Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Buocz Et Al Direct Shear Strenth Pollack 9 2014 3 15
Buocz Et Al Direct Shear Strenth Pollack 9 2014 3 15
net/publication/268684636
CITATIONS READS
12 8,262
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ákos Török on 20 December 2014.
Abstract: This paper presents a brief summary of the main existing shear strength test
methods on both intact and fractured rocks, such as the triaxial, half-half notched specimen and
direct shear strength tests. A detailed description of how to carry out a direct shear strength test on
rocks along discontinuities are provided, supported by test results. The analyses include the
interpretation of the tests and the calculation of the maximal and residual shear strength, as well
as their angle of friction and apparent cohesion. These parameters depend on the properties of the
rock and the discontinuity, such as the joint surface roughness, the rock texture orientation, the
filling material, the thickness of the discontinuities, the scale effect and the magnitude of the
applied normal force during the test. Their effect is discussed.
1. Introduction
The shear strength of rocks describes their behavior in nature, in terms of stability.
In the fields of mining, tunneling and slope stability, the correct evaluation of this
parameter is essential for the appropriate design of natural and engineered slopes and
cavities. Already in 1966 Patton [1] started experimental works focused on how to
determine the shear strength of rocks, which were followed by the work of Ladanyi [2],
Barton and Choubey [3]. They established the fundaments of the shear test methodology
used today.
If the properties of the intact rock have to be determined, triaxial or half-half
notched specimen tests should be used. On the other hand, when the connection
between two rock blocks has to be investigated, triaxial and direct shear strength tests
are suggested to be performed. Direct shear strength tests are widely used today. The
latest developments in this context include the work carried out by Towhata et al. [4],
who examined sandstone and black mudstone from Taiwan. Boulon et al. [5] worked
with French calcite healed discontinuities in granodioritic rocks and Geertsema [6]
performed tests on South-African granite. Buocz [7] carried out tests on Hungarian
granite and claystone.
Due to the axial compressive pressure, the sample shears between the two cuts, in
axial direction. From the results of the test, the shear strength of the sample can be
determined [9]. The difficulty of this method is the proper and exact sample preparation.
The direct shear strength test is rarely used on intact rocks due to the extremely high
loads that should be applied for the shearing of the sample. On the other hand, for soft
rocks, this test is feasible.
Fig. 2. Shear cell with eccentric shear load, shear cell with centric shear load
(N: normal load, S: shear load)
hydraulic pumps. The shear force was recorded by a type 9861 force transducer made
by Kaliber Ltd. This shear box applies eccentric shear load. The normal and shear
displacements were measured by HBM 1-WA/10MM-T displacement gauges, which
have a precision of 0.5%, and a measuring range of maximum 10 mm (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. The shear box with displacement gauges and hydraulic pumps used for the tests
The specimens tested were prepared from granite and clayey rocks deriving from the
Bátaapáti national low and intermediate level radioactive waste disposal facility. The
granite samples were bored with a Hilti DD-160E type core drill with diameter of
50 mm. Discontinuities were drilled through, along which the specimens were
intentionally separated. Samples from the clayey rocks were cut by a saw. These
specimens were cut to a size that could be embedded into plaster in order to keep them
fix in the shear cell during the shear test, avoiding any movements. For this, Rigipsz
G5/B3 model plaster was used.
Before the samples were placed in the sample holder, the properties of the rock and
the discontinuity that influence the results of the shear test were examined.
During the shear strength test, normal load is applied. If dilation is allowed, under
low normal force, the ‘teeth’ of the rough surface cannot shear off, and the surfaces
move above each other. For high normal force values, the surfaces cannot go apart from
each other and the teeth shear off. These test methods give different shear strength
values [10].
The orientation of the texture of the rock also influences the test results. For
example, if the shear direction is parallel to the boundary layer of the slates, the shear
strength will be different (less) than by vertical shear (higher).
On site, larger surfaces can be examined, compared to the ones in the laboratory.
However, even in the laboratory the sizes of the samples can differ. This difference
plays a role in determining the shear strength, and is called ‘scale effect’ [12].
The surface roughness, which affects the shear strength the most, is defined by the
Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) [12]. Patton [1] worked out formulas to describe the
different surface properties. He distinguished flat surface, tilted surface, rough surface
and wavy surface, but his formulas are valid only for discontinuities not containing any
infill material. Schweiger and Leitner [13] showed connections between the flat surfaces
with and without infill material, and the rough surfaces with and without infill materials.
Considering the above mentioned shear strength influencing factors, sample groups
should be created with similar properties.
V
τ= , (1)
A
where τ is the shear stress [MPa]; V is the shear force [N]; A is the sheared surface
area [mm2].
Due to the lack of a normal load-detecting device, this value was read from the scale
of the hydraulic pump. Assuming it constant at each stage, the normal stress was
calculated as follows:
N
σn = , (2)
A
where σn is the normal stress [MPa]; N is the normal force [N]; A is the compressed
surface area [mm2].
From the above-mentioned data, shear stress-shear displacement and normal
displacement-shear displacement diagrams were built (Fig. 4). Plotting them together,
the elevation of the normal load could be detected and its effect on the shear stress
examined.
The first peak on the diagram represents maximal shear strength, then followed by
the residual shear strength. After each increase in the normal force, residual shear
strength values could be determined. For low axial load, more maximal shear strength
values occur if new teeth of the surface shear off.
Plotting the residual values on a shear stress-normal stress diagram, it was observed
that the values fall along a line. The slope of it gives the residual internal angle of
friction, while the point of intersection between the line and the shear stress axis yields
the apparent cohesion (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Plotting the residual shear strengths on a shear stress-normal stress diagram
Specimens with similar shear strength influencing properties were interpreted within
one sample group.
To be able to determine the maximal and residual angle of friction and apparent
cohesion, the maximal and residual shear strength values of each specimen within the
same sample group values were plotted together.
much as it is generally true for the same rock type (average 200 MPa within the range of
50-350 MPa) [16].
Table I
Average maximal and residual internal angle of friction for Hungarian granite and claystone
Prominently high maximal shear strength values occur in case intact rocks are sheared
apart along discontinuities. For intentionally separated discontinuities this value is much
lower, which is the reason why the difference between the maximal and residual values
of the internal angle of friction is only 5°. Fig. 8 shows an intentionally separated
granite sample with rough surface. Similar results were obtained for granites in
fractured zones [17].
In intentionally separated clayey rocks there are no sharp teeth that could hold on to
each other and shear off. Consequently, the surfaces slip over each other (Fig. 9).
Due to this phenomenon there is only little difference between the maximal and residual
shear strength values. This is the reason why the maximal and residual internal angles of
friction are very similar to each other. However due to the very compact and
consolidated structure of the rock, the obtained internal angle of friction values are
higher compared to the more well known lower values of soft, low consolidated
claystones. Similar results appear in the research of Naeem and Farooq, who also
examined overconsolidated claystones [18]. The humidity of the examined samples was
preserved prior to the sample preparation. Despite the structure of the rock, during the
moulding and the compilation of the shear apparatus, the specimens partially lost their
original water content, which also contributed to the elevation of the friction values
[19], [20].
10. Conclusion
Direct shear strength tests were carried out on Hungarian granite and claystone. The
samples derived from the Bátaapáti national low and intermediate level radioactive
waste disposal facility. On the example of them, the methodology and interpretation of
direct shear strength tests along joints were demonstrated.
The average maximal and residual angle of internal friction for the granite samples
tested, were 29° and 24° respectively, indicating that for the intentionally separated
samples there is only a little difference between the maximal and residual values.
The claystone specimens did not give a significant maximal value due to the fact
that the samples had no sharp teeth to block the effect of shearing.
The properties of infill material, its mineralogy, thickness and surface roughness
have a high influence on the shear strength. The two-dimensional measurements, similar
to the methodology of Barton comb, did not provide enough data for estimating the
shear strength numerically, since the shape and morphology of surface irregularities can
significantly modify the value of it. Further examinations and three-dimensional
measurements of surface roughness are suggested.
Acknowledgements
The Authors would like to thank the staff of the Laboratory for Rock Mechanics at
École Politechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and the staff of the Department of
Construction Materials and Engineering Geology at Budapest University of Technology
and Economics, for the support provided during the experiments, both under the
technical and the scientific points of view. The financial support of SCIEX - Grant No.
11.062, Title of the Project: ‘SHEROWA’ Shear strength test of host rocks of
radioactive waste disposal site - is highly appreciated.
References
[1] Patton F. D. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock, Proc. 1st Congress of International
Society of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 25 September-1 October 1966, pp. 509–513.
[2] Ladanyi B., Archambault G. Simulation of the shear behavior of a jointed rock mass, Proc.
11th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Berkeley, USA, 16-19 June 1970,
pp. 105–125.
[3] Barton N., Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice, Rock Mech,
Vol. 10, No. 1-2, 1977, pp. 1–54.
[4] Towhata T., Yamazaki H., Kanatani M., Lin C., Oyama T. Laboratory shear tests of rock
specimens collected from site of Tsao-Ling earthquake-induced landslide, Tamkang
Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2001, pp. 209–219.
[5] Boulon M., Armand G., Hoteit N., Divoux P. Experimental investigations and modeling of
shearing of calcite healed discontinuities of granodiorite under typical stresses, Engineering
Geology, Vol. 64, No. 2-3, 2002, pp. 117–133.
[6] Geertsema A. J. The shear strength of rock joints with special reference to dam foundations,
Presented as partial fulfillment for the degree PhD, Engineering Geology, Faculty of
Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, 2003.
[7] Buocz I. The importance of shear strength tests on the example of the host rock of the
Báttapáti Intermediate level radioactive waste disposal facility, (in Hungarian) MSc Thesis,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Civil Engineering, Department of
Construction Materials and Engineering Geology, 2010.
[8] Hoek E., Franklin J. A. A simple triaxial cell for field and laboratory testing of rock, Trans.
Instn Min. Metall. Vol. 77, 1968, A22–A26.
[9] Gálos M., Kövesdi B. Determination of the shear strength of rocks on half-half notched
samples, (in Hungarian) In Török Á., Vásárhelyi B. (Ed.) Mérnökgeológia-Kőzetmechanika
2006, Budapest, Műegyetemi Kiadó, 2006, pp. 53–59.
[10] Brady B. H. G., Brown E. T. Rock mechanics for underground mining, Kluwer, Dodrecht,
2004, p. 628.
[11] Franklin J. A., Kanji M. A., Herget G., Ladanyi B., Drozd K., Dvorak A., Egger P., Kutter
H., Rummel F., Rengers N., Nose M., Thiel K., P. F. Rodrigues, Serafim J. L., Bieniawski
Z. T., Stacey T. R., Muzas F., Gibson R. E., Hobbs N. B., Coulson J.H., Deere D. U.,
Dodds R. K., Dutro H. B., Kuhn A. K., Underwood L. B. Suggested methods for
determining shear strength, International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission on
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests, Documnet No. 1, 1974, pp. 131–140.
[12] Barton N. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints, Engineering Geology,
Vol. 7, No. 4, 1973, pp. 287–332.
[13] Schweiger H. F., Leitner R. Numerische Modellierung von Geklüftetem Fels, Workshop
Tunnel und untertägiger Hohlraumbau, Bauhaus, Universität Weimar, 20-21 June 2006,
p. 23.
[14] Durgin P.B. Landslides and the weathering of granitic rocks, Geological Society of America
Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. 3, No. 7, 1977, pp. 127−131.
[15] Barsi I., Görög P., Török, Á. Statistical analysis of test data deriving from rock mechanical
tests carried out on Bátaapáti granitic rock samples (in Hungarian) In Török Á., Görög P.
(Eds.) The Importance of Rock Mechanics and Rock Surrounding in the Design of
Radioactive Waste Repositories Budapest, Hungary, TERC Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató
Kft. 2012, pp. 113−122.
[16] Waltham T. Rock strength, in Foundations of Engineering Geology, Taylor & Francis e-
Library, 2009, pp. 52−54.
[17] Laws S., Eberhardt E., Loew S., Descoeudres F. Geomechanical Properties of Shear Zones
in the Eastern Aar Massif, Switzerland and their Implication on Tunnelling, Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2003, pp. 271−303.
[18] Naeem M., Farooq M. S., Slope stability analysis at alternate sandstone, claystone/siltstone
beds of Dhok Pathan Formation at Pir Pehai Area District Mianwali, Pakistan, Geol. Bull.
Punjab Univ, Vol. 40-41, 2005-6, 2005, pp. 89−96.
[19] Pellet F. L., Keshavarz M., Boulon M. Influence of humidity conditions on shear strength
of clay rock discontinuities, Engineering Geology, Vol. 157, 2013, pp. 33−38.
[20] Dewoolkar M. M., Huzjak R. J. Drained residual shear strength of some claystones from
Front Range Colorado, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvirinmental Engineering,
Vol. 131, No. 12, 2005, pp. 1543–1551.