Dynamic Testing of Combined

Rock Bolt and Mesh Schemes

E Villaescusa1, A De Zoysa2, J R Player3 and A G Thompson4

ABSTRACT
Ground support performance is critical to the safe and economical extraction of ore. This is
particularly important for mass mining extractions at great depth, which are currently being
considered by a large number of mining companies worldwide. As the in situ stresses concentrate
around critical excavations, failure occurs at the excavation boundaries and ground support is
required for the excavations to remain safe and accessible for their intended lifespan. Ground
support consists of reinforcing elements that are installed within the rock mass to modify its
internal behaviour (generally to within one excavation radius) and surface support elements that
are installed at the exposed boundaries to retain the failed pieces of rock. For surface support to be
effective, the loadings need to be transferred to the reinforcing elements; however, the combined
performance of rock bolts and mesh is poorly understood in terms of the energy dissipation capacity
available for a typical ground support scheme implemented at most mass mining operations.
Over the last 15 years or so, a large number of large-scale laboratory experiments have been
completed at the Western Australian School of Mines (WASM) Dynamic Test Facility for
reinforcement systems and surface support systems loaded separately. The objective of more
recent testing has been to establish the combined energy dissipation capacity of typical and
enhanced reinforcement systems combined with mesh surface support. Total energy dissipation
has been separated into energy dissipation attributable to the reinforcement and to the mesh. The
results of the tests are presented and compared with the existing WASM design demand and
capacity guidelines.

INTRODUCTION
The trend for underground mines is to progress to ever energy dissipation was achieved at relatively low forces and
increasing depths to access orebodies. At these greater depths excessive displacements. For example, Figure 1 conceptually
and higher stresses, the potential increases for large rock mass shows the difference between two reinforcement force-
displacements associated with immediate rebound following displacement responses with the same energy dissipation.
removal of rock to create an opening, followed by long-term In the latter case, ground support and broken rock need to
creep due to the rheology of the rock mass materials and be removed and a new ground support scheme installed to
discontinuities. In addition, the higher stresses increase the enable resumption of access.
potential for sudden rock failure accompanied by energy While most developments in recent years have been directed
release; accordingly, the ground support is required to have towards improved reinforcement systems, there have been
different characteristics compared with those that have
been successfully used for many years at shallower depths.
In particular, the displacement capacity needs to exceed,
firstly, the rock mass displacements due to rebound following
installation and ongoing creep with time and, secondly, the
additional displacement demand following a violent failure
event to dissipate the energy released from the rock mass.
The ability to dissipate energy is also a function of the force
capacity of the installed ground support.
Increasingly, over the last decade or so, reinforcement
systems have been developed with increased displacement
capacities without severe reductions in force capacities. This
has resulted in high energy dissipation capacity at moderate FIG 1 – Examples of high energy dissipation force-displacement
displacements. Prior to the development of these systems, high responses with acceptable and excessive displacements.

1. Professor of Mining Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines, CRCMining, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: e.villaescusa@curtin.edu.au
2. Laboratory Assistant, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: u.zoysa@curtin.edu.au
3. MAusIMM(CP), Principal, MineGeoTech Pty Ltd, Kalgoorlie WA 6430. Email: johnplayer@minegeotech.com.au
4. MAusIMM, Principal, Alan Thompson Geotechnology Pty Ltd, Esperance WA 6450. Email: alan@atgeotech.com.au

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 789
E VILLAESCUSA et al
limited efforts towards improving surface support systems
such as steel wire mesh and shotcrete. With regards to mesh, it
inherently has a relatively large displacement capacity due to
the characteristics of the restraint provided by reinforcement
and its response to lateral loading. However, the performance
of mesh can be improved by a transition from relatively stiff,
welded and low-strength steel wire mesh sheets to articulated
rolls of woven (chain link), high-strength steel wire mesh as
shown in Figure 2 (Villaescusa et al, 2012).
FIG 2 – Examples of force-displacement responses for welded
wire mesh and high tensile strength wire woven mesh.
FIG 3 – Examples of shotcrete cracking due to tensile movement.
FIG 4 – Example of shotcrete spalling.
790 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
On the other hand, shotcrete is a stiff material with
inherently low tensile strength and the potential to crush
and fail violently, similarly to rock when subjected to
high compressive stresses. Current practice is to use steel
or synthetic fibres to improve the ductility of shotcrete.
However, many observations (eg Figure 3) suggest that
fibres often do little to improve the performance of shotcrete
following the formation of tensile cracks and cannot prevent
spalling as shown in Figure 4. It is apparent that continuous
internal reinforcement (mesh) is required to improve the
post-cracking performance of shotcrete. Techniques have
been developed for civil infrastructure tunnels to reduce the
stiffness of shotcrete in compression and have proven to be
effective in preventing crushing failure in highly deformable
ground. These techniques have yet to be trialled in deep,
highly stressed mine openings.
An important function of ground support is the use of
both internal reinforcement and surface support. Surface
support is required to resist detachment of failed rock from
a rock mass. Reinforcement serves two purposes. Firstly, it
improves the rock mass properties by providing both tensile
and shear resistance across discontinuities in the rock and,
secondly, it attempts to sustain the forces transmitted from
the surface support.
The Western Australian School of Mines (WASM), located in
Kalgoorlie, commenced the development and commissioning
of a facility for dynamic testing of ground support systems
 DYNAMIC TESTING OF COMBINED ROCK BOLT AND MESH SCHEMES

in 2001. The WASM Dynamic Test Facility has been used

since that time to test and evaluate the performance of
reinforcement systems and surface support such as mesh
and shotcrete subjected separately to dynamic loading.
More recently, the test facility has been used to dynamically
load reinforcement systems combined with mesh panels.
The following sections describe the test facility, sample
preparation and test configurations, present the detailed
results from the tests and, finally, show how the results may
be implemented in the design of ground support which may
be subjected to dynamic loading.

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL OF MINES

DYNAMIC TEST FACILITY
The WASM Dynamic Test Facility design, construction and
commissioning were fully detailed by Player, Thompson and
Villaescusa (2004) and Player (2012). In summary, the facility
is located on the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM)
mining lease in Kalgoorlie. It comprises a large building in
which the testing equipment and the data monitoring and
acquisition system are located as shown later in Figure 5.
Testing equipment
Dynamic testing involves dropping a beam and a ground
support scheme with a loading mass from a known height
to impact onto engineered buffers as shown schematically
in Figure 6. The buffers rapidly decelerate the beam and
the momentum of the loading mass then applies force to
the ground support scheme. The mechanics of loading for a
reinforcement system based on a free body diagram of the
complete test assembly were detailed by Thompson, Player
and Villaescusa (2004). The same concepts are used for
support (that is, panels of mesh or shotcrete) and schemes
comprising combinations of reinforcement and support.
Release Hook
(Max capacity of 4.5t)
with the shock absorber
Setup for
anchor cells
Computer
and data
logger
cabinet
Mesh frame
(1.4m ×1.4m)
Flood light
(500W)
FIG 6 – Schematic of dynamic test configuration for
combined reinforcement and mesh panel.
Instrumentation and data acquisition system
The instrumentation and data acquisition system used were
detailed by Player, Thompson and Villaescusa (2004) and
Player (2012). In summary, the instrumentation comprises:
• accelerometers
• load cells
• displacement transducers
• laser breaks
• a Phantom Miro eX4high speed digital video camera.
The data acquisition system comprises a National
Instruments PCI6071E data acquisition (DAQ) board which is
programmed using Xcitex MidasDA® 2.0 software running on
a PC with the Windows® operating system. Instrument data
is collected at a rate of 25 000 scans per second. The video
camera has a rate of 1000 frames/second.
The DAQ board records data (sensor data and video
data) continuously in a two-second window as soon as it is
powered. The system is triggered when the drop beam passes
through a laser beam. A second laser break is used to calculate
the velocity of the assembly just prior to impact of the drop
beam on to the buffers. Data acquisition ceases approximately
Yellow drop beam 2000 milliseconds after impact, by which time the loading
(710kg) mass has been brought to rest by the ground support scheme
Simulated rock bolt or failure of one or more components of the ground support
inside the steel pipe with
the simulated
scheme has occurred.
discontinuity at 1m from
the collar end
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TEST
Mass (Standard 2t),
simulates the ejected rock METHODOLOGY
A combination of reinforcement and mesh support involves
Crane remote control
separate processes for the preparation of the reinforcement
Buffers with fixed
potentiometers
system and the mesh panel prior to the assembly of the
scheme for testing (De Zoysa, 2015).

Reinforcement system preparation

In the WASM Dynamic Test Facility, reinforcement systems
2*1500W lights are installed in ‘simulated boreholes’. A simulated borehole
may simply comprise a steel pipe in which the reinforcement
Miro High Speed
Video Camera system is encapsulated with cement or resin grout. For
reinforcement systems that in practice rely on direct load
transfer between the element and rock, an artificial high
FIG 5 – Test configuration immediately prior to test of strength and stiffness cement based grout has been developed
combined reinforcement system and mesh panel. to fill a steel pipe (Player, Villaescusa and Thompson, 2009).

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 791
E VILLAESCUSA et al

The grout filled steel pipe is then taken to a mine site and
secured firmly in a large diameter borehole. A jumbo is then
used to drill the required borehole diameter and install bolts
using standard practices. This methodology has been used to
install friction rock stabilisers (eg split tube or expanded tubes)
and bolts encapsulated by spinning through resin cartridges.
The initial stage consists of grouting of the simulated
boreholes. Centralisers (fixed to the threaded bars) were used
to locate the rock bolts inside a steel pipe prior to a grouting
process. Toe grout connections were fixed on to the pipe ends
with duct tape. A number of pipes were placed on two wooden
blocks and fixed vertically near the collar end as shown in
Figure 7. A 0.4 water/cement ratio grout was pumped from
the collars to the tops of the pipes. After the pipes were
completely filled with grout, the ends of the plastic pipes
were blocked to prevent leaking of grout. Grouted simulated
borehole samples were cured for 28 days inside the WASM FIG 8 – Fixing of the mesh on to the frame.
Dynamic Test Facility prior to testing.

Mesh panel preparation

The mesh frame was lifted and placed on four stands as shown
in Figure 8. The mesh was attached to shackles and fixed to
the frame by eye bolts. The number of restraints for each side
depended on the type of mesh (chain link mesh or weld mesh)
and the size of a mesh loop (typically a diamond shape for
chain link mesh and square or rectangle for weld mesh).
Targets with black squares in a white background were
positioned securely to the mesh to measure the initial mesh
deflection and also to track the mesh deformation with the
high speed video camera.

Combined scheme set-up

Initially, the drop beam was placed on the buffers as shown
in Figure 9. The load mass was centralised and supported on
two steel beams placed across the drop pit. The simulated
borehole (the steel pipe configuration) was lifted with the
use of a crane and positioned through the drop beam and the FIG 9 –Setting up the reinforcement system with the loading mass.

FIG 7 – The reinforcement system cement grouting process.

792 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016

mass. The pipe was then bolted onto the beam above the anchor
load cells. A load transfer ring was welded onto the pipe.
Four ropes were attached to the system as shown in
Figure 10. The beam was then lifted and placed on top of the
mesh and lowered onto the mesh frame. The collar pipe was
positioned through a centralised curved plate while the mesh
frame threads were positioned through the drop beam holes.
These two steps were performed simultaneously.
The curved plate was fixed onto the load mass and to the
mesh. The frame threads were fixed onto the drop beam with
the load cells. The total system (drop beam + mesh frame +
reinforcement system + mass) was then lifted with the crane
and positioned at the drop pit. The system was lowered in
the drop pit until the complete test configuration rested on
the buffers.
The collar load cell was installed between the plate and
the nut as shown in Figure 11. The nut was rotated with a
torque wrench and the bar tensioned to approximately
20 kN. A dome washer was used between a flat washer and
the plate. After installing the surface hardware, the nut was
covered with black tape and white crosses were drawn on it.
These targets were used to track the collar movement of the
reinforcement in the video data analysis process.
Installation of remaining instrumentation
The next step of the procedure was installation of the
instrumentation to the test components. The accelerometers
FIG 10 – Fixing of the beam on to the mesh frame.
Star plate
Dome washer
Collar load cell
Targets
FIG 11 – Reinforcement collar load cell configuration.
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
DYNAMIC TESTING OF COMBINED ROCK BOLT AND MESH SCHEMES
were fixed onto the drop beam and to the loading mass. The
high speed video camera (fixed onto a tripod) was placed on
the floor. The high speed video camera was adjusted to the
correct aperture and zoomed to the centre plane of the pit
with use of a calibrated board.
NI-SC2043SG board cables for the drop beam and the mesh
frame were connected and checked for correct operation
using the data acquisition software. The laser triggering
process was checked manually by blocking the laser beam.
In the final stage, the release hook was attached to the crane
and the system raised to the required height above the impact
surface on the buffer pistons.
Test procedure
Figure 5 shows the test set-up immediately prior to testing. The
gantry crane is used to lift the assembly of test components to
the required height and then the assembly is released from a
remotely operated hook with shock absorber.
Data analysis
A key component of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility is the
data processing software that has been developed in house.
The software used to analyse reinforcement system testing was
described in detail by Thompson, Player and Villaescusa (2004).
Subsequently, the software has been enhanced to analyse
data from tests on support (ie mesh or shotcrete) and tests on
combined schemes of reinforcement and support. The software
is used to analyse and display the responses (ie displacement,
velocity and acceleration) of all the instrumentation with time.
The data analysis methodology consists of three main stages:
1. reviewing and selecting data for analysis
2. filtering of the selected data
3. analysis of the filtered data over a selected time interval.
This methodology has been incorporated into the
software developed using the Microsoft® Visual Basic 6.0
programming language.
TESTING RESULTS
Test programs
Two separate test programs involving reinforcement systems
combined with mesh panels are summarised in Table 1 and
Table 2 respectively. The first reinforcement and mesh scheme
Dome washer
Flat washers Collar load cell
Nut
Rock bolt
Not in scale
793
E VILLAESCUSA et al

TABLE 1
Sample specifications – program 1.

Sample No Reinforcement system Bar length (mm) Bar diameter Decoupled Support system Wire diameter
(mm) length (mm) (mm)
195 Fully encapsulated threaded bar 2400 20 0 GEOBRUGG G80–4
196 Fully encapsulated threaded bar 2400 20 0 GEOBRUGG G80–4
197 Fully encapsulated threaded bar 2400 20 0 Weld mesh 5.6
198 Fully encapsulated threaded bar 2400 20 0 Weld mesh 5.6
199 Decoupled Posimix 2400 20 1000 Weld mesh 5.6
200 Decoupled Posimix 2400 20 1000 GEOBRUGG G80–4
201 Decoupled Posimix 2400 20 1000 GEOBRUGG G80–4
202 Decoupled Posimix 2400 20 1000 Weld mesh 5.6

TABLE 2
Sample specifications – program 2.

Sample No Reinforcement system Bar length (mm) Bar diameter Decoupled Support system Wire diameter
(mm) length (mm) (mm)
231 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 CODELCO 4
232 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 CODELCO 4
233 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 CODELCO 5
234 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 CODELCO 5
235 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 GEOBRUGG G80–4
236 DSI Posimix 3000 20 1400 GEOBRUGG G80–4

test program involved two different types of reinforcement reinforcement system, support system and buffers) and the
systems; namely: residual kinetic energy of the loading mass, the beam and the
1. fully coupled cement encapsulated 20 mm diameter mesh frame, divided by the input energy (kinetic energy of the
threaded bar entire system at impact plus the change in potential energy).
2. cement encapsulated (1000 mm decoupled length) 20 mm The energy balance for a test is calculated at the rupture
diameter threaded bar.
point or when the relative velocity between the loading mass
These were used in combination with two different types of and the drop beam becomes zero. The end point for the test
mesh support systems; namely:
#195 shown in Figure 12 was defined at 47.6 ms, which was
1. TECCO G80 chain link mesh, 4 mm wire diameter the reinforcement rupture point. The red vertical line is the
2. galvanised welded wire mesh, 5.6 mm wire diameter. end of the test. The energy balance for this test is 96.5 per cent
The second reinforcement and mesh scheme test program which is considered to be an excellent reconciliation.
involved DSI Posimix 20 mm diameter bar, 3 m long having
a 1.4 m decoupled length between the toe and collar. Three TABLE 3
types of chain link mesh support were used; namely:
Test program loading specifications.
1. Codelco chain link mesh, 4 mm wire diameter
2. Codelco chain link mesh, 5 mm wire diameter Test ID Impact Total loading Initial input
3. TECCO G80 chain link mesh, 4 mm wire diameter. velocity (m/s) mass (kg) energy (kJ)
The Codelco mesh is used at the El Teniente Mine owned 195 5.8 2158 36.6
by Codelco Chile. The TECCO G80 chain link mesh is
196 6 1778 32
a proprietary product of Geobrugg, a company with
headquarters in Switzerland. 197 5.4 1869 27
Program 1

The input specifications (mass and impact velocity) for the 198 5.8 2248 38.7
two test programs are summarised in Table 3. 199 6.8 2248 53.2

Typical result 200 6.1 2158 40.9

The results are summarised generally using an energy chart 201 6.8 1778 41.6
shown in Figure 12. This chart shows the energy of all the 202 5.8 2158 37
components during the time between impact and the selected
231 7.2 2158 56
end time for the test. Curves above the time axis represent the
Program 2

kinetic energy of the components while the curves below the 234 7.1 2158 54.9
line represent energy dissipated. An energy balance is used 235 7.3 2158 57.5
to assess the results. Energy balance is defined as the sum
236 7 2158 52.8
of dissipated energy (the sum of energy dissipated by the

794 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
 DYNAMIC TESTING OF COMBINED ROCK BOLT AND MESH SCHEMES

worth noting that all the reinforcement systems survived for

program 2 with at least one mesh wire ruptured; however, all
tests resulted in arrest of the loading mass.

Dynamic force–displacement responses

FIG 12 – Chart showing test component energy variations with time.
Summary of results
The summaries of the results for programs 1 and 2 are given
in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. These tables provide details
of the reinforcement and mesh performance, the total energy
dissipated and some comments on the tests. The support
system responses for all tests are summarised in Table 6. It is
The overall dynamic force–displacement responses for the
threaded bars are shown in Figure 13. The ruptured threaded
bars and the pulled out threaded bar of sample #199 are
marked with stars. The decoupled threaded bars elongated
more compared to the fully encapsulated threaded bars.
The decoupled length allows the bar to elongate with load
increases. Conversely, fully encapsulated bars have limited
elongation due to the resistance between the grout and the bar.
The peak dynamic forces for all the samples were 300–410 kN.
The combined scheme dynamic force–time responses are
categorised according to the type of reinforcement involved
(ie fully encapsulated threaded bar, 1 m decoupled threaded
bar and 1.4 m decoupled DSI Posimix) and are presented in
Figures 14, 15 and 16 respectively.
After the dynamic force reached ~300 kN for fully encapsulated
threaded bars, the force remains nearly constant until the end
of the test. A slightly increasing trend in force responses of
decoupled threaded bars can be identified in Figure 16.
Table 7 details the energy dissipated by each of the
reinforcement and support systems. It also shows the

TABLE 4
Summary of program 1.

Test Reinforcement Support Total energy Comments

ID system system dissipated (kJ)
195 Ruptured Survived 19.5 The reinforcement system ruptured with a maximum deformation of 77 mm at the simulated discontinuity. The
support system survived.
196 Ruptured 5 wires 25.2 The combined scheme failed. The support system ruptured at 43.4 ms followed by the reinforcement system at
ruptured 47.6 ms with a maximum deformation of 93 mm at the simulated discontinuity.
197 Survived 4 wires 16 The combined scheme was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 59 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity. A total of four wires ruptured, one on each side of the support system.
198 Survived 10 wires 25 The combined system was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 75.5 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity. A total of ten wires ruptured on three sides of the support system.
199 Pulled out Completely 37 Energy is calculated at the initiation of reinforcement sliding. The reinforcement system pulled out. The mass
ruptured slipped onto the bottom of the pit. The support system failed completely.
200 Pulled out 15 wires 24.8 Energy is calculated at the initiation of reinforcement sliding. The reinforcement pulled out with a separation of
ruptured 174.5 mm at the simulated discontinuity. A total of 15 wires failed ruptured on the support system.
201 Survived 5 wires 29 The reinforcement system survived with a 128 mm of separation at the simulated discontinuity while the support
ruptured system failed.
202 Survived 6 wires 34.3 The combined scheme was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 112 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity. The support system was stable with six ruptured wires.

TABLE 5
Summary of program 2.

Test Reinforcement Support Total energy Comments

ID system system dissipated (kJ)
231 Survived 1 wire 27.4 The combined system was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 142 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity and the support system was stable with a single ruptured wire.
234 Survived 1 wire 41.6 The combined system was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 155 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity and the support system was stable with a single ruptured wire.
235 Survived 9 wires 33.0 The combined system was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 149 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity and the support system was stable with nine ruptured wires.
236 Survived 4 wires 43.4 The combined system was stable. The reinforcement system survived with a 121 mm of separation at the
ruptured simulated discontinuity and the support system was stable with four ruptured wires.

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 795
E VILLAESCUSA et al

TABLE 6
Summary of support system responses.

Test ID Pre-test Post-test Total number Support system response

displacement (mm) displacement (mm) of ruptures
195 79 90 0 Stable.
196 94 n/r 5 Cut by edge on turtle plate.
197 118 173 4 Four failures (one on each side).
198 107 183 10 Failure (on three edges).
199 96 n/r 38 Destroyed (no readings).
200 60 207 15 Failure (on all sides).
201 74 222 5 Wire ruptures start after bolt pulled off. Failure runs from back to front.
202 99 196 6 Wire ruptures start from the front edge and work inwards.
231 200 324 1 Wire cut by edge on surface hardware plate.
234 140 282 1 Wire cut by edge on surface hardware plate.
235 74 216 9 Wire ruptures are at the front and the back of the mass.
236 76 192 4 Stable with four ruptured wires.

FIG 14 – Dynamic force–time responses of fully

bonded threaded bars (program 1).

The graph is divided into regions as low, medium, high

and very high according to the typical rock mass demand
for ground support design as shown in Table 8 developed
by Villaescusa, Player and Thompson (2014). The objective
of design is to select a combined scheme that is capable of
greater energy dissipation at less displacement compared
with the rock mass demand.

FIG 13 – Dynamic force–time responses of combined systems.
maximum displacement and the peak dynamic force for
each test. The ruptured systems are highlighted in red and
the systems that survived are in green for clear identification.
Reinforcement that failed by pulling out is marked in purple.
APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO WA SCHOOL OF
MINES DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The energy dissipated in relation to the deformation at failure
for each of the combined systems is presented in Figure 17.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Dynamic loading tests on combined reinforcement and mesh
ground support schemes have been described in detail and
the results presented. The tests are believed to be the first
which have been able to separate the individual responses
of the reinforcement and mesh from the overall responses
of the ground support scheme. This is an important feature
of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility as it clearly indicates
the importance of matching the response stiffness of the
reinforcement and mesh. This was demonstrated by the
survival of lower stiffness responses to loading of decoupled
bar compared with the stiff responses of fully coupled bars.
The results have been applied to a new design methodology
relating the measured dynamic performance of ground
support schemes to the expected rock mass demand resulting

796 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
 DYNAMIC TESTING OF COMBINED ROCK BOLT AND MESH SCHEMES

TABLE 8
Typical rock mass demand for ground support design.

Demand Reaction Surface Energy

category pressure (kPa) displacement (mm) (kJ/m²)
Low <100 <50 <5
Medium 100–150 50–100 5–15
High 150–200 100–200 15–25
Very high 200–400 200–300 25–35
Extremely high >400 >300 >35

from violent failure. The feature of the methodology is

the matching of both the energy release and expected rock
dilation to the energy dissipation and displacement capacities
FIG 15 – Dynamic force–time responses of of the ground support.
1 m decoupled threaded bars (program 1).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
450
3m 550MPa 20mm DSI Posimix, 1.4m The financial assistance of the sponsoring mining companies,
decoupled_Codelco 4mm chainlink
400 mesh_#231
3m 550MPa 20mm DSI Posimix, 1.4m
Minerals and Energy Research Institute of Western Australia
350
decoupled_Codelco 5mm chainlink
mesh_#234
(MERIWA) and the CRC Mining in supporting the work of the
3m 550MPa 20mm DSI Posimix, 1.4m
decoupled_G80‐4 chainlink WASM Rock Mechanics Group is gratefully acknowledged.
300
Dynamic Force (kN)

mesh_#235
3m 550MPa 20mm DSI Posimix, 1.4m
250 decoupled_G80‐4 chainlink
mesh_#236 REFERENCES
200 De Zoysa, A U, 2015. Dynamic testing of mesh and rock bolt support
150
systems, MPhil thesis (unpublished), Western Australian School
of Mines, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie.
100
Player, J R, 2012. Dynamic testing of rock reinforcement systems, PhD
50 thesis (unpublished), Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin
University, Kalgoorlie.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Player, J R, Thompson, A G and Villaescusa, E, 2004. Dynamic testing
Time (ms)
of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept, in
FIG 16 – Dynamic force–time responses of 1.4 m Proceedings Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction
decoupled DSI Posimix (program 2). (eds: E Villaescusa and Y Potvin), pp 327–340 (Balkema: Leiden).

TABLE 7
Energy dissipated by the combined schemes.

Reinforcement system Support system

Total energy
Peak
Energy Peak dynamic Energy dissipated
Time Displacement Time Displacement dynamic
Test ID dissipated force dissipated by the
(ms) (Smax) (ms) (Smax) force
(kJ) (kN) (kJ) combined
(kN)
scheme
195 47.6 77 14.1 265 47.6 115 5.4 210 19.5
196 52 93 23.5 265.3 43.4 89.6 1.7 265.3 25.2
197 57 59 14.7 252.2 40.2 67.4 1.3 322 16
Program 1

198 68 85.4 19 260 39.4 65.8 6 106.8 25

199 55.6 >1000 27.7 246 35.7 - 9.3 149.8 37
200 41.8 174.5 22.1 262.7 52 121 2.7 158.5 24.8
201 42 136 25.8 261.5 42 113 3.2 74.5 29
202 64 121 26.3 245.6 35.8 121 8 97 34.3
231 57 108 22.8 302.2 45.6 108 4.6 158.5 27.4
Program 2

234 68 111 37.1 255.4 55.3 111 4.5 158 41.6

235 70.7 119.5 25.4 310.6 60.5 119.5 7.6 156.3 33
236 65 140.4 34.8 300.8 64.5 140.4 8.6 140.7 43.4

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 797
E VILLAESCUSA et al

FIG 17 – Design of combined scheme under dynamic loading.

Player, J R, Villaescusa, E and Thompson, A G, 2009. Dynamic
testing of friction rock stabilizers, in Proceedings ROCKENG09:
Rock  Engineering  in  Diffi cult  Conditions  (eds: M Diederichs and
G Grasselli), paper 4027, 12 p (Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum: Montreal).
Thompson, A G, Player, J R and Villaescusa, E, 2004. Simulation
and analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement systems, in
Proceedings Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction
(eds: E Villaescusa and Y Potvin), pp 341–358 (Balkema: Leiden).
Villaescusa, E, Azua, J M, Player, J R, Thompson, A G and Morton, E,
2012. A database of static and dynamic energy absorption of mesh
for rock support, in Proceedings 2012 Australian Mining Technology
Conference, pp 27–34 (CRC Mining: Brisbane).
Villaescusa, E, Player, J R and Thompson, A G, 2014. A reinforcement
design methodology for highly stressed rock masses, in Proceedings
ARMS8 – 2014 ISRM International Symposium – 8th Asian Rock
Mechanics Symposium (eds: N Shimizu, K Kaneko and J Kodama),
pp 87–94 (Japanese Committee for Rock Mechanics: Tokyo).

798 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016