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

net/publication/237381134

Design implications of analytical and laboratory studies of permanent

abandonment plugs

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 1999

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-36-1-21

CITATIONS READS
17 125

2 authors:

Haluk Akgun Jaak Daemen

Middle East Technical University University of Nevada, Reno
136 PUBLICATIONS   534 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   1,059 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Determination of the Dynamic Characteristics and Local Site Conditions of the Plio-Quarternary Sediments Situated Towards the North-Northeast of Ankara Through
Surface Wave Testing Methods. Project No. BAP-2007-03-09-04 View project

Seismic Modeling and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Marmara Sea and the Adapazarı Region upon Preparation of an Earthquake Catalog of the Region
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haluk Akgun on 25 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 21

Design implications of analytical and laboratory

studies of permanent abandonment plugs
Haluk Akgün and Jaak J.K. Daemen

Abstract: We analyze analytically and numerically the stress distribution along the plug–rock interface and within an
axially loaded plug emplaced in a borehole in rock. Experiments show that the interface strength increases with
decreasing plug radius and with increasing plug length. Axial strength decreases as a power law of plug radius. An
increase in the modulus ratio (ratio of plug modulus to rock modulus) increases the interface strength, until it levels
off at a ratio of about 5.0. For short plugs, the tensile stresses may reach a magnitude significant to be of concern for
long-term stability of the plug and of the host rock. Our studies suggest designing friction plugs with a length to
radius ratio of at least 8.0. In practice, especially for short-term performance, e.g., emergency flood control or
temporary diversions, a ratio of 8.0 may not be necessary or justified. For permanent abandonment plugs, it is essential
to reduce the tensile stresses in the plug and in the host rock to a level that will minimize the risk of long-term
deterioration. We recommend in situ experiments on larger diameter plugs to assess the validity of the proposed size
effect extrapolation obtained in this study.

Key words: borehole plugging (sealing), shaft seal design, plug–rock interface strength, axial strength, bond strength,
cement grout.

Résumé : L’on analyse de façon analytique et numérique la distribution des contraintes le long de l’interface bouchon–
roc et à l’intérieur d’un bouchon chargé axialement installé dans une forage dans le roc. Des expériences démontrent
que la résistance de l’interface augmente avec la diminution du rayon du bouchon et avec l’augmentation de sa
longueur. La résistance axiale décroît selon une loi exponentielle du rayon du bouchon. Une augmentation du rapport
des modules (rapport du module du bouchon au module du roc) accroît la résistance de l’interface jusqu’à ce qu’elle se
stabilise à un rapport de 5,0. Pour les bouchons courts, les contraintes de traction peuvent atteindre une grandeur
significative qui peut être la source d’inquiétudes quant à la stabilité à long terme du bouchon ou du roc récepteur.
Nos études suggèrent que les bouchons à frottement devraient être conçus avec un rapport de la longueur sur le rayon
d’au moins 8,0. En pratique, particulièrement pour la performance à court terme, comme par exemple pour les
ouvrages de contrôle d’urgence de crues ou les dérivations temporaires, un rapport de 8,0 peut être nécessaire ou
justifié. Pour les bouchons de fermeture permanente, il est essentiel de réduire les contraintes de traction dans le
bouchon et dans le roc récepteur jusqu’à un niveau qui va minimiser le risque de détérioration à long terme. L’on
recommande de réaliser des expériences in situ sur des bouchons de plus grands diamètres pour évaluer la validité de
l’extrapolation de l’effet de dimension proposée dans cette étude.

Mots clés : bouchage (scellage) des forages, conception de scellage de forages, résistance de l’interface bouchon–roc,
résistance axiale, résistance du lien, coulis de ciment.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Akgün and Daemen 38

Sealing of boreholes, shafts, mine drifts, and tunnels may
be required for a variety of reasons. Penetrations of and near
a high-level nuclear waste repository need to be plugged re-
liably to retard any radionuclide migration to the accessible
environment. Sealing may prove necessary to prevent flood-
ing of underground operations. Sealing of diversion tunnels
is often required on hydroelectric projects (e.g., Moller et al.
1984; Pettman 1984). Sealing of mine openings is a growing
concern in order to control mine effluents (e.g., Mining
Received April 6, 1998. Accepted August 20, 1998.
H. Akgün. Department of Geological Engineering, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey.
J.J.K. Daemen. Mining Engineering Department, Mackay
School of Mines, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nevada
89557-0139, U.S.A.
Can. Geotech. J. 36: 21–38 (1999)
Waste Study Team 1988; Einarson and Abel 1990). The in-
creasing conviction that boreholes often need to be sealed,
and sealed reliably, in order to prevent groundwater contam-
ination is expressed by the fact that the Transportation Re-
search Board devoted a considerable fraction of its 1991
meeting to the sealing of geotechnical exploratory holes
(Transportation Research Board 1991). The most extensive
practice, experience, and investigations of borehole sealing
have been developed in the oil and gas industry (e.g.,
Halliburton Services. Undated. Cement plug studies.
Halliburton Cement, Halliburton Services, A Halliburton
Company, Houston, Tex.).
Axial loads on plugs or seals may be due to water, drilling
mud, gas, or backfill pressures. Axial loads induce shear
stresses along the contact between plug and host rock. These
shear stresses may cause cracking and increased permeabil-
ity along the plug–rock interface. Under extreme conditions,
they could cause dislodging or slipping of plugs. Therefore,
© 1999 NRC Canada
22
the interface between the plug and rock is a critical element
for the design and effectiveness of plugs in boreholes,
shafts, or tunnels.
The objective of this study is to determine the interface
strength and the shear stress distribution along cement grout
borehole plugs in rock cores. An additional objective is to
evaluate the interface strength as a function of borehole ra-
dius and of plug length and to discuss the effects of lateral
stress (confining pressure) on plug performance. The inter-
face strength and shear stress along the interface are studied
analytically and experimentally through the push-out test.
The push-out test uses a steel rod to dislodge a cement grout
plug emplaced within the coaxial borehole of a hollow rock
cylinder.
A borehole plug problem is quite similar to other inclu-
sion problems, e.g., rock-socketed piers (Ladanyi 1982). The
materials are similar and both systems are loaded in com-
pression. Like piles in soil, rock-socketed piers transmit load
via two mechanisms, end bearing and side friction. Ladanyi
and Domingue (1980) stated that under normal working
loads, the majority of the load is transferred by the side fric-
tion. Rowe and Pells (1980) stated “most of the available in-
formation does not adequately indicate the consequences
and likelihood of shear slip at the interface.”
It appears that a borehole plug system presents a some-
what different interaction configuration than rock-socketed
piers. Most of the studies on rock-socketed piers were done
in rock that has both a Young’s modulus and a compressive
strength lower than those of the concrete, which is not the
case for a borehole plug–rock system. There has been much
interest on this topic, primarily in Australia. Various tests
have been performed to gain information about the side fric-
tion of rock-socketed piers. In order to study the side resis-
tance developed independently of end bearing effects, test
piers were set with polystyrene plugs beneath them. These
plugs were capable of supporting the weight of the fresh
concrete, but compressed substantially under imposed loads
so that the skin friction was fully mobilized (Thorne 1980).
Others had instrumented piers with strain gages to determine
the strain (and hence, shear stress) distribution along the
pier–rock interface (Bauer 1980; Williams et al. 1980). Pells
et al. (1980) and Williams et al. (1980) performed “side
shear socket” tests (sockets where end bearing resistance has
been eliminated) in Hawkesbury sandstone and Melbourne
mudstone, respectively. These tests were quite similar to the
push-out tests reported herein. The authors termed the tests
“disappointing” in the sense that they showed wide scatter
of results even for a particular rock type. The shaft resis-
tance in these studies has generally been assumed uniform
or simplistically formulated as a function of the uniaxial
compressive strength of the inclusion or concrete (e.g.,
Coates 1981; Thorne 1980; Goodman 1989) or that of the
host rock (e.g., Horvath et al. 1980; Williams and Pells
1981; Rowe and Armitage 1987b; Fleming et al. 1992; Wyl-
lie 1992) as the governing variable. The fact that there are so
many different formulations developed suggest that none of
them are accepted very widely or universally.
Extrapolation of the results obtained from test sockets to
full-size sockets leads to a scaling factor of up to 300, but
such large-scaling problems do not exist for borehole plugs,
even the largest ones. Moreover, since the dimensions of the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
socket and borehole plug systems differ by a factor of up to
300, the solutions and observations on rock-socketed piers
cannot be extrapolated to the plug–rock system without cau-
tion. Nevertheless, the determination of the interaction vari-
ables and approaches in rock-socketed piers aids in
understanding the mechanical interaction of a plug–rock sys-
tem but suggests that borehole plugs present a unique prob-
lem and require testing of their own in order to assess their
mechanical interaction.
In this research, it is assumed that the external boundary
in situ stress state at the plug–rock location will not change
significantly after the plug has been emplaced. It would be
expected that abandonment plugs for most boreholes and for
many shafts, adits, drifts, and tunnels would not be affected
by major postemplacement stress changes. The fact that no
significant postemplacement in situ stress field changes are
likely would seem obvious, for example for exploratory
holes, most of which are drilled in areas that will never turn
out to be profitable for mining, yet need to be sealed. If any
external stress changes take place or are induced, as a result
of either ongoing tectonic changes or excavating near
plugged borehole or excavation sections, a more comprehen-
sive analysis may be required. Such an analysis would need
to address the interface, plug, and host rock stress changes
caused by variations in the external stress field. In case any
external stress changes tend to increase compression across
the seal–rock interface, presumably the frictional bond
strength will increase, at least up to the point where the seal
material strength is exceeded. Conversely, if induced stress
changes decrease the compressive stresses across the seal–
rock interface, the strength is likely to be reduced, and even
more so if the interface stresses were to become tensile. Ma-
jor abandonment borehole seals preferably, i.e., if at all pos-
sible, should be placed in locations where they are not likely
to be affected by future stress changes. This is one of the
major requirements for borehole plug design.
The work being reported on in the remainder of the paper
consists of an analytical model, finite element analysis,
push-out tests, analysis of plug–rock mechanical interac-
tions, design implications, and recommendations for future
research.
Introduction
Rock-socketed piers, piles, reinforced concrete, rock
bolts, and composite materials are mechanistically similar to
an axially stressed borehole plug. In all structures of these
types, the applied axial stress is transferred from the inclu-
sion to the host or vice versa in the form of shear stresses
along the interface. The conceptual model for the analytical
solution considered to derive the theoretical stress distribu-
tion along an axially stressed borehole plug is presented in
Fig. 1. The axial coordinate z equals zero at the initial posi-
tion of the loaded end of the plug and is equal to the plug
length, L, at the plug bottom. The rock cylinder has an inter-
nal radius a and an external radius R. We assume that the ax-
ial rock displacement is negligible at a radius rc from the
plug center. The conceptual model is based on the stress dis-
tribution in element ABCD of thickness dz. As an axial
stress σzo is applied to the plug, load transfer occurs through
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen 23

shear stresses, τ, along the interface between plug and rock. Fig. 1. Conceptual model for the analytical solution used to
This results in differential compression of the plug leading develop the theoretical stress distribution for a borehole plug–
to an axial plug displacement wpo at the loaded end of the rock system.
plug and wpz at a distance z from the initial location of the
loaded end of the plug. Sign conventions used are those
where compressive stresses and displacements in the nega-
tive directions of the axes are reckoned positive.
The potential sources of axial loads on plugs, the range of
expected stress magnitudes, and the failure modes are all el-
ements of the conceptual model for the analytical solution.
The most likely source of axial loading on plugs is hydro-
static pressure due to a water column. Under some ground-
water conditions the pressure could act from below the plug
as a result of groundwater pressures. Under some field situa-
tions the pressure could be a gas pressure. Some borehole
plugs may have to carry the weight of a column of drilling
mud. Especially for plugs in vertical shafts, axial loads may
be exerted by shaft backfill.
If the depth at which a plug is to be installed is known, an
estimate of the maximum axial stresses that might be im-
posed on the plug can be determined from the height of the
maximum water column or, where appropriate, the maxi-
mum height of a drilling mud column that might exist on top
of the plug. Depending on the hydrologic environment
within which the plug is emplaced, it is possible that fluid,
liquid, or gas pressures might develop on either or both sides
of a plug. For boreholes, shafts, or tunnels in which more
complex sealing systems are emplaced, it may be necessary
to account for other axial stress components. For example,
where bentonite seals are emplaced in contact or nearly so
with cementitious or concrete plugs, it may be necessary to
estimate swelling pressures that might load the plugs. For
borehole or shaft plugs where backfill (e.g., loose sand,
gravel, or crushed rock) is emplaced on top of the plug, it dσ z 2
[1] =− τ
would be necessary to estimate how much of the backfill dz a
weight is transferred to the plug.
Within the context of the present paper, plug failure refers where dσz is the axial stress increment over diametral plug
to the debonding and slipping of a plug along the borehole slice ABCD of thickness dz, a is plug radius, and τ is shear
within which the plug is emplaced. All indications are that stress along the plug–rock interface.
for the materials (cement and host tuff rock) tested here, no If the deformations are elastic, from Hooke’s law, the ver-
chemical bond develops between plug and host rock. Hence, tical strain (ε z) in the axially stressed plug is
plug failure in this context refers essentially to the frictional σ z − v p(σr + σθ)
sliding of the plug along the borehole walls. We recognize [2] εz =
that in a broader context the term “plug failure” could have Ep
different implications. In many plugging situations, the pri-
mary functional requirement for a plug is to constrain fluid where σz is the axial stress at any point z along the plug, σr
flow. Under such situations, plug failure might refer to a is radial stress in the plug, σθ is tangential stress in the plug,
condition where excessive fluid flow is allowed along the and Ep is Young’s modulus and νp is Poisson’s ratio of the
plugged section. Such a failure could refer to excessively plug.
high permeability in the plug itself, along the plug–rock in- Since the model is axisymmetric, the radial strain in an
terface, or in the host rock adjacent to the plug. Because of axially stressed plug equals the tangential strain and σr = σθ.
the sensitivity of the rock (especially jointed rock) and of Thus, from Hooke’s law, the radial displacement (up) in the
cementitious plugs to tensile stresses with regard to leading plug at the plug–rock interface is
to preferential pathways as a result of increased permeabil- (1 − νp)σr − νpσ z 
ity, considerable attention is devoted in the subsequent anal- [3] up =  a
yses to conditions that induce tension anywhere in the seal  Ep 
region.
The radial displacement (ur) in a hollow rock cylinder
Basic equations with an internal radius a and external radius R, subjected to
Considering the equilibrium of the diametral plug slice a radial internal stress σr at the internal radius a, for a plane
ABCD in Fig. 1 yields strain configuration is given by (Jaeger and Cook 1979)

© 1999 NRC Canada

24 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

σr (1 + νr )a The critical radius can be expressed as a function of the

[4] ur = − [(1 − 2νr )a 2 + R2 ]
Er (R2 − a 2 ) modulus ratio (Ep/Er) and plug length to radius ratio (L/a) in
the form of an exponential interpolation as
where Er isYoung’s modulus and νr is Poisson’s ratio of the
rock. [12] . + [2.07e−018
rc a = 10 . ( Ep Er )
]L a
A compressive axial stress applied to the plug generates a Equation [12] is a best fit to calculations from the finite
radial (normal) stress along the plug–rock contact and an element model and is valid for a plug length to radius ratio
outward radial displacement of the plug. The normal stress range of 2.0–8.0 and a modulus ratio range of 0.10–10 and
along the interface is proportional to the axial stress applied for similar plug and rock Poisson’s ratios (i.e., νp ≈ νr). The
to the plug. The radial contact stress (σr) can be determined determination of the critical radius is discussed in the next
by equating the plug and rock radial displacements along the section.
interface. Equating eq. [3] to eq. [4] yields Substituting eq. [11] into eq. [10] leads to a differential
[5] σr = equation for the axial plug displacement w:
d2w
νp[1 − (a R) 2 ] [13] − α 2w = 0
σz dz 2
(1 − νp)[1 − (a R) 2 ] + ( Ep Er ) (1 + νr )[(1 − 2νr ) (a R) 2 + 1]
where
1 − 2νp(VSF)
The relationships between σr and σz can thus be written as [14] α2 =
(1 + νr )( Ep Er )a 2 ln(rc a)
[6] σr = σ z(VSF)
The general solution of the differential eq. [13] is
where VSF is the vertical stress function given by eq. [5].
Substituting R→ ∞ into eq. [5] leads to the solution of the [15] w = Aeαz + Be− αz
radial stress (σri) along the plug–rock contact for the case of
Substituting eq. [15] into eq. [9] and introducing the
an infinite rock mass as
boundary conditions (i.e., at z = 0, σz = σzo and at z = L, σz =
νp 0) leads to the evaluation of the integration constants A and
[7] σri = σ z B. Substituting the integration constants A and B back into
(1 − νp) + ( Ep Er ) (1 + νr )
eq. [15] leads to the solution of the axial plug displacement
or (w):
σ zo[1 − 2νp(VSF)] cosh[α(L − z)]
[8] σri = σ z(VSFI) [16] w =−
Epα sinh(αL)
where VSFI is the vertical stress function for an infinite rock
mass given by eq. [7]. Substituting eq. [16] into eq. [11] gives the shear stress
Substituting eq. [6] into eq. [2] and solving for σ z (noting distribution along the interface (τ):
that σr = σθ and ⑀z = dw/dz) leads to σ zoα a cosh[α(L − z)]
[17] τ=
Ep dw 2 sinh(αL)
[9] σz =
[1 − 2νp(VSF)] dz
It follows from eq. [17] that the peak interface shear stress
(τp) occurs at the loaded end of the plug–rock interface (i.e.,
where w is the vertical plug displacement due to an applied at z = 0). The peak interface shear stress can thus be ex-
axial stress. pressed as
Combining eqs. [1] and [9] yields
σ zoα a
 2[1 − 2νp(VSF)] [18] τp =
d2w 2tanh(αL)
[10] = −  τ
dz 2  aEp  The axial stress distribution in the plug (σz) can be calcu-
lated by substituting eq. [17] into eq. [1] and integrating
Assuming that the vertical stress and vertical displace-
from the loaded end of the plug (z = 0) to the bottom of the
ment in rock are negligible at a radius rc from the plug cen-
plug (z = L):
ter, the relationship between the interface shear stress (τ) and
axial plug displacement (w) is given by Akgün and Daemen sinh[α(L − z)]
[19] σ z = σ zo
(1991) as sinh(αL)
wEr
[11] τ=−
2(1 + νr )a ln(rc a) The radial stress distribution along the interface (σr) can
be calculated by substituting eq. [19] into eq. [6]:
where rc is the critical radius beyond which the shear
sinh[α(L − z)]
stresses and axial displacements in the rock are considered [20] σr = σ zo(VSF)
negligible. sinh(αL)

© 1999 NRC Canada

Akgün and Daemen 25

where VSF is the vertical stress function given by eq. [6] Fig. 2. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions for a
and α is a function given by eq. [14]. laboratory-size push-out specimen. Note that the mesh shown is
The average shear stress along the plug–rock interface only the central part of the mesh used to model a plugged
(τav) can be expressed as cylinder with an outside to inside radius ratio of 60.

σ zoa
[21] τav =
2L

Equation [21] may also be obtained from eq. [17] by tak-

ing the limit when the Young’s modulus of the plug (Ep)
tends to infinity. Hence, neglecting end effects, the average
shear stress distribution should only be used for rigid bore-
hole plugs when Ep/Er > > 1.0.

Introduction
The main objective of the finite element analysis is to
study the detailed stress distribution within and in the vicin-
ity of an axially stressed borehole plug. A secondary objec-
tive is to assess the validity of the analytical solution
presented in the previous section. In order to verify the ana-
lytical solution, the results of the finite element analysis are
compared with those of the analytical solution as a function
of Young’s modulus ratio of plug and rock and plug length
to radius ratio.
An axisymmetric finite element program, PLANE-2DFE,
is used to determine the stress distribution within an axially
stressed push-out specimen. The finite element analysis sim-
ulates a two-material push-out test on an elastic material
with an applied axial plug stress of 1.0 MPa. Desai and Abel
(1972) gave the finite element formulation for the four-node
isoparametric axisymmetric elements used in this analysis.
Figure 2 gives the finite element mesh and boundary con-
ditions for a plugged cylinder with an outside to inside ra-
dius ratio of 6.0 and plug length to radius ratio of 2.0. The
finite element model which is representative of a laboratory-
size push-out sample is designed for a 76.2 mm radius rock
cylinder, 127 mm long, and with a 12.7 mm radius coaxial
hole. The cement grout plug is centered halfway down the
hole and has a length to radius ratio of 2.0. The mesh con-
sists of 256 elements and 295 nodal points. The mesh shown Determination of the critical radius
in Fig. 2 is only the central part of the mesh used to model a One objective of the finite element analysis is to deter-
plugged cylinder with an outside to inside radius ratio of 60. mine the critical radius (rc, eq. [12]) beyond which shear
Akgün and Daemen (1991) gave the finite element mesh and stresses within the rock may be considered negligible. We
boundary conditions for plugged rock cylinders with outside consider shear stresses within the rock negligible when they
to inside radius ratios of 60 and plug length to radius ratios are equal to or less than 0.10% of the axial stress applied to
of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0, respectively. The objective of using a ra- the borehole plug.
dius ratio of 60 is to simulate an in situ rock mass. Randolph The objective of determining the critical radius is to ob-
and Wroth (1978) proposed the use of a radius ratio of 50 tain a more exact solution for the peak shear stresses given
for simulating an in situ rock mass. by eq. [18]. Randolph and Wroth (1978) also proposed the
The method of measurement and test procedure for mea- use of a critical radius. Using an infinite outside core radius
suring the Young’s moduli and Poisson’s ratios of the rock (R = ∞) rather than the critical radius rc in eq. [18] to ana-
and Self-Stress II cement grout are presented in the next lyze a borehole plug emplaced in an infinite medium results
section. The push-out specimens tested in this study have a in reduced peak shear stresses. The difference ranges from
modulus ratio (Ep/Er) of 0.233. Later discussions that com- 13.2 to 36.5% for modulus ratio ranges of 0.10–10, for plug
pare the results of the finite element analysis with those of length to radius ratios of 2.0–8.0, and for Poisson’s ratio of
the closed-form solution involve modulus ratios from 0.10 to the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. The lower
10 and Poisson’s ratio of the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20, bound of the difference is observed in plugs with a modulus
respectively. ratio of 0.1 and plug length to radius ratio of 2.0. The higher

© 1999 NRC Canada

26
Fig. 3. Best fit curve for the critical radius starting from the
plug–rock interface per unit plug length ((rc – a)/L) as a function
of modulus ratio (Ep/Er). r2 is the coefficient of determination.
bound is observed in plugs with a modulus ratio of 5.0 and
plug length to radius ratio of 2.0.
The finite element analysis provides the shear stresses
within the rock section at a level just below the loaded end
of the plug–rock interface. The hatched area in Fig. 2 shows
the location of this particular rock section. The critical ra-
dius at this rock section is studied as a function of modulus
ratio and plug length to radius ratio. The results of the analy-
sis show that the critical radius increases with decreasing
modulus ratio and with increasing plug length. Equation [12]
represents a best fit curve for the critical radius, starting
from the plug–rock interface, as a fraction of the plug length
(i.e., (rc – a)/L versus modulus ratio (Ep/Er)). Figure 3 shows
the best fit curve for eq. [12].
Experimental procedure
Figure 4 shows the push-out test arrangement. A steel
loading cylinder applies an axial load to a neat cement grout
plug installed in a tuff cylinder. The LVDT and dial gage
that measure the vertical displacement of the top of the plug
are mounted on horizontal arms connected to the loading
cylinder. The top LVDT and dial gage displacement moni-
toring points rest on horizontal brackets clamped to fixed
vertical reference rods. The square steel plate underneath the
sample has a slit on one side to allow the downward move-
ment of the horizontal arm of the bottom vertical displace-
ment monitoring assembly. A vertical rod, screwed into the
bottom of the cement plug, is connected to the horizontal
arm that supports the bottom LVDT and dial gage monitor-
ing points for bottom plug displacement measurements. The
bottom LVDT and dial gage are clamped to fixed vertical
reference rods.
The expandable cement grout formulation was Self-Stress
II cement grout. Cement grout mixing was performed ac-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
cording to American Petroleum Institute specifications, API
standard No. RP-10B (American Petroleum Institute 1986).
The plugs were cured under distilled water for 8 days prior
to testing.
The tuff cylinders tested had inside radii of 6.35 mm (0.25
in.), 12.7 mm (0.5 in.), 25.4 mm (1 in.), and 50.8 mm (2 in.),
outside radii ranging from 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) to 93.7 mm
(3.69 in.), and lengths ranging from 71.6 mm (2.82 in.) to
206.4 mm (8.13 in.). The tuff cores were plugged with
nearly centered Self-Stress II cement grout plugs having
length to radius ratios ranging from approximately 2.0 to
8.0. Table 1 gives the dimensions of the Apache Leap tuff
cylinders used for push-out tests along with the applied axial
stresses at failure.
The cement grout plugs were loaded in increments of
4448 N (1000 lbf) until the plugs slipped (failed). Each load
increment was maintained approximately constant for 2 min.
The load and displacements were recorded every 30 s until
failure. Upon failure, they were recorded in 15 s increments.
Mechanical properties of push-out samples
Self-Stress II is an expansive cement, i.e., a product that
results in a cement grout that during curing increases in vol-
ume. Experimental results on volume increases during cur-
ing and hardening are presented in Akgün and Daemen
(1991). The product is designed, manufactured, and used for
sealing oil and gas wells.
The average uniaxial compressive strength (σc) ± 1 SD of
11 Self-Stress II cement grout cylinders was determined to
be 18.8 ± 0.97 MPa. The 50.8 mm (2 in.) diameter cylindri-
cal cement specimens with length to diameter ratios of about
2.5 were prepared and tested after a curing period of 8 days
according to standard practice (ASTM 1981, 1986a; Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute 1986). The results of three of the
uniaxial compression tests with a deformation jacket showed
that the average Young’s modulus (Ep) and average Pois-
son’s ratio (νp) ± 1 SD of the Self-Stress II cement grout cyl-
inders tested were 5254 ± 270 MPa and 0.22 ± 0.05,
respectively (Akgün and Daemen 1991). The deformation
jacket was placed around the cement specimens in order to
monitor the circumferential and axial displacements during
uniaxial loading. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of
the cement specimens were calculated according to standard
practice (ASTM 1986b). The average uniaxial compressive
strength (σc) ± 1 SD of 12 Apache Leap tuff cylinders was
determined to be 73.2 ± 16.5 MPa. The 50.8 mm (2 in.) di-
ameter cylindrical rock specimens with length to diameter
ratios of about 2.5 were prepared and tested according to
standard practice (ASTM 1979). The average Young’s
modulus (Er) and average Poisson’s ratio (νr) ± 1 SD of five
of the tuff cylinders was tested to be 22 600 ± 5700 MPa
and 0.20 ± 0.03, respectively (Fuenkajorn and Daemen
1991). Two longitudinal and two tangential strain gages
placed 180° from each other were installed on the tuff cylin-
ders in order to measure the circumferential and axial
strains. Strain gage installation, method of measurement, and
test procedure were according to standard practice (ASTM
1986b). Akgün and Daemen (1991) and Fuenkajorn and
Daemen (1991) gave the detailed testing procedures and
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen
Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of push-out test setup.
testing results regarding mechanical characterization of
push-out samples.
Push-out test results and discussion
Figure 5 shows the applied axial stress versus the top and
bottom plug displacements for push-out sample No. 15 with
a plug radius of 12.7 mm and plug length to radius ratio of
2.29. The push-out cylinder has an outside radius of
76.2 mm. Table 1 gives the dimensions of the sample. The
plug of the sample slipped (failed) at an applied axial stress
of 42.7 MPa (corresponding to an applied axial load at fail-
ure of 21 484 N (4830 lbf)) after a loading period of about
9 min. The top and bottom plug displacements at plug slip
(failure) were 0.15 and 0.005 mm, respectively. Push-out
testing was terminated at an applied axial stress of 5.3 MPa
(corresponding to an applied axial load of 2669 N (600 lbf)),
which resulted in cumulative top and bottom plug displace-
ments of 2.35 and 2.30 mm, respectively, after a testing pe-
riod of about 50 min following plug slip. Sample No. 15
showed a residual axial strength of 12.4% of the peak axial
strength (applied axial stress at failure).
In all tests, the behavior was elastic and the bottom plug
axial displacements were small prior to bond failure when
compared with the top plug axial displacements. Upon plug
slip (failure), the difference between the top and bottom ax-
ial plug displacements decreased, i.e., the plugs started to re-
cover their length, probably due to stress relief caused by
slip along the plug–rock interface. The plugs of the push-out
specimens slipped (failed) after periods ranging from 3 min
to 0.5 h. The tests were continued for up to 2 h. Residual ax-
27
ial strengths ranged from 10 to 33% of the peak axial
strengths. On average, the tests gave a residual axial strength
of about 20%.
Table 2 gives the mean strength measures of the push-out
specimens tested. The axial strength and the bond strength
are the applied axial stress at failure (σz,f) and the average
shear stress at failure (τav,f), respectively. The average shear
stress at failure (bond strength) and the peak shear stress at
failure (peak shear strength, τp,f) are calculated from
eqs. [21] and [18], respectively. The bond strength and peak
shear strength for each push-out sample are calculated from
the axial strength and sample dimensions presented in Ta-
ble 1. All three strength measures decrease with increasing
plug radius and with decreasing plug length. Analysis of size
effects on push-out tests are presented in the next section.
One of the 50.8 mm radius push-out samples (sample No.
33 in Table 1) contained a preexisting vertical fracture on
one side of the inside borehole prior to push-out testing.
Tensile fracturing occurred on one side of the tuff cylinder
(along the preexisting vertical fracture) during push-out test-
ing which contributed to stress relief (i.e., resulted in the
sudden drop of the applied axial load on the plug to zero at
tensile fracturing). For this reason, the residual axial strength
of this sample could not be measured. It was observed that
the tensile fracture did not run through the cement plug. In
the remaining 33 push-out tested samples, no visual indica-
tion of even the initiation of splitting was observed. If ten-
sile fracturing had occurred in any of the remaining samples
tested, loading beyond tensile fracturing could not have been
performed and no residual strength could have been mea-
© 1999 NRC Canada
28 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Table 1. Dimensions of the Apache Leap tuff Fig. 5. Applied axial stress versus axial plug displacements for
cylinders used for push-out tests and the applied push-out sample No. 15. Note that for this figure the axial
axial stresses at failure (σz,f). displacements are positive downward, i.e., in the positive load
direction.
Sample Lr Lh L σz,f
No. (mm) (mm) (mm) L/a (MPa)
1a 77.0 31.4 14.5 2.27 43.4
2a 77.3 34.1 14.2 2.22 43.4
3a 83.3 40.7 15.4 2.41 45.5
4a 79.1 34.2 13.7 2.14 43.4
5a 74.9 21.7 15.6 2.44 56.4
6a 75.3 35.4 13.4 2.09 43.4
7a 80.1 36.0 14.5 2.27 46.8
8a 77.9 34.2 15.3 2.39 53.8
9a 73.7 27.3 15.5 2.42 52.9
10a 71.5 21.2 13.5 2.11 56.4
11a 74.7 26.7 16.3 2.55 53.8
12a 73.7 23.9 16.3 2.55 55.5
13a 76.7 33.8 12.8 2.00 50.3
14a 91.7 44.0 15.3 2.39 62.4
15b 105.3 30.2 31.0 2.39 42.7
16b 115.1 33.5 30.7 2.36 35.2
17b 82.0 24.6 32.2 2.48 29.0
18b 100.1 33.5 30.1 2.32 35.1
19b 87.1 28.8 29.8 2.29 33.7
20b 99.0 27.9 29.3 2.25 35.3
21b 145.6 20.1 53.3 4.10 78.1
22b 137.4 75.0 48.6 3.74 57.1
23b 119.2 40.3 53.1 4.09 57.1
24b 134.0 31.5 51.4 3.95 65.8
25b 102.9 30.8 50.0 3.85 70.2
26b 173.8 24.9 101.4 7.80 171.2
Table 2. Mean ± 1 SD axial strength (applied axial stress at
27b 199.2 17.8 102.2 7.86 171.2
failure (σz,f)), mean bond strength (average shear stress at failure
28b 176.7 10.1 105.6 8.12 166.8
(τav,f)), and mean peak shear stress at failure (τp,f).
29c 129.6 38.3 49.1 1.96 17.6
30c 102.9 15.3 43.6 1.74 28.5 Plug radius Mean σz,f Mean τav,f Mean τp,f
31c 114.6 34.4 46.5 1.86 22.0 (a) (mm) L/a R/a (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
32d 186.9 45.8 101.2 1.98 15.4 6.35 (14)a 2.0 6.0 51±6.2 11±1.2 36±4.5
33d,e 206.4 64.2 102.2 2.00 13.0 12.7 (6)a 2.0 6.0 35±4.4 7.3±1.0 25±3.2
34d 133.3 6.3 87.6 1.72 16.2 12.7 (5)a 4.0 6.0 66±9.0 8.1±1.0 44±6.1
Note: Lr, cylinder length; Lh, length of the coaxial 12.7 (3)a 8.0 6.0 170±2.5 11±0.4 115±1.7
borehole above the cement plug; L, plug length; L/a, plug 25.4 (3)b 2.0 3.0 23±5.5 6.3±1.9 20±4.7
length to radius ratio.
a
50.8 (3)c 2.0 1.84 15±1.7 3.9±0.7 17±1.9
Inside radius of 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) and outside radius of
38.1 mm (1.5 in.). Note: The number of push-out samples tested is given in parentheses.
b
Inside radius of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) and outside radius of The push-out samples have a modulus ratio of 0.233 and the Poisson’s
76.2 mm (3 in.). ratios of the plug and rock are 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. L/a, plug
c length to radius ratio; R/a, rock cylinder outside to inside radius ratio.
Inside radius of 25.4 mm (1 in.) and outside radius of a
Push-out sample with vertical stress function (eq. [6]) of 0.2053.
76.2 mm (3 in.). b
d
Push-out sample with vertical stress function (eq. [6]) of 0.1974.
Inside radius of 50.8 mm (2 in.) and outside radius of c
Push-out sample with vertical stress function (eq. [6]) of 0.1767.
93.66 mm (3.69 in.).
e
Contained a preexisting vertical fracture on one side of
the inside borehole prior to push-out testing. Tensile
fracturing was observed on one side of the tuff cylinder (strain softening) to slightly work hardening. According to
(along the preexisting vertical fracture) during push-out Rowe and Pells (1980) the ratio of the residual shear or axial
testing. strength to the peak shear or axial strength can be a measure
of brittleness, where lower ratios lead to more brittle inter-
sured. Hence, the relatively fast drop of the load on push-out face behavior. They also reported that a confining pressure
samples is attributed to the very rapid progressive failure (horizontal load) on a rock-socketed pier will result in a less
along the interface once slip is initiated at the top. brittle response of the socket. The side behavior will also be
The behavior of the interface beyond failure has been more plastic as the roughness increases (Pells et al. 1980;
studied (e.g., Pells et al. 1980; Rowe and Pells 1980). The Rowe and Pells 1980). Hence, it is postulated that the push-
side shear behavior beyond failure can vary from brittle out tests performed herein show brittle behavior, since
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen
Fig. 6. Interface shear stress per unit applied axial stress (τ/σzo) near the loaded end of the plug (at z/L = 0.1, where z is the distance
from the initial location of the loaded end of plug and L is plug length) as a function of modulus ratio (Ep/Er) and plug length to
radius ratio (L/a). The plot is for a borehole plug with a rock cylinder outside to inside radius ratio (R/a) of 60.
(1) the plugs slip at failure and give fairly low residual axial
strengths (or axial stresses at plug slip) ranging from 10 to
33% of the peak axial strengths, (2) the push-out sample
central (coaxial) holes are very smooth to the touch and free
of asperities, since they were diamond cored, and (3) push-
out testing is performed on unconfined rock cylinders.
Pells et al. (1980) showed that the shear strength increases
with relative degree of cleanliness, since cleanliness (lack of
crushed rock or bentonite, e.g., from drilling mud) enhances
the development of the concrete–rock bond. Since the push-
out sample central (coaxial) holes are very clean (i.e., neatly
cored with tap water and free of dust), the measured bond
strengths are believed to be the maximum values. Very
rough sockets increase the side bond according to Ladanyi
and Domingue (1980) and Pells et al. (1980). This increased
shear strength is because the pier tends to expand laterally
due to the dilatancy effect when the rough surfaces move
over one another. Since the push-out sample coaxial bore-
holes are smooth to the touch and free of asperities, surface
roughness is not believed to have any positive impact on the
measured bond strengths.
Introduction
Analyzed in this section are the variables that influence
the shear stress and the limiting effective plug length due an
axial stress applied to a borehole plug. The results of the
push-out tests and the tensile stress distributions along an
29
axially stressed borehole plug are also analyzed. Influence of
a lateral stress (confining pressure) and implications for
borehole plug design are discussed.
Shear stresses
Figure 6 gives a plot of the interface shear stress (τ) as a
fraction of the axial stress applied to the plug (σzo) near the
loaded end of the plug (at z/L = 0.1, where z is the distance
from the initial location of the loaded end of plug and L is
plug length). The plot is given as a function of the modulus
ratio (Ep/Er) and plug length to radius ratio (L/a). The plot
allows a comparison of the results of the finite element anal-
ysis with those of the closed-form solution given by
eq. [17]. The finite element analysis gives the interface shear
stress at z/L = 0.1 (i.e., between z/L = 0.05 and z/L = 0.15).
The axial stress at each plug element centroid in Fig. 2 is
obtained from the finite element analysis output. The inter-
face shear stress presented in Fig. 6 is calculated through the
finite element analysis by converting the axial stress at each
element centroid of the uppermost two plug slices in Fig. 2
(i.e., at z/L = 0.05 and at z/L = 0.15) to axial force. The dif-
ference between the cumulative axial forces of the upper-
most two plug slices (i.e., satisfying equilibrium conditions)
leads to the solution of the interfacial shear stress at z/L =
0.1.
Figure 6 is for a borehole plug with a rock cylinder out-
side to inside radius ratio (R/a) of 60 and Poisson’s ratio of
the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. The inter-
face shear stress per unit applied axial stress at z/L = 0.1 de-
© 1999 NRC Canada
30
Fig. 7. Shear stress distribution per unit applied axial stress
along the plug–rock interface (τ/σzo) for a modulus ratio (Ep/Er)
of 0.233, rock cylinder outside to inside radius ratio (R/a) of 60,
and Poisson’s ratios of the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20,
respectively. L/a is plug length to radius ratio and z is the
distance from the initial location of loaded end of the plug.
creases with increased modulus ratio and increased plug
length to radius ratio; the peak shear stress becomes nearly
constant after a modulus ratio greater than about 5.0. The in-
terfacial shear stress calculated from the proposed analytical
solution is up to 31% larger than that calculated by the finite
element analysis.
The analysis performed herein is in agreement with that of
work performed on rock-socketed piers with regard to the
dependence of the load transfer to the rock on modulus ratio.
Information provided by Bauer (1980), Kulhawy and Good-
man (1980), and Rowe and Pells (1980) indicates that for a
higher value of modulus ratio, the load on the pier will be
transmitted slower than for a lower value of modulus ratio.
Plugs with low modulus ratios transmit the load more rap-
idly to the rock as they show higher peak shear stresses
along the plug–rock interface. Shorter plugs also show a
more rapid load transfer to the rock.
Figure 7 gives the shear stress distribution along the plug–
rock interface per unit axial stress applied to a borehole plug
emplaced in an infinite medium (i.e., rock cylinder outside
to inside radius ratio (R/a) of 60). The plot includes the re-
sults of the finite element analysis and those of the closed-
form solution presented by eq. [17] as a function of plug
length to radius ratio (L/a).
Figure 7 is for a push-out sample with a modulus ratio of
0.233 and for Poisson’s ratios of the plug and rock of 0.22
and 0.20, respectively. The plot shows that the peak shear
stresses increase with decreasing plug length to radius ratios.
The shear stresses do not distribute over the entire lengths of
longer plugs. The peak interfacial shear stresses calculated
from the proposed analytical solution are up to 31% larger
than those calculated by the finite element analysis. Hence,
the peak shear stress calculated by the analytical solution
brings in an additional factor of safety for design purposes.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Limiting effective length
The length beyond which no axial stress develops and
hence no shear stress is transferred along the interface of an
axially loaded borehole plug may be referred to as the limit-
ing effective length. The reference point for the limiting ef-
fective length is the initially loaded end of the plug (i.e., z =
0). When the ratio of the axial stress within the plug to the
applied axial stress (σz/σzo) is 0.10% or less, we consider the
axial stress negligible. The limiting effective length can thus
be calculated by setting σz/σzo = 0.001 in eq. [19] and solv-
ing for the distance from the initial location of the loaded
end of the plug. For example, the limiting effective length of
a 12.7 mm radius Self-Stress II cement grout plug with a
length to radius ratio of 2.0 is 25 mm (99.7% of the plug
carries stress), whereas the limiting effective length of that
with a length to radius ratio of 8.0 is 81 mm (80% of the
plug has a stress exceeding 0.10% of the applied axial
stress).
The advantage of a longer plug is realized at slip initia-
tion. When slip occurs, the interface no longer behaves elas-
tically. If the interface has residual strength, some of the
load in the plug will be transferred to the rock in this slip
zone. If the plug has no residual strength, then no load is
transferred to the rock in this zone. The maximum shear
stress moves down the interface in front of the failing (slip)
zone (e.g., Hollingshead 1971). The value of the maximum
will decrease if there is residual strength. Hence, local fail-
ure does not imply total plug failure if the plug is long
enough to dissipate, through residual strength, the maximum
shear stress to a value below the shear strength. Strength is
therefore increased upon local failure if the plug is longer
than that required for the prefailure elastic shear stress distri-
bution. In other words, the portion of the interface that fails
still transfers some load to the rock through residual shear
strength, and the maximum shear stress drops below the
shear strength at some point along the interface. The intact
plug–rock interface below this particular point transfers the
remainder of the load by an elastic, exponential shear stress
distribution with a reduced peak shear stress. Therefore, a
longer plug has a fractionally shorter limiting effective
length and higher strength than a shorter plug upon failure.
The decrease in the maximum shear stress as failure pro-
gresses down the interface could be analyzed through non-
linear finite element analysis. The behavior can be modeled
as elastoplastic, perfectly plastic, or work hardening. The
model consists of three materials: cement, rock, and inter-
face elements. Frictional slip interface elements connect the
plug and rock elements. Rowe et al. (1978), Donald et al.
(1980), Rowe and Pells (1980), and Rowe and Armitage
(1987a) used a series of dual nodes along the pier–rock in-
terface (with one of each pair attached to the concrete (node
1) and rock (node 2), respectively) to model nonlinear be-
havior. Rowe et al. (1978) made provision for plastic failure
within the rock (soil) or structure (pier) as well as slip at a
cohesive-frictional rock–pier interface. They also modified
the interface behavior to allow strain softening. If there is no
slip, normal and tangential compatibility conditions exist at
the interface. Once slip occurs, the tangential compatibility
condition is replaced by the failure criterion.
It should be noted that the authors have pursued an elastic
analysis for a conservative approach. Since plug design is
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen
Fig. 8. Axial strength (applied axial stress at failure) of push-out
cylinders as a function of plug radius. r2 is the coefficient of
determination.
for permanent containment, it is believed that any possibility
of plug slip should be eliminated.
Size effects on push-out tests
The results of the push-out tests reported in the previous
section and in Table 2 show that the axial strength decreases
with increasing plug radius and with decreasing plug length.
The objective of this section is to analyze the size effects en-
countered in push-out tests in an attempt to extrapolate the
laboratory findings to in situ borehole plugs.
Equation [22] and Fig. 8 give the best fit and the coeffi-
cient of determination of the best fit for the axial strength
(or the applied axial stress at failure) as a function of plug
radius for push-out samples having plug length to radius ra-
tios of 2.0. Equation [23] and Fig. 9 give the same for the
axial strength (or the applied axial stress at failure) as a
function of plug length to radius ratio for push-out samples
having plug radii of 12.7 mm. The data in Table 1 are used
to obtain the best fits through performing regression analy-
ses:
[22] σ z,f = 149a −0.58 (r 2 = 0.92)
[23] σ z,f = 24.2(L a) − 24.6 (r 2 = 0.98)
where σz,f is the applied axial stress at failure or axial
strength (megapascals), a is plug radius (millimetres), L/a is
plug length to radius ratio, and r2 is the coefficient of deter-
mination.
Equation [22] and Fig. 8 show that the applied axial stress
at failure decreases with increasing plug radius. The axial
1
A 5 m radius plug is selected somewhat arbitrarily, to correspond approximately to the upper range of plug diameters actually installed, or
at least for which the authors have detailed information. Pettman (1984) listed three circular diversion tunnel plugs with radii in the range 4–
4.5 m; Moller et al. (1984) described grouting around and near a 4.5 m radius tunnel plug at the Helms pumped storage project.
31
Fig. 9. Axial strength (applied axial stress at failure) of push-out
cylinders as a function of plug length to radius ratio (L/a) for
12.7 mm radius plugs. r2 is the coefficient of determination.
stress decrease obeys a power law with an exponent of about
0.6. Extrapolation of eq. [22] to a plug radius of 0.50 m
gives an applied axial stress at failure of 3.96 MPa. This
suggests that an in situ plug with a plug radius of 0.50 m
and plug length to radius ratio of 2.0 can withstand a water
column of at least 404 m. An in situ plug with a radius of
5.0 m1 and a plug length to radius ratio of 2.0 can resist a
water column of at least 105 m.
Goodman (1989, fig. 9.20) presented the results of field
tests on piers in hard rock having radii greater than 200 mm.
The extremely variable results led to a linear relationship be-
tween the bond strength (τav) and the uniaxial compressive
strength of the grout (σc), which was given by τav = σc/20.
This suggests that the bond strength of in situ push-out spec-
imens with a σc of 18.8 MPa would be 0.94 MPa. A compar-
ison of 0.94 MPa with the smaller radius push-out bond
strengths presented in Table 2 confirms the probability of a
significant size effect. Nevertheless, due to different
stiffnesses (i.e., the ratio of the radial displacement to the ra-
dial stress (Desai 1979)) of the plug–rock and pier–rock sys-
tems, any extrapolation should be made with caution and
confirms the desirability of performing push-out tests on
larger diameter in situ plugs to identify size effects and in
particular to evaluate the validity of the power law extrapo-
lation obtained through eq. [22].
Equation [23] and Fig. 9 show that the axial strength in-
creases linearly with increasing plug length to radius ratio
and that in situ plugs with plug length to radius ratios of 4.0
and 8.0 lead to axial strengths that are about 3.0 and 7.0
times greater than those with length to radius ratios of 2.0.
© 1999 NRC Canada
32 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999

Table 3. Radial stress along plug–rock L

1
L ∫0
interface due to an externally applied [25] σr,av = σr (z)dz
lateral stress (σi/σ0) as a function of tuff
cylinder radius ratio (R/a) and modulus
ratio (Ep/Er). where σr(z) is radial stress developed at the plug–rock inter-
face at a distance z below the initial location of the loaded
R/a Ep/Er σi/σ0 end of the plug due to an applied axial stress σzo and dz is
1.84 10 1.32 the thickness of the diametral plug slice.
1.0 1.01 The unit shaft resistance (unit Qs) is
0.233 0.55 Qs
0.1 0.31 [26] Unit Qs =
L
3.0 10 1.43 The mean applied axial stresses at failure for the 12.7 mm
1.0 1.02 radius plugs with length to radius ratios of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0
0.233 0.49 are 35, 66, and 170 MPa, respectively (Table 2); the mean
0.1 0.26 lengths ± 1 SD of these samples are 30.5 ± 1.03, 51.3 ±
6.0 10 1.49 2.01, and 103 ± 2.23 mm (Table 1), which lead to mean av-
1.0 1.02 erage radial stresses at the plug–rock interface of 2.26, 2.55,
0.233 0.47 and 3.54 MPa (eq. [25]). Assuming that the friction angle
0.1 0.24 along the interface (φ) is 30°, the shaft resistances of the
samples are 0.003, 0.006, and 0.017 MN, which lead to unit
∞ 10 1.51 shaft resistances of 0.10, 0.12, and 0.16 MN/m, respectively.
1.0 1.02
0.233 0.46 Influence of lateral stress (confining pressure)
0.1 0.24 A lateral stress (σ0) applied to a plugged rock cylinder
Note: Poisson’s ratios of the plug and rock generates a uniform radial stress (σi) and an inward radial
are 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. plug displacement (up,c) along the plug–rock contact. The ra-
dial displacement (ur,c) at the plug–rock contact, in a hollow
Hence, in situ plugs with a radius of 0.5 m and plug length rock cylinder with an internal radius a and external radius R,
to radius ratios of 4.0 and 8.0 can withstand water columns subjected to a radial external stress σ0 at R and a radial inter-
of at least 1212 and 2828 m, respectively. Those with a ra- nal stress σi at a, for a plane strain configuration is given by
dius of 5.0 m and plug length to radius ratios of 4.0 and 8.0 (Jaeger and Cook 1979)
can withstand water columns of at least 315 and 735 m, re- [27] ur,c =
spectively. The results of the extrapolations indicate that uti-
lization of longer plugs brings in an additional factor of (1 + νr )a
[(1 − 2νr )(σ0R2 − σi a 2 ) + (σ0 − σi )R2 ]
safety in cementitious plug design. Er (R2 − a 2 )
The increase in the applied axial stress at failure with in-
creasing plug length may be attributed to the increase of unit where Er is Young’s modulus and νr is Poisson’s ratio of the
shaft resistance with increased plug length. Assuming that rock.
the plug capacity is frictional (i.e., a function of the radial The radial displacement (up,c) in the plug at the plug–rock
stress at the plug–rock interface), the shaft resistance (Qs) is contact due to an internal radial stress σi resulting from an
given by externally applied lateral stress σ0 can be calculated from
Hooke’s law. For plane strain (⑀ z = 0):
[24] Qs = Sa σr,av tan φ
(1 + νp)(1 − 2νp)a 
where Sa is plug (shaft) perimetral surface area (= 2πaL), a [28] up,c =   σi
is plug radius, L is plug length, σr,av is average radial stress  Ep 
at the plug–rock interface due to an applied axial stress σzo,
and φ is angle of internal friction along the interface. Equating the rock (eq. [27]) and plug (eq. [28]) displace-
The average radial stress σr,av can be calculated from the ments gives the solution for the uniform radial stress at the
integrated average of the radial stress (eq. [20]) along a ver- plug–rock interface (σi) as a fraction of any post-plug-
tical contact line at the plug–rock interface: emplacement change in the uniform lateral stress field (con-
fining pressure (σ0)):

σi 2 ( Ep Er ) (1 + νr )(1 − νr )
[29] =
σ0 (1 + νp)(1 − 2νp)[(1 − (a R) 2 ] + ( Ep Er ) (1 + νr )[(1 − 2νr ) (a R) 2 + 1]

Equation [29] shows that any increase in the lateral stress subsequent to plug emplacement increases the radial stress along
the plug–rock interface. This in turn increases the bond strength, at least up to the point where the plug strength is exceeded.
Hence, the bond strengths measured in this study represent low bounds due to the absence of an externally applied lateral
stress and provide additional factors of safety with regard to plug stability.
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen
Table 3 presents the radial stress along the plug–rock in-
terface due to a lateral stress (σi/σ0) as a function of cylinder
radius ratio (R/a) and modulus ratio (Ep/Er). The Poisson’s
ratio of the plug and rock is 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. The
radial stress σi/σ0 increases with increased modulus ratio, de-
creases with increasing cylinder radius ratio for cylinders
with a modulus ratio less than 1.0, and increases with in-
creasing cylinder radius ratio for cylinders with a modulus
ratio greater than 1.0. Therefore, an externally applied lat-
eral stress leads to a lower increase in bond strength for a
push-out sample with a modulus ratio of 0.233 as compared
with, for example, a rock-socketed pier which is generally
emplaced in a medium with a modulus ratio greater than 1.0.
Tensile stresses in plug and host rock
Introduction
An axial stress applied to a borehole plug creates tension
both in the plug and in the rock. The determination of these
tensile stresses is important since both the plug and the host
rock tend to be weak in tension, and any tensile fracturing
may cause preferential pathways around seals. Minimizing
or preferably eliminating tensile stresses in plugs for perma-
nent sealing of openings is particularly important in order to
enhance the durability or longevity of plugs.
The results of the stress analyses presented here do not
take into account the in situ stress field in the area where the
plug is emplaced. Depending on this stress field, the signifi-
cance of the tensile stress zones identified here may be re-
duced or enhanced. Assuming that all materials remain
linearly elastic, a rapid estimate of the influence of the far
field stresses can be made by simple superposition. If the far
field stresses are isotropic or nearly so (i.e., with a ratio be-
tween the maximum and minimum of less than 3), all stress
components concentrated around an open hole are compres-
sive. Therefore, the tensile stresses will be reduced, or only
lead to a reduced compressive stress magnitude. In highly
anisotropic stress fields, one or more of the stress compo-
nents around the hole will be tensile in certain regions
around a circular hole (e.g., Obert and Duvall 1967, figs.
4.7.2, 16.2.2, and 16.2.3; Coates 1981, fig. 3-5 and accom-
panying discussion, where the author points out that the ten-
sile stresses can become far more intensive in anisotropic
ground, i.e., not only under anisotropic stress conditions
(fig. 4-2 and appendix D.1); Hoek and Brown 1980, figs. 43,
46, and 47 and appendix 3). Under such conditions, the det-
rimental tensile effects are superimposed and for permanent
abandonment seals deserve great attention in order to pre-
clude accelerated flow and the potential for deleterious de-
grading interactions. Obviously, a more realistic stress
calculation would require simulating the actual sequence of
drilling, plug emplacement, and plug–rock interactions dur-
ing plug curing and hardening. It is not at all clear that the
authors have sufficient information about plug volume
changes during hardening, for a plug confined by rock, to
simulate credibly such a complex time-dependent develop-
ment.
The issue of the development of tensile stresses is particu-
larly important when the host rock section to be sealed is in-
tersected by discontinuities, especially if the discontinuities
are oriented favorably, e.g., more or less normal to tensile
stresses, and roughly parallel to the hole or excavation to be
33
sealed. If one is willing to neglect stress redistributions re-
sulting from the presence of discontinuities (e.g., Brady and
Brown 1993, section 7.3), an elastic circular hole solution
can be superimposed on the numerically calculated stress
distributions resulting from plug loading. Tensile zones for
discontinuities parallel or nearly so to circular openings in
various stress fields have been calculated by Daemen
(1983). A more generalized and comprehensive, although in-
troductory discussion of relaxation effects around excava-
tions that might facilitate bypass flow around plugs in
underground excavations is given in chapter 10 of Daemen
et al. (1983).
Tensile stresses induced by axial plug loading could be
particularly detrimental in locations where, subsequent to
plugging, additional tensile stresses might be superimposed
on the ones already present. Such changes are most likely
for plugs emplaced in holes or excavations in locations
where large rock mass deformations might be induced, e.g.,
close to deep open mine pit slopes, near underground mines,
especially where the latter operate by caving, and in loca-
tions where fluid withdrawal may induce subsidence.
Postemplacement plug–rock contact stress changes presum-
ably also could be induced by tectonic stress changes or
rock mass displacements.
Analyzed in this section is the tensile zone in and near ax-
ially stressed borehole plugs. The finite element meshes
given by Akgün and Daemen (1991) are used to analyze the
tensile radial and tensile tangential stress distributions. The
meshes represent 12.7 mm radius borehole plugs with length
to radius ratios of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0, respectively. All meshes
have cylinder outside to inside radius ratios of 60 and repre-
sent borehole plugs in an infinite medium. The tensile stress
distributions are studied as a function of modulus ratio and
plug length. The Poisson’s ratio of the plug and rock is 0.22
and 0.20, respectively.
Results and discussion on tensile stresses
Figure 10 gives the zones of tensile radial and tensile tan-
gential stress in a specimen with a length to radius ratio of
2.0 and a modulus ratio of 0.233, representative of an axially
stressed Self-Stress II cement grout plug emplaced in an
Apache Leap tuff cylinder. The tensile radial stress zones
(on the right side of Fig. 10) and the tensile tangential stress
zones (on the left side of Fig. 10) are plotted as a percentage
of the axial stress applied to the plug.
Figure 11 gives the tensile stress distribution for a plug
length to radius ratio of 8.0. The magnitudes of the tensile
stresses and the volumes under tension decrease with in-
creased plug length.
Figure 12 gives the three locations in the plug and rock
where large tensions develop. A, B, and C are the locations
where at least one of the principal stress components gives
maximum tension. Table 4 summarizes the principal tensile
stresses in these three critical locations. The results are
given as a function of the applied axial stress, plug length,
and modulus ratio. The tensile stresses are reckoned nega-
tive.
The maximum tension in the plug for a modulus ratio of
0.233 occurs at the top corner of the plug (location B) and
decreases with increasing plug length to radius ratio. At lo-
cation B, only one stress component is tensile. At this loca-
© 1999 NRC Canada
34
Fig. 10. Percentage normalized tensile radial stress (σr/σzo) (right) and tensile tangential stress (σθ/σzo) (left) contours for an axially
stressed borehole plug in rock. Modulus ratio of 0.233, Poisson’s ratios of the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20, and plug length to
radius ratio of 2.0.
tion, a plug with a modulus ratio of 10 shows smaller
tension than a plug with a modulus ratio of 0.10. At the bot-
tom center of the plug (location A), the plug is in biaxial
tension. The magnitude of the tension at this location de-
creases with increasing plug length and with decreasing
modulus ratio. The maximum tension in rock occurs at loca-
tion C, the upper contact between plug and rock. For a
modulus ratio of 0.10, the rock is under triaxial tension; for
a modulus ratio of 10, there is biaxial tension at location C.
At this location, the tension decreases with increasing modu-
lus ratio and with increasing plug length to radius ratio. No
axial tensile stresses are observed within the plugs.
The most likely axial stress on a borehole plug in rock is
due to fluid (water) pressure. If a borehole in which a plug is
emplaced at 1000 m below the surface fills up with water,
this creates a maximum differential water pressure of about
9.8 MPa on the plug. This water pressure creates a maxi-
mum tensile stress of approximately 6.8, 4.8, and 2.6 MPa at
the most critical plug location B (Fig. 12) of borehole plugs
having a modulus ratio of 0.233 and length to radius ratios
of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0, respectively (Table 4). Neville (1981)
reported the tensile strength of medium-strength concrete as
2.9 MPa. According to Ferguson (1973), the tensile strength
of concrete is 10–15%, occasionally 20% of the compressive
strength. The mean uniaxial compressive strength of Self-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Stress II cement grout as reported above in the push-out
tests section is 18.8 MPa. If the mean tensile strength is as-
sumed equal to 15% of the mean compressive strength, this
would lead to a mean tensile strength of 2.82 MPa. There-
fore, tensile failure of plugs with a modulus ratio of 0.233
and length to radius ratios of 2.0 and 4.0 is very likely. The
tensile strength of plugs with a length to radius ratio of 8.0
exceeds the maximum tensile stress developed at location B.
Hence, the results of the finite element suggest that for a
borehole plug with a modulus ratio of 0.233, a plug with a
length to radius ratio of at least 8.0 should be used to avoid
tensile fracturing for the extreme loading condition consid-
ered in this example.
Design implications
The design implications and recommendations in this sec-
tion are based on analyses that assume full bonding (conti-
nuity) between plug and host rock until failure is initiated
and progressive debonding develops. Extensive experience
with borehole plug testing (e.g., Stormont and Daemen
1983; Akgün and Daemen 1986, 1991, 1994; Greer and
Daemen 1991; Akgün 1997) strongly indicates that frictional
bonding is by far the most important and, in many rock
types, probably the only interaction between cementitious
plugs and host rocks. Nevertheless, we recognize that in cer-
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen 35

Fig. 11. Percentage normalized tensile radial stress (σr/σzo) (right) Fig. 12. Locations A, B, and C within plug and rock where large
and tensile tangential stress (σθ/σzo) (left) contours for an axially tensions develop.
stressed borehole plug in rock. Modulus ratio of 0.233, Poisson’s
ratios of the plug and rock of 0.22 and 0.20, and plug length to
radius ratio of 8.0.

Table 4. Principal tensile stresses in plug and in rock at

locations A, B, and C shown in Fig. 12.

σ3/σzo (%)
Modulus ratio
(Ep/Er) L/a Location Aa Location Bb Location C
0.10 2.0 –9.1 –74 –80c
0.233 2.0 –11 –69 –76c
0.233 4.0 –1.2 –49 –60c
0.233 8.0 –0.19 –26 –41c
10 2.0 –41 –10 –42a
Note: Poisson’s ratios of the plug and rock are 0.22 and 0.20,
respectively. The results are given as a percentage of the axial stress
applied to the borehole plug (σ3/σzo) and for rock cylinders with outside
to inside radius ratios of 60. L/a, plug length to radius ratio.
a
Biaxial tension.
b
Uniaxial tension.
c
Triaxial tension.
tain rock types, such as in highly siliceous welded tuff in
which our tests were conducted, chemical interactions be-
tween cement grouts and host rock are likely (e.g., Malek sumes that the vertical stress and vertical displacement in
and Roy 1985; Scheetz and Roy 1985; Mehta and Monteiro rock are negligible at a critical radius from the plug center.
1986, p. 156). Although simple visual inspection of the The peak shear stresses calculated from the closed-form so-
plug–rock contact area revealed no obvious bonding, or de- lution are up to 31% larger than those calculated by the fi-
terioration, it clearly would be desirable to investigate the nite element analysis. Hence, utilization of the closed-form
contact zones in more detail, especially for permanent aban- solution leads to a conservative plug design. The analysis
donment sealing. However, for interface strength testing, performed herein is further conservative due to the utiliza-
analysis, and design purposes, all indications are that a sim- tion of zero confinement and due to ignoring progressive
ple mechanical friction bond is adequate, and realistic. failure which leads to reduced peak shear stresses. The con-
The theoretical analysis performed herein shows that a ceptual model for the analytical solution used to develop the
borehole plug with a modulus ratio of 0.233 and plug length theoretical axial and shear stress distribution (Fig. 1) is ap-
to radius ratio of 8.0 is subjected to smaller peak shear plicable to studying the stress distribution along the plug–
stresses and shows little probability of tensile failure when rock interface and within the plug in the axial direction (z-
compared with shorter plugs. Plugs with smaller radii and axis), respectively. The closed-form solutions presented
greater lengths give higher applied axial stresses at failure herein are not applicable to studying the stress distribution
(axial strengths). These results represent lower bounds due within rock or to obtaining solutions for stress magnitudes
to the absence of an externally applied lateral stress (confin- within the plug in the radial or tangential directions as a re-
ing pressure). sult of an axial stress applied to the plug. The closed-form
The closed-form solution for mechanical plug–rock inter- solution always leads to a compressive radial (contact) stress
action analysis is linearly elastic. The load–displacement along the plug–rock interface as a result of an axial stress
curves of the push-out tests are also linearly elastic until applied to a borehole plug. In reality, as pointed out by the
failure takes place (Fig. 5). The closed-form solution as- finite element analysis, tensile radial and tensile tangential

© 1999 NRC Canada

36
stresses may exist in the vicinity of an axially stressed bore-
hole plug, especially if the virgin in situ stress field is rea-
sonably anisotropic, i.e., with a ratio between the maximum
and minimum of more than 3. The main reason for perform-
ing the finite element analysis is to determine whether any
tensile stresses within the plug or in the host rock develop as
a result of an axial stress applied to a borehole plug. Zones
subject to tensile stresses are more permeable and therefore
more susceptible to deterioration than zones in compression.
This issue is particularly important for permanent abandon-
ment plugs and is addressed as a result of the finite element
modeling performed herein.
For specific plugging applications, it unquestionably
would be desirable to consider stress field changes that may
affect plug–rock contact stresses. This would be true espe-
cially where large rock mass deformations are anticipated,
particularly where such deformations are likely to induce
tensile contact stresses between the plug and the hole wall.
Examples of situations where such detrimental tensile
stresses might develop are for borehole plugs directly above
or fairly close to longwall panels, plugs in boreholes above
groundwater or oil or gas reservoirs where production may
result in compaction and subsidence, and plugs near mine
excavations that are likely to cause large deformations, e.g.,
block caving.
It is recommended that plug design be based on limiting
the elastic peak shear stress to well below the peak shear
strength. Calculated values of the peak shear strength are
given in the last column of Table 2. A conservative design is
believed to result if the strengths of the 12.7 mm radius
plugs with length to radius ratios of 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 in
Table 2 are divided by factors of 34, 22, and 24, respec-
tively, for full-size plugs (e.g., 5.0 m radius). It is recognized
that these factors, which are determined from eqs. [22] and
[23], are extremely uncertain, as they are based on an extra-
polation far beyond the range over which measurements
have been made. This uncertainty confirms the desirability
of performing experiments on larger radius borehole plugs.
A few large-diameter tests have been conducted, notably
as part of the testing of the performance of rock-socketed
piers (e.g., Pells et al. 1980; Williams et al. 1980). These
tests were conducted on rock with significantly different
properties than the tuffs tested here. Many of these tests did
not load to failure, often not even close to failure. Hence, the
results are not readily comparable and do not aid in address-
ing the size effect issue. The overwhelming majority of
these tests loaded to failure were performed in relatively
weak, usually sedimentary rocks. Under those conditions,
the prefailure mechanical interactions as well as the failure
mechanics most probably were fundamentally different from
the ones studied here.
The results of the detailed numerical analyses of the me-
chanical performance of seals performed indicate that per-
manent abandonment plugs be designed with a length to
radius ratio of 8.0. This conservative length criterion will
prevent the development of excessively detrimental tensile
stresses within and near an axially loaded borehole plug.
The push-out tests performed in this study had a narrow
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
range of test geometries and specimen stiffnesses. Because
of the narrow range of test geometries (i.e., rock cylinder ra-
dii of up to 93.7 mm), the axial strengths should be extrapo-
lated only with extreme caution. It would be desirable to
obtain a firmer basis for extrapolation by performing tests
on larger radius plugs. Samples should have similar
stiffnesses for a reliable extrapolation.
The tests reported on here also had a narrow range of ma-
terials tested, i.e., essentially only one cement grout type and
one rock type. It clearly would be desirable to perform tests
on a broader range of materials, both as to the type of ce-
ment grout and the type of host rock. Although all indica-
tions are that the interaction is strictly mechanical, i.e., that
the “bond” is purely frictional at least over the relatively
short periods of testing, it nevertheless would be useful to
have experimental results with a variety of materials.
In this study, the rock cylinders were not confined. It was
demonstrated above in the “Influence of lateral stress (con-
fining pressure)” section that the unconfined strengths mea-
sured herein are lower bounds. Due to the possibility of
varying lateral stress field conditions for the sealing of open-
ings in or near a repository, there is a need to perform con-
fined push-out tests. Confined push-out testing should also
provide better insight into the relative contribution of the ad-
hesive and frictional interface strengths. However, such test-
ing will be very difficult and expensive to perform.
Push-out testing provides an estimate of the mechanical
bond between a borehole plug and the surrounding rock. The
uncertainties in the relationships between the mechanical
and hydraulic bond, a subject that needs considerable atten-
tion in borehole plug performance evaluations, might be re-
solved by performing simultaneous push-out tests and flow
tests. This can be accomplished by loading the plug by
means of fluid pressure, rather than by a steel rod. Such
fluid pressurization would have considerable advantages by
corresponding more realistically to likely in situ conditions
and by allowing simultaneous fluid flow and strength test-
ing. It would complicate the experimental arrangement (e.g.,
measurements of the top and bottom axial plug displace-
ments). It would require confining the cylinders in order to
prevent tensile splitting.
All push-out tests reported are short-term tests (minutes to
hours) and were performed on neat cement grouts cured for
only a short time, typically 8 days. Performing long-term
quasi-static loading would aid in understanding any stress
corrosion effects, creep, and true long-term strength. Push-
out tests on cement grout plugs mixed with crushed tuff or
on concrete should be performed to simulate plugs in larger
excavations. A desirable feature of stiffening the plugs, i.e.,
increasing the modulus ratio, is the resulting decrease in the
peak interface shear stresses.
This study made no attempt to predict the relationship be-
tween axial strength and cement curing period. Push-out
tests should be performed on cement plugs with a variety of
relatively long curing times (i.e., months to years). This
would be particularly helpful in identifying any reactions
that might take place among the plug, host rock, and water.
Long-term experiments would also help in identifying
whether plug–rock interactions are beneficial or detrimental
and to what extent.
© 1999 NRC Canada
Akgün and Daemen
The objective of this paper was to determine the interface
strength of expansive cement grout plugs in rock. The objec-
tive was pursued by a combination of theoretical and experi-
mental approaches. An axisymmetric finite element analysis
was performed to assess the validity of the closed-form solu-
tion and to study the tensile stresses in and near axially
loaded borehole plugs. Push-out tests were used to experi-
mentally determine the axial strength of the plugs. The inter-
face strength was studied as a function of borehole size, plug
length, Young’s modulus ratio of the plug and rock, and con-
fining pressure.
Plugs with smaller radii and greater lengths give higher
strengths. The best fit curve for the axial strength as a func-
tion of plug radius obeys a power law with an exponent
close to 0.6.
The closed-form solution used for mechanical plug–rock
interaction assumes that the vertical stress and vertical dis-
placement in rock are negligible at a critical radius from the
plug center. As the closed-form solution leads to larger peak
shear stresses when compared with the finite element analy-
sis, it is conservative for plug design.
The peak shear stress along the plug–rock interface in-
creases with decreasing modulus ratio and with decreasing
plug length to radius ratio. The peak shear stress becomes
nearly constant after a modulus ratio greater than about 5.0.
Confining pressure increases the shear strength along the in-
terface. The axial stresses and interface shear stresses do not
affect the entire lengths of plugs having length to radius ra-
tios greater than 4.0.
The results of the theoretical analysis show that when a
borehole plug with a modulus ratio of 0.233 is used, a plug
length to radius ratio of at least 8.0 should be utilized to
avoid tensile failure.
The experimental work reported in this paper was funded
by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and was reported
in NUREG/CR-4295 (1991). Invaluable discussions with the
USNRC contract monitor J. Philip is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The authors wish to thank several anonymous re-
viewers for excellent comments and suggestions. Thanks are
due to A.P. Önen, ¤. Met, and A. Arcasoy for their help in
drafting Figs. 3 and 6–9.
Akgün, H. 1997. An assessment of borehole sealing performance
in a salt environment. Environmental Geology, 31(1/2): 34–41.
Akgün, H., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1986. Size influence on the sealing
performance of cementitious borehole plugs. Technical Report,
NUREG/CR-4738, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
Akgün, H., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1991. Bond strength of cementitious
borehole plugs in welded tuff. Technical Report, NUREG/CR-
4295, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Akgün, H., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1994. Performance assessment of
cement grout borehole plugs in basalt. Engineering Geology, 37:
137–148.
37
American Petroleum Institute. 1986. Specifications for materials
and testing for well cements. 3rd ed. American Petroleum Insti-
tute, Production Department, Dallas, Tex.
ASTM. 1979. Standard test method for unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock core specimens (D2938). In 1979 Annual
book of ASTM standards, Section 2, Vol. 4. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
ASTM. 1981. Standard method of making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory (C192). In 1981 Annual book of
ASTM standards, Section 2, Vol. 4. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
ASTM. 1986a. Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens (C39). In 1986 Annual book of
ASTM standards, Section 2, Vol. 4. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
ASTM. 1986b. Standard test method for elastic moduli of intact
rock core specimens in uniaxial compression (D3148). In 1986
Annual book of ASTM standards, Section 8, Vol. 4. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
Bauer, G.E. 1980. The measurement and analysis of load transfer
from a caisson to its rock socket. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney,
Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 235–240.
Brady, B.H.G., and Brown, E.T. 1993. Rock mechanics for under-
ground mining. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.
Coates, D.F. 1981. Rock mechanics principles. Mines Branch
Monograph 874, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Ottawa, Ont.
Daemen, J.J.K. 1983. Slip zones for discontinuities parallel to cir-
cular tunnels or shafts. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 20(3): 135–
148.
Daemen, J.J.K., Stormont, J.C., Colburn, N.I., South, D.L.,
Dischler, S.A., Fuenkajorn, K., Greer, W.B., Adisoma, G.S.,
Miles, D.E., Kousari, B., and Bertuca, J. 1983. Rock mass seal-
ing — experimental assessment of borehole plug performance.
Annual Report, NUREG/CR-3473, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C.
Desai, C.S. 1979. Elementary finite element method. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Desai, C.S., and Abel, J.F. 1972. Introduction to the finite element
method — a numerical method for engineering analysis. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Donald, I.B., Sloan, S.W., and Chiu, H.K. 1980. Theoretical analy-
ses of rock socketed piles. Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia,
Vol. 1, pp. 303–316.
Einarson, D.S., and Abel, J.F. 1990. Tunnel bulkheads for acid
mine drainage. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Unique Underground Structures, Denver, Co., Vol. II, Chap. 71.
Ferguson, P.M. 1973. Reinforced concrete fundamentals. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, W.K.
1992. Piling engineering. 2nd ed. Blackie and Son Ltd., Glas-
gow and London.
Fuenkajorn, K., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1991. Mechanical character-
ization of densely welded Apache Leap Tuff. Technical Report,
NUREG/CR-5688, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to rock mechanics. 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Greer, W.B., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1991. Analyses and field tests of
the hydraulic performance of cement grout borehole seals. Tech-
© 1999 NRC Canada
38
nical Report, NUREG/CR-5684, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission, Washington, D.C.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground excavations in rock.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, U.K.
Hollingshead, G.W. 1971. Stress distributions in rock anchors. Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Journal, 8: 588–592.
Horvath, R.G., Trow, W.A., and Kenney, T.C. 1980. Results of
tests to determine shaft resistance of rock-socketed drilled piers.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foun-
dations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 349–361.
Jaeger, J.C., and Cook, N.G.W. 1979. Fundamentals of rock me-
chanics. 3rd ed. Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.
Kulhawy, F.H., and Goodman, R.E. 1980. Design of foundations
on discontinuous rock. Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol.
1, pp. 209–222.
Ladanyi, B. 1982. Issues in rock mechanics: a personal view. Con-
ference keynote address. Issues in rock mechanics. Proceedings,
Twenty-Third Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley, Calif.
Ladanyi, B., and Domingue, D. 1980. An analysis of bond strength
for rock socketed piers. Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol.
1, pp. 363–373.
Malek, R.I.A., and Roy, D.M. 1985. Dissolution kinetics of tuff
rock and mechanism of chemical bond formation at the interface
with cement grout. Scientific basis for nuclear waste manage-
ment. VIII. Materials Research Society Symposia Proceedings,
Pittsburgh, Pa., Vol. 44, pp. 943–950.
Mehta, P.K., and Monteiro, P.J.M. 1986. Concrete structure, prop-
erties, and materials. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Mining Waste Study Team. 1988. Final report prepared by the
Mining Waste Study Team of the University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Moller, D.W., Minch, H., Welsh, J.P., and Rubsight, R.M. 1984.
Pressure grouting to control ground water in fractured granite
rock, Helms Pumped Storage Project. Innovative Cement
Grouting, Publication SP-83, American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, Mich., pp. 129–151.
Neville, A.M. 1981. Properties of concrete. 3rd ed. Pitman, Lon-
don, U.K.
Obert, L., and Duvall, W.I. 1967. Rock mechanics and the design
of structures in rock. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Pells, P.J.N., Rowe, R.K., and Turner, R.M. 1980. An experimental
investigation into side shear for socketed piles in sandstone.
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 36, 1999
Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foun-
dations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 291–302.
Pettman, E.R. 1984. Tunnel plugs in recent H.E.C. Practice. Fifth
Australian Tunnelling Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp. 207–212.
Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of deformation of
vertically loaded piles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 104(GT12): 1465–1488.
Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987a. Theoretical solutions for
axial deformation of drilled shafts in rock. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 24: 114–125.
Rowe, R.K., and Armitage, H.H. 1987b. A design method for
drilled piers in soft rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24:
126–142.
Rowe, R.K., and Pells, P.J.N. 1980. A theoretical study of pile-rock
socket behavior. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1,
pp. 253–264.
Rowe, R.K., Booker, J.K., and Balaam, N.P. 1978. Application of
the initial stress method to soil structure interaction. Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12: 873–
880.
Scheetz, B.E., and Roy, D.M. 1985. Geochemical performance
evaluation and characterization of a potential cementitious re-
pository sealing material for application in the Topopah Spring
Tuff NNWSI investigations. Scientific basis for nuclear waste
management. VIII. Materials Research Society Symposia Pro-
ceedings, Pittsburgh, Pa., Vol. 44, pp. 935–942.
Stormont, J.C., and Daemen, J.J.K. 1983. Axial strength of cement
borehole plugs in granite and basalt. Technical Report,
NUREG/CR-3594, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
Thorne, C.P. 1980. The capacity of piers drilled into rock. Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations
on Rock, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 223–233.
Transportation Research Board. 1991. Transportation Research
Board special summer meeting on geotechnical exploratory
holes, May 28. Albany, N.Y.
Williams, A.F., and Pells, P.J.N. 1981. Side resistance rock sockets
in sandstone, mudstone, and shale. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 18: 502–513.
Williams, A.F., Johnston, I.W., and Donald, I.B. 1980. The design
of socketed piles in weak rock. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Sydney, Austra-
lia, Vol. 1, pp. 327–347.
Wyllie, D.C. 1992. Foundations on rock. E&FN Spon, London,
U.K.
© 1999 NRC Canada