DILATANT EFFECTS OF ROCK JOINTS

Effets de la dilatance des joints dans la roche Dilatanzeffekte von Felskluften

by Francois E. Heuze, P.E., D.Eng. Associate Professor University of Colorado, Boulder

SUMMARY

This paper presents a new theory to predict the effects of joint dilation on the behavior of rock structures. These effects are: an increase in the shear stiffness of the joints, and, more importantly, an increase in the normal stress on the joint, when it is subjected to transverse restraint during shearing. Such a restraint will then increase considerably the shear strength of the joint. The new theory was incorporated in a finite element program developed by the author, and two examples of applications are given, to illustrate the great importance of modeling correctly dilatant joint effects. On presente une nouvelle theorie qui predit les effets de la dilatation des joints dans les masses rocheuses. Ces effets sont: une augmentation de la rigidite au cisaillement du joint, et, ce qui est plus important, une augmentation de la contrainte normale, lorsque Ie joint est soumis a une resistance transverse durant Ie cisaillement. Ceci a pour effet d'augmenter considerablement la resistance du joint. Cette nouvelle th~orie a ete incorpor~e dans un programme d'elements finis developpe par l'auteur. On donne deux examples qui demontrent l'importance extreme d'une representation correcte des effets dUs aux joints dilatants.

RESUME

INTRODUCTION The stability of rock structures is governed by the geometry of the structure, the morphology and mechanical properties of the rock mass made up of discontinuities and intervening rock blocks, the in-situ stress field, the external and internal loads such as due to water, and the support or reinforcement built in the rock mass . Structural analysis of such a many-parameter problem is best done by the finite element method. However, the finite element model used must include the most important aspects in the behavior of the rock mass. They are: non-linear behavior to peak strength, mode of failure,and post-peak residual properties in the solids and in the joints. The key features of the rock mass behaVior have been incorporated in the plane JRKDLT code (Heuze, 1978). In particular, we show the capability to model strain softening and dilatancy in the joints. A new model for joint behavior is presented. It accounts for variable peak shear strength , variable shear stiffness, and variable increase in normal joint stress, as a function of- the instantaneous dilation angle. Unlike any previous model, this one takes into account the stiffness of the structure transverse to the joint. In addition to the Sample problem shown, the program was also Used to study the stability of large rock caverns, in the Atlanta subway system in Georgia (PBQ&D Inc., 1977)

MODEL FOR SHEAR STRENGTH

OF JOINTS

Typical shear strength envelopes for natural rock joints are shown in figure 1. When joints are rough, they dilate and their peak strength envelope is distinct from the residual envelope. When joints are very smooth, or clay filled, their dilation may be insignificant and the peak and residual envelopes will be the same.

Figure

1: Typical Shear Strength Envelopes for Natural Rock Joints

169-

Even with rough joints, dilation can be prevented if the average normal joint stress is high enough to prevent overriding of the asperities. Then, the slope of the peak envelop, will become constant and equal to th~t of the residual envelope. At lower normal stress the slope is increasing with decreasing normal stresses. At zero normal stress the peak friction angle is maximum. It is made up of the residual friction angle and the initial dilation angle. Definitions define: residual are now in order. We will joint shear strength (positive)

OR -

t an ~

(5)

Equations (1) through (5) completely describe the shear strength of rock joints. Joints can also be given limited true cohesion and tensile strength if desired. Modeling it is trivial. MODEL FOR NORMAL STRESS INCREASE DILATANT JOINT UNDERGOING SHEAR ON A

Peak joint shear strength residual initial friction dilation angle angle

(at 0 - 0) angle; varies

A simple conceptual model of a rough (dilatant) joint undergoing shear in a transversely restrained mode is shown in figure 2. This could be a joint underground surrounded by adjacent rock,or it could be a joint in a rock slope which has been bolted across. In a rock slope without reinforcement, the effective transverse stiffness KNEFF would be negligible.

Clla + 60 instantaneous dilation with 0 critical normal stress there is no dilation apparent residual

beyond which of the

cohesion intercept envelope.

The conditions to be met by the peak strength envelope below P are to go through p at 0 Figure 2 Conceptual Model of a Dilatant Rock Joint Undergoing Shear to have a slope - tan Clla at p to have a slope - tan ~ A 3 parameter model is required to describe this curve when 0 < 0c' we will adopt (compression positive):
Tp - Ao

+ Bo

+ Co

(1) the 3 parameters KNEFF: KN

With the above. conditions, are found as

A - Tan CPp 3C* 2 (tan CPp - tan Clla) p B c c

- ..,. ocr dr .

6u 6v 60

-2C* tan CPp - tan C!1l P C - --g- + 2 c c The instantaneous from tan (~ dilation angle is found

stiffness of the adjacent structure transverse to the mean joint plane normal stiffness of the joint itself shear displacement along joint normal joint displacement (> 0 is opening) increase in normal joint stress due to 6u.

+ 6)

so
2 ATAN (A + 2Bo + 3C0 ) - C!1l when 0 > 0c the peak strength is simply
(3)

Assuming the joint to be bidilatant, the 60 is created by a positive 6v which compresses the KNEFF spring. But at the same time, the 60 tends to reclose the joint which has a finite KN. The equilibrium of 6v is thus expressed from dv - ~ with du + ~ do

(6)

(4)
And in the residual range
.tnd

av

au

_ tan 6

(7)

170-

(compression positive)

(8)

APPLICATION:

DIRg;T SHEAR TEST

do - KNEF.F dv Equations (6) to (9) yield do - tan & * KN.KNEFF * du KN+KNEFF

(9).

And with finite increments of shear displacements, we will adopt for the increase in normal joint stress
A

uO

an"

&

* KN*KNEFF KN+KNEFF * {).u

(10)

A direct shear box equipped with controlable KNEFF transverse stiffness, (Obert et aI, 1976) was idealized using the finite element model of figure 3. The joints are prestressed to an arbitrary normal stress before shearing. Two basic models are used; in the first the peak friction angle is taken as a flat 53 without proper recognition of the dilation effect (curves I in figures 5, 6, & 7 ); in the second the peak friction angle is made up of a residual friction of 43, plus 10 of dilation angle, with the corresponding strength and stiffness implications discussed previously (curves II in figures 5 , 6 , 7 ).

Obviously, as will be demonstrated in a subsequent section, this {).o increase will increase the peak shear strength. MODEL FOR SHEAR STIFFNESS OF DILATANT JOINTS Not only will dilatant joints experience an increase in normal stress but they will also appear to be stiffer than non dilatant ones of comparable friction angle. Referring to figure 1 again, the shear stress required to move the lower block is r - ~ * KS + {).v*KNEFF*sin 6 (11) cos 6 Where KS is the shear stiffness of a smooth surfac~ of the joint material. Note that KS/cos 6 can be obtained from a direct shear test with KNEFF - O. For the external observer the shear stiffness of the dilatant joint will be KS* - .!.().u

Stiffener

D-U--U
/
).

Rock

Rock

ROllers,

..
Joint Rock

Rock

(12)

void Stiffener void

Equations (9) through (12) thus yield the shear stiffness of dilatant joints as: KS * 1 [ 2 KN*KNEFFJ - cos26 KS + sin & * KN+KNEFF (13) Figure 3 Two-Dimensional Representation of a Shear Machine with Controllable Transverse Stiffness

In summary, equations (1) through (4), (10) and (12) provide the theory required to model properly the shear behavior of dilatant joints. All variables introduced can be determined experimentally or calculated numerically. In particular, an algorithm has been implemented in the JRCDLT code to calculate automatically the KNEFF across &very joint in a rock structure in a single iteration. The algorithm is based on the relaxation of a small excess normal stress in the joints, from a position of eqUilibrium. The new joint model will now be demonstrated on two different applications.

Figure 4 shows the stresses around the shear box at an intermediate step of shearing the dilatant joint. One can note that even this simple mechanical system has a complex stress distribution. However, the shear and normal stresses on the 2 joint elements were identical during the shearing process. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the results of the direct shear test. Firs~ it is shown (fig.5 ) how the normal stress increases on a dilatant joint during shear displacement. If 6 - 0, 0 does not change. This 0 increase is translated into a considerable increase in peak strength of the dilatant joint. The proper model shows a

171 -

x
x

---~

Tp 1MPal
Tp= 3.52

\'

-.....
~

"'I-..

\
'I-..

+
2

...

... "X

+
I

..I-

\
Figure 4

u [mm]

Stress Distribution in the Shear Machine of Fig. 3, During a Test

Figure 6 : Comparison of Peak Shear Strength, for a Dilatant (II) or a Non-Dilatant(I) Joint, with the Same Peak Friction Angle

a
3

(M Pa)

6 2

'"

With DlleUon Model

II 3 1
No Dlletlon Model

1 u (mm] u (mm)

o
Figure 7

Figure 5 : Variation in Normal Stress on a Dilatant (II) or Non-Dilatant (I) Joint During Shear

Change in the Dilation Angle of a Rock Joint During a Shear Test

172-

peak strength several times higher than what would be predicted on the basis of a flat increase in the friction angle. The decrease in 6, with increasing shear is described in'figure 7. Note that this indeed affects the shear stiffness,as shown by the changing slope in figure 6 APPLICATION: EXCAVATION OF A ROCK CAVERN

the total vertical closure of the cavern, figure 14. the factor of safety of a key bolt .(45) against shear, figure 15. The proper model, with dilation effects predicts smaller displacements. Hence observations made on the prototype should be compared to these predictions. Using a. non dilatant predictive model would not be a proper approach since it could accept as normal, deformations which would be over 100% of,what they should be. The dilatant model also shows, in figure 15, how the stability of the cavern is improved. A typical bolt shear factor of safety is improved by over 100%. SUMMARY A new capability has been developed for analyzing the stability of rock structures. It is shown why dilatant joint behavior in shear must be accounted for. The new model can be used for reinforced rock slopes as well as for underground caverns. REFERENCES
1.

The rock cavern shown on figure 8 was analyzed for sequential excavation and rock bolt reinforcement. Four steps of mining were used: Adit C, Adit B, Adit A and Bench. After'steps 1 and 2, 2 sets of bolts were installed. The stress distribution at the end of the 4 steps is shown in figures 9 to 12.

Barton, N.R., "Estimating the Shear Strength of Rock JOints", Proc. 3rd con~ress Int. Soc. for Rock Mechanics, v. , Denver, Colo. (1974). Goodman, R.E. and Dubois, J., "Duplication of Dilatancy in the Analysis of Jointed Rock", J. SM and F. Division, ASCE, v. 98, n. SM4, April (1972). Goodman, R. E., "Analysis in Jointed Rock", Chapter 11, in Fini te Elements in Geomechanics, Gudehus Ed., Wiley & Sons. (1917). Heuze, F.E. et al (1971) "Joint Perturbation and No-Tension Finite Element Solutions", Rock Mechanics, v. 3, n , 1 (1971). Heuze, F.E., "Design Optimization for Rock Caverns", Proc. 16th Sympos ium on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, Sept.
(197$) .

2.

3.

4.

5.

Figure 8 : Model of a Cavern Excavated Sequentially in Rock, and Reinforced with Long Bolts. The Joints are the Continuous Vertical and Horizontal Lines. The Cavern is 32m wide, at an Average Depth of 120 m. The four bolt sets are 50 mm wide. As 1n the direct shear test, a comparison is made between two models of peak joint friction In the first one, the peak joint frictionis ~ - 40 (curves I in figures 13 to 15); in the second one, the ~ is composed of ~ - 30 plus 60 - 10. The comparison between the two models 1s made in terms of: the vertical movement of a crown point (P), figure 13.

6.

Heuze, F.E., "JRCDLT: A Computer Program for Analysis of Structures in Jointed Rock", Unpublished Notes (1978). Ladanyi, B. and Archambault, G., "Simulation of Shear Behavior of a Jointed Rock Mass", Proc. 11th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, ASCE Ed. (1970). Obert, L. et aI, "The Effects of Normal Stiffness on the Shear Resistance of Rock", Rock Mechanics, v. 8, pp. 57-72, (1976).

7.

8.

173-

Figure

Excavation

Step 1 - Adit C

Figure 11

Excavation

Step 3 - Adits A,B,C

Figure

10

Excavation

Step 2 - Adits B,C

Figure 12

Excavation

Step 4 - Full Cavern

174-

VERTICAL

MOVEMENT POINT

P Imml

9.
10.

PBQ&D, San FranciSCO, Internal Document (1977). Roberds, W.J. and Einstein, H.H., "A General Purpose Elasto-ViscoPlastic Critical State Behavioral Model", MIT Research Report R77-8 to National Science Foundation (1977).

111

ZUSM1MENFASSUNG
C B
A

Figure 13

Vertical Point

Movement

of an Arch

CAVERN

CLOSURE Imml

20

No OIl.lIon Model

-,
'\
.
With OIl.Uon Model

Der Beitrag stellt eine neue Theorie zur Vorhersage der Effekte von Kluftdilatanz auf das Verhalten von Felsbauwerken vor. Diese Effekte sind: eine Zunahme der Schersteifigkeit der KIUfte und, wichtiger noch, eine Zunahme der Kluftnormalspannung, wenn wahrend des Schervorganges eine Querverspannung vorhanden ist. Letztere erhoht die Scherfestigkeit der Kluft wesentlich. Die neue Theorie wurde in ein Finite-ElementProgramm des Verfassers eingearbeitet; zwei Anwendungsbeispiele werden angefUhrt, urn die Wichtigkeit einer korrekten Modellierung der Effekte von Kluftdilatanz zu veranschaulichen.

10

c
Figure 14

BENCH

Total Vertical Cavern

Closure

of the

SHFAC BOLT 411

II 4

3 2

/' No OIl.Uon Model

BENCH

Figure 15

Shear Factor of Safety of a Key Bolt at a Major Joint Crossing

175-

Hors-texte

Photo SA Ufficio Ingegneria Maggia

Barrage de Palagnedra (Centovalli, Tessin). Galerie de derivation