See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330384720

Linearized Barton's Model for Predicting Shear Behavior of Rock Joints

Conference Paper · October 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 147

2 authors:

Simon Heru Prassetyo Ridho K. Wattimena

Bandung Institute of Technology Bandung Institute of Technology
21 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geotechnical Data Uncertainty View project

Hydro-mechanical response of deep tunnels in saturated ground View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Heru Prassetyo on 15 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Linearized Barton’s Model for Predicting Shear Behavior of Rock Joints

Simon H. Prassetyoa* and Ridho K. Wattimenaa
a
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
*simon@mining.itb.ac.id

Abstract

Barton’s joint model is the most realistic model for predicting the nonlinear shear behavior of rock
joints. This capability comes from the inclusion of a joint surface roughness parameter called the joint
roughness coefficient (JRC) that is mobilized under shearing. Recently, a linearized implementation
of Barton’s model has been done to obtain the mobilized equivalent Mohr-Coulomb (M-C)
parameters that account for generation and reduction of JRC as a function of shear displacement u.
These equivalent parameters will allow the linear M-C model to capture nonlinearity in the shear
behavior of rock joints. In the linearized Barton’s model, the pre- and post-peak joint shear stiffness
also contains mobilized JRC that is expressed as hyperbolic and logarithmic functions of u,
respectively. This paper further explores the capability of the linearized Barton model to predict the
shear behavior of rock joints. The model is verified against results from the experimental and
numerical direct shear test on joint planes from various rock types. The verification shows that the
linearized Barton’s model can capture the nonlinearity in the shear stress-displacement and in the
dilation-induced shear displacement behaviors of rock joints under variations normal stress and JRC
values. In the future, the linearized Barton’s model has the potential to be applied in computer codes
for fractured rock modeling. By implementing this model, neither the simplicity of the linear M-C
model nor the advanced capability of the nonlinear Barton’s model is lost.

Keywords: Joint Shear Behavior, Joint Roughness Coefficient, Barton’s Joint Model, Equivalent
Mohr-Coulomb Parameters

1. Introduction
In a fractured rock mass, the shear behavior of rock joints is particularly important because it
dominantly controls the deformability, strength, and hence the stability of the rock mass. Block
sliding from a slope or block falling in an underground excavation are examples of joint shear
behavior that is not only controlled by the shear strength of the particular joint but also by its dilation
(Goodman, 1976; Barton, 1982). The dilation is caused by the mobilization of joint surface roughness,
causing a nonlinearity in the shear behavior of rock joints in the form of strain hardening and strain
softening under shearing.
Extensive laboratory experiments on rock joint have also shown that the shear behavior of rock
joints is nonlinear. This nonlinearity has been shown to be significantly affected by the dilation-
induced joint roughness. The nonlinearity is also captured in the relationship between joint shear
stress  and normal stress n in the  vs. n axes (Barton, 1973; Barton, 1982). Thus, for reliable
design and analysis of excavations in fractured rock masses, it is essential that this nonlinearity is
considered when modeling fractured rock masses so that realistic response of the rock masses can be
obtained.
To date, among Patton (1966), Ladanyi and Archambault (1969), and Goodman (1976), Barton’s
joint model is currently the most realistic empirical model for predicting shear failure behavior of
rough joints. In the Barton’s model, the peak shear strength of a rock joint is determined by
  JCS  
   n tan  JRC log10    r  (1)
  n  
where n is the normal stress, JRC is the joint roughness coefficient, JCS is the joint wall compressive
strength, and r is the joint residual friction angle.
However, many geomechanics programs are still very fond of the linear Mohr-Coulomb (M-C)
failure criterion (Eq. 1) for modeling fractured rock mass behavior, particularly in the continuum
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

modeling approach. Moreover, many stability analyses of excavations in jointed rock masses still use
strength parameters in terms of cohesion and friction angle from the M-C failure criterion.
  c   n tan  (2)

In Eq. (2), c is the cohesion intercept and  is the friction angle. In the  versus n axes, the M-C
criterion gives constant cohesion and friction angle, and it does not consider the generation and
reduction of joint surface roughness. Consequently, the strain hardening and strain softening
behaviors of rock joints is not captured by the M-C model, causing a linear prediction in the shear
behavior of rock joints (Fig. 1, solid line). This linearity is the main weakness of the M-C model
compared to the Barton’s model (Fig. 1, dotted line). Note that the curves of  versus u in Fig. 1 is
only an illustration to compare the two models as adopted in Prassetyo et al. (2017).

Peak
Shear stress, 

Dilation starts for

Barton's model

M-C model
Barton's model

Shear displacement, u

Fig. 1. Comparison of  vs. u curves between the M-C and the Barton’s models as adopted from
Prassetyo et al. (2017).

Thus, it is envisioned that if the Barton’s model can be linked to the existing linear M-C joint
model and implemented in the suitable geomechanics programs, realistic behavior of fractured rock
masses can be achieved. Recently, Prassetyo (2017) and Prassetyo et al. (2017) have shown that this
link could be achieved by obtaining the equivalent M-C parameters through linearization of the
Barton’s parameters. In addition, the obtained equivalent M-C parameters also accounted for joint
roughness generation and reduction as a function of shear displacement. In order to implement the
linearized Barton’s model in computer codes, they also derived the shear stiffness of rock joints in the
hardening (before peak) and softening (post peak) regions of joint shear displacement.
This paper expands the potential of the linearized Barton’s model to predict shear behavior of rock
joints by verifying the results against the experimental and numerical direct shear tests on joint
samples from various rock types.

2. Linearization of the Barton’s Model

Using a similar approach to the tangential technique shown in Fig. 2, Prassetyo (2017) and
Prassetyo et al. (2017) were able to obtain the equivalent M-C parameters, namely the equivalent
tangent cohesion ct, friction angle t, and dilation angle t, that could satisfy the nonlinear shear
behavior of rock joints. These parameters are expressed in Eqs. 3–7.
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Current n
t
Shear stress, 

Barton's model

 t = Equivalent tangent friction angle

ct ct = Equivalent tangent cohesion

Normal stress, n
Fig. 2. Obtaining the equivalent tangent friction angle t and cohesion ct at the current stress n from
the nonlinear Barton’s model. Figure is reproduced from Prassetyo (2017) and Prassetyo et al. (2017).

ct   n B (3)
t  arctan  A  B  (4)

 t  t   r (5)
where A and B are defined as
  JCS  
A  tan  JRC log10    r  (6)
  n  

JRC

B  1  A2  ln10 (7)

These equivalent M-C parameters are then related to the mobilized roughness and shear
displacement in the hardening and softening regimes as originally proposed by Barton (1982). To do
this, two analytical curve-fitting functions are proposed to smooth out the piecewise-linear paired
values of JRCm JRCp vs. u up developed by Barton (1982) as shown in Fig. 3. The parameters
JRCp and up are the peak values of JRC and u at the peak shear strength, respectively. Meanwhile,
the parameter JRCm corresponds to the mobilized values of JRC that vary according to the level of u
relative to its peak value up. The inclusion of the hardening and softening regimes into the proposed
model is important because these physical behaviors are two of the many features observed in the
direct shear tests of rock joints performed by Barton (1982).
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

Hyperbolic function Logarithmic function

 JRCm  a  u up   JRCm   u 
      m ln    n
 JRCp  1  b  u up   JRCp   u p 

JRCm 1.0
JRCp

0.5
Proposed functions
Barton (1982)
0.0

-0.5  JCS 
i  JRC log  
 n 
-1.0
Example:
r  30 i  15
-1.5 JRC  15  n  10 MPa
JCS  100 MPa
r
  -2.0
i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
u/up
Fig. 3. The proposed functions by Prassetyo (2017) and Prassetyo et al. (2017) to capture joint
roughness mobilization as originally proposed by Barton (1982).

In the pre-peak strain hardening region, u  up, Prassetyo (2017) and Prassetyo et al. (2017)
have proposed a hyperbolic function as shown in Eq. 8 to capture the generation of joint roughness up
to JRCp
 7 1  r i   u u p 
JRC mpre    1 r JRC p (8)
 3   3  7 r i  u u p  i
while in the post-peak strain softening region, u > up, a logarithmic function as shown in Eq. 9 was
proposed to capture the reduction of the roughness until it approximately reaches the residual value
(JRC = 0).
  u  
JRC mpost    0.217 ln    1 JRC p (9)
  u p
  

By substituting JRC mpre and JRCmpost into the equivalent tangent parameters ct, t and t in Eqs. (3)–
(5), the mobilized equivalent M-C parameters cm, m and m, can be obtained for the pre- and post-
peak regions, signifying the strain hardening and strain softening shear behavior of rock joints.
If these mobilized M-C parameters are implemented into a constitutive model for rock joints, e.g.,
the ubiquitous joint model or the interface model in the computer code FLAC (Itasca, 2011), it is
envisioned that they can enhance the capability of the linear M-C model to portray the nonlinear shear
behavior of rock joints. Thus, neither the simplicity of the linear M-C model nor the advanced
capability of the nonlinear Barton’s model is lost. This is the merit of the linearized Barton’s model.
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

3. Joint Shear Stiffness

Just like the mobilized equivalent M-C parameters, the shear stiffness, defined as K s   m u ,
in the regions of the pre- and post-peak shear displacement are also necessary to develop a
constitutive relationship between the shear stress  and shear displacement u. Prassetyo (2017) and
Prassetyo et al. (2017) have proposed the pre-peak shear stiffness for the region of u  up as
 JCS     JCS   a u p
K mpre  log    n sec 2  JRC mpre log    r  JRC p (10)
  n  180  n    b u  u p 
2


and the post-peak shear stiffness for the region of u > up as

 JCS     JCS   m
K mpost  log    n sec 2  JRCmpost log    r  JRC p (11)
  n  180   n   u
where
10 r 7
a 1  0.3 b  , b  r  1, m  0.217 (12)
3 i 3 i
The equations presented above (Eqs. 1–12) are programmed in Excel to verify the proposed
linearized Barton’s model against experimental and numerical direct shear tests on rock joints from
various rock types. The verifications are presented in the following sections.

4. Verifications against Experimental Results

In this section, the linearized Barton’s model is verified against the experimental results from
Grasselli and Egger (2003) and Ma et al. (2017), who performed a series of direct shear tests on
natural joints in granite, limestone, and sandstone. The properties of the joint samples from their
experiments are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Properties of the joint samples used in the direct shear tests
(Grasselli & Egger, 2003; Ma et al., 2017).

Intact rocks Properties Grasselli and Egger (2003) Ma et al. (2017)

Granite JRC 15.9 19.4
JCS (MPa) 173 101
 n (MPa) 1.1 2
 r (°) 34 25
Limestone JRC 20 11.9
JCS (MPa) 25 22.5
 n (MPa) 1.1 1
 r (°) 36 36
Sandstone JRC 16.3 8.9
JCS (MPa) 10 33
 n (MPa) 4 1
 r (°) 43 31.4

As shown in Fig. 4, the linearized Barton’s model is able to capture the general trend of shear
behaviors of natural rock joints in granite, limestone, and sandstone as experimentally performed by
Grasselli and Egger (2003) and Ma et al. (2017). The nonlinearity in the pre-peak and post-peak
regions during shearing, as shown in the experimental results, are clearly captured in the linearized
Barton’s model.
The strain softening behavior in the post-peak region is more pronounced for joints with rougher
joints (high JRC) than for those with relatively smooth joints (low JRC), which is also consistent with
the experimental results. This behavior can be seen by comparing results from Ma et al. (2017) for
granite with JRC = 19.4 and for limestone with JRC = 11.9. The standard profiles of joint surface
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

roughness are also shown to provide physical visualizations of the corresponding JRC values used in
the verifications. These profiles were taken from Barton and Choubey (1977).

Grasselli and Egger (2003) Ma et al. (2017)

a. Granite 3.6 3.6
Linearized Barton's model Linearized Barton's model
3.0 3.0 Ma et al. (2017)
Graseelli & Egger (2003)

Shear stress, (MPa)

Shear stress, (MPa)

2.4 2.4

1.8 1.8

1.2 1.2

0.6 JRC 15.9 0.6 JRC 19.4

n = 1.1 MPa n = 2 MPa
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10

b. Limestone 2.8 1.8

2.4 1.5
Shear stress, (MPa)

Shear stress, (MPa)

2.0
1.2
1.6
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.8

0.4 JRC 20 0.3 JRC 11.9

n = 1.1 MPa n = 1 MPa
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10

c. Sandstone 5 1.2

4
Shear stress, (MPa)

Shear stress, (MPa)

0.9

3
0.6
2

0.3
1 JRC 8.9
JRC 16.3
n = 4 MPa n = 1 MPa
0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear displacement, u (mm) Shear displacement, u (mm)

Fig. 4. Comparisons of shear stress vs. shear displacement between the linearized Barton’s model and
experimental results from Grasselli and Egger (2003) and Ma et al. (2017).

5. Verifications against Numerical Results

The linearized Barton’s model is now verified against the numerical results from Chiu et al. (2016)
who performed a series of numerical direct shear tests using a rough-joint model in computer program
PFC (Itasca, 2015). The properties of the rough-joint model are JRC = 14.4, JCS = 7.5 MPa, n = 0.4–
1.6 MPa, and r = 31.
The results for shear stress versus shear displacement are presented in Fig. 5. As can be seen, a
relatively good agreement is observed between the shear behavior derived from the linearized
Barton’s model and that from the rough-joint model. The shear strength of the joint increases with the
increase in the normal stress level, inducing more nonlinear post-peak strain softening behavior. With
the increase in normal stress n, the peak shear displacement is observed to decrease, steepening the
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

pre-peak shear stiffness curve. This behavior has also been observed in the experimental results
reported by other researchers (Barton and Choubey, 1977).

2.0
Linearized Barton's model
Chiu et al. (2016)
1.6

n = 1.6 MPa
Shear stress, (MPa)

1.2
n = 1.0 MPa

0.8

n = 0.4 MPa
0.4
JRC 14–16

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Shear displacement, u (mm)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the shear stress vs. shear displacement between the linearized Barton’s model
and the rough-joint model from Chiu et al. (2016).

Fig. 6a shows a good agreement between the shear strength envelope obtained from the linearized
Barton’s model and that from Chiu et al. (2016). The nonlinearity in the strength envelopes is well
captured by the linearized Barton’s model, as well as, the decreasing trend of the peak dilation angle
envelope with increasing normal stress (Fig. 6b).
Variations of the mobilized dilation angle, cohesion, and friction angles with shear displacement
for the corresponding joint properties are shown in Fig. 7. The linearized Barton’s model is able to
capture the hardening and softening behaviors of the dilation angle (Fig. 7a) and cohesion (Fig. 7b) in
the pre-peak and post-peak regions, respectively, as well as the decrease in the peak values of
mobilized dilation angle and friction angle with the increase in normal stress (Figs. 7a and 7c). The
amount of the three parameters increase to their maximum values and then decrease in the softening
part, indicating a large amount of reduction in the joint roughness. While this result is not compared
with that from the rough-joint model, similar results have been reported by Roosta et al. (2006).
Note that from Fig. 7 the mobilized dilation angle mob and the mobilized cohesion cmob from the
linearized Barton’s model can be smaller than zero. Mathematically, the negativity in dilation angle
and cohesion is because the origin of the JRCm/JRCp curve starts at –r/i. Physically, this may mean
that dilation and cohesion still have “zero” influence on the shear strength of rock joints in the early
stage of joint shear displacement and that the shear strength of rock joints only depends largely on the
friction angle. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the rate of dilation angle and cohesion changes in
this early displacement is positive, which is in accordance with the gradual increase in the value of
JRCm/JRCp. This behavior also corresponds with that described in Prassetyo et al. (2017). Note also
that after the peak shear strength is reached, the post-peak state begins. It means that at its residual
state, reached at very large shear displacement, the dilation angle will reach zero as the ratio of
JRCm/JRCp also reaches zero (see Fig. 2).
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

To complete the verification against numerical results of direct shear tests, Figs. 8–9 shows another
comparison of the shear strength envelopes obtained from the linearized Barton’s model to those from
Bahaaddini et al. (2013) who conducted direct shear tests in PFC code using the smooth-joint model.
These figures are reproduced from Prassetyo et al. (2017).
As can be seen from Fig. 8, at various JRC and normal stress values, the shear strength envelopes
from the linearized Barton’s model match very well with those from the smooth-joint model
developed by Bahaaddini et al. (2013). The nonlinearity in the strength envelopes is well captured by
the linearized Barton’s model and is more pronounced for rough joints (JRC > 10) than for planar
joint (JRC < 10). The trend for the peak dilation angle curves are also in good agreement with those
from the smooth-joint model (Fig. 9).

1.6
Linearized Barton's model (a)
Chiu et al. (2016)
1.2
Shear stress,  (MPa)

0.8

0.4
JRC 14.4

0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Normal stress, n (MPa)
24
(b)
Peak dilation angle (°)

18

12

0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Normal stress, n (MPa)
Fig. 6. Comparison of (a) the shear strength envelope and (b) the peak dilation angle envelope
between the linearized Barton’s model and the rough-joint model from Chiu et al. (2016).
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

12
(a) n = 0.4 MPa

Mobilized dilation angle,  mob (deg)

9

6 n = 1.0 MPa

3 n = 1.6 MPa

0
0 1 2 3 4
0.4
(b)
Mobilized cohesion, cmob (MPa)

0.3

n = 1.6 MPa
0.2

n = 1.0 MPa
0.1
n = 0.4 MPa

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
50
(c)
Mobilized friction angle,  mob (deg)

n = 0.4 MPa
40
n = 1.0 MPa

30 n = 1.6 MPa

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4
Shear displacement, u (mm)
Fig. 7. Variations of the (a) mobilized dilation angle, (b) mobilized cohesion, and (c) mobilized
friction angles with shear displacement from the linearized Barton’s model.
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

6 6
Linearized Barton's model
Bahaaddini et al. (2013)
Shear stress,  (MPa)
4 4

2 2
JRC 5.8 JRC 6.7

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
6 6
Shear stress,  (MPa)

4 4

2 2
JRC 9.5 JRC 10.8

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
6 6
Shear stress,  (MPa)

4 4

2 2
JRC 12.8 JRC 14.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
6 6
Shear stress,  (MPa)

4 4

2 2

JRC 16.7 JRC 18.7

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal stress, n (MPa) Normal stress, n (MPa)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the shear strength envelopes between the linearized Barton’s model and the
smooth-joint model from Bahaaddini et al. (2013). Figures are reproduced from Prassetyo (2017) and
Prassetyo et al. (2017).
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

24 24
Linearized Barton's model
Bahaaddini et al. (2013)
Peak dilation angle (°) 18 18

12 12
JRC 5.8 JRC 6.7

6 6

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
24 24
Peak dilation angle (°)

18 18

12 12

6 6
JRC 9.5 JRC 10.8

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
24 24
Peak dilation angle (°)

18 18

12 12

6 6
JRC 12.8 JRC 14.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
24 24
Peak dilation angle (°)

18 18

12 12

6 6
JRC 16.7 JRC 18.7

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal stress, n (MPa) Normal stress, n (MPa)

Fig. 9. Comparison of the peak dilation angle envelopes between the linearized Barton’s model and
the smooth-joint model from Bahaaddini et al. (2013). Figures are reproduced from Prassetyo (2017)
and Prassetyo et al. (2017).
 10th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium
ARMS10 29 October to 03 November, 2018, Singapore
The ISRM International Symposium for 2018

6. Conclusions
Barton’s joint model is the most realistic model for predicting the nonlinear shear behavior of rock
joints. This capability comes from the inclusion of a joint surface roughness parameter called the joint
roughness coefficient (JRC) that is mobilized under shearing. Recently, a linearization of Barton’s
model has been done to obtain the mobilized equivalent Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) parameters that
account for generation and reduction of JRC as a function of shear displacement u. The pre- and
post-peak joint shear stiffnesses, as part of the linearized Barton’s model, also contains mobilized JRC
that is expressed as hyperbolic and logarithmic functions of u, respectively. Verifications of the
linearized Barton’s model against experimental and numerical direct shear tests on natural joints for
varying rock types have shown that the linearized Barton’s model can capture the nonlinearity in the
shear stress-displacement as intended. The pre-peak strain hardening and the post-peak strain
softening behaviors, induced by the generation and reduction of joint roughness under shearing, are
well captured. Similar behavior is also observed for the mobilized dilation angle, cohesion, and
friction angle. More importantly, the non-linearity in the shear strength envelopes at various JRC and
normal stress values is also reproduced well. The nonlinearity is seen to be more pronounced for
rough joints than for planar ones. It is envisioned that, in the future, the linearized Barton’s model has
the potential to be applied in computer codes for fractured rock modeling. By implementing this
model, neither the simplicity of the linear M-C model nor the advanced capability of the nonlinear
Barton’s model is lost.

References
Bahaaddini, M., Sharrock, G., Hebblewhite, B. K., 2013, Numerical direct shear tests to model the
shear behaviour of rock joints, Comput. Geotech., 51, 101-115.
Barton, N., 1973, Review on a new shear-strength criterion for rock joints, Eng. Geol., 7, 287-332.
Barton, N., 1982, Modelling Rock Joint Behavior from In Situ Block Tests: Implications for Nuclear
Waste Repository Design, Report No. ONWI-308. Columbus: Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation.
Barton, N., Choubey, V., 1977, The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice, Rock Mech.,
10, 1-54.
Chiu, C-C., Weng, M-C., Huang, T-H., 2016, Modeling rock joint behavior using a rough joint model,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 89, 14-25.
Goodman, R. E., 1976, Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rock, San Francisco:
West Publishing Company.
Grasselli, G., Egger, P., 2003, Constitutive law for the shear strength of rock joints based on three-
dimensional surface parameters, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 40, 25-40.
Itasca., 2011, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua: User’s Guides, Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting
Group.
Itasca., 2015, PFC™ - Particle Flow Code: User’s Guides, Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group.
Ladanyi, B., Archambault, G., 1969, Simulation of shear behaviour of a jointed rock mass, Proc. of
the 11th Symposium on Rock Mechanics: Theory and Practice, 105-125.
Ma, S., Zhao, Z., Nie, W., Nemcik, J., Zhang, Z., Zhu, X., 2017, Implementation of displacement-
dependent Barton-Bandis rock joint model into discontinuous deformation analysis, Comput.
Geotech., 86, 1-8.
Patton, F. D., 1966, Multiple modes of shear failure in rock, Proc. of the First Congress of the
International Society of Rock Mechanics, 509-513.
Prassetyo, S. H., 2017, Hydro-mechanical analysis of tunneling in saturated ground using a novel and
efficient sequential coupling technique, PhD Thesis, Golden: Colorado School of Mines.
Prassetyo, S. H., Gutierrez, M., Barton, N., 2017, Nonlinear shear behavior of rock joints using a
linearized implementation of the Barton-Bandis model, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng., 9, 671-682.
Roosta, R. M., Sadaghiani, M. H., Pak, A., Saleh., Y, 2006, Rock joint modeling using a visco-plastic
multilaminate model at constant normal load condition, Geotech. Geol. Eng., 24, 1449-1468.

View publication stats