International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Shear strength of discontinuities in sedimentary rock masses based

on direct shear tests
Manouchehr Sanei a,n, Lohrasb Faramarzi a, Ahmad Fahimifar b, Sareh Goli c,
Abolfazl Mehinrad d, Asghar Rahmati a
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
d
Project Management Team, Bakhtiary Joint Venture Consultants (BJVC), Tehran, Iran

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

Article history: Accurate estimation of the shear strength of rock discontinuities is of great importance in many rock
Received 5 June 2013 engineering practices, especially for the stability assessment of dam foundations and rock slopes. This
Received in revised form study was conducted through both in-situ and laboratory direct shear tests on rock discontinuities,
9 September 2014
under the constant normal load (CNL) boundary condition, focusing on the influence of the length of
Accepted 20 November 2014
discontinuities on the shear strength. The results of more than 109 direct shear tests carried out on rock
discontinuities at the Bakhtiary dam site were analyzed to consider the size effect on rock discontinuities
Keywords: strength. The surface roughness of discontinuities was described by fractal dimension using a modified
In-situ and laboratory direct shear test divider method. Moreover, numerical simulations of direct shear tests were carried out on disconti-
Shear strength
nuities with different lengths in order to establish an empirical relationship that can link the shear
Size effect
strength of discontinuities of laboratory scale to in-situ scale. From the experimental and numerical
Sedimentary rock
results, it was confirmed that the peak shear strength of the discontinuity decreases as a function of the
discontinuity length.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction models have been developed to predict the shear strength of

The most commonly used method for shear testing of disconti-
nuities in rocks is the direct shear test. This type of test is commonly
carried out in the laboratory, but it may also be carried out in the
field. Direct shear tests are usually carried out at constant normal
load (CNL) or in constant normal stiffness (CNS) boundary conditions.
In the field of rock engineering, underground construction, dam
foundation, and slope stability are some examples that require direct
shear testing. It is widely accepted that the mechanical behavior of
rock discontinuities is scale dependent. Therefore, understanding the
scale effect on the mechanical behavior of a single rock discontinuity
is still very important in rock engineering. Description of the
mechanical properties of rock discontinuities is provided by two
approaches: (a) the theoretical approach, which adopts some well-
known theories (e.g. plasticity, contact theory, etc.) to simulate the
observed behavior of a discontinuity; and (b) the empirical approach,
in which experimental data are analyzed to derive correlations
between influential variables, and models are formulated according
to the observed behavior. To date, several empirical and theoretical
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 9128011230; fax: þ 98 311 3912776.
E-mail address: manouchehr.sanei@gmail.com (M. Sanei).
discontinuities in rock masses, such as Patton [1,2], Goodman [3,4],
Jaeger [5], Barton [6–10], Jing et al. [11], Grassellia and Egger [12],
Samadhiya et al. [13], Asadollahi and Tonon [14], Tang et al. [15], etc.
Asperity degradation of rock discontinuities has been carried out by
Ladanyi and Archambault [16], Hutson and Dowding [17], and Lee
et al. [18]. Also, dilatation effects on prediction of shear strength of
non-planar rock discontinuities have been investigated by Jaeger
[19], Lane and Heck [20], and Patton [2]. As stated by Bandis et al.
[21] and Fardin et al. [22], the mechanical properties of rock joints are
different on different scales. Because of technical limitations, it is
more difficult to evaluate the properties on the in-situ scale. The first
study which considered the scale effect on rock joints has been
conducted by Pratt et al. [23], through direct shear tests on natural
joints. Their results showed a linear decrease in the peak shear
strength as a function of the joint area. Later, a more comprehensive
investigation of scale effects was carried out by Bandis et al. [21]. By
increasing the joint size, they observed a decrease in the peak friction
angle, a decrease in the peak shear stress, and a decrease in the
dilation angle. Some years later, another study on the scale effect was
carried out by Barton et al. [9], who developed an empirical model to
predict rock mass joint behavior and arrived at the same conclusions.
Also, Barton et al. [8], Muralha and Pinto da Cunha [24,25] have
shown that the strength of rock joints is dependent on the size of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.11.009
1365-1609/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
120 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131
test samples. Moreover, Indraratna and Haque [26] studied the joint
size effect on the shear strength, peak shear displacement, and peak
dilation angle of non-planar joints. Murata and Saito [27] have
investigated the effect of scale on the surface roughness of rock
joints using similar approaches. Giani et al. [28] showed that the
shear strength of rock joints was decreased by increasing the speci-
men size, but in other cases, e.g., Brown et al. [29], the strength was
increased by increasing the specimen size. Furthermore, the scale
effect on shear strength has been investigated by Desheng Deng et al.
[30], Vallier et al. [31], and Ueng et al. [32]. Cunha [33] carried out a
study on several dam foundations showing that the shear strength of
joints decreases with an increase in the joint size. Following the same
idea, Yoshinaka et al. [34] also observed a reduction of the shear
strength with the increasing size of the specimen. However, in their
experiments, Ohnishi et al. [35] observed no scale effects from
repeated tests on regular or irregular rock joints. Along the same
line, Castelli et al. [36] found a decrease in the percentage of the
contact area with respect to the total area when the scale was
increased. Fardin et al. [22,37] demonstrated a scale dependency of
the mechanical and geometrical properties of rock joints using fractal
geometry tools. The consequences of scale effects can be very
significant in mining and civil engineering, especially when design-
ing many structures in and on rocks, from underground openings to
foundations.
A number of researchers have investigated the applicability of
various conventional statistical parameters in quantifying rough-
ness. They have pointed out that the values obtained for conven-
tional statistical parameters vary with the measurement scale.
Therefore, the surface roughness of rock joints needs to be
characterized using scale invariant parameters such as fractal
parameters. Several researchers have suggested using the fractal
dimension to quantify rock joint roughness. A number of methods
have been suggested in the literature to estimate fractal dimension
of roughness profiles of a rock joint surface. The methods include
the divider [38], box counting [39], variogram [40], spectral [41],
roughness-length [42], and the line scaling [43] methods. In this
paper, the modified divider technique is used to quantify natural
rock joint roughness. Several researches have investigated the
mechanical characteristics of joints and all these studies have been
mainly done with the laboratory and in-situ tests using theoretical
analyses. However, the laboratory and in-situ tests are costly, and
the theoretical analyses suffer from their own limitations due to
the assumptions limiting the generalizability of the results. In
recent years, rapid advances in computer technology and sus-
tained development have pushed the numerical analysis methods
in the geotechnical works as a useful method [44,45].
Considering the above discussions, the aim of this work is the
development of a new empirical relationship for estimating peak
shear strength of discontinuities in sedimentary rock masses
based on direct shear tests under the CNL boundary condition.
The shear strength of rock discontinuities, involving both bedding
planes and joints at the Bakhtiary dam site located in Lorestan
Province, in the southwest of Iran, was measured through 106
laboratory and 3 in-situ direct shear tests. The mechanical proper-
ties related to the laboratory scale were obtained in the laboratory
through specific mechanical tests and morphological measure-
ments. Next, based on the research presented by Fardin et al. [22]
on surface roughness, which indicated that the maximum range of
the scale dependency was about 300 cm, the numerical modeling
study using the Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC) was
carried out up to the length of 300 cm. Due to the lack of samples
in different lengths, the numerical simulations of direct shear tests
were carried out on discontinuities with different lengths in
direction of shear. Then, based on the results of laboratory tests,
in-situ tests, and numerical simulations, the scale effect on shear
strength was obtained. Finally, a new empirical relationship was
proposed that can link the shear strength of discontinuities of
laboratory scale to in-situ scale in sedimentary rock masses.
2. Bakhtiary dam site
The site of Bakhtiary dam and hydroelectric power project is
located in Lorestan Province, southwest of Iran, at the coordinates
of 48.7801E longitude and 32.9611N latitude. The hydroelectric
power plant project includes the design and construction of a
315 m high, double curvature, concrete dam and an underground
power house, with a nominal capacity of 1500 MW [46].
2.1. Geological characterization of the dam site
Limestone layers of Sarvak formation, which are Mid-Cretaceous
marine sediments, form the foundation of the dam, powerhouse and
other appurtenant structures (Fig. 1). These layers are generally
tightly folded. The bed rock consists of limestone and marly lime-
stone that contains nodules of siliceous limestone (or Chert). The
limestone also contains dolomitic material. These deposits, sedi-
mented between the formations of Garau (at the bottom) and Gurpi
(at the top), are marked as Bangestan Group (Kazhdomi, Sarvak,
Surgah and Ilam formations) of cretaceous age. The Sarvak forma-
tion is divided into seven geological units, namely Sv1–Sv7, with Sv1
being the oldest with no outcrop at the dam axis, and Sv7 the
youngest. The six units, which are within the dam area, can be
regarded as Sarvak formation.
2.2. Intact rock properties
Based on laboratory tests on core samples of the six Sarvak
formation units, namely Sv2–Sv7 (162 unconfined compression tests,
125 triaxial compression tests, and 47 Brazilian tests), the mechanical
characteristics of the intact rocks were measured. Table 1 shows the
physical and mechanical properties of intact rock specimens.
2.3. Discontinuities
In this study, the orientation (dip direction/dip) of rock disconti-
nuities was measured by surface outcrop mapping and the measure-
ments were done by a geological compass. In order to obtain the
characterization of discontinuities, the geotechnical site investiga-
tions, including borehole drilling, extension of exploration galleries,
surface and gallery mapping, geophysics and in-situ rock mechanics
tests as well as laboratory tests were performed. The rock mass of the
project area is intersected by four main discontinuity types, which
affect its stability and the bearing capacity. Systematic discontinuities
at the dam site consist of bedding surfaces and two joint sets
(J1 and J2) that intersect at almost right angles and form a conjugate
perpendicular system. A further joint set (J3) is observed at a few
locations but its occurrence is not common throughout the site.
Bedding surfaces are characterized as planar and persistent
with average spacing of 6–60 cm. The bedding has a dip direction/
dip of 2151/751 on the downstream limb of the anticline and 0301/
501 on the upstream limb. The main joint set running through the
dam site is J1 (3101/40–701). Joints in this set have a persistency of
several to tens of meters. A second joint set J2 (1251/35–751) exists
with persistency from a few centimeters to a few meters. The joint
set characteristics are summarized in Table 2.
A large number of discontinuities whose orientations were
measured at a particular field site are used to facilitate regional
structural analysis. For this purpose, we analyzed the data for the
individual discontinuities involved: 344 measurements for bed-
ding, 577 for joint set J1, 562 for joint set J2, and 140 measurements
for joint set J3.
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131 121

Fig. 1. Geological section of Bakhtiary dam axis and geological units of the Sarvak formation [46].

Table 1 Table 2
Summary of physical and mechanical properties of intact rock specimens. Characteristics of bedding planes and joint sets.

Physical and mechanical properties Index Unit Value Mean value Value or description Frequency (%)

Density ρ g=cm3 2.61–2.74 2.65 Bedding J1 J2 J3

Uniaxial compressive strength σc MPa 77–133 108
Modulus of elasticity E GPa 55–73 65 Aperture (mm) 0.1–1 90 90 95 95
Poisson’s ratio ν – 0.28–0.32 0.3 1–5 10 10 5 5
Tensile strength σt MPa 6.3–11.2 8.8 Spacing (cm) 2–6 1.5 25 3 6
Cohesion C MPa 29–36 32 6–20 47 48.5 52 25
Friction angle ϕ 1 35–45 40 20–60 44.5 45 43.5 62.5
60–200 3.5 4 1.5 6.5
200–600 3.5 0 0 0
Infilling Clay 42.5 10 2 0
3. Direct shear tests on rock discontinuities
Calcite 46 67.5 55 43
Bitumen 4.5 1 0 0
3.1. Laboratory direct shear tests Limonite 2 0 0 0
Tight 5 21.5 43 57
The most commonly used method for the shear testing of Roughness Undulating–Ss 19 2 0 0
Planar–Ss 41 2 1 0
discontinuities in rocks is the direct shear test. Direct shear tests
Undulating–Sm 5 1 1 0
(DST) on core specimens containing both bedding planes and Planar–Sm 18 47 54.5 72.5
joint surfaces were performed using the instrumented SBEL Undulating–Ro 1 0 0 0
direct shear machine (DR-44). Fig. 2 shows (a) the direct shear Planar–Ro 16 48 43.5 27.5
test apparatus, (b) the joint surfaces after shearing, and (c) the
Ss: Slickenside, Sm: Smooth, Ro: Rough.
profile gauge for measurement of discontinuities roughness.
The purpose of this test was to measure peak and residual direct
shear strengths as a function of stress normal to the sheared plane. For the specimen were fixed inside the shear box using a cement mortar.
conducting a shear test on joint surfaces, at first the lower half and The shear tests were conducted by applying manually operated,
then the upper half were encapsulated in separate molds. Two sides of normal, and shear loads. Methods of preparing samples and carrying
122 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131
Fig. 2. Laboratory direct shear test; (a) photograph of the shear test apparatus, (b) joint surfaces after shearing, (c) the profile gauge tool.
out these various tests are discussed by the ISRM Commission [47]. The
direct shear test on a specimen provided the peak shear strength value
corresponding to the applied normal load. Afterwards, at least three
direct tests were performed on the test specimen for estimating the
residual shear strength parameters. In other words, more than 106
direct shear tests were performed on core samples containing both
bedding planes (fifty samples) and rock joints (fifty-six samples) of the
six units (Sv2–Sv7) at the Bakhtiary dam site.
The laboratory test samples range from 5.4 to 14.8 cm lengths
in direction of shear. Also, shear tests under constant normal load
(CNL) conditions were carried out. In addition, the normal stress
ranged between 0.47 and 3.2 MPa. The shear force was applied
continuously in such a way as to control the rate of shear
displacement. Approximately, more than ten sets of reading were
taken before reaching the peak strength. Moreover, surface char-
acteristics of each test sample as joint roughness coefficient (JRC)
and joint compressive strength (JCS) were measured.
For each test specimen, graphs of shear stress versus shear
displacement were plotted. Values of the peak and residual shear
strength, normal stress, and shear displacement were abstracted
from these graphs. Graphs of the peak and residual shear strengths
versus normal stress were plotted from the combined results for
all the test specimens. Also, distribution of cohesion, residual
friction angle, and peak friction angle were abstracted from these
graphs as shown in Fig. 3. According to the test program, on each
test specimen both peak and residual tests were carried out. The
first direct shear test on a specimen provided the peak shear
strength value corresponding to the applied normal load. Subse-
quently, direct shear tests in residual state were performed for
estimating the residual shear strength parameters. Results of the
first all direct shear tests on bedding planes and joints are
summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
3.2. In-situ direct shear test
The in-situ direct shear test is the established method for dete-
rmining the peak and residual shear strength along the rock dis-
continuity. In this study, three in-situ direct shear tests on bedding
planes with the dimensions of 70  70  35 cm3 were performed in
accordance with ISRM [48] in GR2 gallery of the Sv3 unit at the
Bakhtiary dam site (Fig. 4). The length of bedding planes along the
direction of shearing was 70 cm. Also, the shear test was performed in
the direction of the discontinuity with a horizontal orientation. The
rate of shear displacement for in-situ tests ranging from 0.1 mm/min
to 0.5 mm/min between sets of readings proved that the peak
strength itself is adequately recorded. On the other hand, the normal
force was applied on the specimen via hydraulic jacks and also the
shear force was applied to the specimen via a pressure distribution
plate. Shear and normal displacements were measured with digital
transducers (LVDT). In these tests, the normal stress applied ranged
from 0.59 to 7.03 MPa. The mechanical properties of bedding planes
obtained from in-situ tests are given in Table 5. One of the in-situ
direct shear tests carried out on bedding plane at the Bakhtiary dam
site using the above-proposed test procedure will be described in the
following.
4. Estimating the shear strength of rock discontinuity
First, shear strength of rock discontinuities, i.e. bedding planes and
rock joints at the Bakhtiary dam site, were measured through 109
direct shear tests. Second, the surface characteristics of rock joints
including roughness coefficient, joint compressive strength, cohesion,
residual friction angle, and peak friction angle were determined.
Detailed results of direct shear tests are derived from the plots of peak
and residual shear strength values versus applied normal stresses on
bedding planes. Then based on Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, peak
and residual shear strength parameters were calculated and compared
with the values estimated by Barton criterion. Finally, using statistical
analyses the most appropriate empirical criterion for estimating the
shear strength at the Bakhtiary dam was decided to be Barton criterion.
Barton [6–10] suggested the following empirical criterion for
estimating the shear strength of rock joints:
   
JCS
τ ¼ σ n tan JRC log 10 þ ϕr ð1Þ
σn
where τ, σ n , ϕr , JCS and JRC are shear strength, normal stress, residual
friction angle, joint compressive strength, and joint roughness coeffi-
cient, respectively. For unweathered rock fractures, the residual
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131 123

20 20
Distribution of cohesion of 50 direct shear Distribution of cohesion of 56 direct shear
tests on bedding planes tests on rock joints

15 15
Number of Cases

Number of Cases
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Cohesion, KPa Cohesion, KPa

14 14
Distribution of residual friction angles of 50 direct shear Distribution of residual friction angles of 56 direct shear
tests on bedding planes tests on rock joints

12 12

10 10
Number of Cases

Number of Cases

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Residual friction angle, degree Residual friction angle, degree

12 16
Distribution of peak friction angles of 50 direct shear Distribution of peak friction angles of 56 direct shear
tests on bedding planes tests on rock joints
14
10

12
Number of Cases

Number of Cases

8
10

6 8

6
4

4
2
2

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Peak friction angle, degree Peak friction angle, degree

Fig. 3. Distribution of Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters of discontinuities at the Bakhtiary dam site; (a) cohesion of bedding, (b) cohesion of rock joints, (c) residual
friction angle of bedding, (d) residual friction angle of rock joints, (e) peak friction angle of bedding, (f) peak friction angle of rock joints.
124 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131

Table 3 Table 4
Database of laboratory direct shear tests on bedding planes at the Bakhtiary Database of laboratory direct shear tests on rock joints at the Bakhtiary dam site.
dam site.
No L (cm) JRC σ n ðMPaÞ τpeak ðMPaÞ τresdual ðMPaÞ
No L (cm) JRC σ n ðMPaÞ τpeak ðMPaÞ τresdual ðMPaÞ
1 7.9 7.18 0.53 0.45 0.27
1 13.5 2.96 0.55 0.36 0.34 2 8.8 4.53 1.04 0.88 0.57
2 8.6 3.98 1 1.05 0.55 3 10.4 2.96 1.51 0.89 0.73
3 10.2 2.02 1.5 0.89 0.76 4 13.6 2.25 2.05 2 1.23
4 7.4 15.57 1.03 2.26 0.9 5 8.1 2.08 0.56 0.35 0.33
5 6.5 14.18 1.02 1.78 1.17 6 7.6 4.7 1.05 0.66 0.6
6 7.6 12.02 0.48 0.53 0.38 7 7.3 4.3 1.64 1.07 1.03
7 11.4 16.48 1.55 2.40 2.14 8 6.7 2.3 0.62 0.56 0.56
8 7.3 11.97 1.05 0.9 0.68 9 9.8 4.09 0.98 0.9 0.47
9 9 4.15 0.51 0.39 0.22 10 11.6 7.12 2.01 1.21 1
10 7.6 7.23 0.55 0.7 0.31 11 6.8 5.68 0.47 0.95 0.47
11 10.4 7.98 1.08 1.19 0.8 12 7.5 3.1 1.02 0.55 0.47
12 8.1 5.06 1.05 0.61 0.52 13 7.8 3.52 0.54 0.29 0.27
13 12.2 5.74 1.01 0.74 0.46 14 7.7 2.15 1.02 0.86 0.71
14 13.7 5.97 2.72 1.46 1.46 15 10.2 2.43 0.61 0.8 0.8
15 13.6 3.94 1.52 0.7 0.6 16 11.8 2.84 1.2 0.84 0.83
16 9.1 2.88 1.05 0.61 0.5 17 10.4 3.76 0.56 0.45 0.45
17 13.6 11.32 2.07 1.35 1.15 18 10.2 2.97 1.13 0.37 0.35
18 9.8 3.12 1.53 0.68 0.63 19 7.9 4.03 0.79 0.73 0.53
19 14.4 4.03 1.55 1.28 1.05 20 5.7 2.5 0.84 0.6 0.43
20 14.6 6.34 2.2 2.05 1.46 21 6.1 5.74 1.02 1.22 0.98
21 14 9.56 1.04 1.05 0.39 22 10.3 6.87 1.1 1.54 0.93
22 14.8 4.07 2.06 1.24 1.08 23 12.8 5.65 2.09 2.6 1.88
23 14.6 13.78 2.1 1.27 1.09 24 9.6 7.85 1.04 0.59 0.49
24 13.8 3.99 0.99 0.93 0.42 25 6.1 8.08 2.2 1.34 1.32
25 10.9 3.24 1.04 0.69 0.52 26 8.7 9.14 1.74 1.84 1.75
26 7.9 2.85 1.06 0.45 0.34 27 11.4 8.59 2.12 2.13 1.79
27 10.7 4.69 1.8 0.57 0.51 28 10.9 15.78 1.7 1.44 1.38
28 13.7 3.91 2.55 0.98 0.75 29 7.1 6.51 0.54 0.72 0.65
29 13.6 6.24 0.99 0.82 0.47 30 12.7 9.85 2.09 2.74 1.9
30 7.9 3.25 1.08 0.46 0.44 31 6.1 7.47 0.59 0.83 0.43
31 14.4 4.17 1.04 1.6 0.81 32 6.1 7.33 0.77 1.45 0.77
32 14.2 6.36 2.07 2.33 1.25 33 7.4 9.57 0.57 0.85 0.7
33 12.3 3.99 1.98 1.8 1.62 34 9.6 14.8 1.05 1.22 0.97
34 12.1 3.83 2.01 1.2 1.04 35 7.9 10.12 0.52 0.59 0.48
35 8.9 8.52 3.06 1.19 1.88 36 8.2 16.77 0.54 0.69 0.41
36 10.1 2.43 0.62 0.8 0.8 37 13 18.12 1.01 1.05 0.51
37 7.1 8.08 2.22 1.34 1.32 38 8.8 8.45 2 2.07 1.24
38 8.3 4.32 1.64 1.07 1.03 39 9.6 5.98 2.14 1.82 1.81
39 8.1 3.8 1.13 0.93 0.93 40 12 8.41 0.52 0.59 0.48
40 10.8 12.16 1.64 1.81 1.72 41 12.2 8.76 0.54 0.69 0.41
41 10.3 5.6 0.54 0.32 0.34 42 8.1 3.8 1.13 0.93 0.93
42 6.2 4.42 1.05 0.51 0.51 43 12.8 5.68 1.24 0.9 0.9
43 6.4 3.65 1.57 0.65 0.65 44 6.8 6.53 0.58 0.66 0.66
44 9.4 7.77 1.66 1.21 1.21 45 9.7 3.95 0.61 0.62 0.62
45 7.1 6.94 1.18 0.82 0.82 46 6.8 3.67 1.16 0.65 0.65
46 8.6 8.44 0.63 0.49 0.49 47 12.8 9.35 1.73 0.66 0.66
47 7.9 2.22 0.63 0.44 0.44 48 7.2 5.55 3.20 1.05 1.03
48 5.5 12 0.73 0.79 0.79 49 8.3 5.53 0.52 0.32 0.32
49 6 5.17 1.06 0.66 0.66 50 5.8 4.76 1.18 0.97 0.97
50 12.6 6.66 1.18 0.66 0.66 51 8.9 9.29 0.61 0.6 0.6
52 13.9 5.27 0.59 0.4 0.4
53 6.2 7.56 1.18 1.32 1.32
54 9.9 8.48 1.18 0.97 0.97
friction angle, ðϕr Þ is equal to base friction angle ðϕb Þ, which can be 55 6.2 6.86 2.05 2.13 2.13
obtained from shear tests on the flat unweathered rock surfaces. 56 8.5 6.42 0.85 0.4 0.4

4.1. Measurement of joint roughness coefficient (JRC)

The joint roughness coefficient is a number estimated by compar-
ing the appearance of a discontinuity surface with standard profiles
published by Barton and Choubey [7]. To assign a JRC value to the
discontinuity, the roughness profile is compared with standard
roughness profiles. However, it is obvious that JRC determined by
visual comparison is subjective and sometimes erratic. Many
researchers have attempted to calculate the JRC value from the profile
geometry such as root mean square (RMS), RMS of the first
derivatives (Z2), RMS of the second derivatives (Z3), structure func-
tion (SF), roughness profile index (RP), and fractal dimension [49–52].
In this study, the fractal dimension method was used because
of its accuracy in measuring JRC and also the modified divider
method was selected since it has not only proved to be accurate
but also is simple to use. In fact, the roughness profile was divided
by equal horizontal divider span and then length in each divider
span was measured [53]. Finally, the value of dimension was
obtained using Eqs. (2) and (3). Therefore,
Lðr Þ ¼ ar ð1  DÞ ð2Þ
where L(r), r, a, and D are the length of the profile, a divider span, a
proportionality constant, and the fractal dimension, respectively.
log Lðr Þ ¼ log a þ ð1  DÞlog r ð3Þ
The parameters (1-D) and loga can be estimated from the slope
and intercept, respectively, of the plot between logL(r) and logr. A
plot of the modified divider method is shown in Fig. 5.
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131 125

Moreover, the fractal dimension was determined by a new and GIF) format, and the output of programming code was the
code, written in Microsoft Visual Studio C# language. This new value of fractal dimension. In other words, the image of surface
code used the modified divider method to determine the fractal roughness of rock discontinuity was taken using a profile gauge
dimension. In fact, this method requests a lot of divider spans (see Fig. 2c) in shear direction and was scanned for the new
ranging from least to most from roughness profiles order to come programming code. The surface topography was mapped using a
up with a suitable answer. Therefore, the fractal dimension of profile gauge in shear direction of the sample test and at 1 cm
standard roughness profiles of Barton with 10 cm length was distance along the perpendicular direction to the shear direction.
determined using the modified divider method. On the other The surface roughness of each sample was obtained from the
hand, the input data for new programming code, named FDM average surface roughness of 2 dimensional cross-sectional lines.
(Fractal Dimension Measurement), was the image of roughness This was done because the average surface roughness of each
profile obtained by scanning the roughness profile in (BMP, JPG sample can be an appropriate representative of the discontinuity
roughness. Also, the surface roughness of each sample was drawn
on the white paper and the result of drawing was scanned in (BMP,
JPG and GIF) format. Then, in FDM program, the image of profile as
an input data was received, and the value of L(r) was determined
based on the different values of divider spans (r). In addition, the
fractal dimension was determined from the slope logL(r)  logr
plot. The selected value of divider span (r) has a significant effect
on the value of fractal dimension. And as the value more or less
than the selected range would result in errors in the answers, in
this research, r values which ranged from 0.8 to 6 mm were
selected.
The values of fractal dimension (D) of Barton’s joint roughness
profiles were measured using the modified divider method. The
results showed that the D values were in good agreement with the
previous works. Fig. 6 shows the fractal dimensions (D) measured
by different methods compared with the values measured in
this study.
Using statistical analyses, the new empirical relationship for
estimating the value of JRC was developed based on the fractal
Fig. 4. The in-situ direct shear test setup in gallery GR2 at the Bakhtiary dam site. dimension of Barton’s profiles. Eq. (4) was developed between
fractal dimension and JRC values and the best behavior displayed
represented the second-order polynomial. Also, the correlation
Table 5
coefficient r2 and the standard error calculated for this equation
Database of in-situ direct shear tests on bedding planes at the Bakhtiary dam site.
were 0.984 and 0.941, respectively.
No cp ðKPaÞ ϕp ð3 Þ ϕr ð 3 Þ JCS JRC σ n ðMPaÞ τpeak ðMPaÞ τresdual ðMPaÞ
JRC ¼ 37580D2 þ 77018D 39438 ð4Þ
1 362.9 31.93 31.73 27 6.37 1.05 0.935 0.927 where JRC and D are the joint roughness coefficient and fractal
2 308.8 34.62 34.51 20 8.69 1.55 1.325 1.312
dimension, respectively. The relationship between fractal dimen-
3 103 32.98 32.32 26 7.12 0.892 0.600 0.588
sion D and JRC of Barton’s profiles is shown in Fig. 7. The vertical

Fig. 5. Modified divider method: (a) divider applied to profile, (b) logL(r)–logr plot [54].
126 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131
1.02
Turk et al. (1987)
Lee et al. (1990)
Seidel et al. (1995)
1.016
Kulatilake et al. (1997)
Fractal Dimension, D
Jang et al. (2006)
This study
1.012
1.008
1.004
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
JRC Range
Fig. 6. Comparison of fractal dimensions (D) measured by different methods
[54-58] with the values obtained in this study.
axis is the JRC range presented by Barton and Choubey [7] and the
horizontal axis is the fractal dimensions of Barton roughness
profiles measured in this study.
The values of JRC of the surface roughness profile of more than
109 rock discontinuities including laboratory and in-situ tests at
the Bakhtiary dam site were measured by Eq. (4). In fact, the
values of fractal dimension of all 109 rock discontinuities were first
measured and then the values of JRC were obtained based on the
values of fractal dimension.
4.2. Measurement of joint compressive strength (JCS)
The suggested methods for estimating JCS have been published by
the ISRM [59]. In the present research, the values of JCS were measured
using Schmidt rebound hammer method proposed by Deere and Miller
[60]. The values of JCS of more than 109 rock discontinuities both
laboratory and in-situ tests at the Bakhtiary dam site were measured
using the Schmidt rebound hammer method.
4.3. Measurement of residual friction angle ðϕr Þ
The usual test procedure adopted for performing direct shear tests
calls for a constant normal load to be applied with the shear force
being gradually increased until sliding takes place. As illustrated in
Fig. 8a and based on the ISRM suggested methods, the peak shear
strength τp of the test surface is reached under the chosen normal
stress σn by applying the shear force continuously as to control the rate
of shear displacement. After reaching the peak strength τp, the shear
stress-shear displacement curve is plotted as shearing is continued
under the same constant normal stress up to obtaining the correspond-
ing residual shear strength τr. As stated in the ISRM suggested
methods, the normal stress is increased and shearing is continued to
obtain additional residual strength values. This stepwise procedure is
carried out at three normal stress levels.
Diagram of peak τp and residual τr shear strength versus
normal stress σn has been plotted as shown in Fig. 8b based on
the data made available from one laboratory direct shear test
conducted at the Bakhtiary dam site. One may now use the Mohr–
Coulomb criterion (Eq. (5)) to express the peak and residual shear
strengths versus the normal stress as shown in Fig. 8b according to
the obtained cohesion and friction angle:
τ ¼ c þ σ n tan ϕ
20
18
16
14
12 JRC = -39438 + 77018D - 37580D
r = 0.984
JRC
10
6
4
12 14 16 18 20 2
0
1 1.005 1.01 1.015 1.02
Fractal Dimension (D)
Fig. 7. Fractal dimension (D) vs JRC range.
where τ, c, σ n and ϕ are shear strength, cohesion, normal stress
and friction angle, respectively [61]. The successful result of in-situ
direct shear testing on bedding plane is presented in Fig. 8c and d.
The bedding plane is absolutely planar, having no surface irregu-
larities or undulations. As illustrated in Fig. 8c, the shear stress will
increase rapidly until the peak strength is reached. This corre-
sponds to the sum of the strength of the cementing material
bonding the two halves of the bedding plane together and the
frictional resistance of the matching surfaces. As the displacement
continues, the shear stress will fall to some residual value that will
then remain constant, even for large shear displacements. Plotting
the peak and residual shear strengths for different normal stresses
results in the two lines illustrated in Fig. 8d. The relationship
between the peak and residual shear strengths and the normal
stress are represented by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, Eq. (5).
In this study, for all 109 specimens of rock discontinuities at
both laboratory and in-situ scales at the Bakhtiary dam site, the
diagram of peak τp and residual τr shear strength versus different
but constant normal stress σn was plotted. Then, based on what
was mentioned above, the values of residual and peak friction
angle were measured.
5. Numerical modeling of direct shear test
5.1. Model geometry
The numerical simulation was conducted by using the Universal
Distinct Element Code (UDEC) [62]. The isotropic elastic model as a
constitutive model for rock block and Barton–Bandis joint model as
a joint constitutive model were adopted. Model geometry, boundary
condition of direct shear test and load application are shown in
Fig. 9a. The mechanical parameters for rock and joints as input data
for numerical simulation are listed in Table 6. The upper block of the
model is loaded by a constant normal load. During shearing, the
upper block was moved forward with a constant velocity while
lower block remained stationary. The whole model was fixed in
three directions on the lower block, and in horizontal direction on
each side to prevent any movement. The discrete element mesh of
ð5Þ the model is shown in Fig. 9b.
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131 127

3 2.5

2.5
2

Shear strength, MPa

Shear strength, MPa

2
1.5

1.5

1
1

0.5
0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Shear displacement, mm Normal stress, MPa

5 5

4 4
Shear strength, MPa
Shear strength, MPa

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Shear displacement, mm Normal stress, MPa
Fig. 8. Results of laboratory and in-situ direct shear test on discontinuity at the Bakhtiary dam site: (a) plot of shear strength vs. shear displacement of laboratory direct shear
test, (b) plot of shear strength vs. normal stress, peak and residual Mohr–Coulomb envelopes of laboratory direct shear test, (c) plot of shear strength vs. shear displacement
of in-situ direct shear test, (d) plot of shear strength vs. normal stress, peak and residual Mohr–Coulomb envelopes of in-situ direct shear test.

5.2. Definition of the model
For numerical modeling of the direct shear test, the model
geometry was built according to the laboratory and in-situ direct
shear tests. The rock material and condition of the joint were assigned,
initial boundary conditions were applied, and a stepwise procedure
was followed for the model to reach the equilibrium condition. The
analysis was carried out in two steps. In the first step, only normal
stress was applied on the top surface of the model and in the second
step, shear stress was also applied. All of the analyses were performed
using normal stresses ranging from 0.51 to 2.09 MPa.
In this study, more than 109, 2D distinct element analyses were
conducted to simulate the large-scale direct shear tests using
UDEC and predict the shear strength of the rock discontinuities
with different lengths under constant normal load (CNL) boundary
conditions. The geometry of each model was the same as the size
of direct shear test on rock specimens. Therefore, the constant
normal stress applied ranged from 0.47 to 3.2 MPa and 0.59 to
7.03 MPa for laboratory and in-situ direct shear tests, respectively.
After the calibration of numerical models with experimental data
obtained from the laboratory and in-situ direct shear tests mentioned
before, 36 direct shear tests were chosen as the representative of
discontinuities for further analyses. In addition, the constant normal
stress for these tests ranged from 0.51 to 2.09 MPa. The analysis
carried out for normal stress of 2 MPa by numerical modeling is
shown in Fig. 9c. The results are in a good agreement with experi-
mental data.
6. Results and discussion
In this study, the roughness surface parameters were optimized
for evaluation of the shear strength of rock discontinuities in
numerical modeling. Also, the effects of the rock discontinuities with
different lengths under constant normal load (CNL) were evaluated by
using experimental data and numerical modeling. Then, the results of
36 direct shear tests as the representative of discontinuities both in
bedding planes and rock joints were selected for further analyses.
128 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131

1.5

1.2 Normal Stress = 2 MPa

Shear stress, MPa

0.9

0.6

0.3
Numerical Simulation

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Shear displacement, mm
Fig. 9. Numerical model of direct shear test; (a) boundary condition of the model, (b) mesh of the model, (c) graph of shear stress vs. shear displacement.

Table 6 sample. As can be seen, from point A to point B, the values of shear
Input data for numerical simulation of direct shear tests.
strength gradient decline sharply. But, from point B to point C, the
Description Index Unit Value values of shear strength decline slowly. Finally, from point C to point D,
the values of shear strength decrease gradually and reach a constant
Block mass density ρ kg=m3 2640–2650 level. Thus, we can consider this constant level as a representative of
Bulk modulus of block K GPa 3.542–25.556
shear strength of discontinuity in rock masses. The results of the
Shear modulus of block G GPa 1.635–11.795
Joint normal stiffness Kn GPa=m 5.293–5.960
numerical modeling showed that the peak shear strength vanishes for
Joint shear stiffness Ks GPa=m 0.182–2.739 the joints longer than 200 cm. As shown in Fig. 10, it can be concluded
Lab-scale roughness coefficient JRC 0 – 2.02–17.11 that the sample size of 20  10 cm2 is suitable for laboratory direct
Lab-scale joint wall compressive strength JCS0 MPa 11–44 shear test. In fact, it must be emphasized that the more suitable sample
Residual angle of friction ϕr 3 14.9–41.2
size can be 20  20  20 cm3 (3D) for a laboratory direct shear test.
Intact rock uniaxial compressive strength σc MPa 77–116
Lab-scale joint length L0 m 0.09–0.142 Also, the size of in-situ direct shear test 70  70  35 cm3 presented by
Normal stress σn MPa 0.51–2.09 ISRM [48] is reliable because the shear strength estimated can almost
represent the shear strength of rock mass discontinuities of the
dam site.
6.1. The effect of discontinuity length
6.2. The relationship between shear strength and discontinuity
Based on the research conducted by Fardin et al. [22] and due to the length
lack of samples in different lengths, the numerical simulations of direct
shear tests were carried out up to the length of 300 cm. For numerical In order to take care of a large number of shear test data sets, all
analyses, 324 direct shear tests were modeled for the length range the data can be summarized in the mean values. Then, the mean
from 10 to 300 cm with an increment of 10 cm. In this study UDEC was values as a representative of all the data can be used to obtain the
used to predict the shear strength of rock discontinuities with different relation between τ and L. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the mean values of
lengths under constant normal load (CNL) boundary conditions and shear strength for each size of test specimen were separately
based on the Barton–Bandis joint model. The predicted shear strength determined for bedding planes and rock joints. Then, based on the
was compared with the experimental results, indicating that the statistical analysis, the relationship between the mean shear
predicted peak shear stress based on UDEC was in a close agreement strength and discontinuity length was investigated. The empirical
with the experimental results. The effect of discontinuity length on relationship between the mean shear strength τmean and the
shear strength based on experimental results and numerical modeling discontinuity lengths was defined by
is illustrated in Fig. 10. As shown in this figure, the shear strength of
discontinuity is decreased with an increase in the length. Moreover, the
τmean ¼ 1:2957Ln  0:17212 ð6Þ
shear strength of rock discontinuity was almost representative of shear where τmean and Ln are the mean shear strength and discontinuity
strength of discontinuity in rock mass by increasing the size of the length, respectively. The correlation coefficient and the standard
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131
3 1
Simulation Results
Maximum
Minimum
2.4
A
Shear strenght , MPa
B Maybe
1.8 representative of shear strength
of discontinuity in rock mass
C
?
1.2
0.6
0
0 50 100 150 200
Discontinuity length ( Ln), cm
Fig. 10. Variation of shear strength vs discontinuity length.
error were 0.9292 and 0.033756, respectively. Mean values of shear
strength of discontinuities versus discontinuity lengths are shown in
Fig. 11.
6.3. Development of a new equation for estimating shear strength of
discontinuities in sedimentary rock masses
Estimation of shear strength of discontinuities in rock masses is
a very difficult task in the field of geotechnical engineering due to
the problems associated with the in-situ scale and also technical
limitations. In this study, however, a new empirical relationship
for linking the shear strength of discontinuities of laboratory scale
to in-situ scale using the results both from direct shear tests and
numerical modeling at the Bakhtiary dam site has been proposed.
As illustrated in Fig. 10, the relation between τ and L was non-
linear. This non-linear relationship may be expressed in the
general form:
τn ¼ a þ bLn
where τn ¼ Ln τ and Ln ¼ Ln L. The constants a and b and the
correlation coefficient can be determined by linear regression
analysis. The relationships between the shear strength ðτn Þ and
the discontinuity length ðLn Þ are defined by the following equa-
tion:
Ln ðτn Þ ¼ 0:218  0:143Ln ðLn Þ
Using the statistical

analyses of all the data, the correction
coefficient r 2 and the standard error of these analyses were
obtained 0.976 and 0.02832, respectively.
The closer the value of r 2 is to 1, the better the fit of the
empirical equation to the shear test data. By substituting the
average value of laboratory shear strength and the average value of
laboratory length (L0 ¼10 cm) into Eq. (8), the new empirical
relationship is proposed as follows:
   0:16τ0
L sion analysis was used between the predicted and measured shear
τn ¼ τ0 n ð9Þ
L0
where τn is the shear strength of the discontinuity with the length
of ðLn Þ and τ0 is the laboratory based shear strength of the
discontinuity with the length of ðL0 Þ. Ln and L0 refer to in-situ
block size and laboratory sample size, respectively.
In this study, the lengths of laboratory samples were in the range
of 5.4–14.8 cm and the average laboratory sample length was almost
10 cm. Furthermore, the length of in-situ test sample was 70 cm.
129
τ = 1.2957L
r = 0.9292
0.8
Mean shear strength, MPa
0.6
D
0.4
0.2
250 300
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Discontinuity length, cm
Fig. 11. Mean values of shear strength of discontinuities vs. discontinuity length.
Based on the new empirical equation, the value of in-situ shear
strength of discontinuity was predicted by laboratory shear strength.
Therefore, the in-situ shear strength of discontinuity was estimated by
Eq. (9), the input data of which included the value of laboratory shear
strength, the laboratory sample length (L0 ¼10 cm), and the length of
in-situ direct shear tests (L0 ¼70 cm). The results compared with the
data of three in-situ direct shear tests were found to be in a good
agreement with the data obtained from in-situ shear tests. Also, the
linear regression analysis was used between both parameters which
resulted in a linear equation (Eq. (10)) with r 2 ¼ 0:9874. Input data for
estimating the shear strength and the prediction values of shear
strength along the discontinuity length (Ln ¼70 cm) at the Bakhtiary
dam are given in Table 7. The predicted shear strength τpr versus the
measured shear strength τme obtained from a rock discontinuity at the
Bakhtiary dam site is shown in Fig. 12a.
τpr ¼ 0:74988τme þ 0:12913 ð10Þ
ð7Þ
6.4. Validation of the new model for estimating shear strength
In order to validate the new Eq. (9) for estimating shear strength,
ð8Þ the data of another case (i.e., Karun IV dam) in Iran was used. Then,
based on the data of laboratory and in-situ direct shear tests at the
Karun IV dam in Iran, Eq. (9) was validated. It must be noted that the
rock masses of Karun IV dam site are composed of limestone and
marble intersected by several bedding planes, joints and faults,
which are similar to the characteristics of Bakhtiary dam.
In this particular case (Karun IV dam), the same processes as
those for Bakhtiary dam discussed above were used and the shear
strength along the length Ln ¼ 70 cm was predicted based on the
shear strength along the length L0 ¼10 cm. Also, the linear regres-
strengths and a linear equation with r 2 ¼ 0:7866 was obtained.
τpr ¼ 0:31708τme þ0:48621 ð11Þ
Input data for prediction of shear strength and the measured
values of shear strength along the discontinuity length (Ln ¼70 cm) at
the Karun IV dam site are given in Table 8. Also, the relationship τpr
versus τme of a rock discontinuity at the Karun IV dam site is shown in
Fig. 12b.
130 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131

Table 7
Input data for estimating shear strength and the prediction of shear strength along the length Ln on rock discontinuity at the Bakhtiary dam site.

Num JRC 0 JCS0 ðMPaÞ ϕr ð 3 Þ JRC n JCSn ðMPaÞ σ n ðMPaÞ τL0 measured ðMPaÞ τLn measured ðMPaÞ τLn predicted ðMPaÞ

1 10.12 47 31.73 6.37 27 1.05 1.221 0.935 0.835

2 16.48 52 34.51 8.69 20 1.55 2.404 1.325 1.137
3 12.16 51 32.32 7.12 26 1.64 1.814 1.228 1.031

1.5 1.5

Predicted shear strength, τ , MPa

Predicted shear strength, τ , MPa

1.25 1.25

p
p

1 1

0.75 0.75

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Measured shear strength, τ , MPa Measured shear strength, τm , MPa
m

Fig. 12. Plot of τpredicted vs τmeasured on rock discontinuity: (a) at the Bakhtiary dam site, (b) at the Karun IV dam site, Iran.

Table 8
Input data for estimating shear strength and the prediction of shear strength along the length Ln on rock discontinuity at the Karun IV dam site.

Num JRC 0 JCS0 ðMPaÞ ϕr ð 3 Þ JRC n JCSn ðMPaÞ σ n ðMPaÞ τL0 measured ðMPaÞ τLn measured ðMPaÞ τLn predicted ðMPaÞ

1 15.2 39 30.5 8.4 16 1.25 1.552 0.918 0.957

2 14.1 38 30 8.1 16.5 0.36 0.584 0.405 0.484
3 12 41 31 7.5 20 2.94 2.653 2.283 1.161

7. Conclusions decrease until they reach a constant value, which is taken as the
representative of shear strength of discontinuity in rock masses.
In this study, the shear strength of discontinuities with different Further, based on the experimental data and numerical simula-
lengths has been investigated. Based on the experimental test results, tions it can be concluded that the size of in-situ direct shear test
a new empirical relationship for estimating the shear strength of (70  70  35 cm3) suggested by ISRM is reliable and can almost
discontinuities in sedimentary rock masses was developed and show the representative shear strength of discontinuity in rock
validated by another identical case study. The input data for numerical masses. Also, the sample size of 20  20  10 cm3 was found
modeling was obtained from laboratory and in-situ direct shear tests. suitable for the laboratory direct shear test.
The following points have been considered in this study:
First, the shear strength of rock discontinuities from more than
109 laboratory and in-situ direct shear tests under the constant Acknowledgements
normal load (CNL) at the Bakhtiary dam site was measured. Then,
the roughness surface parameters were optimized for evaluation
The authors express their thanks to the Iran Water and Power
of the shear strength of rock discontinuities in numerical model-
Resources Development Committee staff, Poyry Cu. Engineering
ing. Also, the effect of the rock discontinuities with different
Staff, Moshanir Cu. Engineering Staff, Dezab Cu. Engineering Staff,
lengths under constant normal load (CNL) was evaluated using
Stucky Pars Cu. Engineering Staff, Mahab Ghodss Cu. Engineering
experimental data and 324 numerical modeling data sets.
Staff, Khak Azma Laboratory Engineering Staff for providing data,
In this study, capability of UDEC in predicting the shear strength
Computer Programming Team for image processing, and Isfahan
of rock discontinuities with different roughness values under con-
University of Technology, where the study was carried out.
stant normal load (CNL) boundary conditions was evaluated. The
predicted shear strength was compared with the experimental
results, indicating that the predicted peak shear stress based on References
UDEC is in a close agreement with the experimental results.
From numerical simulations, it can concluded that by increas- [1] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proc. first international
ing the discontinuity lengths the values of shear strength gradually congress of rock mechanics, Lisbon; 1966a. p. 509–513.
 M. Sanei et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 75 (2015) 119–131
[2] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and related materials.
(Thesis). University of Illinois; 1966.
[3] Goodman RE. The mechanical properties of joints. In: Proc. third international
congress of rock mechanics, Denver, CO, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC; 1974. p. 127–140.
[4] Goodman RE. Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rock. San
Francisco: West Group Publications; 1975.
[5] Jaeger JC. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. Geotechnique
1971;21:97–134.
[6] Barton N. Estimation of in situ shear strength from back analysis of failed rock
slopes. In: Proceeding of the international symposium on rock fracture.
Organized by International Society for Rock Mechanics, Rubrecht, Nancy,
France; 1971. p. 11–27.
[7] Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 1977;10(1–2):1–54.
[8] Barton N, Bandis S. Effects of block size on the shear behaviour of jointed rock.
. In: Goodman RE, Heuze FE editors.Proceedings of the 23rd U.S. symposium
on rock mechanics, Berkeley, CA; 1982. p. 739–760.
[9] Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K. Strength, deformation and conductivity
coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1985;22
(3):121–40.
[10] Barton N, Bandis SC. Review of predictive capabilities of JRC–JCS model in
engineering practice. . In: Loen, Norway, Barton N, Stephansson O editors.
Proceedings of the international symposium on rock joints, Balkema, Rotter-
dam; 1990. p. 603–610.
[11] Jing L, Stephansson O, Nordlund E. Study of rock joints under cyclic loading
conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1993;26(3):215–32.
[12] Grasselli G, Egger P. Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints
based on three-dimensional surface parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2003;40(1):25–40.
[13] Samadhiya NK, Viladkar MN, Al-Obaydi MA. Three-dimensional joint/interface
element for rough undulating major discontinuities in rock masses. Int J
Geomech 2008;8(6):327–35.
[14] Asadollahi P, Tonon F. Constitutive model for rock fractures: revisiting Barton’s
empirical model. Eng Geol 2010;113(1–4):11–32.
[15] Tang H, Ge Y, Wang L, Yuan Y, Huang L, Sun M. Study on estimation method of
rock mass discontinuity shear strength based on three-dimensional laser
scanning and image technique. J Earth Sci 2012;23(6):908–13.
[16] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of the shear behaviour of a jointed rock
mass. In: Proc. 11th US rock mechanics symposium, Berkeley; 1969. p. 105–
125.
[17] Hutson RW, Dowding CH. Joint asperity degradation during cyclic shear. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1990;27(2):109–19.
[18] Lee HS, Park YJ, Cho TF, You KH. Influence of asperity degradation on the
mechanical behavior of rough rock joints under cyclic shear loading. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2001;38:967–80.
[19] Jaeger JC. The frictional properties of joints in rock. Geofisica pura e applicata
1959:148–58.
[20] Lane KS, Heck WJ. Triaxial testing for strength of rock joints. In: Proc. sixth U.S.
rock mechanics symposium, Rolla, MO; 1964. p. 98–108.
[21] Bandis S, Lumsden AC, Barton NR. Experimental studies of scale effects on the
shear behaviour of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1981;18(1):1–21.
[22] Fardin N, Feng Q, Stephansson O. Application of a new in situ 3D-laser scanner
to study the scale effect on the rock joint surface roughness. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2004;41(2):329–35.
[23] Pratt HR, Black, AD, Brace WF. Friction and deformation of jointed quartz
diorite. In: Proceedings of the third international congress on rock mechanics,
Denver, CO; 1974. p. 306–310.
[24] Muralha J, Pinto da Cunha A. Analysis of scale effects in joint mechanical
behaviour. In: Pinto da Cunha editor. Proceedings of the first international
workshop on scale effects in rock masses, Loen, Norway, Balkema; 1990. p.
191–200.
[25] Muralha J, Pinto da Cunha A. Mathematical modelling of scale effects in rock
joints. In: Hudson JA editor. Proc. Eurock ’92, UK; 1992. p. 287–292.
[26] Indraratna B, Haque A. Shear behaviour of rock joints. Rotterdam: Balkema;
2000.
[27] Murata S, Saito T. A new evaluation method of JRC and its size effect. In:
Proceedings of the 10th international congress of rock mechanics, Sandton,
South Africa; 2003. p. 855–858.
[28] Giani GP, Ferero AM, Passarello G, Reinaudo L. Scale effect evaluation on
natural discontinuity shear strength. In: Proc int conf on fractured and jointed
rock masses. Lake Tahoe, Rotterdam: Balkema; 1992. p. 447–52.
[29] Brown ET, Richards LR, Barr MV. Shear strength characteristics of Delabole
slates. In: Proceedings conf on rock engineering, Newcastle, UK; 1977. p. 33–
51.
131
[30] Desheng D, Richard S, Michel A. A geometrical approach for the estimation of
scale effects in rock joint behavior. In: Proceedings 57th Canadian geotechni-
cal conference and the fifth joint CGS-IAH conference; 2004. p. 24–27.
[31] Vallier F, Mitani Y, Esaki T, Boulon M. Rock joints modeling and application to
scale effects, improvements. In: Proceedings of the 40th U.S. rock mechanics
symposium, Anchorage; 2005. p. 1123–1128.
[32] Ueng TS, Jou YJ, Peng IH. Scale effect on shear strength of computer-aided-
manufactured joints. J Geo Eng 2010;5(2):29–37.
[33] Cunha A. Scale effect in rock mechanics. In: Proceedings of first international
conference on scale effect in rock masses, Loen, Norway; 1991. p. 3–27.
[34] Yoshinaka R, Yoshida J, Arai H, Shimizu T, Arisaka S. Scale effect in shear
strength and deformation of rock joints. In: Proceedings of the 10th interna-
tional congress of rock mechanics, Aachen, Germany; 1991. p 371–378.
[35] Ohnishi Y, Herda H, Yoshinaka R. Shear strength scale effect and the geometry
of single and repeated rock joints. In: Proceedings of second international
conference on scale effect in rock masses, Lisbon, Portugal; 1993. p. 167–173.
[36] Castelli M, Savia S, Zanineti A. Experimental evaluation of scale effect on the
mechanical behavior of rock joints. In: Proceedings Eurock, Espoo, Finland;
2001. p. 205–210.
[37] Fardin N, Stephansson O, Jing L. The scale dependence of rock joint surface
roughness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:659–69.
[38] Mandelbort BB. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and
fractional dimension Science 1967;156(3775):636–8.
[39] Feder J. Fractals. New York: Plenum Press; 1988.
[40] Orey S. Gaussian sample functions and the Hausdorff dimension of level
crossing. Z Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw Geb 1970;15:249–56.
[41] Berry MV, Lewis ZV. On the Weierstrass–Mandelbort fractal function. Proc R
Soc London Ser A 1980;370:459–84.
[42] Mandelbort BB. Self-affine fractals and fractal dimension. Phys Scr 1985;32
(4):257–60.
[43] Matsushita M, Ouchi S. On the self-affinity of various curves. Physica D
1989;38(1-3):246–51.
[44] He MC, Feng JL, Sun XM. Stability evaluation and optimal excavated design of
rock slope at Antaibao open pit coal mine, China. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2008;45(3):289–302.
[45] Rutqvist J, Wu YS, Tsang CF, Bodvarsson G. A modeling approach for analysis of
coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer, and deformation in fractured
porous rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39(4):429–42.
[46] Stucky Pars Engineering Co. Engineering geology and rock mechanics report
on completion of site investigations phase I & II: Revision 1, Tehran; 2009.
[47] ISRM. Suggested method for laboratory determination of direct shear strength.
Part 2; 1974.
[48] ISRM. Suggested method for in situ determination of direct shear strength.
Part 1; 1974.
[49] Wu TH, Ali EM. Statistical representation of joint roughness. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:259–62.
[50] Tse R, Cruden DM. Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1979;16(5):303–7.
[51] Krahn J, Morgenstern NR. The ultimate frictional resistance of rock disconti-
nuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1979;16:127–33.
[52] Mandelbrot BB. The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco: Henry Holt;
1983.
[53] Brown SR. A note on the description of surface roughness using fractal
dimension. Geophys Res Lett 1987;14(11):1095–8.
[54] Jang BA, Jang HS, Park HJ. A new method for determination of joint roughness
coefficient. IAEG2006 Paper number 95; 2006.
[55] Turk N, Greig MJ, Dearman WR, Amin FF. Characterization of rock joint
surfaces by fractal dimension. In: Proc. 28th U.S. rock mechanics symposium,
Tucson, Rotterdam: Balkema; 1987. p. 1223–1236.
[56] Lee YH, Carr JR, Barr DJ, Haas CJ. The fractal dimension as a measure of the
roughness of rock discontinuity profiles. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 1990;27(6):453–64.
[57] Seidel JP, Haberfield CM. Towards and under-standing of joint roughness. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 1995;28(2):69–92.
[58] PHSW Kulatilake, Um J, Pan G. Requirements for accurate estimation of fractal
parameters for self-affine roughness profiles using the line scaling method.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 1997;30(4):181–206.
[59] ISRM. Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in
rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:319–68.
[60] Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties for intact
rock. (Technical report no. AFNL-TR-65-116). New Mexico: Air Force Weapons
Laboratory; 1966.
[61] Heok E. Practical rock engineering. Canada: North Vancouver; 2006.
[62] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. UDEC user’s guide, ver 5.0, Minneapolis; 2011.