26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics / Rapid City, SD / 26-28 June 1985

Constitutive modeling of rock joints with dilation

MICHAEL E.PLESHA
Department of Engineering Mechanics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA
1. INTRODUCTION
The static and dynamic response of a Jointed rock mass is controlled
in large part by the behavior of discontinuities consisting of
joints, fractures and planes of weakness. A considerable amount of
interest has been given to the development of numerical models
employing finite element and discrete element idealizations for such
media. The majority of these models, however, have employed an
ideal, nondilatant Coulomb type friction idealization and while they
have been extremely useful for many purposes, it is well known that
natural rock Joints are rough and the dilatancy they exhibit is an
important phenomenon which probably should not be neglected.
Rock joints are inherently rough and due to the natural processes
of cracking and perhaps mineral deposition involved in their crea-
tion, contact frequently takes place over a relatively large portion
of the available contact surface. This roughness and close initial
mating gives rise to the phenomenon of dilatancy: the tendancy of
two contacting bodies to separate during relative tangential motion
due to the sliding of asperity surfaces of one body on those of the
other. When this increase in contact surface volume is constrained
or partially constrained, as is the case in any compliant rock mass
or laboratory testing apparatus, the phenomenon of dilatancy mani-
fests itself through increasing normal compressive stresses which in
turn, can substantially increase a Joint's resistance to additional
slip. Thus, dilatancy can serve as an important stabilizing effect.
However, the asperity surfaces which are responsible for the
dilatancy have finite strength and if sufficiently stressed, will
degrade and affect a change in the subsequent joint behavior.
Quantitative description of dilatancy is complex and a number of
models have been developed. Patton (1966) proposed a model con-
sisting of an interface with asperity teeth oriented at an angle with
respect to the mean plane of the Joint. For "low" compressire
stresses, the model behavior is characterized by dilatancy and the
overriding of asperities. For "high" stresses, the model behavior is
characterized by shearing through asperities. A similar model was
proposed by Jaeger (1971) which featured a smooth transition from
asperity overriding to asperity shearing behavior and Ladanyi and
Archambault (1970) developed s model with an asperity strength.
Barton (1973) proposed an empirical model based on a Joint roughness
coefficient. Ghaboussi, Wilson and Isenberg (1973) and Roberds and
387
Einstein (178) developed models by considering elastic-plastic
deformations of a joint and Goodman (1976) developed a model by
idealizing an interface to consist of nonlinear springs.
The Patton, Jaeger and Ladanyi and Archambault models explain the
phenomonology of Joint behavior in that they describe the shape of
the failure envelope. These models however, do not account for pre-
sliding behavior and explicit relationships between increments of
stress and deformation, which are necessary for a constitutive law to
be Implementable in a general numerical procedure, are not obtain-
able. The Barton model is a useful empirical tool for shear strength
criteria, however, an explicit relationship between stress and
deformation is also unobtainable. The Ghaboussi, Wilson and Isenberg
model and the Roberds and Einstein model are significant advances in
Joint constitutive models in that they describe the underlying, or
microstructural behavior of rock Joints including presliding elastic
behavior and postsliding plastic behavior. The Roberds and Einstein
model is rather complex and it is not clear if a relation between
increments of stress and deformation is obtainable while Ghaboussi,
Wilson and Isenberg present such an incremental relation although
they employed an associated plastic flow rule which may improperly
predict the amount of dilatancy since friction is, in general, non-
associated and only under special circumstances becomes associated;
see Drucker (1954) and Hichalowski and Hrz (1978).
In this paper we will develop a constitutive law for dilatant rock
Joints by employing a formulation analogous to that employed in the
theory of plasticity in which interface deformations are assumed to
consist of recoverable elastic parts and nonrecoverable plastic
parts. Thus the law is motivated by the same approach employed by
Ghaboussi, Wilson and Isenberg {1973) and Roberds and Einstein (1978)
and will utilize concepts introduced in the original work by
Fredriksson (1976) and Hichalowski and HrSz (1978). In section 2,
the general framework for a plasticity-type theory for rock Joints is
presented and as an example, the relation is specialized for a smooth
planar rock Joint with Coulomb friction. In section 3, the theory is
further embellished to model the behavior of rough rock Joints with
dilatancy and asperity surface degradation (asperity shearing) and a
numerical example of a direct shear test is given.
2. JOINT CONSTITUTIVEHODEL
We consider the model 2-dimensional rock Joint shown in Fig. 1 con-
sisting of a planar macroscopic contact surface with coordinates t
and n oriented tangential and normal, respectively, to the plane of
the interface; it is understood that the interface may have addi-
tional microstructural features, such as asperity surfaces, which are
not shown. It is assumed that the interface contains an infini-
tesimally thin layer of an elasto-plastic material so that the rela-
tive tangential and normal deformation increments, dg t and dgn,
respectively, between the two contacting continua are additively com-
posed of recoverable elastic parts and nonrecoverable plastic parts
where the superscripts e and p denote the elastic and plastic
parts of the relative deformation and a subscript denotes a vector
388
n
Figure 1. Rock Joint Model
component; sumation is implied for repeated indices.
In the model envisaged, elastic deformations are accompanied by
changes of stress and plastic deformations correspond to pranent
sliding and perhaps other features, such as dilatancy. Thus,
changes of stress will be related to changes of deformation by the
linear-elastic constitutive law
do i - Eij dgj (2.2)
where lij are the Joint stillnesses. Etn and Ent must be
zero because of the symmetry of deformation for both positive and
e
negative dg t and E and E are measureable and numerous values tt nn
have been reported in the literature.
The permanent Joint deformations which can arise from sliding and
dilatancy are given by the following plastic potential flow rule
o if F(E,g) < O}
~ dg -
if F(o,g) - 0
901 ~ ~
(2.3)
where F is a slip function which is negative for elastic behavior
and attains the value zero when slip is imtnent; values of F ) 0
are not possible, G is the slip potential whose gradient specifies
the direction of the peranent deformation and is a nonnegative
scalar which gives the magnitude of the slip.
When F and G are the same, the friction is "associated" and
when F and G are different, the friction is "nonassociated".
Drucker (1954) and Mtchalowski and Mraz (1978), among others, have
shown that the use of an associated flow rule requires that con-
tacting surfaces experience, at the onset of sliding, a normal
separation (dilatancy) which is not physically realistic for smooth
planar contact problems. Furthermore, for contact problems which
exhibit dilatancy, such as in rough rock Joints, the amount of dila-
tancy predicted by an associated flow rule is independent of physical
parameters such as the asperity surface angle and hence cannot be
correct. Only under the special circumstance of two surfaces
separated by a thick seam of a plastic material can the use of an
associated flow rule realistically model dtlatancy; in this case, the
dtlatancy which is modeled is attributable to the plastic behavior of
the Joint filler material rather than to the interaction of asperity
surfaces.
389
In the sequel, we will restrict attention to slip, or yield func-
tions F which are functions of stress and we will furthermore
assume that any hardening or softening behavior due to effects such
as for example, asperity surface degradation are strictly a function
of the plastic tangential work, W, where the increment of the plas-
tic tangential work is dW p - e dg p. If slip is i--,inent, then F -
O, and if at the next instEnt i tme the interface remains critical,
then dF - 0 which can be written as
(2.4)
Combining equations (2.1) through (2.4) and eliminating k provides
the following increental constitutive relation
aF
{ 9e Epq dgq }
_ p O
de i - Etj dgj aF $O ae--
$e Epq $e - H
P q
(2.s)
where the hardening parameter H is given by
aF aG
H - $vPtt aat a t (2.6)
If there is no hardening or softening behavior due to changing fric-
tional characteristics or asperity degradation, then H = O.
We wish to ephasize that equation (2.5) is an explicit rela-
tionship for determining increments of stress and/or deformation.
Furthermore, when expressed in matmrix form, e.g., d = ep dg,
it is convenient for use in finite element and discretelement
numerical procedures.
Example
As an example illustrating some of the concepts presented here in the
simplest possible setting, we will specialize equation (2.5) for a
smooth planar interface sliding with Coulomb friction with no hard-
ening or softening behavior. In such an interface, the tangential
stress ust satisfy the inequality
letl g - pe (2.7)
where p is the friction coefficient and we are using the convention
that a compresslye stress is negative. Corresponding to this equa-
tion is the slip condition
2 1/2
= (e t) + pe n (2.8)
39O
When F is negative, the behavior is elastic and when F is zero,
slip can ensue. The slip potential, G, whose gradient specifies the
direction of the plastic slip, was given by Nichalowski and Nr6z
(1978) as
1/2
+ constant (2.9)
Substituing equations (2.8) and (2.9) into (2.5) results in
do t - -p EnSgn(o t) dg n (2.10)
do n - E n dg n (2.11)
where sgn(o t) denotes the sign of v t . Equation (2.11) is the
proper linear relation between increments of normal stress and incre-
ments of normal displacement. In equation (2.10), Endg n represents
the normal stress increment and when multiplied by p, represents the
available increase in tangential stress; the sgn(o t) term assures
that the increment has the appropriate sign.
3. FRICTION LAWS WITH DILATION
To account for phenomena such as dilation and asperity shearing, we
will further detail the model contact problem shon in Fig. 1 with
microstructural features consisting of Patton-type asperity surfaces
which degrade; see Fig. 2. Sliding can be active on either asperity
surface I with asperity angle a 1 and mean length L 1 or asperity
surface 2 with asperity angle e 2 and mean length L 2. In this paper,
we will restrict attention to sliding on only one set of asperity
surfaces, with orientation e, and will not address cyclic response,
although this is an important aspect of Joint behavior.
If we assume Coulomb friction on the asperity surface, then equa-
tions (2.8) and (2.9) are valid with o t and o n replaced by o 1
and o2, respectively, where o I and o 2 are the tangential and
normal stresses on the asperity surface in the (1,2) coordinate
system shon in Fig. 2. By simple transformation, these stresses can
be expressed in the macroscopic (t,n) coordinate syst of the inter-
face which results in
1/2
F = [(annins + otcosa)2 ] + p(o cosa - OrSins) n
(3.1)
1/2
0 = [(OnSine + otcose)2 j + constant (3.2)
It remains to specify the manner in which asperity surfaces
degrade. Under high compressive stresses, high tangential stresses
are required to produce slip and rapid asperity degradation,
resulting from asperity shearing, can occur for sall tangential dis-
placements. Under low compresslye stresses, low tangential stresses
will produce slip, yet if the amount of the slip is large, then
asperity degradation can arise from surface wear. A simple tribo-
391
n
-- L 2 L 1
m
t
Figure 2 Asperity Surface Hodel
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
tangential displacement (ram)
Figure 3. Numerical Direct Shear Test and Results
(a) ftnal
0.7
0.1
logical relationship which is capable of representing asperity
degradation for these extremes is
' exp(-cW) (3.3) o
where o is the initial asperity angle and c is the asperity
degradation constant, which is a property of the rock joint, and
reflects how rapidly the asperity surfaces deteriorate. Note that
infinitely strong asperity surfaces have c = O.
392
There are a number of open questions with regard to the validity of
equation (3.3). The first is whether or not c is in fact a con-
stant independent of stress and if it can be related to the strength
of the material which composes the asperities. Also, the degradation
may depend upon parameters other than simply plastic tangential work.
However, until this model is more fully tested and compared to the
sparse amount of experimental data available, the resolution of these
questions is not possible.
Examples
The equations of the preceeding section were numerically implemented
for the simulation of a series of direct shear tests on rock Joints.
The model is shown in Fig. 3 and consists of an in/t/ally fully
mated Joint with asperities oriented at 10 with respect to the hori-
zontal. The bottom plate of rock is fixed and the upper plate, after
being compressed by an amount A sufficient to produce an initial
compressire stress of 2 NPa, is permitted horizontal motion only.
The intact rock material is assumed to be much stiffer than the
deformable Joint and hence, dilatancy during tangential sliding is
completely constrained. After the initial compressire stress is
applied, the model is loaded by prescribing the tangential motion of
the upper plate; the max/mum shear displacement is 2 mm which corre-
sponds to 2 of the original contact length.
The response of the model has been investigated for various values
of the asperity degradation constant; c = 0.1 m/kN, 1 m/kN and 2
m/kN. The smaller values of this constant correspond to rock Joints
with strong asperity surfaces and the larger values of this constant
correspond to weak asperity surfaces. The results consist of the
tangential and normal stress histories as shown in Fig. 3 and show
good qualitative agreement with experimentally observed behavior; see
for example, Goodman (1980): 164..
Because of the constrained dtlatancy, the normal stress has in-
creased for each coefficient considered, however, the increase is
most dramatic for the Joint with the strongest asperity surfaces (c
m 0.1 m/kN). The weaker asperity surfaces, which experience more
rapid degradation, develop lower stresses and after moderate amounts
of displacement, show no additional increases.
The tangential stress results indicate some interesting behavior
which undoubtedly occurs in real rock Joints. The simulation with
the strongest asperities considered demonstrates a uniform increase
in tangential stress because of the presence of increasing normal
stress. The joint with the moderately strong asperities, however,
displays almost no variation after the initiation of sliding, despite
the presence of a moderately increasing normal stress. The physical
interpretation of this phenomenon is that while the increasing com-
pressire stress contributes to increased tangential stress, the
asperities are degrading at such a rate that the overall effect is
compensating. The Joint with the weak asperities, after initial
slipping, demonstrates a marked decrease in tangential stress, again
in the presence of moderately increasing normal stress. The physical
interpretation of this phenomenon is that the asperities are
degrading so rapidly that the joint weakens with increasing tangen-
tial displacement.
The final value of the asperity angles are indicated in Fig. 3 next
to the corresponding tangential stress curves and indicate the
393
severity of the degradation. More extensive numerical siulattons
and corroboration with experimental data are in progress and will be
reported in a forthcoming publication.
CONCLUSION
A constitutive model for rock Joints based upon a plasticity-type
formulation has been presented. The model is capable of describing
complex features of joint behavior such as dilatancy and asperity
shearing and because of its simplicity, is ideal for numerical
implementation. A simple example illustrating the model's qualita-
tive agreement with experimental observations has been presented.
However, more rigorous quantitative validation is necessary and is
currently in progress.
REFERENCES
Barton, N. 1973. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock
Joints. Engr. Geology. 7:287-332.
Drucker, D.C. 1954. Coulomb friction, plasticity and limit loads.
J. Applied Mechanics, ASME. 21:71-74.
Fredricksson, B. 1976. Finite element solution of surface non-
linearities in structural mechanics with special emphasis to
contact and fracture mechanics problems. Computers and Struc-
tures. 6:281-290.
Ghaboussi, J., Wilson, E. L. and Isenberg, J. 1973. Finite element
for rock Joints and interfaces. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE.
99:833-848.
Goodman, R. E. 1976. Methods of geological engineering in discon-
tinuous rocks. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Goodman, R. E. 1980. Introduction to rock mechanics. New York:
John Wiley.
Jaeger, J. C. 1971. Friction of rocks and the stability of rock
slopes-Rankine lecture, Geotechnique. 21:97-134.
Ladanyi, B. and Archambault, G. 1970. Simulation of the shear be-
havior of a Jointed rock mass. Proc. 11th Symp. Rock Mechanics.
105-125.
Michalowski, R. and Mr6z, Z. 1978. Associated and nonassociated
sliding rules in contact friction problems. Archives of
Mechanics. 30:259-276.
Patton, F. D. 1966. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and
related materials. Ph.D. thesis, U. of Illinois.
Roberds, W. J. and Einstein, H. H. 1978. Comprehensive model for
rock discontinuities, J. Geotechnical Engr., ASCE. 104:553-569.
394