Huang, Z., Broch, E., Lu, M. Formation and stabilization of rock cavern roof arches.

ISRM 2003–Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2003.

Formation and stabilization of rock cavern roof arches

Huang, Z.1, Broch, E.2, Lu, M.2
Rogaland Research1, Norway
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway2

Abstract: The formation and mechanism of rock cavern roof arches are studied and effects of
rockbolts reinforcement are evaluated. It is concluded that a self-supported roof arch may be
formed by the excavation. To stabilize such a roof arch, fully grouted rockbolts are effective.
Tensioned cable anchors may have a negative influence on the arch stability.

Zusammenfassung: Die Formation und der Mechanismus von Deckenbögen in Bergkavernen

wird studiert und der Effekt von Verstärkung mit Bergbolzen wird bewertet. Es wird festgestellt,
dass die Exkavation einen selbst-stützenden / freitragenden Deckenbogen formen kann.
Eingegossene Bergbolzen sind effektiv um einen solchen Deckenbogen zu stabilisieren.
Spannkabel können unter Umständen eine negative Einwirkung auf die Stabilität des Bogens
haben.

Résumé: Le mécanisme et la formation de voûtes dans les cavernes rocheures sont étudiés et
l'effet du renforcement par boulonnage est évalué. Nous arrivons à la conclusion qu'une voûte
autosupportêe peut être formée par excavation. Des boulons entièrement scellés par coulis de
bêton s'avèrent efficaces pour stabiliser de telles voûtes. Les tirants d'ancrage peuvent quant à eux
nuire à la stabilité de la voûte.

the whole arch is assured by the compaction under gravity

Introduction
When a rock cavern roof is excavated, a self-supported
roof arch structure may be formed. The characteristics of
the roof arch may inherit from the voussoir arch, in which
the voussoir has 'unlimited' compressive strength. The arch
shape has advantage to make use of the high compressive
strength in order to transfer loads, meanwhile, to compact
the arch itself and thus forms a stable structure. To ensure
the stability of the arch, conditions that induce tensile stress
or/and sliding along masonry joints should be avoided. In
stabilization of rock masses, rockbolting is a routine
practice as the bolts are inexpensive, flexible to apply in
changing ground conditions of underground excavation and
easy and fast to install. Rockbolting contributes to the
modern rock reinforcement system that is based on
assisting the rock mass to form a self-supporting structure
such as the cavern roof arch. Rockbolts mobilize the
inherent strength of the rock mass by offering confining
pressure, increase the stiffness of the rock, provide shear
resistance to the rock joints or discontinuities and suspend
loosed rock blocks. However, it is important to distinguish
the effects of full grouted rockbolts and the tensioned cable
anchors in reinforcing the roof arches.
Formation of roof arch and reinforcement
Formation of voussoir arch and cavern roof arch
Voussoir arch (Figure 1) action arises directly from the
properties of the material - masonry blocks are laid in weak
mortar or placed one on another to form the arch. This
method of construction ensured that the structure would
sustain no tension and sliding between blocks. Stability of
of the various elements and high capacity of compressive
strength of masonry blocks. Coulomb, in his memoir on
statics in 1773, examined the behavior of the masonry
structure in the light of three assumptions as (Westergaard,
1964):
• voussoir has no tensile strength,
• voussoir has an unlimited compressive strength, and
• sliding failure does not occur.
Figure 1 A typical voussoir arch application
Compared with construction of a masonry arch, a rock
cavern roof arch can be established by excavation due to
the existence of the in-situ horizontal stress. The in-situ
horizontal stress is favorable to maintain the arch shape by
decreasing the roof subsidence during excavation, offering
compressive stress to directly enhance the bearing capacity
of the rock mass, compacting the rock block to form the
arch. So that extra support may not necessarily be
beneficial for the arch forming. The favorable effect of the
reasonable in-situ horizontal stress in roof arch forming was
found also by Gerdeen et al. (1977).
In the classical arch theory, an assumption has been
made that the masonry material is infinitely strong. There is

549
in fact no question about an overall criterion of strength.
Rather it is the shape of the structure that must be
examined. As Heyman (1995) pointed out, the stability of
the structure will be assured primarily by its shape, and not
at all (or only very marginally) by the strength of the
component material. Thus it is essential to design and
excavate the arch shaped roof.
Under such conditions, a natural rock roof arch may be
formed and self-supported. Apart from the experimental
experience reported by Bergman and Bjurstron (1983),
evidences of natural arch forming were given by Hibino, et
al. (1983). A typical example of a natural roof arch formed
is at Gjøvik ice hockey cavern constructed in 1991 in
Norway. The cavern has span of 61m and height of 24m.
The rock cover varies from 25m to 50m. The quality of
rock mass (Precambrian gneiss) is fair to good with Q=4 to
40. Horizontal to vertical stress ratio is 3.5. Numerical
studies and measurement gave the maximum roof
displacement of about 7mm. Due to the high horizontal in-
situ stresses some initial episodes of arching upwards are
found (Broch et al. 1996). 6-12m long bolts/cables with
spacing 2.5 x 2.5m were used. Broch et al. (1996) suggest a
shorter bolt of 3-4m will do the support job since the
measured load in the bolts is very low and occurs only in a
limited length of the bolt.
Arch action
Arch action can be visualized by the compressive stress
zone uniformly distributed along the arch from numerical
modeling. The visualization indicates the load transferring
from the crown to the abutments and further down to the
sidewalls, and the compaction by which the arch is self-
supported. In classical voussoir arch theory, the action of
the arch can be described by the line of thrust. The thrust
line is a polygon representing the equilibrium of given
loads. The thrust line for a general arch shape of rock
cavern roof is derived based on limit equilibrium analysis
(Huang, 2001). Under vertical loads (q(x)) only, and
including both the vertical and horizontal in-situ stress
components, the thrust line of the left part of the arch is
Eq.(1) and Eq.(2), respectively:
V W (1)
y= x − x ( x − xd )
H H
V Wx (2)
y= x− ( x − xd )
H' H'
where
x L
W x = ∫ γq ( x)dx ; V = W / 2 = ∫ γq ( x )dx / 2 ;
0 0
x d = ∫ q ( x) xdx / ∫ q( x)dx ; γ = unit weight of the rock
x x
0 0
mass; H = horizontal component of the thrust in the
arch; H ' = H − k 0γhb y b / 2 ; k0 = horizontal to vertical in-
situ stress ratio; L = span of the arch.
Comparing Eq.(1) with Eq.(2), shows that the presence
of the horizontal in-situ stress will cause the thrust line
higher. The higher the k0 value, the higher the thrust line.
This is in agreement with the numerical modeling shown in
Figure 9.
550 ISRM 2003 – TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR ROCK MECHANICS
The stability against collapse of funicular voussoir arch
requires the thrust line within the 'middle third' area of the
arch ring. For various profiles of voussoir arches, it is
necessary to determine a minimum thickness of the arches,
which comprise the ring the thrust line does not pass
outside. Following Inglis (1963), Irvine (1981) gave the
answer for the classical Roman voussoir arch assuming the
collapse mechanism illustrated in Figure 2.
sita (degree)
20 25 30 35 40
0,16 0,16
0,12 0,12
t/R
0,08 0,08
0,04 0,04
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
c/R
Figure 2 Assumed collapse Figure 3 t/R vs. c/R and t/R
mechanism showing hinge vs. θ relation curves
locations and thrust line (
from Irvine, 1981)
For infinite overburden (c), the general results of the
minimum voussoir thickness t and the angle locating the
hinge at the intrados θ as a function of the radius R, are
shown in Figure 3 and are given as
θ = sin −1 (1 / 3 ) ≅ 35.3 o (3)
t
= 2(7 − 4 3 ) ≅ 15% (4)
R
The minimum thickness of the arch is about 15% of the
arch radius. It is noted that a threefold increase in t/R is
associated with only a 50% increase of θ. This indicated
that the location of the hinge at the intrados varies little
even for widely differing forms of the arch, implying the
critical of the arch rib in stability. In the proceeding, the
horizontal load is not considered. From Eq.(3), with
increase in the horizontal in-situ stress, a thicker arch is
required. And thus a very high horizontal in-situ stress may
not always be beneficial to the roof arch forming. A
favorable magnitude of the horizontal stress should be
related to a certain size of the span.
Roof arch reinforcing
Excavation may induce plastic/tensile zones that lead
to failure of the rock mass. The shear failure in weak
discontinuities and shear failure due to incomplete arch
forming is common (Stille, 1992). If adequate support is not
provided, aggressive air or water can cause further
deterioration of the exposed rock. Water may build up
water pressure that increases tensile stress in
discontinuities, further dilates the joints, decreases the shear
strength of the joints and causes both tensile stress and
sliding within the arch. All these are in contradiction with
the arch assumptions. Roof bolting or/and lining are
designed to provide confining pressure to improve the
bearing capacity of the rock, to eliminate the tensile stress
and resist sliding along joints in order to keep the blocks in
place and form an integrated reinforced roof arch. With
increase of σ3, the peak strength increases, there is a
transition from typically brittle to fully ductile behavior
with plastic deformation, the region incorporating the peak
strength gets widen and the progressive strain-softening
post-failure behavior is getting important. As the rock
obeys the Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion, the
incremental confining stress by the rockbolts contributes to
the bearing capacity of the rock that can be expressed by
the form:
φ (5)
∆σ = N ∆σ = tan 2 (45o + )∆σ
1 φ 3 3
2 thickness of the arch required for stable is about 3m. As
Or in terms of an increased cohesion of the rock, ∆c,
σ 1 = Nφσ 3 + 2c* Nφ , where c* = c + ∆c, ∆c =
Through studies of cases of applications of rockbolts in
practical rock supports as well as in experimental tests
(Rabcewicz 1969; Egger 1973; Bjustrom, 1974; Stillborg,
1984; Stjern, 1995). The apparent mechanical response of
rockbolting has been categorized as various reinforcement
effects: 1) improve material property;2)internal
pressure;3)suspension;4)beam building and 5)arch forming.
With regard to arch forming, traditional concept is based on
that a loose zone exits below a natural arch fairly high from
the flat roof surface. Tensioned grouted rockbolts are used
to reinforce the loose zone and build an artificial voussoir
arch near the surface. However, a large cavern roof is
generally designed as an arch shape by which the loose
zone is excavated. In such a case, a natural roof arch that is
inherently stable may be expected near the roof surface.
Among the idealized analytical solutions on design of
reinforced rock structures, Lang and Bischoff (1984) have
made very useful efforts to provide a rational basis for
explanation of rockbolt design. For a reinforced roof unit of
height of H with a bolt having a length of L, the average
normalized confining pressure σA/γ= T/(Aγ) offered by the
rockbolt is
Hs T 1 1 − e −4 µk0 H / s
= = = f ( H / s, L / s, φ , k 0 ) (7)
s Aγs 4µk 0 1 − e − 4 µk0 L / s
where
σA= T/A, average confining stress offered by rockbolts;
φ = friction angle of the rock mass; Hs = equivalent (rock)
height of the confining pressure offered by rockbolts; A =
area of reinforced rock unit (s2 for a rockbolt pattern with s
x s spacing); T = rockbolt tension force; L/s = rockbolts
length-to-spacing ratio or density.
5
4 k0=0.4
3
Hs /s
Hs /s
2
1
0 0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
L/s
Phi=20 Phi=30
Phi 40 Phi 45
Figure 4 Relations of Hs/s and L/s
Assume a large H/s value, the variation of Hs/s with L/s
and φ(Phi) for k0=0.4, k0=0.8 can be plotted as shown in
Figure 4. As L/s increases to some extent the confining
pressure decreases and approaches a minimum value. So
that very long bolts/cables are not necessarily beneficial for
reinforced roof arch forming. It shows that 2<L/s<3 for
effective in systematic rockbolting.
For example, the rockbolt support for the Xiaolangdi
underground powerhouse roof includes 6m and 8m
rockbolts, each type of bolt with a spacing of 3m x 3m, and
tensioned 25m-cables with spacing 4.5m x 6m. The bolts
give an average L/s of 4.6, which is conservative. With the
arch radius of 18m, according to Eq.(3), the minimum
there was not instable record, it is reasonable to infer that a
1 (6) natural roof arch was formed. And thus the arch is at least
∆σ 3 Nφ
2 3m thick. After systematic rockbolting, the thickness of the
arch will increase. Even if there is a clay seam above the
arch, it is out of question so long as the arch is stable. If the
seam is located within the arch, it should have been
stabilized by the rockbolts since the arch is stable. Consider
the factor of safety is low, efforts should be focused on the
key-stone and the rib. From Figure 4 and analytical study
(Huang, 2001; Huang et al, 2002), a closely spaced
rockbolts will be more efficient than a longer rockbolt. On
the other hand, the use of fully grouted rockbolts is
effective to prevent the sliding, opening and offer confining
pressure fast than the point anchored rockbolt/cable that can
not offer shear resistance before significant shearing has
already taken place. Therefore, the extra use of the 25m
long cable may be described as not rational. This is in
agreement with the numerical modelling results in the
following.
Numerical modeling on forming and
reinforcing of Xiaolangdi powerhouse cavern
Geology and rock support
The Xiaolangdi Multipurpose Dam Project is located in
the middle reach of the Yellow River, China. The installed
capacity is 1800MW. The underground powerhouse
complex (see Figure 5) is situated in sedimentary rocks of
fair to good quality (Q=8 - 12). The measured compressive
2,0
1,5
k0=0.8
1,0
0,5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L/s
Phi=20 Phi=30 Phi=40 Phi=45
Figure 5 Perspective view of Figure 6 Deformed
Xiaolangdi powerhouse geometry(F1-DIANA)
strength of the rocks is in the order of 60 - 150 MPa. The
lateral in-situ stress ratio (k0) is about 0.8. There are several
clay seams with thickness of 1mm to 20mm parallel with
bedding planes. The existence of the clay seams became a
major concern for the stability of the cavern crown.
Combining with other considerations such as support
551
pressure (further discussion on this issue refers to Huang et changes were taking place in the roof during
al. (2002)), this leads to a total of about 345 1500kN excavation, which means a natural roof arch may be
tensioned 25m long cable anchors installed in the machine already formed, and after pattern rockbolting the roof
hall (251.5m long, 26.2m wide, 61.4m high) roof, in arch is more stable.
addition to pattern 6-8m long rockbolts spacing 1.5m x • The cables may increase wall displacements due to the
1.5m, and 20cm wire mesh shotcrete (Wang and Solymar, mechanism of the coupling of roof deformation with
1997). the wall deformation in the cavern with high walls. The
cables cause irregular stress distribution and stress
Numerical modeling concentration in the arch. The extra upward support
force may rotate rock blocks in a way that resists the
The objective of the numerical modeling is to find a
forming of the arch, and induce sliding along joints and
rational rockbolts support design in stabilization of the
tensile stress. These turn out contrary to the
Xiaolangdi underground powerhouse roof arch and the
expectations.
walls. This is achieved by simulation of different geological
models in combination with rockbolting alternatives. Base
Table 1 Displacement (mm) calculated in the UDEC and
on the geological structures, the geological models consist
the DIANA modeling
of intact rock model (F), stratified rock mass model (E) and
jointed rock mass model (K). Rockbolting alternatives Model k0 UDEC DIANA
include no support at all (‘1’), only fully grouted rockbolts C UW DW C UW DW
(‘3’) and both tensioned cables and grouted rockbolts (‘7’). F1 0.8 6.7 19.1 22.9 5.3 16.6 19.7
For comparison and verification, both the UDEC and the F7 0.4 8.4 13.6 20.0 6.6 6.9 16.1
DIANA codes were used. F7 0.8 6.1 17.4 20.9 4.4 11.8 17.8
F7 1.0 5.5 20.1 22.1 3.4 15.4 20.8
General results Note:C=Crown,UW=UpstreemWall,DW=DownstreemWall
Response of the rock mass to the excavation:
• The maximum value of roof subsidence and
downstream wall displacement is about 5.3 - 6.7mm
and 19.7 - 22.9mm for intact rock model F1, see Table
1 and Figure 6.
• Plastic zones extend to more than 20m in the walls and
E7
to a maximum depth of 5m in the roof, see Figure 7. E3
10m-18m deep tensile zones are calculated in the Figure 7 Plastic zone in rock mass-model E3,E7 (UDEC)
walls, Figure 8(a). Only in jointed rock mass model
K1, a tensile zone of 5m deep in the roof exists.
• Figure 8(a) shows that the arch shaped roof fits the
elliptical rock ring surrounding the opening, and thus
leaves a limited range of the plastic/tensile zone. The F7F1F3 F3
high walls do not fit it. E3
• A natural roof arch with about 5m thick uniform stress
zone near the roof surface is established by the
favorable in situ stress, the good quality of rock and the
arch shape of the roof. The location and thickness of
the roof arch may be determined by use of a new
concept of invert principal stress cone.
(a) (b)
• There is the mechanism of coupling of the deformation
Figure 8 (a) Minor principal stress contour with tensile
of roof and the deformation of high walls in the cavern.
zone (red) in the rock mass with DIANA; (b) bolt load
distributions with UDEC.
Characteristics of rockbolting in stabilization of the
powerhouse cavern:
• The rockbolt should be long enough to facilitate the
• The pattern fully grouted rockbolts reduce the roof maximum shear stress that may develop and to cross
subsidence and the wall displacements, see Table1. critical joints (Figure 8(b)). The critical joint might be
Comparing with the tensioned cables, the rockbolts are defined by its critical location less than double
more effective way. Further evidences include that the thickness of the rock roof arch. When a joint is loacted
grouted rockbolts efficiently reduce the plastic zone, beyond the ctitical location, no special attension should
tensile zone and opening of the clay seams in the roof. be paid if the rock roof arch is ensured. As Figure 7
• The load built up in the rockbolts in the crown is low shows, the length of 6-8m rockbolts is long enough to
and within about 2m from the surface, see Figure 8(b), cover the plastic zone in the roof, and it is in agreement
small loads changed in the tensioned cables. The with empirical rules (Huang, 2001); while in model E7,
strength of the rockbolts is not considerably mobilized, the 25m-cables are too long to be rational.
nor the cables. These also indicate that small stress

552 ISRM 2003 – TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR ROCK MECHANICS

• It is rational to design the rockbolting in a way that the
reinforcement is helpful to form a uniformly reinforced
rock ring (Figure 8(a)) surrounding the cavern.
Further modelling on roof arch forming
The preceding study comes out that a self-supported
roof arch may have been established by the excavation. It is
found that the in-situ horizontal stress plays important role
in the forming of a natural roof arch. The increase in
horizontal in-situ stress causes decrease in the roof
displacement coupling with the increase in the inward
displacement of the walls. The strength/stress contour and
the principal stress vectors visualized in Figures 9 show that
under high horizontal stresses (k0=0.8 and 1.0) a uniform
arch shaped compressive stress zone near the roof surface is
formed as a result of stress readjustment to fit the arch
shape after the excavation. The higher the k0 value, the
thicker the arch. The uniform compressive stress in both
radial and circumferential directions characterizes the roof
arch. Under low horizontal stresses of k0=0.4, there is not a
uniform compressive stress zone in the roof due to lack of
horizontal bearing pressure and thus the mechanism to
transfer loads. It is hard to say a stable roof arch is set up.
To compare with an arch roof, a flat roof cavern is
simulated and results in a large loosened zone from the
surface which should be either suspended by
rockbolts/cables to form an artificial roof arch, or simply
excavated. In the later case, it is necessary to remove the
loosened rock in accordance with a designed arch roof such
as that drawn in Figure 9. Then a natural rock roof arch will
be expected.
Natural roof arch
No uniform stress with thickness
zone, k0=0.4 ≈5m, k0=0.8
Natural roof arch with
Natural roof arch thickness ≈ 5m
with thickness ≈ 6m k0=0.8
k0=1
Figure 9 Strength/Stress contour and principal stress
vector- model F1 (k0=0.4,0.8,1.0)
By visualization of the stress field in the rock mass of
the roof from the modelling, a new concept of invert
principal stress cone is proposed to determine the location
and thickness of the roof arch (Huang, 2001). The invert
principal stress cone is defined so that within the cone the
principal stresses are vertical and horizontal only. Beneath
the cone the location and the thickness of arch is then
determined. By this method, the determined arch thickness
is in agreement with the preceding study.
Further discussion on roof arch reinforcing
During the natural roof arch forming, the stress
readjustment in the rock mass causes rotation and
deformation of rock blocks. In highly fractured or jointed
rock mass, the movements may cause a significant change
of the rock arch geometry, sliding along joints and tensile
stress. So emphasis should be put on keystone bolting,
systematic bolting - aiming at knitting rock blocks together
to keep the arch geometry complete in order to form the
natural segmented or voussoir arch of rock.
The strength/stress contour plots demonstrate that the
natural roof arch is reinforced without any distortion of
stresses by untensioned grouted rockbolts. The load
building up in the rockbolts is compatible with the
deformation or rotation of the rock mass; meanwhile the
rockbolts limit the deformation or rotation by strengthening
the rock especially resisting the opening and shearing of
rock joints. In contrast, the tensioned cables cause irregular
stresses in the arch and stress concentration at arch ribs
because of the existence of the area between cables that
apply high tension forces to the rock blocks nearby.
Furthermore, the tensioned cables passing through the arch
apply additional upwards internal support pressure on the
roof, which counteracts the forming of the arch as shown in
Figure 10 (a)-(b). The unfavorable rotation of the rock
blocks and the upward moving of the keystone in the arch
has potential to induce sliding along joints and tensile stress
or even opening of the joints as shown in Figure 10 (c)-(d).
Rotate and contact, forms arch No contact, no arch
(a) Arch formed by (b) Upward force resist
downward forces and rotations of the blocks
blocks rotations
Keystone Keystone
opening
& sliding
Upward force
Thickness of arch changed
by upward force
(c) Compaction forms voussoir arch (d) Upward forces destroy the arch
Figure 10 Natural rock arch formed by compaction,
damaged or destroyed by upward force (arrows
indicate forces)
Because a reinforced rock cavern roof arch is not
freestanding like an arch bridge, the displacement of rock
553
blocks is pertinent to spaces available behind the arch. It is
the presence of the clay seam in the crown - a weakness
zone that probably provides spaces for such an
unfavourable rotation and displacement. This reduces the
thickness of the arch namely the factor of safety. Thus the
high tensioned cables take the risk to reduce rather than
increase the factor of safety.
Comparison between simulation and
measurement
Most of the instruments in the Xiaolangdi powerhouse
were installed too late during the excavation. For such a
large and important project, the delay may simply indicate
that the geological conditions in the area in question were
regarded as being generally good. The first monitoring data
were recorded after the top heading excavation and the
installation of the cables were completed. From the data of
multiple-point borehole extensometers, rock/cable
dynamometer, important conclusions are as follows:
• During benching excavation a maximum roof
settlement of 2mm was recorded, much less than the
expected in the report of rock support design (YRCC,
1994), and it confirms the results of model F.
• The cavern roof has uplift movement during the first
benching excavation. So does the DIANA modelling of
model E7.
• The monitored maximum displacement at lower part of
the downstream wall, coincides with the modeling
results.
• From the monitored data, it is deduced a maximum of
6 mm subsidence at vault and 15mm inward
displacement of the downstream wall during
excavation. These are close to the intact rock model F
result.
• Among 9, only one cable dynamometer exceeded the
tension load by 14% in 1998, at the same year, highest
load of about 79kN was recorded in bolt dynamometer
with others less than 20kN. These imply that small
stress changes were taking place in the roof and the
cavern roof arch is self-supported. This is in
accordance with the numerical modeling results.
Conclusions
With a certain magnitude of in-situ horizontal stress,
reasonable quality of the rock mass and arch shaped roof, a
natural self-supported rock cavern roof arch structure may
be established near the roof surface by the excavation.
Pattern short and closely spaced fully grouted rockbolts are
efficient to reinforce the jointed and fractured rock masses
and to avoid tensile stress and sliding along the rock joints
in the roof, in combining with reinforced shotcrete.
In the case of the Xiaolangdi powerhouse roof where a
natural and reinforced roof arch has already been formed,
the additional use of systematic tensioned cables may not
be rational to the stability of the roof. The cables are neither
efficient nor safe due to inducing stress concentration and
triggering the mechanism of coupling of the roof
554 ISRM 2003 – TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR ROCK MECHANICS
subsidence and wall displacement. Tensioned cables may
be used to suspend large rock wedges or blocks locally.
Reference
Bergman, Sten G.A.B and Bjurstrom, Sten.1983. Swedish
experience of rock bolting. Proc. of the Int. Symp. On Rock
Bolting, Abisko, pp243-255.
Bjurstrom, S. 1974. Shear strength of hard rocks reinforced
by grouted untensioned bolts. Proc. 3rd Congr. ISRM,
Denver, pp.B1194-1199.
Broch, E, Myrvang, A. M. and Stjern, G. (1996) Support of
large rock caverns in Norway. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Egger, P. 1973. Rock stabilisation. Rock Mechanics,
Courses and Lectures, Udine, pp241-297
Gerdeen, J. C. et al. 1977. Design Criteria for Roof Bolting
Plans Using Fully Resin-Grouted Nontensioned Bolts ro
Reinforce Bedded Mine Roof, USBM, Contract No.
J=366004, Michigan Technological University, Vol. IV.
Heyman, J. 1995. The stone skeleton - structural
engineering of masonry architecture. Cambridge University
Press. 160p.
Hibino, S., Motojima, M. and Kanagawa, T. 1983.
Behavior of rocks around large caverns during excavations,
Proc. 5th Congr. ISRM. Melbourne, pp.D199-202
Huang,Z. 2001. Stabilizing of rock cavern roofs by
rockbolts. Ph.D thesis. Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Norway.
Huang,Z., Broch, E., Lu, M. 2002. Rockbolt support of
cavern roofs based on analytical solutions. EUROCK 2002,
Lisbon, Portugal
Inglis, Sir Charles. 1963. Applied mechanics for engineers.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
Irvine, H. Max. 1981. Cable Structures. The MIT Press.
Lang, T. A. and Bischoff J.A. 1984. Stability of reinforced
rock structure. In Design and performance of underground
excavations (edited by Brown, E. T. and Hudson, J.A.),
pp11-18. British Geotechnical Society, London.
Rabcewicz, L. 1969. Stability of tunnels under rock load.
Water Power, 225-229 (June), 266-273(July), 297-302
(Aug.)
Stillborg, B. 1984. Experimental investigation of steel
cables for rock reinforcement in hard rock. Ph.D. thesis.
Luleå Univeristy, Luleå, Sweden.
Stille, H. 1992. Keynote lecture: rock support in theory and
practice. Proceedings of Rock support in mining and
underground construction, Kaiser and McCreath (eds),
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Stjern, G. 1995. Practical performance of rock bolts. Ph.D.
Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
Wang, X. & Solymar, Z. V. 1997. Design and Underground
Construction at the Xiaolangdi Mutipurpose Dam Site.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 12,
No. 4 pp. 461-472.
Westergaard, H.M. 1964. Theory of elasticity and
plasticity, 176p. Dover Publications, New York.