Rock Mech Rock Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00603-017-1271-6
TECHNICAL NOTE
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test
Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces
L. R. Alejano1 • J. Muralha2 • R. Ulusay3 • C. C. Li4 • I. Pérez-Rey1 •
H. Karakul5 • P. Chryssanthakis6,7 • Ö. Aydan8 • J. Martı́nez9 • N. Zhang4,10
Received: 11 May 2017 / Accepted: 25 June 2017
Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria 2017
1 Introduction
From the earliest studies on the topic, plane sliding tech-
niques, usually known as tilt tests, have shown contradic-
tory features. On the one hand, they reflect on a small-scale
basic principles regarding definition of the friction angle
and can reproduce conditions very similar to those of the
sliding of blocks on rock slopes; furthermore, tilt angle
results agree with friction angles derived from shear and
pull tests (Hencher 1977; Muralha 1996). On the other
hand, the literature includes several reports of erratic
results and it is recognized that even apparently smooth
surfaces are actually rough at the microscopic level
(Hencher and Richards 2015). Thus, adhesion and textural
This manuscript contains interesting findings in rock mechanics
practice, derived from large efforts to test the same rocks under
different conditions and different laboratories. At the same time, this
manuscript presents part of the work which will be used to prepare a
Suggested Method on Tilt Testing. It is published in the form of a
Technical Note, although its length exceeds what is generally
accepted for this type of publication.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s00603-017-1271-6) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
& L. R. Alejano
alejano@uvigo.es
1 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Engineering, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
2 8
National Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal
3 University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan
Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe
University, Ankara, Turkey
4 10
Department of Geoscience and Petroleum, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim,
Norway
interlocking may contribute to the variability and the non-
reproducibility of tilt test results.
A number of authors have carried out simple tilt tests in
the past, and several examples illustrate the above-men-
tioned arguments. Thus, Hencher (2012) observed extreme
variability in the results of tilt tests; Nicholson (1994)
found that friction angles for sawcut Berea sandstone in
direct shear tests varied by 12.5°, despite great attention
paid to sample preparation and reproducibility; Coulson
(1972) demonstrated that the friction angle of planar sur-
faces of rock varied with surface finish; Krahn and Mor-
genstern (1979) reported similar variation for surfaces
prepared in different ways and with different surface fin-
ishes; and Kveldsvik et al. (2008) found that the basic
friction angle for a rock slope, derived from tilt testing of
core, varied between 21° and 36.4°.
These great differences in measured tilt angles are
mainly attributed to different surface finishing and to wear
of the rock contacts (Pérez-Rey et al. 2015, 2016), although
other reasons, such as testing and ambient conditions,
cannot be ruled out. Mehrishall et al. (2016) revealed that
the residual friction coefficients of grinded joint surfaces
and of rough rock surfaces were almost identical.
5
Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, İzmir
Kâtip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey
6
7
COWI, Oslo, Norway
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
9
Centro Universitario de la Defensa de Marı́n, Marı́n, Spain
North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China
123

The benchmark experiment performed by the authors
intends to shed light on the observed variability in sliding
angle results from tilt tests. A large number of tilt tests in
different conditions have already been carried out,
including those reported in Alejano et al. (2012) and in
some more recent studies (González et al. 2014; Ruı́z 2014,
Ulusay and Karakul 2016; Li et al. 2017), as well as several
other tests not presented in the literature. Results suggest a
reasonable degree of reproducibility of tilt testing under
controlled conditions.
The above-mentioned studies typically used different
cutting machines, tilting tables and testing procedures. It
was therefore deemed interesting to check reproducibility
by analysing tilt test results carried out in different labo-
ratories in very similar controlled conditions, in order to
analyse how and why results were different. The intention
is to contribute to the standardization of this very simple,
yet somewhat controversial, rock mechanics test.
The initial idea was to test 7 contacts of 7 specimens of a
particular rock type—granite—7 times, in the different
cutting and tilting conditions inherent to the equipment
from each laboratory. However, 3 other rock types (lime-
stone, quartzite and basaltic andesite) were also tested
under 3 or 4 different conditions to take into account
possible differences resulting from different mechanical
characteristics.
Note that this benchmark experiment is not an in-depth
study of the theoretical micromechanic issues that influ-
ence the behaviour and mechanics of contacts in tilt tests.
It is, rather, an experimental study that aims to make
information on a large number of controlled tilt tests
available to the rock mechanics community. The main
objectives of the experiment were to identify and single
out features that significantly affect tilt test outcomes and
to assess the reproducibility of tests performed in different
laboratories.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Experimental Approach
The authors prepared a good number of sample blocks of
the same rock with dimensions 30 9 897 cm and weight
4–5 kg per block (Fig. 1a) that could be easily mailed to
the 4 laboratories that participated in the multi-laboratory
experiment: the University of Vigo (UVIGO) in Spain, the
National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC) in
Lisbon (Portugal), Hacettepe University (HU) in Ankara
(Turkey) and the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim (Norway). The
benchmark procedure was to ask each laboratory to cut 7
slab-like specimens with dimensions of about
123
L. R. Alejano et al.
8 9 792.5 cm using the own saw machines and to perform
tilt tests using the available tilting tables (Fig. 1b, c). Thus,
each slab-like specimen would have 2 faces with a surface
of approximately 56 cm2 to carry out tilt tests. This area is
slightly over the recommended value of 50 cm2 established
in previous experiments to ensure a large enough tilt sur-
face and to avoid problems related to the curvature of the
sawcut surfaces (Alejano et al. 2012). The slab specimens
fulfilled the minimum recommended length-to-width ratio
of 2 (in our case, it was, in fact, greater than 3) that ensures
that contact stresses remained compressive when sliding
occurs.
Since 7 slab specimens with 2 surfaces—labelled ‘a’ and
‘b’ (Fig. 1b)—were obtained from each original rock
block, it was possible to carry out tilt tests on numerous
contacts. The benchmark experiment tests were carried out
on 7 of the possible contacts between surfaces 1a–2a, 1b–
2b, 3a–4a, 3b–4b, 5a–6a, 5b–7b and 6b–7a. Tilt tests were
repeated for each contact 7 times, with blocks held in the
same initial positions and tested along the same sliding
direction.
The following procedure for carrying out the tilt tests
was agreed:
1. Clean specimen surfaces to remove dust and free
particles.
2. Place the specimen horizontally over the other spec-
imen so that the upper block slides along the longer
dimension (H).
3. Ensure that the sliding surface is positioned horizon-
tally using (preferably) a bubble level.
4. Tilt the table steadily until the upper slab slides along
the lower slab at a (preferable) tilt velocity of 10°/min
(i.e. 3 min for 30° sliding).
5. Note the platform sliding angle value b (°) and tilt
velocity (°/min), room temperature and relative
humidity.
6. Repeat points 1–6 a total of 7 times for the 7 surfaces.
Ultimately, 7 tilt tests were carried out on each of the 7
surfaces, yielding 49 sliding angle values for each original
rock block.
2.2 Tested Rocks
Tested were 4 different rocks (igneous intrusive and vol-
canic, metamorphic and sedimentary) in at least 3 labora-
tories (Fig. 2):
(a) Granite from north-west Spain (locally known as
Blanco Mera). This bright white-coloured granite has
a coarse-grained texture showing grains with sizes
typically ranging from 1 to 6 mm and unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of roughly 130 MPa.
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces

Fig. 1 a Original block of

granite with its dimensions.
b Cutting process to produce 7
slabs (leaving some spare pieces
for use if needed. c 7 slabs cut
from the original block

Fig. 2 Surfaces of slab specimens (around 80 9 70 mm) before testing. a Spanish granite; b Portuguese limestone; c Portuguese quartzite.
d Turkish basaltic andesite

123

(b) Limestone from Portugal. This fossiliferous bioclas-
tic Cretaceous beige limestone (biosparite), mostly
made up of calcium carbonate with an abundance of
fossils and fossil traces, is a hard, low-porosity
limestone with a UCS of about 100 MPa.
(c) Quartzite from Portugal. This very hard rock, mainly
consisting of quartz and very small amounts of mica,
has rather regular quartz grains of sizes varying
between 1 and 3 mm and a UCS of over 200 MPa.
(d) Basaltic andesite from Turkey. This slightly altered,
vesicular, hypocrystalline and porphyritic rock,
mainly containing minerals such as biotite, clinopy-
roxene and plagioclase and including abundant
vesicles, has strength (indirectly Schmidt-hammer
measured) in the range 60–80 MPa.
2.3 Cutting Machines and Saw Blade Discs
Different cutting machines and saw blades or discs were
used to cut the specimens. Since the impact of the cutting
process was considered to be possibly relevant, the main
specifications of the discs used are presented in Fig. 3 and
Table 1.
The circular saw blades for hard rock are described in
terms of blade diameter and blade thickness, as well as
number of teeth and tooth width for jagged blades. The
bonding matrix of the cutting material, the observed size of
diamonds in the base material (tooth grit), the estimated
Fig. 3 Saw blades used by 4 laboratories to cut rock specimens (detailed information in Table 1)
123
L. R. Alejano et al.
quantity in carats per cm3 and other possibly relevant data
are also summarized.
On studying the surfaces of the granite slabs under a
binocular microscope, it was observed that those cut with
jagged saw blades (A and B) had deeper and more dis-
continuous grooves than those cut with continuous rim saw
blades (C and D), a difference which may affect tilt test
results.
2.4 Tilting Tables
Figure 4 shows the 4 tilting tables used to carry out the tilt
tests in the 4 laboratories.
The UVIGO tilting table (Fig. 4a) is motorized and has
a regulation system that allows tilt velocity to be set at
2.5°–36°/min with almost no vibration. For this experi-
ment, a velocity of 10°/min was used for all the tilt tests.
The HU tilting table (Fig. 4b) is hand-operated: a wheel
connected to a screw is spun to make the platform tilt. Tilt
tests for this experiment were carried out at an average
velocity of 24°/min.
The LNEC tilting table (Fig. 4c), also hand-operated,
has quite a robust system, consisting of a screw and a
rotating system with various levers, for carrying out tilt
tests. Tests for this experiment were carried out at an
average tilting velocity of 10°/min.
The tilting table at NTNU (Fig. 4d), controlled by a
lifting cylinder driven by compressed air, is quite accurate
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces

Table 1 Main saw blade features (see Fig. 3) used by 4 laboratories to cut rock specimens
Feature Blade type
A-UVIGO B-UVIGO C-UVIGO D-UVIGO C-HU E-LNEC D-NTNU

Blade diameter (mm) 350 600 300 230 300 500 250
Blade thickness 3.4 3.5 2.4 2 2 4 2
(mm)
Number of teeth 23 42 24 slots Cont. rim 22 slots 60 (2 9 30) Cont. rim
Tooth width (mm) 15 15 10 10 11 20 10
Bonding material Bronze alloy Bronze/cobalt alloy Bronze alloy Bronze alloy Bronze alloy Bronze alloy
matrix matrix matrix matrix matrix matrix
Diamond count (ct/ 0.60 0.97 0.79 0.62–0.79 0.6–0.8 0.62–0.79
cm3)
Tooth grit (US mesh) 50–60 50–60 80–100 60–80 80–100 60–100
estimate
Other features – Brand new saw – – – Much-used –
machine saw blade

Fig. 4 Tilting tables used for tilt tests by 4 laboratories

and shows no signs of vibration. It has a constant tilting
velocity of approximately 36°/min.
LNEC’s tilt table used a blocking plate (Fig. 5b) to
avoid full sliding of the upper block that stops after a small
run of approximately 1 cm for these tests. This issue was
not accounted for in the other 3 laboratories, where the
upper slab is allowed to slide through its full length
(Fig. 5a).
Since the authors found, in a previous study carried out
with a motorized tilting table, that tilt velocity did not
significantly affect results (Pérez-Rey et al. 2016), velocity
for this benchmark experiment was not defined in a precise
manner, although a value of 10°/min was recommended.
Due to the large number of tests, some laboratories (HU
and NTNU) used higher angular velocities of 24° and 36°/
min, respectively.
Since acceleration occurred in the platform of the hand-
operated tilting device used in HU, caused by variations in
manually controlled velocity, the impact vibrations were
theoretically and experimentally investigated. According to

123

Fig. 5 Different tilt test sliding
displacements. a Equipment
allowing full sliding of the
upper slab (HU, UVIGO and
NTNU). b Equipment with a
blocking system to stop upper
slab after a short displacement
of around 1 cm (LNEC)
Fig. 6 Impact of horizontal acceleration on tilt tests associated with vibration of the tilt testing device
basic statics, the equilibrium of a block on an inclined
plane was computed considering upper block horizontal
acceleration of ±ag, where a is the horizontal acceleration
coefficient, that is, the ratio of horizontal acceleration to
which the block is submitted due to vibration in relation to
gravity, denoted by g (Fig. 6):
/a ¼ b  arctan a
This means that in case an outwards acceleration ag is
applied to the potentially sliding block, the sliding angle will
be the basic friction angle decreased in arctana degrees.
Analogously, the sliding angle observed will increase in
tan-1a degrees when a horizontal inwards acceleration ag is
123
L. R. Alejano et al.
applied to the potentially sliding block. Figure 6 also illus-
trates how to estimate the friction angle of the contact surface
/±a for several values of a, given the observed sliding angle
b. As shown in the table in Fig. 6, for a sliding value of
b = 38° and a vibration coefficient a of 0.10, the friction
angle /?a will be 43.71° in the case of outwards acceleration
or /-a = 31.71° in the case of inwards acceleration.
ð1Þ
To check for the impact of vibration on determination of
the basic friction angle, tilt-induced accelerations were
experimentally measured. These measurements were made
for the hand-operated tilting devices (hard-running and
smooth-running machines) used in HU and in the Univer-
sity of the Ryukyus (UR). A QV3OAM-SYC-type
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces
accelerometer, based on smart monitoring technology, as
developed by Aydan (2015), with a measuring capacity of
2 g and storage and filter capacities of 2 GB and 100 Hz,
respectively, was used.
Two accelerometers were mounted on the tilting
table and the base. For the HU tilting device, vibrations
were measured for tilting rates of 22, 32 and 39°/min, while
for the University of the Ryukyus (UR) device, they were
measured for a tilting rate of 27°/min. Only acceleration
responses for the tilting tables and tilting angle variations
over time were recorded. Maximum acceleration during
HU measurements was 0.030–0.055 g, and acceleration at
the time of sliding was 0.002 g. According to the table in
Fig. 6, this level of acceleration may cause about 2° dif-
ference between the true friction angle and the sliding
friction angle. The maximum tilt-induced acceleration of
0.004 g for the UR tilting device was negligible.
Additionally, using a smartphone application called
Accelerometer Analyser, it was confirmed that maximum
measured acceleration for the UVIGO, LNEC and NTNU
devices was always less than 0.005, 0.006 and 0.003 g,
respectively, and therefore practically negligible.
2.5 Environmental Conditions
No constraints related to environmental conditions were
stipulated for the benchmark tests, although temperature
and relative humidity had to be recorded during testing.
Average temperature and relative humidity values and
ranges recorded at each laboratory during tilt tests are
summarized in Table 2. While temperature is not deemed
to significantly affect tilt test results, it is unclear whether
relative humidity might have affected contact behaviour in
particular cases.
3 Results
3.1 Raw Data
Raw data resulting from some 1000 tilt tests of different
rocks cut with different discs and tested in different labo-
ratories are described in the following. Sliding angle values
Table 2 Average temperature and relative humidity values and
ranges recorded during tilt testing at 4 laboratories
Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%)
HU 28 (25–32) 45 (35–50)
NTNU 20 (19–21) 36 (30–40)
UVIGO 23 (22–26) 53 (45–60)
LNEC 22 (20–25) 62 (50–75)
for the 7 test repetitions on every surface are denoted b1–
b7.
The results obtained for 21 rock blocks (8 granite, 5
limestone, 5 quartzite and 3 basaltic andesite) cut with
different discs in the 4 laboratories (HU, NTNU, UVIGO
and LNEC) are shown in Tables A.1–A.8 (granite), A.9–
A.13, (limestone), A.14–A.18 (quartzite) and A.19–A.21
(basaltic andesite) in the form of electronic supplementary
material (Online Resource 1). In these tables, available at
Online Resource 1, the sliding angles measured for the 7
repetitions of 7 tests for every original block are pre-
sented. Table 3 summarizes the mean and standard devi-
ation of all the measured angle values of every set of 49
tests (7 repetitions for 7 surfaces) performed in each
laboratory for the different rock types. Table 3 also pre-
sents the mean and standard deviation of the angles of
first slide of every test, when the contact surface has
suffered no wear at all
Graphs with the results for each series of 49 tests for the
21 specimens in groups of 7 repetitions were plotted,
allowing to easily detect outliers. For illustrative purposes,
Fig. 7 shows one such plot: the results of a set of 7 repe-
titions of a granite specimen test performed at HU. Other
plots are not reproduced here for reasons of brevity, but all
the original data are available in the Online Resource 1. In
Table 3, the average slope of the decreasing sliding angle
with repetitions, as shown in Fig. 7, is presented too, since
this is indicative of the wear of surfaces.
An analysis of the graphs immediately allowed some
conclusions to be drawn. Wear effects were more relevant
in the UVIGO tests, with varying levels evident on the
surfaces of different specimens from the same rock block.
This suggests that it is convenient to try to avoid this effect.
Particularly evident wear effects were observed for 2 sets
of the 7 tests of limestone cut with saw blade C
(Table A.11 at Online Resource 1, contacts 1b–2b and 6b–
7a). This wear effect, accompanied by a significant
reduction in the sliding angle since the first repetitions, can
be attributed to the small grain size, which can rapidly
produce a polished effect. In the case of UVIGO, this effect
was amplified by high relative humidity and, possibly,
more thorough cleaning.
In the LNEC tests on quartzite, a single set of tests for
each rock block resulted in unusually low values
(Tables A.17, contact 3b–4b and Table A.18, contact 6b–7a
at Online Resource 1). This was attributed to the low
planarity of surfaces, with grooves induced in this partic-
ularly hard rock by the (purposely) much-used saw blade.
Defective contact between surfaces, which can actually be
felt by touch, may have drastically reduced the sliding
angle. However, this phenomenon was only observed in 2
sets of tests (out of 14) and in the most strenuous condi-
tions, that is, the hardest rock cut with the weakest disc.
123

Table 3 Series of 49 tests (7
Granite
repetitions for 7 surfaces)
performed in 4 laboratories (21 HU 1 1
specimens)
NTNU 1
UVIGO 4 (4 distinct discs)
LNEC 2 (same disc)
Fig. 7 Results for a set of 7 tilt test repetitions for the same granite
performed at HU
As would be expected, for both limestone in UVIGO
and quartzite in LNEC, the results revealed greater scat-
tering and less reliability. These 2 examples also illustrate
how small details or lack of due care may easily lead to
unexpected test results, suggesting that the occurrence of
outliers is not rare in tilt testing. It is therefore evident that
outliers should be excluded when interpreting tilt test
results.
To start analysing the data, Table 4 compiles the means
and standard deviations for each set of 49 results (7 test
repetitions for 7 surfaces of the same rock tested under the
same conditions), as well as the means and standard
deviations for the first 7 tilt tests from each surface. Bear in
mind that if wear deteriorated the surface, the first repeti-
tion values would be representative of sliding along the
undamaged surface. Table 4 also includes values for the
average slope for the 7 test repetitions for each block (see
Fig. 7). This slope is a simple statistic describing the
decrease of the sliding angle with consecutive repetitions,
i.e. reflecting surface wear.
Overall, mean values from HU and UVIGO were lower
than those obtained in the other laboratories. Looking only
at the first slide means (no wear effect is reflected), it can
be observed that it was mainly the HU values which were
lower than those of the other laboratories. For limestone,
the differences were small (2°–3°), but for the basalt they
were large (8°–9°).
123
L. R. Alejano et al.
Limestone Quartzite Basaltic andesite
1 1
2 (2 distinct discs) 2 (2 distinct discs) 1
2 (same disc) 2 (same disc) 1
A possible reason for these low HU values may be the
acceleration detected in the tilting table. Another reason
may be the microroughness created by the saw blades. As
can be seen in Table 4, the sliding angles for the specimens
cut using continuous rim saw blades (Fig. 3) in HU (C) and
UVIGO (C and D) were smaller than those cut using jag-
ged saw blades. As also previously mentioned, jagged or
teethed discs (A and B in Fig. 3) produce deeper but more
discontinuous grooves than the continuous rim saw blades
(C and D in Fig. 3). Surfaces cut with the C-type blades
thus had less microroughness, which would suggest that
these specimens may slide at lower angles than specimens
cut with teethed discs.
Regarding the impact of the repetitions, the data clearly
indicate that the slope was systematically much greater for
UVIGO than for the other laboratories (between -1° and
-2° vs. between ?0.1° and –0.6°). The main explanation
for this difference is related to the distance that the dif-
ferent equipment allowed the upper block to slide (Fig. 5).
LNEC, where a blocking system was used, had the lowest
slope values (an average of 0.17°/repetition); at NTNU
also, blocks were not allowed to slide the full length since
they were stopped once the upper block began to move.
Other causes may relate to differences in the pretest
cleaning procedures (with a brush or with a cloth) followed
in different laboratories.
3.2 Wear-Corrected Data
Surfaces clearly wore when tests were repeated. This effect
was particularly evident in the results obtained for UVIGO
(half of all the results). To enhance the comparability of
data, all sliding angle datasets were corrected in the sim-
plest possible manner for this wear effect; for each set of 7
repetitions for each contact, the slopes (as shown in Fig. 7)
were calculated using linear least squares and the values of
the repetitions were corrected according to this slope. Thus,
the first-sliding value was retained and, for the rest of the
results, the value of the slope multiplied by the number of
previous repetitions was subtracted. The corrected results
for the 21 rock blocks tested are presented in tables as
electronic supplementary material (Online Resource 2).
Table 5 includes the most important results for the
corrected data: means, standard deviations and coefficients
of variation. The first slide values are also included for
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces

Table 4 Means (average) and

Rock type Laboratory All values First slide values Average slope
standard deviations for each set
of 49 tests conducted in 4 Mean SD Mean SD
laboratories, means and
standard deviation for each set Granite HU-C 27.18 1.00 27.63 1.22 -0.12
of 7 first slides performed and NTNU-D 30.69 2.97 31.07 3.08 -0.04
average slopes for the sliding
UVIGO-A 28.55 2.92 31.66 1.42 -1.03
angles with repetitions (see
Fig. 7) UVIGO-B 27.35 3.09 31.13 1.61 -1.31
UVIGO-C 27.28 3.29 32.14 0.86 -1.48
UVIGO-D 27.05 3.88 31.60 2.46 -1.28
LNEC-E1 30.74 2.05 31.40 2.93 -0.13
LNEC-E2 30.44 2.36 29.99 2.44 0.11
Limestone HU-C 35.67 1.52 35.69 1.50 -0.04
UVIGO-B 34.03 5.03 37.39 1.32 -1.74
UVIGO-C 30.50 8.04 36.74 1.54 -2.47
LNEC-E1 38.12 1.84 37.87 2.04 0.08
LNEC-E2 38.17 1.14 39.37 1.26 -0.29
Quartzite HU-C 22.29 1.79 24.00 1.25 -0.53
UVIGO-B 27.45 3.43 31.04 1.93 -1.14
UVIGO-C 29.94 2.91 32.96 1.81 -1.15
LNEC-E1 27.84 3.18 29.59 4.04 -0.37
LNEC-E2 27.12 3.21 29.21 3.09 -0.40
Basaltic andesite HU-C 26.10 2.83 27.64 2.07 -0.62
UVIGO-B 31.58 3.61 34.25 1.31 -1.55
LNEC-E1 34.71 2.09 34.94 2.04 -0.18

comparison purposes, as also the median of the first 3
corrected values, so as to simplify standardization of the tilt
testing.
Correlations are plotted in Fig. 8a, b. The correlation
between the mean first-sliding angles—expected to be the
most reliable—and mean corrected values as plotted from
Table 5 was very satisfactory (Fig. 8a), as also was the
correlation between mean first-sliding angles and the
median of the first 3 wear-corrected repetitions (Fig. 8b).
These results would suggest that any of these parameters
could be a good estimator of first-sliding angle values.
Results for potential normal distributions obtained from
the means and standard deviations for the 49 wear-cor-
rected values for each rock block and each laboratory are
shown in Figs. 9a (granite), 9b (limestone), 9c (quartzite)
and 9d (basaltic andesite). A more detailed statistical
analysis is presented in the next section.
4 Statistical Considerations
To better understand the results obtained from this exper-
imental study, a number of statistical tests and techniques
were applied. Boxplots and probability distribution func-
tions fitted to histograms were created to study data after
correction for wear effects. One-way analyses of variance
(ANOVAs) were implemented for the different scenarios
considered for this experiment, to determine the (statisti-
cal) belongingness of the corrected results (specimens) to
the same population.
All data corrected for wear effects were represented as
boxplots (Fig. 10). For each dataset, median and 25th and
75th percentiles are indicated by the central mark and box
edges in each boxplot, respectively. Any values located out
of the whiskers were considered to be outliers (indicated by
red ? signs). For all studied datasets, the fact that the
boxplots were found to be reasonably symmetric in terms
of edges and whiskers was an indicator of the normality of
the distributions.
Referring to Fig. 10, for tilt tests carried out with granite
(G) specimens, medians were generally similar except for the
HU dataset, whose value for the median was lower—as
already detected for the case of means analysed above. For
quartzite (Q), median values were found to be more variable,
ranging from a low of 24.23° (HU dataset) to a high of around
34° (Q-UVIGO-C). In terms of scattering, the UVIGO and
HU datasets showed less dispersion than the LNEC dataset.
These last datasets (Q from HU and UVIGO) were more left-
skewed than the others, attributable to the polishing of sur-
faces. For limestone (L), similar medians were obtained for
UVIGO and LNEC, and a somewhat smaller median was
obtained for HU. Limestone was the rock for which the

123
 L. R. Alejano et al.

Table 5 Means and standard deviations for each set of 7 first slides performed in each laboratory, means and standard deviations for each set of
49 wear-corrected tests performed in each laboratory and medians for the first 3 wear-corrected repetitions of the 7 contacts for each block
Rock type Laboratory First slide values (7) All wear-corrected values (49) Median of first 3 repetitions
(wear-corrected)
Mean SD Mean SD CV (%)

Granite HU-C 27.63 1.22 27.54 1.00 3.63 27.60

NTNU-D 31.07 3.08 30.82 2.54 8.24 30.97
UVIGO-A 31.66 1.42 31.65 2.11 6.67 31.70
UVIGO-B 31.13 1.61 31.27 1.70 5.44 31.15
UVIGO-C 32.14 0.86 31.71 1.28 4.04 31.90
UVIGO-D 31.60 2.46 30.88 2.24 7.25 30.72
LNEC-E1 31.40 2.93 31.14 2.31 7.42 31.14
LNEC-E2 29.99 2.44 30.12 2.43 8.07 30.33
Limestone HU-C 35.69 1.50 36.03 1.52 4.22 36.25
UVIGO-B 37.39 1.32 39.24 2.20 5.61 39.11
UVIGO-C 36.74 1.54 37.91 4.44 11.71 38.70
LNEC-E1 37.87 2.04 37.89 2.30 6.07 38.61
LNEC-E2 39.37 1.26 39.06 2.27 5.81 39.10
Quartzite HU-C 24.00 1.25 23.94 1.32 5.51 24.30
UVIGO-B 31.04 1.93 30.88 2.02 6.54 30.80
UVIGO-C 32.96 1.81 33.38 1.87 5.60 33.30
LNEC-E1 29.59 4.04 28.94 4.03 13.93 30.30
LNEC-E2 29.21 3.09 28.32 3.57 12.61 27.90
Basaltic andesite HU-C 27.64 2.07 27.95 2.44 8.73 28.70
UVIGO-B 34.25 1.31 36.24 1.88 5.19 36.05
LNEC-E1 34.94 2.04 35.51 2.22 6.25 34.90
CV coefficient of variation

highest sliding angle was determined and where most vari-
ability—and outliers—was observed. As for the basaltic
andesite (BA) tilt test results, the HU dataset again rendered
the lowest median. The LNEC dataset was the most sym-
metric, and little left-skewness could be observed for the HU
and UVIGO datasets.
Considering in conjunction the boxplot results and the
mean values shown in Table 5, it can be observed that the
sliding angle values for granite obtained by NTNU,
UVIGO and LNEC were quite similar and were also
comparable to the average wear-corrected sliding angles
for limestone, quartzite and basaltic andesite obtained by
UVIGO and LNEC. Values for HU tended to be lower than
those for the other laboratories—a fact which is attributed
to vibrations in the tilting table. Typical coefficients of
variation ranged between 3 and 14%—within the range
typically observed when testing other geomechanical
properties such as UCS.
The wear-corrected data were represented in terms of
histograms, and normal distributions for granite, limestone
and quartzite and basaltic andesite were estimated as well
as means and standard deviations for each dataset. Data
and graphs are not reproduced in the interest of brevity, but
the original data are presented in the form of electronic
supplementary material (Online Resource 2).
ANOVA is a particular form of statistical hypothesis
testing used to analyse experimental data. A statistically
significant result—when a probability (p value) is below a
specific threshold—justifies rejection of the null hypothe-
sis, which in this case was that all sets of results are random
samples drawn from the same population. ANOVA is quite
useful to check the repeatability of tests and, in this
research, to assess the influence of cutting with different
discs and of using different tilting tables and procedures.
ANOVA was applied to raw data, and results were
grouped according to the repetitions. Thus, for each set of
results for the same rock type produced by a given labo-
ratory, 7 groups were considered. Each of these groups is
reflected in the wear-corrected b1–b7 values displayed in
the tables (Online Resource 1). Table 6 summarizes the
results for raw data and wear-corrected data. In both cases,
the null hypothesis was that the groups belonged to the
same population, the significance level was p [ 0.05 (re-
flecting a probability of 0.05 that the null hypothesis would
be rejected) and the critical value of Fisher-Snedecor’s
F was Fcrit = 2.32.

123
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces
Fig. 8 a Correlation between average first slide angles and means for
all wear-corrected values for each block. b Correlation between
average first slide angles and medians for the first 3 slide angles (wear
corrected) for each block
Table 6 shows that raw data results for all contacts
tested at UVIGO in groups of 7 (first slide, second slide,
etc.) and those for LNEC-E2 for limestone and HU-C for
quartzite do not belong to the same original population.
This means that the tilt angle reduction induced by surface
wear from previous tests in these tests is relevant and so
has to be accounted for. The ANOVA results for the wear-
corrected values support this conclusion, since after cor-
rection, almost all data (except for those corresponding to 2
UVIGO cases) can be considered as random samples drawn
from the same populations.
To check whether results for groups of specimens cut
with the same saw blade and tilted with the same tilting
table were similar or reasonably repeatable, we analysed
LNEC results for granite, limestone and quartzite (for
which there were 2 groups of results), finding that the block
tests comprehending 7 groups of 7 tests belonged to the
same population. If the null hypothesis was accepted and
means and standard deviations were similar, then it would
be possible to conclude that the tests were reasonably
repeatable. Table 7 shows that the null hypothesis was
accepted for LNEC-E1 and LNEC-E2 for granite, lime-
stone and quartzite, as the groups yielded similar mean
values (31.14 and 30.12 for granite, 37.89 and 39.06 for
limestone, and 28.94 and 28.32 for quartzite). It could
therefore be concluded that the tests were reasonably
repeatable.
In order to check whether results for the same rock type
tilted with the same table but cut with different saw blades
were repeatable, the 4 UVIGO granite datasets were
grouped in different manners to test the null hypothesis.
Grouping these datasets two by two (A and B, C and D) or
all together (A, B, C and D) the null hypothesis was
accepted, indicating that all the groups belonged to the
same population (Table 7). Since mean values were also
similar (31.65, 31.27, 31.71 and 30.88; see Table 5), the
tests can also be considered reasonably repeatable. This
means that, for UVIGO, the type of saw blade used
apparently had no significant effect on the results.
Finally, to check that results for the same rock type cut
with different machines and tested in different laboratories
were similar, granite results for NTNU, UVIGO and LNEC
were grouped in twos and in a single group. Again, the null
hypothesis was accepted (Table 7). Mean values were also
similar, indicating that the tests performed in groups of 7 in
3 different laboratories using 6 different saw blades and 3
different tilting platforms were considered repeatable.
However, when HU test results for granite were included,
the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that groups of
results did not belong to the same population. The null
hypothesis was also rejected when results from HU were
combined with any other results from NTNU, UVIGO and
LNEC.
5 Discussion
Although tilt tests applied to the cut surfaces of rocks are
simple tests, the mechanical behaviour of surface contacts is
a complex physical phenomenon in which different issues
may significantly affect results. Advantages of this test
reported in the literature typically include simplicity,
observability and repeatability (Hencher 1976). However,
drawbacks regarding complex contact micromechanics
issues that may affect test results when test conditions are not
well controlled are also reported (Hencher and Richards
2015).
To ensure that contact stresses were compressive when
sliding occurred and to avoid smaller contact surfaces
associated with low planarity, rock specimens with sur-
faces of around 56 cm2 and a length-to-height ratio greater
than 3 (80/25 mm) were used in this benchmark experi-
ment. According to stress calculation approaches (Hencher
1976; Muralha 1996; Kim et al. 2016), these geometric
conditions ensure that only sliding (and not any other
phenomenon, such as toppling) occurs in the tests.
123
 L. R. Alejano et al.

Fig. 9 Normal distributions for

the 21 specimens of the
different rocks tested: a granite
(8), b limestone (5), c quartzite
(5) and d basaltic andesite (3)

123
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces
Fig. 10 Boxplot representations of wear-corrected results for granite (G), quartzite (Q), limestone (L) and basaltic andesite (BA) for 4
laboratories
Tilt test results may be affected by surface finishing, the
outcome of the hardness and grain size of the rock and of
the type and velocity of the saw blades that are used. The
presented results would suggest that average sliding angle
values are not much affected by the cutting procedure and
the type of disc used. Rather, the scatter in results may be
more affected by the type of saw blade used, particularly
for harder rocks.
A complex mechanical issue that may affect results is
surface wear and rock dust or powder between tilted sur-
faces. The residual sliding angle observed for more pol-
ished surfaces tends to be much smaller when powder
produced by previous slides is removed (Hencher
1976, 1977; González et al. 2014). Better knowledge of
these mechanical issues could enhance understanding of
the mechanisms affecting tilt test results. It was observed
that avoiding full sliding of the upper slab by blocking the
process after a limited run (10% of the contact length; see
Fig. 5b) avoids damage to the surface and ensures less
variable and more representative results when carrying out
repetitive testing.
To further check the effect of restricting sliding distance
to 10% of specimen length, a further series of 49 tilt tests
was carried out at UVIGO (using the same granite and
testing procedures as described above). Results, summa-
rized in Table A.22 in the Online Resource 1, indicate that
the impact of wear is largely reduced when a blocking
system is used to reduce the sliding distance. It can
therefore be concluded that restricting complete sliding of
the upper block contributes to controlling the wear impact
on tilt test results.
Although angular velocity does not affect results for tilt
tests conducted under mechanically controlled conditions
(Pérez-Rey et al. 2016), results shown in this study would
suggest that it can significantly affect sliding angles when a
hand-operated tilting platform is used, due to vibrations
associated with an imperfectly controlled testing procedure
or to mismatching in the mechanical tilting system. Results
from the benchmark tests corroborate USBR (2009) in
recommending a low velocity when using hand-operated
machines to avoid vibrations during tilting. Tilting veloc-
ity, when controlled, does not affect sliding angle results.
For hand-operated tilting tables, a low tilting velocity of
5°–10°/min should be used to control acceleration and
ensure comparable results. In view of the acceleration
response of 0.05 g measured for its tilting table, vibrations
may account for the lower values from HU. Note that the
vibration effect is intensified for hard rocks.
Relative humidity may also affect results, although not
the results of the benchmark experiment here described.
Aydan (1998) and Ulusay and Karakul (2016) have shown
that water has no impact if rocks do not absorb it in full-
123
 L. R. Alejano et al.

Table 6 ANOVA for results

Rock Laboratory Raw data values Wear-corrected values
for 4 rock types for groups of 7
tests (first slide, second slide, p F Null hyp. p F Null hyp.
etc.) (if p [ 0.05) A (if F \ Fcrit) A
Else R Else R

Granite HU-C 0.364 1.125 A 0.736 0.590 A

NTNU-D 0.983 0.170 A 0.966 0.226 A
UVIGO-A 0.000 7.539 R 0.996 0.102 A
UVIGO-B 0.000 23.528 R 0.438 1.001 A
UVIGO-C 0.000 39.883 R 0.153 1.667 A
UVIGO-D 0.000 6.049 R 0.808 0.496 A
LNEC-E1 0.981 0.178 A 0.999 0.040 A
LNEC-E2 0.993 0.119 A 0.999 0.053 A
Limestone HU-C 0.856 0.427 A 0.922 0.320 A
UVIGO-B 0.000 9.393 R 0.000 5.904 R
UVIGO-C 0.001 4.627 R 0.938 0.290 A
LNEC-E1 0.969 0.218 A 0.995 0.105 A
LNEC-E2 0.001 4.560 R 0.606 0.758 A
Quartzite HU-C 0.000 5.259 R 0.989 0.143 A
UVIGO-B 0.000 6.125 R 0.957 0.247 A
UVIGO-C 0.000 13.137 R 0.917 0.330 A
LNEC-E1 0.691 0.648 A 0.991 0.133 A
LNEC-E2 0.672 0.672 A 0.990 0.138 A
Basaltic andesite HU-C 0.082 2.036 A 0.925 0.315 A
UVIGO-B 0.000 41.319 R 0.003 3.996 R
LNEC-E1 0.791 0.519 A 0.949 0.267 A
A and R indicate that the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected, respectively

Table 7 ANOVA results by group

Rock Datasets: rock type, laboratory and disc type One-way ANOVA results
F p Fcrit Null hyp.

Granite LNEC (E1, E2) 0.354 0.9801 1.839 A

Limestone LNEC (E1, E2) 0.901 0.5554 1.839 A
Quartzite LNEC (E1, E2) 0.170 0.9995 1.839 A
Granite UVIGO (A, B) 0.467 0.9372 1.839 A
Granite UVIGO (C, D) 1.074 0.3925 1.839 A
Granite UVIGO (A, B, C, D) 0.735 0.8256 1.552 A
Granite UVIGO (A, B, C, D) ? LNEC (E1, E2) 0.739 0.8775 1.438 A
Granite NTNU (D) ? UVIGO (A, B, C, D) 0.639 0.9402 1.486 A
Granite HU (C) ? UVIGO (A, B, C, D) 6.067 3.5 9 10-17 1.486 R
Granite NTNU (D) ? LNEC (E1, E2) 0.303 0.9984 1.655 A
Granite HU (C) ? LNEC (E1, E2) 3.733 2.8 9 10-6 1.655 R
Granite HU (C) ? NTNU (D) 5.190 1.1 9 10-6 1.839 R
Granite NTNU (D) ? UVIGO (A, B, C, D) ? LNEC (E1, E2) 0.643 0.9677 1.401 A
Granite HU (C) ? NTNU (D) ? UVIGO (A, B, C, D) ? LNEC (E1, E2) 2.824 5.5 9 10-9 1.373 R
A and R indicate that the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected, respectively

123
A Benchmark Experiment to Assess Factors Affecting Tilt Test Results for Sawcut Rock Surfaces
immersion conditions. If humidity is an issue, water pres-
sure distribution across the discontinuity surface and its
lubrication effect may play a role in the apparent friction
angle of planar discontinuities.
Although a number of complex phenomena require
further research, the results of this benchmark experiment
point to little scattering of sliding angle values obtained in
different laboratories for tilt tests conducted under rela-
tively controlled conditions. Indeed, the range of scattering
is in the same order of magnitude as for other rock
mechanic properties tested in laboratories such as UCS or
tensile strength. Therefore, given simple guidelines and
following similar procedures, a reasonable degree of
reproducibility can be expected from results from different
laboratories.
6 Conclusions
This benchmark study demonstrated that sliding angles for
sawcut rock surfaces determined by tilt tests performed in
different laboratories tend to be similar when conditions
are sufficiently controlled. Moreover, the statistical analy-
ses indicate that sliding angle results for contact surfaces of
the same rock type, cut with different saw blades and tested
in different tilting devices, are similar, that is, the results
can be attributed with a reasonable degree of confidence to
the same original population.
Surface wear as affected by the cutting procedure,
cleaning practices and rock hardness, does affect results.
To mitigate the impact of wear and reflect non-worn
behaviour in results, it seems wise to carry out a limited
number of tests with each pair of rock pieces and to limit
sliding of the upper block to 10% of the specimen length.
Vibrations may prove to be relevant in reducing sliding
angles and may account for HU’s lower values, in view of
the acceleration response of 0.05 g measured for its tilting
table. To ensure that vibrations do not affect tilting
equipment and results, it is suggested performing simple
acceleration measurements using an easily available
smartphone accelerometer application.
The cutting process and the ensuing surface finishing
may also affect interlocking or microtextures of rock sur-
faces and influence sliding angle results. In any case, in this
benchmark experiment, various laboratories using different
cutting tools produced reasonably similar results. The
cutting process appears to affect the scattering of results
(standard deviations) more than average values.
Although outliers were not frequent in this benchmark
experiment, they are likely to appear in less controlled test
conditions. It is recommended to remove outliers which
may be associated with rapid polishing or poor matching
(due to poor cutting) of surfaces that are insufficiently
planar to make good contact. A straightforward way of
removing outlier values is to use the median to calculate
the final sliding angle value.
Based on the above observations and conclusions, it
seems appropriate to try to advance towards standardiza-
tion of tilt tests by controlling the most important factors
affecting results. This would ensure comparable results and
would facilitate further studies of the nature of sliding
along rock cut surfaces, the mechanics of contact and the
relationship with the basic friction angle.
Acknowledgements Co-authors L.R. Alejano and I. Pérez-Rey
acknowledge the Spanish Ministry of the Economy, Industry and
Competitiveness for funding their research studies under Contract
Reference No. BIA2014-53368P, partially financed by ERDF funds
from the EU. The persons working at the laboratories cited in the
paper are also acknowledged for their help in performing the testing.
Ailish M. J. Maher is acknowledged for English edition of a version
of the manuscript.
References
Alejano LR, González J, Muralha J (2012) Comparison of different
techniques of tilt testing and basic friction angle variability
assessment. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1023–1035
Aydan Ö (1998) Simple tests on the validation of the effective stress
law for rock discontinuities. In: Thimus et al (ed) Proceedings of
poromechanics, Belgium, Balkema, Roterdam, pp 539–544
Aydan Ö (2015) Lessons from the recent great earthquakes on the
performance of buildings under different geotechnical environ-
ments. In: Firat S, Aruntas Y, Gultekin AB (eds) Proceedings of
the 2nd international sustainable buildings symposium. Gazi
Univ.y, Ankara, Turkey, pp 3–20
Coulson JH (1972) Shear strength of flat surfaces in rock stability of
rock slopes. In: Cording EJ (ed) Proceedings of Symposium in
Rock Mechanics 13th, Urbana, Ill., 1971. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp 77–105
González J, González-Pastoriza N, Castro U, Alejano LR, Muralha J
(2014) Considerations on the laboratory estimate of the basic
friction angle of rock joints. In: Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla
C, Jimenez R (eds) Rock mechanics and rock engineering:
structures on and in rock masses. EUROCK 2014, Vigo.
Balkema, Rotterdam
Hencher SR (1976) Discussion of the paper ‘‘a simple sliding
apparatus for the measurement of rock joint friction’’ by Cawsey,
D. C. and Farrar, N. S. 1976. Géotechnique 26:382–386
Hencher SR (1977) The effect of vibration on the friction angle
between planar rock surfaces. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London University
Hencher SR (2012) Discussion of the paper ‘‘comparison of different
techniques of tilt testing and basic friction angle variability
assessment’’. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1141–1143
Hencher SR, Richards LR (2015) Assessing the shear strength of rock
discontinuities at laboratory and field scales. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 48:883–905
Kim DH, Gratchev I, Hein M, Balasubramaniam A (2016) The
application of normal stress reduction function in tilt tests for
different block shapes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3041–3054
Krahn J, Morgenstern NR (1979) The ultimate frictional resistance of
rock discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
16:127–133
123

Kveldsvik V, Nilsen B, Einstein HH, Nadim F (2008) Alternative
approaches for analyses of a 100,000 m3 rock slide based on
Barton-Bandis shear strength criterion. Landslides 5:161–176
Li ChC, Zhang N, Ruiz J (2017) Measurement of the basic friction
angle of a planar rock discontinuities with three rock cores. Eng
Geol Environ Bull. doi:10.1007/s10064-017-1045-0
Mehrishall S, Sharifzadeh M, Shahriar K, Song JJ (2016) An
experimental study on normal stress and shear rate dependency
of basic friction coefficient in dry and wet limestone joints. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 49:4607–4629
Muralha J (1996) Probabilistic approach to the mechanical behaviour
of discontinuities in rock masses (in Portuguese). Ph.D. disser-
tation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon
Nicholson GA (1994) A test is worth a thousand guesses—a paradox.
In: Nelson PP, Laubach SE (eds) Proceedings of 1st NARMS
symposium, Austin, USA, pp 523–529
Pérez-Rey I, Alejano LR, González-Pastoriza N, González J, Arzúa J
(2015) Effect of time and wear on the basic friction angle of rock
123
L. R. Alejano et al.
discontinuities. In: Schubert W (ed) EUROCK 2015 & 64th
geomechanics colloquium, ÖGG, Salzburg, Austria (on CD)
Pérez-Rey I, Alejano LR, Arzúa J, Muralha J (2016) The role of tilting
rate and wear surfaces on basic friction angle testing. In: Ulusay
R, Aydan Ö, Gercek H, Hindistan MA, Tuncay E (eds)
EUROCK2016 symposium, Cappadocia, Turkey, vol 1, pp 29–31
Ruı́z J, Li CC (2014) Measurement of the basic friction angle of rock
by three different tilt test methods. In Alejano et al (eds) Rock
mechanics and rock engineering: structures on and in rock
masses. In: Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla C, Jimenez R (eds)
EUROCK 2014, Vigo. Rotterdam, Balkema (on CD)
Ulusay R, Karakul H (2016) Assessment of basic friction angles of
various rock types from Turkey under dry, wet and submerged
conditions and some considerations on tilt testing. Bull Eng Geol
Env 75:1683–1699
USBR (2009) Procedure for determining the angle of basic friction
(static) using a tilting table test (Designation USBR 6258-09),
www.usbr.gov