International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

Structural response of vertically multi-jointed roof rock beams

P.P. Nomikos, A.I. Sofianos*, C.E. Tsoutrelis
Department of Mining and Metallurgy, Division of Mining Engineering, National Technical University, Rm 2-39,
9 Iroon Polytechneiou St., 157 80, Athens, Greece
Accepted 17 February 2002

Abstract

The mechanical response of multi-jointed roof beams is investigated numerically with the aid of a two dimensional distinct
element computer code. Beams of various spans to thickness ratio, that comprise a wide range of practical concern, are simulated
numerically and the effect of joint frequency and compliance on their structural behaviour is determined. Numerical results are
presented in graphs and useful conclusions for the critical beam parameters are derived. Comparisons of numerical results with
analytical solutions define the ranges, where these solutions may be used and the cases where divergence is observed. Finally the
graphs presented here may be used for preliminary practical design of pertinent multi-jointed beams. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

1. Background distribution of compression and tension is found,

The behaviour of an underground roof composed of
stratified, jointed and competent rock has been studied
since 1885 [1], when it was noticed experimentally that
the lowest stratum of the roof was not loaded by the
upper ones. This detachment of the roof beam does not
occur over the complete span of an excavation [2] and
friction is mobilized between adjacent roof beds close to
the excavation abutments. However, significant increase
in the unloaded volume is observed with decreasing of
the friction angle [3], rendering, in most cases, the single
unloaded stratum assumption as relevant.
Starting with Evans [4], researchers, based on this
detachment simplification, studied the behaviour of such
a beam. Wright [5] simulated the roof beam with finite
element models and Sterling [6] experimented on
laboratory specimens. Beer and Meek [7] made an
arbitrary assumption for the elastic shortening of the
beam and applied a minimization principle in order to
derive analytically design curves for mine roofs and
hanging walls. Neither these assumptions nor the design
curves were validated numerically or experimentally.
For a horizontal, elastic and solid laminated rock
beam in the roof of an underground excavation, the
according to beam theory, to be symmetrical about the
horizontal centreline across all sections within it. If
the beam is fixed at both ends, the maximum stress at the
midspan is one half of that at the abutments. For such a
uniformly loaded beam, vertical tensile fractures form in
its upper part at the abutments, when the maximum
tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the rock.
Such a beam is, usually as an approximation, considered
as simply supported. For a simply supported beam, the
maximum tensile stress at midspan is larger than the
maximum tensile stress at the abutments of the previous
beam with fixed ends, which yielded. This leads to
subsequent fracturing centred about the midspan. The
latter beam is termed as a voussoir beam. Thus,
transition from a continuous elastic beam with fixed
ends to a voussoir beam may be assured.
In Fig. 1, a three-joint voussoir beam model is drawn;
pertinent notation for its geometry and loading may be
seen there.
For a voussoir beam (and where appropriate for any
beam) the following non-dimensional parameters are
defined:
gs s s sn d dn
Qn ¼ kq ; sn ¼ ; sz ¼ ¼ ; dz ¼ ¼ ; ð1Þ
E t zo zon zo zon

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-10-772200; fax: +30-10-772-

2160. zo z d 2 h
zon ¼ ¼ þ ¼ zn þ dn ; zon ¼ 1  n; n ¼ ; ð2Þ
E-mail address: sofianos@metal.ntua.gr (A.I. Sofianos). t t t 3 t

1365-1609/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 9
80 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

Fig. 1. Three joint symmetric voussoir rock beam.

Table 1
Deflection, moment and strain for various roof beam structures

1 2 3 4

Solid elastic beam Fixed ends at Solid elastic beam Voussoir beam
with fixed ends at the abutments, hinged simply supported with joints at the
the abutments at the midspan at the abutments abutments and
the midspan

1 dn =Qn s3n ¼ 1/32 3/32 5/32 B(2.4–3.1)/32

2 Mn =Qn sn ¼ 1/12 1/8 1/8 (1/8)a
3 ex =Qn sn ¼ 6/12 6/8 6/8 6/(2.4–6)
a
Overturning couple.

where, E is the intact rock modulus of elasticity, g the In column 4 the beam considered is the voussoir beam
unit weight of the rock, and kq a surcharge factor which shown in Fig. 1 with three stiff joints, one at midspan
for a beam loaded with its self weight only has the and two at the abutments. Note that for such a beam the
value 1. moment corresponds to the half beam overturning or
For small deflections of the beam, the deflection and resisting couple, i.e. it is not a moment acting on the
the extreme strain have been evaluated for the three stiff cross section. Further, note that the deflection and the
joint symmetric voussoir rock beam of Fig. 1, [8,9], to be strain are given within bounds, as they depend also on
the remaining parameters of indeterminacy.
Qn sz 2 Qn s3z sx Qn sz
dz ¼ ðsz þ k1 ÞE ; ex ¼ ¼ : ð3Þ The above analytical solution for the three stiff joint
16 16 E 4n
voussoir beam has been derived [8] and numerically
In the above formulae there still remain two validated [9], on the assumption that the joints exist at
parameters of indeterminacy, i.e. k1 and n; to be the abutments and midspan only and are very stiff. This
evaluated. The former is defined by Eq. (4), where L is solution is in conformity with numerical results pro-
the length of the thrust line; the value of the parameter is vided by Wright [5] and experimental results provided
of the order of 8/3 and for values of sz larger than 15 its by Sterling [6].
contribution becomes insignificant. The value of n has However, the mechanical behaviour of a roof beam
been found generally to be in the range 0.12–0.30 and regularly crossed with deformable infilled joints differs
may be given by Eq. (5). from the idealized model described, as initial investiga-

 tion for a limited number of computer model runs shows
L
k1 ¼  1 s2z ; ð4Þ [10]. Therefore, further investigation on the behaviour of
s
roofs crossed by more joints, which may be soft, is
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffi considered necessary and is provided in the following
n ¼ 0:320:14sn Qn : ð5Þ
paragraphs.
In columns 1–3 of Table 1, the formulae, which
evaluate for solid elastic beams the deflection at
midspan, the maximum moment M ¼ ðMn Et2 Þ at the 2. Description of numerical models
abutment or midspan cross section, and the extreme
strain at the previous cross section, are given [10]. The The response of the examined voussoir beam models
beams considered are with fixed ends in column 1, is computed by UDEC [11], which is a two dimensional
simply supported in column 3, and with fixed ends but computer code based on the Distinct Element Method.
with a hinge at midspan in column 2. It employs a dynamic relaxation algorithm to solve the
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 81

Beam thickness t=t1 Beam thickness t=2 t1

no intermediate joints (Sj/S=0.5) no intermediate joints (Sj/S=0.5)

S/2 S/2

1 intermediate joint (Sj/S=0.25) 1 intermediate joint (Sj/S=0.25)

S/2 S/2

3 intermediate joints (Sj/S=0.125) 3 intermediate joints (Sj/S=0.125)

S/2 S/2

Fig. 3. Joint pattern distribution in voussoir half-beam models.

Fig. 2. Numerical model and descretization of the left half of a
symmetric voussoir beam.

Table 2
systems of equations formed and allows for the Summary of the UDEC models for the examination of the structural
response of voussoir beams
development of small or large displacements before
failure. Thus, the process of deflection of the beam and Parameter Ascribed values
opening of the joints may be simulated and the s (m) 5 10 20 40
distribution of the stresses and the position of the thrust t (m) 0.2 0.5 1.25 3.15
line within the rock may be established. 0.4 1.0 2.50 6.30
Beams of four different spans, i.e. s ¼ 5; 10, 20 and sj =s 0.5 0.25 0.125
E (Gpa) 10 30 100
40 m, that comprise a wide range of practical concern
kn (Gpa/m) 10 100 1000
are investigated. Two values for the thickness of beams t
are taken for each span where the second value is two
times the first. The smallest thickness value is almost
double of the thickness that causes buckling to the three The deformable beam is considered to behave
infinitely stiff joint beam model [9]. elastically, with a Young’s modulus E of 10, 30 and
The left half of such a symmetric voussoir beam 100 GPa and zero Poisson’s ratio. Loading of the beam
model and its descretization is shown in Fig. 2. The is due to its own unit weight g which is taken equal to
model consists of three blocks, one deformable in the 30 kN/m.
centre, which simulates the half beam and two rigid, The basic UDEC model described is suitably adjusted
one at each side of the half beam. The left one simulates to include any vertical joints that cross the beam. All
the abutment and the right one imposes the appropriate patterns include joints at midspan and the abutments
boundary conditions at the midspan. The deformable (basic model); joints are progressively added in between,
block is subdivided into diagonally opposed triangular as shown in Fig. 3. The ratio of joint spacing to beam
zones with zone width in the y-direction equal to t=40: span sj =s is taken as sj =s ¼ 0:5 (no intermediate joint in
Zone width in the x-direction varies in each model so each half beam), 0.25 (1 intermediate joint in each half
that the element height to width ratio remains constant beam) and 0.125 (3 intermediate joints in each half
and 2:1. beam). Any intermediate joint has the same elastic and
In the right hand discontinuity, which represents the mechanical properties with the abutment’s joint while
middle section of the beam, both vertical slip and lateral the midspan joint has a normal stiffness two times the
separation are permitted. This is achieved by imposing abutment joint stiffness so the resulting normal dis-
zero friction angle f and cohesion c: In the left hand placement at each half beam is half of the total normal
discontinuity, which represents the beam abutment, only displacement at midspan.
separation is permitted. This is achieved by imposing The geometry and mechanical properties of the 216
very large values for the friction angle and for the numerical models prepared for the analysis with the
cohesion, i.e. f ¼ 891 and c ¼ 10 GPa, in order to UDEC code may be seen in Table 2.
prevent shear slip.
The elastic properties of the discontinuities are varied
from very stiff to relatively soft, i.e. kn ¼ ks ¼1000, 100 3. Structural response
and 10 GPa/m. The stiffest value taken is 1000 GPa/m,
which corresponds to an unweathered closed joint. The 3.1. Stress distribution at the critical sections
lowest value of 10 GPa/m corresponds e.g. to a 3 mm
width filled discontinuity with weathered rock or soil Analytic solution [8,9], described in Section 1, for the
like material of 30 MPa deformability modulus. three stiff joint voussoir beam model assumes the same
82 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

s=5 m , t=0.2 m , E=10 GPa s=5 m , t=0.4 m , E=10 GPa

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

y/t

y/t
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00
σ [Pa ] σ [Pa]

s=10 m , t=0.5 m , E=10 GPa s=10 m , t=1.0 m , E=10 GPa

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

y/t

y/t
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

s=20 m , t=1.25 m , E=10 GPa s=20 m , t=2.5 m , E=10 GPa

0.5 0.5
0.45
0.4 0.4
0.35
0.3 0.3
y/t

y/t
0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05
0 0
6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

s=40 m , t=3.15 m , E=10 GPa s=40 m , t=6.3 m , E=10 GPa

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
y/t

y/t

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00 6.00E+07 5.00E+07 4.00E+07 3.00E+07 2.00E+07 1.00E+07 0.00E+00
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

Sj/S=0.5 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.5 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.5 - kn=1000 GPa/m

Sj/S=0.25 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.25 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.25 - kn=1000 GPa/m
Sj/S=0.125 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.125 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.125 - kn=1000 GPa/m

Fig. 4. Axial stress distribution at the abutment for roof beam with modulus of elasticity E ¼ 10 GPa and all the other parameters varied.
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 83

s=5 m , t=0.2 m , E=10 GPa s=5 m , t=0.4 m , E=10 GPa

0 0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

y/t
y/t

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5
0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07 0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

s=10 m , t=0.5 m , E=10 GPa s=10 m , t=1.0 m , E=10 GPa

0 0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2
y/t

y/t
0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5
0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07 0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

s=20 m , t=1.25 m , E=10 GPa s=20 m , t=2.5 m , E=10 GPa

0 0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2
y/t

y/t

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5
0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07 0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

s=40 m , t=3.15 m , E=10 GPa s=40 m , t=6.3 m , E=10 GPa

0 0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2
y/t

y/t

0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4

0.5 0.5
0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07 0.00E+00 5.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.50E+07 2.00E+07 2.50E+07 3.00E+07
σ [Pa] σ [Pa]

Sj/S=0.5 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.5 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.5 - kn=1000 GPa/m

Sj/S=0.25 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.25 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.25 - kn=1000 GPa/m
Sj/S=0.125 - kn=10 GPa/m Sj/S=0.125 - kn=100 GPa/m Sj/S=0.125 - kn=1000 GPa/m

Fig. 5. Axial stress distribution at midspan for roof beam with modulus of elasticity E ¼ 10 GPa and all the other parameters varied.

triangular axial stress distribution along the contact joints, that also may be deformable, the actual stress
cross sections of the beam at the abutment and at distribution will differ from the analytically evaluated
midspan. However, when the beam has more than three one [10].
84 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

s=5.0 m, t=0.2 m s=5.0 m, t=0.4 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

na

na
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1
0.1
10 100 1000
10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m]
kn [GPa/m]

s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

na
na

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
na
na

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
k n [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
na

na

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 6. Equivalent normalized contact length na at the abutment with respect to joint stiffness and frequency.

The actual stress distributions at these critical sections
of the beam, i.e. abutment and midspan, is shown in
Figs. 4 and 5 for the case of modulus of elasticity
E ¼ 10 MPa. As it is observed from these, axial stress
distribution is not linear and differs in shape and contact
length at abutment and midspan.
In Fig. 4a clustering of abutment axial stress distribu-
tions with the same joint stiffness and a flattening with
decreasing joint stiffness may be observed. Stress
distribution is not linear, but the approximation by a
triangular distribution may be seen to be logical. The
effect of joint spacing to span ratio ðsj =sÞ is not
significant even for the low stiffness models i.e.
kn ¼ 10 GPa/m. In Fig. 5a minor effect of joint stiffness
and frequency on the stress distribution at midspan is
observed.
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 85

s=5 m, t=0.2 m s=5 m, t=0.4 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
nm

nm
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
nm

nm
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
nm

nm

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
nm
nm

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 7. Equivalent normalized contact length nm at midspan, with respect to joint stiffness and frequency.

By assuming triangular stress distributions at the each point along the contacts. Thus, na and nm are
abutment and at midspan, that provides the same thrust defined by
in magnitude and position as the actual values,
equivalent normalized contact lengths na and nm ; at Ma Mm
na ¼ and nm ¼ : ð6Þ
these section may be defined [9]. The magnitude of tTa tTm
thrust T may be obtained directly from the UDEC code
and the moment M acting on these sections is evaluated The equivalent normalized contact length n of the beam
by numerical integration of the axial stress values at is computed as the arithmetic mean of na and nm :
86 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

s=5.0 m, t=0.2 m s=5 m, t=0.4 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

n
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

n
n

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
n
n

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000

kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
n
n

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 8. Equivalent normalized contact length n of the beam with respect to joint stiffness and frequency.

Furthermore, the equivalent extreme axial strains 3.2. Joint contact length
corresponding to the computed thrust and the triangular
stress distribution assumption along the pertinent In Figs. 6 and 7 the computed values of the equi-
equivalent contact length are defined by valent normalized contact lengths na and nm are drawn
as a function of the joint stiffness and frequency.
Furthermore, in Fig. 8 the respective diagrams for
Ta Tm eax emx the equivalent contact length n of the beam are
eax ¼ 2 ; emx ¼ 2 ; ex ¼ 2 : ð7Þ
na Et nm Et eax þ emx drawn.
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 87

Table 3
Analytical evaluation of the mechanical parameters of the idealized voussoir beam model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
S (m) t (m) E (Gpa) Qn sn n d (m) dn =Qn s3n ¼ ex ex =Qn sn ¼

5 0.2 10 1.50E05 25.00 0.214 0.00415 2.83/32 5.24E04 6/4.29

30 5.00E06 25.00 0.240 0.00141 2.89/32 1.56E04 6/4.81
100 1.50E06 25.00 0.260 0.00043 2.94/32 4.37E05 6/5.15
0.4 10 1.50E05 12.50 0.257 0.00108 2.95/32 2.21E04 6/5.09
30 5.00E06 12.50 0.270 0.00037 3.03/32 7.06E05 6/5.31
100 1.50E06 12.50 0.280 0.00011 3.00/32 2.06E05 6/5.46
10 0.5 10 3.00E05 20.00 0.213 0.01063 2.83/32 8.42E04 6/4.28
30 1.00E05 20.00 0.240 0.00360 2.88/32 2.50E04 6/4.80
100 3.00E06 20.00 0.260 0.00111 2.96/32 7.01E05 6/5.14
1.0 10 3.00E05 10.00 0.256 0.00279 2.98/32 3.54E04 6/5.08
30 1.00E05 10.00 0.270 0.00095 3.04/32 1.13E04 6/5.31
100 3.00E06 10.00 0.280 0.00029 3.09/32 3.30E05 6/5.45
20 1.25 10 6.00E05 16.00 0.212 0.02728 2.84/32 1.35E03 6/4.27
30 2.00E05 16.00 0.239 0.00925 2.89/32 4.01E04 6/4.79
100 6.00E06 16.00 0.259 0.00284 2.96/32 1.12E04 6/5.14
2.5 10 6.00E05 8.00 0.256 0.00722 3.01/32 5.67E04 6/5.08
30 2.00E05 8.00 0.270 0.00245 3.06/32 1.81E04 6/5.30
100 6.00E06 8.00 0.280 0.00075 3.13/32 5.28E05 6/5.45
40 3.15 10 1.20E04 12.70 0.212 0.06907 2.86/32 2.14E03 6/4.27
30 4.00E05 12.70 0.239 0.02340 2.90/32 6.37E04 6/4.78
100 1.20E05 12.70 0.259 0.00718 2.97/32 1.78E04 6/5.14
6.3 10 1.20E04 6.35 0.256 0.01849 3.06/32 9.00E04 6/5.08
30 4.00E05 6.35 0.270 0.00627 3.11/32 2.87E04 6/5.31
100 1.20E05 6.35 0.280 0.00191 3.16/32 8.38E05 6/5.46

In Fig. 6 the normalized contact length na at the
abutment is found to be a monotonically increasing
function of the joint compliance. For the high stiffness
value, i.e. kn ¼ 1000 GPa/m, na is found to be in the
range of 0.12–0.23, while for the larger span models its
values are about 0.15. As the stiffness decreases, na
increases up to a maximum value of na =0.55 for the
cases studied.
An important observation from Fig. 6 is that na
remains almost unaffected from the thickness of the
beam t: Diagrams of na for the same span s are almost
identical for the two values of t considered in the
numerical analysis. This might be very useful for
practical design purposes.
An increasing trend of na with the Young’s
modulus E for constant joint stiffness is observed.
The effect of joint frequency becomes important only
for the low stiffness models (kn ¼ 10 GPa/m).
For kn ¼ 100 GPa/m, the effect of joint frequency
is less and for kn ¼ 1000 GPa/m, no effect is
observed.
In Fig. 7 there is still an increase of the normalized
contact length nm at midspan with increasing compli-
ance, although it is much less pronounced and only for
the low thickness models. Values of nm are generally
found to be in the range 0.25–0.45 for the cases studied.
A minor increase of nm with beam thickness is observed
mainly for the large beam span models. Joint frequency
generally increases the value of nm : No other self-evident
trend is observed.
The functions of the equivalent normalized contact
length n of the beam are drawn in Fig. 8. They may be
related to those evaluated by Eq. (5) and given in
column 6 of Table 3 for the case of no intermediate
joints and high joint stiffness value models. By noting
that the analytical values are arithmetic means of the
equivalent midspan and abutment values, satisfactory
correlation may be observed. For stiff joints (i.e.
kn ¼ 1000 GPa/m) even for a large number of joints,
n is between 0.18 and 0.30, which conforms with
Sofianos [12] (see also [13,14]).
3.3. Beam deflection
In Fig. 9 the computed values of the deflection d of
the various configurations are drawn as a function of the
joint stiffness and frequency.
An increasing trend of d with decreasing joint stiffness
is observed, which is more pronounced for stiffness
values between 10 and 100 GPa/m, while in the range
100–1000 GPa/m only a slight differentiation of minor
importance is observed.
The effect of joint frequency becomes significant only
for the low stiffness value models, where deflection is
increasing with joint frequency. Also, an increase of d is
88 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

Fig. 9. Deflection of the beam d at midspan with respect to joint stiffness and frequency.

observed with decrease of elasticity modulus E for
constant joint stiffness.
The deflection for the voussoir beams with three stiff
joints is evaluated analytically by Eq. (3) and is given in
column 5 of Table 3. The excellent correlation of the
latter values of the deflection, for the no intermediate
joints and very stiff, i.e. kn ¼ 1000 GPa/m, joint model
cases with the analytical ones in the table can be
observed. Furthermore, the analytically evaluated de-
flection ratio of column 8 of Table 3, may be correlated
to the theoretical values for various beam structures
given in row 1 of Table 1.
Statistical interpretation of beam deflection values for
all model cases shows that normalized deflection dz
defined by dz ¼ d=zo may be correlated to the non-
dimensional parameter Q0n s3z =16; where Q0n ¼ gs=E 0 and
E 0 the equivalent elastic modulus of the rock beam, with
vertical joints of spacing sj and stiffness kn ; calculated
from
1 1 1
0
¼ þ : ð9Þ
E E kn sj
This correlation may be seen in Fig. 10, where the
normalized beam deflection dz is drawn as a function of
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94
0.12

z = k
. Qn' . s z3 / 16
0.10
k
= 1.187
0.08
R 2 = 0.967

z
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Qn' . s z3 / 16
Fig. 10. Correlation of normalized deflection with Q0n s3z =16:
Q0n s3z =16: Although the correlation coefficient R2 is of the
order of 0.96, scattering of dz values for the same Q0n s3z =16
value is still observed, giving rise to the need for more
research on this topic. However, for high joint stiffness,
i.e. kn > 100 GPa, the factor kd in the relation of Fig. 10
becomes kd ¼ 1:0 with correlation coefficient R2 ¼ 0:99:
3.4. Extreme axial strain
The abutment extreme axial strain eax ; the midspan
extreme axial strain emx and the mean extreme axial
strain ex ; defined as equivalent extreme strains corre-
sponding to the computed thrust and the triangular
stress distribution assumption, are drawn in Figs. 11–13
as functions of joint frequency and compliance.
In Fig. 11 the extreme strain eax at the abutment is
shown to be a monotonically increasing function of joint
stiffness and of the modulus of elasticity E: For low
values of E; increase of eax with joint stiffness is more
pronounced, while for large values of E this trend
becomes small and approximately linear in the logarith-
mic scale. Joint frequency does not seem to significantly
affect the value of eax : Thus for practical design
purposes this parameter is of minor importance.
In Fig. 12 extreme strain emx at the midspan may be
seen to be practically unaffected from the variation of
joint stiffness. A clustering of emx values with E is
observed with an increasing trend with decreasing rock
elastic modulus. The effect of joint frequency is more
pronounced for low values of rock elastic modulus,
where for multi-jointed beams emx is smaller. For high
values of E the effect of joint frequency is negligible for
all values of joint stiffness.
The mean extreme strain ex of the beam in Fig. 13 is
shown to be an increasing function of joint stiffness.
This trend is more pronounced for low values of E and
insignificant for large values of E: A clustering of the ex
values with E is observed, while the effect of joint
spacing is of minor importance.
The equivalent extreme strain for the voussoir beam
with three stiff joints is evaluated analytically, by Eq. (3)
89
and is given in column 9 of Table 3. This may be related
to the equivalent mean extreme strain ex of the beam
drawn in Fig. 13, for the no intermediate joints and very
stiff, i.e. sj =s ¼ 0:5 and kn ¼ 1000 GPa/m, model cases,
where satisfactory correlation may be observed. Note
that, the analytically evaluated extreme strain ratio of
column 10 in Table 3, may be correlated to the
theoretical values for various beam structures given in
row 3 of Table 1.
0.08 0.10
4. Application
Figs. 4–13 may be used for preliminary practical
design purposes of multi-jointed rock beams. As an
example, let us suppose that a roof beam with span
s ¼ 17 m and thickness t ¼ 1:5 m is crossed with vertical
joints with sj =s ¼ 0:125 and stiffness kn ¼ 10 GPa/m.
The beam rock material has an Young’s modulus
E ¼ 30 GPa. Loading is due to self-weight only with
unit weight g ¼ 30 kN/m3.
Figs. 6 and 7 may be used for the estimation of the
equivalent normalized contact lengths na and nm : From
Fig. 6, na for s ¼ 10 m is about 0.34 and na for s ¼ 20 m
is about 0.35. Thus a value of na about 0.345 may be
used as an initial estimation. From Fig. 7, nm for
s ¼ 10 m and t ¼ 0:5 m is about 0.39 and for s ¼ 10 m
and t ¼ 1:0 m, it is about 0.41. With linear extrapolation
for s ¼ 10 m and t ¼ 1:5 m we obtain:
ð1:5  0:5Þ
nm ¼ 0:39 þ ð0:41  0:39Þ ¼ 0:43:
ð1:0  0:5Þ
From Fig. 7, again for s ¼ 20 m and t ¼ 1:25 m nm is
about 0.41 and for s ¼ 20 m and t ¼ 2:5 m, it is about
0.43. With linear interpolation for s ¼ 20 m and t ¼
1:5 m we obtain:
ð1:5  1:25Þ
nm ¼ 0:41 þ ð0:43  0:41Þ ¼ 0:414:
ð2:5  1:25Þ
Thus, for s ¼ 10 m and t ¼ 1:5 m nm is about 0.43 and
for s ¼ 20 m and t ¼ 1:5 m nm is about 0.418. With
linear interpolation for s ¼ 17 m and t ¼ 1:5 we obtain:
ð17  10Þ
nm ¼ 0:43 þ ð0:414  0:43Þ ¼ 0:419D0:42:
ð20  10Þ
The equivalent normalized contact length n of the beam
may be either evaluated from Fig. 8 or calculated as the
arithmetic mean of na and nm by
na þ nm 0:345 þ 0:42
n¼ ¼ ¼ 0:38:
2 2
For the initial estimation of the deflection d of the beam
Fig. 10 may be used. Having the values of na and nm
90 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

s=5.0 m, t-0.2 m s=5.0 m, t=0.4 m

1.00E-03 5.00E-04

8.00E-04 4.00E-04

6.00E-04 3.00E-04
eax

emx
4.00E-04
2.00E-04

2.00E-04
1.00E-04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
10 100 1000
10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m

2.00E-03 8.00E-04

1.50E-03 6.00E-04

eax
4.00E-04
eax

1.00E-03

5.00E-04 2.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m]
kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

2.50E-03 1.00E-03

2.00E-03 8.00E-04

1.50E-03 6.00E-04
eax
eax

1.00E-03 4.00E-04

5.00E-04 2.00E-04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
10 100 1000
10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

4.00E-03 2.00E-03

3.00E-03 1.50E-03
eax
eax

2.00E-03 1.00E-03

1.00E-03 5.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 11. Equivalent extreme axial strain eax at the abutment as a function of joint frequency and compliance.

known, the normalized lever arm of the beam before The equivalent elastic modulus of the rock mass from
deflection is Eq. (9) is

1
na nm 0:345 0:42 0 1 1
zon ¼1  ¼1  ¼ 0:745: E ¼ þ
3 3 3 3 E k n sj
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 91

s=5.0 m, t=0.2 m s=5.0 m, t=0.4 m

5.00E-04 2.00E-04

4.00E-04
1.50E-04

3.00E-04
emx

emx
1.00E-04
2.00E-04

5.00E-05
1.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m

8.00E-04 4.00E-04

6.00E-04 3.00E-04

emx
emx

4.00E-04 2.00E-04

2.00E-04 1.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

1.00E-03 5.00E-04

8.00E-04 4.00E-04

6.00E-04 3.00E-04
emx
emx

4.00E-04 2.00E-04

2.00E-04 1.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

2.00E-03 8.00E-04

1.50E-03 6.00E-04
emx
emx

1.00E-03 4.00E-04

5.00E-04 2.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000

k n [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 12. Equivalent extreme axial strain emx at midspan as a function of joint frequency and compliance.

1 Thus, the normalized deflection of the beam may

1 1
¼ þ ¼ 12:43 GPa be calculated by the regression equation of Fig. 10
30 10  0:125  17
as
and the non-dimensional parameter Q0n is
gs 30  103  17 Q0n s3z
Q0n ¼ ¼ ¼ 4:1  105 : dz ¼ 1:187
E0 12:43  109 16
92 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94

s=5.0 m, t=0.2 m s=5.0 m, t=0.4 m

8.00E-04 4.00E-04

6.00E-04 3.00E-04
ex

ex
4.00E-04 2.00E-04

2.00E-04 1.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]
s=10 m, t=0.5 m s=10 m, t=1.0 m
1.00E-03 4.00E-04

8.00E-04 3.00E-04

6.00E-04

ex
2.00E-04
ex

4.00E-04
1.00E-04
2.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000

kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=20 m, t=1.25 m s=20 m, t=2.5 m

2.00E-03 6.00E-04

1.50E-03
4.00E-04
ex
ex

1.00E-03

2.00E-04
5.00E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

s=40 m, t=3.15 m s=40 m, t=6.3 m

3.00E-03 1.00E-03

8.00E-04

2.00E-03
6.00E-04
ex
ex

4.00E-04
1.00E-03
2.00E-04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00
10 100 1000
10 100 1000
kn [GPa/m] kn [GPa/m]

Sj/S=0.5 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.5 - E=100 GPa

Sj/S=0.25 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.25 - E=100 GPa
Sj/S=0.125 - E=10 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=30 GPa Sj/S=0.125 - E=100 GPa

Fig. 13. Equivalent mean extreme axial strain ex of the beam as a function of joint frequency and compliance.
 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94 93

Table 4
Comparison of estimated values for the various parameters of the voussoir beam with the numerically calculated ones with UDEC code

na nm n zon d T (Nt) eax

Estimated values (diagrams) 0.345 0.42 0.378 0.745 1.07E02 1.47E+06 1.88E04
Numerically calculated by UDEC 0.328 0.404 0.366 0.756 1.19E02 1.45E+06 1.96E04

 3 that comprise a wide range of practical concern, is

4:1  105 17=0:745  1:5
¼ 1:187 performed with the distinct element code UDEC. The
16 voussoir beams analyzed are loaded with their self
¼ 1:07  102 weight. The modulus of deformation of the intact rock is
and from Eq. (1) the deflection of the beam d is taken to vary as 10, 30 and 100 GPa. The beam is
crossed by vertical joints where all patterns include
d ¼ dz zo ¼ 1:07  102 ð0:745  1:5Þ joints at midspan and the abutments and joints are
¼ 1:19  102 m: progressively added in between. The stiffness of the
joints is varied from a highest stiffness value taken as
The normalized lever arm z after deflection is calculated
1000 GPa/m, that corresponds to an unweathered closed
by Eq. (1) as:
joint, to a lowest stiffness value of 10 GPa/m, which
corresponds e.g., to a few mm wide discontinuity filled
d 0:0119 with weathered rock or soil like material.
zn ¼ zon  ¼ 0:745  ¼ 0:737:
t 1:5 The examined beam response includes the contact
The magnitude of the horizontal thrust force at the length, the deflection of the beam and the extreme strain
abutment is calculated by equating the resisting moment developed at the abutment and midspan. These are
due to the horizontal forces T at the abutment or at presented in graphs where they are drawn as functions
midspan with the overturning couple, given by col. 4 of of the joint frequency and stiffness.
row 2 in Table 1 The voussoir beam models, tested for relatively small
deflections, indicate an increase in the deflection and a
MA gs2 30000  172
T¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:47  103 kN decrease in the extreme strain especially at the abutment,
zn t 8zn 8  0:737 with the increase in the joint frequency and compliance.
and the axial strain at the abutment may be calculated The contact length at the abutment increases due to the
by Eq. (7) as increase in the joint compliance and frequency, whereas
2T at midspan this parameter is of minor importance. This
eax ¼ increase in the contact length causes a reduction in the
na Et
level arm. The increase in the deflection and contact
2  1:47  106
¼ ¼ 1:89  104 : length due to the joint compliance starts to be significant
0:345  30  109  1:5 for low stiffness values.
The actual values of the various beam parameters The graphs presented in here may be used for
obtained from numerical modeling of the specific beam preliminary design purposes of multiple jointed roof
configuration with the UDEC code are given in row 2 beams, provided that the assumptions made are
Table 4 in comparison with the above estimated ones pertinent to the structure. For this purpose a series of
(row 1 of Table 4): evaluations with linear interpolation and extrapolation
As it may be seen from Table 4 estimated values are for the contact length is being made and sequential
close to the numerically obtained ones and thus for calculations for the various beam parameters are
preliminary practical design the estimated values may be performed. An example is presented on how to use the
used. aforementioned graphs for a beam case. This example
shows a close fit with the actual values obtained from
numerical modelling of the specific beam with the
5. Conclusions UDEC code.

The three stiff joint symmetric beam model allows for

the analytical evaluation of its mechanical response.
However, increase in the frequency and compliance of
the joints crossing an underground roof beam, modify
its response.
Examination of the structural response of multi-
jointed roof beams with various span to thickness ratios,
Acknowledgements
Part of this research was funded by the State
Scholarships Foundation of Greece through scholarship
to the first of the authors for his Ph.D. studies.
94 P.P. Nomikos et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 79–94
References
[1] Fayol M. Sur les movements de terain provoques par l’
exploitation des mines. Bull Soc l’Ind Minerale 1885;
14:818.
[2] Lorig LJ, Brady BHG. An improved procedure for excavation
design in stratified rock. Rock mechanics: theory–experiment–
practice. Proceedings of the 24th US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, 1983.
[3] Sofianos AI, Nomikos PP, Tsoutrelis CE. The importance of
interlayer friction on the stability of underground bedded roofs.
Mine Planning and Equipment Selection. Rotterdam: Balkema,
2000. p. 377–80.
[4] Evans WH. The strength of undermined strata. Trans Inst Min
Metall 1941;L50:475–500.
[5] Wright FD. Design of roof bolt patterns for jointed rock. Bureau
of Mines, N.T.I.S., US Department of Commerce, 1974.
[6] Sterling RL. The ultimate load behaviour of laterally constrained
rock beams. 21st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics 1980.
p. 533–42.
[7] Beer G, Meek JL. Design curves for roofs and hanging-walls in
bedded rock based on ‘voussoir’ beam and plate solutions. Trans
Inst Min Metall 1982;91:A18.
[8] Sofianos AI. Analysis and design of an underground hard rock
voussoir beam roof. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1996;33(2):153–66.
[9] Sofianos AI, Kapenis AP. Numerical evaluation of the response in
bending of an underground hard rock voussoir beam roof. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35(8):1071–86.
[10] Sofianos AI, Nomikos PP, Tsoutrelis CE. Effect of joint
frequency and compliance on the response of an underground
roof rock beam. GeoEng. 2000, Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
[11] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. UDEC User’s Guide. Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA, 1996.
[12] Sofianos AI. Discussion of the paper by Diederichs MS, Kaiser
PK. Stability of large excavations in laminated hard rock masses:
the voussoir analogue revisited (Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1999;36:97–117), Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(7):991–3.
[13] Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK. Authors reply to discussion by A.I.
Sofianos regarding Diederichs MS and Kaiser PK. Stability of
large excavations in laminated hard rock masses: the voussoir
analogue revisited (Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:97–117), Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36(7):995–7.
[14] Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK. Stability of large excavations in
laminated hard rock masses: the voussoir analogue revisited. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:97–117.