, joint roughness, and joint strength. Thus, from the
multiple regression analysis of the experimental results, we
propose Eq. 25 as a model of the residual friction
coefficient:
lrs 0:16lpk  lb 0:36 ls : 25
Substituting Cf of Eq. 24, lpk of Eq. 14, and lrs of
Eq. 25 into Eq. 22, we can predict the friction coefficient
curve from the boundary conditions (Kn and rn0) and the
joint properties (Cr, rt, and lb).
123
 J.-W. Park et al.

5.3 Application of the Proposed Model Figures 2325 show the results of CNL tests, and
Figs. 26 and 27 show the results of CNS tests. In CNL
In Sect. 5.2, models for the normal dilation and peak tests, the normal stress remains constant; accordingly, the
friction coefficient were proposed based on the experi- friction coefficient curve resembles that of the shear stress
mental results. Using these relationships, the normal stress curve. Thus, only the shear stress and normal dilation of
and shear stress can also be formulated as functions of the each case are presented. On the other hand, for the CNS
shear displacement. tests, the friction coefficient, normal displacement, shear
The relationship between normal stress (rn) and normal stress, and normal stress curves are all presented.
dilation (dN) is written as Eq. 26. The comparisons suggest that there is good agreement
rn rn0 Kn dN : 26 between the constitutive model and the experimental
results. Under both CNL and CNS conditions, the proposed
Substituting dN of Eq. 18 into Eq. 26, we obtain the model predicts the shear behaviors of rock joints with
relationship between normal stress (rn) and shear different joint properties and different boundary conditions
displacement (dT) as follows: well (Figs. 23, 26). The effects of joint roughness
rn rn0 dT
dpk ; 27a (Fig. 24), initial normal stress (Fig. 25), and normal stiff-
 C ness (Fig. 27) are reasonably reflected in the model. In
rn rn0 Kn ln 0:5dT  dpk 1 d dT [ dpk : 27b addition, the various characteristics of shear stress curves
under CNS conditions, including stress softening and
On the other hand, the relationship between shear stress
hardening tendencies, are well presented.
(s) and normal stress (rn) is written in Eq. 28.
s lrn : 28
Substituting l of Eq. 22 and rn of Eq. 27 into Eq. 28, 6 Summary and Conclusions
we obtain the relationship between shear stress (s) and
shear displacement (dT) as follows: In this paper, a new constitutive model relating stress and
deformation is developed to describe the shear behavior of
s rn0 kl dT dT
dpk ; 29a rock joints under constant normal load (CNL) and constant
h i
s lrs lpk  lrs eCf dT dpk normal stiffness (CNS) conditions. This model is derived
h i on the basis of experimental results and a newly proposed
rn0 Kn ln0:5dT  dpk 1Cd dT [ dpk : 29b roughness parameter, which is termed the active roughness
coefficient, Cr.
In summary, variations in the normal dilation, friction Adopting the approach taken by Park and Song (2013),
coefficient, normal stress, and shear stress with the shear the features of roughness mobilization at the contact areas
displacement can be expressed as Eqs. 18, 22, 27, and 29, were investigated. In this procedure, a joint surface is
respectively; in developing these expressions, the effects of represented as a group of triangular planes. The contact
the boundary conditions and joint properties were condition of each plane was examined, and the surface
considered by adopting the indices Cd and Cf. roughness was characterized using the active/inactive
Figures 2327 present comparisons between the shear micro-slope angle with respect to the shear direction. From
behaviors obtained in laboratory tests and those estimated the observations that the contact areas were almost entirely
by the proposed models. Due to the considerable volume made up of active elements and that the locations of the
of test data obtained, only representative cases are contact areas were remarkably consistent with those of the
included here. In the estimation, the experimental data active zones, we characterized the surface roughness using
were used only for dpk. In practice, it was quite difficult the active roughness coefficient, Cr, which determined the
to find a systematic relationship between dpk and the characteristics of the probability distribution of the active
influencing parameters in our experiments. In some cases, micro-slope angle.
smooth and weak joints exhibited nonlinear behaviors in To investigate the shear behavior of rock joints under
the prepeak stages or showed a ductile tendency around CNL and CNS conditions, a series of direct shear tests were
the peak stage, which caused problems in the determi- carried out on tensile fractured rock joints and on replicas
nation of the point at dpk and in the observation of the of tensile joints that had various strength and roughness
effects of various parameters. According to Eq. 23, the values. The effects of the initial normal stress, normal
shear displacement dpk may be calculated from the shear stiffness, joint strength, and joint roughness on the shear
stiffness Ks because we can estimate spk. However, a behavior were discussed. According to the experimental
model to estimate Ks has not been reported in the liter- results, it was notable that the relative magnitudes of nor-
ature to date. mal stiffness and initial normal stress affected both the

123
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
Fig. 23 Comparison of the results obtained from CNL tests with those estimated by the proposed model: results obtained with specimens a GR-
10, b LM-12, c GN-08, and d Rr-07
shear stress curves after the first peak stage and the peak
friction coefficient. In particular, the peak friction coeffi-
cient decreased with increasing normal stiffness.
The constitutive model proposed in this paper involves a
criterion for peak friction coefficient, and the relations
between stresses and displacements in normal and shear
directions. In our discussion, we focused on the variations
in normal dilation and friction coefficient with shear dis-
placement because it was possible to generalize these
behaviors regardless of the boundary condition, contrary to
the normal and shear stresses, which showed complicated
behaviors under CNS conditions. As factors that influence
the shear behavior of rock joints, the ratio of tensile
strength to initial normal stress (rt/rn0), the active rough-
ness coefficient (Cr), the friction coefficient mobilized by
the basic friction angle (lb = tan b), and the ratio of
normal stiffness to initial normal stress (Kn/rn0) were
selected. Empirical models for the peak friction coefficient,
the normal displacementshear displacement relationship,
and the normal dilationshear displacement relationship
were developed from the multiple regression analysis of
362 experimental data. The latter two models are expressed
as functions of the shear displacement, and they imply the
effects of the boundary conditions and joint properties by
the shape indices Cd and Cf. From these relationships, the
variations in the normal stress and shear stress with the
shear displacement can also be formulated. The shear
behaviors obtained from the experimental results were in
general in good agreement with those estimated by the
proposed model, and the effects of the joint roughness,
initial normal stress, and normal stiffness were reasonably
reflected in the model. Moreover, the active roughness
123
 J.-W. Park et al.

Fig. 24 Comparison of the results obtained from CNL tests on specimen Rc-02 with those estimated by the proposed model: effect of joint
roughness

Fig. 25 Comparison of the results obtained from CNL tests on specimen GN-07 with those estimated by the proposed model: effect of normal
stress

coefficient Cr could capture the features of the roughness
mobilization and the corresponding shear behavior with
respect to the shear direction.
Nevertheless, in the present study, no attempt was made
to demonstrate the scale effect on the shear behavior of
rock joints; the proposed model has validity only for rock
joints at laboratory scale. The scale effect of the shear
behavior may be mainly ascribed to the description of joint
roughness. Therefore, to obtain large-scale surface rough-
ness of rock joints, a reliable method is needed for
extrapolating laboratory data to field scale. A new approach
is proposed here for considering the joint roughness in
engineering problems, and it would be the first step to
comprehend the features of the effective roughness mobi-
lized at the contact areas during shearing. Further study is
needed to ascertain if the characteristics of the distribution
of active micro-slope angle are invariant to joint size. The
effects of the sampling interval at which the joint surface is
described on the active roughness coefficient also should
be thoroughly examined, because reducing the size of the
sampling interval would provide more detailed descriptions
about the measured surface, but the sampling interval may
influence the micro-slope angle and the active roughness
coefficient. In addition, the procedure to obtain the active
roughness coefficient needs to be more simplified for the
proposed constitutive model of shear behavior of rock

123
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock

Fig. 26 Comparison of the results obtained from CNS tests with those estimated by the proposed model: results obtained with specimens a GN-
01, b GR-28, and c Rr-02

123

Fig. 27 Comparison of the results obtained from CNS tests on specimen Rr-07 with those estimated by the proposed model: effect of normal
stiffness
joints to be more practical. To overcome this deficiency,
use of two-dimensional profiles parallel to the shear
direction when establishing the distribution of micro-slope
angle could offer a viable alternative to constructing a
three-dimensional joint model with triangular elements;
this will be one of the subjects in our future research.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by a National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science, and Technology of Korea (No. 2012-0005326),
and supported by a Basic Research Project of the Korea Institute of
Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM, GP2012-001) funded
by the Ministry of Knowledge and Economy of Korea. We appreciate
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to
improve this manuscript.
References
Awrejcewicz J, Olejnik P (2005) Analysis of dynamic systems with
various friction laws. Appl Mech Rev 58:389411
Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR (1981) Experimental studies of
scale effects on the shear behaviour of rock joints. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:121
Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR (1983) Fundamentals of rock
joint deformation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
20:249268
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock
joints. Eng Geol 7:287332
Barton N, Bandis S (1990) Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-
JCS model in engineering practice. In: Barton N, Stephansson O
(eds) Rock joints. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 603610
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in
theory and practice. Rock Mech Rock Eng 10:154
Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K (1985) Strength, deformation and
conductivity coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 22:121140
Brown ET (ed) (1981) ISRM suggested methods: rock characteriza-
tion testing and monitoring. Pergamon, Oxford
123
J.-W. Park et al.
Byerlee JD (1970) The mechanics of stick-slip. Tectonophysics
9:475486
Crotty JM, Wardle LJ (1985) Boundary integral analysis of piecewise
homogeneous media with structural discontinuities. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22:419427
Goodman RE (1974) The mechanical properties of joints. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd congress of international society of rock
mechanics, Denver, pp 127140
Goodman RE (1976) Methods of geological engineering in discon-
tinuous rocks. West, New York
Grasselli G, Egger P (2003) Constitutive law for the shear strength of
rock joints based on three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:2540
Haberfield CM, Johnston IW (1994) A mechanistically-based model
for rough rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
31:279292
Hintze JL (2007) NCSS 2007: Statistical analysis and graphics.
Users Guide, Number Cruncher Statistical Systems, Kaysville,
Utah
Huang SL, Oelfke SM, Speck RC (1992) Applicability of fractal
characterization and modeling to rock joint profiles. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 29:8998
Indraratna B, Haque A (1997) Experimental study of shear behavior
of rock joint under constant normal stiffness conditions. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3-4):141.e1141.e14
Indraratna B, Haque A, Aziz N (1998) Laboratory modelling of shear
behaviour of soft joints under constant normal stiffness condi-
tions. Geotech Geol Eng 16:1744
Jiang Y, Xiao J, Tanabashi Y, Mizokami T (2004) Development of an
automated servo-controlled direct shear apparatus applying a
constant normal stiffness condition. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41:275286
Jiang Y, Li B, Tanabashi Y (2006) Estimating the relation between
surface roughness and mechanical properties of rock joints. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 43:837846
Johnston IW, Lam TSK, Williams AF (1987) Constant normal
stiffness direct shear testing for socketed pile design in weak
rock. Geotechnique 37:8389
Kodikara JK, Johnston IW (1994) Shear behaviour of irregular
triangular rock-concrete joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 31:313322
A Constitutive Model for Shear Behavior of Rock
Kulatilake PHSW, Shou G, Huang TH, Morgan RM (1995) New peak
shear strength criteria for anisotropic rock joints. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 32:673697
Ladany B, Archambault G (1970) Simulation of shear behavior of a
jointed rock mass. In: Proceedings of the 11th US symposium on
rock mechanics, New York, pp 105125
Lee HS, Park YJ, Cho TF, You KH (2001) Influence of asperity
degradation on the mechanical behavior of rough rock joints
under cyclic shear loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:967980
Maerz NH, Franklin JA, Bennett CP (1990) Joint roughness
measurement using shadow profilometry. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr 27:329343
Ohnishi Y, Dharmaratne PGR (1990) Shear behaviour of physical
models of rock joints under constant normal stiffness condition.
In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 413422
Olsson R, Barton N (2001) An improved model for hydromechanical
coupling during shearing of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38:317329
Park JW, Song JJ (2013) Numerical method for determining contact
areas of a rock joint under normal and shear loads. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 58:822
Patton FD (1966) Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In:
Proceedings of the 1st congress of international society of rock
mechanics, vol 1. Lisbon, pp 509513
Plesha ME (1987) Constitutive models for rock discontinuities with
dilatancy and surface degradation. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 11:345362
Rim HR, Choi HJ, Son BK, Lee CI, Song JJ (2005) Experimental
study for shear behaviour of pseudo rock joint under constant
normal stiffness condition. In: Proceedings of the 31st ITA-
AITES world tunnel congress on underground space use,
Istanbul, pp 175181
Saeb S, Amadei B (1990) Modelling joint response under constant or
variable normal stiffness boundary conditions. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27:213217
Schneider H (1976) The friction and deformation behaviour of rock
joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 8:169184
Scholz CH, Engelder JT (1976) The role of asperity indentation and
ploughing in rock friction-I: asperity creep and stick-slip. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:149154
Seidel JP, Haberfield CM (2002a) Laboratory testing of concrete-rock
joints in constant normal stiffness direct shear. Geotech Test J
25:391404
Seidel JP, Haberfield CM (2002b) A theoretical model for rock joints
subjected to constant normal stiffness direct shear. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 39:539553
Skinas CA, Bandis SC, Demiris CA (1990) Experimental investiga-
tions and modelling of rock joint behavior under constant
stiffness. In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 301308
Son BK, Lee CI, Park YJ, Lee YK (2006) Effect of boundary
conditions on shear behaviour of rock joints around tunnel. Tunn
Undergr Sp Tech 21:347348
Tse R, Cruden DM (1979) Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16:303307
Van Sint Jan ML (1990) Shear tests of model rock joints under stiff
normal loading. In: Barton N, Stephansson O (eds) Rock joints.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 323327
Xie H, Sun H, Ju Y, Feng Z (2001) Study on generation of rock
fracture surfaces by using fractal interpolation. Int J Solids Struct
38:57655787
Yang ZY, Chiang DY (2000) An experimental study on the
progressive shear behavior of rock joints with tooth-shaped
asperities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:12471259
Yeo IW, de Freitas MH, Zimmerman RW (1998) Effect of shear
displacement on the aperture and permeability of a rock fracture.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:10511070
Yu X, Vayssade B (1991) Joint profiles and their roughness
parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
28:333336
123