Can the splitting joint reproduce the characteristics of the natural joint in the lab? —A comparison study based on the roughness analysis and shear test.

Splitting joints have been widely used to study the morphology characteristic and shear behavior of rock joints in the laboratory. There are some differences between the splitting joint and natural joint both in morphology characteristic and shear behavior. To quantitatively compare the differences, the present study used several splitting joints and natural joints to carry out the roughness analysis and direct shear test. Six profiles were extracted from each joint surface with a 30° interval to calculate the 2D roughness parameters (i.e., amplitude roughness parameter, average asperity inclination, root-mean-square of profile slope, and joint roughness coefficient). These parameters of the natural joints have a wide range and have obvious fluctuation. On the contrary, these parameters of the splitting red sandstone joints converge on a small range with tiny fluctuation, even calculated from different joint surfaces. The directional parameter (θ ⁎ max (C + 1)) was adopted to calculate the 3D roughness with a 5° interval. The directional parameter of the natural joints in range of 0° ∼ 360° forms a peanut, a prolate ellipse, or a gourd shape, presenting significant anisotropy. For the splitting joints, it forms a circle or a roughly circular shape, presenting insignificant anisotropy. The asperity heights of natural joints mainly present an irregular distribution, and they present an approximately normal distribution in few joints. For the splitting joints, the asperity heights generally obey a normal distribution. It indicates that there are huge differences between natural joint and splitting joint in morphology characteristic. To study the shear behavior, two types of joint were reconstructed for repeated test. The mechanical performance and failure characteristic of the splitting joint under different shear directions are similar. On the contrary, those of the natural joints under different shear directions are different, presenting obvious anisotropy. Based on the comparative analysis of the natural joints and the sandstone splitting joints in the present study, there is substantial difference between two types of joints both in morphology characteristic and shear behavior. The splitting joints cannot reproduce the characteristics of the natural joints well. • The difference in the morphological characteristic between the natural joint and splitting joint is compared quantitatively. • The difference in the shear behavior between the natural joint and splitting joint is analyzed in detail. • The mechanism of the shear behavior difference between two types of joints induced by the morphology difference is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]