1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of ground support is to maintain

excavations safe and open for their intended
lifespan. An effective support is important for two
main reasons; namely, safety to personnel and
equipment and also to achieve the most economical
extraction of ore. The type of ground support needed
in a particular location is dependent on several
factors including the geometry of the excavation, the
blasting practices, the rock mass strength, the
induced stresses, and the weathering process. In
most mining operations, the ground support design
is based on previous experience and evolves over a
number of years (Brown, 2004). In many instances
there may be nothing technically wrong with the
designs and the performance can be assessed to be
acceptable. However, rock mass conditions usually
change with time (for example, stresses increase as
the depth of mining increases and when the global
extraction increases) and accordingly ground support
performance may change and become unacceptable.
That is, the installed reinforcement and support
capacities may not satisfy the rock mass demand.
2 STRESS DRIVEN FAILURES
More recently, the ground conditions are becoming
increasingly difficult as a large number of mines
worldwide are getting deeper. In some cases, in-
duced stresses, related seismicity and dynamic fail-
ures are being experienced (Figure 1). As mining
progresses at depths exceeding a kilometre, the de-
sign of appropriate mine sequences and excavation
geometries along with suitable ground support de-
signs and installations are the primary methods used
to mitigate the effects of induced stress and rock
mass failures near the surface of excavations.



Figure 1. Violent, stress driven rock mass failure. Figure 2.
Modelled damage zones for rock reinforcement design (Wiles et
al, 2004).

The analysis of induced stresses around under-
ground excavations in rock can be accomplished us-
ing a number of different computational analysis
techniques. These can range from simple linear elas-
tic analyses performed in two dimensions to com-
plex three-dimensional non-linear analyses. For
complex geometries, two-dimensional analyses can-
A reinforcement design methodology for highly stressed rock masses
E. Villaescusa, J.R. Player & A.G. Thompson
Western Australian School of Mines, CRC Mining, Curtin University, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia







ABSTRACT: Ground support design is often based on previous experience and evolves over a number of
years. As the rock mass conditions change with an increasing depth, the ground support performance may
change and become unacceptable. That is, the installed reinforcement capacities may not satisfy the rock
mass demand. A methodology that allows rock reinforcement design for highly stressed rock masses where
rock mass demand in terms of ranges of displacement and energy is compared with the WA School of Mines
reinforcement capacity database is presented. It is concluded that acceptable bolts for a particular mining
condition should have displacement compatibility with the rock mass, while providing higher energy dissipa-
tion.
not provide a meaningful guidance on the locations
of failures. On the other hand, the latter types of
analyses can be expected to provide the most detail
and understanding of the changes in rock stresses as
excavations are formed and extraction progresses.
However, due to their complexity, they require sig-
nificant resources to be expended in terms of testing
to obtain realistic material properties and multiple
back analyses to calibrate the models with docu-
mented on site observations and experience (Pardo
and Villaescusa, 2012).
An intermediate approach is to use linear-elastic
analyses in three dimensions (e.g. Wiles et al.,
2004). This approach is able to model complex
three-dimensional models of excavations and se-
quences and to identify regions of high stress con-
centrations and volumes of rock where it might be
expected that the rock mass strength is exceeded
(Figure 2).


Span
Cracked zone
Reinforced
rock mass
Broken damaged zone
Anchoring zone




Figure 2. Modelled damage zones for rock reinforcement design
(Wiles et al, 2004).

Again, however, it is essential that the model is
calibrated with documented experience. The limita-
tion of this approach is that the re-distribution of
stresses following progressive rock mass failure
cannot be determined. Nevertheless, the most im-
portant outcome from the analyses is to identify are-
as that can be expected to experience ground stabil-
ity problems due to excessive stresses.
An alternative methodology is that reported by
Beck and Duplancic (2005). The basis of this meth-
od is the three-dimensional non-linear modelling
computer program Abaqus that can be used to pre-
dict the ground reaction curves at distinct locations
for different extraction sequences. The energy re-
lease associated with the ground reaction curve at
the particular location can also be predicted (Beck et
al., 2010).
The depths of rock mass failures around excava-
tions can be estimated by calculating the strength
factors for the rock mass near excavation surfaces.
The aim of the analysis for intact rock failures is to
determine the depth of failures to provide estimates
for both reinforcement length demand and rein-
forcement and support capacity demand. At this
point, it is worth noting that it may be possible to
minimise or eliminate intact rock failure by modify-
ing the excavation shape from a flat back to an
arched-profile. Analyses have shown that the stress-
es in the rock in the backs and shoulders of rectan-
gular excavations are higher and failure depths
greater than when an excavation incorporates an
oval, arched profile (Figure 3).



Figure 3. Oval excavation shape, suitable for re-distribution of
large induced stress.
3 ENERGY RELEASE
Conceptually, rock fails violently when the unload-
ing stiffness of the surrounding rock mass is softer
than the unloading stiffness of the volume of failing
rock (Jaeger and Cook, 1969; Brady and Brown,
2004). It may be possible to pre-condition the rock
mass so that these conditions do not occur. That is,
the intact rock needs to be damaged prior to for-
mation of the excavation so that these conditions do
not occur (Figure 4). Pre-conditioning of the rock
mass has been used successfully at many mines
(e.g., Board and Fairhurst, 1983; Chacon et al.,
2004).
South African and Canadian authors have provid-
ed a number of examples of the range of typical
masses, velocities and kinetic energies that have
been measured or estimated for dynamic failure. For
example it has been suggested that the kinetic ener-
gy is generally in the range 20 - 30 kJ/m2 with a
maximum velocity of 1.5 - 2 m/s and a displacement
demand of about 150 mm. Other authors have sug-
gested that kinetic energy may be up to 25 kJ/m2,
with ejection velocities ranging from 2 - 3 m/s.
Ortlepp (1992) has inferred that block velocities af-
ter dynamic failure may be considerably higher than
these values, having measured an ejection velocity
of about 7.5 m/s after displacement of about 50 mm.



Figure 4. Radial cracking from a single charged hole.

The data provided above can be used to design
ground support schemes that have the necessary en-
ergy and displacement capacities to survive violent
rock mass failures. It is worth noting that the energy
dissipation depends on both the ability of the ground
support to deform as well as the system force ca-
pacity. Displacement is particularly important. For
example, although a reinforcement system may have
large displacement capacities, it may result in the
rock mass disintegrating to the point where the sup-
port system may not be able to hold the broken rock.
Systems that dissipate large amounts of energy, but
allow large deformations are not really effective for
excavation stability. The objective should be moder-
ate, say 100-200 mm, reinforcement displacement
which is compatible with stable surface support sys-
tems (mesh and shotcrete) at the boundaries of ex-
cavations.
4 ROCK MASS DEMAND
The required force-displacement responses and ca-
pacities of reinforcement should ideally be matched
to the rock mass demand. This rock mass demand
may be applied directly from the rock mass or
through the support that is retained by the rein-
forcement. In almost every case, this rock mass de-
mand is very difficult to quantify (the possible ex-
ception to this is the reinforcement of a discrete,
fully-formed block subjected to gravity loading). On
the other hand, the demand may change with time
for some rock masses. For example, a stiff response
may be required in the short term to minimise rock
mass loosening while in the longer term the rein-
forcement system may be required to absorb large
displacements as the block size reduces and the rock
mass creeps. In this case, a single reinforcement
system may not be able to provide both the short-
and long-term properties required to satisfy the rock
mass demand. This also applies to areas that may be
susceptible to sudden failure of the rock mass due to
overstressing where the requirement of the rein-
forcement system to absorb energy may be incom-
patible with the short term requirement to provide a
stiff response to static rock mass movement and the
ability to sustain the displacements associated with
rock mass bulking.
Support demand is even more difficult to predict
due to the fact that the rock mass characteristics may
change with mining and time. For example, a mas-
sive rock mass may change to a broken rock
mass following failure due to overstressing (Figure
5). In the initial instance, there is apparently no de-
mand for surface support (or even for reinforce-
ment). Following failure, there is a definite need for
surface support to retain the broken rock and the
need for the support to be restrained by the associat-
ed reinforcement.




Figure 5. Observed damage near the boundary of an excavation
in hard rock under very high stress.
5 GROUND SUPPORT DESIGN
A formal ground support design procedure has been
described by Thompson et al. (2012). The method-
ology includes a number of steps with the objective
of:

1. Identifying the rock mass demand.
2. Selecting reinforcement and support systems with
appropriate characteristic responses.
3. Specifying their arrangement and installation.

The generic procedure consists of several distinct
steps (Thompson et al., 2012):
1. Identify a mechanism of failure.
2. Estimate the areal support demand.
3. Estimate the reinforcement length, force and dis-
placement demand.
4. Estimate the energy demand.
5. Select appropriate reinforcement and support sys-
tems.
6. Propose arrangement of reinforcement and sup-
port systems, install and evaluate them.
7. Specify the complete ground support scheme.

This procedure may need to be applied to several
different observed mechanisms of failure. In most
instances, it is not possible to perform formal de-
signs because 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, me-
dium, high, very high and extremely high reaction
pressure, surface displacement at failure and energy
demands per square metre (Figure 6). These qualita-
tive descriptions of rock mass demand can then be
satisfied by reinforcement systems that can be clas-
sified using corresponding ratings.


Demand Reaction Surface Energy
category pressure (KPa) displacement (mm) (kJ/m
2
)
Low <100 <50 <5
Medium 100 -150 50 -100 5 -15
High 150 -200 100 -200 15 -25
Very High 200 -400 200 -300 25 -35
Extremely High >400 >300 >35


Figure 6. Typical rock mass demand for ground support design
(Modified after Thompson et al. 2012).

In order to enable rock reinforcement design for dy-
namic loading, the rock mass demand in terms of the
ranges of displacement and energy presented in Fig-
ure 6 has been combined with the WA School of
Mines reinforcement dynamic capacity database
(Player, 2012). One example of the design method-
ology for rock reinforcement under dynamic loading
is shown in Figure 7. For each rock mass demand
category, the corresponding ranges of displacement
and energy were used to define a region (shown as a
box in Figure 7) that has been labelled, low, medi-
um, high and very high energy demand. For each re-
gion, the acceptable bolts should have similar dis-
placement compatibility, while providing higher
energy dissipation. That is, for each demand region,
the appropriate reinforcement would plot within the
colored (design) region.

6 CONCLUSIONS
An important consideration for any high energy dis-
sipation strategy is to test the full reinforcement sys-
tem including anchors, bolts and plate/hemispherical
nut assemblies together (Thompson & Villaescusa,
2014). Systems that dissipate large amounts of ener-
gy, but allow large deformations are not suitable.
The objective should be to limit the reinforcement
displacement, such that it is compatible with stable
surface support systems (mesh and shotcrete) at the
boundaries of excavations.
At this time, research on complete ground sup-
port schemes that include compatible support and
reinforcement systems in terms of displacement
compatibility is on-going. Nevertheless, displace-
ment at failure exceeding 300mm is deemed very
significant, given the typical bulking factors that fol-
low dynamic rock mass failure at an excavation
boundary.



Figure 7. Design of rock reinforcement under dynamic loading.
7 REFERENCES
Beck, DA & Duplancic, P, 2005. Forecasting performance and
achieving performance indicators in high stress and seismi-
cally active mining environments. In Y Potvin & M Hudy-
ma (eds), Controlling Seismic Risk, Proc 6th Int Symp on
Rockburst & Seismicity in Mines, Perth, 9-11 March, 409-
417. Perth: Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
Beck, DA, Kassbohm, S, & Putzar, G, 2010. Multi-scale simu-
lation of ground support designs for extreme tunnel closure.
In Y Potvin (ed), Caving 2010, Proc 2nd Int Symp on Block
& Sublevel Caving, Perth, 20-22 April, 441-453. Perth:
ACG.
Board, MP, & Fairhurst, C, 1983. Rockburst control through
destressing a case example. Rockbursts: Prediction and
Control, London, 20 October, 91-101. London: IMM.
Brady, B H G & Brown, E T, 2004. Rock Mechanics for Un-
derground Mining, 3rd edition, 628 p. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brown, ET, 2004. The dynamic environment of ground support
and reinforcement, Keynote Lecture, Procc. 5th Int. Symp.
on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construc-
tion, E. Villaescusa & Y. Potvin (Eds), Taylor & Francis,
London, pp3-16.
Chacon, E, Barrera, V, Jeffrey R & van As, A, 2004. Hydraulic
fracturing used to precondition ore and reduce fragment size
for block caving. In: Proc. MassMin 2004, Santiago, Chile,
22-25 August, Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile, p.529-534.
Jaeger, J C & Cook, N G W, 1976. Fundamentals of Rock Me-
chanics, 3rd edition, 593 p. London: Chapman & Hall
Ortlepp, WD, 1992. Impulsive-load testing of tunnel support. In
P K Kaiser & D R McCreath (eds), Rock Support in Mining
& Underground Construction, Proc Int Symp on Rock Sup-
port, Sudbury, 16-19 June, 675-682. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Pardo, C, & Villaescusa, E, 2012. Methodology for back anal-
ysis of intensive rock mass damage at the El Teniente Mine.
Presented at MassMin 2012, 6th Int Conf & Exhibition on
Mass Mining, Sudbury, 10-14 June, Paper 6844, 9 p.
Player, JR, 2012. Dynamic Testing of Rock Reinforcement
Systems. PhD Thesis, Western Australian School of Mines,
Curtin University of Technology, 501p.
Thompson, AG, Villaescusa, E & Windsor, CR, 2012. Ground
support terminology and classification: an update. Geotech-
nical & Geological Engineering, 30(3): 553-580.
Thompson, AG & Villaescusa E, 2014. Case studies of rock re-
inforcement components and systems testing. Rock Mech
Rock Eng, DOI 10.1007/s00603-014-0583-z, Springer-
Verlag Wien.
Wiles, T, Villaescusa, E & Windsor, CR, 2004. Rock
rein9forcement design for overstressed rock using three di-
mensional numerical modelling. In E Villaescusa & Y Pot-
vin (eds), Ground Support in Mining & Underground Con-
struction, Proc 5th Int Symp on Ground Support, Perth, 28-
30 September, 483-489. Leiden: Balkema.