International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Theoretical analysis of anchorage mechanism for rock bolt including local T

stripping bolt
Hai-Chun Ma∗, Xiao-Hui Tan, Jia-Zhong Qian, Xiao-Liang Hou
School of Geology and Environment, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, 230009, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We have proposed a theoretical model for the analysis of bolt anchorage effects through cross-section uniformity
Bolt and elastic theory. When the surrounding rock and soil are fixed, then the slip resistance forces directly pro-
Axis stress portional to the displacement of the bolt. An equilibrium differential equation for the wholly bolt has been
Proportional coefficient established. The axis stress expression has been presented from the combined boundary conditions. It is a
Local stripping
monotonic function which consists of negative index and minus index function of the distance, away from the
Experiment
force. The effects of friction proportional coefficient and radius have been analyzed as well. For local stripping
bolt, a different model having separate parts has also been analyzed. We have also deduced the axis stress
distribution function. Moreover, the curves of different separate conditions were compared which conclude that
there is a terrace for the separate part. The longer the separate part, the quicker the axis stress decreased. Finally,
an experiment has been performed which show the distribution of axis stress has the same trend with the strain
gauge record. The theory solution of axis stress is also proved to be reasonable.

1. Introduction
Anchorage bolts play important role in the geotechnical en-
gineering. Bolt anchoring mechanics has been studied for the wholly
patterns.1 For the wholly grout bolt, many models are proposed by
different researchers.2,3 Freeman et al.4 studied the behavior of fully-
bonded rock bolts in the Kielder experimental tunnel, through inter-
action between the rockbolt and the surrounding rocks. Stille et al.5
presented a theoretical solution (based upon a linear strength criterion),
namely the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, and an elastic-brittle stress-strain
model. Stille and Holmberg et al.6 modified the Stille's solution with the
three-dimensional effect. On the other hand, Li and Stillborg7 devel-
oped three analytical models for the rock bolts. These models were
based on some hypotheses such as intersecting surface force uniformity.
Their material model was linear elastic. Laura et al.8 presented an
analytical analysis of the rock bolt pullout behavior. Fahimifar9 re-
ported the rock and rock-support interaction concepts and their corre-
sponding relationships. They derived the two material behavior models
from the non-linear strength criterion of rock. Farmer et al.10 have
analytically shown the exponentially decreased axial load and the shear
stress from the loading point along the anchored length of the bolt. Ren
and his coworkers11 suggested a full-range analytical analysis for the
pullout behavior of rockbolt grouted system. Their experimental results
showed that the distribution of bolt shear stress was concentrated at
some part of the bolt12–18 while the stress is mostly damped at the
negative exponential distribution mode.
For the laboratory measurement methods such as strain gauges,
Skrzypkowski19 carried out the laboratory tests of point resin bolts and
obtained load-displacement characteristic with determination of the
elastic and plastic range of the bolt for Polish hard rock mines. Korze-
niowski20 used force sensors, displacement sensors and strain sensors to
discusses results of static loading test of the expansion shell rock bolts
equipped with originally developed deformable component. Yu21
exploited a series of pullout tests on rock bolts with laser displacement
transducer and strain gauge. The above test techniques can obtain the
displacement and strain distributions of rock bolt. Actually, due to some
factors such as rock strength and grout inhomogeneity, the contact
between bolt and rock will also be different. Zhu22 presented a nu-
merical study on the pullout behavior of the rock bolt grouted system
having grout crack. It can cause the local stripping gap. Ghaboussi
et al.23 employed the finite element simulations for the investigation of
stress distribution and deformations in the rockbolt. So, the model for
the local stripping anchorage bolt must be different from the integrated
bolt, and the bolt force must follow other distribution regularity. A new
model for local stripping bolt can be established to solve this issue. The
theoretical model of local stripping bolt is suggested while the

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mhaichun@mail.ustc.edu.cn (H.-C. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104080
Received 18 December 2018; Received in revised form 28 April 2019; Accepted 13 August 2019
Available online 23 August 2019
1365-1609/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-C. Ma, et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080

Fig. 1. Bolt model.

theoretical solution of axis force is deduced; controlled by balance then u x became as

equations. And the parameters which influence the stress have been x x σA
figured out. Furthermore, the development of local stripping scale was ux = ∫l εdx = ∫l E
dx
(4)
expounded. Finally, an experiment has been performed to prove the
theory of distribution of bolts axis stress. Simultaneous equations (2)–(4) can deduce

2k s ⎞ 2k s ⎞
2. Bolt model σA = C1 exp ⎜⎛ x⎟ + C2 exp ⎜⎛− x⎟
⎝ Er ⎠ ⎝ Er ⎠ (5)

The geometry of bolt is fine and straight. To analyze the failure where c1and c2 are undetermined coefficients. If is substituted by η 2ks
rE
mechanism of local stripping anchorage bolt, theoretical model (long- which is dimensionless, then Eq. (5) can be written as
itudinal section) has been established as shown in Fig. 1. The finite σA = c1 exp(η x) + c2 exp(−η x) .
element length is represented by dx . The cross-sectional area is A and At the loading position ( x = 0 ) and at the end ( x = l ) of the bolt σA
the radius is r , the lateral area includes stripping area A1 and contact are p and 0, respectively,
A
area A2 . Axis stresses at the ends of the element are σA and σA + dσA ,
respectively. The friction resistance is τ per unit area. Few assumed ⎧ σA x=l =0
P
conditions are brought forward, based on the mode. (1) The stress of the ⎨ σA x=0 = (6)
⎩ A
section of anchor bolt is kept uniform. The stress value of the section in
the same position is a function of the axial position. So, we can say that so the c1 and c2 can be fixed as
it is a one-dimensional problem. (2) The strain of Anchorage system is pexp(−lη)
⎧ c1 = − A (exp(lη) − exp(−lη))
elastic and isotropic. The strain of surrounding rock mass is small
compared to that of a strain of anchorage system, which can be ne- ⎨ c2 = pexp(lη)

glected. (3) There is an elastic anti-sliding force between anchor system ⎩ A (exp(lη) − exp(−lη)) (7)
and the surrounding rock and soil, as the external force is added to Bringing Eq. (7) into Eq. (5), it changes into
anchor the system. It can be assumed that rock mass deformation is very
pexp(lη)exp(−η x) pexp(−lη)exp(η x)
small and the friction resistance τ is mainly caused by anchor strain as σA = −
friction resistance. The proportional coefficient ks is the slip resistance A (exp(lη) − exp(−lη)) A (exp(lη) − exp(−lη)) (8)
force per unit area of displacement. From Eq. (8), the distribution of σA depends on ks E , A , l . However,
σA is a linear superposition of p . So, the distribution state keeps the
3. Theoretical results same as the p changes. The relevant conclusions from the above ex-
pression can be summarized as:
3.1. Whole bolt analyses The axial stress σA decreases with the increasing distance of force
point which is a monotony decrease function. Combined with formula
The finite element of bolt mode is in stress balance state. So, the (8), it can be seen that the σA decreases with the increasing distance
mechanical equilibrium equation can be written as from the force point and decreases in negative exponential form, mixed
σA·A − (σA + dσA)·A − τ = 0 (1) with exponential decay, which is different from the expression in Refs.
4–7. The distribution must be concentrating near the force position.
As the loading force P increases, the tripping area extends to some Example 1. The resistance coefficient ks and radius r are important
extremity while the bolt will loss the effect. The key problem is to es- parameters to influence the axial stress distribution. To illustrate the
tablish the relation between P and A1. To solve this problem, the co- effects of Example 1, where the bolt is analyzed, and the bolt para-
hesion strength C between bolt and surrounding rock or soil must be meters are given in Table 1.
considered. As the P increases, σA will also changes. Equation (1) can be simplified as The σA distribution is shown in Fig. 2, where ks is set as 1 × 109,
dσA·A + τ = 0 (2)
Table 1
where τ is the friction resistance and is the function of displacement Parameters of bolt model in Example 1.
(u x ) of the bolt. And the relation can be written as
l [m] ks [N/m] E [N/m2] r [m] p [N] A [m2] η
τ = −ks u x A2 (3)
9 11 −2 2 −4
8 1 × 10 2.1 × 10 2 × 10 4 × 10 12.56 × 10 0.69
For a whole bolt, A2 = 2πrdx and when surrounding rock is fixed

2
H.-C. Ma, et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080

The anti-sliding ability of other parts of anchor bolt will be difficult to

exert. The larger radius is responsible for the smaller axial stress of
anchor bolt. So, the larger the radius, the higher will be the bearing
resistance force.

3.2. Local stripping anchorage bolt analyses

As shown in Fig. 4-a, the black filled part is called as local stripping
anchorage bolt, separated from the surrounding rock and soil, having
zero ks . So, the axis stress σA will remains the same. For the local
stripping anchorage bolt, some part can be discarded for the compu-
tation of the resistance force. The σA of local stripping anchorage bolt
can be solved as shown in Fig. 4-b. The 4-a graph is equivalent to the 4-
b computational model. The separate part length is Δl and its position is
x1, away from p . To solve the model axis stress (σA ), the model is
changed into wholly bolt as can be seen in Fig. 4.
Fig. 2. The effect of ks on the σA distribution. The calculation length should be changed as l − Δl . So, the formula
becomes as

4 × 109, 9 × 109, and 16 × 109 N/m, severally. The curves are also pexp((l − Δ l) η)exp(−η x) pexp(−(l − Δ l) η)exp(η x)
⎧ σA = A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η)) − 0 < x< x1
shown in Fig. 2, which follow the same distribution trend. However, ⎪
A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η))

when the ks increases, σA decreases faster and the distribution becomes ⎪ σA = pexp((l − Δ l) η)exp(−η x1) pexp(−(l − Δ l) η)exp(η x1)
A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η))
− A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η))
x1 <x
more concentrated near the p . It can be concluded that the ks has a ⎪
direct relationship with that of the σA distribution. ks reflects the an- ⎨ < x1 + Δ1
choring ability of the surrounding rock and soil. For example, the ef- ⎪ σ = pexp((l − Δ l) η)exp(−η (x−Δ1)) − pexp(−(l − Δ l) η)exp(η (x−Δ1))
x1 +Δ
⎪ A A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η)) A (exp((l − Δ l) η) − exp(−(l − Δ l) η))
fective anchoring length of the bolt is in the range of 4.5 m when the ks ⎪
is 1 × 109 N/m, while it reduced to 1.5 m when ks of 16 × 109 N/m is ⎩ 1 < x< 1
employed. (9)
Moreover, the radius r of the bolt has also a direct relationship with
For the same example a bolt has the same properties as that of the
the σA . If r changes, the σA will also change the distribution of σA . So, r is
above. x1 is set as 1 and 2 m, respectively. On the other hand, the Δl can
set as 2 × 10−2, 3 × 10−2, 4 × 10−2, and 5 × 10−2 m simultaneously.
be set as 1 and 2 m, respectively. The σA curves are shown in Fig. 5. All
Different curves of σA are shown in Fig. 3, where we can see that when
these curves have similar trend (decrease) and a terrace which is a
the r increases the maximum value of σA decreases. For different values
separate part of the bolt. The separate part works as transmitting axis
of r the decay rates of σA are different. The larger the r , the slower the
stress and there is no anti bolt slide function. Δl will affect the σA decay
decay rate of σA which is due to the area A of the bolt, but the effective
speed. The longer the separate part the shorter the anchorage part
anchoring lengths remained similar.
which consequently increased the σA decay speed. In case of dis-
So, the larger the proportional coefficient produces the faster the
continuous separate parts, again the theory must be same but there may
anti-slide force attenuates. Moreover, the force is more concentrated.
be several discontinuous terraces.

Fig. 3. σA distribution with respect to r

3
H.-C. Ma, et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080

Fig. 4. Local stripping anchorage bolt analysis.

⎧ τ = 0 u > u max
⎨ τ ∝ u u ≤ u max (10)
⎩
Moreover, the curve of τ is shown in Fig. 6. So, according to this
curve when the P increases to some extent, the u will approach the limit.
Finally, the bolt will lose the anchoring effects.
Combining with formula (5) the limit of the u can be deduced as:

umax = (c1(exp(ηl) − 1))/(ηE ) − (c 2(exp( −ηl) − 1))/(ηE ) (11)

So, when u max is brought into formula (11) the limit of P will be-
come as

umax ηEA (exp(lη) − exp(−lη))

pmax =
exp(lη) + exp(−lη) − 2 (12)

While the friction resistance force gets the limit when u = 0 and can
be shown as

Fig. 5. σA for local stripping anchorage bolts. pη exp(lη)exp(−η x) pη exp(−lη)exp(η x)

τ=− exp(lη) − exp(−lη)
− exp(lη) − exp(−lη)
pη exp(lη) + exp(−lη)
τmax = − exp(lη) − exp(−lη) (13)

Moreover, the limit of P can also be expressed as

exp(lη) − exp(−lη)
pmax = −τmax
η (exp(lη) + exp(−lη)) (14)

When the value of P is larger than pmax , then the striping part will
appear and propagate until the whole bolt lose the anchorage effects.

5. Experiment

To experimentally analyze the axis stress of the bolt, we have car-

Fig. 6. The τ curve.
4. The limit of P
For the rock bolt pullout tests, the P must have a limit. In case of the
theoretical model, the common model can be set by the values of τ and
can be called as elastic and completely soften model. Mathematically, in
view of paper24 it can be represented as
ried out an experiment where the strain gauges (SG1 to SG6) were set at
six positions of the bolt as shown in Fig. 7. The type of strain gauge is
BX120-3CA and the resistance is 120Ω. The dimension of strain gauge is
3 mm × 2 mm. After that, the pullout force was applied at the top by
the oil pressure jack (see Fig. 8). The strain gauges recorded the strain
and its distribution is shown in Fig. 9. These curves show the dis-
tributions of axis strain at different forces, ranging from 320 to 500 kN.
All these curves have a similar trend. The strain is attenuated con-
tinuously until a certain length is reached, called effective length. The
effective lengths of the rock bolt were kept similar. Moreover, the strain
became nearly zero. So, the strain is at the same distribution with the
curves of Figs. 2 and 3. Results and discussion of these curves led us to
conclude that this model (stress) of rock bolt is reasonable and appro-
priate.

4
H.-C. Ma, et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080

Fig. 7. Strain gauges positions (mm).

Fig. 8. Experimental model.

analyzed and the conclusions can be summarized as follows.

The axis stress of bolt can be solved from the wholly bolt model
which is a monotonic function and consist of negative index function
and minus index function.
When the proportional coefficient ks increases, the distribution of σA
concentrates near the force position and the effective length of the bolt
becomes shorter. Moreover, when the radius r increases the maximum
of σA decreases while the effective length of bolt remains constant.
In case of local stripping bolt, the curves have a terrace for the
stripping part. And the stripping part is just as transmitting axis stress.
The limit of P has been analyzed from the elastic and completely
soften models.
Finally, our experimental results have a strong correlation with that
of theory solution of axis stress.
The above results are consistent with previous results on similar
rock bolts and cable bolts, and provide a theoretical method for ana-
lyzing the anchorage mechanism. The results can be used to be a theory
to predict the pullout force by monitoring the displacement of rock bolt.
The parameters of rock bolt can be designed on the basis of the con-
clusions.
Fig. 9. Strain distribution of bolt.

6. Conclusions Acknowledgement

It is found that the effect of the external force on the anchor system The authors would like to deeply appreciate the support by the
is passive. Initially, the stress and strain response of the anchor system National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41831289 and
occurs and then it is transferred to the interface of the rock mass. Which 41772250).
further play the role of friction force based on the properties of the
material. Therefore, it is important to analyze the interface friction for
the characteristics of stress and strain of anchor bolt. For the proper Appendix A. Supplementary data
analysis of stress characteristics of the anchor bolt, a reasonable model
is required. Starting with the interface of an elastic model, the gov- Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
erning equations of the axial stress of the anchor bolt under the fra- doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104080.
mework of the elastic theory are established through strict equilibrium
conditions. The influence of some of the physical parameters are

5
H.-C. Ma, et al.
References
1. Aziz N, Jalalifar H. Optimization of the bolt profile configuration for load transfer
enhancement. 8th Underground Coal Operators' Conference. University of Wollongong
& the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; 2008:125–131.
2. Nguyen T, Ghabraie K, Tran-Cong T. Applying bi-directional evolutionary structural
optimisation method for tunnel reinforcement design considering nonlinear material
behaviour. Comput Geotech. 2014;55:57–66.
3. Ghadimi M, Shahriar K, Jalalifar H. Analysis profile of the fully grouted rock bolt in
jointed rock using analytical and numerical methods. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2014;24(5):609–615.
4. Freeman TJ. The behaviour of fully-bonded rock bolts in the Kielder experimental
tunnel. Tunnels Tunnelling. 1978;10:37–40.
5. Stille H. Theoretical aspects on the difference between prestresses anchor bolt and
grouted bolt in squeezing rock. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Rock
Bolting, Abisko. 1983; 1983:65–73.
6. Stille H, Holmberg M, Nord G. Support of weak rock with grouted bolts and shotcrete.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1989;26(1):99–113.
7. Li C, Stillborg B. Analytical models for rockbolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1999;36:1013–1029.
8. Laura BM, Michel T, Faouzi HH. A new analytical solution to the mechanical beha-
viour of fully grouted rockbolts subjected to pull-out tests. Constr Build Mater.
2011;25:749–755.
9. Ahmad F, Hamed S. A theoretical approach for analysis of the interaction between
grouted rockbolts and rock masses. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2005;20(4):333–343.
10. Farmer IW. Stress distribution along a resin grouted rock anchor. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr. 1975;12:347–351.
11. Ren FF, Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Chen WW. An analytical analysis of the full-range be-
haviour of grouted rockbolts based on a tri-linear bond-slip model. Constr Build
Mater. 2010;24:361–370.
12. Hyett J, Bawden WF, Reichert RD. The effect of rock mass confinement on the bond
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122 (2019) 104080
strength of fully grouted cable bolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr.
1992;29(5):503–524.
13. Hyett AJ, Bawden WF, Macsporran GR, Moosavi M. A constitutive law for bond
failure of fully-grouted cable bolts using a modified Hoek cell. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr. 1995;32(1):11–36.
14. Jalalifar H, Aziz N. Analytical behaviour of bolt-joint intersection under lateral
loading conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2010;43:89–94.
15. Massarsch KR, OikawaI K. Design and practical application of soil anchors. Proc.
Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures. London: Thomas Telford; 1997:153–158.
16. Josef M. Analysis of Grouted Soil anchors.Proceeding of International Symposium on
Anchors in Theory and Practice. 1995; 1995.
17. Fuller PG, Cox RHT. Mechanics load transfer from steel tendons of cement based
grouted. Fifth Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials.
Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; 1995 Published by.
18. Stillborg B. Experimental Investigation of Steel Bolts for Rock Reinforcement in Hard
Rock. Sweden: Lulea University of Technology; 1984.
19. Skrzypkowski K. Evaluation of rock bolt support for polish hard rock mines. E3S Web
Conf. 2018;35.
20. Korzeniowski W, Skrzypkowski K, Krzysztof Z. Reinforcement of underground ex-
cavation with expansion shell rock bolt equipped with deformable component. Studia
Geotechnica Mech. 2017;39(1):39–51.
21. Yu SS, Zhu WC, Niu LL, Zhou SC, Kang PH. Experimental and numerical analysis of
fully grouted long rockbolt loadtransfer behavior. Tunn Undergr Space Technol.
2019;85:55–66.
22. Zhu CX, Chang X, Men YD, Luo L. Modeling of grout crack of rockbolt grouted
system. Int J Mining Sci Technol. 2015;25:73–77.
23. Ghaboussi J, Wilson EL, Isenberg J. Finite element for rock joint interfaces. J. Soil
Mech. Found Div., ASCE. 1973;99(SM10):833–848.
24. Thenevin I, Blanco-Martin L, et al. Laboratory pull-out tests on fully grouted rock
bolts and cable bolts: results and lessons learned. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng.
2017;05:65–77.