Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/307535866
CITATIONS READS
0 592
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ernesto Villaescusa on 01 September 2016.
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 Figure 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 1
E Villaescusa et al
limited efforts towards improving surface support systems On the other hand, shotcrete is a stiff material with
such as steel wire mesh and shotcrete. With regards to mesh, it inherently low tensile strength and the potential to crush
inherently has a relatively large displacement capacity due to and fail violently, similarly to rock when subjected to
the characteristics of the restraint provided by reinforcement high compressive stresses. Current practice is to use steel
and its response to lateral loading. However, the performance or synthetic fibres to improve the ductility of shotcrete.
However, many observations (eg Figure 3) suggest that
of mesh can be improved by a transition from relatively stiff,
fibres often do little to improve the performance of shotcrete
welded and low-strength steel wire mesh sheets to articulated
following the formation of tensile cracks and cannot prevent
rolls of woven (chain link), high-strength steel wire mesh as spalling as shown in Figure 4. It is apparent that continuous
shown in Figure 2 (Villaescusa et al, 2012). 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
Figure 2 – Examples of force-displacement responses for welded Kalgoorlie, commenced the development and commissioning
wire mesh and high tensile strength wire woven mesh. of a facility for dynamic testing of ground support systems
2 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Dynamic Testing of Combined Rock Bolt and Mesh Schemes
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 3
E Villaescusa et al
4 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Dynamic Testing of Combined Rock Bolt and Mesh Schemes
Four ropes were attached to the system as shown in the floor. The high speed video camera was adjusted to the
Figure 10. The beam was then lifted and placed on top of the correct aperture and zoomed to the centre plane of the pit
mesh and lowered onto the mesh frame. The collar pipe was with use of a calibrated board.
positioned through a centralised curved plate while the mesh NI-SC2043SG board cables for the drop beam and the mesh
frame threads were positioned through the drop beam holes. frame were connected and checked for correct operation
These two steps were performed simultaneously.
using the data acquisition software. The laser triggering
The curved plate was fixed onto the load mass and to the process was checked manually by blocking the laser beam.
mesh. The frame threads were fixed onto the drop beam with In the final stage, the release hook was attached to the crane
the load cells. The total system (drop beam + mesh frame + and the system raised to the required height above the impact
reinforcement system + mass) was then lifted with the crane surface on the buffer pistons.
and positioned at the drop pit. The system was lowered in
the drop pit until the complete test configuration rested on
Test procedure
the buffers.
Figure 5 shows the test set-up immediately prior to testing. The
The collar load cell was installed between the plate and
gantry crane is used to lift the assembly of test components to
the nut as shown in Figure 11. The nut was rotated with a
the required height and then the assembly is released from a
torque wrench and the bar tensioned to approximately
remotely operated hook with shock absorber.
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.
Data analysis
These targets were used to track the collar movement of the A key component of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility is
reinforcement in the video data analysis process. the data processing software that has been developed in
house. The software used to analyse reinforcement system
Installation of remaining instrumentation testing was described in detail by Thompson, Player and
The next step of the procedure was installation of the Villaescusa (2004). Subsequently, the software has been
instrumentation to the test components. The accelerometers enhanced to analyse data from tests on support (ie mesh or
were fixed onto the drop beam and to the loading mass. The shotcrete) and tests on combined schemes of reinforcement
high speed video camera (fixed onto a tripod) was placed on 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
Figure 10 – Fixing of the beam on to the mesh frame. Table 2 respectively. The first reinforcement and mesh scheme
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 5
E Villaescusa et al
test program involved two different types of reinforcement the 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 195 5.8 2158 36.6
owned by CODELCO Chile. The TECCO G80 chain
196 6 1778 32
link mesh is 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
the kinetic energy of the components while the curves below 234 7.1 2158 54.9
the line represent energy dissipated. An energy balance is 235 7.3 2158 57.5
used to assess the results. Energy balance is defined as the
236 7 2158 52.8
sum of dissipated energy (the sum of energy dissipated by
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
6 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Dynamic Testing of Combined Rock Bolt and Mesh Schemes
TABLE 4
Summary of program 1.
TABLE 5
Summary of program 2.
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 7
E Villaescusa et al
TABLE 6
Summary of support system responses.
of the test. A slightly increasing trend in force responses of application of results to WA SCHOOL OF
decoupled threaded bars can be identified in Figure 16. MINES design methodology
Table 7 details the energy dissipated by each of the The energy dissipated in relation to the deformation at failure
reinforcement and support systems. It also shows the for each of the combined systems is presented in Figure 17.
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.
8 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016
Dynamic Testing of Combined Rock Bolt and Mesh Schemes
TABLE 7
Energy dissipated by the combined schemes.
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
Figure 16 – Dynamic force–time responses of 1.4 m from violent failure. The feature of the methodology is
decoupled DSI Posimix (program 2). the matching of both the energy release and expected rock
dilation to the energy dissipation and displacement capacities
The graph is divided into regions as low, medium, high
of the ground support.
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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of design is to select a combined scheme that is capable of The financial assistance of the sponsoring mining companies,
greater energy dissipation at less displacement compared Minerals and Energy Research Institute of Western Australia
with the rock mass demand. (MERIWA) and the CRC Mining in supporting the work of the
WASM Rock Mechanics Group is gratefully acknowledged.
TABLE 8
Typical rock mass demand for ground support design. REFERENCES
De Zoysa, A U, 2015. Dynamic testing of mesh and rock bolt support
Demand Reaction Surface Energy systems, MPhil thesis (unpublished), Western Australian School
category pressure (kPa) displacement (mm) (kJ/m²) of Mines, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie.
Low <100 <50 <5 Player, J R, 2012. Dynamic testing of rock reinforcement systems, PhD
thesis (unpublished), Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin
Medium 100–150 50–100 5–15
University, Kalgoorlie.
High 150–200 100–200 15–25
Player, J R, Thompson, A G and Villaescusa, E, 2004. Dynamic testing
Very high 200–400 200–300 25–35 of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept, in
Proceedings Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction
Extremely high >400 >300 >35
(eds: E Villaescusa and Y Potvin), pp 327–340 (Balkema: Leiden).
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016 9
E Villaescusa et al
Player, J R, Villaescusa, E and Thompson, A G, 2009. Dynamic testing Villaescusa, E, Azua, J M, Player, J R, Thompson, A G and Morton,
of friction rock stabilizers, in Proceedings ROCKENG09: E, 2012. A database of static and dynamic energy absorption of
Rock Engineering in Difficult Conditions (eds: M Diederichs and G mesh for rock support, in Proceedings 2012 Australian Mining
Grasselli), Paper 4027, CIM:Montreal,12p. Technology Conference, pp 27–34 (CRC Mining: Brisbane).
Thompson, A G, Player, J R and Villaescusa, E, 2004. Simulation Villaescusa, E, Player, J R and Thompson, A G, 2014. A reinforcement
and analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement systems, in design methodology for highly stressed rock masses, in
Proceedings Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction Proceedings ARMS8 – 2014 ISRM International Symposium – 8th
(eds: E Villaescusa and Y Potvin), pp 341–358 (Balkema: Leiden). Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (eds: N Shimizu, K Kaneko and
J Kodama), pp 87–94 (Japanese Committee for Rock Mechanics:
Tokyo).
10 SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON MASS MINING / SYDNEY, NSW, 9–11 MAY 2016