Rock masses are natural media affected by the presence of discontinuities that influence significantly their stability conditions: blocks are detached by the discontinuity planes and can move along them; moreover, the possible kinematisms are ruled by the amount of shear strength offered by the discontinuities. Shear strength depends on mechanical properties but also on geometrical aspects of a discontinuity, such as its roughness. For this reason, the evaluation of this property is fundamental. In this paper the state of the art of the roughness descriptors is presented. The two surfaces of a joint, digitalized by means of a photogrammetric survey and already used to perform shear tests (FERRERO et al., 2010], are used to apply the geometrical descriptors and analyze the results in terms of correspondence with laboratory results. Moreover, the influence of anisotropy and sampling interval (SI) is discussed. The paper compares different roughness quantitative descriptors showing as Tatone and Grasselli’s approach [2011; 2013] is in good agreement with experimental shear tests data.

Comparison of methods for discontinuity roughness evaluation

Anna Maria Ferrero;Gessica Umili
2019

Abstract

Rock masses are natural media affected by the presence of discontinuities that influence significantly their stability conditions: blocks are detached by the discontinuity planes and can move along them; moreover, the possible kinematisms are ruled by the amount of shear strength offered by the discontinuities. Shear strength depends on mechanical properties but also on geometrical aspects of a discontinuity, such as its roughness. For this reason, the evaluation of this property is fundamental. In this paper the state of the art of the roughness descriptors is presented. The two surfaces of a joint, digitalized by means of a photogrammetric survey and already used to perform shear tests (FERRERO et al., 2010], are used to apply the geometrical descriptors and analyze the results in terms of correspondence with laboratory results. Moreover, the influence of anisotropy and sampling interval (SI) is discussed. The paper compares different roughness quantitative descriptors showing as Tatone and Grasselli’s approach [2011; 2013] is in good agreement with experimental shear tests data.
3
5
15
roughness
Anna Maria Ferrero, Maria Rita Migliazza, Gessica Umili
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
RIG_3_19_ferrero seconde.pdf

Accesso riservato

Descrizione: pdf con richiesta di controllo da parte dell'editore
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.73 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.73 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1726575
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact