Osgoui 2009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2010; 34:1651–1686

Published online 22 June 2009 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.823
Elasto-plastic analytical model for the design of grouted bolts

in a Hoek–Brown medium
Reza. R. Osgoui1, ∗, † and Pierpaolo Oreste2

1 GEODATA S.p.A Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 48/E. 10129, Torino, Italy
2 Department of Land, Environment and Geotechnology Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, 10129, Torino, Italy
SUMMARY
This paper presents an elasto-plastic analytical solution of an axi-symmetrical problem for a circular
tunnel reinforced by grouted bolts. Considered as the improved model of Indraratna and Kaiser (Int. J.
Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1990; 27:269–281; Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 1990;
14:227–251), in proposed solution the rock mass obeys the non-linear Hoek–Brown yield criterion (version
2002) in terms of its peak and residual strength parameters (the most spread strength criterion for the
rock masses). The proposed approach considers a0.5 for the rock mass and is based on the assumption
that after the peak strength of the rock is reached, the material loses its strength, as dictated by a strength
loss parameter. The strength loss parameter makes it possible to model either elastic–perfectly plastic
or elastic–brittle–plastic behaviour. Because of the mathematical complexity, numerical treatments have
been used to assist the solution in order to evaluate the equilibrium and compatibility equations. The
concept of equivalent material for Hoek–Brown strength parameters is introduced to describe the rock
mass improvement due to bolting effect. The results of the numerical analyses reveal a linear relation
between the improved Hoek–Brown strength parameters and residual ones, taking into consideration the
bolt density parameter (). The proposed solution is able to analyse the stress and displacement state in
the presence of a bolting intervention with the objective of improving the degree of stability of the rock
around the tunnel. Descriptive applications of the derived elasto-plastic solutions are also presented to
explain the effectiveness of the grouted bolts in convergence reduction. Evidences obtained by numerical
analysis verify the analytical solution. Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 19 August 2007; Revised 16 October 2008; Accepted 27 April 2009
KEY WORDS: grouted bolts; elasto-plastic solution; Hoek–Brown failure criterion; tunnel convergence
1. INTRODUCTION
Rock reinforcement techniques, such as grouted bolts, have been found to be one of the most
practical means of stabilizing openings by improving the rock mass. Passive grouted bolts develop
loads as the rock mass deforms. Small displacements (4–5 mm) are normally sufficient to mobilize
∗ Correspondence to: Reza R. Osgoui, GEODATA S.p.A Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 48/E. 10129, Torino, Italy.
†
E-mail: ros@geodata.it
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1652 R. R. OSGOUI AND P. ORESTE
axial bolt tension due to shear stress transmission from the rock mass to the bolt surface [1].
Grouted bolts have been successfully applied to a wide range of rock mass quality, especially
in poor–fair rock masses, and have often been found to be more economical and more effective
than other types of rock bolts. Because of their grouting effect, which improves rock masses,
grouted rock bolts have been widely used in conventional and mechanized tunnelling for diffi-
cult ground conditions. Grouted rock-bolts become an integral part of the rock mass, thereby
restricting the rock mass displacements by strengthening the rock mass internally. Another func-
tion of grouted rock-bolts is ground reinforcement. Used together with injections, grouted rock
bolting can be considered as a ground improvement option, whereby the global shear strength
of the rock mass can be raised to such an extent that significant decreases in the plastic zone
and convergence of the tunnel are achieved. Hence, grouted rock bolting is a means of modi-
fying the ground reaction curve and curtailing wall displacements at the time the final lining
is cast.
In spite of the many achievements that have already been made for the analytical design of
grouted rock bolts (for example: [1–25]), there are still some uncertainties and inconveniences in
the rock-bolt and rock mass interaction concept that need to be overcome. The effect of the grouted
rock-bolts in poor rock masses, undergoing considerable amounts of squeezing and resulting in
a remarkable amount of convergence, on improving the global strength of the rock mass and on
the stability of the openings has in particular not been intuitively understood. The majority of the
existing grouted bolt design approaches model the rock bolt and rock independently and most of the
grouted bolt design models often only focus on coupling behaviour along the interfaces of the bolt-
grout-host rock, rather than the actual global effect of the bolt on the rock mass. Consequently, an
in-depth understanding of the mechanism of how grouted rock-bolts work and improve the strength
of the rock is of great importance, especially in poor–fair rock masses. On the other hand, even
though empirical design methods based on Bieniawski [26, 27] or Barton rock mass classification
systems [28–30] are widely used throughout the world, there are still many uncertainties and
criticism. This is due to the fact that empirical design methods are, to some extent, inflexible
in selecting support systems and they sometimes do not provide a sufficiently sensitive guide to
properly design the grouted bolts, especially for poor–fair rock masses, as recently reported by
Palmström and Broch [31].
The grouted bolt model used in the present analytical solution is an improved version of the model
initially developed by Indraratna and Kaiser [1, 13]. Some important limitations and constraints
existed in this original model:
I. It can only be applicable to a rock mass that obeys the Mohr–Coulomb linear failure
criterion;
II. The residual strength parameters of the rock mass are only applied for cohesion;
III. There is no rigorous evaluation of the strain compatibility equation in elasto-plastic formu-
lations; and
IV. There is a lack of numerical validation.
The main aim of the proposed elasto-plastic solution is therefore to overcome the deficiencies of
aforementioned approach. The use of equivalent material properties (equivalent strength parameters)
is taken into consideration in such a way that a reinforced zone, due to the effect of grouted
bolts, is created around the tunnel with improved Hoek–Brown strength parameters. The bolt
density parameter and bolt-grout interface friction factor make it easier to know to what extent the
Hoek–Brown strength parameters have increased.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2010; 34:1651–1686
DOI: 10.1002/nag
ELASTO-PLASTIC ANALYTICAL MODEL 1653
2. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MODEL
2.1. General assumptions for unsupported tunnel

The analysis presented in this paper is a numerical elasto-plastic solution for an axi-symmetrical
tunnel problem. This solution is also extended to investigate the influence of radial grouted rock-
bolts on the rock mass behaviour around a tunnel. A deep circular tunnel in a hydrostatic stress
field (k = 1) is assumed for the analytical model as represented in Figure 1. The assumptions of
homogeneity, isotropy, time independency, and linear elasticity prior to failure of the rock mass
are made. The rock mass strength is assumed to follow the non-linear Hoek and Brown yield
criterion (version 2002, [32]). Elastic–brittle–plastic or elastic–perfectly plastic material models
with a constant rate of dilation, followed by a flow rule of plasticity are simulated. The deformation
pattern near the tunnel is properly described by a plane strain condition. For unsupported tunnel,
a section of tunnel far from the face is considered so that the 3D effects at the tunnel face are
eliminated. Thus, the proposed solution can be applied to predict the ultimate tunnel convergence,
at least two tunnel diameters behind the face.
2.2. Solution method

2.2.1. Stresses analysis. For a solution of the elasto-plastic problem, the equation of equilibrium,
the compatibility condition, a stress–strain relationship in the elastic field, a yield criteria, a plastic
potential, and a flow rule are required. The stresses and displacements in the elastic region can be
easily determined by observing the continuity of radial stresses and displacements at the elastic–
plastic interface. The solution within the plastic region will depend on the assumption of (a) the
yield criterion, (b) the use of an associated or non-associated flow rule, and (c) the dilatancy
angle .
Figure 1. Definition of the model used in this study.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Yield initiation is assumed to occur following a non-linear Hoek–Brown failure criterion. In this
elasto-plastic solution, the latest version of the Hoek–Brown yield criterion (introduced in 2002)
has been chosen:
a

1 = 3 +ci m b 3 +s (1)
ci
The coefficients m b , s and a in Equation (1) are semi-empirical parameters that characterize the
rock mass. In practice, these parameters are associated with an RMR index and, more recently,
with the Geological Strength Index or GSI [33, 34]. This index lies in a range of 5–85 and can
be quantified from charts based on the quality of the rock structure and the condition of the rock
surfaces. The constants m b , s and a of Equation (1) are calculated by GSI (Geological Strength
Index) [32]:

G S I −100
m b = m i exp (2)
28−14D

G S I −100
s = exp (3)
9−3D
a = 12 + 16 (e−GSI/15 −e−20/3 ) (4)
In Equations (2) and (3), D is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance to which the rock
has been subjected due to blast damage and stress relaxation. This factor varies between 0 and 1
[32]. The Hoek–Brown yield condition for post-peak (residual) strength parameters, used for the
yielded zone around the excavation can be rewritten as:
a
r
= r +ci m b +s
(5)
ci
where ci is the residual strength of the intact rock, m b , s and a are the residual strength
parameters of Hoek–Brown failure criterion. It has been substantiated that the extension of the
broken zone relies on the residual value of the intact rock strength [4, 13, 35, 36]. Hence, the effect
of the compressive strength of the rock material must be included in the form of the residual value
as it loses its initial value due to stress relief or an increase in the strain. A stress reduction scale
should therefore be considered as:
ci = Sr ·ci (6)
where Sr refers to the strength loss parameter that quantifies the jump in strength from the intact
condition to the residual condition or a measure of the degree of loss in strength that occurs
immediately after the peak strength is reached. The parameter Sr characterizes the brittleness of
the rock material: ductile, softening, or brittle. By definition, Sr will fall within the range 0Sr 1
where Sr = 1 implies no loss in strength and the rock material is ductile, or perfectly plastic. On
the other hand, if Sr = 0, the rock is brittle (elastic–perfectly brittle plastic) with the minimum
possible value for the residual strength.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
The combination of the stress equilibrium equation and residual Hoek–Brown failure criterion
results in a non-linear differential equation for the determination of the stress in the plastic (broken)
zone around the opening:
a
r
ci m b +s
dr ci
− =0 (7)
dr r
The solution of the above differential equation was obtained taking into account the boundary
condition at r =ri (r = 0):
−s
r = (8a)
m b
ci
1/(1−a )
1−a r
= s −m b (a −1) ln (8b)
ri
Continuity of radial stress through the whole rock medium is assumed for the determination of the
plastic zone radius. The radial stress at the elastic–plastic interface can be regarded as a fictitious
internal pressure for the outer elastic zone. In the pure elastic zone, the stress distributions are
determined using Lame’s solution. Hence, the following non-linear equation must be solved to
determine the plastic zone radius. This approach has already been discussed by [35, 37–39].
a
r e
2(Po −r e ) = ci m b +s (9)
ci
An exact solution is only possible when a = 0.5 as determined by [35, 40–43]:

m b ci 1
r e,exact = Po + ± 16Po m b ci +m 2b 2ci +162ci s (10)
8 8
The negative sign in the above equation is acceptable and after abbreviating
r e,exact = Po − Mci (11a)
where
1/2
1 m b 2 Po mb
M= +m b +s − (11b)
2 4 ci 8
On the other hand, a numerical technique; namely, the Newton–Raphson method [44], can be
applied to approximate the exact solution of Equation (9) [45]. If solved for a = 0.5, r eN is
calculated as:
a
r eN
2(Po −r eN ) = ci m b +s (12)
ci
By equating the radial stresses at the elastic–plastic interface, determined from both the elastic
and plastic sides, the plastic zone radius re can numerically be determined by assuming continuity
DOI: 10.1002/nag
of radial stress at the elastic–plastic boundary. It is also assumed that the field boundaries are far
enough from the opening such that their influence on the solution for re is negligible.
Equating the expression 8 (for r e at r =re ) and r eN of Equation (12), the normalized plastic
zone radius can be derived as follows:
re
= eX (13a)
ri
⎡ (1−a ) ⎤
m b
⎢ s (1−a ) − r eN · +s ⎥
⎢ ci ⎥
X =⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ (13b)
⎣ m b (a −1) ⎦
2.2.2. Strains and displacements analysis. Under the axi-symmetric plane strain condition, the
strains and the displacements are expressed as:
du r ur
εr = , ε = , εz = 0 (14)
dr r
where the subscripts r , , and z denote the radial, tangential and longitudinal (axial) directions,
respectively. The compatibility condition is given by [46]:
dεt εt −εrt

+ =0 (15)
dr r
2.2.3. Strains in elastic zone. Hooke’s law is applied to determine the radial and tangential strains
in the elastic region surrounding the plastic zone for a plane strain condition [46]:

1−2
εr = r −
E 1−

1−2 (16)
ε = − r
E 1−
1
r = r
G
Substituting stresses in elastic zone into Equation (16) provides the strain field for plane strain
condition:
(1−2) (r eN − Po ) re 2
εr = Po + (17a)
2G 2G r
(1−2) (r eN − Po ) re 2
ε = Po − (17b)
2G 2G r
DOI: 10.1002/nag
2.2.4. Strains in plastic zone. For small deformation and infinitesimal strains, the total strains in
the plastic zone are the sum of the elastic and plastic components
εt = ε e +ε p (18a)
or in the polar coordinates

p
εt = εe +ε
p
(18b)
εrt = εre +εr
where the superscripts e and p denote the elastic and plastic components, respectively. Hooke’s
law and flow rule have been applied to calculate the elastic and plastic strains, respectively. The
elastic component in the plastic zone is determined by assuming identical constants to those of
the elastic rock (E, ) and by applying Hook’s constitutive laws.
The elastic strains in the plastic zone (εe , εre ) can readily be obtained by substituting stresses in
the plastic zone (Equations (5) and (8)) into generalized Hook’s law (Equation (16)):
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
1 ⎢
⎢
⎜ −s ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎥
a ⎥
εre = ⎢ (1−2) ⎜ ⎟ − ⎥ (19a)
2G ⎣ ⎝ mb ⎠ ci
⎦

ci
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
1 ⎢
⎢
⎜ −s ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎥
⎥
εe = ⎢(1−2) ⎜ ⎟ +(1−)ci a ⎥ (19b)
2G ⎣ ⎝ mb ⎠ ⎦

ci
On the other hand, the plastic strains in the plastic zone are instead governed by an appropriate
flow rule postulated for the yielding behaviour. The flow rule of plasticity relating the plastic strain
increment ε · p to the plastic potential Q is given by [47, 48]:
*Q
ε· p = f (20)
*
Since the extent of yielding depends on the dilation characteristics of the failed rock, the flow
rule must adopt the influence of dilation. In the present solution, a linear Mohr–Coulomb plastic
potential has been adopted. Figure 2 presents the linearized plastic potential in the principal stress
and plastic strain increment space. For an isotropic material, the principal axes of stress and strain
increment coincide, and therefore a plastic strain increment vector AA’ (ε̇3 , ε̇1 ) can be plotted.
Under a plane strain condition, the ratio of the plastic strain increments can be given by:
p p
dε3 + N dε1 = 0 (21a)
p p p p
In the polar coordinates (ε3 = εr and ε1 = ε )
p p
dεr + N dε = 0 (21b)
DOI: 10.1002/nag
σ1,ε1
Normal A-A’ = plastic strain increment vector
A’
Hoek –Brown yield function

d 1p
A
-1
tan Nψ F( )= 0
Mohr-Coulomb plastic potential

d 3p
Q( )=0
σ3,ε3
Figure 2. Hoek–Brown yield function, Mohr–Coulomb plastic potential and plastic strain
increment relationship in this study.
where

1+sin ◦
N = = tan 45 +
2
1−sin 2
which can be easily derived from the principal strain space in Figure 2. The parameter N controls
the inclination in the plastic-strain rate vector represented. The vector AA’ is normal to the plastic
potential, Q; after this Q forms an angle tan−1 N with the ε3 -axis. The parameter N is the
dilation coefficient that characterizes the volume change in the plastic zone. Zero volumetric strain
(no volume change) is represented by N = 1, i.e. if = 0o (non-associated). However, if
1+sin
N = , =
1−sin
the associated flow rule is obtained.
The elastic strains in the plastic zone having been determined (Equation (19)), the combination
of strain compatibility (Equation (15)) with the flow rule (Equation (21)) gives rise to a solution
for the strain field in the form of a non-linear differential equation:
p a /(1−a )
dε ci 1−a r
+ s −m b (a −1) ln (1−2)+a m b (1−)
dr 2Gr ri
a /(1−a )
1 p ci 1−a r
+ ε (1+ N )+ s −m b (a −1) ln =0 (22a)
r 2G ri
The tangential strain at the elastic–plastic boundary (at r =re ) produced by the reduction of r
from its original value, Po , to r e is [35, 39, 40, 42]:
(Po −r eN )
ε = (22b)
2G
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Hence, the solution of Equation (22a) is obtained as:

re
1(Po −r eN ) 1+N ci
r N −1
p
ε = 1+N re + (1−)(2+a m b ) ·
r 2G 2G r
a /(1−a )
r
× s 1−a +m b (1−a ) ln dr (23)
ri
As can be observed from Equation (23), an integral function has been introduced into the result
of the differential equation. The complete solution can be obtained, provided the integral on the
right side of Equation (23) is evaluated numerically. Sympson’s rule is applied to approximately
solve the integration [49].
2.2.5. Radial displacement field and opening convergence. The displacement field can be obtained
directly using the following strain–displacement relationships that satisfy the compatibility condi-
tions. Plane strain conditions under axi-symmetric deformation imply that the total strains are
independent of the tangential strain components. Therefore, the radial displacement field can easily
be evaluated from any of the following expressions (Equation (14)):

ur
= ε or u r = εrt dr
t
r
p
Neglecting elastic strain due to its very small magnitude in comparison with plastic strain (εe ε )
and substituting r =ri , the opening convergence can simply be determined as:
re
u ri 1 (Po −r eN ) (1+N ) 1 N −1 a
= 1+N
re + (1+N ) ci (1−)(2+a m b )· r dr (24)
ri 2G r r ri
i i
3. MODEL OF THE GROUTED BOLTS
Given the model of Figure 1, the passive radial grouted bolts are considered to be installed
systematically over the periphery of the circular tunnel as shown in Figure 3. The number of bolts
used is assumed to be distributed uniformly on the tunnel surface both in the circumferential and
longitudinal directions to keep the model symmetry. The symmetric bolt pattern around the tunnel
consists of identical bolts with equal spacing along the tunnel axis and around the circumference.
The bolt spacings are considered not to be changed with the radial distance. In an axi-symmetrical
problem, the tangential bolt spacing around the opening is defined by the product of the tunnel
radius and the angle between two adjacent bolts (i.e. ST =ri ×) as shown in Figure 6. The increase
in the elastic modulus (E) of the rock mass due to the presence of steel bolts around the tunnel is
not modelled by the proposed analytical solution (this effect is generally negligible). The change
in peak strength parameters of the rock mass (as a result of bolting) outside the plastic zone is
not taken into account in this solution. The influence of the relatively thin grout annulus on rock
mass deformation has been ignored.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. Creation of the Equivalent Plastic Zone around a circular tunnel reinforced by grouted bolts,
considering the equivalent material concept: (a) plastic (yielding) zone induced around the unsupported
opening with residual (post-peak) strength parameters m b , s , a , ci ; (b) Grouted bolts are installed in
the already induced yielded zone around the opening; and (c) Induced plastic zone + grouted bolts is
considered as the Equivalent Plastic Zone with Equivalent Strength Parameters m ∗b , s ∗ , a, ∗ci .
The proposed calculation procedure hypothesises the installation of bolts near the excavation
face. The convergence that has already developed ahead of the excavation without bolts is neglected.
The results produced by the calculation therefore slightly underestimate the final displacements
of the tunnel wall. Such an approach, which has already been used for the sake of simplicity
by different authors (e.g. Indraratna and Kaiser), simplifies the calculation to a great extent and
involves errors that can be considered negligible.
3.1. Concept of equivalent material in the yielded zone reinforced by grouted bolts
By embedding the grouted rock-bolts inside the plastic zone (yielded zone) around the tunnel,
already characterized in terms of residual (post-peak) strength parameters (m b , s , a , ci ), the
strength parameters (Hoek–Brown constants) of the yielded rock mass around the tunnel are
improved as indicted by equivalent materials marked by star (m ∗b , s ∗ , a, ∗ci ). The strength param-
eters of the yielded rock mass are increased within this zone as schematically shown in Figure 3.
The development of load on a grouted bolt has the effect of providing additional confine-
ment (increased radial stress) in the reinforced plastic zone around the tunnel. As a result, the
tangential stress in the same point is increased more than proportionately. The original failure
envelope is thereby shifted upwards, indicating an improvement in the strength parameters,
as represented in the Mohr diagram in Figure 4. This enables the rock mass to behave as a
stronger material, and leads to a corresponding reduction in opening convergence at a given field
stress.
The coefficient a (Hoek–Brown constant) of a reinforced tunnel is assumed to keep its original
value (i.e. a ∗ = a). In addition, it is worth noting that the extent of the plastic zone around the tunnel
is dependent on the residual compressive strength of the intact rock as taken into account in several
solutions, such as those of [13, 36, 39, 50, 51]. However, in some solutions, such as [35, 40–42],
the magnitude of the intact rock strength does not vary for the yielded rock. Since in the proposed
solution, the residual value is given to the intact rock strength after it yields (i.e. ci ), it is assumed
that the strength of the yielded intact rock should be increased as a result of the bolting effect
(i.e. ∗ci ).
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Figure 4. Increase in strength parameters by reinforcing the rock using grouted bolts, considering
the equivalent material concept. Key: 3 : confining action of the grouted rock bolts in the
reinforced plastic (post-peak) zone [45].
Figure 5. Shear stress distribution and neutral point definition for grouted bolts [3, 13, 52, 53].
3.2. Shear stress distribution along the grouted bolt

The fully grouted bolt is assumed to be both ends free (without end plate) and rigid. It is activated
once rock mass deforms after its installation into the periphery of the opening. The mobilized
shear stress along the bolt is assumed to be related to the relative slip at the bolt–grout interface.
The shear stress distribution model along a grouted bolt, used by [3, 52], is applied in the
proposed model. The shear stress distribution along the grouted bolt is divided into two parts,
namely, a pick-up length and an anchor length. This is justified mathematically by considering the
equilibrium of the grouted bolt relative to the surrounding rock (Figure 5).
The pick-up length restrains the ground displacements towards the tunnel, whereas the anchor
length is restrained by the rock mass. The equilibrium of the bolt relative to the rock is thereby
ensured as a result of the shear stresses acting in opposite directions along the pick-up length
and anchor length, respectively [13]. The point where the direction of shear stress is changed
is called the neutral point. Since the displacement at any point of a rigid bolt is equal, u x = u
(relative displacement at any point is equal to that of the neutral point), for any distance x along the
DOI: 10.1002/nag
bolt length, from equilibrium consideration, the following integral was derived based on studies
undertaken by [53, 54]:
ri+L b
1
u x L b = u ri ri dx (25)
ri x
The rock mass displacement around the circular opening is assumed to vary as [54]:
u r ri
= (26)
u ri x
where x is the radius at any point, ri is the radius of the tunnel, and u ri is the tunnel surface
displacement. Because there is no relative displacement at neutral point, Equation (26) can be
re-written as
u x rri
= (27)
u ri
where u x is the displacement at bolt and u ri is the displacement at tunnel surface, is the neutral
point location.
Evaluating the integral of Equation (25) and considering Equation (27):
Lb
= (28)
ri + L b
ln
ri
where L b is the bolt length and ri is the opening radius. According to observations made by [52],
it can be seen that ≈ 0.45L b +ri . Therefore, for a rigid bolt, the location of the neutral point
depends only on the dimensions of the problem, not on rock mass properties and stiffness.
In terms of the position of the neutral point, the grouted rock-bolts create a zone of improved,
reinforced rock in the region defined by the pick-up length of the bolts. In other words, only the
part of the yielded zone, which is placed inside the pick-up length, is effectively reinforced as its
equilibrium is given by Equation (29).
Applying the equivalent material parameters concept for a reinforced element with shear stress
along the borehole wall (Figure 6), the stress equilibrium equation for the reinforced yielded zone
around the circular tunnel can be written in the same manner as Equation (7):
a
∗ ∗ r ∗
ci m b ∗ +s
dr ci
− =0 (29)
dr r
The values of ∗ci , m ∗b and s ∗ can be obtained through analogy with what has been done by [1, 13].
They, in fact, obtained an increase in the cohesion and not in the friction angle using the following
procedure.
The Mohr–Coulomb criterion, in terms of the principal stresses:
1 = C0 +k p ·3 (30a)
The effect of the bolts on the stress confinement of the rock:
∗1 = C0 +k p ·(3 +3 ) (30b)
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Figure 6. Circular tunnel reinforced by systematically radial bolts and equilibrium

condition for bolt-rock interaction.
A fictitious increase in the residual strength parameters to obtain ∗1 :

∗1 = C0∗ +k p ·3 (30c)
where
2·c ·cos
2·c∗ ·cos
1+sin
C0 = , C0∗ = and k p =
1−sin
1−sin
1−sin
As can be noted, the cohesive term is increased and not the frictional term that is multiplied by 3 .
In the same way, it is possible to proceed using Hoek and Brown’s strength criterion.
The Hoek–Brown criterion, in terms of principal stresses:
a
mb
1 = 3 +ci · ·3 +s (31a)
ci
The effect of the bolts on the stress confinement in the rock:
a
∗ mb
1 = (3 +3 )+ci · ·(3 +3 )+s (31b)
ci
The fictitious increase in the residual strength parameters to obtain ∗1 :
a
mb
∗1 = 3 +∗ci · ·3 +s ∗ (31c)
ci
In the same way as for the Mohr–Coulomb strength criterion, the parameter s, which is not
multiplied by 3 is increased and the parameter (m b /ci ), which is instead multiplied by 3 as k p ,
is not increased (or rather, both m b and ci are increased in terms of the same factor without any
increase in the ratio); the term ci is also increased in order to compensate the initial contribution
of 3 .
The increment factor considered by Indraratna and Kaiser for the cohesive term was (1+),
where is the bolt density parameter [13]:
d d ri
= = (32)
S L S L ST
DOI: 10.1002/nag
The bolt density parameter () is dimensionless. It reflects the relative density of bolts with respect
to the opening perimeter and takes into consideration the shear stresses on the bolt surface, which
oppose the rock mass displacements near the opening wall. The magnitude of can be increased
by decreasing the bolt spacing, increasing the bolt surface area, or increasing the roughness of the
bolt surface [1, 13].
The value of varies between 0.05 and 0.20 for most cases. For tunnels excavated in a very
poor rock mass, such as the Enasan tunnel, analysed by [1], very high values of (in excess of
0.4) were reached with very intensive bolting patterns.
The friction factor, , is analogous to the coefficient of friction. It relates the mean mobilized
shear stress to the stress applied normal to the bolt surface. Indrarathan and Kaiser [13] suggested
that the magnitude of for smooth rebars depends on the friction angle of the grout material
( g ) and it falls in the range tan( g /2)< < tan(2 g /3) and approaches tan g , for shaped rebars
depending on the degree of adhesion (bond strength) at the bolt-grout interface.
Similarly, now the Hoek–Brown strength parameters m b , ci and s are increased in the reinforced
zone as follows:
m ∗b = (1+)·m b
s ∗ = (1+)·s (33)
∗ci = (1+)·ci
Substituting Equation (33) into Equation (29), the equilibrium condition for a systematically radial
bolted circular tunnel in terms of Hoek–Brown strength parameters, can be given by:
a
dr 1 r
− ci (1+) m b (1+) +s (1+) = 0 (34)
dr r ci (1+)
The installation of bolts in a radial manner around the tunnel would obviously involve a loss
of radial symmetry. In this approach, however, radial symmetry is continued to be considered,
while hypothesising that the contribution of each single bolt is distributed homogeneously on
the surrounding rock. This hypothesis makes it possible to resolve the problem with a certain
approximation. The approximation increases as the bolts are closer (and the transversal spacing is
lower). Through a comparison with the numerical calculation, it will be noted how this hypothesis
is admissible for the typical field of variation of transversal spacing found in engineering practice.
4. NUMERICAL SIMULATION REINFORCED CIRCULAR TUNNEL BY

RADIAL FULLY GROUTED BOLTS
4.1. Method of numerical model

A 2D numerical model has been set up with a finite difference method (FLAC V5 calculation
code, [55]) to analyse the effect of the grouted bolts on stresses, displacements and yielding zone
extension around a deep circular tunnel.
The model is made up of 14 400 quadrilateral elements. Only a quarter of the tunnel was
considered due to the symmetry of the analysed problem as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. All the
boundaries of the model are artificial: the lithostatic pressures that were present before constructing
the tunnel were applied to these boundaries. The bolts were simulated with mono-dimensional
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Po
Po
Grouted
bolts
ri
Figure 7. Numerical model of reinforced circular tunnel-quarter symmetrical model.
Figure 8. Quadratic finite difference model adopted in the FLAC 2D analysis with grid 120×120.
elements connected to the bi-dimensional elements of the model through opportune constraints
that were able to consider the shear stiffness of the bolt-rock interface.
A total of three stages were foreseen in the calculation (Table I) after the initial reproduction of
the stress conditions of the site. Each of these phases simulates the excavation and also the rock
reinforcement operations. The tunnel excavation phases are considered in the model by reducing
the internal pressure on the tunnel perimeter [56]. An analysis of the results was conducted in
the last stage of the modelling when the internal pressure on the tunnel perimeter was nil (final
calculation condition with the tunnel face far from the studied section).
Two different types of rock mass quality (Geological Strength Index, GSI), two radius values and
three tunnel depths were considered. The number of bolts at the tunnel perimeter was varied in order
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Table I. Calculation stages foreseen in the bi-dimensional numerical modelling [25].

Calculation
phases Internal pressure Operation simulation
1 Po ⇒ Pface = 0.6Po Excavation of the tunnel: The tunnel face reaches
the studied section
2 Pface = 0.6Po Inserting radial bolts in the studied section, close to
the excavation face
3 Pface = 0.6Po ⇒ 0 Excavation of the tunnel: The tunnel face goes away from
the studied section
Table II. Variable parameters used in the parametric analysis.

Geological Strength Index In-situ stress Tunnel radius Bolt length
(GSI) Po (MPa) ri (m) L b (m)
35–50 5–10–15 2–4 3 for ri = 2 m−6 for ri = 4 m
Table III. Rock mass characteristics used in the parametric numerical analysis.
Parameter GSI = 35 GSI = 50
Poisson’s ratio 0.25 0.25
Deformation Modulus E (GPa) 2.57 9.34
Shear Modulus G (GPa) 1028 3736
Intact rock strength ci (MPa) 30.0 60.0
Residual intact rock strength ci (MPa) 24.0 48.0
Disturbance Factor D 0 0
Hoek–Brown constant m i 10 12
Hoek–Brown constant m b 0.981 2.012
Hoek–Brown constant m b 0.615 0.841
Hoek–Brown constant s 7.3e-4 3.87e-3
Hoek–Brown constant s 1.7e-4 2.57e-4
Dilatancy angle (◦ ) 0 0
to obtain a bolting density that fell within the interval of values considered to be technically possible.
The bolt length was defined in function of the tunnel radius: 3 m for ri = 2 m and 6 m for ri = 4 m.
A 32 mm bolt diameter was assumed in the numerical calculation. A total of 12 numerical analyses
were developed for each case that could be obtained permuting the values reported in Table II.
The geomechanical parameters of the rock mass with different values of GSI are outlined in
Table III.
A Hoek–Brown strength criterion was adopted and the strength parameters m b , s and a were
estimated directly by the GSI index [32], while the material constant m i was put equal to 10–12
and the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock ci was considered equal to 30 MPa for
GSI = 35 and 60 MPa for = GSI 50. The elastic modulus of the rock mass was estimated as a
function of GSI [57]. The result of pull-out test provides sufficient information to obtain the value
of the grout shear stiffness (Kbond) and grout cohesive strength (Sbond) as the input parameters
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Table IV. The result of the pull-out test used in the parametric study of FLAC model.
Shear strength Induced displacement Shear stiffness Cohesive strength
of the grout () of the bolt () of the grout Kbond of the grout Sbond
(MPa) (mm) (MN/m/m) (MN/m)
0.6 3 11.11 0.1131
Table V. The results of parametric numerical analysis for reinforced tunnel by grouted bolts (12 cases).
Radial displacement at Reinforced yielded
∗ (mm)
tunnel surface u ri zone radius re∗ (m)
In-situ stress Bolt length Tunnel radius
Analysis GSI Po (MPa) L b (m) ri (m) Analytical Numerical Analytical Numerical
C 1 35 5 3 2 11.40 11.34 3.44 3.44
C 2 50 5 3 2 1.90 1.74 2.38 2.45
C 3 35 10 3 2 33.90 39.70 4.56 4.70
C 4 50 10 3 2 4.90 5.14 2.87 2.95
C 5 35 15 3 2 98.90 101.20 6.01 6.45
C 6 50 15 3 2 9.70 10.24 3.40 3.45
C 7 35 5 6 4 18.90 21.55 6.51 6.90
C 8 50 5 6 4 3.48 3.48 4.67 4.90
C 9 35 10 6 4 73.60 82.80 9.80 9.40
C 10 50 10 6 4 9.10 10.35 5.73 5.90
C 11 35 15 6 4 179.40 224.50 13.45 12.90
C 12 50 15 6 4 17.40 20.67 6.67 6.90
in FLAC model. Having carried out such a test for a 32 mm diameter and a 3 m long grouted bolt
with pull-out force of 100 kN, the results are given in Table IV.
4.2. Analysis of the numerical results

The most interesting results of the calculation concern the radial displacements of the tunnel
perimeter, the extension of the reinforced yielded zone around the tunnel, and the distribution
of the stresses. The results of the numerical model of grouted bolts are summarized in Table V,
from which it is observed that the results of the numerical models are in a reasonable agreement
with those of analytical solution. The comparison of the results was made referring to the rock
zones between one bolt and another. Both comparatively provide the same radii of the reinforced
plastic zone. For instance, the radial displacements and the reinforced yielded zone radius around
the tunnel are illustrated through Figures 9–12 for the cases of a tunnel with a radius of 2–4 m,
lithostatic stress Po = 5 MPa, GSI = 35, and bolt length of 3–6 m.
5. EQUIVALENT PLASTIC ZONE
This concept was first defined by [1, 13]. Equivalent plastic zone denotes the region around the
tunnel where its residual strength parameters (m b , s , ci ) are increased as a result of grouted bolts
DOI: 10.1002/nag
0.0120
tunnel surface
0.0100
Displacement (m)
0.0080 Displacement (Proposed model)
Displacement (Numerical)
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
ri
0.0000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from the Tunnel axis (m)
Figure 9. Displacement distribution around the bolted tunnel for both analytical and numerical methods.
Analysis C 2 (ri = 2 m, GSI = 35, Po = 5 MPa, L b = 3 m).
9.00 Radial stress (Proposed model)

Tangential stress (Proposed model)
Radial Stress (Numerical)
8.00
Tangential Stress (Numerical)
Radial and Tangential Stresses (MPa)
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00 ri
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from the tunnel axis (m)
Figure 10. Tangential and radial stress distribution around the bolted tunnel for both analytical and
numerical methods. Analysis C 2 (ri = 2 m, GSI = 35, Po = 5 MPa, L b = 3 m).
effects (m ∗b , s ∗ , ∗ci ). In other words, it is the yield zone in a material of improved properties that
simulates equivalent behaviour to the bolted rock mass. The extent of the plastic zone is directly
related to the properties of this rock mass and any improvement in the rock strength will reduce
the extent of the overstressed rock zone. A reduction in the apparent plastic zone, in turn, curtails
tunnel surface displacements. The extent of the plastic zone is influenced by the strength parameters
DOI: 10.1002/nag
0.0250
tunnel surface
0.0200
Displacement (Proposed model)
Displacement (m) Displacement (Numerical)
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
ri
0.0000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distance from the Tunnel axis (m)
Figure 11. Displacement distribution around the bolted tunnel for both analytical and numerical methods.
Analysis C 8 (ri = 4 m, GSI = 35, Po = 5 MPa, L b = 6 m).
9.00 Radial stress (Proposed model)

Tangential stress (Proposed model)
Radial Stress (Numerical)
8.00 Tangential Stress (Numerical)
Radial and Tangential Stresses (MPa)
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00 ri
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Figure 12. Tangential and radial stress distribution around the bolted tunnel for both analytical and
numerical methods. Analysis C8 (ri = 4 m, GSI = 35, Po = 5 MPa, L b = 6 m).
of the yielded rock mass (Hoek–Brown constants). The following factors, reported by [1, 13],
directly affect the radius re∗ of the equivalent plastic zone: bolt density parameter (), bolt length
(L b ), radius of the neutral point of the bolt (), opening radius (ri ), and field stress (Po ).
DOI: 10.1002/nag
The procedure for the determination of the equivalent plastic zone EPZ radius, re∗ , can be divided
into three categories, depending on the location of the contact between the elastic rock and the
equivalent plastic zone, with reference to the neutral point and the bolt length, as suggested by
[1, 13, 58]. These three categories illustrated in Figure 13 are:
• re∗ <<(ri + L b ) minimal yielding
• <re∗ <(ri + L b ) major yielding
• re∗ >(ri + L b ) excessive yielding
5.1. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category I

The minimal yielding ‘re∗ <<(ri + L b )’ occurs either at relatively small stress fields or when
excessively long bolts are installed. In this case, the extent of the plastic zone is confined to the
pick-up length of the bolt. Four distinct zones can be identified from the location of the plastic
zone, corresponding to the neutral point and the bolt end.
It is worth noting that only the part of the plastic zone, which is placed inside the pick-up length
of the bolt is effectively stabilized by the positive shear stress and the improvement of the plastic
zone is only considered for the pick-up length. Conversely, the part of the plastic zone beyond the
neutral point is affected by the negative shear stress so as to ensure the equilibrium.
Zone 1: ri <r <re∗ . In this region of the pick-up length, the ground displacements towards
the tunnel are resisted by positive shear stress. The equivalent stress field in this zone is
represented by:
∗ −s ∗
r = (35a)
m ∗b
∗ci
1/(1−a)
∗ ∗1−a ∗ r
= s −m b (a −1) ln (35b)
ri
a
r
= r +∗ci m ∗b ∗ +s ∗ (36)
ci
where m ∗b = (1+)m b , s ∗ = (1+)s , ∗ci = (1+)ci , ci = Sr ·ci .

Zone 2: re∗ <r <. This part of the elastic zone is confined to the pick-up length of the bolt. The
elastic stress fields in this zone are given by:
∗ 2
r∗ 2 r
r = Po 1− e +r e e (37a)
r r
∗ 2
r∗ 2 r
= Po 1+ e −r e e (37b)
r r
It should be noted that the effect of the positive shear stress produced along the pick-up length are
not taken into consideration for the length of bolt beyond the plastic zone. This is due to the fact
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Figure 13. Categorization of the extent of the yielding (plastic zone) around the circular tunnel [13].
that the elastic zone confined within elastic–plastic boundary and neutral point always keeps its
peak strength parameter. Thus, the radial stress (r eN ) at elasto-plastic boundary can be obtained
by numerical means as explained for Equation (12).
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Substituting r with ri in Equation (35), the radial stress at the elasto-plastic boundary r e is
therefore derived by:
∗ −s ∗
r e = (38a)
m ∗b
∗ci
∗ 1/(1−a)
∗ ∗1−a ∗ r
= s −m b (a −1) ln e (38b)
ri
Zone 3: <r <(ri + L b ). This part of the elastic zone is contained within the anchor length of the
bolt. The radial and tangential stress fields are given by [13]
2 2
r = Po 1− + (39a)
r r
2 2
= Po 1+ − (39b)
r r
where
2 2
r∗ re∗
= Po 1− e +r e (40)

Zone 4: r >(ri + L b ). This outermost elastic region, beyond the bolt, is in virgin rock and the elastic
stresses are given by [13]
2 2
ri + L b ri + L b
r = Po 1− + L b (41a)
r r
2 2
ri + L b ri + L b
= Po 1+ − L b (41b)
r r
where
2 2

L b = Po 1− + (42)
ri + L b ri + L b
The radial distance from the neutral point is given by Equation (28).
Equivalent plastic zone (EPZ): Assuming the continuity of the radial stress at elastic–plastic
interface and equating the radial stress of Equation (38a) with that was obtained numerically
DOI: 10.1002/nag
(Equation (12)):
∗ −s ∗
r eN =
m ∗b
∗ci (43a)
∗ 1/(1−a)
m ∗b ∗ ∗1−a ∗ r
r eN ∗ +s = s −m b (a −1) ln e
ci ri
Thus the normalized radius of the EPZ is provided as:
re∗
= eY (43b)
ri
where:
⎡ 1−a ⎤
m ∗b
⎢ s ∗(1−a) − r eN · ∗ +s ∗
⎥
⎢ ci ⎥
Y =⎢ ∗ ⎥ (43c)
⎣ m b (a −1) ⎦
It is obvious that as tends to zero, the parameters m ∗b , s ∗ and ∗ci approach m b , s and ci and
Equation (43) becomes equal to Equation (13). The derivation of expressions of the Equivalent
Plastic Zone radius can be derived for Categories (II) and (III) in the same manner. A summary
is given below.
5.2. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category II

The condition of major yielding, <re∗ <(ri + L b ), occurs if the plastic zone extension has prop-
agated beyond the neutral point. In this situation, the plastic zone itself is divided by the neutral
point into two zones. Consequently, only the plastic zone region that falls within the pick-up length
of the bolt is effectively stabilized by the positive shear stresses. In opposition, the zone between
the elasto-plastic boundary and neutral point account for the anchor length, where the negative
shear stresses are created so as to ensure the equilibrium with the positive shear stresses formed
on the pick-up length. It should be noted that strength parameters of the bolt length constrained
between the radius of equivalent plastic zone and bolt end account for the peak strength values.
The Equivalent Plastic Zone radius is given by:
re∗
= e J ·eh = e(J +h) (44a)
ri
where

(m b1 +ci1 s1 )1−a −(r eN m b1 +s1 ci1 )1−a
J= (1−a )
(44b)
m b1 (a −1)ci1
−∗
1−a
s∗
1−a
h= (44c)
m ∗b (a −1)
DOI: 10.1002/nag
∗ −s ∗
= (44d)
m ∗b
∗ci
1/(1−a)

∗ = s ∗1−a −m ∗b (a −1) ln (44e)
ri
m b1 = m b (1−), s1 = s (1−), ci1 = ci (1−)
5.3. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category III

The condition of excessive yielding, re∗ >(ri + L b ), occurs either due to a large in-situ stress in
relatively poor rock or as a result of an inadequate bolt length. In this situation, the bolt is
completely embedded in the yielded rock and no anchorage is provided from the outer elastic
zone. In this case, the radius of the Equivalent Plastic Zone is obtained from:
re∗
= eq ·eh ·et = e(q+h+t) (45a)
ri

(m b Lb +ci s )1−a −(r eN m b +s ci )1−a
q= (1−a )
(45b)
m b (a −1)ci

(m b1 +s1 ci1 )1−a −(m b1 Lb +s1 ci1 )1−a
t= (45c)
m b1 (a −1)1−a
ci1

−s1
ci1
Lb = m b1 (45d)
ci1

1−a 1−a ri + L b 1/(1−a )
= (m b1 +ci1 s1 ) −m b1 (a −1)ci1 ln (45e)

Having determined the Equivalent Plastic Zone (re∗ ) with respect to its category (categories I–III),
the ultimate tunnel displacement (convergence) of a reinforced tunnel can be obtained by substi-
tuting re∗ for re in Equation (24):
∗ (1+N ) re
∗
u ri 1 re 1 N −1 a
= (Po −r eN ) + (1+N ) ci (1−)(2+a m b )· r dr (46)
ri 2G ri r ri
i
1/(1−a )
r
= s 1−a −m b (a −1) ln (8b)
ri
DOI: 10.1002/nag
6. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ELASTO-PLASTIC SOLUTION
6.1. The influence of the bolting system on the plastic zone extension and tunnel wall
displacements
The following example is given to illustrate the practical application of the proposed elasto-
plastic solution. Two cases, an unsupported tunnel and a tunnel reinforced with grouted bolts, are
investigated. The geomechanical parameters of the rock masses are given in Table VI.
The effect of the grouted bolts can best be described with reference to Figures 14 and 15. As
can be seen from Figure 14, the additional radial stress due to bolting, previously presented in
Figure 4, curtails the extent of the plastic zone from 4.53–3.82 m (18.5%), while a convergence
reduction of as much as 30.6% is achieved by a bolting pattern of 1.0 m×1.0 m ( = 0.132) (Figure
15).
6.2. Displacement control (convergence reduction) approach as a design guide

The tunnel displacement (convergence) of a reinforced tunnel u ri ∗ obtained through Equation (46)
is a function of the rock mass properties, the stress field level and the reinforcement configuration
used. The convergence of a reinforced tunnel can be best evaluated by defining a dimensionless ratio
(normalized convergence ratio) u ri ∗ /u , where u ∗ and u are the convergence of the reinforced
ri ri ri
and unsupported tunnel, respectively, at the same stress level. The tunnel convergence includes
both the elastic and plastic displacements. For a given stress field, u ri ∗ is less than u
ri but it
approaches u ri when the bolt density () or the bolt length (L b ) tends to zero. The normalized
convergence ratio decreases as the bolt density increases. It obtains a minimum value when u ri ∗
tends to u e , the elastic portion of the convergence. The latter condition can be approached at any
intensive bolt density such as >0.30, which is not only rare in practice but is also uneconomical.
The normalized convergence ratio can be regarded as the main tool for the design of grouted bolts,
since it is an apparent indicator of the reduction in convergence that can be achieved using a given
bolting pattern.
Table VI. Input parameters used in the practical example of this section.
Rock mass characteristics Grouted bolts properties
ri = 2 m Lb = 3 m
Po = 10 MPa d = 35 mm
E = 5.7 GPa Cb = 280 kN
= 0.3 = 0.6
ci = 30 MPa
ci = 27 MPa Grouted bolts pattern
m b = 1.7 ST = 1.0 m
s = 0.0039 S L = 1.0 m
m b = 0.85 = 0.132
s = 0.0019 = 3.27 m
a = 0.52
a = 0.55 Bolting effect
Sr = 0.9 ∗ci = 30.257
= 0◦ m ∗b = 0.953
N = 1 s*= 0.00212
DOI: 10.1002/nag
18
Radius of plastic zone (re)
16
14
12
10
8 r
6
r (Unsupported)
4 (Unsupported)
r (Reinforced)
2 (Reinforced)
ri
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-2 Distance from the tunnel axis (m)
Figure 14. Radial and tangential stress distribution around the tunnel perimeter.
0.0200 Tunnel surface

Displacement prevented by
grouted bolts
0.0180
0.0160
Radial displacement (m)
0.0140 ur (Unsupported)
ur (Reinforced)
0.0120 Unsupported tunnel
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
Reinforced tunnel
0.0020 ri
0.0000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 15. Comparison of the radial displacements for both the unsupported and reinforced tunnel cases.
An important characteristic of the convergence ratio is that it is insensitive to moderate changes

of the deformation and strength parameters (m b , s, ci , E, ) for a given reinforcement configuration
(, L b ) as reported also by [1]. For instance, a change in Young’s modulus affects both u ri∗ and u
ri
∗
in almost the same way, hence the ratio u ri /u ri remains substantially unchanged. For this reason,
the normalized convergence ratio makes its use in design even more practical, since the variation
of in-situ geotechnical parameters can be tolerated without any significant error.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
110
Po=4MPa
Po=6MPa
100
Po=8MPa
Po=10MPa
90
Po=14MPa
ri = 2 m
80 E = 4.7 GPa
= 0.25
ci = 40 MPa
= 0°
70 mb = 1.4
s = 2.20E-03
mb' = 1
s' = 1.60E-03
60 a = 0.5
S =1
'ci = 30 MPa
a' = 0.52
50
40
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Bolt density parameter,[ ]
Figure 16. Variation of tunnel convergence with bolt density for a 2 m long grouted bolts (L b /ri = 1).
Figure 16 depicts the predicted results of the analytical model for the example under examination
with various bolt patterns where L b /ri = 1 at the applied field stress levels between 4 and 14 MPa.
The obtained normalized convergence ratio u ri ∗ /u is plotted for these stress levels and five bolt
ri
density parameters (). It is believed that the relationship illustrated in Figure 16 for a given bolt
length could be used for design purposes. For instance, if a 4 m diameter tunnel is excavated in a
stress field of 8 MPa (i.e. 300–350 m deep) and reinforced with 2 m long grouted bolts (L b /ri = 1),
the tunnel convergence (displacements) would be reduced by 23% for a bolt density of 0.25.
This could be achieved by installing 42 mm shaped rebars (such as self-drilling anchors, = 0.6)
with a spacing of 0.8 m×0.8 m.
The following example illustrates the use of the displacement control (convergence reduction)
approach for the design of grouted bolts. Let us consider a 3 m radius tunnel excavated at a depth
of 150 m in a relatively weak sedimentary rock mass with the representative material properties
given in Table VII.
Using the proposed elasto-plastic solution, the predicted convergence of the unsupported tunnel
is determined as 40.7 mm with a plastic zone radius of 8.9 m. With the installation of 6 m long
grouted bolts ( = 0.6 and diameter 32 mm) and a bolt density = 0.08, a 20% reduction of the
extent of the plastic zone and an approximate 25% reduction in the tunnel convergence can be
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Table VII. Rock mass properties used in the example

corresponding to the displacement control approach.
Parameter Value
E (GPa) 2
0.25
ci (MPa) 25
( ◦ ) 0
mb 0.55
s 2.00E-04
mb 0.4
s 1.70E-04
a 0.531
Sr 1
ci (MPa) 20
ri (m) 3
a 0.56
N 1.0
Table VIII. The influence of the bolt density parameter on the tunnel convergence.
L b (m) ST · S L ST /L b S L /L b Reduction of convergence (%)
Unsupported 0.00 0
3 1.5×1.5 0.50 0.50 0.08 16
3 1.2×1.5 0.40 0.50 0.101 17
3 1.0×1.2 0.33 0.40 0.151 18
3 0.8×0.8 0.26 0.26 0.283 21
6 1.5×1.5 0.25 0.25 0.08 25
6 1.2×1.5 0.20 0.25 0.101 27
6 1.0×1.2 0.16 0.20 0.151 30
6 0.8×0.8 0.13 0.13 0.283 40
achieved. However, the application of a greater bolt density ( = 0.181) results in the reduction of
the plastic zone extension by 26% and the tunnel convergence by as much as 32%.
With reference to Table VIII, it can be implied that an increase in either the bolt density or
the bolt length alone will not always guarantee an appropriate amount in the reduction of the
convergence; for example, if the desired convergence reduction is 30%, an increase in the bolt
density of up to 0.28 will be insufficient for short bolts (3 m long) whereas if long bolts (6 m
long) are applied, a convergence of 30% will be easily obtained even with a lower bolt density
than 0.151.
The differences between predictable convergence reductions (30–40%) for 6 m long bolts is
much greater than those (18–21%) for 3 m long bolts for the same given bolt densities (0.15–0.28).
Therefore, it can be understood that a proportionate increase in both the bolt length and the bolt
density should be taken into account in poor–fair rock masses. Note that if the bolting design
in such rock masses only focuses on bolt density rather than bolt length or vice versa, the final
convergence reduction will not be satisfactory.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
It is worthwhile noting that the installation of long bolts in a small tunnel is achieved by using
bolt couplings. For example, in a tunnel with a diameter of 5 m, the installation of 9 m long bolts
is possible and practical provided the total length of the bolt is divided into three distinct parts
and then joined with three couplings. The self-drilling anchors introduced by AtlasCopco [59] are
an example of this type of bolt.
6.3. Influence of grouted bolt length on opening convergence

A parametric study has been conducted on two identical tunnels with a similar 2 m diameter,
excavated in fair (GSI = 55) and poor rock mass (GSI = 35) in order to investigate the influence
of the bolt length on tunnel convergence.
The tunnel in a fair quality rock mass (Case A) was investigated for two bolt configurations
of 1.5 m (L b /ri = 0.75) and 3 m (L b /ri = 1.5) while the tunnel in poor rock mass (Case B) was
assessed for bolts of 1.8 m (L b /ri = 0.9) and 6 m (L b /ri = 3). The rock mass properties used in
this parametric study are outlined in Table IX. Six different bolting densities were examined for
both Case A and Case B: = 0.000, = 0.121, = 0.200, = 0.247, = 0.280, = 0.320.
For Case A, the variation of the normalized convergence ratio (u ri ∗ /u ) with the bolt density
ri
of 1.5 and 3 m long bolts in the stress field ranges of 4, 8 and 12 MPa is depicted in Figure 17.
The convergence reduction regions for shorter and longer bolts are distinguished by vertically and
diagonally shaded lines, respectively.
For the Case A, the results of the elasto-plastic analytical solution indicate that the formation
of excessive yielding is impossible. For 1.5 m bolt length (L b /ri = 0.75), the minimum and major
yielding occurs at the field stresses of 2, 8 and 12 MPa, respectively, whereas applying bolts of
3 m (L b /ri = 1.5) prevents the formation of the major yielding, irrespective of the field stress
magnitude.
Table IX. Rock mass properties used in the parametric study on

the influence of grouted bolt length on tunnel convergence.
Parameters Fair rock mass Case A Poor rock mass Case B
GSI 55 35
D 0 0
mi 15 10
ri (m) 2 2
Po (MPa) 4–8–12 4–8–12
E (GPa) 13.97 2.57
0.25 0.25
ci (MPa) 55 30
ci (MPa) 41.25 30
mb 3.0 0.981
m b 1.08 0.981
s 0.00673 0.00073
s 0.000289 0.00073
a 0.504 0.516
a 0.529 0.516
Sr 0.75 1.0
◦ 0 0
N 1.0 1.0
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Notation:
100 The vertically shaded bound
stand for the bolts of 1.5 m GSI=55
long whereas the diagonally D=0
shaded bound denote the m i=15
90
bolts of 3 m long. ri(m)=2
E(GPa) =13.97
80 ν=0.25
σci (MPa)=55
ψ =0
70 m b=3.0
s=6.73E-3
m b' =1.08
60 s' = 2.89E-04
a =0.504
a' =0.529
50 S r=0.75
σ ci ' (MPa) = 41.25
N ψ = 1.0
40
Po=4MPa, Lb=1.5m,
30 Minimal yielding
Po=8MPa,Lb=1.5m,
Minimal yielding
20 Po=12MPa,Lb=1.5m,
Major yielding
Po=4MPa,Lb=3m,
Minimal yielding
10
Po=8MPa,Lb=3m,
Minimal yielding
0 Po=12MPa,Lb=3m,
Minimal yielding
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Bolt density parameter,β
Figure 17. Variation of the normalized convergence ratio with bolt density for
grouted bolts of 1.5 and 3 m (Case A).
As can be observed from Figure 17, for a relatively high bolting density ( = 0.2), the shorter
bolts (1.5 m) reduce approximately the convergence between a minimum of 20 to a maximum
of 30%, whereas an approximate convergence reduction of 40–50% is achieved for longer bolts
(3 m). The reduction in total convergences attained is quite high for both short and long bolts,
because the plastic zone is enclosed within the reinforced zone (re∗ <ri + L b ).
In Case B, the results of the analytical solution reveal that for bolts of 1.8 m (L b /ri = 0.9), the
minimum yielding occurs at the stress field of 4 MPa, whereas the major and excessive yielding
take place at the field stresses of 8 and 12 MPa, respectively. On the other hand, using 6 m long
bolts (L b /ri = 3), the existence of major and excessive yielding are disappeared. It can be deduced
that using longer bolts in a rock mass with identical properties can prevent excessive yielding.
Figure 18 summarizes the variation of normalized convergence ratio with bolt density parameter
for 1.8 and 6 m long bolts in a stress field ranging between 4 and 12 MPa for Case B. The
convergence reduction regions of shorter bolts (1.8 m) and longer bolts (6 m) are enclosed between
the vertically and diagonally shaded lines, respectively. With reference to Figure 18, the convergence
reductions attained using 6 m long bolts (L b /ri = 3) are considerably larger than those achieved
using 1.8 m long bolts (L b /ri = 0.9), particularly at high bolt densities. For example, in case of
using a relatively high bolt density = 0.20, the shorter bolts (1.8 m) reduce the convergence
between a minimum of zero and a maximum of 30% depending on the magnitude of field stress.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
100 GSI=35
D=0
mi=10
90 ri(m)= 2
E(GPa) =2.57
ν = 0.25
80 σci (MPa)=30
ψ= 0
mb =0.981
70
s =7.3E-4
mb' =0.981
60 s' =7.3E-03
a =0.516
a' =0.516
50 Sr =1.0
σci' (MPa)=30
Nψ=1.0
40
Po=4MPa,Lb=1.8m,
Minimal yielding
30 Po=8MPa,Lb=1.8m,
Notation: Major yielding
The vertically shaded bound Po=12MPa,Lb=1.8m,
20 stand for the bolts of 1.8 m Excessive yielding
long whereas the diagonally
Po=4MPa,Lb=6m,
shaded bound denote the
Minimal yielding
10 bolts of 6 m long.
Po=8MPa,Lb=6m,
Minimal yielding
Po=12MPa,Lb=6m,
0 Minimal yielding
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Bolt density parameter,β
Figure 18. Variation of the normalized convergence ratio with bolt density for
grouted bolts of 1.8 and 6 m (Case B).
As can be observed, for usage of shorter bolts (1.8 m) in high in-situ stress (12 MPa) no improvement
in convergence reduction takes place due to the development of the excessive yielding to such an
extent that the total length of the bolt (both pick-up and anchor lengths) is enclosed by the plastic
zone. Accordingly, irrespective of the magnitude of bolt density applied, no change in convergence
reduction is achieved if considerably shorter bolts are applied in a high stress field. Applying
longer bolts (6 m), on the contrary, provides a convergence reduction of a minimum of 38% to
a maximum of 58% for the same given condition and prevents the formation of the major and
excessive yielding. Hence, the advantage of increasing the bolt length is more significant where
yielding is considerable. In other words, the effect of an increase in bolt length on the tunnel
convergence is particularly emphasized if the extent of the plastic zone becomes enclosed within
the reinforced zone (re∗ <ri + L b ).
In view of the fact that the higher bolt densities are impractical and uneconomical to apply,
where high bolt densities ( = 0.25–0.30) are required (poor rock masses), the effective convergence
reductions can only be attained by increasing the bolt lengths. The influence of bolt length on tunnel
convergence decreases significantly if the plastic zone has propagated far beyond the reinforced
zone (re∗ >ri + L b ). In such situations, increasing the bolt density together with the bolt length is
more effective.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
7. CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays the most commonly used reinforcement system in rock tunnels is the grouted bolts
inserted around the perimeter of the tunnel so as to control the radial displacements and to increase
the degree of stability of the rock around the void. In spite of many achievements made so far,
there are still some uncertainties and inconveniences in interaction phenomenon between the bolt
and the surrounding rock in such a manner that the actual effect of the grouted bolts on improving
the rock mass and on stability of the tunnel has not been intuitively known. The question here is
how the systematically radial grouted bolts can improve the yielding zone around the tunnel and
how they decrease and control the tunnel convergence?
The elasto-plastic solution presented in this paper introduces an alternative method to design the
grouted bolts for rock tunnels that overcome the above-mentioned questions. Since the most actual
behaviour of a rock mass is governed by pronounced non-linear post-peak stress–strain behaviour,
in the proposed elasto-plastic solution the non-linear Hoek and Brown failure criterion is used.
The concept of equivalent material is introduced to define the mechanism of increasing the global
strength of the rock mass due to the presence of bolts. The results of the numerical calculation
analyses confirm a linear relation between the improved Hoek–Brown strength parameters and
residual ones. The factor of rock bolt density () implies the quantity of improvement for Hoek–
Brown residual strength parameters (m b , s , and ci ). Moreover, the results of the numerical
methods verify the reliability of the analytical solution in prediction of the stress–strain state and
convergence of reinforced deep tunnels.
The Equivalent Plastic Zone, which is improved in terms of Hoek–Brown strength parame-
ters, describes the extent of yielding around a reinforced tunnel. Three plastic zone propagation
categories, of which both the radial displacement of the tunnel surface and the external radius
are calculated, are defined and analysed with respect to the relative location of the plastic zone
boundary with reference to the neutral point of the bolt.
The results of the proposed solution can be used in a convergence reduction approach, which
is a practical tool in the design of the grouted bolts: the effectiveness of the bolting pattern might
in this way be assessed in terms of either reduction or control of the convergence.
The flexibility of the proposed elasto-plastic solution makes it possible to simultaneously evaluate
the effect of several bolting patterns for a desired convergence reduction and to quickly set up a
series of guidelines relating to bolting patterns for any given on-site geomechanical condition.
NOTATION
GSI Geological Strength Index

a strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
a residual strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
c cohesion of rock mass
C0 uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass
Cb bolt capacity
D disturbance factor of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
d bolt diameter
DOI: 10.1002/nag
E Young’s (elasticity) modulus

F() yield function
G shear modulus
K shear stiffness of the bolt-grout interface
k stress ratio
Lb bolt length
mi strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion for intact rock
mb strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
m b residual strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
m ∗b equivalent strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
N dilation coefficient
Pface tunnel face pressure
Pi fictitious support pressure
Po in-situ stress
Q() plastic potential
r distance from tunnel center to point of interest
re radius of plastic (broken, yielding) zone
re∗ radius of Equivalent Plastic Zone (EPZ)
ri tunnel radius
SL longitudinal bolt spacing
Sr post-peak strength reduction factor
ST transversal (circumferential) bolt spacing
s strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
s residual strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
s∗ equivalent strength constant of Hoek–Brown failure criterion
ur radial displacement
u ri displacement (convergence) of unsupported tunnel
∗
u ri displacement (convergence) of reinforced tunnel
ux axial displacement along the bolt
∗ /u
u ri normalized convergence ratio
ri
bolt density parameter
3 confining stress due to bolting
rock mass unit weight
r shear strain in axi-symmetric problem
ε1 maximum principal strain
ε3 minimum principal strain
εr radial strain
ε tangential strain
εz longitudinal strain
εe elastic strain
εp plastic strain
εt total tangential strain
εe elastic tangential strain
p
ε plastic tangential strain
εre elastic radial strain
DOI: 10.1002/nag
p
εr plastic radial strain
εrt total radial strain
ε̇ p incremental plastic strain in flow rule
friction factor for bolt-grout interface
f non-negative constant of proportionality in flow rule
Poisson’s ratio
radius of the neutral point of the bolt
1 maximum principal stress
3 minimum principal stress
ci uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock
ci residual compressive strength of intact rock
∗ci equivalent strength of intact rock
r radial stress
tangential stress
r e radial stress at elastic–plastic interface
r e,exact exact solution of radial stress at elastic–plastic boundary
r eN approximate (numerical) solution of radial stress at elastic–plastic boundary
e tangential stress at elastic–plastic interface
r shear stress in axi-symmetric problem
s shear stress that develops along the bolt
internal friction angle of rock

g friction angle of the grout material
dilatancy angle of rock
Subscripts
r radial
t tangential
Superscripts
∗ material with properties equivalent to those of a reinforced rock mass

e elastic
p plastic
t total
. increment
REFERENCES
1. Indraratna B, Kaiser PK. Design for grouted rock bolts based on the convergence control method. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts 1990; 27:269–281.
2. Farmer IW. Stress distribution along a resin grouted anchor. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science and Geomechanics Abstracts 1975; 12:347–351.
3. Freeman TJ. The behaviour of fully-bonded rock bolts in the Kielder experimental tunnel. Tunnels and Tunnelling
1978; 10:37–40.
4. Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground Excavations in Rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London, 1980; 527.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
5. Adali S, Rosel R. Preliminary assessment of effect of grouted bolts in mine tunnels. Transactions of the Institution
of Mining and Metallurgy 1980; 89:190–197.
6. Papanastassopoulou F. Investigation of effect of rock bolts on stress distribution around underground excavations.
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting, Stephansson O (ed.). Abisko: Sweden, 1983;
55–63.
7. Aydan Ö, Ichikava Y, Kawamoto T. Load bearing capacity and stress distribution in/along rock-bolts with elastic
behaviour of interfaces. Fifth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, 1985.
8. Aydan Ö. The stabilization of engineering structures by rock bolts. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagoya University, Japan, 1989.
9. Stille H. Theoretical aspects on the difference between prestressesd anchor bolt and grouted bolt in squeezing
rock. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting, Stephansson O (ed.). Abisko: Sweden,
1983; 65–73.
10. Stille H, Holmberg M, Nord G. Support of weak rock with grouted bolts and shotcrete. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts 1989; 26(1):99–113.
11. Grasso P, Mahtab A, Pelizza S. Riqualificazione della massa rocciosa: un criterio per la stabilizzazione delle
gallerie. Gallerie Grandi Opere Sotterranee 1989; 29:35–41.
12. Grasso P, Mahtab A, Pelizza S. Reinforcing a rock zone for stabilizing a tunnel in complex formations. Proceedings
of the International Congress on Progress and Innovation in Tunneling, Toronto, vol. 2, 1989; 671–678.
13. Indraratna B, Kaiser PK. Analytical model for the design of grouted rock bolts. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1990; 14:227–251.
14. Graziani A, Ribacchi R. Stato di Sforzo e di Deformazione intorno ad una Galleria sostenuta con Barre Passive.
Atti XVIII Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica, Rimini, AGI, 1993; 213–227.
15. Oreste PP. Nuovi modelli di calcolo delle stratture di rinforzo e precontenimento in galleria. Ph.D. Thesis,
Politecnco di Torino, 1995.
16. Peila D, Oreste PP. Axisymmetric analysis on ground reinforcing in tunnelling design. Computers and Geotechnics
1995; 17:253–274.
17. Oreste PP, Peila D. Radial passive rockbolting in tunnelling design with a new convergence-confinement model.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts 1996; 33:443–454.
18. Labiouse V. Ground response curves for rock excavations supported by ungrouted tensioned rock-bolts. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1996; 29(2):19–38.
19. Cai Y, Esaki T, Jiang Y. A rock bolt and rock mass interaction model. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science 2004; 41:1055–1067.
20. Cai Y, Esaki T, Jiang Y. An analytical model to predict axial load in grouted rock bolt for soft rock tunnelling.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2004; 18:347–363.
21. Cai Y, Jiang Y, Esaki T. A study of rock bolting design in soft rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science 2004; 41(3). CD ROM.
22. Fahimifar A, Soroush H. A theoretical approach for analysis of the interaction between grouted rockbolts and
rock masses. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2005; 20:333–343.
23. Pelizza S, Kim S, Kim J. A study of strength parameters in thereinforced ground by rock bolts. Proceedings of
the World Tunnel Congress and 32nd ITA Assembly, Seoul, Korea, 2006; 06-0385.
24. Guan Z, Jiangb Y, Tanabasib Y, Huangc H. Reinforcement mechanics of passive bolts in conventional tunnelling.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2007; 44:625–636.
25. Oreste PP. Distinct analysis of fully grouted bolts around a circular tunnel considering the congruence of
displacements between the bar and the rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2008;
45:1052–1067.
26. Bieniawski ZT. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunnelling. Balkema: Rotterdam, 1984; 272.
27. Bieniawski ZT. Engineering Rock Mass Classification. Wiley: New York, 1989; 251.
28. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1974; 6(4):189–239.
29. Grimstad E, Barton N. Updating the Q-system for NMT. International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete, Fagernes,
Norway, 1993; 46–66.
30. Barton N. Some new Q value correlations to assist in site characterization and tunnel design. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2002; 39:185–216.
31. Palmström A, Broch E. Use and misuse of rock mass classification systems with particular reference to the
Q-system. Tunnelling and Underground space Technology 2006; 21:575–593.
32. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. Proceedings of the 5th
North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, Canada, vol. 1, 2002; 267–273.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
33. Hoek E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News Journal 1994; 2(2):4–16.
34. Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Science 1997; 34(8):1165–1186.
35. Brown ET, Bray JW, Landanyi B, Hoek E. Ground response curves for rock tunnels. Journal of Geothechnical
Engineering 1983; 109:15–39.
36. Carranza-Torres C. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the generalized form of the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2004; (Supplement 1):629–639.
37. Wang Y. Ground response of a circular tunnel in poorly consolidated rock. Journal of Geothechnical Engineering
2006; 122:703–708.
38. Osgoui RR. Development of an elasto-plastic analytical model for design of grouted rock bolts in tunnels with
particular reference to poor rock masses. Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2007;
250.
39. Sharan SK. Analytical solutions for stress and displacements around a circular opening in a generalized Hoek–
Brown rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2008; 45:78–85.
40. Sharan SK. Elastic-brittle-plastic analysis of circular openings in Hoek–Brown media. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2003; 40:817–824.
41. Sharan SK. Exact and approximate solutions for displacements around circular openings in elastic–brittle–plastic
Hoek–Brown rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2005; 42:542–549.
42. Park KH, Kim YJ. Analytical solution for a circular opening in an elastic–brittle–plastic rock. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 2006; 43:616–622.
43. Park KH, Tontavanich B, Lee JG. A simple procedure for ground response curve of circular tunnel in elastic-strain
softening rock masses. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2008; 23:151–159.
44. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT. Numerical Recipies: The Art of Scientific Computing
(3rd edn). Cambridge University Press: New York, 2007. Available from: http://www.nr.com/.html.
45. Osgoui RR, Oreste PP. Convergence-control approach for rock tunnels reinforced by grouted bolts, using the
homogenization concept. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2007; 25:431–440.
46. Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of Elasticity (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York, 1970.
47. Hill R. The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford Science Publications: Oxford, 1950.
48. Brown ET. Analytical and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics. Allen-Unwin: London, 1986.
49. Waner S, Costenoble SR. Numerical Integration-Miscellaneous On-line Topics for Calculus Applied to the Real
World. Department of Mathematics, Hofstra University, 2006.
50. Kaiser PK, Guenot A, Morgenstern NL. Deformation of small tunnels; part 4: behaviour during failure.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts 1985; 22:141–152.
51. Cundall P, Carranza-Torres C, Hart R. A new constitutive model based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion.
Proceedings of the 3rd International FLAC Symposium, FLAC and Numerical Modelling in Geomechanics,
Sudbury, Canada, 2003.
52. Xueyi S. Grouted rock bolt used in underground engineering in soft surrounding rock or in highly stressed
regions. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting, Stephansson O (ed.). Abisko: Sweden.
1983; 93–99.
53. Yu TZ, Xian CJ. Behaviour of rock bolting as tunnelling support. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Rock Bolting, Stephansson O (ed.). Abisko: Sweden, 1983; 87–92.
54. Moosavi M. Load distribution along fully grouted cable bolts based on constitutive models obtained from modified
Hoek cells. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University. Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1997.
55. ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC2D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) Version 5. Minneapolis, 2005.
56. Oreste PP. Analysis of structural interaction in tunnels using the covergence–confinement approach. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 2003; 18:347–363.
57. Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science 2006; 43:203–215.
58. Indraratna B, Kaiser PK. Wall convergence in tunnels supported by fully grouted bolts. 28th U.S. Symposium of
Rock Mechanics, Tucson, AZ, 1987; 843–852.
59. AtlasCopco. Self Drilling Anchor (MAI-bolt). International GmbH, Werkstraße 17, A-9710 Feistritz/Drau, Austria.
Available from: http://www.mai.co.at/ankere/anker frame.htm, 2004.
DOI: 10.1002/nag

Osgoui 2009

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Osgoui 2009

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2010; 34:1651–1686

Elasto-plastic analytical model for the design of grouted bolts

Reza. R. Osgoui1, ∗, † and Pierpaolo Oreste2

Received 19 August 2007; Revised 16 October 2008; Accepted 27 April 2009

Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MODEL

2.1. General assumptions for unsupported tunnel

2.2. Solution method

Figure 1. Definition of the model used in this study.

a = 12 + 16 (e−GSI/15 −e−20/3 ) (4)

ci = Sr ·ci (6)

dεt εt −εrt

or in the polar coordinates

Normal A-A’ = plastic strain increment vector

Hoek –Brown yield function

Mohr-Coulomb plastic potential

Hence, the solution of Equation (22a) is obtained as:

3. MODEL OF THE GROUTED BOLTS

(a) (b) (c)

3.2. Shear stress distribution along the grouted bolt

Figure 6. Circular tunnel reinforced by systematically radial bolts and equilibrium

A fictitious increase in the residual strength parameters to obtain ∗1 :

4. NUMERICAL SIMULATION REINFORCED CIRCULAR TUNNEL BY

4.1. Method of numerical model

Figure 7. Numerical model of reinforced circular tunnel-quarter symmetrical model.

Table I. Calculation stages foreseen in the bi-dimensional numerical modelling [25].

Table II. Variable parameters used in the parametric analysis.

4.2. Analysis of the numerical results

5. EQUIVALENT PLASTIC ZONE

9.00 Radial stress (Proposed model)

9.00 Radial stress (Proposed model)

5.1. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category I

where m ∗b = (1+)m b , s ∗ = (1+)s , ∗ci = (1+)ci , ci = Sr ·ci .

5.2. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category II

m b1 = m b (1−), s1 = s (1−), ci1 = ci (1−)

5.3. Determination of the equivalent plastic zone for category III

6. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ELASTO-PLASTIC SOLUTION

6.2. Displacement control (convergence reduction) approach as a design guide

0.0200 Tunnel surface

An important characteristic of the convergence ratio is that it is insensitive to moderate changes

Table VII. Rock mass properties used in the example

6.3. Influence of grouted bolt length on opening convergence

Table IX. Rock mass properties used in the parametric study on

GSI Geological Strength Index

E Young’s (elasticity) modulus

internal friction angle of rock

∗ material with properties equivalent to those of a reinforced rock mass

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

dεt εt −εrt