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

net/publication/269875028

SOME GROUND SUPPORT CONSIDERATIONS IN RAPID EXCAVATION FOR

MINING DEVELOPMENT

Conference Paper · September 2006

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4670.8804

CITATION READS

1 3,254

3 authors, including:

Ernesto Villaescusa
WA School of Mines - Curtin University Australia
183 PUBLICATIONS   1,627 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Ground Support Technology View project

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

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernesto Villaescusa on 22 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SOME GROUND SUPPORT CONSIDERATIONS IN RAPID EXCAVATION
FOR MINING DEVELOPMENT

Ernesto Villaescusa1, Alan Thompson and Chris Windsor

ABSTRACT
There is a need for faster development in deep underground mines. Effective, long service life
ground support is one of the critical components of development. It is also highly desirable
that ground support is installed in one pass. One of the difficulties in deeper development is
the possibility of higher stresses causing brittle intact rock failure accompanied by a sudden
release of energy. This requires higher force capacity reinforcement systems than those used
at shallower depths. Some of the issues associated with both reinforcement and surface
support are presented and discussed. The recent trend towards use of resin anchored rock
bolts is addressed more specifically because of the historically poor implementation of these
bolts in underground metalliferous mines . Overcoring and testing of these types of bolts
have been used to investigate issues related to quality of mixing and load transfer. These
investigations have shown there is variable quality for different bolts and variability in load
transfer along the length of individual bolts. Greater automation of equipment is one of the
potential solutions to the variable performance of resin anchored rock bolts. Automation
could be used to control variables such as rotational speed, advance of the bolt down the
borehole and the optimum spin and hold times.

INTRODUCTION
In the current economic climate, there is a clear need for rapid development to exploit deep
orebodies using underground mining methods. In the 1980s and early 1990s, rapid
underground development at relatively shallow depths was largely achieved through effective
scaling and the installation of friction rock stabilisers with plates. Since that time, mines have
progressed to greater depths and higher stress. Also, in Western Australia, in the absence of
geotechnical advice to the contrary, the need for surface support at wall and back heights
greater than 3.5 metres was introduced (DOMEWA, 1999). At that time, welded wire mesh
restrained by friction rock stabilisers was the generally accepted form of ground support. The
need to restrain and overlap mesh at strategic points led to an estimated 40% increase in the
number of rock bolts being used; or even as high as 50% (CIA, 1990). Figure 1 confirms
these assertions. Most of the extra number of bolts are not required for internal reinforcement
of the rock according to well-established design guidelines based on precedent experience
(e.g. pioneering work of the Snowy Mountains Authority (Lang, 1960) and subsequently
expanded and summarised by Farmer and Shelton (1980) and Choquet and Hadjigeorgiou
(1993)).

1
WA School of Mines, Locked Bag 22, Kalgoorlie, WA 6433
 Figure 1. Excessive number of rock bolts due to meshing requirements.

More recently, fibre reinforced shotcrete has been used as the primary surface support system
followed shortly by bolts and plates. Without the restriction of mesh sheet sizes, bolts may be
installed at wider spacings without compromising the reinforcement demand of the rock mass
(e.g. see Figure 2). A more recent trend is for shotcrete to be used for temporary surface
support and also to maintain the overall stability of the rock mass (e.g. Dimmock et al., 2003
and Rispin et al., 2003) and its placement robotically (Runciman et al., 1999). That is,
substantial cost savings can be made in the development cycle if re-entry times after spraying
the shotcrete can be reduced and the installation of rock bolts delayed until after the face has
advanced several cuts. However, there are numerous issues associated with the strategy of
relying on shotcrete alone to maintain the rock mass stability. Some of these issues will be
presented and discussed.

Figure 2. Decline support consisting of fibre reinforced shotcrete followed by rock bolting.

A major issue with respect to rapid development is the need for a one pass system of ground
support with a long service life, particularly in single heading, permanent infrastructure such
as declines and haulage development at greater depths. The commercially available systems
that can provide immediate reinforcement include:
 • Friction coupled systems – friction rock stabilisers (e.g. Split Set) or Swellex.

• Point anchored systems – mechanical or resin anchors.

• Point anchored full and column cement grouted systems.

• Full column resin grouted systems.

The systems identified above can all be mechanized and installed in one pass. Each system
has advantages and disadvantages, which must be understood prior to implementation.

Studies undertaken by various workers have shown that one pass, friction rock stabilisers
may have limited serviceability in the corrosive environments associated with many mines
(e.g. Ranasooriya et al., 1995). Swellex bolts may be susceptible to corrosion, have low shear
strength and may be difficult to install with mesh. Point anchored systems are also
susceptible to corrosion and may become loose due to nearby blasting. Other one pass
systems such as the Kiruna Bolt System (cement grouted wedge anchored bolt) or PAG
(Point Anchored Grouted) Bolt require cement grout to be mixed in small quantities and
pumped at the active face. These systems are accepted in civil engineering tunnelling but are
not widely used in Australia with the exception of Mount Isa Mines (Potvin et al., 1999).
Systems such as the Hollow Groutable Bolt (HGB) and the CT Bolt that require a second
stage of cement grouting have not been consistently implemented successfully in many
mines. The lack of a management system to ensure that the second stage of installation (i.e.
encapsulation with cement grout) was completed has resulted in large numbers of bolts being
ungrouted and therefore susceptible to corrosion. The penalties for this mismanagement have
resulted in rock falls and widespread instability that have required costly campaigns of
rehabilitation.

The current industry trend is to attempt once again to introduce one pass resin anchored rock
bolts to the underground metalliferous industry. Despite the wide-spread, and apparently
successful use of these bolts in underground coal mines, the metalliferous mining industry
has encountered many difficulties (Grice, 1986) over many years since these bolts were first
developed in the 1960s. Currently, the WA School of Mines is using overcoring at many
mines to sample, observe and test the quality of installation of these resin anchored rock bolts
(Varden and Villaescusa, 2006).

THE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

The development cycle has been variously defined by many previous works. An example is
given in Figure 3. This simple representation of the cycle does not well represent the time
and costs associated with development. In particular, it does not reflect the sub-components
of the cycle or the complexity of a particular task. It also does not take into account the
different equipment required and how they interact with each other, particularly in a single
development heading situation such as a decline. For example, consider the interactions
involved with the following equipment developing a single access decline; long round
drilling jumbo, explosives loading basket and IT (or custom vehicle), bogger, truck, shotcrete
spraying equipment, concrete agitator truck and ground support installation jumbo (for rock
bolts and possibly mesh). Managing the interactions between all this equipment to avoid
delays is not a trivial task. The creation of stock piles in appropriate size and number would
be critical in maximising the advance rate.
 Face
Services Drilling

Ground
Support Face
Chargin
g

Scaling
Mucking
and
Haulage
Figure 3. A simple representation of the development cycle.

In order to more fully appreciate the potential conflicts and problems associated with rapid
development, an alternative representation of the development cycle is given in Figure 4. In
this representation, the heights of the cylinders are proportional to time and costs,
respectively. The costs are only associated with the direct development and do not include
lost opportunity costs associated with delays in production.

Total mining cycle

Face drilling Charging
blasting

Time lost
Ventilation

Scaling

Surveying

Rock
Reinforcement Mucking
Shotcrete support

Figure 4. A more complex representation of the development cycle in terms of time (Atlas Copco, 2000).

REQUIREMENTS FOR RAPID DEVELOPMENT

There are many objectives that need to be met for successful rapid development. Some of
these objectives are:

• Selection of equipment size that is appropriate to the orebody characteristics.

• The use of longer rounds (e.g. AMIRA 1996).

• Reduced overbreak in development.

• Accurate drilling.

• Elimination of butts.
 • Faster explosive loading systems.

• Improved fragmentation for ease of mucking.

• Parallel activities (e.g. installation of services and secondary pass reinforcement

activity such as grouting).

• Rapid, mechanised scaling (e.g. hydro-scaling, Jenkins et al., 2004).

• One pass support and reinforcement installation.

• Scheduling of equipment interactions (drilling, explosives loading, mucking,

shotcreting, meshing, bolting, services).

• Optimisation of mesh sheet (or roll) widths and lengths.

• Scheduling of “second pass” support and reinforcement (if any).

• Elimination of manual handling.

• Automation of activities to improve quality assurance.

• Use of specialised equipment.

One of the major impediments to rapid development is the installation of high quality ground
support in a single pass. In particular, the installation of ground support that remains effective
for the service life of the excavation, as ground conditions change due to mining.

GROUND SUPPORT
Ground support is the combination of surface support and rock reinforcement. Installation of
surface support, particularly mesh, is one of the main activities that slows the traditional
development cycle. Current practices exacerbate the problem through;

• the use of standard sized mesh sheets that generally do not match the excavation size
and advance rate.

• using a drilling jumbo that is not designed to handle mesh sheets and install
reinforcement. This is particularly so for systems other than friction bolts (commonly
incorrectly called “Split Sets” which is a proprietary product name). Other
reinforcement systems have components that are susceptible to damage when they pass
through the mesh into the borehole (e.g. expansion shells or resin cartridges).
Difficulties also arise regarding the controlled application of rotation to achieve anchor
setting (i.e. expansion shell) or mixing (i.e. resin cartridge) and to pull a plate and the
mesh tight against the rock face with tension developed in the reinforcement.

Sprayed coatings (i.e. Thin Sprayed Liners or TSLs) and layers (i.e. shotcrete) have been
proposed as one way of eliminating mesh from the development cycle. The writers do not
advocate the use of currently available TSLs. However, shotcrete may be viable under certain
circumstances (e.g. good quality massive rock) with strict quality control on rock surface
preparation (e.g. water jet scaling as shown in Figure 5), supply of concrete, placement and
curing. All these circumstances need to be satisfied in order to attempt assurance that
minimum values of adhesion and shear strength of the shotcrete layer are achieved. A current
research project at the WA School of Mines is investigating the various aspects of this
application of shotcrete.

Figure 5. Water jet scaling system prior to shotcrete applications.

It is anticipated that mesh will continue to be used in most mines for surface support until
some guidelines are developed for the use of shotcrete alone for rock support as part of the
mining cycle. If this is the case, then there are at least two steps that can be considered to
improve productivity and rate of development.

1. The use of mesh sheet sizes suited to the advance rate.

2. The use of one-pass bolting systems.

While it may not seem logical to reduce the mesh width, the number of bolts can be reduced by
allowing for a wider pattern of bolts. Currently, bolts are used to pin the standard 2.4m wide
sheets “mid-span” and this results in a bolting ring spacing of about 1.1m. Another issue is that
standard 2.4m wide sheets of mesh and commonly used cut advance lengths are incompatible.
The use of narrower sheets (say 1.7m wide) for cut lengths of about 2.8m would allow bolt
spacings to be increased to 1.4m with an approximate 25% saving in the number of bolts
installed with only about 6% increase in the mesh used.

REINFORCEMENT
Reinforcement systems will continue to play a significant role in any ground support strategy
and implementation. A number of commercially available bolting systems that can be
considered to be “one pass mechanical installation” as required for rapid development have
been listed previously. In order to improve longevity in corrosive environments, it is possible
to delay a second pass activity such as cement grouting of Split Sets or groutable expansion
shell anchored bolts (e.g. Stelpipe, HGB and CT Bolt) so that this activity is not directly
involved in the development cycle. The mismanagement of this secondary activity has been
clearly demonstrated to be a major problem in all mines.
The following sections describe the various bolting systems and their potential applicability
to rapid development. In particular, resin anchored rock bolts have been investigated by
overcoring and associated laboratory testing has been used to quantify their performance.

Friction Rock Stabilisers

The friction rock stabiliser consists of a hollow rolled tube (with a slot along its entire length)
which is driven into a drilled hole of smaller diameter. When left ungrouted, it relies on
friction between the tube and the rock to provide reinforcement (see Figure 6). One critical
limitation of ungrouted friction bolts is that although the bolts are simple and quick to install
(while standing up to blast vibrations relatively well), they have a very low initial bond
strength per metre of embedment length. A capacity of approximately 4-5 tonnes per metre of
embedment has been established for 46-47mm diameter elements. This may be insufficient to
guarantee effective reinforcement of wedges, blocks and slabs potentially formed within the
immediate back of the excavations.

Figure 6. Section view showing installation of friction bolt stabilizer.

The initial bond strength is developed during bolt insertion, where the borehole tolerance with
respect to bolt diameter is small and is likely to control the available frictional forces along the
bolt length. In soft ground the driving time to completely install a bolt is sometimes reduced,
indicating even lower initial bond strength per metre of embedment length.

Another disadvantage is that if shear occurs across the borehole in which a split tube rock bolt
has been installed, then sliding in the deeper anchor region may be prevented and the rock mass
movement may be sufficient to cause the welded ring to be sheared off with loss of the plate at
the collar. Also, it is important to note that split tube bolts cannot provide active restraint at the
collar. Over-hammering by jumbo during installation may cause damage to both the welded
ring and the domed plate and cracking of the rock behind the plate with subsequent spalling
from near the collar.

Swellex
The Swellex bolt consists of a folded thin-wall tube with bushings welded onto both ends of
the bolt (Li and Håkansson, 1999). One of the bushings has a small hole through which water
is injected at high pressure to expand the bolt inside the borehole (see Figure 7). During this
expansion, the Swellex bolt compresses against the rock, while adapting its shape to fit the
irregularities of the borehole.

High
pressure
water

Figure 7. Longitudinal and cross sectional view of Swellex bolt during installation.

The bolt is thin and may be susceptible to corrosion, especially in boreholes that dip below
the horizontal and consequently may remain full of water after installation. The system has
low shear strength and due to interlocking with the surrounding rock may develop a very
high load transfer over very short bolt lengths leading to tensile failure. However, bond
strength and stiffness can be modified by changing the installation pressure.

Wedge Bolt and Kiruna Bolt

The wedge bolt was one of the first bolts developed for use in tunnels forming the Snowy
Mountains hydro electric scheme (see Figure 8). The principle of installation is to hammer
the bar and wedge against the end of the borehole. The wedge causes expansion of the bar to
anchor against the borehole wall. Although this bolt is quick and easy to install by
mechanical bolters and jumbos, it is highly susceptible to corrosion and unable to work in
soft rock masses.

Figure 8. Deformed bar with wedge.

The Kiruna Bolt System comprises a slot and wedge bolt which is also fixed in the borehole
with cement grout. The cement grout is pumped into the borehole prior to the bolt being
inserted in the borehole. The bolt consists of a deformed bar with a cut or rolled thread on
one end and a slot cut in the other end. A tapered wedge is inserted into this slot and tack
welded to the bolt as shown in Figure 9. At the threaded end, a nut and spherical washer are
provided. The slot and wedge are designed to form an internal fixture between the bar and the
borehole wall. The spherical washer is used with a domed plate to provide restraint at the
collar of the borehole. The bolt in this configuration is fixed to the rock only at the ends of
the bolt but provides support to the rock immediately after installation.
The available immediate reinforcement is related to the rock strength around the wedge (i.e. the
anchor strength may be very low in soft rock). Corrosion protection and continuous load
transfer from the rock to the bolt are provided only after the cement grout has cured. A number
of problems with this type of bolt have been documented by Mount Isa Mines (Potvin et al.,
1999).

Figure 9. Kiruna Bolt – cement grouted wedge bolt.

Expansion Shell Anchored Rock Bolt and PAG Bolt

These discrete frictionally coupled elements consist of 16-25mm diameter steel bars (of
varying lengths) which are installed with point anchor expansion shells in conjunction with
face plates (see Figure 10). The tension to the bolt is provided by tightening a nut,
hemispherical washer and a plate against the rock on the exposed end of the bolt.
Mechanically anchored bolts, made of appropriate materials with smooth surfaces, should be
capable of providing very reliable anchorage in hard rock applications where the rock mass
has a high Uniaxial Compressive Strength.

Expansion shell

Bolt

Hemispherical plate

Hardened washer
Nut

Figure 10. Components of an expansion shell rock bolt.

One of the main disadvantages of mechanically anchored rock bolts is that if the anchor slips
or the rock breaks around the plate, the capacity of the bolt drops to zero and the rock around
the bolt can fail. In some cases, short threaded lengths (at the plate end) make the tightening
of plates against the rock very difficult, especially with uneven rock faces. The standard point
anchor systems can be susceptible to corrosion and may not be effective in heavily broken
rock masses where a reliable point anchor can not be formed.
The initial bolt installation can be mechanized to provide an immediate reinforcement of
approximately 10-15 tonnes. However, because of the short internal coupling, the actual
point anchor strength is limited by the strength of the rock around the borehole (e.g. see
Figure 11). Point anchored bolts tend to slip progressively due to blast vibrations when
installed very close to an active face.
Kanowna Belle Mine Cannington Mine
CT Bolts 2.4m long CT Bolts 3m long
25 25

20 20
Load (tonnes)

15 15

10 10

5 FW conglomerate
5 Schist
FW conglomerate Pegmatite
FW conglomerate FW Zinc
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 11. Load-displacement response for ungrouted, expansion shell anchored bolts.

The Point Anchored Grouted (PAG) bolt is ultimately a cement grouted bar which uses an
expansion shell as a temporary point anchor. Cement is pumped up the hole and the bolt is
then pushed through the grout mix. The bolt is tensioned during installation and provides a
reinforcing effect while the cement grout cures.

The system installation can be mechanized using Atlas Copco and Tamrock bolting rigs.
High installation rates have been reported by Mount Isa Mines. The system allows for the
mechanical installation of mesh at the same time as the bolt installation. One disadvantage is
that in soft rock the initial anchorage may be low (<4 tonnes) and may give a false sense of
security prior to adequate strength development in the grout.

Resin Anchored Rock Bolt

In cases where a rock mass is soft or where immediate reinforcement is needed such as in
rapid mine development, chemical resins can be used to anchor a bolt to the ground. In order
to install rock bolts that are coupled with resin along their entire length, it is necessary to
insert multiple resin cartridges (capsules) into the borehole with sufficient volume of resin to
fill the annulus between the rock bolt and the borehole. Usually, a single fast/medium spin/set
time (15-30 seconds) cartridge is inserted into the borehole first followed by a number of
slow set time (>120 seconds) cartridges. The objective is to be able to spin the bolt and create
an initial anchorage at the toe end, then pause to allow the fast resin to set and then apply
more jumbo rotation to the nut to create tension in the bar prior to the slow set resin
hardening.

Figure 12 shows some typical elements with their resin mixing devices used in the Australian
hard rock underground mining industry. The Posimix system is designed to push the resin
cartridge plastic to the top of the hole. Additionally, the system allows the bolt to be centrally
located in the hole allowing even distribution and mixing of the resin. The concept of the
paddles that are sheared into the bolt is to shred the plastic resin cartridge and aid the mixing
of the resin during installation.

Figure 12. Typical bolt profiles and mixing devices. Top down: 20 mm Posimix Bolt, 24 mm Posimix Bolt, 24
mm Secura Bolt, 27 mm Secura Bolt.

Experience from in-situ pull testing has indicated that high transfer loads can be achieved
over short embedment lengths using resins (capacity greater than 10-12 tonnes per 0.3-0.5
metre of embedment). However, major problems that have been identified through
overcoring of resin anchored rock bolts are the inconsistent quality of the resin encapsulation
and the variability of the load transfer along the length of the bolt (Villaescusa et al., 2006).
Another major issue that appears to occur, particularly with large diameter cartridges in large
diameter boreholes and small diameter bars, is the phenomenon known as “gloving” (Mould
et al., 2004).

In addition, in-the-hole mixing of resins is susceptible to either underspin or overspin. Under-

spinning can result in low grout strength, often at the deeper end of the hole, which in
extreme cases will never set. Over-spinning during installation can result in shearing of the
resin, thus reducing the bonded area. In cases where resin is to be used, controlled field
testing is recommended before a full scale bolting campaign is implemented (Stjern and
Myrvang, 1997; Varden and Villaescusa, 2006).

BOLT OVERCORING
The performance and ultimate capacity of a reinforcement scheme can be affected by sub-
standard installation practices. In most cases, however, faulty installations are difficult to
detect given that the only visible part of an installed element is the plate, nut and a short
length of the bolt indicating the orientation of installation with respect to an excavation wall.
As an example, for a fully encapsulated cement or resin grouted rebar, it is very difficult to
determine the bonded length (effective bolt encapsulation) along the entire axis of the bolt.
Because a full bolt capacity may be mobilized with very short embedment lengths of good
quality grout, pull testing of exposed collar lengths within a fully (resin or cement) grouted
element is almost meaningless.

Pull testing as suggested by The International Society of Rock Mechanics (Brown, 1978) is
only applicable to ungrouted point anchor and friction/Swellex bolts. For fully encapsulated
elements, the method only provides an indication of grout effectiveness at the collar or at the
first (unknown) location along the bolt axis where the grout is effectively working. For fully
grouted elements, pull testing only provides a definite indication of poor installation in cases
where the entire length of encapsulated reinforcement fails well below its designed capacity.

WASM Overcoring Rig

The in-situ conditions along the entire length of a fully encapsulated rock bolt can be
examined by recovering the complete element. This process is called bolt overcoring and this
allows not only the recovery of the element, but also provides a clear view of the surrounding
rock mass and a better understanding of the rock bolt system/rock mass interaction. Research
at the WA School of Mines (WASM) has resulted in the development of a versatile
overcoring system capable of drilling at any orientation (360°) and overcoring reinforcement
lengths up to 3m (Hassell and Villaescusa, 2005). Overcoring of in-situ bolts can be
undertaken in the walls and backs to a collar height of 5-7m.

Overcoring Procedure
The overcoring procedure involves both field and laboratory components.

The field components are:

• Mobilisation of overcoring rig.

• Selection of bolts.

• Overcoring and recovery of core.

• Transport of core to WASM laboratory.

The laboratory components are:

• Inspection, photographing and recording of core details.

• Selection of sections of core for pull or push testing.

• Preparation of core for testing.

• Testing.

• Reporting.
The following sections describe the various components of the overcoring procedure and the
details and interpretation of the results obtained for resin anchored rock bolts. The
implications for future implementation of resin anchored rock bolts will also be discussed.

Field Activities
The WASM rig is shown drilling in Figure 13. Careful drilling and suitable penetration rates
are chosen, so that the recovered 140mm diameter core undergoes minimal disturbance even
in very poor rock masses that have been reinforced using friction stabilizers (e.g. Figure 14).

Figure 13. WASM bolt overcoring operations.

Figure 14. Overcored friction bolts in very poor rock masses.

Bolt overcoring provides a range of information including the location and frequency of
geological discontinuities, overall rock mass conditions, bolt encapsulation, load transfer
along the bolt axis and corrosion effects (Hassell and Villaescusa, 2005).

Overcoring in broken ground or shear zones shows that very little resin migration occurs in
jumbo-installed resin bolts. The resin simply fills the annulus between the bolt and the
borehole. Because of its viscosity, the resin is unable to penetrate the rock mass fissures and
voids. In comparison, significant cement migration has been observed during overcoring of
cement grouted bolts in poor ground conditions (see Figure 15). The degree of rock mass
interlocking using cement grout is superior compared to that achieved by resin grouting or
friction stabilizers. Interlocking around an underground excavation has been suggested as an
important mechanism to allow the rock mass to be self-supporting (Windsor and Thompson,
1993).

Figure 15. Overcored resin (left) and cement grouted (right) bolts in very poor rock masses.

Following overcoring, laboratory testing can be used to assess the performance in terms of
encapsulation quality and load transfer of any recovered bolt-rock mass sections. The
overcored samples are geologically mapped and appropriate sections are cut from the sample
to test the force-displacement characteristics. In general, a force-displacement curve provides
an indication of stiffness, peak and residual forces, as well as the displacement capacity for
the embedment length tested. The results can be used as a relative measure of load transfer
(installation quality and bolt effectiveness) along a bolt axis. The concepts of load transfer
and embedment length are critical to the understanding of any force-deformation results
(Windsor and Thompson, 1993).

In general, push tests and pull tests are used to determine encapsulation quality and relative
load transfer along a bolt axis. Push tests are expected to provide a different response to pull
tests. During push testing (Aziz, 2004) the steel bar is compressed into the sample, while in
pull testing the bar is tested in tension. An advantage of push testing is that it allows several
tests to be carried out along a single bolt axis. A disadvantage is that a push test is likely to
over-estimate the stiffness and peak/residual loads. However, provided the push testing is
carried out for similar embedment lengths, the results can be used as a “relative” measure of
load transfer along the bolt axis.

The typical embedment length used for meaningful push/pull testing is usually set at 300-
500mm. However, the total sample length required for a push test is 400mm, while for a
typical pull test the sample length required ranges from 700-1000mm. For a 2.4m long bolt, it
is possible to select up to 5 samples for push testing and usually two for pull testing. This
allows the variability of encapsulation and relative load transfer along the entire bolt axis to
be well established.

In preparation for push/pull testing, some of the rock is removed from the overcore, leaving a
section of the element partly exposed (see Figure 16). The remaining rock/element section is
then confined in a metal jacket (see Figure 17) to simulate the radial confinement provided by
the rock mass in-situ (Hyett et al., 1992). The exposed section of the element is then pushed
or pulled. A plate is used to restrict the movement of the confined 300-500mm long portion
of bolt/rock. The force required to push or pull the element through the rock, and the element
displacement are digitally recorded (see Figure 18).

Figure 16. Prepared short sections of overcored bolts prior to pull testing.

a) Hollow groutable bolt b) Plain cablebolt

Figure 17. Radial confinement of the samples prior to push (a) and pull (b) testing.
 160
Push test - 300 mm embedment length

140
Load
Displacement
120

Load (kN)
100

80

60 Sample ID & location along bolt axis

40 3A 0.00 – 0.30m
3B 0.40 – 0.70m
20 3C 0.80 – 1.10m
Push test arrangement
3D 1.20 – 1.50m
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Displacement (mm)

Figure 18. Typical push test arrangement and results for cement grouted HGB bolts.

Following pull testing, the elements are inspected and photographed. Figure 19 shows an
example of tested resin grouted bolts. Where the load transfer was effective, failure of the
short resin bolt embedment occurred at the resin/rock interface. The frictional resistance was
mobilized by shearing of the resin irregularities at the resin/rock interface. However, when
the resin encapsulation was poor, failure at the bolt/resin interface was experienced. This
implies poor installation practices or excessive hole diameter leading to unsatisfactory
mixing of the resin.

a) Failure at resin-rock b) Failure at bolt gloving c) Sideway displacement

interface interface of resin

Figure 19. Example of effective load transfer (a), and low strength due to excessive gloving by the resin
cartridge (b and c).

Overcored samples along the axis of a hole can be used to determine the load transfer
variability within similar embedment lengths collected from key regions of a bolt. For resin
grouted bolts, the overcored data shows that similar strengths were found for the collar and
toe regions, with increased strengths for the middle regions where resin mixing appear to be
more effective (Villaescusa et al., 2006).
Implications of Using Resin Anchored Rock Bolts for Rapid Development
There is a clear need for controlled and more consistent installation procedures. Some of the
problems identified are:

• Operators are able to modify the installation procedure without proper guidance and
consultation.
For example, bit diameters may be arbitrarily increased from 32 mm to 35 mm.

• Lack of control on borehole depth (e.g. Figure 20).

• Lack of control on bolt alignment with the borehole.

It is normal practice to drill all the boreholes and then to return to a previously drilled
borehole to install the bolt – often the collar position is obscured by mesh, particularly
where the sheets overlap at the edges).

• Some operators rotate during bolt advance while others do not commence rotation until
the bolt is at the end of the borehole.

• Lack of control on the advance rate down the borehole.

• Lack of control on spin and hold times.

Figure 20. Unmixed resin at hole toe is an indication of overdrilling.

The phenomenon of gloving (Mould et al., 2004) is most prevalent when the annulus between
the borehole and the element is excessive. However, if the borehole size is decreased, this
often means that the rotational resistance to spinning increases and causes other problems.
For example, either premature break out of the drive nut occurs or the anti-jam mechanism of
the jumbo is activated. Both of these events results in an improperly installed bolt that must
be replaced.

With so many parameters subject to variation, the observed variation in the quality of bolt
installation is not surprising. The proper implementation of resin bolts therefore requires a
fully integrated approach that critically examines in detail the components of the system, the
equipment used for installation and the procedures used for installation. It is anticipated that
either standard procedures need to be developed and enforced or more suitable automated
equipment is required.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Rock bolts with one pass of installation have been identified as a critical component of the
cycle for rapid development. Existing methods of quality assessment (i.e. routine pull testing
of a selected small sample of bolts) are often inadequate in determining the quality of load
transfer at the critical end of the bolt deeper in the borehole. The WASM overcoring
procedure allows for the detailed examination of bolts in relation to the recovered core and it
is possible to relate the measured load transfer to the visually assessed condition of the
mechanism used for load transfer.

The performance of installed resin anchored rock bolts has been examined in detail by the
Rock Mechanics Research Group at the WA School of Mines. The results show that the
quality of the resin mix varies along the length of the bolt. The results also show that often
the bolt is “gloved” by the plastic packaging. When this occurs, the resin is observed to be
mostly improperly mixed and the resin product is partially cured and of low strength. One
method of improving the consistency of resin anchored bolt performance in the short term is
the development and use of standard installation procedures. In the longer term, the
development and use of specialised equipment is required.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial assistance of the CRC Mining in supporting the work of the WASM Rock
Mechanics Group is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
AMIRA 1996. Long Round Drilling. CMTE Research Project Proposal, 11p.

Atlas Copco 2000. Rock Reinforcement, A Technical Reference Edition.

Aziz, N. 2004. Bolt surface profiles – an important parameter in load transfer capacity
appraisal. Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, eds. E. Villaescusa and
Y Potvin, 221-230, Taylor and Francis:London.

Brown, E.T. 1978. Rock characterization testing and instrumentation. Commission on

Testing methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Choquet, P. and J. Hadjigeorgiou 1993. The design of support for underground excavations.
Comprehensive Rock Engineering, V4, 313-348, Pergamon:Oxford.

CIA - Custom Industrial Automation 1990. Identification of new and innovative mining
machinery. Final Report of Joint MITEC-MEMAC Project, 50p.

Dimmock R., Rispin, M. and B. Knight 2003. Early re-entry into working faces in mines
through modern shotcrete technology – Part I. CIM-AGM Montreal.

DOMEWA 1999. Surface Rock Support in Underground Mines - Code of Practice.

Farmer, I.W. and P.D. Shelton 1980. Factors that affect underground rockbolt reinforcement
systems design. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., 89, A68-A83.

Grice, A.G. 1986. Ground support review at MIM Ltd. Unpublished MSc Thesis, James Cook
University.

Hassell, R and E. Villaescusa 2005. Overcoring techniques to assess in situ corrosion of

galvanised friction bolts. Proceedings 24 Int. Conf. on Ground Control in Mining, 349-356,
West Virginia University:Morgantown.

Hyett, A., W. Bawden and R. Reichardt 1992. The effect of rock mass confinement on the
bond strength of fully grouted cable bolts. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sc.& Geomech. Abstr.,
V29, pp503-524.

Jenkins, P.A., J. Mitchell and B. Upton 2004. Hydro scaling and in-cycle shotcrete at
Waroonga mine, Western Australia. Ground Support in mining and Underground
Construction, eds. E. Villaescusa and Y Potvin, 545-554, Taylor and Francis:London.

Lang, T.A. 1961. Theory and practice of rock bolting. Trans. Amer. Inst. Min. Engrs., 220,
333-348.

Li, C. and U. Håkansson 1999. Performance of the Swellex bolt in hard and soft rocks. Rock
Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, eds. E. Villaescusa, C.R. Windsor and A.G.
Thompson , 103-108, Balkema:Leiden.

Mould, R.J., R.N. Campbell and S.A. MacGregor 2004. Extent and mechanisms of gloving
and unmixed resin in fully encapsulated roof bolts and a review of recent developments.
Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, eds. E. Villaescusa and Y. Potvin,
231-242, Balkema:Leiden.

Potvin, Y., D.B. Tyler, G. MacSporran, J. Robinson, I. Thin, D. Beck and M. Hudyma 1999.
Development and implementation of new ground support standards at Mount Isa Mines
Limited. Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, eds. E. Villaescusa, C.R.
Windsor and A.G. Thompson, 367-371, Balkema:Leiden.

Rispin, M., B. Knight and R. Dimmock 2003. Early re-entry into working faces in mines
through modern shotcrete technology – Part II. CIM-MOC Saskatoon.

Ranasooriya, J., G.W. Richardson and L.C. Yap. 1995. Corrosion Behaviour of Friction Rock
Stabilisers used in Underground Mines in Western Australia. Proc. Underground Operators
Conference, Kalgoorlie, 9-16, AusIMM:Melbourne.

Runciman, N., S. Espley and M. Rispin. 1999. Testing and Evaluation of the MEYCO
Robojet Logica at INCO Limited. Telemin 1 and 5th International Symposium on Mine
Mechanization and Automation, eds. N Vagenas, G. Baiden and M. Scoble, Sudbury:Canada.

Stjern, G and A. Myrvang 1997. Practical performance of rock bolts. Int. Symp. on Rock
Support, 400-432, NSCE, Lillehammer.

Varden, R. and E. Villaescusa 2006. A methodology for selection of resin grouted rockbolts.
Proc. US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Golden Colorado, Paper 06-944.
 Villaescusa E., R. Varden and R. Hassell 2006. Quantifying the performance of resin
anchored rock bolts in the Australian underground hard rock mining industry. Manuscript
submitted to the Journal of the Int. Soc. of Rock Mechanics.

Windsor, C.R. and A.G. Thompson 1993. Rock Reinforcement - Technology, Testing, Design
and Evaluation. Comprehensive Rock Engineering (J A Hudson, ed.), Volume 4, Chapter 16,
451-484, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

View publication stats