Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01159-7 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
In Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests Performance
in an Underground Powerhouse Complex: A Case Study
in Sri Lanka
Mousa Hazrati Aghchai . Parviz Moarefvand . Hossein Salari Rad
Received: 11 September 2019 / Accepted: 16 December 2019
 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract This paper presents results of 71 in situ
nondestructive rock bolt and tendon pull tests con-
ducted in the Powerhouse Complex of the Uma Oya
Multipurpose Development Project, located in Sri
Lanka. The pull tests are performed on 6 and 8 m
Double Corrosion Protected fully and partially grouted
rock bolts (high strength threadbar) as well as 4 m
normal fully grouted rock bolts and 26 m pre-stressed
tendons, which are installed in different types of
Gneiss. Based on the recorded load–displacement
curve of the rock bolt head in each test, stiffness of
fully and partially grouted rock bolt is measured in the
bonded section. Effect of some parameters on the
stiffness such as rock mass types and characteristics,
bond length as well as rock bolt diameter and steel
type are investigated. Primarily, the pull tests are done
to approve the working load capacity of rock bolts and
tendons and quality control of the installation process.
Besides, the stiffness of bonded rock bolt is also
calculated. The results show that the stiffness declines
by decreasing the rock mass mechanical
M. H. Aghchai
P. Moarefvand (&)
H. S. Rad
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Avenue,
P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: parvizz@aut.ac.ir
M. H. Aghchai
e-mail: mousahazrati@aut.ac.ir
H. S. Rad
e-mail: salarih@aut.ac.ir
characteristics, rock bolt bond length, and rock bolt
diameter as well as steel bar grade.
Keywords Fully grouted rock bolt
In situ pull test

Stiffness
Cavern
Tunnel
1 Introduction
Fully and partially grouted rock bolts and pre-stressed
tendons are extensively used to reinforce rock mass
and stabilize the surface and underground excavations.
In designing rock reinforcement, evaluating bond
shear strength (shear strength of bolt-grout or grout-
rock interface) is always a challenge. Based on
standards and suggestions, pullout tests are usually
done to determine anchorage capacity (load-bearing
capacity) of the rock bolts. Besides, nondestructive
pull tests are usually performed during construction to
control the quality and load bearing capacity of
installed rock reinforcement. Generally, the main
output of the pull tests is the total load–displacement
(deflection or elongation) of the bolt head. Subtracting
the elastic displacement of bolt free length (usually
free length of the bolt plus the jack length) from
recorded total displacement gives the load–displace-
ment curve of bolt bonded section. Interpreting the
curve reveals the bond behavior, de-bonding process,
and suitability of the considered working load in
design (Littlejohn and Bruce 1975; Hobst and Zajı́c
123

1983; Peng and Tang 1984; Lardner and Littlejohn
1985; Stillborg 1986; Institution 1989; Xanthakos
1991; Littlejohn 1991, 1993; PTI 1996; Sabatini et al.
1999; ASTM D4435 2013). The obtained bond
strength can be used in stability analyses of under-
ground excavations and analytical solutions of rock
reinforcement (Fahimifar and Soroush 2005; Fahim-
ifar and Ranjbarnia 2009; Ranjbarnia et al.
2014, 2015).
A few in situ pullout test results are included in the
publications since they are usually less accurate in
comparison with the laboratory pullout tests mainly
because of the field difficulties in measurements.
Littlejohn and Bruce (1975) are among the first
researchers who insisted on doing quality control pull
tests and compared design assumptions with some
in situ pullout tests (Littlejohn and Bruce 1975). To
improve understanding of the load transfer mechanism
of fully grouted rock bolts, Signer (1975) conducted
14 fields pullout tests on instrumented fully grouted
rock bolts installed in the roof of 4 coal mines and
compared the results with laboratory works and
numerical modeling. He declared that the field test
results are variable because of geological variations
(Signer 1990). Hyett et al. (1992) performed labora-
tory and field tests to investigate major factors
influencing the bond capacity of grouted cable bolts.
He concluded that cable bolt bond capacity depends on
cement properties, embedment length, and radial
confinement which depend on the rock mass types
(Hyett et al. 1992). Zou (2004) declared that accurate
monitoring of the rock bolt performance is not easy.
He analyzed the mobilization of the anchoring force
and distribution of the bolt tension for different bolt
types (Zou 2004). Chen and Ren (2008) carried out a
pullout test on a novel steel strand rock bolt. The
resulted load–displacement has been used in some
other papers such as Ren 2010 to verify their proposed
analytical method (Chen and Ren 2008; Ren et al.
2010; Blanco-Martı́n 2012). Park et al. (2014) pre-
sented results of 6 field pullout tests on steel anchor
installed in rock. The results showed that the pullout
resistance of pressure grouted anchors is higher than
its amount obtained for gravity grouted anchors (Park
et al. 2014). Aziz et al. (2016) conducted short
encapsulation in situ pullout tests at three underground
mines in different geological conditions and compared
the results with numerical modeling (Aziz et al. 2016).
Bastami et al. (2017) proposed a new method that
123
Geotech Geol Eng
predicts the behavior of a rock bolt in the pullout test.
He compared the model predictions with 4 in situ
pullout test results done in a coal mine (Bastami et al.
2017). Lu et al. (2018) investigated the bond-slip
behavior of the bamboo bolt-modified slurry interface
by conducting 26 pullout tests. They analyzed the
effect of anchorage length, bolt diameter, and hole
diameter. The results showed that the controlling
interface is the bamboo bolt and anchoring agent
contact (Lu et al. 2018). Aydan (2018) have done
laboratory pull and push tests as well as in situ cyclic
pullout tests. He states that the normal (radial) stress
on the interfaces is an important item in estimating the
shear strength of interfaces. The normal stress itself is
a function of surrounding medium stiffness or defor-
mation modulus (Aydan 2018). Salcher and Bertuzzi
(2018) presented the results of 181 pull tests done on
rock bolts and cable bolts in the Sydney Metro project.
The bolt stiffness characteristics are determined
considering bolt type, grouting agent, lithology, bar
material, and borehole diameter. The maximum test
load was approximately 180 KN to avoid the bolt
shank failure. However, they did not measure detail
stiffness of all tests (Salcher and Bertuzzi 2018).
On the contrary of in situ pullout tests, laboratory
pullout tests are often conducted and used in verifi-
cation of analytical or numerical analyses results or
investigation of a particular parameter. (Farmer 1975;
Peng and Tang 1984; Kaiser et al. 1992; Benmokrane
et al. 1995; Li and Stillborg 1999; Zhang et al. 2001;
Zhang and Benmokrane 2002; Moosavi et al. 2002;
Rao Karanam and Dasyapu 2005; Seo et al. 2011;
Martin Laura Blanco et al. 2011, 2013; Thenevin et al.
2017; Mirzaghorbanali and Aziz 2017; Aziz et al.
2018; Yu et al. 2019).
Most of the references address findings of labora-
tory rock bolt pullout tests. However, detail findings of
in situ rock bolt pullout tests are not presented
comprehensively. For example, the measured stiffness
(rigidity) of the rock bolts in different rock types has
not been presented. Moreover, pullout tests for Double
Corrosion Protected (DCP) rock bolts have not been
performed. This paper presents results of in situ
nondestructive pull tests conducted in the Powerhouse
complex of the Uma Oya Multipurpose Development
Project (MPDP) in Sri Lanka (including powerhouse
cavern, transformer cavern, and main access tunnel).
The load–displacement curve of the bolt head is
recorded in each test and the stiffness of the rock bolt
Geotech Geol Eng

is measured; then, the effect of some parameters on the Powerhouse Cavern (PC) and Transformer Cavern
stiffness such as the steel bar type, bolt diameter, and (TC) with relatively large dimensions are the two main
double corrosion protected rock bolt with different structures in the downstream section of the Uma Oya
bond lengths as well as rock mass types are MPDP project. There are adjacent tunnels around the
investigated. powerhouse and transformer caverns which are sep-
arated by a rock pillar of 30 m width (Fig. 2). The
main dimensions and shape of the caverns and MAT
2 The Layout of the Uma Oya Multipurpose are presented in Table 1.
Development Project

Located in the Uva province of Sri Lanka, Uma Oya 3 Geological and Geotechnical Condition
Multipurpose Development Project (MPDP) is a of the Powerhouse Complex Area
classical hydropower plant with the additional benefit
of conveying water from the central mountain region The main rock masses in the powerhouse complex
to the dry southern part of the island. Location and area consist of different types of gneisses including
schematic profile of the Uma Oya MPDP are shown in Marble and Calc-Silicate Gneiss, Garnet gneiss,
Fig. 1. The scheme consists of two catchment areas, Charnokite, and Quartz rich Feldspar Gneiss. An
each one confined by a dam (Puhulpola dam and extensive laboratory testing was done in the project
Dyraaba dam). These areas are linked via a low- area during the site investigation and design stage.
pressure conveyance tunnel of 3.9 km length (Link Summary of some laboratory test results performed in
tunnel). A 15.3 km long Headrace tunnel starting from the powerhouse complex area are presented in Table 2,
the Dyraaba dam transfers the design discharge of 19.5 based on which marble is the most unfavorable rock
m3/s past a surge shaft, a valve chamber, a vertical type with a median Uniaxial Compressive Strength
pressure shaft with a length of about 620 m, an (UCS) of 57 MPa. Subsequently, the encountered
underground powerhouse with an adjacent trans- marble was interpreted to be susceptible to brittle
former cavern both bearing an overburden of almost behavior; although, marble is usually massive with
700 m and a tailrace tunnel of 3.7 km length. The little jointing. Due to the unpredictable distribution of
Main Access Tunnel (MAT) with the length of 2000 m the lithologies, marble as the material with the lowest
provides access from the surface to the powerhouse strength and the highest intact brittleness was selected
complex area (Mahab Ghodss-Poyry Joint Ventur as determinant rock type for rock support design.
2014; Nater and Hazrati Aghchai 2017). (Nater and Hazrati Aghchai 2017).
Puhulpola Dam

Dyraaba Dam

Surge Tank
1000.3
Surge shaft

Link Tunnel
D= 3.7 m
h=140m

D= 4.5 m
Headrace Tunnel
D= 4.3 m Project location
L=3900 Km Valve Chamber
L=15300 m
Mahatotilla oya
Uma Oya

Pressure shaft
river

river

Switch Yard
h = 620 m

D= 3.2 m

257.05
252.65
l
nne
Tu
15.2m

30m
Transformer 17.9m ss
Cavern
Powerhouse cce
35.7m

in AD= 8 000m
Transformer Cavern m
Cavern Ma L=2
14m
Powerhouse
Cavern
Tailrace Tunnel
D= 4.3 m
LPT Tunnel
L=3700m
D= 4.4 m L~120 m

Fig. 1 Schematic profile of the Uma Oya MPDP project

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 A 3D view of the powerhouse and transformer caverns and adjacent tunnels (dim. in meters)

Table 1 Excavation dimensions of power house complex weak materials (intercalations). In the TC, there are
Garnet Gneiss and Marble with more sub-vertical
Excavation dimension Width Height Length
(m) (m) (m) joints that have soft fillings. It should be noted that in
the caverns the rock type changes rapidly; thus,
Powerhouse Cavern (PC) 17.9 35.7 69.8 selection of the rock type in a section is not easy. As a
Transformer Cavern (TC) 14 15.2 36.9 case in example, the geological mapping of the north
Main access tunnel (MAT)-D 8 7 2000 wall of PC is shown in Fig. 3. In the MAT, different
shape
types of Gneisses and marble exist along the tunnel.
The summary results of the Total Rock Mass Rating
(RMRT) in different parts (Bieniawski 1989) of the
All as-built geological mappings along with labo- PC, TC, and MAT are presented in Table 3.
ratory data have been used to determine geomechan-
ical parameters of rock masses in different parts of the
powerhouse complex during excavation. Generally, in 4 Excavation and Rock Support of Underground
the PC entrance area, the rock type is Garnet Gneisses Powerhouse Complex
and Charnokite with more jointing. From the middle
part to the end of the PC, the main rock type is blocky The PC, TC, and MAT were excavated using drill and
to massive Marble with minor jointing. In some cases, blast method. Smooth blasting technique was used to
in the contact of the rock types, there are fillings with keep the disturbance of rock masses around the

Table 2 Summary of laboratory test results of different rock types used in powerhouse complex design
Rock property Rock type (Intact)
Marble, Calc- Charnokitic Garnet Quartzo Garnet Garnet
silicate gneiss gneiss biotite feldspathic gneiss honblende
gneiss gneiss gneiss

Uniaxial compressive Min.-Max. 32–86 (57) 44–128 (91) 56–118 (90) 67–123 (91) 69–155 62–98 (76)
strength (MPa) (Med.) (117)
Modulus of elasticity 10–34 (21) 12–36 (23) 13–37 (25) 16–26 (20) 21–37 14–22 (18)
(GPa) (29)
Brazilian (MPa) 3–7 (4) 6–10 (7) 5–9 (7) 7–11 (9) – 7–9 (8)

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 3 As-built geological mapping of powerhouse cavern north wall
Table 3 Evaluated RMR range in powerhouse complex area
(details are available in mappings)
Location and rock type
The entrance of PC, mainly Charnokitic and Garnet
Gneiss
Mid. To End of PC, mainly Marble
TC, mainly Calc-silicate Gneiss-Marble
MAT, different types of Gneisses and marble along
tunnel- even in a cross-section of tunnel there are
two types of rock in right and left
caverns as small as possible. Excavation and rock
support of PC and TC were divided into some stages.
Excavation of PC started from extending the excava-
tion of the top-middle part of the PC. During
completing the excavation of the PC roof, the rock
support was installed. Then the excavation of the
caverns continued in stages using benching method. In
this method, the rock support of walls was installed
after finishing the excavation of each bench along the
PC. The same procedure has been applied for exca-
vation and rock support of the TC. Excavation stages
and rock support section of PC and TC are shown in
Fig. 4 (Nater and Hazrati Aghchai 2017). The cross-
section of MAT is D shape with a width of 8 m and a
height of 7 m. Full face excavation was done in MAT,
then rock support was installed with a variable
distance (depending on rock condition) to tunnel face.
Rock support is installed to stabilize potential
wedges/blocks and decrease and maintain the plastic
zone in its place in the periphery of excavation.
Generally, the rock support consists of mesh/steel-
fiber reinforced shotcrete together with fully grouted
rock bolts (bar anchors or threadbars). The integrity of
RMRT the system relies on the proper application of the
support measures especially on complete grouting of
65 ± 7 the rock bolt and on the spraying of shotcrete without
shadowing and delamination. For long term purposes
70 ± 7
in the PC and TC, double corrosion protected (DCP)
50 ± 5
fully grouted threadbars with different length have
70 ± 10
been used (Fig. 4). The grouting was done in two
stages. In the first stage, the threadbar was inserted in a
corrugated sheath with a diameter of 85 mm and inner
grouting was performed. Elapsing at least 14 days
from grouting, the outer grouting was done (borehole
diameter was 127 mm) with the pressure at least equal
to 2 bar. Cement-based grout was used with water to
cement ratio equal to 0.45 and 7 days compressive
strength more than 25 MPa. Additives were used to
minimize the bleeding and shrinking of grout and
make a workable cement grout. The bars of the rock
bolts were high strength elements with the yield
strength (Fy) equal to 830 MPa and the ultimate
strength (Fu) of 1030 MPa.
During design stages, tendons (pre-stressed cables)
with a total length of 26 m (8 m bond length and 18 m
free length) had been predicted as an additional
measure. The pre-stressed tendon anchors consisted
of 4-cables (7-wire strand cable) with the total cross-
section area of 560 mm2. The cables were high
strength with the ultimate strength of 1860 MPa
(Grade 1860). Based on updated information during
construction and results of analysis during construc-
tion, the tendons were used in south and north wall of
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4 a PC and TC a
excavation stages and rock
support typical section, b PC
end of excavation and start
of concrete works (view
toward the west wall),
c details of rock bolt
including: threadbar,
bearing plate, spacer,
centralizer, nut, coupling,
corrugated sheath used for
rock support in PC and TC

b
c

PC as well as at the pillar between two caverns
(Fig. 4).
In the MAT, single corrosion protected fully
grouted rock bolts with a length of 4 m and diameter
of 25 mm were used. The bar yield and ultimate
strength are equal to 550 MPa and 650 MPa, respec-
tively. After inserting the rock bolt in a borehole with a
diameter of 55 mm, cement-based grouting was done
with 2 bar pressure. The cement-based grout was used
with water to cement ratio equal to 0.5 and 28 days
compressive strength more than 20 MPa.
5 In Situ Pull Tests
To control the quality of rock bolt and tendon
installation and to assess shear strength of the
bolt/cable-grout and grout-rock interfaces as well as
corrugated sheath surface which is inside the grout

123
Geotech Geol Eng
annulus, in situ pull tests have been done in both
caverns as well as in the MAT. The load–displacement
curve of the loaded end of the rock bolts and tendons
were recorded to check the bonding shear strength and
evaluate the load-bearing capacity of the rock bolt and
tendon. Moreover, the other idea of performing the
pull tests was to determine the amount of bond total
displacement occurring as a result of applying a
specific load, a question which is usually raised during
performing pull tests. In this regard, the average slope
of the load–displacement curve in the loading stage
was calculated for each pull test. The average slope
represents the stiffness of bond (Kavg) which depends
on many factors such as threadbar/cable surface
characteristics, bar/cable diameter, corrugated sheath
surface characteristics, DCP diameter, borehole diam-
eter, bond length as well as grout and rock mass
characteristics (deformation modulus). Based on the
pull tests, the stiffness of bond was calculated for
different types of rock bolts (different steel grades)
and bond length as well as tendons installed in several
types of rock masses. Although the load–displacement
curve is not linear due to de-bonding, an average linear
line between the datum load and maximum applied
load was considered in calculating the bond stiffness.
To check the occurred de-bonding, the displacement
was recorded during unloading in some of the pull
tests and the residual displacement was measured.
In Fig. 5, details of the installed DCP rock bolt in
PC and TC and its general characteristics, as well as
loading jack on the 4-strand tendon, are shown.
Loading was done in some steps and the total
displacement was recorded in each step. Then, by
considering the elastic elongation of the free length,
the bond displacement during loading and unloading
as well as residual displacement was recorded.
In the PC roof and walls, and the TC roof, pull tests
have been done on DCP grouted rock bolts ( threadbar
diameter equal to 36 mm) with different bond lengths
(3, 6 and 8 m) installed in various rock types. Due to
the fixed length of the jack and coupling, the free
length is 0.88 m in all tests done in fully grouted DCP
rock bolts (about 0.2 m of the bolt is out of the
borehole and the jack is connected with a coupling to
the bolt head). However, in DCP rock bolts on which
load cell was installed, the bond length was about 3 m
and free length (considering the length of jack) was
about 4 to 5 m for the rock bolt with the length of 8 m.
It is important to mention that these pull tests were
nondestructive. That is, the applied load on the bolt
head was equal or less than the working load which
was about 650 KN in PC and TC for the bar with the
diameter equal to 36 mm. The applied load was less
than 80 percent of the bar yield load, which implies
that the bar remained in its elastic range.
Pull tests were also done on 4-strand tendons
installed in south and north wall of PC, as well as on
fully grouted rock bolts installed in the MAT. In the
following sections, the results of the pull test are
presented for each location separately.
5.1 In Situ Pull Tests in PC Roof
The total length of fully grouted DCP rock bolt in the
PC roof is 8 m with the bar diameter equal to 36 mm.
Considering 20 cm bolt head length required for
installing bearing plate and nut, the bond length is
about 7.8 m. Performing pull tests in the roof was a
tough task due to the heavy jack (upward direction and
the jack should be fixed in the axial direction of the
rock bolt for proper loading). In the PC roof, 7 pull
tests gave acceptable load–displacement curves. In
Fig. 6, the recorded total load–displacement, bar load–
displacement, and bond load–displacement curves are
shown. The name of each test was selected in a manner
to locate them easily. For example, test L3:52 is
related to the third row of the DCP on the left side of
the PC roof centerline in chainage 52 of cavern length
which starts from the east wall (from the connection of
PC with EAT). The bond load–displacement curve
(related to the fully grouted section) is determined by
subtracting the bar elongation from the total displace-
ment. The loading increment was about 20 KN and
unloading was done generally in 4 steps.
As it is depicted in Fig. 6, the maximum displace-
ment of the rock bolt head in the bonded section varies
between 3.3 and 5.5 mm and the residual displace-
ments vary between 0.11 and 1.38 mm (this is not
recorded in 2 of the tests). The slope of the fitted line in
the loading stage is considered as the bond average
stiffness (Kavg). Assuming that the only changing
parameter is the rock type (DCP fully grouted rock
bolt’s length, diameter, grout… were considered
constant in PC roof), the results show that Kavg value
changes in different rock types and it becomes less as
the rock mass mechanical characteristics and defor-
mation modulus decreases. The bond stiffness in the
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Load

Lf
Rock bolt PC and TC:
- Lf (free length) = 0.88 m in fully grouted DCP
Inner Grout
Outer Grout - Lb (bond length) = 5.8 to 7.8 m in fully
grouted DCP
- Dia. of Threadbar (db) = 36 mm
Lb

Drilled - Dia. of DCP (inner grout) = 85 mm

hole
- Dia. of borehole (dh) = 127 mm
- Different types of gneiss and Marble
- Threaded bar, Fy = 830 MPa, Fu = 1030 MPa
- Tendons= 4-strand, A=560 mm2, Lt=26m
Rock
- Tendons, Grade 1860

Fig. 5 Left: Schematic view of the installed fully grouted DCP rock bolts in PC and TC—Middle: Characteristics of DCP—Right: Jack
ready for applying load on the tendon

Garnet Gneiss is the highest (Kavg = 185 KN/mm),
and it is the lowest in the marble (Kavg = 127 to 155
KN/mm) rock type.
On some of the DCP rock bolts in the PC roof, a
load cell was installed to check the amount of applied
load as a result of excavation. In this case, a nominal
bond length and free length was equal to 3 and 5 m,
respectively. Practically, the nominal bond length that
may vary during grouting and by considering the jack
length nominal free length is about 5.6 m. The pull test
was done as proof tests before installing a load cell on
the bolt head. The results of some tests with reasonable
data are illustrated in Fig. 7. The name of the load cell
is related to the station number and its location in a
section. In the roof of PC, the LC 3–5 to LC 3–7 were
located in Marble rock type and the LC 4–4 to LC 4–6
were located in Garnet Gneiss.
The results of the pull tests indicate that in the same
rock type and DCP rock bolt characteristics, generally
decreasing bond length gives lower bond stiffness. For
example, the Kavg in the fully grouted rock bolts with
about 7.8 m bond length installed in the Marble is
about 150 KN/mm (Fig. 6), while in the 3-meter
nominal bond length it varies between 75 to 117 KN/
mm (Fig. 7). It should be mentioned that in LC 3–7 the
upper part of the curve is used to calculate the bond
stiffness. Moreover, with the same nominal 3-meter
bond length the Kavg (80–137 KN/mm) is generally
higher in Garnet Gneiss in comparison to its value in
Marble (Kavg = 75 to 117 KN/mm).
5.2 In Situ Pull Tests in PC Walls
5.2.1 Pull Tests on DCP Fully Grouted Rock Bolts
The total length of DCP fully grouted rock bolts in the
PC walls (North and South walls, see Fig. 4) was 6 m
with the bar diameter equal to 36 mm and the bond
length approximately equal to 5.8 m. The bond load–
displacement curve of the 5 pull tests (3 tests in the
south wall and 2 tests in the north wall) are illustrated
in Fig. 8. The tests are located in Charnokitic Gneiss
or its combination with Garnet Gneiss and Marble
rock types. As can be seen, the maximum displace-
ment varies between 3.8 and 5.0 mm. The point in
these tests is that in all of these 5 tests residual
displacement is negligible, which can mean that the
displacements are in elastic range (no de-bonding).
The results show that Kavg varies from 142 to 158 (the
lowest for the Charnokite and the highest for Garnet
Gneiss). The characteristics of the DCP rock bolts, the
grout properties, and rock types are the same in these
tests in comparison to the tests done in PC roof and
only the bond length varies. As it is seen, decreasing
about 2 m bond length causes lower Kavg for the same
rock type (see Figs. 6 and 8).
In the PC roof pull tests, for example, the bond
length equal to 7.8 m in Garnet gneiss gives Kavg
between 173 to 185 KN/mm, which are higher values
in comparison to the tests done in PC walls in the same
rock type with 5.8 m bond length. Moreover, the Kavg
in Garnet gneiss is higher than Kavg value in
Charnokitic Gneiss for the same bond length.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP- L3:05 Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP- L4:13
Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement

700 700

600 600

500 500

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

400 400

300 - Rock Type is mosly Charnokite and

300
Garnet Gneiss - Rock Type is mosly Garnet Gneiss
200 200 - Res. Disp. =0.11 mm
- Res. Disp. = Not recorded
- Stiffness of bond (Kavg)= 173 KN/mm - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 185 KN/mm
100 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP- R3:30 Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP-R4:48
Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement

700 700

600 600

500 500
Load (KN)

Load (KN)
400 400

300 300
- Rock Type is mosly Marble
200 - Res. Disp. = Not recorded 200
- Stiffness of bond (Kavg)= 149 KN/mm - Rock Type is mosly Marble
100 100 - Res. Disp. =1.38 mm
- Stiffness of bondavg (Kavg)= 137 KN/mm
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP-L3:52 Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP- R3:60
Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement

700 700

600 600

500 500
Load (KN)
Load (KN)

400 400

300 300

200 - Rock Type is mosly Marble 200 - Rock Type is mosly Marble
- Res. Disp. =0.17 mm - Res. Disp. =0.68 mm
100 - Stiffness of bondavg (Kavg)= 152 KN/mm 100 - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 155 KN/mm

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Powerhouse Cavern Roof- Test on DCP- L4:65

Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement
700

600

500
Load (KN)

400

300

200 - Rock Type is mosly Marble &

Charnokitic Gneiss
100 - Res. Disp. =1.28 mm
- Stiffness of bond (Kavg)=127 KN/mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6 Load–displacement curves of the pull tests done in PC roof on fully grouted DCP rock bolts

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Power House-Roof- LC 3-6

Power House-Roof- LC 3-5 Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement

700 Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement 700

600 600

500 500

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

400 400

300 300
- Rock Type is mosly Marble - Rock Type is mosly Marble
200 200 - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 75 KN/mm -
- Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 110 KN/mm
- Free length= 5 m , Bond length=3 m Free length= 5 m , Bond length=3 m
100 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Power House-Roof- LC 3-7

Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement
700 Power House-Roof- LC 4-4
Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement
600 700
600
500
Load (KN)

500

Load (KN)
400
400
300 - Rock Type is mosly Marble
- Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 117 KN/mm
300
- Rock Type is mosly Garnet Gneiss
200 - Free length= 4 m , Bond length=4 m
200 - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 80 KN/mm
- Free length= 5 m , Bond length=3 m
100 100
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Power House-Roof- LC 4-5 Power House-Roof- LC 4-6
Total Load - Displacement Bond Load-Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Total Load - Displacement Bar Load-Displacement Bond Load-Displacement
700 700
600 600
500 500
Load (KN)

Load (KN)

400 400
- Rock Type is mosly Garnet Gneiss
300 300 - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 93 KN/mm
- Rock Type is mosly Garnet Gneiss - Free length= 5 m , Bond length=3 m
- Res. Disp.= 0.45 mm
200 - Stiffness of bond(Kavg)= 137 KN/mm 200
- Free length= 5 m , Bond length=3 m
100 100
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7 Load–displacement curves of the pull tests done in PC roof on partially grouted rock bolts

5.2.2 Pull Tests on Tendons free length is less than the assumed nominal free
length (about 16 m in rock). The changing tendons
Tendons as additional rock support were installed in apparent free length as a result of increasing applied
the walls of the PC (Fig. 4). Performance tests were load is presented in Fig. 10. As can be seen, the
done on the first two tendons (one in the north wall and apparent free length increases by loading increment
the other in the south wall) to check the anchor load and reaches to about 11 m in the final loading step.
carrying capacity, measure apparent free tendon Although the length of apparent free length was less
length, and determine the residual displacements than the assumed nominal length, the analysis showed
(PTI 1996). The results of the incrementally loading that about 11 m free length meets the design require-
and unloading tests (performance tests) are depicted in ments; thus, the rest of tendons were installed
Fig. 9. The graph of elastic movement, based on which accordingly and only proof tests were done on each
the apparent free length is calculated, is not between tendon. Due to the varying apparent free length, the
line A and line B (Fig. 9). This means that the apparent

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Bond load– Powerhouse-South wall

displacement of the DCP
fully grouted Rock bolts in
PC walls, with negligible
residual displacement
PH-South wall, El.=245.5, Ch.=34.15,
700
Charnokitic Gneiss, Kavg=151 KN/mm
PH-South wall, El.=244.35, Ch.=41.65,
600
Charnokitic-Garnet Gneiss, Kavg=150
KN/mm
PH-South wall, El.=244, Ch.=58.15,
500
Marble & Charnokitic Gneiss, Kavg=154
KN/mm

Load (KN)
400

300

200

100

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)

Powerhouse-North wall
700
PH-North wall, El.=247,
Ch.=34.15, Garnet Gneiss,
600 Kavg=158 KN/mm
PH-North wall, El.=245.5,
Ch.=40.15, Charnokitic Gneiss,
500
Kavg=142 KN/mm
Load (KN)

400

300

200

100

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)

average stiffness is not considered for comparing it
with other pull test results.
5.3 In Situ Pull Tests in TC Roof
The total length of fully grouted DCP rock bolts in the
TC roof is 6 m with the bar diameter equal to 36 mm.
The results of four pull tests done in the TC roof (bond
load–displacement) are shown in Fig. 11. As can be
seen, the maximum displacement varies between 2.9
and 6.3 mm and the residual displacements vary
between 0.11 and 1.38 mm. The results show that Kavg
value in the faulted/jointed Marble area is minimum
(Kavg = 94 KN/mm) and it is maximum in Garnet
Gneiss (Kavg = 175 KN/mm). Generally, the Kavg
value changes with rock mass type and rock mass
condition (classification).
5.4 Pull Tests in MAT
As permanent rock support, rock bolt and shotcrete are
installed to stabilize the MAT for the long term. The
MAT (a D-shape tunnel with the width of 8 m, height
of 7 m, and length of about 2000 m) passes through
different rock types mainly including Marble and
Calc-Silicate Gneiss, Quartz Feldspar Gneiss, Quart
rich Garnet Gneiss, and Charnocitic Gneiss (see
Table 2). From the entrance of the MAT portal to

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 9 Result of
Performance tests done in
North and South wall of PC

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 10 Increasing apparent free length of tendons as a result of
incremental loading steps (North and South wall of PC)
chainage 1000, the average overburden is about
150 m, and it increases almost rapidly to 700 m from
chainage 1000 to 2000 (in the connection with PC).
Generally the rock mass condition along the tunnel is
good to very good (Total RMR is usually more than
60). However, the block/wedge failure was possible.
The total Rock Mass Rating (RMRT) in different parts
of the MAT was evaluated during excavation
(Table 3). The rock bolts bar diameter was equal to
25 mm and the borehole diameter was 55 mm.
Cement-based grouting was done with its cubic
compressive strength of more than 20 MPa in 28 days.
The nondestructive pull tests (with the maximum pull
force lower than 170 KN, regarding the bar type and
diameter) were done on fully grouted rock bolts to
Fig. 11 Bond load–
displacement of the DCP
700
fully grouted Rock bolts in
TC roof
600
500
Load (KN)
400
300
200
100
0
0.00
check the load-bearing capacity. A 20 cm free length
of the bolts head is considered in all tests and the
grouted part load–displacement curves are determined
(Bond length is approximately equal to 3.9 m). The
results of the tests are categorized based on the rock
types (other parameters are almost the same for the
pull tests) and presented in Figs. 12 and 13. Totally 62
pull tests were done in the MAT, out of which 47 tests
give reasonable results. The maximum bond displace-
ment is generally between 3 to 4.5 mm in the final
applied load. The average bond stiffness (Kavg) of tests
are calculated and in each rock type statistical results
are presented. Generally it seems that the bond
stiffness is not so sensitive to the rock type; but, the
stiffness is higher for Charnokitic and Garnet Gneiss
in comparison to the value for Marble and Feldspartic
Gneiss.
The bar charts shown in Figs. 12, 13, and 14 present
statistical data for the determined average stiffness
(Kavg, the horizontal axis) in different rock types. For
example, in Fig. 12 the bar chart shows that 14 tests
had been done in Marble. The Kavg minimum,
maximum, and mean values are 38, 54, and 48 KN/
mm respectively with the standard deviation equal to
6. Based on these information, distribution of the
obtained Kavg values can be observed. The same
information is given in Figs. 14 and 15.
Transformer cavern-Roof
L2:31, res. Disp=1.29 mm,
Marble-Faulted, Kavg=94
KN/mm
R2:25, res. Disp=0.02,
Charnokic Gneiss and Marble,
Kavg=123 KN/mm
R2:18, res. Disp=1.63,
Charnokic Gneiss and Marble,
Kavg=152 KN/mm
R1:09, res. Disp= 0.11, Garnet
Gneiss, Kavg=175 KN/mm
2.00 4.00 6.00
Displacement (mm)
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fit Comparison for Marble

Mostly Marble and Calc-Silicate Gneiss, Kavg=38-54 KN/mm RiskExtValue(45.3809,5.4038)

180 0+764 100.0%

79.8%
Load (KN)
0+766
160
0+770
140 0+772
0+774
120
0+776

density
100 0+780
0+778
80
0+783
60 0+785
0+788
40
0+276
20 1+670
Displacement (mm) 1+690
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kavg (KN/mm)

Fig. 12 Load–displacement curves of the fully grouted rock bolts in the MAT, Marble and Calc-Silicate Gneiss rock type
(RMR = 65–75)

Quartz Feldspar Gneiss, Kavg=36-55 KN/mm Fit Comparison for Felsparitic Gneiss
180
RiskExtValue(41.7634,4.7029)
35.84 55.16
160 100.0%
Load (KN)

140 1+220
1+226
120 1+228
1+230
1+232
100
density

1+237
1+239
80 1+241
1+243
60 1+247
1+450
40 1+460
1+475
20 1+500
Displacement (mm) 1+525
0 Kavg (KN/mm)
0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 13 Load–displacement curves of the fully grouted rock bolts in the MAT, Charnokitic Gneiss with Marble rock type
(RMR = 65–75)

Fit Comparison for Garnet Gneiss

Quartz rich Garnet Gneiss, Kavg=40-60 KN/mm RiskInvGauss(14.071,66.901,RiskShift(33.236))
180 39.43 58.57
100.0%
160 89.2%
Load (KN)

1+252
140 1+255
120 1+260
1+262
Probability density

100 1+265
1+276
80 1+285
60 1+290
1+295
40 1+298
1+300
20 1+495
Displacement (mm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kavg(KN/mm)

Fig. 14 Load–displacement curves of the fully grouted rock bolts in the MAT, Quartz rich Garnet Gneiss rock type (RMR = 75–85)

123
Geotech Geol Eng
6 Comparison of Bond Stiffness Obtained in Pull
Tests
Summary of the evaluated bond stiffness of DCP rock
bolts in the PC and TC for different bond lengths (Lb)
and rock types are presented in Table 4. Based on the
results, it can be seen that decreasing bond length
gives lower bond stiffness (from left to the right of
Table 4). A possible reason for this very interesting
observation is the fact that the rock mass disturbance is
less in depth (rock mass characteristics decreases in
the surface of excavation due to blasting or plasti-
cization of rock mass). But, this phenomena can also
be observed in the roof of the PC (partially grouted
DCP bolt with the 3 m bond length which is in depth of
rock mass). This phenomena should be investigated in
future studies.
Moreover, decreasing rock mass characteristics
declines the bond stiffness (from up to the down of
Table 4). This is an obvious observation which agrees
well with the previous studies. In fact, when the rock
bolt is pulled out, it exerts a radial load on the
surrounding media (mainly due to the ribbed bar, as a
result of dilation). In reaction, the media acts a normal
load on the bar. A stiffer media applies more normal
load on bar, which results in higher Kavg. The effect of
the corrugated sheet cannot be determined accurately,
but it is concluded that it does not decrease the bond
bearing load.
In the MAT, also, bond stiffness of fully grouted
rock bolts are evaluated for different rock types and
presented in Table 5. It seems that the amount of bond
stiffness does not change considerably within different
rock types. The possible reason is the amount of the
Fig. 15 Load–displacement Charnokic Gneiss with Marble,Kavg=39-65
curves of the fully grouted 180
rock bolts in the MAT,
160
Load (KN)
Quartz Feldspar Gneiss rock
type (RMR = 70–80) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1
maximum applied load (due to the steel grade) which
is not high enough to make a difference in various rock
types. Comparing the results presented in Tables 4 and
5 discloses that in the MAT the bond stiffness is much
lower than the bond stiffness determined in the PC and
TC for almost all rock types. This is mainly due to the
bolt diameter and type. As it was observed in previous
studies, decreasing bolt diameter results in decreasing
the bond stiffness.
7 Conclusions
In situ pull tests are rarely presented in detail due to
their difficulties in field measurements and test setup.
The results of these tests are useful in the verification
of analytical and numerical analysis with reality,
especially for relatively long rock bolts.
In this paper, results of in situ nondestructive pull
tests conducted in the Powerhouse Cavern and Trans-
former Cavern as well as Main Access Tunnel of the
Uma Oya multipurpose development project are
presented. The main purpose is to determine the fully
and partially grouted rock bolt’s bond stiffness (slope
of the load–displacement curve obtained in the pull
tests). The bond stiffness of rock bolt (Kavg) depends
on many factors such as threadbar surface character-
istics, threadbar diameter, corrugated sheath surface
characteristics, borehole diameter, bond length as well
as grout and rock mass characteristics (deformation
modulus). To check the effect of a specific parameter,
all other items were maintained constant; for example,
pull tests were done on the same rock bolt installed in
Chainage
1+700
1+750
1+850
1+870
1+950
Displacement (mm)
2 3 4
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Evaluated Kavg (KN/mm) for DCP grouted rock bolts (dh = 127 mm, db = 36 mm, Fy = 830 MPa, Fu = 1030 MPa) in
different location of the PC and TC for various bond lengths and rock types
Rock type Location, No. of Tests
PC Roof, 7 tests PC walls, 5 tests TC Roof, 4 tests PC Roof, 6 tests
Lb = 7.8 m Lb = 5.8 m Lb = 5.8 m Lb = 3 m

Garnet Gneiss 185 158 175 80–137

Charnokitic Gneiss 173 142–154* 123–152** –
Marble, Calc-Silicate Gneiss 127–155 – 94 75–117***
*
Combination of Charnokitic Gneiss with Marble and Garnet Gneiss
**
Combination of Charnokitic Gneiss with Marble
***
The highest value related to the bond length equal to 4 m

Table 5 Evaluated Kavg (KN/mm) for fully grouted rock bolts Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their
(dh = 53 mm, db = 25 mm, Fy = 550 MPa, Fu = 650 MPa) in very great appreciation to the ministry of irrigation and water
the MAT in different rock types resources of Sri Lanka, Farab Company (Energy and water
projects), and Mahab Ghodss-Poyry Consultants joint venture
Rock type Kavg for Lb = 3.8 m, totally 47 for their generous cooperation in doing tests based on
tests instructions prepared by designers, first author in collaboration
with Dr. Nater. We wish to thank Dr. Nater for his helpful
Marble and Calc-Silicate 48 ± 6 comments and discussions during performing the tests, and
Gneiss special gratitude to the project site engineers for preparing
Quartz Feldspar Gneiss 44 ± 6 geological mappings and cooperation in performing pull tests
Quartz rich Garnet Gneiss 47 ± 6 based on the instructions.
Charnokitic Gneiss with 39–65
Marble
References

different rock mass types to check the effect of rock
mass characteristics on rock bolt bond stiffness.
Based on the conducted pull tests and obtained
results, it is found that the bond stiffness decreases as
the rock bolt bond length reduces and the rock mass
mechanical characteristics decline. Besides, for the
same rock type, decreasing the bolt bar diameter and
bar grade results in lower bond stiffness. The test
results give an idea about the order of displacements
which may occur during a pull test by knowing the
rock mass and rock bolt characteristics. Moreover, the
load bearing capacity and quality of installed rock
bolts and tendons meet design requirements.
Usually, a load–displacement curve of the rock bolt
head is an output of the pull test. For further
investigations, evaluation of bond peak and residual
shear strength based on the load–displacement curve
of the rock bolt head can be considered using an
analytical method and its verification with pull test
results.
ASTM D4435 (2013) Standard test method for rock bolt anchor
pull test. ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA
Aydan Ö (2018) Rock reinforcement and rock support. CRC
Press, Boca Raton
Aziz N, Craig P, Mirzaghorbanali A, Nemcik J (2016) Factors
influencing the quality of encapsulation in rock bolting.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:3189–3203. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00603-016-0973-5
Aziz N, Mirzaghorbanali A, Yang G et al (2018) Innovative
approach to strata reinforcement in coal mines with refer-
ence to evaluation cable bolts shear strength. J Min Environ
9:703–715. https://doi.org/10.22044/JME.2018.6918.1525
Bastami M, Shahriar K, Ghadimi M (2017) Verification of the
analytical model for fully grouted rock bolts based on pull-
out test (case study: tabas coal mine). Procedia Eng
191:1068–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.
280
Benmokrane B, Chennouf A, Mitri HS (1995) Laboratory
evaluation of cement-based grouts and grouted rock
anchors. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 32:633–642. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)00021-8
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications: a
complete manual for engineers and geologists in mining,
civil, and petroleum engineering. Wiley, New York
Blanco ML, Tijani M, Hadj-Hassen F (2011) A new analytical
solution to the mechanical behaviour of fully grouted
rockbolts subjected to pull-out tests. Constr Build Mater

123
Geotech Geol Eng
25:749–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521831040.
009
Blanco ML, Tijani M, Hadj-Hassen F, Noiret A (2013)
Assessment of the bolt-grout interface behaviour of fully
grouted rockbolts from laboratory experiments under axial
loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 63:50–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.06.007
Blanco-Martı́n L (2012) Theoretical and experimental study of
fully grouted rockbolts and cablebolts under axial loads.
Mémoire de thèse, MINES-ParisTech (France)
Chen WW, Ren FF (2008) Mechanical behavior of the bamboo-
steel composite rock-bolt. Rep 2006BAK30B02 Dunhuang
Acad Cult Reli Prot Cent Lanzhou Univ
Fahimifar A, Soroush H (2005) A theoretical approach for
analysis of the interaction between grouted rockbolts and
rock masses. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 20:333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2004.12.005
Fahimifar A, Ranjbarnia M (2009) Analytical approach for the
design of active grouted rockbolts in tunnel stability based
on convergence-confinement method. Tunn Undergr Sp
Technol 24:363–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2008.
10.005
Farmer IW (1975) Stress distribution along a resin grouted rock
anchor. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 12:347–351. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-9062(75)90168-0
Hobst L, Zajı́c J (1983) Anchoring in rock and soil. Elsevier,
Amsterdam
Hyett AJ, Bawden WF, Reichert RD (1992) The effect of rock
mass confinement on the bond strength of fully grouted
cable bolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 29:503–524. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(92)92634-O
Institution BS (1989) BS 8081. Code of Practice for Ground
Anchorages
Kaiser PK, Yazici S, Nose J (1992) Effect of stress change on the
bond strength of fully grouted cables. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abst. 29:293–306
Lardner WE, Littlejohn GS (1985) Suggested method for rock
anchorage testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abst
22:71–83
Li C, Stillborg B (1999) Analytical models for rock bolts. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 36:1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1365-1609(99)00064-7
Littlejohn GS (1991) Routine on-site acceptance tests for
ground anchorages. Gr Eng 24:
Littlejohn S (1993) Overview of rock anchorages. Compr Rock
Eng 4:413–450
Littlejohn GS, Bruce DA (1975) Rock anchors-design and
quality control. In: The 16th US symposium on rock
mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association
Lu W, Zhao D, Mao X, Ai Y (2018) Experimental study on
bond-slip behavior of bamboo bolt-modified slurry inter-
face under pull-out load. Adv Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2018/6960285
Mahab Ghodss-Poyry Joint Ventur (2014) Power House and
Transformer Caverns Detail Design Report-PhaseII
Mirzaghorbanali A, Aziz N (2017) An experimental study of
axial load transfer mechanisms of cable bolts using axially
split embedment apparatus. J Min Environ 8:131–137.
https://doi.org/10.22044/JME.2016.732
Moosavi M, Bawden WF, Hyett A (2002) Mechanism of bond
failure and load distribution along fully grouted cable-
bolts. Min Technol. https://doi.org/10.1179/mnt.2002.111.
1.1
Nater P, Hazrati Aghchai M (2017) Uma oya multi-purpose
development project: lessons learned from excavations
under high stress conditions. In: ISRM progressive rock
failure conference. international society for rock mechan-
ics and rock engineering
Park J, Qiu T, Kim Y (2014) A field investigation of pullout
resistance of steel anchors in rock. From Soil Behav Fun-
dam Innov Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784413265.049
Peng SS, Tang DHY (1984) Roof bolting in underground min-
ing: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Min Eng 2:1–42. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF00880855
PTI (1996) Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil
anchors. Post-Tensioning Institute
Ranjbarnia M, Fahimifar A, Oreste P (2014) A simplified model
to study the behaviour of pre-tensioned fully grouted bolts
around tunnels and to analyze the more important influ-
encing parameters. J Min Sci 50:533–548. https://doi.org/
10.1134/S1062739114030156
Ranjbarnia M, Fahimifar A, Oreste P (2015) Practical method
for the design of pretensioned fully grouted rockbolts in
tunnels. Int J Geomech 16:4015012. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000464
Rao Karanam UM, Dasyapu SK (2005) Experimental and
numerical investigations of stresses in a fully grouted rock
bolts. Geotech Geol Eng 23:297–308. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10706-004-9518-x
Ren FF, Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Chen WW (2010) An analytical
analysis of the full-range behaviour of grouted rockbolts
based on a tri-linear bond-slip model. Constr Build Mater
24:361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.
08.021
Sabatini PJ, Pass DG, Bachus RC (1999) Ground anchors and
anchored systems. United States. Federal Highway
Administration. Office of Bridge Technology
Salcher M, Bertuzzi R (2018) Results of pull tests of rock bolts
and cable bolts in Sydney sandstone and shale. Tunn
Undergr Sp Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.
01.004
Seo H-J, Jeong K-H, Choi H, Lee I-M (2011) Pullout resistance
increase of soil nailing induced by pressurized grouting.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138:604–613. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000622
Signer SP (1990) Field verification of load transfer mechanics of
fully grouted roof bolts. RI 9301, 13.
Stillborg B (1986) Professional users handbook for rock bolting.
Trans Tech Publications, London
Thenevin I, Blanco-Martı́n L, Hadj-Hassen F et al (2017) Lab-
oratory pull-out tests on fully grouted rock bolts and cable
bolts: Results and lessons learned. J Rock Mech Geotech
Eng 9:843–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.04.
005
Xanthakos PP (1991) Ground anchors and anchored structures.
John Wiley & Sons, New York
Yu S, Zhu W, Niu L et al (2019) Experimental and numerical
analysis of fully grouted long rockbolt load-transfer
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

behavior. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 85:56–66. https://doi. Zou DHS (2004) Analysis of in situ rock bolt loading status. Int J
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.12.001 Rock Mech Min Sci 41:762–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Zhang B, Benmokrane B (2002) Pullout bond properties of ijrmms.2004.03.132
fiber-reinforced polymer tendons to grout. J Mater Civ Eng
14:399–408. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
1561(2002)14:5(399)
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
Zhang B, Benmokrane B, Chennouf A et al (2001) Tensile
institutional affiliations.
behavior of FRP tendons for prestressed ground anchors.
J Compos Constr 5:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5:2(85)

123