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

net/publication/270275406

Case Studies of Rock Reinforcement Components and Systems Testing

Article  in  Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · September 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-014-0583-z

CITATIONS READS

14 3,299

2 authors, including:

Ernesto Villaescusa
WA School of Mines - Curtin University Australia
163 PUBLICATIONS   1,438 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Mining at Great Depth View project

Design, Construction and Monitoring of Tunnels at Great Depth View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernesto Villaescusa on 02 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Case studies of rock reinforcement components and systems testing

Thompson, A.G
CRCMining/Western Australian School of Mines-Curtin University, Locked Bag 30, Kalgoorlie, WA,
6430, Australia
Email: A.Thompson@curtin.edu.au Ph: +61 8 9088 6162 Fax: +61 8 9088 6151
Villaescusa, E.
CRCMining/Western Australian School of Mines-Curtin University, Locked Bag 30, Kalgoorlie, WA,
6430, Australia

ABSTRACT: Rock reinforcement is widely used in tunnels and surface and underground mines. A large
number of proprietary products are available in various configurations of components. While the mechanical
properties of the primary element are available from product brochures, the associated component properties
may vary widely and adversely influence the overall performance of the system. Field pull out tests are most
commonly used to measure the system response in the toe anchor region. However, the response of the collar
region is less commonly considered but maybe more important. Several case studies are described in which
various components and systems of rock bolts and cable bolts have been subjected to static loading in the
laboratory and in the field. The results generally demonstrate the importance of considering the properties of all
the components and not simply those of the primary element. In some cases, the internal fixtures have strengths
much less than the elements. Often it has also been found that the fixture at the collar has significantly less
strength than the element and this will result in complete loss of function in restraining surface support hardware
such as plates, mesh and reinforced shotcrete.
Keywords: rock reinforcement, laboratory testing, field testing, case studies, rock bolts, cable bolts

1. INTRODUCTION
During more than two decades the writers have been involved in performing tests on rock reinforcement
components and systems. The need for testing has mostly arisen due to uncertainties associated with one or
more of the hardware components and the interactions between them. Often, the rock has not been recognised
by both hardware suppliers and their clients as being the most critical component influencing the overall
performance of a reinforcement system.
The results from a number of case studies will be presented to highlight some of the issues that have been
identified with various different reinforcement components and systems. In some instances, detailed
examination of the behaviour mechanisms and associated theoretical calculations are used to explain and
interpret the testing results.
The case studies to be presented have been divided into reinforcement component testing and system testing.
The component testing case studies demonstrate the test configurations used to define the mechanical properties
of basic elements, internal fixtures and external fixtures. Reinforcement systems testing case studies involve
both laboratory simulations and in situ performance evaluations.

2. REINFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
In order to fully understand the likely performance of different reinforcement systems in various rock masses, it
is firstly worthwhile reviewing the basic system components and how they interact in response to rock
movements. Reinforcement systems can be considered to be comprised of four components (i.e. rock, element,
internal and external fixtures) as shown in Fig. 1 with their interactions. It was detailed by Windsor and
Thompson (1993) that the basic function of a reinforcement system is to transfer load from the potentially
unstable region near an excavation to a stable region beyond the depth of instability as shown in Fig. 2.

1
 0
2

1 3
COMPONENTS INTERACTIONS
0 The Rock 0 2
1 The Element 1 2
2 The Internal Fixture 1 3
3 The External Fixture 3 0

Fig. 1 Generic rock reinforcement system

Flange welded
to anchor pipe

Embedment length
Embedment length
inInanchor
anchor zone l Stiffened
zone
ologica ity Deep Beam

ge ontinu
disc
Reinforcemen
Interface
Flange welded
to collar pipe

Collar zone
Collar zone Loading mass
comprising
steel disks
clamped to
Block
Block flange
Movement
Movement
Buffer Buffer
Plate External
Fixture

Fig. 2 Schematic of reinforcement load transfer

More recently (Thompson et al. 2012), it was verified that the original classification by Windsor and Thompson
(1993) of all reinforcement systems into one of three categories remained valid. The three categories, based on
the load transfer mechanisms between the reinforcement element and the rock surrounding the borehole, are:
 CMC-Continuously Mechanically Coupled
 CFC-Continuously Frictionally Coupled
 DMFC-Discrete Mechanically or Frictionally Coupled
Examples of reinforcement systems within each of the categories are given in Table 1
Table 1 Classification of selected reinforcement systems

Category Description
Full column cement/resin grouted deformed bar
CMC
Cement grouted Standard Birdcage or Bulbed
Continuously Mechanically Coupled
strand
Friction rock stabilisers
CFC Continuously Frictionally Coupled Split tube (e.g. Split Set)
Expanded tube (e.g. Swellex, Omega)
Mechanical anchors
Expansion shell, wedge
Short cement/resin encapsulation
DMFC
Paddle , deformed bar
Discrete Mechanically or Frictionally Coupled
High deformation bolts
Cone, Modified Cone, Garford Solid Dynamic,
Roofex, D-Bolt

2
3. TESTING DOCUMENTATION
The basic principles outlined above have been used to design appropriate tests to measure the component
properties and the interactions between them within a reinforcement system. The results of testing programs are
often poorly documented. It is probably true to say that over reporting of the details of testing is preferable to the
omission of crucial information required for interpretation and use at a later time. The documentation required for
both laboratory and field test programs are essentially the same.
The documentation should include a complete description of each of the four generic components given in
Fig. 1 together with their physical and mechanical properties and their configuration for the test. The equipment
and methods used for sample preparation and installation prior to testing should all be detailed. An important
aspect of documentation is the date of sample preparation. The equipment used for loading and instrumentation
for recording data should be documented in detail. Again, the date of testing is a crucial piece of information,
especially for reinforcement systems that involve materials that have properties that change with time. Finally,
the results should be presented in an unambiguous way as recommended in Thompson et al. 2013). This is essential if
the information is to be used in analysis software or design where the system configuration is different from the test
configurations. For example, Table 2 provides a comprehensive check list for the information to be documented for
reinforcement component and system testing in the laboratory or in situ
Table 2 Check lists for component testing and system testing the laboratory or in situ.

Basic Information
System Components
Element
External Fixture
Internal Fixture
Component Materials
Physical Properties
Mechanical Properties
Component Testing
Element
External fixture
Plate
Laboratory Testing In Situ Testing
Borehole Formation Borehole Formation
Pipe material and dimensions Rock type and properties
Specimen and Test Configuration Borehole diameter or bit size
Lengths in double embedment test Specimen and Test Configuration
Date of sample preparation Anchor length and free length
Date of testing Date of installation
Equipment Used Date of testing
Testing machine Equipment Used
Monitoring Devices Hydraulic cylinder and pump
Load and displacement Monitoring Devices
Data Recording Load and displacement
Manual or data logger Data Recording
Test Procedure Manual or data logger
Loading or displacement rate Test procedure
Loading rate
Testing Results
Raw Data
Data Processing
Presentation of Results
Force-displacement response of anchor
Comments on Test Results

4. COMPONENT TESTING
The details of component testing can be found in various codes (e.g. ASTM 2010; Standards Australia 2007a,
2007b; British Standards 2007). It should be expected that reinforcement component manufacturers and
suppliers have conducted tests prior to making components available commercially. However the reality in some

3
cases is that components with apparently similar dimensions may have vastly different mechanical properties. In
extreme cases, there have been instances where the physical dimensions have varied to make it impossible to
assemble threaded components or threads have failed at forces much less than the rated force capacity of the
element. Consequently, dimensional checks and mechanical tests should be undertaken should any changes be
made in the metallurgical composition or manufacturing process of any components of a reinforcement system.
This may include the change in the supplier or type of cement used for forming a grout for encapsulation. A
change in the cement particle size distribution will completely change the physical properties of the grout in the
fluid state at a particular water/cement ratio and the strength of the cured and hardened material.
In addition to testing following any changes that may result in variation of physical and mechanical properties,
quality assurance testing of components should be undertaken at regular intervals. In the case of steel pre-
stressing strand used to form cable bolts, tests are conducted on each coil of material and may result in rejection
at this stage. ASTM F432-10 specifies that “The manufacturer shall select and test a minimum of two bolts,
threaded bars, threaded slotted bars, bearing and header plates, frictional anchorage devices, and washers
from each discontinuous turn or each 24 h of continuous production.” The frequency of testing of installed rock
reinforcement systems is usually less prescriptive in mining. Some regulatory authorities may suggest 5% of
bolts but it is unlikely that this number of bolts is tested. The frequency of testing for ground anchors used in
civil construction is governed by various codes of practice (e.g. British Standards 1989; Standards Australia
1973).

5. ELEMENT CASE STUDIES

Element testing is the most common test performed for reinforcement systems. However, rarely are force-strain
responses provided by manufacturers and distributors despite the importance associated with element extension
during testing.

5.1. Prestressing Strand

Prestressing strand used for cable bolts is the same as the strand used in prestressed concrete construction and is
therefore subject to stringent code specifications for minimum force and deformation. Despite these codes,
sometimes strand is suspected of being non-complying and tests are requested by either suppliers or clients. One
problem often observed in testing of strand is rupture of one wire prior to the minimum specifications being
reached. This is most usually caused by either gripping the strand in the tapered jaws of a universal testing
machine or having barrel and wedge anchors that cause excessive stress concentrations at the tips of the wedges
as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Excessive wedge penetration resulting in premature strand failure

A solution to this problem was found by having a custom designed barrel with two tapered wedges as shown in
Fig. 4. The anchor is designed so that the wedges do not get jammed between the barrel and strand. Fig. 5 shows
the difference between non-complying results and a complying test with ultimate strain >3.5%. An additional
benefit is that the set of wedges intermediate between the barrel and standard three-part wedges has an outer
taper that allows for easy release of the anchor following a test; otherwise, the strand must be cut to remove it
from the testing machine.

4
Fig. 4 Special barrel and wedge for strand testing

Strand#1 Strand#2 Strand#3

300

250

200
Force (kN)

150

100

50

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Strain (%)

Fig. 5 Chart showing non-complying (Strand#1 and Strand#2) and complying (Strand#3) force-strain curves for
15.2mm diameter strand

5.2. Solid Deformed Bar

Many deformed bars used for rock reinforcement have high elongation prior to rupture, making strain gauges
unsuitable for the direct measurement of strain. It is not acceptable to use the machine jaw displacements to
derive strains; usually the strain will be over-estimated due to spurious displacements being recorded.
Fortunately, all types of steel (including multi-wire steel strand) have a Young’s modulus value that lies in the
range of 200±10GPa and a force-strain response may sometimes be corrected to within an acceptable tolerance.
However, in order to properly measure displacement, transducers need to be mounted on the specimen as shown
in Fig. 6 with a “gauge length” of at least 500mm.
Fig. 7 shows the results for three tests on high elongation deformed bar. Note that consistent results were
obtained and the initial stiffness can be derived using the known cross sectional area to be ~200GPa as expected
for a steel element. The “plateau” in force as the elongation increase from <1% to >3% strain corresponds with
plastic elongation of the bar between the transducer mounts. This plateau will not exist for work hardened steels
that will also have a much smaller total elongation at rupture.

5
Fig. 6 Electronic displacement transducers mounted with a gauge length of 500mm on deformed bar

SecuraBar1 SecuraBar2 SecuraBar3

300

250

200
Force (kN)

150

100

50

0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Strain (%)

Fig. 7 Force-strain responses for deformed bar

It is worth noting at this point that bonded strain gauges used for field instrumentation studies will be limited to
measurement of less than about 3% strain. For measurement of >3% strains, mechanical devices are required to
measure relative displacement between anchor points located apart by a known gauge length (e.g. Hyett et al.
2012). However, as detailed by Thompson and Windsor (1993), the average strain over the gauge may under-
estimate the peak strain for a continuously coupled reinforcement system, especially if the gauge does not span
across a dilating discontinuity in the rock mass.

6. INTERNAL FIXTURE CASE STUDIES

The testing of an internal fixture usually involves other components of the reinforcement system such as the
element and the borehole wall.

6.1. Slot and Wedge Anchors

Slot and wedge anchors were one of the first types of anchors to be developed. They were found to be
acceptable in very hard rock where they were being used during 1950s in the Snowy Mountains Scheme in
Australia. The Kiruna bolt is still being used, mainly in the mines in the north region of Sweden.

6
The Kiruna bolt is designed to be inserted in a borehole that has been pre-filled with cement grout with the
objective of being a “one-pass” system with the slot and wedge anchor providing immediate reinforcement
action prior to curing of the cement grout. An attempt was made in the 1990s to introduce these bolts or an
alternative slot and wedge bolt in an Australian mine. The anchor sections are shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8 Kiruna and alternative bolt slot and wedge anchors

A systematic study examined the feasibility of using either of these bolts with the available mechanized drilling
and installation equipment. One part of the study looked solely at the geometry of the slot and wedge anchor and
borehole. A complementary program of testing was used to assess the strength of the slot and wedge anchors.
The first change to both bolts was the decision to increase the recommended borehole diameter from 32mm to
36mm. The consequences of this change became quickly apparent simply by examining the geometry of the
anchors and the wedge movement necessary to cause the element to expand radially and interact with the
borehole. For 36mm diameter boreholes, it was predicted that the slot lengths needed to be >90mm (Kiruna
bolt) and >105mm (alternative bolt) compared with the actual lengths of 103mm and 150mm, respectively.
However, the formed boreholes were actually larger and in soft rock the wedge displacements also needed to be
greater than the available slot length.
Pull tests were performed on both bolt types. The maximum forces recorded for the Kiruna bolt varied between
<5kN in soft rock to ~12kN in hard rock. The maximum forces for the alternative bolt were 35kN in soft rock
and up to ~70kN in hard rock. In both cases, these initial anchorage values were deemed to be unacceptably low
and neither bolt was implemented.

6.2. Expansion Shell Anchors

Various configurations of expansion shell anchors were developed soon after the slot and wedge anchors. All
these types of anchors rely on a tapered cone attached to the element being pulled through “leaves” attached to a
bail. The movement of the cone towards the collar caused by pushing, pulling or tension in the element results in
radial expansion of the leaves to grip the borehole wall. Similarly to slot and wedge bolts, expansion shell
anchors are best suited to high strength rocks.
One point of contention is the method used to ensure the anchor grips the borehole wall. The original method
was stated in Lang 1961 as follows:
The anchorage is expanded by applying a torque to the bolt. This may be done as a “pre-set” operation before
the bolt is tensioned or by expanding the anchorage and setting the bolt at the same time.
The understanding of the writers is that this method of installation requires the bail to be pushed to the end of
the borehole by the element as shown in Fig. 9 so that element rotation causes the cone to be pushed into the
leaves. This method of initial set means that the bail is only required to sustain forces necessary to resist the
initial expansion to contact the borehole wall and create the “pre-set” mentioned in Lang (1961). Further
rotation is then used to tension the element between the internal and external fixtures.
Subsequently, it has been stated in Hoek et al. (1995) that:
Once the assembly is in place, a sharp pull on the end of the bolt will seat the anchor.
This method of initial pre-set may be suitable for hand held installation but cannot be achieved by jumbo
drilling or rock bolt installation machines.
Problems of mechanized installation will be exacerbated by the further suggestion in Hoek et al. (1995) that:
The length of the hole should be at least 100mm longer than the bolt otherwise the bail will be dislodged by
being forced against the end of the hole.

7
It is the writers’ belief that element rotation with the bail located without the end of the borehole reaction may
be responsible for instances of untensionable bolts due to breakage of the bail and misalignment of the leaves; or
possibly one or both leaves dropping past the cone.

Fig. 9 Schematic of expansion shell anchor and element configuration

Assuming that the anchor is set properly within the borehole, there are other considerations as to the
effectiveness of the anchor. Equations involving the anchor geometry and equilibrium of the forces shown in
Fig. 10 may be used to show that:

b  r   (1)

where  = taper angle of the cone/leaf interface

b = friction angle at the cone/leaf interface
r = friction angle at the leaf/borehole rock interface

D/2

cone rock
SB SR

L
N
R

SB
SR
shell

Fig. 10 Expansion shell anchor geometry showing the internal and external forces

Eq. (1) indicates that the friction angle for the interface between the cone and the inner leaf surface must be less
than the friction angle for the interface between the outer shell and the rock by an amount greater than the taper
angle of the cone and inner leaf interface. In many cases, this condition is unlikely to be achieved because
anchors are manufactured from cast components with an inherent roughness; the friction angle associated with
this less than smooth surface is then often increased following zinc coating.

8
The radial (R) and longitudinal (SR) forces at the interface between the shell and the rock shown in Fig. 10 can
be converted to approximate equivalent normal (r) and longitudinal () stresses by the following equations:
T
r  (2)
DL tan  b 

T
 (3)
DL

where T is the tension in the bolt

D is the nominal diameter of the borehole
L is the length of the shell in contact with the rock
The radial stress predicted by Eq. (2) assumes the force is distributed equally around the circumference of the
borehole for the total length of the leaves. In reality, the stress will be higher than this estimate due to non-
uniform distribution of the radial stresses. Also, in hard rock, the teeth in the leaves will initially be in contact
with the rock and the contact stresses will be much higher, potentially resulting in local failure.
In situ tests reported by Villaescusa and Wright (1999) for CT bolt anchors confirmed that anchor load transfer
depends on the rock surrounding the borehole with pull-out tests results ranging from 50-75kN in schist to 150-
190kN in stronger rocks. These tests indicated gross slip (several 10s of mm) of the anchors at approximately
constant applied load. Following encapsulation with cement grout as required for proper installation and
corrosion protection, the bolts were able to sustain loadings in excess of 225kN (equivalent to ~200kN/metre of
encapsulation).

6.3. Cement Grouts

Cement based grouts have been investigated widely. The main factor influencing strength is the water/cement
ratio and curing conditions as detailed in Thompson and Windsor (1998). There has been a trend to use LH (low
heat) cements to prolong workability and pumpability. However, it should be noted that the strength gain of LH
cement grouts has been found to be slower that Ordinary Portland Cement grouts and may result in increased
curing times before post-tensioning.

7. EXTERNAL FIXTURE CASE STUDIES

External fixtures have an important role to play in restraining surface support such as plates, straps, mesh and
shotcrete. It is desirable that plates have a capacity that is at least equal to that of the element, especially for
reinforcement systems that do not progressively transfer load between the element and the rock (i.e. in the
DMFC category). The following case studies all show that the external fixtures, or the component plates with
which they are associated, fail at less than the element capacity.

7.1. Split Tube Rings

In underground mining operations, plates are often observed to be missing at the collars of split tube bolts.
Fig. 11 shows a split tube ring prior to loading. The failure shown in Fig. 12, which was caused by eccentric
loading, occurred at ~75kN compared with the split tube strength of 170kN. The eccentric loading produced a
lower failure load compared with the maximum load of 150kN attained when the top of the split tube was
loaded directly by a flat platen. The lower value of capacity is deemed more appropriate to in situ performance
where the ring is often damaged during installation, especially when driven oblique to the rock surface. Another
cause of damage at the collar of split tube bolts is the use of drivers that of the wrong dimensions or
configuration. The loss of the ring at the collar is particularly detrimental to overall ground support performance
when the associated plate is used to restrain mesh.

9
Fig. 11 Set up of split tube ring and combined domed and large plate prior to tension test.

Fig. 12 Failure of split tube ring.

7.2. Barrel and Wedge Strand Anchors

Barrel and wedge strand anchors have been the subject of many investigations (e.g. Thompson 1992; Thompson
and Windsor 1995; Thompson 2004). In these investigations, theoretical studies were complemented by testing.
Two aspects of barrel and wedge anchors were examined:
1. Installation
2. In-service performance
With regards to installation, it was shown that the tension produced in the strand between the external and
internal fixtures was a complex function of:
 Taper angle of the wedge.
 Friction between the outer wedge surface and the inner surface of the barrel.
 Friction/mechanical interference between the strand and serrations of the wedge.
 External installation force.
 Force applied to the wedge.
The tension (Ti) produced during application of the hydraulic piston force (Pi) was derived to be given by:
T i = K i Pi (4)

PW /Pi (1- tantan  tan C

Ki  1  (5)
tan  tan tan C)  tan   tan C


10
  = wedge taper angle

B = friction angle between barrel and wedge

C = friction between cable and wedge

P = force applied directly to wedge

W

In particular it was shown, both theoretically and by measurement, that the maximum tension is only about 40%
of the applied peak force when the installation force is applied to directly to the wedge. That is, the tension in
the strand, and also between the plate and rock, was about 36kN after applying an installation force of 100kN
(footnote b in Table 3).
The in-service performance of barrel and wedge strand anchors has often been poor (e.g. Thompson 2004;
Hassell et al. 2006). The anchors have been observed to slip relative to the strand as shown in Fig. 13 and to
provide little resistance to rock movements; in some cases, the anchors are missing resulting in complete loss of
restraint for surface hardware such as plates and mesh or shotcrete and the nearby rock.

Fig. 13.Slip of a barrel and wedge strand anchor

Systematic laboratory studies were conducted by Thompson (2004) on several barrel and wedge anchor
specimens. Table 3 provides the details of the initial anchor installations and their conditions at the time of
testing. Corrosion was permitted to develop by keeping the anchors in humid conditions, with access to oxygen,
inside a semi-sealed tube. The surface conditions of new and corroded anchors are shown in Fig. 14.
Table 3 Anchor installation and condition at time of testing

No. Installation Condition

1 & 2 Hand tight New
a
3 Strand pulled to 20kN New
b
4 Strand pulled to 40kN New
5 Strand pulled to 10kN Corroded
6 Strand pulled to 20kN Corroded
7 Strand pulled to 40kN Corroded
8 100kN applied to wedge* Corroded
a
Barrel/wedge interface glued before load applied.
b
Strand force ~36kN

11
Fig. 14 Comparison of new anchor with anchor subjected to 6 months exposure in a mildly corrosive artificial
environment

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides a summary of the peak and residual forces measured
for all the specimens tested and the failure modes. Apart from the control test specimens 1 and 2 used to confirm
that anchors can mobilise the strength of the strand. All other anchors failed by slipping of the strand within the
anchors at forces less than about 20% of the strand force capacity. This is attributed to the inability of the wedge
to slide relative to the barrel as a result of corrosion.
Table 4 Summary of anchor strengths

Peak Residual
No. Force Force Failure Mode
(kN) (kN)
1/2 >250 0 Rupture of one or two wires
3 ~22 ~10 Wedge/strand interface slip
4 ~50 ~13 Wedge/strand interface slip
5 ~45 ~20 Wedge/strand interface slip
6 ~50 ~25 Wedge/strand interface slip
7 ~45 ~20 Wedge/strand interface slip
8 ~55 ~30 Wedge/strand interface slip

7.3. Threaded External Fixtures

Threaded external fixtures are almost exclusively installed using rotation of the nut during installation. The
relationship between torque and tension induced in a threaded bolt are well established in mechanical and civil
engineering. However, tensioning of threaded external fixtures is an area that is not generally well understood
by most mining personnel involved in ground support implementation and its oversight. For example, it has
been brought to the writers’ attention that “some regulators call for 150 ft-lbs(200Nm) or generally equivalent
level of torque” to be applied during installation. It is worth noting that 200Nm is the torque available for
rotation provided by a drilling jumbo. This requirement will now be shown to be inappropriate in a mining
environment and the findings support those from many US Bureau of Mines investigations that were reported
during the period between the1960s and 80s (e.g. Karabom 1965, Maleki et al. 1985).
The many variables that influence the relationship between tension and applied torque include the thread
geometry, the condition of the contacting surfaces between the nut and thread and the nut and underlying
bearing surface. Nut rotation is resisted by the geometry of the thread and friction on the sliding surfaces. Rosso
(1977) demonstrated that the use of hardened washers reduced the friction of the bearing surface. Fuller and

12
Cadby (1981) showed the importance of further reducing the bearing friction through the use of different low
friction material washers placed between the nut and underlying steel washer.
Computer software has been developed by the first writer to simulate the various threads used for rock bolts.
These threads include “fine” machined metric threads and “coarse” rolled threads. The major differences in
these threads are the pitch and general surface conditions that result. The software includes a database of these
different thread types and the friction coefficients associated with various thread conditions ranging from
smooth, lubricated surfaces to rough, corroded surfaces. Software simulations will now be used to demonstrate
for a single applied torque level the large variability of bolt tensions that can result for different threads and
surface conditions. Table 5 presents a selection of results for the element tension resulting from the application
of 200Nm torque to the nut. Apart for the wide variation of tension values, the features of the results are:
 The tension is lower for larger diameter bolts.
 The tension is lower for a coarse thread compared with a fine thread.
 Light lubrication increases the tension by about 25%.
 Corrosion reduces the tension by about 30%.
 The use of grease and a friction reducing washer can substantially increase the tension.
It is the writers’ opinion that in most mining operations Clean and Dry installation conditions are at best used. It
is also apparent that a single value of installation torque is not appropriate for all the different threads with
which rock bolts are provided. It should also be noted that coarse threads are more susceptible than fine threads
to loosening by vibration. This is consistent with the measurements made of lower torques required to loosen
nuts on coarse threads than fine threads.
Table 5 Variation of element tension for different threads and installation conditions

Thread Installation Conditions

Grease and
Clean and Light
Size Type Low Friction Corroded
Dry Lubrication
Washer
M16 Fine 40 50 95 29
M20 Fine 32 40 76 23
T20 Coarse 24 28 47 18

7.4. Flat Plates

Fig. 15 shows a flat plate set up for loading by an external fixture (in this case a strand barrel and wedge
anchor). The underlying larger plate has a 100mm diameter hole as required by ASTM (2010). The results from
three tests are shown Fig. 16. Note that the maximum force capacity of ~220kN is less than the minimum strand
capacity of 250kN given previously in Fig. 4. Domed cable bolt plates designed for use with a spherical based
barrel and wedge anchor have also been tested. For these domed plates, the major difference in response is the
flattening of the dome followed by push through of the barrel generally at forces about 10% less than the strand
force capacity.

Fig. 15 Flat plate before and after loading by a barrel

13
 StrandPlate1 StrandPlate2 StrandPlate3
250

200
Force (kN)
150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16 Results for tests on flat plates used with cable bolts

8. SYSTEMS TESTING
It is first worthwhile to state that it is virtually impossible in a field test to measure the overall response of a
reinforcement system. The main reason for this is that it is not possible to cause and measure the dilation of an
internal discontinuity. In an axial pull test, the measured response is a combination of element displacement
relative to the rock in the toe anchor region and the extension of the element between the anchor region and the
point of application of the loading.
On the other hand, in the laboratory, it is possible to conduct a test as shown in Fig. 17 in which the overall
system response can be measured. This type of test was first used in the late 1970s and early 1980s in Australia
(e.g. Fuller and Cox 1975;Hutchins et al. 1990) and has continued to be used routinely (e.g. Villaescusa and
Wright 1997, 1999; Thompson et al. 2004). The test has become known as the double embedment or split pipe
test and originally used equal embedment lengths to facilitate data processing by assuming approximately equal
pull out from either side of the simulated discontinuity. The double embedment test has subsequently been
adopted by other organisations in a number of countries such as the USA (e.g. Goris 1990a, 1990b), Canada
(e.g. Bawden et al. 1992), Finland (e.g. Satola and Aromaa 2004) and UK (e.g. British standards 2009). In some
of these test programs, unequal embedment lengths were used resulting in less certain contributions to the total
discontinuity separation. The test configuration was ideally suited to CMC systems. In more recent testing
programs, the WA School of Mines has developed a procedure for manufacturing simulated boreholes in which
friction rock stabilisers have been installed and tested (Player et al. 2009). These simulated boreholes have
subsequently been used for resin encapsulated rock bolts and may also be used to assess the performance of
expansion shell anchors.

14
 Grouted Pipe Embedment
Length 1
Simulated
Discontinuity
Embedment
Reinforcement
Length 2
Element

Fig. 17 Double embedment or split pipe test configuration

9. SYSTEMS TESTING CASE STUDIES

9.1. Resin Encapsulated Bolts

The typical resin encapsulated bolts being used in underground hard rock mines have been modified from the
bolts used in the coal mining industry. The modifications have been necessary due to the need to drill larger
borehole diameters with the type of equipment used for installation. The bolt modifications are mainly in the
form of paddles or the use of a spiral steel wire welded on to the end sections of the bolts as shown in Fig. 18 for
a 27mm Secura bolt and a 24mm Posimix bolt, respectively.

Fig. 18 Secura and Posimix bolts showing paddle and spiral mixing arrangements, respectively

Despite the modifications to enhance mixing, problems associated mainly with larger diameter boreholes still
occur. Unreported case studies have shown that drilling in soft rock may result in borehole diameters in excess
of 1cm greater than the bit size due to erosion by the drilling water. The problems with large boreholes include
poor mixing, often near the toe of the borehole due to over-drilling the length, gloving due to the bolt punching
through the cartridge, over spinning resulting in damage to the partially cured resin and loss of effective
encapsulation length. Many of these problems cannot be identified from in situ pull out tests.
A purpose-built drill rig (Fig. 19) capable of overcoring reinforcement elements within a production mining
environment was developed in order to undertake a systematic investigation of the entire length of fully
encapsulated rock bolts in situ. The investigations reported in detail by Villaescusa et al. (2008) involved both
visual inspections by splitting the recovered rock cores containing the bolts and laboratory tests on samples such
as those shown in Fig. 20.

15
Fig. 19 WASM bolt overcoring operations

Fig. 20 Prepared short sections of overcored bolts prior to testing

The overcoring data show that the best resin mixing and bolt encapsulation occurs within the middle region of
the bolt for the majority of the current bolt and borehole size combinations, reinforcement systems and
installation practices used in the Australian hard rock mining industry. In all cases of low load transfer, poor
resin mixing was identified as the main cause. In addition, the majority of the overcored bolts had no resin at the
collar region, indicating that effective plating of the bolts is very important for long term effectiveness. The
worst conditions in terms of encapsulation and load transfer were found towards the toe region of the bolts.

9.2. Split Tube Friction Rock Stabilisers

Systematic investigations of the effects of post-grouting Split Sets (split tube bolts) have been reported by the
writers (Villaescusa and Wright 1997; Thompson and Finn 1999). The objectives of filling the inside of the
friction rock stabilisers are to improve the load transfer and to extend the service life by providing corrosion
protection. Prior to the investigations it was well-known that the load transfer between the split tube and the
borehole was greatly dependent on the extent of radial decrease caused by the borehole being smaller than the
diameter of the split tube. However, there was a difficulty in achieving consistent installation quality for split tube
bolts caused by variations in borehole diameters resulting from the same bit sizes in different rock types. It was
also found that diameter varied along the borehole, generally becoming smaller towards the toe.
Programs of testing were performed by pulling bolts before and after filling the borehole with cement grout. The
results for pull out tests conducted on 600mm long bolts are sumamrised in Table 6.

16
Theoretical considerations detailed in Thompson and Finn (1999) showed that the increase in load transfer could
be associated mainly with the strength of the cement grout and the area of contact with rock along the split in the
tube. This is confirmed by the results given in Table 6 where the increase in resistance to pull out is more
pronounced for the larger borehole (i.e. wider slot) and also by the observations reported in Villaescusa and
Wright (1997) where the pull out strengths showed a steady increase when measured at 2, 3, 4, 5.5 and 7 hours
after grout placement. It was also found that the pull out strengths were higher with lower water/cement ratio,
higher strength, grouts. Other factors that may affect the load transfer include the higher resistance to radial
compression and deviations in the borehole diameter profile. It is worth noting that measured borehole profiles
show that diameter generally decreases towards the toe of the borehole.
Table 6 Summary of peak loads recorded in pull tests on Split Sets before and after grouting

Bit Size Ungrouted Grouted Grouted

(kN/m) (1 day) (7 days)
(kN/m) (kN/m)

Larger 50 – 70 130 – 215 >250

Smaller 70 – 100 115 – 240 >250

9.3. Cable Bolt Pull Tests

In the early years of concrete reinforcement testing, results were presented as a peak bond stress. This was more
appropriate than it is for rock reinforcement systems due to the larger relative displacements between the
components. One phenomenon that needs to be appreciated is that average “bond” stress (force per unit interface
area) is a poor indicator of actual behavior of a reinforcement system. Average “shear” stress resistance reduces
with increasing embedment length and therefore it is not appropriate to extrapolate results from short
embedment lengths to longer lengths. The reasons for the reduction in average shear stress result from the
relationship between shear resistance and relative displacement across the interface between the element and
internal fixture. There will be a transition from high shear resistance at small displacements to lower shear
resistance at larger displacements due to extension of the element within the encapsulated length and eventually
gross slip of the entire element.
In order to account for the reduction in average shear stress, a test program needs to include one embedment
length sufficient to result in element rupture. Three tests with shorter embedment lengths in which failure is by
gross slip of the element are also required in order to determine the critical embedment length (i.e. the minimum
embedment length that will result in rupture of the element in a tension test).
It is important that test results are presented in a consistent and meaningful format. This requires that the raw
force and displacement measurements made during a test are processed to give a consistent meaning to the
response given in charts. Firstly, in a single-ended test with a free length, an estimate should be made of the
extension over this length. That is, the strain at a particular force is multiplied by the free length and subtracted
from the measured displacement at the loading point. Secondly, for double-ended equal embedment length tests,
it is necessary to divide the total measured separation by a factor of two. By presenting the results in these
forms, the responses represent the same mechanism of response for the reinforcement system.
It has been found both experimentally and theoretically, that the variation of force-displacement responses with
different embedment lengths may be characterised as shown in Fig. 21 for plain strand. The features of the
responses include that the initial stiffnesses of the responses are the same for all embedment lengths. In this
chart, all displacements are consistent with those described previously. The results from a testing program may
be plotted as peak force versus embedment length as shown in Fig. 22. The critical embedment length may be
determined by extrapolating the curve to intersect the element strength line.
Similar characteristic force-displacement responses as those shown in Fig. 21 for plain strand cable bolts can be
expected for other continuously coupled systems such as thread bar and friction rock stabilisers. However, the
presence of enhanced load transfer mechanisms such as bulbs in strand or enlarged diameters of bar will give
quite different responses as the force is less dependent on the total length of encapsulation.

17
 300
Embedment
>2500
Length (mm)

Force (kN)
200
1500

1000
100
500

0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 21 CMC reinforcement system responses for different embedment lengths of plain strand

300
Rupture Force (265 kN)
250
Peak Force (kN)

200
Sliding
150 Rupture

100 Critical
Length
50 (2200 mm)

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Encapsulation Length (mm)

Fig. 22 Extrapolation used to predict critical embedment length for cement encapsulated strand cable bolts

10. CONCLUDING REMARKS

A number of case studies have been presented in which various tests have been performed on rock
reinforcement components and systems. The component test results presented included different element
materials and configurations, a number of types of internal and external fixtures and plates. The testing
programs were in many cases complemented by theoretical investigations that were used to explain the observed
performance.
The element tests showed that different characteristics of force-strain responses may be obtained. The most
notable differences occur beyond the limit of linearity. The force-strain responses of elements are required to
enable force to be derived from strain measurements in instrumented field trials. The force-strain response is
also important in determining the energy dissipation capacity available through element elongation after the
yield force has been exceeded.
The internal fixture case studies involving mechanical anchors (i.e. slot and wedge and expansion shell anchors)
showed that the load transfer depended on both the geometry of the borehole and the strength of the rock
surrounding the borehole. Cement based grout is a key component of many reinforcement systems such as the
Kiruna, CT and other groutable bolts. The results given for the slot and wedge and expansion shell anchors
clearly show the critical need for grout encapsulation for the bolts to become effective. It is of some concern to
the writers that there are many instances where grouting has not occurred to complete installation.

18
The external fixture case studies showed that the force capacity available for restraint of surface hardware such
as mesh may be far less than the element capacity; that is, punching failure through a plate, failure of a split tube
ring or sliding of a barrel and wedge anchor.
Other issues, not directly related to testing, that arose during the case studies were the important influences that
installation conditions have on the subsequent performance of reinforcement systems. This applied to all internal
and external fixtures. The importance of clean and lubricated surfaces was clearly demonstrated for threaded
internal and external fixtures and for barrel and wedge anchors used in conjunction with cable bolts.
In conclusion, the component test results presented clearly demonstrate that the element strength should not be
used as the sole indicator of likely maximum force capacity of the overall reinforcement system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writers wish to acknowledge the following organisations for their support over many years going back to
the late 1970s; CSIRO, AMIRA International, Rock Technology Pty Ltd, WA School of Mines/Curtin
University, CRCMining, and the many other supporting organisations including mining companies and
reinforcement suppliers. The contributions of many colleagues are also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
ASTM (2010) F432-10 Standard Specification for Roof, Rock Bolts, Accessories, 18p, ASTM, West
Conshohocken

Bawden WF, Hyett AJ, Lausch P (1992) An experimental procedure for the in situ testing of cable bolts Int J
Rock Mech Min Sc, Geoemech Abstr, 29(1), 525-533, Pergamon, London
British Standards (1989). BS 8081-89 Code of practice for Ground anchorages,176p, BSi, London
British Standards (2007) BS 7861-1:2007 Strata reinforcement support system components used in coal mines –
Part 1: Specification for rock bolting, 44p,BSi, London

British Standards (2009) BS 7861-2:2009 Strata reinforcement support systems components used in coal mines
– Part 2: Specification for flexible systems for roof reinforcement, 48p, BSi, London

Fuller PG, Cadby GW (1981) Pre-tensioning Rock Bolts, Technical Report No 113, CSIRO, Melbourne
Fuller PG, Cox RHT (1975) Mechanics of load transfer from steel tendons to cement based grout In: Proc 5th
Aust Conf on the Mechanics of Structures, Materials, 189-203, Melbourne

Goris JM (1990) Laboratory evaluation of cable bolt supports (in two parts) 1 Evaluations of supports using
conventional cables, USBM RI 9308

Goris JM 1990 Laboratory evaluation of cable bolt supports (in two parts) 2 Evaluations of supports using
conventional cables with steel buttons, birdcage cables, epoxy-coated cables, USBM RI 9342

Hassell RC, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2006) Testing, evaluation of corrosion on cable bolt anchors In: 41st
US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Golden, June 17-21, Paper 06-996, 11p, ARMA, Washington

Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock, 215p, Balkema,
Rotterdam
Hutchin WR, Bywater S, Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1990) A versatile grouted cable dowel reinforcing
system for rock The AusIMM Proceedings, No 1, 25-29, AusIMM. Melbourne
Hyett AJ, Mitri H, Spearing AJS (2012) Validation of two new technologies for monitoring the in situ
performance of rock bolts. AIMS 2012, 177-190, RWTH-Aachen University, Aachen.
Karabom GJ (1965) Variable mechanical roof bolt tension the causes and potential cures , 8p, United States.
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration
Lang TA (1961) Theory and practice of rock bolting Trans Am Inst Min Metall Pet Eng, 220, 333-348

19
Malecki HN, Hardy MP, Brest van Kempen CJH (1985) Tension-Torque Relationship for Mechanical Anchored
Roof Bolts, In: 4th Int Conference on Ground Control, 18-25, West Virginia University, Morgantown
Player JR, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2009) Dynamic testing of friction rock stabilisers In: Diederichs M,
Grasselli G (eds), RockEng09, Rock Engineering in Difficult Conditions, Toronto, 9-15 May, Paper 4027, 12p,
CIM, Montreal
Rosso RS (1977) An investigation of the effects of hardened washers on the uniformity of roof bolt tension and
resulting ground control in an underground mine, , OFR78-40, 201p, USBM Office of the Assistant Director-
Mining, Salt Lake City
Satola I, Aromaa J (2004) The corrosion of rock bolts, cable bolts In: Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds), Ground
Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Balkema, Leiden, 521-528
Standards Australia (1973) Ground anchorages. In Prestressed Concrete Code CA35, 50-53, Standards
Australia, Sydney
Standards Australia (2007a) ASNZS 46721:2007 Steel prestressing materials Part 1: General requirements, 44p,
Standards Australia, Sydney
Standards Australia (2007b) ASNZS 46721:2007 Steel prestressing materials Part 2: Testing requirements, 16p,
Standards Australia, Sydney
Thompson AG, (1992) Tensioning reinforcing cables In: Proc Int Symp on Rock Support, Sudbury June 5-9,
eds PK Kaiser, DR McCreath, 285-291, Balkema, Rotterdam
Thompson AG (2004) Performance of cable bolt anchors – An Update In: Karzulovic A, Alfaro MA (eds),
MassMin2004, Santiago, August 22-25, Instituto de Ingenerios de Chile, Santiago,, 317-323

Thompson AG, Finn DJ (1999) The performance of grouted split tube rock bolt systems In: Rock Support and
Reinforcement Practice Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds), Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Construction, Balkema, Leiden, 91-102

Thompson AG, Player JR, Villaescusa E (2004) Simulation, analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement
systems Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds), Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Balkema,
Leiden, 341-358
Thompson AG, Villaescusa E, Windsor CR (2012) Ground Support Terminology and Classification: An Update
Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30(3), 553-580

Thompson AG, Villaescusa E, Windsor CR (2013) Planning, documenting reinforcement system test programs
In: Anagnostou G, Ehrbar H (eds), World Tunnel Congress 2013 Underground – the way to the future, Geneva
24-31 May, Paper 1534, 8p

Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1993) Theory and Strategy for Monitoring the Performance of Rock
Reinforcement. Proc. Australian Conference on Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring in Open Pit and
Underground Mining, Kalgoorlie, 21-23 June, 473-482,: Balkema, Rotterdam
Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1995) Tensioned cable bolt reinforcement – an integrated case study In Proc 8th
Int Cong on Rock Mechanics, Tokyo, June, V2, 679-683, Balkema, Rotterdam
Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1998) Cement grouts in theory and reinforcement practice In: Proc of NARMS
98,Cancun, Paper Aus-330-2, 10p

Villaescusa E, Varden R, Hassell R (2008) Quantifying the performance of resin anchored rock bolts in the
Australian underground hard rock mining industry Int J Rock Mech, Min Sc, 45, 94-102, Elsevier, London
Villaescusa E, Wright J (1997) Permanent excavation support using cement grouted Split Set bolts The
AusIMM Proceedings, No 1, 65-69, AusIMM, Melbourne

20
 Villaescusa E, Wright J (1999) Reinforcement of underground excavations using the CT Bolt In: Villaescusa E,
Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds) Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, Balkema, Rotterdam,
109-115

Windsor CR, Thompson AG (1993) Rock reinforcement - Technology, testing, design and evaluation In:
Hudson JA (ed), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, Pergamon, Oxford, Volume 4, Chapter 16, 451-484

21

View publication stats