International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Model for the shear behavior of rock joints under CNL

and CNS conditions
Yong-Ki Lee a, Jung-Wook Park b, Jae-Joon Song a,n
a
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Underground Space Research Team, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Empirical models for the shear behavior of rock joints are suggested from the results of direct shear tests
Received 2 January 2013 using a servo-controlled shear testing machine. Cement mortar replicas of rock joints are tested while
Received in revised form varying the normal stiffness, initial normal stress, joint roughness coefcient and joint wall compressive
28 April 2014
strength. The test results are analyzed to investigate the effects of loading conditions and material
Accepted 7 May 2014
properties on the surface resistance index and normal displacement behavior of the joints. In this study,
the ratio of the shear stress to normal stress was dened as the surface resistance index because it shows
Keywords: friction-related characteristics between joint surfaces. Empirical models of the surface resistance index
Rock joint and normal displacement behavior are suggested. In the empirical models, dimensionless terms are
Surface resistance index
adopted to avoid the scale effect and thus enhance the applicability of the suggested models. The
Normal displacement behavior
suggested models can be applied to predict the shear behavior of rock joints, including pre-peak and
Empirical shear behavior model
Constant normal load post-peak shear stress levels, regardless of the loading condition. To verify the suggested models,
Constant normal stiffness additional shear tests of the rock joints and cement mortar replica specimens are carried out, and the
performance of the models is compared with those of other models such as Barton's empirical model.
The suggested models are applied to the test results of previous studies. The predictions of the suggested
models corresponded well with the experimental results for the overall stress levels.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The shear behavior of rock joints is an important issue in the
design of rock structures in jointed rock masses. To investigate the
overall shear behavior of rock blocks around a rock structure, rock
joints should be tested under constant normal load (CNL) or
constant normal stiffness (CNS) conditions. The CNL condition is
applicable to rock slopes, whereas the CNS condition is based on
underground rock masses where the shear behavior of rock joints
depends on the stiffness of the rock mass. In terms of eld
application, the CNS condition is more general because the CNL
condition can only be applied to limited situations, as it does not
consider alteration to the normal stress by dilation. Therefore,
these conditions must be selectively applied by considering the
eld conditions [1,2].
Direct shear tests under the CNL condition have been more
frequently adopted in studies on the shear behavior of rock joints
primarily because of the simplicity and ease of experimentation.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 82 2 880 9043; fax: 82 2 871 8938.
E-mail address: songjj@snu.ac.kr (J.-J. Song).
Since Patton [3] suggested a bilinear model for idealized saw-tooth
joints, many studies have been performed under the CNL condition
[47]. On the other hand, there have been few studies conducted
under the CNS condition because of the experimental difculties.
In early CNS tests, springs were inserted between a rock specimen
and normal loading plates to keep the normal stiffness constant.
Even with some successful applications of the springs to CNS tests,
the drawbacks of this early device are obvious: changing springs
because of changes in rock mass stiffness is a cumbersome and
inconvenient job, and joint surfaces are easily damaged under high
normal stiffness conditions [8,9].
Since then, shear tests under the CNS condition have increased
with the development of servo-controlled direct shear testing
machines. Rim [10] investigated the correlation between the
inclination angle, initial normal stress, normal stiffness and shear
parameters under the CNS condition, and Son [11,12] employed
rock joints and their replicas made of cement mortar in CNS tests
to investigate the effect of boundary conditions and the roughness
of joints on shear behavior.
Moreover, many researchers have performed studies related to
models of shear behavior. Barton et al. [13] suggested the Barton
Bandis model based on various shear test results, and this model is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.05.005
1365-1609/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263 253

widely used even today. Saeb and Amadei [14] presented an
explanatory diagram of shear behavior of rock joints under the
CNL condition, and Haque and Ranjith [15] compared the results of
shear tests with numerical analysis using a continuous yielding
model in Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC). Seidel et al.
[16,17] suggested a theoretical model for shear behavior under the
CNS condition, but the decision processes of the suggested para-
meters are very complex. These studies suggested shear behavior
models for joints mainly based on theoretical analysis; only a few
studies use an empirical approach to shear behavior under the CNS
condition. It cannot be too emphasized to verify the theoretical
models by using physical measurements considering the applic-
ability of the models. The empirical verication, however, often
suffers from insufcient data or difculty in obtaining the para-
meters of the suggested models. The empirical approach, on the
other hand, usually has a weak theoretical basis and can lead to
more conservative design solutions [18]. BartonBandis model is
suggested by empirical approach using many test results, but its
applicability is limited in specic situations such as soft rocks or
joints with low roughness [19,20]. Moreover, according to Son
[11,12], the model tends to overestimate the shear stress under low
normal stiffness conditions. Although Son suggested a modied
BartonBandis model for low normal stiffness conditions, it has
insufcient applicability because of its indenite range of application,
such as for normal stiffness. Recently, Park et al. [21] suggested a new
roughness coefcient and an empirical shear behavior model based
on this coefcient that considers the contact area in joint planes.
Analysis method used in Park et al.s study is distinguished from
method used in this study, even though specimens with same
property are used. This study focused on easy application by adopting
generally used roughness concept. On the other hand, Park et al.
mainly studied about developing new roughness coefcient and thus
the constitutive model is completely based on the new coefcient,
which needs a highly complicated and new approach to estimate the
shear behavior of rock joint. Also, the constitutive model was
constructed by using regression analysis and not compared with
any other test results in other study. It was only compared with test
results performed in the study.
In this study, an empirical model for the shear behavior was
suggested based on direct shear tests using a servo-controlled
shear testing machine. Building the model requires multiple tests
under various conditions with specimens having the same rough-
ness. It is, however, impossible to obtain such rock specimens from
nature. That is why cement mortar has been adopted to make
replicas for the model building. The cement mortar replicas of rock
joints were tested while varying the normal stiffness (Kn), initial
normal stress (s0), joint roughness coefcient (JRC), and joint wall
compressive strength (JCS). Test results were analyzed to investi-
gate the effects of loading conditions and rock properties on the
surface resistance index and normal displacement of the joints.
Empirical models of the surface resistance index and normal
displacement were suggested based on the results. To verify the
applicability of the suggested model, which is based on the test
results of replica specimens, to real rock specimens, the joint shear
test results of Hwangdeung granite and Onyang gneiss were
compared with the test results predicted by the suggested model.
The suggested model was also compared with the existing results
of other researchers for verication.
2. Experiment
2.1. Test equipment
In this study, direct shear tests were performed using a direct
shear testing machine where the displacement and stress were
servo-controlled in both the normal and shear directions. The
displacement and stress were measured with linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) and load cells. The normal and
shear load cells were of a strain gauge type where the load is
measured by detecting changes in the resistance of the strain
gauge built in the load cells. These load cells had a safe loading
range of 30 ton, a load capacity of 60 ton, and less than 0.05%
nonlinearity and elastic hysteresis.
A three-dimensional laser proling machine was used to prole
the joint surface with a spacing of 0.5 mm. This machine consists of a
laser displacement meter, positioning system, and control computer.
The laser displacement meter measured the displacement of each
point using the angle of the reected laser, which had a wavelength
of 600 nm and maximum capacity of 1.9 mW. This machine had a
minimum measurement interval of 0.5 m on the X and Y axes, and a
measurement range of 79 mm on the Z axis. The performance of
both machines was veried in previous studies [10,22,23].
2.2. Specimens
In this study, specimens were named after their rock type and
joint roughness; e.g., GR-14.04 indicates a Hwangdeung granite
specimen with a JRC of 14.04. GN represents Onyang gneiss, and R
represents a replica; e.g., R-12.72 indicates that the specimen is a
replica with a JRC of 12.72. The JRC of specimens was calculated
using the regression equation between the JRC and Z2, as sug-
gested by Tsu and Cruden [24]
JRC 32:2 32:47 log Z 2 1
where
" Z  2 #1=2 " N  1 #1=2
1 L dy 1 yi 1  yi 2
Z2 dx 2
L x 0 dx L i 1 xi 1 xi
This process was performed at measurement intervals of 0.5 mm.
Table 2 lists all of the sample types used in this study and their
roughness.
Hwangdeung granite and Onyang gneiss blocks were split to
produce tensile fracture at the center, and their replicas for the
direct shear tests were made by using non-contraction and high-
strength grout consisting of soil, cement, anhydrite gypsum, and
additives mixed at a weight ratio of 50:32:15:3. Replicas were
cured for 4 days at room temperature and prepared with seven
types of roughness: JRC values of 4.63, 11.30, 12.33, 12.72, 12.84, 13.71,
and 13.86. Table 1 summarizes the properties of the specimens used
in this study. The JCS was set to be the same as the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) because all tensile fractures were fresh

Table 1
Properties of the specimens used in this study.

Properties Hwangdeung granite Onyang gneiss Mortar (14%) Mortar (15%) Mortar (17%) Mortar (19%)

Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 184.08 170.11 83.91 74.03 65.33 54.19
Young's modulus (Gpa) 55.43 54.37 30.31
Poisson's ratio 0.28 0.28 0.27
Brazilian tensile strength (Mpa) 8.38 12.63 5.41 5.04 3.92 3.39
Basic friction angle (1) 34.29 34.22 31.03 34.57 32.21 31.45
254 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263
without any hint of weathering [25]. Water at 15% of the total grout
weight was added to the cement to make the replicas. The water
ratio was adjusted to change the JCS in some cases.
In this study, 102 shear tests were performed while varying
the initial normal stress (0.11.5 MPa) and normal stiffness
(03.0 MPa/mm) to build a shear behavior model based on four
of the seven replica types: R-4.63, R-11.30, R-12.33, and R-12.72.
Single replica specimen used for a single test with various stress
and stiffness conditions. The other three replica types and the
tensile fractured rock joints were used to verify the suggested
model across 16 tests under different levels of initial normal stress
(0.10.5 MPa) and normal stiffness (01.0 MPa/mm).
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Setting of shear parameters
Generally, the shear test under the CNL condition clearly shows
a peak point of shear stress throughout the shear process. At this
point, the stress and displacement values indicate the peak shear
stress (p) and peak shear displacement (up), respectively. On the
other hand, it is difcult to dene a peak point under the CNS
condition because test results under certain CNS conditions do not
clearly show maximum shear stress values [11,12].
Therefore, shear parameters were set based on the surface
resistance index (SRI), which was dened as the ratio of the shear
stress to the normal stress (/s) in this study because it always
showed a clear peak point under all conditions. The peak shear
stress and peak shear displacement were set at the maximum
surface resistance index (peak surface resistance index, SRIp).
The normal stress was calculated using the relation between
the initial normal stress, normal stiffness (Kn), and normal dis-
placement (v) as follows:
sv s0 K n v
In this study, therefore, the CNL condition can be also represented
by the CNS condition where the normal stiffness is zero.
3.2. Shear behavior of rock joints under various boundary conditions
and rock properties
3.2.1. Normal displacement and stress behavior
In every test condition, the normal displacement hardly chan-
ged in the pre-peak range and then increased continuously in the
Fig. 1. Behavior of normal displacement and normal stress of R-12.33 specimens at various normal stiffness conditions: (a) normal displacement vs. shear displacement
and (b) normal stress vs. shear displacement.
post-peak range. In most of the test results, the change in the
normal displacement at the pre-peak range was less than 0.1% of
the total increment. In this study, therefore, the normal displace-
ment was assumed to be zero in the pre-peak range. Fig. 1 shows
the normal displacement and stress behavior under various levels
of normal stiffness. As the normal stiffness increased, the incre-
ment in the post-peak normal displacement decreased, whereas
the increment in the post-peak normal stress increased. This
indicates that the product of the normal stiffness and normal
displacement increased according to Eq. (3). Fig. 2 shows the effect
of the initial normal stress. In Fig. 2(a), it is difcult to identify
incremental trends of the normal displacement because the peak
shear displacement (A) increased with the initial normal stress.
Therefore, Fig. 2(b) shows the results excluding the pre-peak
range. According to Fig. 2(b), the increment in the post-peak
normal displacement decreased as the initial normal stress
increased. In addition, more severe failure of asperities was
observed throughout the test process under higher initial normal
stress conditions. This seems to have caused lower increments in
the normal displacement.
As the JRC or JCS increased, the peak shear displacement and
increment in the post-peak normal displacement increased, as
shown in Fig. 3. This is because rougher surface conditions
occurred as the JRC value increased, and lower fracturing of the
roughness occurred as the JCS value increased; these phenomena
affected the peak shear displacement and normal displacement
[11,12,13].
3.2.2. Shear stress behavior
The shear stress under the CNL condition increased linearly
until its peak and then decreased to residual values that remained
within some stress intervals. These ndings correspond with the
results of previous studies [13,26].
3 Under the CNS conditions, the shear stress behavior was
dependent on the initial normal stress and normal stiffness. In
the pre-peak range, the initial normal stress, JRC, and JCS tended to
be proportional to the peak shear stress. On the other hand, the
normal stiffness did not show apparent tendencies relative to the
peak shear stress according to the test results under various levels
of normal stiffness. Therefore, the normal stiffness in the pre-peak
range was considered to have no direct effect on the peak shear
stress. Table 3 indicates that the peak shear stress results were
similar under various levels of normal stiffness. This is because the
normal displacement was nearly zero in the pre-peak range, as
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263 255

Fig. 2. Behavior of normal displacement of R-12.84 specimens at various initial normal stress conditions: (a) normal displacement vs. shear displacement and (b) normal
displacement vs. shear displacement after peak.

Fig. 3. Behavior of normal displacement under (a) various JRC conditions, and (b) various JCS conditions in the case of R-12.33 specimens.

Table 2 Table 3
Roughness of the specimens used in this study. Peak shear stresses under various normal stiffness conditions (at s0 0.2 Mpa).

Sample no. Z2 JRC Normal stiffness Specimen

R-4.63 0.141523 4.627335 R-4.63 R-11.30 R-12.33 R-12.84

R-11.30 0.227204 11.30281
R-12.33 0.244348 12.32865 0 (CNL) 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.57
R-12.72 0.251164 12.71664 0.1 0.30 0.43 0.60 0.45
R-12.84 0.253392 12.84118 0.2 0.27 0.49 0.55 0.43
R-13.71 0.269487 13.70958 0.5 0.36 0.42 0.58 0.49
R-13.86 0.272342 13.85816 1 0.24 0.48 0.52 0.59
GR-13.83 0.271760 13.82801 2 0.27 0.41 0.46 0.60
GR-14.04 0.275901 14.04127
GR-14.58 0.286685 14.58193 Unit: Mpa.
GN-5.95 0.155424 5.948572
GN-6.94 0.166702 6.936401
GN-7.15 0.169267 7.151727 In the post-peak range, the test results showed stress softening
GN-7.80 0.177240 7.800769 behavior under low normal stiffness conditions, including the CNL
condition; it was more clearly observed under high initial normal
stress conditions. However, applying a lower initial normal stress
mentioned above. This means that the shear stress behavior is or higher normal stiffness conditions reduced the tendency toward
similar regardless of the CNS or CNL condition. Similar to the peak stress softening and instead encouraged stress hardening behavior
shear stress, the peak shear displacement also increased with the [11,12]. As JRC or JCS increased, the shear stress became higher in
initial normal stress [7]. all ranges of behavior because the normal displacement and stress
256 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263
Fig. 4. Behavior of shear stress under (a) various normal stiffness conditions in the case of R-12.33, (b) various initial normal stress conditions in the case of R-12.84,
(c) various JRC conditions, and (d) various JCS conditions in the case of R-12.33.
increased. Fig. 4 shows the test results for the shear stress behavior
of joints under various boundary conditions.
3.2.3. SRI behavior
As noted earlier, the ratio of the normal stress to the shear
stress was dened as the surface resistance index (SRI) because it
is closely related to the frictional force that resists the shear
displacement of the joint.
According to the test results, the SRI behavior was not affected
by the various levels of normal stiffness. It did not show tenden-
cies, as shown in Fig. 5(a). This is because both the normal
displacement and shear stress behavior were not affected by the
normal stiffness in pre-peak range, and the increments in the
shear and normal stresses were similar in post-peak range. The
SRIp was also considered to be independent of the normal stiffness
because it was relatively constant regardless of the initial normal
stress, similar to the test results. In this study, therefore, the SRI
was assumed to be unaffected by the normal stiffness.
Fig. 5(b) shows the SRI behavior under various initial normal
stresses. Increasing the initial normal stress decreased the SRIp and
increased the peak shear displacement. The decrease in the SRIp
indicates that the increment in the peak shear stress was less than
that of the initial normal stress. In the post-peak range, the SRI
behavior of the same specimen was mostly consistent under
different initial normal stresses. Such SRI behavior indicates that
the post-peak range had similar friction characteristics because of
the breaking of the joint surface. Fig. 5(c) and (d) shows the effect
of the JRC or JCS on the SRI. The SRI increased with the JRC or JCS
throughout the behavior process.
4. Modeling of shear behavior
4.1. Simplication of shear behavior
The shear behavior of each specimen was analyzed for various
boundary conditions and properties of the replica specimens. The
peak shear stress is not dened clearly under the CNS condition, as
noted above, whereas the SRI(/s) always shows its peak value.
Therefore, in this study, the shear behavior was modeled by using
the SRI as well as normal displacement.
The SRI behavior under various initial normal stresses was
simplied, as shown in Fig. 6(a), based on test results where the
SRIp decreased and the peak shear displacement increased as the
initial normal stress increased, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The post-peak
behavior of the SRI showed a similar path for the same specimen,
even with different initial normal stresses. Therefore, the SRI beha-
vior was modeled to follow the same path after the peak point such
as OAD, OBD, and OCD in Fig. 6(a), as the initial normal stress
increased. The effect of the normal stiffness was not considered
because it was assumed to not affect the SRI behavior. As the JRC or
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263 257

Fig. 5. Behavior of surface resistance index (SRI) under (a) various normal stiffness conditions in the case of R-12.33, (b) various initial normal stress conditions in the case of
R-12.84, (c) under various JRC conditions, and (d) various JCS conditions in the case of R-12.33.

Fig. 6. Simplied surface resistance index (SRI) behaviors under (a) various initial normal stress conditions and (b) various JRC or JCS conditions.

JCS increased, the SRIp increased, and the post-peak behavior
changed, such as from OAB to OCD and OEF; this is shown in Fig. 6(b).
The normal displacement behavior was also modeled as simply
as possible based on the test results. The increment in the normal
displacement before the peak point was ignored because it was
less than 0.1% of the overall normal displacement range. The
behavior of the normal displacement changed as the normal
stiffness increased, such as from OAB to OAC and OAD; this is
shown in Fig. 7(a). Increasing the initial normal stress decreased
the normal displacement, as shown in Fig. 7(b) (from OAB to OCD
258 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263

Fig. 7. Simplied normal displacement behaviors at (a) various normal stiffness conditions, (b) various initial normal stress conditions, and (c) various JRC or JCS conditions.

and OEF). The relationship between the normal displacement and based on each parameter:
the JRC or JCS was also modeled: When the JRC or JCS increased,
p JCS
the normal displacement behavior changed (e.g., from OAB to OCD t 1 SRIp ; t JRC; t 3 ; t tan b 4
s0 2 s0 4
and OEF), as shown in Fig. 7(c).
Because t1 includes the SRIp, the formula for the SRIp was modeled
as follows:
4.2. Modeling of SRI behavior
t 1 At 2 B t 3 C t 4 5
The SRI behavior model was divided into two parts: before and Through a process of trial and error, the form of the this function
after the peak point. In the pre-peak range, the SRI showed a linear with chosen so as to yield the highest correlation coefcient. Then,
relationship with the shear displacement. The SRIp was formulated A, B, and C were computed by regression analysis.
using regression analysis; therefore, the peak shear displacement The results of the regression analysis for the SRIp are shown in
can be calculated by using this equation and the shear stiffness of Eq. (6); it had a correlation coefcient of 0.83. In this formula, b
the specimen. The commercial software program NCSS 2007 [27] represents the basic friction angle. This formula is consistent with
was used for the regression analysis. For the SRI model, a non- test results that showed a positive correlation with the JRC, JCS and
dimensional analytical method was adopted to avoid the scale a negative correlation with the initial normal stress.
effect and thus enhance the applicability of the suggested  0:42
model [28]. JCS
SRIp 0:017JRC0:89 tan b 6
First, the initial normal stress (s0), joint roughness coefcient s0
(JRC), and joint wall compressive strength (JCS) were used to
The peak shear displacement (up) can be calculated as follows:
dene the formula for the SRIp. The normal stiffness (Kn) was
excluded because it did not affect the SRI behavior in a practical p SRIp
up s0 7
sense. Then, the following four dimensionless terms were dened Ks Ks
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263 259

Fig. 8. Comparison of shear stress behaviors by the proposed model and test results (solid lines represent predicted result and dotted lines represent test results): (a) case of
R-4.63, (b) case of R-11.30, and (c) case of R-12.84.

Fig. 9. Comparison of the SRIp model proposed with other models of previous research for (a) replica specimens, and (b) rock specimens.
260 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263

The post-peak behavior of the SRI was modeled using the SRI and post-peak range. N represents the number of steps to move to the
peak shear displacement. The SRIp was calculated by using Eq. (6), next path, and i is dened as a variable that controls the interval
and then the peak shear displacement (up) was obtained by Eq. (7). between each step. SRI and u values were calculated by Eqs.
SRI increased linearly up to the peak point from the origin. Then, (8) and (9) as N values increases; these calculated values represent
the post-peak curve intersecting the SRIp and peak shear displace- the sequential SRI behavior in the post-peak range. During this
ment at the initial normal stress increased continuously, as in Eqs. process, the i value can be applied selectively according to the
(6) and (7). situation. As i decreases, the required number of steps to observe
 0:42 the overall behavior increases, and the result becomes detailed. On
JCS
SRIN 0:017JRC0:89 tan b N 1; 2; 3 8 the other hand, the test result becomes rougher but requires fewer
s0 Ni steps as i increases.
SRIN
uN s0 Ni N 1; 2; 3 9 4.3. Modeling of normal displacement behavior
Ks
Eqs. (6) and (7) can be transformed into Eqs. (8) and (9), The normal displacement behavior was also modeled by
respectively, by adding N and i to observe the behavior in the regression analysis based on the test results. The normal dis-
placement in the pre-peak range was assumed to be zero, as
Table 4 mentioned above. Similar to the regression analysis of the SRI,
Comparison of error rates (%) of peak surface resistance index (SRIp).
non-dimensional analysis was adopted for the post-peak behavior
Sample Proposed model Barton's Modied Barton's modeling. The following four dimensionless terms were dened
in this study empirical model model by Jang et al. considering each unit. In these terms, u and v represent the shear
and normal displacement, respectively.
R-12.72 4.62 3.98 21.47
R-13.71 9.23 8.94 29.08 Kn  v K n  u  up K n  u up
t1 ; t2 ; t3 ; t 4 JRC 10
R-13.86 11.95 11.44 21.22 JCS JCS s0
Hwangdeung granite 2.68 4.45 32.40
Onyang gneiss 12.73 36.97 25.94 Then, the formula of the normal displacement was modeled as
Average 8.24 13.16 26.02
shown in Eq. (11). Similar to the SRI, the form of the function with
the highest correlation coefcient was selected through a process

Fig. 10. Verication of the proposed model using additional test results for (a) R-13.86, (b) GN-7.80, (c) GR-14.04, (d) GN-6.93, (e) R-13.71, and (f) R-13.71.
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263 261

of trial and error, to arrive at the normal displacement

!
JCS0:44 JRC0:94
B C
t 1 At 2 t 3 t 4 D
11 v 4:1  10  3  u  up 0:62 12
s0:06
0 K 0:38
n

The computed coefcients by regression analysis were This formula is consistent with test results that showed a positive
A 4.1  10  3, B 0.56, C 0.06, and D0.94, and the correlation correlation with the JRC and JCS and a negative correlation with
coefcient was 0.95. Eq. (11) was then rearranged with respect to the initial normal stress and normal stiffness.

Fig. 11. Verication of the proposed model using the test results under CNL condition by (a) Bandis et al. [30], (b) Homand et al. [31], and (c) Son [11].
262 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263
Fig. 12. Verication of proposed model using the test results of previous research [11] under CNS condition: (a) case 1, (b) case 2, and (c) case 3.
In the post-peak range, the normal displacement can be
predicted by Eq. (12), and the normal stress can be calculated by
Eq. (3), as given below
! p
 3 JCS
0:44
JRC0:94
sv s0 4:1  10  fK n u  up g0:62 13
s0
0:06
Finally, the shear behavior was predicted by the SRI behavior
modeled by Eqs. (6) and (7) and the normal stress behavior
modeled by Eq. (13). Fig. 8 shows examples of the suggested
model applied to the test results. In this gure, the solid line
represents the predicted behavior, and the dotted line indicates
the test results.
4.4. Application of suggested models
According to the suggested model, rock behavior can be pre-
dicted by using the basic properties of the joint rock masssuch as
the JRC, JCS, basic friction angle, shear stiffness, normal stiffness,
and initial normal stressas boundary conditions. At the modeling
stage, the SRI behavior and normal displacement behavior were
considered. The model can be applied to the SRI behavior by using
Eqs. (6)(9) and to the normal stress behavior by using Eq. (13).
Each behavior is applied to the pre-peak and post-peak ranges.
The shear stress is calculated by the product of the SRI and normal
stress at the same displacement.
In the pre-peak range, the SRI shows a linear increase up to the
SRIp, and the peak shear displacement is calculated by Eqs. (6) and
(7). The normal stress remains at the initial value until the peak
shear displacement because normal displacement was assumed to
not occur in the pre-peak range. In the post-peak range, the path
can be predicted while increasing the number of steps (N) by using
Eqs. (8) and (9). The normal stress of each step can be calculated
by substituting the value uN of Eq. (9) for u of Eq. (13). The shear
stress can be derived by multiplying the SRI and normal stress at
each step.
4.5. Verication of suggested models
To verify the suggested models, additional shear tests of rock
joints were carried out to compare their performance with those
of models previously suggested by other researchers. The sug-
gested model of SRIp was compared with Barton's empirical shear
strength model [7,29]
  
p JCS
SRIp tan b JRC log 10 14
sn sn
and the modied Barton's model suggested by Jang [20] based on
additional test results
  
JCS
SRIp tan b 3:15JRC0:5 log 10 15
sn sn
The modied Barton's model is known to be suitable for applica-
tion to weak or weathered rock.
Fig. 9 and Table 4 compare the results. The suggested model
and Barton's empirical model showed good agreement for the
replicas and Hwangdeung granite. For the Onyang gneiss, which
had lower roughness than the other specimens, the suggested
model showed the lowest error rate compared with the other
models. In this study, error rate (r) is dened as
 
SRIp measured SRIp predicted
r    100%
 16
SRIp measured
The prediction of the overall shear behavior was veried by an
additional test for which the results were compared with previous
studies by Bandis [30], Homand et al. [31], and Son [11]. Asadollahi
et al. [19] summarize the conditions and results of previous
researches including Bandis and Homand. Fig. 10 compares the
results of the additional tests, whereas Figs. 11 and 12 compare the
results with previous studies under the CNL and CNS conditions.
Only the test results of specimens similar in size were selected
from the previous studies for comparison to avoid the scale effect.
The suggested model showed good agreement with most cases.
However, in some cases such as that shown in Fig. 10(f), the rapid
stress softening after the peak was not reected well in suggested
model. As shown in Fig. 11, the BartonBandis shear behavior
model was also applied to the test results. Although it also showed
good agreement with most cases, the models suggested in this
study provided better results.
5. Conclusions
In this study, empirical models for the shear behavior of rock
joints were suggested from direct shear tests using a servo-
controlled shear testing machine. Rock joints and their cement
mortar replicas were tested under the various boundary condi-
tions and material properties. Based on test results for the replica
specimens, shear behavior models applicable to any condition
were suggested. The model consists of parameters that are gen-
erally used and easily obtained, such as the normal stiffness (Kn),
shear stiffness (Ks), initial normal stress (s0), joint roughness
 Y.-K. Lee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 70 (2014) 252263
coefcient (JRC), joint wall compressive strength (JCS), and basic
friction angle (b).
To verify the suggested models, the results of additional tests
and previous studies were compared with the values predicted by
the suggested model. In the results of the additional tests, the
suggested model of the SRIp showed lower error rates than
Barton's empirical shear strength model and Jang et al.'s modied
Barton's model.
The predicted overall shear behavior was also veried by
additional tests and the results of previous studies. For the overall
stress levels, the prediction by the suggested models showed good
agreement with the shear test results. The suggested models can
be effectively applied to predicting the peak friction coefcient
and overall stress levels under both of the CNL and CNS conditions.
However, in this study, many tests were conducted under low
normal stress and normal stiffness conditions considering the
capacity of the test machine. Thus, the results of this study can
be applied to joints located at shallow depths (under 100 m), such
as transportation tunnels and the surrounding slope area. Behavior
under high normal stress and normal stiffness conditions needs to
be further studied. Complementary studies for various rock types
also need to be conducted in the future because only two types of
rock were tested to verify the suggested models.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Energy Efciency & Resources
(2011T100200108) of the Korea Insitute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea
Government Ministry of Knowledge Economy.
References
[1] Indraratna B, Haque A. Experimental study of shear behavior of rock
joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1997;34(141):e114.
[2] Jiang Y, Xiao J, Tanabashi Y, Mizokami T. Development of an automated servo-
controlled direct shear apparatus applying a constant normal stiffness condi-
tion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:27586.
[3] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proceedings of the 1st
congress of international society of rock mechanics; 1966. p. 50913.
[4] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of shear behavior of a jointed rock mass.
In: Proceedings of the 11th US symposium on rock mechanics; 1969.
p. 10525.
[5] Goodman RE. The mechanical properties of joints. In: Proceedings of 3rd
congress of international society of rock mechanics; 1974. p. 12740.
[6] Goodman RE. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks.
New York: West Publishing Company; 1976.
263
[7] Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 1977;10:154.
[8] Indraratna B, Haque A, Aziz N. Laboratory modelling of shear behaviour of
soft joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Geotech Geol Eng
1998;16:1744.
[9] Johnston IW, Lam TSK, Williams AF. Constant normal stiffness direct shear
testing for socketed pile design in weak rock. Geotechnique 1987;37:839.
[10] Rim HR, Choi HJ, Son BK, Lee CI, Song JJ. 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; 2005. p. 17581.
[11] Son BK. Shear behavior of rock joint under constant normal stiffness condition
[Ph.D. thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University; 2005.
[12] Son BK, Lee CI, Park YJ, Lee YK. Effect of boundary conditions on shear
behavior of rock joints around tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2006;21:3478.
[13] Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K. Strength deformation and conductivity coupling
of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1985;22:12140.
[14] Saeb S, Amadei B. Modelling joint response under constant or variable normal
stiffness boundary conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1990;27:2137.
[15] Haque A, Ranjith PG. Laboratory and numerical modelling of shear behaviour
of natural rock joints under CNS. In: Proceedings of 3rd asian rock mechanics
symposium; 2004. p. 101720.
[16] Seidel JP, Habereld CM. Theoretical models for concrete-rock joints
subjected to constant normal stiffness direct shear. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2002;39:53953.
[17] Seidel JP, Habereld CM. Laboratory testing of concrete-rock joints in constant
normal stiffness direct shear. Geotech Test J 2002;25:391404.
[18] Habereld CM, Seidel JP. Some recent advances in the modelling of soft rock
joints in direct shear. Geotech Geol Eng 1999;17:17795.
[19] Asadollahi P, Tonon F. Constitutive model for rock fracture: revisiting Barton's
empirical model. Eng Geol 2010;113:1132.
[20] Jang BA, Kim TH, Jang HS. Characterization of the three dimensional roughness
of rock joints and proposal of a modied shear strength criterion. J Eng Geol
2010;20:31927.
[21] Park JW, Lee YK, Song JJ. A constitutive model for shear behavior of rock joints
based on three-dimensional quantication of joint roughness. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2013;46:151337.
[22] Bae KY. Development of a 3D roughness measurement system of rock joint
using laser type displacement meter [Master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National
University; 1999.
[23] Kwon JC. Analysis on shear behavior of rock joint under different shear test
methods [Master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University; 2005.
[24] Tse R, Cruden DM. Estimating joint roughness coefcients. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1979;16:3037.
[25] Barton N. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1976;13:25579.
[26] Bandis SC, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1983;20:24968.
[27] Hintze JL. NCSS user's guide. Kaysville, Utah: NCSS; 2007.
[28] Szirtes T. Applied dimensional analysis and modeling. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia:
Elsevier; 2007.
[29] Barton N. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Eng Geol
1973;7:287332.
[30] Bandis SC. Experimental studies of scale effects on shear strength and
deformation of rock joints [Ph.D. thesis]. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds; 1980.
[31] Homand F, Belem T, Souley M. Friction and degradation of rock joint surfaces
under shear loads. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2001;25:97399.