Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 2761–2767 | Cite as

Effects of Asperity Angle and Infill Thickness on Shear Characteristics Under Constant Normal Load Conditions

  • Wen WanEmail author
  • Jie Liu
  • Jingshuo Liu
Technical note


Direct shear tests under constant normal loads were conducted to investigate the effects of the asperity angle and the infill thickness on shear characteristics. The results showed that the increase of the asperity angle frequently led to the degraded area, whereas the opposite occurred for the increase of the ratio of asperity height to infill thickness (t/a). In addition, tensile fracture of the asperity occurred for the high asperity angle and the low t/a ratio. On the contrary, shear abrasion prevailed with the small asperity angle and the high t/a ratio. The degradation transition may result from the variation of the effective contact area between two blocks and deserves further studies. It can be further concluded that the asperity angle and infill thickness significantly determine shear characteristics of the infilled joint. For joints with thick infill materials, the improvement of the mechanical properties of the infill will contribute to promoting the shear strength.


Asperity degradation Shear strength Infill Tensile fracture 



The authors would like to acknowledge these financial supports: the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017M612557), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51774131, 51774132) and the Open Fund of the Safe Coal Mining Techniques in Hunan University of Science and Technology (E21731).


  1. Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bindlish A, Singh M, Samadhiya NK (2013) Modeling of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on jointed rock mass. Indian Geotech J 43(3):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cresswell AW, Barton ME (2003) Direct shear tests on an uncemented, and a very slightly cemented, locked sand. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 36(2):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hencher SR, Richards LR (2014) Assessing the shear strength of rock discontinuities at laboratory and field scales. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(3):883–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang TH, Chang CS, Chao CY (2002) Experimental and mathematical modeling for fracture of rock joint with regular asperities. Eng Fract Mech 69(17):1977–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Indraratna B, Haque A, Aziz N (1999) Shear behaviour of idealised joints under constant normal stiffness. Geotechnique 49(3):331–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Indraratna B, Welideniya S, Brown ET (2005) A shear strength model for idealized infilled joints under constant normal stiffness. Geotechnique 55(3):215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Indraratna B, Premadasa W, Brown ET, Gens A, Heitor A (2014) Shear strength of rock joints influenced by compacted infill. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:296–307Google Scholar
  9. Jahanian H, Sadaghiani MH (2014) Experimental study on the shear strength of sandy clay infilled regular rough rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(3):907–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lu Y, Wang L, Li Z, Sun H (2016) Experimental study on the shear behavior of regular sandstone joints filled with cement grout. Rock Mech Rock Eng. Google Scholar
  11. Mirzaghorbanali A, Nemcik J, Aziz N (2013a) Effects of shear rate on cyclic loading shear behaviour of rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(5):1931–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mirzaghorbanali A, Nemcik J, Aziz N (2013b) Effects of cyclic loading on the shear behaviour of infilled rock joints under constant normal stiffness conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(4):1373–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papaliangas T, Hencher SR, Lumsden AC, Manolopoulou S (1993) Effect of frictional fill thickness on the shear strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30(2):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park JW, Song JJ (2009) Numerical simulation of a direct shear test on a rock joint using a bonded-particle model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(8):1315–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Park JW, Lee YK, Song JJ, Choi BH (2013) A constitutive model for shear behavior of rock joints based on three-dimensional quantification of joint roughness. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:1513–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seidel JP, Haberfield CM (1995) The application of energy principles to the determination of the sliding resistance of rockjoints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 28(4):211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shrivastava AK, Rao KS (2015) Shear behaviour of rock joints under CNL and CNS boundary conditions. Geotech Geol Eng 33(5):1205–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sow D, Rivard P et al (2015) Comparison of joint shearing resistance obtained with the Barton and Choubey Criterion and with direct shear tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng. Google Scholar
  19. Tang ZC, Wong LNY (2016) Influences of normal loading rate and shear velocity on the shear behavior of artificial rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:2165–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang XB, Jiang QH, Chen N, Wei W, Feng XX (2016) Laboratory investigation on shear behavior of rock joints and a new peak shear strength criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resource, Environment and Safety EngineeringHunan University of Science and TechnologyXiangtanChina
  2. 2.Department of Building EngineeringHunan Institute of EngineeringXiangtanChina
  3. 3.School of Resource and Safety EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations