Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24, 2013, Roorkee

IN-SITU SHEAR STRENGTH OF PHYLLITE ROCK MASS

Ramana G.V., CSMRS New Delhi, ramana.laxmi@gmail.com
Pathak, S., CSMRS New Delhi, shashankpathaks@gmail.com
Kumar, N., CSMRS New Delhi, nipendra@nic.in
ABSTRACT: Hydroelectric power projects are pollution free and renewable sources of energy. These projects
involve the construction of dams across the flowing stream of water. Construction of dams in rock regions requires
stability analysis of the foundation and the supporting rocks at the banks of the reservoir area. Stability of the
concrete foundation over the rocky strata and stability of the banks depend upon the shear strength of the concreterock and rock-rock interfaces, respectively. Therefore, evaluation of shear strength parameters (cohesion and
friction angle) at rock- rock and concrete- rock interface is the most important primary step for stability analysis
and design of dams. Determination of shear strength parameters involves the in-situ tests in drifts on the dam axis
site and interpretation of test results. In view of the above, site-specific shear strength parameter interpretation is
carried out for Amochu hydroelectric power project site, Bhutan. This project envisages construction of 175 m high
concrete gravity dam across river Amochu. The existing rock type on both left and right banks of the site is
observed to be weathered Phyllites. From the analysis of 20 field tests in 2 drifts, it has been found that for rockrock interface shear strength values are approximately 50% higher at the right bank as compared to the left bank.
On the other hand, for concrete-rock interface, this variation is around 10% only. Therefore, seeing the large
variation of estimated shear strength in rock-rock interface, it is proposed to use individual bank stability analysis
whereas, marginal variation in concrete-rock interface suggests the use of the combined analysis of the data from
both the banks for foundation stability analysis. Further, rock specific (for Phyllites) shear strength equation is also
proposed in the present paper based on the values of shear strength parameters (cohesion and friction-angle) from
other projects in the Phyllite rocks.

INTRODUCTION
Himalayan region is endowed with huge
hydropower potential. Numerous rivers and
streams traverse through these hilly regions. The
design of foundations of dams in rocky strata
includes determination of bearing capacity,
settlement analysis and sliding/slope stability
analysis. Bearing capacity and settlement analysis
involve the ability of the rock foundation to
support the imposed loads without shear failure
and without excessive settlements. Sliding stability
analysis involves the ability of the rock foundation
or slope to resist the imposed loads without
shearing or sliding. Both analyses must be
coordinated and satisfied in the design. For
performing theses analyses shear strength
parameters viz. cohesion and friction-angle are
used as input parameters. There are two major
categories of analysis, a) Analysis at the concrete
foundation and rock joint interface and b) Analysis
at the rock over rock interface. Henceforth,

determination of shear strength parameters is

required for the concrete over rock (C/R) interface
as well as rock over rock (R/R) interface on the
project site. Former is for stability analysis of
concrete dam resting over rocky strata while later
is concerned with the ability of the surrounding
rocks to hold the reservoir.
.
GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT

The Exploratory drift on the right bank of the river

is located on the dam axis at an elevation 263.00
m, i.e. about 28.0 m above the river level. The drift
has encountered fine grained dark gray quartzitephyllite. The rocks in the drift are also traversed by
7 sets of joints as given in Table 1.
The Exploratory drift on the left bank of the river
is located on the dam axis at an elevation 245.00
m. The drift has encountered fine grained dark
gray quartzite- phyllite. The rocks in the drift are
also traversed by 9 sets of joints as given in Table
2.
Page 1 of 9

G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 1. Details of joint sets in right bank drift [3]

Sl.

Joint
J1
(foliation
joint)

Orientation

Description

N 00 to N350/40-70

Smooth
planar

J2

N335 to N340/50-80

J3

N90 to N100/65to 85

J4

N290 to
N310/60to80

J5

N290toN310/35to50

J6

N10 to N30/20to 40

J7

N30 to N60/40 to75

Rough
planar
Rough
planar
Rough
planar
Rough
planar
Rough
planar
Rough
planar

Table 2. Details of joint sets in left bank drift [3]

Sl.
1

2
3

Joint
J1
(foliation
joint)
J2
J3

J4

J5

J6

J7

8
9

J8
J9

Orientation
N 00 to N350/20 to 80

Description
Smooth planar

N40 to N60/40 to 80
N185 to N200/17 to
45
N240 to N270/65 to
80
N240toN260/10 to
20
N160 to N180/80to
85
N330 to N335/40 to
75
N130 /70
N155 to N165/35
to40

Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar
Rough planar

TEST PROCEDURE
In-situ shear tests at rock-rock and concrete- rock
interfaces are conducted at the dam axis site of
proposed hydroelectric project at Amochu
(Bhutan). The tests are conducted in two drifts
named as DR-5 on right bank and DL-6 on left
bank. Blocks of rock mass for R/R interface test
and concrete blocks for C/R interface test are
prepared for testing purpose as per provisions of IS
7746:1991 and ISRM: 1981 [1,2]. Fig.1 shows the
schematic diagram of the test-setup as given in IS
7746:1991 [1].

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of in-situ shear test set-up

[1].
Following step by step testing procedure is carried
out on the site:
a) Diamond wheel chisel and hammer along
with rock breakers are used to separate the
rock mass of block size (70cm 70 cm
35 cm) from the parent rock to create R/R
interface. Steel frame of 20 mm thickness
MS plate is placed over the block and then
it is filled with cement grout.
b) For C/R interface, the rock surface is
leveled as much as possible by removing all
undulations with the help of a chisel and a
hammer. The rock breaker is also used in
case of hard rock. After leveling the rock
surface, the concrete blocks (70 cm x 70 cm
x 35 cm) are prepared by using steel mould.
All the blocks are cured for 28 days before
the test.
c) 20 mm thick MS plates are used to prepare
side and top reaction pads and strengthened
by RCC. The care is taken to keep the top
and side reaction pads concentric with the
block. It should be noted that the horizontal
reaction pad has to be prepared such that it
does not break during the application of
horizontal thrust.
d) Vertical load is applied using a 200 tones
capacity hydraulic jack. Hallow cylinders
of aluminum alloy are used to fill up the
gap between the top reaction pad and the
Page 2 of 9

In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

hydraulic jack. Shear force is applied by

another 200 tones capacity hydraulic jack
from the side reaction pad
e) Normal loads of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 tones
were applied in the five tests, respectively.
The shear load is applied at an angle of 150
with the horizontal so that the sheared plane
coincides with a plane of weakness in the
rock. This is achieved by two wooden
wedges of appropriate geometry placed
across the jack.
f) Five such blocks for R/R interface and C/R
interface are prepared. Each block is tested
for a particular normal stress which is kept
constant during the test. The shear force
and displacement of block are measured
and recorded during the test. The vertical,
horizontal, and lateral displacements of the
block, produced during the test are
measured by 9 dial-gauges, 4 for normal
displacement, 3 for shear displacement, and
2 for lateral displacement.
g) The observations are recorded till failure
and continued even after the failure at
which no further rise or fall in shear
strength is observed with increasing shear
displacement to get the information
regarding residual frictional resistance.
ASSUMPTION
Interpretation of the test results are based on the
following assumptions:
a)

Effect of pore water pressure is implicitly

taken as the tests are conducted in the
saturated condition.
b) Complete interface area is involved in the
process of shearing.
c) Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb
criteria only.
d) All the reaction pads are infinitely stiff and not
prone to any deformation.
e) The rock mass has been considered to be
ideally intact i.e. without cracks and voids.
FORMULATION
Normal stress (n) and shear stress () are obtained,
respectively, from applied normal load (Pna) and

applied shear load (Psa) during the test, using the

Eq. 1 and 2.
Ps Psa cos
(1)

A
A
P
P Psa sin
(2)
n n na
A
A
Where, Ps, Pn , A, and , are net shear force, net
normal force, gross cross-sectional area of the
interface, and inclination of the applied shear
force, respectively. It is worth mentioning here that
to keep the normal stress constant (as required in
the specified test procedure), the applied normal
force is reduced by an amount Psa sin after each
increment in the applied shear force.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The test data is collected in terms of applied shear
load and observed shear displacement at the
applied constant vertical load. This exercise is then
repeated for five vertical loads as shown in Table 3
Table 3. Applied vertical load and corresponding
test sequence
Test No.
Test No. 1
Test No. 2
Test No. 3
Test No. 4
Test No. 5

Vertical load
20 ton
25 ton
30 ton
35 ton
40 ton

The collected data is used to derive the shear stress

(using Eq. 1) and corresponding shear
displacement. Further, the plots of shear stress
versus shear displacement are prepared for R/R
interface at right bank drift (after here DR-5), R/R
interface at left bank drift (after here DL-6), C/R
interface at DR-5, and C/R interface at DL-6 as
shown in Figs. 2 to 5, respectively [3].
Figs. 2 to 5 are clear depiction of the shear
behavior of the interfaces. Initially, required shear
stress for shear displacement increase and it
reaches at a peak value that is known as peak shear
strength. After this point, curves start showing an
asymptotic behavior and shear stress reduces to a

Page 3 of 9

G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

value known as residual shear stress. Table 4

shows the shear displacement achieved at the peak
shear stress, values of peak shear stress and
residual shear stress for specified normal load,
corresponding to R/R interfaces.

Fig. 5: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for

C/R interface shear tests in drift DL-6
Table 4. Comparison of shear displacement curves
for various normal loads at R/R interface
Fig. 2: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot or
R/R interface shear tests in drift DR-5

Applied
normal
load

Shear
displacement at
peak
shear
stress (mm)

Tonnes

DL 6

DR 5

20
25
30
35
40

9.80
14.21
1.17
7.53
12.01

12.86
17.20
7.60
12.84
9.89

Peak shear
stress
(kg/cm2)

Residual
shear stress
(kg/cm2)

DL
6
5.94
5.91
6.70
6.31
9.46

DL
6
4.67
5.13
5.91
5.91
7.69

DR 5
6.79
7.88
11.04
11.43
13.01

DR 5
6.36
6.70
10.25
9.85
11.83

Table 5. Comparison of shear displacement curves

for various normal loads at C/R interface.

Fig. 3: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for

R/R interface shear tests in drift DL-6

Fig. 4: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for

C/R interface shear tests in drift DR- 5

Applied
normal
load

Shear
displacement at
peak shear
stress (mm)

Tonnes

DL 6

DR 5

20
25
30
35
40

11.30
5.19
14.20
8.69
13.88

7.59
12.61
12.26
11.96
11.81

Peak shear
stress
(kg/cm2)

Residual
shear stress
(kg/cm2)

DL
6
4.66
5.19
5.32
6.58
7.12

DL
6
3.95
4.45
4.26
5.92
6.00

DR
5
4.13
5.93
3.59
5.59
7.13

DR
5
3.23
4.82
3.20
5.26
5.99

Similarly, Table 5 above shows the shear

displacement achieved at the peak shear stress,
values of peak shear stress and residual shear stress
for specified normal load, corresponding to C/R
interfaces. The comparative study based on the
Figs. 2 to 5 and Tables 4&5 leads to following
important observations:
a) There is no definite trend of observed shear
displacement (at peak shear stress) with
applied vertical load. The reason might be
Page 4 of 9

In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

the presence of discontinuity on the rock

surface in the form of joints or cracks.
b) There is an increasing trend (not necessarily
monotonous for example See DR-5) in peak
shear stress with the applied vertical stress.
c) Similarly there is an increasing trend in
residual shear stress with the applied
vertical stress.
Observation (b) and (c), suggest that the peak and
residual shear strength of the rock mass increases
with the applied normal stress. This conclusion
supports the use of Coulumb criteria in the
determination of shear strength parameters at the
interface.
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
In selecting shear-strength parameters for rock, the
analysis should not be limited to a single approach,
rather should incorporate several approaches into
the selection process. Comparison of values
obtained from several alternative approaches,
together with a thorough understanding of rockmechanics principles and prerequisites will provide
the necessary basis for selection of meaningful
shear-strength parameters. However, as discussed
above in the present paper, the Coulumb criterion
of shear strength (f) is used as given in Eq. 3.

f c n tan

Fig. 6: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for C/R

interface in drift DL-6

Fig. 7: Shear stress V/S normal stress versus plot for

C/R interface in drift DR-5

(3)

Where, c is cohesion, n is applied normal stress,

and is angle of friction at the interface, is used as
the governing behavior for the interpretation of the
shear test results in the present study. The shear
stresses at the failure and the residual shear stresses
are plotted against the corresponding normal
stresses. Then, this data set is used to fit the
Equation 3 and to determine the cohesion (c) and
friction angle (). Figs. 6 to 11, show the scatter
plots of shear stress (f) (peak and residual) versus
normal stress (n) and the best fit lines for C/R
interface in DL-6, DR-5 and combined DL-6 &
DR-5, R/R interface in DL-6, DR-5, and combined
DL-6 & DR-5, respectively. The constant term of
the best fit line represents the cohesion (c) and the
slope is tangent of friction-angle (tan ).

Fig. 8: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for C/R

interface in combined DR-5 & DL-6

Fig. 9: Normal stress V/S shear stress plot for R/R

interface in drift DL-6

Page 5 of 9

G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 6. Shear Strength Parameters on rock -rock

interface
Location of
Drift
Drift. RL
No.
(m)

DR263.00
5
DL-6 245.00
Combined
DR-5 & DL-6

Fig. 10: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for

shear tests on R/R interface in drift DR-5

Drift.
No.

RL (m)

DR- 263.00
5
DL-6 245.00
Combined
DR-5 & DL-6

Values of the peak and residual shear strength

parameters are tabulated below in Tables 6&7 for
R/R and C/R interfaces, respectively. The data
shows large variations among the shear strength
parameters i.e. cohesion and friction-angle for both
R/R and C/R interfaces. There are also variations
in peak and residual shear strength parameters.
These variations show that there are abrupt
changes in various geological and mechanical rock
mass properties from one bank to other. However,
there are cases where the shear strength parameters
are almost similar in magnitude on the left bank
and the right bank for both R/R and C/R interfaces
[4,5]. Further, it is recommended that the average
values for a particular dam site may be obtained by
plotting data from both the banks together rather
than taking an arithmetic average of cohesion and
friction values from both the banks as it may give
better representative values (See Figs. 8 &11).

Residual Shear
Strength Parameters
Cohesion, Friction
cr
Angle,
(kg/cm2)
r
(degree)
0.21
53.50

1.83
0.73

1.28
0.24

39.10
50.70

36.00
48.30

Table 7. Shear Strength Parameters on concreterock interface

Location of
Drift

Fig. 11: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for

R/R interface in combined DR-5 & DL-6

Peak Shear Strength

Parameters
Cohesion, Friction
c
Angle,
(kg/cm2)

(degree)
0.65
55.50

Peak Shear Strength

Parameters

Residual Shear
Strength
Parameters

Cohesion,
c (kg/cm2)

Friction
Angle,
(degree)

Cohesion,
cr (kg/cm2)

Friction
Angle,
r
(degree)

1.62

33.30

0.94

32.70

2.13
1.57

34.80
36.10

1.66
1.06

31.70
33.82

INTERPRETATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH

PARAMETERS
Two major design issues viz. stability of the rock
and stability of the dam over rock are of central
importance during the dam construction. Thus,
R/R interface values are required for stability
analysis of the rocks while C/R interface values are
required for the stability of the dam foundation.
Being on the conservative side, designer may like
to use the lowest observed values of shear strength
parameters for the above two cases. However, this
may not be the case as the rock mass is not
homogeneous throughout the dam axis. In view of
this, a combined analysis of the values obtained
from left and right bank is proposed in the present
study. For illustration purpose, Tables 8&9 show
the shear strength of R/R and C/R interfaces,
respectively, for 40 ton of vertical load (which is
applied on 70 cm x 70 cm block). These values are
determined using Eq. 3 and using the shear
strength parameters as given in Tables 6&7.

Page 6 of 9

In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

Table 8. Shear strength on rock to rock interface

(for 40 ton of vertical load)
Location of
Drift

Peak Shear
Strength
(kg/cm2)

DR-5
DL-6
Combined DR-5 & DL-6

12.53
8.47
10.70

Residual
Shear
Strength
(kg/cm2)
11.24
7.21
9.40

Table 9. Shear Strength on concrete to rock

interface (for 40 ton of vertical load
Location of
Drift

Peak Shear
Strength
(kg/cm2)

DR-5
DL-6
Combined DR-5 & DL-6

6.99
7.80
7.52

Residual
Shear
Strength
(kg/cm2)
6.18
6.70
6.53

In case of R/R interface, the right bank values are

47.97% higher as compared to the left bank values.
Similarly, values determined by residual shear
strength parameters are 55.93% higher as
compared to the left bank values. Therefore, it
seems better to use individual bank stability
analysis due to this large relative variation in the
shear strength for R/R interface. For C/R case, the
relative variation is quite small as compared with
R/R case. Variation is of the order of 10 %. Hence,
the combined values of shear strength parameters
may be used instead of using separate values on
separate banks for foundation design. Lesser
variation in concrete over rock may be due to
uniformity in the concrete surface as compared to
the rock over rock case. Residual shear strength
parameters may be utilized for long term stability
analysis [6, 7].
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR
PHYLLITES AT OTHER H.E. PROJECTS
The shear strength parameters obtained from
different project sites in India and Bhutan have
been discussed [5, 8, & 9] for rock to rock and
concrete to rock interfaces based on in-situ test

data. A list of shear strength parameter values for

the Phyllite rock is shown in Table 10 from various
sites in India and Bhutan which also includes the
data from the present study.
For R/R interface, internal friction angle values
range from 360 to 700 while for C/R interface, this
ranges from 310 to 660, which is of almost same
order of magnitude. So, it seems that for Phyllites,
values of internal friction are of the order of 30 to
70 degress. For R/R interface, cohesion values
range from 0 to 2.70 kg/cm2 while for C/R
interface, this ranges from 0 to 2.13 kg/cm2, which
is also of almost same order of magnitude. So, it
seems that for Phyllites, cohesion values are of the
order of 0 to 2.5 kg/cm2.
Further, if we assume a vertical load of 40 ton on
70 cm x 70 cm block then for the lowest and
highest set of values of c and for Phyllites,
respectively, shear strength is 4.71 and 24.93
kg/cm2 (using Eqn. 3). It is analyzed that the
maximum contribution of cohesion value in shear
strength is about 10% only. Therefore, it is
concluded that the maximum shear strength gain in
Phyllites is due to internal friction only. Due to low
cohesion values for Phyllite rock mass, it is
suggested that shear keys, rock-anchoring, or rock
bolting may be provided to attain the desired factor
of safety against sliding [10, 11]. Based on this
observation, shear strength Equation 3 can be
approximated as Equation 4 for Phyllites, which
ignores the cohesion value.

n tan

(4)

Based on the limited available data in Table 10, tan

varies from 0.58 to 2.75, if it is assumed that
varies from 30 to 70 degrees and shear strength
will vary by 4.8 times within this range of internal
friction. Further, this huge variation in shear
strength due to internal friction, strengthens our
view about conducting separate stability analysis
for both the banks

Page 7 of 9

G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 10. Shear strength parameters from different projects in India and Bhutan for Phyllites

S.
No.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Name of
the Project

Chamera Dam Project

(India), [9].
Greater Shillong Dam
(India), [9].
Sankosh Main Dam
(Bhutan), [9].
Amochu (Right Bank),
Bhutan, [3].
Amochu ( Left Bank ),
Bhutan, [3].

Rock
Type

Shear Strength Parameters

Rock-Rock Interface
Concrete-Rock Interface
Peak
Residual
Peak
Residual
Values
Values
Values
Values
C
Cr
C
Cr
0
0
0
0
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa

Phyllites

0.13

53.30

0.00

49.50

Phyllites

0.27

70.00

0.01

69.00

0.25

66.00

0.01

62.00

Phyllites

0.17

60.00

0.00

57.00

Phyllites

0.07

55.50

0.02

53.50

0.16

33.30

0.09

32.70

Phyllites

0.18

39.10

0.13

36.00

0.21

34.80

0.17

31.70

CONCLUSION
Based on the present study, following important
conclusions may be drawn for the test drift at
Amochu hydroelectric project site, Bhutan.
1. The drifts have been encountered for fine
grained, dark gray quartzites and phyllites.
Most of the joints observed to be rough
planar.
2. Values of cohesion coefficient vary
between 0.21 kg/cm2 to 1.83 kg/cm2 for R/R
interface with a combined value (right and
left bank together) of 0.73 kg/cm2 and 0.24
kg/cm2 for peak and residual shear
strengths, respectively. For C/R interface, it
varies between 0.94 kg/cm2 to 2.13 kg/cm2
with a combined value of 1.57 kg/cm2 and
1.06 kg/cm2 for peak and residual shear
strengths, respectively.
3. Values of friction-angle vary between
36.00o to 55.50o for R/R interface with a
combined value of 50.70o and 48.30o for
peak and residual shear strengths,
respectively. For C/R interface, it varies
between 31.70o to 34.80o with combined
values of 36.10o and 33.82o for peak and
residual shear strengths, respectively.
4. The use of individual bank stability analysis
is recommended as in case of R/R interface,
the right bank values of example shear
strength are around 50% higher as

compared to the left bank values. On the

other hand, for C/R case, the relative
variation is only around 10%. Hence, the
combined values of shear strength
parameters may be used for foundation
design on both the banks.
5. For Phyllites, the values of internal friction
are of the order of 30o to 70o and cohesion
values are of the order of 0 to 2.5 kg/cm2. It
is also shown that the major contribution in
shear strength gain in Phyllites is of internal
friction while cohesion values contribute by
10% only. Therefore, the use of shear keys,
rock-anchoring, or rock bolting is suggested
in Phyllites.
6. Based on the study of the available data
from Bhutan and Indian sites, an empirical
shear strength equation in case of Phyllites
may be approximated as n tan ,
where, tan varies from 0.58 to 2.75.
However, validation of this equation is
subjected to the availability of more data on
Phyllites and is seen as future scope for the
extension of this study.
REFERENCES
1. IS 7746 (1991, 1996): Indian Standard
code of practice for in-situ shear test on
rock.
2. ISRM Part 1 (1981): Suggested methods for
determining shear strength
Page 8 of 9

In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

3. CSMRS report on In-Situ Shear Strength

Parameters of Rock Mass in Right Bank
Drifts at Dam Site of Amochu Project,
Bhutan, 2011.
4. Singh, Rajbal (2007). Field Shear Test,
Chapter 11 of Engineering in Rocks for
Slopes, Foundations and Tunnels, Ed. Prof.
T. Ramamurthy, pp. 256264.
5. Singh, Rajbal and Sharma, V.M. (1990).
Determination of Foundation Deformability
and Shear Strength Characteristics of a
Concrete
Dam,
Indian
Geotechnical
Conference (IGC-90), Bombay, pp. 371373.

6. Barton, N. and Choubey, V. (1977). The

shear strength of rock joints in theory and
practice. In: Journal, Rock Mechanics The
International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Vol 10, No. 1-2, pp 1-54.
7. Bhandari K.K., Verma V.K., Singh Rajbal,
Jeur S.D. and Thosar S.P. (2004),
Stabilisation of Rock Mass with MAI
anchors at Tala Hydroelectric Project in
Bhutan, Journal of New Building
Materials and Construction World, Issue11, pp. 36-41.

8. Singh, Rajbal, Dev, Hari and Dhawan, A.K.

(2000). Characterisation of Foundation

Rock for a Concrete Gravity Dam, Indian
Geotechnical
Conference
IGC-2000,
Mumbai, pp. 6768.
9. Singh, Rajbal (2009). Measurement of In situ
Shear Strength of Rock Mass, Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology,
ISRMTT, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.131142.

10. Design of Tunnel Support, Rock

Mechanics Vol. 6, No. 4, pp 189-236.
11. ISRM (1987) International Society for
Rock Mechanics Suggested Methods for
Rock bolt Testing.

Page 9 of 9