5 tayangan

Judul Asli: IAEG_095

Diunggah oleh Is Mi

- Rock Blasting : indices de volavilidad
- INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT CUTTER HELIX ANGLE AND CUTTING CONDITION ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS DURING END-MILLING OF C45 STEEL
- 10 key tips for lighting and look development.pdf
- Corrosion Fatigue Insitu OCP
- Dilogarithm and Riemann-Hilbert Problem
- Suspension Axle Tramp Contribution to the Dynamic Wheel Loads of a Heavy Truck - Karamihas
- Real/Complex Logarithmic Number System ALU
- Surface Comparator.pdf
- chapter 5 exam key
- HCS
- exponential log project outline proposal
- Strength Properties - Novoa-martinez_thesis
- LARGE FINANCIAL CRASHES
- Conclusion ( Addmaths Project)Logarithm
- Exponential Equation LP Final
- Information System Maturity
- 2001 ASD Manual Errata
- DARA-THESISEBF force analyze.pdf
- Shear Strength in Various Codes
- 38

Anda di halaman 1dari 9

A new method for determination of joint roughness coefficient

BO-AN JANG

1

, HYUN-SIC JANG

2

& HYUCK-JIN PARK

3

1

Kangwon National University, Rep. Korea. (e-mail: bajang@kangwon.ac.kr)

2

Kangwon National University, Rep. Korea. (e-mail: whitenull@kangwon.ac.kr)

3

Sejong University, Rep. Korea (e-mail: hypark@sejong.ac,kr)

Abstract: Joint roughness is generally quantified as joint roughness coefficient (JRC) and JRC was determined

by visual comparison of joint profile measured with standard roughness profile suggested by Barton &

Choubey(1977). It is well understood that JRC determined by visual comparison is subjective and sometimes

erratic. Recently, joint roughness can be measured very precisely as digital values by laser scanner or digital

measuring equipments. The problem is how to convert these digital values to JRC exactly. We assigned points

on surface of standard roughness profile by 0.1mm along the horizontal line and measured coordinates of

points. Then, the lengths of profile and semi-variance function were measured with different divider spans and

sampling intervals. The fractal dimensions and intercepts of slopes were determined by plotting the length(or

variogram) vs divider span(or sampling interval) in log-log scale. Intercepts of slopes show better correlation

with JRC than fractal dimensions and we derived new equations to estimate JRC from intercept. We measured

joint roughness and shear strength of natural joint from 25 rock specimen. Shear strengths measured and

calculated using Barton's criterion with JRC by new equations are well correlated below the normal stress of

2.5~3 MPa. Shear strengths calculated are a little bit higher than those measured above the normal stress of

2.5~3 MPa. This is expected because one specimen was sheared repeatedly under several normal stresses and

therefore, joint roughness was crushed at high normal stress.

Rsum: La rugosit des joints est gnralement zvalue quantitativement comme coefficient de rugosit des

joints (en anglais : JRC), et le JRC a t dtermin par comparaison visuelle du profil des joints mesure au

moyen d'un profil standard tel suggr par Barton et Choubey(1977). Il est bien compris que le JRC, dtermin

par la comparaison visuelle, est subjectif et parfois erratique. Depuis quelques temps, la rugosit des joints peut

e!tre mesure de faon trs prcise sous la forme de valeurs numriques par un scanner au laser ou du matriel

de mesure numrique. Le problme consiste savoir comment convertir exactement ces valeurs numriques en

JRC. Nous avons attribu des points la surface du profil standard par 0,1 mm le long des lignes horizontales,

et nous avons mesur les coordonnes des points. Ensuite, les longueurs de la fonction du profil et de la semi-

variance ont t mesures l'aide de diffrents empans fractionns 1 et des carts par ta!tonnements. Les

dimensions de la matire et les interceptions des dnivellements ont t tablies en dterminant la longueur (ou

variogramme) vs les empans fractionns 1 (ou carts par ta!tonnements) l'chelle log-log. Les interceptions des

inclinaisons montrent une meilleure corrlation avec JRC que les dimensions de la matire. Nous avons alors

obtenu une nouvelle quation pour estimer le JRC de l'interception. Nous avons mesur la rugosit des joints et

l'usure des joints naturels de 25 spcimens de roches. Les pertes de force mesures et calcules avec JRC

l'aide des critres de Barton par la nouvelle quation sont bien mises en corrlation avec la pression normale de

2.5~3 MPa. Les pertes de force calcules sont un rien plus leves que celles mesures au-dessus de la pression

normale de 2.5~3 MPa. C'est prvoir car un spcimen a t maintes reprises rod sous l'effet d'un grand

nombre de pressions normales et pour cette raison, la rugosit des joints a t crase une pression plus haute

que la normale.

Keywords: joint roughness, JRC, shear strength, fractal dimension, intercept, divider method, variogram

method,

INTRODUCTION

Behaviour of rock mass is an important factor in rock engineering. It is necessary to investigate the behaviour of

rock material as well as discontinuity to understand that of rock mass since rock mass consists of rock material as well

as discontinuities. Properties of the discontinuities include orientation, strength of wall rock, asperities and roughness

and so on. Among them, roughness has the most important influence on shear strength and dilatation as well as

hydraulic characteristics. Therefore, accurate quantification of roughness is important in modelling strength,

deformability and fluid flow. The joint roughness is generally quantified as joint roughness coefficient(JRC) suggested

by Barton & Choubey(1977) using standard roughness profiles. JRC was determined by visual comparison of joint

profile measured with standard roughness profile. However, it is well understood that JRC determined by visual

comparison is subjective and sometimes erratic. Recently, joint roughness can be measured very precisely as digital

values by laser profilometer or digital measuring equipments. The problem is how to convert these digital values to

JRC.

Many researchers have used statistical parameters such as root mean square(RMS), RMS of the first

derivatives(Z

2

), RMS of the second derivatives(Z

3

), structure function(SF), roughness profile index(R

P

) and roughness

angle(A

i

) to quantify joint roughness(Wu & Ali, 1978; Tse & Cruden, 1979; Krahn & Morgenstern, 1979). Recently,

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

2

fractal analysis, such as divider method, box counting method, variogram method, spectral method, have been

suggested to quantify joint roughness(Feder, 1988; Orey, 1970; Berry & Lewis, 1980; Malinverno, 1990).

In this paper, we assigned points on the surface of standard roughness profile by 0.1mm along the horizontal line

and measured coordinates of points. Then, the lengths of profiles(L(r)) were measured with different divider spans(r)

using modified divider method and semi-variance functions(V(h)) were calculated with different sampling interval(h)

using variogram method . The fractal dimensions as well as intercepts of slopes were determined from log L(r) log r

plot and log V(h) log h plot. Correlation between fractal dimension and JRC and between intercept and JRC were

examined. New equations to estimate JRC from fractal dimension and intercept were suggested. We applied new

equations to the natural rock joints and compared shear strengths measured with those calculated using Barton's

criterion.

FRACTAL DIMENSION USING DIVIDER METHOD AND VARIOGRAM

METHOD

Divider method starts from measuring the length of profile(L(r)) using divider spans(r). The length of profile can

be expressed as multiplication of number of divider(N) and divider span and is expressed as equation 1. It is clear that

the smaller r, the larger N and N is expressed as equation 2.

Nr r L = ) (

(1)

D

ar N

=

(2)

in which D is fractal dimension and D>0, and a is a proportionality constant. Inserting equation 2 into equation 1

yields equation 3.

) 1 (

) (

D

ar r L

=

(3)

Thus

r D a r L log ) 1 ( log ) ( log + =

(4)

Different length will be obtained if different divider span is used. When this procedure is repeated, a set of L(r)

dependent on r will be obtained. If log L(r) is plotted against log r, the slope of this plot is 1-D and the intercept is log

a (Figure 1).

Divider method measures the length by walking along the surface of profile with specific divider span. In this

method, the horizontal length for each divided portion is different and it is a little bit difficult to use in computerized

work. Brown(1987) suggested a modified divider method in which profile is divided by equal horizontal divider span

and length in each divider span was measured. Since the modified divider method is easier and more effective in

processing of digitized profile than divider method, the modified divider method was used in this research.

Consider a profile shown in Figure 2. If a divider span is considerably shorter than feature size, divider span will

virtually trace the profile without bridging any peaks or valley of profile. Therefore, for divider spans considerably

shorter than the feature size, the length, L(r), will be almost the same for all divider spans and the slope of log L(r)

log r plot will be flattened as shown in Figure 2. When the divider span is considerably larger than the feature size, the

length will be close to the horizontal length of profile and the slope of log L(r) log r plot will also be flattened. This

indicates that the correct slope of log L(r) Log r plot and thus the correct D can be obtained by fitting a regression

line in the non-flatting portion of the log L(r) log r plot. This range is called crossover length in which fractal

dimensions can be estimated correctly.

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5

2.000

2.001

2.002

2.003

D = 1 - Slope

l

o

g

L

(

r

)

log r

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Modified Divider method. (a) Divider applied to profile (b) log L(r) log r plot

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

3

Feature size

Divider span 2

Divider span 1

Horizontal length of the profile

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

2.000

2.001

2.002

2.003

2.004

regression line

Suitable Range

(Crossover length)

l

o

g

L

(

r

)

log r

Figure 2. Suitable range of r for the estimation of fractal dimension with the divider method (Kulatilake et al., 1997).

Huang et al.(1992) had used a variogram-based technique to estimate fractal dimensions for synthetic profiles as

well as natural rock joints. Variogram method starts from calculating the semi-variance function, V(h) with sampling

interval(h)(Figure 3). Let Z(x) be a Gaussian process with stationary increments, then semi-variance, V(h) is given by

equation 5.

2

1

) (

1

)] ( ) ( [

) ( 2

1

) (

+

=

=

! i i

h N

i

x Z x Z

h N

h V

(5)

where h is the lag distance along the x-axis and N(h) is the total number of pairs of roughness heights that are spaced

at a lag distance h. Fractal dimension, D is related to semi-variance, V(h) as equation 6 and 7(Cox & Wang, 1993).

D

h h V

2 4

) (

(6)

2

log / ) ( log

2

h h V

D =

(7)

h h h h h

Z

(

x

1

)

x

n

L

H

x

1

x

2

x

3

x

i-1

x

i+1

x

i

R

o

u

g

h

n

e

s

s

h

e

i

g

h

t

(

Z

)

Z

(

x

2

)

Z

(

x

3

)

Z

(

x

n

)

Z

(

x

i+

1

)

Z

(

x

i )

Z

(

x

i-

1

)

Roughness profile

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

-2.4

-2.2

-2.0

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

D = 2 - (slope / 2)

L

o

g

V

(

h

)

Log h

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Variogram method. (a) The diagram used to define semi-variance function for a roughness profile. (b) log V(h) log h

plot.

DIGITIZATION OF STANDARD ROUGHNESS PROFILE AND NATURAL

ROCK JOINTS

Standard roughness profiles suggested by Barton & Choubey(1977) were scanned using scanner and converted into

image files. Then, points on the surface of standard profile by 0.1mm along the horizontal line were assigned and

coordinates of points were measured using CorelDraw program. Because digitization of standard profile is the most

important step in this research, Z

2

parameters (Myers, 1962) were calculated and compared with those calculated by

Tse & Cruden(1977) in order to validate digitization(Figure 4). Although Z

2

parameters calculated in this research are

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

4

lower than those calculated by Tse & Cruden under the JRC=4-6, Z

2

parameters in both researches are almost same

above the JRC=6-8. This may be caused because the sampling interval in this research is 0.1mm, which was 0.5 mm in

Tse & Cruden.

Roughness profiles of 25 natural rock joints were measured using mechanical profilometer. Specimens were NX

sized cores and lengths of joints range from 4.7cm to 8.0cm. In case the spacing between points measured were not

exactly 0.1mm, interpolated values were assigned to make spacing between points exactly 0.1mm.

-1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

J

R

C

log Z

2

This research

Tse & Cruden (1979)

Figure 4. Z

2

parameters calculated in this research and in by Tse & Cruden (1979).

ESTIMATION OF JRC USING FRACTAL ANALYSIS

Fractal analysis of standard roughness profiles using modified divider method

Crossover length in which fractal dimensions can be estimated should be determined first in fractal analysis.

Lengths of standard roughness profile using divider span from 0.1mm to 50mm were measured and log L(r) log r

were plotted as shown in Figure 5. Each curve can be divided into three segments as described above. Curves are

nonlinear and flattened when divider spans were shorter than 0.4mm and larger than 2.4mm. Thus, crossover length

was determined as between 0.4mm and 2.4mm.

Lengths of standard roughness profile were measured using 6 different divider spans(0.4mm, 0.6mm, 0.8mm,

1.2mm, 1.7mm, 2.4mm) and log L(r) log r were plotted(Figure 6). Fractal dimensions, D and intercepts of slope, a

were determined using equation 4. Table 1 shows D and a calculated in this research and others. D range from

1.00121 to 1.01278 and a range between 2.00069 and 2.02042. D and a generally increase as JRC increases. Note that

D of JRC= 8 10 and JRC= 10 12 are less than D of JRC= 6 8. Also, D of JRC=14 16 is less than D of JRC= 12

14. This result is almost consistent with that of Kulatilake et al.(1995), although D in Kulatilake et al.(1995) are higher

that those in this research. However, results from Lee et al.(1990) and Seidel et al.(1995) show no irregularities in fractal

dimensions. D of JRC= 10 12 is less than that of JRC= 8 10 and D of JRC= 14 16 is less than that of JRC= 12 14 in

result from Turk et al.(1995), which is almost the same as this result.

In standard roughness profile, horizontal lengths(L

H

) of profiles are the same. However, in natural rock joints, L

H

are different and the intercepts are dependent on L

H

(Kulatilake et al., 1995). Therefore, normalized intercepts, a

n

(a

n

=a

/ log L

H

) were used instead of a to normalize horizontal lengths of profile in this research. JRC against D, JRC against,

a

n

were plotted and best fit lines were drawn in Figure 7. Correlation coefficient(R

2

) between JRC and D and between

JRC and a

n

are 0.731 and 0.989, respectively. This indicates that the intercept of slope has better correlation with JRC

than fractal dimension. A new equation to estimate JRC using normalized intercept is suggested and shown in

equation 8.

42 . 21

1

22 . 256

00462 . 0 / ) 9892 . 0 (

+

+

n

a

e

JRC

(8)

Lee et al.(1990) and Wakabayashi & Fukushige(1995) also suggested equations to estimate JRC using D. They are

equation 9 and equation 10. When their equations are drawn in Figure 7, they show much poorer correlation than

equation suggested by this research.

2

0015 . 0

1

93 . 16

0015 . 0

1

784 . 37 878 . 0 "

#

$

%

&

'

"

#

$

%

&

'

+ =

D D

JRC

(9)

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

5

5

10 413 . 4

1

=

D

JRC

(10)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

2.000

2.005

2.010

2.015

2.020

2.025

2.030

crossover length

(0.4~2.4mm)

l

o

g

L

(

r

)

log r

JRC=0~2

JRC=2~4

JRC=4~6

JRC=6~8

JRC=8~10

JRC=10~12

JRC=12~14

JRC=14~16

JRC=16~18

JRC=18~20

Figure 5. log L(r) log r plot of standard profile and crossover length

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

2.000

2.005

2.010

2.015

2.020

2.025

2.030

l

o

g

L

(

r

)

log r

JRC=18~20

JRC=16~18

JRC=14~16

JRC=12~14

JRC=10~12

JRC=8~10

JRC=6~8

JRC=4~6

JRC=2~4

JRC=0~2

Figure 6. log L(r) log r plot within crossover length

Table 1. Fractal Dimensions and intercepts of standard roughness profile measured using divider method

This research

**

JRC

range

Lee et al

*

.

D

Turk et al.

*

D

Seidel et al

*

.

D

Kulatilake et al

*

.

D D Intercept, a

0~2 1.000446 1.0000 1.00009 1.0060 1.00121 2.00069

2~4 1.001687 1.0019 1.00054 1.0053 1.00231 2.00162

4~6 1.002805 1.0027 1.00072 1.0077 1.00225 2.00265

6~8 1.003974 1.0049 1.00140 1.0093 1.00394 2.00472

8~10 1.004413 1.0054 1.00180 1.0085 1.00272 2.00602

10~12 1.005641 1.0045 1.00400 1.0075 1.00203 2.00727

12~14 1.007109 1.0077 1.00530 1.0144 1.00692 2.00951

14~16 1.008055 1.0070 1.00810 1.0113 1.00416 2.01303

16~18 1.009584 1.0104 1.00960 1.0142 1.01024 2.01449

18~20 1.013435 1.0170 1.01200 1.0185 1.01278 2.02042

*

Divider method

**

Modified divider method

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

6

1.000 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.008 1.010 1.012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

R

2

=0.731

This research

Lee et al.(1990)

Wakabayashi & Fukusige (1995)

J

R

C

Fractal Dimension, D

1.000 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.008 1.010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Init(A1) -234.80

Final(A2) 21.418

XatY50(x0) 0.98916

Width(dx) 0.0046240

J

R

C

Normalized Intercepts, a

n

R

2

=0.989

Figure 7. Relations between JRC and D and between JRC and a

n

in modified divider method

Fractal analysis of standard roughness profiles using variogram method

Semi-variance functions, V(h) of standard roughness profile were calculated using 6 different sampling intervals, h

(0.4mm, 0.6mm, 0.8mm, 1.2mm, 1.7mm, 2.4mm) and log V(h) log h were plotted(Figure 8). Fractal dimension and

intercept of slope were determined. Fractal dimensions, D range from 1.072 to 1.412 and intercepts of slopes, a range

between -2.851 and -1.289. a generally increases as JRC increases but D

decreases (or scattered) as JRC increases.

JRC against D as well as JRC against a were plotted and best fit lines were drawn in Figure 9. Intercepts, a shows

better correlation with JRC than fractal dimensions, the same as divider method and correlation coefficient was

R

2

=0.991. A new equation to estimate JRC using intercept is suggested and shown in equation 11.

2

85 . 4 94 . 31 07 . 52 a a JRC + + = (11)

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

l

o

g

V

(

h

)

log h

JRC=18~20

JRC=16~18

JRC=14~16

JRC=12~14

JRC=10~12

JRC=8~10

JRC=6~8

JRC=4~6

JRC=2~4

JRC=0~2

Figure 8. . log V(h) log h plot within crossover length

1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

R

2

=0.578

J

R

C

Fractal Dimension, D

-3.0 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

J

R

C

Intercept, a

R

2

=0.991

Figure 9. Relations between JRC and D and between JRC and a

in variogram method

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

7

Equation suggested by Tse & Cruden(1979) using Z

2

parameter is generally accepted that it is highly correlated

with JRC. JRC calculated using equation suggested by Tse & Cruden(1979) and using equation 8(modified divider

method) and equation 11(variogram method) were compared(Figure 10). JRC calculated using equation 8 and

equation 11 are closer to JRC in standard roughness profile than those calculated using equation suggested by Tse &

Cruden(1979). For JRC=0~2, JRC=10~12, JRC=14~16 and JRC=16~18, JRC calculated using equation suggested by

Tse & Cruden(1979) are lower than JRC range in standard roughness profile. JRC calculated using equation suggested

by Tse & Cruden(1979) are higher than JRC range in standard roughness profile for JRC=6~8.

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Perfect matching line

Tse & Cruden (Z

2

) (R

2

=0.977)

This research (Divider method, eq.8)

(R

2

=0.989)

This research (variogram method, eq.11)

(R

2

=0.991)

JRC Calculated

J

R

C

o

f

s

t

a

n

d

a

r

d

r

o

u

g

h

n

e

s

s

p

r

o

f

i

l

e

Figure 10. JRC calculated using equations suggested by Tse & Cruden and by this research for standard roughness profile.

Application of new equations to natural rock joints

We digitized roughness profiles of 25 natural rock joints and JRC were calculated using equations 8 and 11.

Because JRC of natural rock joints were not known, unlike standard roughness profile, JRC using equation suggested

by Tse & Cruden(1979) were also calculated and compared with those calculated in this research. Figure 11 shows

JRC calculated using equations suggested by this research and Tse & Cruden(1979) for 25 natural rock joints. JRC are

relatively similar. However, JRC calculated in this research are higher than those calculated using equation suggested

by Tse & Cruden(1979) below JRC of 14 and are lower than those calculated using equation suggested by Tse &

Cruden(1979) above JRC of 14. JRC calculated using equation suggested by Tse & Cruden(1979) are even negative if

joints are flat, indicating that JRC calculated using equation suggested by Tse & Cruden(1979) may be unrealistic for

flat joints. We also compared JRC calculated using variogram method(eq. 11) with those calculated using divider

method(eq. 8). All data points are identical within 10% error range and R

2

is 0.994. JRC calculated using varigram

method have a little bit higher values than those calculated using divider method when JRC is above 10(Figure 11).

We measured shear strengths of 25 natural rock joints and compared them with the Barton's criterion using JRC

calculated using equation 8 and 11 and equation suggested by Tse & Cruden(1979). Figure 12 shows shear strengths

measured and calculated. When JRC are low, shear strengths measured and calculated using all three JRC values are

almost identical. However, When JRC are high, shear strengths calculated using JRC by Tse & Cruden(1979) are

higher than those measured, indicating that JRC calculated using equations by this research is more effective.

Although shear strengths measured are almost identical with those calculated below the normal stress of 2.5~3 MPa,

shear strengths measured are lower than those calculated above the normal stress of 2.5~3 MPa. This is expected

because one specimen was sheared repeatedly under several normal stresses and therefore, joint roughness was

crushed at high normal stress.

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

-10%

+10%

Perfect matching line

JRC by eq.8 (R

2

=0.923)

JRC by eq.11 (R

2

=0.916)

JRC by this research

J

R

C

b

y

T

s

e

&

C

r

u

d

e

n

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-10 %

+10 %

Perfect matching line

R

2

=0.994

J

R

C

b

y

e

q

.

1

1

(

v

a

r

i

o

g

r

a

m

m

e

t

h

o

d

)

JRC by eq.8 (divider method)

Figure 11. JRC calculated using equations suggested by Tse & Cruden and by this research for natural rock joints.

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Normal stress (MPa)

S

h

e

a

r

s

t

r

e

s

s

(

M

P

a

)

JRC by Tse & Cruden : 2.78

JRC by eq.8 : 4.08

JRC by eq.11 : 4.38

experimental data

JCS : 75.3 MPa

p : 35.4

o

r : 28.5

o

specim en ID : s-6

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4

Normal stress (MPa)

S

h

e

a

r

s

t

r

e

s

s

(

M

P

a

)

JRC by Tse & Cruden : 8.82

JRC by eq.8 : 10.30

JRC by eq.11 : 9.57

experimental data

specim en ID : s-15

JCS : 27.9 MPa

p : 35.5

o

r : 22.1

o

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Normal stress (MPa)

S

h

e

a

r

s

t

r

e

s

s

(

M

P

a

)

JRC by Tse & Cruden : 13.97

JRC by eq.8 : 12.05

JRC by eq.11 : 10.40

experimental data

specim en ID : s-22

JCS : 55.9 MPa

p : 43.1

o

r : 26.4

o

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Normal stress (MPa)

S

h

e

a

r

s

t

r

e

s

s

(

M

P

a

)

JRC by Tse & Cruden : 18.83

JRC by eq.8 : 15.68

JRC by eq.11 : 13.97

experimental data

specim en ID : s-24

JCS : 21.6 MPa

p : 47.9

o

r : 31.8

o

Figure 12. Shear strengths measured and calculated from Barton's criterion with JRC using three equations.

CONCLUSIONS

Fractal analysis using modified divider method and variogram method were performed to estimates joint roughness

coefficient. Surfaces of standard roughness profile and 25 natural rock joints were digitized by 0.1mm along

horizontal line. Crossover length in which the fractal dimension can be determined correctly was 0.4mm 2.4mm.

Lengths and semi-variance function of standard roughness profile were measured using 6 different divider spans(or

sampling intervals) within crossover length and fractal dimensions and intercepts were calculated. JRC were better

correlated with intercepts than fractal dimensions in both methods. Two new equations to estimate JRC using

intercepts were suggested. JRC of 25 natural rock joints were calculated using equations suggested by this research

and shear strengths measured and calculated from the Barton's criterion with JRC using equation suggested by this

research and by Tse & Cruden(1979). Shear strengths measured are better matched with those calculated using

equations suggested by this research than those by Tse & Cruden(1979), indicating that JRC calculated using

equations by this research is more effective.

IAEG2006 Paper number 95

9

Corresponding author: Prof. Bo-An Jang, Kangwon National University, 192 Hyoja-dong, Chuncheon, Kangwon-do, 200-701,

South Korea. Tel: +82 33 250 8583. Email: bajang@kangwon.ac.kr.

REFERENCES

Baton, N. & Choubey, V. 1977. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice, Rock Mechanics. 10: 1-54.

Berry, M. V. & Lewis, Z. V. l980. On the Weierstrass-Mandelbroit fractal function. Proc. of the Royal society of London, Ser.

A.370: 459-484.

Brown, S. R. 1987. A note on the description of surface roughness using fractal dimension, Geophysical Research Letters. 14(11):

1095-1098.

Cox, B. L., Wang, J. S. Y. 1993. Fractal surfaces : Measurement and applications in the earth sciences, symmetry : culture and

science, 4.3, 243-283

Feder, J. 1988. Fractals. New York: Plenum Press.

Huang S. L., Oelfke S. M. and Speck R. C. 1992. Applicability of fractal characterization and modeling to rock joint profiles. Int. J.

Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 29, 89-98

Krahn, J. & Morgenstern, N. R. 1979. The ultimate frictional resistance of rock discontinuities. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. &

Geomech. Abstr. 16: 127-133.

Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., Shou, G. Huang, T. H. & Morgan, R. M. l995. New peak shear strength criteria for anisotropic rock joints.

Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 32(7): 673-697.

Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., Um, J., & Pan, G. l997. Requirements for accurate estimation of fractal parameters for self-affine

roughness profiles using the line scaling method. Rock Mech. Rock Engng. Springer-Verlag. 30(4): 181-206.

Lee, Y. H., Carr, J. RBarrD. J., & Hass, C. J. 1990. The fractal dimension as a measure of roughness of rock discontinuity profile.

Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 27(6): 453-464.

Malinverno, A. 1990. A simple method to estimate the fractal dimension of a self affine series. J. Geophys. Res. Lett. 7: 1953-1956.

Myers, N. O. 1962. Characteristics of surface roughness. Wear. 5: 182~189.

Orey, S. 1970. Gaussian Sample Fuction and Housdorff Dimension of Level Crossing. x. Wahrsheninkeits theorie verw. Gebierte

15: 249-256.

Seidel, J. P., Haberfield, C. M. 1995. Towards and under-standing of joint roughness. Rock Mech. Rock Engng. Springer-Verlag.

28(2): 69-92

Tse, R. & Cruden, D. M. 1979. Estimating joint roughness coefficients. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 16: 303-

307.

Turk, N, Greg, M. J., Dearman, W. R., Amin, F. F. 1987. Characterization of rock joint surfaces by fractal dimension, In: Proc.,

28th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, Balkema, Rotterdam. 1223-1236.

Wakabayashi, N. & Fukushige, I. 1995. Experimental study on the Relation between fractal dimension and shear strength.

Fractured and jointed Rock Masses, Myer, Cook, Goodman & Tsang (eds). Balkema. Rotterdam, ISBN 9054105917: 125-

131.

Wu, T. H. & Ali, E. M. 1978. Statistical Representation of the joint roughness. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 15:

259-262.

- Rock Blasting : indices de volavilidadDiunggah olehPablo Robert Lopez Nicolaz
- INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT CUTTER HELIX ANGLE AND CUTTING CONDITION ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS DURING END-MILLING OF C45 STEELDiunggah olehIAEME Publication
- 10 key tips for lighting and look development.pdfDiunggah olehEideOmar
- Corrosion Fatigue Insitu OCPDiunggah olehcrazy_ME
- Dilogarithm and Riemann-Hilbert ProblemDiunggah olehPa Rv
- Suspension Axle Tramp Contribution to the Dynamic Wheel Loads of a Heavy Truck - KaramihasDiunggah olehHugo Rodriguez
- Real/Complex Logarithmic Number System ALUDiunggah olehYermakov Vadim Ivanovich
- Surface Comparator.pdfDiunggah olehGautam Gupta
- chapter 5 exam keyDiunggah olehapi-232996589
- HCSDiunggah olehAistė Petkevičiūtė
- exponential log project outline proposalDiunggah olehapi-407257956
- Strength Properties - Novoa-martinez_thesisDiunggah olehRichard Tseng
- LARGE FINANCIAL CRASHESDiunggah olehepepper
- Conclusion ( Addmaths Project)LogarithmDiunggah olehkarwei57
- Exponential Equation LP FinalDiunggah olehAngelo Belandres Llonora
- Information System MaturityDiunggah olehAdalgisa Bălan
- 2001 ASD Manual ErrataDiunggah olehgreenice88
- DARA-THESISEBF force analyze.pdfDiunggah olehReza Zaeri
- Shear Strength in Various CodesDiunggah olehSana'a Aamir
- 38Diunggah olehbruk
- SLMNA4 11 EcoB 07 Correlation GoutamDiunggah olehGoutam Das
- The Role of Mechanical Properties in Low-Stress Fatigue Crack PropagationDiunggah olehlcm327
- exerciceM4T4ST2 hdsdhsdsdsdsDiunggah olehMarc Mozart
- Inter-Storey Drift Limits for Buildings at Ultimate LimitDiunggah olehtrabajosic
- Commentaries SP17 09Diunggah olehgc_pancha
- Design for Variable Loading 2 2012Diunggah olehtianshuguo
- Implications of a New Characterisation of the Distribution of Twin PrimesDiunggah olehTerry Pilling
- Chapter 3 060516.EditedDiunggah olehM-Hazmir Hamzah
- Background TheoryDiunggah olehJaymin
- A comparative study on theoretical and experimental strengths of padeyes under in-plane loadsDiunggah olehFabio Okamoto

- 1_hppkonDiunggah olehSupriadi Umar
- 2010-2-00401-MN 3Diunggah olehIs Mi
- https.docxDiunggah olehIs Mi
- scaleismiDiunggah olehIs Mi
- OutputDiunggah olehIs Mi
- BAB ISIDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Kayu_cDiunggah olehIs Mi
- 3Perc. Balok GableDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Pekerjaan AriDiunggah olehIs Mi
- 2009-2-00431-SP Bab 2Diunggah olehJordy LimoharJo
- Soal1Diunggah olehIs Mi
- 1Diunggah olehIs Mi
- 1 Evaluasi Kelayakan EkonomiDiunggah olehIs Mi
- 11-13 juliDiunggah olehIs Mi
- 2tabel SapDiunggah olehIs Mi
- scaleisminew2Diunggah olehIs Mi
- scaleisminew2Diunggah olehIs Mi
- Konsultasi Uas AdsDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Revisi Konsultasi Uas AdsDiunggah olehIs Mi
- OutputDiunggah olehIs Mi
- SEJARAH KOMPUTER nisaDiunggah olehNica' Sanasinibeginibegitu
- Proposal KknDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Kuesioner (1)Diunggah olehIs Mi
- 6Diunggah olehIs Mi
- Kata PengantarDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Daftar IsiDiunggah olehIs Mi
- Proposal Kkn2Diunggah olehIs Mi
- NEW1Diunggah olehIs Mi
- Scale is Mine WwDiunggah olehIs Mi

- Aged Care Nursing A Guide to Practice.Diunggah olehsdamio
- Goodwin et al. 2006Diunggah olehapi-3775219
- megan rust social studies read-aloud lesson - the hundred-dollar billDiunggah olehapi-379529321
- XXX Marketing StrategyDiunggah olehJoel Mitchell
- GM Supplier EvaluationDiunggah olehAgis Liberakis
- Qualification, Teaching Experience and Attitude as Attributes of Integrated Science Teachers that Influence Pupils’ Academic Performance in Integrated Science at the Junior Secondary Schools in Sierra LeoneDiunggah olehInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Malaysian Policy on Environmental SecurityDiunggah olehnazril
- Applied Research Project ProposalDiunggah olehShaji Viswanathan. Mcom, MBA (U.K)
- Density Matrix SolutionsDiunggah olehAnirbanMandal
- Pneumatic Lightweight StructuresDiunggah olehAtul Garg
- concort project -emotions in publicity.pdfDiunggah olehMaraMara Mara
- 2003 Ward Williams JSEPDiunggah olehNicolás Martínez
- lab 3 proteinDiunggah olehapi-384292787
- Envirnmental and Social Impect of Crushing Stone Plant in Diss.quettaDiunggah olehAbdul Rashid Khilji
- Mechanical Behavior of Non-textbook SoilsDiunggah olehRodolfo Rojas Montenegro
- Slide WhistleDiunggah olehsfreud1
- Ota Go 658404Diunggah olehgus_lions
- Role of the Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS) after the Institution of Democracy in BhutanDiunggah olehNational Graduate Conference
- Linear ProgramingDiunggah olehAniruddh Tiwari
- 09 Chapter 3Diunggah olehshukpri
- Developmental Biology is the Study of the Process by Which Organs Grow and DevelopDiunggah olehRazonable Morales Rommel
- Hinterding Khan Genetic Algorithms Cutting Stock Problems With Without Contiguity 1994Diunggah olehJose Luis Valladares
- 1Diunggah olehapi-310840939
- Book Review - The Passenger Has Gone Digital and MobileDiunggah olehAbdullah Nergiz
- Land Surveyor or Project Surveyor or Land Surveyor ManagerDiunggah olehapi-78778312
- Arturo Locatelli-Optimal Control_ An Introduction-Birkhäuser Basel (2001).pdfDiunggah olehMicheleSpagnolo
- Factors and Norms Influencing Unpaid Care Work: Household survey evidence from five rural communities in Colombia, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Uganda and ZimbabweDiunggah olehOxfam
- 7 referencias bibliogaficasDiunggah olehLenise Costa
- 1.1_Principles of Management & 1.2 Organisational BehaviourDiunggah olehArun Prakash
- Metrics Text Chapter 7Diunggah olehAcumenMaaz