Module 7: Planes of Weakness in Rocks: 7.2.4 Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
Module 7: Planes of Weakness in Rocks: 7.2.4 Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
Module 7: Planes of Weakness in Rocks: 7.2.4 Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC)
LECTURE 24
An empirical index quite widely used for surface roughness characterization is the Joint
Roughness coefficient, JRC, as proposed by Barton and Bandis, (1983). JRC ranges from 0
(for smooth planar surfaces) to 20 (for rough undulating surfaces). It can be measured by
conducting self weight tilt tests to determine the inclination (aº) of a joint at the instant of
sliding
a° − φr
JRC = (7.3)
log(σ c /σ n )
Where, σ n = normal stress = W cos2( a )/(cross sectional area), σ c = uniaxial compressive
strength of asperities, φ r = angle of residual friction.
Since very high tilt angles present experimental difficulties (toppling before sliding) and
theoretical difficulties (cohesion intercepts), the use of tilt tests for joints with JRC values
greater than about 10 is generally impossible and horizontal pull or push tests be used.
Three points need to be considered while calculating JRC:
1) The index has a physical characteristic, as deduced from geometrical analysis of the
joint surfaces tested to establish the aforementioned range of JRC. Apparently, JRC is
closely corrected with the mean roughness amplitude ‘a’ to profile length L ratio.
2) JRC is scale dependent as shown in Figure 7.9 and allowances should be made when
assigning field values from laboratory determined JRC values. The following
approximate scaling has been suggested by Barton and Bandis (1983),
−0.002 JRC o
L
JRC n = JRC o n (7.4)
L0
Where, subscripts refer to laboratory (o) and field (n) scales. Some guidelines of the
expected variation of JRC for different types of joints and lengths from 20 to 100 cm
are shown in Figure 7.10. The profiles correspond to those included in the ISRM
suggested methods for visual description of joint roughness.
3) JRC characterization should be based on a large number of individual tests to
avoid sampling bias.
208
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
Figure 7.9: Scale effect correction for JRC 0 (Bandis et al., 1990)
Figure 7.10: Guidelines for selecting appropriate JRC values for different types
of joints at scales of 0.2m and 1.0m (Barton and Bandis, 1990)
209
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
The strength of rock at the joint walls is an important component of shear strength and
stiffness. The actual contact area between the asperities on the opposed walls of a joint is
very small. Hence stress concentrations are high and strength can be easily exceeded.
However the exact mode of failure is not clear. Intuitively, the tips of asperities may fail in
tension when gross normal stresses are very low. When stresses are high, tensile cracking and
wedging followed by lateral shear failure probably occur.
In view of these uncertainties, rational compromises have to be made when introducing the
wall strength or the shear strength determinations. Usually, the uniaxial compressive strength
or the shear strength of the rock material or a combination of the two are adopted. Joint
surfaces may be altered and hence measurements should be conducted directly on the wall
material to allow for any weathering effects. The use of the Schmidt hammer is a convenient
method for direct joint wall strength determination (Coulson,1972). The term joint
compressive strength can be used for distinction from the rock matrix strength (σ n ), which
could be considerably higher.
Most strength indices of intact rock appear to be scale dependent, although interpretations of
the observed scale effects differ widely (Bandis, 1990). The following approximate scaling
function has been suggested for the JCS index of joints, in accord with the experimentally
deduced trends in Figure 7.11.
−0.002 JRC o
L
JCS n = JCS o n (7.5)
L0
Where JCS 0 corresponds to a nominal joint length L0 = 100mm with roughness coefficient
JRC o .
210
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
7.2.6 Aperture
Figure 7.12 presents the ratio of real aperture (E) to equivalent conducting aperture (e) with
theoretical smooth wall aperture values for different JRC 0 values. This model implies that the
cubic law (E = e) may only be valid when aperture are very wide, or when the joints are
exceptionally smooth. Estimates or measurements of initial (E 0 ) values from sampled joints
yield values of disturbed apertures. An improved approximation may be possible by cyclic
pre-consolidation of the joint, although it must be clear that the real stress history can never
be known. More realistic estimates are inferred from insitu pumping tests in isolated bore
hole sections. Assuming that radial flow is channelled through one conductor, values of e 0
can be obtained from:
6µ Q ln( R / r ) 0.33
e0 = (7.6)
π g ( Pr − PR )
Where, Q = flow rate, μ = kinematic viscosity, g is gravity acceleration, P r and P R = excess
water pressure at bore hole wall and at distance R, respectively. Once the distribution of
211
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
conducting apertures (e 0 ) has been obtained, estimates of the insitu mechanical apertures (E 0 )
can be calculated according to the model in Figure 7.12.
E o = (e o JRC 02.5 )
1/ 2
in μm (7.7)
7.2.7 Gouge
Rock discontinuities that are filled with plastic materials represent one of the greatest
problems in rock engineering. The fill material between the joint faces is termed as gouge
which influences the joint resistance based on the nature and thickness of gouge and the
character of joint walls. If the gouge is thick and the joint walls do not touch, then the
strength properties are of the gouge strength. Whereas, if the gouge is thin and not present at
all, then the shear strength is dependent only on the properties of the rock faces. An
increasing degree of complexity is introduced into the problem when the clay fillings are less
thick than the roughness amplitude of the wall. A limited shear displacement will then result
in marked stiffening when opposed rock asperities make contact. A number of investigators
212
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
conducted tests using different type of gouge materials which indicated that the strength of
filled joints is influenced by the relative thickness of the fill with respect to asperity height,
type of fill material and grain size of the fill material.
Barton (1976) has given a comprehensive review of the shear strength of filled
discontinuities in rock. He has tabulated the direct shear tests reported in the literature for
filled discontinuities in a tabular form. Lama (1978) gave a logarithmic relationship between
thickness of the gauge peak shear strength τ and normal stress σ n based on tests on filled
joints. Roy (1993) based on experiments on gauge filled joints has quantified a joint strength
parameter ‘r’ similar to joint roughness for unfilled joints. The value of ‘r’ depends on the
friction angle of the gauge material in the filled joints. He has determined the joint strength
parameter ‘r’ for different gauge material and is given in Table 7.3.
213
Module 7: Planes of weakness in rocks
214