THE SHOTCRETE/ROCK INTERFACE - DIRECT SHEAR,

TENSION AND COMPRESSION

Skjuv-, drag- och tryckprov av fogen mellan berg och sprutbetong

David Saiang, Division of Rock Mechanics, Luleå University of Technology

Lars Malmgren, LKAB Research & Development Division

SAMMANFATTNING
Mekaniska egenskaper för fogen mellan sprutbetong och berg har undersökts i
laboratorieprov. Skjuvhållfastheten tillsammans med skjuvstyvheten har bestämts i
direkta skjuvprov. Hållfastheten och styvheten vinkelrätt (normalt) fogen har bestämts
med drag- och tryckprov. För att efterlikna belastningsförhållanden i fält så utfördes
skjuvproven med låga normalspänningar (tryck). Resultaten visade att
skjuvhållfastheten vid låga normalspänningar berodde på vidhäftningen mellan betong
och berg. Vid högre normalspänningar, som antagligen inte uppträder i normala
sprutbetongkonstruktioner, var friktionens bidrag betydande. Även stålfibrerna gav ett
tillskott till friktionsmotståndet. Skjuv- och normalstyvheten i fogen berodde på
vidhäftningen mellan betong och berg.

ABSTRACT
In line with LKAB’s on-going study on surface rock support interaction a series of
laboratory tests was performed on shotcrete/rock interfaces to study the shear strength
and mechanical properties of the interfaces. In principal the interfaces were subjected to
direct shear, tension and compression tests with major emphasis on direct shear. The
direct shear test was performed using low normal loads to simulate field conditions as
close as possible. Results show that the peak shear strength is determined by the bond
strength for the normal loads anticipated in most practical cases. But, for higher normal
stresses that rarely exist at interface in practical cases, friction was apparently
predominant. Steel fibres within the shotcrete appeared to contribute considerably to
friction. The normal and shear stiffness are essentially the stiffness of the bonding
between shoctrete and rock.

1 INTRODUCTION
The primarily role of shotcrete and perhaps its most effective role is to prevent dilation
of loose rock blocks and eventual fallouts, which if not prevented could further lead to
propagation of failure zones. In many cases the strength of the shotcrete/rock interface
is one of the most important properties for the effectiveness of shotcrete. The main
mechanical properties that affect the strength include stiffness, cohesion, adhesion
strength, and friction. Standard tests such as direct shear, tensile and compression can be
performed on shotcrete/rock interfaces to determine these strength properties. Thus, a
series of laboratory tests were performed on cemented shotcrete/rock interfaces to study
the behavior and mechanical properties of these interfaces while simulating field
conditions as possible, especially with respect to applied normal loads and sample
preparation methods. For most practical cases where shotcrete is used with rock bolts
the normal load on shotcrete lining seldom exceeds 200 – 500 kN/m2 (0.2 to 0.5 MPa).
Some of the early studies on the strength of shotcrete/rock interface was by Fernandez-
Delgado et al (1976) and Holmgren (1979). Since then a large and varied number of
tests have been conducted including field observations. However, due to the
complexities of shotcrete/rock interaction the various test methods could only provide
specific data for relatively simple ground conditions. The direct shear test is one way of
studying the strength of the shotcrete/rock interfaces. Though, no citations were made
on past experimental work on the shear strength of cemented shotcrete/rock interfaces
by direct shear test method a number of tests were conducted on non-cemented
concrete/rock joints by for example, Johnston & Lam (1984), Kodikara & Johnston
(1994), Changwoo et al (2002) etc. Cater & Ooi (1988) performed tests on genuinely
cemented concrete/rock joints to study shear hardening and softening behavior of the
joints.

2 TEST SAMPLES
The jointed samples mainly comprised of shotcrete/magnetite and shotcrete/trachyte.
Magnetite is the principal iron ore mined at Kiirunavaara while trachyte is the waste
rock at the footwall side of the ore-body. The average uniaxial compressive strength of
magnetite is 130 MPa and for trachyte it is 200 MPa. To achieve good adhesion
between shotcrete and rock the rock pieces were cleaned with water. Then they were
placed inside wooden troughs and shotcreted. Table 1 show the shotcrete mixture used.
After 28 days of curing the test samples were extracted by coring. Fig. 1 shows these
samples. The diametrical specifications of the specimens were predetermined to comply
with the laboratory test equipment and respective testing method standards. Surface
roughness estimated in x and y directions, using Barton and Choubey’s Joint Roughness
Coefficient (JRC) chart, ranged from 1 to 13. All magnetite surfaces registered JRC
values of 1 to 3 along with 50% of trachyte samples. The other 50% of the trachyte
samples registered JRC values from 9 to 13.
A typical final direct shear test sample, grouted in cement and ready for testing, is
shown in Fig. 2. The actual test specimen is encapsulated inside Betec, which is pre-

Table 1. Shotcrete mixture (wet-mix method).

Ingredient Ratio
Cement (kg/m3) 506
Silica (kg/m3) 20
Aggregate, dry weight (kg/m3) 1435
Steel fibre, Dramix 65/35 (kg/m3) 50
Slump (mm) 150
Water content (%) 38
 Fig. 1. Test samples. Fig. 2. Direct shear test sample.

mixed rapid hardening cement capable of attaining its full strength within 7 days. The
final dimensions of test blocks were 280 mm x 280 mm x 280 mm with 10 mm
clearance around the joint to allow freedom of shear and lateral displacement. Tensile
and compression test specimens also had their edges prepared before testing. The
average age of shotcrete at the time of testing was 50 days.

3 EXPERIMENTATION
3.1 Direct shear
A total of 38 shotcrete/rock interfaces comprising of 20 shotcrete/magnetite and 18
shotcrete/trachyte were sheared under constant normal load conditions. A stiff servo
controlled direct shear machine with a loading capacity of 500 kN for both normal and
shear forces was used.
Prior to the actual tests a trial test was performed on 4 samples for sensitivity evaluation
and identification of suitable test conditions. This also included testing for rotation, tilt
and eccentricity. On the basis of this test, the normal load range was set at 1 to 40 kN
(0.04 to 1.57 MPa), which was sufficient to avoid any experiemntal uncertainties and at
the same time simulate field conditions as close as possible. The shear displacement rate
was fixed at 0.1 mm/min. During the test the normal force was held constant while the
shear force was being applied. Results recorded include, cumulative shear force (in kN),
shear displacement (in mm) and normal displacements (in mm).

3.2 Joint tensile test

Tensile test on shotcrete/rock interfaces was to determine the adhesion strength of the
joints. A total of 7 samples, 3 shotcrete/trachyte and 4 shotcrete/magnetite, were tested
using a Dartec low capacity (50 kN) hydraulic testing machine. Experimental set up is
as shown in Fig. 3. Joint closures were measured using four Crack Opening
Displacement (COD) gauges evenly placed around the interface. The test was conducted
with a resolution of 0.0001 mm/s.
Dartec hydraulic Dartec electronic
testing machine system CODs

Fig. 3. Experimental setup for the joint tensile test. Similar setup was used for joint compression.

3.3 Joint compression test

The compression of shotcrete/rock joints was to determine the joint compressive
strength (JCS) and the joint normal stiffness (Kn) of the interfaces. This test was
performed using standard compression test procedures and the equipment used was an
Instron servo controlled hydraulic testing machine. To measure joint closure 4 COD
gauges were evenly placed around the interface akin to the setup in Fig. 3. The test was
controlled at a rate of 0.005 mm/s.

3.4 Shotcrete compression test

Shotcrete compression test was performed to determine the uniaxial compressive
strength of shotcrete used in preparing the shotcrete/rock interfaces. A total of 12
shotcrete specimens were tested using the Instron servo controlled hydraulic testing
machine.

4 TEST RESULTS
4.1 Direct shear test results
Since the major part of this study was devoted to direct shear test emphasis will be
primarily on direct shear test results.

4.1.1 Determination of peak shear strength

Because of the nature of the test results it is necessary to explain how the peak values
for shear and residual strengths were obtained from the force-displacement plots.
Typically two types of observations were made as shown in Figs. 4 (a) and 4 (b). Fig. 4
(a) represents the result of an interface with good adhesion. The peak shear strength in
this case is equal to the bond strength, i.e. the stress at which the bond failed. The
second peak, which occurred after the bond had failed, is mainly due to friction. This
 1.0 0.4
Bond failure Peak shear strength = bond strength + friction
0.8 Peak shear strength = bond strength
0.3
Shear stress (MPa)

0.6

Shear stress (MPa)

0.2
0.4

0.2 0.1
Secondary peak mainly
due to friction Sample #36: Shotcrete-trachyte joint
0.0
Normal stress = 0.23 MPa
0.0
-0.2 Sample #62: Shotcrete-magnetite joint
Normal stress = 0.54 MPa
-0.4 -0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 (a) Typical test result for a joint with good adhesion.
(b) Typical test result for a joint with either poor adhesion or joint tested at higher normal stress.

peak was used to determine the peak friction angle. The residual strength corresponds to
the residual value registered in the shearing of the unbonded joint. The two-stage
phenomenon of Fig. 4 (a) was mainly due to the low shear displacement rate and the
low normal loads used.
Fig. 4 (b) represents the result of joints with either poor adhesion or joints being tested
at higher normal stress. In this case the peak shear strength is affected by both the
strength of the bond and the surface roughness. There were no indications of bond
failure on the stress–displacement plot for such cases. Conversely, bond fractures were
noted and recorded by visual and audible observations during the tests. Luckily most of
the bonds snapped with audible bangs, but whether these bangs truly indicate full
fracture or just partial fracture were difficult to verify. Interfaces that lost their bonds
during initial application of normal loads were treated as having zero bond strength.

4.1.2 Test results for shotcrete/rock joints with JRC=1-3

The test results showed that the shotcrete/trachyte and shotcrete/magnetite joints with
JRC values of 1 to 3 could be combined since the results were similar. The peak shear
stresses at which the bonds failed are referred to as ‘bond strengths’, to differentiate
from ‘adhesion strengths’ obtained from tensile test. Procedures described in the
preceding section were used to obtain the peak shear and residual strengths. The shear
stiffness (Ks) values were determined from the tangent at 50% of the peak shear strength
on the stress-displacement graph.
Fig. 5 (a) shows the peak shear strength plot for the interfaces. In this figure distinction
is made between peak shear strengths corresponding to bond strengths from those
resulting from combination of bond strength and friction. Although a linear fit could
approximate the peak shear strengths, this could not be done because the mechanisms
 responsible for the peak values are different. As it can be seen, at normal stresses less
than 1.0 MPa the shear strength is mainly determined by the bond strength and beyond
1.0 MPa it is determined by a combination of bond strength and friction. It is the shear
strength at normal stresses less than 1.0 MPa that is of interest to this study because it
has practical significance to shotcrete when it used as surface rock support. In most
practical cases where shotcrete is used with rock bolts, the usual or perhaps the
maximum normal load seldom exceeds 0.2 to 0.5 MPa. Therefore, the shear strengths at
normal stresses less than 1.0 MPa are isolated and plotted in Fig. 5 (b). Those shear
strengths that resulted from the combination of bond strength and friction are omitted so
that the significance of the bond strengths can be made clear and also the failure
mechanisms involved for these cases were quite complex, which will be discussed later.
Thus, Fig. 5 (b) shows that at genuinely cemented shotcrete/rock interfaces the bond
strength effectively determines the shear strength of the interface under the normal loads
experienced in practical cases. There is a notable scatter of the bond strengths, which
obviously reflects the variation in the quality of adhesion between the shotcrete and the
rock. However, an average can be taken. This average is equal to 0.51 MPa, which can
also be considered as the cohesive strength of the interface.
Fig. 5 (c) shows the plot of residual stresses, which were obtained as described in the
preceding section. The residual friction angle determined from this figure is 35.4o. The
peak friction angle determined by using the secondary peaks, which occurred after the
bonds had failed, see Fig. 4 (a), is 40.0o.
Fig.5 (d) shows the plot of the stiffness. As noted earlier the stiffness values were
determined from the tangents at 50% of the peak shear strength, in this case the bond
strengths. There is no relationship between the stiffness and the normal stress, therefore
an average stiffness value of 1.0 MPa/mm was obtained for these interfaces for the
given normal stress range.

3.0 1.0
peak shear strength = bond strength
peak shear strength = bond strength + friction
2.5
Shear strength, Tau, (MPa)
Shear strength, Tau, (MPa)

0.8

2.0
0.6
1.5
0.4
1.0

0.2
0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa) Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa)
(a) (b)
Fig. 5 (a) Peak shear strength plot for shotcrete/rock interfaces with JRC=1-3.
(b) Bond strength plot for shotcrete/rock interfaces for normal stresses less than 1.0 MPa, JRC=1-3.
 3.0 3.0
Residual strength, R_Tau, (MPa)

Shear stiffness, Ks, (MPa/mm)

2.5 2.5
R_Tau = 0.71*σn
2.0 R2 = 0.98 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa) Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa)
(c) (d)
Fig. 5 (c) Residual stress plot for shotcrete/rock interfaces with JRC=1-3.
(d) Shear stiffness plot for shotcrete/rock interfaces with JRC=1-3.

4.1.3 Test results for shotcrete/rock joints with JRC=9-13

Strength plots for shotcrete/rock joints (this group was mainly shotcrete/trachyte) with
JRC of 9 to 13 are shown in Figs. 6 (a) to 6 (c). As before a distinction is made between
the peak shear strengths corresponding to bond strengths from those corresponding to
combination of bond strength and frictional effects, see Fig. 6 (a). In Fig. 6 (b) the shear
strengths corresponding to the bond strengths for normal stresses less than 1.0 MPa are
shown. Given the scatter of the data an average value is obtained for the bond strengths.
This average is 1.37 MPa and can also be considered as the cohesive strength of
shotcrete/rock interfaces with JRC values of 9 to 13. The average bond strength for this
group of interfaces is quite high compared to the interfaces with JRC of 1 to 3. It
appeared that the bond strengths attained for the interfaces with JRC of 9 to 13 were the
result of a complex failure mechanism. For this interface group, the bond strengths were
most probably attained as a consequence of simultaneous failure of the bond and the
shotcrete asperities. This observation was further supported by after-test shear surface
evaluation. It was seen that the shotcrete asperities within the ‘rock valleys’ were often
cleanly sheared perhaps simultaneous with bond failure. Then when sliding began the
shotcrete surfaces were further crushed and polished at the points of full contact
between shotcrete and rock asperities. Besides this observation three interfaces showed
no residual strength after attaining secondary peak (Fig. 4 (a)).
Fig. 6 (c) shows the residual stress plot. Using this figure the residual friction angle
determined is 39.0o. The peak friction angle determined in the same way as for
interfaces with JRC=1-3 was found to be 47.2o. Fig. 6 (d) shows the stiffness for the
interfaces whose shear strength corresponded to the bond strength. Again no trend is
seen and therefore an average stiffness of 2.0 MPa/mm is obtained.
 2.5 2.5
peak shear strength = bond strength + friction
peak shear strength = bond strength
Shear strength, Tau, (MPa)

Shear strength, Tau, (MPa)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa) Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa)

(a) (b)
Fig. 6 (a) Peak shear strength plot for shotcrete/trachyte joints with JRC=9-13.
(b) Bond strength for shotcrete/rock interfaces for normal stresses less than 1.0 MPa, JRC=9-13.

1.2 4
Residual shear strength, R_Tau, (MPa)

Shear stress, Ks, (MPa/mm)

1.0
3
0.8

0.6 2

0.4
1
R_Tau = 0.81σn+0.08
0.2
R2=0.84

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa) Normal stress, Sigma_N, (MPa)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6 (c) Residual stress plot for shotcrete/rock joints with JRC=9-13.
(d) Shear stiffness plot for shotcrete/rock joints with JRC=9-13.

4.1.4 After-test surface assessment

After each test the shear surfaces were assessed for distinguished shearing patterns. The
general observations can be summarized as follows:
1. For shotcrete/magnetite interfaces shearing mainly occurred on magnetite surface as
evidenced by frequent plugging, chipping and crushing of the magnetite surface.
2. For the shotcrete/trachyte joints shearing was mainly clean and frequently occurred
along the interface without significant chipping of the rock surface as in magnetite.
3. Asperity over-ridding was quite obvious for shotcrete/trachyte joints with JRC of 9
to 13. Frequent polishing of shotcrete surfaces were observed in areas of full contact
between shotcrete and rock asperities. Remnants of cleanly sheared shotcrete
asperities, often clued to the rock surface, were occasionally found in rock valleys.
4. Ripping through natural flaws in both trachyte and magnetite were significant in the
cases where steel fibres penetrated the flaws.
5. Steel fibre effects were clearly marked by considerable scratching, peeling and
sometimes plugging of rock surfaces, which appeared to depend on rock surface
hardness and the inclination of the steel fibres with respect to the sliding plane. The
steel fibres angled vertical to subvertical in the direction of sliding appeared to have
pronounced effect during sliding.

4. 2 Joint tensile test results

The stress at which the shotcrete/rock interface came apart was identified as the
adhesion strength of the interface. Of the 7 samples tested average adhesion strength of
0.58 MPa was obtained. The joint tensile stiffness, Kt, determined from tangents at 50%
of the peak stress on stress-displacement plot is 248.4 MPa/mm.

4.3 Joint compression test results

The average joint compressive strength (JCS) obtained from testing 4 shotcrete/rock
joints (2 shotcrete/trachyte and 2 shotcrete/magnetite) is 16.0 MPa. This value is nearly
one third of shotcrete’s compressive strength (see section 4.4). The JCS was determined
as the stress corresponding to maximum joint closure. The average joint normal
stiffness, Kn, determined from the tangents at 50% of the JCS is 288.1 MPa/mm.

4.4 Shotcrete compression test results

An average uniaxial compressive strength of 56.3 MPa was obtained for shotcrete. This
value was obtained after correcting the observed compressive strengths according to
Svensk Standard SS 13 72 07 for the variations in length/diamater ratio and the age of
shotcrete, which was 50 days in average.

5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

To assist in the discussion of the shotcrete/rock interface strength and its mechanical
properties the test results are summarized in Table 2.
In most practical cases where shotcrete is used with rock bolts the normal load on
shotcrete lining rarely exceeds 0.2 - 0.5 MPa. For such normal loads the shear strength
has been shown to be determined by the bond strength, which is essentially the cohesive
 Table 2. Summary of strength properties for shotcrete/rock interfaces.
Parameter Value for JRC=1-3 Value for JRC=9-13
Joint cohesion, c 0.51 MPa 1.37 MPa
Joint adhesion strength 0.58 MPa –
Joint compressive strength, JCS 16.0 MPa –
Joint shear stiffness, Ks 1.0 GPa/m –
Joint normal stiffness, Kn, (by compression) 288.1 GPa/m –
Joint tensile stiffness, Kt 248.4 GPa/m –
Joint friction angles: Фp (peak) 38.7o 47.7o
Фr (residual) 35.4o 39.0o

strength of the interface. From Table 2 the cohesive strength of the interfaces with JRC
of 9 to 13 is more than 2.5 times the cohesive strength of the interfaces with JRC of 1 to
3. This is most probably attributed to the failure mechanism that occurred in attaining
the peak strength for interfaces with higher JRC values. After-test surface examination
and the lack of residual strengths observed from some of interfaces tested suggest that, a
simultaneous failure of the cementing and the shotcrete asperities may have resulted in
the high bond strengths obtained. This complex failure mechanism was not seen or for
that matter negligible for interfaces with JRC values of 1 to 3. In that case the cohesive
strength may give a fair approximation of the adhesion strength. From Table 2 the
magnitudes of the bond and the adhesion strengths are in principal the same for the
interfaces with JRC of 1 to 3.
Although the shear strength at normal stress greater than 1.0 MPa may not have any
practical significance the implication is clear. It is seen that friction immediately
dominates as soon as it comes into effect, making the bond strength less significant at
high normal stresses. As seen in Fig. 5 (a) this results in an impression that the peak
shear strengths could easily be approximated with a straight line, thus masking the
significance of cohesion unless separated. Perhaps the most serious consequence is that
the true cohesion can be considerably underestimated.
Another significant factor on the frictional component is the work of the steel fibres,
which may need further study in the future. It was evident that the higher friction angles
obtained for the interfaces were mainly attributed to the considerable amount of traction
caused by steel fibres during sliding, which were more pronounced for interfaces having
higher JRC values. In some cases steel fibres implanted inside rock flaws caused
occasional localized ripping. The rock surface hardness and cleavage (in particular to
magnetite) may also be factors affecting the different intensity of surface damage
observed on the two rock types caused by the steel fibres.
To be consistent the stiffness values were determined from the tangents at 50% of the
peak values on stress-displacement plot. These values are fairly high for the interfaces
tested. The shear stiffness, Ks, is especially significant because it is essentially the
stiffness of the bond. The normal stiffness, Kn and Kt, are in principal the same.
6 REFERENCES
Barton N. 1988. Project OSCAR –LKAB/LuTH, Estimation of shear strength parameters for
mine design studies. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Report No. 87659-1.
Cater J.P & Ooi.L.H. 1988. Application of joint model to concrete-sandstone interfaces. In
Swoboda (ed.), Numerical Methods in Geomechanics: 889-893. Rotterdam Balkema.
Changwoo H., Seokwon, J., Sanghyuck, B., & Jungseok, Y. 2002. Shear deformation and
failure characteristics of rock-concrete interfaces. In Hammah et al (eds), Proc. 5th NARTM
and 17th TAC, 721-725. University of Toronto
Fernandez-Delgado G., Mahar J.W. & Parker H.W. 1976. Structural behavior of thin shotcrete
layers obtained from large scale tests. Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation
Conference, Shotcrete for Ground Support. Tidewater Inn Easton, Maryland, USA. 339-442
Johnston I.W. & Lam T.S.K. 1984. Frictional characteristics of planar concrete-rock interfaces
under constant normal stiffness condition. Proc. 4th ANZ Conf. on Geomechanics, Perth: 2,
105-108
Holmgren J. 1979. Shotcrete, Punch-loaded shotcrete linings on hard rock, PhD dissertation.
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish Rock Engineering
Research Foundation – BeFo report No. 7:2/79.
Kodikara J.K. & Johnston I.W. 1994. Shear Behaviour of Irregular Triangular Rock-Concrete
Joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 313-322.
Malmgren L. 2001. Shotcrete Rock Support Exposed to Varying Load Conditions – Licentiate
Thesis. Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Svensk Standard SS 13 72 07 Concrete testing – Hardened concrete – Compressive strength-
Conversion factors. 1988. In Swedish.