ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067

A rock bolt and rock mass interaction model

Yue Caia,*, Tetsuro Esakia, Yujing Jiangb
a
Institute of Environmental Systems, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 812-8581, Japan
b
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 Shear–Lag 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 influence of the installation time
of the rock bolt has been taken into account, and the theoretical prediction is verified 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 influenced 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 simplified 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 difficult 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: +81-92-642-
3848.
E-mail address: cai@ies.kyushu-u.ac.jp (Y. Cai).
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 ¼ L=ðln½1 þ ðL=ra Þ;
L ¼ ð40rb B60rb Þ; ð1Þ
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 char-
acteristic 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.

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.04.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1056 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067
.
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 influenced 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 simplified as tb ¼ 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 reinforce-
ment and the surrounding matrix can be described by
the shear–lag theory or fiber-loading theory. The
original shear–lag 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
modified the mathematical derivation of the model to
incorporate an elastic layer–matrix 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.
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
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 ¼ sr þ smr
r
ð2Þ
sTotal
t ¼ st þ smt
and the basic constitutive laws of the rock-bolted section
may be expressed as


smr Em
¼
smt ð1 þ mm Þð1  2mm Þ



1  mm mm Demr
; ð3Þ
mm 1  mm Demt
where sTotal ; sTotal are the total radial and tangential
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 Poisson’s 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 shear–lag theory
The shear–lag theory was proposed to describe the
mechanical behavior of a fiber composite at first. During
the past half-century, it has been developed from an
elastic theory to a plastic system for different purposes
in the fiber composite material field. The classical SLM
is based on the idealized assumption that there is no slip
on the phase interface [14–16]. In order to obtain the
unknown parameters assumed in the model, a shear
stress distribution in the matrix is often assumed as
[15,17–19]
tðr; xÞ ¼ rb tðrb ; xÞ=r ðrb prpRÞ: ð4Þ
where rb is the radius of fiber and R is the influence
radius of the fiber. 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 fiber composite. According to the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067 1057

rb

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

τ(r,x)+dτ(r,x)

σm(r,x)
τ(rb,x)

σm(r,x)+dσ m(r,x)
P(x) P(x)+dP(x) σm(r,x) P(x)

P(x)+dP(x)

σm(r,x)

σm(r,x)+
dx
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 infinitesimal 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
dPðxÞ
¼ 2prb tb ;
dx
qsm ðr; xÞ qtðr; xÞ tðr; xÞ
þ þ ¼ 0;
qx qr r still unknown according to the analysis above. Ob-
Z R
dPðxÞ d is assumed as f ðrÞ ¼ rb =r; the classical shear–lag theory
þ 2p sm ðr; xÞ dr ¼ 0;
dx rb dx
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 influence radius of a single
rock bolt. Since it is not easy to obtain the solution by
the equilibrium equations and boundary conditions, the
Shear–lag assumption is adopted as following:
dPðxÞ=dx ¼ Hðub  um Þ:
After differentiation, Eq. (6a) is transformed to


d2 PðxÞ PðxÞ
¼H  em ; ð6bÞ
dx2 Eb Ab
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 influence 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 Young’s 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
tðr; xÞ ¼ tðrb ; xÞf ðrÞ; ð7Þ
where f ðrÞ describes the distribution of the shear stress
ð5aÞ in the rock mass, and the boundary conditions and
equilibrium Eq. (5) should be satisfied. Some parameters
such as H and the shear distribution function f ðrÞ are
ð5bÞ
viously, f ðrb Þ ¼ 1: If the shear distribution function f ðrÞ
ð5cÞ
will be obtained. According to the constitutive equation
of the shear stress and the shear strain
tðr; xÞ ¼ Gm qum =qr; ð8Þ
where Gm is the shear modulus of the rock mass, and the
material parameter H is expressed as
H ¼ 2pGm = lnðR=rb Þ: ð9Þ
However, the supposed shear function is not suitable
ð6aÞ because the balance of Eq. (4) is not satisfied.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1058 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067
In the following, a uniform distribution of the anti-
stress 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)
f ðrÞ ¼ ðR2 þ r2b  r2 Þrb =ðR2 rÞ:
If Rbrb ; the parameter H can be expressed as
H ¼ 2pGm =ðlnðR=rb Þ  1=2Þ: ð11aÞ
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
H¼      ; ð11bÞ
ln R=rb  1=2 Gg þ ln rg =rb Gm
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
The rock bolts can be classified into two types: the
grouted bolt and the friction bolt—according to their
characteristics. Windsor [21] proposed the concept that
a reinforcement system comprises four principal com-
ponents: rock mass, reinforcing element, internal fixture
and external fixture. The reinforcing element refers to
the bolt and the external fixture refers to a face plate and
a nut. The internal fixture 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 Windsor’s classification, a reinforce-
ment 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.
It was revealed that a confining pressure influences 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
ð10Þ
confining 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 bolt–grout
interface, in the grout medium or at the grout–rock
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
grout–rock 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 Mohr–Coulomb 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
5 10 15 20
Shear displacement (mm)
Fig. 3. Relationship of interface strength and confining 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) 1055–1067
strength can be calculated via
tm ¼ c þ snb tan fi ;
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.
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 ¼ PðxÞ=ðEm Am Þ;
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 ¼ 0; Pð0Þ ¼ Po ;
x ¼ L; PðLÞ ¼ 0:
According to Eq. (4b), the theoretical solution before
decoupling is expressed as
PðxÞ ¼ Po sinhðaðL  xÞÞ=sinhðaLÞ;
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
a ¼ H 1=ðAb Eb Þ þ 1=ðEb Ab Þ ;
Shear
strength
friction bolt
τm
grouted bolt
τmo
kini
umax displacement
Fig. 5. Relationship of the shear stress and displacement at rock bolt
interface.
1059
tb ðxÞ ¼ to cosh½aðL  xÞ=coshðaLÞ; ð15bÞ
ð12Þ 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 ðxÞ ¼ tm cosh½aðL  xÞ=cosh½aðL  yÞ;
L  yoxoL; ð16Þ
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 ¼ 2tmo pyrb þ 2tm tanhðaðL  yÞÞAb =ðarb Þ: ð17Þ
Correspondingly, the axial load reaches a maximum
when the debonding length reaches ycr,
j pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi k
ð13Þ ycr ¼ L  lnðwÞ  lnð2  w  2 1  wÞ =ð2aÞ;
tmo ¼ wtm : ð18Þ
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
ð14Þ equals L when the ultimate pullout load is reached, and
the shear strength of the friction bolt can be calculated
ð15Þ with
tmo ¼ Pmax =2prb L: ð19Þ
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,
ð15aÞ the displacement at the end of the bolt is linear with the
pullout force, and their relation is expressed as
Po
uo ¼ ; ð20Þ
Ab Eb a tanhðaLÞ
where Eb is the Young’s 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 pre-
loaded by the deformation of the rock mass, its pullout
behavior differs from that in the laboratory, and it will
not be discussed here.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1060 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067

180 Li and Stillborg (1999) [6]

Pullout
force
collapse 150 Theoretical Prediction
Pmax

Pullout force (kN)

coupling 120
step P = 165kN
90

Pd 60
P = 35kN P = 100kN P = 140kN
failure 30
developing
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
(a) Length of rock bolt (m)

(a) displacement Li and Stillborg (1999) [6]

Theoretical Prediction
15 P = 100kN P = 140kN P = 165kN
P
After decoupling
P = 35kN

Shear stress (MPa)

10
Coupling

Distance from borehole collar (m)

5

τ Frictional residual strength

After decoupling 0
Coupling 0 0.5 1 1.5
(b) Length of rock bolt (m)
Fig. 7. Theoretical prediction in pull out test. (a) Distribution of axial
Grouted residual strength force and (b) distribution of shear stress on rock bolt [6].
P

(b) length ycr at an ultimate load is 1.39 m from Eq. (18).

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.
3.2. Pullout experimental verifications
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 Stillborg’s 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 Young’s modulus
Eb=210 GPa; for the grout: the radius rg=17.5 mm,
Poisson’s ratio mg=0.25, the Young’s modulus
Eg=35 GPa; for the concrete specimen, the Young’s
modulus Em=45 GPa, the Poisson’s ratio mm=0.25. The
values of other parameters are assumed to be: w ¼
tmo =tm ¼ 0:1; and the influence 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
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) 1055–1067 1061

according to the proposed model. Considering the shear stress is tmo. the boundary condition is expressed
supporting effect of the rock bolt , the strain of the as
rock mass at the edge of the influence radius R is x ¼ y; Po ¼ 2pb tmo y; 0oxpy;
expressed as Eq. (21) and the constitutive equation of
the axial force is expressed as Eq. (22) x ¼ L; PðLÞ ¼ 0: ð23Þ

em ¼ eini ðtÞ  Dem ;
Dem ¼ sm =Em ¼ PðxÞ=ðSEm Þ;


d2 PðxÞ PðxÞ
¼H  em ;
dx2 Eb Ab
where eini(t) is the released strain of the rock mass
without bolts, and it is time dependent and influenced by
the installation time of the rock bolt; S is the influencing
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
fixture is not the same as the one without an external
fixture. The external fixture 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, correspond-
ingly, 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 difficult to be determined only by theory.
For the rock bolt without an external fixture, 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
ð21aÞ It is easy to calculate y and the axial force in the rock
bolt combined with Eq. (5) by a numerical method. For
ð21bÞ 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.
ð22Þ
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 PðxÞ PðxÞ PðxÞ qu
¼H þ  ;
dx2 Eb Ab Em S qx
8
< up ðxÞ in plastic region;
>
u ¼ us ðxÞ in soften region; ð24Þ
>
:
ue ðxÞ 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 ðxÞ ¼ po ð1 þ mm Þr2a =½Em ðra þ xÞ; ð25Þ
 
2=x þ Eið1; xÞex  Eið1; xÞex m=2
þ J1 eax  J2 eax ¼ 0; ð26aÞ

1 2

5
3
Opening Opening Opening
6

O ra Re O ra Rf Re O ra Rf Re
elastic zone Strain soften zone plastic flow 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) 1055–1067
x ¼ aðx þ ro Þ;
Z N xt
e
Eið1; xÞ ¼ dt;
0 t
 
a2 ¼ ðAb EÞ1 þ ðSEm Þ1 H;
m ¼ ð1 þ mm Þpo r2a H=ðEm Þ;
where, ra is the radius of the tunnel; Em and mm are the
deformation modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the rock
mass; Ab is the area of the rock bolt; po is the static-
hydraulic pressure; J1, J2 are the parameters related to
the boundary conditions.
Generally, the theoretical solution is difficult 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 bolt—which 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. How-
ever, the accuracy of the field measurements is limited
and it is not easy to obtain ideal results because there are
so many influencing 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 significant for the design of rock bolting.
A field monitoring of rock bolts was performed in
Holland Zaka Tunnel in Nagasaki, and the axial force
np∆L ns∆L ne∆L
∆L
Opening
O np(x) Rf ns(x) Re ne(x)
Fig. 9. Illustration of element dividing for the rock bolt intersecting
different regions.
and the shear stress are compared with the theoretical
prediction of the improved SLM. The tunnel is located
ð26bÞ at a depth of 21 m, and its geological condition is shown
in Fig. 10. The rock mass near the tunnel is classified as
DI, which belongs to the soft rock in Japan. Section F-S
of the tunnel and the measuring arrangement of the rock
ð26cÞ 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 classification 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-flow
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
profile 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 Mudstone flow1
Volcanic silt
CII
Em=32MPa
DII Em=132MPa Mudstone flow2
DI
Volcanic
Em=2359MPa
detritus flows
CII
DI Em=1001MPa
16.50m
Volcanic
detritus flows
DI
X Volcanic
detritus flows
Volcanic pyroclastic flow
Volcanic pyroclastics
Fig. 10. Geological location of Holland Zaka tunnel.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067 1063

RB1

Center of tunnel Center of road

sprayed concrete RB2 RB3
Lining Concrete
Steel
5400

150

0
290

50
50
47
1=
Rock bolt

R
RB4 RB5
2500

5 4 3 2 1

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 40% disp released,

Parameters of rock mass and rock bolt 80 L=3.0m, coupling
Radius of tunnel, ra 4.75 m 70 40% disp released
Hydraulic water pressure, po 1.0 MPa 60 90% disp released
Axial strength of rock mass, sc 0.5 MPa Measured data
Axial force (kN)

Rock mass’s deformation modulus, Em 0.5 GPa 50

Poisson’s ratio of rock mass, mm 0.35 40
Length of rock bolt, L 4.0 m
Young’s modulus of rock bolt, Eb 210 GPa 30 40% disp released,
Radius of rock bolt, rb 12.7 mm 20 L=3.0m, decoupling
Distance between rock bolt (LzLt) 1.2 m  1.4 m
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
(a) Length of rock bolt (m)
in the Appendix. According to the measurement data,
2
the axial force is zero at the end of the rock bolt, and the 40% disp released,
effect length is about 3 m. The measured data and 1 L=3.0m , coupling
theoretical prediction are consistent as shown in Fig. 12.
According to the theoretical analysis, the shear stress 0
Shear Stress (MPa)

is relatively high at the end of the rock bolt and it 1 2 3 4

changes its direction at a certain position. In the rock -1
bolting section near to the opening, the shear stress is 40% disp released
-2
toward the tunnel wall and the rock bolt is pulled, and it 90% disp released
reduces to zero at the neutral position. Beyond the -3 Measured data
40% disp released,
neutral point, the direction of the shear stress is changed
L=3.0m , decoupling
and it is toward the far end of the rock bolt, which -4
makes up the anchor part of the rock bolt. This
-5
theoretical conclusion agrees with the field monitoring (b) Length of rock bolt (m)
data obtained before [1].
Since the strength of the rock mass is not strong Fig. 12. Interaction behavior of the rock bolt around a circular
opening. (a) Distribution of axial force and (b) distribution of shear
enough, the decoupling appears near the interface of the stress on rock bolt.
rock mass and grout, and the position of the neutral
point is changed correspondingly. In this example, the
neutral point is located at 15 length of the rock bolt, and if 90% of the displacement has been released at the
it changes from 0.63 to 0.9 m after debonding. It should installation time for example, the axial force of the rock
be pointed out that the displacement of the rock mass bolt is very small as shown in Fig. 12, which implies that
without rock bolts is essential for the prediction of a the supporting performance of the rock bolt is not
resultant force in the rock bolt. In tunneling supporting, significant.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1064 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067

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 significant 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. Unfortu-
nately, there is neither a theoretical solution nor a simple
method to predict the axial force of the rock bolt until
now, and it is difficult 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
L=1.5
50
Axial force (KN)
the anchor end decreases. However, the maximum axial
force in the rock bolt is limited to 62.8 kN and the
neutral point’s 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 significantly 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 mechan-
ism 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 flow 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.

L=3m
L=4m According to the example above, the distance from
40
the neutral point to the tunnel wall is longer in
L=6m
30 the decoupling case than in the coupling case. When
L=1m
20
the rock bolt is relatively short, the neutral point for the
proposed model is near to Tao and Chen’s suggestion,
10 while the length of the rock bolt exceeds a certain value
such as 3 m in the example, the neutral point tends to be
0
0 2 4 6 constant according to the proposed model.
(a) Length of rock bolt (m)

1.5
L=1 L=1.5m L=3m 5. Rock bolts intersecting rock joints
1 L=4m
A rock bolt intersecting joints can be divided into a
L=6m
Shear Stress (MPa)

0.5 continuous adhesive part and a joint opening part. The

basic interaction constitutive Eq. (5) is also valid for the
0 continuous part. Deformation of intact hard rock can be
neglected because it is small enough compared to the
0 2 4 6
-0.5 opening of the joint. Since the joints without the
reinforcement may open freely under an external load,
-1
the axial load and the shear stress are mainly determined
by the opening distance of the rock joints, which applies
-1.5 a tensile load to the embedded part of the rock bolt. The
(b) Length of rock bolt (m) concept of one reinforcement intersecting two joints is
Fig. 13. Interaction behavior of the rock bolt with different installing shown in Fig. 14, where D is the distance between two
length. (a) Distribution of axial force and (b) distribution of shear joints; s1 and s2 are the axial stress at the position 1 and
stress on rock bolt. 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) 1055–1067 1065

Table 2
Neutral point of rock bolt in different condition

Length of rock bolt (m) 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00
Proposed Coupling 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.57 0.62 0.63 0.64
model Decoupling 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.72 0.86 0.87 0.88
Tao and Chen’s model 0.25 0.37 0.48 0.72 0.94 1.38 1.79

decoupling 40
σ1 σ2
coupling Proposed model
35

Axial load of reinforcment (kN)

30 Li and Stillborg (1999)

25
τ1 τ2
20

15

δ1 δ2 10

5
Position 1 D Position 2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Reinforcement Grout Rock mass
Rock bolt (m)
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 Stephansson’s work [7].
Before decoupling, the axial stress and the shear stress in
the section are expressed as
sb ¼ fsinh½aðL  xÞs1 þ sinhðaxÞs2 g=sinhðaLÞ;
arb ðcosh½aðx  LÞs1  coshðaxÞs2 Þ
tb ¼ ; ð27bÞ
2sinhðaLÞ
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
simplified as Eq. (28), which is similar to the pullout
load model [6]
sb ðxÞ ¼ s1 eax
tb ðxÞ ¼ 0:5rb as1 eax :
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 Young’s modulus of the rock bolt is very
large.
In other words, the decoupling of a rock bolt starts at
a very small opening displacement of the joint. This
result confirms the finding achieved by other study [27].
The axial stress distribution of a rock bolt intersecting
three joints is compared with Li and Stillborg’s 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 Young’s modulus
and radius of the bolt are assumed as 210 GPa and
ð27aÞ
10 mm, respectively. The Young’s 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
ð28aÞ
An analytical model has been proposed to describe
ð28bÞ the interaction behavior of a rock bolt and rock mass.
The characteristics of the proposed model are as
following:
* it has been established via an improved Shear–lag
theory, and it is based on the viewpoint of consistent
deformation;
* any parameter that relates to the ground deformation
will influence the axial force in the rock bolt;
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1066 Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067

* the decoupling characteristic of the rock bolt inter- Appendix

face is taken into account;
* according to the model, the interaction behavior Plastic zone:
between the rock bolt and rock mass is described by a 00
P ðxÞ  a2 PðxÞ þ B1  C1 =ðra þ xÞ1þf ¼ 0; ðA:1Þ
parameter H, which is determined by the distribution
of the interaction stress;  
a2 ¼ 1=Ab Eb þ 1=SEm ; H;
* the proposed model is more flexible than the pullout
model especially when the deformation of the ground B1 ¼ Hðu1 þ u2 xð1þhÞ Þ;
is complex, e.g. in a plastic deformation condition.
C1 ¼ Hu3 x1þf Re1þf f ;
In this paper, the uniform interaction stress is
assumed in the influence range of the rock bolt, and u1 ¼ Bo ðh  1Þ=ð1 þ hÞ;
the corresponding parameter H has been derived. The
interaction behavior of the rock bolt in a pullout test, u2 ¼ 2Bo ðf  hÞ=½ð1 þ hÞð1 þ f Þ;
around a circular tunnel and with intersecting rock  
joints has been discussed. The model is compared with u3 ¼ 2Bo =ð1 þ f Þ ðRf =Re Þð1þhÞ ;
the pullout model and its applicability has been
confirmed by the pullout test data and actual axial Bo ¼ ð1 þ vm ÞEm ½po ðKp  1Þ þ sc =ðKp þ 1Þ;
force observations made in the field.
1=Kp 1
According to the analysis results based on the ra NzKp 1 ð1  Kp Þðh þ Kp Þ þ ss ½ð1 þ hÞ þ 2=ðl  1Þ
Re ¼ ;
proposed model, the following conclusions can be z ð1  Kp Þðh þ Kp Þpi  sc ðh þ Kp Þ
obtained.  1=1þh
z ¼ 2=lð1 þ hÞ þ ð1  hÞ ¼ Rf =Re ;
(1) A decoupling phenomenon may take place at the
interface of the rock bolt, no matter how strong the h ¼ ð1 þ sin f Þ=ð1  sin f Þ
grout is, because the interaction shear stress may
exceed the shear strength of the ground. softening zone
(2) The decoupling condition influences the position of 2
d PðxÞ 1
the neutral point, and the position tends to be  a2 PðxÞ þ B2  C2 ¼ 0; ðA:2Þ
dx2 ðra þ xÞ1þf
constant when the length of the rock bolt exceeds a
specific value, which is 3 m in the example. This B2 ¼ HBo ð1  hÞ=ð1 þ hÞ;
implies that the supporting effect of the rock bolt
cannot be improved just by extending its length. C2 ¼ 2hBo H Re1þh =ð1 þ hÞ
(3) Since the joints without reinforcement may open
freely under an external load, peak axial forces will elastic zone
be induced at the corresponding joint because of the 2
d PðxÞ 1
opening displacement. This explains why there may  a2 PðxÞ þ B3  C3 ¼ 0; ðA:3Þ
be more than one neutral point in a rock bolt when
dx2 ðra þ xÞ2
it intersects a series of joints.
B3 ¼ 0;
By using the proposed model, it becomes possible to
C3 ¼ ð1 þ vm Þ=Em ½ðpo  se Þr2a H
predict the position of the neutral point in the rock bolt
around an opening at the design stage, which is se ¼ ð2po  sc Þ=ðKp þ 1Þ
important for the quantitative evaluation of the rock
bolting effect. The proposed model not only provides a where, ra is the internal radius of tunnel. Re and Rf are
way of evaluating the interaction behavior of the rock the elastic and plastic radii respectively; h, f are the
bolt, but also supplies a theoretical basis for quantita- dilatation coefficients of the rock mass in the softening
tively evaluating the supporting effect of the rock bolt. and plastic states respectively. f is the dilatation angle.
Kp is the strength coefficient and defined as Kp ¼
ð1 þ sin fÞ=ð1  sin fÞ; f is the internal friction angle of
rock mass. l is called a brittle modulus and larger than
Acknowledgements 1. Po is the static-hydraulic pressure, sc is the peak
strength and s c is the softening strength of the rock
The authors would like to thank Professor J.A. mass, and ss=scs c . Since it is relatively difficult to
Hudson for his valuable comments and suggestions for obtain the theoretical solution of the differential
improvement of the manuscript. Eq. (A.1)–(A.3), a numerical method is favored. From
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Cai et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1055–1067
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 Poisson’s ratios h and f, residual strength
s
c can be fitted through the following expressions [28]:
s ¼ 0:65s0:8 ; f ¼ 38:28s0:004 ; l ¼ 1:33s0:153 ;
c c c c
h ¼ 1:88s0:136
c ; f ¼ 1:41s0:035
c
References
[1] Freeman TJ. The behavior of fully-bonded rock bolts in the
Kielder experimental tunnel. Tunnels Tunneling 1978; 37–40.
[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. 93–9.
[3] Tao Z, Chen JX. Behavior of rock bolting as tunneling support. In:
Stephansson O, editor. Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Rock Bolting. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1984. p. 87–92.
[4] Indraratna B, Kaiser PK. Analytical model for the design of
grouted rock bolt. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1990;227–51.
[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;36:1013–129.
.
[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. Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on rock bolting. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1984. p. 377–95.
[8] Madhav MR, Gurung N, Iwao Y. A theoretical model for pull-
out response of extensible reinforcements. Geosynthetics Int
1998;5(4):399–424.
[9] Gurung N. 1-D analytical solution for extensible and inextensible
soil/rock reinforcement in pull-out tests. Geotextiles Geomem-
branes 2001;19:195–212.
[10] Cox HL. The elasticity and strength of paper and other fibrous
materials. Br J Appl Phys 1952;3:72–9.
[11] Hobbs DW. The formation of tension joints in sedimentary rocks:
an explanation. Geol Mag 1967;120:355–62.
1067
[12] Abramento M, Whittle JA. Analysis of pullout tests for planar
reinforcements in soil. J Geotech Eng 1995;121(6):476–85.
[13] Mandal N, Deb SK, Khan D. Evidence for a non-linear relation
ship between fracture spacing and layer thickness. J Struct Geol
1994;16:1275–81.
[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;4:355–72.
[18] Ochiai S, Hojo M, Osamura K. General expression of the shear
lag analysis for unidirectional elastic fiber-elastic matrix compo-
sites. Z Metallkd 1993;81:796–801.
[19] Ji S, Zhao P. Strength of two-phase rocks: a model based on fiber-
loading theory. J Struct Geol 1994;16:253–62.
[20] Zhao P, Ji S. Refinement of shear–lag model and its application.
Tectonophisics 1997;279:37–53.
[21] Windsor CR. Rock reinforcement systems. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 1997;34(6):919–51.
[22] Malvar LJ. Bond reinforcement under controlled confinement.
ACI Mater J 89(6), Nov–Dec, 1992: 593–601.
[23] Moosavi M, Khosravi A, Jafari A. A laboratory study of bond
failure mechanism in deformed rock bolts using a modified Hoek
cell. Proceedings of the 2001 ISRM International Symposium—
Second Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (ISRM 2001—2nd
ARMS), p. 239–42.
[24] Farmer IW. Stress distribution along a resin grouted anchor. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1975;12:347–52.
[25] Stillborg B. Professional users handbook for rock bolting, 2nd ed.
Trans Tech Publications; Clausthal-Zeuerfeld, Germany, 1994;
p. 30–42.
[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. 29–40.
[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):525–33.
[28] Jiang Y, Yoneda H, Tanabashi Y. Theoretical estimation of
loosening pressure on tunnels in soft rocks. Tunnelling Under-
ground Space Technology 2001;16(2):99–105.