This study is an Experimental study on the mechanical behavior of single joint under a constant x / o loading condition. The equivalent continuous model is applied instead of the joint element method. The mechanical properties of jointed rock masses can generally be described and determined by two mechanical parameters.
Original Description:
Original Title
ARMA-99-0415_Experimental Study on the Mechanical Behavior of Single Joint Under a Constant T-o Loading Condition and Its Application to Mechanical Modeling
This study is an Experimental study on the mechanical behavior of single joint under a constant x / o loading condition. The equivalent continuous model is applied instead of the joint element method. The mechanical properties of jointed rock masses can generally be described and determined by two mechanical parameters.
This study is an Experimental study on the mechanical behavior of single joint under a constant x / o loading condition. The equivalent continuous model is applied instead of the joint element method. The mechanical properties of jointed rock masses can generally be described and determined by two mechanical parameters.
Rock Mechanics for Industrx, Amadei, Kranz, Scott & Smeallie (eds) 1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809
ISBN 90 5809 052 3
Experimental study on the mechanical behavior of single joint under a constant x/o loading condition and its application to mechanical modeling H.Yasuhara, K. Kishida, H. Fujii & T. Adachi Department of Civil Engineering, Kyoto University, Japan ABSTRACT: Although the joint element method can be applied to numerical analyses of jointed rock masses, the effort in data preparation involving the joint parameters, the constitutive law, and the number of joints is increased. To overcome this difficulty, the equivalent continuous model is applied instead of the joint element method. In this study, focus is placed on the mechanical parameters, normal stiffness k, and shear stiffness k,. The relationship ofk, and k, (Goodman 1984) is measured in this study by constant r/a loading tests. Then, the results are used to determine the material constants of the equivalent continuous model. l INTRODUCTION Recently, the need for both rock and underground structures, such as tunnels, dam foundations, underground powerhouses, and underground caverns for storing oil, gas, compressive air, and radioactive waste, has been increasing. Since these structures are usually constructed in a jointed rock mass, the mechanical properties of the jointed rock mass should be grasped precisely. In a discussion on the mechanical properties of jointed rock masses, one of the most important tasks is to understand the mechanical behavior of the joints. The mechanical properties of rock joints can generally be described and determined by two mechanical parameters, namely, normal stiffness k, and shear stiffness k. The normal stiffness and the shear stiffness are determined through uniaxial compressive tests and direct shear tests on rock joints, respectively. Goodman (1976), Barton (1976), Bandis (1980), and Bandis et al. (1981) carded out uniaxial compressive tests and direct shear tests on rock joints, and presented methods for estimating the normal and the shear stiffness. In this study, loading tests are conducted in consideration of the joints and the loading direction against the joints. That is, by changing the loading direction against the joints, the mechanical behavior of the joints can be observed under various combinations of normal stress and shear stress on the rock joints. It is thought, therefore, that the mechanical behavior of a jointed rock mass can be practically discussed in terms of excavation and construction. In order to perform experiments and discuss the relationship between the joint stiffness (k and k) and the loading direction against the joints, a new testing apparatus has been developed. A constant loading condition can be applied to the joints using this apparatus. Thus, the tests described in this paper are called constant daloading condition tests. 2 CONSTANT r/a LOADING CONDITION TESTS 2.1 Specimens In order to investigate the mechanical behavior of joints, specimens that contain a single joint are employed in the loading tests. The specimens used in this research are rectangular prisms for which there is a cross section of 42 x 42 mm and a height of 80 min. The specimens contain a single joint, which is located at the center (lengthwise) of each specimen and is approximately aligned on the horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1. The specimens are made of mortar. The combination ratio of cement: sand: water is 1: 2: 0.65. The curing age in water is 28 days. Cylindrical specimens are also prepared under the same conditions (the same combination ratio and curing age) and are employed in the uniaxial compressive tests so as to investigate the mechanical properties of the material. From the uniaxial compressive tests on the cylindrical specimens, the uniaxial compressive strength and Young's modulus are found to be 28.9 MPa and 3.02 x 10aM/a, respectively. In order to discuss the influence of the natural 415 ! 2 = 42 mm ! 1 = 42 mm h = 80 m Figure 1. Specimen. Table I The value of JRC and the order of the loading angles. Specimen JRC 0 degree 15 derees 30 derees 45 derees A 12.61 0 0 0 0 B 13.07 0 0 0 0 C 16.68 0 0 0 0 joint surface roughness, three kinds of natural joint surface roughness are chosen through recovered core samples. Aer choosing the natural joint surface roughness, impressions are made of them. Using these impressions, reproduced mortar specimens are then created. The impressions are made of Silicon rubber (TSE350, made by Toshiba Silicon). Variations in joint surface roughness contained in the samples made it possible to carry out many types of constant r/loading condition tests. Before performing the tests, measurements of the joint surface roughness are taken with a non-contact type of laser-scan micrometer which is situated on a three-dimensional stage, a 3-D Roughness Profiler (Tanimoto and Kishida, 1995). Data acquisition is fully automated by a computer, and each joint surface roughness is measured at 0.5 mm intervals. A bird's-eye view of the measured joint surface roughness is shown in Figure 2. Based on the digital data of joint surface roughness, Barton's JRC (Joint Roughness Coefficient) (Barton, 1973) in each specimen is calculated using the relationship between JRC and Z2 (Tse and Cruden, 1979). The calculated JRC value for each specimen is presented in Table 1. The relationship between the loading direction and the joint of each specimen is shown in Figure 2 The value of 0 formed where the joint inclination and the loading direction cross each other, and it is defined as the loading angle in this paper. These three specimens have been previously set up in various degrees of loading angle 0, and then the tests have been started. The order of the loading angles used in this research work is also presented in Table 1. 2.2 Testing apparatus and an outline of the tests The testing apparatus is shown in Figure 3. Each specimen is separated into upper and lower parts by the rock joint. The upper part is completely fixed to the loading frame, while the lower part can move freely in both vertical and horizontal directions. The linear-value displacement transducer (LVDT) fixed on the loading frame measures the vertical and the horizontal displacements of each specimen (v and h, respectively), and the strain of the intact rock parts is measured by the strain gauge. Since the strain of the intact rock is measured at the lower and the upper parts (a and b, respectively), the total displacement of intact rock u,,, can be calculated using this stress Compressive load P is worked through the load cell. Figure 4 illustrates the image of the specimen deformation and the measuring parameters. Since compressive load P can be broken down into normal and shear directions on the rock joint, the tests are assumed to be a kind of direct shear test under a constant r/crloading condition. As mentioned above, the upper part of the specimen is completely fixed and the lower part of the specimen can move freely in both vertical and horizontal directions in the device developed in this research work. Thus, the main purpose is to apply the load to the rock joint under various loading angles. In other words, the influence of the relationship between the loading direction and the (a) SpecimenA (b) Specimen B (c) Specimen C Figure 2. Bird's-eye view of the natural joint surface roughness. 416 !i?- %'.. L VDT I .157''{... (vertical) LUST I -'.::.. " '2:2:22:2:2:2:2;2'22: : 2 :'.i.:i.:.:.:.:. :2:2:2:2:2:2:2:'.:2.2: i .i4.2,i " '":: Load cel Fige 3. Testing appams. P le Joint P(Load ) Figme 4. e relationhip bemeen e jolt inclination d e loading dkecfion joint inclination can be discussed, and the mechanical properties of the rock joint of each specimen can be determined under various loading directions. In this study, tests are performed with four types of loading angles, namely, 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees, as described in Table 1. The 45-degree loading angle is the maximum because of the limit for this testing apparatus. Five steps of cyclic loading and unloading are performed under the stress control method, as shown in Figure 5. The loading level increases, step by step, and the maximum load for each step is determined until the normal stress on the rock joint reaches 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 MPa, respectively. The loading velocity in the vertical direction is 2.0 MPa/min. 8 6 ' 4 z 2 0 2 6 12 20 30 Time [mitt ] Figure 5. Loading pattern 3 RESULTS OF THE CONSTANT r/or LOADING CONDITION TESTS 3.1 Deformation of intact rock parts In this section, the deformation of intact rock parts is discussed through the constant r/crloading condition tests. As mentioned above, uniaxial compresslye tests were performed using cylindrical specimens, and the results were described such that Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were 1.39 x 104 MPa and 0.174, respectively. On the other hand, Young's modulus obtained through the constant r/or loading condition tests is measured to be 1.59, 1.70, 2.25, and 1.82 x 104MPa on the 0, 15, 30, and 45-degree loading angles for Specimen A. It is confirmed that Young's modulus, obtained through the constant r/or loading condition tests, is larger than that obtained through the uniaxial compresslye tests. The same tendencies can be confirmed for Specimens B and C. Since the specimens in the constant r/or loading tests are covered with steel and are laterally fixed, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, Young's modulus yields larger measurements. When applying Young's modulus obtained through the constant r/crloading tests to the numerical simulation of a jointed rock mass, therefore, this trend must be considered. 3.2 Deformation of the rock joints In performing the constant der loading condition tests, both the vertical and the horizontal displacements along the testing device can be measured through LVDT. And, the vertical load can be measured through the load cell. The purpose of the tests is to clarify the mechanical behavior of the rock joints through these data. Then, the load and the vertical and the horizontal displacements are transformed into normal and shear directions on the rock joints, and the mechanical behavior of the rock 417 Uintact = a + b Figure 6. Measuring parameters. joints is discussed. First of all, the calculating flow of the stress and the displacements on the rock joints are described in the following. The displacements of the rock joints are described using normal and shear displacements Ujn and u, respectively, as shown in Figure 6, and they are calculated by the following equations: uj, = vcosO- hsinO- Uintact (1) ujs = vsinO+ hcosO (2) where v and h are the vertical and the horizontal displacements measuring LIT, respectively, and 0 is the loading angle. On the other hand, the normal and the shear stress on the rock joints (rr and r, respectively) can be calculated by the following equations: PcosO a- (3) PsinO r- (4) where P is the applying load and A is the joint contact area. The relationship, which is formed between the Equations (3) and (4), is r/rris equal to tanO. In this study, therefore, the tests are carried out under a constant r/rr loading condition on the rock joint of each specimen. Since the joint contact area changes with the performance of the tests, the area can be calculated as the following equation: A = l,(l: - (5) where l and 12 are the lengths of the specimens shown in Figure 1. The stress - displacement curves of both the normal and the shear directions on the rock joint are described in Figure 7. 4 MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF TI-[E ROCK JOINTS Based on the results of the constant drr loading condition tests, the mechanical properties of the rock joints are discussed. Considering the mechanical properties of the rock joints, the normal and the shear stiffness must be determined. In this section, therefore, the normal and the shear stiffness of the joints are determined, and the mechanical properties of the rock joints and the relationship between the normal and the shear behavior of the rock joints are discussed. 4.1 Estimation of the normal stiffness First of all, the determination of normal stiffness kn is introduced. Figure 7(a) shows the results of the 0- degree loading angle test. Since the loading angle is equal to 0 degrees, only the normal stress - normal displacement curve on the rock joint can be obtained. The traditional method for determining normal stiffness kn closely resembles the normal stress - normal displacement curve to a function. And, the tangential gradient of the approximate function is calculated so as to determine the normal stiffness kn. In order to calculate the value of kn, therefore, the approximate functions of the normal stress -joint normal displacement are described. Bandis (1980) and Brown & Scholz (1986) presented, respectively, the following empirical equations: b Ujn -- + C ( a, b, c: constant ) (6) a+& Ujn = a + ptn rr ( a, ,8: constant ) (7) Equations (6) and (7) are then applied to the results and normal stiffness k, is determined. In Figure 7(a), a permanent deformation can be confirmed for each loading and unloading cycle. The permanent deformation for the first loading and unloading cycle is larger than that of the other cycles. This is the reason why the influence of the contacting joint surface roughness under the initial condition occurs in the first loading and unloading cycle. In the other cycles, each permanent deformation is almost constant and each tangential gradient of the unloading curves is almost equal. The normal stiffness is represented by the elastic behavior of the normal deformation of each rock joint. Therefore, 418 8 4 2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Joint displacement [mm] (a) The loading angle; 0 degree Normal direction .:. 10 - - ........ Shear direction 4 2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Joint displacement [mm] (b) The loading angle; 15 degrees .,/ /////...,Z.. ' 5...::i::'> 5q:",.,z ' 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Displacement [mm] (c) The loading angle; 30 degrees 8 2 : [ ......... Shear direction I " "!) ' . . :... ...--' ?3' .O..' .......... ,..."5;5'. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Joint Displacement [mm] (d) The loading angle; 45 degrees Figure 7. The stress - displacement curves of both the normal and the shear directions on the rock joint (Specimen A) the normal stiffness is determined using the unloading curve in the final loading and unloading cycle. In the case of the approximation of Equation (7), a higher correlation coefficient (R = 0.998) can be obtained. When Equation (7) is applied to the results, the normal displacements grow to an unlimited value if the normal stress becomes infinity. However, this behavior is not realistic because the normal displacement of a rock joint is actually finite and a maximum joint closure exists. In the case of the approximation of Equation (6), a higher correlation coefficient (R = 0.999) can also be obtained. If the normal stress becomes infinity, Equation (6) converges the value (b + c) and the maximum joint closure can be obtained. Therefore, it is thought that Equation (6) is more accurate than Equation (7) in resembling the normal stress - normal displacement curve. In Equation (8), normal stiffness kn is determined in order to calculate the tangential gradient of the normal stress - normal displacement curve on the rock joint using Equation (6). k.- act _ (a + or) 2 (8) d ttjna.b 8 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Joint normal displacement [mm] Figure 8. The normal stress - normal joint displacement Equation (8) shows that normal stiffness k, is a function of the normal stress o: Figure 8 presents the normal stress - normal displacement curves for a rock joint in the final unloading cycle. The curves are obtained through a O-degree loading angle test. Since the curves are similar to each other, the difference in specimens, namely, the difference in joint surface roughness, is not clearly shown. It is thought that the normal deformation of the rock joint and/or normal stiffness kn does not depend on the shape of joint surface roughness. Some samples of the normal stiffness kn, 419 Loading angle delFee) a 0 2.02 15 1.60 30 1.93 45 2.93 Table 2. The normal stress (at a = 2.0 MPa) and the values ofa by and c SpecimenA Specimen B Specimen C b c ( x 104 MPa) a b c ( x 104 MPa) a b c 0.163 0.132 4.74 1.43 0.340 0.147 2.80 1.97 0.144 0.164 0.390 0.108 2.52 3.54 0.368 0.168 2.36 2.10 0.452 0.125 0.487 0.091 1.18 3.58 0.358 0.176 2.43 4.38 0.347 0.261 0.239 0.108 3.46 0.943 0.107 0.005 3.74 1.63 0.180 0.030 10 4 MPa) 4.80 2.15 2.67 4.48 Table 3. The shear stiffness of the rock joints. degrees 30 degrees 45 degrees Direct shear test Specimen (lx5103 MPa) ( x 103 MPa) ( x 103 MPa) x 103 MPa) .4 9.65 6.85 6.13 3.52 B 9.46 7.84 4.65 4.12 C 3.64 4.98 3.28 3.42 ( x 10 ) 3.5 ''' I'' -I'-' i'"'"": . - - 4S-degree ..... "1 ! ' ..:4 ....... ..... 0 ', ,,, i,,, ,,, ,, 2 4 6 8 10 Joint no stross [MPa] Figure 9. The normal stifflless of each loading angle. determined by Equation (8), are presented in Table 2. In this case, the condition of the determination is set at or= 2.0 MPa. Table 2 also presents the values for a, b, and c in Equation (6). Next, the results of the constant z'/cr loading condition tests on a 15-degree loading angle are shown in Figure 7(b). Both the normal stress - normal joint displacement and the shear stress - shear joint displacement curves are shown by the solid line and the broken line, respectively. Applying Equation (6) to the results of the normal stress - shear joint displacement curves, a higher correlation coefficient (R = 0.999) can also be obtained. In this case, the values of a, b, and c are different than those determined in the O-degree loading angle test. It is confirmed that the loading angle affects the normal deformation of the rock joint. And, it is thought that the shear behavior contributes to the poor correlation. In the case of the 30 and 45-degree loading angle tests, the stress -joint displacement curves of both the normal and the shear directions on the rock joint are shown in Figures 7(c) and (d), respectively. Applying Equation (6) to the unloading normal stress - normal joint displacement curves in the final cycle, a higher correlation coefficient (R = 0.999; 30 degrees and 0.998; 45 degrees) can also be obtained. And, different values for a, b, and c are calculated in each case. As mentioned above, it is also confirmed that the loading angles affect the normal deformation of the rock joint. The normal joint stiffness - normal stress relations for each loading angle test are shown in Figure 9. It is easily confumed that the normal stiffness depends on the normal stress and increases with increments in the normal stress. And, it can be noticed that the normal stiffness decreases with increments in the loading angles, except for the case of the 45-degree loading angle. Based on the results, normal stiffness k, decreases with increments in the loading angle. With increments in the loading angle, shear behavior occurs and the contact condition of the joint surface roughness becomes unstable. That is, since the asperties of the joint surface roughness do not engage smoothly, the limited allowance of the deformation in the normal direction is clearly appeared. On the other hand, k, on the 45-degree loading angle increases compared with k on the 30- degree loading angle. In the case of the 45-degree loading angle, the dilation occurs with the shear behavior, parts of the normal deformation on the rock joint divide the dilation, and the normal stiffness increases. The turning point is when the dilation begins to affect the normal deformation on the rock joint, and this phenomenon cannot be grasped in detail with this apparatus. 4.2 Estimation of the shear stiffness The broken lines in Figures 7(b), (c), and (d) show the shear stress - shear joint displacement curves for each loading angle. The permanent deformation of the shear deformation is larger than that of the normal deformation. Shear stiffness ks is determined using these curves. First of all, the loading curves in the initial cyclic loading are extracted until the shear stress reaches 2.0 MPa, and the straight line is estimated by the least-squares method. Finally, shear stiffness ks, which is the gradient of an approximately straight line, can be determined. Table 3 shows shear stiffness ks. It is generally found that shear stiffness ks varies inversely with.the 420 1.5 0.0 ,o, ' -' :. - -o- ,. . o- c -o . 3 - o - ~ ,.t 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Shear displacement [mini Figure 10. Results of the direct shear tests on rock joints. loading angle. This is the reason why the shear displacement depends on the compressive pressure in the normal direction. If the normal stress becomes higher than the shear stress, it is hard for it to deform in the shear direction. In other words, it is thought that the shear displacement is larger under a higher loading angle, such as 45 degrees, than the shear displacement under a lower loading angle, such as 15 degrees. Table 3 also presents the shear stiffness through direct shear tests on rock joints using the same type of specimens. Examples of the results of the direct shear tests using Specimen A are shown in Figure 10. In Figure 10, the shear displacement - shear stress relation under various constant normal confining conditions is described. The shear stiffness is determined by the curve being extracted until the peak shear stress. In Table 3, the shear stiffness through the direct shear tests is almost in agreement with that through the 45-degree loading angle test. 5 CONCLUSION In order to understand the mechanical behavior of rock joints, two mechanical properties of rock joints, namely, k, and ks are taken for examination in this study. To grasp the mechanical behavior of the rock joints and the relationship between the combined joint stiffness (k, and ks) and the loading angle against the joints, the new testing apparatus, which can be applied to a constant dry loading condition on the rock joints, has been developed. The results show that the joint stiffness varies according to its dependency on the loading angles. The tendency of the joint stiffness can be qualitatively grasped under certain loading angles, such as 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees. And, the normal joint stiffness can be determined as a function of the normal stress. The normal behavior can be affected by the dilation along the shear behavior due to increments in the loading angle. On the other hand, the shear stiffness can be determined using the shear stress - shear joint displacement curves during the initial cyclic loading. With increments in the loading angle, the shear stiffness is closely associated with that obtained through direct shear tests. REFERENCES Bandis, S.C. (1980): Experimental studies of scale effects on shear strength and deformation of rock joints, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Leeds, UK; Bandis, S. C., Luresden, A. C. and Barton, N. R. (1981): Fundamentals of rock joint deformation, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstract, Vol. 20, No. 6; 249 - 268. Barton, N. R. (1976): Rock Mechanics Review: The shear strength of rock and rock joints, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstract, Vol. 13; 255 - 279. Brown, S.R. and Scholz, C.H. (1986): Closure of rock joints, J. of Geophysical Research 91035 ); 4939 - 4948. Goodman, R.E. (1976): Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks, West Publishing Company. Goodman, R.E. (1984): Introduction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons; 135. Tanimoto, C. and Kishida, K. (1995): Quantitative determination of rock joint roughness by 3-D non- contact type profiler and the maximum entropy method, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, J.S.C.E., No. 511/IH-30; 57- 67. (in Japanese) Tse, R. and Cruden, D. M. (1979): Estimating joint roughness coefficients, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geontechanics Abstract, Vol. 16; 303 - 307. 421
Composites Part B- Engineering Volume 36 Issue 8 2005 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.compositesb.2005.04.001] P.J. Herrera-Franco; A. Valadez-González -- A Study of the Mechanical Properties of Short Natural-fiber Reinforced -1