See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322653100

Shear Strength of Rock Mass - Interpretation and Analysis

Conference Paper · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 4,432

1 author:

Hari Dev
Central Soil And Materials Research Station
41 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stresses in Rock Mass View project

Deformability of Rock Mass View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hari Dev on 23 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017

Shear Strength of Rock Mass - Interpretation and Analysis

Hari Dev
Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi

Abstract

Rock is a discontinuous, inhomogeneous, anisotropic and non-linearly elastic. The properties of rock mass
largely depend on the behaviour of discontinuities under various natural and induced stresses. Mechanical
properties of rock mass can be best represented by in-situ tests because of over estimation by laboratory tests. In
some cases like weak, fractured or sheared rock mass, the in-situ tests are the only option available. Shear
strength is one of the important parameters essentially required for the design of structures involving rock. This
paper discusses the importance of interpretation of in-situ shear test data for finalisation of shear strength
parameters of rock mass for the design of gravity dams in the light of some case histories.

1. Introduction:

Rock mass is defined as an aggregate of blocks separated by fractures (Goodman et al.,

1968). Strength of rock mass is mainly governed by the behaviour of these discontinuities
and planes of weakness. The discontinuities may or may not have infilling material. The
frequency of joints, their orientation with respect to the engineering structures and the
roughness of the joint have a significant impact on stability of rock structures. Shear strength
of rock mass is greatly influenced by the variation in strength of beddings and shearing takes
place along the weakest zone (Hari Dev et al. 2013). The effect of joint intensity on
engineering behaviour of rock mass has also been studied by various researchers (Goldstein
et al., 1966; Hayashi, 1966; Walker, 1971; Lama, 1974; Arora, 1987).

In-situ characterization of strength and deformation behaviour of rock mass is very important
for safe and economical design of structures involving rocks such as dams, bridge abutments,
tunnels, underground powerhouse etc. In some cases like weak, fractured or sheared rock
mass, the in-situ tests are the only option available. In-situ tests are used to measure the
primary and residual stresses; deformation properties; shear strength parameters; anchor
capacities and permeability characteristics of rock mass. These parameters help the designers
to carry out basic design and stability analysis of structures involving rock.

Selection of site, number of tests, care during site preparations, type of testing equipment,
accuracy of the testing equipment, normal load consideration, direction of loading as actually
anticipated, precision in testing, interpretation, consideration of the geological conditions are
some of the points which affect the final results to a large extent.
Above all, judgement and experience of the investigation team play a major role in realistic
assessment of rock properties.

2. Stability of Gravity Dams:

Gravity dams can fail in overturning, shear and tension. Gravity dams should primarily
satisfy the following stability criteria:

 Safety against sliding on any plane within the dam, at the base, or at any plane below
it (foundation).
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017
 Unit stresses in the concrete or masonry or in the foundation material should not
exceed the safe limits.

Shear strength parameters of rock mass is the basic parameter for design of dam foundations.
Though in-situ shear strength difficult to be measured and time consuming, it is very much
essential to verify the stability of water retaining structures. Shear strength parameters
comprise two components, viz. cohesion ‘c’ and friction angle ‘φ’. The interpretation of in-
situ shear strength though looks simple; is in fact very complex.

The gravity dams may fail in shear along any or combination of the following planes (Fig. 1):

1. Failure along concrete to rock interface

2. Failure along rock to rock interface
3. Failure along concrete joint
4. Composite failure along rock and concrete interfaces

In concrete gravity dams, major destabilising forces are horizontal and these are resisted by
frictional or shearing force along horizontal or nearly horizontal planes. These planes can be
either within the body of the dam or the foundation on which the dam is seated. As the
construction of dam is done in lifts, the joints between successive lifts may act as planes of
weakness. Shear failure is possible along these concrete joints or concrete to rock interface.
Similarly, weak rock joints/shear seems within the foundation rock mass may also act as
failure planes. Composite failure along the concrete to rock interface and weak rock joints is
also possible. The various possible modes of failure of concrete gravity dams in shear have
been described in Fig. 1:

Figure 1: Different modes of shear failure in concrete gravity dams

In gravity dams, weight of dam is the main resisting force, whereas the horizontal force due
to head of water is the prime force responsible for destabilization. Factor of safety (FOS)
against sliding can be evaluated from the following relationship:

𝜇.∑𝑉
FOS against sliding = (1)
∑𝐻

Where μ = co-efficient of friction between two surfaces

∑V = sum of vertical forces acting on dam
∑H = sum of horizontal forces acting on dam
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017

Hence, determination of shear strength parameters of concrete to rock and rock to rock
interfaces becomes essential. Further, geological variation in the foundation material also
needs to be suitably accounted for. Many a times, we do not get failure along the bedding
planes or rock joints as anticipated. In case of concrete blocks, it is not necessary to get
failure along the probable concrete to rock interface. In such cases, role of the interpretation
and experience comes into force.

3. Shear Strength of Rock:

The relationship between the peak shear strength (τ) and the normal stress (σ) can be
represented by the Mohr-Coulomb equation:

τ = σ tan φ + c (2)

where c is the cohesive strength of the shearing interface and ∅ is the angle of friction.

Barton (1973) suggested a criterion to estimate the peak shear strength by joint roughness
coefficient (JRC) and the joint wall strength (JCS), as functions of the normal stress.

Furthermore, Barton and Choubey (1977) replaced basic friction angle with residual friction
angle as it takes into account the influence of saturated and weathered fracture surface.
𝐽𝐶𝑆
𝜏 = 𝜎𝑛′ . tan[𝐽𝑅𝐶 . 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 + ∅𝑟𝑒𝑠 ] (3)
𝜎𝑛′
Where,

∅res is residual friction angle

The Hoek – Brown Strength Criterion Hoek and Brown (1980) represented the shear strength
of rock as a curved Mohr envelope and later new elements were introduced incorporating
practical problems (Hoek et al., 2002).

4. Case Studies:

Some typical case studies based on in-situ direct shear test on rock to rock and concrete to
rock interfaces (IS 7746:1991, ISRM: 2006) have been discussed in detail.

4.1 Case Study-1:

This case study is based on 8 shear tests, four each on rock to rock (R/R) and concrete to rock
interface (C/R) carried in quartz mica schist rock mass in middle Himalayas. In case of C/R
interface, in 3 out of 4 tests, shearing was observed below the C/R interface (Fig. 2a, 2b and
2c), i.e. along the rock joints. Thus, indicates that shear resistance along the interface of
concrete and rock is higher than within the rock. Hence, during interpretation, results from
these 3 C/R interface tests were analysed alongwith R/R interface data (Fig. 3a, 3b, 3c and
3d). Thus normal stress versus shear stress plot (Fig. 4) for seven tests (4 R/R and 3 C/R
interfaces) was drawn to determine critical shear strength parameters for design of concrete
gravity dam.
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017

a) b) c)
Figure 2: Shear failure in concrete to rock interface blocks

a) b) c) d)
Figure 3: Shear failure in rock to rock interface blocks

1.80
Peak Shear strength y = 1.6402x + 0.1386
1.60
Residual Shear Strength
R² = 0.8063
1.40
Linear (Peak Shear strength)
Shear Stress, MPa

1.20
Linear (Residual Shear
1.00 Strength)

0.80
y = 1.4623x + 0.034
0.60 R² = 0.7874
0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Normal stress, MPa
Figure 4: Normal stress versus shear stress plot

Thus considering the shear failure within the rock mass in all these seven blocks, shear
strength parameters were evaluated using linear regression method. The values of peak shear
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017
strength parameters viz. cohesion ‘c’ and friction angle ‘φ’ were recommended as 0.139 MPa
and 58.630, respectively whereas the corresponding values for residual shear strength were
found to be 0.034 MPa and 55.630, respectively.

4.2 Case Study 2:

This case study pertains to shear strength parameters of quartzo feldspathic gneiss. A total of
10 shear tests, 5 each on R/R and C/R interfaces were carried out. Photographs of the all the
inverted blocks after the test showing the failure pattern are given in Fig. 5.

Failure along Failure along

the foliation the foliation
plane plane

a. b. c. d. e.
Figure 5: Failure pattern in R/R Interface

Uniform pattern of shearing of rock blocks was not observed in all the tests. Failure in two
tests was observed along the foliation plane (Fig. 5a and 5b) whereas in remaining three tests,
key formation due to intersection of rock joints (Figs. 5c, 5d and 5e) was observed which
resulted into sliding of the block up on the asperities. Shear stress versus displacement plot as
shown in Fig. 6 indicates two different modes of failure. Shear stress was observed to be
lower than the normal stress in case of failure along the foliation plane whereas in other 3
tests the shear stress was much higher than normal stress (Fig. 7).

2.5
SHT-1 SHT-3 2.0
2.0 SHT-5 SHT-7
SHT-9 1.6
Shear Stress (MPa)

Shear Stress (MPa)

1.5
1.2

1.0
0.8

0.5 0.4 Peak

Residual
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Shear Displacement (mm) Normal Stress (MPa)
Figure 7: Shear stress - displacement plot Figure 7: Shear stress - normal stress plot
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017
However, failure in C/R interface was observed to be along the interface of concrete with
rock. Therefore, C/R interface test results were used for recommending the shear strength
parameters for use in design.

Analysis of data from all the five tests on R/R interface resulted in higher shear resistance
(for the given range of normal stress) as compared to C/R interface, and therefore, for rock to
rock interface also, it was recommended to adopt the shear strength parameters of concrete to
rock interface in the design.

Hence, cohesion ‘c’ and friction angle were recommended as ‘φ’ 0.10 MPa and 45.570,
respectively. Similarly, residual shear strength parameters ‘cr’ and friction angle ‘φ r’ were
found to be 0.03 MPa and 39.920, respectively.

4.3 Case Study 3:

Case study 3 pertains to shear strength parameters of phyllitic-quartzite and highly puckered
phyllite (dominance of highly jointed, clay filled) rock mass. The shear tests on concrete to
rock interface revealed that shearing has occurred along the weak foliation plane below the
C/R interface (Figs. 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d and 8e) similar to R/R interface shear tests (Figs. 9a, 9b,
9c, 9d and 9e). Such phenomenon may be observed in thinly foliated weak rocks or highly
fractured rocks.

a. b. c. d. e.
Figure 8: Shear failure in C/R interface blocks

a. b. c. d. e.
Figure 9: Shear failure in rock to rock interface blocks

The phenomenon was attributed to the fact that shear strength of foliation joint is lower than
C/R interface. Presence of saturated clay as joint infilling material seems to be another
probable cause behind this type of behaviour. Phyllite rock mass is stratified and there are
several parallel failure planes within the rock mass. Crushing/shearing through the asperities
has also been observed.
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017

Hence, it was decided to plot all the test results together and carry out the combined analysis
for interpretation of shear strength parameters of rock mass to be adopted for design purpose
(Fig. 10).

1.4

1.2

1.0
Shear Stress, MPa

0.8

0.6

0.4 Peak
Residual
0.2 Linear (Peak)
Linear (Residual)
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3
Normal Stress, MPa
Figure 10: Shear stress versus normal stress plot

Values of peak shear strength parameters for C/R interface viz. cohesion ‘c’ and friction
angle ‘φ’ were found as 0.306 MPa and 46.30, respectively whereas the corresponding values
of residual shear strength parameters i.e. ‘cr’ and friction angle ‘φ r’ were found to be 0.087
MPa and 40.60, respectively.

5. Conclusions:

Based on the above case studies, the following conclusions can be drawn:

In-situ tests best represent the properties of rock mass as these take into account the
discontinuities. Moreover, in-situ tests takes care the effect of other geological properties,
environmental conditions, direction of loading as envisaged etc. However, utmost care is
required during site preparations. The blocks need to be prepared using chisels and small
hammers or cutting devices so as keep it intact.

Since, gravity dams are liable to failure along weak rock joint or concrete to rock interface in
particular, direct shear tests on both R/R and C/R interfaces are essential for deciding the
critical shear strength parameters to be used in design.

Interpretation of data and experience plays a significant role in finalisation of shear strength
parameters due to variation in testing data. Each and every detail recorded during the field
tests like nature of shear failure, measuring the actual area under shear, photographs of the
inverted blocks, geological details including rock mass classification etc. helps in proper
interpretation.

References

Arora, V.K. (1987). Strength and deformation behavior of jointed rocks. PhD thesis, IIT
Delhi, India.
 Template for submitting research or professional paper for publication in
Journal of Engineering Geology/Proceedings of EGCON 2017
Barton, N.R., 1973. Review of a new shear-strength criterion for rock fractures. Engineering
geology, Vol. 7, Nr. 4, pp. 287-332.
Barton, N.R., Choubey, V., 1977. The shear strength of rock fractures in theory and practice.
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 10, pp. 1-54.
Goldstein, M., Goosev, B., Pyrogovsky, Tulinov, R., and Turovskaya A. (1966).
"Investigations of mechanical properties of cracked rock." Proc., 1st Congress of Society
of Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, I, 521-524.
Goodman, R.E., Talyor R.L., Brekke T.L., 1968. A model for the mechanics of fractured
rock. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 94, pp. 637-660.
Hari Dev, Rajbal Singh and J.K. Yachu (2013), “Shear Strength Parameters of Pyroclast Rock
Mass”, Indorock-2013, 29-31 May 2013, Solan, Himachal Pradesh
Hayashi, M., (1966). Strength and dilatancy of brittle jointed mass. The extreme stochastic
and anisotropic failure mechanism. Proc., 1st Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, I,
295-302.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock: London Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, UK, p. 527.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek–Brown failure criterion - 2002
edition. Procedure of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto,
Canada, Vol. 1, July 2002, pp. 267–273.
IS 7746 (1991): Indian Standard code of practice for In-situ Shear test on rock, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
ISRM (2006), “The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring: 1974-2006”, Edited by Reşat Ulusay and John A. Hudson
Lama, R.D. (1974). Uniaxial compressive strength of jointed rock. Institute of soil mechanics
and rock mechanics, P-Muller Festschrift. ed., Karlsruhe, Germany, 67- 77.
Walker, Orville C., Jr. (1971). The Effects of Learning on Bargaining Behaviors. In Fred C.
Alvine (ed.).1971 Combined Proceedings (pp. 194–199). Chicago: American Marketing
Association.

View publication stats