1 INTRODUCTION

In Canadian underground mines, shotcrete support

design is usually based on empirical charts and more
often on local precedent experience. These methods
have been largely successful but do not allow for
quantification of a design factor of safety (capaci-
ty/demand) or for support optimization.
This paper discusses the composite behaviour of a
shotcrete liner in moderately jointed hard rock, and
provides preliminary guidelines for shotcrete design
in moderately jointed rock of quality Q =0.2-20.
Key properties governing behaviour include shear
and tensile stiffness and strength, adhesive strength,
and flexural behaviour and toughness of the shot-
crete and the shotcrete-rock beam. Material proper-
ties used in deriving the shotcrete capacity in these
failure modes are available from standard tests. The
interaction of these failure modes in-situ is more dif-
ficult to characterize and will be discussed here.
2 MECHANICS OF SHOTCRETE SUPPORT

The support role of a shotcrete liner varies with the
loading environment (stress vs. structurally con-
trolled), and the magnitude and direction of the
loads. Work by Barrett (1993) and Barrett &
McCreath (1995) has delineated six key components
of mechanistic behavior of shotcrete liners adhe-
sion failure, bending failure, direct shear failure,
punching shear failure, compressive failure, and ten-
sile failure.
In a stress controlled environment where the liner
must respond to in-situ and mining-induced stresses,
shotcrete behaviour is governed by the concentration
of tensile and compressive stresses transferred from
the rock to the liner. In structurally controlled envi-
ronments, the shotcrete must retain keyblocks and
prevent unraveling, and behaviour is therefore go-
verned by adhesion and flexure.
These modes demonstrate the fundamental load-
ing conditions placed on the liner by the deforming
rockmass, and allow the development of stability
graphs to perform sensitivity analysis. However, the
interaction between these mechanisms causes in-situ
behaviour that cannot usually be represented by a
single failure process. The following discussion will
illuminate theories of shotcrete support mechanisms,
and attempt to estimate the effect of interaction with-
in the rock-shotcrete system.
2.1 Flexure of a shotcrete beam
The theories used to estimate flexural capacity differ
based on the support design. Boltless shotcrete flex-
ural capacity can be derived from beam theory,
where the shotcrete acts as a beam in bending be-
neath a failure surcharge geometry. Based on the es-
timated abutment strength, the shotcrete is modeled
as either a simply supported beam or an end con-
strained beam, and the driving moments can be cal-
culated. The resisting moments are also calculated
from beam theory, and can encompass both elastic
and plastic analysis.
Mechanisms of shotcrete roof support
C. Banton, M.S. Diederichs, D.J. Hutchinson
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
S. Espley
INCO Ltd., Copper Cliff, Ontario, Canada






ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the mechanics of shotcrete roof support for flat or moderately arched drift
backs in moderately jointed hard rock environments ranging in geotechnical quality from Q=0.2 to 20. The
mechanism of support in rectangular hard rock tunnels is a combination of stiffness, shotcrete-rock adhesion,
shear and tensile strength and flexural behaviour and toughness of both the shotcrete itself and of the compo-
site shotcrete-rock assembly. Material properties are available from standard testing that quantify each of
these mechanistic components, but the interaction of these components, and therefore the final support beha-
viour, is more challenging to realize. Through field testing and numerical simulation, it is the goal of ongoing
research to quantify the composite capacity of the rock-shotcrete system for design purposes.

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.
The elastic limit is reached when tensile strength,

T
, is first exceeded and rupture occurs on the under-
side of the beam, and in plain shotcrete this is ana-
logous to the ultimate limit. The resisting moment
per meter width of a shotcrete layer with thickness t
and rupture modulus (strength) at first crack
FLEX
,
can be determined according to Equation 1:
6 / 6 /
2 2
t t M
T FLEX R
= (1)
However, the increased toughness provided by fiber
reinforcement allows stable and progressive failure
to occur, leading to plastic moment resistance. As a
result, uniform residual compressive and tensile
stress distributions develop within the beam.
Holmgren (1993) approximated the ultimate moment
of fiber-reinforced shotcrete based on residual
strength parameters obtained according to ASTM
C1018, as shown in Equation 2:
6 200
9 . 0
2
10 / 30 5 / 10
t R R
M
FLEX RP

+
(2)
where R
10/5
and R
30/10
are residual strength parame-
ters (ASTM C1018), t is shotcrete thickness, and

FLEX
is the rupture modulus at first crack.
Derivation of elastic and plastic moment resis-
tance in shotcrete is relevent only in a rockmass with
significant structure and small block size, bounded
by intact rock. The liner is thus considered as a su-
permesh holding up discrete blocks between rock-
bolts. This method should be used as an estimate of
worst-case conditions.
2.2 Flexure of a composite rock-shotcrete beam
A key support mechanism of boltless shotcrete is the
self-supporting capacity of the composite rock-
shotcrete beam, where the integrity of keyblocks is
maintained by the adherence of the shotcrete layer.
The thickness of the beam can be equated to the av-
erage block depth provided there exist no shallow
oblique structures. The moment caused by the kine-
matically mobile blocks induces tensile forces in the
shotcrete and compressive forces in the rock, as
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Moment resistance in rock-shotcrete beam (Hutchin-
son & Diederichs 2001).
The resultant tensile force is assumed to act
through the center of the shotcrete layer. This is con-
servative and valid providing the block depth, b, is
several times greater than the shotcrete thickness, t.
The height of the compressive zone in the composite
rock-shotcrete beam is limited by the block size.
The resisting moment at first crack can be derived
as an analogue to the analysis of tensile steel bars in
reinforced beams adapted from Popov (1978), as
outlined in Equation 3 below. The extent of the
compression zone, a, depends on the ratio of the
moduli (), the shotcrete thickness, t, and the block
size, b.
( ) 3 2
2 /
a t b t
t a b
t a b
M
FLEX R
+
+
+
(3)
where ( ) 2 2
2 2
t b t t t a + + + = ,
and =E
shotcrete
/E
rockmass


For fibre-reinforced shotcrete (with sustained resi-
dual tensile capacity) the ultimate limit of the beam
is governed by the crushing strength (plastic soften-
ing of the upper surface of the composite beam) of
the rock,
C(ROCK)
, estimated as 50% of the laborato-
ry UCS value (as per Diederichs 2000). The final
plastic moment resistance of the composite rock-
shotcrete beam (Figure 2) is given by Popov (1976)
as:

+
ROCK C
RESIDUAL
RESIDUAL RP
t t b t M

2 85 . 0 (4)
The resisting moment must be provided by the in-
ter-block friction on the upper side of the composite
beam, or by the critical moment capacity of the shot-
crete in the case of a simple shotcrete layer.


Figure 2. Crack in fibre-reinforced shotcrete

Analysis of the flexural factor of safety for vari-
ous span widths shows that considerable capacity is
gained when the system behaves as a composite
beam. A compressive zone develops within the def-
lecting beam or slab, which contributes to the fric-
tional strength of the joints and relieves the demand
for shotcrete adhesion.
Based on the composite beam analysis, it can be
shown that the factor of safety for an independent

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.
shotcrete beam is much lower than that of a compo-
site rock shotcrete beam for a given span as shown
in Figure 3 for the specified shotcrete strength and
yield assumptions.

Figure 3. Flexural Capacity of shotcrete-beam and composite
rock-shotcrete structure.
2.3 Voussoir analogue for shotcrete support
The Voussoir Analogue adapts the standard beam
models to consider the development of lateral thrust
throughout the beam, adding to moment and shear
stability. However, the development of this beam re-
quires more deflection and is more sensitive to blast
vibration and overall confinement. The summary
presented below is based on the work of Diederichs
& Kaiser (1999), Hutchinson & Diederichs (1996).
Beam thickness, T, is defined by the lamination
thickness or the average block size. The develop-
ment of tensile cracking or lamination-normal joints
inhibits the tensile capacity of the beam, and a com-
pression arch rises from the abutments to a high
point at the midspan. Critical failure modes, assum-
ing there is no potential for block sliding at the ab-
utments, become snap-through failure or crushing
failure of the rock.
Incorporation of shotcrete reinforcement into the
Voussoir analogue necessitates a few assumptions.
The first is that the displacement has caused the
shotcrete to exceed its fracture strength. This is a va-
lid assumption as the formation of a compression
arch occurs only with significant displacement. In
light of this, the shotcrete is assumed to supply a uni-
form residual tensile resistance.
A further modification is the consideration of a
linearly varying load distribution due to beam self-
weight and additional surcharge due to rock above.
As well, it is assumed that the beam develops under
self-weight prior to the failure of the ground above
(this assumption is consistent with progressive fail-
ure). The normal stress then allows development of
sufficient shear strength to prevent discrete block
failure and subsequent adhesion failure.
The shotcrete plays a dual role by retaining keyb-
locks and increasing moment resistance, provided
the shotcrete is applied early and effectively. The
moment resistance is increased when block size is
small; at large block sizes (up to and over a meter)
the shotcrete contribution is minimal.
The resisting moment then becomes a function of
the arch thickness, the block friction angle, the adhe-
sive capacity of the shotcrete, the effective unit
weight of the rock, the span, the block size, and the
maximum stress acting in the beam (at the bottom
edge of the abutment and at the top of the edge of
the midspan section). The discussion highlighted in
Sections 2.1-2.4 is summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Capacity comparison of shotcrete layer composite
rock/shotcrete beam with soft or relaxed abutments, and com-
bination shotcrete Voussoir rock beam with rigid abutments
(free refers to end moments). Shotcrete=75mm, flexural
strength =5MPa, E
rock
=10GPa, triangular load distribution
2.4 Discrete block failure
The foregoing examples represented cases of distri-
buted loading by a deformable surcharge on a shot-
crete layer, independently deformable over its full
extent. Also relevant in shotcrete design however, is
consideration of a wedge translating as a single rigid
block. This is analogous to a rigid test plate being
pulled through the liner. In each case the pull or
wedge load, P, is equivalent to a line load P/(S)
distributed around the perimeter (or equivalent circle
of diameter S) as utilized in discrete wedge failure
analysis such as Diederichs et al (2000).
Failure commences with some adhesion loss
around the perimeter of the block, and although
highly unstable in two dimensions, in three dimen-
sions it results in an annulus of separation around the
wedge. As failure proceeds and flexure occurs at the
outer limits of the system, the annulus expands and
increases the circumference or perimeter of the ad-
hesion front.
Adhesion acts over a finite bond length as shown
in Figure 5. This value has been back-calculated
from falling block tests (Hahn & Holmgren 1979,
and Fernandez-Delgado et al 1981) and confirmed

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.
by Phase2 (Rocscience) numerical modeling, as dis-
cussed in a following section. The bond width (the
width of actively straining interface adjacent to the
edge of a displacing rigid block in Fig. 5) varies with
the adhesive strength, and therefore with rockmass
condition and type, but the generally accepted value
is 30mm. This bond length, combined with adhesive
strengths of 0.5MPa to 1.0MPa for most rock sub-
strates, corresponds to perimeter capacity (block
load distributed over the wedge perimeter) ranging
from 1.5 tonnes/m to 3 tonnes/m.

Figure 5: Schematic of adhesion bond width for rigid blocks.

Note that the transition from adhesive failure to
flexural yielding happens over fractions of a milli-
meter of wedge/plate displacement, and is therefore
not likely to be discernible using instrumentation or
tests data. The maximum moment per unit length
occurs at the wedge perimeter as in the schematic in
Figure 6.

Figure 6: Flexure between bonded shotcrete and a rigid displac-
ing wedge or plate.

For a given wedge or plate load, by comparing
with the moment capacity in Eq. 1, the maximum to-
lerated displacement (Eq. 5) and the adhesion sepa-
ration (Eq. 6) can be calculated:
2 3
2 / L Et M = (5)
where: = wedge/plate displacement and
L = width of separation annulus
S PL M / (6)
where: P = applied load and
S = equivalent diameter of wedge base

. The flexural considerations in Eqs. 5 and 6 above
add 5% to 10% to the perimeter capacity (compared
to adhesion alone)this capacity.
3 SHOTCRETE SIMULATION
Because both end moments and uniform axial stress
components contribute to the overall moment equili-
brium of a curved beam, additional unknowns are in-
troduced and numerical solution is required.
3.1 Finite Element modelling of a shotcrete arch
A finite element model was created by Hutchinson
and Diederichs (2001); good wall quality and adhe-
sion is assumed with fixed support abutments. They
simulated a half span with vertical symmetry and a
linearly increasing load from zero at the abutments
to S at midspan, where =0.5. To simulate shot-
crete support only, and neglect the self-supporting
capacity of the rock, the modulus of the overlying
material was set to four times less than that of the
shotcrete modulus. The model showed compressive
and tensile stress gradients at the abutment, with an
inverted distribution at the midspan (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Shotcrete arch stability for 3 (75mm) shotcrete.
Maximum failure height = 0.5S (Mid and Abutment refer
to fracture location in shotcrete arch).
3.2 Modelling of the adhesion interface
Little is known of the true adhesive strength of the
shotcrete liner, and depends heavily on the adhesive
bond length. Hutchinson & Diederichs (2001)
created a simple finite element model in Phase2
(Rocscience) to convert a distributed bond strength
in MPa to a working bond capacity in MN/m.
The rock and shotcrete are simulated with suita-
ble properties, then a thin zone of elements between
the two units are assigned brittle properties, to simu-
late the adhesion interface. The tensile strength was
set equal to between 0.5MPa and 1.0MPa, which are
representative values for shotcrete-rock adhesion
(>7days cure) on a rough dry granite.
A distributed load was applied to one end of the
half-span model, while the other end was fixed;

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.
translation occurred along a vertical joint. Figure 8
illustrates the model and failure geometry.
As interface elements yielded, tensile stress con-
centration moved progressively along the interface.
A large number of parametric simulations were car-
ried out and although model convergence proved to
be difficult, the line capacity at interface yield
(MN/m) was approximately equal to the bond tensile
strength (MPa) multiplied by 0.03m (+/- 0.005m).
This adhesion band width of 30mm is insensitive
to variations within reasonable ranges of thicknesses
and shotcrete properties. These results can be used to
generate stability graphs as shown in Figure 9.



Figure 8. FEM model of rock-shotcrete interface rupture
(stresses contoured): Adhesion strength = 0.5MPa. (Whole
model at top with detail and results mid and bottom).


Figure 9. Critical spans (Factor of Safety=1) for adhesion rup-
ture (full span rigid rock wedge failure).
3.3 Numerical simulation of shotcrete field test
As discussed above, empirical, analytical, and nu-
merical design methods all have a role to play in the
design of an economical and effective shotcrete sup-
port system. Currently, the role of lab and field tests
is to characterize one or more shotcrete material
properties or strength parameters. The values are
then incorporated into the chosen design methodolo-
gy. Current research is focusing on this transfer of
knowledge from the lab to field design, with the goal
of correlating field test performance to drift-scale
performance.
The field test consists of a steel plate being pulled
through an in-situ shotcrete liner, as outlined in
ODonnell & Tannant (1998). Load is applied to the
plate using a hydraulic ram, and deflection is typical-
ly measured using a single LVDT. For this research
project however, two perpendicular arrays of poten-
tiometers were used to monitor shotcrete deforma-
tion. The test set-up is shown in Figure 10.



Figure 10. The principal author supervising densely instru-
mented in-situ pull tests on fiber reinforced shotcrete.

Yielded Interface
Moving block Stationary block
Rock
Joint
Interface
Shotcrete
Moving block
Stationary block

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.
The data from the tests is being used to calibrate
numerical models. Two- and three-dimensional
models of the pull-test are being created, and shot-
crete behaviour is calibrated using the data collected
from the field tests. The next phase of the numerical
simulation will encompass generation of two- and
perhaps three-dimensional models of in-situ shot-
crete support systems under simple gravity block
loading. These models will then be used to delineate
how the results of the field tests correlate to drift-
scale performance.
The first phase of the numerical simulation is cur-
rently on-going, and preliminary models have been
successful in simulating the behaviour of the shot-
crete. The shotcrete can be seen to fail in the manner
described in Section 2.4, with adhesion failure pre-
ceding flexural failure, followed by ultimate yield of
the system. Figure 11 shows the behaviour of the
shotcrete in the numerical model.


Figure 11. Numerical modelling results showing (a) adhesion
failure at rock-shotcrete interface with shotcrete deflection, and
(b) same model highlighting tensile failure below plate and
flexural tensile failure at periphery of adhesion annulus
4 CONCLUSIONS
Shotcrete support design is still dominated by em-
pirical design and past experience. The preceding
discussion has attempted to illuminate the complex
mechanisms governing the behaviour of shotcrete
support in underground rock excavations. While so-
lutions exist for design of circular shotcrete liners,
the interplay of these mechanisms becomes even
more important when the shotcrete is used for sup-
port of flat or moderately arched backs and walls.
Although flexural and adhesive failure governs
the liner behaviour, independent analysis of these
modes while neglecting the strength of the
rock/shotcrete composite beam may result in a con-
servative design.
An ongoing research program is aimed at combin-
ing numerical simulation with field testing to quanti-
fy the influence of individual mechanisms and para-
meters in the composite behaviour of the shotcrete-
rock system. This work will also form a mechanistic
bridge between testing and insitu behaviour.
In summary, the condition and behaviour of the
rock and the subsequent loading conditions must be
considered with the shotcrete and shotcrete/rock
beam mechanics to optimize shotcrete support de-
sign in non-circular tunnel geometries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks go to NSERC and INCO Ltd. for their past
and ongoing support of this research.
REFERENCES
Barrett, S.V.L. 1993. Shotcrete Support Design for Under-
ground Excavations in Rock. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Barrett, S.V.L. & McCreath, D.R. 1995. Shotcrete Support De-
sign in Blocky Ground: Towards a Deterministic Approach.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 10(1), El-
sevier, 79-89.
Diederichs, M. 2000. Instability of hard rockmass: The role of
tensile damage and relaxation. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engi-
neering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Cana-
da.
Diederichs, M, Espley, S., Langille, C. and Hutchinson D. J.
2000. A semi-empirical hazard assessment approach to
wedge instability in underground mine openings.
GeoEng2000, Melbourne. CD-ROM. 8pgs.
Diederichs, M.S. and Kaiser, P.K. 1999. Stability of large ex-
cavations in laminated hard rockmasses: The Voussoir ana-
logue revisited. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science, 36, 97-117
Fernandez-Delgado, G., Cording, E.J., Mahar, J.W., and M.L.
Van Sint Jan, 1981. Thin Shotcrete Linings in Loosening
Rock. The Atlanta Research Chamber: Applied Research
for Tunnels, US Department of Transportation Report:
UMTA-GA-06-0007-81-1, Monograph 21.
Hahn, T., and Holmgren, J. 1979. Adhesion of shotcrete to var-
ious types of rock surfaces. 4th Int. Congress on Rock Me-
chanics, Montreu, 431-439.
Holmgren, J., 1993, Principles for a rational design of shotcrete
linings in hard rock. Proceedings of the U.S. Engineering
Foundation Conference on Shotcrete for Underground Sup-
port, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, ASCE, pp67-
74.
Hutchinson, D.J., and Diederichs, M. S. 1996. Cablebolting in
Underground Mines. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Canada.
Hutchinson, D.J and Diederichs, M.S. May 2001. Review of
Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete Specifications, Testing, and Per-
formance Under Gravity Loading at Low to Moderate
Depth. Report to INCO Ltd.
ODonnell Sr., J.D.P, and Tannant, D.D. 1998. Pull Tests to
Measure the Insitu Capacity of Shotcrete. CIM-AGM Mon-
treal, Canada.
Popov, E.P. 1976. Mechanics of Materials. 2nd ed. New Jer-
sey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 590pg.

Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp on Ground Support in Mining & Underground Construction (Cairns). Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y.(eds). Rotterdam: Balkema.