Design of rock bolts

by Dr. David Oliveira

Agenda

➢ Types of rock bolts

➢ Suspension/Holding effect
❑ Bond capacity and its mobilization
❑ Face plate and its function
❑ Effect of in-situ stresses/clamping effects
❑ Does the bolt pattern type matter? – regular square versus staggered
➢ Reinforcement effect
❑ Contribution in shear

2 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts

©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts
Rock bolts can generally be classified into four main groups:
❑ Discrete Mechanically or Frictionally Coupled (DMC or DFC): aka end-anchored bolts
❑ Continuously Frictionally Coupled (CFC): aka frictional bolts
❑ Continuously Mechanically Coupled (CMC): aka fully grouted bolts
❑ Hybrids (e.g. DFC+CMC).

Other classifications may also be used in ground support

terminology when considering the type of material, length
and/or capacity required:
➢ Rock bolts (CMC, CFC, DFC or DMC): solid or hollow bars
➢ Cable bolts (CMC) : strands
➢ Ground anchors (DMC): mostly strands (large diameter
bars may be used, though unlikely in tunnels) (Thompson et al, 2012)

4 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts

❑ Discrete Mechanically or Frictionally Coupled (DMC or DFC)

In this category, the structural element is coupled

to the rock at discrete locations along its length,
with the load transfer mechanism involving either
“mechanical” or frictional coupling to the rock.

Advantages: Quick installation and

immediate support without
requirement for grout strength
Disadvantages: limited “bond”, thus
capacity and zero shear capacity zero
along “unbonded” length

5 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts

❑ Continuously Frictionally Coupled (CFC)

As the name says, in this category, bolts rely on a continuous friction between the structural element and the
rock along its entire length to transfer load between them.

One of the most common types are the split

set system friction bolt:

Video of split set rock bolts

6 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts

❑ Continuously Frictionally Coupled (CFC)

Another type is the Swellex system friction bolt:

Advantages: quick installation and immediate

support without requirement for grout strength
Disadvantages: limited “bond”, low shear capacity
particularly when not grouted internally

7 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts
❑ Continuously Mechanically Coupled (CMC)
In this category, bolts rely on a continuous “mechanical”
connection between the structural element and the rock
along its entire length to transfer load between them. This if
done with grouting, either cementitious of chemical
(cartridges).
When referring to this category, a more widely term used is
‘‘fully bonded’’ which has been associated mainly with early
reinforced concrete investigations and continued into the area
of soil and rock reinforcement. However, this term is not
deemed appropriate as there is little evidence to show that
true bonding (or adhesion) is of any significant relevance in
most circumstances. For example, grout shrinkage can easily
break any real bond. The load transfer across the interfaces
involves a more mechanical interaction in the case of rough
surfaces and friction following the development of a distinct,
sliding interface due to the brittle failure of the relatively stiff
materials used to form the internal fixture.

8 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts
❑ Continuously Mechanically Coupled (CMC)

Advantages: Generally higher capacity bolts are

possible with high “bond” achieved in fair to good
quality rocks.
Disadvantages: Grout needs to achieve a certain
strength to be provide some capacity. Grouting with
groundwater may be challenging and requires special
considerations.

9 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts
❑ Continuously Mechanically Coupled (CMC)
Despite not being the most appropriate terminology, the use
“bond” is a common practice to represent the “coupling” resistance
between the bolt and the rock or even the bolt and the grout.
It is typically represented as single force (resistance) for DMC bolts
or as force per meter or stress for CMC and CFC bolts. The latter can
be multiplied by the drill hole perimeter to convert to a force per
meter resistance.
The bond capacity must be confirmed by pre-production testing,
but a very crude and typically conservative initial estimate is 10% of
the rock UCS or values based on previous experience. Other
references based on pile shaft estimates:
a) Meigh and Wolski (1979): 0.22(UCS)0.6
b) Carter and Kulhawy (1987): 0.15(UCS)
c) Reese and O’Neil (1988): 0.15(UCS) for UCS<1.9MPa
and 0.20(UCS)0.5, for higher UCS

10 ©David Oliveira 2020

Types of rock bolts
Video of installation of CT rock bolts
❑ Hybrids such as DFC+CMC etc

One of the most widely used permanent bolts in

Sydney and in Scandinavian countries is the Combi-
Tube, aka, CT bolts which uses a Double Corrosion
Protection system

11 ©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect
Why important?
Suppose we excavate a tunnel where the roof has the following blocks formed in the roof immediately after
excavation and close to the face:

Once the excavation advances further and there is further

stress relaxation/redistribution and roof displacement,
wedges C and F starts dislodge and fall-out…

Blocks A and B were originally “keyed in-place” by

blocks F and C and they consequently fall-out too.
Then next comes E and D…
Eventually we end-up with a large overbreak in the
crown of the tunnel besides the risk of these
wedges falling on someone’s head…

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

However, we “hold” wedges C and F in place using rock bolts, i.e. anchor them back, suspending from a more
stable ground, they will continue to support, i.e. key-in, wedges A and B that consequently supports wedges E
and D as well.

This is the most fundamental behaviour of rock bolts

i.e. to hold wedges/blocks in place by suspending
them from a “better ground”. This promotes rock mass
interlocking and overall better performance with
respect to stress redistribution, allowing natural stress
arching to develop above the suspended wedges.

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

As we are suspending a load that remains constant, i.e. the wedge weight does not change, this is a load-
controlled failure mechanism as discussed in Module 2 of this course.
To be able to suspend this wedge, the rock bolts must intercept the wedge (this length is called “wedge length”)
and provide a satisfactory anchorage length beyond the defects forming the wedge. The mobilisation of forces
along the bolts will depend on its type:

Pull-out zone
(Passive)

Assuming that all bolts are

Wedge
at the same level of safety,
Apex
Height what are these force
distributions telling us?

Weight

Stripping zone (modified from

(Active) Thompson et al, 2012)

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

As seen in previous slide, face plates are essential in some circumstances (CFCs and DMCs) and of lower
importance in others (CMCs). Nevertheless, they are always used for design robustness and redundancy. The load
transfer mechanism to the plate develops following the sequence shown below:

(modified from Kang et al, 2015)

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

Mechanism confirmed numerically and in reality too:

Real example of face plate on a side wall reaching

Stage 4 upon rock movements under high compression
(buckling - note structurally controlled mechanism)

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect
Capacity Envelope for good bond

The design of rock bolts in the “holding” or suspension action

typically require two checks:

❑ A structural check such that the structural capacity exceeds

the demand (wedge load/weight) with safety margin: No face plate

▪ Tensile capacity ≥ FoS x “Wedge weight”

▪ Tensile capacity = “Steel bar area” x “Steel Yield Stress”

❑ A geotechnical check such that the bolt cannot be either Capacity Envelope for poor bond
pulled-out of the stable ground above the wedge or the
wedge be stripped of the bolt, both with a safety margin. Stripping Pull-out
For these two checks:
▪ Pull-out capacity ≥ (“Bond stress” x “Anchor Length” x “Hole
perimeter”) / FoS
▪Stripping capacity ≥ (“Bond stress” x “Wedge Length” x “Hole No face plate
perimeter” + “Plate capacity”) / FoS

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

The number of bolts (e.g. spacing) and length required to suspend the rock wedge obviously depend
on the capacity checks above which are dependent on the size/weight of the wedge. Typical empirical
rules of thumb for rock bolts are:
❑ Bolt spacing s should be less than three times the width of critical and potentially unstable rock
blocks defined by the average discontinuity spacing (refer to Module 1 for preliminary estimates)
❑ Bolt length L should be the greater of:
➢ twice the bolt spacing, s
➢ potentially unstable rock wedge apex height (refer to slide #15)
➢ 0.5B for tunnel spans of B < 6m, 0.3B for spans of B = 6-18m or 0.25B for spans of B = 18-35m
(Noting that Barton et al 1974 suggested that for B>30m cables at 2-4m c/c should be used to
supplement bolts for Q<10 with L = 0.4B)

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

Despite the preliminary estimates shown previously, wedge sizes must

be properly assessed via Kinematic Analysis of Rock Blocks (e.g.using
Unwedge) taking into account adequate geological input
In these analyses all joint set orientations (dip, dip direction), tunnel
orientation, shape and size can be included to identify the likely wedge
sizes. The strength of the discontinuities are also included.
Considering that this type of analysis assumes ubiquitous joints, i.e.
random positions without consideration of their spacing, they will
always identify the most unfavourable wedge which can some time be
geologically unrealistic. Therefore, important parameters such as joint
persistence should be included. In addition, some scaling of wedges
may also be carried out based on expected block sizes (Module 1).

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

As previously discussed, for tunnels where instability is generally controlled by geological structures, the rule
of thumb for bolt length is somewhat related to conservative assessments of the largest possible wedge
assuming ubiquitous rock defects and ignoring stress effects particularly if the inclusion of stresses result in
clamping effects that induce significantly higher factors of safety.
Hoek (2007) stated that this large difference in safety suggests a tendency for sudden failure when the in-
situ stresses are diminished for any reason and is a warning sign that care must be taken in terms of the
excavation and support installation sequence. For this reason, many tunnel designers consider that it is
prudent to design the tunnel support on the basis that there are no in situ stresses ensuring that, for almost
all cases, the support design will be conservative. These assessments generally result in wedge widths that
span approximately the entire tunnel and wedge apex heights roughly equal to one third of the span.
However, it is important to understand the state of practice when these assumptions are made and other
main differences governing design. For example, making similar assumptions for very large span tunnels and
caverns will result in very large wedges found in the roof which would require excessively and possibly
unnecessary long cable bolts.

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

For example, the record breaking span in civil tunnel, the Gjøvik Olympic Hall in Norway Norway had cable bolts
that were only 12m long, i.e. approximately 0.2B.

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

M8 Caverns with excavated spans of 30 m and maximum bolts varying from 7.5m (fair to good rock) to 9m
cables (poor to fair rock quality), i.e. ratio varying from 0.25B to 0.3B dependent on rock quality

(Oliveira, 2020) (Thirukumaran et al, 2021)

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

With such large spans, the positive effect of stresses on clamping of large wedges plays an important role
and should not be ignored though care should be taken to assess risks associated with sudden failure, i.e.
without warning signs.

Without field stress With field stress

30 m

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

For example, sequential excavation on large

wedge support will minimise wedge
movements therefore promoting better the
clamping effect of stresses.

Obviously there are exceptions where it will be

difficult to rely on clamping, for example, thick
infilled joints particularly with swelling clays.

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

Importance of bolting pattern type on rock support: Hanekleiv Tunnel Norway 2006 (failed after 10 years)
Staggered pattern may reduce risks
Regular square pattern
more likely to miss large
wedges ( this case with
swelling clay)

Disclaimer: Investigation on
this failure did indicate that
most bolts were parallel to
the failure planes but the
actual pattern used is
unknown.

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

Importance of bolting pattern type on rock support: Hanekleiv Tunnel Norway 2006 (failed after 10 years)

Or if known develop special reinforcement measures:

©David Oliveira 2020

Suspension/Holding effect

Suspension may also be necessary for larger

volumes and not necessarily just individual rock
wedges and blocks. For example, a significant plastic
zone may be suspended (together with thicker
surface retention measures) to a zone where a self-
supporting arch may have been achieved.

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect
In very simple terms, the concept of reinforcement effects in rock can be described by an analogy to reinforcement in
concrete. In other words, it is adopted to improve the poor performance of the material in tension and in shear while
under compression it has good capacity. This is very well understood with simple models in structural engineering
However, when it comes to describing reinforcement effect in rock, rock bolts are sometimes ascribed abilities that
verge on magic (Pells, 2008). So is it magic or do they work based on realistic principles??

In trying to explain this for the

first time, Tom Lang’s famous
1960’s bucket experiment for the
construction of the Snowy
scheme seems to be the
beginning of one of the most
misleading design myths in rock
bolting.
(after Pells, 2008)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

The educational version by Hoek

after his 1970 visit to the Snowy
Scheme…

(after Hoek, 2007)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

And the myth continues in

the new century…

Please note the reference to rock

bolts being “tensioned” a few
times which we can only suppose
during “installation”

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

The design myth then translated into tunnel design as a rock

bolt “compressed” ring with respect to increased confinement
concept by Pender et al (1962).

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

The confinement ring is quite intuitive but there is a scale issue… The magnitude of the compression promoted
by the bolts are not significant enough in a tunnel scale.

(after Pells, 2008)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

And as seen before, the effect of pre-tensioning within the rock mass will
typically dissipate within 2x the plate diameter (like foundations) such that
only rock defects within this zone would see some increase in “confinement”
which typically means 500mm or less…

So what is the real benefit of

rock bolt reinforcement??

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

And why does it work in the experiment?

Similar to foundations “pressure bulbs”,

i.e. small effect beyond 2x width

At this scale, effect of the double

plates/washers and their
“tightening” do help providing some
minor confinement enough for the
loads (red zone)…

So if it the “confinement ring” is not the main mechanism that justifies the success of
rock reinforcement in a “true scale”, what is it?

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

Hoek’s experiment has some resemblance to flat-roofed tunnel design in Sydney so understanding the
failure mechanism in such tunnels may assist…

Behaviour similar to a “beam”

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

Why does it behave similarly to a beam despite sub-vertical fractures?

Upon deflection the blocks in the horizontally bedded sandstone rotate inducing the development of
an internal compressive arch within the rock bed thickness

However “thin” laminations result in excessive deflections

buckling before reaching equilibrium

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

To improve thin lamination beams, we can to “stitch” a number of them together “tricking” the ground
to behave as a “thick equivalent beam”, thus, allowing the linear arching.

(after Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

The objective is to allow stress redistribution through rock defects. Note pronounced shearing near
abutments and tensile behaviour near mid-span

Note the compression arch across

the abutment shown by the stress
tensors in brown and the bolts
developing tensile loads across the
discontinuities and not compressive
vertical zones… (after Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

So the true mechanism seems to be analogous…

So this is the compression arch that

provides stability…

Here it goes in tension such that

the plates (mesh/shotcrete) have
an important function…
(after Oliveira, 2018)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

The principle is similar in more blocky ground. For example, let’s investigate the effect of rock bolts within an
arched shallow large span tunnel in fair to poor siltstone rock quality (UCS=4-8MPa and GSI ≈ 40)

15 m

12 m

Geometry
Bolted rock arch – 4m bolts
(after Oliveira, 2018)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

Evident collapse

(after Oliveira, 2018)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect
Isolating the arch region…

(after Oliveira, 2018)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect
Unsupported: observe
section going in tension

Stress tensors indicate the

effect of bolts in facilitating
stress redistribution but not
as compression bulbs around The line of compression/thrust can
the bolts… be seen through the 1 MPa values…

(after Oliveira, 2018)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect

So in summary, with reinforcement, we target

achieving an artificial arch under compression
capable of spanning the loads.
Note the difference to the suspension/holding
effect in slide #28. When reinforcement is
targeted shorter bolts are likely achievable
(depends on the required compressive arch
thickness) with lower surface retention needs, i.e.
thinner linings…

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution

A significant component of the reinforcement in blocky ground, often ignored, is the shear reinforcement effect
coupled with the tensile reinforcement offered by the bolts.

(after Dight, 1982) (after Indraratna and Haque, 2000)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution

The extra capacity of the bolts can then be broken down in three main components when subjected to shear:
❑ Lateral resistance via a “dowel effect” – R1

❑ Increase in normal stress as a result of axial force

developed in the rock bolt from dilatancy of the
joint - R3

❑ Increase in in normal stress as a result of axial

force developed in the rockbolt from lateral
(modified after Pells, 2002)
extension - R4

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution
The shear reinforcement in blocky ground is quite complex and typically needs to be solved numerically. However,
in laminated rocks this can be more easily estimated. Using the methodology from Oliveira and Paramaguru
(2016), the example below shows how to reinforce 3 rock beds to behave as one single thicker beam :

(Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution

If the 3 beds behave as a single thicker beam the overall rock beam deflection would only be 5mm.

(Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

However, not enough shear is mobilized through the bolts (compare the
area under the black curve and the area under the purple curve)…

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution

Improving the shear reinforcement by changing installation angle:

(Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

Still not enough but nearly there…

©David Oliveira 2020

Reinforcement effect: Shear contribution

This means that the laminations will still behave individually and shearing along the bedding occurs. Taking this
shearing into account as an equivalent reduction in shear stiffness of the bedding partings (iteratively):

All 3 beds deflect 11mm such that it starts behaving as a single

beam as enough shear is mobilised…

(Oliveira and Paramaguru, 2016)

©David Oliveira 2020

Thank you

©David Oliveira 2020