Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02739-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall

Strengths
Chang Liu1,2 · Quan Jiang1   · Jie Xin1,2 · Si Wu1,2 · Jian Liu1,2 · Fengqiang Gong3

Received: 11 August 2021 / Accepted: 6 December 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Understanding the shear damage evolution of natural rock joints is of key importance for the stability of rock slopes and
underground tunnels. However, the shear damage evolution of natural joints is difficult to determine due to the ubiquitous
features of natural rock joints and the invisibility of the shearing process. In this study, the combined technology of “3D
scanning + 3D engraving” is used to produce three types of natural rock joint specimens with identical surface morphol-
ogy characteristics, and AE monitoring is applied to direct shear tests to reveal the shear damage evolution of natural rock
joints. A multi-aspect analysis (including shear damage characteristics, dynamic analysis of failure types, and the maximum
percentage of microcrack length in the shearing process) is conducted to recognize the shear damage evolution of natural
joints. The results indicate that the shear damage characteristics of natural joints are localized and inhomogeneous, the timing
and type of main failure in the shearing process will change when normal stress increases, and the increase in normal stress
will first suppress and subsequently promote the maximum percentage of microcrack length. These results will encourage a
better understanding of the shear failure mechanism of natural joints and provide references for the precursor identification
of shear disasters in geotechnical engineering.

Highlights

• New way of “3D scanning + 3D engraving” is presented to produce a natural rock joint.
• An improved identification method for failure types and crack length is proposed.
• Shear damage characteristics of rock joints in the shearing process are exposed.

Keywords  Shear damage · Natural joint · Wall strength · Failure type · Micro crack

1 Introduction displacement of joints, bedding planes or discontinuities

Natural rock joints are a necessary constituent of rock masses
(Barton 1973; Brown and Scholz 1985; Song et al. 2020).
The deformation and failure of the rock mass in geotech-
nical engineering is primarily expressed as open/shear
* Quan Jiang
qjiang@whrsm.ac.cn
1
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, Hubei, China
2 and confusing features of crustal rock structures, they have
School of Engineering Science, University of Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3 ing mechanisms. As early as 1966, Patton (1966) used a series
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South
University, Changsha 410083, Hunan, China
(Atapour and Moosavi 2014; Saeidi et al. 2014). Therefore,
the shear deformation and failure mechanisms of natural
joints in rock masses control the overall stability of high rock
slopes and large underground caverns (Hudson et al. 2002;
Jiang et al. 2020). An in-depth recognition of the shear dam-
age evolution of natural rock joints is of great significance for
the stability assessment in rock engineering and can provide
effective technical guidance for hazard prevention in geotech-
nical engineering (Monsen and Barton 2001; Gu and Ozbay
2014; Tang 2020; Zhang et al. 2020; Xu et al. 2021).
Since natural joints are probably the most ubiquitous
attracted the attention of many scholars regarding their shear-
of regular serrated artificial joints to carry out shear tests and

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

found that the change in failure mode was related to the irregu-
lar physical properties along the failure plane. Barton (1972)
split rock blocks to produce joints, performed direct shear tests
and found that the roughness of the joint would affect the shear
strength and shear displacement. Li et al. (2012) used gypsum
specimens to show that the residual shear stress of the joint
increased with the shear rate. To date, the joint specimens to
study the shear failure mechanism by many scholars can be
roughly divided into three categories: regular serrated artifi-
cial joints (Crawford and Curran 1981; Atapour and Moosavi
2014; Budi et al. 2014; Mirzaghorbanali et al. 2014; Zhou et al.
2016), specimens with random surface morphology charac-
teristics obtained by splitting intact rock (Schneider 1975; Liu
et al. 2017; Meng et al. 2019), and specimens with identical
surface morphology characteristics obtained through similar
materials (Tang and Wong 2016; Wang et al. 2016; Song et al.
2020). Due to the uniqueness of natural rock joints and the dif-
ficulty of sampling natural rock joint specimens in the field,
the surface morphology and material types of these three joint
categories cannot be completely identical to those of natural
rock joints, so their test results do not truly reflect the shear
failure characteristics of natural rock joints and limit the under-
standing of the shear damage evolution of natural rock joints.
Thus, an ingenious method to obtain rock joint specimens with
uniform surface morphology is very meaningful for studying
the shear failure mechanism of natural rock joints.
Acoustic emission (AE), which is the production of
instantaneous elastic waves by the rapid release of strain
energy due to mesoscopic damage or fracture in the mate-
rial, provides an excellent method of nondamage and real-
time monitoring (Lockner 1993; Grosse and Ohtsu 2008;
Nazarchuk et al. 2017; Mao et al. 2020). As an accompany-
ing phenomenon of rock material damage, the AE signal
contains meaningful information about the internal damage.
By inverse analysis of the AE signals, the timing and type
of damage can be determined, and the failure process of the
material can be determined. Many scholars have used AE
monitoring to study the failure mechanism of materials in
different states and achieved research results (Ohtsu et al.
2007; Aggelis et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2020).
Regarding the shear mechanism, many scholars have also
used AE to monitor the shear failure of joints (Moradian
et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018). Moradian
et al. (2010)conducted shear tests and AE monitoring on
joint specimens made of similar materials and divided the
shearing process into four stages. Their research also showed
that AE had sufficient accuracy to monitor the shear failure
process. Meng et al. (2019) conducted shear tests and AE
monitoring on joint specimens from intact granite splitting
and used AE parameters to identify the evolution process
of shear failure. The research results of these scholars show
that AE monitoring in joint shear tests can reveal the shear
process and its shear mechanism.
13
C. Liu et al.
Thus, direct shear tests and corresponding AE monitoring
for natural rock joints are performed to deeply expose the
shear damage evolution and provide effective early warn-
ing suggestions for geotechnical shear disasters. First, the
combined technology of “3D scanning + 3D engraving” is
used to produce three types of rock joint specimens with
identical surface morphology characteristics. Direct shear
experiments and simultaneous AE monitoring are performed
for three natural rock joints under different normal stresses.
Based on the experimental results, the joint shear damage
characteristics and the failure information provided by the
AE signal are summarized from several perspectives (includ-
ing the dynamic analysis of failure types and maximum per-
centage of microcrack length in the shearing process), which
reveal the damage evolution process of natural rock joints
with tensile/shear rate variation.
2 Experimental Scheme for Natural Rock
Joints
Three types of natural rock joints with different petrographic
characteristics (i.e., sandstone, marble, granite) and identical
surface morphology characteristics were first produced by
3D scanning + 3D engraving technology. Then, the shearing
test scheme for these rock joints was designed considering
the normal loading stress, AE layout, etc.
2.1 Production of Natural Rock Joints
Due to the randomness and uncontrollability of natural joints
in geotechnical engineering, it is not feasible to obtain a
batch of natural joint specimens with identical mechanical
parameters and morphological characteristics from an actual
engineering environment. To overcome this problem, the
combined technology of 3D scanning and 3D engraving was
applied to produce a batch of joint specimens with identical
surface morphological characteristics (Fig. 1). The general
process includes the following steps: (i) scan the natural
joint surface with 3D scanning equipment, obtain the natural
joint point cloud data and digitize the natural joint; (ii) pro-
cess the point cloud data of the natural joint to obtain the 3D
digital model of the natural joint; (iii) import the 3D digital
model of the natural joint into the 3D engraving machine to
engrave a rectangular rock block to obtain the lower block of
the joint specimen and the upper block of the joint specimen;
and (iv) repeat the above process, change the rock type, and
produce joint specimens of three types of rocks in batches.
I n t h e ex p e r i m e n t , t h e j o i n t s p e c i m e n i s
150 mm × 120 mm × 150 mm in size, and the overall JRC
value is approximately 12–14. Thus, 27 joint specimens
were produced, i.e., 9 each for sandstone, marble and gran-
ite (Fig. 2).
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
Fig. 1  Production of natural joint specimens based on 3D scanning and 3D engraving technology
2.2 Shear Test Scheme for the Joint Shear Test
The basic mechanical parameters of the rock material
(Table 1) were obtained by uniaxial compression test based
on specimens with 50 mm in diameter × 100 mm thickness
and Brazilian splitting test based on specimens with 50 mm
in diameter × 25 mm thickness. According to the experimen-
tal results of the uniaxial compressive test, these three types
of rock materials can be divided into relatively low-strength
sandstone (average UCS = 44.63 MPa), relatively medium-
strength marble (average UCS = 77.61 MPa), and relatively
high-strength granite (average UCS = 204.61 MPa).
This direct shear test for the joint was performed under
constant normal stress by a servo-control testing machine
(Fig. 3). In this test, the displacement control loading mode
was adopted with a loading ratio of 0.005  mm/s and a
maximum displacement limitation of 12 mm, which could
ensure the complete shear damage of natural rock joint
specimens and obtain the shear load curve for the entire
stage. To investigate the influence of normal stress on shear
failure and study the influence of normal stress on the shear
failure mechanism, this experiment used 3 sets of normal
stresses: low, intermediate and high normal stresses. Three
repeated shear tests were conducted for each rock at each
normal stress, and 27 shear tests were performed for the
three types of rocks. Among them, sandstone and marble
used 0.4% UCS, 1.2% UCS and 5% UCS to determine the
low, intermediate, and high normal stress values. For gran-
ite, 0.4% UCS and 1.2% UCS of the normal stress for shear
test did not cause noticeable damage, so we used 1% UCS
and 2.4% UCS to determine the low and intermediate normal
stress values; the high normal stress value was still 5% UCS
(Table 2).
The AE monitoring system used 16-channel monitoring
equipment produced by Physical Acoustic Corporation. The
AE equipment produced by this company has been adopted
by many scholars and has performed well in rock mechanics
experiments. (Aggelis et al. 2011; Meng et al. 2019) Because
shear damage mainly occurred near the joint’s surface, the AE
positioning method used plane positioning. To better collect
the AE signals, 6 AE sensors were arranged on both sides
of the lower block along the shear direction (3 AE sensors
were distributed on each side), and the 6 sensors were in the
same horizontal plane and staggered distribution in the plane
(Fig. 3). The amplification of pre-amplifier was 40 dB, the
threshold of the AE monitoring system was set as 40 dB, and
the sampling rate was set as 1 million samples per second.
13
 C. Liu et al.

Fig. 2  Natural joint specimens for the three types of rock

Table 1  Basic mechanical parameters of three types of rock materials be easily shown in different colors after the shear tests. Since
Rock type UCS (MPa) E (GPa) 𝜈 BI ( 𝜎c ∕𝜎t)
the color of the damage zones is different from the color of
the undamaged area, intuitive recognition for the shearing
Sandstone 44.63 10.36 0.24 38.96 damaged area and further picture processing became easy.
Marble 77.61 45.13 0.22 26.77 Direct shear tests and AE monitoring were conducted for
Granite 204.61 55.63 0.19 30.936 these three types of rock joints to obtain shear load curves,
UCS, E, 𝜈 and BI represent uniaxial compression strength, elastic
shear dilation curves and AE monitoring data. Visual obser-
modulus, poisson’s ratio and brittleness index, respectively. BI is uni- vation of the shear load curves and dilation curves (Fig. 4)
axial compression strength divided by tensile strength shows that for three repeated tests under identical normal
stress for each rock joint have produced identical shear
load curves. The shapes of the shear load curves under low,
3 Shearing Damage Characteristics intermediate and high normal stresses are basically similar,
of Natural Rock Joints which indicates that the normal stress and rock types do not
affect the general shape of the shear load curve. Marble and
The shear damage characteristics can be intuitively under- granite joints exhibit different degrees of slip-stick after the
stood by comparing the shear load curve and photos of the shear load peak, which should be related to the type of rock.
worn joint specimen surface after the shear test. The shear- The peak shear load of the natural joints increases when the
ing damage of natural rock joints can also be qualitatively normal stress increases. The dilatancy characteristics of the
and quantitatively analyzed through the gray scale process- joints are as follows: sandstone has the largest dilatation,
ing of surface pictures and appearance statistics for the point granite is the intermediate in dilatation, and marble has the
cloud data of joint surfaces. smallest dilatation.
According to the wearing characteristics of the joint spec-
3.1 Shear Tests Results imen surfaces after shearing (Figs. 5, 6, 7), the shear damage
of the three types of natural joints under different normal
The surfaces of granite and marble joint specimens were stresses is concentrated in several areas, which shows the
sprayed with red ink, but the surfaces of sandstone joint characteristics of macroscopic localization. Moreover, the
specimens were sprayed with black ink, due to their surface damage area of the natural joint increases with increasing
color. Thus, the damaged area on the surface of the joint can normal stress.

13
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths

Fig. 3  Direct shear test system and AE monitoring system layout

Table 2  Normal stress scheme Rock type Low normal stress Intermediate normal stress High normal stress
for direct shear experiment
Sandstone 0.15 MPa (0.34%UCS) 0.5 MPa (1.12%UCS) 2 MPa (4.48%UCS)
Marble 0.3 MPa (0.39%UCS) 1 MPa (1.29%UCS) 4 MPa (5.15%UCS)
Granite 2 MPa (0.98%UCS) 5 MPa (2.44%UCS) 10 MPa(4.88%UCS)

Fig. 4  Shear load curves and dilation curves for the three types of rock joint

13

3.2 Quantitative Description of the Joint Shear
Damage Characteristics
To quantitatively analyze the shear damage characteristics of
natural rock joints, we use gray scale processing and point
cloud processing for the joint surface. Gray scale processing
is to apply image graying and image binary to the photos of
the joint specimens. Due to the spray treatment on the sur-
face of joint specimens, the damaged area will show a differ-
ent color. A photo perpendicular to the surface of joint was
taken after the test, the RGB value of the photo is extracted
and grayed, and the gray value of the image is binarized
(Fig. 8a), so the damaged part and undamaged part of the
joint’s surface will be either transformed into black pixels
or white pixels on the image (Fig. 8b) (where black pixel
points are the undamaged area, and white pixel points are
the damaged area). By calculating the proportion of white
pixel points to the total pixel points, we obtain the damage
degree, DA, of the joint’s surface (Eq. 1). The damage char-
acteristics of the natural joint along the shear direction can
be obtained by point cloud processing of the joint’s surface
(Fig. 9). First, we scan the same joint specimen by 3D laser
scanning to obtain the surface point cloud data before and
after the test (Fig. 9a). Then, we align the point cloud data
before and after the test and select the 2D profiles (Fig. 9b).
Finally, we draw 2D profiles to study the damage character-
istics along the shear direction (Fig. 9c).
Fig. 5  Surface shear damage of sandstone joints after shear test
13
C. Liu et al.
DA= Num
Numwhite
, (1)
white +Numblack
where Numwhite is the number of white pixels in the gray
scale processed photo, and Numblack is the number of black
pixels in the gray scale processed photo.
Through the gray scale processing of the joint specimen’s
photo, the DA value of each joint specimen under each nor-
mal stress and the average DA value for the three repeated
tests are calculated (Fig. 10). The overall damaged area of
the sandstone joint is less than 10% under low normal stress
(0.15 MPa), approximately 13% under intermediate normal
stress (0.5 MPa), and approximately 21% under high normal
stress (2 MPa). Compared with marble joints and granite
joints, the damaged area is smaller in sandstone joints. The
damaged area in the granite joint is the intermediate, and the
damaged area in the marble joint is the largest. The overall
damaged area of the marble joint is 14% under low normal
stress (0.3 MPa), approximately 21% under intermediate
normal stress (1 MPa), and approximately 41% under high
normal stress (4 MPa). Simultaneously, the damaged area
of the three types of rock joints basically linearly increases
with increasing normal stress.
Using the point cloud processing of the joint surface,
the 2D profiles before and after the shearing tests are
compared (Fig.  11). The damaged region of the three
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths

Fig. 6  Surface shear damage of marble joints after shear test

Fig. 7  Surface shear damage of granite joints after shear test

13
 C. Liu et al.

Fig. 8  Gray scale processing a gray scale processing diagram b gray scale processing result

Fig. 9  Point cloud processing of joints’ surface a obtain the point cloud data for the joint specimen before and after shear testing b align the
point cloud data and selected the 2D profile line c draw the 2D profile line

joints is clearly inhomogeneous with increasing normal
stress. Slope sliding, scarp abrasion or convex gnaw-off
may occur in the damaged region. The reason for con-
vex gnaw-off is that the convex point of the contacting
surface bears higher shear stress with increasing normal
stress, resulting in an approximate horizontal fracture sur-
face below the convex point, and finally a gnawing break
occurred at the convex point. Therefore, three regions
along the shear direction of the joint for research, Region
A, Region B, and Region C, are selected for further analy-
sis (three purple regions in Fig. 11). With the increase in
normal stress, Region A in these three joints has always
been slope sliding, Region B has been converted from
slope sliding to scarp abrasion, and Region C has been
converted from slope sliding to convex gnaw-off. Thus,
the damage of the natural joint presents non-uniform
wearing damage for the surface of the entire joint due to
the heterogeneity of the joint’s surface and randomness
distribution of its effective shear angle.
Based on the shear load curve of three joints, shear
damage photos and its gray processing, we aligned
the scanning point cloud data before and after shear-
ing. In summary, the peak shear load of natural joints
increases with the increase in normal stress, its damage

13
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
Fig. 10  DA values of three types of rock joints
characteristics has localization and inhomogeneity, and
the damaged area basically linearly grows with the
increase in normal stress.
4 Failure Type Analysis for the Shearing
Process of Natural Joints
The failure type of natural joints in the shearing process
can be intuitively identified by an appropriate AE analy-
sis method. Combined with the shear load curve, we can
obtain the failure type evolution process of natural joints
under different normal stresses. Thus, we have established
a more objective AE analysis method through a series
of tests and more scientifically analyzed the failure type
evolution process of natural joints.
4.1 AE Analysis Method for Joint Failure Types
The released AE signals during rock failure contain impor-
tant information about its breakage mechanism, which can
be used to recognize the failure type for the rock (Lockner
1993; Grosse and Ohtsu 2008; Aggelis et al. 2011). The
common analysis methods of failure type by AE can be
roughly divided into the AE moment tensor method and
the AE parameter method. The AE moment tensor method
can only analyze the AE signals with regard to the position-
ing, and there must be at least 6 AE signals for positioning
(Kawasaki et al. 2010). The AE parameter method uses the
parameters of the AE signal to identify the failure type,
and different failure types have different parameter values
to establish the identification of the failure type. The AE
parameter method can distinguish each AE signal in the fail-
ure process and identify the failure type for the entire stage,
which is more advantageous than the AE moment tensor
analysis method.
The RA vs. AF is a common AE parameter method. RA
value is the rise time divided by the amplitude of signal
(Eq. 2) and AF is defined as the AE counts divided by the
duration of signal (Eq. 3). The failure type is distinguished
by combining the RA value and AF value of the AE signal.
Tensile fractures have higher AF values and lower RA val-
ues, and shear fractures have lower AF values and higher
RA values (Fig. 12). This method has the advantages of
fast speed, simple operation and requiring few sensors
(Ohno and Ohtsu 2010; Shahidan et al. 2013; Saiful bahari
et al. 2017). When using RA vs. AF to distinguish failure
types, the RA value and AF value of the signal are first cal-
culated; then, the K value of each AE signal is calculated
and compared with the Kcriterion to determine the failure
type represented by the signal (Eq. 4). However, the RA
vs. AF method depends on the user's subjectivity in deter-
mining the boundary of the Kcriterion for tensile fracture and
shear fracture, which reduces its objectivity and reliabil-
ity (Nguyen-Tat et al. 2018). Thus, this paper establishes
AE signal samples of tensile fractures through the Brazil-
ian split test and the AE signal sample of shear fractures
13
 C. Liu et al.

Fig. 11  Three types of natural joint 2D profiles before and after shearing under different normal stresses

through the direct shear test for smooth joints (Fig. 13a–b). granite, marble and sandstone are 30.121, 10.352, and
We subsequently(assume ) different K values to calculate the 104.4, respectively (Fig. 14).
difference value rtotal for two AE signal samples (Eq. 5).
When the assumed K value maximizes the difference value
RA = Rise time/the maximum amplitude (2)
rtotal of two AE signal samples, the boundary KBEST at this
time is taken as the distinction boundary Kcriterion of the AF = Counts/Duration (3)
failure type (Fig. 13c), which can ensure the objectivity
and reliability of the distinction boundaryKcriterion. K = AF/RA
The distinguishing boundary Kcriterion for tensile frac- K ≥ Kcriterion , Tensile fracture (4)
ture and shear fracture of three rocks can be determined K < Kcriterion , Shear fracture
according to the above approach, where the Kcriterion for

13
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
Fig. 12  RA vs. AF way to determine the type of failure
rtotal = rshear + rtensile /2, rshear = Nks /Ns , rtensile = Nkt /Nt , (5)
( )
where rtotal is the difference value of two AE signal samples,
Nks is the number of AE signals of shear fracture below the
boundary when the K value is assumed to be the boundary,
Ns is the number of AE signal samples of shear fracture, Nkt
is the number of AE signals of tensile fracture above the
Fig. 13  Process of distinguishing boundary determination in RA vs. AF
boundary when the K value is assumed to be the bound-
ary, and Nt is the number of AE signal samples of tensile
fracture.
4.2 Failure Evolution of Natural Rock Joints During
the Shearing Test
According to Eq. 4, the failure type of each AE signal in
the shearing process of the three rock joints is identified.
Because 100 s is selected as a time period to recognize
the failure type, the shearing process of natural joints in
2500 s is divided into 25 periods. According to the num-
ber of tensile fractures and shear fractures in each period,
combined with the shear load curve, the evolution process
of tensile fractures and shear fractures of the three rock
joints is obtained as shown in Figs. 15, 16 and 17. Accord-
ing to the shear load curve, we can divide the shear pro-
cess of the three joints under different normal stresses into
three stages: Stage A (before the shear load peak), Stage
B (near the shear load peak), and Stage C (after the shear
load peak). We obtained the dominant failure type in each
stage. Finally, the timing and failure types of the dominant
failure in the shearing process were obtained.
Taking sandstone results as an example, there are differ-
ent failure types under different normal stresses:
(1) When sandstone joints are under the low normal stress,
the number of shear fractures is always greater than
the number of tensile fractures in each period, and the
number of shear fractures in Stage C reaches the maxi-
13

Fig. 14  The distinction boundary of failure type in three types of rocks
Fig. 15  Failure type evolution process for the sandstone joints under different normal stresses
mum for the entire shearing process, which implies that
the sandstone joints experience shear failure after the
peak shear load.
(2) When the sandstone joints are under the intermediate
normal stress, the number of shear fractures is basi-
cally equal to the number of tensile fractures in each
13
C. Liu et al.
period, and the number of fractures in Stage B reaches
the maximum for the entire shearing process, which
implies that the sandstone joint experiences the tensile-
shear mixed failure near the peak shear load.
(3) When sandstone joints are under the high normal stress,
the number of tensile fractures is always greater than
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths

Fig. 16  Failure type evolution process for the marble joints under different normal stresses

Fig. 17  Failure type evolution process for the granite joints under different normal stresses

the number of shear fractures in each period, and the
number of fractures in Stage A reaches the maximum
for the entire shearing process, which implies that the
sandstone joint experienced tensile failure before the
peak shear load.
From the failure type evolution process of sandstone
joints, we find that the type and timing of the main fail-
ure in the shearing process changes when the normal stress
increases, and the failure type changes from shear failure
to tensile-shear mixed failure and finally to tensile failure,

13

which is consistent with the results of 3D point cloud pro-
cessing before and after shearing of joint specimens in
Sect. 3. The timing of the dominant failure also changes
from after the peak shear load to near the peak shear load
and finally to before the peak shear load.
According to the above analysis of different stages under
different normal stresses, we observe a similar evolution
process in granite joints and marble joints, so the type and
timing of the dominant failure of the three joints are similar
under low, intermediate and high normal stresses. The evolu-
tion process of the failure types of the three joints is similar
with the increase in normal stress. The failure type of the
joint is determined by its normal stress and strength.
In summary, based on the failure type analysis of the
natural rock joint under different normal stresses, the type
and timing of the dominant failure in the shearing process
changes when the normal stress increases: it is shear failure
after the shear load peak under low normal stress, tensile-
shear mixed failure near the shear load peak under inter-
mediate normal stress, and finally tensile failure before the
shear load peak under high normal stress. The timing and
failure type of a natural rock joint are determined by its nor-
mal stress and strength.
5 Crack Length Percentage Comparison
of Natural Joints During the Shearing
Process
AE contains abundant information on the fracture source,
and the crack length of natural joints in shearing can be
estimated by the appropriate AE analysis method. Combined
with the shear load curve, we can obtain the crack length
percent evolution process of natural joints under different
normal stresses. Thus, we improve the common AE crack
length analysis method, which can be used to more intui-
tively and quantitatively analyze the crack length.
5.1 Improved AE Analysis Method of Crack Length
Estimation
The material will release elastic waves when cracks occur,
and the elastic waves of cracks with different lengths will
also be different (Sato and Hirasawa 1973). It is feasible
to deduce the crack length by elastic waves. Therefore, we
assume that the rock mass has infinite volume and isot-
ropy and homogeneity. During crack extension, first, mini-
cracks with length Lcr (critical length) are created; then, the
13
C. Liu et al.
crack immediately extends by another Lcr , and this process
continues until the crack arrests (Armstrong 1969). Each
mini-crack with length Lcr will produce a periodic wave, so
all periods are similar, and the amplitude and duration are
equal. Then, the length of the crack can be calculated by the
period of the AE signal (Ebrahimian et al. 2019)
L
T= , (6)
vc
where L is the crack length, vc is the crack propagation
velocity, and T is the elastic wave period.
L = vc ∕f . (7)
Combined with T = 1f  , Eq. 6 can be transformed into
Eq. 7, the dimension of vc is m/s, and the dimension of f is
­s−1. Then, the dimension of L is calculated as m, and the
dimension operation is logical. However, the rock mass does
not have an infinite volume and is anisotropic, and there is
diffraction and reflection in the propagation process of elas-
tic waves; hence, the periodic wave generated by each mini-
crack with length Lcr cannot have an identical period, ampli-
tude and duration. The length of the crack is inversely
proportional to the frequency of the elastic wave from
Eq. (7). Due to the diffraction and reflection of the elastic
wave in the propagation process, there is a certain difference
between the elastic wave signal generated by the crack and
the AE signal received in our laboratory, and we cannot
accurately obtain the frequency of the crack signal. There-
fore, many scholars use the dominant frequency of the AE
signal to reflect the length of the crack; with a larger domi-
nant frequency, the crack is smaller, and certain research
results have been obtained (Lei et al. 2020; Niu et al. 2020;
Wang et al. 2021). However, the dominant frequency can
only qualitatively analyze the length of the crack and cannot
quantify the crack, and the calculation result of the dominant
frequency is easily distributed in a band, which does not
intuitively reflect the crack length as a whole. Thus, the iden-
tification function of the dominant frequency is limited.
Assuming that f is the dominant frequency of the
received AE signal, Eq. 7 is used to calculate the crack
length, which can more intuitively and quantitatively analyze
the crack length. However, the value of vc in Eq. 7 remains
uncertain. We assume that the value of vc in one test is con-
stant, so that all crack lengths in one test are related to vc . We
select the sum of all crack lengths in a period of time divided
by the sum of all crack lengths in the entire test to eliminate
vc . The percentage of the crack length in this period to the
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
length of all cracks can be obtained (Eq. 8) to quantitatively
analyze the crack length.
∑k 1
i=j fi
CLP = ∑n , (8)
1
i=1 fi
where f1 is the dominant frequency of the first AE signal
in the entire shearing process; fn is the dominant frequency
of the last AE signal in the entire shearing process; fj is the
dominant frequency of the first AE signal in the selected
period; fk is the dominant frequency of the last AE signal in
the selected period.
The Brazilian splitting test of sandstone is taken as an
example to illustrate that the improved method to evalu-
ate the crack length is more intuitive and scientific than
using the dominant frequency (Fig. 18). Figure 18a shows
the crack length using the main frequency for evaluation.
Through the Brazilian splitting test curve for sandstone,
we find that the sandstone disc is broken into two pieces at
57 s, so the most intense sandstone crack propagation should
be at this stage. The main frequency signal at this stage is
more low frequency, which can also reflect the increase in
crack propagation, but the degree of crack propagation can-
not be reflected. Figure 18b shows the crack length using
the improved method of evaluation. Taking 2 s as a stage,
70 s of the entire process of sandstone disc splitting can
be divided into 35 stages, and we can calculate the crack
length percentage at each stage according to Eq. (8). We can
intuitively see that splitting failure occurred in the sandstone
disc at 57 s, and the crack length percentage at this stage
sharply increased from less than 5% of the total to approxi-
mately 30%, which is consistent with the real failure situa-
tion. By combining the two methods, the improved method
Fig. 18  Crack length analysis in Brazilian splitting test of sandstone a using the dominant frequency b the improved method
can better reflect the real situation of cracks than using the
main frequency.
5.2 Crack Length Percentage Comparison of Natural
Joints During the Shear Test
We obtain the dominant frequency of AE signals for three
rock joints under different normal stresses with 50 s as a
stage. The entire shearing process is divided into 50 stages,
and the percentage of crack length in each stage is calcu-
lated by Eq. (8). Combined with the shear load curve, the
evolution of the crack length percentage with the shear load
curve is plotted for three rock joints (Figs. 19, 20 and 21).
We divide the shearing process into three stages (Stage A,
Stage B and Stage C), as described in Sect. 4.
Taking sandstone results as an example, there are differ-
ent crack length percent distributions under different normal
stresses:
(i) When sandstone joints are under the low normal
stress, the maximum percentage of crack length
occurs in Stage C and can reach approximately
40%. This result is consistent with our conclusion
in Sect. 4 that sandstone damage mainly occurs after
the shear load peak under low normal stress.
(ii) When sandstone joints are under the intermediate
normal stress, cracks are mainly concentrated in
Stage B. The percentage of crack length is reduced
compared to that under low normal stress, and the
maximum percentage of crack length is approxi-
mately 15%.
(iii) When sandstone joints are under the high normal
stress, cracks are mainly concentrated in Stage A.
The percentage of crack length increases compared
to that under the intermediate normal stress, and the
13
 C. Liu et al.

Fig. 19  Evolution process of crack length percent for the sandstone joints under three normal stresses

Fig. 20  Evolution process of crack length percent for the marble joints under three normal stresses

maximum percentage of crack length is approxi-
mately 28%.
In the marble joint, the maximum percentage of crack
length occurs in Stage C and can exceed 40% under the low
normal stress, but the maximum percentage of crack length
occurs in Stage B and can reach 18% under the intermediate
normal stress. Finally, the maximum percentage of crack
length occurs in Stage A and can reach 27% under the high
normal stress. In the granite joint, the maximum percent-
age of crack length is 17% under the low normal stress, 7%

13
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
Fig. 21  Evolution process of crack length percent for the granite joints under three normal stresses
under the intermediate normal stress and 9% under the high
normal stress.
When the normal stress increases, the damage to the
joint must be more severe, and the total length of the crack
must be larger. The increase in normal stress will change the
main crack formation from after the shear load peak to near
the shear load peak and finally before the shear load peak.
Simultaneously, the increase in normal stress also affects
the maximum percentage of crack length, which first sup-
presses and subsequently promotes the maximum percentage
of crack length. Then, the maximum percentage of crack
length first decreases and subsequently increases with the
increase in normal stress. We believe that the reason is that
the rock is in a lower stress state under the low normal stress,
so the rock is subjected to higher stress in a shorter time, and
the cracks mainly occur at the time of higher stress; then, the
maximum percentage of crack length is very large. Under
the intermediate normal stress, the rock has more time at the
higher stress state. Thus, the time of concentrated cracking
increases, and the crack concentration becomes more uni-
form, which decreases the maximum percentage of crack
length. Under the high normal stress, the rock is mostly in
a high stress state, and the overall damage is intensified,
which causes a sudden increase in cracks at certain times,
which increases the maximum percentage of crack length.
We also find that the maximum percentages of crack length
during the shearing process of the three rock joints are dif-
ferent: the sandstone joint is the largest, the marble joint is
in the intermediate, and the granite joint is the smallest. We
believe that the reason is the difference in rock brittleness.
6 Conclusions
Three types of natural rock joint specimens with identical
surface morphology characteristics have been mass pro-
duced by 3D scanning + 3D engraving technology. Direct
shear tests and simultaneous AE monitoring of three types
of natural rock joints are performed. The shear damage char-
acteristics of natural rock joints, failure type evolution and
crack length percentage in the shearing process are analyzed,
and the following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
(1) The shear damage characteristics of natural rock joints
are localized and inhomogeneous, and the damage area
basically shows linear growth with increasing normal
stress. The shear load peak increases with increasing
normal stress.
(2) The timing and type of the dominant failure in the
shearing process of natural joints will change when
the normal stress increases. The dominant failure of
natural rock joints is shear failure after the shear load
peak under low normal stress, tensile-shear mixed fail-
ure near the shear load peak under intermediate normal
stress, and finally tensile failure before the shear load
peak under high normal stress. The timing and failure
13

type of a natural rock joint are determined by its normal
stress and strength.
(3) The increase in normal stress will affect the maximum
percentage of crack length in the natural joint shearing
process. First, it suppresses and subsequently promotes
the maximum percentage of crack length, which makes
the maximum percentage of crack length first decrease
and subsequently increases with the increase in normal
stress.
Acknowledgements  This study was financially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. U1965205
and 51779251).
Author Contributions  CL: Methodology, experiment, formal analysis,
writing—original draft. QJ: Conceptualization, writing—review and
editing, supervision and project administration. JX, SW, and JL: Data
curation and software. FG: Resources.
Data Availability Statement  The AE monitoring data and the shear
test data during the study are available from the corresponding author
by request.
Declarations  Kawasaki Y, Tomoda Y, Ohtsu M (2010) AE monitoring of corrosion
Conflict of Interest  The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Ethics Approval  The manuscript will not be submitted to other jour-
nal for simultaneous consideration. The submitted work is original,
without fabrication and has not been published elsewhere in any form
or language.
Consent to Participate  Informed consent was obtained from all indi-
vidual participants included in the study.
Consent for Publication  The authors give the consent for the publica-
tion of the paper.
References
Aggelis DG, Soulioti DV, Sapouridis N, Barkoula NM, Paipetis AS,
Matikas TE (2011) Acoustic emission characterization of the
fracture process in fibre reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater
25:4126–4131. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ onbui​ ldmat.2​ 011.0​ 4.0​ 49
Armstrong BH (1969) Acoustic emission prior to rockbursts and earth-
quakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 59:1259–1279
Atapour H, Moosavi M (2014) The influence of shearing velocity on
shear behavior of artificial joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1745–
1761. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​013-​0481-9
Barton NR (1972) Model study of rock-joint deformation. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 9:579–602. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0148-​
9062(72)​90010-1
Barton N (1973) Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock
joints. Eng Geol 7:287–332. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/​0 013-​
7952(73)​90013-6
13
C. Liu et al.
Brown SR, Scholz CH (1985) Broad bandwidth study of the topogra-
phy of natural rock surfaces. J Geophys Res-Sol EA 90:12575–
12582. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​JB090​iB14p​12575
Budi G, Rao KUM, Deb D (2014) Laboratory modelling of rock
joints under shear and constant normal loading. Int J Res Eng
Technol 3:190–200
Crawford AM, Curran JH (1981) The influence of shear velocity on
the frictional resistance of rock discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:505–515. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0148-​9062(81)​90514-3
Ebrahimian Z, Ahmadi M, Sadri S, Li BQ, Moradian O (2019) Wave-
let analysis of acoustic emissions associated with cracking in
rocks. Eng Fract Mech 217:106516. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
engfr​acmech.​2019.​106516
Grosse CU, Ohtsu M (2008) Acoustic emission testing—basics for
research-applications in civil engineering. Springer-Verlag, Ber-
lin and Heidelberg
Gu R, Ozbay U (2014) Distinct element analysis of unstable shear
failure of rock discontinuities in underground mining condi-
tions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 68:44–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ijrmms.​2014.​02.​012
Hudson JA, Harrison JP, Popescu M (2002) Engineering rock
mechanics: an introduction to the principles. Appl Mech Rev
55:B30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​14511​65
Jiang Q, Yang B, Yan F, Liu C, Shi Y, Li L (2020) New method for
characterizing the shear damage of natural rock joint based on
3D engraving and 3D scanning. Int J Geomech 20:6019022.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GM.​1943-​5622.​00015​75
process in cyclic wet–dry test. Constr Build Mater 24:2353–
2357. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2010.​05.​006
Lei R, Zhang Z, Berto F, Ranjith PG, Liu L (2020) Cracking pro-
cess and acoustic emission characteristics of sandstone with
two parallel filled-flaws under biaxial compression. Eng Fract
Mech 237:107253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engfr​acmech.​2020.​
107253
Li B, Jiang Y, Wang G (2012) Evaluation of shear velocity dependency
of rock fractures by using repeated shear tests. In: Proc. Of the
12th ISRM Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics, Beijing, China,
pp.699–702
Liu T, Li J, Li H, Li X, Li N (2017) Influence of shearing velocity
on shear mechanical properties of planar filled joints. Rock Soil
Mech 38:1967–1973
Liu X, Wu L, Zhang Y, Liang Z, Yao X, Liang P (2019) Fre-
quency properties of acoustic emissions from the dry and satu-
rated rock. Environ Earth Sci 78:67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12665-​019-​8058-x
Lockner D (1993) The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock
fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 30:883–899. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/​01489​062(93)​90041-B
Lu YL, Wang LG, Li ZL, Sun HY (2017) Experimental study on the
shear behavior of regular sandstone joints filled with cement
grout. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:1321–1336. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s00603-​016-​1154-2
Mao W, Aoyama S, Towhata I (2020) A study on particle breakage
behavior during pile penetration process using acoustic emission
source location. Geosci Front 11:413–427. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​gsf.​2019.​04.​006
Meng F, Wong LNY, Zhou H, Yu J, Cheng G (2019) Shear rate effects
on the post-peak shear behaviour and acoustic emission charac-
teristics of artificially split granite joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng
52:2155–2174. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​018-​1722-8
Mirzaghorbanali A, Nemcik J, Aziz N (2014) Effects of shear rate
on cyclic loading shear behaviour of rock joints under constant
normal stiffness conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1931–1938.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​013-​0453-0
Shearing Damage Evolution of Natural Rock Joints with Different Wall Strengths
Monsen K, Barton N (2001) A numerical study of cryogenic stor-
age in underground excavations with emphasis on the rock joint
response. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:1035–1045. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1016/​s1365-​1609(01)​00066-1
Moradian ZA, Ballivy G, Rivard P, Gravel C, Rousseau B (2010) Eval-
uating damage during shear tests of rock joints using acoustic
emissions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:590–598. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2010.​01.​004
Moradian ZA, Ballivy G, Rivard P (2012) Application of acoustic
emission for monitoring shear behavior of bonded concrete-rock
joints under direct shear test. Can J Civ Eng 39:887–896. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1139/​l2012-​073
Nazarchuk Z, Skalskyi V, Serhiyenko O (2017) Propagation of elastic
waves in solids. Foundations in Engineering Mechanics. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp 29–73
Nguyen-Tat T, Ranaivomanana N, Balayssac JP (2018) Characteriza-
tion of damage in concrete beams under bending with Acoustic
Emission Technique (AET). Constr Build Mater 187:487–500.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2018.​07.​217
Niu Y, Zhou XP, Berto F (2020) Temporal dominant frequency evo-
lution characteristics during the fracture process of flawed red
sandstone. Theor Appl Fract Mech 110:102838. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​tafmec.​2020.​102838
Ohno K, Ohtsu M (2010) Crack classification in concrete based on
acoustic emission. Constr Build Mater 24:2339–2346. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2010.​05.​004
Ohtsu M, Isoda T, Tomoda Y (2007) Acoustic emission techniques
standardized for concrete structures. J Acoust Emiss 25:21–32
Patton FD (1966) Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: 1st ISRM
Congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon
1:509–514.
Saeidi O, Rasouli V, Vaneghi RG, Gholami R, Torabi SR (2014) A
modified failure criterion for transversely isotropic rocks. Geosci
Front 5:215–225. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsf.​2013.​05.​005
Saiful bahari M, Shahidan S, Abdullah S, Ali N, Mohd Zuki SS, Ibra-
him MH, Abdul Rahim M (2017) Crack classification in con-
crete beams using AE parameters. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng
271:12090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​271/1/​012090
Sato T, Hirasawa T (1973) Body wave spectra from propagating shear
cracks. J Phys Earth 21:415–431. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4294/​jpe19​
52.​21.​415
Schneider HJ (1975) Influence of machine stiffness and shear rate on
the friction behaviour of rock joints. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol Bull
L’association Int Géologie L’ingénieur 14:109–112. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​BF026​34741
Shahidan S, Pulin R, Bunnori N, Holford K (2013) Damage classifi-
cation in reinforced concrete beam by acoustic emission signal
analysis. Constr Build Mater 45:78–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
conbu​ildmat.​2013.​03.​095
Song L, Jiang Q, Li L, Liu C, Liu X, Xiong J (2020) An enhanced
index for evaluating natural joint roughness considering mul-
tiple morphological factors affecting the shear behavior. Bull
Eng Geol Environ 79:2037–2057. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s10064-​019-​01700-1
Tang ZC (2020) Experimental investigation on temperature-dependent
shear behaviors of granite discontinuity. Rock Mech Rock Eng
53:4043–4060. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​020-​02149-5
Tang ZC, Wong LNY (2016) Influences of normal loading rate and
shear velocity on the shear behavior of artificial rock joints.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:2165–2172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00603-​015-​0822-y
Wang G, Zhang X, Jiang Y, Wu X, Wang S (2016) Rate-dependent
mechanical behavior of rough rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 83:231–240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2015.​10.​013
Wang G, Zhang YZ, Jiang YJ, Liu PX, Guo YS, Liu JK, Ma M, Wang
K, Wang SG (2018) Shear behaviour and acoustic emission
characteristics of bolted rock joints with different roughnesses.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 51:1885–1906. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00603-​018-​1438-9
Wang TZ, Wang LX, Xue F, Xue MY (2021) Identification of crack
development in granite under triaxial compression based on the
acoustic emission signal. Int J Distrib Sens Networks. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​15501​47720​986116
Xu D, Huang X, Jiang Q, Li S, Zheng H, Qiu S, Xu H, Li Y, Li Z, Ma
X (2021) Estimation of the three-dimensional in situ stress field
around a large deep underground cavern group near a valley. J
Rock Mech Geotech Eng 13:529–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jrmge.​2020.​11.​007
Yang SQ, Huang YH, Tang JZ (2020) Mechanical, acoustic, and
fracture behaviors of yellow sandstone specimens under tri-
axial monotonic and cyclic loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
130:104268. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2020.​104268
Zhang YC, Jiang YJ, Asahina D, Wang CS (2020) Experimental and
numerical investigation on shear failure behavior of rock-like sam-
ples containing multiple non-persistent joints. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 53:4717–4744. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00603-​020-​02186-0
Zhou H, Meng F, Zhang C, Hu D, Lu J, Xu R (2016) Investigation of
the acoustic emission characteristics of artificial saw-tooth joints
under shearing condition. Acta Geotech 11:925–939. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11440-​014-​0359-3
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13