0% found this document useful (0 votes)
299 views56 pages

Rock Anchor State of Art

Part 1:Design of Rock Anchor

Uploaded by

Ken Liew
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
299 views56 pages

Rock Anchor State of Art

Part 1:Design of Rock Anchor

Uploaded by

Ken Liew
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 56
is Gin wes educated at George | Donalé Bruce was educated at Robert fol in Scotland and recsived | Gordon's college in Scotland end received engineering at Edinburgh | his fest degree. in Geclogy et Aberdeen industry he started his caraer | University. -Aftor thie he continued. his ngineer’s Deparment, Edin« | grad fn joined Messrs. Mote, Hay & | tochnic's Research Group at the University’s i fork on the Forth load Bridge. | Dopartment af Engineering. During ¢ period ontinued his grsduato study | of threo years he stadiod the design end ity of Newcastle upon Tyne | performance of prestressed rock anchors jstigated the eflects of tong: | with particular reference to lead tanstor surface structures and was | mechanisms Alter receiving his doctorate Doneld Bruce joined the Northern office of Colsrete Led ‘8.2 contracts engineer and ie currently involved’ Inground stabilisation including supervision of dam grouting contracts, He is @ member of the British Oriling Associa- tion and the Intarnational Seciety of Rock Mechanics" Committee reviewing rock Ptechnics at the Department | anchor testing University of Aberdeen for id anchors, vibrotory driving, G reersction and curface sta of old coal workings time Stuart Litiejohn is tor of the Colerete Group 7 and ‘Consuitant to. Ground Ags prefessional engineer js former interasta “as 2 poth the British Standard of Practizecommitee forages, and the Internetionel ek. Mochanies""committes chor testing” standard. tn member of the Institution gineers’ Ad Hoo Committes BS th Rotaining ‘Cover picture by kind pexnistion of Loving Limite of Bere, Switertend ' 220 0079315 9 Rockanchors- state ofthe art by G. S. LITTLEJOHN, BSc, PhD, MICE, MiStructE, FGS, and D. A. BRUCE, BSc, AMICE, FGS Ciginaly published in ‘Ground Engineering’ magazine between May 1975 and May 1976 QALY. LIBRARY | Auth. Covad brah Tork | 26. | FOUNDATION PUBLICATIONS LTD. 1977. 1 Rod, Brentwood, Eee, CMTS BAU, England Contents PART 1: DESIGN Page 1 BOND BETWEEN CEMENT GROUT AND STEEL GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 TENDON DESIGN — AN INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction UPLIFT CAPACITY OF THE ROCK ANCHOR, ‘The mechanisms of bond SYSTEM 1 Fixed anchor design Design procedures 1 Distribution of bond Experimental evidence 2 Magnitude of bond Spacing 2 Effect of rust on bond Remarks 3 Remarks BOND BETWEEN CEMENT GROUT AND ROCK 3 TENDON Introduction 3 Introduction Fixed anchor design 3 Tendon characteristics Fixed anchor dimensions 5 Allowable stresses and sefety factors Theoretical evidence 6 Tendon spacers Experimental evidence 7 Remarks Remarks 8 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS PART 2: CONSTRUCTION Page 17 Homing INTRODUCTION 17 GROUTS AND GROUTING DRILLING 17 Grout composition Introduction 17 Admixtures Drilling methods 17 Grout crushing strength Choice of drilling method 18 Mixing Drilling equipment 18 Grouting methods : Drilling rates 19 Grouting pressures Flushing 20 Quality control : Alignment and deviation 21 CORROSION AND CORROSION PROTECTION WATER TESTING AND WATERPROOFING 21 Mechanisms and causes of corrosion TENDON 22 Classification of droundwater aggressiveness Storage and handling z 22 Degree of protection recommended in practice Fabrication 22 Corrosion protection systems employed in practice PART 3: STRESSING AND TESTING Page 31 Special test anchors ‘ INTRODUCTION 31 Monitoring of the overall anchor rock structure STRESSING 31 sysiem —« Mode of stressing 31 SERVICE BEHAVIOUR OF PRODUCTION Practical espects of stressing 3 5 ONerOns: Choice of stressing system 33 Introduction : Monitoring procedures 34 Time — dependant behaviour of steel tendons Presentation 35 Relaxation Interpretation 36 Creep Remarks 37 Field observations TESTING 38 Remarks Precontract component testing 33 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Acceptance testing of production anchors a9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Long term monitoring of selected production anchors 42 sag5 SSSR5 WAMENNNNNNOCL OO RODUCTION STORY OF prestrossed rock anchors STON sguwnen the ate Andre i toneered their use during the ras 108s Gnourtas Dam, in Algeria. Since 01 employment of rock anchors in yeh, Ctruction hes become world wide, ertat milion tons of working capa eve boon successfully installed. Rock e*vove. algo been used for. many ore encure the safety of lerge under. Bf excavations and the stability of an ail rock slopes iu fcemt yours the range of applications af (idoned considerably due in part to guocess achieved by soil anchors in M eeack retaining wall, botding down Ne foors. and pile testing. Now. largely SG eonsequonce of the success of anchors ff ihose new applications, rock anchors are feted to poriacm without difficulty, Sriwhen, installed in relatively poor iy weathered: oF laminated rock fh addition there iso. trend. towards jghor load capacities for individual and [Rpneentrated groups of enchors. For the “hyper dams in vogue today, prestressing BENS order of 200um mey be required, feeesstating Individual anchors of ‘cape: Gy well in. excess of 1 000 tonnes, In the ald ‘of suspension bridges concentrated {ups of anchore with a working capacity 76.000 are already being seriously con ‘fldered, and design loads of 150001 are Gniicpated in the future. Even in strong Hompetent rocks, these high prestress “pvels are_demanding enginearing. Judge “ents in oreas where no relevant prece. ts exist. eating these points in mind, the authors believe thot there is @ growing need to tablish and employ reliable design formu- ‘ie. and realistic eofety factors. together ‘ith relevent quality controls and testing rocedures, Tho fret aricle in this state-of-the-art spon, therfore consiare design proce: “dhtes relating to overall stability, grout/ eck bond, tondon/grout bond, and tendon, ong with the chotoe of safety factors, The Becond article deals with the practicalities ‘Sf installation, construction and quality oni, whist the third oxeminas testing 2nd stressing procedures. The purpate of this genoral appraisal Is te decerbe current practic in relation fo FRck ananore by drawing on the experience ‘ined in varius counties ver bo past 0 years, “Experimental and. theoretical in the fields of reinforced and pre- ‘tessed conereto ate also Included where felevant. It is hoped that the information vided wlifbe of ereet benefit to anchor. ng specialists but, at the seme time, the fetes of aries are intendod as» basis fr Hacussion since points are highlighted con- ering the validity of tha basic design as fupions, and he lack of knowledge of ful-scale encher performance. » PESIGN—AN INTRODUCTION ‘areuted rosk anchor may Fa in ene oF ‘ote of the following modes (2) by failure within the rock mass, (b) by falure of the rock/grout bond, {e) By failure of the grout/tendon bond, or (2) by failure of the steel tendon or top anchorage. “Therefore in order to establish the overall safety factor for the anchor each of the ‘above phenomena must be considered in Broadly speaking. prasent destan criteria may be classified ito two equally unsatis- factary groups, On the one hand thers are the procedures based on the classicel ‘theory of elasticity. Clearly, the validity of results derived from, for exemple, photo: blastic or finite element techniques depen- dent on such a theory, is. questionable ‘when ‘dealing with a heterogeneous rock mass, On the other hand, anchor pare: meters are frequently selected by, at best, crude empirical rules or tial and error ‘methods, and at worst, by pure quesswo ‘The gop between these two extremes sll very teal, despite » growing aware: hess of the problems, as witnessed by the Tecent sppesrance of standards or draft odes on ground enchars in several coun: ‘The mein design concepts are now re viewed with fespect to the four fallure mades listed above, but it should be em- Dhasised thar these concapts relate pri Inerily t prestressed comont grout injec- tion anchors (a1 LOAD TRANSFERRED BT BOND. (ol L020 TRANSFERRED BY UPLIFT CAPACITY OF THE poe BOCK ANCHOR SYSTEM sign procedures TROT ehcn dons with methods cur- rently used. practice to estimate he Stchbr pth requad to ensue tha the Working toad willbe cesta safely with- Sut faure occurring inthe rock mats. The tmothods described apply to anchors which fave’ beon constructed. In a vertial of Siooply Incined dowmnovards direction, inthe ase of single menor, mast enain- ort sure that at alle. ah verted one of rock ls pulled ou of the rock mass (erg. 1). Tho uplift capocty ie normally fruted to the weight of the Specited rock SSne, and where she ground fe situated be- South the water ‘table, the submerged height otrack js used. The depth of ancror CStcuates inthis manner may, of course, fe recuced wnere it ean be demonstrated 2 test anchors that tho working force can 3b otheraise acloved stay ‘ihe afect in groups of anchors is the production of u fat. verticol plone at the Imerace ot adjoining cones (Fg. 2)-As the Saving for aaingle ine of anchors reduces itrthor a simple contnaous wedge fire In'tho Fock le assumed. The appreech hes toon employed by many engineers in prac fee and Gecerbed by Parkor (1868), Hobst (1868) itiejohn’ (1972) and Hit (a7 However, although the shape of she fail 0 PLATE rock mass Fig, 1. Geometry of cone, assumed 0 be mobilised when failure ocours in # homogeneous Fig. 2, interaction of inverted cones in an overall stability analysis TABLE I-GEOMETRIES OF ROCK CONE RELATED TO FIXED ANCHOR WHICH HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN PRACTICE Por Carpi by ne ite Ieaeis onal by ond euesseaialingy & Senter (988) Santen theay Reecheserate-CHstge (1965) ae 20 fe) et fae, [Sormany See (1073) Gemany— Seater (13), toe eres oom “Raskalis— Standard GAS (197) Ure volume ig widely agreed, its pasition with respect to the grouted ‘fixed. anchor length (Socket) varies somewhat in pracy tice, This aspect is illustrated by Table |, which “contains examples drawn from ‘anchor designs in various countries, An- Other feature which 's widely appreciated, but receives little attention is that a solid, homogeneous rock mass is seldom en- countered, and 30, in the vast majority of cases, modifications to the simple cone approach should be made by experienced ook mechanics engineers. Tn connection with this: “weight of rock" method of calculating the ultimate resis tance to withdrawal, litle data are avail- able on the safety factors employed. How fever, it is known that safety factors of 3 and 2 have been used by Schmidt (1956) ‘and Rawlings (1968) respectively, while ‘most recently # factor of 1.6 was employed for anchors at the Devonport Nuclear Com- plex by Littlejohn and Truman-Davies (1974).'In cutront practice the factor of safety is feduced to unity on many occa- sions on the besie that certain rock pra. meters, e.g. shear atrength, otherwige ig: nored in the design will give rise to a Sufficiently large fectar af safety as @ mattor ‘of course. This bonus of sheer strength is, ‘of course, greatly raducod when anchors are installed in highly fissured “loose” rock ‘masses, especially those with much inter- stitlal meterial or high pore water pressure. This point was recognised by Hobst (1905) when he presented the formulae given in Table II for calculating the depth of the cone: in these 11 = shear strengch of rack (tonnes/m*) F = factor of safety against failure (F = 2:3 customary) ‘spacing of anchors (metres) angle of friction across fractures in rock mass ‘y= specific gravity of rack (tonnes/m) Note that the shear strength is consid~ ered in dealing with anchors in homogene- us rock, whereas rock weight is the domi ant parameter when dealing with fissured rock masses. In Britain, the shear strength parameter is usually janored in practice (thus erring conservatively) since quantita- tive data on the fracture geometry and shear strength of the rock mass are seldom ‘available et the design stage. tn this con- nection itis notewerthy that Klopp (1970) found in typical Rhine Slate, that elevated hydrostatic: and seepage pressures could reduce the shear strength of mylonitic ‘TABLE II-DEPTH OF ANCHOR FOR OVERALL STABILITY (after Hobst, 1965) Formulator depth of cone lock type ‘One anchor Group of anchors “Sound” homogenaous FP FP rock — 4a 2837.8 Irregular fissured OFF rock eos yertane ystang Irregular submerged fissured rock + [Fe = (71) tan (1) t00 9 zones to about 20 per cent of the "ides laboratory dry value, and occasionally 2s low as 4 per cent of this figure. Other engineers confirm that rock she strength generally contibutes a mai component of the ultimate pull-out resi tance. Brown (1970) states’ that the ul mate capacity of an anchor, in homogen fous, massive rock, is dependent on 1 shear strength of the rock end the surfa area of the cone, which for a 90 deg co! is proportional to the square of the dep of embedment ie, 4mhs, Usually a ma: mum allowable shear siress is specific fcting over the cone surface 0.9, O.024P mam? (Saliman and. Schaefer, 1968). # (1973) advocates that regardless of 0 type a value of O.024N/men? may | allowed and specifies 2 safety factor of fon @ test load displacement of up to 12m Values in excess of O.024N/mm? mey used if verified by field tests, Experimental evidence th ganoral, thera is a dearth of data ‘anchor failures In the cock mesg but Of tests which provides some results the overall stability aspect is presented Saliman and Schaefer (1968) who deseri the failure of ‘grouted bars on the Trin Clear Creek 230kV transmission line. Fe tests were carried out on deformed re forcement bars grouted into 70mm d meter holos to a depth of 1.62m in se- ments, largely shele. In all cases fi ocurred when @ block of grout and ro pulled-out; the propagation of cracking the rock surface gave en indication of ¢ cone of influence (Fig. 3). Assuming bulk density of 2Mg/m° for the rock, ba ‘analysis of the failure loads indicates ve ‘conservative results—eatety factore on t pull-out load betwoon 74 and 236—if + Spex of the 90 deg cone is assumed at | mid-point of the anchor length, but low Tactors—09 to 28-—for a cone with t pox at tho base ‘However, in laminated dofomite in whi Brown (1870) installed shallow anchors, the shape of tho pullout 20 could nat be observed, although the « ensiva area over which the rock surfs was uplifted around certain anchore ‘gasted failure along a horizontal bodd plane (laminar failure). Spacing Fock failures of this mode Bro: thought to be restricted to shallow anche ‘but in currant practice, fear of laminar lure or excessive fixed anchor mover: during service has led to the adoption staggered anchor lengths even at gt depths for closely spaced anchors. In + favourable conditions, for example wh rock bedding planes occur normal t0 anchor axis, the purpose of stagga, lengths is t0 reduce the intensity of str across such planes at the favel of the fb anchors, Tels thus evident that whilst a major tor in the choice of anchor dopth ia the & of rock cone ar wedge to be engaged, possibility of laminar failure may also in fence the designer's chaice of length closely spaced anchor groups. The South African Recommendatie (1972) suggest that in the case of a "c Gontrated” group. where the fixed anch fare spaced at less than OS x the fi anchor length apart, the stagger betwi alternate anchors should be O8 x the fi ‘anchor length. This compares with a st ‘99° of 0.25 x the fixed anchar length recc ‘mended for the Devorpiort Nuclear Cc 22000 Lb, ioc by Utlejohn, ahd Truman-Davi | Piha)” where 2000kN anchors were eee at‘ cones, Another mathod fo | spucgere loed within tho rock mass, & eyo install enchors ot diferent inch 2 ain the design by Soletanche (fab) forthe dardsae Dam Alga, In 68) ner counties 8 minimum distance | Belge oncors_ ie stploted” Brom tage), reviewing Swedish practice, confi | (28) mun Spacing tS ht te | BRN Stencard (1974) recommends 15m, || Se tensidertion being to reduce “inter: “| 25te grouting although this phenomencn | j Tenot necesearily » disadvantage in prac: Th is noteworthy that these guide rules ‘or approaches ste based on experience fre engineering judgement, and not on an nimate knowledge of stress. distribution jround tho anchor. #6 | Remarks «Mail regard to uplift capacity no experi- +) mantal or practical evidence and only very Title. theoretical data substantiate the | mathods currently used (Table I) to calou- | ate the ultimate resistance to pull-out of ' | individual or groups of anchors. Indeed, | there would appear to be results (Saliman and: Scheefer (1968) and Brown (1970)) Which indicate that failure in a rock mass ‘does nat generally occur in the form of en Inyerted 90 deg cone or wedge. Howerer, its reassuring to Know that most designs are Ikely to be conservative in adopting 2 fone method ‘with no allowance for the ‘shear svength of the rock mess. § | _ Nevertheless, some standardisation ‘on | safety factors for temporery and perma. |} nent enchors is desirable together with agreement on what allowances should be made for surcharge due to unconsclidated | overburden and the effect of upper layers [| oftwoathered rock, Ii general, effort should now be ex- 15000 Lb. 48000 Lb. TEST Nod TEST No.4. ‘ip Possible failure modes based on test results a Trinity Clear Cr K ‘(eter Soliman and Schacter, 185) wide ange of rock materials and masses ‘which have been carefully classified, in ‘order to study the shape and position of the rock zones mobilised at failure. Such progremmes should accommodate single Enchors and groups tested over a range of inclinations. Only in this way can anchor design In relation to overall stability be Sptimised both technically and economl= cally BOND BETWEEN CEMENT GROUT ‘AND ROCK Introduction ‘Most designe to date concerning straight shaft fixed anchors have been successfully based on the essumption of uniform bond istribution over the fixed anchor surface fares. In other words it has been generally Bocepted that the bond developed is merely 2 furetion of fixed anchor dimen- ‘ios and applied load. However, recent experimental and theoretical analyses have indicated thet the ‘character of the bond to the rock is more Complex, and roflocte odditional parameters ‘which often give rise to 2 merkedly non- Uniform stress distribution. Thus, in many teseg the assumed machanisim of load transfer in the fixed anchor zone may be ‘rosely inaccurate, For example, the situa- Yon gould well alee where, for a high ‘capacity anchor, the level of bond stress at {he loaded (or proximal) and may be ox- tremely high, possibly approaching feilure, ‘whereae the more distal parts of the fixed tnchor may in effect bo redundant. Cleary, such 2 situation will have 8 bearing on overall stability analyses, the interpretation. Of anchor extensions, and long-term creep behaviour, Design eriteria are reviewed relating 10 the magnitude and cistribution of bond, fixed anchor dimensions, and factors of safety, For comparison, the results of rele- ‘ant theoretical and experimental lavest Fixed anchor design "The strsight shaft anchor relies mainly ‘on the development of bond or shear in the region of the rock/grout interface, and as Geseribed by Littlejohn (1972) it is usual in Britain to assume an equivalent uniform distribution of bond etrees along the fred fnchor, Thus the anchor load, P, is related to the fixed anchor design by the equation: () dlr where L-= fixed anchor length d = affective anchor diameier ‘+ = working bond stress ‘This approach is used In many countries e.g. France (Forgoct, 1972), Italy (Mas- cardi, 1973), Canada| (Coates, 1970), snd USA’ (White, 1973) “The rule ie based on the following simple aseumptions: i). Transfer of tho losd” from the fixed anchor to the rock occurs by 8 uniformly istributed stage acting over the whole of the curved eurfaco of the fixed anchor. i) The diameter of the Borehole and the fixed anchor are identical (ii) “Failure takes place by sliding at the Tock/grout interface (smecth borehole) oF by shearing adjacent to the rock/erout in- terface in weaker medium (rough bore hole). iv) There are no discontinuities or inhor~ fant weakness planes along which failure fan be induced, and (W) ‘There le no local debonding at the ‘graut/rock interface. ‘Where shear strength tests are carried ‘out on reprosentative samples of the rock ‘ase, the meximum average working bond Stress at the rock/grout interface should fot exceed the minimum shear strength divided by the relevant safety factor (no1- mally not less than 2). This approach ap- piles primarily to soft rocks where the uni- xia} compressive strength (UCS) is less than 7N/mm?, and in which the holes have been dled using a rotary percussive tech= nique.’ In the absence of shear strength Gata, or. field pull-out. tests, Littlejohn (4972) stetes that the ultimate bond stress is often token as one-tenth of the uniexial Compressive strength of massive rocks (00 per cent core recovery) up to a maxi imum value ry, of 42N/mms, assuming that the crushing strength of the cement ‘grout is equal to oF greater than 42N/mme. Applying an apparent safety factor of 3 or ‘more, hich fe conservative bearing in \f | pone, in the form of field testing in'& gations ate presented. mind’ the lack of relevant date, the work e| ral a a} t i a ai fr t sy é aa} ESE EES ei Tuntvucs | ed 02|— 0°49 | ay 90-9 ues, oo | a ow 61 30870 - Tutt, UCS/2)tan 5°-9/2) oe compressive strength Fig.4, Relationship between shear stress and uniaxial es Fig.5. Effect of yon M*/UCS ratio

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy