Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Effect of rock joint roughness on its cyclic shear behavior

S.M. Mahdi Niktabar a, *, K. Seshagiri Rao a, Amit Kumar Shrivastava b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, 110016, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technology University, New Delhi, 110042, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rock joints are often subjected to dynamic loads induced by earthquake and blasting during mining
Received 30 April 2017 and rock cutting. Hence, cyclic shear load can be induced along the joints and it is important to
Received in revised form evaluate the shear behavior of rock joint under this condition. In the present study, synthetic rock
10 August 2017
joints were prepared with plaster of Paris (PoP). Regular joints were simulated by keeping regular
Accepted 11 September 2017
Available online 6 November 2017
asperity with asperity angles of 15
e15
and 30
e30
, and irregular rock joints which are closer to
natural joints were replicated by keeping the asperity angles of 15
e30
and 15
e45
. The sample size
and amplitude of roughness were kept the same for both regular and irregular joints which were
Keywords:
Cyclic shear test
298 mm  298 mm  125 mm and 5 mm, respectively. Shear test was performed on these joints using
Shear behavior a large-scale direct shear testing machine by keeping the frequency and amplitude of shear load under
Shear strength constant cyclic condition with different normal stress values. As expected, the shear strength of rock
Regular joint joints increased with the increases in the asperity angle and normal load during the first cycle of
Irregular joint shearing or static load. With the increase of the number of shear cycles, the shear strength decreased
Joint dilation for all the asperity angles but the rate of reduction was more in case of high asperity angles. Test results
Asperity degradation indicated that shear strength of irregular joints was higher than that of regular joints at different cycles
of shearing at low normal stress. Shearing and degradation of joint asperities on regular joints were the
same between loading and unloading, but different for irregular joints. Shear strength and joint
degradation were more significant on the slope of asperity with higher angles on the irregular joint
until two angles of asperities became equal during the cycle of shearing and it started behaving like
regular joints for subsequent cycles.
Ó 2017 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Rocks often have various sets of joints or fractures and almost all
failures are caused due to the presence of these discontinuities.
Shear strength and deformation of joints play an important role in
design and analysis of underground structures, foundation, slope
stability and risk assessment of underground disposal. Many re-
searchers presented the shear behavior of jointed rock, based on
peak stressestrain along the joint under unidirectional or mono-
tonic (static) shear loads in the field of rock mechanics and rock
engineering. But joints are subjected to dynamic loads due to
earthquake, blasting, and vibrations, which can be simulated as
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mehdiniktabar@yahoo.com (S.M.M. Niktabar).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
shearing along the joint under cyclic loads. Thus load direction is
reversed on the shearing plane repeatedly. In the present work, a
physical model was prepared in order to examine the shear
behavior of a jointed rock mass. In the past, the shear behavior of
regular joints under cyclic conditions was studied by researchers
such as Hutson and Dowding (1990), Homand et al. (2001),
Indraratna et al. (2012) and Niktabar et al. (2016). But joints in
the rock mass are often completely irregular and have different
roughnesses. Few investigations have been conducted on irregular
joints including replicated splitting joint and natural joint. Huang
et al. (1993) conducted cyclic shear test on natural rock joints and
observed that the first cycle is more pronounced in shear stress and
dilation on natural joint as compared to subsequent cycles. Lee et al.
(2001) studied cyclic shear behavior of saw cut and tensile splitting
joints in two types of rocks: granite and marble. It was observed
that the frictional resistance increased gradually during increasing
cycles in case of granite joint and saw cut, whereas it did not change

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.09.001
1674-7755 Ó 2017 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1072 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084
for marble saw cut joint. It was different in case of splitting joints
dilation of forward and backward stages. Jafari et al. (2003) per-
formed shear test at low, medium and high normal stresses on saw
tooth and replicas of real joint. It was concluded that shearing
mechanism was sliding mainly at low normal stress and the shear
strength of joint reached a constant value after a few cycles.
Degradation of the first- and second-order asperities continued
during cycles but the second-order asperities were not effective
after few cycles. At high normal stress, both the first- and second-
order asperities were broken during shear displacement without
any considerable dilation. Nguyen (2013) studied the behavior of
schistose jointed rock under static and dynamic conditions (cyclic
shear test with different frequencies). Shear test was conducted
using large dynamic direct shear apparatus developed by Konietzky
et al. (2012). The results showed that the peak shear stress under
dynamic condition was 30% greater than that under static condi-
tion. Mirzaghorbanali (2013), Mirzaghorbanali et al. (2014) and
Nemcik et al. (2014) studied cyclic shear test on saw tooth and
replicas of real joint under constant normal stiffness (CNS) condi-
tion. The results indicated that with increasing initial normal stress,
the effects of shear rate became less pronounced under CNS con-
dition. In addition, there was no significant influence on shear
strengths under higher and lower shear rates with increase in the
number of cycles.
There are limitations for the study of shear test on natural or
splitting joints such as lack of the same joints with identical
roughness. On the other hand, joints with irregular asperities are
more representative and closer to natural joints. In order to study
the effect of irregular asperities on shear behavior of rock joints
under cyclic conditions, a series of tests has been performed on cast
regular and irregular jointed samples using cyclic shear testing
machine. In the present study, regular joints with asperity angles of
15
e15
and 30
e30
and irregular joints with asperity angles of
Shear stress
(BR) (FR)
Shear displacem
ment
(BL) (FL)
Forward Righht (FR)
Forward Left (FL)
Backward Lefft (BL)
Backward Rigght (BR)
Fig. 1. Load directions and joint movements under shear cyclic condition.
15
e30
and 15
e45
were prepared. Each cycle was divided into
four stages as described by Lee et al. (2001) such as forward right
(FR), forward left (FL), backward left (BL) and backward right (BR).
To represent cyclic movement on the joint, the four stages with load
directions are illustrated in Fig. 1. The FR movement at the first
shear cycle is similar to static or monotonic shear load.
2. Sample preparation
Joint roughness can be regular or irregular, but in the field it is
mostly irregular. In order to simulate joint roughness, triangular
asperity is selected to create roughness for the joints. The trian-
gular asperities with the same angle are considered as a regular
joint, while those with different angles are considered as an
irregular joint. Similar sample preparation methodology was
adopted for preparing both regular and irregular joints except for
the use of different asperity plates to create different asperity
angles as demonstrated in Fig. 2a. A model material is searched in
such a way that it could be easily handled and the reproducibility
of the sample could be ensured. To achieve this, different brands of
plaster of Paris (POP) and dental plasters at different moisture
contents and curing periods in isolation or combinations were
tried. Finally, POP was selected because of its universal availability
and its molding ability into any shape when mixed with water to
produce the desired joints and also due to its long-term strength is
independent of time once the chemical hydration is completed.
The prescribed percentage of water was determined so as to
achieve proper workability of the paste and required strength to
simulate the weak rock. Different water-POP ratios were tried in
order to obtain the desired strength and workability. The ratio
finally selected was 0.6. Size of samples and amplitude of asper-
ities were 298 mm  298 mm  125 mm and 5 mm, respectively,
for all joints based on molds and asperity plates.
Mated joint
Backward Forward
Upper block
b
Lower block
b
(FR)
(FL)
(BL)
(BR)
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1073

Fig. 3. Regular joints: (a) 15
e15
, and (b) 30
e30
joint asperities.

Fig. 2. Setup for sample preparation: (a) Asperity plates, and (b) Molds on vibration
table.

The asperity plates of different angles (Fig. 2a) including 15
e

15
,30
e30
, 15
e30
and 15
e45
were designed and fabricated
to produce desired asperities in the samples. The POP with 60%
moisture was mixed in the mixing tank for 2 min and then the
material was poured into the casting mold placed on the vibrating
table as presented in Fig. 2b. Vibrations were given to the sample
for 1 min to remove any entrapped air. The sample was demolded
Fig. 4. Irregular joints: (a) 15
e30
, and (b) 15
e45
joint asperities.
after 45 min and kept for air curing for 14 d before testing. Regular
and irregular joints before the test are shown in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively. The uniaxial compressive strength of model material
at 0.6 water-to-cement (POP) ratio after 14 d of air curing was cyclic shear conditions as well. This system is illustrated in Fig. 5,
6 MPa. which consists of three main units, namely (1) loading unit, (2)
hydraulic power pack, and (3) data acquisition with controlling
3. Large-scale direct shear apparatus unit. The maximum capacities of normal and horizontal load cells
are 500 kN and 1000 kN, respectively. The size of each shear box is
A servo-controlled large-scale direct shear machine designed by 300 mm  300 mm  448 mm. This system can work under both
Shrivastava and Rao (2013) was modified to carry out tests under static and cyclic conditions.
1074 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

4.1. Regular joints (15
e15
and 30
e30
joints)

Cyclic shear tests were conducted on regular joints, and the

results were plotted as three different graphs. Shear stress versus
horizontal displacement, normal displacement versus horizontal
displacement and normal stress versus horizontal displacement on
the joints with asperity angles of 15
e15
and 30
e30
are pre-
sented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.

4.1.1. Shear behavior of joints

Fig. 6a indicates that no significant change was observed on the
peak shear stress from the first to the last (30th) shear cycle on the
joint with 15
e15
asperity, i.e. the number of shear cycle was not
effective on the shear strength. But the shear strength decreased
gradually with increasing number of shear cycles for 30
e30

asperity at normal stress P ¼ 0.1 MPa, as shown in Fig. 7a. Mech-
anism of shearing changed from sliding on the joint with low
asperity angle (15
e15
) to shearing or degradation of asperities on
the joint with high asperity angle (30
e30
) at the same normal
stress under cyclic shear loads. With increasing normal stress
(P ¼ 1 MPa), the peak shear stress increased. But after one or two
cycles, the peak shear stress dropped and reached constant values,
as demonstrated in Figs. 6b and 7b, because all asperities were
sheared off after one or two cycles and the mechanism of shearing
was the same for both joints. Horizontal displacement corre-
sponding to the peak shear stress decreased with the increase in
asperity angle.
The shear strength of the joint with 30
e30
asperity was
greater than that of 15
e15
asperity as expected based on Patton
(1966) and Barton (1973) due to increasing asperity angle or
roughness value, and it increased by 62% (for the first cycle) as
represented in Table 2. But it was observed only at initial shear
cycles. The shear strength decreased for 30
e30
asperity and it
was less than that of 15
e15
asperity after a few cycles, i.e. the
rate of reduction for shear strength on the joint with 30
e30

asperity was more than that of 15
e15
asperity during cyclic
loads.
Fig. 5. Large-scale direct shear testing machine: (a) Schematic diagram, and (b)
Photograph. 1 e loading unit; 2 e Hydraulic power pack; 3 e Data acquisition with
controlling unit. 4.1.2. Dilation or compression behavior of joints
Normal displacement versus horizontal displacement on the
joints with asperities of 15
e15
and 30
e30
for P ¼ 0.1 MPa and
4. Experimentation 1 MPa are presented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The dilation
(negative normal displacement) was dominant on the joint, and
The cyclic shear tests were conducted on regular and irregular dilation angle (slope of normal displacement versus horizontal
joints under different normal stresses, i.e. 0.1 MPa, 0.5 MPa and displacement curve) was constant during 30 shear cycles for 15
e
1 MPa. The frequency and amplitude of shear load, number of cy- 15
asperity as presented in Fig. 6c, but it decreased by increasing
cles, and wave type were set to be constant for all cyclic shear tests the number of shear cycles for 30
e30
asperity as illustrated in
as presented in Table 1. The orientation of samples with irregular Fig. 7c due to gradual degradation of asperities. Dilation on the joint
joints is important when loaded at different asperity angles. with 30
e30
asperity was converted to compression (positive
Experimental results are plotted for 30 shear cycles. The first and normal displacement) after several shear cycles as indicated in
last shear cycles are shown in black and red in the graphs, and the Fig. 7c. With increasing normal stress to 1 MPa, compression was
second to the 29th shear cycles are presented in blue for more dominant for both of joints, as shown in Figs. 6d and 7d. During
clarity as indicated in Figs. 6e9, together with Figs. A1 and A2 as dilation and compression on the joints, the normal stress was
represented in Appendix. constant (0.1 MPa or 1 MPa) from the first to the last shear cycle
under CNL condition, as indicated in Fig. 6e, f and 7e, f, as well as
Fig. A1e and f in Appendix.
Table 1
Input data fed to software of direct shear apparatus under cyclic condition. 4.2. Irregular joints (15
e30
and 15
e45
joints)
Normal load, Shear load Shear stress Number of Wave type
P (MPa) frequency, f (Hz) amplitude, A (mm) cycles, N
Cyclic shear tests were performed on irregular joints as same as
regular joints. Shear stress versus horizontal displacement, normal
0.1, 0.5, 1 0.01 8 30 Sinusoidal
displacement versus horizontal displacement, and normal stress
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1075

Fig. 6. Shear stress, normal displacement, and normal stress versus horizontal displacement, respectively, on the joint with 15
e15
asperity angle at normal stresses of P ¼ 0.1 MPa
(left) and P ¼ 1 MPa (right).
1076 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

0.4 2

Shear stress (MPa)

Shear stress (MPa)

0.3 1.5

0.2
1
0.1
0.5
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0
-0.1 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.5
-0.2 Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 1
-1 Cycle 1
-0.3 Cycle 30
Cycle 30
-0.4 -1.5
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

-3
Cycle 2 to 29 -1
Cycle 2 to 29
-2.5 Cycle 1
Cycle 1
Cycle 30 Cycle 30 -0.5
Normal displacement (mm)

-2
Normal displacement (mm)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0
-1.5

-1 0.5

-0.5 1
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0
1.5
0.5
2
1

1.5 2.5
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4
Normal stress (MPa)

1.2 1.2
Normal stress (MPa)

1 1

0.8 0.8
0.6 Cycle 2 to 29
0.6 Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 1
0.4 Cycle 30 Cycle 1
0.4
Cycle 30
0.2 0.2
0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

Fig. 7. Shear stress, normal displacement, and normal stress versus horizontal displacement, respectively, on the joint with 30
e30
asperity angle at normal stresses of P ¼ 0.1 MPa
(left) and P ¼ 1 MPa (right).
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1077

0.5 2.5

Shear stress (MPa)

0.4 2

Shear stress (MPa)

0.3 1.5

0.2 1

0.1 0.5

0.0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.1 -0.5
Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 2 to 29
-0.2 -1
Cycle 1 Cycle 1
Cycle 30 Cycle 30
-0.3 -1.5
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

-3.5 Horizontal displacement (mm)

-1
-3
Normal displacement (mm)

-2.5 -0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normal displacement (mm)

-2 0

-1.5 0.5
-1
1
-0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1.5
0
Cycle 2 to 29 2
0.5
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 30 2.5 Cycle 1
1
Horizontal displacement (mm) Cycle 30
(c) (d)

1.6
1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
Normal stress (MPa)

Normal stress (MPa)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 Cycle 2 to 29 0.6

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 to 29
0.4 0.4
Cycle 30 Cycle 1
0.2 Cycle 30
0.2
0
0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

Fig. 8. Shear stress, normal displacement, and normal stress versus horizontal displacement, respectively, on the joint with 15
e30
asperity angle at normal stresses of P ¼ 0.1 MPa
(left) and P ¼ 1 MPa (right).
1078 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

0.6 2.5

0.5

Shear stress (MPa)

2
Shear stress (MPa) 0.4
1.5
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.5
-0.1 Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 2 to 29 -1 Cycle 1
-0.2
Cycle 1 Cycle 30
-0.3 Cycle 30 -1.5
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

-3 -1.5
Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 2 to 29 -2.5 Cycle 1
-1
Cycle 1 Cycle 30
Normal displacement (mm)

Normal displacement (mm)

Cycle 30
-2 -0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-1.5 0

-1 0.5

-0.5 1
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 1.5

0.5 2

1 2.5
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
Normal stress (MPa)

1.2
Normal stress (MPa)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 Cycle 2 to 29 0.6

Cycle 1
0.4 0.4 Cycle 2 to 29
Cycle 30
Cycle 1
0.2 0.2 Cycle 30
0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

Fig. 9. Shear stress, normal displacement, and normal stress versus horizontal displacements, respectively, on the joint with 15
e45
asperity angle at normal stresses of
P ¼ 0.1 MPa (left) and P ¼ 1 MPa (right).
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1079

Table 2 2.5
Peak shear stress (sp) of regular joints for different cycles at P ¼ 0.1 MPa. 30°-30°
Number of cycle, N sp (MPa) Increase with
respect to 2 15°-15°
15
e15
30
e30

15
e15
(%)

1 0.21 0.34 62 15°-30°

Peak shear stress (MPa)

2 0.21 0.27 29
3 0.21 0.21 0 1.5
4 0.21 0.19 e
15 0.21 0.16 e
29 0.21 0.16 e
30 0.21 0.16 e 1

Table 3 0.5
Peak shear stress (sp) of irregular joints for different cycles at P ¼ 0.1 MPa.

N sp (MPa) Increase with

respect to 15
e30
(%)
15
e30
15
e45
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1 0.36 0.53 47
Number of cycles
2 0.39 0.43 10
3 0.36 0.37 3
Fig. 11. Shear strength versus number of cycles for regular and irregular joints at high
4 0.32 0.35 9
normal stress (P ¼ 1 MPa).
15 0.28 0.30 7
29 0.27 0.28 4
30 0.27 0.28 4

shown in Table 3. The peak shear stress in forward (right) was

greater than that in backward (left) for both irregular joints because
0.5 of shear direction, i.e. in forward (right) movement, joints faced 30

or 45
slope of asperities; but in backward (left) movement, they
30°-30° faced 15
slope for both joints. No significant change was observed
N=3 15°-15° regarding the peak shear stress on the lower slope (15
) of asper-
0.4 ities or backward movement, but the shear strength on the higher
15°-30°
slope (30
or 45
) of asperities (in forward movement) decreased
Peak shear stress (MPa)

with increasing number of shear cycles at low normal stress

0.3 (0.1 MPa) as demonstrated in Figs. 8a and 9a. The peak shear stress
decreased for both forward and backward movements at high
normal stress (P ¼ 1 MPa), as presented in Figs. 8b and 9b. The
irregular joints after two or three shear cycles reached the same
0.2
shear stress value and the behavior of the joints changed from non-
planar to planar due to shearing of all asperities completely for the
joints at high normal stress.
0.1

4.2.2. Dilation or compression behavior of joints

0 irregular joints, i.e. dilations and compressions were dominant on
0 5 10 15 20
Number of cycles
Fig. 10. Shear strength versus number of cycles for regular and irregular joints at low
normal stress (P ¼ 0.1 MPa).
versus horizontal displacement on the joints with asperity angles of
15
e30
and 15
e45
(P ¼ 0.1 MPa and 1 MPa) are represented in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
4.2.1. Shear behavior of joints
The shear strength (peak shear stress) of 15
e45
joint asperity
was 47% greater than that of joint with 15
e30
asperity due to the
increase of asperity of one slope (irregularity of the joint) at the first
shear cycle. The difference between the peak shear stresses of two
irregular joints decreased with increasing number of shear cycles as
Both dilation and compression behaviors were observed on
25 30
the joints at low (0.1 MPa) and high (1 MPa) normal stresses,
respectively. Dilation behavior for irregular joints was different
from that for regular joints at low normal stress. Peak dilations
and dilation angles were constant or decreased in forward and
backward movements equally for regular joints (except at first
cycle), but it was not observed for irregular joints. Peak dilations
and dilation angles decreased more on the slope with higher
angle of asperity to become equal with lower slope of asperity as
indicated in Figs. 8c and 9c for 15
e30
and 15
e45
joints,
respectively (it is more clear as demonstrated in Fig. A2c in
Appendix).
Dilation and dilation angles of irregular joint with 15
e45

asperity (on the slope of asperities with lower angle (15
) or
backward movement) increased with respect to the other joints
(15
e15
and 15
e30
joints) at P ¼ 1 MPa due to either increase in
slope angle because of deformation on another part of slope in the
first movement or some debris getting deposited on this slope due
1080 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

to the first shearing and joint degradation on the slope of asperity
with higher angle as illustrated in Fig. 9d.
4.3. Comparison between regular and irregular joints
The shear strength (peak shear stress) versus the number of
cycles is plotted for regular and irregular joints at low and high
normal stresses in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The shear
strength of the irregular joint (15
e30
joint asperity) was
greater than that of the regular joint (30
e30
joint asperity) at
different cycles of shearing. Moreover, the shear strength of the
joint with 30
e30
asperity was greater than that of 15
e15

joint asperity for two cycles (N < 3), but the reverse occurred and
the shear strength of 15
e15
joint asperity was observed larger
than that of 30
e30
joint asperity after three cycles (N > 3) at
low normal stress (P ¼ 0.1 MPa) (Fig. 10). This phenomenon was
not observed at high normal stress (P ¼ 1 MPa). Under this stress,
non-planar joints (regular and irregular joints) changed to planar
joints, and the shear strength of the joints reached a constant
value after a few cycles for regular and irregular joints, as indi-
cated in Fig. 11.
Irregular joints had tendency to convert regular joints at low
normal stress under cyclic shear loads. This was due to the fact that
degradation was predominant on the slopes at higher angle (for-
ward movement) and sliding phenomenon occurred only at lower
angle (backward movement) on the asperities as presented in
Fig. 12b and c.
No degradation was observed on regular joint with 15
e15

asperity as shown in Fig. 12a but diminishing trend was observed
only on the slope with higher angle on irregular joint (15
e30
) at
low normal stress as represented in Fig. 12b and c. Schematic
regular and irregular joints before and after the same shear tests

Fig. 12. Photograph of joints with asperity angles of 15
e15
(a, b and c) and 15
e30
(d and e) at low (P ¼ 0.1 MPa) and high (P ¼ 1 MPa) normal stresses, respectively, after cyclic
shear tests.
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1081

i1 i2 i1 i2
i1=i2 i1≠i2
(a)

Removed due to shearing

Remained intact due to sliding Remained intact due to sliding Remained intact due to sliding

i1 i2 i1 i2
i1=i2 i1≠i2
(b)

Fig. 13. Schematic regular (15
e15
) and irregular joints (15
e30
) (a) before and (b) after shearing at low normal stress (P ¼ 0.1 MPa).

are represented in Fig. 13. Two slopes of asperities from 15
e15
2.5
joint were under sliding during 30 cycles; hence, asperities and
15°-30°
joint remained intact, but 30
slope from irregular joint (15
e30
) 15°-45°
was under degradation, and then 15
e30
joint asperity turned 2 30°-30°
into regular joint or 15
e15
joint asperity (Fig. A2c in Appendix).
All joints (regular and irregular) became planar joints after cyclic 15°-15°
shear test at high normal stress (P ¼ 1 MPa) as illustrated in Shear stress (MPa)
1.5
Fig. 12d and e.
Shear strength envelopes of regular and irregular joints are
plotted in Fig. 14. The shear strength envelope of irregular joints
1
with 15
e30
joint asperity was greater than that of regular joints
with 15
e15
or 30
e30
asperity. The shear strength envelope of
irregular joint with 15
e30
asperity was very close to that of Joint with 15°-45° asperity
regular joint with 30
e30
asperity at low normal stress and large 0.5 Joint with 15°-30° asperity
difference was observed at high normal stress. Joint with 30°-30° asperity
Joint with 15°-15° asperity
0
5. Conclusions 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Normal stress (MPa)
Cyclic shear tests were conducted on regular (i1 ¼ i2) and irreg-
Fig. 14. Shear strength envelopes of regular (15
e15
and 30
e30
) and irregular
ular joints (i1si2) with different asperity angles. The results indi-
joints (15
e30
and 15
e45
).
cated that the shear strength of rock joint increased with increase in
asperity angle. But this phenomenon was observed only for the
static load or the first cycle of shearing. With the increase in the
number of shear cycles (N), the shear strength or peak shear stress of loading and unloading were the same (except at the first cycle),
low asperity angle (15
e15
) was greater than that of high asperity whereas for irregular joints, they were different. Joint degradation
angle (30
e30
) after a few cycles (N > 3) at low normal stress, i.e. was predominant on the slope of asperity with higher angles on
the shear strength decreased for all asperity angles, but the reduc- irregular joints until two angles of asperities became equal under
tion rate was larger in case of asperities with higher angles in cyclic shear cycles, and then they started behaving as regular joints for
condition. This is due to the mechanism of shearing which changed subsequent cycles. This process of shearing was not observed at
from sliding with low asperity angle to diminishing of asperities high normal stress.
with high angle. These results could provide useful insight in prac-
tical rock mechanics studies such as the stability of rock slopes and Conflicts of interest
underground mine openings, where the shear strength of rock joint
could play an important role, especially when the rock structure is The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
likely to be subjected to cyclic loads, e.g. due to seismic loading. interest associated with this publication and there has been no
Shear strength and its envelope of irregular joint (15
e30
) significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
were found to be higher than those of regular joint (30
e30
) at enced its outcome.
different cycles of shearing. The shear strength envelope of irreg-
ular joint (15
e30
asperity) was very close to that of regular joint Acknowledgement
(30
e30
asperity) at low normal stress (slope condition), and large
difference was observed at higher normal stress (underground The authors wish to thank for the financial support of this
structure condition). research from Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. We are thankful
The mechanism of shearing for regular and irregular joints was to Mr. Jattinder Singh, Managing Director of Hydraulic Engineering
different under cyclic condition at low normal stress. The shear and Instruments Company, New Delhi, for extending help during
strength and degradation of asperities on regular joints between the modification of shear testing machine.
1082 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

Appendix

1 1.2
Shear stress (MPa)

Shear stress (MPa)

0.8
0.6 0.7

0.4
0.2 0.2
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.2 -0.3
-0.4
Cycle 2 to 29
-0.6 -0.8
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 to 29
-0.8 Cycle 30 Cycle 1
-1 Cycle 30
-1.3
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

Horizontal displacement (mm)
-1.5 -1.5

-1
Normal displacement (mm)

Normal displacement (mm)

-1

-0.5
-0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
2 Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 1 Cycle 30
Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 1 Cycle 30
(c) (d)

1.6 1.6
Normal stress (MPa)

Normal stress (MPa)

1.4 1.4

1.2 Cycle 2 to 29 1.2 Cycle 2 to 29

Cycle 1 Cycle 1
1 Cycle 30 1
Cycle 30
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

Fig. A1. Shear stress, normal displacement and normal stress versus horizontal displacement, respectively, on the joints with 15
e15
(left) and 30
e30
(right) asperity angles at
normal stress of P ¼ 0.5 MPa.
 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084 1083

2 2

Shear stress (MPa)

Shear stress (MPa)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

-0.5 -0.5 Cycle 2 to 29

Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 1
Cycle 1
Cycle 30 Cycle 30
-1 -1
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)

-2.5 -1.5

-2
Normal displacement (mm)
-1
Normal displacement (mm)

-1.5
-0.5
-1
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.5 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 1 Cycle 15 Cycle 30 Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 1 Cycle 30
(c) (d)

1.6 1.6
Normal stress (MPa)

1.4 1.4
Normal stress (MPa)

Cycle 2 to 29 Cycle 2 to 29
1.2 Cycle 1 1.2 Cycle 1
Cycle 30 Cycle 30
1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

Fig. A2. Shear stress, normal displacement and normal stress versus horizontal displacement, respectively, on the joints with 15
e30
(left) and 15
e45
(right) asperity angles at
normal stress of P ¼ 0.5 MPa.
1084 S.M.M. Niktabar et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 9 (2017) 1071e1084

References Lee HS, Park YJ, Cho TF, You KH. Influence of asperity degradation on the mechanical
behavior of rough rock joints under cyclic shear loading. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2001;38(7):967e80.
Barton N. Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Engineering
Mirzaghorbanali A, Nemcik J, Aziz N. Effects of shear rate on cyclic loading shear
Geology 1973;7(4):287e332.
behaviour of rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Rock Me-
Homand F, Belem T, Souley M. Friction and degradation of rock joint surfaces under
chanics and Rock Engineering 2014;47(5):1931e8.
shear loads. International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Mirzaghorbanali A. Shear behaviour of rock joints under cyclic loading and constant
Geomechanics 2001;25(10):973e99.
normal stiffness condition. PhD Thesis. Wollongong, Australia: University of
Huang X, Haimson BC, Plesha ME, Qiu X. An investigation of the mechanics of rock
Wollongong; 2013.
joints. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geo-
Nemcik J, Mirzaghorbanali A, Aziz N. An elasto-plastic constitutive model for rock
mechanics Abstracts 1993;30(3):257e69.
joints under cyclic loading and constant normal stiffness. Geotechnical and
Hutson RW, Dowding CH. Joint asperity degradation during cyclic shear. Interna-
Geological Engineering 2014;32(2):321e35.
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Ab-
Nguyen V. Static and dynamic behaviour of joints in schistose rock. PhD Thesis.
stracts 1990;27(2):109e19.
Freiberg, Germany: University of Bergakademie; 2013.
Indraratna B, Mirzaghorbanali A, Oliveira D, Premadasa W. Shear behaviour of
Niktabar SMM, Rao KS, Shrivastava AK. Shear behaviour of regular and irregular rock
rock joints under cyclic loading. In: Narsilio GA, Arulrajah A, Kodikara J, edi-
joints under cyclic condition. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium
tors. Proceedings of the 11th Australia-New Zealand conference on geo-
on mine safety science and engineering: operational and environmental mine
mechanics: ground engineering in a changing world. Engineers Australia;
health and safety practice and innovation. Montreal, Canada; 2016. p. 277e86.
2012. p. 1256e61.
Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and related materials. PhD Thesis.
Jafari MK, Amini Hosseini K, Pellet F, Boulon M, Buzzi O. Evaluation of shear
Urbana, USA: University of Illinois; 1966.
strength of rock joints subjected to cyclic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
Shrivastava AK, Rao KS. Development of a large-scale direct shear testing machine
quake Engineering 2003;23(7):619e30.
for unfilled and infilled rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions.
Konietzky H, Frühwirt T, Luge H. A new large dynamic rock mechanical direct shear
Geotechnical Testing Journal 2013;36(5):670e9.
box device. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2012;45(3):427e32.