ratoryand g dance ont~ over a much g eater range th

proced~~.
es is given b " ie htternatio nai shear strength values
v of sou,
ety for Rock M

e advice on mte
g des provide
fofiowing ~
Thh PaPer describe and discusse s e
.
ete sta gesofdirectsh
of whichis unpoItant for Mi'tmg,each

Practice are
arly withr
me~emmentofr
l
~~tothe
i
tafion and m
wed rigorousi y

ve tical and
~ ~
d accurate mtterpretation of re ul ts.
phng
~entation
"o 'ntal strain ~ Testing
ween iaborat
~ ~y is
~ Lterpretation
shear stre 'c field values
is much less st Fundament~ f shear
stren@h
y Performed or

~ ~ect shear
s there are si leant differ
doctm,e ted or imposslb
Laboratory to mterpret; cor gently many
testm geotechni~ gineers have httl
confide "cein rock ah ar st data and
%afro'iscontinuities
"
rely mstead on e"Perience, ' item~ e
Plane of we~
g neral term for
ess inrock f
review and or empir.~
byy SR Henchert & LR RichardsO . ds such ex Ple, a jomt bed . g Plane,
of BaIton (igZ s
rise to I
d'proach
erableel 0 or sch
ol'leavage

~em~
tiFeis--

s
ilyteee
i

tete) ~ I iirlrr
- ss - ~S Iilai'Nr~ ~
~ s. ice -MMasstu~
s ~ eesM

i see
- See S
'

i.l
e:~ i ~

ee.i shearst e ~ rrockdlsco

be extremely
~ Th
um al ue ofshea
g histhe
ear stress in the

BASIC FRICTION
~
Introduction NON Dl LATING SURFACE

~ IPO DEPENDS ON
TEXTURE AND MINE
The asse
assessment of the RANGING FR
FROM Ir'OR
kdis o
's IFICIALLY SMOOTH EO
SURFACES TO MOe

tion of fun damental

arameters t e
quantification of the infi uence off acto
ors
o g
s'nceand'nf ill for the INTERLOCKING X
uity in situ. ~ OIERRIOING OR SHEAR
X
SURFACE LR AISTIES
The aim of this paper is ADDITIONAL
T.

ENGTH TO BASIC FRICTION X P'

ength of rock ~ TESTS ON SAMPLES OF ~'i
DIFFERENT ROUGHNESS
uiti . se
pecifically with dir shee 'ct MEASURED
R IN
NSIOERABLE
PEAK

the laboratory. A furt her paper is

o consider fleeld evaluation f
'esandinsitush
e testing 'ussed here'
method dis COHESION
e orrockthatis ~ SHEARING OF INTACI ROCK sc
o hda 'ion
effects to be 5 OR HEALED
IONG OF KSNT
COHESION

t under the applied normal PROVIDE ADO ITIONAL SIRENGTH

RTIONAL TO THE
or continuiuiti ouu OF SITACT MATERIAL
MAT SHEARED
'c ess of weak infill.
Basic frictional param KET

d 'ed by direct shear testmg in the = SH

HEAR STRESS
Q = NORMAL STRESS
X = PEAK STRENGTHS

t Department of Earth Scie , University of Leeds

24 0 Gold triba g to shear. strength.
Fig.l. Factors contribatin
OUND ENGINEE RING . MARCH . 1989
GRO
 shear stress versus shear displacement
curve for a given normal stress value.
~ The residual shear strength is the
stress at which no further rise or fall in
shear strength is observed with
increasing shear displacement.
~ The basic friction angle represents the
frictional component of shear strength
only. Basic friction will vary with the
surface texture and mineralogy of the
discontinuity surfaces. The basic
friction angle is not necessarily equal to
the residual angle of friction of a rough
discontinuity.
~ Cohesion is the shear strength at zero
normal load. Rock discontinuities often
have no true cohesion. True cohesion
will occur where rock bridges are
present across the discontinuity or
where secondary mineralisation has
caused chemical bonding.
~ Apparent cohesion is the value of the
intercept on the shear strength axis
formed by the tangent to the shear
strength envelope at a given level of
normal stress.
~ Multistage testing involves testing the
same discontinuity sample at different
normal loads. This is often done
because of difficulties in obtaining a
sufficient number of reasonably
identical samples and the need to
obtain maximum information from each
sample.
The factors affecting the shear strength of
rock discontinuities are generally well
understood (at least in qualitative terms).
Fig. 1 shows the main concepts and these
are further summarised below:
~ A persistent, smooth and planar
discontinuity (non-dilating) will show a
purely frictional resistance proportional
to normal stress and this will depend on
the surface texture and mineralogy of
the discontinuity.
~ Real joints are almostinvariably non
planar and additional strength during
! shearing will be obtained from the need
to overcome interlocking by over-
riding and/or shearing of asperities.
~ A true cohesion (or area dependent
strength) may result from lack of
continuity across rock bridges and
sometimes due to secondary mineral
infill forming chemical bonds across the
surfaces.
usswt
mc ~ rI
IWNCIIW
LI ~ I
Q rock shear testing in thyUK is the
L:'.....iI::..:
—....::v4-....'-,>:~
Fig.2. General layout of Golder shear
box.
The basic friction angle of a
discontinuity is independent of the size
of the surface being tested. This
parameter can therefore be readily and
accurately determined by laboratory
testing on small samples. However,
cohesion (whether true or apparent) is
strongly dependent on the area of the
sample being tested and determination
of this parameter requires careful
consideration of both laboratory and
field size effects.
In order to assess the in situ shear
strength of a rock discontinuity, each
contributing factor must be determined
separately and then combined to
produce the overall shear resistance.
Laboratory testing is used for the
following purposes in this process:
~ Definition of basic friction angle.
~ IdentiTication of surface characteristics
that control shear strength in the
applicable normal stress range.
~ Observation of performance and
contribution to strength made by minor
asperities during shear, ie whether they
are sheared through or over-ridden at
particular stress levels.
The contributions to shear strength made
by in situ roughness and impersistence
can be assessed only by careful field
study and references should be made to
other papers for information on this topic
(eg Cowland & Richards, 1982).
Direct shear test apparatus
The general requirements for direct shear
test apparatus are clearly set out in the
relevant ISRM suggested method (Brown,
1981).'hese requirements may be
achieved with minor modiTications to
conventional soils shear machines.
However, testing. with these machines
often involves considerable difficulty with
mounting rock discontinuity samples and
w inc
maintaining the necessary clearances
around the sample and between the upper
I
5 &I'll
and lower halves of the box during
shearing. The load capacity of soils
machines may also be inadequate for rock
testing.
The most commonly used apparatus for
'portable'hear box developed at
Imperial College and described by Ross-
Brown and Walton (1975) and Hock
(1981). This machine is also the only one
readily available in the country. The
apparatus can yield reasonable results
with experienced operators but has a
number of disadvantages. The principal
difficulties relate to the method of
application of the normal load. It is applied
by means of a hydraulic jack on the upper
box and acts against a cable loop attached
to the lower box. Because of the cable
loading system, any tendency towards
dilation on rough surfaces leads to an
increase in normal load and therefore
adjustment of the normal load jack is
required throughout the test. With
increased shear displacement, the
applied 'normal'oad moves away from
the vertical and corrections for this may
be required. The constraints on horizontal
and vertical movement during shearing
are such that displacements need to be
measured at a relatively large number of
locations if accurate shear and normal
displacements are to be obtained. One
other drawback is that the shear box is
designed for testing over a range of
normal stresses from zero to 154 MPa and
is rather insensitive and difficult to use at
the relatively low stresses associated with
most civil engineering works.
A more suitable direct shear test
apparatus is that developed by Golder
Associates'ancouver office in the early
1970s.A number of these devices have
been fabricated and are in use in the UK,
Canada, US, Hong Kong and Southern
Africa. The apparatus has been briefly
described in Hencher and Richards
(1982)'ith the general layout of the
machine being as shown on Fig.2. The
apparatus has been kept as simple as
possible yet is adequately sensitive for
most testing situations. There are several
inherent advantages in the design, namely
the rapid set up and testing time, small size
and simple constant normal load system.
The normal load is applied by means of a
dead load system and therefore remains
constant throughout the test. For the 25
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH . 1989
 ~
1. SAMPLE DETAILS SAMPLE OESCRIPTION SHE ET SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION SHEET
i I
POST SUOING

XYS'ifC, NO,5
IP H4y, dcylh o-yH8o~~, uiDo.S~Aoo
2.IKXIGHNESS
A == »»'-
I

-- --~~ J 'A'

1~~ (oculo-~ A
B
C
B'~rgreogo
ot
sliding
1»

2. ROCK DESCRIPIION-HAND SPEQMEN C J P ~~ c

C

-iryrsm,
IdoryffI Aofiscg
rts.f
IPsNUIT
'&aNIÃ6, oAsNrf+
coioNe.~ lseso
of oPsR Eorm s«ILIUII k»
~~ ydlfI siysNri.
fzrs ruL.
a5P
Sgdj~
~HrwroilI
IIM'essaK
3.SLSIRrrCE
ANNOTATED
DESCRIPTION
DIAGRAMS PHOTOGRAPHS

gtrRrt
Syfikkk,
. Q'cssIHlsrIRS BN
I Issr
«iud'o . Afirorgst
Uirr
~, Ltsotroj eI
IeINVIMR Uorsr'fs
dsfA reek.
VhVNIVNUA «UHA

3. OsccNTNUITY DEscRPTKss

, IPSNsrI wP PyTer Trr 1geINHI p Pere@ Ieorj. fiji,

~Q M d4. Itu..

4. SAsPLE aMENSlae
BOTTOM
~ ~ BOTTOM

BIRECT SHEAR T EST S SAMPLE NUNER BIRECT SHEAR TE STS SAMPLE NUMBER

Engineering Geology Engineering Geology

XYZ SITE XYZ SITE LEEDS UNIVERSITY
LEEDS UNIVERSITY

Fig.5. Example of sample documentation sheet. Fig.6. Example of sample illustration sheet.

Wherever possible, mating joint surfaces
should be selected for testing if
representative of the in situ discontinuity
although non mating surfaces will often
yield similar basic friction values after the
corrections for roughness. Even allowing
for dilational effects, mating surfaces will
sometimes give higher corrected
strengths. This is generally due to close
textural interlocking (non dilational) in
matched surfaces.
Samples must be cut to size to fit the shear
box and set in dental plaster or some other
suitable fixing medium. Kaffir D dental
plaster available from British Gypsum is
used at Leeds University. The optimum
mix for this plaster is 100 parts plaster to 35
parts water (approximately 1.5kg plaster
to 0.51itres water). The plaster sets rapidly
and achieves a compressive strength of
23MPa after 2 hours and 40MPa after 12
hours. The procedure for setting up
samples is illustrated in Fig.4.
Documentation
One of the weakest aspects of many
testing programmes is the standard of
documentation. Obviously, the derivation
of samples should be recorded (ie, the
borehole number and depth or field
location). However, the nature of
28 individual samples before and after
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH
testing needs to he recorded together
with all pertinent details of the test
programme itself. Typical proformae for
sample descriptions are given in Figs. 5
and 6. The descriptions need not be over
detailed but should he sufGcient to record
those factors that will influence the test
results. The most important descriptions
are those relating to surface mineralogy
and minor morphology.
After testing, the surfaces should be
examined, particularly with regard to the
conditions of the areas involved in
shearing. It is good practice to
photograph surfaces before and after
shearing using low angle lighting to
emphasise the relief. The general
Fig.7. Use of pro5le gauge to measure
surface roughness of sample.
1989
roughness of the surfaces can be
recorded using a simple proGlograph as
illustrated in Fig.7. These measurements
are taken for documentation purposes
only as the effective roughness must be
calculated from dilation measurements
during the test.
Test procedure
Following initial sample set up and
descriptions, the shear box should be
assembled and the first normal load
applied. The normal stress range should
be selected to simulate the Geld
conditions. If tests on wet surfaces are
required, a dam of modelling clay can be
built around the lower hox and water
introduced using a squeeze bottle.
Testing can be carried out by either single
or multistage procedures. For single stage
tests, each sample is sheared at a constant
normal load. The aim is to obtain both
peak strength and residual strength
values. The residual strength is not a
material constant but is a function of the
original roughness (sample variable), the
normal stress level and ultimately the
condition of the final surface and debris
pi'oduced.
In multistage tests, the normal load is
increased (or decreased) after peak
 4
HG

200.

strength has been measured at each

stage. It is usually sufficient to shear for a
Very high rates of shearing (say Imm/s)
may give different strengths (Schneider
) IM 'IEI
NORMAL
3M
5/RESS. 0
LM
lkN/mll
5M

further lmm or so after peak to ensure that (1978); Hencher (1981) Gillette et al Natural joints through Dolomite,
shear strength is either falling or (1988)zz. Dokan, Iraq
remaining constant. After each stage, the 4 peak strengths. Data
In order to be able to analyse results uncorrected.
samples may be reset to their original
properly, horizontal and vertical MH.
position. However, this is often 4
displacements must be recorded 4
N

unnecessary and shearing can continue

throughout the test. The correction 2 K LEGEIS
from the same point after changing the
normal load if there is sufficient shear
method recommended here makes use of PL'H5$1. 4K 0
X
UNCOATED JOHTS

JOINTS COA1EO WITH

incremental roughness angles which must MTUNEN/CALCITE
displacement still available to allow the
next stage of peak strength to be
be known at each shear stress data point.
SIH Im 1510 EMI
As all the test measurements must be 0
mobilised. To check whether damage NORMAL STRESS, lkH/mll

taken at the same time, this can be difficult

caused during earlier stages may affect
where data are recorded manually,
results at later stages, one or more tests Fig.10.Peak strength data, uncorrected.
particularly near peak strength where
can be carried out with increasing and
changes may occur very rapidly. It is often
decreasing loads as shown in Fig.8.
necessary to have two assistants and Test data
It is good practice to carry out tests with practice is generally required before
different normal loads for the first stages reliable results are achieved. Data are Tests canied out as recommended in the
so that first stage results can be used by preceding sections should provide a
themselves to define a strength envelope comprehensive record of shear load and
if necessary. The major advantage of vertical and horizontal displacements.
multistage testing is that more data are Normal load is usually kept constant for
obtained from each sample. Often only each stage of testing.
L STaGE 1EST
limited numbers of suitable samples are 4 NATURAL
THROUGH
JOINT
ON

DOLOMITE
Shear and normal loads are converted to
available and the setting up of samples average 'engineering'tresses by
and proper documentation are the most dividing by the gross contact area of the
time-consuming parts of testing. 5OI. «NJME samples (this will vary throughout the
Rates of shearing below a few mm per test). The contact areas of ellipse shaped
minute do not affect test results as a rule. samples (from rock core) at given
horizontal displacements can be
0
0 5
HORIZONTAL
10
OISPLACEHEHT (oml
calculated using the following formula:
LEGEIG
44
FaLLING LOaO SERIES

"RISING LOAD SERIES a

X

HNJ 2
where A = gross area of contact
r-0
2a = length of ellipse
M6 HORIZONIAL 015PLACEHENT lmml
ln. 0:361
0:
I
2b = width of ellipse
/Oms
u = relative displacement
E
I
ZIH. CD= 266 Fig.9. Example of raw data.
0 TJL

100.
Block samples can often be approximated
typically recorded at set increments of as rectangular or other simple
0
horizontal displacement (say O. lmm). geometrical shapes for the purposes of
0
HORIZONTAL
5
OISPLACENENI (mml
10
However, closer intervals may be calculating stresses. The true contact area
required where, for example, the samples between samples is always much smaller
are dilating strongly with increasing shear than that calculated and the local stresses
LGG.
stress yet horizontal displacement is are correspondingly higher. However, the
essentially zero. The computer-based stresses calculated on the basis of the
3M STRESS CORRECTED
FOR DILATION
retrieval system in use at the University of gross or apparent contact area will be in
Leeds allows data from all channels to be accordance with those calculated for the
8 200
O
K

read at the same time and at very short field condition.

LEGEHO
time intervals (tenths of a second). The
O
H
X PEAK STAEHG1H FOR FALLING
LCAO MJLTI-STATE The raw data is best presented as
100.
0 PEAK STRENGTN FOR RISING
software allows the rate of retrieval to be Fig. 9 with separate graphs showing shear
LOAD MULTI. STAGE
increased or decreased throughout the stress versus horizontal displacement and
0
test. vertical displacement versus horizontal
0 HS 2M 300 100 500

NORMAL
Fig.8. Examples of results from rising
aud falling load multi stage tests.
STRESS lkH/mll On completion of a test, samples should displacement. It should be noted that
be examined, the nature of the surface whilst only single values of normal stress
damage described and the surfaces are given for each stage in Fig. 9
sketched and photographed. (corresponding to peak shear strength), 29
GROUND ENGINEERING MARCH . 1989

the calculated normal stress does in fact
increasethroughouteachrundueto
decreasing contact area.
Fig. 10 shows results from two series of
tests with peak shear stress plotted
against normal stress. These show
considerable scatter and it is found that
the wider the range of roughness of
samples tested, the greater will be the
scatter of this plot. Interpretation of results
presented in this way is extremely
difficult. An upper bound envelope, for
example, would merely represent the
strengths of the roughest samples tested
and the basic friction angle of the material
could not be determined.
Correction of test data for
dilation
As dilation occurs, work is done hi lifting
the upper sample and this results in an
increasing shear force being to
continue shearing. Patton (1966),
conducting shear tests using toothed
plaster models of simple
that the contribution due to
dilation could be explained by the
following relationship:
r = 0 tan(8+
where r is shear strength, o is normal
8
stress, is the basic friction of the
surfaces and i is the angle of inclination of
the toothed asperities causing dilation.
REASURED RORRAC
STRESS lmmmm I - 0
) dv
As shearing takes place, top block dilates with work
being done against normal load through dv
To calculate stresses relative to actual plane of shearing
Then, i = A Tan~
5; = (r cosi
—osini) cosi
o;= (ocosi+ rsini)cosi
Where compression takes place
then, r, = (r cosi+ osini) cosi
ll; = (ocosi —r sin i) cosi
Fig. I l. Resolution of stresses relative to
30 actual plane of shearing.
GROUND ENGINEERING
~
LEGESO
I
TCORRECKO
STRESSES CONNECTED
DATA
TNNI OILATICR
I
nm.
m
m EW lsn
EONAL SISESS (ks/mrl
dilation angles is evident in the
uncorrected plots for the four stages.
Fig.12.Stress path plots corrected and
In Fig. 14, the peak shear strength results
uncorrected for multi stage test (same
from Fig. 10 are replotted with stresses
test as Fig.9).
corrected for dilation. The reduction in
scatter is marked and the basic friction
The dilational contribution to shear angle is clearly defmed by the corrected
strength can, therefore, be simply data points.
accounted for by the geometry of the
sample. Where shearing of major
asperities accompanies dilation, a Influence of surface texture
cohesion component of shear strength will and, coating on results
be introduced but the contribution due to
Discontinuities from the same rock type
overriding can stQ1 be calculated on the
and of similar surface texture and
basis of the geometrical path followed
mineralogy will generally yield a well
during shearing. The relative
defined strength envelope once
contributions to strength of basic friction
correction has been made for the effects
and cohesion can be determined
of individual sample roughness. Friction
independently once the extra work done
angles thus obtained will often be very
due to overriding has been accounted for.
different from the basic friction angle
In practice, the incremental roughness measured either from tests on saw cut
angle can be calculated throughout the surfaces of rock or from residual strength
re~ed test by considering the incremental tests. In tests on joints through Hong Kong
vertical (dv) and horizontal (dh) Granite (Fig. 13)the corrected value
displacements as follows: obtained for naturaQy textured surfaces
geometry,'howed
was 6'igher than that obtained from tests
=
dv/dh tan i on saw cut surfaces of slightly
decomposed granite (Hencher &
Stresses measured in the horizontal and Richards, 1982)'. The corrected friction
vertical planes can then be resolved angle for natural, uncoated joints through
i) tangentially and normally to the plane dolomite was 10'igher than that obtained
along which shearing is actually taking from saw cut surfaces.
place using the equations given in Fig. 11.
These corrected stresses may then be
Surface coatings may result in corrected
friction angles considerably lower than
plotted to give a strength envelope
those for clean discontinuities and
reflecting the shear strength of non
sometimes lower than those for saw cut
dilating, naturally textured surfaces. This
surfaces. Dolomite coated with minor
envelope may indicate purely frictional
amounts of bitumen and/or calcite was
behaviour (through the origin) or may
found to have a basic friction angle of
show additional cohesion which might be
about 33'ompared to 39'or uncoated
expected to vary for different samples and
joints. Tests camed out on joints from
stress levels. In the experience of the
monzonite in Hong Kong gave values of
authors, the majority of persistent rock
joints exhibit essentially frictional
behaviour once dilation has been
accounted for.
In Fig. 12, shear stress is plotted against
Ettttf
+ ~
CINRECIEO
DATA
DATA
normal stress (graduaQy increasing due to 1.0
decreasing surface area in the case of
uncorrected data) for four stages of a
direct shear test. Both uncorrected data
dv
and data corrected for dilation are plotted
in this graph. A strength envelope can be
derived directly from the corrected data.
In Fig. 13, the ratio between shear stress 5 u
and normal stress is plotted versus EOEIEOEIAL OISPLACEREEI Immi
horizontaldisplacement for both
corrected and uncorrected data from the Fig.13.Shear stress nomtal stress ratio
same test as in Fig. 12. The influence of versus horizontal displacement (same
different roughnesses and hence different test as Figs 9 and 12).
MARCH 1989
 IE

E
NN
(8

I NO.

I llg

0
El
ESNAL SN(SSS ACNNN SAm EA(s O; (0(NO(i termmed from tests on saw cut surfaces
orresiduaistren~
Determination of eff ~ve
Geld shear
stren requires detailed assessment of
c acteristics of dis
Some aspects of thts'rocedure have been
y 'edinCowland &
'chards (1982)s and will he furth
sequ p pe y
N TOOITC COAEO WITH
ETIHEHICAICTE
0
4 SNI NE
NINA( SNSSS, 0;
EN
(NN/ol)
References
1.Brown ET (1981)—Su e
'
detenninin gshearstrengtkRockchara
sh
Fig.14.Peak shear stzen stm and tut -ISRM
Fig.10 corrected for dilation. Pergamon Press, 138-137 influence of frost
The infl
38'or iron oxide stained joints b
a..ange Mand Herget G(19 -Det ernunauon of
discontinuities by direct
heave on houses under
where the rock had a thin 't
ope manual supplement 3-2: construction in Merth
port
tory tests for design
TydK %(Irwin

tative in terms of surfac e 3.Barton NR(1973) —Review

c cteristics and of describing th e criterion for rock joints. En 'ineering Geology, 7,287-
'3a
by I Statham, Ove Arup & Partners
aces carefull y in order that the results
y intezpreted properly. w d JW(1982). The effect of
4. Richards LR and Cowland L; i+I
I CEO ~ i
N(I ~ BBNB'I Iiil iT~
In summary, the frictional resistance of an ~ i ~ is I iiiiL
OL i w w ~1 Nrr ( (I 81IOE ~ i
'l eeiiaioi
I
res'o

ng Granite. Hong Kong iI ~ ".((w 4

LXSfrts00,, ".
ut naturally textured ~ iwl ~ I i ~ 0

'co tin ty y ~ 0401 LOI iiiEOLii 0 (0

m that measured S. Ross-Brown DM and Walton G (19?8) Aportshl

y different from joints. Rock Mechanics, 7,
aces. Values may be Introduction
hi'gher due to increased textural
extural
'erlocking or may be far
LZL ar lower
lo due to 6. Hock E andBray JW 198 This paper considers the mechanism
engineering- Revised third editio responsible for crackin in
Mining and Metallurgy
assuming a basicc fzictt
'ction angle of, say, 30'
ps on the basis of testin 7. Hencher SR and Richards LR(1982—
cut surfaces) is liablee to produce ceo tmg)omtsm Hong Kong
aring bzick and were
cant ezrors. ong gineer, 11(2),21-2S r 1985.Foundations and
o
r s were complete by theeendof
8.Brown ET, Richards LR and Ban rstzuctures were
strength characteristi 'cs of the Delabo le Bates. Proc
Conclusions conference on rock eng'nearing,
eng'nearing Newcastle upon p ete hy early February 1986 a
from ghxing and inteznal Gnish es.
The Geld shear strength of rock
discontinuities is a difGcult
e heca use of the
determine, not least
problems ininvesti ga tin g aztd quantifymg
9. Schn —Thee lahorat ory direct shear
Schneider HJ(1978)-
geotechnicsl evaluation. Bulletin
'ion of Engineering Geology, 18,
1 n '7F
Cracking was noticedin the ext
ebzuary 1986 an
inspection revealed that the Goor slabs
121-126 had heaved.
ence and roughness of the
features. The roles of basi fri 'ction parameters for the
10.Hencher SR(1981)-Friction
ug ess and cohesion are, however pea to withstand earthquake Typical damage
.Proc conference on dame and earth The houses were Grst inspected on 19
ndon, stitutionof Civil Engin'ars,79-88
determination of basic friction in
pazticular is amenable to labo ratozy 11.Gillette DR, Sture S, Ko HY, Gould' MC and Scott GA
testing. 'c behaviour of rock
Symposium on rock mechani
mechanics, Texas, 163-179
Tests carried out on natural
na joints and
for incremental rou 12.Patton FD (1966) —Multiple modes of shear failure
angles will elimina te the effects of
'al
1st international conference on rock
'cs, '809-813 (on 19February).
Damage to the superstructures was
yt and coated surfa although unsightly. Crackin
Such values can be expect mainlyinth e gab le ends foll owing the
y 'rent(either higher or mortar joints at Grat G
'
e basic friction angles 'nallyonthefrontand 31
GROUND ENGINEERING . MARCH 1989