SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 16
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Rock Dumps 2008 — A. Fourie (ed)
Keynote Address                                  ©2008 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9804185-3-8




Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design

N.R. Barton Nick Barton and Associates, Norway



Abstract
The peak shear strength of rock joints obtained from direct shear tests, and the peak shear strength of
rockfill, as interpreted from large-scale triaxial tests, have common non-linear strength envelopes. An
extremely low stress index test for rock joints, the tilt test, with an apparent normal stress as low as
0.001 MPa when sliding occurs, can also be performed to characterise rockfill. However for rockfill or rock
dumps, larger samples with relevant particle sizes are desirable. Some full-scale tests at a dam site in Italy,
using a 2x2x5 m tilt-shear test, were able to sample the as-compacted-as-built rockfill, with no need for
using parallel (model) grading curves with reduced-sized particles. Interfaces between the rockfill or rock
dump and eventual rock foundations, can be handled with similar shear strength estimation methods. In each
case, a low-stress index test result is extrapolated to full scale and to engineering stress level by related non-
linear strength laws. It is possible to estimate each through inexpensive characterisation. The non-linear,
stress-dependent friction angles suggest that large rock dumps with constant slope angle will have strongly
reducing factors of safety from top to bottom and from outside to inside.

1     Introduction
The real contact stress levels are believed to be close to compressive failure where rock joint asperities and
rockfill stones are in contact (e.g. Figure 1 for the case of rock joints). Therefore it is perhaps possible to use
a common form of constitutive equation for extrapolating the strength measured at very low (index test)
normal stress levels, to stress levels of engineering interest, as inside a large rockfill dam, inside a rock dump
or under a rock slope formed of jointed rock.




Figure 1     When peak shear strength is approached (joints and rockfill), the actual rock-to-rock
             contact stress levels are extremely high, due to small contact areas

It is believed that the real ratios of σcn /JCS (contact normal stress/joint wall compressive strength, in the case
of rock joints) and σcn /S (contact normal stress/particle strength,in the case of rockfill) are equal to the ratio
A0 / A1 representing the ratio of true contact area/assumed contact area. The terms JCS and S represent the
joint compressive strength and the particle strength, respectively. In other words, contact area is a rock
strength or particle strength regulated phenomenon at peak strength.
Tilt tests are performed on a regular basis to characterise the roughness of rock joints. A schematic example
of tilt testing for rock joints is shown in Figure 2, while a suggested method for testing rockfill at full scale
(without needing parallel grading curves) is shown in Figure 3, from Barton and Kjærnsli (1981).




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                     3
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                           N.R. Barton




Figure 2       Tilt test (or self-weight gravity shear test) for characterising rock joints. Note measurement
               of basic friction angle on unweathered, smooth (but not polished) pieces of core

The equation for back-calculating the effective roughness (R) of rockfill particles is shown in Figure 3
(diagram 5). Exactly the same format is used to back-calculate the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) for rock
joints:
                                              JRC = (αo- φr) / log (JCS/σno)                                     (1)
where σno represents the very low normal stress acting when sliding occurs between the two halves of a
mating rock joint, at tilt angle αo. In the case of tilt tests on laboratory-scale joint samples, the normal stress
is often as low as 0.001 MPa. In the case of the 5 m long tilt test performed at a dam site in Italy (one of
10 such tests using compacted rockfill, filter material or sand), the normal stress was closer to 0.01 or
0.02 MPa, resulting from the 1 meter thickness of the upper shear box (Figure 4).




4                                                                                   Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




Figure 3     Illustration of the tilt test principle for rockfill (Barton and Kjærnsli, 1981)




Figure 4     In situ 5 m long rockfill tilt test being performed during dam construction in Italy (Strøm,
             1987)


2     The shear strength of rock joints
A basic set of peak and residual shear strength laws that are frequently used in rock mechanics are illustrated
in Figure 5. In this paper, focus will be on the third equation, due to specific treatment of joint roughness
(JRC), joint wall compressive strength (JCS) and residual friction angle φr, as determined from index tests
shown in Figure 6.




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                    5
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                       N.R. Barton




Figure 5       Three shear strength criteria for rock joints: 1 Mohr Coulomb, 2 Patton and 3 Barton.
               Note that the ‘i’ value of Patton is replaced by a roughness term (JRC), and strength/stress
               ratio JCS/σn in the case of the non-linear model




6                                                                               Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




Figure 6     A variety of index tests for characterising the strength components of rock joints, with
             particular emphasis on roughness (Barton, 1999). Subscripts ‘o’ and ‘n’ in the histograms,
             refer to laboratory and in situ scale respectively

Examples of peak shear strength measurements for rock joints are shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. These tests
were performed as 130 DST tests on 130 joint samples (not multi-stage testing). The peak strength of each
sample was therefore determined.




Figure 7     Ten typical (and increasingly rough) joint surfaces, as tested by Barton and Choubey, 1977
             (Note that #10 is an artificial tension fracture in soapstone)

A range of index tests has been developed for estimating the shear strength of rock joints, so that a statistical
range of roughness and strength values can be accommodated in design, without the need for an equally
large number of direct shear (box) tests, or DST. Besides tilt testing, the index tests illustrated in Figure 6



Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                     7
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                        N.R. Barton




also show roughness profiling, which is not only useful for rock joint characterisation, but also useful for
interface strength investigations.
It can be noted from Figure 6 that the Schmidt hammer index test is used on rock joints to register what may
be a thin ‘skin’ of weathered rock with lower joint wall strength (JCS) than the ‘fresh’ rock uniaxial
compressive strength σc. This index test can also be used with advantage on rockfill materials, if stones are
suitably clamped when small enough to move under the impact of the spring-loaded ‘hammer’.




Figure 8       The range of joint roughness profiles tested, and their JRC values, based on the peak shear
               strength of 130 rock joints. Note the characteristics (JRC, JCS, φr) of three example
               strength envelopes (Barton and Choubey, 1977). The units of JCS are (also) MPa


3      The shear strength of rockfill as measured
Leps (1970) is responsible for assembling a significant number of large-scale triaxial shear test data for
rockfills of various types. The interpreted peak effective friction angles as a function of the estimated
effective normal stress are shown in Figure 9a. We can ‘fit’ familiar values of JRC and JCS for rock joints
(Figure 9b) that closely match the stress-dependent friction angles that (also) describe the shear strength of
rockfills. Mid-range JRC values (to correspond to an R-range of about 5 to 10, and low-to-high range JCS
values (to correspond to an S-range of about 10 to 100 MPa) generated by medium weak to medium strong
rock are seen to fit the test data. The more conventionally plotted shear stress versus effective stress curves
for rockfill, shown in Figure 10 from Marsal (1973), also confirm the similarities of the peak shear strength
of rock joints and rockfill.




8                                                                                Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




Figure 9     Left: Assembly of peak shear strength data for rockfills, from Leps (1970). Right:
             Comparative JRC or R, and JCS or S values used to generate similar gradients to Leps
             1970 data for rockfill. R = 5 to 10, and S = 10 to 100 MPa appear to cover the range of
             strengths assembled by Leps. Less compacted rock dump materials will tend to have lower
             ‘R-values’ than the ‘tightly-packed’ particles, since there will generally be less interlocking




Figure 10 The peak shear strength envelopes for rockfill have remarkable similarity to those for
          medium rough, medium strength rock joints. Large-scale test data from Marsal (1973)




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                   9
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                     N.R. Barton




Figure 11 Large rock dumps are a familiar feature of mines in the Chilean Andes. Large-scale
          triaxial shear tests performed in Chile, with important results (black dots and Mohr
          circles) showing non-linear stress-dependent friction angles (Linero and Palma (2006),
          reproduced with kind permission)

The large scale measurement of frictional strength of rock dump materials obtained from mines in the
Chilean Andes shown in Figure 11 tend to further reinforce the idea of non-linear stress-dependent friction
angles that are likely to apply to rock dumps in general (priv. comm., Sandra Linero, SRK).




10                                                                            Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




Figure 12 The same non-linearity with effective stress level is seen in large-scale triaxial tests
          performed at NGI (Strøm, 1974, 1975, 1978), with particle size-dependence, rock strength
          dependence, and porosity effects also indicated

For comparison, Figure 13 shows shear strength envelopes for rock joints that have been generated with the
JRC-JCS model introduced in Figure 5. The strongly varying peak dilation angles, part of the reason for the
non-linearity, are also shown on each envelope, except at lowest stress, where they may exceed 30°.




Figure 13 Shear strength envelopes (and peak dilation angles) predicted for rock joints, using the
          JRC-JCS non-linear model of Figure 5. Rockfill generally lies between curves #2 and #3




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                11
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                       N.R. Barton




4      Estimating the shear strength of rockfill
As emphasised in all reports of rockfill shear strength, including Barton and Kjærnsli (1981), the degree of
compaction and porosity achieved when building a dam or when preparing relevant laboratory samples is all
important. The particle roughness and smoothness is also fundamental. Figure 14 illustrates an empirical
scheme developed by the writer, for estimating the likely R-value for rockfills, whether for rounded gravels
or for rough quarried rock. The high (relatively uncompacted) porosities in mining rock dumps clearly places
such dumps in the middle-to right-hand areas of this diagram, and even sharp angular particles (relevant for
waste rock, but perhaps not always for tailings) are unlikely to generate ‘R-values’ above 5 to 7, as also
suggested in Figure 9.




Figure 14 An empirical method for estimating the equivalent roughness R of rockfill as a function of
          porosity and particle origin, roundedness and smoothness. Barton and Kjærnsli (1981)

As a result of the literature survey of numerous rockfill test data, Barton, 1980 and Barton and Kjærnsli,
1981 developed a simple strength factoring scheme for estimating S as a function of UCS (or σc), when
particle size (d50) varied over a wide range. The points A and B in Figure 15 were used to illustrate S-value
estimation for a rock with UCS = 150 MPa, when d50 was 23 mm (S ≈ 0.3x150 = 50 MPa) and when d50 was
240 mm (S ≈ 0.2x150 = 30 MPa), in the case of interpreting triaxial strength data. Note the higher factors
apparently needed when planar (and large-scale) shear is involved. Friction angles are typically several




12                                                                              Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




degrees higher (e.g. about 2° to 4°) when plane tests are compared with triaxial tests on the same material.
There is noticeably less crushing of particles: hence the two empirical curves in Figure 15.




Figure 15 Particle size strongly effects the strength of contacts points in rockfill. Triaxial or plane
          shear also influences behaviour. Empirical S/UCS reduction factors for estimating S when
          evaluating equation 3.


5     Interface shear strength
Interface shear strength, as between a (too smooth) rock foundation and a rockfill dam, seems to be governed
by the ‘weakest link’ rule. If the roughness JRC of the interface, registered by amplitude/length profiling, is
too low in relation to particle size (d50), the interface strength is controlled by JRC, and sliding occurs along
the interface, as along the bottom face of a rock joint. If on the other hand, the interface roughness is
sufficient to give good interlock to the rockfill particles, sliding will occur preferentially within the rockfill,
in an ‘R-controlled’ particle smoothness or roughness dependent manner, with influence also of the porosity.
A schematic illustration of the interface problem, and (probable) relevant controlling parameters is shown in
Figure 16.




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                     13
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                             N.R. Barton




Figure 16 Asperity contact across stressed rock joints, and rockfill inter-particle contact, and rockfill
          lying on a rock foundation, are each examples of point-contact stress levels that are
          probably close to compressive failure, when peak shear strength is approached. For this
          reason the three cases have many points in common, including similar non-linear shear
          strength envelopes

The peak shear strengths for rock joints, rockfill and interfaces are respectively:
Rock joints:
                                         τ = σ n tan ( JRC log JCS / σ n + φ r )                                   (2)

Rockfill:
                                         τ = σ n tan (R log S / σ n + φ r )                                        (3)

Interface:
                                         τ = σ n tan ( JRC log S / σ n + φ r )                                     (4)

If the rockfill particles are not weaker than the rock foundation, as assumed in equation 4, then S > JCS, and
the strength is determined by the weak foundation. In the case of rockfill or waste rock that is freshly blasted,
the residual friction angle φr assumed, can (initially) be replaced by φb, which is usually a few degrees higher
than the weathered value. Conservative, long-term design strength may nevertheless demand the use of φr for
‘permanent’ rock dumps and rockfill dams, as suggested in all three equations.




14                                                                                    Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




5.1   R-controlled or JRC-controlled behaviour
As indicated above, the relative magnitudes of the interface parameters, and their possible contrast to the
shear strength of the rockfill, will determine whether the interface (if very rough) causes ‘R-controlled’
behaviour – meaning preferential failure through the rockfill, or ‘JRC-controlled’ behaviour, meaning
preferential shear along the interface. A review of interface tests, performed by Barton (1980) in response to
doubts about the strength of a glacially-smoothed dam foundation in Norway, resulted in the separation of
performance identified in Figure 17.




Figure 17 A review of interface shear tests was performed in response to concern over insufficient
          roughness for the rockfill dam foundation, in the glaciated mountain terrain in Norway.
          This review resulted in the JRC-R separation seen here. Squares and circles are data
          points derived from interpretation of relevant tests reported in the literature
          (Barton, 1980)




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                  15
Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points
of Contact in Rock Dump Design                                                                  N.R. Barton




Figure 18 Simple demonstration of the differences between JRC-controlled and R-controlled
          behaviour, which can also be demonstrated by tilt testing




Figure 19 The Svartevann dam in Norway has limited roughness in parts of its steep glaciated
          abutments. The a/L versus d50 ratios for this dam are not known however. These governing
          parameters were estimated for the Oddatjørn dam in another actually less glaciated
          location (Barton, 1980)




16                                                                         Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage




Conclusions
    •    Rock joints, rockfill (and rock dumps), and interfaces between rock and rockfill have related
         geotechnical behaviour, because they have ‘points-of-contact’ in common.
    •    The common denominator is very high rock-to-rock contact stress at the numerous points of contact.
    •    The important geotechnical result is a shared tendency for very non-linear, stress-dependent shear
         strength.
    •    It is therefore extremely likely that rock dumps of different heights will have widely different factors
         of safety – if formed with equal slope angles.

References
Barton, N. and Choubey, V. (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics 1/2:1-54.
       Vienna: Springer.
Barton, N. (1980) Evaluation of shear strength in rockfill and between rockfills and rock foundations. NGI report
       53101-2, 67 p. (In Norwegian).
Barton, N. and Kjærnsli, B. (1981) Shear strength of rockfill. J. of the Geotech. Eng. Div., Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 107:
       GT7: 873-891. Proc. Paper 16374, July.
Barton, N. (1999) General report concerning some 20th Century lessons and 21st Century challenges in applied rock
       mechanics, safety and control of the environment. Proc. of 9th ISRM Congress, Paris, 3: 1659-1679, Balkema,
       Netherlands.
Leps, T.M. (1970) Review of the shearing strength of rockfill. J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol.96, No.
       SM4, Proc. Paper 7394, July 1970, 1159-1170.
Linero, S. and Palma, C. (2006) Caracterización geotecnica de materiales estériles para diseño de depósitos mineros de
       gran altura. (Geotechnical characterization of rock materials for design of high rock dumps). Proc. of VI th South
       American Rock Mechanics Congress., Cartagena, Colombia.
Marsal, R.J. (1973) Mechanical properties of rockfill. Embankment-Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, eds.
       Hirschfeld and Poulos, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 109-200.
Strøm, E. (1974), (1975) and (1978) NGI internal reports on triaxial testing of rockfill for various dams in Norway.




Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia                                                                                         17
18   Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Flexion De Vigas
Flexion De VigasFlexion De Vigas
Flexion De Vigasjairorojas
 
Resistencia de materiales
Resistencia de materialesResistencia de materiales
Resistencia de materialesmi casa
 
37467305 torsion-design-of-beam
37467305 torsion-design-of-beam37467305 torsion-design-of-beam
37467305 torsion-design-of-beamSopheak Thap
 
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compress
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compressVibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compress
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compressJhonatan Tejada
 
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdf
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdfResistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdf
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdfGonzalo Banzas
 
Structure Analysis-Deflection using SAP2000
Structure Analysis-Deflection using  SAP2000Structure Analysis-Deflection using  SAP2000
Structure Analysis-Deflection using SAP2000Batoul Alshamali
 
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...gabrielpujol59
 
Criterios de diseño.pdf
Criterios de diseño.pdfCriterios de diseño.pdf
Criterios de diseño.pdfAmor59
 
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and Future
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and FutureGround-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and Future
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and FutureAli Osman Öncel
 
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposo
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposoEmpuje activo pasivo y en reposo
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposoEduardo Bas
 
Response spectra
Response spectraResponse spectra
Response spectra321nilesh
 
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica  de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica  de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...Teovaki Daniel Barreto
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Flexion De Vigas
Flexion De VigasFlexion De Vigas
Flexion De Vigas
 
Capacidad portante del terreno
Capacidad portante del terrenoCapacidad portante del terreno
Capacidad portante del terreno
 
Resistencia de materiales
Resistencia de materialesResistencia de materiales
Resistencia de materiales
 
37467305 torsion-design-of-beam
37467305 torsion-design-of-beam37467305 torsion-design-of-beam
37467305 torsion-design-of-beam
 
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compress
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compressVibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compress
Vibraciones aplicada-a-la-ing-civil compress
 
Soil Dynamics
Soil DynamicsSoil Dynamics
Soil Dynamics
 
Shear centre
Shear centreShear centre
Shear centre
 
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdf
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdfResistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdf
Resistencia_de_materiales_Dr_Genner_Vill.pdf
 
Structure Analysis-Deflection using SAP2000
Structure Analysis-Deflection using  SAP2000Structure Analysis-Deflection using  SAP2000
Structure Analysis-Deflection using SAP2000
 
Amortiguamiento en estructuras
Amortiguamiento en estructurasAmortiguamiento en estructuras
Amortiguamiento en estructuras
 
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...
ESTUDIO DE CASOS - Solicitaciones Combinadas - Flexión y Corte (Vigas compues...
 
Criterios de diseño.pdf
Criterios de diseño.pdfCriterios de diseño.pdf
Criterios de diseño.pdf
 
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and Future
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and FutureGround-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and Future
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations:Past, Present, and Future
 
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposo
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposoEmpuje activo pasivo y en reposo
Empuje activo pasivo y en reposo
 
5. stress function
5.  stress function5.  stress function
5. stress function
 
Response spectra
Response spectraResponse spectra
Response spectra
 
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica  de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica  de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...
Esfuerzo.propiedades mecanica de los materiales sistemas de fuerzas estatica...
 
8. mander
8. mander8. mander
8. mander
 
AISC steel manual
AISC steel manualAISC steel manual
AISC steel manual
 
Calculo de placa base caso 2
Calculo de placa base caso 2Calculo de placa base caso 2
Calculo de placa base caso 2
 

Ähnlich wie Shear Strength Of Rockfill, Interfaces And Rock Joints, And Their Points

Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental study
Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental studyEvaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental study
Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental studyeSAT Publishing House
 
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast us
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast usDrilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast us
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast usFRANCESCO CARLOMAGNO
 
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loading
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loadingLaboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loading
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loadingeSAT Publishing House
 
Rock mass properties
Rock mass propertiesRock mass properties
Rock mass propertiesakash yadav
 
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-clays
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-claysEvaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-clays
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-claysRobertSaga1
 
Shear strength of rock discontinuities
Shear strength of rock discontinuitiesShear strength of rock discontinuities
Shear strength of rock discontinuitiesStan Vitton
 
Chapter 4 Of Rock Engineering
Chapter 4 Of  Rock  EngineeringChapter 4 Of  Rock  Engineering
Chapter 4 Of Rock EngineeringNgo Hung Long
 
Chapter 13 Of Rock Engineering
Chapter 13 Of  Rock  EngineeringChapter 13 Of  Rock  Engineering
Chapter 13 Of Rock EngineeringNgo Hung Long
 
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blastingAssessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blastingeSAT Publishing House
 
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...eSAT Journals
 
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008Yara Mouna
 
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...IJERD Editor
 
Lowson bieniawski retc_13
Lowson bieniawski retc_13Lowson bieniawski retc_13
Lowson bieniawski retc_13Qiratul Aini
 
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)theijes
 
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under Loading
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under LoadingThe Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under Loading
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under LoadingAhmed Abdullah
 

Ähnlich wie Shear Strength Of Rockfill, Interfaces And Rock Joints, And Their Points (20)

Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental study
Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental studyEvaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental study
Evaluation of shear strength of model rock joints by experimental study
 
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast us
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast usDrilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast us
Drilled shaft performance in cemented calcareous formations in the southeast us
 
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loading
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loadingLaboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loading
Laboratory modelling of rock joints under shear and constant normal loading
 
A1303050107
A1303050107A1303050107
A1303050107
 
Rm asi
Rm asiRm asi
Rm asi
 
Rock mass properties
Rock mass propertiesRock mass properties
Rock mass properties
 
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-clays
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-claysEvaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-clays
Evaluation of-cyclic-softening-in-clays
 
Shear strength of rock discontinuities
Shear strength of rock discontinuitiesShear strength of rock discontinuities
Shear strength of rock discontinuities
 
E05123641
E05123641E05123641
E05123641
 
Chapter 4 Of Rock Engineering
Chapter 4 Of  Rock  EngineeringChapter 4 Of  Rock  Engineering
Chapter 4 Of Rock Engineering
 
Chapter 13 Of Rock Engineering
Chapter 13 Of  Rock  EngineeringChapter 13 Of  Rock  Engineering
Chapter 13 Of Rock Engineering
 
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blastingAssessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting
 
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...
Assessment of powder factor in surface bench blasting using schmidt rebound n...
 
Jresv6n5p857 a2b
Jresv6n5p857 a2bJresv6n5p857 a2b
Jresv6n5p857 a2b
 
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008
Strengthening metallic shells with frp against buckling cice2008
 
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...
Influence of tensile behaviour of slab on the structural Behaviour of shear c...
 
Lowson bieniawski retc_13
Lowson bieniawski retc_13Lowson bieniawski retc_13
Lowson bieniawski retc_13
 
3 Secured Drapery 2008
3   Secured Drapery 20083   Secured Drapery 2008
3 Secured Drapery 2008
 
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)
The International Journal of Engineering and Science (The IJES)
 
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under Loading
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under LoadingThe Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under Loading
The Crack Pattern Of R.C Beams Under Loading
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPathCommunity
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdfPedro Manuel
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding TeamAdam Moalla
 
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK Guide
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK GuideIEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK Guide
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK GuideHironori Washizaki
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAshyamraj55
 
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimizationarrow10202532yuvraj
 
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...Aggregage
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Adtran
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaborationbruanjhuli
 
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemBird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemAsko Soukka
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Commit University
 
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...Daniel Zivkovic
 
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationIES VE
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioChristian Posta
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostMatt Ray
 
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API Management
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API ManagementThe Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API Management
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API ManagementNuwan Dias
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxGDSC PJATK
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureEric D. Schabell
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1DianaGray10
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UbiTrack UK
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation DevelopersUiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
UiPath Community: AI for UiPath Automation Developers
 
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdfNanopower  In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
Nanopower In Semiconductor Industry.pdf
 
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
9 Steps For Building Winning Founding Team
 
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK Guide
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK GuideIEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK Guide
IEEE Computer Society’s Strategic Activities and Products including SWEBOK Guide
 
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPAAnypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
Anypoint Code Builder , Google Pub sub connector and MuleSoft RPA
 
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization
100+ ChatGPT Prompts for SEO Optimization
 
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
 
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
Meet the new FSP 3000 M-Flex800™
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
 
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystemBird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
Bird eye's view on Camunda open source ecosystem
 
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
Crea il tuo assistente AI con lo Stregatto (open source python framework)
 
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...
All in AI: LLM Landscape & RAG in 2024 with Mark Ryan (Google) & Jerry Liu (L...
 
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
 
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCostKubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
KubeConEU24-Monitoring Kubernetes and Cloud Spend with OpenCost
 
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API Management
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API ManagementThe Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API Management
The Kubernetes Gateway API and its role in Cloud Native API Management
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
 
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
UWB Technology for Enhanced Indoor and Outdoor Positioning in Physiological M...
 

Shear Strength Of Rockfill, Interfaces And Rock Joints, And Their Points

  • 1. Rock Dumps 2008 — A. Fourie (ed) Keynote Address ©2008 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9804185-3-8 Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Nick Barton and Associates, Norway Abstract The peak shear strength of rock joints obtained from direct shear tests, and the peak shear strength of rockfill, as interpreted from large-scale triaxial tests, have common non-linear strength envelopes. An extremely low stress index test for rock joints, the tilt test, with an apparent normal stress as low as 0.001 MPa when sliding occurs, can also be performed to characterise rockfill. However for rockfill or rock dumps, larger samples with relevant particle sizes are desirable. Some full-scale tests at a dam site in Italy, using a 2x2x5 m tilt-shear test, were able to sample the as-compacted-as-built rockfill, with no need for using parallel (model) grading curves with reduced-sized particles. Interfaces between the rockfill or rock dump and eventual rock foundations, can be handled with similar shear strength estimation methods. In each case, a low-stress index test result is extrapolated to full scale and to engineering stress level by related non- linear strength laws. It is possible to estimate each through inexpensive characterisation. The non-linear, stress-dependent friction angles suggest that large rock dumps with constant slope angle will have strongly reducing factors of safety from top to bottom and from outside to inside. 1 Introduction The real contact stress levels are believed to be close to compressive failure where rock joint asperities and rockfill stones are in contact (e.g. Figure 1 for the case of rock joints). Therefore it is perhaps possible to use a common form of constitutive equation for extrapolating the strength measured at very low (index test) normal stress levels, to stress levels of engineering interest, as inside a large rockfill dam, inside a rock dump or under a rock slope formed of jointed rock. Figure 1 When peak shear strength is approached (joints and rockfill), the actual rock-to-rock contact stress levels are extremely high, due to small contact areas It is believed that the real ratios of σcn /JCS (contact normal stress/joint wall compressive strength, in the case of rock joints) and σcn /S (contact normal stress/particle strength,in the case of rockfill) are equal to the ratio A0 / A1 representing the ratio of true contact area/assumed contact area. The terms JCS and S represent the joint compressive strength and the particle strength, respectively. In other words, contact area is a rock strength or particle strength regulated phenomenon at peak strength. Tilt tests are performed on a regular basis to characterise the roughness of rock joints. A schematic example of tilt testing for rock joints is shown in Figure 2, while a suggested method for testing rockfill at full scale (without needing parallel grading curves) is shown in Figure 3, from Barton and Kjærnsli (1981). Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 3
  • 2. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Figure 2 Tilt test (or self-weight gravity shear test) for characterising rock joints. Note measurement of basic friction angle on unweathered, smooth (but not polished) pieces of core The equation for back-calculating the effective roughness (R) of rockfill particles is shown in Figure 3 (diagram 5). Exactly the same format is used to back-calculate the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) for rock joints: JRC = (αo- φr) / log (JCS/σno) (1) where σno represents the very low normal stress acting when sliding occurs between the two halves of a mating rock joint, at tilt angle αo. In the case of tilt tests on laboratory-scale joint samples, the normal stress is often as low as 0.001 MPa. In the case of the 5 m long tilt test performed at a dam site in Italy (one of 10 such tests using compacted rockfill, filter material or sand), the normal stress was closer to 0.01 or 0.02 MPa, resulting from the 1 meter thickness of the upper shear box (Figure 4). 4 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 3. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage Figure 3 Illustration of the tilt test principle for rockfill (Barton and Kjærnsli, 1981) Figure 4 In situ 5 m long rockfill tilt test being performed during dam construction in Italy (Strøm, 1987) 2 The shear strength of rock joints A basic set of peak and residual shear strength laws that are frequently used in rock mechanics are illustrated in Figure 5. In this paper, focus will be on the third equation, due to specific treatment of joint roughness (JRC), joint wall compressive strength (JCS) and residual friction angle φr, as determined from index tests shown in Figure 6. Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 5
  • 4. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Figure 5 Three shear strength criteria for rock joints: 1 Mohr Coulomb, 2 Patton and 3 Barton. Note that the ‘i’ value of Patton is replaced by a roughness term (JRC), and strength/stress ratio JCS/σn in the case of the non-linear model 6 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 5. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage Figure 6 A variety of index tests for characterising the strength components of rock joints, with particular emphasis on roughness (Barton, 1999). Subscripts ‘o’ and ‘n’ in the histograms, refer to laboratory and in situ scale respectively Examples of peak shear strength measurements for rock joints are shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. These tests were performed as 130 DST tests on 130 joint samples (not multi-stage testing). The peak strength of each sample was therefore determined. Figure 7 Ten typical (and increasingly rough) joint surfaces, as tested by Barton and Choubey, 1977 (Note that #10 is an artificial tension fracture in soapstone) A range of index tests has been developed for estimating the shear strength of rock joints, so that a statistical range of roughness and strength values can be accommodated in design, without the need for an equally large number of direct shear (box) tests, or DST. Besides tilt testing, the index tests illustrated in Figure 6 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 7
  • 6. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton also show roughness profiling, which is not only useful for rock joint characterisation, but also useful for interface strength investigations. It can be noted from Figure 6 that the Schmidt hammer index test is used on rock joints to register what may be a thin ‘skin’ of weathered rock with lower joint wall strength (JCS) than the ‘fresh’ rock uniaxial compressive strength σc. This index test can also be used with advantage on rockfill materials, if stones are suitably clamped when small enough to move under the impact of the spring-loaded ‘hammer’. Figure 8 The range of joint roughness profiles tested, and their JRC values, based on the peak shear strength of 130 rock joints. Note the characteristics (JRC, JCS, φr) of three example strength envelopes (Barton and Choubey, 1977). The units of JCS are (also) MPa 3 The shear strength of rockfill as measured Leps (1970) is responsible for assembling a significant number of large-scale triaxial shear test data for rockfills of various types. The interpreted peak effective friction angles as a function of the estimated effective normal stress are shown in Figure 9a. We can ‘fit’ familiar values of JRC and JCS for rock joints (Figure 9b) that closely match the stress-dependent friction angles that (also) describe the shear strength of rockfills. Mid-range JRC values (to correspond to an R-range of about 5 to 10, and low-to-high range JCS values (to correspond to an S-range of about 10 to 100 MPa) generated by medium weak to medium strong rock are seen to fit the test data. The more conventionally plotted shear stress versus effective stress curves for rockfill, shown in Figure 10 from Marsal (1973), also confirm the similarities of the peak shear strength of rock joints and rockfill. 8 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 7. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage Figure 9 Left: Assembly of peak shear strength data for rockfills, from Leps (1970). Right: Comparative JRC or R, and JCS or S values used to generate similar gradients to Leps 1970 data for rockfill. R = 5 to 10, and S = 10 to 100 MPa appear to cover the range of strengths assembled by Leps. Less compacted rock dump materials will tend to have lower ‘R-values’ than the ‘tightly-packed’ particles, since there will generally be less interlocking Figure 10 The peak shear strength envelopes for rockfill have remarkable similarity to those for medium rough, medium strength rock joints. Large-scale test data from Marsal (1973) Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 9
  • 8. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Figure 11 Large rock dumps are a familiar feature of mines in the Chilean Andes. Large-scale triaxial shear tests performed in Chile, with important results (black dots and Mohr circles) showing non-linear stress-dependent friction angles (Linero and Palma (2006), reproduced with kind permission) The large scale measurement of frictional strength of rock dump materials obtained from mines in the Chilean Andes shown in Figure 11 tend to further reinforce the idea of non-linear stress-dependent friction angles that are likely to apply to rock dumps in general (priv. comm., Sandra Linero, SRK). 10 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 9. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage Figure 12 The same non-linearity with effective stress level is seen in large-scale triaxial tests performed at NGI (Strøm, 1974, 1975, 1978), with particle size-dependence, rock strength dependence, and porosity effects also indicated For comparison, Figure 13 shows shear strength envelopes for rock joints that have been generated with the JRC-JCS model introduced in Figure 5. The strongly varying peak dilation angles, part of the reason for the non-linearity, are also shown on each envelope, except at lowest stress, where they may exceed 30°. Figure 13 Shear strength envelopes (and peak dilation angles) predicted for rock joints, using the JRC-JCS non-linear model of Figure 5. Rockfill generally lies between curves #2 and #3 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 11
  • 10. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton 4 Estimating the shear strength of rockfill As emphasised in all reports of rockfill shear strength, including Barton and Kjærnsli (1981), the degree of compaction and porosity achieved when building a dam or when preparing relevant laboratory samples is all important. The particle roughness and smoothness is also fundamental. Figure 14 illustrates an empirical scheme developed by the writer, for estimating the likely R-value for rockfills, whether for rounded gravels or for rough quarried rock. The high (relatively uncompacted) porosities in mining rock dumps clearly places such dumps in the middle-to right-hand areas of this diagram, and even sharp angular particles (relevant for waste rock, but perhaps not always for tailings) are unlikely to generate ‘R-values’ above 5 to 7, as also suggested in Figure 9. Figure 14 An empirical method for estimating the equivalent roughness R of rockfill as a function of porosity and particle origin, roundedness and smoothness. Barton and Kjærnsli (1981) As a result of the literature survey of numerous rockfill test data, Barton, 1980 and Barton and Kjærnsli, 1981 developed a simple strength factoring scheme for estimating S as a function of UCS (or σc), when particle size (d50) varied over a wide range. The points A and B in Figure 15 were used to illustrate S-value estimation for a rock with UCS = 150 MPa, when d50 was 23 mm (S ≈ 0.3x150 = 50 MPa) and when d50 was 240 mm (S ≈ 0.2x150 = 30 MPa), in the case of interpreting triaxial strength data. Note the higher factors apparently needed when planar (and large-scale) shear is involved. Friction angles are typically several 12 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 11. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage degrees higher (e.g. about 2° to 4°) when plane tests are compared with triaxial tests on the same material. There is noticeably less crushing of particles: hence the two empirical curves in Figure 15. Figure 15 Particle size strongly effects the strength of contacts points in rockfill. Triaxial or plane shear also influences behaviour. Empirical S/UCS reduction factors for estimating S when evaluating equation 3. 5 Interface shear strength Interface shear strength, as between a (too smooth) rock foundation and a rockfill dam, seems to be governed by the ‘weakest link’ rule. If the roughness JRC of the interface, registered by amplitude/length profiling, is too low in relation to particle size (d50), the interface strength is controlled by JRC, and sliding occurs along the interface, as along the bottom face of a rock joint. If on the other hand, the interface roughness is sufficient to give good interlock to the rockfill particles, sliding will occur preferentially within the rockfill, in an ‘R-controlled’ particle smoothness or roughness dependent manner, with influence also of the porosity. A schematic illustration of the interface problem, and (probable) relevant controlling parameters is shown in Figure 16. Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 13
  • 12. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Figure 16 Asperity contact across stressed rock joints, and rockfill inter-particle contact, and rockfill lying on a rock foundation, are each examples of point-contact stress levels that are probably close to compressive failure, when peak shear strength is approached. For this reason the three cases have many points in common, including similar non-linear shear strength envelopes The peak shear strengths for rock joints, rockfill and interfaces are respectively: Rock joints: τ = σ n tan ( JRC log JCS / σ n + φ r ) (2) Rockfill: τ = σ n tan (R log S / σ n + φ r ) (3) Interface: τ = σ n tan ( JRC log S / σ n + φ r ) (4) If the rockfill particles are not weaker than the rock foundation, as assumed in equation 4, then S > JCS, and the strength is determined by the weak foundation. In the case of rockfill or waste rock that is freshly blasted, the residual friction angle φr assumed, can (initially) be replaced by φb, which is usually a few degrees higher than the weathered value. Conservative, long-term design strength may nevertheless demand the use of φr for ‘permanent’ rock dumps and rockfill dams, as suggested in all three equations. 14 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 13. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage 5.1 R-controlled or JRC-controlled behaviour As indicated above, the relative magnitudes of the interface parameters, and their possible contrast to the shear strength of the rockfill, will determine whether the interface (if very rough) causes ‘R-controlled’ behaviour – meaning preferential failure through the rockfill, or ‘JRC-controlled’ behaviour, meaning preferential shear along the interface. A review of interface tests, performed by Barton (1980) in response to doubts about the strength of a glacially-smoothed dam foundation in Norway, resulted in the separation of performance identified in Figure 17. Figure 17 A review of interface shear tests was performed in response to concern over insufficient roughness for the rockfill dam foundation, in the glaciated mountain terrain in Norway. This review resulted in the JRC-R separation seen here. Squares and circles are data points derived from interpretation of relevant tests reported in the literature (Barton, 1980) Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 15
  • 14. Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock Joints, and their Points of Contact in Rock Dump Design N.R. Barton Figure 18 Simple demonstration of the differences between JRC-controlled and R-controlled behaviour, which can also be demonstrated by tilt testing Figure 19 The Svartevann dam in Norway has limited roughness in parts of its steep glaciated abutments. The a/L versus d50 ratios for this dam are not known however. These governing parameters were estimated for the Oddatjørn dam in another actually less glaciated location (Barton, 1980) 16 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia
  • 15. Geotechnical Issues – Strength, Stability and Seepage Conclusions • Rock joints, rockfill (and rock dumps), and interfaces between rock and rockfill have related geotechnical behaviour, because they have ‘points-of-contact’ in common. • The common denominator is very high rock-to-rock contact stress at the numerous points of contact. • The important geotechnical result is a shared tendency for very non-linear, stress-dependent shear strength. • It is therefore extremely likely that rock dumps of different heights will have widely different factors of safety – if formed with equal slope angles. References Barton, N. and Choubey, V. (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics 1/2:1-54. Vienna: Springer. Barton, N. (1980) Evaluation of shear strength in rockfill and between rockfills and rock foundations. NGI report 53101-2, 67 p. (In Norwegian). Barton, N. and Kjærnsli, B. (1981) Shear strength of rockfill. J. of the Geotech. Eng. Div., Proc. of ASCE, Vol. 107: GT7: 873-891. Proc. Paper 16374, July. Barton, N. (1999) General report concerning some 20th Century lessons and 21st Century challenges in applied rock mechanics, safety and control of the environment. Proc. of 9th ISRM Congress, Paris, 3: 1659-1679, Balkema, Netherlands. Leps, T.M. (1970) Review of the shearing strength of rockfill. J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol.96, No. SM4, Proc. Paper 7394, July 1970, 1159-1170. Linero, S. and Palma, C. (2006) Caracterización geotecnica de materiales estériles para diseño de depósitos mineros de gran altura. (Geotechnical characterization of rock materials for design of high rock dumps). Proc. of VI th South American Rock Mechanics Congress., Cartagena, Colombia. Marsal, R.J. (1973) Mechanical properties of rockfill. Embankment-Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, eds. Hirschfeld and Poulos, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 109-200. Strøm, E. (1974), (1975) and (1978) NGI internal reports on triaxial testing of rockfill for various dams in Norway. Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia 17
  • 16. 18 Rock Dumps 2008, Perth, Australia