International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Numerical simulations of the effect of bolt inclination

on the shear strength of rock joints
Hang Lin a,b,n, Zheyi Xiong a, Taoying Liu a, Rihong Cao a, Ping Cao a
a
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China

art ic l e i nf o

Article history:
Received 21 November 2012
Received in revised form
7 October 2013
Accepted 28 December 2013
Available online 22 January 2014

Keywords:
Rock joint
Rock mass
Bolt
Shear strength
Mechanical characteristic
Numerical simulation

1. Introduction
Joints are widely encountered in rock engineering. They
damage the continuity and the integrity of a rock mass, thus
turning the rock anisotropic and unstable. Therefore, investiga-
tions on the shear strength and deformation of rock joints are
essential. Current researchers on joints primarily focus on joint
mechanical characteristics, especially shear strength, by experi-
mental and analytical methods [1–15]. For simplicity, some studies
place joints on flat planes [5]. However, rock joint parameters are
difficult to determine because of the unclear differences between
theory and reality in terms of the interactions between engineer-
ing and geological bodies. Simplifying joints to flat states and
disregarding undulating states is impractical. Therefore, certain
scholars have investigated joint characteristics through joints with
irregular surfaces or different undulation angles. Patton [7]
demonstrated the influence of surface roughness on the shear
strength of joint by means of an experiment in which he carried
out shear tests on ‘saw-tooth’ specimens. Barton and Bandis
[9,11,14,15] proposed a criterion for the shear strength of rock
joints based on a large number of joints tests, which takes into
account both slip under low normal stresses and asperity crushing
n the adoption of numerical simulations to solve geotechnical
Corresponding author at: School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central
South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China. Tel.: þ 86 137 870 16941.
E-mail address: linhangabc@126.com (H. Lin).
under high stresses. Barton and Choubey [9] proposed standard
profiles of joints to determine the coefficient JRC in Barton–Bandis
criterion. Fox [16], Lee [13] and Jafari [17] studied the stress–strain
property of joints under cycling shear load. Li et al. [18] employed
artificial concrete joint samples with saw-tooth-shaped surfaces to
study the strength of joints with various undulation angles under
different shearing velocities.
The above studies are mainly conducted experimentally and
analytically. Besides, the joints investigated in previous studies
were maintained in their original state without any artificial
reinforcements. However, designers have always reinforced joints
to maintain joint stability in practical engineering projects, such as
rock slope or tunnel. Fully grouted bolts are the most widely used
among reinforcements. So it is meaningful to conduct investiga-
tions on the mechanical characteristics and deformation of bolted
rock joints [19–26]. Bjurstrom [27] reported the behavior of bolted
rock joint under the suppose of only axial force acting on the bolt.
Pellet and Egger [20] proposed an analytical model to predict the
contribution of bolts to the shear strength of a rock joint, in which,
both the axial and the shear forces in the bolt were considered.
Gerrard and Pande [24] numerical modeled bolt-reinforced rock
block as an equivalent material, but neglected the interaction
between bolt and joint.
Given the advances in computer science over recent decades,
engineering problems has become a new trend [19,21,24,28–30].
Numerical simulations provide a new method of studying the

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.12.010
50 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56
properties of bolt-reinforced joints. Numerical calculations are
efficient, economical, complex, and repeatable. Furthermore,
numerical calculations consider factors that are beyond experi-
mental control. Reasonable numerical simulation results can
provide direction for experimental tests. Therefore, this paper
regards rock joints and rock mass as biomaterial modes, and
adopts a fast Lagrangian analysis method of continua (FLAC3D)
to set a three-dimensional (3D) bolt-reinforced model in rock
joints. For bolt inclination is the most important parameter if the
properties of bolt, rock and joint are given, this paper mainly
focuses on the effect of bolts inclination on flat and undulating
joint surfaces.
2. Modeling
Numerical simulations using codes such as FLAC are often used
for elastic–plastic materials with complex geometrical boundaries.
However, discrete FLAC3D approaches are limited in terms of
setting complicated 3D models [29]. This paper adopts ANSYS to
create models, and then employs FLAC3D to transform the models
for calculation. The thickness of the soft interlayer of rock mass,
that is, the rock joint, is assumed to be 0.1 m for numerical model
setting. The dimensions of the simulated models in this paper are
set at 4 m for length, width, and height. This paper sets two
models for numerical calculations to analyze rock mass property
variations from flat to undulating states: the flat joint (joint
undulation angle β¼01) and the undulating joint (joint undulation
angle β ¼171). As shown in Fig. 1, the two models comprise 1951
grid-points and 9420 elements and 1673 grid-points and 7485
elements, respectively.
Lin et al. [31] used numerical simulation to investigate joint
shear strength with different undulation angles: β¼ 01, 91, 171, 241,
and 311. The relationship between normal stress sn and shear
strength τc is linear when the joint undulation angle is βr 171. This
finding matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The failure mode of
the joint is primarily identified as the slip failure along the joint.
However, the relationship between sn and τc is nonlinear when
the undulation angle β is relatively large. The corresponding failure
mode was found to be a combination of slip failure along the joint
and saw-tooth crushing by shearing and compression. This
paper sets the joint undulation angle to β¼171 because the joint
is primitively assumed to be destroyed in the slip failure mode
after bolt reinforcement. A previous study [31] stated that when
the undulation angle is β r 171, shear strength increases as the
joint undulation angle increases. Therefore, the sample is easily
damaged at the maximal shear strength and at the same normal
stress when β¼ 171.
In the numerical simulations, the upper part of the model is
loaded with normal stress and is given a certain horizontal speed
for uniform movement. The lower part of the model is kept
invariant. The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is adopted as the
calculation principle. The material properties of the rock mass that
are described in this model are as follows: 2.0 GPa elastic modulus,
0.2 Poisson0 s ratio, 0.8 MPa cohesion, 24.0 kN/m3 unit weight,
18.01 dilatancy angle, 37.01 internal friction angle, and 0.4 MPa
tensile strength. The properties of the rock joint are as follows:
0.2 GPa elastic modulus, 0.3 Poisson0 s ratio, 0.2 MPa cohesion,
19.0 kN/m3 unit weight, 12.01 dilatancy angle, 24.01 internal
friction angle, and 0.4 MPa tensile strength.
A “pile” element is used to simulate bolt reinforcement
behavior. As the instruction in FLAC3D Manual [32], the “pile”
element offers the combination features of beam and cable. In this
sense, the “pile” element can simulate the combination of tension,
shearing and bending behavior of bolts. Piles interact with the grid
through shear and normal coupling springs, which are cohesive
and frictional in nature as well as nonlinear.
The shear coupling springs located at the nodal points along
the pile axis describe relative shear displacement between the
bolt/grout interface and the grout/rock interface, as shown in
Fig. 2. These springs present numerically as spring-slider connec-
ters, transferring forces and motion between the pile and the grid
at the pile nodes.
The normal coupling springs model load reversal and the
formation of a gap between the pile and the grid, can simulate
the effect of the host medium squeezing around the pile. For the
behavior of the normal coupling springs, the effective confining
stress sm acting in the plane perpendicular to the bolt axis is
transferred directly to the node and then is computed at nodal
point along the bolt axis. The node exerts normal force on the grid
generated by a proportion of axial forces.
In numerical calculations, entire bolts are divided into several
unit bodies. The deformation and stress condition of the entire
bolt is then determined by using the integral approach.
Bolt-embedded joints are placed on different inclinations to
analyze the influence of the bolt on shear effects. This paper
presumes that the bolt length is equal to 3.0 m and that the bolt
inclinations θ are equal to 151, 301, 451, 601, 751, and 901. The
material properties of the bolt are as follows: 200 GPa elastic
modulus, 0.25 Poisson0 s ratio, 314 mm2 section area, 1.75  105 N/
m shear coupling spring cohesion per unit length, 301 shear
coupling spring friction angle, 1.0  109 N/m2 shear coupling
spring stiffness per unit length, 1.75  108 N/m normal coupling
spring cohesion per unit length, and 1.0  109 N/m2 normal cou-
pling spring stiffness per unit length.
3. Analysis and discussion
3.1. Comparisons between unsupported and bolt-supported models
The relationship between the shear stress of the model and the
normal stress in flat and undulating joints, with a bolt inclination of
151, is recorded to compare regulations on shear strength variations
in bolt-supported joints (see Fig. 3). The increase in the shear
strength of the model is evident after bolt reinforcement. A linear
relationship exists between the shear strength of the model τs and
the normal stress of the joint sn in flat and undulating joints.
This condition matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion fairly well.
The fitting equation is denoted as τs ¼ c þ sn tan ϕ, where c and ϕ
represent the cohesion and internal friction angle, respectively.
The equivalent cohesion of the bolt-supported joint shows an
upward trend when the joint undulation angle is 01 or 171, with a
26.8% increase for the former and a 48.4% increase for the latter, as
concluded from curve fitting (Table 1). However, the equivalent
internal friction angle has a slight reduction compared with an
unsupported bolt. Thus, the bolt prevailingly performs a drawing
function for joints with undulating angles of β¼01 and β¼171, thus
enhancing joint cohesion. The equivalent cohesion and the equiva-
lent internal friction angle of the undulating joint are significantly
greater than those of the flat joint regardless of whether the bolt is
supported or unsupported.
3.2. Comparisons of the relationship between stress and strain
For further comparisons, the relationship between stress and
strain can be determined through direct shear tests under sup-
ported and unsupported states when bolt inclination is equal to
151 (see Fig. 4). As shown in the graph, the performances of the
unsupported and supported joints are similar before the shear
stress–shear displacement relation curve reaches the peak.
 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56 51

Fig. 1. Numerical calculation model. (a) Model0 s schematic diagram, (b) bolted joint model, (c) model for joint with undulation angle 01, (d) model for the joint with
undulation angle 171 and (e) 3D joint model.

The curve is near model0 s elastic stage line. The joints with
two different states have distinctions after the peak. Moreover,
the unsupported joint possesses strain-softening characteristics.
The increase in shear displacement gradually decreases shear stress
because of the destruction of bonds in the joint, which successively
weakens shear strength. The model begins to slip when all bonds
are destroyed. This condition results from the emergence of slip-
lines from the mutual friction between the joint and the rock mass.
The shear stress of the model is unchanged with the increase in
shear displacement and even provides residual strength.
52 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56

0.16
0.14 bolt-supported joint

Shear stress of joint/MPa

0.12
0.10
unsupported joint
0.08
0.06
0.04
Fig. 2. Idealization of bolt system.
0.02
0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50
0.20
Shear displacement of joint/mm
0.18
Shear strength of joint/MPa

0.16
0.30
0.14
bolt-supported joint Shear stress of joint/MPa 0.25 bolt-supported joint
unsupported joint
0.12
0.20
0.10 unsupported joint
0.15
0.08
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.10
Normal stress on joint /MPa
0.05

0.00
0.40

0 10 20 30 40 50
0.35
Shear strength of joint/MPa

Shear displacement of joint/mm

0.30 Fig. 4. Comparison on the stress–strain relationship of joints with and without bolt
reinforcement. (a) 01 joint undulation angle. (b) 171 joint undulation angle.
0.25
bolt-supported joint
unsupported joint
0.20
By contrast, the supported joint possesses strain-hardening
0.15 characteristics because the bolt fails to generate relevant drawing
and shear forces during coordination with the strain of the model
0.10 before the model starts to slip. After reaching peak strength, the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
model starts to slip. The bolt then produces relevant axial and
Normal stress on joint/MPa transverse forces that generate a relevant stress response, thus
Fig. 3. Comparison between an unsupported and a bolt-supported model. (a) 01 improving the peak shear strength value of the joint.
joint undulation angle. (b) 171 joint undulation angle.
3.3. Effects of different bolt inclinations on shear strength

The joint shear strength with various bolt inclinations when

Table 1
Fitting for shear strength. the joint undulation angle is equal to 01 is illustrated in Fig. 5. The
model shear strength reaches the maximum value at a bolt
Undulation angle of different Fitting parameters Coefficient inclination of 151 during the shear test with a bolt undulation
types of joint
angle of β¼01. The increase in bolt inclination gradually decreases
Cohesion c tan ϕ Friction R
(MPa) angle ϕ the shear strength of the model and the slope of the curve. The
slope of the curve then reaches maximum value within 15–301 of
01 of unsupported joint 0.07695 0.12955 7.38 0.99944 bolt inclination. The curve subsequently stabilizes as the bolt
01 of bolt-supported joint 0.09759 0.1143 6.52 0.99986 inclination increases. Given the small bolt inclination and small
171 of unsupported joint 0.08263 0.3445 19.00 0.99858
171 of bolt-supported joint 0.12264 0.31715 17.59 0.99438
angle between bolt0 s axis and model0 s slip direction, the bolt
makes full use of the drawing force and suffers from a small
 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56 53

0.111
0.156
0.108 0.154

Shear strength of joint/MPa

Shear strength of joint/MPa

0.105 Normal stress of joint/MPa 0.152 Normal stress of joint/MPa
0.1 0.5
0.150
0.102
0.148
0.099 0.146
0.096 0.144
0.142
0.093
0.140
0.090
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
o o
Bolt inclination/ Bolt inclination/

0.178
0.132
0.176
Shear strength of joint/MPa

Shear strength of joint/MPa

0.129 Normal stress of joint/MPa Normal stress of joint/MPa
0.3 0.174 0.7
0.126

0.123 0.172

0.120 0.170
0.117
0.168
0.114
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
o o
Bolt inclination/ Bolt inclination/

Fig. 5. Shear strength for the 01 undulating angle joint with different bolt inclinations. (a) 0.1 Mpa normal stress. (b) 0.3 Mpa normal stress. (c) 0.5 Mpa normal stress.
(d) 0.7 Mpa normal stress.

Table 2 exhibits an upward trend before showing a downward trend as

Bolt stress with a 01 undulating angle joint.
Bolt inclination (1) Axial force of bolt (kN)
15.00 1228.00
30.00 1228.10
45.00 1227.90
60.00 1228.00
75.00 968.82
90.00 534.37
transverse shear force, which could not be destroyed easily. On the
contrary, the increase in bolt inclination also increases the trans-
verse shear loading force of the bolt. The bolt is destroyed by the
transverse shear force before the drawing force reaches full
performance. Therefore, the shear strength of the model is mini-
mal at a 901 bolt inclination, which is consistent with test results
[25,26,33].
To describe further bolt0 s contribution to the shear strength of
the joint, the bolt axial and transverse forces are shown in Table 2.
According to the table, the bolt axial force, rather than the
transverse force, mainly accounts for the damage when the bolt
inclination is relatively small; the bolt transverse force is small in
such circumstances. Thus, axial tensile failure is the failure mode
of the bolt. However, the axial force of the bolt fails to perform
fully as the bolt inclination increases; for instance, when the bolt
inclination is within the range 75–901. This result is consistent
with that of laboratory shear tests on bolted rock blocks by Hass
[25,26]. Thus, tensile-shear failure is the failure mode of the bolt.
The shear test with a joint undulation angle of β¼171 (see
Fig. 6) presents results that differ from the test with a joint
undulation angle of β¼ 01. The shear strength of the model first
bolt inclination increases. The maximum value of shear strength is
achieved within the 30–501 range of bolt inclination, regardless of
Lateral shear force of bolt (kN)
the size of the normal stress. This result is consistent with that of
0.45 laboratory tests by Egger and Fernandes [33]. The joint exerts a
2.97 tangential force and a normal force on the upper part of the model,
6.19
thus generating an angle between the joint slip direction and the
8.96
11.13 bolt axial direction (see Fig. 7a). Therefore, the axial force of the
12.55 bolt is incapable of achieving full performance. On the contrary,
the bolt axis is almost parallel to the slip direction of the upper
part of the model when the bolt inclination is within the 30–501
range (see Fig. 7b). This condition contributes to the full use of the
bolt axial force. The slip direction of the upper part of the model
can be further inferred to undergo a counter-clockwise rotation
with the increase in joint undulation angle. As a result, the angle
between the bolt axial direction and the slip direction of the upper
part of the bolt could only be decreased by increasing the bolt
inclination. Thus, a larger joint undulation angle facilitates a larger
bolt inclination with the maximum model shear strength. The bolt
inclination is approximately equal to 451 with the maximum
model shear strength when the joint undulation angle is equal
to 171.
The relationship between the joint shear strength and the
normal stress with different bolt inclinations θ is presented in
Fig. 8 to show the effects of bolt inclination on undulating joints.
Based on the graph, the shear strength of the joint improved when
reinforced by the bolt. In addition, a linear relationship exists
between the model shear strength τs and the joint normal
stresssn . This relationship matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
Through curve fitting, the parameters related to the shear
strength are shown in Table 3. Based on the table, the equivalent
internal friction angle ϕ is basically unchanged compared with
other parameters, whereas the equivalent cohesion of the joint c is
54 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56

0.297
0.159 0.294

Shear strength of joint/MPa

Shear strength of joint/MPa
0.156 0.291
0.288
0.153
0.285
0.150
Normal stress of joint/MPa 0.282 Normal stress of joint/MPa
0.147 0.1 0.5
0.279
0.144 0.276

0.141 0.273
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
o o
Bolt inclination/ Bolt inclination/

0.375
0.225
0.372

Shear strength of joint/MPa

Shear strength of joint/MPa

0.222
0.369
0.219 0.366
0.216 0.363

0.213 Normal stress of joint/MPa 0.360 Normal stress of joint/MPa

0.3 0.7
0.357
0.210
0.354
0.207
0.351
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
o o
Bolt inclination/ Bolt inclination/

Fig. 6. Shear strength for the 171 undulating angle joint with different bolt inclinations. (a) 0.1 Mpa normal stress. (b) 0.3 Mpa normal stress. (c) 0.5 Mpa normal stress.
(d) 0.7 Mpa normal stress.

greatly changed. Thus, the equivalent cohesion c of the bolt is grows up very slow and finally almost keeps constant (approx-
primarily improved. The equivalent cohesion c first increases and imate 227.5 kPa), proving that bolt0 s diameter has limited impact
then decreases as bolt inclination increases. In addition, the on shear strength.
cohesion c reaches the largest value when the bolt inclination
ranges from 301 to 451.
In order to further study the effects of rock material type on
undulated joint shear strength, the joint friction angle and joint 4. Conclusions
cohesion are changed. Fig. 9 presents the effect of bolt inclination
on shear strength of joint under the conditions that joint friction The shear strength of the joint improves through bolt reinfor-
angle ranges from 01 to 241 and joint cohesion c ¼200 kPa. For the cement. A linear relationship exists between model0 s shear
same bolt inclination, shear strength increases with the friction strength τs and joint0 s normal stress sn when the joint undulation
angle. When the friction angle is 01, the shear strength of joint angle is relatively small. The increase in undulation angle turns the
declines as the bolt inclination increases. Its maximum value τs  sn curve relationship nonlinear. However, this condition still
appears when the bolt inclination is 151. For the friction angle matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
varying from 151 to 451, as the increase of bolt inclination, the The equivalent cohesion of the joint improves after bolt
corresponding value of shear strength increases first and then reinforcement. On the contrary, the equivalent internal friction
decreases. Its extreme value appears when the bolt inclination is angle relative to the unsupported joint decreases slightly. The
around 301. Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of bolt inclination on shear drawing function of the bolt dominates and strengthens the
strength of joint with different cohesion and certain value of cohesion of the joint when the joint undulating angle is
friction angle (ϕ¼241). The curves describing the relation between relatively small.
bolt inclination and shear strength of joint with different cohe- The performances of the unsupported and supported joints are
sions presents a similar trend. Regardless of the value of cohesion, similar before the shear stress–shear displacement relation curve
the shear strength of joint increases first and then decreases. It reaches the peak. The curve is near model0 s elastic stage line. After
reaches its maximum value when the bolt inclination is in the the peak, the joints with two different states exhibit certain
range of 30–501. distinctions. The unsupported joint possesses strain-softening
When the cohesion and friction angle of joint are 200 kPa and characteristics, whereas the supported joint possesses strain-
ϕ¼ 241 respectively, a bolt inclination of 451 leads to the largest hardening characteristics.
shear strength. Therefore, the investigation concerning bolt0 s The shear strength of the model reaches the maximum value at
diameter is conducted under the circumstance: cohesion a bolt inclination of 151 in shear tests with joint undulation angles
c¼ 200 kPa, friction angle ϕ¼241, the undulation angle of joint of β¼ 01. The increase in bolt inclination gradually decreases the
β¼171, and the bolt inclination is 451, as shown in Fig. 11. With the shear strength of the model and the slope of the curve. The slope
increase of bolt0 s diameter, the shear strength of joint grows up of the curve then reaches the maximum value within the 15– 301
rapidly. When bolt diameter increases to 40 mm (corresponding range of bolt inclination. The curve subsequently stabilizes as the
value of shear strength increases to 225 kPa), the shear strength bolt inclination increases.
 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56 55

Table 3
Fitting relationship of the shear strength.

Bolt Fitting parameters Coefficient

inclination R
(1) Equivalent tan ϕ Equivalent friction
cohesion c (kPa) angle 9 (1)

unsupported 81.895 0.3470 19.1342 0.99726

joint
15 108.38 0.3503 19.3054 0.99856
30 121.655 0.3536 19.4711 0.99866
45 121.65 0.3560 19.5957 0.99912
60 118.13 0.3573 19.6618 0.99916
75 114.45 0.3525 19.4176 0.99965
90 106.56 0.3481 19.19301 0.9994

220

Shear strength of joint/kPa

200 Friction angle/ o
0
5
180 10
15
20
160 24

140

120
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Bolt inclination/o
Fig. 9. Shear strength with different joint friction angles for the 171 undulating
angle joint under 0.3 MPa normal stress.

230

220
Shear strength of joint/kPa

Fig. 7. Relationship between slip direction and bolt axis. (a) 151bolt inclination. 210
(b) 301to 501 bolt inclination.
Cohesion/kPa
200
0
50
190
100
400 unsupported joint 150
o
180 200
15 inclination of bolt-supported joint
o
30 inclination of bolt-supported joint 170
350 o
45 inclination of bolt-supported joint
Shear strength of joint/kPa

o 160
60 inclination of bolt-supported joint
o
300 75 inclination of bolt-supported joint
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
90 inclination of bolt-supported joint
Bolt inclination/o
250
Fig. 10. Shear strength with different joint cohesions for the 171undulating angle
joint under 0.3 MPa normal stress.
200

150 failure is the failure mode of the bolt. However, the axial force
of the bolt fails to perform fully as the bolt inclination increases.
The transverse shear force of the bolt also gradually increases.
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Thus, tensile–shear failure is the failure mode of the bolt in such
circumstances.
Normal stress on joint /kPa
The shear test with a joint undulation angle of β¼171 presents
Fig. 8. Shear strength of the joint with different bolt inclinations. results that differ from the test with a joint undulation angle of
β¼01. The shear strength of the model initially shows an upward
trend before showing a downward trend as the bolt inclination
The bolt axial force, rather than the transverse force, mainly increases. Additionally, the maximum shear strength is within the
accounts for the damage when the bolt inclination is relatively 301 to 501 range of bolt inclination regardless of the normal stress
small (the bolt transverse force is fairly small). Thus, axial tensile size. The equivalent internal friction angle ϕ is basically unchanged
56 H. Lin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 66 (2014) 49–56

[7] Patton FD. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock. In: Proceedings of the 1st
228
international congress on rock mechanics, Lisbon; 1966. p. 509–13.
[8] Ladanyi B, Archambault G. Simulation of shear behavior of a jointed rock
226
mass. In: Proceedings of the 11th US symposium on rock mechanics; 1970.
Shear strength of joint /kPa

224
222
220
218
216
214
212
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Bolt diameter /mm
Fig. 11. Shear strength with different bolt diameters for the 171undulating angle
joint under 0.3 MPa normal stress.
compared with other parameters, whereas the equivalent cohe-
sion of the joint c is greatly changed. Thus, the bolt mainly
improves the equivalent cohesion c.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from
Project(51304240) supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China; Project (20120162120014) supported by the Specia-
lized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
of China; and Project (12KF01) supported by the Open Projects of
State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, CUMT.
References
[1] Scholtes L, Donze F-V. Modelling progressive failure in fractured rock masses
using a 3D discrete element method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2012;52:18–30.
[2] Ghazvinian AH, Azinfar MJ, Vaneghi RG. Importance of tensile strength on the
shear behavior of discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2012;45:349–59.
[3] Singh M, Singh B. Modified Mohr–Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial
and polyaxial strength of jointed rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2012;51:
43–52.
[4] Haque A, Kodikara J. A simplified analytical model for predicting the shear
behaviour of regular triangular rock/concrete joints under constant normal
stiffness. Geotechnique 2012;62:171–6.
[5] Lu ZD, Chen CX. An experimental study on shear mechanical behavior of
heterogeneous discontinuities under saturated condition. Disaster Adv 2011;4:
157–64.
[6] Goh TL, Rafek AG, Ariffin MH, Yunus NB. Direct shear test of granite
discontinuity plane surfaces. Sains Malays 2011;40:419–23.
p. 105–25.
[9] Barton N, Choubey V. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 1977;10:1–54.
[10] Ohnishi Y, Chan T, Jing L. Constitutive models for rock joints. Dev Geotech Eng
1996;79:57–92.
[11] Bandis S, Lumsden A, Barton N. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation I. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1983;20:249–68.
[12] Plesha ME. Constitutive models for rock discontinuities with dilatancy and
surface degradation. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2005;11:345–62.
[13] Lee H, Park Y, Cho T, You K. Influence of asperity degradation on the
mechanical behavior of rough rock joints under cyclic shear loading. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:967–80.
[14] Barton N. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1976;13:255–79.
[15] Barton N, Bandis S. Effects of block size on the shear behavior of jointed
140 160 rock. In: Proceedings of the 23rd US symposium on rock mechanics; 1982.
p. 739–60.
[16] Fox DJ, Kana DD, Hsiung SM. Influence of interface roughness on dynamic
shear behaviour in jointed rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35:923–40.
[17] Jafari MK, Hosseini KA, Pellet F, Boulon M, Buzzi O. Evaluation of shear
strength of rock joints subjected to cyclic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2003;23:619–30.
[18] Li HB, Feng HP, Liu B, Li J. Experimental studies on mechanical properties of
rock joints under dynamic loading. Key Eng Maters 2006;326:1709–12.
[19] Jalalifar H, Aziz N. Experimental and 3D numerical simulation of reinforced
shear joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2010;43:95–103.
[20] Pellet F, Egger P. Analytical model for the mechanical behaviour of bolted rock
joints subjected to shearing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1996;29:73–97.
[21] Ferrero AM. The shear strength of reinforced rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 1995;32:595–605.
[22] Grasselli G. 3D Behaviour of bolted rock joints: experimental and numerical
study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:13–24.
[23] Song H, Duan Y, Yang J. Numerical simulation on bolted rock joint shearing
performance. Min Sci Tech (China) 2010;20:460–5.
[24] Gerrard CM, Pande GN. Numerical modelling of reinforced jointed rock masses
I. Theory. Comput Geotech 1985;1:293–318.
[25] Haas CJ. Shear resistance of rock bolts. Trans Soc Min Eng AIME 1976;260:
32–41.
[26] Haas CJ. Analysis of rock bolting to prevent shear movement in fractured
ground. Min Eng 1981;33:698–704.
[27] Bjurstrom S. Shear strength of hard rock joints reinforced by grouted
untensioned bolts. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Rock
Mechanics; 1974. p. 1194–9.
[28] Park JW, Song JJ. Numerical simulation of a direct shear test on a rock joint
using a bonded-particle model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:1315–28.
[29] Xu NX, Tian H, Kulatilake P, Duan QW. Building a three dimensional sealed
geological model to use in numerical stress analysis software: a case study for
a dam site. Comp Geotech 2011;38:1022–30.
[30] Spang K, Egger P. Action of fully-grouted bolts in jointed rock and factors of
influence. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1990;23:201–29.
[31] Lin H, Liu B, Li J. Numerical study of a direct shear test on fluctuated rock joint.
Electr J Geotech Eng 2012;17:1577–91.
[32] Itasca. Consulting. Group. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimen-
sions, User Manual, Version 3.1;2004.
[33] Egger P, Fernandes H. Nouvelle presse triaxiale-Etude de modeles disconti-
nuos boulonnes. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Rock
Mechanics; 1983. p. 171–5.