Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Review

Rock engineering design of post-tensioned anchors for

dams e A review
E.T. Brown*
Golder Associates Pty Ltd., PO Box 1734, Milton, Queensland 4064, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High-capacity, post-tensioned anchors have found wide-spread use, originally in initial dam design and
Received 15 August 2014 construction, and more recently in the strengthening and rehabilitation of concrete dams to meet
Accepted 18 August 2014 modern design and safety standards. Despite the advances that have been made in rock mechanics and
Available online 18 September 2014
rock engineering during the last 80 years in which post-tensioned anchors have been used in dam en-
gineering, some aspects of the rock engineering design of high-capacity rock anchors for dams have
Keywords:
changed relatively little over the last 30 or 40 years. This applies, in particular, to the calculations usually
Dam engineering
carried out to establish the grouted embedment lengths required for deep, post-tensioned anchors.
Post-tensioned anchors
Rock engineering design
These calculations usually make simplified assumptions about the distribution and values of rockegrout
Groutetendon bond interface shear strengths, the shape of the volume of rock likely to be involved in uplift failure under the
Rockegrout bond influence of a system of post-tensioned anchors, and the mechanism of that failure. The resulting designs
Rock mass uplift failure are generally conservative. It is concluded that these aspects of the rock engineering design of large, post-
tensioned rock anchors for dams can be significantly improved by making greater use of modern,
comprehensive, numerical analyses in conjunction with three-dimensional (3D) models of the rock mass
structure, realistic rock and rock mass properties, and the results of prototype anchor tests in the rock
mass concerned.
Ó 2015 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction orientation with respect to vertical, in size (including in both length

Ground or rock anchors (sometimes referred to as anchorages) of
a number of types have long been used for a range of purposes in
rock engineering and in geotechnical engineering more generally
(Hobst and Zajíc, 1977; Hanna, 1982; Habib, 1989; Xanthakos, 1991;
Littlejohn, 1993, 1997). Rock anchors are capable of transmitting an
applied tensile load to the rock mass and may be used, for example,
to reinforce rock slopes and underground excavations; stabilise
sheet pile, diaphragm and retaining walls; anchor building, bridge,
power transmission line and other tower or mast structure foun-
dations; anchor marine structures; stabilise large excavations such
as dry or graving docks potentially subject to uplift; and for a
number of purposes in dam engineering to be discussed in Section 2.
Depending on their purpose, rock anchors may be temporary or
permanent, and may be passive or post-tensioned (sometimes
referred to as pre-stressed). They may also vary greatly in
* Tel.: þ61 7 3721 5451.
E-mail addresses: tbrown@golder.com.au, et_brown@bigpond.com.
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
1674-7755 Ó 2015 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sci-
ences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.08.001
and diameter), in the nature and size of the tendon (bar, wire or
strand, either singly or in groups) providing the essential tensile
capacity, and in the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the anchor.
In this paper, emphasis will be placed on large-scale, high-capacity,
permanent rock anchors of the type illustrated schematically in
Fig. 1. Features of this class of rock anchor include the provision of a
fixed anchor or tendon bond length, a free tendon length, a
stressable (and preferably re-stressable) anchor head, and double
corrosion protection. Obviously, in terms of their scale, purposes,
rock engineering design and detailed design and installation, these
large rock anchors can differ significantly from the rock bolts, cable
bolts and rock socketed piles used widely in surface and under-
ground construction and mining. However, these elements all have
some features in common that allow data, understandings and el-
ements of design approaches to be transferred from one application
to another.
The purpose of this paper is to review international practice in
the rock mechanics and rock engineering design of rock anchors
which, as will be shown, has remained largely unchanged since the
1970s. The paper will deal mainly, but not exclusively, with the
design of large anchors of the type shown in Fig. 1 and with their
application in dam engineering, particularly for concrete gravity,
buttress and arch dams. Some emphasis will be placed on Austra-
lian practice which is the source of the author’s practical experience
2 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13

dams using post-tensioned anchors. They listed the main reasons

Stressing jack for strengthening existing dams as being to:
Anchor head
Bearing plate
 meet changes in safety standards;
 overcome deficiencies in design and construction;
Tendon  recover loss of strength due to deterioration; and
 raise the heights of dams.
Drilled hole
Free length unbonded
Stressing length

Cement grout In many countries, the former dam safety standards and design
length criteria based on historical flood levels have been replaced by
criteria based on probable maximum flood (PMF) or probable
maximum precipitation design flood (PMP DF) water flows and
levels. The predicted design flood levels based on annual exceed-
Free

Smooth p.c.
sheath ance probabilities (AEPs) can be higher than the historical levels
used in the original designs, so that the design spillway capacities of
many existing dams are inadequate to pass the new design floods
safely. Furthermore, the dams may potentially fail by overturning
and/or sliding. This is particularly the case for dams designed
length
Bond

before about 1946 (in Australia, and at other times elsewhere)

length
Bond

Corrugated when uplift forces acting on the base of the dam were not allowed
p.c. sheath for adequately in design calculations (ANCOLD, 1992; Cavill, 1997;
Kline et al., 2007; Duffaut, 2013). As a result, many existing dams
Over
drill

have been in need of upgrading, including raising, to meet the new

Fig. 1. Components of a typical large, permanent, post-tensioned dam rock anchor
(Cavill, 1997).
in this area. It is recognised that some of the terminology used may
differ from country to country.
2. Post-tensioned anchors in dam engineering
Post-tensioned, and in some cases, passive (Hobst and Zajíc,
1977; Bretas et al., 2010) rock anchors have been used for a range
of applications in dam engineering over the last 80 years (Bruce,
1988). These applications include providing:
 resistance to overturning (Banks, 1957; Khaoua et al., 1969);
 restraint against downstream sliding (Maddox et al., 1967;
Gosschalk and Taylor, 1970);
 reinforcement of excavated abutment and other slopes (Liang,
1995; She, 2004);
 stabilisation of thrust blocks (Dickson and Loar, 2011);
 additional seismic resistance (Singhal and Nuss, 1991; Bianchi
and Bruce, 1993; Lawrence and Martin, 2007);
 tying down of spillway, training wall and stilling basin struc-
tures (Hobst and Zajíc, 1977; Cavill, 1997; Topham et al., 2013);
 stabilisation of plunge pools and other erosion features (Lowe
et al., 1979; La Villa and Golser, 1982); and
 raising and/or strengthening older dams that no longer meet
safety or capacity requirements (ANCOLD, 1992; Xu and
Benmokrane, 1996; Cavill, 1997; Snape, 2002).
The first recognised use of post-tensioned anchors in dam en-
gineering was for the raising and strengthening of the 30 m high
Cherfas gravity dam in Algeria in 1936 (Hobst and Zajíc, 1977;
Khaoua et al., 1969). For some time following their introduction
into dam engineering, post-tensioned anchors were used in the
initial design and construction of concrete dams and their appur-
tenant structures (e.g. Banks, 1957; Wilkins and Fidler, 1959;
Maddox et al., 1967; Gosschalk and Taylor, 1970; Hobst and Zajíc,
1977). More recently, the major use of post-tensioned anchors in
dam engineering has been for the raising or strengthening of
existing dams.
Xu and Benmokrane (1996) carried out a major review of the
then state-of-the-art of the strengthening of existing concrete
design flood and related stability criteria. Another change in safety
standards has been the application of maximum credible or design
earthquake (MCE or MDE) criteria (Xu and Benmokrane, 1996;
Bruce, 1997). Detailed discussion of these issues is beyond the
scope of this paper. However, it is important to note that safety
standards and terminologies may differ between countries and
jurisdictions. For example, in the author’s home State of Queens-
land, Australia, the acceptable flood capacity (AFC) for a High A
Hazard Category dam is the PMP DF (DEWS, 2013).
Xu and Benmokrane (1996) collected and analysed data on 60
concrete dams that had been strengthened using post-tensioned
anchors, mainly in the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe. They
found that most dams had been strengthened for one or more of
the following purposes:
 increasing spillway capacity and stability relating to the PMF;
 upgrading to the MCE;
 upgrading dam stability relating to other conditions such as
ageing and deterioration;
 raising dam height related to the PMF;
 raising dam height for greater storage;
 remedying deficiencies in design (e.g. not allowing adequately
for uplift);
 stabilising concrete cracks;
 strengthening dam abutments;
 stabilising dam foundations; and
 reinforcing lock walls or building locks into cofferdams.
Fig. 2 illustrates schematically the classical uses of post-
tensioned rock anchors in stabilising concrete gravity dams
against (a) overturning, and (b) downstream sliding. Fig. 2a shows
the main forces used in calculating the anchor tension, T, required
to maintain moment equilibrium about the downstream toe of the
dam. Fig. 2b shows the forces involved in a limiting equilibrium
analysis of one of the several possible forms of downstream sliding
(USACE, 1995; Fell et al., 2005). It must be recognised that, in
practice, concrete dams located in valleys with sloped rock foun-
dation abutments will behave as three-dimensional (3D) structures
and so will require 3D stability analyses (Lombardi, 2007; Bretas
et al., 2012). Clearly, different analytical models from those
shown in Fig. 2 would have to be used for the design of post-
tensioned anchors for stabilising other components of the overall
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
Anchor
tension, T
Upstream water
pressure force, H
Dam Downstream water
weight, W pressure force, H
Drained uplift
pressure force, V
Bond length
(a)
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the use of post-tensioned anchors to resist (a) overturning, and (b) downstream sliding (after ANCOLD (1992) and USACE (1995)).
dam structure such as thrust blocks for arch dams, and spillway,
training wall and stilling basin structures.
Since the time of the review by Xu and Benmokrane (1996), the
numbers of concrete dams being strengthened or raised around the
world have increased significantly, although the main reasons for
doing so have remained essentially the same. In a 2007 review of
rock anchoring of North American dams over the previous 40 years,
Bruce and Wolfhope (2007, 2008) identified 400 relevant cases and
accessed 230 technical publications dealing with more than 200
dams. By this time, the sizes of the high-capacity anchors being
used in dam engineering had increased considerably with tendons
being made up of several tens of 15.2 mm diameter strands, each of
which generally consists of seven twisted, low relaxation, high
tensile steel wires. A frequently used high-capacity tendon
configuration consists of 91 (or 92) 15.2 mm diameter strands
providing an ultimate axial tensile force capacity of 24 MN
(Aschenbroich, 2007; Cavill, 2000; Harman et al., 2010). Even larger
anchors than this have been used in some cases.
3. Overview of post-tensioned anchor design
3.1. General principles
This sub-section will discuss the basic mechanics and general
principles on which post-tensioned rock anchor design is based.
The rock mechanics and rock engineering aspects of anchor design
will be considered in more detail in Sections 4 and 5. Although
strictly they lie somewhat outside the rock mechanics and rock
engineering emphasis of this paper, for completeness and because
they impact on the effectiveness of the rock engineering design, a
number of important investigation, design and construction issues,
including anchor stressing and testing, will be referred to briefly in
Section 6.
Traditionally, the dimensioning of rock anchor systems for dams
has been based on two-dimensional (2D) static limiting equilib-
rium analyses of problem configurations such as those illustrated
schematically in Fig. 2. From these analyses, the anchor forces
required to maintain stability per metre run, or at a particular
location, can be established for particular load cases (often called
normal or usual, unusual and extreme) and the associated factors of
3
Upstream water
pressure force, H
Dam Anchor
tension, T
weight, W Downstream water
pressure force, H
Uplift pressure
force, U
Drained uplift
pressure force, U
Bond
length
(b)
safety required by the Standards, Codes of Practice or Guidelines
under which the design is being carried out (ANCOLD, 1991, 1992,
2013; BC Hydro, 1995; USACE, 1995, 2005; CDSA, 1999). It is
important to note that different load factors or factors of safety may
be required by different authorities for similar load cases. Infor-
mative comparisons between a number of these approaches are
given by Ebeling et al. (2000) and Fell et al. (2005).
More recently, linear and nonlinear numerical stress analysis
approaches have been used to calculate forces, stresses and dis-
placements in the concrete of the dam, the foundation and abut-
ment rock, and at interfaces, and when assessing the dynamic
stability of dams under earthquake loading (Alonso et al., 1996; Yu
et al., 2005; Bureau et al., 2007; Scott and Mills-Bria, 2008; Lemos,
2011, 2014; Chopra, 2012). Some Standards, Codes of Practice and
Guidelines now require the use of limit state approaches or of
partial, rather than overall, factors of safety (Merrifield et al., 1997;
Herweynen, 1998; ANCOLD, 2013; Farrell, 2013). However, it has
been recognised recently that the partial factor, limit state design
approach used in Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004), for example, may not be
applicable to a range of rock engineering problems in which some
of the uncertainty in parameter values is epistemic rather than fully
aleatory as is assumed in the Eurocode approach (Bedi and Orr,
2014; Harrison, 2014; Lamas et al., 2014). Increasingly, reliability,
risk-based, probabilistic and fragility methods of dam analysis and
assessment are being used in rock anchor design for dams and
other applications (Ellingwood and Tekie, 2001; Phoon et al., 2003;
Barker, 2011; Westberg Wilde and Johansson, 2013). Further dis-
cussion of these approaches is outside the purpose and scope of this
paper.
3.2. Principal modes of failure of grouted, post-tensioned anchors
As well as providing the resistance or stabilising forces required
for the purposes referred to at the beginning of Section 2, grouted
post-tensioned anchors themselves must be able to resist the four
principal modes of applied tension-induced failure illustrated in
Fig. 3:
 Mode A e steel tendon tensile failure.
 Mode B e groutetendon bond or interface failure.
4 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
Bars break
Bars pull
out of grout
(a) Steel. (b) Steel-grout interface.
Failure
surface
Slip surface
(c) Grout-rock interface. (d) Rock mass uplift.
Fig. 3. Principal modes of failure of grouted rock anchors under applied axial tension.
(a) Mode A e steel tendon tensile failure; (b) Mode B e groutetendon bond or
interface failure; (c) Mode C e rockegrout bond or interface failure; and (d) Mode D e
rock mass uplift failure (Pease and Kulhawy, 1984).
 Mode C e rockegrout bond or interface failure.
 Mode D e shear or uplift failure within the surrounding rock
mass.
Following Kim and Cho (2012), if the ultimate tensile load ca-
pacities of an anchor for failure Modes A, B, C and D are Qtu, Qtgu,
Qrgu and Qru, respectively, then the ultimate tensile capacity of the
anchor, Qu, will be the minimum of these four values, i.e.



Qu ¼ min
Qtu ; Qtgu ; Qrgu ; Qru

In addition to these four major modes of failure under applied
tension, for large-scale post-tensioned rock anchors of the type
illustrated in Fig. 1, it is necessary to consider the possibility of shear
failure at the internal and external interfaces between the grout
and the corrugated sheathing providing a layer of corrosion pro-
tection. In the usual case, the depth of the corrugations in the
sheathing provides an adequate degree of interlock.
In design practice, it is a common procedure to carry out design
calculations to select the length of anchor embedment required to
produce pre-determined factors of safety against failure Modes B, C
and D. The design length of embedment is then selected as the
largest of these values (USACE, 2005). In most practical cases it is
found that Mode C is more critical than Mode B.
The essential purpose of the remainder of this paper will be to
review the rock mechanics and rock engineering aspects of design
against failure Modes C and D. However, for completeness, sum-
mary discussions of design against failure Modes A and B will be
given. In the discussions of failure Modes A, B, C and D to follow, a
single post-tensioned anchor will be generally considered. It must
be recognised, however, that in dam engineering practice, anchors
are usually used in relatively closely-spaced rows and sometimes in
multiple rows. The interactions between adjacent anchors, partic-
ularly in the Mode D case, must be taken into account in design
calculations.
3.3. Design against tendon tensile failure (Mode A)
In Mode A failure, the applied axial tensile stress exceeds the
yield and, ultimately, the ultimate tensile strength of the steel in the
tendon. If At is the cross-sectional area of steel in the tendon and stu
is the ultimate tensile strength of the steel, then the ultimate tensile
capacity is given by
Qtu ¼ stu At (2)
This value is sometimes referred to as the minimum breaking
load (MBL) (ANCOLD, 1992). In practice, it is usual to define the
design working load (WL) as a proportion of the MBL, often taken as
60%e65% in Australia. During installation of the anchor, it is com-
mon practice to test load the anchor and fittings beyond the normal
WL (for example, up to 78%e80% MBL) and to “lock-off” the load
with sufficient allowance above the WL (for example, to 68%e72%
MBL) to allow for subsequent load losses caused by creep, relaxa-
tion and draw-in (ANCOLD, 1992). This is one of the areas in which
different terminologies may be used in different countries and by
different authorities.
For the large, high-capacity, post-tensioned anchors now being
used for concrete dams, it is unusual for Mode A failure to be a
controlling feature of the design. However, as will be discussed
briefly in Section 6, several other factors which are beyond the
scope of this paper have to be taken into account in the detailed
design, fabrication, installation, stressing and monitoring of the
anchors.
3.4. Design against groutetendon bond or interface failure
(Mode B)
The shear resistance developed at the groutetendon interface
arises from adhesion, friction and mechanical interlock between
the grout and the tendon. On the initial application of the axial
tensile load to the anchor, shear failure at the groutetendon
interface is resisted by adhesion and interlocking. Then as
displacement increases, these components of shear resistance may
be overcome at points along the bond length and friction then
(1) makes the major contribution to shear resistance (Kim and Cho,
2012). Because of the difficulty of distinguishing between and
evaluating these components of shear resistance, it is common
practice to calculate the groutetendon shear resistance as
Zlbtg
Qtgu ¼ 2prt stgu ðzÞdz (3)
0
where rt is the radius of the steel tendon, lbtg is the length of the
groutetendon bond, and stgu(z) is the shear resistance generated at
distance z along the groutetendon interface where 0  z  lbtg.
It is often assumed that the mobilised shear resistance, stgu, is
constant over the groutetendon interface length, lbtg, greatly
simplifying the calculation of Qtgu. It is often further assumed that
the constant value of stgu depends on the composition and surface
properties of the tendon and the compressive or shear strength of
the grout. Littlejohn and Bruce (1977) and Littlejohn (1993), among
others, provided presumptive values of stgu for a range of condi-
tions. Most Codes of Practice or Standards stipulate maximum
allowable values of bond stress for different types of tendon and
grout, generally in the range 1.0e3.0 MPa. In practice, if the tendon
WL is pre-determined, the groutetendon bond length required to
generate a particular factor of safety for a given bond strength can
be calculated readily from a simplified version of Eq. (3). It is
sometimes assumed that consideration of groutetendon bond
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
failure is not necessary because consideration of the rockegrout
bond failure (Mode C) alone will produce a more than adequate
tendon embedment length (Littlejohn and Bruce, 1977).
A number of detailed investigations have demonstrated that the
simplifying assumptions made using the approach outlined in the
preceding paragraphs are rarely justified. For example, several au-
thors have shown that the groutetendon interface shear strength
depends on the normal confining pressure and stiffness, the
roughness of the tendon, whether or not the cement in the grout is
expansive, and the grouted bond length (Benmokrane et al., 1995;
Barley, 1997; Jarred and Haberfield, 1997).
The recorded influence of the grouted bond length probably
reflects the now widely accepted finding that the distribution of
shear stress along the grouted length is far from uniform, tending to
decay exponentially from the free-length value at the end of the
grouted length or proximal end, towards zero at the bottom of the
grouted length or distal end (see Fig. 4), depending on the as-
sumptions made in the analysis (Coates and Yu, 1970; Farmer, 1975;
Benmokrane et al., 1995; Ivanovic and Neilson, 2009; Liu et al.,
2013). The ratio of the elastic modulus of the steel tendon, Ea, to
that of the grout, Eg (if there is a thick annulus of grout), or alter-
natively of the rock, has been found to have a particularly important
influence on the distribution of elastic shear stress along the
embedment length. As shown in Fig. 4 for the case of a fully
embedded, shallow anchor, for low modulus ratios of between 0.1
and 1.0 for stiffer grouts and rocks, the stress distribution is
markedly non-uniform, but as this ratio increases in softer grouts
and rocks, the stress distribution becomes more closely uniform
(Coates and Yu, 1970; Liu et al., 2013).
In practice, the possibility must be considered that de-bonding
will occur at the more highly stressed proximal end of the
bonded length (the top in Fig. 3b), most probably during pre-
stressing (Benmokrane et al., 1995), resulting in a modification to
the elastic stress distribution as illustrated schematically in Fig. 4
for the Ea/Eg ¼ 0.1 case. Distributions of shear stress of the types
illustrated in Fig. 4 have been obtained analytically and numeri-
cally, and measured in a range of instrumented laboratory and field
tests on rock bolts, cable bolts and rock anchors (Kaiser et al., 1992;
Benmokrane et al., 1995; Hyett et al., 1995; Woods and Barkhordari,
1997; Ivanovic and Neilson, 2009). The stress distribution has also
been found to vary with imperfect bonding and when a
De-bonding
τ/ρ
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
E /E=0.1
1
E /E =1.0
2 lation and testing of 10,000 anchors in a wide range of rock con-
E /E =10.0
z/r
3
ρ outlined in the following sub-section.
4
z 4.2. Deficiencies in the standard approach
τ
5 Deficiencies in the standard simplified approach to design
r
6
Fig. 4. Distribution of elastic shear stress along the grouteanchor interface (adapted
from Coates and Yu (1970)).
5
discontinuity crosses the tensioned tendon or bolt (Zou, 2004; Zhao
and Yang, 2011). A number of authors have shown how the non-
uniform distribution of shear stress along the anchor length,
including the effects of de-bonding, may be modelled by piece-wise
linear shear stress distributions (Jarred and Haberfield, 1997;
Woods and Barkhordari, 1997; Ivanovic and Neilson, 2009; Ren
et al., 2010).
4. Design against rockegrout interface failure (Mode C)
4.1. The standard approach
In an analogous manner to the groutetendon interface, the
shear resistance at the rockegrout interface is developed by
adhesion, friction and mechanical interlock with friction playing
the major role after the other components have been overcome
through initial relative axial displacement. As with the groute
tendon interface, the ultimate rockegrout axial shear resistance is
commonly evaluated as
Zlbrg
Qrgu ¼ 2prg srgu ðzÞdz (4)
0
where rg is the outside radius of the grouted annulus around the
tendon, lbrg is the length of the rockegrout bond, and srgu(z) is the
shear resistance generated at distance z along the rockegrout
interface.
Again, in common with design against groutebond tendon
failure, it is generally assumed that the shear resistance is distrib-
uted uniformly over the rockegrout bond length, lbrg, so that the
ultimate shear resistance may be calculated as
Qrgu ¼ 2prg lbrg srgu (5)
where a constant value of srgu is assumed. Many Standards and
Codes of Practice indicate that it is required, or at least preferable,
that the value of srgu used in design be based on the results of pull-
out tests of trial anchors installed at the site (see Section 6 below).
However, it is still often selected on the basis of the rock type and
condition using tables of presumptive values generally derived
from those first published by Littlejohn and Bruce (1975e76, 1977).
Table 1 is a condensed version of the table given by Littlejohn (1992,
1993) in which the sources of Littlejohn’s entries have been
omitted. As shown in Table 1, working bond values are lower than
ultimate values. Commonly, the working rockegrout shear strength
is assumed to be approximately 10% of the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) of the rock up to a maximum of 4.2 MPa. In some
cases, the value is based on the grout compressive strength. Barley
(1988) also estimated rockegrout bond strengths from the instal-
ditions in the United Kingdom.
This standard approach which has been used in several coun-
tries for several decades suffers from a number of deficiencies to be
against rockegrout interface failure have been found to include:
 a uniform shear stress along the rockegrout interface is
assumed as discussed in Section 3.4 for the tendon-grout bond.
As noted by Bruce (1997) in a review of the stabilisation of
concrete dams by post-tensioned anchors in the U.S.A., this
6 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13

Table 1  as with the groutetendon interface, no allowance is made for

Some rockegrout bond values recommended for use in design (after Littlejohn and the influence of the normal stress acting on the grouterock
Bruce (1975e76, 1977); Littlejohn (1992, 1993)).
interface before and during shearing, its variation over the
Rock type Working Ultimate Factor of safety embedment length (Barley, 1997), or the influence of grouting
bond (MPa) bond (MPa) methods and pressures on the normal stresses generated (Park
Igneous et al., 2013);
Medium hard basalt 5.73 3e4  no recognition is taken of the progressive nature of the rocke
Weathered granite 1.5e2.5
grout bond failure process in which at least three distinct stages
Basalt 1.21e1.38 3.86 2.8e3.2
Granite 1.38e1.55 4.83 3.1e3.5 may be identified e pseudo-elastic behaviour at small de-
Serpentine 0.45e0.59 1.55 2.6e3.5 formations, failure or de-bonding development at the rocke
Granite and basalt 1.72e3.1 1.5e2.5 grout interface, and residual behaviour after larger displace-
Metamorphic ments (Pease and Kulhawy, 1984; Park et al., 2013);
Manhattan schist 0.7 2.8 4
Slate and hard shale 0.83e1.38 1.5e2.5
 no allowance is made for the effects of structural features such
Calcareous sediments as faults, shear zones and jointing in the rock mass or of other
Limestone 1 2.83 2.8 local variations in rock strength (Dados, 1984; Zou, 2004);
Chalk e Grades IeIII 0.005N 0.22e1.07 2 (Temporary)  the influence of the borehole roughness and diameter, and
(N ¼ SPT in
therefore the thickness of the grout annulus, are not considered;
blows/0.3 m)
0.01N 3e4 (Permanent) and
Tertiary limestone 0.83e0.97 2.76 2.9e3.3  the type of cement used in the grout can have a significant in-
Chalk limestone 0.86e1 2.76 2.8e3.2 fluence on the shear resistance generated (Haberfield and
Soft limestone 1.03e1.52 1.5e2.5 Baycan, 1997).
Dolomitic limestone 1.38e2.07 1.5e2.5
Arenaceous sediments
Hard coarse-grained 2.45 1.75 In dam engineering practice, the preferred way of overcoming
sandstone some of these deficiencies is by the use of a necessarily average
Weathered sandstone 0.69e0.85 3 interface shear strength value established through full-scale pull-
Well-cemented 0.69 2e2.5
out tests on trial anchors of the anticipated design, carried out in
mudstone
Bunter sandstone 0.4 3 the rock mass concerned before the design is finalised (Scott and
Bunter sandstone 0.6 2e2.5 Bruce, 1992; Feddersen, 1997; Cavill, 2000). In tests carried out
(UCS > 2.0 MPa) for this purpose, it is important that the test configuration is
Hard fine sandstone 0.69e0.83 2.24 2.7e3.3 selected to ensure that the failure occurs at the rockegrout
Sandstone 0.83e1.73 1.5e2.5
Argillaceous sediments
interface.
Keuper marl 0.17e0.25 3
(0.45cu)
Weak shale 0.35 5. Design against rock mass failure (Mode D)
Soft sandstone and 0.1e0.14 0.37 2.7e3.7
shale 5.1. The standard approach
Soft shale 0.21e0.83 1.5e2.5
General
Although it is generally found to be conservative, from a rock
Competent rock UCS e 30 UCS e 10 3
(where UCS > 20 MPa) (up to a (up to a mechanics or rock engineering perspective, the commonly-used or
maximum maximum standard approach to the design of post-tensioned anchors against
value of value of rock mass failure by uplift (Mode D), is probably the least satis-
1.4 MPa) 4.2 MPa)
factory of the design approaches discussed in this paper.
Weak rock 0.35e0.7
Medium rock 0.7e1.05 As illustrated in Fig. 5 for the case of a single anchor, the simplest
Strong rock 1.05e1.4 standard approach assumes that the uplift force generated by the
Wide variety of igneous 1.05 2 post-tensioned anchor is resisted by the weight of a cone of ho-
and metamorphic rocks mogeneous rock. It generally ignores the fact that for uplift to occur,
Wide variety or rocks 0.98
not only the weight of the rock cone, but also the shear and/or
0.5
0.7 tensile strength of the rock mass must be overcome. Depending on
1.2e2.5 the nature of the anchorage and the assumed properties of the rock
0.7 2e2.5 (Temporary) mass, the cone angle and the location of the apex of the cone may
3 (Permanent)
vary. Fig. 5 illustrates the commonly assumed cases in which the
0.69 2.76 4
1.4 4.2 3
cone angle is either 60 or 90 , and the apex of the cone is located at
15%e20% or 3 the mid-point or at the distal end of the grouted embedment
grout crushing length. Some designers may also locate the apex of the cone at the
strength
Concrete 1.38e2.76 1.5e2.5
D

approach using a uniform shear stress and “average” bond Ө ° °

L/2 L/2

values can lead to “extraordinarily and wastefully long bond

L

60° or 90°
zones”;
 the wide-spread use of decades old, empirically-based, pre- d

sumptive interface shear strengths based on rock type and Fig. 5. Cone geometries used in uplift capacity calculations for single tensioned an-
condition and, more rarely, grout compressive strength (see chors (after Littlejohn and Bruce (1975e76, 1977), Hobst and Zajíc (1977) and Littlejohn
Table 1); (1993)).
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
proximal or upper end of the bonded length. A cone angle of 60 is
usually used if the rock mass is soft, heavily fissured or weathered,
with an angle of 90 being used for all other rock mass conditions
(Hobst and Zajíc, 1977; Littlejohn, 1993) which is generally the case
for concrete dam strengthening or stabilisation. For grouted an-
chors of the type being considered here, the apex of the cone is
usually taken to be at the mid-point of the grouted anchor length.
This assumption with a 90 cone angle has been used in dam en-
gineering at least since the 1950s (Morris and Garrett, 1956; Banks,
1957).
For a general cone angle of qc (qc ¼ 60 or 90 in Fig. 5) and the
apex of the cone located at the mid-point of the grouted embed-
ment length, the uplift force required to overcome the weight of the
cone of rock, Wc, may be calculated as
 
1 q L 3
Qru ¼ pg tan2 c D þ
3 2 2
where g is the unit weight of the rock, D is the depth from the
surface to the top or proximal end of the embedment length, and L
is the grouted embedment or bond length. Although it is more
conservative to use the full unit weight of the rock in this calcula-
tion, in some applications in dam engineering the buoyant or
submerged unit weight should be used. Commonly in design, the
required bond length, L, is calculated by equating the rockegrout
bond resistance given by Eq. (5) to the uplift force required to
overcome the weight of the cone of rock given by Eq. (6) and
applying a factor of safety, often taken to be 2.
In the author’s experience, this simple, conservative approach is
generally used in dam engineering in the dimensioning of large
post-tensioned anchors against failure of the rock mass by uplift.
However, two modifications may be made to allow more realisti-
cally for the circumstances and conditions met in practice.
Firstly, for major applications such as the anchoring of concrete
dams in the manner illustrated in Fig. 2a and the anchoring of dam
toes, spillways and training walls, anchors are generally installed in
rows at relatively close spacings of a few metres. In these cases,
cones such as those illustrated in Fig. 5 will overlap or interact as
shown conceptually in two dimensions in Fig. 6a. In this case, the
calculation of the weight of the cone given by Eq. (6) may be
replaced by a simple approximate 2D calculation assuming a
triangular cross-section to give the uplift resistance available per
unit length along the row of anchors as
 
1g L 2 qc
Qru ¼ Dþ tan
2 s 2 2
where s is the spacing of anchors along the row.
An important practical case arises when the rock mass contains
sub-horizontal bedding or structural features including jointing. In
this case, the anchorage horizons within a row of anchors may be
staggered vertically such that the tendency to uplift a volume of
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Interaction of uplift cones in a single row of tensioned anchors. (a) A vertical
section along the row of anchors (after Littlejohn (1993)); and (b) a simplified trian-
gular cross-section normal to the row (after Hobst and Zajíc (1977)).
7
rock defined by the one sub-horizontal plane is avoided (Xu and
Benmokrane, 1996). In the writer’s experience, this practice has
been used when the dam is founded on igneous rock in which
sheeting jointing has developed in an incised river valley.
Secondly, in the calculations of uplift resistance in a range of
applications, some authorities and authors seek to allow for the
tensile or shear strength of the rock mass, generally through the use
of assumed values of rock mass tensile strength, shear strength or
cohesion (Coates, 1970; Hobst and Zajíc, 1977; Anon, 1996; Kim and
Cho, 2012). The estimated values of tensile or shear resistance may
be used either instead of, or in addition to, the resistance to uplift
provided by the weight of the cone of rock. In presenting ap-
proaches of this type, some authors use idealised 2D representa-
tions with a triangular section as shown in Fig. 6b rather than the
3D cone. For example, Hobst and Zajíc (1977) gave a number of
solutions in terms of the rock mass shear strength. Following
(6) Coates and Yu (1971), Kim and Cho (2012) suggested that the ten-
sile resistance on the failure surface of the rock cone in Fig. 5, fr, is
given by
str pD2c tan q2c
fr ¼ (8)
cos q2c
where str is the tensile strength of the rock mass and Dc is the depth
of the rock cone, equal to D þ L/2 in Fig. 5.
Of course, this approach begs the question of the exact physical
meaning of the assumed parameter, str, and how it might best be
estimated. In an alternative approach, Weerasinghe and Adams
(1997) proposed the use of a rock mass shear strength, rather
than a tensile strength, back-calculated from the results of pull-out
tests, assuming a theoretical failure cone of the type being dis-
cussed here. Clearly, the use of this approach to estimate rock mass
shear strength would be impracticable for the very high-capacity,
large-scale anchors such as those described by Cavill (1997, 2000)
now being used in dam engineering, not least because it is diffi-
cult to understand how the assumed failure mechanism could
develop in most practical circumstances. This and related issues
will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.2 to follow.
5.2. Deficiencies of the standard approach
As with the approaches used to design against groutetendon
(Mode B) and rockegrout (Mode C) bond failures discussed previ-
ously, from a rock mechanics and rock engineering perspective, the
commonly-used approach to design against rock mass uplift (Mode
(7)
D) failure assuming a conical uplift failure mechanism, suffers from
a number of deficiencies. The major rock mechanics and rock en-
gineering deficiencies will be discussed briefly below in terms of
the implicitly assumed stress distribution imposed within the rock
mass, the rock mass uplift failure mechanism, the influence of the
rock mass structure, and the assumed uniform values of rock mass
tensile and/or shear strengths.
5.2.1. Stress distribution induced in the overlying rock mass
If failure of, or large deformations in, a rock mass influenced by a
single anchor or a system of post-tensioned anchors is to be
assumed, knowledge is required of the distribution of stresses
induced in the rock mass by the anchor and other means. In many
cases, concrete dams are constructed in or across incised valleys or
gorges. In these cases, the major principal in situ stress near the
surface is likely to be oriented parallel to the valley surface. In the
cases illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6, the weight of the rock and the
transfer of stress from the tensioned anchor to the rock mass must
also be considered in calculating the distribution of stresses within
8 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
the rock mass around and above the anchor(s). In many cases, the
rock mass can be expected to have anisotropic elastic properties. In
the case of a deep, post-tensioned anchor loaded through a surface
bearing plate, a bulb of compressive vertical stress will be induced
in the rock mass around the anchor head, and the stress distribu-
tion around the anchor embedment length at some depth can be
expected to be quite complex and non-uniform. Furthermore, it
must be expected that the final induced stress distribution will be
influenced by weathering profiles, changes in rock type and any
major structural features transecting the section of the rock mass
influenced by the anchor-related stresses. Because of this range of
influences, it is not easy to conceptualise a general pattern of stress
induced in the rock mass by a single, deep, post-tensioned anchor
or by a system of deep, post-tensioned anchors that is likely to lead
to a conical failure surface.
The assumption of a cone of failure discussed in Section 5.1
implies that either the tensile or shear strengths of the rock mass,
or both, must be overcome over the surface of the cone before uplift
can occur. If, as is usually the case, it is assumed that the shear and
tensile strengths of the rock mass are constant over any given
depth, this implies, in turn, that the shear and/or tensile stresses
induced in the rock mass must reach their maxima along some
cone-like surface (in the case of a single anchor). While, as will be
discussed in Section 5.2.2 below, it can be readily envisaged that
this will occur in the case of a short anchor that is grouted to, or
close to, the surface, it is more difficult to understand why this
should be the case when the anchor is grouted only over an
embedment length, L, which is often significantly less than D, the
depth below the ground surface of the proximal end of the grouted
length. In the first instance, the distribution of induced elastic
stresses could be investigated through a series of relatively simple
numerical stress analyses of sample problem configurations.
5.2.2. Rock mass uplift failure mechanism
Most direct observations of the rock mass uplift failure mech-
anism of which the author is aware, were associated with field pull-
out tests in which, almost of necessity, the anchor was short in
comparison to the lengths of the large post-tensioned anchors used
in dam construction and rehabilitation projects, and the anchor was
grouted to, or close to, the ground surface (Dados, 1984;
Benmokrane et al., 1995; Carter, 1995; Weerasinghe and
Littlejohn, 1997; Serrano and Olalla, 1999; Thomas-Lepine, 2012).
Furthermore, in some of these cases, the test anchor was installed
in near-surface, weak rock.
A number of such investigations have found that while
discernible surface uplift extends for some distance laterally from
the anchor borehole, the limit of “significant” uplift can be repre-
sented reasonably well by a 90 cone. For example, Fig. 7 shows the
failure mechanism observed and inferred by Weerasinghe and
Littlejohn (1997) for a straight shafted anchor grouted to the
ground surface in a weak mudstone and subjected to uplift. The test
anchor was composed of a seven 15.2 mm 7-wire drawn strand
tendon with nodes in the fixed anchor length to reduce the possi-
bility of groutetendon failure. Weerasinghe and Littlejohn (1997)
noted that the central cone at the top of the anchor was formed
by rock mass failure in shear. It is suggested that the failure
mechanism would be quite different if the same anchor was
installed in the same rock mass in a configuration such as that
shown in Fig. 5 with the relatively high values of D/L used in
modern dam engineering practice.
5.2.3. Influence of rock mass structure
Clearly, the structure of the rock mass will influence the shape of
the “failure” surface. Dados (1984), Wyllie (1999) and Thomas-
Lepine (2012), among others, have shown how horizontal
Surface disturbance due to Active cone fails in shear
displacement of central cone
Tensile cracking
Monolithic displacement
of fixed anchor
Shaft below cone fails
through the rock
Fig. 7. Failure by uplift of a fully grouted, straight-shafted, shallow, tensioned anchor in
weak mudstone (Weerasinghe and Littlejohn, 1997).
bedding or jointing and vertical cross-jointing can have a major
influence on the observed uplift failure mechanism in near-surface
anchors. Similarly, a set of persistent, inclined discontinuities can
exert a controlling influence on the failure surface geometry. In
general, rock masses having the main discontinuity set perpen-
dicular to the anchor axis are the most suitable in which to fix
anchors (Hobst and Zajíc, 1977). Fig. 8 shows some simple repre-
sentations of possible influences of rock mass structure for the case
of a shallow anchor that is fully grouted to the ground surface. In a
number of the shallow anchor cases illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8, it is
easy to postulate a conical or pseudo-conical failure surface,
remembering that the in situ problem is 3D and not 2D as shown in
the sketches of Figs. 7 and 8.
It appears reasonable to suggest that, in the cases of the deep
anchors used in dam engineering, the near-surface rock mass
structure may not exert the same immediate controlling influence,
and the 90 uplift cone assumption may not be as valid, as in the
shallow anchor case. In any event, the deeper the anchor, or the
greater the ratio of the anchor depth, D, to the embedment length,
L, in Fig. 5, the less likely the conical rock mass uplift mechanism is
to control the behaviour of the post-tensioned anchor.
Weerasinghe and Littlejohn (1997) argued that, for fully grouted
anchors, as anchorage depth increases, the resistance of the rock
mass cone will become smaller compared to the shaft (grouterock)
resistance. Numerical experiments using discrete element codes
provide perhaps the most promising means of exploring potential
failure mechanisms of deep anchors in rock masses for which rock
mass structure models or discrete fracture network (DFN) simula-
tions are available (Panton et al., 2014). Ideally, numerical analyses
of this type should be 3D rather than 2D.
As was noted at the end of Section 5.1, in dam engineering, the
potential influence of a continuous or near-continuous horizontal
or sub-horizontal structural feature such as a bedding plane or
sheeting joint can be reduced by staggering the elevations of the
anchor lengths of adjacent anchors in a row. In either the shallow or
Fig. 8. Influence of rock mass structure on the uplift failure mechanism of a shallow,
fully grouted, tensioned anchor (after Wyllie (1999)).
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
deep anchor case, or in the case of a row of anchors as illustrated in
Fig. 6, it must be recognised that, as shown by a range of pull-out
tests and by preliminary numerical simulations carried out by
Panton et al. (2014), the rock mass uplift failure mechanism will be
progressive.
5.2.4. Estimation of rock mass shear and/or tensile strengths
Existing design approaches using the 90 or 60 uplift cone
hypotheses, variously assume shear, cohesive and/or tensile
strengths of the rock mass which may be the presumptive values or
be back-calculated from the results of pull-out tests using a
“theoretical” failure cone (Hobst and Zajíc, 1977; USACE, 1995;
Weerasinghe and Adams, 1997). Clearly, these simple approaches
do not take into account the variability of the governing strength
parameters with depth and with varying local rock mass structure,
or the progressive and complex nature of the rock mass failure
mechanisms involved. Nor do they always allow for the influence of
the total distribution of stresses within the rock mass. It is sug-
gested that these simplistic approaches can, and should, be
improved.
5.3. Suggested alternative approaches
At the end of Section 3.1, it was noted that linear and nonlinear
static and dynamic numerical stress analyses (Alonso et al., 1996;
Yu et al., 2005; Bureau et al., 2007; Scott and Mills-Bria, 2008;
Lemos, 2011, 2014; Chopra, 2012), limit state (Merrifield et al., 1997;
Herweynen, 1998; ANCOLD, 2013; Farrell, 2013), reliability, risk-
based, probabilistic and fragility methods (Ellingwood and Tekie,
2001; Phoon et al., 2003; Barker, 2011; Westberg Wilde and
Johansson, 2013) are now being used for dam design analysis and
assessment. These approaches may be used when analysing the
overall stability of dams stabilised by post-tensioned anchors in the
manner illustrated schematically in Fig. 2. As well as the traditional
limiting equilibrium analyses, numerical stress analysis methods
may use continuum, equivalent continuum or discontinuum
methods. As was indicated in Section 5.2.3 and has been demon-
strated by Panton et al. (2014), numerical methods, particularly
discontinuum methods used in conjunction with a structural or
DFN model of the rock mass concerned, potentially provide a
powerful means of investigating the likely responses of rock masses
to the uplift imposed by post-tensioned anchors. Provided
adequate input data are available (see Section 6.1 below), these
methods can also allow the influence of the in situ stresses and the
stresses induced in the rock mass to be evaluated more rationally
and more fully than does the standard design approach discussed
in Section 5.1. However, in the author’s experience, detailed design
analyses of this proposed type are rarely carried out in practice.
Although the previous discussion concerned Mode D or rock
mass uplift failure, it should also be noted that, for any given case,
comprehensive numerical analyses can be used to improve the
methods generally used to estimate the distribution of normal and
shear stresses along tendonegrout and rockegrout interfaces and
to evaluate the onset and progression of interface bond failure and
slip. Although this may appear to be relatively straight-forward, for
its complete numerical analysis, this problem requires the evalua-
tion and input of a number of rock and grout properties, including
stiffnesses. As noted in Section 3.4, historically a significant number
of analyses of this type have been carried out for rock and cable
bolts and for shallow or near-surface anchors, but to the best of the
author’s knowledge rarely, if at all, for the large post-tensioned
anchors currently being used for dam stabilisation.
As discussed in Section 5.2, there are a number of problem
configurations for which the 60 or 90 uplift cone assumptions do
not provide realistic models for use in design analysis. In a range of
9
other geotechnical engineering applications, including some
involving anchored structures, the upper and lower bound theo-
rems of limit state theory have been used to identify likely failure
mechanisms and the associated limit loads (Sloan, 1989, 2013;
Regenass and Soubra, 1997; Soubra and Regenass, 1997). In these
geotechnical engineering applications, numerical methods, notably
finite element methods, including large deformation finite element
methods, have been used in conjunction with limit state analysis to
obtain solutions to otherwise intractable problems (Sloan, 1989,
2013; Wang et al., 2013). It is suggested that such an approach
could be used to good effect to identify potential rock mass uplift
conditions associated with the use of large post-tensioned anchors
to stabilise or strengthen dams.
6. Other investigation, design and construction issues
6.1. Overview
The major rock mechanics and rock engineering issues associ-
ated with the design of post-tensioned rock anchors for concrete
dams have been discussed in the preceding sections of this paper.
However, in order to ensure acceptable performance of the anchors
and of the structures that they are intended to stabilise or reinforce,
a range of other site investigation, design and construction issues
associated with the anchors have to be planned and executed
satisfactorily. To discuss all of them in detail would extend the
scope of this paper beyond reasonable limits. However, for
completeness, they will be referred to briefly here. These issues
include:
 site investigation and characterisation;
 the installation and testing of trial anchors;
 grout design and grouting trials;
 the fabrication, installation, tensioning and possibly re-
tensioning of the anchors;
 the provision of corrosion protection to the anchors and anchor
heads; and
 the in service monitoring and maintenance of anchors and their
fittings.
Many of these issues are covered by Standards, Codes of Practice
and Guidelines. Some of them will be discussed briefly below.
6.2. Site investigation and characterisation
As the author has argued elsewhere (Brown, 2011), the design
and construction of large dams played a significant role in the
development of rock mechanics and rock engineering knowledge
and techniques that took place in the middle decades of the 20th
century. This applied particularly to site investigation methods and
to the assessment of the mechanical properties of rocks and rock
masses, including discontinuities. In modern dam engineering,
adequate site investigation and the resulting site characterisation,
and geological, structural and geotechnical model development
remain of paramount importance. In terms of the various types of
design analyses discussed in this paper, particular site characteri-
sation requirements include:
 estimating the in situ stresses at the dam site, particularly under
incised valleys;
 mapping discontinuities in the foundation rock mass and
developing complete 3D structural models for the geotechnical
domains identified, preferably using a DFN approach;
 estimating rock and rock mass strengths and deformabilities;
10 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
 measuring or estimating the basic friction angles, roughnesses
and normal and shear stiffnesses of persistent discontinuities
likely to be involved in the sliding mode of failure illustrated in
Fig. 2b;
 establishing design values of the shear and tensile strengths of
old and new foundation rockemass concrete interfaces (Lo et al.,
1991; EPRI, 1992); and
 measuring or estimating rock mass permeabilities and identi-
fying significant water-bearing discontinuities in the foundation
(Farinha et al., 2011).
Examples of some of the modern approaches and techniques
used to obtain data of these types are given by Brown and Marley
(2008), Powell et al. (2008), Shaffner et al. (2009), Friz et al.
(2011), Hencher et al. (2011) and Agharazi et al. (2012).
6.3. Anchor and grouting trials
It is essential that before the detailed design of a system of large,
post-tensioned anchors is completed, trial anchors of prototype
size should be installed in the rock mass concerned and load tested.
This overall process should include tests of drilling accuracy and
drill hole stability in the candidate rock mass; tests of proposed
grout mixes and grouting tests to enable suitable grouting pres-
sures to be determined and the extent of the likely loss of grout into
the surrounding rock mass to be assessed; and, perhaps most
importantly, load testing of a generally small number of trial an-
chors for a range of possible purposes, including the identification
of potential failure mechanisms and, with suitable test design, the
estimation of mean rockegrout interface strengths. As will be dis-
cussed in Section 6.4 to follow, it is also common or required
practice to test load each prototype anchor on installation and
subsequently during the anchor’s service life. Examples of anchor
testing procedures and results are given by Habib (1989), Scott and
Bruce (1992), Littlejohn (1993), Bruce (1997), Feddersen (1997) and
Cavill (2000).
6.4. Anchor stressing and in service monitoring
The initial anchor stressing and proof-testing, and the inspec-
tion, monitoring, maintenance and re-stressing of anchors during
their service lives, are critically important in ensuring the satis-
factory in service performance of post-stressed anchor systems. As
Littlejohn (1993) noted, “stressing is required to fulfil two func-
tions. (i) To tension the tendon and to anchor it at its secure load. (ii)
To ascertain and record the behaviour of the anchorage so that it
can be compared with the behaviour of control anchorages, sub-
jected to on-site suitability tests.” The structural design of the an-
chor stressing system, including the load cell, anchor head and
bearing plate, is an important element of this undertaking
(Littlejohn, 1993). As was noted in Section 3.3, during installation of
the anchor, it is common practice in Australia to test load the an-
chor and fittings beyond the normal WL (for example, up to 78%e
80% MBL) and to “lock-off” the load with sufficient allowance above
the WL (for example, to 68%e72% MBL) to allow for subsequent
load losses caused by creep, relaxation and draw-in (ANCOLD,
1992). Following this initial stressing, it is necessary to protect
the anchor head against corrosion while ensuring that it remains
accessible for subsequent inspection and re-stressing (Littlejohn
and Mothersille, 2007).
The volume edited by Littlejohn (2007) contains a wide range of
papers on the in service inspection, maintenance and monitoring of
ground anchors and anchored structures, including dams
(Aschenbroich, 2007; Wolfhope et al., 2007; Zicko et al., 2007).
7. Conclusions
High-capacity, post-tensioned anchors have found wide-spread
use, originally in initial dam design and construction, and more
recently in the strengthening and rehabilitation of concrete dams to
meet modern design and safety standards. Despite the advances
that have been made in rock mechanics and rock engineering
during the almost 80 years in which post-tensioned anchors have
been used in dam engineering, the author’s reading of the litera-
ture, and his own practical experience in Australia, suggest that
some aspects of the rock mechanics and rock engineering design of
rock anchors for dams have changed relatively little over the last 30
or 40 years. This applies, in particular, to the calculations usually
carried out to establish the grouted embedment lengths required
for deep, post-tensioned anchors. These calculations usually make
simplified assumptions about the distribution and values of rocke
grout interface shear strengths, the shape of the volume of rock
likely to be involved in uplift failure under the influence of a system
of post-tensioned anchors, and the mechanism of that failure. The
resulting designs are generally conservative. While this is under-
standable for important structures like dams for which public
safety is a major consideration, in some cases, the degree of
conservatism is considered to be excessive and to represent poor
engineering practice.
It is concluded that the aspects of rock mechanics and rock
engineering design of large, post-tensioned rock anchors for dams
of major concern here, the rockegrout bond and the uplift failure
mechanism, can be significantly improved by making greater use of
modern, comprehensive, numerical analyses in conjunction with
3D models of the rock mass structure, realistic rock and rock mass
properties, and the results of prototype anchor tests in the rock
mass concerned.
Conflict of interest
The author has no known conflict of interest associated with this
review paper.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank those who gave him the opportunity
to become involved in dam engineering at a relatively late stage of
his career, and those with whom he has worked on projects and
discussed the issues addressed in this paper. They include: Brian
Cooper, Peter Foster, Tim Griggs, Richard Herweynen, Mike Marley,
Peter Richardson and Richard Rodd. He would also thank the
management and Principals of the Brisbane office of Golder Asso-
ciates for facilitating his work in dam engineering and supporting
the preparation of this paper; Mike Marley and Rob Morphet for
internally reviewing of the paper; Guy Green for preparing the
drawings; and Jo-Anne Sandilands for her word processing
assistance.
References
Agharazi A, Tannant DD, Martin CD. Characterizing rock mass deformation mech-
anisms during plate load tests at the Bakhtiary project. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2012;49(1):1e11.
Alonso E, Carol I, Delahaye C, Gens A, Prat P. Evaluation of safety factors in
discontinuous rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sci-
ences 1996;33(5):513e37.
ANCOLD. Guidelines on design criteria for concrete gravity dams. Australian Na-
tional Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD); 1991.
ANCOLD. Guidelines on strengthening and raising concrete gravity dams. Australian
National Committee on Large Dams Working Group; 1992.
ANCOLD. Draft guidelines on design criteria for concrete gravity dams. Australian
National Committee on Large Dams; 2013 [unpublished].
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
Anon. Rock foundations e technical engineering and design guidelines as adapted
from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No.16. New York: ASCE Press; 1996. 129 pp.
Aschenbroich H. Case histories of high capacity anchors for two dams in Canada
involving long term monitoring. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages
and anchored structures in service, Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence, London. London: Thomas Telford; 2007. p. 144e54.
Banks JA. Allt-na-Lairige prestressed concrete dam. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers 1957;6(3):409e28.
Barker M. Australian risk approach for assessment of dams. In: 21st century dam
design e advances and adaptations, proceedings of the 31st Annual USSD
Conference, San Diego. Denver: US Society on Dams; 2011. p. 69e91.
Barley AD. Ten thousand anchorages in rock. Ground Engineering 1988;21(6):20e9.
21(7): 24e35; 21(8): 35e9.
Barley AD. Properties of grouts in a confined state. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground
anchorages and anchored structures, Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence, London. London: Thomas Telford; 1997. p. 13e22.
BC Hydro. Guidelines for the assessment of rock foundations of existing concrete
gravity dams. BC Hydro Report No. MEP67, Vancouver, Canada. 1995.
Bedi A, Orr TLL. On the applicability of the Eurocode 7 partial factor method for rock
mechanics. In: Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla C, Jiménez R, editors. Rock engi-
neering and rock mechanics: structures in and on rock, Proceedings of Eurock
2014, ISRM European Regional Symposium, Vigo. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema;
2014. p. 1517e23.
Benmokrane B, Chekired M, Xu H. Monitoring behavior of grouted anchors using
vibrating wire gauges. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1995;121(6):
466e75.
Bianchi RH, Bruce DA. The use of post-tensioned anchorages on the arch portion of
Stewart Mountain Dam. In: Anderson LR, editor. Geotechnical practice in dam
rehabilitation. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 35. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers; 1993. p. 791e802.
Bretas EM, Léger P, Lemos JV. 3D stability analysis of gravity dams on sloped rock
foundations using the limit equilibrium method. Computers and Geotechnics
2012;44:147e56.
Bretas EM, Léger P, Lemos JV, Lourenço PB. Analysis of a gravity dam considering the
application of passive reinforcement. In: Garcia RR, Mir MA, Bitrian FH, Dios RL,
Caballero MRC, editors. Dam maintenance and rehabilitation II, Proceedings II
International Congress on Dam Maintenance and Rehabilitation, Zaragoza.
Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema; 2010.
Brown ET. Fifty years of the ISRM and associated progress in rock mechanics. In:
Qian Q, Zhou YX, editors. Harmonising rock engineering and the environment,
Proceedings of the 12th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Beijing. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema; 2011. p. 29e43.
Brown ET, Marley M. Estimating rock mass properties for stability analyses of new
and existing dams. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Operation, Rehabili-
tation and Up-grading of Dams, ICOLD 76th Annual Meeting, Sofia; 2008. Paper
2e48 (on CD-ROM).
Bruce DA. Practical aspects of rock anchorages for dams. In: Dam safety in the
states: Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Fifth Annual
Conference, Manchester, New Hampshire; 1988.
Bruce DA. The stabilization of concrete dams by post-tensioned rock anchors: the
state of American practice. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and
anchored structures, Proceedings of the International Conference, London.
London: Thomas Telford; 1997. p. 508e21.
Bruce D, Wolfhope J. Rock anchors for North American dams: The National Research
Program bibliography and data base. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchor-
ages and anchored structures in service, Proceedings of the International
Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford; 2007. p. 121e31.
Bruce D, Wolfhope J. 40 years of rock anchors for dams in North America e lessons
learned. In: The sustainability of experience e investing in the human factor,
Proceedings of the 28th Annual USSD Conference, Portland. Denver: US Society
on Dams; 2008. p. 47e56.
Bureau G, Keller TO, Zhou J. Nonlinear structural analysis for San Vicente Dam raise.
In: Modernization and optimization of existing dams and reservoirs, Pro-
ceedings of the 27th Annual USSD Conference, Philadelphia. Denver: US Society
on Dams; 2007. p. 405e19.
Carter TG. Observations on cone pull-out anchor behaviour in very weak rock. In:
Widmann R, editor. Anchors in theory and practice, Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium on Anchors in Theory and Practice, Salzburg. Rotterdam:
A.A. Balkema; 1995. p. 17e23.
Cavill BA. Very high capacity ground anchors used in strengthening concrete gravity
dams. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures,
Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
1997. p. 262e71.
Cavill BA. Full scale testing of a 2400 tonne capacity rock anchor. ANCOLD Bulletin
No 114. April 2000. p. 213e23.
CDSA. Dam safety guidelines. Canadian Dam Safety Association; 1999.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation). Geotechnical design: part 1, gen-
eral rules. EN-1997-1. Brussels: CEN; 2004.
Chopra AK. Earthquake analysis of arch dams: factors to be considered. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2012;138(2):205e14.
Coates DF. Rock mechanics principles. Mines branch monograph 874. Ottawa: In-
formation Canada; 1970.
Coates DF, Yu YS. Three-dimensional stress distributions around a cylindrical hole
and anchor. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Congress, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Belgrade, 3; 1970. p. 175e82.
11
Coates DF, Yu YS. Rock anchor design mechanics. Research Report No R233. Mines
Branch, Canadian Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; 1971.
Dados AT. Design of anchors in horizontally jointed rocks. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 1984;110(11):1637e47.
DEWS. Guidelines on acceptable flood capacity for water dams. State of Queens-
land: Department of Energy and Water Supply; 2013.
Dickson PD, Loar TN. Abutment stability analyses and design solutions for Tekeze
Dam, Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
Symposium, San Francisco; 2011. Paper 11e315 (on CD-ROM).
Duffaut P. The traps behind the failure of Malpasset arch dam, France, in 1959.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2013;5(5):335e41.
Ebeling RM, Nuss LK, Tracy FT, Brand B. Evaluation and comparison of stability
analysis and uplift criteria for concrete gravity dams by three federal agencies.
Report ERDC/ITL TR-00-1. Information Technology Laboratory, U.S. Army Engi-
neer Research and Development Center; 2000.
Ellingwood B, Tekie PB. Fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, ASCE 2001;7(2):41e8.
EPRI. Uplift pressures, shear strengths and tensile strengths for stability analysis of
concrete dams, vol. 1. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute; 1992. Report
TR-100345.
Farinha MLB, Lemos JV, Maranha das Neves E. Numerical modelling of borehole
water-inflow tests in the foundation of the Alqueva arch dam. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 2011;48(1):72e88.
Farmer IW. Stress distribution along a resin grouted anchor. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 1975;12(11):
347e52.
Farrell ER. Harmonisation of anchor design within Eurocode. In: Arnold P,
Fenton GA, Hicks MA, Schweckendiek T, Simpson B, editors. Modern geotech-
nical design codes of practice: implementation, application and development.
Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2013. p. 15e24.
Feddersen I. Improvement of the overall stability of a gravity dam with 4500 kN
anchors. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures,
Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
1997. p. 318e25.
Fell R, MacGregor P, Stapledon D, Bell G. Geotechnical engineering of dams. Leiden:
A.A. Balkema; 2005.
Friz PC, Curtis D, Rutherford JH, Hart S, Johnston DC, Orbison D. Blue Lake Dam left
abutment geological modelling for dam raise. In: 21st century dam design e
advances and adaptations, Proceedings of the 31st Annual USSD Conference,
San Diego. Denver: US Society on Dams; 2011. p. 147e61.
Gosschalk EM, Taylor RW. Strengthening of Muda Dam foundation using cable
anchors. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Congress, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Belgrade3. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1970. p. 205e10.
Haberfield CM, Baycan S. Field performance of the grout/rock interface in anchors.
In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures, Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
1997. p. 45e54.
Habib P, editor. Recommendations for the design calculation, construction and
monitoring of ground anchors. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1989.
Hanna TH. Foundations in tension: ground anchors. Clausthal: Trans Tech Publi-
cations and New York: McGraw-Hill. 1982.
Harman T, Herweynen R, Gosh M. Analysis and design challenges associated with
the Catagunya Dam Restoration Project. In: Dam decisions: past experiences,
future challenges, Proceedings of the ANCOLD 2010 Conference, Hobart; 2010.
15 pp. (on CD-ROM).
Harrison JP. Eurocode 7 and rock engineering: current problems and future op-
portunities. In: Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla C, Jiménez R, editors. Rock engi-
neering and rock mechanics: structures in and on rock, Proceedings of Eurock
2014, ISRM European Regional Symposium, Vigo. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema;
2014. p. 1531e6.
Hencher SR, Lee SG, Carter TG, Richards LR. Sheeting joints: characterisation, shear
strength and engineering. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2011;44(1):
1e22.
Herweynen RI. Safety of Meadowbank Dam against sliding parameter uncertainty.
ANCOLD Bulletin No. 112. August 1998. p. 77e87.
Hobst L, Zajíc J. Anchoring in rock. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1977.
Hyett AJ, Bawden WF, Macsporran GR, Moosavi M. A constitutive law for bond
failure of fully-grouted cable bolts using a modified Hoek cell. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1995;32(1):11e36.
Ivanovi c A, Neilson RD. Modelling of debonding along the fixed anchor length.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2009;46(4):699e
707.
Jarred DJ, Haberfield CM. Tendon/grout interface performance in grouted anchors.
In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures, Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
1997. p. 262e71.
Kaiser PK, Yazici S, Nosé J. Effect of stress change on the bond strength of fully
grouted cables. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
1992;29(3):293e306.
Khaoua M, Montel B, Civaro A, Luga A. Cheurfas Dam anchorages: 30 years of
control and recent reinforcement. In: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico CitySpeci-
alty Session 15; 1969. p. 167e71.
Kim HK, Cho NJ. A design method to incur ductile failure of rock anchors subjected to
tensile loads. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2012;17:2737e46.
12 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
Kline RA, Howard B, Davidheiser SM. Current state-of-the-art for existing gravity
dam stability analysis. In: Modernization and optimization of existing dams and
reservoirs, Proceedings of the 27th Annual USSD Conference, Philadelphia.
Denver: US Society on Dams; 2007. p. 341e51.
Lamas L, Perucho A, Alejano LR. Some key issues regarding application of Eurocode
7 to rock engineering design. In: Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla C, Jiménez R,
editors. Rock engineering and rock mechanics: structures in and on rock, Pro-
ceedings of Eurock 2014, ISRM European Regional Symposium, Vigo. Leiden:
CRC Press/Balkema; 2014. p. 1459e64.
La Villa G, Golser J. Slopes of the Tarbela Dam Project. Rock Mechanics
1982;(Suppl. 12):179e90.
Lawrence MS, Martin CD. Estimating rock mass strength for a concrete dam foun-
ded on good rock: Blind Slough Dam, British Columbia, Canada. In: Eberhardt E,
Stead D, Morrison T, editors. Rock mechanics: meeting society’s challenges and
demands, Proceedings of the 1st Canada e US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Vancouver2. London: Taylor and Francis; 2007. p. 1007e14.
Lemos J. Discontinuum models for dam foundation failure analysis. In: Qian Q,
Zhao YX, editors. Harmonising rock engineering and the environment, Pro-
ceedings of the 12th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Bei-
jing. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema; 2011. p. 91e8.
Lemos JV. Representation of rock discontinuities in safety analysis of large dams. In:
Alejano LR, Perucho A, Olalla C, Jiménez R, editors. Rock engineering and rock
mechanics: structures in and on rock, Proceedings of Eurock 2014, ISRM Eu-
ropean Regional Symposium, Vigo. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema; 2014. p. 29e38.
Liang J. Development and problems of prestressed anchor cables for geotechnical
engineering in China. ISRM News Journal 1995;2(3e4):10e7.
Littlejohn GS. Overview of rock anchorages. In: Hudson JA, Brown ET, Fairhurst C,
Hoek E, editors. Comprehensive rock engineering4. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
1993. p. 413e50.
Littlejohn GS. Rock anchorage practice in civil engineering. In: Kaiser PK,
McCreath DR, editors. Rock support in mining and underground construction,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Support, Sudbury. Rot-
terdam: A.A. Balkema; 1992. p. 257e68.
Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures: Proceedings of
the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford; 1997.
Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures in service: Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
2007.
Littlejohn GS, Bruce DA. Rock anchors: state of the art. Ground Engineering 1975e
76;8(3):25e32. 8(4): 41e8; 8(5): 34e45; 8(6): 36e45; 9(2): 20e9; 9(3): 55e60;
9(4): 33e44.
Littlejohn GS, Bruce DA. Rock anchors e design and quality control. In: Fairhurst C,
Crouch SL, editors. Design methods in rock mechanics, Proceedings of the 16th
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis. New York: ASCE; 1977. p. 77e88.
Littlejohn GS, Mothersille D. Maintenance testing and service behaviour monitoring
of permanent ground anchorages. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages
and anchored structures in service: Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence, London. London: Thomas Telford; 2007. p. 1e16.
Liu X, Zhou Y, Chen C, Zheng Y, Xia K. Anchoring characteristic of tension-type
anchor cable and grout length design. In: Feng XT, Hudson JA, Tan F, editors.
Rock characterisation, modelling and engineering design methods, Proceedings
of the 3rd ISRM SinoRock Symposium, Shanghai. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema;
2013. p. 697e702.
Lo KY, Ogawa T, Lukajic B, Dupak DD. Measurements of strength parameters of
concrete-rock contact at the dam-foundation interface. Geotechnical Testing
Journal 1991;14(4):383e94.
Lombardi G. 3-D analysis of gravity dams. Hydropower and Dams 2007;1:98e102.
Lowe J, Chao PC, Leucker AR. Tarbela service spillway plunge pool development.
Water Power and Dam Construction 1979;31(11):85e90.
Maddox JM, Kinstler FL, Mather RP. Meadowbank Dam e foundations. Civil Engi-
neering Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia 1967;9(2):321e9.
Merrifield CM, Barley AD, Von Matt U. The execution of ground anchor works: the
European Standard prEN1537. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and
anchored structures: Proceedings of the International Conference, London.
London: Thomas Telford; 1997. p. 492e501.
Morris SS, Garrett WS. The raising and strengthening of Steenbras Dam. Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1 1956;5(1):23e48.
Panton B, Elmo D, Schotfeldt P, Carvalho J. Design of rock foundation anchorage
using Discrete Fracture Networks. In: Proceedings of the International Discrete
Fracture Network Engineering Conference, Vancouver; 2014.
Park J, Qiu T, Kim Y. Field and laboratory investigation of pullout resistance of steel
anchors in rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 2013;139(12):2219e24.
Pease KA, Kulhawy FH. Load transfer mechanisms in rock sockets and anchors.
Report EL-3777. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute; 1984.
Powell CN, Shaffner PT, Wright J. Exploration and geotechnical characterization for
evaluating the stability of Hungry Horse Dam. In: The sustainability of expe-
rience e investing in the human factor, Proceedings of the 28th Annual USSD
Conference, Portland. Denver: US Society on Dams; 2008. p. 115e33.
Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH, Grigoriu MD. Development of a reliability-based design
framework for transmission line structure foundations. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(9):798e806.
Regenass P, Soubra AH. Limit loads of strip anchors. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground
anchorages and anchored structures: Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence, London. London: Thomas Telford; 1997. p. 109e18.
Ren FF, Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Chen WW. An analytical analysis of the full-range
behaviour of grouted rockbolts based on tri-linear bond-slip. Construction
and Building Materials 2010;24(3):361e70.
Scott GA, Bruce DA. Full scale field tests of high capacity rock anchors. In:
Tillerson JR, Wawersik WR, editors. Proceedings of the 33rd US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1992. p. 471e80.
Scott GA, Mills-Bria BL. Nonlinear, 3D, dynamic coupled dam-foundation analyses
for estimating risks at Hungry Horse Dam. In: The sustainability of experience e
investing in the human factor, Proceedings of the 28th Annual USSD Confer-
ence, Portland. Denver: US Society on Dams; 2008. p. 135e50.
Serrano A, Olalla C. Tensile resistance of rock anchors. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1999;36(4):449e74.
Shaffner P, Heisler R, Krosley L, Kottenstette J, Wright J. Characterization of dam
foundation blocks using digital photogrammetric mapping and borehole
geophysical logging to create comprehensive 3D foundation models. In: Man-
aging our water retention systems, Proceedings of the 29th Annual USSD
Conference, Nashville. Denver: US Society on Dams; 2009. p. 473e505.
She CX. Deformation and stability of the right arch dam abutment of the Danjiang
hydro-power project, China. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 2004;41(Suppl. 1):792e7. Paper 3B 04, ISRM SinoRock 2004
Symposium (on CD-ROM).
Singhal AC, Nuss LK. Cable anchoring of deteriorated arch dam. Journal of the
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 1991;5(1):19e36.
Sloan SW. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear program-
ming. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geo-
mechanics 1989;13(3):263e82.
Sloan SW. Geotechnical stability analysis. Géotechnique 2013;63(7):531e72.
Snape D. Sustainable rehabilitation of gravity dams using post-tensioned anchors.
ANCOLD Bulletin No 120. April 2002. p. 47e56.
Soubra AH, Regenass P. Overall stability of anchored sheet pile structures. In:
Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures: Proceedings of
the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford; 1997. p. 100e8.
Thomas-Lepine C. Rock bolts e improved design and possibilities. MSc Thesis.
Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 2012.
Topham C, Nicholson E, Tanner D. Managing risk of under-designed spillway
training walls: an owner’s guide. In: McSaveney ER, editor. Multiple use of dams
and reservoirs: needs, benefits and risks, Proceedings of the NZSOLD e ANCOLD
2013 Conference, Rotorua, 39(1(LD)). Wellington: IPENZ Proceedings of Tech-
nical Groups; 2013. p. 384e98.
USACE. Gravity dam design. Engineer Manual EM1110-2-2200. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; 1995.
USACE. Stability analysis of concrete structures. Engineer Manual EM1110-2-2100.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 2005.
Wang D, Merifield RS, Gaudin C. Uplift behaviour of helical anchors in clay. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal 2013;50(6):575e84.
Weerasinghe RB, Adams D. A technical review of rock anchorage practice 1976e
1996. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures:
Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Telford;
1997. p. 481e91.
Weerasinghe RB, Littlejohn GS. Uplift capacity of shallow anchorages in weak
mudstone. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored struc-
tures: Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas
Telford; 1997. p. 23e33.
Westberg Wilde M, Johansson F. System reliability of concrete dams with respect to
foundation stability: application to a spillway. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2013;139(2):308e19.
Wilkins JK, Fidler BE. Design of Catagunya prestressed dam. Civil Engineering
Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia 1959;CE1:47e63.
Wolfhope J, Bruce D, Forbes G, Boyd L. Post-tensioned rehabilitation applied to
hydropower dams. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored
structures in service, Proceedings of the International Conference, London.
London: Thomas Telford; 2007. p. 132e43.
Woods RI, Barkhordari K. The influence of bond stress distribution on ground an-
chor design. In: Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored struc-
tures: Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas
Telford; 1997. p. 55e64.
Wyllie DC. Foundations on rock: engineering practice. 2nd ed. London: E & FN
Spon; 1999.
Xanthakos PP. Ground anchors and anchored structures. New York: John Wiley;
1991.
Xu H, Benmokrane B. Strengthening of existing concrete dams using post-tensioned
anchors: a state-of-the-art review. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
1996;23(6):1151e71.
Yu X, Zhou YF, Peng SZ. Stability analyses of dam abutments by 3D elasto-plastic
finite-element method: a case study of Houhe gravity-arch dam in China. In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2005;42(3):415e30.
Zhao YM, Yang MJ. Pull-out behaviour of an imperfectly bonded anchor system. In-
ternational Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2011;48(3):469e75.
Zicko KE, Bruce DA, Kline RA. The stabilization of Gilboa Dam, New York, using
high capacity rock anchors: addressing service performance issues. In:
Littlejohn GS, editor. Ground anchorages and anchored structures in service,
Proceedings of the International Conference, London. London: Thomas Tel-
ford; 2007. p. 153e65.
Zou DHS. Analysis of in situ rock bolt loading status. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2004;41(Suppl. 1):762e7.
 E.T. Brown / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 7 (2015) 1e13
E.T. (Ted) Brown is a graduate of the Universities of Mel-
bourne (BE 1960; MEngSc 1964), Queensland (PhD 1969)
and London (DSc(Eng) 1985). He began his engineering
career in the then State Electricity Commission of Victo-
ria’s brown coal mining operations in 1960. After several
years at what became James Cook University in Townsville,
he joined the staff of the Royal School of Mines, Imperial
College of Science and Technology, London, in 1975. He
was appointed Professor of Rock Mechanics in 1979, and
served as Dean of the Royal School of Mines (1983e1986)
and Head, Department of Mineral Resources Engineering
(1985e1987). In October 1987, Professor Brown returned
to Australia as the University of Queensland’s first full-
time Dean of Engineering. He became Deputy Vice-
Chancellor of the University in October 1990 and Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor in
January 1996. Since retiring early from that position in early 2001, he has worked as
a Senior Consultant to Golder Associates Pty Ltd. and had served on a number of
13
Boards. Professor Brown has wide international experience as a researcher, teacher,
consultant and writer on rock mechanics and its applications in the mining, civil engi-
neering and energy resources industries. He served as Chairman of the British
Geotechnical Society in 1982 and 1983, and as President of the International Society
for Rock Mechanics from 1983 to 1987. He was elected an International Fellow of
The Royal Academy of Engineering, UK, in 1989, and a Fellow of the Australian Acad-
emy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in 1990. In 2001, he was appointed a
Companion in the Order of Australia for “services to the engineering profession as a
world expert in rock mechanics and to scholarship through promotion of the highest aca-
demic and professional standards.” He was awarded the Consolidated Gold Fields Gold
Medal of the then Institute of Mining & Metallurgy in 1984; a Centenary Medal by the
Australian Government in 2003 “for service to Australian society in mining and civil en-
gineering”; the John Jaeger Memorial Award of the Australian Geomechanics Society in
2004; the President’s Award of the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy for
2006; the International Society for Rock Mechanics’ highest honour, the Müller Award,
in 2007; the SME Rock Mechanics Award in 2010; and the Douglas Hay Medal of the
Institute of Metals, Minerals & Mining in 2013.