ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

A rock bolt and rock mass interaction model

Yue Caia,*, Tetsuro Esakia, Yujing Jiangb
a b

Institute of Environmental Systems, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 812-8581, Japan Department of Civil Engineering, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan Accepted 17 April 2004 Available online 7 July 2004

Abstract An analytical model for rock bolts has been developed based on an improved ShearLag Model. The development of the model is based on the description of the interaction behavior of the rock bolt, the grout medium and the rock mass. On the basis of the model, the coupling and decoupling behavior of the rock bolt in pullout tests, uniform deformation the rock mass and intersecting joints are analyzed. The pullout test characteristic is described by the proposed model, and a back analysis method is proposed to calculate the shear strength of the interface media. For the rock bolts in a deformed rock mass, the inuence of the installation time of the rock bolt has been taken into account, and the theoretical prediction is veried by the measured data. According to the proposed model, the position of the neutral point is not only related to the length of the rock bolt and the radius of a tunnel, but also is strongly inuenced by the mechanical properties of the rock mass. Analysis of the joints intersecting the rock bolt shows that there may be more than one neutral point on the rock bolt, and the prediction of the simplied model is consistent with the pullout model. By using this model, a method is proposed to analyze the interaction behavior of the rock bolt and the surrounding rock mass, with a way of evaluating the supporting performance quantitatively. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The rock bolt has been widely used as an effective reinforcement in civil and mining engineering for a long time. However, the interaction mechanism of the rock bolt and the rock mass is not well understood, and the bolting design is still empirical so far. Field monitoring is useful and sometimes necessary to ensure the bolting design, but it can be difcult and expensive. A common method to verify part of the rock bolting design is the pullout test. However, the working conditions of the rock bolt and the surrounding media are generally unkown. In order to improve the bolting design, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the interaction behavior of the rock bolt in the pullout test and in a deformed rock mass. Since the 1970s, much monitoring work has been carried out on the rock bolts installed in various rock types [1,2]. Freeman [1] monitored both the loading process of the rock bolts and the distribution of the
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-92-642-3494; fax: +81-92-6423848. E-mail address: cai@ies.kyushu-u.ac.jp (Y. Cai). 1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.04.005

shear stress along the bolts, and proposed the concept of neutral point, pick-up length and anchor length. According to these concepts, the displacement of the rock mass and the rock bolt is considered to be the same at the neutral point, where the shear stress at the interface is zero, while the axial force of the rock bolt attains its maximum. Based on some assumptions, Tao and Chen [3] investigated the interaction mechanism of fully grouted bolts around a circular tunnel and gave the neutral point along the rock bolt as r L=ln1 L=ra ; L 40rb B60rb ; 1

where L is the length of the bolt and ra is the internal radius of the tunnel. Considering the neutral point, Indraratna [4] established an analytical model for the design of grouted rock bolts according to the elasto-plastic constitutive law. Jiang and Esaki et al. [5] established another analytical model considering the dilation characteristic of the rock mass. However, the position of the neutral point is not valid, at least when slippage takes place at the interface [6] or if a pre-stress exists.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1056 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

. According to the work of Bjornfot and Stephansson [7], there may be not one but several neutral points along a rock bolt. After being installed in the rock mass, the rock bolt works compatibly with the surrounding rock mass before the decoupling, and the neutral point is strongly inuenced by the deformation of the rock mass. The shear stress at the interface and the axial force of the rock bolt is determined by the deformation of the rock mass. For numerical analysis, most of the research focuses on the mechanical properties of the interface between the rock bolt and the rock mass. The relation between the shear force tb and the displacement Du is often simplied as tb kDu; where k is the tangential stiffness of the interface. In order to satisfy the pull out experiment result, k can be idealized by bilinear or hyperbolic idealizations [8,9]. However, the accurate determination of the initial shear stiffness kini is not easy because the shear stress along the rock bolt is not uniform in a general pullout test and the shear deformation along the interface comprises both an inelastic deformation of the rock mass before slipping, and a relative displacement of the rock mass and the reinforcement during slipping. That is to say, the shear stiffness k not only depends on the properties of the interface, but also the properties of the reinforcement and the surrounding rock mass. As a result, the tested data vary with different specimens and boundary conditions. The interaction behavior between a linear reinforcement and the surrounding matrix can be described by the shearlag theory or ber-loading theory. The original shearlag model (SLM) is based on elastic theory [10]. It has been widely used by material scientists and structural geologists as a powerful analytical method. Hobbs [11] introduced SLM to geologists and modied the mathematical derivation of the model to incorporate an elastic layermatrix system. Abramento and Whittle [12] proposed a model based on SLM to analyze the pull-out behavior of planar geosynthetic reinforcement, assuming that shear stress decayed linearly. However, his assumption cannot stand if the actual shear stress decays non-linearly in the matrix [13]. The aim of this paper is to improve the traditional SLM and develop an analytical model for the fully coupled rock bolt system. On the basis of the proposed model, the coupling and decoupling behavior of the rock bolt in a pullout test, in a continuously deformed rock mass and with intersecting joints, are discussed.

consistently, which is termed the coupling behavior in this paper. At the coupling stage, the displacement of the rock mass is the same as that of the rock bolt at their interface. If the interface medium is ruptured, slippage may take place, which is termed the decoupling behavior. Regarding the mechanical interaction, the composite system of the rock bolt and the rock mass can be separated into two balanced parts: one is the original rock mass without the rock bolt; and the other is the composite system but only loaded with the induced axial force of the rock bolt. The actual total stress is the sum of the two parts. Hence, the total stress of the rock bolted section is written as sTotal sr smr r sTotal st smt t 2

and the basic constitutive laws of the rock-bolted section may be expressed as   smr Em 1 mm 1 2mm smt    mm Demr 1 mm ; 3 mm 1 mm Demt ; sTotal are the total radial and tangential where sTotal r t stresses of the bolted rock mass, and sr, st are the original radial and tangential stresses of the rock mass, respectively; smr, smt are the additional radial and tangential stress caused by the rock bolt, and Demr, Demt are the corresponding additional strains, respectively. mm is the Poissons ratio of the rock mass. The original stress of the rock mass without the rock bolt can be obtained according to a certain constitutive law. But the induced axial force remains unclear. Although it is well known that the axial force in the rock bolt has a relation with the original status of the rock mass, the relation is considered in few models. 2.2. Improving the shearlag theory The shearlag theory was proposed to describe the mechanical behavior of a ber composite at rst. During the past half-century, it has been developed from an elastic theory to a plastic system for different purposes in the ber composite material eld. The classical SLM is based on the idealized assumption that there is no slip on the phase interface [1416]. In order to obtain the unknown parameters assumed in the model, a shear stress distribution in the matrix is often assumed as [15,1719] tr; x rb trb ; x=r rb prpR: 4 where rb is the radius of ber and R is the inuence radius of the ber. However, in the rock bolt system, more discussion is needed for the distribution of the shear stress because the boundary conditions are not the same as for the ber composite. According to the

2. Interaction model for a rock bolt and rock mass 2.1. Mechanical coupling of rock bolt and rock mass Before the slippage takes place at the interface, the reinforcement and the surrounding rock mass behave

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067 1057

rb

Fig. 1. Illustration of coupling behaviour of rock bolt and rock mass.

(rb,x) m(r,x) P(x) P(x)+dP(x)

m(r,x)+d m(r,x)

P(x) m(r,x)

m(r,x) dx m(r,x)+ P(x)+dP(x)

(r,x)+d(r,x)

dx dx

Fig. 2. Sketch of the equilibrium of rock bolt system.

assumption above, stress from the rock bolt to the rock mass tends to be zero. Moreover, it should be pointed out that some of the important boundary conditions were ignored by the former SLM [20]. Considering the mechanism of the rock bolting, the decoupling behavior also has to be taken into account. The interaction demonstration of the rock bolt and the rock mass is sketched in Fig. 1. If an initial displacement of the rock mass without the bolt is uini, it is restrained to be um by the rock bolts and the displacement of the rock bolt becomes ub because of its pullout effect. The equilibrium of a bolting system is sketched in Fig. 2, according to the balance of an innitesimal element of the rock bolt (a), the surrounding rock mass (b) and the composite of the rock mass and the rock bolt (c), and Eq. (5) is established dPx 2prb tb ; dx qsm r; x qtr; x tr; x 0; qx qr r Z R dPx d 2p sm r; x dr 0; dx r b dx 5a 5b 5c

After differentiation, Eq. (6a) is transformed to   d2 Px Px H em ; dx2 Eb Ab

6b

where, ub is the displacement of the rock bolt; um and em are the displacement and strain of the rock mass at the edge of the inuence radius R; H is a material parameter which describes the interaction properties of the rock bolt, grout and the surrounding rock mass. Eb and Ab are the Youngs modulus and cross-sectional area of the rock bolt. The distribution of an anti-stress originating from the rock bolt is related with the distribution of the shear stress in the rock mass according to Eq. (5). It is assumed tr; x trb ; xf r; 7

where, P(x) is the axial force of the rock bolt at the position x; t(rb, x) is the shear stress on the rock bolt; sm(r, x) is the stress parallel to the rock bolt at the position of (r, x); R is the inuence radius of a single rock bolt. Since it is not easy to obtain the solution by the equilibrium equations and boundary conditions, the Shearlag assumption is adopted as following: dPx=dx H ub um : 6a

where f r describes the distribution of the shear stress in the rock mass, and the boundary conditions and equilibrium Eq. (5) should be satised. Some parameters such as H and the shear distribution function f r are still unknown according to the analysis above. Obviously, f rb 1: If the shear distribution function f r is assumed as f r rb =r; the classical shearlag theory will be obtained. According to the constitutive equation of the shear stress and the shear strain tr; x Gm qum =qr; 8

where Gm is the shear modulus of the rock mass, and the material parameter H is expressed as H 2pGm = lnR=rb : 9

However, the supposed shear function is not suitable because the balance of Eq. (4) is not satised.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1058 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

In the following, a uniform distribution of the antistress from the rock bolt is assumed in order to simplify the analysis. Therefore, the distribution of shear stress is expressed as Eq. (10) according to Eq. (5b)
2 2 f r R2 r2 b r rb =R r:

10

If Rbrb ; the parameter H can be expressed as H 2pGm =lnR=rb 1=2: 11a

If the properties of the grout are not the same as the rock mass, the parameter H is expressed as Eq. (11b) by neglecting the normal stress on the grout, 2pGg Gm ; H ln R=rb 1=2 Gg ln rg =rb Gm 11b

where, rg is the radius of the borehole, Gg is the shear modulus of the grout mortar. Based on the model above, it is easy to obtain the stress distribution not only in a continuum, but also in the joint rock if practical boundary conditions are known. For the jointed rock mass, the displacement or the open distance between the intact rock is essential for the analysis. 2.3. Decoupling behavior of rock bolt and rock mass

It was revealed that a conning pressure inuences the strength of the interface dramatically, and similar experimental results were obtained by other researchers [22,23]. The behavior of the bonding failure at the interface of a deformed rock bolt under different conning pressures is shown in Fig. 3. Although the full mechanism of the bonding failure during slippage can be explained by the shearing mechanism in a cement annulus [23], failure may occur at the boltgrout interface, in the grout medium or at the groutrock interface, or in the rock mass. It depends on which one is the weakest, as shown in Fig. 4. For the grouted rock bolt in soft rock, the decoupling may take place at the groutrock interface in situ. In this case, the residual strength equals the shear strength of the rock mass, either in the CMC system or the CFC system. According to the discussion above, the MohrCoulomb law is recommended here to describe the decoupling behavior of the rock bolt and the rock mass. Hence, the shear
250

200 31 MPa Shear Load (kN) 23 MPa 150 15 MPa 100 8 MPa 50 3 MPa 0

The rock bolts can be classied into two types: the grouted bolt and the friction boltaccording to their characteristics. Windsor [21] proposed the concept that a reinforcement system comprises four principal components: rock mass, reinforcing element, internal xture and external xture. The reinforcing element refers to the bolt and the external xture refers to a face plate and a nut. The internal xture is either a medium such as the cement mortar or the resin for the grouted bolts, or a mechanical action like the friction at the bolt interface for the frictionally coupled bolts. According to Windsors classication, a reinforcement system can be divided into three groups as: (1) continuously mechanically coupled (CMC) system; (2) continuously frictionally coupled (CFC) system; (3) discretely mechanically or frictionally coupled (DMFC) system. The cement or resin grouted bolts belongs to the CMC system while the Split set and Swellex bolts belong to the CFC system. The shear strength of the interface is made up of three parts: the adhesion/cohesion, the inter lock and the friction in the axial direction. They are lost in sequence as the compatibility of the deformation is lost along the interface. For the CMC system such as the cement grouted bolt, all three components exist; while, for the CFC system, there is no adhesion/cohesion after slippage. In the decoupling status, the shear stress at the interface becomes a residual strength at the slipping part. There are differences in residual shear stress for the different systems.

10 15 Shear displacement (mm)

20

Fig. 3. Relationship of interface strength and conning pressure in a direct shear test (After Moosavi, 2001).

1: rock bolt-grout interface; 2: inside the grout; 3: grout-rock mass interface; 4: inside rock mass

Fig. 4. Illustration of potential decoupling location near to rock bolt interface.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067 1059

strength can be calculated via tm c snb tan fi ; 12

tb x to coshaL x=coshaL;

15b

where fi and c are the friction angle and cohesion of the interface, which can be tested by direct shear tests or the pullout test. snb is the normal stress perpendicular to the rock bolt. The constitutive law of the interface media is demonstrated in Fig. 5, where umax is the ultimate coupling displacement of the interface, and this can be obtained by experiment.

where to and Po are the shear stress and the axial force at the loading end, respectively. When the length of the rock bolt is long enough, the equations above are similar to the shear stress attenuation formula suggested by Farmer [24]. As the pull out load increases, the shear stress at the interface increases correspondingly. Debonding appears once the shear stress reaches the strength of the interface. After debonding, the distribution of the shear stress along the bonded part is expressed as tb x tm coshaL x=coshaL y; L yoxoL; 16 where y is the debonding length of the rock bolt and x is the distance from the end of the rock bolt. The pull out force may not be a maximum if the residual stress exists at the debonding section. The ultimate pull out force after debonding is expressed as Pmax 2tmo pyrb 2tm tanhaL yAb =arb : 17

3. Interaction behavior of rock bolts in the pullout test 3.1. Theoretical analysis Although there is still something remaining unclear in the pullout test method, it is widely used to evaluate the effect of the rock bolts. Based on the suggested model, the behavior of a grouted rock bolt embedded in a cylinder specimen is discussed here, and the coordinate system is drawn in Fig. 1. If a uniform normal stress is assumed on the cross section of the specimen, the matrix strain at the edge of the specimen can be expressed as em Px=Em Am ; 13

Correspondingly, the axial load reaches a maximum when the debonding length reaches ycr, j p k ycr L lnw ln2 w 2 1 w =2a; tmo wtm : 18

where Am is the area of the cross section. Since the axial force is known at the pullout end, and the other end carries no axial force, the boundary condition can be described as x 0; P0 Po ; x L; PL 0: 14 15

For the friction types such as the Swellex bolt, the residual stress equals the shear strength of the interface, in other words, w=1. Therefore, the debonding length y equals L when the ultimate pullout load is reached, and the shear strength of the friction bolt can be calculated with tmo Pmax =2prb L: 19

According to Eq. (4b), the theoretical solution before decoupling is expressed as Px Po sinhaL x=sinhaL; q a H 1=Ab Eb 1=Eb Ab ;

15a

Shear strength m friction bolt

Generally, the pullout test experiences the three steps such as a coupling status, a failure developing step and a collapse step, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Before the decoupling, the displacement at the end of the bolt is linear with the pullout force, and their relation is expressed as Po ; 20 uo Ab Eb a tanhaL where Eb is the Youngs modulus of the rock bolt. If a residual shear strength exists, the decoupling appears when the pullout load exceeds Pd, and the pullout load increases together with the developing of the debonding length. Correspondingly, the relation of the pull out force and the displacement becomes nonlinear, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The pullout load decreases soon after Pmax and the rock bolt will be pulled out. The development of the pullout force and the shear stress along the rock bolt is sketched in Fig. 6(b). Since the rock bolt in situ is preloaded by the deformation of the rock mass, its pullout behavior differs from that in the laboratory, and it will not be discussed here.

mo kini

grouted bolt

umax

displacement

Fig. 5. Relationship of the shear stress and displacement at rock bolt interface.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1060 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

Pullout force collapse Pullout force (kN) Pmax coupling step

180 150 120

Li and Stillborg (1999) [6]

Theoretical Prediction

P = 165kN 90 60 30 0 0 P = 35kN P = 100kN P = 140kN

Pd failure developing

(a) (a) displacement 15 Shear stress (MPa) After decoupling Coupling Distance from borehole collar (m) Frictional residual strength After decoupling Coupling (b) 0 0 P = 35kN 10

0.5 1 Length of rock bolt (m)

1.5

Li and Stillborg (1999) [6] Theoretical Prediction P = 140kN P = 165kN P = 100kN

0.5 1 Length of rock bolt (m)

1.5

Grouted residual strength P (b)

Fig. 6. Illustration of the characteristic behavior of pull out test. (a) General decoupling process and (b) distribution of axial force and shear stress along a bolt.

Fig. 7. Theoretical prediction in pull out test. (a) Distribution of axial force and (b) distribution of shear stress on rock bolt [6].

3.2. Pullout experimental verications Pullout tests of the rock bolt carried out by Stillborg [25] are taken as an example for comparison. Readers may obtain the experimental details in Stillborgs paper. With the same parameters as Li and Stillborg [6], a back analysis method is introduced to calculate the actual strength of the interface and the distribution of shear stress along the rock bolt. For the fully grouted rock bolts, it is known that: the maximum pullout force Pmax=180 kN; for the rock bolt: the length L=1.5 m, the radius rb=10 mm, the Youngs modulus Eb=210 GPa; for the grout: the radius rg=17.5 mm, Poissons ratio mg=0.25, the Youngs modulus Eg=35 GPa; for the concrete specimen, the Youngs modulus Em=45 GPa, the Poissons ratio mm=0.25. The values of other parameters are assumed to be: w tmo =tm 0:1; and the inuence radius R=35 rb (Fig. 7). Hence, the values H = 34 GPa from Eq. (11b) and a=12.8 m1 from Eq. (15) are obtained. The debonding

length ycr at an ultimate load is 1.39 m from Eq. (18). Therefore, the peak shear strength is obtained to be 13.8 MPa, while it is 12.8 MPa according to the pullout load model suggested by Li and Stillborg (1999). For the frictionally coupled rock bolts, the actual shear strength can be calculated with Eq. (19), which is the same as the pullout load model. Comparing to the pullout model, it is found that the distribution of the shear stress and the axial force is almost the same as the pullout load model before debonding. The predicted peak shear strength is a little larger and the debonding length is longer than that of the pullout load model. In case of the Swellex bolt, the shear strength of the interface media equals the residual shear strength, and the calculation process is almost the same.

4. Interaction behavior of rock bolts around a circular opening 4.1. Theoretical analysis Rock bolts in situ interact with the surrounding rock mass compatibly. Based on Eq. (6) and different boundary conditions, it is possible to obtain the axial force and the stress distribution along a rock bolt

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067 1061

according to the proposed model. Considering the supporting effect of the rock bolt , the strain of the rock mass at the edge of the inuence radius R is expressed as Eq. (21) and the constitutive equation of the axial force is expressed as Eq. (22) em eini t Dem ; Dem sm =Em Px=SEm ;   d2 Px Px H em ; dx2 Eb Ab 21a 21b 22

shear stress is tmo. the boundary condition is expressed as x y; Po 2pb tmo y; x L; PL 0: 0oxpy; 23

where eini(t) is the released strain of the rock mass without bolts, and it is time dependent and inuenced by the installation time of the rock bolt; S is the inuencing area of a single rock bolt. The axial force of the rock bolt is determined by the released strain of the rock mass. Although the strain of the rock mass varies according to the different boundary conditions, the basic formula for a rock bolt is the same before decoupling. When the shear stress exceeds the strength of the interface medium according to the decoupling constitutive law, the debonding will take place at the weakest position, as shown in Fig. 4. If the decoupling occurs in the rock mass near to the grout, the supporting behavior of the CMC system is the same as that of the CFC system, and the residual shear strength is the shear strength of the rock mass. The debonding behavior of a rock bolt with an external xture is not the same as the one without an external xture. The external xture such as a face plate does not work effectively before decoupling. But the deformation of the tunnel wall will transfer load to the rock bolt through the face plate after debonding and, correspondingly, the neutral point will depart from the tunnel wall. However, it is unclear how much the load will be transferred to the plate because it depends on many factors such as its shape, its area and the construction quality, and it is difcult to be determined only by theory. For the rock bolt without an external xture, the shear stress at the debonding part equals the residual strength tmo. Eq. (5) does not apply at the debonding part. Supposing the debonding length is y, at which the

It is easy to calculate y and the axial force in the rock bolt combined with Eq. (5) by a numerical method. For the CMC system, the residual shear stress tmo is often smaller than the peak shear stress while, for the CFC system, tmo equals the peak shear strength. Numerous experiences show that the rock mass around an opening does not remain in an elastic condition, especially for the soft rock. Esaki et al. [26] suggested a strain-softening model and discussed the post-failure behavior of the rock mass around a tunnel. According to their analysis, the rock mass is divided into three regions around a tunnel: a plastic region, a softening region and an elastic region. Hence, the rock bolt may be installed in one of six cases in situ, as shown in Fig. 8. For the rock bolt installed in two or three regions, a continuous boundary condition should be considered because the deformation of the rock mass is not the same in different regions. The released displacement in the plastic region, the softening region and the elastic region are written as up(x), us(x) and ue(x). Therefore, the differential equations of the rock bolt can be written as follows:   d2 Px Px Px qu H ; dx2 E b A b E m S qx 8 > < up x in plastic region; 24 u us x in soften region; > : ue x in elastic region: If the rock mass is only in an elastic state, the released displacement around a circular tunnel is expressed as Eq. (25), and the neutral point can be expressed via Eq. (26) ue x po 1 mm r2 a =Em ra x; 2=x Ei1; xex Ei1; xex m=2 J1 eax J2 eax 0; 25

26a

4 1 2 5 3 Opening Opening Opening 6 O ra elastic zone Re O ra Rf Re O ra Rf Re plastic flow zone

Strain soften zone

Fig. 8. Relative position of the rock bolts in situ.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1062 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

x ax ro ; Z N xt e dt; Ei1; x t 0 a2 Ab E 1 SEm 1 H ; m 1 mm po r2 a H =Em ;

26b

26c

where, ra is the radius of the tunnel; Em and mm are the deformation modulus and the Poissons ratio of the rock mass; Ab is the area of the rock bolt; po is the statichydraulic pressure; J1, J2 are the parameters related to the boundary conditions. Generally, the theoretical solution is difcult to obtain when the rock bolt is installed across more than two regions, and the numerical method is preferred in this situation. In the numerical solution, the rock bolt is divided into small lengths DL as shown in Fig. 9, where np, ns and ne are integral numbers. The resultant shear stress at the interface is critical to the supporting effect, and the shear stress cannot exceed the strength of rock mass in the plastic or softening regions. 4.2. Comparison with the measured data Understanding the axial force is helpful for the design of rock bolting because the axial force provides the essential information relating to the working status of the rock boltwhich is a reasonable basis for the adjustment of the rock bolting design in tunneling. Measuring the axial force in the rock bolt in tunneling is required in Japan, especially important projects. However, the accuracy of the eld measurements is limited and it is not easy to obtain ideal results because there are so many inuencing factors during the monitoring process. At the same time, the tested axial force just presents the characteristic of the tested installed rock bolt, and this may be different from those that will be installed because the rock mass conditions often change during the construction process of the tunnel. Hence, a reasonable model to predict the axial force in the rock bolt becomes signicant for the design of rock bolting. A eld monitoring of rock bolts was performed in Holland Zaka Tunnel in Nagasaki, and the axial force

and the shear stress are compared with the theoretical prediction of the improved SLM. The tunnel is located at a depth of 21 m, and its geological condition is shown in Fig. 10. The rock mass near the tunnel is classied as DI, which belongs to the soft rock in Japan. Section F-S of the tunnel and the measuring arrangement of the rock bolts are shown in Fig. 11. A rock bolt termed RB1 is taken as an example to demonstrate the application of the model. The strength of the rock mass is very low according to the classication of the rock mass, and the plastic zone and plastic-softening region have occurred around the tunnel. According to the strain-softening constitutive law, the released displacement of the rock mass has been discussed and a closed solution is presented in earlier research [26]. According to the properties of the rock mass, the rock bolt was installed across the plastic-ow region, plastic softening region and elastic region in this example. Based on the test data, the parameters used in the analysis are listed in Table 1. Considering the installation time of the rock bolt and the longitudinal prole of the tunnel, the released displacement at the installation time of the rock bolt is assumed as 40% of the ultimate displacement in this example. It is also assumed that the strength of the grout is strong enough, and the decoupling takes place in the rock mass. After substituting the strain expression into Eq. (5), the compatible equation is obtained and it is presented

soil

DII CII

Mudstone flow1 Volcanic silt Em=32MPa

DII

Em=132MPa Mudstone flow2

DI Em=2359MPa CII DI

Volcanic detritus flows

Em=1001MPa 16.50m

Volcanic detritus flows

npL L

nsL

neL X

DI

Opening O np(x) Rf ns(x) Re ne(x)

Volcanic detritus flows Volcanic pyroclastic flow Volcanic pyroclastics

Fig. 9. Illustration of element dividing for the rock bolt intersecting different regions.

Fig. 10. Geological location of Holland Zaka tunnel.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067
RB1 Center of tunnel Center of road sprayed concrete Lining Concrete
5400

1063

RB2

RB3

Steel
290
R 1= 47 50 50 0

150

Rock bolt RB4

RB5

2500

5 Concrete

From tunnel wall, 0.5m, 1.5m, 2.5m, 3.5m, 4.0m

Fig. 11. Study section of Holland Zaka tunnel and the test arrangement of rock bolt (No. 68+28, Section C).

Table 1 Parameters of rock mass and rock bolt Radius of tunnel, ra Hydraulic water pressure, po Axial strength of rock mass, sc Rock masss deformation modulus, Em Poissons ratio of rock mass, mm Length of rock bolt, L Youngs modulus of rock bolt, Eb Radius of rock bolt, rb Distance between rock bolt (LzLt) 4.75 m 1.0 MPa 0.5 MPa 0.5 GPa 0.35 4.0 m 210 GPa 12.7 mm 1.2 m 1.4 m

80 70 60 Axial force (kN) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

40% disp released, L=3.0m, coupling 40% disp released 90% disp released Measured data

40% disp released, L=3.0m, decoupling

2 Length of rock bolt (m)

in the Appendix. According to the measurement data, the axial force is zero at the end of the rock bolt, and the effect length is about 3 m. The measured data and theoretical prediction are consistent as shown in Fig. 12. According to the theoretical analysis, the shear stress is relatively high at the end of the rock bolt and it changes its direction at a certain position. In the rock bolting section near to the opening, the shear stress is toward the tunnel wall and the rock bolt is pulled, and it reduces to zero at the neutral position. Beyond the neutral point, the direction of the shear stress is changed and it is toward the far end of the rock bolt, which makes up the anchor part of the rock bolt. This theoretical conclusion agrees with the eld monitoring data obtained before [1]. Since the strength of the rock mass is not strong enough, the decoupling appears near the interface of the rock mass and grout, and the position of the neutral point is changed correspondingly. In this example, the neutral point is located at 1 5 length of the rock bolt, and it changes from 0.63 to 0.9 m after debonding. It should be pointed out that the displacement of the rock mass without rock bolts is essential for the prediction of a resultant force in the rock bolt. In tunneling supporting,

(a) 2 1 Shear Stress (MPa) 0 1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 (b)

40% disp released, L=3.0m , coupling

40% disp released, L=3.0m , decoupling

40% disp released 90% disp released Measured data

Length of rock bolt (m)

Fig. 12. Interaction behavior of the rock bolt around a circular opening. (a) Distribution of axial force and (b) distribution of shear stress on rock bolt.

if 90% of the displacement has been released at the installation time for example, the axial force of the rock bolt is very small as shown in Fig. 12, which implies that the supporting performance of the rock bolt is not signicant.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1064 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

4.3. Rock bolt installation length The basic function of the rock bolt is to hold the rock mass together so that it works together, especially in the jointed hard rock. The performance of the rock bolt is more signicant if it is longer. However, the longer length of the rock bolt means more construction cost. The problem for underground researchers/engineers is how to obtain a safe and economic solution. Unfortunately, there is neither a theoretical solution nor a simple method to predict the axial force of the rock bolt until now, and it is difcult to evaluate the supporting effect of the rock bolt with different lengths. When the length of the rock bolt changes from 1.0 to 6.0 m, the axial force and the shear stress are shown in Fig. 13. The released displacement of the rock mass is also assumed as 40% in the analysis, and the other parameters are the same as those in Table 1, except the length of the rock bolt. When the length is 1 m, the decoupling takes place at both ends of the rock bolt, and the maximal axial force is 38.4 kN. The neutral point is located at 0.5 m from the tunnel wall correspondingly. As the length of the rock bolt increases, the maximum axial force increases consistently while the shear stress at
70 60 Axial force (KN) 50 40 30 L=1m 20 10 0 0 (a) 1.5 L=1 1 Shear Stress (MPa) 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 (b) Length of rock bolt (m)
Fig. 13. Interaction behavior of the rock bolt with different installing length. (a) Distribution of axial force and (b) distribution of shear stress on rock bolt.

the anchor end decreases. However, the maximum axial force in the rock bolt is limited to 62.8 kN and the neutral points position is limited to 0.89 m from the tunnel wall when its length exceeds 3.0 m, which means that the supporting performance of the rock bolt cannot be improved signicantly just by increasing its length. Since the shear stress at the anchor part is relatively large and decoupling may take place, a rock bolt with length of 4 m is favorable for design. 4.4. Neutral point of a rock bolt in a continuum The location of the neutral point is important for the analytical model of the rock bolting system. At the neutral point, the axial force reaches a maximum and the shear stress at interface becomes zero. Tao and Chen [3] independently investigated the interaction mechanism of fully grouted bolts around a circular tunnel and gave the neutral point along the bolt via Eq. (1). However, the length of the rock bolt is limited in Eq. (1), and the displacement of the rock mass around a tunnel is assumed as an elastic function. As in the discussion above, plastic ow and plastic softening may take place and the neutral point is determined by the physical properties of the rock mass and the rock bolt. As an example, the difference of the proposed model and Eq. (1) is compared with the same parameters in Table 1, except for the length of the rock bolt, and the results are presented in Table 2. According to the example above, the distance from the neutral point to the tunnel wall is longer in the decoupling case than in the coupling case. When the rock bolt is relatively short, the neutral point for the proposed model is near to Tao and Chens suggestion, while the length of the rock bolt exceeds a certain value such as 3 m in the example, the neutral point tends to be constant according to the proposed model.

L=1.5 L=3m L=4m L=6m

2 4 Length of rock bolt (m)

L=1.5m

L=3m L=4m L=6m

5. Rock bolts intersecting rock joints A rock bolt intersecting joints can be divided into a continuous adhesive part and a joint opening part. The basic interaction constitutive Eq. (5) is also valid for the continuous part. Deformation of intact hard rock can be neglected because it is small enough compared to the opening of the joint. Since the joints without the reinforcement may open freely under an external load, the axial load and the shear stress are mainly determined by the opening distance of the rock joints, which applies a tensile load to the embedded part of the rock bolt. The concept of one reinforcement intersecting two joints is shown in Fig. 14, where D is the distance between two joints; s1 and s2 are the axial stress at the position 1 and the position 2, respectively, and they are often not the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067 Table 2 Neutral point of rock bolt in different condition Length of rock bolt (m) Proposed model Tao and Chens model Coupling Decoupling 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.35 0.38 0.37 1.00 0.45 0.50 0.48 1.50 0.57 0.72 0.72 2.00 0.62 0.86 0.94 3.00 0.63 0.87 1.38 4.00 0.64 0.88 1.79 1065

decoupling coupling

40 Proposed model Axial load of reinforcment (kN) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Rock bolt (m) 1 1.2 Li and Stillborg (1999)

Position 1 Reinforcement

D Grout

Position 2 Rock mass

Fig. 14. Interaction behavior of the rock bolt intersecting joints.

Fig. 15. Axial stress distribution of the rock bolt intersecting three joints.

same in different conditions. The boundary condition is the opening displacement of the joint in this case. The axial stress decreases in the adhesive/cohesive part because the joint is easy to open, which suggests that there may be more than one neutral point along a rock bolt installed in jointed rock mass. This is . consistent with Bjornfot and Stephanssons work [7]. Before decoupling, the axial stress and the shear stress in the section are expressed as sb fsinhaL xs1 sinhaxs2 g=sinhaL; tb arb coshax Ls1 coshaxs2 ; 2sinhaL 27a 27b

where, a is the same as that in Eq. (7). If the distance between two joints D is long enough compared to the diameter of the rock bolt, and s1=s2, Eq. (27) can be simplied as Eq. (28), which is similar to the pullout load model [6] sb x s1 eax tb x 0:5rb as1 eax : 28a 28b

In other words, the decoupling of a rock bolt starts at a very small opening displacement of the joint. This result conrms the nding achieved by other study [27]. The axial stress distribution of a rock bolt intersecting three joints is compared with Li and Stillborgs model, as shown in Fig. 15. In the example, three joints named as a, b, c have opened 50, 20 and 5 mm at the position of 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 m, respectively. The Youngs modulus and radius of the bolt are assumed as 210 GPa and 10 mm, respectively. The Youngs modulus of the surrounding matrix is assumed as 45 GPa, and it is considered very hard and its displacement is omitted. The tensile force of the rock bolt calculated by this model is a little larger than that of the pullout load model.

6. Conclusions An analytical model has been proposed to describe the interaction behavior of a rock bolt and rock mass. The characteristics of the proposed model are as following:
*

After decoupling, only residual shear stress remains at the interface. When the length D is long enough (assuming Dbrb ), the axial force may become zero at a distance to the opening joint. Before decoupling, the opening of joint is only the displacement formed by the strain of reinforcement between the joints, and it is very small because Youngs modulus of the rock bolt is very large.

it has been established via an improved Shearlag theory, and it is based on the viewpoint of consistent deformation; any parameter that relates to the ground deformation will inuence the axial force in the rock bolt;

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1066
*

Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067

the decoupling characteristic of the rock bolt interface is taken into account; according to the model, the interaction behavior between the rock bolt and rock mass is described by a parameter H, which is determined by the distribution of the interaction stress; the proposed model is more exible than the pullout model especially when the deformation of the ground is complex, e.g. in a plastic deformation condition.

Appendix Plastic zone: P x a2 Px B1 C1 =ra x1f 0;

00

A :1

a2 1=Ab Eb 1=SEm ; H ; B1 H u1 u2 x1h ; C1 Hu3 x1f Re1f f ;

In this paper, the uniform interaction stress is assumed in the inuence range of the rock bolt, and the corresponding parameter H has been derived. The interaction behavior of the rock bolt in a pullout test, around a circular tunnel and with intersecting rock joints has been discussed. The model is compared with the pullout model and its applicability has been conrmed by the pullout test data and actual axial force observations made in the eld. According to the analysis results based on the proposed model, the following conclusions can be obtained. (1) A decoupling phenomenon may take place at the interface of the rock bolt, no matter how strong the grout is, because the interaction shear stress may exceed the shear strength of the ground. (2) The decoupling condition inuences the position of the neutral point, and the position tends to be constant when the length of the rock bolt exceeds a specic value, which is 3 m in the example. This implies that the supporting effect of the rock bolt cannot be improved just by extending its length. (3) Since the joints without reinforcement may open freely under an external load, peak axial forces will be induced at the corresponding joint because of the opening displacement. This explains why there may be more than one neutral point in a rock bolt when it intersects a series of joints. By using the proposed model, it becomes possible to predict the position of the neutral point in the rock bolt around an opening at the design stage, which is important for the quantitative evaluation of the rock bolting effect. The proposed model not only provides a way of evaluating the interaction behavior of the rock bolt, but also supplies a theoretical basis for quantitatively evaluating the supporting effect of the rock bolt.

u1 Bo h 1=1 h; u2 2Bo f h=1 h1 f ; u3 2Bo =1 f Rf =Re 1h ; Bo 1 vm Em po Kp 1 sc =Kp 1;

Re  1=Kp 1 ra N zKp 1 1 Kp h Kp ss 1 h 2=l 1 ; h Kp 1 Kp h Kp pi sc z

1=1h z 2=l1 h 1 h R f =R e ; h 1 sin f =1 sin f softening zone d Px 1 a2 Px B2 C2 0; dx2 ra x1f B2 HBo 1 h=1 h; C2 2hBo H Re1h =1 h elastic zone d Px 1 a2 Px B3 C3 0; dx2 ra x2 B3 0; C3 1 vm =Em po se r2 a H se 2po sc =Kp 1 where, ra is the internal radius of tunnel. Re and Rf are the elastic and plastic radii respectively; h, f are the dilatation coefcients of the rock mass in the softening and plastic states respectively. f is the dilatation angle. Kp is the strength coefcient and dened as Kp 1 sin f=1 sin f; f is the internal friction angle of rock mass. l is called a brittle modulus and larger than 1. Po is the static-hydraulic pressure, sc is the peak strength and s c is the softening strength of the rock mass, and ss=scs c . Since it is relatively difcult to obtain the theoretical solution of the differential Eq. (A.1)(A.3), a numerical method is favored. From
2 2

A :2

A :3

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Professor J.A. Hudson for his valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 10551067 1067

experimental results, the major mechanical parameters of the rock can be plotted as a function of the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. The relation between friction angle f, brittle modulus l, and plastic Poissons ratios h and f, residual strength s c can be tted through the following expressions [28]: s 0:65s0:8 ; f 38:28s0:004 ; l 1:33s0:153 ;
c c c c :136 :035 ; f 1:41s0 h 1:88s0 c c

References
[1] Freeman TJ. The behavior of fully-bonded rock bolts in the Kielder experimental tunnel. Tunnels Tunneling 1978; 3740. [2] Sun X. Grouted rock bolt used in underground engineering in soft surrounding rock or in highly stressed regions. In: Stephansson O, editor. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1984. p. 939. [3] Tao Z, Chen JX. Behavior of rock bolting as tunneling support. In: Stephansson O, editor. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1984. p. 8792. [4] Indraratna B, Kaiser PK. Analytical model for the design of grouted rock bolt. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1990;22751. [5] Jiang YJ, Esaki T, Yokota Y. The mechanical effect of grouted rock bolts on tunnel stability. J Const Manage Eng 1995;9. [6] Li C, Stillborg B. Analytical models for rock bolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1999;36:1013129. . [7] Bjornfot F, Stephansson O. Interaction of grouted rock bolts and hard rock masses at variable loading in a test drift of the Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden. In: Stephansson P, editor. Proceedings of the International Symposium on rock bolting. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1984. p. 37795. [8] Madhav MR, Gurung N, Iwao Y. A theoretical model for pullout response of extensible reinforcements. Geosynthetics Int 1998;5(4):399424. [9] Gurung N. 1-D analytical solution for extensible and inextensible soil/rock reinforcement in pull-out tests. Geotextiles Geomembranes 2001;19:195212. [10] Cox HL. The elasticity and strength of paper and other brous materials. Br J Appl Phys 1952;3:729. [11] Hobbs DW. The formation of tension joints in sedimentary rocks: an explanation. Geol Mag 1967;120:35562.

[12] Abramento M, Whittle JA. Analysis of pullout tests for planar reinforcements in soil. J Geotech Eng 1995;121(6):47685. [13] Mandal N, Deb SK, Khan D. Evidence for a non-linear relation ship between fracture spacing and layer thickness. J Struct Geol 1994;16:127581. [14] Holister GS, Thomas C. Fiber reinforced materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1966. p. 154. [15] Kelly A, Macmillan NH, Strong solids. Oxford: Clarendon Press, UK; 1989, p. 423. [16] Clyne TW, Withers PJ. An introduction to metal matrix composites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 509. [17] Lloyd GE, Ferguson CC, Reading K. A stress transfer model for the development of extension fracture boudinage. J Struct Geol 1982;4:35572. [18] Ochiai S, Hojo M, Osamura K. General expression of the shear lag analysis for unidirectional elastic ber-elastic matrix composites. Z Metallkd 1993;81:796801. [19] Ji S, Zhao P. Strength of two-phase rocks: a model based on berloading theory. J Struct Geol 1994;16:25362. [20] Zhao P, Ji S. Renement of shearlag model and its application. Tectonophisics 1997;279:3753. [21] Windsor CR. Rock reinforcement systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(6):91951. [22] Malvar LJ. Bond reinforcement under controlled connement. ACI Mater J 89(6), NovDec, 1992: 593601. [23] Moosavi M, Khosravi A, Jafari A. A laboratory study of bond failure mechanism in deformed rock bolts using a modied Hoek cell. Proceedings of the 2001 ISRM International Symposium Second Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (ISRM 20012nd ARMS), p. 23942. [24] Farmer IW. Stress distribution along a resin grouted anchor. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1975;12:34752. [25] Stillborg B. Professional users handbook for rock bolting, 2nd ed. Trans Tech Publications; Clausthal-Zeuerfeld, Germany, 1994; p. 3042. [26] Jiang Y, Esaki T. Theoretical and experiment study on the stability of deep underground opening. IES Report of Kyushu University, 1994, vol. 6 p. 2940. [27] Bawden Wf, Hyett AJ, Lausch P. An experimental procedure for the in situ testing of calbe bolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1992;29(5):52533. [28] Jiang Y, Yoneda H, Tanabashi Y. Theoretical estimation of loosening pressure on tunnels in soft rocks. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology 2001;16(2):99105.