www.MINEPORTAL.

in
(All Mining Solutions)

➢ ONLINE TEST SERIES FOR

• DGMS COAL/METAL FIRST & SECOND CLASS
• GATE MINING
• COAL INDIA EXAMS
• OTHER MINING EXAMS

➢ ONLINE ORDER MINING BOOKS AT GREAT DISCOUNT

➢ FREE STUDY MATERIAL

➢ WHATSAPP CHAT SUPPORT FOR MINING EXAMS & QUERY

RELATED TO MINING

VISITING SITE- www.MINEPORTAL.in fb- www.fb.com/mineportal.in

CALL/WHATSAPP- 8804777500 EMAIL- [email protected]

 ROCK DISCONTINUITIES

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Effect of Discontinuities on Rock Mass Properties
1.2 Classification of Discontinuities
1.3 Properties of Discontinuities

2. SAMPLING AND TESTING OF ROCK DISCONTINUITIES

2.1 Sampling
2.2 Testing for deformability and strength
2.3 Effect of boundary conditions

3. SHEAR STRENGTH CRITERIA FOR ROCK DISCONTINUITIES

3.1 Amonton's Law (1699)
3.2 Newland and Alleyly (1957)
3.3.Patton (1966)
3.4.Ladanyi and Archambault (1970)
3.5 Modified Ladanyi and Archambault Criterion (Saeb, 1990)
3.6 Barton and Choubey (1974)
3.7 Residual Shear Strength

4. SHEAR STRENGTH OF A FRACTURED ROCK MASS

5. EFFECT OF WATER ON JOINT SHEAR STRENGTH

6. HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF FRACTURES AND FRACTURED ROCK

6.1 Flow in a Single fracture
6.2 Flow in a Regularly Jointed Rock Mass

7. REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Effect of Discontinuities on Rock Mass Properties

Rock masses are far from being continua and consist essentially of two constituents: intact rock and
discontinuities (planes of weakness). The existence of one or several sets of discontinuities in a rock
mass creates anisotropy in its response to loading and unloading. Also, compared to intact rock,
jointed rock shows a higher permeability, reduced shear strength along the planes of discontinuity
and increased deformability and negligible tensile strength in directions normal to those planes.
Furthermore, discontinuities create scale effects. Finally, discontinuities form blocks by intersection
that can result in stability problems during surface or underground excavations.

With few exceptions, it is incorrect to ignore the presence of discontinuities when modeling rock
mass response to loading and unloading. Three approaches can be followed to account for the effect
of discontinuities on rock mass strength and deformability.

The first approach consists of empirically reducing the deformability and strength properties of rock
masses from those measured on intact rock samples in the laboratory. Rock mass modulus and
strength can be estimated in different ways. For instance, Bieniawski and Orr (1976), Bieniawski
(1978) and Serafim and Pereira (1983) proposed relationships between the modulus of deformation
of rock masses and their RMR ratings using the geomechanics classification system (Bieniawski,
1974, 1993). Based on an extensive literature review, Heuze (1980) concluded that the modulus of
deformation of rock masses ranges between 20 and 60 % of the modulus measured on intact rock
specimens in the laboratory. Hoek and Brown (1980b) proposed an empirical failure criterion for
rock masses containing two parameters m and s that are related to the degree of rock mass fracturing.
Empirical expressions have also been proposed between those parameters and the Rock Quality
Designation (RQD) and the RMR and Q ratings of Bieniawski (1974) and Barton et al. (1974).
Although still the most reliable, the empirical approach lacks a mechanistic basis.

A second approach consists of treating joints as discrete features (Goodman et al., 1968; Heuze and
Barbour, 1982). This is usually done in numerical methods such as the finite element, boundary
element and discrete element methods in which the complex response of joints to normal and shear
stresses can be introduced in an explicit manner. The main drawback of this approach is that only
rock masses with a limited amount of joints can be analyzed due to computer limitations.

The third approach is to treat jointed rock as an equivalent anisotropic continuum with deformability
and strength properties that are directional and also reflect the properties of intact rock and those of
the joint sets, i.e. orientation, spacing and normal and shear stiffnesses. The discontinuities are
characterized without reference to their specific locations. This approach was already discussed in
Lecture Notes 5.
1.2 Classification of Discontinuities

Planes of weakness in rock are formed through failure in extension/tension, shear or in more
complex failure modes that involve a combination of both. Failure surfaces formed in shear are
usually smooth with some gouge material whereas failure surfaces formed in extension are rough
and usually clean. Once formed, planes of weakness are more susceptible to weathering than the
intact rock.

The properties of planes of weakness that affect the engineering behavior of rock structures include:
(i) scale, frequency, continuity, density, spacing, (ii) roughness, type and degree of infilling,
moisture conditions, hardness and degree of weathering, (iii) mechanical properties (shear strength
and deformability) and hydraulic properties (permeability or conductivity) and, (iv) orientation.

Different terminologies are used by geologists, engineers and engineering geologists to describe the
different types of planes of weakness in rocks. The term "discontinuities" is often used as a
collective term for all structural breaks in geologic materials which usually have zero or low tensile
strength. The term "joint" is also used as a generic term by rock engineers to include such structural
breaks. The terminology and the descriptive criteria used here are those recommended by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation for engineering works (see Table 1).

Discontinuities can be separated into five groups: fractures, shears, faults, shear/fault zones and
shear/fault disturbed zones based on the mode of discontinuity movement and the scale of the
discontinuities. The fractures are themselves divided into several groups based on rock core
observation.

Note that joints often occur in sets. In each set, the joints have approximately the same orientation
and usually the same character. Rock masses can contain several joint sets and some of them may
be dominant. Several joint sets are frequent in igneous and metamorphic rock masses and can have
special patterns such as columnar joints formed during the cooling of lava beds or sheet joints that
are extension features resulting from the unloading near the free surfaces of massive rock masses.

1.3 Properties of Discontinuities

Fracture Frequency

Fracture frequency is defined as the number of natural fractures occurring within a base length or
core run. The number of fractures is divided by the length and is reported as number of fractures per
foot or fractures per meter. Fracture frequency is expressed as three fractures per meter or six
fractures per foot. The fracture frequency has been related to the Rock Quality Designation Index
(RQD) as follows (Priest and Hudson, 1976)

(1)
where 8 is defined as the number of fractures per meter determined on scanline surveys.

Fracture Density

A total of 10 descriptors are used to describe fracture density (see Table 1). The descriptors are
obtained by examining the core recovery lengths in boreholes.

Fracture Spacing

Fracture spacing corresponds to the shortest distance between two consecutive fractures. Care
should be taken to measure the true spacing instead of the apparent spacing. The difference is
illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b for a rock mass intersected by a single joint set. If the orientation of
the joints is known, true and apparent spacings are related.

For the geometry of Figure 1b, the apparent fracture frequency, F = 1/Sa, along the borehole, is
related to the joint set dip angle, ", and the joint set spacing, S, as follows

(2)

where f =1/S is the true fracture frequency measured in a direction perpendicular to the joint set.
This equation can be generalized to the case of a borehole oriented at any angle with respect to a
joint set of spacing S and of given orientation. Let n1, n2, n3 be the direction cosines of the normal
to a joint set and lh, mh, nh be the direction cosines of a unit vector parallel to the borehole axis. The
fracture frequency in the borehole direction is given by

(3)

Fracture Continuity

Discontinuities rarely cross entire rock masses and often terminates or branch and form bridges of
intact rock.

Fracture Openness, Infilling and Healing

The openness of a fracture and the type and amount of infilling material have an effect on its
hydraulic behavior and shear strength properties. Clean and tight fractures are usually less pervious
and have higher shear strengths than open and filled discontinuities. It is also important to
distinguish between the major types of fracture infilling. Brekke and Howard (1973) distinguished
seven different types of filling material that can result in several engineering problems during
underground excavation:
Figure 1. Difference between apparent and true fracture spacings for a rock mass cut by a single
joint set (a) Apparent spacing measured from ground survey, (b) Apparent spacing measured in a
borehole.
 C Epidote, quartz, calcite which tend to "weld" the discontinuity walls together. These minerals
can also be present without healing it;

C Clean discontinuities without filling or coatings;

C Calcite fillings may, especially when they are porous or flaky, dissolve during the lifetime of
a project. Thus, their contribution to the shear strength may disappear with time. Gypsum
fillings may behave the same way;

C Coatings or filings of chlorite, talc, graphite or serpentine make discontinuities very slippery
(i.e. low strength) when wet;

C Inactive clay material in seams and faults naturally represents a very weak material that may
squeeze or be washed out;

C Swelling clays may cause serious problems through free swell and consequent loss of strength,
or through considerable swelling pressure when confined;

C Material that has been altered to a more cohesionless material (sand-like) may run or flow into
the tunnel immediately following excavation.

Fracture Moisture Conditions

Flow in a rock mass is essentially along discontinuities. Different descriptors can be used to describe
the amount of water along discontinuities varying from dry conditions to continuous flow (in which
case the amount of water must be estimated).

Fracture Roughness

As for fracture openness and infilling, fracture roughness controls the shear strength of rock
discontinuities. Rough discontinuities have higher shear strength than smooth ones. Fracture
roughness can also be quantified using a Joint Roughness Coefficient Index (JRC) introduced by
Barton and Choubey (1977). The latter varies between 0 and 20 and is obtained by comparing the
discontinuity roughness profile to a series of reference profiles as shown in Figure 2.

Fracture Surface Hardness

Fracture surface hardness can be determined by conducting Schmidt Rebound Hammer Tests
directly on the surface of rock discontinuities. Comparison between hardness measurements on
different parts of a fracture surface can give an indication of the degree of surface weathering.

Shear and Fault Gauge Consistency

Figure 2. Roughness profiles and values of the JRC index as suggested by Barton and Choubey
(1977).
Discontinuity Orientation

Discontinuities are usually planar and their orientation can be defined by two angles (i) strike and
dip angles, or (ii) dip direction and dip angles. These angles are defined in Figure 3a.

C Strike - the compass direction of a line formed by the intersection of a horizontal plane and an
inclined geologic plane such as a fault, fracture, joint, etc.. Because it is a compass direction, the
strike is usually expressed relative to North or South. Hence, strike is expressed as "North (or
South) so many degrees East" or "North (or South) so many degrees West"

C Dip - the angle between a horizontal plane and the plane of interest. As shown in Figure
3a, a thin stream of water poured on an inclined surface always runs down parallel to dip. The
inclination of the water line down from the horizontal plane is called the (true) dip angle.
The true dip angle is always measured perpendicular to the strike line.

C Dip Direction - The angle between North and the direction that the water runs down an
inclined geologic plane. It is measured clockwise and varies between 0 and 360°.

C Apparent Dip - The inclination angle of a line on an inclined geologic plane measured in a
direction oblique to the strike direction (Figure 3b). It varies between the true dip and 0°.

The orientation of a plane is shown on maps using a T-shaped symbol (Figure 3a); the long line of
the symbol indicates the strike direction, and the short line shows the dip direction.

Strength and Deformability

Of particular interest when modeling the mechanical response of rock masses is the shear strength
of rock discontinuities, and their deformability in the shear and normal directions (see Section 3).

2. SAMPLING AND TESTING OF ROCK DISCONTINUITIES

2.1 Sampling

The goal is to obtain samples of rock joints that are the least disturbed by the process of sampling.
The different methods that can be used for sampling joints for laboratory testing are summarized in
Figure 4 and consist of:

C oriented drilling of natural fractures (Figure 4a);

C integral sampling of natural fractures as proposed by Rocha and Franciss (1977) (Figure 4b);
C block cutting of natural fractures (Figure 4c);
C artificial joints produced by wire sawing or Brazilian splitting (Figure 4d);
C molding of fracture surface and replicas using plaster, sulfur or cement (Figure 4e).
Figure 3. (a) Block diagram showing the strike, dip and dip direction angles of a geologic plane
(after Hozik et al., 1996) (b) Definition of the apparent dip Ra in a direction " with respect to the
strike line (after Goodman, 1993).
Figure 4. Methods used in the sampling of fractures.
2.2 Testing for Deformability and Strength

Normal Deformation of Rock Fractures

Rock fractures tend to close under compressive loading with a non-linear load displacement
response curve. The amount of normal displacement is also controlled by the degree of fracture
unmating or mismatching. In general, an unmated joint is more deformable than a mated one. The
difference in normal behavior is illustrated in Figure 5 using experimental results adapted from
Goodman (1976) where the normal stress normal displacement curves are shown for an intact rock
specimen, a rock
specimen with a mated fracture and a mated specimen with an unmated fracture. The slope of the
normal stress vs. displacement curve is called the normal stiffness. It is expressed in units of stress
per length such as MPa/m or psi/in. Note that the normal stiffness of a fracture is not constant but
increases with the normal stress level.

Joint Shear Deformation and Dilatancy

The shear response of rock fracture is usually obtained by using a direct shear machine or shear box
such as that shown in Figure 6. The two halves of a fracture are cast in two platens using plaster,
sulfur or other molding compounds. A normal load, N, is applied across the horizontal fracture. A
shear load, T, is then applied and the fracture shear displacement and normal displacement are
recorded. At the end of the shear test, a larger normal load is applied and the test is repeated.

The normal and shear load are usually expressed in terms of normal and shear stresses by dividing
N and T by the total area of the joint (area of a mean plane passing through the hills and over the
valleys of the fracture surface). The shear stress and normal displacement are usually plotted versus
the horizontal shear displacement. Figure 7a shows the shear stress vs. displacement and normal
displacement vs. shear displacement (dilation response) of a tension fracture(joint) tested by Barton
(1976).

The shear stress vs. displacement curve in Figure 7a shows pre-peak, peak and post-peak regions.
As shearing takes place, the fracture contracts first and dilates with a maximum rate of dilation at
the peak shear strength. The actual response curves in Figure 7a have been idealized in Figure 7b.
The slope of the pre-peak region is defined as the unit shear stiffness ks and (Jp, up) and (Jr, ur) are
the shear stress and displacement components for the peak and residual conditions, respectively.

In general, the shear stiffness, the peak and residual shear strengths vary with the normal stress. Two
models of variation of these quantities with the normal stress are shown in Figure 8a and 8b,
respectively. In Figure 8a, the shear stiffness is constant whereas in Figure 8b, the shear stiffness
increases with the normal stress. Criteria have been proposed to model the variation of the peak and
residual shear strengths with the normal stress.
Figure 5. Normal stress normal displacement curves for an intact rock specimen, a rock specimen
with a mated fracture and a rock specimen with an unmated fracture (after Goodman, 1976).
.

Figure 6. Direct shear box.

Figure 7. (a) Typical results of direct shear tests on a tension fracture (after Barton (1976)). (b)
Idealized shear stress vs. shear displacement and dilatancy curves.
Figure 8. Shear stress vs. shear displacement models (a) Constant stiffness model, (b) Constant
displacement model (after Goodman, 1976).
The shear response of rock fractures can also be determined by conducting triaxial tests on rock
cores containing a joint inclined at an angle to the core axis (Figure 9a). Under an axisymmetric state
of stress F1 and F2 = F3 = p, the normal and shear stresses acting across a joint inclined at an angle
* to F1 are equal to

(4)

For a constant confining stress F3 = p, an increase in F1 results in an increase in both Fn and J. The
corresponding stress path in the (Fn, J) space of Figure 9b is linear and extends until slip along the
joint takes place. Experiments can be repeated for different values of the confining pressure p. This
test is sometimes called a multistage triaxial test.

Figure 9. Multistage triaxial testing of a jointed rock specimen.

2.3 Effect of Boundary Conditions

Rock joints can be subject to different types of boundary conditions in the field ranging from
constant normal stress to constant normal displacement (see Figure 10). Joint shear strength depends
on the nature of those boundary conditions.

Methods to predict the shear behavior of rock joints under different conditions from the results of
direct shear tests under constant normal stress can be found in Goodman (1989) and Saeb and
Amadei (1992). In general, the shear strength of a joint under constant stiffness or displacement
boundary conditions is higher than its shear strength under constant normal stress.

Figure 10. Range of boundary conditions across a joint surface.

3. SHEAR STRENGTH CRITERIA FOR ROCK DISCONTINUITIES

A number of criteria have been proposed to describe the variation of the peak shear strength with
the applied normal stress. Similar criteria are also used for the residual shear strength.

3.1 Amonton's Law (1699)

For a surface, the frictional resistance is proportional to the applied normal load and independent
on the apparent area of contact. In terms of stresses

(5)

where : = tanN is the coefficient of friction and N is the friction angle. A cohesion, cj, can be added
to the shear strength.

3.2 Newland and Alleyly (1957)

For rough surfaces, and assuming that the sliding surface consists of a series of sawtooth
irregularities with an average angle i (see Figure 11), equation (5) is replaced by the following

(6)

3.3. Patton (1966)

A bilinear model was proposed for rough surfaces that accounts for two phenomena that have been
observed experimentally: (i) overriding of asperities at low normal stress levels and (ii) shearing
through asperities at higher normal stress levels.

(7)

where Nr, N:, cj and i are defined in Figure 12. For most practical purposes, Nr = N:.

3.4. Ladanyi and Archambault (1970)

(8)
Figure 11. Shearing along a sawtooth surface.

Figure 12. Patton's shear strength criterion.

where as and !v are the proportion of total joint area sheared through the asperities and the rate of
dilatancy at the peak shear strength, respectively. Both quantities are normal stress dependent and
are such that

(9)

where k1 and k2 are empirical constants with suggested values of 1.5 and 4, respectively and FT is
a transitional stress. The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock can be taken as an estimate
to FT. In equation (8), sr is the shear strength of the rock comprising the asperities. It can be
described by any of the intact rock strength criteria discussed in Lecture Notes 8.

3.5 Modified Ladanyi and Archambault Criterion (Saeb, 1990)

(10)

This criterion emphasizes the simultaneous contribution of shearing and sliding to the shear strength
of a rock joint. In equation (10), as is the proportion of joint surface area sheared through the
asperities and (1-as) is the proportion on which sliding occurs. In view of equation (9), the relative
contribution of shearing and sliding depends on the level of normal stress. At low normal stresses,
sliding is dominant; at high normal stresses asperity shearing is dominant.

3.6 Barton and Choubey (1974)

(11)

where JRC is the joint roughness coefficient (see Figure 2), JCS is the joint wall compressive
strength, and Nb is the basic friction angle (also equal to N: ). Examples of applications of this
criterion are shown in Figure 13. Note that this criterion is very popular in practical rock
engineering.

3.7 Residual Shear Strength

Goodman (1976) proposed the following model for the variation of the residual shear strength with
the normal stress
Figure 13. Examples of application of the Barton and Choubey criterion.
 (12)

where Bo is the ratio of peak to residual shear strength at zero (or very low) normal stress.

4. SHEAR STRENGTH OF A FRACTURED ROCK MASS

Consider an element of a regularly jointed rock mass as shown in Figure 14a. The element consists
of intact rock and a joint plane and is subject to an axisymmetric and compressive state of stress (F1,
F3). The joint plane is inclined at an angle * with respect to the direction of F1. The shear strength
of the joint is defined by the following Coulomb criterion with zero cohesion, e.g.

(13)

Substituting the expression for Fn and J given by equation (4) into equation (13) gives the following
expression for the joint shear strength in terms of F1 and F3

(14)

The intact rock shear strength is assumed to be described by a Mohr Coulomb criterion with friction
angle N and cohesion So. It can be expressed in terms of principal stresses as follows (see Lecture
Notes 8)

(15)

with

(16)

Equations (14) and (15) have been plotted on the same diagram (F1/Co vs. *) in Figure 14b for N =
40°, So = 5 MPa, Nj = 30° and for different values of the ratio F3/Co. It can be seen that for values
of the orientation angle * ranging essentially between 15 and 45°, slip along the joints takes place

CVEN 5768 - Lecture Notes 10 Page 22

© B. Amadei
Figure 14. (a) Regularly jointed rock mass subject to an axisymmetric state of stress F1, F3. (b)
Variation of F1/Co with * showing joint strength for different values of F3/Co. The intact rock
strength is shown as a series of horizontal lines.
before the intact rock strength is mobilized. On the other hand, for small and large values of *, the
shear strength of the rock mass is controlled by the intact rock. The rock mass shear strength reaches
a minimum when * = 45°- Nj/2 = 30°.

The reduction in shear strength associated with a single joint set and illustrated in Figure 14b can
be generalized for the case of multiple discontinuities as shown in Figure 15. Although the
superposition principle is not correct when dealing with discontinuities, Figure 15 indicates that as
the rock is cut by more and more joint sets, it behaves more like an isotropic "soil" with a uniform
strength which is much less than the intact rock strength.

Figure 15. Strength curves for rock specimens with multiple discontinuities (after Hoek and Brown,
1980a).

5. EFFECT OF WATER ON JOINT SHEAR STRENGTH

Consider a dry joint with the orientation and the loading shown in Figure 14a. The joint has a shear
strength defined by a Coulomb criterion with cohesion cj and friction angle Nj. The joint is assumed
to be stable under the applied state of stress. We propose to find the water pressure, pw, necessary
to create slip along the joint. This can be done graphically using Mohr circles as shown in Figure
16 or analytically by replacing F1 and F3 in equation (14) by F1 - pw + H and F3 - pw + H, respectively
with H = cj/tan Nj. The resulting equation is then solved for pw.
Figure 16. Slip along a joint due to an increase in water pressure.
6. HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF FRACTURES AND FRACTURED ROCK

Compared to intact rock, fractured rock masses are more pervious since fractures create preferred
channels of water flow.

6.1 Flow in a Single Fracture

For hydraulic purpose, a fracture is often modeled as two parallel plates with a uniform aperture b.
In the field, this aperture is indeed an average aperture obtained by drawing two mean surfaces
passing through hills and over valleys of the fracture surfaces. Using fluid mechanics, it can be
shown that water flow between two parallel plates can be expressed using an equation very much
similar to Darcy' law for intact rock, that is

(17)

where v is the average velocity, i is the gradient of flow and K is a "permeability" coefficient (or
hydraulic conductivity) that can be expressed as follows

(18)

where b is the average aperture, g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 or 32.2 ft/s2) and <
is the kinematic viscosity of water (1.3 x 10-6 m2/s or 14 x 10-6 ft2/s at 20 C°). Note that K has the
dimensions of velocity.

Substituting the numerical values of g and < into equation (18) gives K = 0.192 x 106 x b2 in ft/s
with b expressed in ft. For instance, a smooth fracture with an aperture of b = 0.04 in (1.02 mm) will
have a conductivity of 2.13 ft/s (65 cm/s) which is several order of magnitude that for intact rock.

Fracture conductivity can be measured in the laboratory using the same radial permeability apparatus
used in the determination of intact rock permeability (see Lecture Notes 4). Corrections factors have
been proposed by Louis (1969) to account for the effect of micro and macro surface roughness on
fracture flow. Equation (18) is replaced by

(19)

In this equation, b is the average crack aperture and > is the degree of crack separation. The latter
varies between 0 and 1 and is defined as the ratio between the open area of the crack and its total
area. In equation (19), C is an empirical coefficient that depends on the relative roughness of the
crack walls. The relative roughness is the ratio between the absolute roughness k (average height
of crack wall asperities) and the hydraulic diameter Dh equal to 2b for a crack of rectangular cross
section. The relative roughness varies between 0 (smooth) and 0.5 (very rough).

The coefficient C in equation (19) has been determined experimentally by Louis (1969) and is such
that C = 1 when k/Dh < 0.033 and C = 1 + (k/Dh)1.5 when k/Dh > 0.033. Note that equations (17)-(19)
are only valid when flow in the crack is non-turbulent (laminar). For turbulent flow, more complex
equations have been proposed (see Louis, 1969 and Amadei et al., 1995).

6.2 Flow in a Regularly Jointed Rock Mass

The effect of fractures on flow in a rock mass can be taken into account by using three approaches
as for rock mass deformability and strength.

The first approach consists of increasing the rock mass deformability from that measured on intact
rock samples in the laboratory. The second approach consists of treating each discontinuity in the
rock mass as a discrete feature with a permeability given by equation (18). The third approach is to
replace the fractured rock mass by an equivalent rock mass (porous medium) with anisotropic
permeability properties. This approach is especially attractive when modeling regional groundwater
flow where the problem domain may be very large.

Consider for instance the geometry of Figure 17a where a rock mass is cut by a joint set with spacing
S. The joints have same aperture b. The intact rock permeability is Km and the joint permeability Kj
is given by equation (18). The regularly jointed rock mass can be replaced by an equivalent porous
medium (Figure 17b) with permeability Kz = Km in directions normal to the joint planes and
permeability K2 = Km + Kjb/S in directions parallel to the joint planes. This approach has been
generalized to more than one joint sets by several authors such as Snow (1969), Serafim and del
Campo (1965) and Rocha and Francis (1977).
Figure 17. Flow in a regularly jointed rock mass cut by a single joint set.
7. REFERENCES

Amadei, B., Carlier, J-F. and Illangasekare, T. (1995) Effect of turbulence on fracture flow and
advective transport of solutes, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 32, pp. 343-356.

Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design
of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics, 6 (4), pp. 189-236.

Barton, N. (1976) Rock mechanics review, the shear strength of rock and rock joints, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 13, pp. 255-279.

Barton, N and Choubey, V. (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice, Rock
Mechanics, 10, pp. 1-54.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1978) Determining rock mass deformability: Experience from case histories, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 15, No.5, pp. 237-248.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1993) Classification of rock masses for engineering: the RMR system and future
trends", in Comprehensive Rock Engineering (J.A. Hudson ed.), Pergamon, Vol. 3, pp. 553-73.

Bieniawski, Z.T. and Orr, C.M. (1976) Rapid site appraisal for dam foundations by the
geomechanics classification, Proc. 12th Int. Cong. on Large Dams, Mexico, pp. 483-501.

Brekke, T.L. and Howard, T.R. (1973) Functional classification of gouge material from seams and
faults as related to stability problems in underground openings, Report from Univ. of Cal. to U.S.
B. Mines (AD-766-046).

Goodman, R.E. (1976) Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rocks, West

Publishing, St.Paul, Minnesota.

Goodman, R.E. (1989) Introduction to Rock Mechanics, Wiley.

Goodman, R.E. (1993) Engineering Geology, Wiley.

Goodman, R.E., Taylor, R.L. and Brekke, T.L. (1968) A model for the mechanics of jointed rock,
ASCE J. Soil Mech. Fnd. Div., 94, SM3, pp. 637-659.

Heuze, F.E. and Barbour, T.G. (1982) New models for rock joints and interfaces. ASCE J. Geotech.
Div., 108, GT5, pp. 757-776.

Heuze, F.E. (1980) Scale effects in the determination of rock mass strength and deformability, Rock
Mechanics, Vol. 12, pp.167-192.
Hoek, E and Brown, E. T. (1980a) Underground Excavations in Rock, Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London.

Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980b) Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. ASCE J. Geotech.
Eng., 106, 1013-1035.

Hozik, M.J. et al. (1996) Structural Geology, in Laboratory Manual of Physical Geology, Prentice
Hall, pp. 261-272.

Ladanyi, B. and Archambault, G. (1970) Simulation of the shear behavior of a jointed rock mass,
Proc. 11th. U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, pp. 105 - 125.

Louis, C. (1969) A Study of groundwater flow in jointed rock and its influence on the stability of
rock masses, Rock Mech. Research Report, Imperial College, London, U.K.

Patton, F.D. (1966) Multiple modes of shear failure in rock, Proc. 1st. ISRM Cong., Vol 1, pp. 509-
513.

Priest, S.D. and Hudson, J.A. (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 13, pp. 135-148.

Rocha, M. and Franciss, F. (1977) Determination of permeability in anisotropic rock masses from
integral samples. Rock Mechanics, 9, pp. 67-94.

Saeb, S. and Amadei, B. (1992) Modelling rock joints under shear and normal loading, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 267-278.

Serafim, J.L. and Pereira, J.P. (1983) Considerations of the geomechanics classification of
Bieniawski, Proc. Int. Symp. on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC,
Lisbon, Portugal, vol .1, pp. II.33-II.42.

Serafim, J.L. and del Campo, A. (1968) Interstitial pressures in rock foundations of dams, ASCE J.
Soil Mech. Foundations Div., 91, pp. 65-85.

Snow, D.T. (1968) Rock fracture spacings, openings and porosities, ASCE J. Soil Mech.
Foundations Div., 94, pp. 73-92.