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

net/publication/257564303

Ground Support Terminology and Classification: An Update

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · June 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-012-9495-4

CITATIONS READS

47 1,644

3 authors, including:

Ernesto Villaescusa
WA School of Mines - Curtin University Australia
160 PUBLICATIONS   1,385 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Mining at Great Depth View project

Early strength of shotcrete 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.

Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9495-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Ground Support Terminology and Classification:
An Update
A. G. Thompson • E. Villaescusa • C. R. Windsor
Received: 21 June 2011 / Accepted: 21 January 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract It is nearly two decades since a formal
terminology and a classification scheme were proposed
for rock reinforcement hardware and applications.
That combined framework was used to clearly identify
concepts associated with reinforcement mechanics in a
manner that was consistent and robust enough to
characterise all reinforcement systems. Since that time,
many new reinforcement systems have been developed
and it can be shown that they all fit within the proposed
classification scheme. Most recently, a complementary
new terminology and a classification scheme for
surface support, also based on mechanics, have been
developed. This framework is invaluable in the design
of ground support schemes, the planning of testing and
instrumentation programs and the development of
software used to simulate the static and dynamic
response of rock reinforcement and support systems. It
will be shown that the terminology and classification
schemes are valid today and will so remain into the
future because of the laws of mechanics.
Keywords Ground support
Rock reinforcement

Rock support
Testing
Design
Installation

Instrumentation
Monitoring
Underground mining
A. G. Thompson (&)
E. Villaescusa
C. R. Windsor
CRCMining/Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin
University, Kalgoorlie, WA 6430, Australia
e-mail: A.Thompson@curtin.edu.au
E. Villaescusa
e-mail: E.Villaescusa@curtin.edu.au
1 Introduction
Ground support has been used for many years in civil
and mining projects involving both near surface and
deep excavations. Over time, many products have been
developed for support and retention of the newly
exposed faces and internal reinforcement of the soil and
rock masses surrounding the excavations. In some
cases, products are marketed as being ‘‘new’’ when in
fact only the brand names or trademarks are new as they
are really based on the same principles of behaviour as
products that were developed many years before and
may still exist bearing another commercial name.
For clear communication, one should avoid the use
of different terms for one thing and the use of a single
term for different things (e.g., Slisko and Dykstra
1997). In an attempt to rationalise ground support
product descriptions Thompson and Windsor (1992);
Windsor and Thompson (1993) first proposed a new
terminology and a classification scheme for reinforce-
ment systems. A brief restatement will be given for
ground support terminology and a review and discus-
sion of developments in reinforcement systems during
the past two decades will be used to demonstrate
the robustness of the reinforcement classification
scheme.
More recent research has identified that surface
support systems may also be classified within a limited
number of categories. This classification is necessarily
more complex given the greater number of variables
associated with the loading and response of ground
123

support systems than those associated with the
responses to loading of reinforcement systems.
The concepts of ground support performance and
design are discussed in qualitative terms based on
simple mechanisms rather than attempting to provide
quantitative data and using analytical techniques that
have been published previously and are readily
accessible. The use of qualitative concepts is also
consistent with developing ground support specifica-
tions based on observations and previous experience.
2 Ground Support Terminology
As implied previously, ground support involves sup-
port and retention of a newly exposed excavation face
and reinforcement of the materials surrounding the
excavation. Accordingly, three basic terms are first
defined:
• Ground Support Scheme
• Surface Support System
• Internal Reinforcement System
In subsequent discussions, the words surface and
internal are no longer used as they become redundant
following their formal definitions. Detailed descrip-
tions are given with regard to the basic components of
support and reinforcement systems.
2.1 Ground Support Scheme
A ground support scheme is defined as a combination
of support and reinforcement systems.
2.2 Support System
A support system is defined to be anything in contact
with an excavation face. It is worth noting at this stage
that some support systems are not installed to satisfy
this requirement and only become an effective support
system after movements of material adjacent to an
excavation face result in contact.
2.3 Reinforcement System
A reinforcement system is defined to be anything that
is embedded within the material surrounding an
123
Geotech Geol Eng
excavation. In the context of this document, rein-
forcement systems are associated with a borehole
drilled in the material.
3 Ground Support Design
A formal design procedure aims to seek the answers to
five fundamental questions, namely:
1. Where?
This question is about the location of ground
stability problems.
It is desirable to identify locations where ground
instability may form a hazard to equipment and
personnel and to incorporate the installation of
appropriate ground support into the production
scheduling.
2. Why?
This question is about why stability problems are
being experienced.
Stability problems may be inherent to a particular
rock mass (e.g., weak, heavily jointed or highly
stressed) or may be caused by mining practices (e.g.,
sequencing, disturbance and damage due to blasting).
3. What?
This question is about what reactions are required to
address problems.
It is important to consider the factors related to
mining practices before embarking on a campaign
of ground support. If mining practices cannot be
modified to improve ground stability, then appro-
priate ground support (i.e., reinforcement and
support) must be designed.
4. When?
This question is about the timing of the installation
of the various ground support components relative
to the start of mining and the expected changes in
conditions induced by the initial and subsequent
extraction.
5. How?
This question is about how to implement the
proposed actions.
Geotech Geol Eng
The questions of Where?, Why? and When? will be
specific to the geological environment and the location
within a complex arrangement of excavations for each
project, while ‘‘How?’’ will be related to the particular
reinforcement and support systems specified for
ground support. The scope of this article is to provide
a methodology to answer the question What? ground
support reactions are required to address problems.
Formal design procedures for ground support design
are described in Sects. 3.1 and 3.2. A formal design
procedure attempts to:
• Identify the rock mass demand.
• Select reinforcement and support systems with
appropriate characteristics.
• Specify their arrangement.
3.1 Generic Design Procedure
A generic design procedure consists of several distinct
steps:
• Identify a mechanism of instability.
• Estimate the areal support demand.
• Estimate the reinforcement length, force and
displacement demand.
• Estimate the energy demand.
• Selection of appropriate reinforcement and sup-
port systems.
• Propose and evaluate an arrangement of reinforce-
ment and support systems.
• Specify the complete ground support scheme.
This procedure may need to be applied to several
different observed mechanisms of instability.
3.2 Modified Design Procedure for Dynamic
Loading
The design process is more complicated when the rock
mass experiences sudden, violent deformation with
related seismicity and the ground support is subjected
to dynamic loadings as shown in Fig. 1. For the design
of such ground support, it is required to consider the
expected nature of seismic events associated with slip
on major structures or unstable propagation of rock
mass failure and their proximity to excavations where
the reinforcement and support will be installed. The
following sequence of steps is adapted from the
Fig. 1 Example of general rock mass failure accompanied by
large volume increase
Guidelines from the Canadian Rockburst Support
Handbook (Kaiser et al. 1996):
• Define a range of source event magnitudes and
their possible locations.
• Define a range of infrastructure (e.g., decline, ore
body accesses and ore drives) locations relative to
the defined event sources.
• Estimate PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) and accel-
eration for the distance from the design event.
• Estimate, using three-dimensional stress model-
ling software (e.g., ABAQUS, MAP3D), the stress
concentrations for the excavation.
• Estimate the stress change due to the design event.
• Estimate the level of damage (e.g., minor, moder-
ate or major).
• Estimate the type (e.g., bulking, loosening or
ejection) and the extent of failure.
• Estimate the energy at the excavation surface (this
may be a function of the expected mass of failure
and ejection velocity or the release of stored
energy from the failed volume), or a vibratory
displacement.
• Design ground support schemes consisting of:
• surface restraint to retain rock between rein-
forcement (e.g., mesh, shotcrete or a combina-
tion of these).
• near surface reinforcement to provide ‘‘stiff’’
resistance to loosening/bulking (i.e., rock
bolts).
123

• deep anchorage for large displacement/energy
absorption (i.e., long cable bolt reinforcement).
• Specify the ground support scheme (including
scheduling of installation).
Ideally, the ‘‘design event’’ and energy absorption
requirements of the ground improvement scheme must
be based on the history of seismic events at a particular
mine and their correlation with other major influenc-
ing factors such as large faults and the stress concen-
trations (induced by mining) relative to the rock mass
strength.
This procedure assumes the design event is
‘‘remote’’ from the surfaces of an excavation. It is
possible that the event source is in the immediate
vicinity of an excavation face. In this case, the
mechanism of failure will result in a different form
of dynamic loading on the ground support. It is worth
noting that the writers are aware of very high values of
PPV being measured without associated rock failure
and ejection (e.g., Fleetwood 2010).
3.2.1 Rock Mass Demand
It is a widely held opinion that rock mass movements
cannot be prevented when creating an excavation.
Rock mass movements generally initiate at or near the
newly formed free faces of excavations where there is
no confinement and high deviatoric stresses may cause
material failure or movement on pre-existing discon-
tinuities. In the absence of ground support, the surface
displacements increase as a result of the increase in
volume of the failed material, as it separates and
loosens. The relationship between the average pres-
sure required to stabilise the surface and its displace-
ment towards the void created by excavation is often
represented by a ‘‘ground reaction curve’’, an example
of which is given in Fig. 2 (Windsor 1997; Windsor
and Thompson 1997). A ‘‘typical’’ ground reaction
curve is the relationship between ‘‘radial’’ stress and
‘‘radial’’ displacement at the boundary of an excava-
tion. The stress reduces from its value before excava-
tion. For a stable excavation, the radial stress will
reduce to zero at a certain displacement. For unstable
excavation surfaces, a restraining reaction (from
support and/or reinforcement) is required to maintain
the rock mass stability and excavation shape. Expe-
rience has shown that an equilibrium condition may be
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 2 An interpretation of the Ground Reaction Curve concept
showing the reduction of the ‘Characteristic Force’ with
increase of the ‘Characteristic Displacement’
attained by limiting displacements such that the
ground support may more efficiently ‘‘…help the rock
mass to support itself’’ (Hoek and Brown 1980). Large
displacements are accompanied by rock mass loosen-
ing and may lead to larger stabilising requirements as
the volume of failure expands. Various models
involving idealised excavations shapes and rock mass
failure criteria have been proposed but can be rarely
used in practice. More recent computer programs (e.g.,
ABAQUS) include an option to define the ground
reaction curve. The energy released during failure may
also be estimated. The rock mass demand may be
expressed in terms of average pressure required at the
excavation surface to maintain stability, the displace-
ments that occur within the rock mass and at the
excavation surface and the energy released during
failure.
Gomez-Hernandez and Kaiser (2003) have looked
at the influence of ground support on the magnitudes
of ‘‘bulking’’ and the boundary displacements. Their
results have been re- interpreted and summarised in
Table 1. Without ground support, the volumetric
change from previously compact rock to a disinte-
grated assembly of fractured rock particles is sug-
gested to be about 30%. The influence of ground
support in reality may not be as significant as shown in
this table. However, the general effect of ground
support in reducing bulking and excavation strain is
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 1 Effect of ground
Ground support Ground
support on failed rock mass
pressure (kPa) support
bulking and excavation
category
surface displacements
(adapted from Gomez- 0 None
Hernandez and Kaiser
2003) 50 Light
200 Yielding
500 Heavy/Strong
consistent with experience and other theoretical and
computational modelling.
It is considered that no reliable methods exist for
quantifying the ground reaction curve for a given rock
mass and general excavation shape. There have been
many reported instances of defining the Ground
Reaction Curve for the case of a long, circular
excavation (e.g., Ladanyi 1974; Brown et al. 1983;
Detournay and St. John; 1988; Carranza-Torres and
Fairhurst 1999; and numerous others). These investi-
gations have used various rock failure criteria to define
the depth of the boundary between the zones of failed
and non-failed rock and the internal support pressure
required to limit the extent of failure. Generally, the
estimates of support pressures are large (i.e., several
MPa) to limit excavation surface displacements to
within serviceability requirements (i.e., less than a few
10 s of cm). Cho et al. (2002) state that:
‘‘The internal pressures required to suppress
failure around the circular hole using the
approach of Detournay and St. John appear
large and are not supported by the observations
discussed previously.’’
Their previous observations noted that ‘‘…1 m of
tunnel muck, approximately 20 kPa was sufficient to
suppress stress-induced fracturing in the floor of the
test tunnel.’’ The test tunnel was 3.5 m diameter and
located approximately 400 m below ground surface.
In a separate investigation, Read et al. (1997)
showed that 100 kPa applied to the walls of a 600 mm
diameter borehole was sufficient ‘‘…to control the
rate of acoustic emission events in the regions of
maximum tangential stress.’’
Therefore, it is considered that the use of the
simple, circular excavation shape is not appropriate for
calculating the ground reaction curve and estimating
Nominal ground support Volumetric Excavation
bulking (%) strain (%)
None 31 20
Light Mesh and FRS 16 10
Thin shotcrete and rock 4 3
bolts
Thick shotcrete, rock 1 1
bolts and cable bolts
the required ground support capacity. Ground support
pressures of several MPa require very thick concrete
rings and would result in the anomalous situation of
more, possibly stronger rock, being excavated to be
replaced by concrete.
In spite of the problems with estimating ground
reaction curves, the concepts are useful. It is known
that the displacement demand will be a function of
the stress regime and the mechanical and rheological
properties of the rock. For example, failure in rocks
which behave in a ductile manner is accompanied
by significant post yield creep displacements. On the
other hand, in situ brittle rock failure may initiate at
small displacements and be accompanied by a high
energy ejection of material. The different types of
rock mass behaviour require support and reinforce-
ment schemes with distinctly different character-
istics.
Muir Wood (1993) stated that ‘‘The relationship
between convergence and radial support is not unique,
apart for the trivial case of an elastic rock; the degree
of support affects the degree of triaxial confinement of
rock layers close to the excavation and in consequence
their stress/strain behaviour and thus the contribution
of these layers to convergence.’’
In most instances, it is not possible to follow a
formal design procedure as the rock mass variables
that define demand cannot be quantified with any
degree of confidence. However, the rock mass
demand can usually be defined qualitatively in terms
of low, moderate or high values of stress, displace-
ment, plastic strain and energy demands (see Table 2
with typical ranges of values). These qualitative
descriptions of rock mass demand can then be
satisfied by reinforcement and support system capac-
ities that can be classified using corresponding
ratings.
123

Table 2 Typical rock mass demand for ground support design
Demand Stress Surface Plastic Energy
category (kPa) displacement strain (kJ/m2)
(mm) (%)
Low \250 \50 \1 \15
Medium 250–1,000 50–150 1–3 15–25
High [1,000 [150 [3 [25
3.2.2 Materials Behaviour Terminology
The following terminology will be used in subsequent
sections to describe materials and systems behavior. It
will become apparent that it is possible for systems to
behave quite differently from their component parts.
3.2.2.1 Elastic Elastic behaviour of materials or
systems results when no permanent deformation
results after a cycle of loading and unloading.
3.2.2.2 Plastic Plastic behaviour of materials or
systems results when permanent deformation results
after a cycle of loading and unloading.
3.2.2.3 Brittle Brittle is used to describe the
behaviour of materials or systems in which failure
occurs with little or no preceding deformation.
3.2.2.4 Ductile Ductile is used to describe the
behaviour of materials or systems in which failure
occurs after appreciable plastic deformation.
3.2.2.5 Resilience Resilience is the ability of a
system to absorb energy when deformed elastically
and return to its original condition when the force is
removed; applies where imposed transient forces are
less than the yield capacity of the system (e.g.,
blasting, earthquake loadings).
3.2.2.6 Toughness Toughness is the ability of a
system to absorb energy and deform ‘‘plastically’’
(before ‘‘rupture’’); applies where the imposed forces
may exceed the yield capacity of the system and where
the imposed forces reduce with displacements (e.g., in
response to impact loading where the kinetic energy of
loading reduces due to the reaction forces from the
ground support).
123
Geotech Geol Eng
3.2.2.7 Yield Yield is associated with the level of
loading beyond which permanent or plastic defor-
mation occurs after the loading is removed from a
material. The term will not be used to describe
mechanisms of behaviour of systems of materials in
which apparent yield is likely to be associated with
slip; that is, relative displacement across an interface
between two components.
3.2.2.8 Stiffness Stiffness is a measure of the rate of
change in response loading per unit of deformation.
Material stiffness is a function of Young’s modulus
(E) and Poisson’s ratio. The axial stiffness of material
with cross-sectional area A is proportional to AE. In
the case of bending, the rotational stiffness is
proportional to EI, where I is the second moment of
area.
3.2.3 Ground Support Capacity
Ground support capacity can be measured in quantities
similar to those associated with rock mass demand.
That is, the ground support scheme capacity can be
estimated as an equivalent resisting pressure at the
boundary of the excavation. However, as indicated in
previous discussion it also needs to take into account
the excavation face displacement, and with specific
regard to reinforcement, the distribution of displace-
ments with distance behind the face. Finally, the
ground support scheme must have sufficient energy
absorption to satisfy the rock mass demand.
The capacities of reinforcement and support sys-
tems may be characterised by their responses to
loading as shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, the response
to loading for reinforcement may be axially or in shear
and for support may be lateral shear and bending or in-
plane combinations of shear with tension or compres-
sion. The performance indicators may be grouped as
follows:
• Loading Capacities
Fmax Maximum Load
Fr Residual Load at Maximum Displacement
• Deformation Capacities
dp Deformation at Maximum Loading
dmax Maximum Deformation
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 3 Performance indicators
• Stiffnesses
kti Initial Tangent Stiffness
ksp Secant Stiffness at Maximum Load
ksr Secant Stiffness at Maximum Deformation
• Energy Absorption Capacities
• Energy absorption capacity is equivalent to area
between the load-deformation-response and the
deformation axis and is relevant to both static and
dynamic loading.
Ep Energy absorption to peak load
Er Energy absorption at maximum deformation
It is now necessary to consider the possible modes
of loading when assessing a particular ground support
component system. One will note that the performance
indicators dmax and Er, respectively, may be related
directly to the terms ductility and toughness defined
earlier.
Also note that there is no need to use the term
‘‘dynamic’’ when referring to ground support compo-
nent systems, all of which have some deformability and
energy absorbing capacity in response to vibration and
impact loadings during the creation of excavations.
Fig. 4 Generic
reinforcement system
4 Reinforcement Systems
A reinforcement system can be considered to be linear
and to comprise four components as shown in Fig. 4;
namely:
0. Rock
1. Element
2. Internal Fixture
3. External Fixture
It will become apparent that the influences on
overall reinforcement system performance depend to a
lesser extent on the element than on the internal and
external fixtures, and the materials surrounding the
borehole.
4.1 Loading Mechanisms
A reinforcement system is loaded by deformations of
the material surrounding a borehole and displacements
associated with discontinuities. Material deformations
shown schematically in Fig. 5 cause relative axial
displacements between the borehole wall and the
reinforcement element. Displacements at discontinu-
ities are generally larger in magnitude and cause more
complex loadings such as those shown in Fig. 6. In this
figure, the block displacements only involve transla-
tions. In other cases, block movements may also
involve rotations such as those shown in Fig. 7 that
cause more complex loadings.
4.2 Load Transfer Concept
Reinforcement systems develop forces in response to
material movements to limit deformations and dis-
continuity displacements. In order to be effective, a
reinforcement system, as shown in Fig. 8, needs to
connect to a stable zone beyond the volume of material
undergoing deformation and displacements.
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

The load transfer concept may also be used to

Fig. 5 Loading of reinforcement caused by material defor-
mations
define a qualitative relationship between length and
force capacity for reinforcement systems as shown in
Fig. 9. Thompson and Windsor (1992) showed that
this could be applied to both underground and surface
excavations where the force capacity required for
reinforcement increased in relation with the volume of
failure assumed. This observation explains to some
extent why ground anchors used in civil engineering
projects have generally much larger lengths and
higher capacities than cable bolts used in open pit
and underground mines. Thompson et al. (1995) also
showed that relatively short and medium force
capacity cable bolts used in an open pit mine were
only effective at the scale of several benches high and
were of insufficient length and force capacity to
prevent failure when the pit was deepened and a
failure mechanism developed beyond the length of the
installed reinforcement. It was concluded that the
failure could have only been prevented by increasing
both the lengths and force capacities of the cable bolts.

4.3 Load Transfer Mechanics

The load transfer between the material surrounding a

borehole and the reinforcement element involves the
internal fixture and its interfaces with the borehole
wall and the element as shown in Fig. 10. A review of
all systems that existed prior to about 1990 showed
that they could be classified into one of the following
three categories shown schematically in Fig. 11,
namely:
Fig. 6 Loading of reinforcement caused by block translations

Fig. 7 Loading of
reinforcement caused by
translations and rotations
across a discontinuity

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 8 Load transfer concept
Fig. 9 Classes of reinforcement systems according to length
and capacity
Fig. 10 Load transfer mechanisms within a reinforcement
system
• Continuously Mechanically Coupled (CMC).
• Continuously Frictionally Coupled (CFC).
• Discretely Mechanically or Frictionally Coupled
(DMFC).
4.3.1 Continuously Mechanically Coupled
The widely used term ‘‘bond’’ associated mainly with
early reinforced concrete investigations and continued
into the area of soil and rock reinforcement was not
deemed appropriate as there was little evidence to
show that true bonding (or adhesion) was relevant in
most circumstances. The load transfer across the
interfaces is considered to involve mechanical inter-
action in the case of rough surfaces and friction
following the development of a distinct, sliding
interface due to the brittle failure of the relatively
stiff materials used to form internal fixtures.
4.3.2 Continuously Frictionally Coupled
As the name implies, reinforcement systems in this
category rely on friction to transfer load between the
rock and the element.
4.3.3 Discretely Mechanically or Frictionally
Coupled
In this category, the element is coupled to the rock at
discrete locations along its length, with the load
transfer mechanism involving mechanical or frictional
coupling to the rock.
4.4 History of Reinforcement Systems
Over the years, several reviews of the development
and availability of reinforcement systems have been
published. The most comprehensive of these are for
ground anchors by Littlejohn and Bruce (1977),
Littlejohn (1993) and Barley and Windsor (2000)
and for rock reinforcement applications in mining by
Gardner (1971), Peng and Tang (1984), Windsor and
Thompson (1993) and, more recently, Brown (1999a).
The major developments in the early days were
driven by the necessity to increase safety and produc-
tivity firstly in tunnelling and subsequently in mining.
Prime examples of the innovations in ground support
were those associated with the Snowy Mountains
Scheme in Australia in the 1950 s and reported by
Lang (1961). More recently, mentions of the pioneer-
ing work conducted in the Snowy Mountains has been
documented by Lees (2009) and Mills (2009). These
investigations involved both improvements in the
understanding of reinforcement mechanics and the
123

Fig. 11 Generic description of reinforcement classes based on internal load transfer mechanisms
inherent need to investigate the various aspects of rock
mechanics reported by Brown (1999b, 2004) and
involve both the rock and the reinforcement as a
system. The previous widespread use of support
systems such as steel arches with timber lagging
allowed the rock to essentially fail; this type of ground
support resulted in higher loadings than otherwise
would have occurred if the rock failure was prevented,
or inhibited to some degree. Current practice in mines
and tunnels is to place a layer of shotcrete during the
excavation and support cycle to prevent initial loos-
ening; this layer of shotcrete may be supplemented
later by reinforcement and further support. Where it is
feasible to generate high anchorage forces away from
the excavation surface, high force capacity surface
support in combination with high force capacity
reinforcement are a recognised alternative to arches.
It is also possible to form arches of locally thicker
shotcrete with pre-assembled trusses of reinforcing
bars. Note that in soils and soft rock, where indicated
force demands are greater than those generally
being able to be generated by reinforcement systems,
a ‘‘closed’’ ring may be necessary as it does not rely
on the mechanical properties of the surrounding
materials.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
More specific accounts of the development of cable
bolting for mining applications in Australia have been
reported based on research by the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
and mining related applied research at the major
metalliferous mines in Broken Hill (e.g., Clifford
1974; Matthews et al. 1983), Cobar (e.g., Fuller 1983)
and Mount Isa (e.g., Bywater and Fuller 1983; Windsor
et al. 1983; Greenelsh 1985; Hutchins et al. 1990;
Villaescusa et al. 1992) and various other mines (e.g.,
Windsor 1992, 2004). Other developments in a variety
of areas related to novel ground support applications and
equipment were reported by Matthews et al. (1986) and
Thompson et al. (1987).
4.5 Classification of Reinforcement Systems
There is a distinct difference between ‘‘personal
discovery’’ and something that is ‘‘truly’’ new. This
becomes particularly evident when reviewing the
reinforcement systems that have been manufactured
and marketed commercially in the last 15-20 years.
For example, Table 3 provides lists within each of the
three classes of some of the reinforcement systems
mentioned in the comprehensive reviews and some of
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 Classification of some of the reinforcement systems product development. However, it is thought worth-
mentioned in the various reviews while to present one case study related to bolts that
Type Description have been developed to address problems associated
with dynamic loading and the large displacement and
Continuously mechanically Full column cement/resin energy absorbing capacities required to maintain
coupled (CMC) grouted bars
excavation stability. This case study is thought most
Deformed bar
relevant since this is an area of contemporary interest
Cement grouted reinforcing
cables and development (Player et al. 2004; Thompson et al.
Standard strand
2004; Player et al. 2009).
Birdcage or bulbed strand
With regard to increasing reinforcement system
Ground anchor
displacement and energy absorbing capacities, two
basic mechanisms may be used; firstly increasing the
Fully coupled after tensioning
element free length between discrete ‘‘fixed’’ anchors
Continuously frictionally Friction rock stabilisers
coupled (CFC) or to allow for ‘‘sliding’’ of the element relative to the
Split tube (e.g. Split Set)
internal fixture and/or borehole wall.
Expanded tube (e.g. Swellex,
Omega) An early attempt to improve load transfer for strand
Discrete mechanically or Mechanical anchors based cable bolts, and at the same time be able to
frictionally coupled Expansion shell or slot and provide for increased elongation between anchors,
(DMFC) wedge was reported by Schmuck (1979). A similar system
Single cement or resin cartridge with decoupling of the strand between fixed anchors
Paddle, deformed bar was reported by Matthews et al. (1983) and demon-
High deformation/displacement strated to be effective in maintaining the stability of
bolts highly stressed open stope crown pillars. The decou-
Cone, Modified Cone, Garford pling was achieved either by plastic sleeves or, more
Solid Dynamic, Roofex, simply, by coating the strand with plastic paint. A
D-Bolt
recent development, the D-Bolt (Li 2010), can be
Ground anchor
considered to have evolved from these earlier ideas of
Lubricated and sleeved using the element elongation to absorb energy.
Conway et al. (1975) tested a mechanical anchor
which allowed for sliding of a ‘‘standard rock bolt’’
the more recent products. A close examination will through a smooth bore die and reported that this
reveal that many of these recent products are not new, system was developed in South Africa by Ortlepp and
but based on principles incorporated into much older Read (1970). Thus the Garford Solid Dynamic Bolt
reinforcement systems. In the interests of clarity and (Varden et al. 2008) and Roofex (Charette and Plouffe
concentrating on principles rather than specific prod- 2008) developed during the last decade can be
ucts, only one example will be used to identify considered to be commercial products that have
similarities between ‘‘new’’ systems and those that evolved from these much earlier ideas.
have been proposed in the past, with particular Another example of using element sliding relative to
comments directed towards some of the technical the internal fixture was the Cone Bolt developed in
problems that were identified previously and whether South Africa (Jager 1992). This bolt was originally
they have been addressed by the new developments. developed based on comprehensive testing of 16 mm
diameter bar with an expanded end embedded in cement
4.6 A Case Study grout. The original concept was for the anchor to be
pulled through the cement grout. Subsequent to the final
It is not possible to review all reinforcement systems to development of the original Cone Bolt, demand for
trace their origins and assess whether newly proposed higher capacity elements resulted in a version based on
products have existed previously and lessons can be 20 mm diameter plain bar. As far as can be determined
learned from the previous testing and the modification by the writers, this version of the Cone Bolt was not
resulting from the evolutionary process associated rigorously tested and, in particular, the effectiveness of

123

the mechanism in being able to be pulled through higher
strength cement grouts was not assessed. The writers’
experience with testing in high strength cement grout is
that the anchor does not perform as intended but
significant energy can be absorbed by the element
deforming plastically (Player et al. 2008).
More recently a Modified Cone Bolt (MCB) was
developed in Canada. This bolt, like the original Cone
Bolt has an expanded end, but is designed to be
encapsulated with resin grout from a two component
cartridge that is mixed during installation. The break-
ing of the cartridge and mixing of the resin is aided by
a flat paddle attached to the expanded end. Test results
reported by Gaudreau et al. (2004) show that the bolt
performs either by gross anchor displacement or
element extension, but sometimes as a combination
of both mechanisms. These results imply variability in
the mixing and resulting strength of the resin encap-
sulation; this is in accord with limited tests in which
the writers have been involved and not surprising
given that the MCB is a 17 mm plain bar designed to
be installed in 30 mm or greater diameter boreholes.
Extensive work, originally by the US Bureau of Mines
(e.g., Snyder et al. 1979; Kwitowski and Wade 1980)
and confirmed more recently (e.g., Fuller and Dugan
1992; Tadolini 1998; Villaescusa et al. 2008 ), showed
that the annulus thickness between the borehole and
element should be no more than about 5 mm, and
preferably less, to ensure consistent resin mixing to
create a competent internal fixture.
4.7 Classification of Reinforcement System
Performance
With the benefit of many years of history of rein-
forcement systems and testing and monitoring for their
force–displacement responses to a variety of con-
trolled or natural loadings, it is possible to classify
performance indicators that may be used for qualita-
tive and quantitative selection of reinforcement sys-
tems for the purposes of design. Figure 12 shows
several generic axial force–displacement responses for
a number of different classes of reinforcement
systems. The responses are intended to show the
relative values of the performance indicators defined
previously. In practice, it is necessary to define the
response for the particular reinforcement system to be
used in the design specification; the response may be
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 12 Comparison of axial force–displacement responses of
reinforcement classes. Note DMFC-1 is for discrete effective
internal and external fixtures and DMFC-2 is for effective
external fixture and engineered sliding internal fixture
based on published information or obtained by testing
of a representative system configuration.
With the performance indicators defined in Fig. 3,
it is possible to classify the relative performance the
different reinforcement classes as shown in Tables 4
and 5 for rock bolts and cable bolts, respectively.
4.8 Quantification of Reinforcement System
Performance
4.8.1 Testing
Carefully designed field and laboratory tests may be
used to measure the mechanical properties of rein-
forcement system components and to measure some
aspects of reinforcement system performance. How-
ever, the use of these properties in design needs careful
interpretation in terms of how the measurements relate
to the expected performance in service. Some of the
factors to be considered are the inevitable variations in
physical and mechanical properties associated with
installation.
For example, overcoring complemented by tests to
measure load transfer have been used to quantify
variability of friction rock stabiliser performance
(Hassell and Villaescusa 2005) and identify problems
with resin bolt installation (Villaescusa et al. 2008).
Similarly, special tests have been used to quantify the
detrimetntal effects of corrosion on the performance of
barrel and wedge cable bolt anchors (e.g., Thompson
2004; Hassell et al. 2006).
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Qualitative performance indicators for a number of different types of rock bolts
Reinforcement system Product Yield Initial Ultimate Ultimate Secant Energy to Energy to
capacity tangent force disp’ment stiffness maximum maximum
stiffness capacity capacity at force disp’ment
ultimate

Hollow tube friction Split tube L H L H L L L

rock stabilisers (Ungrouted)
*2.4 m (e.g. SS39)
Split tube L H L H L L L
(Ungrouted)
(e.g. SS46)
Split tube H H H L H L L
(Grouted)
(e.g. SS46)
Swellex M H M H L L M
Combination systems Split tube ? H H H L H L L
*2.4 m 20 mm Bar
Solid bar rock bolts Resin point M H M L H L L
*2.4 m (Assume anchored (e.g.
1 m toe anchor 20 mm Thread
length) Bar)
Shell anchored M M M M M M M
bar (e.g. 24 mm
Bolt)
Cement grouted M H M L H L L
bar (e.g. 20 mm
Gewi Bar)
Cement grouted M M M M M M M
bar (debonded
for *1 m)
Engineered sliding Cone Bolt M H M H L L H
mechanism (20 mm)
MCB L M L M L L H
D-Bolt M M M M L M H
DuraBar L M L M L L H
Garford solid M M M M L L H
dynamic
Roofex L M L H L L M
Ratings
Low Medium High

4.8.2 System Response and Capacity
In general, a reinforcement system response is difficult
to predict and it is fair to say that it is unlikely that any
two reinforcement systems will have identical
responses given the number of variables that influence
their performance. For the example shown in Fig. 13,
the system axial response is a combination of the
responses from either side of the discontinuity. The
response in the collar region may be completely
different from the response in the toe region, either of
which may determine the maximum load that may be
achieved. If the excavation surface is not parallel to the
discontinuity, then neighbouring reinforcement sys-
tems will have completely different combinations of
collar and toe lengths; the effect on response,
especially for CMC and CFC systems can be expected
to be pronounced as shown schematically in Fig. 14.
The difficulty of designing meaningful locations of
instruments to measure element forces are also

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 5 Qualitative performance indicators for a number of different types of cable bolts
Reinforcement Product Yield Initial Ultimate Ultimate Secant Energy to Energy to
system capacity tangent force disp’ment stiffness at maximum maximum
(kN) stiffness capacity capacity ultimate force (kJ) disp’ment
(MN/m) (kN) (mm) (MN/m) (kJ)

Cable bolts *5 m Plain super H M H M M L M

(Assume minimum strand
2 m toe anchor Modified super H H H L H L L
length) strand (e.g.
birdcaged,
bulbed)
Debonded H M H M M M M/H
super strand
Cone cable H M H H L M H
DuraCable H M H H L M M
Garford H M H H L M H
dynamic
cable bolt
Ratings
Low Medium High

Fig. 13 Schematic showing derivation of system response at a

single discontinuity

implicit in this figure and were discussed in detail by

Thompson and Windsor (1993) and experienced in
instrumented field trials of cable bolt reinforcement
(Windsor et al. 1983; Thompson et al. 1995).
5 Support Systems
Support systems are inherently more difficult to
classify than reinforcement systems. Firstly, support
systems are available in a variety of materials and
configurations. Secondly, the geometry of excavation
Fig. 14 Force distributions for different reinforcement systems
crossing a single discontinuity
surfaces is three-dimensional compared with the
essentially linear nature of reinforcement systems.
Finally, the loading from the materials surrounding the
excavation surface causes a variety of complex
mechanisms of response in the support systems.

123
Geotech Geol Eng
5.1 Types of Support Systems
The first step in classifying support systems is to take
account of their extent which can be considered to be
one of the following:
• Point.
• Strip.
• Areal.
It will be seen that in most cases support systems
rely on effective coupling with reinforcement systems.
The major exception is in shafts and tunnels where a
complete ring, comprised of sprayed concrete or
precast panels, is used to support the materials
surrounding them.
5.1.1 Point Support Systems
Most reinforcement systems include a proprietary
external fixture (e.g., nut and washer, barrel and wedge
anchor) that is customized to the particular element. In
the context of support, a point support system is
considered to be a relative small plate or combination
of plates that act locally at the collar of the reinforce-
ment system. In this regard, the point support system
acts independently of any other reinforcement systems
in the surrounding pattern.
5.1.2 Strip Support Systems
Strip support systems as the name implies are linear
systems that span between two or more reinforcement
systems. Strip support systems may be flat or profiled
steel sections, mesh-like or comprised of single or
multiple configurations of steel wire rope or strand.
Steel sets and reinforced shotcrete arches may also be
considered to be strip support systems.
5.1.3 Areal Support Systems
Areal support systems, as the name suggests, extend in
two orthogonal directions to cover an area of an
excavation face. Areal support systems include:
• Mesh (or screen) that consists of apertures of
various shapes and sizes between, usually, steel
wires that may be woven or welded to form a
continuous flat or profiled sheet or roll.
• Thick layer of sprayed materials such as mortar
(gunite) and concrete (shotcrete).
• Thin Sprayed Liner (TSL), one of many experi-
mental proprietary products.
5.2 Excavation Shape
As indicated previously, excavation surfaces may
form complex three-dimensional shapes as a result of
the influence of blasting patterns, blast damage and the
arrangement and intersection of discontinuities such
as those given in Fig. 15. However, the surface will be
generally a combination of the basic shapes that may
be considered to be one of the following as shown in
Fig. 16.
• Flat.
• Concave.
• Convex.
5.3 Loading Mechanisms
The mechanisms of loading of support systems result
from general convergence of the surrounding materi-
als towards the newly created void and, in more
adverse conditions of stability, detachment locally of
structurally controlled or stress induced failure. The
movements of materials mainly cause lateral loadings.
However, for strip and areal support systems, loadings
within the plane may also result. The responses of the
support systems will depend on both the movements of
the materials surrounding the excavation and the shape
of the support system. In the case of sprayed materials,
the contact will have the same shape as the underlying
surface while the exposed surface will depend on other
factors related to the spraying strategy to be discussed
in a later section. For pre-manufactured systems (e.g.,
mesh, straps, pre-cast panels and arches), the loading
will be at discrete locations with the possibility, as
discussed previously, of there being no contact at all
until after excavation surface movements.
5.4 Load Transfer Concepts
5.4.1 Point Support Systems
Point support systems may be associated with discrete
reinforcement systems used in massive rock where no
123

Fig. 15 Types of
excavation surfaces
resulting from various
methods of creation in
different rock mass types
Fig. 16 Basic shapes of excavation surfaces; a flat, b convex
and c concave
areal support between reinforcement collars is deemed
necessary but, more usually, to restrain strip and areal
support systems. In the latter cases, it is necessary to
consider the loadings from the support systems which
may cause additional axial, shear and moment load-
ings at the collar. Tests have shown that mesh usually
slips at points of restraint; ultimately, after large
123
Geotech Geol Eng
displacements, one or more wires will engage with the
shaft of the reinforcement element and may cause
severe shear and bending loadings.
5.4.2 Strip and Areal Support Systems
For the purposes of discussion, strip and areal support
systems are considered to behave similarly in regard to
their association with excavation shapes. In this
regard, the surface support systems have been classi-
fied as being ‘‘thin’’ or ‘‘thick’’ as shown in Figs. 17
and 18, respectively. Strip support systems are gener-
ally used in conjunction with other surface support
systems in order to provide additional restraint normal
to the excavation surface between the reinforcement
positions.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 18 Schematic of thick sprayed layer

Fig. 17 Schematics of thin support systems (reinforcement

systems not shown); a non-contact mesh and b contacting thin
layer

5.5 Lateral Load Transfer Mechanics

5.5.1 Point Support Systems

A point support system reacts to movements and

transfers load to the external fixture of an associated Fig. 19 Load transfer from surface support to surrounding
reinforcement system. Ideally, reinforcement systems reinforcement systems
should be installed in boreholes drilled approximately
parallel to the direction in which the excavation face
will move. However, various logistical restraints, or
possibly poor practice, mean that many reinforcement
systems do not satisfy this requirement with the result
being that shear and bending forces are introduced into
the element near the collar. Other causes of non-axial
loading are related to the use of point support systems
in conjunction with strip and areal support systems.

5.5.2 Strip and Areal Support Systems

Conceptually, the stabilisation of unstable rock using
support involves load transfer through the support
system to restraint provided by reinforcement systems
at their collars as shown in Fig. 19 or, in the case of
sprayed layers, via adhesion to stable rock as shown in
Fig. 20. In the latter case, reinforcement may be used
to supplement the restraint. In order to assess what
material characteristics are required to achieve effec-
tive load transfer requires a detailed analysis of the
mechanisms and forces involved in load transfer.
The load transfer mechanics for strip and areal
support systems is best examined using free-body force
diagrams. Figure 21 shows the forces involved in load
transfer from a volume of material adjacent to a convex
surface that has separated from the surrounding stable
material. For the purposes of discussion, a flat excavation
Fig. 20 Load transfer from surface support via adhesion to
surrounding rock
surface will result in similar forces. However, as can be
seen in Fig. 22, the forces generated by a volume of
material adjacent to a concave surface are quite different.
Returning to Fig. 21, the failed volume causes the
support to react initially at position A and develop
resistance in tension, shear and bending. These forces are
then, depending on the particular support system,
transferred to the stable material through the support
itself to a position of restraint or through shear and
tension as shown previously in Figs. 19 and 20, respec-
tively. On the other hand, Fig. 22 shows that the support
develops resistance in compression, shear and bending at
position A and is then required to transfer load in the
same manner as described in the preceding paragraph.

123

Fig. 21 Free-body force diagram for convex surface failure
volume acting on support system
Fig. 22 Free-body force diagram for concave surface failure
volume acting on support system
The immediate implications from the simple
mechanics shown in Figs. 21 and 22 are that, for
materials strong in tension, reinforcement provided in
concave locations provide either direct restraint to the
failure volume or restraint to the support when the
failure volume is between the reinforcement. Con-
versely, for support materials that are strong in
compression, reinforcement provided on convex loca-
tions provides either direct restraint or effective
restraint to the support when the failure occurs
between the reinforcement. These implications have
been confirmed for shotcrete by Banton et al. (2004)
and Ansell (2010) using, respectively, two- and three-
dimensional finite element programs.
5.6 In Plane Load Transfer Mechanics
Strip and areal support systems may also be loaded
within their cross-section due to overall convergence
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 23 Compression loading of support systems on a flat,
b concave and c convex surfaces
of material towards the excavation. It is assumed that
the loadings will involve predominantly compression,
but may also involve lateral loading as described in the
previous section. Figure 23 shows compression load-
ings for flat, convex and concave surfaces. Again, it
can be considered that support on flat and convex
surfaces behave similarly and distinctly differently
from support on a concave surface.
Support on flat and convex surfaces and loaded in
compression will be susceptible to buckling that may
occur suddenly without any obvious precursors. The
resistance to buckling can be improved significantly
by the installation of reinforcement.
Support on concave surfaces will not be susceptible
to buckling but, in the case of a thick shotcrete layer, will
be very stiff and may crush and fail violently as would
brittle rock under high stress. However, a number of
solutions to this problem are used in tunneling projects
where large convergence is expected (e.g., Schubert
and Blümel 1997; Schubert 2008; Hoek and Guevara
2009). The solutions involve strategic placement of
deformable elements with engineered characteristics
between panels of shotcrete as shown schematically in
Fig. 24. Although this technology is not currently used
in mining, it is considered that its introduction will need
Fig. 24 Compressible element used to reduce stiffness of
concave shaped shotcrete layer
Geotech Geol Eng
to be considered as excavations need to be formed in
high stress environments at greater depths.
5.7 Classification of Support Systems
Some measures (other than areal coverage) of support
systems which are important in terms of maintaining
the integrity of the materials surrounding an excava-
tion are:
• Increasing the strength of discontinuities that
intersect the excavation boundaries.
• Reaction in terms of both immediacy and stiffness
to transverse loading.
• Diaphragm (or membrane) action in tension in
terms of both strength and stiffness.
• Arching action in compression in terms of both
strength and stiffness.
• Toughness in response to transverse loading and in
plane distortion (shear).
• Time dependent creep and relaxation associated
with the different materials.
• Fatigue associated with repetitive vibratory dis-
placements.
As indicated previously, membrane action results
from loading within the plane due to extension
producing tensile stresses while transverse loading
causes shear and bending. Areal support systems which
are restrained by reinforcement will involve both
transverse loading and membrane or arch action. And,
as discussed previously, the immediacy and stiffness of
reaction might be the most important influence on rock
mass behaviour in highly stressed rock.
The following sections discuss support systems in
terms of four mechanisms of their responses to rock
mass movements.
5.7.1 Reaction to Transverse Loading
Plates and shotcrete are in contact with the rock surface
and provide immediate resistance to rock movement.
On the other hand, straps and mesh are usually only in
contact with the rock at the positions of restraint and
therefore allow (in some cases very significant) rock
movement before providing reaction against further
rock movement. In other cases where mesh is placed
against a concave surface, the mesh has the potential to
buckle and ‘‘snap-through’’ when rock loading causes
compression. For this reason, mesh alone may not be
suitable for control of a rock mass susceptible to violent
failure due to overstressing. It has also been observed
that if shotcrete does not prevent rock failure, then the
energy absorbed is accompanied by a loss in contact
with the rock and cracking to form ‘‘slabs’’ of
shotcrete. The crack widths may easily exceed half
the length of any internal fibre reinforcement and
therefore mesh is a much better way of retaining the
slabs of shotcrete that are not directly held by the bolts.
5.7.2 Membrane Action in Tension
Sprayed thin skins have been under development since
the early 1990 s. There are currently many problems
associated with the materials and logistics of place-
ment in the mining environment and their performance
(e.g., Finn et al. 1999).
Shotcrete may act as a membrane in tension. The
main disadvantage of shotcrete in response to tension
is cracking at small strains/differential displacements.
While the overall tensile strength is improved through
the addition of polypropylene or steel fibres, the post-
peak tensile strength remains relatively low compared
with other systems such as mesh. The tensile strength
is a function of how well the fibres transfer load across
cracks; this depends on the strength of the fibres, their
orientation and the load transfer between the fibre and
the shotcrete matrix.
Mesh may also be considered to act like a
membrane.
5.7.3 Membrane Action in Compression
It has been shown that the effectiveness of strip and
areal support systems relative to surface shape is a
function of their strength in tension or compression and
their stiffnesss. This important characteristic of strip
and areal support systems has been largely overlooked
by proposing that a thick layer of shotcrete could be
replaced by a thin liner, especially if the liner has brittle
material characteristics similar to the cementitious
materials that form the matrix of shotcrete but without
the ability to create improved ductility and post-peak
tensile and bending strengths through the use of
embedded reinforcement such as steel wire mesh or
fibres made from steel or plastic materials.
Support systems designed to be efficient when
loaded in tension have poor performance when loaded
123

in compression. Straps and mesh tend to buckle when
loaded in compression. A thin skin will have negligi-
ble strength and stiffness when compared with the
same properties of the rock on which it is placed.
Shotcrete based products have appropriate proper-
ties for membrane action in compression in terms of
both strength and stiffness. Plain shotcrete is suscep-
tible to cracking due to both shrinkage and any
distortion caused by rock movements. The resistance
of shotcrete to cracking is dramatically improved by
the addition of either steel or polymeric fibres to the
mix or when used in conjunction with mesh.
In addition to transverse loading, rock movements
may also cause distortion in the plane of the support.
These distortions produce shear forces which may in
turn cause shear or tension cracks. Mesh and shotcrete
(reinforced with fibres or mesh) can sustain in-plane
distortion. Plain shotcrete will perform poorly while the
performance of sprayed skins is unknown; however,
one could imagine at least loss of adhesion and possible
‘puckering’ of the skin if not actual propagation of a
shear initiated ‘‘ripping’’ failure (Finn et al. 1999).
5.7.4 Response Toughness
Toughness is a measure used to assess the support
response where the transient forces immediately after
failure would be sufficient to cause failure if the
support does not deform until the rock force demand
reduces to an acceptable level.
Some conceptual force–displacement responses for
various configurations of mesh and shotcrete are given
in Fig. 25. With the re-introduction of shotcrete into
Fig. 25 Comparison of conceptual performance of surface
support systems in response to lateral loading
123
Geotech Geol Eng
mining in Australia and elsewhere in the world in the
early to mid 1990 s, the emphasis in assessing fibre
reinforced shotcrete was on the ‘‘first crack’’ and peak
strengths. This was driven by the requirement in civil
engineering not to have cracks mainly for aesthetic
reasons; it is worth noting that a similar requirement is
used for the assessment of Glass Fibre Reinforced
Cement sheets used in civil construction. In square
panel tests, the first crack strength was found to be
directly related to the strength of the shotcrete matrix
and the peak strength was related directly to the
strength of the fibre (e.g., Clements 1996). This was
clearly demonstrated by fibres with essentially the
same shape but lower tensile strength resulting in a
lower peak load being measured in the panel tests.
In more recent years, the attitude in mining has
changed and this has led to the widespread adoption of
‘‘plastic’’ fibres. Tests have shown that the overall
toughness of plastic fibre reinforced shotcrete can
match that of high tensile strength steel fibre rein-
forced shotcrete. However, mesh reinforced shotcrete
was shown to be superior to fibre reinforced shotcrete
in comparative tests reported by Kirsten (1992). This
conclusion depends to a large degree on the mesh used
and the type and volume of fibres. It is important to
note that mesh has a superior displacement capacity in
response to lateral loading when compared with all
types of shotcrete (e.g., Morton et al. 2009).
5.7.5 Qualitative Performance Indicators
Surface support systems have been assessed qualita-
tively in terms of the following three main perfor-
mance indicators:
• Transverse Loading.
• Membrane Action.
• Toughness.
The results of the assessments are summarised in
Table 6.
5.8 Quantification of Support System
Performance
5.8.1 Testing
Support systems provide much more serious chal-
lenges in the design of suitable experimental config-
urations to enable measurements of mechanical
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 6 Qualitative performance indicators for a number of different types of support systems
Support Product Transverse loading Membrane action Toughness
system
Tension Compression
Reaction Stiffness Strength Stiffness Strength Stiffness Trans In-
Plane

Plate Flat I M N/A N/A N/A N/A L N/A

Butterfly I L N/A N/A N/A N/A L N/A
Combination I M N/A N/A N/A N/A L N/A
Strap Flat Strap D M H H L L M N/A
W-Strap D M H H L L M N/A
Mesh F51 D L M M L L L H
F52 D L M M L L L H
F81 D M H H L L M H
F82 D M H H L L M H
Skin Polymer Based I L M M VL VL L L
Layer Unreinforced Shotcrete (US) I M VL VL H H L L
Polypropylene Fibre Reinforced I M L L H H M M
Shotcrete (PFRS)
Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete I H M M H H H H
(SFRS)
Mesh Reinforced Shotcrete (MRS) I H H H H H VH VH
RATINGS
Immediate Delayed
Low Medium High Very High
N/A Not Applicable

properties to represent performance in service. The
most obvious problems that have been identified
include:
• Excavation surface shape.
• Limited areal extent and boundary conditions.
• Interaction with the rock mass.
For this reason, most tests on shotcrete such as
unconfined compression tests and beam and panel tests
are used for quality control without any attempt made
to relate these properties to the mechanisms associated
with actual performance (Windsor 1998).
The ‘‘punch’’ test described by Morton et al. (2008)
is an attempt to better understand the interaction
between sprayed layers and rock when subjected to
static or dyamic loading.
5.8.2 System Response and Capacity
5.8.2.1 Mesh Various attempts have been made by
many research engineers throughout the world to
quantify the performance of mesh (e.g., Ortlepp
1983; Pakalnis and Ames 1983; Tannant et al. 1997;
Stacey and Ortlepp 1999; Thompson et al. 1999;
Roth et al. 2004; Dolinar 2006). There is much
similarity in all the published results. The deficien-
cies in all the test configurations are the size of the
panels of mesh and the boundary conditions. It is
worth noting that Thompson et al. (1999) specifically
identified the deficiency of the boundary conditions
and proposed that the testing results for known
boundary conditions should be used for validation of
computational modeling. Since that time, a computer
simulation (as yet unpublished) has been devel-
oped to simulate various boundary conditions and
predict the response of welded mesh to complex
loadings. Preliminary results show good agree-
ment with the comprehensive set of tests using
various boundary conditions completed at the
Western Australian School of Mines; a summary of
some of these results is reported by Morton et al.
(2007).

123

Fig. 26 Principles of defining demand for support and reinforcement requirements in jointed rock
5.8.2.2 Shotcrete The most widely used and accepted
tests conducted on shotcrete involve panels; originally,
square panels supported under the four edges and
loaded centrally (EFNARC 1996) and more recently
circular panels supported at three equally spaced
points and loaded centrally. The latter test is known as
the Round Determinant Panel (RDP) Test and is fully
described in a code of the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM 2008). As mentioned
previously, these panel tests are used to assess
shotcrete quality and in particular energy absorption
at various values of central displacement. Attempts to
analyse the tests using ‘‘yield line theory’’ have been
reported by Tran et al. (2001; 2005) for RDP tests.
This theory is based on the mechanisms that result
after cracks fully form in the panels. The results of an
analysis may be used to define the bending strength per
unit length of crack. The writers are not aware of yield
line theory being used routinely to estimate bending
strength from panel tests and then apply this to design
of shotcrete layers. This is despite the accepted use of
123
Geotech Geol Eng
yield line theory in the design of reinforced con-
crete slabs (e.g., Kennedy and Goodchild 2003) and
several attempts over many years to demonstrate its
usefulness applied to shotcrete design (e.g., Holmgren
1976; Nilsson and Holmgren 2001).
6 Ground Support Scheme Specification
The first step in specifying a ground support scheme is its
components and extents. Figure 26 illustrates how block
size may be used as the basis to assess the need for support
and the types of reinforcement systems required.
6.1 Mesh
The installation of mesh requires proper definition in
terms of its degree of fixity and the fixture geometry
(Windsor 1998). The mesh may be fixed in geometry by
an array of mesh pins or rock bolts. The array may be a
rectangular, an oblique array or an arbitrary arrangement.
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 27 Surface support
specification based on
location relative to
excavation
Consequently, the points of attachment are defined by
fixture type, array type and spacing dimensions.
The relation of the grid to the rock surface, defined
here as the Mesh Cover Technique, is critical to the
capacity and response of mesh. There are five types of
mesh cover technique:
• Type 1: Consistently follows the roughness of the
rock surface like a coating.
• Type 2: Rests on the tips of all protrusions and
spans wider notches like a cloth.
• Type 3: Rests on the tips of all protrusions and
spans all notches like a plate.
• Type 4: Offset from some tips, rests on others,
follows some valleys, spans others.
• Type 5: Offset from the surface by given offset
spacers at the points of fixture surface
Consequently, the in situ mesh may now be defined
by
1. Specification of mesh material.
2. Specification of in situ mesh fixity.
3. Specification of mesh cover technique and surface
offset dimensions.
6.2 Shotcrete
After the decision has been made for the need of a
shotcrete layer, it is then necessary to consider the
thickness and a spraying strategy. For the purposes of
specifying coverage location a terminology is pro-
posed as defined in Fig. 27. It has often been observed
that if shotcrete is not placed between the shoulder and
toe, rock failure may initiate at the toe and then
unravel upwards behind the shotcrete layer.
The ‘‘Cover Technique’’ terminology was devel-
oped by Windsor (1998). The terms introduced here
concern the cover techniques used for coating and
filling the excavation surface. The cover technique is of
fundamental importance to shotcrete design and cen-
tral to the design of shotcrete linings, their structural
performance and the verification of in situ shotcrete
dimensions. There are five possible cover techniques
for coating and filling the excavation surface and these
are defined in conjunction with five surface profiles:
• Type 1: Coat the rough rock excavation surface
(RE profile) with a minimum thickness to produce
a rough ‘coated’ surface (C profile).
• Type 2: Coat the rough rock surface with an even
minimum thickness and partially backfill the
irregularities or ‘notches’ to produce a rough
‘coated and filled’ surface (CF profile).
• Type 3: Fill the rough rock surface to a smooth
surface defined by the ‘teeth’ or ‘tips’ of the rock
projections to produce a relatively smooth ‘filled’
surface (F profile).
• Type 4: Fill the irregularities to an F profile and
then apply a minimum thickness cover over the
tips to produce a smooth, ‘filled and covered’
surface (FC profile).
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 28 Various cover

geometries resulting from
different spraying strategies

• Type 5: Fill all overbreak and irregularities and The five cover techniques for a horse-shoe shaped
continue with covering until a given excavation tunnel in a hard rock mass are shown schematically in
design surface is achieved to a ‘specified excava- Fig. 28. The terms used to define the two- and three-
tion’ geometry (SE profile). dimensional limiting profiles and surfaces are critical

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 29 Tangential force transmission through thin and thick
support layers and/rock
in specifying shotcrete cover technique and calculat-
ing shotcrete dimensions. They are super-critical in the
conduct of structural engineering calculations. Plain
shotcrete and fibre reinforced shotcrete may now be
defined by:
• Specification of the dimensions and material
properties of the constituents.
• Specification of the relative proportions of the
constituents.
• Specification of shotcrete cover technique and
cover dimensions.
Figure 29 shows schematically how circumferen-
tial compressive force transmission differs as a result
of achieving different interactions between the rock
surface and the shotcrete layer. The consequences of
these different profiles on performance have been
previously discussed conceptually and need to be
taken into account in the location of the reinforce-
ment.
6.3 Reinforcement
Finally, the reinforcement systems need to be speci-
fied. As implied previously, reinforcement systems
may be required for immediate restraint of support
systems to enable the installation of the permanent
ground support scheme. The permanent reinforcement
will be required to both restrain the support and
reinforce the rock and be capable of sustaining both
static and dynamic rock mass demands.
7 Concluding Remarks
Given the information regarding the compressive and
shear strengths of shotcrete layers and the improve-
ment in ductility afforded by the use of embedded
mesh or fibres, it is not surprising that Hoek et al.
(1995) state: ‘‘The design of shotcrete support for
underground excavations is a very imprecise process.
However, one observation, which is commonly made
by practical engineers with years of experience in
using shotcrete underground, is that it almost always
performs better than anticipated. There are many
examples (very few of which are documented) where
shotcrete has been used as a last act of desperation in
an effort to stabilise the failing rock around a tunnel
and, to most people’s surprise, it has worked.’’
They also say ‘‘The complex interaction between
the failing rock mass around an underground opening,
and a layer of shotcrete of varying thickness with
properties that change as it hardens, defies most
attempts at theoretical analysis.’’ and ‘‘rock bolts,
cable bolts, lattice girders or steel sets further
complicates the problem’’.
Having agreed with these comments, one might
argue that shotcrete is overused, particularly in
circumstances where more modest ground support
schemes might have sufficed. That this is occurring
might be related to being in times of historically high
commodity prices. However, as mining progresses to
ever increasing depths, it is likely that engineered
designs of ground support will become essential and
shotcrete will of necessity be a major component.
Optimisation of ground support schemes will be
123

required in less bouyant economic conditions with the
need for higher productivity.
It is hoped that some of the concepts associated
with a limited and consistent terminology and the
simple mechanisms used to illustrate the action of
ground support component systems will assist in the
design of efficient and effective ground support
schemes appropriate to the prevailing rock mass
conditions and the behaviour of excavations.
Acknowledgments The writers have evolved the under-
standing outlined in this document over many years of
industrial research collaboration with various organizations
and wish to acknowledge some of the many persons whom
have influenced and assisted in the synthesis of the concepts
embodied within this document. In approximate chrono-
logical order they are Tom Lang, George Worotnicki, Laurie
Alexander, Peter Fuller, Glynn Cadby, Steve Matthews, Peter
O’Bryan, Mike Fabjancyzk, Volker Tillmann, Steve Bywater,
Warwick Hutchins, Ted Brown, Evert Hoek and John Player.
References
Ansell A (2010) Structural behavior of shotcrete on irregular
hard rock surfaces. In: Bernard ES (ed) Shotcrete: elements
of a system. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 11–19
ASTM (2008) Standard test method for flexural toughness of
fiber-reinforced concrete (Using centrally loaded round
panel). ASTM, West Conshohocken 6p
Banton C, Diederichs MS, Hutchinson DJ, Espley S (2004)
Mechanisms of shotcrete roof support. In: Bernard ES (ed)
Shotcrete: more engineering developments. Taylor and
Francis Group, London, pp 39–45
Barley AD, Windsor CR (2000) Recent advances in ground
anchor and ground improvement technology with reference
to the development of the art. GeoEng 2000. In: Proceed-
ings of international conference geotechnical and geolog-
ical engineering, Melbourne, IEAust, Melbourne, pp 1048–
1094
Brown ET (1999a) The evolution of support and reinforcement
philosophy and practice for underground mining excava-
tions. In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds)
Rock support and reinforcement practice in mining,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 3–17
Brown ET (1999b) Rock mechanics and the Snowy Mountains
Scheme In: The spirit of the snowy fifty years on. Pro-
ceedings of 1999 invitation symposium, Cooma NSW,
Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
Melbourne
Brown ET (2004) The dynamic environment of ground support
and reinforcement. In: Villaesucsa E, Potvin Y (eds)
Ground support in mining and underground construction.
Balkema, London, pp 3–16
Brown ET, Bray JW, Ladanyi B, Hoek E (1983) Characteristic
line calculations for rock tunnels. J Geotech Eng ASCE
109(1):15–39
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Bywater S, Fuller PG (1983) Cable support of lead open stope
hangingwalls at Mount Isa Mines Limited. In: Proceedings
of International Symposium on Rock Bolting, Abisko,
Sweden, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 539–555
Carranza-Torres C, Fairhurst C (1999) The elasto-plastic
response of undergroumd excavations in rock masses that
satisfy the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sc 36(6):777–810 Pergamon, Lomdon
Charette F, Plouffe M (2008) A new rock bolt concept for
underground excavations under high stress conditions. In:
6th international symposium on ground support in mining
and civil engineering construction, SAIMM, Johannes-
burg, pp 225–240
Cho N, Martin CD, Christiansson R (2002) Suppressing fracture
growth around underground openings. In: Hammah R,
Bawden W, Curran J, Telesnicki M (eds) Mining and
tunnelling innovation and opportunity, Proceedings of 5th
North American Rock mechanics symposium and the 17th
tunnelling association of Canada conference: NARMS-
TAC 2002, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
V2:1151–1158
Clements MJK (1996) The performance of steel fibre reinforced
shotcrete in mining. In Windsor CR (ed) Symposium on
shotcrete: techniques, procedures and mining applications,
Kalgoorlie, Rock Technology, Perth, Paper 4, 13p
Clifford RL (1974) Long rockbolt support at New Broken Hill
consolidated Limited. Proc AusIMM, AusIMM, Mel-
bourne 25(1):21–26
Conway JP, Dar SM, Stears JH, Williams PC (1975) Laboratory
studies of yielding rock bolts. US Department of the inte-
rior bureau of mines report of investigations 8058
Detournay E, St. John CM (1988) Design charts for a deep
circular tunnel under non-uniform loading. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 21(2):119–137
Dolinar D (2006) Load capacity and stiffness characteristics of
screen materials used for surface control in underground
coal mines. In: 25th international conference on ground
control in mining. University of West Virginia, Morgan-
town pp 152–158
EFNARC (1996) European specification for sprayed concrete,
30 p
Finn D, Teasdale P, Windsor CR (1999) In situ trials and field
testing of two polymer restraint membranes. In: Villaes-
cusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds) Rock support
and reinforcement practice in mining, Balkema, Rotter-
dam, pp 139–153
Fleetwood KG (2010) Near-field blast vibration monitoring and
analysis for prediction of blast damage in sublevel open
stoping. PhD thesis, Curtin University WA School of
Mines, Perth
Fuller PG (1983) Cable bolt support in mining. In: Stephansson
O (ed) Rock bolting; theory and application in mining and
undeground construction, Abisko, Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 511–522
Fuller PG, Dugan KJ (1992) Factors affecting ground support
performance in mining. In: 5th AusIMM underground
operators’ conference, AusIMM, Melbourne, pp 139–144
Gardner FJ (1971) History of rock bolting. In: Symposium
on Rock Bolting, AusIMM, Illawarra Branch, Paper No. 2,
11 p
Geotech Geol Eng
Gaudreau DM, Aubertin S, Simon R (2004) Performance
assessment of tendon support systems submitted to
dynamic loading. In: Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds) Ground
support in mining and underground construction, Balkema,
London, pp 299–312
Gomez-Hernandez J, Kaiser PK (2003) Modeling rock mass
bulking around underground excavations. In: Proceedings
of 10th ISRM congress on rock Mech, SAIMM, Johan-
nesburg, pp 389–395
Greenelsh R (1985) The N663 stope experiment at Mount Isa
Mine. Int J Min Eng 3:183–194
Hassell R, Villaescusa E (2005) Overcoring techniques to assess
in situ corrosion of galvanized friction bolts. In: Peng SS
(ed), Proc 24th Int Conf on Ground Control in Mining,
West Virginia University Morgantown, pp 349–356
Hassell RC, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2006) Testing and
evaluation of corrosion on cablebolt anchors. In: Yale DP,
Holtz SC, Breeds C, Ozbay U (eds), Proc 41st US Rock
Mech Symp, ARMA Washington, Paper 06–996:11p
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock.
IMM, London 527p
Hoek E, Guevara R (2009) Overcoming squeezing in the Ya-
cambú-Quibor Tunnel, Venezuela. Rock Mech Rock Eng
42(2):389–418
Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground
excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam 215p
Holmgren BJ (1976) Thin shotcrete layers subjected to punch
loads. In: Shotcrete for Ground Support, ASCE, New York,
pp 443–459
Hutchins WR, Bywater S, Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1990) A
versatile grouted cable dowel reinforcing system for rock.
The AusIMM Proceedings 1:25–29
Jager AJ (1992) Two New Support Units for the Control of
Rockburst Damage. In: Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (eds)
Rock support in mining and underground construction,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 621–663
Kaiser PK, McCreath DR, Tannant DD (1996) Canadian rock-
burst support handbook. Geomechanics Research Centre,
Sudbury 300p
Kennedy G, Goodchild C (2003) Practical yield line design,
www.rcc-info.org.uk, British Cement Association, London
Kirsten HAD (1992) Comparative efficiency and ultimate
strength of mesh- and fibre-reinforced shotcrete as deter-
mined from full-scale bending tests. J S Afr Min Metall
92(11/12):303–323
Kwitowski AJ, Wade LV (1980) Reinforcement mechanisms of
untensioned full-column resin bolts. US bureau of mines
report of investigations 8439
Ladanyi B (1974) Use of the long-term strength concept in the
determination of ground pressure on tunnel linings. In:
Proceedings of 3rd ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics,
Denver, V IIB, 1150–1156
Lang TA (1961) Theory and practice of rock bolting. Trans Am
Inst Min Metall Pet Eng 220:333–348
Lees D (ed) (2009) The history of Australian tunnelling. Para-
gon Printers, Australasia
Li CC (2010) A new energy-absorbing bolt for rock support in high
stress rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47:396–404
Littlejohn GS (1993) Overview of rock anchorages. In: Hudson
JA (ed) Comprehensive rock engineering, vol V4. Perg-
amon Press, London, pp 413–450
Littlejohn GS, Bruce DA (1977) Rock anchors- sate of the art.
Foundation Publications, Brentwood, Essex 55p
Matthews SM, Tillmann VH, Worotnicki G (1983) A modified
cable bolt system for the support of underground openings.
In: Proceedings of AusIMM annual conference, Broken
Hill, AusIMM, Melbourne, pp 243–255
Matthews SM, Thompson AG, Windsor CR, O’Bryan PR
(1986) A novel reinforcing system for large rock caverns in
blocky rock masses. In: Saari KHO (ed) International
conference on large rock caverns. Pergamon Press, Lon-
don, V2:1541–1552
Mills WB (2009) The Snowy men behind tunnel rock bolting.
Walter Mills, Cooma, NSW
Morton EC, Thompson AG, Villaescusa E, Roth A (2007)
Testing and analysis of steel wire mesh for mining appli-
cations of rock surface support. 11th ISRM congress on
rock mechanics, Lisbon, Taylor and Francis, London,
V2:1061–1064
Morton EC Thompson AG, Villaescusa E (2008) Static testing
of shotcrete and membranes for mining applications. In:
Stacey TR, Malan DF (eds), 6th Int Symp on Ground
Support in Mining and Civil Construction, SAIMM
Johannesburg, pp 195–212
Morton EC, Thompson AG, Villaescusa E (2009) The perfor-
mance of mesh, shotcrete and membranes for surface
ground support. In: Diederichs MS, Grasselli M (eds)
RockEng09, rock engineering in difficult conditions, CIM,
Montreal, Paper 4022, 12p
Muir Wood AM (1993) Development of tunnel support phi-
losophy. In: Hudson JA (ed) Comprehensive rock engi-
neering, Pergamon, London, V4:349–368
Nilsson U, Holmgren BJ (2001) Load bearing capacity of steel
fibre reinforced shotcrete linings. In: Bernard ES (ed)
Shotcrete: engineering developments, Swets and Zeitlin-
ger, Lisse, pp 205–212
Ortlepp WD, Read JJ (1970) Yieldable rock bolts for shock
loading and grouted bolts for faster rock stabilization.
Colorado School of Mines. The Min Mag 60(3):12–17
Ortlepp, WD (1983) Considerations in the design of support for
deep hard rock tunnels. 5th ISRM congress on rock
mechanics, V2:179–187
Pakalnis V, Ames D (1983) Load tests on mine screening. In:
Udd J (ed) Underground support systems. Can Inst of Min
Met Pet, Special Volume 35:79–83
Peng SS, Tang DHY (1984) Roof bolting in underground min-
ing: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Min Eng 2:1:42
Player JR, Thompson AG, Villaescusa E (2004) Dynamic test-
ing of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer
concept. In: Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds) Ground support
in mining and underground construction, Balkema London,
pp 327–340
Player JR, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2008) Dynamic testing
of reinforcement systems. In: 6th international symposium
on ground support in mining and civil construction, Cape
Town, South Africa, SAIMM Johannesburg, pp 597–622
Player JR, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2009) Dynamic test-
ing of threadbar used for rock reinforcement. In: Diede-
richs MS, Grasselli G (eds) RockEng09, Rock Engineering
in Difficult Conditions, CIM Montreal, Paper 4030:12p
Read RS, Martino JB, Dzik EJ, Oliver S, Falls S, Young RP (1997)
Analysis and interpretation of AECL’s heated failure tests.
123

Tech. Rep 06819-REP-01200-0070 R00, Ontario Hydro,
Nuclear Waste Management Division, Toronto
Roth A, Windsor CR, Coxon J, de Vries R (2004) Performance
assessment of high tensile wire mesh ground support under
seismic conditions. In: Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds)
Ground support in mining and underground construction,
Balkema, Leiden, pp 589–594
Schmuck CH (1979) Cable bolting at Homestake gold mine.
Min Eng 31(12):1677–1681
Schubert W (2008) Design of ductile tunnel linings. In: Pro-
ceedings of 42nd US/2nd US-Canada Rock Mech Symp,
ARMA, Washington DC, Paper 146, 7p
Schubert W, Blümel M (1997) Improved support system for
squeezing ground. In: Broch E, Myrvang A, Stjern G (eds)
International symposium on rock support: applied solutions for
underground structures, Lillehammer Norway, pp 630–635
Slisko J, Dykstra DI (1997) The role of scientific terminology in
research and teaching: Is something important missing?
J Research in Scientific Teaching. Wiley, New York,
34(6):655–660
Snyder VW, Gerdeen JC, Viegelahn GL (1979) Factors gov-
erning the effectiveness of roof bolting systems using fully
resin grouted non-tensioned bolts. In: 20th US symposium
on rock mechanics, pp 607–613
Stacey TR, Ortlepp WD (1999) Retainment Support for
Dynamic Events in Mines. In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR,
Thompson AG (eds) Rock support and reinforcement
practice in mining, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 329–333
Tadolini S (1998) The effects of reduced annulus in roof bolting
performance. In: 17th conference on ground control in
mining, University of West Virginia, pp 231–236
Tannant D, Kaiser PK, Maloney S, (1997) Load—displacement
properties of welded—wire, chain—link and expanded
metal mesh. In: Broch E, Myrvang A, Stjern G (eds)
International symposium on rock support: applied solu-
tions for underground structures. Lillehammer, Norway,
pp 651–659
Thompson AG (2004) Performance of cable bolt anchors—An
Update. In: Karzulovic A, Alfaro MA (eds), MassMin2004,
Instituto de Ingenerios de Chile Santiago, pp 317–323
Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1992) A classification system for
reinforcement and its use in design. In: Swedzicki,T, Baird
GR, Little TN (eds) Western Australian conference on
mining geomechanics, Western Australian School of
Mines, Kalgoorlie, Curtin University, Perth, pp 115–125
Thompson AG, Windsor CR (1993) Theory and strategy for
monitoring the performance of rock reinforcement. In:
Swedzicki T (ed) Geotechnical instrumentation and mon-
itoring in open pit and underground mining, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 473–482
Thompson AG, Matthews SM, Windsor CR, Bywater S, Till-
mann VH (1987) Innovations in rock reinforcement tech-
nology in the Australian mining industry. In: 6th ISRM
congress on rock mechanics, Montreal, V2:1275–1278
Thompson AG, Windsor CR, Robertson WV, Robertson IG
(1995) Case study of an instrumented reinforced pit slope.
In: Proceedings of 35th US Rock Mech Symp, Lake Tahoe,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 381–386
Thompson AG, Windsor CR, Cadby GW (1999) Performance
assessment of mesh for ground control applications. In:
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng
Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds) Rock
support and reinforcement practice in mining, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 119–130
Thompson AG, Player JR, Villaescusa E (2004) Simulation
and analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement systems.
In: Villaescusa E, Potvin Y (eds) Ground support in min-
ing and underground construction, Balkema, London,
pp 341–358
Tran VNG, Beasley AJ, Bernard ES (2001) Application of yield
line theory to round determinate panels. In: Bernard ES
(ed) Shotcrete: engineering developments, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 245–254
Tran VNG, Bernard ES, Beasley AJ (2005) Constitutive mod-
eling of fiber reinforced shotcrete panels. J. Eng Mech
ASCE 131(5):512–521
Varden R, Lachenicht R, Player JR, Thompson AG, Villaescusa
E (2008) Development and implementation of the Garford
Dynamic Bolt at the Kanowna Belle mine. 10th under-
ground operators conference, Launceston, AusIMM, Mel-
bourne, pp 95–104
Villaescusa E, Sandy MP, Bywater S (1992) Ground support
investigations and practices at Mount Isa. In: Kaiser PK,
McCreath D (eds) Rock support in mining and construc-
tion, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 185–193
Villaescusa E, Varden R, Hassell R (2008) Quantifying the
performance of resin anchored rockbolts in the Australian
underground hard rock mining industry. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. Balkema London, 45(1):94–102
Windsor CR (1992) Cable bolting for underground and surface
excavations. In: Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (eds) Rock
support in mining and construction, Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 349–366
Windsor CR (1997) Rock reinforcement systems. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sc 34(6):919–951 Pergamon, London
Windsor CR (1998) Structural design of shotcrete linings. In:
Proceedings of Australian shotcrete conference, IBC con-
ferences, Sydney, pp 1–34
Windsor CR (2004) A review of long, high capacity reinforcing
systems used in rock engineering. In: Villaescusa E, Potvin
Y (eds) Ground support in mining and underground con-
struction. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 17–41
Windsor CR, Thompson AG (1993) Rock reinforcement: tech-
nology, testing, design and evaluation. In: Hudson JA (ed)
Comprehensive rock engineering, vol 4. Pergamon Press,
London, pp 451–484
Windsor CR, Thompson AG (1997) Reinforced rock system
characteristics. In: Broch E, Myrvang A, Stjern G (eds)
International symposium on rock support: applied solu-
tions for underground structures, Lillehammer Norway,
pp 433–448
Windsor CR, Thompson AG (1999) The design of shotcrete
linings for excavations created by drill and blast methods.
In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG (eds) Rock
support and reinforcement practice in mining, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp 231–244
Windsor CR, Bywater S, Worotnicki G (1983) Instrumentation
and observed behavior of the N663 trial stope Racecourse
Area, Mount Isa Mine. Project Report No. 23, geome-
chanics of underground Metalliferous Mines, CSIRO
Division of Geomechanics, Melbourne