Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The assessment of yielding rockbolt performance during rockbursts with actual seismic loading is essential for rockburst supporting designs. In this paper, two types of yielding rockbolts (D-bolt and Roofex) and the fully resin-grouted rebar bolt are modeled via the “rockbolt” element in universal distinct element code (UDEC) after an exact calibration procedure. A two-dimensional (2D) model of a deep tunnel is built to fully evaluate the performance (e.g., capacity of energy-absorption and control of rock damage) of yielding and traditional rockbolts based on the simulated rockbursts. The influence of different rockburst magnitudes is also studied. The results suggest that the D-bolt can effectively control and mitigate rockburst damage during a weak rockburst because of its high strength and deformation capacity. The Roofex is too “soft” or “smooth” to limit the movement of ejected rocks and restrain the large deformation, although it has an excellent deformation capacity. The resin-grouted rebar bolt can maintain a high axial force level during rockbursts but is easy to break during dynamic shocks, which fails to control rapid rock bulking or ejection. Three types of rockbolts cannot control the large deformation and mitigate rockburst damage effectively during violent rockbursts. The rockburst damage severity can be significantly reduced by additional support with cable bolts. This study highlights the effectiveness of numerical modeling methods in assessing the complex performance of yielding rockbolts during rockbursts, which can provide some references to improve and optimize the design of rock supporting in burst-prone grounds.
The assessment of yielding rockbolt performance during rockbursts with actual seismic loading is essential for rockburst supporting designs. In this paper, two types of yielding rockbolts (D-bolt and Roofex) and the fully resin-grouted rebar bolt are modeled via the “rockbolt” element in universal distinct element code (UDEC) after an exact calibration procedure. A two-dimensional (2D) model of a deep tunnel is built to fully evaluate the performance (e.g., capacity of energy-absorption and control of rock damage) of yielding and traditional rockbolts based on the simulated rockbursts. The influence of different rockburst magnitudes is also studied. The results suggest that the D-bolt can effectively control and mitigate rockburst damage during a weak rockburst because of its high strength and deformation capacity. The Roofex is too “soft” or “smooth” to limit the movement of ejected rocks and restrain the large deformation, although it has an excellent deformation capacity. The resin-grouted rebar bolt can maintain a high axial force level during rockbursts but is easy to break during dynamic shocks, which fails to control rapid rock bulking or ejection. Three types of rockbolts cannot control the large deformation and mitigate rockburst damage effectively during violent rockbursts. The rockburst damage severity can be significantly reduced by additional support with cable bolts. This study highlights the effectiveness of numerical modeling methods in assessing the complex performance of yielding rockbolts during rockbursts, which can provide some references to improve and optimize the design of rock supporting in burst-prone grounds.
No abstract
In this paper, a 2D distinct element method (DEM) model of a deep tunnel in an underground coal mine is built to thoroughly evaluate the effects of yielding (D-bolt and Roofex) and the traditional rockbolt (fully resin-grouted rebar) on controlling self-initiated strainbursts. The occurrence of self-initiated strainbursts is judged based on the stiffness difference between the loading system and rock masses for the first time. The results suggest that the total deformations of the tunnel supported with Roofex and resin-grouted rebar are 1.53 and 2.09 times that of D-bolts (1411 mm). The average velocities of detached rock blocks in the tunnel supported with Roofex and resin-grouted rebar are 3.22 and 3.97 m/s, respectively, which are much higher than that of D-bolts (0.34 m/s). 13 resin-grouted rebar bolts are broken during the strainburst, while D-bolts and Roofex survive. Compared with Roofex (295.16 kJ) and resin-grouted rebar (125.19 kJ), the D-bolt can reduce the most kinetic energy (469.30 kJ). D-bolt and resin-grouted rebar can maintain high axial force levels (214.87 and 151.05 kN) during strainbursts. Both Roofex and resin-grouted rebar fail to control strainbursts. The bolt number significantly influences the control effects of yielding rockbolts on strainbursts. 9 and 12 D-bolts cannot control the strainburst, while 15 and 18 D-bolts can make the tunnel stable. In addition, the detachment and ejection of rocks between rockbolts can be well restrained using surface retain elements, e.g., steel arch. This study highlights the usage of numerical modeling methods in assessing the performance of yielding rockbolts, which can be served as a promising tool to improve and optimize the design of rock supporting in burst-prone grounds.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.