Static and dynamic testing of welded and woven mesh for rock support

Villaescusa, Ernesto; Thompson, Amanda L.; Player, John

doi:10.36487/acg_rep/1304_11_villaescusa

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tannant et al 1997) had bolts and plates installed at the corners of the test sheet, similar to what is installed in underground conditions. From published documents (see Villaescusa et al 2013b), WASM considered there was a need for consistent boundary conditions that could be replicated in both their static and dynamic test setups. They reasoned that full size mesh panels were too large to test in their laboratory setup, and that the cut down panels which could be tested needed some restraint beyond just the four bolts at the corners.…”

Section: Western Australia School Of Mines Static Facilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WASM dynamic facility uses a similar setup to the WASM static facility (Figure 1) but with a drop weight that transfers the load onto the mesh (Figure 9). Loading is done via a 0.5 or 1.0 t bag of steel balls with a 0.65 × 0.65m contact area to the mesh, delivering 3.8 to 16.1 kJ input energy to the central 25% area of the mesh sheet (Villaescusa et al 2013b). The mesh panel size (1.3 × 1.3 m) and rigid mesh boundary (fixed via shackles to the frame) are the same as used for the static configuration.…”

Section: Western Australia School Of Mines Dynamic Facilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of ground support mesh testing around the world

Morkel,

Mikula,

Whiting

2023

Ground Support 2023: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ground Support in Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As mines around the world get deeper and the stresses around the excavations increase, the occurrence of large damaging seismic events (often called rockbursts) become more commonplace. One of the most favoured controls used in the industry to reduce damage from large seismic events is the implementation of a ground support system. Such a system typically comprises bolts or cables and surface support, such as shotcrete, mesh or screen, and straps.It is important to test all components of a dynamic ground support system, but there is a lack of useful testing done for surface support. Reviews and discussions of test results sourced from different test facilities show a wide scatter of energy absorption and deformation capacity. This, on top of concerns with testing setups, makes the consideration of surface support in support designs very difficult.In this paper, we discuss the current surface support testing results for mesh, and comment on whether current testing practices are producing useful metrics for geotechnical design.

show abstract

Section: Western Australia School Of Mines Static Facilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Western Australia School Of Mines Dynamic Facilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of ground support mesh testing around the world

Morkel,

Mikula,

Whiting

2023

Ground Support 2023: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ground Support in Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weak links occur for a multitude of reasons, and a common experience is mesh tearing away from bolt collars. Western Australian School of Mines testing (Villaescusa et al 2013) of numerous meshes has shown that most mesh surface support types have capacity much less than that of the bolt reinforcement system. The exceptions are the high strength chain link meshes.…”

Section: Scheme Capacity Is Affected By Weak Linksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical selection of ground support for dynamic conditions using charting of support performance at Hamlet mine

Mikula¹,

Gebremedhin²

2017

Proceedings of the International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper demonstrates assessment of ground support dynamic performance, using charting of easily available mine site data, to provide guidance for support selection for dynamic conditions. The process is transparent and accessible to site engineers, and is described for the Hamlet gold mine in Australia. The process defines the relationships between three factors: the seismic event magnitude, the level of damage caused, and the installed ground support. The process is firmly based on the recorded history of these three factors at the mine. Site geotechnical engineers need a simple yet defensible support selection method for seismic conditions that can be used with confidence. The aim is to enable selection of the appropriate ground support according to the expected or forecast level of seismic hazard. Empirical charting represents one way of bracketing the performance of particular ground support schemes in dynamic conditions. It assesses the past performance of the installed ground support, to provide guidelines for forward selection of support. This approach has limitations and uncertainties which add to the scatter of the data points in the charts. However, the approach has the advantages of including the actual installed bolts, seismic events, site geology and support performance, making the results calibrated to, and applicable to, the mine. It also benefits by not requiring estimation of quantities, including the ground motion (peak particle velocity) at the location of a support element, the site effect, and the energy and load capacities of those elements during dynamic disturbances. The empirical charts are not transferable between mine sites. It is hoped that the description of the methodology in this paper will encourage engineers to explore similar work for their sites, and gain better understanding of the in situ performance of their ground support under dynamic conditions.

show abstract

“…The ultimate tensile strength and strain of many steels is relatively insensitive to strain rate up to a value of, at least, 10 s -1 and, in general, these values slightly increase with strain rate (Soroushian & Choi 1987). This material behaviour is observed by comparing quasi-static and dynamic rupture loads and displacements of standard welded-wire and chain-link mesh tested in the laboratory (Player et al 2008;Villaescusa et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%