energies

Article
Application of the Mohr-Coulomb Yield Criterion for
Rocks with Multiple Joint Sets Using Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua 2D (FLAC2D) Software
Lifu Chang 1,2, * ID
and Heinz Konietzky 1
1 Institut für Geotechnik, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg 09599, Germany;
heinz.konietzky@ifgt.tu-freiberg.de
2 School of Mechanics & Civil Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing 100083, China
* Correspondence: clfcumtb@163.com; Tel.: +86-189-1102-2674

Received: 6 February 2018; Accepted: 6 March 2018; Published: 9 March 2018

Abstract: The anisotropic behavior of a rock mass with persistent and planar joint sets is mainly
governed by the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the joints. The aim of the study is
to develop a continuum-based approach for simulation of multi jointed geomaterials. Within the
continuum methods, the discontinuities are regarded as smeared cracks in an implicit manner and all
the joint parameters are incorporated into the equivalent constitutive equations. A new equivalent
continuum model, called multi-joint model, is developed for jointed rock masses which may contain
up to three arbitrary persistent joint sets. The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is used to check failure of
the intact rock and the joints. The proposed model has solved the issue of multiple plasticity surfaces
involved in this approach combined with multiple failure mechanisms. The multi-joint model was
implemented into Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua software (FLAC) and is verified against the
strength anisotropy behavior of jointed rock. A case study considering a circular excavation under
uniform and non-uniform in-situ stresses is used to illustrate the practical application. The multi-joint
model is compared with the ubiquitous joint model.

Keywords: jointed rock masses; multi-joint constitutive model; strength anisotropy; tunnel
excavation; numerical simulation

1. Introduction
The behavior of a jointed rock (within this paper this term includes also jointed rock masses) is
anisotropic, non-linear and stress path dependent due to the presence of discontinuities. Compared to
intact rock, jointed rock generally exhibit reduced stiffness, higher permeability and lower strength.
Various analytical, numerical and empirical methods are suggested in order to take into account
the influence of discontinuities on the mechanical behavior of jointed rock [1–6]. In the past several
decades, a lot of lab tests with samples containing a single or multiple joint sets under confined and
unconfined conditions have been implemented to investigate the joint orientation effect [7–9]. With the
ongoing development of computer based simulation techniques, more sophisticated models have been
developed in recent years and it is possible to incorporate more aspects into the simulations [10–13].
Two numerical techniques are common in rock mechanics: continuum-based methods and
discontinuum based methods. Discontinuum methods consider the rock mass as an assemblage of rigid
or deformable blocks connected along discontinuities [14], and investigate the microscopic mechanisms
in granular material and crack development in rocks [3,15]. Boon et al. [16] performed 2D discrete
element analyses to identify potential failure mechanisms around a circular unsupported tunnel in
a rock mass intersected by three independent joint sets. In continuum methods, the discontinuities
are considered as smeared planes of weakness (joints) incorporated in each zone. The equivalent

Energies 2018, 11, 614; doi:10.3390/en11030614 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23

tunnel
Energies in
2018,a 11,
rock614 mass intersected by three independent joint sets. In continuum methods,2 of the
23

discontinuities are considered as smeared planes of weakness (joints) incorporated in each zone. The
equivalent
continuumcontinuummethod containsmethod contains
three parts: three parts: the continuum
the equivalent equivalent compliance
continuum part compliance part
(incremental
(incremental elastic law), the yield criterion and
elastic law), the yield criterion and the plastic corrections part. the plastic corrections part.
Will
Will [17]
[17] implemented
implemented aa multi-surface
multi-surfaceplasticity
plasticitymodelmodelinto intoaa finite
finite element
element code
code with
with internal
internal
iterations
iterations in case that several plasticity surfaces are touched at the same time. Zhang [18]developed
in case that several plasticity surfaces are touched at the same time. Zhang [18] developed
further
furtherthetheGoodman’s
Goodman’sjoint jointelement
elementmodel
modeland andderived
derivedthe theequivalent
equivalentmethod
methodfor forrock
rockmasses
masseswith
with
multi-set
multi-set joints in a global coordinate system. Rihai [19,20] proposed a method which takes into
joints in a global coordinate system. Rihai [19,20] proposed a method which takes into
account
accountthe theinfluence
influenceof ofmicro
micro moments
momentson on the
the behavior
behavior of of the
the equivalent
equivalent continuum
continuumbased basedon onthethe
Cosserat theory. Hurley et al. [21] presented a numerical method which
Cosserat theory. Hurley et al. [21] presented a numerical method which implemented the method into implemented the method
into GEODYN-L
GEODYN-L code.code.
ThisThis
method methodusesuses a series
a series of stress
of stress and strain-rate
and strain-rate update update algorithms
algorithms to ruletojoints
rule
joints closure, slip, and stress distribution inside the computational cells
closure, slip, and stress distribution inside the computational cells which contain multiple embedded which contain multiple
embedded
joints. A model joints.withA model
multi-setswithofmulti-sets
ubiquitous of joints
ubiquitous
with an joints with an
extended extended
Barton Barton
empirical empirical
formula was
formula was proposed by Wang [22] and pre- and post-peak deformation
proposed by Wang [22] and pre- and post-peak deformation characteristics of the rock mass were characteristics of the rock
also
mass were also
considered. Many considered.
models have Many models
been have been
formulated formulated
to simulate the to simulate
effect theangle
of joint effectonofthe
joint angle
strength
on
and the strength andofdeformability
deformability rock masses, but of rock
onlymasses, but onlyseveral
a few consider a few joint
consider
sets several joint setsstrength
having different having
different strength parameters and their
parameters and their effects on failure characteristics.effects on failure characteristics.
This
Thispaperpaper presents
presents aa newnew equivalent
equivalent continuum
continuum constitutive
constitutive model
model named
named multi-joint
multi-joint model
model
to simulate the behavior of jointed rock. This model is suited for
to simulate the behavior of jointed rock. This model is suited for jointed rock containing jointed rock containing up to three
up to
arbitrary joint sets
three arbitrary jointwith
setscorresponding
with corresponding spatialspatial
distribution. The equivalent
distribution. compliance
The equivalent matrix matrix
compliance of the
rock
of themass
rock is massestablished and the
is established and Mohr-Coulomb
the Mohr-Coulomb yieldyield
criterion is used
criterion is usedtotocheck
checkthe the failure
failure
characteristics of the intact rock and the joints. A circular tunnel subjected
characteristics of the intact rock and the joints. A circular tunnel subjected to uniform and non-uniform to uniform and non-
uniform in-situ is
in-situ stresses stresses
used to is illustrate
used to illustrate the application
the application of this model.
of this model.

2.2.Methodology
Methodologyfor
forEquivalent
EquivalentContinuum
ContinuumMulti-Joint
Multi-JointModel
Model

2.1.
2.1.Ubiquitous
UbiquitousJoint
Jointand
andRelated
RelatedApproaches
Approaches
The
Thetermterm‘ubiquitous
‘ubiquitousjoint’
joint’used
usedbybyGoodman
Goodman[23] [23]implies
impliesthat
thatthe
thejoint
jointsets
setsmay
mayoccur
occurat
atany
any
point
point in
in the
the rock
rock mass
mass without
without aa fixed
fixed location.
location. The
The joints
joints are
are embedded
embedded in in aa Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb solid
solid
(Figure
(Figure 1a).
1a).

Figure
Figure1.1.Schematic
Schematicfor isotropic
for andand
isotropic anisotropic models:
anisotropic (a) ubiquitous
models: joint model,
(a) ubiquitous (b) multi
joint model, (b)joint model,
multi joint
(c) anisotropic model with transversely isotropic rock matrix and representative joint orientation.
model, (c) anisotropic model with transversely isotropic rock matrix and representative joint orientation.

Failure may occur in either the rock matrix or along the joints, or both, according to the stress
Failure may occur in either the rock matrix or along the joints, or both, according to the stress
state, the orientation of the joints and the parameters of matrix and joints [24]. More advanced models
state, the orientation of the joints and the parameters of matrix and joints [24]. More advanced models
based on ubiquitous joint or strain-harding/softening ubiquitous joint (subiquitous) were developed
based on ubiquitous joint or strain-harding/softening ubiquitous joint (subiquitous) were developed
in recent years [13,22,25–27] as shown in Figure 1b,c. These approaches consider aspects like stiffness
Energies 2018, 11, 614 3 of 23

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

in recent years [13,22,25–27] as shown in Figure 1b,c. These approaches consider aspects like stiffness
anisotropy
anisotropy in
in addition
addition to
to the
the strength
strength anisotropy, joint spacing,
anisotropy, joint spacing, strain
strain softening
softening or
or bi-linear
bi-linear strength
strength
envelopes.
envelopes. The
The proposed
proposed multi-joint
multi-joint model
model is
is characterized
characterized byby different
different strength parameters and
strength parameters and
considers
considers overall
overall stiffness reduction due
stiffness reduction due to
to the
the joints
joints like
like shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 2.
2.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Jointed
Jointed rock
rock mass
mass containing
containing three
three random
random joint
joint sets.
sets.

2.2.
2.2. Elastic
Elastic Matrix
Matrix of
of the
the Equivalent
Equivalent Continuum
Continuum Model
Model
The
The elastic
elastic stiffness
stiffness properties
properties of
of the
the joints
joints are denoted by
are denoted the joint
by the joint normal
normal andand shear
shear stiffness
stiffness
parameters kn and ks, respectively. The spatial characteristics of the joint sets are represented by joint
parameters kn and ks , respectively. The spatial characteristics of the joint sets are represented by
orientation and and
joint orientation spacing. The The
spacing. multi-joint model
multi-joint model incorporates
incorporatesthethejoint
jointparameters
parametersby by an
an overall
overall
downgrading
downgrading of the rock matrix parameters, so that in terms of stiffness still isotropic behavior is
of the rock matrix parameters, so that in terms of stiffness still isotropic behavior is
assumed. The corresponding strain-stress relationship is given by the following
assumed. The corresponding strain-stress relationship is given by the following expression: expression:

 1 1 νν νν  
  Eeq − − Eeq −− Eeq 00 0 0 0 0  σ 
 
ε1 1
E E E
 ε    eq− Eνeq Eeq1eq − Eνeqeq 0 0 0   σ
ν ν
 2   2 

 ε  − − ν − ν − 1
 ε 13 
1
00 0 0 0 

0
 σσ3 
 Eeq   σ 
= Eeq Eeq Eeq 1 (1)
 ε 4  E E 
 
ε 2  σ
  
1
     2
0 eq0 0 eq 0 0 4 
 ε 5  ν 0 ν0
G
   
 10 00 G1 0 0 0  σ5 
εε36 − − σ 
  =  Eeq 0 Eeq0 E0eq 0 0 G1  σ6 3  (1)
ε 4   1  σ 4 
 0   mass,
ε 5  equivalent
In this matrix, Eeq is the

0
deformation 0 modulus of
G
0 the0rock
 σ 5  G is shear modulus
and ν is Poison’s ratio of the intact rock. If n is the number of joint sets, Si is the  number of joints per 1
εthe
6

 stiffness
1  σmodulus
6

meter for joint set i, Ki is
 0 0
of joint set i and0 0
EM means 0
Young’s

of the intact rock
G
 1
matrix, then the equivalent deformation modulus is obtained:
 0 0 n 0 0 0 
 1 Si 1 G 
Eeq
= ∑ K EM + (2)
i =1 i
In this matrix, Eeq is the equivalent deformation modulus of the rock mass, G is shear modulus
and νConsequently,
is Poison’s ratio of the intact rock. If n is the
the corresponding Young’s modulus of thenumber of joint sets, Sisi isrelated
rock mass the number of joints
to the joint per
spacing
1and
meter for joint set i, K i is the stiffness of joint set i and EM means Young’s modulus of the intact rock
the joint stiffness. Springs in series representing matrix and joint stiffness will lead to significant
matrix, then
reduction in the equivalent
overall stiffnessdeformation
as shown inmodulus
Figure 3.is obtained:
n
1 S 1
=∑ i + (2)
Eeq i =1 K i E M
Consequently, the corresponding Young’s modulus of the rock mass is related to the joint
spacing and the joint stiffness. Springs in series representing matrix and joint stiffness will lead to
significant reduction in overall stiffness as shown in Figure 3.
Energies 2018, 11, 614 4 of 23
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Downgraded stiffness
Downgraded stiffness for
forthe
theequivalent
equivalentcontinua.
continua.

2.3. Failure Criterion of Multi-Joint Model

Figure 3.Model
2.3. Failure Criterion of Multi-Joint Downgraded stiffness for the equivalent continua.
Plasticity leads to irreversible deformations after reaching the yield condition. For the multi-joint
Plasticity
model the leads
return tomappingFigureprocedure
irreversible 3. Downgraded
deformations stiffness
afterfor the equivalent
reaching continua.
the yield condition. For conditions
the multi-joint
2.3. Failure Criterion of Multi-Joint Model is used. Figure 4 elucidates possible geometric
modelarising from the intersection of two yield surfaces (F1 and F2) representing tensile (F1) and shear (Farising
the return mapping procedure is used. Figure 4 elucidates possible geometric conditions 2)
2.3. Plasticity leads of
toMulti-Joint
irreversibleModel deformations after reaching the yield condition. For the multi-joint
theFailure
fromfailure. Criterion
Several different
intersection of two situations
yield surfaces have (Fto1 be
and considered [28]: (1) tensile
F2 ) representing If only (F
one1 ) yield condition
and shear is
(F2 ) failure.
model the return mapping procedure is used. Figure 4 elucidates possible geometric conditions
violated
Several different(region
Plasticity s4 and
leads
situationsto sirreversible
), plasticity
5have correction
to bedeformations
considered is performed
[28]: (1) If by
after reaching the
onlytheonecorresponding
yield condition.
yield potential
conditionFor the functions.
multi-joint
is violated (region
arising from the intersection of two yield surfaces (F1 and F2) representing tensile (F1) and shear (F2)
(2) If
model more
s4 andfailure. the than
s5 ), plasticityreturn one yield
mapping condition
procedure is violated,
is used. the situation
Figure 4 can be
elucidates categorized
possible as follows:
geometric conditions
Several correction is performed
different situations have to bybetheconsidered
corresponding [28]: (1)potential
If only functions. (2) If more
one yield condition is than
arising from the isintersection αi + 1of two yield surfaces (F 1 and F2) representing tensile (F1) and shear (F2)
(a)
one yield If F trial (σ,ε
condition ) > 0 and
violated,λ >
the 0, for both
situation α =
can1 and
be 2 (region
categorized s ) both
as surfaces
follows:
violated (region s4 and s5), plasticity correction is performed by the corresponding potential functions.
pl 12 are active [19].
failure. Several different situations have to be considered [28]: (1) If only one yield condition is
(b) Ftrial (σ,ε
(2) IfIfmore than > 0 and
pl)one yieldλααcondition
i + 1 < 0, forisαviolated,
= 1 or 2 (region s1 or s2can
the situation ) onlybe one of the surfaces
categorized are active.
as follows:
(a) violated
If Ftrial (σ,ε(region pl ) > s 0
4 and
and s 5),
λ plasticity
i +1 > 0, correction
for both αis=performed by the corresponding
1 and 2 (region potential
s12 ) both surfaces are functions.
active [19].
where
(a)
(2) If If FFtrial
more
trial trial is the
(σ,ε
than pl)failure
>
one 0 and
yieldcriterion
λcondition
α for
αi + 1 > 0, forthe
is yield
both α =surface
violated,1 and
the 2and λ iscan
(region
situation the
s plastic
12)be
both multiplier
surfaces
categorized are
as [29,30].[19].
active
follows:
(b) If F (σ,εpl ) > 0 and λ i + 1 < 0, for α = 1 or 2 (region s1 or s2 ) only one of the surfaces are active.
(b) If Ftrialtrial (σ,εpl) > 0 and λαi + 1 < 0, for α = 1 or 2 (region s1 or s2) only one of the surfaces are active.
If F (σ,εpl) > 0 and λαi + 1 > 0, for both α = 1 and 2 (region s12) both surfaces are active [19].
(a) trial
where
(b)
F If FFistrial
where the
trial failure
is the
(σ,ε pl) >
criterion
failure
0 andcriterion
forfor
λαi + 1 < 0,for
thetheyield
α =yield
surface
1 or 2surface
and
(regionand
λ2)isthe
s1 orλ sis
the one
plastic
onlyplastic
multiplier
ofmultiplier
[29,30].
[29,30].
the surfaces are active.
where Ftrial is the failure criterion for the yield surface and λ is the plastic multiplier [29,30].

Figure 4. Determination of active surfaces and definition the multi-surface regions.

Jaeger [2] introduced the plane of weakness model which focus on the shear failure of
Figure 4. Determination of active surfaces and definition the multi-surface regions.
anisotropic rocks.
Figure 4. Within the multi-joint
Determination model
of active Mohr’s
surfaces andstress circle the
definition canmulti-surface
be used to interpret the jointed
regions.
rock strengthFigure
for different
4. Determination of active surfaces and definition the multi-surface regions. of uniaxial
constellations of joint orientation and direction of loading. In case
Jaeger [2] introduced the plane of weakness model which focus on the shear failure of
compression with only one single joint set, Mohr’s stress circle representation is shown in Figure 5.
anisotropic
Jaeger rocks. Within
[2] introduced thethe multi-joint
plane model Mohr’s
of weakness modelstress
which circle
focuscanon
bethe
used to interpret
shear failuretheof jointed
anisotropic
Jaeger [2] introduced the plane of weakness model which focus on the shear failure of
rocks.rock strength
Within theformulti-joint
different constellations
model Mohr’s of jointstress
orientation
circleand
candirection
be used of to
loading. In case
interpret theof jointed
uniaxial rock
anisotropic rocks. Within the multi-joint model Mohr’s stress circle can be used to interpret the jointed
compression
strength with only
for different one single joint
constellations set, Mohr’s
of joint stress circle
orientation andrepresentation
direction of isloading.
shown inIn Figure
case5.of uniaxial
rock strength for different constellations of joint orientation and direction of loading. In case of uniaxial
compression
compressionwith only
with one
only onesingle
singlejoint set,Mohr’s
joint set, Mohr’s stress
stress circle
circle representation
representation is shownis shown
in Figurein5.Figure 5.

Figure 5. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off for matrix and joint.

Figure 5. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off for matrix and joint.

Figure 5. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off for matrix and joint.
Figure 5. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off for matrix and joint.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

Energies 2018, 11, 614 5 of 23

Point A indicates the critical failure stage for a joint. Joint angle αj identifies the corresponding
failure plane:

φ
Point A indicates the critical failure stage for a joint. Joint angle αj identifies the corresponding
failure plane: α j = 45 + j (3)
◦ φj 2
α j = 45 + (3)
2
where ϕj is the joint friction angle, αj is the critical joint angle measured from horizontal direction.
wheres,0φj is thet,0 joint friction angle, αj is the critical joint angle measured from horizontal direction.
fs,0 and ft,0 are the shear and tension failure criteria for the rock matrix. s,1 fs,1 and t,1
ft,1 are the shear
f and f are the shear and tension failure criteria for the rock matrix. f and f are the shear
and tension failure criteria of the joint set. The shear strength criterion for this rock mass can be
and tension failure criteria of the joint set. The shear strength criterion for this rock mass can be
expressed as:
expressed as:
1 1 1
f s ,0
= (σ1 1 − σ 3 ) cos φ + ( 1 (σ 1 + σ 3 ) +1 (σ 1 − σ 3 ) sin φ ) tan φ − c (4)
f s,02= (σ1 − σ3 ) cos φ + (2 (σ1 + σ3 ) + (2 σ1 − σ3 ) sin φ) tan φ − c (4)
2 2 2
1 1 1
f s ,1
= (σ11 − σ 3 ) cos 2α j + ( 1 (σ 1 + σ 3 ) +1 (σ 1 − σ 3 ) cos 2α j ) tan φ ij − c ij (5)
s,1 2
f = (σ1 − σ3 ) cos 2α j + ( 2 (σ1 + σ3 ) + 2 (σ1 − σ3 ) cos 2α j ) tan φij − cij (5)
2 2 2
whereccand
where andφϕare
arecohesion
cohesionand
andinternal
internalfriction
frictionangle
anglefor
forthe
thematrix. andφϕjare
matrix.ccjand arejoint
jointcohesion
cohesionandand
j j
jointfriction
joint frictionangle.
angle. With
Withincreasing
increasingvertical
verticalstress,
stress,the
theintersection
intersectionarea
areabetween
betweenMohr’s
Mohr’s stress
stresscircle
circle
and joint shear failure envelop grows as illustrated in Figure
and joint shear failure envelop grows as illustrated in Figure 6. 6.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Failure
Failure criterion
criterion for
forintact
intactrock
rockand
andjoint
jointset
setinin
combination
combinationwith different
with stress
different states:
stress (a)
states:
Position
(a) B and
Position B andC,C,(b)(b)Position
PositionDDandandE,E,(c)
(c) Position
Position FF and G, (d)
and G, (d) illustration
illustration of
of corresponding
corresponding
orientationsof
orientations ofweak
weakplanes.
planes.

The general expressions for the maximum and minimum failure angles are:
The general expressions for the maximum and minimum failure angles are:
(c i cot φ i − σ 1 )(1 − sin φ )
2α min = φ ij + sin −1 ((1 + (cij cot φi j− σ1 )( 1 − sin φ) ) sin φ j )
i
(6)
i −1 j − σ sin
j φ + c cos φ i
2αmin = φj + sin ((1 + ) sin φj ) (6)
−σ sin φ + c cos φ
2α max = π + 2φ ij − 2α min (7)
2αmax = π + 2φij − 2αmin (7)
Point A indicates the orientation of the plane with minimum strength. Jaeger’s complete curve,
Point
which showsA indicates the orientation
the relationship betweenofthethejoint
plane withand
angle minimum
uniaxialstrength. Jaeger’s
compressive complete
strength curve,
is shown in
which shows the relationship between the joint angle and uniaxial compressive strength is
Figure 7. If a jointed rock has more than one sets of joints, the potential failure modes which have toshown
in
beFigure 7. Ifincrease.
considered a jointedThe
rock has more
different than
joints canone sets
have of joints,
either thestrength
identical potential failure modes
parameters which
but different
have to be considered increase. The different joints can have either identical strength parameters but
Energies 2018,
Energies 2018, 11,
11, x614
FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of
of 23
23

joint angles, or they have also different strength parameters. Eight typical joint parameters
different joint angles, or they have also different strength parameters. Eight typical joint parameters
constellations are shown in Table 1 and in Figure 8.
constellations are shown in Table 1 and in Figure 8.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Schematic illustration for rock mass strength anisotropy: (a) Jaeger’s curve, (b) dominant
Figure 7. Schematic illustration for rock mass strength anisotropy: (a) Jaeger’s curve, (b) dominant
failure area for weak plane and for rock matrix.
failure area for weak plane and for rock matrix.

Table 1. Selected possible joint strength parameter combinations for two joints (MC model).
Table 1. Selected possible joint strength parameter combinations for two joints (MC model).
Constellation Joint Cohesion (cj) Joint Friction Angle (ϕj) Joint Tension (σtj)

c =c φ =φ σ tj,1 = σJoint
Constellation 1
Joint Cohesion 2 j)
(c 1 2 Angle (φj )
Joint Friction t , 2 Tension (σ j ) t
1 j j j j j
1 c1j = c12j φ1 = φ2 σjt,1 = σjt,2
2 c > c 2j
c1j > cj2j
φ 1j =φ1jφ =
2 j
j φ2 σ tj,1 > σ tj, 2 σjt,1 > σjt,2
2 j j
3 3 c1j >c
1
cj2j >c 2
j φ >φ
1 1 2
φ > φ2j
j j j σ >σ
t ,1
j
t , 2 t,1
j
σj > σjt,2
4 c1j > c12j φ1 > φ2 σjt,1 < σjt,2
4
c1j
c > c2
= cj2 j
φ 1j >φ1jφ>j2 φ2j σ tj,1 < σ tj, 2 σjt,1 < σjt,2
5 j j j
6 5 c1j >c
12
cj j = c 2j φ 1j > φ
φ1j
2
<j φ2j σ tj,1 < σ tj, 2 σjt,1 > σjt,2
7 c1j = c12j φ1j < 2
σjt,1 > σjt,2
6
c1j <
c > c 2j
cj2j
φ 1j < φ
φ1j
2 φj
j> φ2 σ tj,1 > σ tj, 2 σjt,1 > σjt,2
8 j
7 c =c
1
j
2
j φ <φ
1
j
2
j σ >σ
t ,1
j
t ,2
j

8 c1j < c 2j φ 1j > φ j2 σ tj,1 > σ tj, 2

Energies 2018, 11, 614 7 of 23
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Sketch
Sketch of
of potential
potential failure envelops for
failure envelops for two
two joints
jointssets
setscorresponding
correspondingtotothe
theconstellations
constellations1–8
1–8 in Table
in Table 1. 1.

There are two constellations for a rock mass which has two joints with different strength
There are two constellations for a rock mass which has two joints with different strength
parameters: (I) one joint is weaker in all strength parameters (series 2–4 in Table 1) and (II) strength
parameters: (I) one joint is weaker in all strength parameters (series 2–4 in Table 1) and (II) strength
parameter have different relations to each other (series 5–8).
parameter have different relations to each other (series 5–8).
In order to determine the failure region of the two joints, several Mohr’s circles and the
In order to determine the failure region of the two joints, several Mohr’s circles and the
corresponding schemes are drawn. Exemplarily, Figure 9 illustrates that joint set 1 has lower strength
corresponding schemes are drawn. Exemplarily, Figure 9 illustrates that joint set 1 has lower strength
values compared to joint set 2. In Figure 9a, the point A represents the least failure angle for joint set
2. At this stage for joint set 1, there is a region from B to C that fails.
When the stress increases towards the critical state in the rock matrix, the angle of the failure
range for each joint is different (Figure 9b). If the jointed rock only has joint set 1, the FOG area in
Energies 2018, 11, 614 8 of 23

values compared to joint set 2. In Figure 9a, the point A represents the least failure angle for joint set 2.
At this stage for joint set 1, there is a region from B to C that fails.
Energies 2018, 11,
When thex FOR PEER
stress REVIEWtowards the critical state in the rock matrix, the angle of the failure
increases 8 of 23
range for each joint is different (Figure 9b). If the jointed rock only has joint set 1, the FOG area in
Figure
Figure 9c 9cisisthe
thejoint
joint
setset failure
failure range.
range. If theIfrock
the mass
rock has
mass hassetjoint
joint set the
2 only, 2 only, the gray
gray area DOE area DOE
represents
represents the failure area. As can be seen in Figure 9c, there is a significant difference
the failure area. As can be seen in Figure 9c, there is a significant difference between the area of DOE between the
area of DOE
and FOG. andjoint
If both FOG. If are
sets both
in joint sets are
zone BOC, in zone
failure may BOC,
easily failure
occurs may easily
on joint occurs onwith
1. Compared jointthe
1.
Compared with the black and grey regions, the joint set 2 might also reach the critical
black and grey regions, the joint set 2 might also reach the critical state when joint set 1 is located in state when joint
set 1 is FOB
region located in region FOB or COG.
or COG.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 9. Failure areas for weak planes and rock matrix. (a) Increasing vertical stress reached a critical
Figure 9. Failure areas for weak planes and rock matrix. (a) Increasing vertical stress reached a critical
state for joint set 2; (b) Critical state for rock matrix and failure areas for weak planes; (c) Failure areas
state for joint set 2; (b) Critical state for rock matrix and failure areas for weak planes; (c) Failure areas
for weak planes and for rock matrix.
for weak planes and for rock matrix.

Two types of joint failure criteria for a rock mass are discussed here. For constellations 1–4 in
Table 1, a new function h is introduced into the σ-τ-plane in order to solve the multi-surface plasticity
problem. This function h is represented by the diagonal between the representation of fs,1 = 0 and
ft,1 = 0. According to Figure 10a, the failure areas are divided into four sections. If shear failure is
reached on the plane in Sections 1 and 2, the stress point will brought back to the curve fs,1 = 0. If the
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23

stress state belongs to the Section 3 or 4, local tensile failure takes place and the stress point will
brought back to ft,1 = 0.
EnergiesFor the11,constellations
2018, 614 5–8 in Table 1, two new functions h1 and h2 were introduced in the9 of τ-σ-
23
plane in order to solve the multi-surface plasticity problem. Function h1 represents the diagonal
between fs,1 = 0 and ft = 0. Function h2 represents the diagonal between fs,1 = 0 and fs,2 = 0. The stress
stateTwowhich violates
types of jointthefailure
joint failure
criteria criterion
for a rockwill
massbe are
located in sections
discussed 1 toconstellations
here. For 8 corresponding to
1–4 in
positive or negative domain of f = 0, f = 0, f = 0, h1 = 0 and h2 = 0. According to Figure 10c, if for the
Table 1, a new function h is introduced
t into
s,1 the
s,2 σ-τ-plane in order to solve the multi-surface plasticity
s,1 = 0 and
second joint
problem. Thissetfunction
shear failure is detected by
h is represented on the
the diagonal
plane in sections
between1the andrepresentation
2, the stress will
of fbe brought
t,1
fback to the curve f = 0. If for the first joint set shear failure is detected in sections 3, 4 and 5, the stress
= 0. According to
s,2 Figure 10a, the failure areas are divided into four sections. If shear failure is
s,1 = 0. If the
will be brought back to the curve f = 0. If the stress state belongs to section 6, 7 or 8, local tensile
reached on the plane in Sections 1 and
s,1 2, the stress point will brought back to the curve f
failurestate
stress takesbelongs
place and the Section
to the stress will3 or be4,brought back to
local tensile ft = 0.takes
failure ft = 0 place
is the and
minimum tension
the stress pointfailure
will
t,1 = 0.
criterion for the two joints inside a rock mass.
brought back to f

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 10. Two kinds of joint failure criteria for a jointed rock mass. (a) Joint failure criterion for
Figure 10. Two kinds of joint failure criteria for a jointed rock mass. (a) Joint failure criterion for
constellations 1–4 (see Table 1); (b) Multi-stage failure criteria for joints having different parameters;
constellations 1–4 (see Table 1); (b) Multi-stage failure criteria for joints having different parameters;
(c) Eight sections for solving the multi-surface plasticity problem.
(c) Eight sections for solving the multi-surface plasticity problem.

2.4. Numerical Implementation

For the constellations 5–8 in Table 1, two new functions h1 and h2 were introduced in the τ-σ-plane
in orderThetoabove-mentioned Mohr-Coulomb
solve the multi-surface plasticityyield criteria
problem. for the multi-joint
Function model
h1 represents is programmed
the diagonal between as
fas,1user
= 0 defined
and ft = model and implemented
0. Function h2 representsinto
the the 2-dimensional
diagonal between explicit finitefs,2difference
fs,1 = 0 and = 0. The code
stressFLAC
state
[31]. The
which jointsthe
violates arejoint
embedded in a Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion will be locatedmatrix. The failure
in sections criterion of the
1 to 8 corresponding to intact
positiverock
or
negative domain of ft = 0, fs,1 = 0, fs,2 = 0, h1 = 0 and h2 = 0. According to Figure 10c, if for the second
joint set shear failure is detected on the plane in sections 1 and 2, the stress will be brought back to
the curve fs,2 = 0. If for the first joint set shear failure is detected in sections 3, 4 and 5, the stress will
Energies 2018, 11, 614 10 of 23

be brought back to the curve fs,1 = 0. If the stress state belongs to section 6, 7 or 8, local tensile failure
takes place and the stress will be brought back to ft = 0. ft = 0 is the minimum tension failure criterion
for the two joints inside a rock mass.

2.4. Numerical Implementation

The above-mentioned Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria for the multi-joint model is programmed as a
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23
user defined model and implemented into the 2-dimensional explicit finite difference code FLAC [31].
The joints are embedded in a Mohr-Coulomb matrix. The failure criterion of the intact rock (matrix)
(matrix) is represented in the plane (σ, τ) and shown in Figure 11a. Equations (8) and (9) shows the
is represented in the plane (σ, τ) and shown in Figure 11a. Equations (8) and (9) shows the failure
failure envelops and plastic potentials for rock matrix and joints.
envelops and plastic potentials for rock matrix and joints.

 fs,0 =− τ − σ 22 tan tanφφ ++ cc

 s ,0
 f = −τ − σ22
 f t,0 = σt ,0t − σ t

 f = σ22 − σ 22

(8)
gs,0 s=,0 − τ − σ22 tan ψ
(8)
 t,0g =− τ − σ 22 tan ψ


g = −σ22
 g t ,0 = −σ 22

(a)

(b)

Figure 11.
Figure 11. (a)
(a)Illustration
Illustrationofof
thethe
intact rock
intact failure
rock criterion;
failure (b) Three
criterion; joint failure
(b) Three criteria
joint failure in a multi-
criteria in a
joint model.model.
multi-joint

The yield criterion for each joint is a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off. Flow
The yield criterion for each joint is a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with tension cut-off. Flow
rule for shear failure is non-associated, and the tension flow rule is associated. For the joint set i (i =
rule for shear failure is non-associated, and thes,itensiont,i flow rule is associated. For the joint set i (i = 1,
1, 3), the local failure envelops are defined as f and f according to the following equations:
3), the local failure envelops are defined as fs,i and ft,i according to the following equations:
 fs,i = − τ j − σ022
s ,i
′ tan φj + c j
i i

 f = − τ − σ i
22 tan φ j + c j
i
 ft,i= σt,i,i − σ0 22
t , ij t
′



 s ,i f = iσ − σ 22 i (9)
 ggs,i == − −ττjij − ′22 tan
− σσ022 tan ψψijj
(9)


ggt,i == −−σσ0 22 ′

t , i
 22

where ϕj , cij and σt,i represent the friction, cohesion and tensile strength for joint set i. If ϕij ≠ 0, the
i

tensile strength cannot be larger than σt,imax. τ ij = |σ′ij | stand for the magnitude of the tangential stress
component of a joint, and the corresponding strain variable is γji. For the multi-joint model, three joint
′ , τ) plane, as illustrated in Figure 11b.
sets have six failure criterions in the ( σ 22
In Figure 11, strength envelops for three joint sets with independent strength parameters are
 Energies 2018, 11, 614 11 of 23

where φij , cij and σt,i represent the friction, cohesion and tensile strength for joint set i. If φij 6= 0, the
i
tensile strength cannot be larger than σt,i max . τji = |σ0 j | stand for the magnitude of the tangential stress
component of a joint, and the corresponding strain variable is γji . For the multi-joint model, three joint
sets have six failure criterions in the (σ0 22 , τ) plane, as illustrated in Figure 11b.
In Figure 11, strength envelops for three joint sets with independent strength parameters are
presented. Obviously, various types of failure can occur in each computational step, including single
or simultaneous shear yielding on 1, 2 or 3 weak planes, tensile failure on one or more joints as well as
combined shear and tensile failure. In each calculation step the failure of the intact rock and the joint
sets
Energies are11,checked,
2018, theREVIEW
x FOR PEER code also checks for multiple active yield surfaces. After each stress11 increment,
of 23
general failure through the intact rock is first checked and if there is any violation of the failure criterion,
failure
thecriterion, the corresponding
corresponding plastic stress
plastic stress correction correction
is applied. is applied.
According to theAccording to thestate,
updated stress updated
potential
stressfailure
state, of
potential failure
each joint set isofchecked.
each joint
Thesetflowchart
is checked. The in
shown flowchart
Figure 12shown in Figure
illustrates 12 illustrates
the operating principle
the operating
of this law. principle of this
A detailed law. A detailed
description description
is provided by Changis provided
[32]. by Chang [32].

Figure 12. Flowchart

Figure for equivalent
12. Flowchart continuum
for equivalent multi-joint
continuum model.
multi-joint model.

3. Verification of Multi-Joint Model

3. Verification of Multi-Joint Model
To validate the proposed multi-joint model, a series of calculation cases including triaxial and
To validate the proposed multi-joint model, a series of calculation cases including triaxial and
uniaxial compressive tests with two perpendicular or three joints were selected and compared with
uniaxial compressive tests with two perpendicular or three joints were selected and compared with
analytical solutions in this section.
analytical solutions in this section.

3.1. Analytical Solution for a Jointed Rock Sample

The analytical solution for a jointed rock can be expressed using the shear and normal stresses
acting on the fracture plane as illustrated in Figure 13. Formulas are given below:

 1 1
σ θ = 2 (σ 1 + σ 3 ) + 2 (σ 1 − σ 3 ) cos 2θ
Energies 2018, 11, 614 12 of 23

3.1. Analytical Solution for a Jointed Rock Sample

The analytical solution for a jointed rock can be expressed using the shear and normal stresses
acting on the fracture plane as illustrated in Figure 13. Formulas are given below:
(
σθ = 12 (σ1 + σ3 ) + 12 (σ1 − σ3 ) cos 2θ
(10)
τθ = 12 (σ1 − σ3 ) sin 2θ

Slip will occur along a joint in a specimen when:

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

2 (c j +  σ3 | tan φj )
where cj is the joint cohesion, ϕj is ≥ σjoint
σ1the 3 + friction angle and β is the joint angle formed by vertical
(11)
(1 − tan φj tan β) sin 2β
stress and the joint. In an uniaxial compressive test, the maximum stress of a jointed rock can be
expressed
where cj is as:
the joint cohesion, φj is the joint friction angle and β is the joint angle formed by vertical
stress and the joint. In an uniaxial compressive test, the maximum stress of a jointed rock can be
expressed as:  
 −2c j 


min 2c k ,  if (1 − tan φ tan β ) > 0
σc =  (   n √ (1 − tan φ−j tan
2c j
β ) sin o2 β 
 (12)
 min 2c k, (1−tan φ tan β) sin 2β if (1 − tan φ tan β) > 0
σc =
 √ if (1 − tan φ tan β ) < 0 (12)
j
 2c k
2 c k if (1 − tan φ tan β) < 0
Bray [6] suggested that the overall strength of a rock mass containing multiple joints is given by
Bray [6] suggested that the overall strength of a rock mass containing multiple joints is given
the lowest strength of the individual strength relations. Final equations defining the uniaxial
by the lowest strength of the individual strength relations. Final equations defining the uniaxial
compressive strength of a rock specimen containing multiple joints can be expressed as:
compressive strength of a rock specimen containing multiple joints can be expressed as:
2c 2c
σ c = min (2c√ k , 2c j1j1 , 2c j2 j 2 ) (13)
σc = min (2c k, (1 − tan φ tan β ) sin 2 β , (1 − tan φ tan β ) sin 2 )β (13)
(1 − tan φj1j1 tan β 11) sin 2β 1 1 (1 − tan φj2j tan
2 β 2 )2sin 2β 2 2
The uniaxial
The uniaxial compressive strength σσc calculated
compressive strength calculated by
by Equation
Equation (13) determines
(13) determines the
the minimum
minimum
c
strength of a rock mass for various joint combinations and used
strength of a rock mass for various joint combinations and used for analytical solutions in the
for analytical solutions in the
following section.
following section.

Figure 13.
Figure 13. Mohr’s
Mohr’s circle
circle and
and stress state on
stress state on failure
failure plane.
plane.

3.2. Strength
3.2. Anisotropy of
Strength Anisotropy of aa Rock
Rock Mass
Mass Containing
Containing Two
Two Perpendicular
PerpendicularJoints
Joints

3.2.1. Uniaxial
3.2.1. Uniaxial Compressive
Compressive Tests
Tests
The variation
The variation of
of strength
strength for
for aa jointed
jointed rock
rock containing
containing two
two perpendicular
perpendicular joints
joints under
under uniaxial
uniaxial
compression is
compression is shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 14.
14. Mechanical
Mechanical properties
properties of
of the
the rock
rock matrix
matrix and
and the
the joints
joints are
are listed
listed
in Table 2.
in Table 2.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the jointed rock mass.

Material Parameters Intact Rock Joint 1 Joint 2

Density 1810 kg/m³ - -
Young’s modulus (E) 20.03 MPa - -
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.24 - -
Cohesion (c) 2 kPa - -
Friction angle (ϕ) 40° - -
Dilation angle (ψ) 0° - -
Joint cohesion (cj) - 1 kPa 1 kPa
Energies 2018, 11, 614 13 of 23

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the jointed rock mass.

Material Parameters Intact Rock Joint 1 Joint 2

Density 1810 kg/m3 - -
Young’s modulus (E) 20.03 MPa - -
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.24 - -
Cohesion (c) 2 kPa - -
Friction angle (φ) 40◦ - -
Dilation angle (ψ) 0◦ - -
Joint cohesion (cj ) - 1 kPa 1 kPa
Joint friction angle (φj ) - 30◦ 30◦
Joint tensile strength - 2 kPa 2 kPa
Joint angle - α α + 90◦

Figure 14a illustrates the analytical solution for the strength envelope considering both, the
effective and
Energies 2018, 11, the non-active
x FOR PEER REVIEW joint. The colored curves in Figure 14a correspond to the colored13joints of 23
shown in Figure 14b. In Point A and E the two joints are horizontal and vertical, respectively. Points B
B and
and D describe
D describe thethe critical
critical jointjoint position.
position. PointPoint C is
C is the the inflection
inflection point
point for for the
the two two From
curves. curves. From
position
position A to E, the two joints with fixed inclination to each other are rotated by 90 degrees.
A to E, the two joints with fixed inclination to each other are rotated by 90 degrees.

(a)

(b)

Figure 14. (a) Failure envelop for sample with two perpendicular joints under uniaxial compression
Figure 14. (a) Failure envelop for sample with two perpendicular joints under uniaxial compression
(see Table 2); (b) Schematic of 5 sample with two perpendicular joints (A to E).
(see Table 2); (b) Schematic of 5 sample with two perpendicular joints (A to E).

In this section, two more situations for a sample with two perpendicular joints having different
In this
strength section, two
parameters more situations
are discussed. for joints
The two a sample
can with
have two
onlyperpendicular joints having
different joint friction anglesdifferent
or have
strength parameters are discussed. The two joints can have only different joint friction
various joint cohesion values. Specific parameters are listed in Tables 3 and 4. The jointed angles or have
rock
strength behavior is shown in Figures 15 and 16.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of jointed rock mass (different joint friction angle).

Material Parameters Primary Joint Secondary Joint

Joint cohesion (cj) 1 kPa 1 kPa
Joint friction angle (ϕj) 10° 40°
Energies 2018, 11, 614 14 of 23

various joint cohesion values. Specific parameters are listed in Tables 3 and 4. The jointed rock strength
behavior is shown in Figures 15 and 16.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of jointed rock mass (different joint friction angle).

Material Parameters Primary Joint Secondary Joint

Joint cohesion (cj ) 1 kPa 1 kPa
Joint friction angle (ϕj ) 10◦ 40◦
Joint tensile strength 2 kPa 2 kPa
Joint angle α + 90◦ α

Table 4. Mechanical properties of jointed rock mass (different joint cohesion).

Material Parameters Primary Joint Secondary Joint

Joint cohesion (cj ) 0.5 kPa 1 kPa
Joint friction angle (ϕj ) 30◦ 30◦
Joint tensile strength 2 kPa 2 kPa
Energies 2018, 11, xJoint angle
FOR PEER REVIEW α + 90◦ α 14 of 23
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

FigureFigure
Figure15.
15.Failure
Failure
15. Failure envelope
envelope
envelope for
forforsample with
withdifferent
samplewith
sample differentfriction
different frictionvalues
values
friction (see
(seeTable
values 3).
TableTable
(see 3). 3).

Figure
Figure16.
16.Failure
Failureenvelope
envelopefor
forsample
samplewith
withdifferent
differentjoint
jointcohesion
cohesionvalues
values(see
(seeTable
Table4).
4).
Figure 16. Failure envelope for sample with different joint cohesion values (see Table 4).
3.2.2.
3.2.2.Triaxial
TriaxialCompressive
CompressiveTests
Tests
Specimens
Specimens with
with different
different joint
joint orientations
orientations are
are subjected
subjected toto triaxial
triaxial compression
compression atat various
various
confining
confining pressures. Figure 17 compares the multi-joint model simulation resultsfor
pressures. Figure 17 compares the multi-joint model simulation results forsamples
sampleswith
with
two
twoperpendicular
perpendicularjoints
jointswith
withcorresponding
correspondinganalytical
analyticalsolutions
solutions(see
(seeSection
Section3.1).
3.1).The
Thejointed
jointedrock
rock
properties
propertiesare
arelisted
listedininTable
Table22(see
(seeFigure
Figure17).
17).The
Thematch
matchisisexcellent,
excellent,with
withaarelative
relativeerror
errorsmaller
smaller
than
than1%
1%for
forall
alljoint
jointangles.
angles.The
Theblack
blackcurve
curvedemonstrates
demonstratesthe theanisotropic
anisotropicbehavior
behaviorof ofthe
themodel
model
without
without confining pressure (uniaxial compression test as shown in Section 3.2.1). A strength
confining pressure (uniaxial compression test as shown in Section 3.2.1). A strength
reduction is observed for joint angles from 5° to 30°. A local strength increase is observed for joint
Energies 2018, 11, 614 15 of 23

3.2.2. Triaxial Compressive Tests

Specimens with different joint orientations are subjected to triaxial compression at various
confining pressures. Figure 17 compares the multi-joint model simulation results for samples with
two perpendicular joints with corresponding analytical solutions (see Section 3.1). The jointed rock
properties are listed in Table 2 (see Figure 17). The match is excellent, with a relative error smaller
than 1% for all joint angles. The black curve demonstrates the anisotropic behavior of the model
without confining pressure (uniaxial compression test as shown in Section 3.2.1). A strength reduction
is observed for joint angles from 5◦ to 30◦ . A local strength increase is observed for joint angles at
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
45◦ ± 15◦ .

Figure
Figure 17.
17. Peak
Peak strength
strength versus
versus orientation of joint
orientation of joint system
system under
under various
various confining
confining pressures.
pressures.

Finally, the strength increases for joint angles from 60° to 85°. Increasing confining pressure
Finally, the strength increases for joint angles from 60◦ to 85◦ . Increasing confining pressure
shifts the failure envelope upwards and the curve shape becomes more pronounced. Increasing
shifts the failure envelope upwards and the curve shape becomes more pronounced. Increasing
confining pressures leads to a broader curve shoulder (enlargement from 5° to 15° and from 80° to 90°).
confining pressures leads to a broader curve shoulder (enlargement from 5◦ to 15◦ and from 80◦ to
The strength anisotropy curve for two perpendicular joints has a W shape and is consistent with
90◦ ). The strength anisotropy curve for two perpendicular joints has a W shape and is consistent with
experiments of Ghazvinian et al. [9]
experiments of Ghazvinian et al. [9]
3.3. Strength
3.3. Prediction for
Strength Prediction for Three
Three Joints
Joints
Behavior of
Behavior of aa sample
sample with
with three
three joints
joints under
under uniaxial
uniaxial compression
compression is is documented
documented in in Figure
Figure 18.
18.
The minimum angle between each joint is 30°.
◦ Point A, B and D describes the critical
The minimum angle between each joint is 30 . Point A, B and D describes the critical joint positions. joint positions.
Point C
Point C represents
represents the
the peak
peak strength
strength value.
value. UCS
UCS varies
varies from
from 3.5
3.5 kPa
kPa toto 4.73
4.73 kPa,
kPa, while
while the
the maximum
maximum
UCS for one or two joints is around 8.5 kPa. Compared with the analytical
UCS for one or two joints is around 8.5 kPa. Compared with the analytical solution, the modelingsolution, the modeling
results show
results showaagood
goodmatch
matchforforallall joint
joint angles.
angles. TheThe strength
strength anisotropy
anisotropy behavior
behavior for rock
for rock with with one
one joint
joint is characterized by U or V shape (Jaeger’s curve). The curve for sample with
is characterized by U or V shape (Jaeger’s curve). The curve for sample with two perpendicular jointstwo perpendicular
joints
has aWhasform.
a W In
form.
caseInofcase of joints,
three three joints, threepeak
three local localvalues
peak values
appearappear (see Figure
(see Figure 18b). 18b).

(a)
The minimum angle between each joint is 30°. Point A, B and D describes the critical joint positions.
Point C represents the peak strength value. UCS varies from 3.5 kPa to 4.73 kPa, while the maximum
UCS for one or two joints is around 8.5 kPa. Compared with the analytical solution, the modeling
results show a good match for all joint angles. The strength anisotropy behavior for rock with one
joint is characterized
Energies 2018, 11, 614 by U or V shape (Jaeger’s curve). The curve for sample with two perpendicular
16 of 23
joints has a W form. In case of three joints, three local peak values appear (see Figure 18b).

(a)

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW (b) 16 of 23

Figure 18. (a)

Figure 18. (a) Schematic diagram for
Schematic diagram for samples
samples with
with three
three joints;
joints; (b)
(b) UCS
UCS for
for sample
sample with
with three
three joints:
joints:
multi-joint model (line) and analytical solution (triangular) versus joint set angle.
multi-joint model (line) and analytical solution (triangular) versus joint set angle.

4. A
4. A Case
Case Study:
Study: Tunnel Excavation
Tunnel Excavation
A circular tunnel
tunnelsubjected
subjectedtotoan aninitial
initialstress
stressstate is is
state depicted
depicted in Figure
in Figure19. 19.
TheThe objective of this
objective of
model is to investigate the mechanical response of a circular excavation under either uniform or non-
this model is to investigate the mechanical response of a circular excavation under either uniform or
uniform in-situ
non-uniform stresses.
in-situ TheThe
stresses. geometry
geometry of the numerical
of the numerical model
modelisischaracterized
characterizedby byaa tunnel
tunnel with
diameter of D D = 1.5 m and a quadratic model size of W = 10 m. σyy
quadratic model size of W = 10 m. σ yy is set to 1 MPa
is set to 1 MPa and the other input
parameters are shown in Table Table 5.
5. Three cases are studied under different in-situ stresses. The vertical
coefficient κκ is
earth pressure coefficient is set
set to
to 1.0,
1.0, 0.5 and 2.0, respectively
respectively (Table
(Table 6). 6). A
A value
value ofof κκ >> 1 means that
in-situ horizontal stress is greater than in-situ vertical stress and and vice versa.
vice versa. Constellations with no
one joint
joint, one jointand
andtwo
twojoints
joints were
were investigated.
investigated. TheThe developed
developed multi-joint
multi-joint modelmodel containing
containing two
two joint
jointissets
sets is compared
compared withubiquitous
with the the ubiquitous joint model
joint model with one
with only onlyjoint
one set.
joint set.

Figure 19. Sketch

Figure 19. Sketch of
of model
model geometry
geometry and boundary conditions.
and boundary conditions.

Table 5. Parameters for rock mass.

Table 5. Parameters for rock mass.
t
E [GPa] ν ρ [kg/m3] c [MPa] Ψ [°] ϕ [°] Σt [MPa] ϕj [°] cj [MPa] σj [MPa]
E [GPa] 0.2ν ρ [kg/m3 ]1810 c [MPa] 1 Ψ [◦ ] 10 ϕ [◦ 21.2
0.23 ] Σt [MPa]
0.1 ϕj [◦ ]
32.8 cj [MPa] 0.05 œtj [MPa]
0.1
0.2 0.23 1810 1 10 21.2 0.1 32.8 0.1 0.05
Table 6. Stress and joint constellations for tunnel model.

Joint Orientation
Stress Ratio
No Joint −60 45/−45
κ=1 σxx = κσyy = σzz
κ=2 σxx = κσyy = σzz
κ = 0.5 σxx = κσyy = σzz
 Figure 19. Sketch of model geometry and boundary conditions.
Energies 2018, 11, 614 17 of 23
Table 5. Parameters for rock mass.
t
E [GPa] ν ρ [kg/m3] c [MPa] Ψ [°] ϕ [°] Σt [MPa] ϕj [°] cj [MPa] σj [MPa]
Table 6. Stress and joint constellations for tunnel model.
0.2 0.23 1810 1 10 21.2 0.1 32.8 0.1 0.05

Joint Orientation
Stress Table
Ratio6. Stress and joint constellations for tunnel model.
No Joint −60 45/−45
Joint Orientation
Stress Ratio
κ=1 No Jointσxx −60
= κσyy 45/−45
= σzz
κ=2 κ=1 σxx σ=xx
κσ=yy κσ
= σyy
zz = σ zz

κ = 0.5 κ=2 σxx σ=xx

κσ=yy κσ
= σyy
zz = σ zz

κ = 0.5 σxx = κσyy = σzz

4.1. Simulation Results for Ubiquitous Joint Model

4.1. Simulation Results for Ubiquitous Joint Model
This This
simulations areare
simulations based ononthe
based thestandard
standard ubiquitous jointmodel
ubiquitous joint modelwith
with joint
joint angle
angle of −60◦
of −60°
(measured anticlockwise
(measured from
anticlockwise vertical
from verticaldirection).
direction). Figures 20–22show
Figures 20–22 show contour
contour plots
plots of displacement
of displacement
magnitude and stress components as well as the plasticity state for different stress fields.
magnitude and stress components as well as the plasticity state for different stress fields.

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23

Figure 20. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60° and κ = 1: (a) displacement
Figure 20. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60◦ and κ = 1: (a) displacement
contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) contour plot of
contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) contour plot of
vertical stresses [Pa].
vertical stresses [Pa].
Figure 20 shows maximum displacements of 0.12 m at the tunnel boundary around 30° inclined
to the vertical.
Figure 20 showsPlasticity
maximum pattern follows the displacement
displacements of 0.12 m atfield. (Figure boundary
the tunnel 20a,b). The around
influence30of the
◦ inclined
joint on the secondary stress field is illustrated by Figure 20c,d.
to the vertical. Plasticity pattern follows the displacement field. (Figure 20a,b). The influence of the
joint on the secondary stress field is illustrated by Figure 20c,d.
As Figure 21 shows with κ = 2.00 the maximum displacements increase to 0.20 m and plasticity
pattern changes. The maximum horizontal stress component becomes 1.60 MPa at the tunnel roof
and invert. The maximum vertical stress component is 3.25 MPa and occurs at the tunnel sidewalls
(Figure 22d). It also has the maximum plasticity area in this situation.
Figure 22 illustrates the situation for κ = 0.5. Due to the lower vertical stress component, the
maximum contour displacement is only 0.10 m. The plasticity area is similar to that of the isotropic
stress case shown in Figure 22b. The maximum horizontal stress value of 1.80 MPa is observed at the
tunnel roof and invert. The maximum vertical component of 0.70 MPa is found at the tunnel sidewalls
(Figure 22d).
 Figure 20. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60° and κ = 1: (a) displacement
contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) contour plot of
vertical stresses [Pa].

Figure 20 shows maximum displacements of 0.12 m at the tunnel boundary around 30° inclined
to the vertical. Plasticity pattern follows the displacement field. (Figure 20a,b). The influence of the
Energies 2018, 11, 614 18 of 23
joint on the secondary stress field is illustrated by Figure 20c,d.

Figure 21. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60° and κ = 2: (a) displacement
Figure 21. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60◦ and κ = 2: (a) displacement
contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) contour plot of
contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) contour plot of
vertical stresses [Pa].
Energies 2018, 11,stresses
vertical x FOR PEER
[Pa].REVIEW 18 of 23

As Figure 21 shows with κ = 2.00 the maximum displacements increase to 0.20 m and plasticity
pattern changes. The maximum horizontal stress component becomes 1.60 MPa at the tunnel roof
and invert. The maximum vertical stress component is 3.25 MPa and occurs at the tunnel sidewalls
(Figure 22d). It also has the maximum plasticity area in this situation.

Figure 22. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60° and κ = 0.5: (a)
Figure 22. Simulation results for tunnel model with joint orientation of −60◦ and κ = 0.5:
displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d)
(a) displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and
contour plot of vertical stresses [Pa].
(d) contour plot of vertical stresses [Pa].
Figure 22 illustrates the situation for κ = 0.5. Due to the lower vertical stress component, the
maximum contour displacement is only 0.10 m. The plasticity area is similar to that of the isotropic
stress case shown in Figure 22b. The maximum horizontal stress value of 1.80 MPa is observed at the
tunnel roof and invert. The maximum vertical component of 0.70 MPa is found at the tunnel sidewalls
(Figure 22d).

4.2. Simulation Results for Multi-Joint Model

Energies 2018, 11, 614 19 of 23

4.2. Simulation Results for Multi-Joint Model

In this section, the behavior of a rock mass with two joint sets is investigated by using the new
developed multi-joint model. Symmetric interconnected joint sets are considered. Figures 23–25
show stress and displacement fields for given values of initial stress, strength parameters and joint
orientation. These figures clearly illustrate the anisotropic behavior due to the presence of joints
especially under non-uniform stress states.
The numerical results for κ = 1.0 and joint angle of 45◦ /−45◦ are illustrated in Figure 23. Maximum
displacement is 0.05 m, plasticity is restricted to the immediate tunnel contour (Figure 23b). As can
be seen from Figure 23c,d, stress components show symmetric pattern similar to displacements
and plasticity.
Results for κ = 2 and joint angles of 45◦ /−45◦ are shown in Figure 24. The maximum displacement
is 0.14 m as shown in Figure 22a. Locally plasticity extends deeper into the rock mass following the
two joint orientations (Figure 24b). The maximum horizontal stress component is 1.70 MPa at the
tunnel roof and invert, the maximum vertical stress component is 3.50 MPa and observed at the tunnel
sidewalls (Figure
Energies 2018, 24d).
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure 23.
Figure 23. Simulation
Simulationresults
resultsforfortunnel
tunnelmodel
modelwithwithtwo
twojoint
jointsets (45°
sets (45and −45°)
◦ and −45and κ = κ1:=(a)
◦ ) and 1:
displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses
(a) displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] [Pa] andand(d)
contour
(d) plotplot
contour of vertical stresses
of vertical [Pa].
stresses [Pa].
 Figure 23. Simulation results for tunnel model with two joint sets (45° and −45°) and κ = 1: (a)
displacement
Energies 2018, 11, 614 contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d) 20 of 23
contour plot of vertical stresses [Pa].

Figure 24. Simulation results for tunnel model with two joint sets (45° and −45°) and κ = 2: (a)
Figure 24. Simulation results for tunnel model with two joint sets (45◦ and −45◦ ) and κ = 2:
displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and (d)
(a) displacement
contour plotcontours
of vertical[m], (b)[Pa].
stresses plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and
(d) contour plot of vertical stresses [Pa].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 25. Simulation results for tunnel model with two joint sets (45◦ and −45◦ ) and κ = 0.5:
(a) displacement contours [m], (b) plasticity state, (c) contour plot of horizontal stresses [Pa] and
(d) contour plot of vertical stresses [Pa].

The simulation results for κ = 0.50 and joint angles of 45◦ /−45◦ are shown in Figure 25. Maximum
displacement is 0.06 m in the sidewalls. The secondary horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress.
The failure area is symmetric as illustrate in Figure 25b. The maximum horizontal stress components
Energies 2018, 11, 614 21 of 23

is 1.80 MPa and situated at the tunnel roof and invert, the vertical stress component is 0.75 MPa and
observed at the tunnel sidewalls (Figure 25d).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In this paper, an equivalent continuum based anisotropic model has been implemented into
FLAC to simulate the behavior of jointed rock masses containing up to three persistent joint sets.
The equivalent compliance matrix of the rock mass has been deduced and the Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion has been used to check the failure characteristics of the intact rock and the joints. Thus,
through several verifications of the model, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The potential functions and flow rules for yield in the matrix and the joints are considered. Since
violation of multiple plasticity surfaces can occur within one calculation step, a consistent elasto-plastic
algorithm which automatically identifies the activated surfaces is applied. Joint stiffness and spacing
are considered and lead to an overall softer behavior in the elastic stage.
The strength anisotropy behavior of the jointed rock mass is closely related to the direction of
loading relative to the orientation of the joints. The failure envelop for uniaxial compressive loaded
sample with two perpendicular joints is W shaped. By extensive testing of interconnected joints, it is
shown that the multi-joint formulation can be used in predicting the strength anisotropy of rock mass
with two or three joints.
A circular tunnel in a fractured rock mass is investigated under uniform and non-uniform in-situ
stresses. The mechanical response of a rock mass shows different characteristics in dependence on
stress state and joint orientation. In the stability analysis of a circular tunnel excavation, matrix
failure, single joint and double joint plane shear or tensile failure are three typical failure modes.
For κ = 1 condition, the displacement and plasticity area of the tunnel were mainly influenced by the
joint orientation. Increased vertical earth pressure coefficient (κ change from 0.5 to 2), lead to larger
tunnel deformation. For a tunnel in a rock mass with two joint sets, plastic failure can occurred at both
joint directions as simulated correctly by the multi-joint model.
The current analysis is based on the developed multi-joint model where more than twenty
parameters have been introduced to consider the influence of the second or third joints. Further
development is necessary to incorporate anisotropic behavior even in the elastic phase. Nevertheless,
the proposed multi-joint model can be regarded as an effective method to solve anisotropic stability
problems in rock engineering.

Acknowledgments: The work was supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and Deutscher
Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) for financially supporting Lifu Chang’s study in Germany.
Author Contributions: Lifu Chang and Heinz Konietzky proposed the idea for the extended multi-joint model;
Lifu Chang performed the theoretical analysis and numerical simulation; he wrote the manuscript corrected and
improved by Heinz Konietzky.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notation
c, cji (i = 1, 2, 3) cohesion and joint cohesion, respectively
D0 diameter of tunnel
E elastic modulus
Em , Eeq elastic modulus of intact rock and for the equivalent rock mass, respectively
fs,i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3) shear failure envelops for rock matrix and joint set, respectively
ft,i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3) tensile failure envelops for rock matrix and joint set, respectively
Ftrial strength reduction factor
gs,i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3) shear potential functions for rock matrix and joint set, respectively
gt,i (i = 0, 1, 2, 3) tensile potential functions for rock matrix and joint set, respectively
Energies 2018, 11, 614 22 of 23

G, G0 shear modulus of rock and for any plane normal to the plane of isotropy
h, h1 , h2 functions to separate the failure envelope
jαi (i = 1, 2, 3) critical failure angle for joint set i
kn, ks joint normal stiffness and shear stiffness
Ki (i = 1, 2, 3) stiffness of joint set i
κ vertical earth pressure coefficient
Si (i = 1, 2, 3) number of joints per 1 meter for joint set i
v, ν0 Poisson’s ratio and Poisson’s ratio in different directions, respectively
αmin , αmax maximum and minimum failure angle, respectively
αj critical joint angle measure from horizontal direction
β joint inclination angle measured from vertical
βi (i = 1, 2, 3) inclination angle of weak plane
ϕ, ϕ0 friction angle and effective friction angle of the intact rock, respectively
ϕji (i = 1, 2, 3) friction angle for the joint set i
ψ, ψj dilation angle for rock matrix and joints, respectively
λ plastic multiplier
ρ density of rock
σ, σn , σt tensile stress, normal stress and intact rock tensile strength, respectively
σ1 , σ3 maximum and minimum principal stresses, respectively
σj t,i (i = 1, 2, 3) joint tensile strength for joint set i
σci unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock
σc , σu uniaxial compressive strength and uniaxial compression stress
σi trial trial elastic stress
τ, τ 0 , τ ji 0 shear stress components in the global and local coordinates, respectively

References
1. Ramamurthy, T. A geo-engineering classification for rocks and rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004,
41, 89–101. [CrossRef]
2. Jaeger, J. Shear failure of anistropic rocks. Geol. Mag. 1960, 97, 65–72. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, W.; Konietzky, H.; Abbas, S.M. Numerical simulation of time-independent and-dependent fracturing
in sandstone. Eng. Geol. 2015, 193, 118–131. [CrossRef]
4. Chakraborti, S.; Konietzky, H.; Walter, K. A comparative study of different approaches for factor of
safety calculations by shear strength reduction technique for non-linear Hoek–Brown failure criterion.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2012, 30, 925–934. [CrossRef]
5. Brzovic, A.; Villaescusa, E. Rock mass characterization and assessment of block-forming geological
discontinuities during caving of primary copper ore at the El Teniente mine, Chile. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 2007, 44, 565–583. [CrossRef]
6. Bray, J. A study of jointed and fractured rock. Rock Mech. Eng. Geol. 1967, 5, 117–136.
7. Wasantha, P.; Ranjith, P.; Viete, D.R. Hydro-mechanical behavior of sandstone with interconnected joints
under undrained conditions. Eng. Geol. 2016, 207, 66–77. [CrossRef]
8. Yang, Z.; Chen, J.; Huang, T. Effect of joint sets on the strength and deformation of rock mass models. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1998, 35, 75–84. [CrossRef]
9. Ghazvinian, A.; Hadei, M. Effect of discontinuity orientation and confinement on the strength of jointed
anisotropic rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2012, 55, 117–124. [CrossRef]
10. Sitharam, T.; Maji, V.; Verma, A. Practical equivalent continuum model for simulation of jointed rock mass
using FLAC3D. Int. J. Geomech. 2007, 7, 389–395. [CrossRef]
11. Detournay, G.; Meng, G.; Cundall, P. Development of a Constitutive Model for Columnar Basalt.
In Proceedings of the 4th Itasca Symposium on Applied Numerical Modeling; Itasca: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016.
12. Clark, I.H. Simulation of rock mass strength using ubiquitous joints. In Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
2006, Proceedings of the 4th International FLAC Symposium, Madrid, Spain, 29–31 May 2006; Itasca Consulting
Group: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2006; No. 08-07.
13. Agharazi, A.; Martin, C.D.; Tannant, D.D. A three-dimensional equivalent continuum constitutive model for
jointed rock masses containing up to three random joint sets. Geomech. Geoeng. 2012, 7, 227–238. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 614 23 of 23

14. Cundall, P.A. The Measurement and Analysis of Accelerations in Rock Slopes. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College
of Science & Technology, London, UK, 1971.
15. Konietzky, H.; Habil, D. Micromechanical rock models. In Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering: From the Past
to the Future; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; p. 17.
16. Boon, C.; Houlsby, G.; Utili, S. Designing tunnel support in jointed rock masses via the DEM. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2015, 48, 603–632. [CrossRef]
17. Will, J. Beitrag zur Standsicherheitsberechnung im Geklüfteten Fels in der Kontinuums-und Diskontinuumsmechanik
unter Verwendung impliziter und Expliziter Berechnungsstrategien. Ph.D. Thesis, Bauhaus University, Weimar,
Germany, 1999.
18. Zhang, Y. Equivalent model and numerical analysis and laboratory test for jointed rockmasses. Chin. J.
Geotech. Eng. 2006, 28, 29–32.
19. Riahi, A. 3D Finite Element Cosserat Continuum Simulation of Layered Geomaterials. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2008.
20. Riahi, A.; Hammah, E.; Curran, J. Limits of applicability of the finite element explicit joint model in the
analysis of jointed rock problems. In 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock Mechanics
Symposium; American Rock Mechanics Association: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2010.
21. Hurley, R.; Vorobiev, O.; Ezzedine, S. An algorithm for continuum modeling of rocks with multiple embedded
nonlinearly-compliant joints. Comput. Mech. 2017, 60, 235–252. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, T.-T.; Huang, T.-H. A constitutive model for the deformation of a rock mass containing sets of
ubiquitous joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 521–530. [CrossRef]
23. Goodman, R. Research on Rock Bolt Reinforcement and Integral Lined Tunnels (No. OMAHATR-3); Corps
Engineers: Omaha, NE, USA, 1967.
24. Itasca. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Constitutive Models; Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.: Minneapolis,
MN, USA, 2007; 193p.
25. Ismael, M.; Konietzky, H. Integration of Elastic Stiffness Anisotropy into Ubiquitous Joint Model. Procedia Eng.
2017, 191, 1032–1039. [CrossRef]
26. Sainsbury, B.; Pierce, M.; Mas Ivars, D. Simulation of rock mass strength anisotropy and scale effects
using a Ubiquitous Joint Rock Mass (UJRM) model. In Proceedings of the First International FLAC/DEM
Symposium on Numerical Modelling, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25–27 August 2008.
27. Wang, T.-T.; Huang, T.-H. Anisotropic deformation of a circular tunnel excavated in a rock mass containing
sets of ubiquitous joints: Theory analysis and numerical modeling. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 643–657.
[CrossRef]
28. Simo, J.; Kennedy, J.; Govindjee, S. Non-smooth multisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/unloading
conditions and numerical algorithms. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 1988, 26, 2161–2185. [CrossRef]
29. Owen, D.; Hinton, E. Finite Elements in Plasticity; Pineridge Press Limited: Swansea, UK, 1980.
30. Simo, J.C.; Hughes, T.J. Computational Inelasticity; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA,
2006; Volume 7, ISBN 0387227636.
31. Itasca. FLAC User Manual; Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016.
32. Chang, L. Behavior of Jointed Rock Masses: Numerical Simulation and Lab Testing. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische
Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany, 2017.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).