Professional Documents
Culture Documents
=9.2N/mm
2
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
deflection (mm)
(ii) GFRC bars embedded in epoxy-acrylate resin
(N/mm
2
)
= 26.4N/mm
2
= 26.4N/mm
2
Type A
mortar
Type B
mortar
3/26
Chapter 3
Types of Rock Bolts
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Fig 3.12 Use of tensioned GFRC bars for masonry repairs, taken from Faoro (1991)
Masonry facing block
GFRC - bars installed in
22mm diameter drill hole
1000mm 0
Chapter 3
Types of Rock Bolts
3/27
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Fig 3.13 Details of externally protected rock bolts
End nut
Resinous mortar
Corrosion sheathing
with cement grout filling
Stopper and centring plug
Grout tube for
secondary grouting
Vent tube
3/28
Chapter 3
Types of Rock Bolts
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Bottom end plug
Corrugated plastic duct
Bar
External centralisers,
as required
Cement grout filling to
corrugated duct
Resin retainer/sealer
Internal spacer
Secondary grout vent
tube
Primary resin grout bleed/
vent tube
Outer trumpet assembly
Anchor head assembly nut
and washer
Tendon bond length
Polyester resin
(Primary grout)
Free tendon length
Cement grout
(Secondary grout)
Secondary grout
injection tube
Chapter 3
Types of Rock Bolts
3/29
Fig 3.14 Details of a double corrosion protected rock bolt
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Resin mortar
Heat shrink with
inner lining and
corrosion protection
coating to bar
(e.g. epoxy coating)
Shortcrete facing
3/30
Chapter 3
Types of Rock Bolts
Fig 3.15 Details of a rock bolt provided with a heat-shrink sleeve
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
4. DESIGN
4/1
Chapter 4
Design
Principles and objectives
4.1.1 This section covers the design of rock bolts. The
design of rock bolted structures is beyond the scope of
this Advice Note.
4.1.2 The objective of using rock bolting systems is to
create a stable rock mass. The design of the support
system is dependent upon the physical properties and
characteristics of the rock mass - including the strength
of the intact rock; the in situ stress field; the spacing,
persistence, nature and infill of discontinuities; and the
orientation of the discontinuities relative to the face of
the excavation. In addition, the stress strain
characteristics of the rock mass and the reinforcement
system should be matched to suit the end product
required (Gerrard 1983, Barton & Bakhtar 1983).
4.1.3 The methodology behind the design of rock bolts,
rock dowels or cable dowels can be divided into two
approaches, Active and Passive, examples of which are
given in Figure 4.1
Active reinforcing elements are stressed with a design
working load on installation. Active reinforcement
limits strains and therefore prevents, or minimises,
movement or deformation of the rock mass. Hence, this
type of reinforcement should be targeted at sites where
strain must be limited (eg serviceability limits).
Tensioned rock bolts are most effective in retaining loose
blocks or wedges of rock. The support is only usually
required to hold up the dead weight of loose material.
The tensioning of the bolts is required in order to tighten
the loose blocks and provide as much interlocking as
possible between these blocks and their failure plane. It
is by helping the rock to support itself, and by
prevention of further unravelling and deterioration of the
rock mass that tensioned rock bolts provide effective
support (Hoek and Wood 1992).
Passive reinforcement is so called because the
reinforcing elements are not stressed. Passive elements
only become stressed once deformation/movement takes
place in the rock mass. This type of reinforcement
includes dowels and cable dowels (McMillan 1993).
Untensioned dowels are often installed before significant
movement has taken place in the rock mass, and become
tensioned through strain of the rock mass (Hoek and
Wood 1992)
4.1.4 Information on the design of rock bolts is provided
in BS 8081: 1989, and references such as Hoek and
Brown (1980) and Hobst and Zajic (1983).
Loads
4.2.1 Determination of the loads to be resisted by a rock
bolting system often requires a complex analysis to take
into account the large number of factors, many of which
may be ill-defined. However, the revealing of
unforeseen ground conditions, or poorly executed
construction techniques, such as blasting, may well
require the original analysis to be reworked with new
information. Thus an important, if not the crucial,
ingredient of any rock support work is the ability of the
engineering team to adapt the design and installation
programme to the conditions encountered on site. It is,
therefore, common practice for any sizeable bolting or
rock stabilising operation to be controlled and refined on
a day-to-day basis in the field; in such cases the
engineering team must have a clear understanding of
what is to be achieved, what options are available, and
which option should be selected to suit the conditions
encountered.
4.2.2 The orientation of a bolt or dowel is important as
it determines the efficiency of action of the
reinforcement. For active reinforcement the force
required to stabilise a block sliding on a failure plane
varies with the angle of inclination between the force and
the failure plane (Figure 4.2a) (Franklin and Dusseaut
1989). The example given in Figure 4.2a is a simple
case, but the same principle applies for more complex
situations as shown in Figure 4.2b. For passive
reinforcement the shear resistance of the doweled
discontinuity varies as a function of the angle between
the dowel and the discontinuity (Gaziev and Lapin 1983,
Ludvig 1983). There is an optimum angle for the
installation of a dowel. This angle lies in the range 35
to 50 to the plane of the discontinuity (Barton and
Bakhtar 1983).
4.2.3 The loads in individual rock bolts commonly range
from 150 to 200kN. Loads of up to 300kN have been
used in practice but they are exceptional for surface, or
near-surface, construction works.
Design of individual bolts
4.3.1 Following the establishment of the overall outline
support scheme, the detailed design of the bolting system
must address the transference of the required support
forces from the bolt head (which applies the stabilising
force into the structure, excavated face or jointed block)
to a stable anchor zone at some depth. The design of
individual bolts must address the following aspects.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
4/2
Chapter 4
Design
(i) The available bond at the anchor/rock interface.
(ii) The location of a stable anchor zone.
(iii) The available bond at the tendon/anchor interface.
(iv) The available bond at any encapsulation/grout
interface.
(v) The properties of the tendon.
(vi) The adequacy of the bolt head with regard to
strength, stiffness, robustness and durability.
4.3.2 Bond at the anchor/rock interface
The transfer of load from the tendon to the rock surface
in the anchor zone can be achieved by mechanical
means, such as the expansion shell anchorage, or by
cement or resin bonding.
(i) Mechanical anchors
Mechanical rock bolts are tensioned immediately
after installation, and so it is unnecessary to
prescribe a specific approach to their design.
Manufacturers of such types of rock bolt have a
range of products to cope with varying rock
conditions and give guidance on design for a
range of rock qualities and strengths. The act of
tensioning the bolt to its required loading
confirms, at least in the short term, the ability of
the mechanical bolt to support a particular load.
High tensions, where the yield strength of the
tendon is approached, can be achieved in good
quality rock, but in poor quality rocks local
crushing of the rock can be generated by the high
local point loads exerted by an expansion shell,
and anchor slip can also occur.
A summary of the results of pull out tests on
mechanical anchors is reproduced from Moy
(1973) in Table 4.1. The data show the
decreasing pull out resistance of mechanical
expansion shell type rock bolts in weaker rocks.
Although capacity can be increased in such rocks
using special types of malleable expansion shells
and coupled expansion assemblies, such devices
are not commonly used in the civil engineering
industry in the UK.
(ii) Cement grouted anchors
The calculation of the design anchor length (L) of
a cement grouted rock bolt generally follows a
similar methodology to that employed for ground
anchorages, i.e. the ultimate shaft friction (P
s
) is
calculated using an equation of the form;
P
s
= d L
u
where
u
is the ultimate bond strength of the rock/
grout interface and d is the diameter of the bonded
length (the units of the variables should be
consistent).
It should be noted that this equation is based on
the assumption that load is transferred uniformly
over the whole surface area of the design fixed
anchor length. Littlejohn (1979) cautions that this
approach may lead to high concentration of stress
at the proximal end of anchorages in weak
deformable rock; nevertheless the assumption of a
uniform bond stress is common practice.
Preliminary design values of ultimate bond
strength
u
may be derived from the results of
laboratory or in situ tests, or from previously
published values.
(a) Laboratory tests. Values of
u
are commonly
based on the unconfined compression strength
(UCS) of the rock, for example;
u
= 0.1UCS
An upper limit of 4000kN/m
2
is normally applied
to
u
- this commonly being about 10 per cent of
the design characteristic unconfined compressive
strength of a cementitious grout.
(b) Field tests. Correlation between strength and
standard penetration blow counts (N) have been
derived for a range of rock types.
Chalk: For stiff/hard chalk (weathering grades I
to III), Littlejohn (1970) suggested the following
relation;
u
= 10N (kN/m
2
)
Barley (1988) derived the following from tests on
pressure grouted anchorages;
u
= 20N to 30N (kN/m
2
)
similarly, Turner (1980) derived values of
u
(in kN/m
2
) equivalent to 16N for chalk grades II
to III.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4/3
Chapter 4
Design
It should be noted that a new system for
classifying chalk has been developed since the
above was carried out. Details of the new
classification system can be found in CIRIA
Project Report 11, 1994 entitled Foundations in
Chalk.
Weathered granite: Suzuki et al (1972) gave the
following relation for anchorages installed in
weathered granite in Japan,
u
= 7N + 120 (kN/m
2
)
Mudrocks: Barley (1988) suggested that the
correlation for the various types of mudstone fell
into the following range;
u
= 2.4N to 6N (kN/m
2
)
but suggested that a lower bound value of
190kN/m2 for
u
seemed to be appropriate for a
wide range of mudstones with N values ranging
between 34 and 95.
Sandstones: Barley (1988) gave the following
relation for weak sandstones;
u
= 5.5N to 15N (kN/m
2
)
(c) Published values. A review of bond strengths
completed by Littlejohn and Bruce (1977) was
reproduced in Tables 24 and 25 of BS 8081:
1989. Barley (1988) also tabulated bond
strengths for a wide range of rock types. Turner
(1980 and 1995) gave bond strengths derived
from a range of tests (undertaken mainly in the
UK) and compared them to other parameters such
as rock type, strength, Rock Quality Designation
and degree of weathering. All the above data,
however, relate to ground anchorages which
usually have larger diameters and pull out
capacities than rock bolts.
The results of pull out tests undertaken on cement
grouted rock bolts are reproduced from Moy
(1973) in Table 4.2. In all these tests the yield
strength of the bar was reached before the
ultimate strength of the interface was attained.
Cement grouted rock bolts can incorporate a
mechanical expansion fixing device to provide the
initial load holding capacity: this can be
subsequently enhanced by grouting of the full
length or just the anchor length of the bolt.
(iii) Resin bonded anchors
An estimate of the strength of a resin/rock
interface can be based on previous experience,
empirical relations or site tests. The results of on
site pull out tests are reproduced from Whittaker
et al (1977) in Table 4.3. They suggested that the
design anchor length is a major consideration
when the uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock is less than 35MN/m
2
: this is equivalent to
the mid-range of a moderately strong rock
according to BS 5930: 1981. For weaker rocks,
the bond strength of a resin/rock interface often
has to be established or confirmed from the results
of site tests. For stronger rocks the bond between
the resin and the bar often controls the pull out
capacity of the bolt. Whittaker et al (1977)
suggested that an estimate of the bond length (L
b
)
for a polyester resin bolt embedded in a strong
rock can be derived from;
L
b
= (50 + 2.5P)
where L
b
is in mm and P is the maximum
anticipated design load (in kN).
Franklin and Woodfield (1971) produced a design
chart relating a bond factor (in inches/short ton)
with rock strength expressed as point load index;
their chart is reproduced in Figure 4.3 after
conversion to metric units. They suggested that
the required bond length (L
b
) can be derived from
the relation;
L
b
= (bond factor x P) + safety margin.
Their approach gives bond lengths of typically
less than 0.5m. Franklin and Woodfield (1971)
noted that failure in weak rocks tended to occur at
the resin/rock interface, but with very strong
rocks it was likely to occur at the resin/anchor
interface.
In conventional civil engineering practice bond
lengths generally range between 1 and 2m; these
longer lengths are adopted to account for
variations in rock quality over a site and
construction practice.
4.3.3 Uplift or pull out capacity
It is usually necessary to check that the anchor length is
sufficiently deeply embedded that in the event of the full
design force being mobilised (for example to resist an
uplift or toppling load for a tensioned structure) failure
is not generated by excessive movements. Whilst this
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
4/4
Chapter 4
Design
failure criterion may not be critical in many rock bolting
applications, such as in bolting arrays for roof support,
it nevertheless must be assessed.
Usually it would be assumed that at failure an inverted
cone of rock resists the anchor loads in the manner
shown in Figure 4.4. The included angle of the cone of
failure would typically be taken to be between 60 and
90, but values outside this range may be assumed
where the rocks were well bedded or jointed. The results
of tests on resin bonded rock bolts installed in intact
strong sandstone have been reported by Whittaker et al
(1977); they found that breakage through the intact rock
gave an included angle of around 120. Usually the
apex of the cone is taken to be half way along the fixed
anchor length or at the top of a mechanically or
point-loaded bolt. In assessing resistance the weight of
rock within the cone is multiplied by a factor of between
0.5 and 1.0, the value being dependent upon the
percentage of the intact strength of the rock that can be
relied upon to provide stability
4.3.4 Bond at the tendon/grout interface
(i) Cement grouted bolts
BS 8081: 1989 recommends that the ultimate
design bond stress between a deformed bar and its
surrounding cement grout should not exceed 2N/
mm
2
, but bond strengths in excess of 6N/mm
2
have been reported from the results of pull out
tests; see for example Dywidag-Systems
International Ltd and M
c
Calls Special Products
Ltd. It is recommended, therefore, that design
values in excess of 2N/mm
2
may be used with the
proviso that such values are supported either by in
situ tests or by relevant documented test data.
BS 8081: 1989 also recommends a minimum
fixed anchor length of 2m for rock anchors
carrying loads of less than 200kN, i.e. typical of
rock bolts. Again depending upon site conditions
and loads it may be acceptable to use shorter bond
lengths, particularly where positive interlock is
provided on the tendon bond length; for example
an end nut can be screwed on to the distal end of
the bar as shown in Figure 3.13
(ii) Resin bonded bolts
Test data provided by the manufacturers of resin
grouts suggest that ultimate bond stresses of
about 10N/mm
2
can be mobilised on deformed
bars embedded in the types of polyester resins
used for rock bolts and ground anchorages.
However few confirmatory data have been
published and design proof tests should be
undertaken if such high bond values are proposed
for design.
Whittaker et al (1977) reported the results of pull
out tests undertaken on 16mm and 20mm diameter
high yield deformed bars embedded in resin; they
found negligible creep with tendon bond lengths
as short as 150mm and 190mm respectively.
4.3.5 Bond at the encapsulation/grout interface
(i) Cement grouted bolts
The bond strength of the duct/grout interface must
be assessed where corrugated plastic ducts are
used for corrosion protection. BS 8081: 1989
recommends that for cementitious grouts the
assumed ultimate bond stress over a grout/
encapsulation interface should not exceed 3N/
mm
2
. However test data support higher ultimate
bond strengths and values in excess of
4.1N/mm
2
have been mobilised without failure,
see for example M
c
Calls Special Products Ltd. In
many such cases the tendon/grout interface is the
controlling factor. It is recommended, however,
that where design strength in excess of 3N/mm
2
is
proposed, the value should be supported by
relevant documented test data.
(ii) Resin bonded bolts
Corrosion protected bolts, where the tendon is
encapsulated within a cement grout, have been
bonded into drillholes with resinous grouts. The
results of pull out tests undertaken on such bolts
showed that, upon failure by yielding of the
system, an ultimate bond stress of 5.4N/mm
2
was
developed at the resin/encapsulation interface,
Turner (undated). (These bolts were embedded in
a pumpable polyester grout in a 50mm diameter
drillhole and installed into fresh granite). It is
recommended that the values assumed in design
for a resin/duct interface should be supported by
relevant documented test data.
4.3.6 Tendon design
For permanent works and for temporary works where
the risk of corrosion of the rock bolts is high and/ or the
consequences of failure are serious, the maximum
allowable working load (T
w
) in a steel tendon should be
taken as:
T
w
< 0.5 x characteristic yield strength
as given in BS 8081: 1989.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4/5
Chapter 4
Design
For temporary works, where failure would have no
serious consequences and would not endanger public
safety, the following will be appropriate for most
applications,
(i) T
w
< 0.625 x characteristic yield strength for
bolts having a service life of up to 2 years, and
(ii) T
w
< 0.7 x characteristic yield strength for bolts
with a service life of up to 6 months.
Notwithstanding the above, where failure could have
serious consequences or could occur without adequate
warning of the danger to the general public, the selection
of the working stress should be reviewed and
consideration given to the requirements for corrosion
protection [see sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.3]. Further advice
may be found in CIRIA R101 (Douglas and Arthur,
1981).
For non-steel tendons, the manufacturer should be
consulted for guidance and design values should be
supported by design proof tests.
4.3.7 Shock loading of rock bolts
Rock bolts are often used in rock tunnelling for both
temporary and permanent support. Temporary bolts are
installed behind the advancing face to provide support to
the excavated profile following blasting and mucking
out. Permanent support bolts are installed when the face
has advanced sufficiently that the bolts are deemed to be
beyond the influence of blasting at the tunnel face. It is
current practice to regard all bolts within 5m of the face
as temporary and to replace them by permanent support
bolts as the face advances. However this may
effectively mean that the rock bolting system is
duplicated unnecessarily.
Extensive research on the resistance of rock bolts to the
shock loading produced by blasting was undertaken at
the Penmaenbach and Pen-y-Clip rock tunnels on the
A55 North Wales coast road: the results of this work
have been reported by Littlejohn et al (1987) and Xu et
al (1995) respectively. The results indicated that, in the
rock conditions within the tunnels on the A55, the rock
bolts were undamaged by blasting operations at
distances of less than 5m from the advancing face and
this opens up the possibility of their use for both
temporary and permanent purposes. At Pen-y-Clip, a
safe distance of 4m was adopted; this was based on a
mean peak particle velocity of 225mm/s (Xu et al,
1995): in practice, rock bolts further than 1.1m from the
blast force were found to be capable of holding load
after blasting.
Testing
4.4.1 Testing is an integral part of the design process.
The sequence and timing of the tests may vary from
contract to contract, but some test data will be required
prior to the installation of any works bolts. In many
cases it will be advantageous to undertake tests on trial
bolts to confirm or refine the design of the bolts in a
pre-contract trial.
4.4.2 Tests are required to demonstrate the satisfactory
performance of a bolting system for the conditions for
which it is proposed. The requirements of a test
programme vary according to the likely uncertainties in
the performance of the system, but any programme
should cover;
(i) the suitability of all materials and components
(and their possible interaction) - including their
strength, stiffness, durability and robustness,
(ii) the methods of construction and the equipment
used - including storage and handling of materials
and components, assembly of components,
stability of boreholes and cut faces, and stressing
operations,
(iii) the performance of the bolting system - including
load carrying capacity and load-extension
behaviour.
4.4.3 The objectives of an on-site testing programme, the
specification of the test procedures, and the
consequences of the required standard of performance
not being satisfied should be considered at an early stage
in design. A programme of tests form part of the
Contract.
4.4.4 Design proof tests are undertaken to show that the
performance of a bolt or any of its components satisfies
the design criteria for ultimate or serviceability
conditions. Thus some of these tests may be destructive
and the data may not be directly comparable to those
obtained from works bolts. These types of test may be
undertaken in the laboratory or in the field. The
requirements of a particular project may be satisfied by
tests undertaken for previous projects. Specific tests
include the following.
(i) Tests to define the ultimate bond strength of
various interfaces including (as applicable); grout/
rock, mechanical anchor/rock, shank/grout,
plastic duct/grout. Some tests may be undertaken
in the laboratory but others will have to be carried
out on site. In particular, on-site pull out tests
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4/6
Chapter 4
Design
may be required to define the ultimate bond
strength of the grout/ground interface. To attain
failure without rupturing the tendon, it may be
necessary to increase the cross section of the
tendon or reduce the size of the load transfer zone
in a trial bolt from that proposed for the works
bolts.
When investigating the performance of an anchor,
provision may be required to reduce, or eliminate,
the effect of any grout in the free anchor length.
(ii) On-site pull out tests should be undertaken to
determine the load-extension behaviour of a works
bolt. Creep tests are not usually undertaken,
unless the anchor length is in weak rocks which
are susceptible to creep such as some types of
mudrock.
(iii) Tests to prove the strength of the components of a
bolt system; for example the strength of the shank,
the bearing capacity of the bolt head and the
crushing strength of grouts. Usually tests on full
scale bolts are not taken to destruction, it being
sufficient to undertake non-destructive tests on
trial bolts (where up to, say, 80% of the strength
of the shank is mobilised) and quality assurance
tests on the tendon, concretes and grouts.
4.4.5 Confirmatory performance tests are undertaken to
show that the assembly of the works bolts, their
installation and resulting performance are satisfactory.
The number of tests and the test procedures may vary
according to the of a particular project and may be
satisfied by tests undertaken for previous projects. Such
tests may include the following.
(i) Inspection tests on sections cut through a
corrosion protected bolt to confirm continuity of
the grout within the protective sheath, positioning
of the shank within the encapsulation grout, and
the competence of the protective sheaths. Ideally,
some of these tests are best undertaken on bolts
that have been stressed so that the effects of
installation and stressing operations can be
assessed, but in practice this is rarely feasible.
(ii) A review of the constructability of the bolting
system, assessments of the method of construction
and the suitability of the proposed construction
plant, on-site checks on the orientation of trial
drillholes and a critique of the quality control
procedures for the works.
(iii) Trials to confirm the suitability of grout mixes.
(iv) Tests on the type and quality of the ground into
which the bolts are installed; these may include
checks on the strength, consistency, and grout
tightness.
(v) On-site tests to determine the load-extension
behaviour of works bolts. The results of such
tests can be used as benchmarks from which to
judge the performance of the works bolts.
Usually the ultimate load carrying capacity of a
works bolt or the surrounding ground is not
reached because the maximum load that can be
applied is limited by the tensile capacity of the
shank. Such tests may be undertaken on works
bolts if their subsequent performance is not
compromised.
4.4.6 Quality control tests are undertaken to check the
quality of components, workmanship, and the
performance of the works bolts. Such tests should be
undertaken as a matter of routine throughout
construction. Specific tests include the following.
(i) On-site and laboratory tests to check the physical
properties of cements, resins and grouts.
(ii) Laboratory tests to check the mechanical
properties of the tendon.
(iii) Laboratory tests to check the composition of the
various components, such as the chemical
make-up of cements and resins.
(iv) Spot checks on the efficiency of the construction
plant, such as grout pumps.
(v) Checks on the orientation and dimensions of
drillholes.
(vi) Confirmation of the type and quality of the
ground, including an assessment of the position of
the water table.
(vii) Tests on works bolts to check load-extension
characteristics.
(viii) Checks that any method statement for
construction is being followed.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Factors of safety and proof loads
4.5.1 For economy, in most cases the maximum proof
load that can be applied to a works bolt is limited by the
acceptable level of stress in the shank. Thus the
maximum factor of safety against pull out that can be
proven is equal to the ratio of the safe stress and the
in-service stress. For proof tests, it is recommended that
the proof load (T
p
) be:
T
p
= 1.5 T
w
for permanent bolts, and
T
p
= 1.25 T
w
for temporary bolts.
4/7
Chapter 4
Design
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 4
Design
4/9
Rock type Ultimate Bolt load Ultimate Reference
compressive at yield bold load
strength
(MN/m
2
) (kN) (kN)
Granite >147 - Underwood and
Di Stefano (1964)
232-286 - Franklin & Woodfield
(1971)
Very >71 - Barry et al (1956)
strong
sandstone
Very 147 35 63 Caverson & Parker
strong (1971)
shale
Shale 112 98-134 112-134 Cochrane & St Louis
(1969)
Soft Shale 40 63 Liddle & Tisdale
(Coal (1968)
measures)
Soft 18 31-45 McLean (1964)
weathered
shale
Mudstone 49 54 Barnes & Howe
(1964)
Chalk 18-125 - Franklin & Woodfield
(1971)
Concrete 87-89 89-94 Barnes & Howe
(1964)
Table 4.1 Summary of pull out tests on mechanical expansion shell anchors, after Moy (1973)
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4/10
Chapter 4
Design
Rock type Ultimate Bond Hole Load at Bolt type Reference
compressive length diameter yield
strength
(MN/m
2
) (m) (mm) (kN)
Shear zone >7 0.9 40 103
granite
Underwood
&
Di Stefano
(1964)
" >7 1.2 32 >161 'Perfobolt'
" >7 2.4 38-44 >161 Hollow core
(typical) bar
" >7 2.4 38-44 >286 'Perfobolt'
Table 4.2 Summary of pull out tests on cement grouted rock bolts, after Moy (1973)
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 4
Design
4/11
Test ref Rock type (location) Bolt Hole Bond Max load Comments
number diameter diameter length
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN)
1 Carb.shale 20 25 450 105 (c) Yield = 14mm
(Lorraine)
2 Slate (Dinorwig) 32 50 300 100 (f) resin/rock slip
3 Slate (Dinorwig) 32 50 450 225 (f) resin/rock slip
4 Slate (Dinorwig) 32 50 900 580 (f) resin/rock slip
5 Slate (Dinorwig) 25
+
50 450 600 (f) no failure
6 Granite (Peterhead) 25 32 1000 200 (f) test to working load
7 Limestone 25 32 1000 200 (c) Bolt broke
(Avon Gorge)
8 Limestone 25 38 1000 350 (c) Bolt broke
(Avon Gorge)
9 Seatearth 19
+
44 1000 35 (c) resin/rock slip
(Cotgrave colliery)
10 Seatearth 19
+
44 1200 40 (c) resin/rock slip
(Cotgrave colliery)
11 Seatearth 19
+
44 1400 70 (c) resin/rock slip
(Cotgrave colliery)
12 Sandstone (Godalming) 19* 44 1750 60 (c) wedge failure in rock
13 Slate (Isle of Man) 19 34 1750 170 (c) Bolt broke
14 Chalk (Dover) 25 44 1400 25 (c) rock failure
15 Chalk (Dover) 19
+
44 1400 190 (c) Bolt broke
16 Granite 25 32 300 200 (c) resin/rock slip
(Cambourne)
17 Limestone (Crich) 25 32 400 200 (c) resin/rock slip
18 Limestone (Crich) 25 32 462 250 (c) resin/rock slip
19 Limestone (Crich) 25 32 525 300 (c) Bolt broke
20 Sandstone (Darley Dale) 25 32 750 200 (c) resin/rock slip
21 Sandstone (Darley Dale) 25 32 875 250 (c) resin/rock slip
22 Sandstone (Darley Dale) 25 32 1000 300 (c) Bolt broke
23 Mudstone19* 44 1400 150 (c) Bolt broke
(Sutton Colliery)
24 Mudstone19* 44 1800 120 (c) No failure
(Bolsover Colliery)
Notes 1. * = 19mm steel bar +36 mm dia wood sleeve. 2.
+
= Debonded bolt type. 3. (c) = Resin capsules, (f) = Free flow resin.
Table 4.3 Summary of the results of on-site tests on resin grouted rockbolts,
after Whittaker et al (1977)
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4/12
Chapter 4
Design
60
o
=
T
1 00
90
80
70
60
0 20 40 60
Angl e of ncl i nati on a
45
o
W V
=
U
1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0
50
40
60
70
80
90
1 00
Angl e of ncl i nati on a
R
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g
F
o
r
c
e
,
T
a
s
%
o
f
T
M
a
x
R
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g
F
o
r
c
e
,
T
a
s
%
o
f
T
M
a
x
(a) (b)
Acti ve
Rei nforcement
Passi ve
Rei nforcement
Cabl e Bol ts
Cabl e Dowel s
Dowel s
Rock Anchors
Rock Bol ts
Rock
Rei nforcement
Mul ti strand
Mono-bar
Grouted Bol ts
Mechani cal Bol ts
Fri cti onal Bol ts
Fig 4.1 Classification of Rock reinforcement techniques.
Fig 4.2 The variation of restoring force T with angle of inclination a,
for two example cases of rock bolting.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 4
Design
4/13
Envelope to
test data
low medium high v. high
5.0
2.5
0.1 1 10
Rock strength, I
s
(MN/m
2
)
B
o
n
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
m
n
/
k
N
)
Required bond length = (bond factor x design load) + safety margin
(I
s
= point load strength index)
(a) Load transferred by bond along
fixed anchor length
(b) Load transferred through an
end plate
Fig 4.3 Design chart for bonded anchors, after Franklin and Woodfield (1971)
Fig 4.4 Geometry of cone of rock assumed to be mobilised at failure of a rock mass,
after Littlejohn and Bruce (1977)
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
5. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
5/1
Chapter 5
Construction details
Drilling
5.1.1 The drillholes for rock bolts are commonly formed
by a rotary or rotary percussive mechanism with air or
water normally being used as the flushing medium.
Core drilling is rarely used because of its relatively high
cost and the fact that the smoothness of the resulting
bore tends to produce a lower bond capacity,
particularly when polyester resins are used.
Most problems concerning the installation of rock bolts
are due to limited access. Thus the performance
capabilities of light-weight drilling and installation
equipment are often of prime importance. Hand held
drilling equipment is often used to form the drillholes but
with large excavations, as is becoming more common in
mechanised mines and civil engineering projects, access
must be provided by a lift platform and therefore
remotely operated drilling rigs and drill jumbos are
normally used to form the drillholes.
5.1.2 In principle, any drilling machine or technique may
be employed. But it must be capable of providing a
stable drillhole having dimensions within the permitted
tolerances and which is free of obstructions or major
protrusions so that the bar and any resin/cement
capsules can be inserted without undue resistance.
Installation
5.2.1 It is advisable to clear the drillhole, for example by
flushing the bore with air or water prior to installation of
the bolt. And, immediately prior to installation, the bolt
should be carefully inspected for damage or corrosion;
this is particularly important for corrosion protected
bolts.
Fixing of mechanical bolts
5.3.1 Proprietary devices, such as the Worley,
Split-set and Swellex rock bolts described earlier,
have system-specific features that are described in their
manufacturers technical literature. Swellex bolts, for
example, require the application of a large hydraulic
pressure of around 20N/mm
2
to expand the steel tube
against the wall of the drillhole.
With expansion shell bolts, various devices or techniques
are employed to hold the wedge shaped blades stationary
against the sides of the drillhole whilst an initial tension
is applied by tightening the bolt. Because such shells
only have a limited expansion range their effectiveness is
critically affected by the diameter of the drillhole. If the
hole is too large the shell may be difficult to expand and
uncertain in operation; conversely if the hole is too
small, due to worn drilling tools for instance, it might be
impossible to install the shell.
Grouting
5.4.1 Grouting can serve one or more purposes.
(i) Pregrouting works may be required to fill voids or
fissures prior to the installation of the bolts.
(ii) It can be the primary fixing mechanism for the
bolt.
(iii) It can bond the free length of the shank thereby
making the bolt an integral part of the rock mass.
(The interlocking of the individual elements of the
rock mass can significantly improve the properties
of the rock mass).
(iv) It can protect the bolt against corrosion.
5.4.2 Unless specifically instructed by the supplier,
water should be added to the mixer prior to the cement,
admixture or filler. Batching of dry materials should be
by mass. To ensure homogeneity, mixing should be
carried out mechanically for about two minutes
following the addition of cement. On completion of the
mixing, the grout should be kept in continuous
movement, for example by slow agitation in a storage
tank, but it should be pumped to its final position as
soon as is practicable. It is inappropriate to use a grout
after a period equivalent to the initial setting time has
elapsed from mixing.
5.4.3 In general, proportioning, batching and mixing of
resin materials should be carried out in accordance with
the manufacturers instructions. The batch size of a
resin mix may be dictated by the strength of exothermic
reaction on setting. Mixing should be carried out
mechanically, using a rotating paddle, and care is
required to avoid the permanent entrapment of air
bubbles which can reduce the strength and ductility of
the set resin.
5.4.4 Each stage of the injection should be performed in
one continuous operation. Wherever possible, grouting
should continue until the consistency of the grout return
is the same as the injected grout. Where a tremie
grouting technique is used the end of the tremie pipe
should be submerged throughout the grouting operation.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
5/2
Chapter 5
Construction details
5.4.5 With rock bolts it is unusual for grout to be
injected under pressure but, if used, the pressure should
be limited to a level that avoids distress to the ground or
adjacent structures - common practice is to limit the
pressure to 20kN/m
2
per metre depth of cover.
5.4.6 Capsules of resin grout are manufactured in a
range of dimensions and setting times. This allows the
installer to match the capsule size according to the
volume of the annulus between the shank and the sides
of the drillhole. To minimise the usage of material, hole
sizes are usually kept as small as necessary, but it is
important to check that the required anchor length is
provided. Drillholes which are longer than the installed
length of a bolt can lead to a wastage of resin or an
insufficient bond length. Deviations from the design
hole size can result in an under-supply of resin to the
anchor length.
5.4.7 Care must to be taken to ensure that grouting lines
are not trapped or kinked during the installation and
tensioning operations. It is important to check that the
lines are free of blockages by, for example, pumping
clean water through them.
Stressing and testing
5.5.1 Rock bolts are tensioned either directly, using
hydraulic jacks, or indirectly by applying a measured
torque to the locking nut. The former is generally
preferred because it provides a direct measure of the
load in the bolt and avoids the imposition of a torsional
stress to the tendon. However loading by torque wrench
or impact wrench is often far more convenient,
particularly for a large array of bolts. Where torquing is
used as the routine tensioning method, it is recommended
that the load in a representative number of the bolts is
checked with a hydraulic jack. Typically between 1%
and 5% of bolts should be checked in this manner, with
the percentage checked being dependent on the variation
found during check loading. Wallis (1992) reports that
on one site, bolts specified to have tension loads of
100kN were shown under test to have residual loads of
between 3 and 108kN. Load checks must be carried out
before secondary grouting of the free length of the bolt.
5.5.2 The hydraulic jack and pumping unit should be
capable of tensioning the tendon to not less than 80% of
the characteristic strength of the shank. The loads
applied by a hydraulic jack may be measured by direct
reading load cells but it is more common to use a
pressure gauge which has been calibrated for a
particular jack. Ideally the recording instruments should
be situated no further than 5m from the jack.
5.5.3 Load capacities of 50kN and 150kN are usual for
hand operated and pneumatic torque wrenches
respectively, but both types should be capable of
applying the design load to an accuracy of 5%. When
using torque wrenches it is particularly important to
ensure that the bolt threads are clean and well greased.
For each site and bolt type it is also important to
establish, and reconfirm as necessary, the relation
between the applied torque and axial load. Factors
which affect the calibration include the bolt diameter,
thread pitch and type, state of lubrication and the type of
faceplate assembly.
5.5.4 Jacks and torque wrenches should be calibrated at
least yearly using properly designed test equipment
having an absolute accuracy not exceeding 0.5%. Test
records for jacks should show the relation between load
and hydraulic pressure when the jack is in the active
mode for both increasing and decreasing loads. A jack
should be calibrated prior to the start of tensioning
operations on a contract. It is recommended that
pressure gauges be recalibrated after every 100
stressings or after 30 days (whichever occurs first) or
whenever they have been subjected to shock loading.
They should be calibrated against a properly maintained
master gauge complying with BS 1780: 1985. Similarly,
load cells should be recalibrated after every 200
stressings or 60 days whichever is the most frequent.
Where a load cell is used in conjunction with a pressure
gauge, BS 8081: 1989 suggests that as long as there is
no significant variation between the two devices the time
between the calibrations of the load cell may be extended
to a maximum of one year.
5.5.5 The method of tensioning, the sequence of
stressing and the procedures to be adopted for each
stressing operation should be specified at the planning
stage of a project. The equipment should be used in
accordance with the manufacturers operating
instructions.
5.5.6 For cement grouted bolts, tensioning should not
commence until the primary grout forming the fixed
anchor length has attained a crushing strength of at least
30N/mm
2
as verified from tests on 100mm or 150mm
cubes.
For resin bonded bolts, the manufacturers guidelines
should be followed. The use of two-speed grouts
provides a limited period of time between the tensioning
of the bolt and the bonding of the free length.
5.5.7 During stressing operations, adequate precautions
should be taken to protect personnel and property from
injury or damage due to rupture of a tendon or failure of
the stressing equipment.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 5/3
Chapter 5
Construction details
Load monitoring
5.6.1 For monitoring bolts of particular interest, annular
load cells similar to those used for ground anchorages
are commonly used to measure the end load in a bolt,
but such instruments are too expensive to be used for a
large number of bolts. Strain gauged bolts have been
installed to determine the distribution of load along
particular bolts or an array of bolts (RMT Ltd): the
information from these instrumented bolts may be used
to confirm design assumptions and specifications.
Techniques adopted for the routine monitoring of the
load in a rock bolt usually depend upon an indicator
device which operates at a particular threshold value.
Typical of such devices is the Titan load indicator
(Ischebeck Titan Ltd) illustrated in Figure 5.1. This
consists of a stepped mechanical cylinder with the wall
thickness of each step calculated to allow the indicator to
yield at loads of 60, 120 and 180kN. The bolt is usually
torque loaded to close the 60kN groove, the progressive
closure of the 120 and 180kN grooves giving warning of
overload.
An alternative is provided by the Rotabolt system
(Rotabolt Ltd). As shown in Figure 5.2, in this system a
hole is drilled along the axis of the bolt and a headed pin
is inserted and anchored at its base. The headed end
retains a rotating indicator (rota) complete with a cap
which is set to spin freely on top of the bolt face. When
a load is applied to the bolt it stretches and at the
predetermined load it locks the rota and cap assembly.
The required gap is determined and set during the
conversion of the bolt to a Rotabolt configuration; such
a system can therefore measure a loss of load. The
successful use of this device for rock bolts requires close
site supervision during installation.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 5/5
Chapter 5
Construction details
Working
grooves
Prestress
groove
Load indicator
Working
grooves
Prestress
groove
Fig 5.1 Operation of Titan Load indicator, taken from Ischebeck Titan Ltd
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 5/6
Chapter 5
Construction details
Fig 5.2 Schematic view of a stud fitted with a Rotabolt load indicator, taken from Rotabolt Ltd
Rota load indicator
Air gap closes at
set load preventing
indicator from
being turned
Gauge pin secured to
base of drilled hole
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 6
References
6/1
6. REFERENCES
6.1.1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): The Stationery Office
BD 70 Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills for retaining walls and bridge abutments (DMRB 2.1.5)
BD 71 Design of ground anchors (DMRB 2.1.6)
6.1.2 Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW): The Stationery Office
Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works
6.1.3 BSI Standards Publications: British Standards Institution, London
BS 12: 1996 Specification for Portland cements.
BS 915: 1983 Specification for high alumina cement.
BS 970: (various parts and dates) Specification for wrought steels for mechanical and allied engineering purposes.
BS 1370: 1979 Specification for low heat Portland cement.
BS 1780: 1985 Specification for bourdon tube pressure and vacuum gauges.
BS 4027: 1996 Specification for sulphate-resisting Portland cement.
BS 4246: 1996 Specification for high slag blastfurnace cement.
BS 4449: 1997 Specification for carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of concrete.
BS 5930: 1981 Code of practice for site investigation.
BS 6744: 1986 Specification for austenitic stainless steel bars for the reinforcement of concrete.
BS 8006: 1995 Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills.
BS 8081: 1989 Code of practice for ground anchorages.
6.1.4 Other publications
Anon (1972). Three M5 sections near completion. Highways Design and Construction, Vol 40, No 1751, pp28-33.
Azir, Z, D Campbell and J Leroy (1992). Experience with resin anchored bolts in large permanent underground
excavations. Rock support in mining and underground excavations (eds Kaiser and M
c
Grath). Balkema, Rotterdam.
Barley, A D (1988). Ten thousand ground anchorages in rock. Ground Engineering, Vol 21; No 6, pp20-29; No 7,
pp24-35; No 8, pp35-39.
Barnes, E L S and B J Howe (1964). Surface and underground testing of polyester resin roof bolt anchorage.
Australian Coal Association (Research) Ltd, PR 64-6.
Barry, A J, L A Panek and J A M
c
Cormick (1956). Anchorage testing of mine roof bolts, Part 2, Expansion type
bolts. United States Bureau of Mines, RI 5194.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 6
References
6/2
Barton, N & K Bakhtir (1983). Bolt design based on shear strength. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Rock Bolting, Abisko, 28
th
August 2
nd
September 1983, p367 376.
Baxter, D A (1997). Rockbolt corrosion under scrutiny. Tunnels and Tunnelling International, July, pp35-38.
Caverson, B and J Parker (1971). Roof bolts hold best with resin. Mining Engineering, Vol 23, No 5, May.
CIRIA Project Report 11, 1994 Foundations in Chalk.
Cochrane, T S and A V St Louis (1969). Rock bolt tests at Canmore Mines Ltd. CIM Bulletin, No 681, Jan, pp57.
Douglas, T H and L J Arthur (1981). A guide to the use of rock reinforcement in underground excavations. CIRIA
Research Report R101.
Faoro, M (1991). Improvements of historical masonry with reinforcing elements comprising non-corrosive glass
fibre composite materials. Sicom Gmbh, Cologne.
Franklin, J A & M B Dusseualt (1989). Rock Engineering, McGraw Hill Inc. USA pp600.
Franklin, J A and P Woodfield (1971). Comparison of polyester resin and a mechanical rock bolt anchor. Trans.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A, Vol 80, No 776, pp91.
Franzn, T (1997). Rockbolt corrosion - Swedish view. Tunnels and Tunnelling International, Nov, pp33.
Gaziev, E G & L V Lapin (1983). Passive anchor reaction to shearing stress in a rock joint. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Rock Bolting, Abisko, 28
th
August 2
nd
September 1983, p 101 108.
Gerrard, C (1983). Rock bolting in theory. A Keynote Lecture. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Rock Bolting, Abisko, 28
th
August 2
nd
September 1983, p3 32.
Hobst, L and J Zajic (1983). Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 33: anchoring in rock and soil. Elsevier.
Hoek, E and E T Brown (1980). Underground excavations in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E and D Wood (1992). Rock support. World Tunnelling, April 1992, 137 142.
Hoppe, R (1979). Winning the battle against hard ground. Engineering and Mining Journal, February, pp66-73.
Kempes Engineers Yearbook (1997). Morgan-Grampian.
Kennedy, B A , R Talbot and E J Wade (1973). Whats new in mining in 1972. World Mining, 25 June.
Liddle, T J and J E Tisdale (1968). Experience with resin capsule roof bolt anchors at Wentz No 1 mine. Mining
Congress Journal, Vol 54, No 10, Oct, pp64.
Littlejohn, G S (1970). Soil anchors. ICE Conference on Ground Engineering, London, pp34-44 and discussion
pp115-120.
Littlejohn, G S (1979). Ground anchors: state-of-the-art. Symposium on Prestressed Ground Anchors,
Johannesburg, October. The Concrete Society of South Africa, Prestressed Concrete Division, Johannesburg.
Littlejohn, G S and D A Bruce (1977). Rock anchors: state-of -the-art. Foundation Publications Ltd, England.
Littlejohn, G S, A A Rodger, D K V Mothersille and D C Holland (1987). Monitoring the influence of blasting on
the performance of rock bolts at Penmaenbach tunnel. Proc Int Conf on Foundations and Tunnels, University of
London.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 6
References
6/3
Ludvig, B (1983). Shear tests on rock bolts. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Bolting,
Abisko, 28
th
August 2
nd
September 1983, p 113 123.
M
c
Lean, D C (1964). Use of resins in mine roof support. Mining Engineering, Vol 16, No 1, pp36.
McMillan, P. (1993). Cost effectiveness of rock strengthening. TRL Project Report PR/SC/11/93. Transport
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, UK.
Miesseler, H J and L Preis (undated). High performance glass fibre composite bars as reinforcement in concrete and
foundation structures. Project Report Strabag BauAG/Bayer AG.
Moy, D (1973). Review of methods of rock reinforcement - Part 1: Report on large underground excavations (ed E
Hoek). Imperial College London, Rock Mechanics Progress Report No 11.
Scott, J J (1976). Friction rock stabilizers - a new rock reinforcement method. Proc 17
th
US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Snowbird, Utah, pp242-249.
Smith, M (1994). Hitra Strait Crossings. World Tunnelling, June, pp22.
Stillborg, B (1994). Professional users handbook for rockbolting. Trans Tech Publications, Claus-Zellerfield,
Germany.
Streuli, U and S Klahr (1995). Building the Vereina tunnel through the Alps. Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
October, pp5-28.
Suzuki, I, T Hirakawa, K Morii and K Kanenko (1972). Dvelopments noveaux dans les foundations de pylons
pour lignes de transport THT de Japon. Conf Int des Grande Reseaux Electriques Haute Tension, Paper 21-01, No
13.
Turner, M J (undated). Private communication.
Turner, M J (1980). Rock anchors: an outline of some current design, construction and testing practices in the
United Kingdom. Proc Int Conf on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, May. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Turner, M J (1995). Some aspects of current ground anchor design and construction in the United Kingdom. Proc
Int Symposium on Anchors in Theory and Practice, Salzburg, 9-10 October. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Underwood, L B and C J Di Stefano (1964). Development of a rock bolt system for permanent support at NORAD.
Proc 6th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, University of Missouri, Rolla.
Wallis, S (1992). Pinning your hopes on safety and support. Tunnels and Tunnelling, September.
Whittaker, B N, I M Breckels and G Daws (1977). Performance of resin grouted reinforcing bars in carboniferous
rocks, with special reference to time-dependent behaviour. CORE-UK: Proc Conf on Rock Engineering, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, 4-7 April.
Xu, H, A A Rodger, D C Holland and G S Littlejohn (1995). Static service behaviour of rock bolts subjected to
blast loadings in tunnelling. Proc Int Symposium on Anchors in Theory and Practice, Salzburg, 9-10 October.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 6/4
Chapter 6
References
6.1.5 Manufacturers technical literature
Ancon CCL. President Way, President Park, Sheffield, S4 7UR.
Atlas Copco Construction and Mining Ltd. PO Box 79, Swallowdale Lane, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7HA.
Dywidag-Systems International Ltd. Westfield Road, Southam, Warwickshire, CV33 0JH.
Exchem Mining & Construction Ltd. PO Box 7, Venture Crescent, Alfreton, Derby, DE55 7RE.
Ingersoll-Rand Co Ltd. PO Box 2, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6JN.
Ischebeck Titan Ltd. John Dean House, Wellington Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 2TG.
M
c
Calls Special Products Ltd. PO Box 71, Hawke Street, Sheffield, S9 2LN.
Mine Roof Support Systems. PO Box 303, Phoenixville, PA19460.
Polystal Composites GmbH, Althaldensleber Strasse 3, D-39340 Haldensleben.
Rock Mechanics Technology (RMT) Ltd. Bretby Business Park, Ashby Road, Stanhope Bretby, Burton-on-Trent,
Staffordshire, DE15 0QD.
Rotabolt Ltd. Peartree Business Park, Peartree Lane, Dudley, West Midlands, DY2 0UW.
Sireg Spa. 20043 Arcore (Mi), Via del Bruno, 12, Italy.
Stainless UK Ltd. Clay Street, Sheffield, S9 2PE.
Weidmann AG. 8640 Rapperswil, Switzerland.
Weldgrip Whaley Road, South Yorkshire Industrial Estate, Barugh, Barnsley, S75 1HT.
Volume 2 Section 1
Part 7 BA 80/99
February 1999 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
Chapter 7
Enquiries
7/1
7. ENQUIRIES
All technical enquiries or comments on this document should be sent in writing as appropriate to:
Civil Engineering Divisional Director
The Highways Agency
St Christopher House
Southwark Street A J PICKETT
London SE1 0TE Civil Engineering Division
Divisional Director
The Deputy Chief Engineer
The Scottish Office Development Department
National Roads Directorate
Victoria Quay J HOWISON
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Deputy Chief Engineer
Head of Roads Major Projects Division
Welsh Office
Y Swyddfa Gymreig
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park B H HAWKER
Cardiff CF1 3NQ Head of Roads Major Projects Division
Assistant Technical Director
Department of the Environment for
Northern Ireland
Roads Service
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street D OHAGAN
Belfast BT2 8GB Assistant Technical Director