See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287473950

In-Situ Shear Strength Parameters of Phyllite Rock Mass

Conference Paper · December 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 1,048

3 authors, including:

Venkata RAMANA Gondu Shashank Pathak

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY- WARANGAL Université Libre de Bruxelles
29 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strength and durability studies of multi blended concretes containing fly ash and silica fume View project

Engineering Behavior of Complex Rock Formations - Need Based Solutions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shashank Pathak on 19 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference
December 22-24, 2013, Roorkee

IN-SITU SHEAR STRENGTH OF PHYLLITE ROCK MASS

Ramana G.V., CSMRS New Delhi, ramana.laxmi@gmail.com

Pathak, S., CSMRS New Delhi, shashankpathaks@gmail.com
Kumar, N., CSMRS New Delhi, nipendra@nic.in

ABSTRACT: Hydroelectric power projects are pollution free and renewable sources of energy. These projects
involve the construction of dams across the flowing stream of water. Construction of dams in rock regions requires
stability analysis of the foundation and the supporting rocks at the banks of the reservoir area. Stability of the
concrete foundation over the rocky strata and stability of the banks depend upon the shear strength of the concrete-
rock and rock-rock interfaces, respectively. Therefore, evaluation of shear strength parameters (cohesion and
friction angle) at rock- rock and concrete- rock interface is the most important primary step for stability analysis
and design of dams. Determination of shear strength parameters involves the in-situ tests in drifts on the dam axis
site and interpretation of test results. In view of the above, site-specific shear strength parameter interpretation is
carried out for Amochu hydroelectric power project site, Bhutan. This project envisages construction of 175 m high
concrete gravity dam across river Amochu. The existing rock type on both left and right banks of the site is
observed to be weathered Phyllites. From the analysis of 20 field tests in 2 drifts, it has been found that for rock-
rock interface shear strength values are approximately 50% higher at the right bank as compared to the left bank.
On the other hand, for concrete-rock interface, this variation is around 10% only. Therefore, seeing the large
variation of estimated shear strength in rock-rock interface, it is proposed to use individual bank stability analysis
whereas, marginal variation in concrete-rock interface suggests the use of the combined analysis of the data from
both the banks for foundation stability analysis. Further, rock specific (for Phyllites) shear strength equation is also
proposed in the present paper based on the values of shear strength parameters (cohesion and friction-angle) from
other projects in the Phyllite rocks.

INTRODUCTION determination of shear strength parameters is

Himalayan region is endowed with huge
hydropower potential. Numerous rivers and
streams traverse through these hilly regions. The
design of foundations of dams in rocky strata
includes determination of bearing capacity,
settlement analysis and sliding/slope stability
analysis. Bearing capacity and settlement analysis
involve the ability of the rock foundation to
support the imposed loads without shear failure
and without excessive settlements. Sliding stability
analysis involves the ability of the rock foundation
or slope to resist the imposed loads without
shearing or sliding. Both analyses must be
coordinated and satisfied in the design. For
performing theses analyses shear strength
parameters viz. cohesion and friction-angle are
used as input parameters. There are two major
categories of analysis, a) Analysis at the concrete
foundation and rock joint interface and b) Analysis
at the rock over rock interface. Henceforth,
required for the concrete over rock (C/R) interface
as well as rock over rock (R/R) interface on the
project site. Former is for stability analysis of
concrete dam resting over rocky strata while later
is concerned with the ability of the surrounding
rocks to hold the reservoir.
.
GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT
The Exploratory drift on the right bank of the river
is located on the dam axis at an elevation 263.00
m, i.e. about 28.0 m above the river level. The drift
has encountered fine grained dark gray quartzite-
phyllite. The rocks in the drift are also traversed by
7 sets of joints as given in Table 1.
The Exploratory drift on the left bank of the river
is located on the dam axis at an elevation 245.00
m. The drift has encountered fine grained dark
gray quartzite- phyllite. The rocks in the drift are
also traversed by 9 sets of joints as given in Table
2.

Page 1 of 9
G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 1. Details of joint sets in right bank drift [3]

Sl. Joint Orientation Description

J1
Smooth
1 (foliation N 00 to N350º/40º-70º
planar
joint)
Rough
2 J2 N335 º to N340º/50º-80º
planar
Rough
3 J3 N90º to N100º/65ºto 85º
planar
N290º to Rough
4 J4
N310º/60ºto80º planar
Rough
5 J5 N290ºtoN310º/35ºto50º
planar
Rough
6 J6 N10º to N30º/20ºto 40º
planar
Rough
7 J7 N30º to N60º/40º to75º
planar
Fig.1 Schematic diagram of in-situ shear test set-up
Table 2. Details of joint sets in left bank drift [3] [1].
Sl. Joint Orientation Description Following step by step testing procedure is carried
1 J1 N 00 to N350º/20º to 80º Smooth planar
(foliation out on the site:
joint) a) Diamond wheel chisel and hammer along
2 J2 N40º to N60º/40º to 80º Rough planar with rock breakers are used to separate the
3 J3 N185º to N200º/17º to Rough planar rock mass of block size (70cm × 70 cm ×
45º 35 cm) from the parent rock to create R/R
4 J4 N240º to N270º/65º to Rough planar
80º interface. Steel frame of 20 mm thickness
5 J5 N240ºtoN260º/10º to Rough planar MS plate is placed over the block and then
20º it is filled with cement grout.
6 J6 N160º to N180º/80ºto Rough planar b) For C/R interface, the rock surface is
85º leveled as much as possible by removing all
7 J7 N330º to N335º/40º to Rough planar
75º undulations with the help of a chisel and a
8 J8 N130º /70º Rough planar hammer. The rock breaker is also used in
9 J9 N155º to N165º/35º Rough planar case of hard rock. After leveling the rock
to40º surface, the concrete blocks (70 cm x 70 cm
x 35 cm) are prepared by using steel mould.
TEST PROCEDURE All the blocks are cured for 28 days before
In-situ shear tests at rock-rock and concrete- rock the test.
interfaces are conducted at the dam axis site of c) 20 mm thick MS plates are used to prepare
proposed hydroelectric project at Amochu side and top reaction pads and strengthened
(Bhutan). The tests are conducted in two drifts by RCC. The care is taken to keep the top
named as DR-5 on right bank and DL-6 on left and side reaction pads concentric with the
bank. Blocks of rock mass for R/R interface test block. It should be noted that the horizontal
and concrete blocks for C/R interface test are reaction pad has to be prepared such that it
prepared for testing purpose as per provisions of IS does not break during the application of
7746:1991 and ISRM: 1981 [1,2]. Fig.1 shows the horizontal thrust.
schematic diagram of the test-setup as given in IS d) Vertical load is applied using a 200 tones
7746:1991 [1]. capacity hydraulic jack. Hallow cylinders
of aluminum alloy are used to fill up the
gap between the top reaction pad and the

Page 2 of 9

hydraulic jack. Shear force is applied by
another 200 tones capacity hydraulic jack
from the side reaction pad
e) Normal loads of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 tones
were applied in the five tests, respectively.
The shear load is applied at an angle of 150
with the horizontal so that the sheared plane
coincides with a plane of weakness in the
rock. This is achieved by two wooden
wedges of appropriate geometry placed
across the jack.
f) Five such blocks for R/R interface and C/R
interface are prepared. Each block is tested
for a particular normal stress which is kept
constant during the test. The shear force
and displacement of block are measured
and recorded during the test. The vertical,
horizontal, and lateral displacements of the
block, produced during the test are
measured by 9 dial-gauges, 4 for normal
displacement, 3 for shear displacement, and
2 for lateral displacement.
g) The observations are recorded till failure
and continued even after the failure at
which no further rise or fall in shear
strength is observed with increasing shear
displacement to get the information
regarding residual frictional resistance.
ASSUMPTION
Interpretation of the test results are based on the
following assumptions:
a) Effect of pore water pressure is implicitly
taken as the tests are conducted in the
saturated condition.
b) Complete interface area is involved in the
process of shearing.
c) Shear strength is governed by Mohr-Coulomb
criteria only.
d) All the reaction pads are infinitely stiff and not
prone to any deformation.
e) The rock mass has been considered to be
ideally intact i.e. without cracks and voids.
FORMULATION
Normal stress (σn) and shear stress (τ) are obtained,
respectively, from applied normal load (Pna) and
In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass
applied shear load (Psa) during the test, using the
Eq. 1 and 2.
Ps Psa cos 
  (1)
A A
P P  Psa sin 
 n  n  na (2)
A A
Where, Ps, Pn , A, and α, are net shear force, net
normal force, gross cross-sectional area of the
interface, and inclination of the applied shear
force, respectively. It is worth mentioning here that
to keep the normal stress constant (as required in
the specified test procedure), the applied normal
force is reduced by an amount Psa sin α after each
increment in the applied shear force.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The test data is collected in terms of applied shear
load and observed shear displacement at the
applied constant vertical load. This exercise is then
repeated for five vertical loads as shown in Table 3
Table 3. Applied vertical load and corresponding
test sequence
Test No. Vertical load
Test No. 1 20 ton
Test No. 2 25 ton
Test No. 3 30 ton
Test No. 4 35 ton
Test No. 5 40 ton
The collected data is used to derive the shear stress
(using Eq. 1) and corresponding shear
displacement. Further, the plots of shear stress
versus shear displacement are prepared for R/R
interface at right bank drift (after here DR-5), R/R
interface at left bank drift (after here DL-6), C/R
interface at DR-5, and C/R interface at DL-6 as
shown in Figs. 2 to 5, respectively [3].
Figs. 2 to 5 are clear depiction of the shear
behavior of the interfaces. Initially, required shear
stress for shear displacement increase and it
reaches at a peak value that is known as peak shear
strength. After this point, curves start showing an
asymptotic behavior and shear stress reduces to a
Page 3 of 9
G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

value known as residual shear stress. Table 4

shows the shear displacement achieved at the peak
shear stress, values of peak shear stress and
residual shear stress for specified normal load,
corresponding to R/R interfaces.

Fig. 5: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for

C/R interface shear tests in drift DL-6

Table 4. Comparison of shear displacement curves

for various normal loads at R/R interface
Shear
Applied Peak shear Residual
displacement at
Fig. 2: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot or normal stress shear stress
peak shear
R/R interface shear tests in drift DR-5 load (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
stress (mm)
DL DL
Tonnes DL 6 DR 5 DR 5 DR 5
6 6
20 9.80 12.86 5.94 6.79 4.67 6.36
25 14.21 17.20 5.91 7.88 5.13 6.70
30 1.17 7.60 6.70 11.04 5.91 10.25
35 7.53 12.84 6.31 11.43 5.91 9.85
40 12.01 9.89 9.46 13.01 7.69 11.83

Table 5. Comparison of shear displacement curves

for various normal loads at C/R interface.
Shear
Applied Peak shear Residual
displacement at
normal stress shear stress
peak shear
load (kg/cm2) (kg/cm2)
stress (mm)
DL DR DL DR
Tonnes DL 6 DR 5
Fig. 3: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for 6 5 6 5
R/R interface shear tests in drift DL-6 20 11.30 7.59 4.66 4.13 3.95 3.23
25 5.19 12.61 5.19 5.93 4.45 4.82
30 14.20 12.26 5.32 3.59 4.26 3.20
35 8.69 11.96 6.58 5.59 5.92 5.26
40 13.88 11.81 7.12 7.13 6.00 5.99

Similarly, Table 5 above shows the shear

displacement achieved at the peak shear stress,
values of peak shear stress and residual shear stress
for specified normal load, corresponding to C/R
interfaces. The comparative study based on the
Figs. 2 to 5 and Tables 4&5 leads to following
important observations:
a) There is no definite trend of observed shear
Fig. 4: Shear stress V/S shear displacement plot for displacement (at peak shear stress) with
C/R interface shear tests in drift DR- 5 applied vertical load. The reason might be

Page 4 of 9
 In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

the presence of discontinuity on the rock

surface in the form of joints or cracks.
b) There is an increasing trend (not necessarily
monotonous for example See DR-5) in peak
shear stress with the applied vertical stress.
c) Similarly there is an increasing trend in
residual shear stress with the applied
vertical stress.
Fig. 6: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for C/R
Observation (b) and (c), suggest that the peak and interface in drift DL-6
residual shear strength of the rock mass increases
with the applied normal stress. This conclusion
supports the use of Coulumb criteria in the
determination of shear strength parameters at the
interface.

SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS

In selecting shear-strength parameters for rock, the
analysis should not be limited to a single approach,
rather should incorporate several approaches into
Fig. 7: Shear stress V/S normal stress versus plot for
the selection process. Comparison of values C/R interface in drift DR-5
obtained from several alternative approaches,
together with a thorough understanding of rock-
mechanics principles and prerequisites will provide
the necessary basis for selection of meaningful
shear-strength parameters. However, as discussed
above in the present paper, the Coulumb criterion
of shear strength (τf) is used as given in Eq. 3.

 f  c   n tan 
(3)

Where, c is cohesion, σn is applied normal stress,

and υ is angle of friction at the interface, is used as Fig. 8: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for C/R
the governing behavior for the interpretation of the interface in combined DR-5 & DL-6
shear test results in the present study. The shear
stresses at the failure and the residual shear stresses
are plotted against the corresponding normal
stresses. Then, this data set is used to fit the
Equation 3 and to determine the cohesion (c) and
friction angle (υ). Figs. 6 to 11, show the scatter
plots of shear stress (τf) (peak and residual) versus
normal stress (σn) and the best fit lines for C/R
interface in DL-6, DR-5 and combined DL-6 &
DR-5, R/R interface in DL-6, DR-5, and combined
DL-6 & DR-5, respectively. The constant term of
the best fit line represents the cohesion (c) and the
Fig. 9: Normal stress V/S shear stress plot for R/R
slope is tangent of friction-angle (tan υ). interface in drift DL-6

Page 5 of 9
G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 6. Shear Strength Parameters on rock -rock

interface

Location of Peak Shear Strength Residual Shear

Drift Parameters Strength Parameters
Drift. RL Cohesion, Friction Cohesion, Friction
No. (m) c Angle, cr Angle,
(kg/cm2) υ (kg/cm2) υr
(degree) (degree)
DR- 263.00 0.65 55.50 0.21 53.50
5
DL-6 245.00 1.83 39.10 1.28 36.00
Combined 0.73 50.70 0.24 48.30
DR-5 & DL-6

Fig. 10: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for Table 7. Shear Strength Parameters on concrete-
shear tests on R/R interface in drift DR-5 rock interface

Location of Peak Shear Strength Residual Shear

Drift Parameters Strength
Parameters
Drift. RL (m) Cohesion, Friction Cohesion, Friction
No. c (kg/cm2) Angle, υ cr (kg/cm2) Angle,
(degree) υr
(degree)
DR- 263.00 1.62 33.30 0.94 32.70
5
DL-6 245.00 2.13 34.80 1.66 31.70
Combined 1.57 36.10 1.06 33.82
DR-5 & DL-6

Fig. 11: Shear stress V/S normal stress plot for
R/R interface in combined DR-5 & DL-6
Values of the peak and residual shear strength
parameters are tabulated below in Tables 6&7 for
R/R and C/R interfaces, respectively. The data
shows large variations among the shear strength
parameters i.e. cohesion and friction-angle for both
R/R and C/R interfaces. There are also variations
in peak and residual shear strength parameters.
These variations show that there are abrupt
changes in various geological and mechanical rock
mass properties from one bank to other. However,
there are cases where the shear strength parameters
are almost similar in magnitude on the left bank
and the right bank for both R/R and C/R interfaces
[4,5]. Further, it is recommended that the average
values for a particular dam site may be obtained by
plotting data from both the banks together rather
than taking an arithmetic average of cohesion and
friction values from both the banks as it may give
better representative values (See Figs. 8 &11).
INTERPRETATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH
PARAMETERS
Two major design issues viz. stability of the rock
and stability of the dam over rock are of central
importance during the dam construction. Thus,
R/R interface values are required for stability
analysis of the rocks while C/R interface values are
required for the stability of the dam foundation.
Being on the conservative side, designer may like
to use the lowest observed values of shear strength
parameters for the above two cases. However, this
may not be the case as the rock mass is not
homogeneous throughout the dam axis. In view of
this, a combined analysis of the values obtained
from left and right bank is proposed in the present
study. For illustration purpose, Tables 8&9 show
the shear strength of R/R and C/R interfaces,
respectively, for 40 ton of vertical load (which is
applied on 70 cm x 70 cm block). These values are
determined using Eq. 3 and using the shear
strength parameters as given in Tables 6&7.

Page 6 of 9
 In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

data. A list of shear strength parameter values for

Table 8. Shear strength on rock to rock interface the Phyllite rock is shown in Table 10 from various
(for 40 ton of vertical load) sites in India and Bhutan which also includes the
data from the present study.
Location of Peak Shear Residual
Drift Strength Shear For R/R interface, internal friction angle values
(kg/cm2) Strength
(kg/cm2)
range from 360 to 700 while for C/R interface, this
DR-5 12.53 11.24 ranges from 310 to 660, which is of almost same
DL-6 8.47 7.21 order of magnitude. So, it seems that for Phyllites,
Combined DR-5 & DL-6 10.70 9.40 values of internal friction are of the order of 30 to
70 degress. For R/R interface, cohesion values
Table 9. Shear Strength on concrete to rock range from 0 to 2.70 kg/cm2 while for C/R
interface (for 40 ton of vertical load interface, this ranges from 0 to 2.13 kg/cm2, which
is also of almost same order of magnitude. So, it
Location of Peak Shear Residual seems that for Phyllites, cohesion values are of the
Drift Strength Shear order of 0 to 2.5 kg/cm2.
(kg/cm2) Strength
(kg/cm2)
DR-5 6.99 6.18 Further, if we assume a vertical load of 40 ton on
DL-6 7.80 6.70 70 cm x 70 cm block then for the lowest and
Combined DR-5 & DL-6 7.52 6.53 highest set of values of c and υ for Phyllites,
respectively, shear strength is 4.71 and 24.93
In case of R/R interface, the right bank values are kg/cm2 (using Eqn. 3). It is analyzed that the
47.97% higher as compared to the left bank values. maximum contribution of cohesion value in shear
Similarly, values determined by residual shear strength is about 10% only. Therefore, it is
strength parameters are 55.93% higher as concluded that the maximum shear strength gain in
compared to the left bank values. Therefore, it Phyllites is due to internal friction only. Due to low
seems better to use individual bank stability cohesion values for Phyllite rock mass, it is
analysis due to this large relative variation in the suggested that shear keys, rock-anchoring, or rock
shear strength for R/R interface. For C/R case, the bolting may be provided to attain the desired factor
relative variation is quite small as compared with of safety against sliding [10, 11]. Based on this
R/R case. Variation is of the order of 10 %. Hence, observation, shear strength Equation 3 can be
the combined values of shear strength parameters approximated as Equation 4 for Phyllites, which
may be used instead of using separate values on ignores the cohesion value.
separate banks for foundation design. Lesser
variation in concrete over rock may be due to    n tan (4)
uniformity in the concrete surface as compared to
the rock over rock case. Residual shear strength Based on the limited available data in Table 10, tan
parameters may be utilized for long term stability υ varies from 0.58 to 2.75, if it is assumed that υ
analysis [6, 7]. varies from 30 to 70 degrees and shear strength
will vary by 4.8 times within this range of internal
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR friction. Further, this huge variation in shear
PHYLLITES AT OTHER H.E. PROJECTS strength due to internal friction, strengthens our
The shear strength parameters obtained from view about conducting separate stability analysis
different project sites in India and Bhutan have for both the banks
been discussed [5, 8, & 9] for rock to rock and
concrete to rock interfaces based on in-situ test

Page 7 of 9
G.V.Ramana, Shashank Pathak, & Nripendra Kumar

Table 10. Shear strength parameters from different projects in India and Bhutan for Phyllites

Shear Strength Parameters

Rock-Rock Interface Concrete-Rock Interface
S. Name of Rock Peak Residual Peak Residual
No. the Project Type Values Values Values Values
C Cr C Cr
0 0 0 0
MPa MPa MPa MPa
Chamera Dam Project
1. Phyllites - - - - 0.13 53.30 0.00 49.50
(India), [9].
Greater Shillong Dam
2. Phyllites 0.27 70.00 0.01 69.00 0.25 66.00 0.01 62.00
(India), [9].
Sankosh Main Dam
3. Phyllites 0.17 60.00 0.00 57.00 - - - -
(Bhutan), [9].
Amochu (Right Bank),
4. Phyllites 0.07 55.50 0.02 53.50 0.16 33.30 0.09 32.70
Bhutan, [3].
Amochu ( Left Bank ),
5. Phyllites 0.18 39.10 0.13 36.00 0.21 34.80 0.17 31.70
Bhutan, [3].

CONCLUSION compared to the left bank values. On the

Based on the present study, following important
conclusions may be drawn for the test drift at
Amochu hydroelectric project site, Bhutan.
1. The drifts have been encountered for fine
grained, dark gray quartzites and phyllites.
Most of the joints observed to be rough
planar.
2. Values of cohesion coefficient vary
between 0.21 kg/cm2 to 1.83 kg/cm2 for R/R
interface with a combined value (right and
left bank together) of 0.73 kg/cm2 and 0.24
kg/cm2 for peak and residual shear
strengths, respectively. For C/R interface, it
varies between 0.94 kg/cm2 to 2.13 kg/cm2
with a combined value of 1.57 kg/cm2 and
1.06 kg/cm2 for peak and residual shear
strengths, respectively.
3. Values of friction-angle vary between
36.00o to 55.50o for R/R interface with a
combined value of 50.70o and 48.30o for
peak and residual shear strengths,
respectively. For C/R interface, it varies
between 31.70o to 34.80o with combined
values of 36.10o and 33.82o for peak and
residual shear strengths, respectively.
4. The use of individual bank stability analysis
is recommended as in case of R/R interface,
the right bank values of example shear
strength are around 50% higher as
other hand, for C/R case, the relative
variation is only around 10%. Hence, the
combined values of shear strength
parameters may be used for foundation
design on both the banks.
5. For Phyllites, the values of internal friction
are of the order of 30o to 70o and cohesion
values are of the order of 0 to 2.5 kg/cm2. It
is also shown that the major contribution in
shear strength gain in Phyllites is of internal
friction while cohesion values contribute by
10% only. Therefore, the use of shear keys,
rock-anchoring, or rock bolting is suggested
in Phyllites.
6. Based on the study of the available data
from Bhutan and Indian sites, an empirical
shear strength equation in case of Phyllites
may be approximated as    n tan ,
where, tan Ø varies from 0.58 to 2.75.
However, validation of this equation is
subjected to the availability of more data on
Phyllites and is seen as future scope for the
extension of this study.
REFERENCES
1. IS 7746 (1991, 1996): Indian Standard
code of practice for in-situ shear test on
rock.
2. ISRM Part 1 (1981): Suggested methods for
determining shear strength

Page 8 of 9
 In-situ shear strength of phyllite rock mass

3. CSMRS report on “In-Situ Shear Strength 8. Singh, Rajbal, Dev, Hari and Dhawan, A.K.
Parameters of Rock Mass in Right Bank (2000). Characterisation of Foundation
Drifts at Dam Site of Amochu Project, Rock for a Concrete Gravity Dam, Indian
Bhutan”, 2011. Geotechnical Conference IGC-2000,
4. Singh, Rajbal (2007). “Field Shear Test”, Mumbai, pp. 67–68.
Chapter 11 of Engineering in Rocks for 9. Singh, Rajbal (2009). “Measurement of In situ
Slopes, Foundations and Tunnels, Ed. Prof. Shear Strength of Rock Mass”, Journal of Rock
T. Ramamurthy, pp. 256–264. Mechanics and Tunnelling Technology,
5. Singh, Rajbal and Sharma, V.M. (1990). ISRMTT, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.131–142.
“Determination of Foundation Deformability 10. Design of Tunnel Support”, Rock
and Shear Strength Characteristics of a Mechanics Vol. 6, No. 4, pp 189-236.
Concrete Dam”, Indian Geotechnical 11. ISRM (1987) – International Society for
Conference (IGC-90), Bombay, pp. 371–373. Rock Mechanics Suggested Methods for
6. Barton, N. and Choubey, V. (1977). The Rock bolt Testing.
shear strength of rock joints in theory and
practice. In: Journal, Rock Mechanics The
International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Vol 10, No. 1-2, pp 1-54.
7. Bhandari K.K., Verma V.K., Singh Rajbal,
Jeur S.D. and Thosar S.P. (2004),
“Stabilisation of Rock Mass with MAI
anchors at Tala Hydroelectric Project in
Bhutan”, Journal of New Building
Materials and Construction World, Issue-
11, pp. 36-41.

Page 9 of 9

View publication stats