Rock Mech Rock Eng (2013) 46:683699

DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0322-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

A Laboratory Shear Cell Used for Simulation of Shear Strength

and Asperity Degradation of Rough Rock Fractures
M. S. Asadi V. Rasouli G. Barla

Received: 8 January 2012 / Accepted: 12 October 2012 / Published online: 27 December 2012
Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Abstract Different failure modes during fracture shearing have been introduced including dilation, sliding,
asperity cut-off and degradation. Several laboratory studies
have reported the complexity of these failure modes during
shear tests performed under either constant normal load
(CNL) or constant normal stiffness (CNS) conditions. This
paper is concerned with the mechanical behaviour of synthetic fractures during direct shear tests using a modified
shear cell and related numerical simulation studies. The
modifications made to an existing true triaxial stress cell
(TTSC) in order to use it for performing shear tests under
CNL conditions are presented. The large loading capacity
and the use of accurate hydraulic pumps capable of
applying a constant shear velocity are the main elements of
this cell. Synthetic mortar specimens with different fracture
surface geometries are tested to study the failure modes,
including fracture sliding, asperity degradation, and to
understand failure during shearing. A bonded particle
model of the direct shear test with the PFC2D particle flow
code is used to mimic the tests performed. The results of a
number of tests are presented and compared with PFC2D
simulations. The satisfactory results obtained both qualitatively and quantitatively are discussed.

M. S. Asadi (&)
Baker Hughes, Perth, WA, Australia
e-mail: sadegh.asadi@bakerhughes.com;
sadegasadi@yahoo.com
V. Rasouli
Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
G. Barla
Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
e-mail: giovanni.barla@polito.it

Keywords Fracture  Direct shear test  Roughness 

Asperity degradation  PFC simulation

1 Introduction
The shear behaviour of rock fractures, which may also be
simulated by numerical methods (e.g. the discrete element
method), is studied in the laboratory using a recently
developed direct shear apparatus. It is well understood that
the amount of energy dissipated during fracture shearing
and asperity contact damage is a function of normal load,
contact surface roughness, temperature, loading velocity,
and hardness (Engelder 1978; Scholz and Engelder 1976).
The influence of normal load and surface roughness is
studied in this paper.
Different direct shear testing equipments have been
developed to study the effects of surface roughness on
shear strength and asperity degradation (i.e. damage).
These are different in terms of loading capacity and loading
conditions, i.e. under constant normal load (CNL) or constant normal stiffness (CNS).
In CNL tests the normal load is kept constant during the
shearing process (Barla et al. 2009; Gehle 2002; Hans and
Boulon 2003; Huang et al. 2002; Indraratna and Haque
2000; Jafari et al. 2003; Jiang et al. 2004; Konietzky et al.
2012; Yang and Chiang 2000). For example, shear testing
under CNL conditions is appropriate for non-reinforced
rock slopes. However, in deep tunnels, where the normal
stress is high, the shear behaviour is controlled by stiffness
(shear and normal) and direct shear tests under CNS conditions are more appropriate.
In this paper, a modified true triaxial stress cell (TTSC)
has been used in order to perform shear tests under
CNL conditions and to study shear strength and asperity

123

684

degradation of synthetic fractures with different surface

geometries. Numerical simulations with the discrete element method and the PFC2D code have also been carried
out to compare with the laboratory results. It is noted that
the authors have already reported PFC2D simulations of
rough fractures (Asadi and Rasouli 2010, 2011; Asadi et al.
2012) and that the methods previously used have also been
adopted in the present simulations.
Many researchers have attempted to examine the shear
behaviour of fractures by using laboratory tests (e.g. Barla
et al. 2009; Barton and Choubey 1977; Gehle 2002;
Grasselli et al. 2002; Hans and Boulon 2003; Huang et al.
2002; Indraratna and Haque 2000; Jafari et al. 2003; Jiang
et al. 2004; Konietzky et al. 2012; Yang and Chiang 2000).
Yang and Chiang (2000) studied the progressive shear
behaviour of composite rock fractures with two different
triangle-shaped asperities (with 15 and 30 asperity angle)
under CNL conditions. The effects of the asperity angle
and base-length on the shear behaviour of fractures were
investigated. The results obtained were confirmed by
using finite element and discrete element modelling by
Giacomini et al. (2008) and Kazerani et al. (2011).
Similarly, Huang et al. (2002) tested artificial fractures
with regular triangle-shaped asperities with different angles
under CNL conditions. They observed asperity sliding and
cut-off mechanisms and developed a mathematical
expression to estimate the shear strength of rough fractures
with asperities by using both numerical modelling and
experimental studies.
Grasselli et al. (2002) developed expressions to assess
the shear strength of rough fractures based on the results of
testing under CNL conditions. These authors analysed
several rock fracture surfaces based on quantified 3D
roughness parameters and investigated damage and sliding
during shearing. They stated that damage, which is
apparently not present prior to peak, occurs principally
during the softening and residual phases. In addition, they
concluded that it is the asperity degradation at peak-shear
stress that initiates sliding.
Jafari et al. (2003) also developed mathematical models
for evaluating the shear strength of rock joints, performed
laboratory shear tests under both CNL and CNS conditions,
and studied asperity degradation at low, intermediate, and
high normal stress. Number of loading cycles, stress
amplitude, dilation angle, degradation of asperities and
wearing were reported to be the main parameters controlling the shear behaviour of rock joints.
The authors have previously reported a comprehensive
bibliographic review on the effect of roughness on shear
strength of fracture surfaces (Asadi 2011; Asadi et al. 2012;
Rasouli and Harrison 2010). They also described the results
of laboratory shear tests and showed a good agreement
with identical PFC2D simulation results both qualitatively

123

M. S. Asadi et al.

and quantitatively, i.e. onset of failure, magnitude of

asperity degradation, micro-cracking pattern, and peak and
residual shear strength of the fracture.
Also highlighted in a recently published paper (Asadi
et al. 2012) were the effects of large asperities on fracture
shear behaviour. To the authors knowledge, the phenomena as described by them (i.e. micro-cracking patterns
during fracture shear tests under different normal loads)
have not been broadly analysed in the past. This is in
particular the case of irregular asperities with complicated
geometries. In the present paper an attempt is made to
further illustrate this point.
Firstly, the modifications of a TTSC introduced in order
to perform direct shear tests under CNL conditions are
described. The modified equipment, named fracture shear
cell (FSC), allows shear tests to be performed at high
normal and shear loads. The TTSC, designed in 2009 in the
geomechanics laboratory of Curtin University to simulate
hydraulic fracturing and sand production, allows vertical
and horizontal loads up to 315 kN to be applied independently in each direction on a cubic specimen with 30 cm
side length (Rasouli and Evans 2010).
Then, the results of shear tests carried out on synthetic
mortar specimens with fractures with symmetric triangular
and wavy asperities and a rock-like fracture at a constant
normal load are illustrated. It is shown that the shearing
mechanism changes from sliding to asperity degradation as
the fracture surface becomes rougher. Finally, the results of
PFC2D simulations are presented which indicate a good
agreement with the results obtained from the corresponding
laboratory tests.
Fracture shear strength directionality is also investigated
with laboratory shear tests on specimens sheared along the
horizontal plane in two opposite directions which results in
significant differences of fracture shear strength. In addition, a rock-like fracture is subjected to shear tests and its
directional dependency is studied in two shearing cycles.
The results indicate that the shear strength is reduced in the
second cycle due to a reduced roughness after the first
cycle.
Observation, analysis, and interpretation presented in
this study, to a large extent agree with the theory of
asperity cut-off introduced by Huang et al. (2002), which
was further studied by Rasouli and Harrison (2010), and
recently simulated using PFC2D by Asadi et al. (2012).
The fact that at high normal stress the fracture failure
envelope converges to the intact rock failure envelope is
also modelled and differences between numerical and
experimental results are highlighted. In doing this, it is
remarked that very few studies are available regarding
fracture contact asperity degradation by using analytical
solutions (Ladanyi and Archambault 1970) and results of
testing (Huang et al. 2002).

A Laboratory Shear Cell

Fig. 1 A top view of the TTSC where the horizontal stresses applied
independently through two sets of rams; LVDTs are shown in each
ram

2 Fracture Shear Cell Configuration

A top view of the TTSC is shown in Fig. 1, where the
horizontal stresses are applied independently through the
A1A4 rams. The linear variable differential transducers
(LVDTs C1C4) shown in this figure monitor the displacements of the rams. The normal stress is applied using
the vertical ram after the top lid of the cell is in place. An
LVDT, placed between the vertical ram and the top lid,
measures the normal displacement if it occurs.
The horizontal stresses are transferred to the specimen
through the internal plates. In order to ensure that the plates
do not experience any bending or torsion during loading,
the cubic specimen is to be cut accurately and its sides need
be polished to be precisely parallel. This reduces the
chance for asymmetric load distribution across the plates
and therefore the specimen. The maximum displacement of

685

the rams is limited to 2 cm, which is thought to be adequate

for performing laboratory direct shear tests.
The pressure can be applied using hydraulic pumps with
a maximum pressure capacity of 15,000 psi (&100 MPa)
(Fig. 2a). Fluid is injected under a constant flow rate with a
maximum capacity of 650 cc/h using high pressure pumps,
as shown in Fig. 2b. Loads and displacements are continuously monitored during each test. The data acquisition
system shown in Fig. 3a operates through different channels at the rate of one datum per second (it is also adjustable) and transfers the data collected to a PC as shown in
Fig. 3b.
All the loads, including horizontal and vertical loads, are
recorded with high accuracy by load cells located in the
rams. Displacements are also recorded by five LVDTs
corresponding to the movement of each ram (four horizontal and one vertical). These are the most significant data
collected during each test. In order to use the TTSC for
fracture shearing experiments some modifications needed
to be introduced as described in the following.
In order to perform a fracture shear test with the TTSC,
only one horizontal ram is to come into motion and shear
the upper block of the specimen over the lower one. The
other three rams are kept fixed during the test. In order to do
this, based on the current design of the TTSC, a specimen
size of 20 cm 9 15 cm 9 10 cm was adopted as shown in
Fig. 4. The shearing area is 150 cm2 which enables a
maximum shear stress up to 21 MPa to be applied.
A specimen with triangular asperities is shown in the
same Fig. 4. The specimen size can be adjusted further
close to the boundaries of the cell if needed, but the chosen
size was found to be adequate for the purpose of this study.
It is noted that a number of rigid shims are placed around the
specimen to confine the lower block inside the cell and
prevent it from any lateral, axial, and rotational movements.
As shown in Fig. 4, the T shaped Shim I on the left of
the specimen transfers the shear load to the upper block so

Fig. 2 a Handy pumps for applying normal stress and b automatic high-pressure syringe pumps for applying constant shear rate

123

686

M. S. Asadi et al.

Fig. 5 Duplex high-pressure cylinders (DHPC) to apply constant

normal load

Fig. 3 a Data acquisition system and b monitoring PC

may affect the shearing response of the fracture. It is noted

that the Teflon sheet attached to Shim I is used to allow for
dilation (i.e. vertical movement of the upper block over the
lower one) during shearing under CNL conditions.
2.1 CNL Shear Tests

Fig. 4 Shearing specimen confined by rigid shims: a perspective and

b front-view

that the load applied is kept centred. Shim II prevents any

forward movement of the lower block during shearing. The
normal stress is applied to the specimen through Shim III
sitting on top of the specimen as a cap. Also, in order to
limit the lateral movement of the lower block, two shims
are set on both sides of the specimen with their height
being less than the height of the lower block.
Two Teflon sheets are also used. One is placed between
Shim III and the vertical ram and the other one between the
T-shaped Shim I and the shearing side of the specimen.
The purpose of using these Teflon sheets is to minimise
friction along the sliding components of the device which

123

In the CNL shear tests, dilation of the upper block over the
lower one is expected as a result of the normal load being
kept constant by using the hydraulic pumps. For this purpose, a duplex high pressure cylinder (DHPC) was
designed as shown in Fig. 5. The cylinder consists of two
chambers isolated by a diaphragm. One side is filled with
nitrogen gas to a pressure equivalent to the normal stress
required and the other side is filled with oil. The pressure
gauge shows a 300 psi (&2 MPa) pressure on the vertical
ram which in turn applies a 3.5 MPa constant normal stress
on the specimen (Fig. 6).
If dilation (i.e. normal displacement) of the upper block
occurs, the gas is compressed but the pressure is kept constant. This causes an equivalent amount of oil to be returned
from the vertical ram to the DHPC which in turn results in
an upward movement of the vertical ram. By recording the
load cell data placed in the vertical ram, the fluctuations of
the normal load applied to the specimen can be measured.
This in turn is related to the amount of oil displaced.
A constant shear load is applied to the specimen using
the high-pressure pumps which can be operated in either a
constant pressure or constant flow rate mode. This is
believed to be a more appropriate approach in applying the
shearing velocity to the specimen during testing compared

A Laboratory Shear Cell

687

Fig. 6 Schematic view of the

specimen showing the system
configuration

Table 1 Comparison between three different shear test apparatus

recently developed
Feature

Loading system

CNL

CNL and CNS

CNS

Maximum normal load (kN)

315

100

400

Maximum shear load (kN)

315

100

400

Maximum shear displacement (mm)

20

18

20

to the more commonly used methods. To this end, Table 1

compares the present apparatus (A in the table) with two
other direct shear testing equipments recently developed by
Barla et al. (2009) (B in the table) and Jiang et al. (2004) (C
in the table). The table indicates an increased capacity of
normal and shear loads and a larger specimen size.
Figure 6 gives a schematic front view of the FSC showing
all the components and connections used. The connection of
the DHPC to and from the normal ram is also shown. One of
the unique features of the FSC is that when the top lid is in
position, the inner part of the cell becomes completely isolated from the outside. Sealing is obtained with metal-tometal contact and by O-rings placed between the top lid and
the upper part of the cell. The cell can be pressurised by any
fluid or gas to a certain pressure (21 MPa) and the specimen
inside the cell can be saturated with the fluid in the cell.
Although the modifications introduced to the TTSC allow
shear tests to be performed under CNL conditions, there is no
practical reason why the test could not be performed under
CNS conditions. This can be achieved in the FSC by
inserting constant stiffness springs between the vertical ram
and the upper block of the specimen to be sheared.

Fig. 7 A metal mould used to prepare synthetic rough fracture

geometries

3 Specimen Preparation
To understand the fracture shearing mechanisms in the
laboratory, synthetic specimens with simple fracture
geometries were tested first. These consisted of mortar
fracture specimens with symmetric triangular shape
asperities. In order to prepare them for testing in the FSC, a
metal mould as shown in Fig. 7 was used.
The artificial plates (galvanised iron of 5 mm thickness)
with the desired surface geometry are placed in the middle
of the mould. Typically, Fig. 7 shows a fracture with a 45

123

688

M. S. Asadi et al.

asperity angle. Filling the mould with mortar produces the

desired fracture geometry. It is noted that only one mortar
mixture has been used in order to ensure similar mechanical properties for all the specimens tested. As shown in
Fig. 7, the shearing block has a width of 15 cm, a height of
20 cm, and a thickness of 10 cm. Rock fracture surfaces
from cored samples (usually less than 5 cm in diameter)
can also be accommodated in this mould with the
remaining space being filled with high-strength mortar.
A number of blocks with different fracture geometries
were prepared under the same conditions to perform shear
tests under different normal stress and in opposite directions, along the fracture horizontal plane. Hard plates were
used to shape symmetric triangular and wavy asperities as
well as rock-like fractures, where a variation of surface
elevation is only in the xz plane. This is thought to be the
closest approach in order to compare the laboratory results
with the 2D simulations with the PFC2D code. A setup for
making a synthetic fracture with symmetric triangular
asperities is shown in Fig. 7. The plates are removed soon
after the mortar is cured and a mate fracture geometry is
produced.
The properties of the mortar used for the synthetic
specimens are given in Table 2 (cement and sand contact
bond strength properties are from Lambert et al. 2010). The
specimens are saturated in water for 28 days, as per ASTM
guidelines, to reach the desired ultimate strength before
testing. To know the mechanical properties of the specimens used is essential as the results obtained are compared
to the corresponding results of PFC2D simulations. For this
purpose, an approach similar to that proposed by Lambert
et al. (2010) was adopted, consisting in the calibration of
the results of laboratory uniaxial compression tests with
PFC2D simulated tests.
To obtain similar uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
values for all the blocks tested, the specimens consisted of
20 % cement, 65 % fine-grain sand, and 15 % fresh water
in volume, which resulted in a moderately high strength

mortar. This combination of components was found to be

suitable for studying asperity failures. This is, however,
different from that used by Lambert et al. (2010) (i.e. 45 %
cement and 55 % sand) which resulted in greater UCS and
greater Youngs modulus (E) values.
3.1 Uniaxial and Confined Compression Tests
Figure 8 shows a cylindrical specimen with 52 mm diameter and 104 mm height used for the uniaxial and confined
compression tests in the laboratory. Specimens were made
from a similar material (Table 2). The tests were performed at a low loading rate to ensure quasi-static loading
conditions. Loads and displacements were recorded during
each test.
The average UCS value obtained was 29.2 MPa.
Figure 9 shows one of the specimens after testing in the
FSC. By simply using the MohrCoulomb criterion and the
angle of the failure plane b = 30 2 with respect to the
loading direction, the average cohesion and internal friction
angle are estimated to be 7.0 MPa and 32, respectively.

Fig. 8 UCS test on a cylindrical specimen using the TTSC

Table 2 Micro-properties of mortar sample and PFC2D rock-like

assembly
Property

Mortar

PFC2D

Cement

Sand

Assembly

Average particle radius (mm)

0.3247

Density (kg/m3)

1380

1380

1380

Contact elastic modulus (GPa)

Ratio of particle normal to shear
stiffness (kn/ks)

18
2.5

25
2.5

20
2.5

Particle friction coefficient

0.35

0.35

0.40

Contact normal bond strength (MPa)

65

60

35

Contact shear bond strength (MPa)

65

60

35

123

Fig. 9 A cylindrical specimen before and after the UCS test showing
the shear failure plane

A Laboratory Shear Cell

Simulations were performed with the PFC2D code. In

addition to unconfined compression tests, confined compression tests were also simulated. The micro-properties of
the model are given in Table 2. It is noted that the twodimensional simulation scheme adopted is the same as
described by Asadi et al. (2012), with the average particle
radius set to be 0.322 mm, which is in the range of the finegrain sandstones used for mortar preparation. This allows
for a comparison of laboratory and simulation results.
Stressstrain curves for numerically simulated tests
are shown in Fig. 10a under different confining stress
(0, 10 and 20 MPa). Figure 10b compares simulation and
laboratory testing results under a confining stress of

689
Table 3 Rock strength properties correlated with lab tests and
PFC2D simulations
Property

Mortar
Laboratory test

PFC2D

UCS (MPa)

29.2

31.5

E (GPa)

8.051

9.54

c (MPa)
/ ()

7.0
32

7.5
29

10 MPa. It is noted that the two curves compare well and

that the peak strength values are similar. It may be
observed that the bonded particle model exhibits a typical
brittle behaviour with a substantial drop of strength after
peak, when an inclined fracture surface is formed in the
specimen upon subsequent loading, with the original intact
specimen breaking apart.
Based on the PFC2D simulations, the MohrCoulomb
failure envelope is obtained as shown in Fig. 10c. The
cohesion and internal friction angle are estimated to be
7.5 MPa and 29, respectively. Table 3 shows the average
UCS and E values for mortar obtained from laboratory
testing and from simulations with five different randomly
packed particles and a particle friction coefficient of 0.05.
A satisfactory agreement is found between the values
obtained from laboratory tests and PFC2D simulations.
4 Fracture Shear Tests Using FSC
Shear tests of fractures with symmetric triangular and wavy
asperities as well as rock-like fractures were performed
with the FSC. Three different fractures with symmetric
triangular asperities of 15, 30, and 45 base-angle were
tested first as shown in Fig. 11.
4.1 Fractures with Symmetric Triangular Asperities
Shear tests were performed at low and high normal stress
and in two opposite directions (LR, shearing the upper
block from left to right and RL, shearing the upper block

Fig. 10 Stressstrain curves for numerical compression tests (a);

comparison between numerical and experimental compression test
(b); MohrCoulomb representation and failure envelope of mortar
specimens modelled in PFC2D (c)

Fig. 11 Cross sections of symmetric triangular fractures with 15, 30,

and 45 asperity angles used for shear tests

123

690

M. S. Asadi et al.

Fig. 12 Synthetic specimens with triangular shaped fracture surfaces

from right to left) along the fracture horizontal plane. As

depicted in Fig. 11, a constant asperity wave length of
4 cm was used for the three geometries.
Figure 12 shows the specimens before testing. The tests
were conducted a few times to ensure consistency of the
results. Constant normal stresses of 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 MPa
were applied during different shear tests using the DHPC.
The shear load was applied at a constant rate of 0.5 kN/min.
Each test took approximately 2 h to be completed and
this period of time was estimated to be adequate to reach
the residual state. Therefore, the post-peak behaviour of the
sheared fractures was also recorded after the upper block
was displaced horizontally up to 1.0 cm.
The shear load and displacements were recorded using a
high-precision data recorder and the pressure versus time
curve plotted continuously during the test so as to check the
shearing response. Figure 13 shows the specimens after
testing under 2.5 MPa normal stress. This is the largest
normal stress applied, which was found to cut-off the high
amplitude asperities (45). The asperities in the rough
specimen tended to shear-off, which resulted in a greater
peak shear strength; the specimen with a small asperity
angle (15) exhibited sliding of the upper block over the
lower one, with a sliding dominated mechanism.
Plots of the shear stress versus shear displacement
curves at 1.5 MPa normal stress are shown in Fig. 14.
A 4.3 MPa peak shear stress is obtained for the rougher
specimen with 45 asperity angle followed by a drop to a
residual stress value of 3.2 MPa. On the contrary, the

123

Fig. 13 View of specimens after shearing tests under 2.5 MPa

normal stress

Fig. 14 Plot of shear stressshear displacement for symmetric

triangular fractures based on laboratory shear tests conducted at
normal stress of 1.5 MPa

specimen with a lower asperity angle shows a gradual

increase in shear stress with a levelling-off shear stress at
approximately 1.39 MPa.

A Laboratory Shear Cell

691

Fig. 15 Fracture with asperity angle of 15 sheared in the laboratory

at different normal stresses

The shear test results for a fracture with asperity angle

15 and normal stress 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 MPa are plotted in
Fig. 15. It is seen, as expected, that as the normal stress
increases, both the peak and residual shear strength
increase. At larger normal stress, the shear stress fluctuates
as the asperities are being degraded and tensile cracks are
developing through the intact sample.
Once all the asperities are sheared-off completely, the
residual shear strength is reached, as observed at a normal
stress of 2.5 MPa. The observation of the specimen once the
test is completed indicates a major tensile crack to be present
which is thought to be linked to the sudden drop of stress in
the shear stressshear displacement curves (Figs. 14, 15).
PFC2D simulations with specimen size, material properties, and fracture geometries defined according to the
results of the laboratory tests were performed as illustrated
in Fig. 16 for the normal stress equal to 2.5 MPa. A good
agreement was observed between the results of testing and
PFC2D simulations.
It is noted that by increasing the asperity angle, the
fracture mode changes from asperity sliding to cut-off and
tensile cracking, which is consistent with the laboratory
results shown in Fig. 13. Since the stiffness of this model is
sufficiently high, development of micro-cracks is limited
and more pronounced at larger asperity angles (45), as
shown in Fig. 16.
A peak shear stressnormal stress plot for the fracture
with asperity angle 30 is shown in Fig. 17, where both the
results of laboratory testing and PFC2D simulations are
illustrated. A similar trend is observed in the two cases,
although the PFC2D simulation appears to overestimate the
peak value. This is believed to be due to the cohesive
effects of the fracture particles lying on opposite sides of
the fracture (Asadi and Rasouli 2011).

Fig. 16 PFC2D simulations of fracture shearing with the geometries

shown in Fig. 11, after 1.0 cm shear displacement at 2.5 MPa normal
stress

The plot given in Fig. 17 allows one also to estimate the

fracture surface mechanical properties. With the cohesion
along the fracture (Cf ) given as difference between the
peak and residual shear strength, the peak shear strength of
the fracture (sp ) can be written versus the fracture friction
angle (uf ) through the MohrCoulomb criterion as:
sp rn tanuf h Cf :

where h is the fracture asperity angle.

From the fracture failure envelopes shown in the same
Fig. 17, friction angles of 29 and 27.3 are obtained from
laboratory testing and PFC2D simulations, respectively.
The peak shear strength given by the PFC2D model
is clearly overestimated due to the already mentioned

123

692

M. S. Asadi et al.

Peak shear stress (MPa)

10
en :c =

6 .5 M

Pa ,

= 32

cim
c spe
yntheti

4
l = 4cm

PFC2D simulations
Lab experiments

0
0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

Normal stress (MPa)

Fig. 17 Failure envelopes estimated from laboratory tests and

PFC2D simulations

cohesive effects of the particles lying on opposite sides of

the fracture.
Even if fracture shear tests were not performed for normal
stresses greater than 2.5 MPa, the fracture shear behaviour
for the normal stress greater than this value can be described
on the basis of the PFC2D results. As illustrated in Fig. 17,
the slope of the curve corresponding to the fracture with the
asperity angle equal to 30 is uf h = 59.
However, when the normal stress exceeds a threshold
value, the asperities are expected to be completely shearedoff with failure developing into the interior of the block. The
normal stress corresponding to this critical behaviour could
be analytically estimated for a symmetric triangular asperity
fracture (Asadi 2011; Rasouli and Harrison 2010) as:
rTn ccoth  tanucos2 u;

4.2 Fractures with Wavy Asperities

Blocks containing fractures with wavy asperities were built
artificially using mortar and according to the procedure
previously described. As already noted, the block has an
identical geometry along its thickness which allows one to
compare the laboratory and the PFC2D simulation results.
Figures 18 and 19 show specimens A and B which were

where rTn is the critical normal stress, c is the intact rock

cohesion, and u is the intact rock internal friction angle.
If the failure envelope of the intact specimen is plotted
in the same Fig. 17, the critical normal stress rTn value can
be identified. For the asperity angle equal 30 the fracture
envelope intersects the intact failure envelope at 5.5 MPa
normal stress. It is shown that by reducing the fracture
surface roughness, the transitional normal stress will be
shifted to larger values.
This is because larger asperities with sharper teeth are
more likely to be sheared-off earlier than smaller asperities
with rounded teeth. Figure 17 shows that the shearing
mechanism for a specimen with h = 30 is expected to be
mainly sliding along the asperities for the normal stress less
than 3.0 MPa with asperity shearing more likely to occur at
greater normal stress values.
Figure 17 also shows that by increasing the normal
stress, the difference between the laboratory and PFC2D
results decreases. This is because both methods are

123

expected to give closer results for greater normal stress

values. It is noted that the geometry of the fracture surface
in PFC2D is made by particles with no bonds (no cement
between two walls of fracture).
When shearing is initiated, particles lying on opposite
sides of the fracture surface may create a shear stress
concentration across the larger particles located along the
fracture plane, which is likely to lead to an overestimate of
the shear strength. This effect is reduced when using
smaller particles (Asadi et al. 2012).
It is to be reminded that particles in PFC2D are rigid
bodies which never fail mechanically during simulation. In
a blocky system modelled with PFC2D the block boundaries are not planar, and the bumpiness affects the fracture
response (Ivars et al. 2008). To overcome such a shortcoming, the contact bond was used and the particle size
was reduced so as to minimise the non-planarity effects.

Fig. 18 Shearing block with A and B fracture geometries prepared

for testing

A Laboratory Shear Cell

693

Fig. 19 Geometry of wavy fracture profiles A and B extracted from

prepared testing block

subjected to shear tests in two opposite directions in order

to investigate the directional dependency of shear strength.
The micro- and macro-properties of specimens A and B
are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Visual observation of the two fracture profiles as depicted in Fig. 19
shows that profile A includes one major asperity which
appears to be steeper on one side, whereas profile B
includes three asperities with different heights. These two
fracture profiles were chosen from several geometries to
show the importance of rough asperities in shear strength
estimation.
4.2.1 Fracture Profile A
Figure 20 shows block A after shearing in opposite directions (i.e. LR and RL). These tests were performed for the
normal stress equal to 1.5 and 2.5 MPa and allowing a
shear displacement up to 1.0 cm. The results obtained
indicate clearly a shear behaviour which depends on the
shearing direction.
Fracture shearing in the LR direction causes sliding of
the upper block against the lower one and minor asperity
contact damage. This is due to the smaller angle of the left
side of the single large-scale asperity compared to that of
the right side. Fracture shearing is accompanied by the
development of a large tensile crack. This means that in
this case failure occurs within the intact specimen and the
post-peak behaviour depends on the material mechanical
properties (i.e. tensile strength) rather than the fracture
surface parameters.
This type of behaviour has been observed by other authors
(Huang et al. 2002; Hutson and Dowding 1990; Karami and

Fig. 20 Profile A block view after shear tests at 1.5 MPa normal
stress in opposite directions (top) and at 2.5 MPa normal stress
(bottom)

Stead 2008) when studying asperity cut-off and degradation

(i.e. micro-cracking under high normal stress). It is more
likely to occur when large asperities with high amplitude
exist in the fracture plane (due to stress concentration effects
on the asperity doglegs, a new crack will form and develop
outside the shear surface). Moreover, failure outside the
shear surface occurs as a result of increasing shear displacement in fractures with extremely large asperities.
Numerical simulations also show this to occur during
the identical shear tests (Fig. 21). In addition, normal
stress must be higher than a critical value to see failure to
develop outside the shear plane. For normal stresses below
this critical value sliding will take place. Authors agree
that this is not an option for planner fractures or for
fractures having a small roughness (most of the rock
fractures have average asperity angles less than 30).
Therefore, the interest is to model synthetic fractures with
large asperities.
The failure pattern for the normal stress equal to
2.5 MPa indicates several micro-cracks extending from the
tensile crack, which is a result of the shear stresses being
concentrated along the fracture surface. To investigate the
directional dependency of shear strength using PFC2D
simulations, the A specimen was subjected to shearing in

123

694

M. S. Asadi et al.

Fig. 21 PFC2D simulation of profile A shearing in opposite directions, LR (top) and RL (bottom) at 2.5 MPa normal stress

both directions (RL and LR). Figure 21 shows the fracture

after shearing at 2.5 MPa normal stress, which compares
satisfactorily with the laboratory results given in Fig. 20.
Again, the dominant mechanism in the LR direction is
sliding, whereas tensile and shear failures develop through
the large asperity and the intact material when shearing
takes place in the RL direction.
Figure 22 shows the shear stress versus shear displacement plot obtained from laboratory tests and PFC2D simulations. Results are shown for shearing in both directions,
LR and RL. A significant difference is observed in the
shear behaviour due to changing of the direction of
shearing. As expected, the pre-peak and peak shear stress
are larger when shearing takes place from right to left
rather than in the opposite direction.
The post-peak (or residual) shear strength is also higher
when the fracture is sheared in the RL direction. In this
case, however, a smaller dilation is observed. The relatively sharp reduction in strength just following the peak
value is due to the asperity height and roughness chosen for
demonstration purposes. However, for real fractures, in
general, a smoother reduction of stress after peak is
expected to occur.
The above analyses show why the shearing direction as
well as the state of shear stress, i.e. pre- or post-peak, needs
to be taken into account when characterising the ultimate

123

Fig. 22 Shear stress versus shear displacement curves of Profile A

shearing at 2.5 MPa normal stress a results of lab shear tests and
b results of PFC2D simulations

shear strength of a fracture. This is caused by the surface

roughness, which demonstrates the importance of the
method to be used to quantify roughness and integrate it
with the fracture shear strength.
4.2.2 Fracture Profile B
Figure 23 shows block B after shearing in the LR direction
at 2.5 MPa normal stress and 1.0 cm maximum shear
displacement. These tests were performed for the normal
stress equal to 1.5 and 2.5 MPa and in both directions of
shearing.
Three wavy asperities with different amplitudes and
wavelengths along the horizontal plane were considered. It
is of interest to see the contribution of each asperity to the
shearing resistance when tested in the LR or RL directions.
In the first test, performed under 1.5 MPa normal stress,
sliding of the upper block over the lower one was observed

A Laboratory Shear Cell

Fig. 23 Profile B block view after shear tests under 2.5 MPa normal
stress and 1.0 cm shear displacement from left to right

with a small dilation taking place. Also, as for block A,

under this low normal stress, minor asperity contact damage was observed.
However, as illustrated in Fig. 23, when the normal
stress increased to 2.5 MPa, the shearing mechanism was
completely changed and all the asperities underwent failure
but according to different modes. In LR shearing the first
two asperities (from the left) of the lower block were
sheared off and detached. However, the right asperity with

695

a larger amplitude and wavelength experienced a tensile

failure which extended to the intact material.
Figure 24 gives a close view of the asperities after the
completion of the test. It is noted that the first two asperities
(a and b) are completely detached from the lower block with
no further direct contribution to the shearing process.
However, they fill the fracture aperture space as gouge.
This, obviously depending on the mechanical properties
of the material, is to significantly affect the fracture postpeak shear strength. It is noted that the PFC simulation
takes this process into account, which is ignored completely when simple analytical models are used to estimate
the shear strength.
As for block A, a large tensile crack developed from this
asperity and propagated through the intact specimen. The
large asperity amplitude is responsible for this to happen as
shown in Fig. 24. It is implied that, in a fracture with a
number of asperities, the asperity with the largest amplitude dominates the failure mechanism.
Figure 25 shows the PFC2D results with the specimen
sheared under the 2.5 MPa normal stress in two different
directions (RL and LR). It is seen that when the fracture is
sheared in the RL direction, under 2.5 MPa normal stress,
a tensile crack develops in the asperity located to the most
right, while the other two asperities experience very limited failure. In LR shearing, however, (Fig. 25, bottom),
all the asperities are sheared-off and a small dilation
occurs.
Figure 25, when compared with Figs. 23 and 24, shows
a good agreement between the results of the laboratory
tests and the PFC2D simulations. However, in the PFC2D
model, where shearing takes place in the LR direction, it is
the largest asperity to experience a tensile crack, as
observed in the laboratory tests, but also asperity cut-off
takes place.
Figure 26 shows the plot of the shear stress versus shear
displacement obtained from both laboratory shear tests and
PFC2D simulations. The results illustrated are for shearing

Fig. 24 Profile B block view after shear tests at 2.5 MPa normal stress

123

696

M. S. Asadi et al.

Fig. 25 PFC2D simulation of profile B shearing in opposite directions, RL (top) and LR (bottom) at 2.5 MPa normal stress

in the LR direction and normal stress equal to 1.5 and

2.5 MPa.
The laboratory results, as shown in Fig. 26a, exhibit a
large difference between the peak shear strength of the
two fractures. By increasing the normal stress the peak
shear strength increases. Interestingly, the residual shear
strength of both the curves approaches to an almost
similar level (&3.0 MPa) after the peak shear strength is
reached.
A similar trend is observed with the PFC2D simulations
as shown in Fig. 26b. The values of the peak shear strength
as obtained from numerical modelling are slightly greater
than the corresponding laboratory values at low normal
stress. However, at high normal stress, this variation
reduces and closer values are observed from both approaches. Comparing the peak shear strengths in Fig. 26a, b for
normal stress of 2.5 MPa, a shear strength of &8.0 MPa is
obtained.
The results presented demonstrate the capabilities of the
PFC2D to simulate the shear behaviour of fractures and the
laboratory results obtained with the FSC experiments
confirm this to a large extent. In the next section, the laboratory shear tests performed on a specimen containing a
rock-like fracture will be presented and some conclusions
will be drawn based on the observed results.

123

Fig. 26 Shear stress versus shear displacement curves for profile B

sheared at 1.5 and 2.5 MPa normal stresses: results of a laboratory
shear tests and b PFC2D simulations

4.3 Rock-Like Fracture

To generate a replica of a rock fracture (i.e. a rock-like
fracture), a specimen containing such a fracture was placed
inside the mould (Fig. 7) and the parts opposite to the
fracture faces were filled with mortar (Fig. 27). The geometrical features of the fracture mating surfaces are thus
reproduced satisfactorily. Indeed, the mechanical properties of the specimen may be somewhat different from those
of the real rock. However, it is the geometry of the fracture
which is of importance.
High-resolution photos were taken from each fracture
surface (i.e. lower and upper surfaces) and were analysed
with photogrammetric methods using the Siro3D software
(CSIRO 2009; Haneberg 2006). 3D images of the upper
and lower surfaces of the fracture were obtained as shown
in Fig. 28.
The rock block containing the fracture was tested in the
laboratory using the FSC. The specimen was sheared in

A Laboratory Shear Cell

697

Fig. 27 Replica of a rock fracture made of mortar

cm

0.0

Wi

dth

ng

=5

Le

.0c

1
h=

cm

0.0

Wi

dth

ng

=5

.0c

Le

1
h=

Fig. 28 Replica of rock fracture lower (top) and upper (bottom)

surfaces

opposite directions along xy plane and under 2.5 MPa

normal stress. Each specimen was tested twice in order to
study the evolution of the surface roughness after one
shearing cycle.

The specimen containing the fracture is shown in

Fig. 29 after shearing in the LR direction. In the first cycle,
when the fracture was allowed to displace up to 1.0 cm,
limited asperity contact degradations occurred. Then, the
fracture surfaces were brought to the initial position and the
second cycle of shearing was performed at the same normal
stress (2.5 MPa).
Figure 29, which also gives a view of the specimen after
the second shearing cycle, shows that the amount of degradation has increased. Locations of the damaged area on
the fracture surface are marked which clearly show that all
the asperity contacts were damaged during this cycle of
testing.
The shear stress versus shear displacement plot
obtained from the laboratory tests is shown in Fig. 30 for
shearing in both LR and RL directions at 2.5 MPa normal
stress. Figure 30a in particular gives the results for the
fractured sheared in the LR direction. A large difference
between the peak shear strength obtained in the first and
second cycles is noted. This is due to the predominant
effects of the surface geometry (i.e. roughness) on the
shear strength.
From the first to the second cycle, the fracture roughness
evolves and a different shearing response is observed in the
second cycle. The peak shear strengths were measured to
be &4.7 and &2.7 MPa, respectively, for the first and
second cycle. It is seen that peak shear strength reduces in
the second cycle, as expected, compared to the first cycle,
which demonstrates that asperity damage takes place during the first cycle.

123

698

M. S. Asadi et al.

Fig. 29 Replica of rock fracture block sheared in the laboratory at 2.5 MPa normal stress and in two shearing cycles

A sharp drop in the value of the shear stress is recorded,

which is most probably due to a large asperity cut-off
followed by the development of micro-cracks along the
fracture surface. A different response is seen in the second
cycle as no major sharp asperities exist and the broken
asperities fill in the fracture opening. The average asperity
angle can be calculated based on the mobilised friction
angle of fractures in both cycles of shearing.
Assuming the basic friction angle to be 31, the average
asperity angle (i.e. roughness) estimated using Pattons
bilinear equation after the first and second cycle are 30.9
and 16.2, respectively. It is seen that the asperity angle is
reduced in the second cycle to twice as much as in the first
cycle, which indicates the effects of asperity degradation in
shear strength.
A comparison of the peak shear strength values given in
Fig. 30a, b, for the normal stress equal to 2.5 MPa, shows
that the fracture shear strength when shearing takes place in
the LR direction is much greater than that obtained when
shearing in the RL direction. This is in agreement with the
expectations from visual observation.

5 Conclusions
In this paper, the modifications of an existing TTSC
for fracture shearing experiments were reported. Large

123

shear and normal load capacities, adjustability of the

specimen size, and highly controlled shearing velocity
are the main features of the FSC which has been
developed.
Unconfined compression tests were performed in the
laboratory on cylindrical specimens made of mortar and the
results obtained were compared with the corresponding
results of simulations with PFC2D models. In general, the
results of numerical simulations and laboratory tests agreed
satisfactorily. Using this approach, the values of the uniaxial compression strength and of the Youngs modulus
were calibrated.
Shear tests were carried out on synthetic fractures with
symmetric triangular and wavy asperities and a rock-like
fracture (i.e. a replica of a real fracture) at a constant
normal load. The shearing mechanism was shown to
change from sliding to asperity degradation as the fracture
surface becomes rougher. PFC2D models of both fracture
profiles confirmed the results of testing.
Fracture shear strength directionality was investigated
by performing laboratory shear tests on specimens
sheared along the horizontal plane in two opposite
directions. Fractures were subjected to shear tests and its
directional dependency was studied in two shearing
cycles. The results indicated that shear strength is reduced
in the second cycle due to a reduced roughness after the
first shearing cycle.

A Laboratory Shear Cell

699

(a) 5
n

= 2.50 MPa
LR shearing

Shea rstress (MPa)

Lab experiments

1st shearing cycle

2nd shearing cycle

0
0.00

0.50

1.00

Shear displacement (cm)

(b)

5
n

Shear stress (MPa)

= 2.50 MPa

Lab experiments

RL shearing

1st shearing cycle

2nd shearing cycle

0
0.00

0.50

1.00

Shear displacement (cm)

Fig. 30 Plots of shear stress versus shear displacement at 2.5 MPa

normal stress a shearing in LR direction and b shearing in RL
direction

References
Asadi MS (2011) Experimental and PFC2D numerical study of
progressive shear behaviour of single rough rock fractures. Perth,
Curtin University
Asadi MS, Rasouli V (2010) Direct shear test simulation of real rough
rock fractures, Eurock 2010. Luasanne, Switzerland
Asadi MS, Rasouli V (2011) PFC2D simulation of directionality in
rough fractures shear strength. In: Itasca Consulting Group, I
edn. 2nd International FLAC/DEM Symposium, Melbourne,
Australia
Asadi M, Rasouli V, Barla G (2012) A bonded particle model
simulation of shear strength and asperity degradation for rough
rock fractures. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:649675
Barla G, Barla M, Martinotti M (2009) Development of a new direct
shear testing apparatus. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:117122
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in
theory and practice. Rock Mech Rock Eng 10:154
CSIRO (2009) SiroVision manual. CSIRO earth science and
engineering division, Brisbane

Engelder T (1978) Aspects of asperity-surface interaction and surface

damage of rocks during experimental frictional sliding. Pure
Appl Geophys 116:705716
Gehle C (2002) Bruch- und Scherverhalten von Gesteinstrennflachen
mit dazwischenliegenden Materialbrucken. Ruhr-Uni Bochum,
Heft 33
Giacomini A, Buzzi O, Krabbenhoft K (2008) Modeling the asperity
degradation of a sheared rock joint using FEM. 8th World
Congress on Computational Mechanics (WCCM8), Venice, Italy
Grasselli G, Wirth J, Egger P (2002) Quantitative three-dimensional
description of a rough surface and parameter evolution with
shearing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:789800
Haneberg WC (2006) Book and software Reviews Sirovision.
Environ Eng Geosci 12:283285
Hans J, Boulon M (2003) A new device for investigating the hydromechanical properties of rock joints. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 27:513548
Huang TH, Chang CS, Chao CY (2002) Experimental and mathematical modeling for fracture of rock joint with regular
asperities. Eng Fract Mech 69:19771996
Hutson RW, Dowding CH (1990) Joint asperity degradation during
cyclic shear. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstracts
27:109119
Indraratna B, Haque A (2000) Shear behaviour of rock joints.
Balkema, Rotterdam
Ivars DM, Potyondy DO, Pierce M, Cundall PA (2008) The smoothjoint contact model. 8th World Congress on Computational
Mechanics (WCCM8); 5th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS 2008), Venice, Italy
Jafari MK, Amini Hosseini K, Pellet F, Boulon M, Buzzi O (2003)
Evaluation of shear strength of rock joints subjected to cyclic
loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:619630
Jiang Y, Xiao J, Tanabashi Y, Mizokami T (2004) Development of an
automated servo-controlled direct shear apparatus applying a
constant normal stiffness condition. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41:275286
Karami A, Stead D (2008) Asperity degradation and damage in the
direct shear test: a hybrid FEM/DEM approach. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 41:229266
Kazerani T, Yang Z, Zhao J (2011) A discrete element model for
predicting shear strength and degradation of rock joint by using
compressive and tensile test data: rock mechanics and rock
engineering, pp 115
Konietzky H, Fruhwirt T, Luge H (2012) A new large dynamic rock
mechanical direct shear box device: rock mechanics and rock
engineering, pp 16
Ladanyi B, Archambault G (1970) Simulation of shear behavior of a
jointed rock mass. Proceedings of the 11th US Symposium on
Rock Mech, Berkeley, pp 10525
Lambert C, Buzzi O, Giacomini A (2010) Influence of calcium
leaching on the mechanical behavior of a rock-mortar interface:
a DEM analysis. Comput Geotech 37:258266
Rasouli V, Evans BJ (2010) A true triaxial stress cell to simulate deep
downhole drilling conditions. APPEA J 50:6170
Rasouli V, Harrison JP (2010) Assessment of rock fracture surface
roughness using Riemannian statistics of linear profiles. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47:940948
Scholz CH, Engelder JT (1976) The role of asperity indentation and
ploughing in rock friction I: asperity creep and stick-slip. Int J
Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstracts 13:149154
Yang ZY, Chiang DY (2000) An experimental study on the
progressive shear behavior of rock joints with tooth-shaped
asperities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:12471259

123