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

net/publication/281465829

Inflatable Rock Bolt Bond Strength vs. Rock Mass Rating (RMR): A
comparative Analysis of Pull-Out Testing Data from Underground Mines in
Nevada

Conference Paper  in  International Journal of Mining Science and Technology · July 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.11.004

CITATIONS READS

3 892

4 authors, including:

Sean N Warren Rahul Thareja

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention University of Nevada, Reno
20 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Backfill CRF and Paste Material Properties View project

Ground Support for Weak Rock Mass View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sean N Warren on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 34th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Inflatable Rock Bolt Bond Strength vs. Rock Mass Rating (RMR): A
Comparative Analysis of Pull–Out Testing Data From Underground
Mines in Nevada.
Chase K Barnard,
Barnard, C.
Master Student
Rajagopala Kallu,Kallu, R.
Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Sean Warren,
Warren, S.
Ph.D. Student
Rahul Thareja,
Thareja, R.
Ph.D. Student
Mining Engineering
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, NV

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Inflatable rock bolts are commonly utilized for ground support in
Nevada underground mines, however, there is limited information
regarding what factors influence the bond strength of these
bolts. Bond strength is an important parameter in friction bolt
support design, and this information is usually not available from
manufacturers as a standard. Previous research has investigated
the bond strength of friction bolts; however, these studies focused
primarily on split set bolts and ground conditions more favorable
compared to those commonly encountered in Nevada underground
mines. Without site-specific bolt pull-out tests, ground control
engineers are required to make assumptions regarding the in-situ
bond strength of rock bolts. This is especially a concern for projects
in the feasibility and initial development stages before site-specific
experience is acquired.
The purpose of this paper is to establish confidence in
anticipated minimum bond strength for inflatable rock bolts by
comparing the bond strength to variable geotechnical conditions
using the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system. To investigate a
correlation between these parameters, the minimum bond strength
of pull-out tested inflatable rock bolts was compared to the RMR of
the rock in which these bolts were placed. Bond strength vs. RMR
plots indicate that expected minimum bond strength is positively
correlated with RMR, however the correlation is not strong.
Cumulative percent graphs indicate that 97% of pull-out tests result
in a minimum bond strength of 1 ton/ft and ½ ton/ft in RMR ≥45
and <45, respectively.
Although lower bond strengths are more commonly encountered
in low RMR ground, high bond strengths are possible as well,
yielding higher variability in bond strengths in low RMR ground.
Bond strength of friction bolts relies on contact between the rock
bolt and drill hole. Experience in Nevada indicates that RMR
is known to affect both the quality and consistency of drill holes
which likely affects bond strength. Drilling and bolting in low
RMR ground is more sensitive to drilling and bolting practices,
and strategies for maximizing bond strength in these conditions
are discussed.
Underground mines in Nevada are often characterized by highly-
fractured, low-strength rock masses (Sandbak, 2012 & Sun, 2013).
Most underground mines in Nevada use Swellex-type inflatable
rock bolts due to their simple and fast installation procedure.
These rock bolts are used in combination with wire mesh and
shotcrete for most primary ground support. However, due to the
highly-variable ground quality that can be found in these mines,
performance of these rock bolts varies greatly. While rock bolts are
a commonly utilized form of ground support, it is widely unknown
what factors affect the bond strength that these bolts utilize. Rock
bolts have been tested in locations that contain nearly identical
rock qualities and produce highly varying bond strengths. Because
of this high amount of variability, design bond strengths for these
inflatable rock bolts is based largely off of the experience of
geotechnical and mining engineers at each site. The primary means
for determining design bond strength of rock bolts is through the
use of pull-tests.
Pull-Out Testing
Pull-tests are performed on individual bolts by placing a set of
“teeth” on a bolt head. These “teeth” are tightened around the bolt
head, and then a hydraulic pump is used to pull on the bolt head.
A typical setup for this type of equipment can be found in figure
1. This gear was originally developed by NIOSH and Thiessen
Team, USA. Further information about the design of these bolt
testers is highlighted by Martin (Martin et al., 2004). Underground
gold mines in Nevada perform rock bolt pull-out tests to assess the
strength of the rock bolts and bond strength, primarily for quality
assurance/quality control insurance.
BACKGROUND
The data used in this study were collected from several
underground gold mines from Northern Nevada referred to as
Mine A, Mine B, Mine D, and Mine E. The data acquired from
the mines include 1,196 pull-out tests from Mine A, 191 pull-out
tests from Mine B, 567 pull-out tests from Mine D and 222 pull-

1
 34th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
out tests from Mine E. The data collected from each of these
RMR, with a distinction in bond strength occurring at an RMR
mines are summarized in Table 1. Of the 2,185 tests, only 470 of
value of 45.
the tests had an associated RMR value from the area in which the
bolt was tested. For pull-out tests that have an associated RMR,
Anita Soni (Soni, 2000) also explored the relationship between
the RMR was obtained through geotechnical mapping of the drift
RMR and pull-out test results. The focus of the study was on
or from the geotechnical model of the mine. In some instances,
inflatable friction bolts. Only slipped tests were analyzed in this
the Rock Tunneling Quality Index, Q (Barton et al., 1974) was
study, yielding only 15 total tests. The limited results indicated that
logged at the face and was later converted to RMR using equation 1
a possible correlation between RMR and bond strength could be
(Bieniawski, 1984).
established with further research on the topic.

Recently, Gregory (Gregory, 2014) published a study looking

into a correlation between rock bolt pull-out strength and RMR.
This study was primarily focused on pull-out test results in rock
with low RMR scores from underground mines in Nevada. This
study, while it did contain a large number of data points, looked
primarily into the correlation between slipped pull-tests and RMR.

In an attempt to add data to the database developed by Gregory,

as well as develop additional correlations, additional graphs have
been generated taking into account tests in which the bolt did not
slip, tests that did slip, and destructive tests that caused the bolt or
the bolt head to yield (referred to as no slip, slip, and destructive
respectively, throughout the remainder of this paper). The no slip
Figure 1. Typical setup of an inflatable rock bolt pull-test gear. and destructive tests were included within the analysis due to the
representation of a minimum bond strength achieved by the bolt
being tested. Some of the no slip tests also produced very low bond
strength values. These instances occurred when the bolt test could
Table 1. Data acquired from each mine.
not be completed in accordance with the proper testing procedure
Total Total No Total due to ground conditions, tester malfunction, or other issues that
Location Total Slip
Tests Slip Destructive may have arose in the field.
Mine A 1196 988 199 9
Percent of PULL-OUT TEST RESULTS
55% 55% 57% 17%
Total
Because the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system is so commonly
Mine B 200 157 35 8 used throughout Nevada mines, it was determined that the bond
Percent of strength of the bolts will be compared with the RMR of the rock in
9% 9% 10% 16%
Total which they were placed. In order to develop a potential design bond
Mine D 567 436 109 22 strength, a minimum bond strength must first be established.
Percent of Pull Tests vs. RMR
26% 25% 3% 42%
Total
Mine E 222 202 7 13 By comparing the bond strength with the RMR, it can be
Percent of determined whether a correlation between RMR and the minimum
10% 11% 2% 25% bond strength exists. It can be inferred from Figure 2 that, while
Total
there is a fair amount of scatter within the data, there does appear to
Total Tests 2185 1783 350 52 be some increase in minimum bond strength with an increase in
RMR. This can be noted specifically for any of the bolts pulled in
rock yielding an RMR greater than 45. Above an RMR of 45, only
𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅 ൌ ͻ Ž 𝑄𝑄 ൅ ͶͶ  (1) 12% of tests yielded a minimum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1
ton/ft) or less. Below an RMR of 45, 25% of tests yielded a
The geotechnical models of the mines were based on survey minimum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1ton/ft) or less. This is
data and drill core taken and recorded by the mine personnel. Some important to note, due to the common use of 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft)
of the data from the slip and destructive tests were eliminated as a design bond strength in underground Nevada gold mines.
from the data analysis due to various outside factors affecting Another important inference from this graph is that, while more
the performance of the bolt, including under inflation, improper data may exist that did not slip, these bolts were not pulled to a
installation, and corrosion of the bolts being tested. yield strength, so the bond strength for these bolts represents a
minimum bond strength. In addition, some tests were not pulled to
Previous research on the relationship between friction bolt pull- their maximum bond strength due to issues with the testing location
test results has been conducted by various researchers. In 2005, or equipment. In order to effectively investigate the possible
Brady (Brady et al., 2005) discovered a strong correlation between correlation between bond strength and RMR above and below 45,
bolt pull-out test values measured in metric tonnes per meter and only the slipped tests will be investigated due to their

2
 34th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
No Slip (361) Destructive (17) Slip (92) 7

Maximum Bond Strength (tonnes/m)

7
6 y = 0.047x + 1.472
Bond Strength (tonnes/m)

6 R² = 0.2891
5
5

4 4
Common Design Bond
Strength
3 3

2 2

1 1
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RMR
RMR
Figure 2. Bond strength compared with the RMR taken from the
ground in which the bolts were placed. Figure 3. Bond strength compared with the RMR taken from
the ground in which the bolts were placed for only those bolts
representation of a maximum bond strength undergone by each that slipped.
tested bolt.
ground yielding an RMR less than 45 than in ground yielding
Slipped Tests vs. RMR an RMR greater than or equal to 45. Upon initial inspection of
Figure 5, again, large jumps in data can be found at minimum
Upon initial inspection of Figure 3, it can be seen that, above an bond strength values of 3.17, 3.96, and 4.78 tonnes/m (1.07,
RMR of 45, only 16% of slipped tests (four tests) occurred below 1.33, and 1.6 tons/ft, respectively). In addition to these values, it
a maximum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft), while below is important to note the increase in minimum bond strengths less
an RMR of 45, 49% of slipped tests (32 tests) occurred below a than 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft). In rock with an RMR less than 45, only
maximum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft). It can also be 80% of tests yielded a minimum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1
noted that the bond strength and RMR appear to have a fair amount ton/ft) or higher. This decrease is expected due to the anticipated
of scatter. While there does appear to be a somewhat positive trend, reduction in bond strength in lower RMR rock, as noted by Brady
no apparent linear correlation exists between the two. (Brady et al., 2005). Another commonly used design bond strength
in Nevada underground mines is 1.49 tonnes/m (0.5 tons/ft). In
Upon further inspection of Figure 2 and Figure 3, it can be rock with an RMR of less than 45, 97% of tests yielded a minimum
seen that an apparent transition of expected bond strength occurs bond strength higher than 1.49 tonnes/m (0.5 tons/ft). In addition
somewhere around an RMR of 45. This is also noted by Brady to a comparison between the minimum bond strength and RMR,
(Brady et al., 2005) on testing done for 39 mm split set bolts. Based it is also important to compare the minimum bond strength for all
on this apparent trend, histograms were generated to establish a bolt tests collected to determine reasonable values for a bolt placed
reasonable expectancy for minimum bond strength at this change randomly underground.
in RMR.
Frequency Cumulative % N= 208
RMR ≥45 Pull-Out Tests 120 100%
90%
Upon first inspection of Figure 4 it can be seen that large jumps 100
80%
in the frequency of data occur at minimum bond strength values
70%
Number of Tests

of 3.17, 3.96, and 4.78 tonnes/m (1.07, 1.33, and 1.6 tons/ft, 80
respectively). This is due to the method used in testing these bolts. 60%
Because the vast majority of the tests used are non-destructive 60 50%
tests, bolts were often only pulled to certain loads for QA/QC 40%
purposes, rather than to bolt failure. These minimum bond strength 40
30%
values represent loads of 7.3, 9.1, and 10.9 tonnes (8, 10, and 12
tons, respectively) on the 2.4 m (8 ft) bolts used. Another important 20%
20
takeaway is that 98% of bolts achieved a minimum bond strength 10%
of 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft) or greater. This value would have likely 0 0%
been higher had the bolts been pulled to ultimate failure. 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6
Minimum Bond Strength (tonnes/m)
RMR< 45 Pull-out Tests
Figure 4. Histogram generated for bond strength values obtained
Because the study was primarily focused around weak ground, in an RMR of 45 or more.
which is common in Nevada, more of the bolts tested were in

3
 34th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
All Pull Tests
Upon initial inspection of Figure 6, it can be seen that the
minimum bond strength for the inflatable rock bolts varied greatly,
ranging from 0 (two tests) up to 9.14 (seven tests) tonnes/m.
Despite this wide range of minimum bond strengths, it can be seen
that the vast majority of data lie between the 3.17 and 4.8 tonnes/m
(1.07 tons/ft and 1.6 tons/ft) range. In total, 91% of tests yielded
a minimum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m (1 ton/ft) or greater. One
important aspect to note is that these data do not differentiate
between a bolt that slips, a bolt that does not slip, and a bolt that
was tested to destruction. In total, 2,115 bolts were tested in
varying ground conditions to generate this graph.
Frequency Cumulative %
70
60
50
Number of Tests
important consideration is that maximum bond strength of the bolt
typically exceeds the bolt capacity. In order to account for this,
tests on sleeved and short bolts should be done to obtain additional
maximum bond strength values. By comparing the minimum
and maximum bond strength values with RMR, a design bond
strength can be determined to develop a percent confidence for a
bolt achieving a particular bond strength. Because the relationship
between the bond strength of the bolt and the ground it is placed
in is affected by the drill hole diameter, other factors must be taken
into account (Tomory et al., 1998). Some factors that affect the
diameter of the hole in which the bolt is placed are in-situ water
conditions, quality of rock, bit diameter, and bit quality, just to
name a few. As the amount of water in and around the drill hole
increases, the material within the drill hole is easily washed out,
N= 262 sometimes resulting in a widening of the drill hole. Similar to this,
100% in poor ground conditions, the water used in the drilling process
90% can wash out some of the rock, also yielding a larger drill hole
diameter. Typically, these types of issues are associated with poor
80%
ground conditions.

70%

40 60% Another important consideration is the data used for these

50% correlations. Because 77% of the bond strength values correlated
30 40% with an RMR, as well as 84% of the 2115 overall tests did not
30% produce a slipped bolt, these values are considered a minimum
20
bond strength. This means that the confidence percentages
20%
10 discussed earlier are likely a conservative representation of the in-
10% situ bond strength.
0 0%
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6 6.4 Strategies in Poor Ground
Minimum Bond Strength (tonnes/m)
Because of the wide array of possible bond strengths
encountered in poor ground conditions, it is important to ensure
Figure 5. Histogram generated for bond strength values obtained
that the rock bolt is placed correctly within the drill hole. One of
in an RMR of less than 45.
the largest issues that can arise is an enlarged drill hole diameter.
One possible way to avoid this is to use a drill bit that is worn
down. Because the bit gauge is reduced from heavy wear, it
Frequency Cumulative % N=2115 produces a smaller hole. This reduction in hole diameter results in
700 100% a lower chance of increasing the hole diameter beyond the optimal
90% size. Another important strategy is to limit the water pressure from
600
80% the drill into the hole. As the water pressure increases, additional
500 rock is washed out of the hole, potentially causing an increase in
Number of Tests

70%
hole diameter. Lastly, it is recommended that the drill hole not
60%
400 be reamed out after drilling. While this does make placement of
50% the bolt easier, it can often widen out the drill hole, reducing the
300 40% amount of friction between the rock bolt and the rock in which it
200 30% is placed.
20%
100 In order to ensure that bolts placed in poor ground are achieving
10%
proper bond strength, some simple tests can be used by the bolter.
0 0%
One such method is for the bolter to pull on a bolt placed into
0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.2 8.1 9
poor ground with the centralizer or the bolt inflator. While this is
Minimum Bond Strength (tonnes/m) not something that should be done for every bolt, this is a simple
means for seeing if issues with bond strength are occurring. By
Figure 6. Plot of the bond strength compared with the number of
lightly pulling on the bolt head, it can be seen whether the bolt is
tests that pulled to that strength.
properly bonding with the surrounding rock.

DISCUSSION
Based on the data obtained, it is difficult to establish a direct
correlation between RMR and bond strength for inflatable rock
bolts. One reason for this is rock bolts pulling at both high and low
bond strengths in a wide variety of ground conditions. Another
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this research, the bond strength, while an important
aspect used in the design of underground excavations, does not
correlate well with RMR. Because of the large amount of scatter

4
 34th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
located within the slipped pull-tests, it is likely that, although
some positive linear correlation may exist, RMR is not the
only contributing factor in regard to maximum bond strength.
While no direct correlation can be seen, it can be seen that 72%
of slipped tests occurred below an RMR of 45. At this change in
RMR, a differentiation between expected minimum and maximum
bond strengths occurred. This coincides with data obtained by
Brady (Brady et al., 2005). It can be seen that a shift in expected
minimum bond strength occurs by breaking the data down into
categories of greater than or equal to an RMR of 45 and an RMR
of less than 45. For location with an RMR greater than or equal to
45, 98% of tests yielded a minimum bond strength of 3 tonnes/m
(1 ton/ft) or greater. For locations with an RMR of less than 45,
97% of tests yielded a minimum bond strength of 1.49 tonnes/m
(0.5 ton/ft) or greater. This shift can be used to develop a percent
confidence in expected bond strength by design engineers. While
this percent confidence is based on in-situ tests, it is considered to
be conservative due to the relatively low occurrence of slipped tests
(representing a maximum bond strength) when compared to tests
that did not slip (representing a minimum bond strength).
In addition to applications in highly-variable RMR, this
percent confidence can also be utilized for drifts placed in ground
conditions that are relatively unknown. By looking at Figure 6, the
design engineer can say with a certain percentage of confidence
that a certain in-situ bond strength may be achieved. This can
be used not only in design, but also future feasibility studies to
determine the expected number of bolts required for a future
excavation with unknown ground conditions.
REFERENCES
Barton, N.R., R. Lien, J. Lunde, “Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support,” Rock Mech., 6, pp.
189-239 (1974).
View publication stats
Bieniawski, Z.T., “Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and
Tunneling,” P. 272 Balkema, Rotterdam (1984).
Brady T, R.Pakalnis, L. Clark, “Design in weak rock masses:
Nevada underground mining operations,” SME preprint
05-43 Littleton, CO, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc. (2005).
Gregory, N., “A Study of Correlations Between Rock Bolt Pull-out
Tests and Rock Mass Rating Scores in Underground Mining,”
M.S. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno (2014).
Martin, L.A, J. Goris, and L. Roberts “Design and testing of
a nondestructive friction bolt tester,” National Institute of
Occupational safety and health, 9469. DHHS publication no
NIOSH 2004-131 (2004).
Sandbak, L.A., A.R. Rai., “Ground Support Strategies at the
Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture, Nevada,” Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, Vol. 46, pp 437 – 454 (2012).
Soni, A, “Analysis of Swellex Bolt Performance and a standardized
rockbolt pull-test datasheet and database,” M.S. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto (2000).
Sun, C. “Ground Control Practice and Leeville Underground
Mine,” 32nd International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining, (2013).
Tomory, P.B., M.W. Grabinsky, J.H. Curran, J. Carvalho, “Factors
influencing the effectiveness of split set friction stabilizer
bolts,” Canadian Inst. Mining Metallurgy Petroleum, Vol. 91,
pages 205-214 (1998).