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, EnglandContents
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 42sag5
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 analysisTABLE 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 Cc22000 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