Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Laboratory Study of Shear Behaviour of Rockbolts Under Dynamic Loading Based on the Drop Test Using a Double Shear System

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rockbolts are widely used as an underground support element to resist the convergence and maintain the stability of excavations. However, shear failure of rockbolts is increasingly observed in jointed rock mass of underground tunnels, especially after being subjected to seismic events. At present, understanding of the mechanical response of rockbolts subjected to seismic or dynamic loading in shear is still unclear. To investigate the shear performance of rockbolts under dynamic loading condition, a series of tests were conducted using a drop mass of up to185 kg from a maximum height of 3 m based on a double shear test (DST) system. Three variables were examined in the laboratory test including rockbolt diameter (8 mm and 16 mm), installation angle (90° and 45°) and input energy (drop height). The duration of the impact was 10–12 ms from release of the drop mass to first contact. By evaluating the DST system’s displacement/velocity/acceleration–time characteristic and the amount of energy absorption, the shear performance of rockbolt was assessed. When sufficient energy is applied into the DST system, the deformation of the rockbolt is dominated by localized shear force. The transient force can rupture the rockbolt with little bending and without any obvious tensile elongation. It was found that the averaged dynamic shear load is less than the peak static shear load whether horizontally installed or installed at an angle. In conclusion, the effectiveness of rockbolts in resisting shear stress can differ significantly under static loading and dynamic loading condition; the difference is reflected in the level of shear deformation and amount of energy absorption. The shear capacity of a rockbolt under 1 s−1 strain rate can be determined by the energy absorbed and average dynamic load. This approach can be applied to the support system design in rockburst-prone condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

M 1 :

A drop weight mass

M 2 :

The mass of middle block including the rockbolt

v 1 :

Initial velocity

v 2 :

The downward move velocity of the two rigid solids (weight and reinforced block)

\({F_{\text{a}}}\) :

The average dynamic force

\(\Delta v\) :

Velocity change

(M 1 + M 2)g :

The downward force includes the weight of the tup and middle block

F d(t):

External dynamic force

F b(t):

Upward force includes bolt resistant force

µN :

Frictional force on the block surface

p(t):

Time-dependent force

f s(t):

The combination of the system spring force

f D(t):

Viscous damping force

f I(t):

Inertial force

p :

Contact force

k :

Contact stiffness

R :

The radii of the curvature of the body

E :

Young’s modulus and

v :

Poisson’s ratios

f y :

The static yield stress of the bar (MPa)

DIF:

Dynamic increase factor

\(\dot {\varepsilon }\) :

Strain rates

\({\varepsilon _{\text{p}}}\) :

True strain

\({\dot {\varepsilon }_0}\) :

Reference value of the strain rate

T :

Temperature

\({T_{{\text{room}}}}\) :

Room temperature

\({T_{{\text{melt}}}}\) :

Melting temperature

References

  • Abrate S (2001) Modeling of impacts on composite structures. Compos Struct 51:129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(00)00138-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris JH (1991) Dynamics of structures. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aziz N, Pratt D, Williams R (2003) Double shear testing of bolts. In: Aziz N (ed) Coal operators’ conference, Wollongong, Australia, pp 154–161

  • Bischoff PH, Perry SH (1991) Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain rates. Mater Struct 24:425–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung HW (1978) Shear strength of concrete joints under dynamic loads. Concrete 12:27–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasselli G (2005) 3D behaviour of bolted rock joints: experimental and numerical study International. J Rock Mech Mining Sci 42:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guner S, Vecchio FJ (2012) Simplified method for monlinear dynamic analysis of shear-critical frames. ACI Struct J 109:10

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjigeorgiou J, Potvin Y (2011) A critical assessment of dynamic rock reinforcement and support testing facilities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 44:565–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-011-0155-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haile AT (1999a) A mechanistic evaluation and design of tunnel support systems for deep level South African mines. PhD thesis (unpublished), University of Natal

  • Haile AT (1999b) Observation of the dynamic support performance of South African tunnel support systems. In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson A (eds) Rock support and reinforcement practice in mining, Kalgoorlie, Australia, pp 335–341

  • Jalalifar H (2006) A new approach in determining the load transfer mechanism in fully grouted bolts. PhD thesis (unpublished), University Of Wollongong

  • Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high. In: The 7th international symposium on ballistics, pp 541–547

  • Kim J-H, Kim D, Han HN, Barlat F, Lee M-G (2013) Strain rate dependent tensile behavior of advanced high strength steels: experiment and constitutive modeling. Mater Sci Eng A 559:222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2012.08.087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong S, Remennikov A, Uy B (2013) An experimental investigation of the performance of non-composite steel–concrete–steel protective panels under large impact loading. Adv Struct Eng Int J 16:1163–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C (2011) Rock support for underground excavations subjected to dynamic loads and failure. Adv Rock Dyn Appl. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11077-19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Hagan P, Saydam S (2014) Tensile stress mobilization along a rockbolt under shear load. In: Cai M (ed) International young scholars’ symposium on rock mechanics, Xi’an, China

  • Li L, Hagan P, Saydam S, Hebblewhite B (2016) Shear resistance contribution of support systems in double shear test. Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 56:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Malvar LJ (1998) Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars. Mater J 95:609–616. https://doi.org/10.14359/403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malvar LJ, Crawford JE Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. In: Twenty-Eighth DoD Explosives Safety Seminar, Orlando, United State, 1998. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center

  • Potvin Y, Wesseloo J, Heal D (2010) An interpretation of ground support capacity submitted to dynamic loading. Trans Inst Mining Metall Sect A Mining Technol 4:233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin J, Chen R, Wen X, Lin Y, Liang M, Lu F (2013) Mechanical behaviour of dual-phase high-strength steel under high strain rate tensile loading. Mater Sci Eng A 586:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2013.07.091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts D (1999) Dynamic double shear test. PhD thesis (unpublished), University of KwaZulu-Natal

  • Saatci S (2007) Behaviour and modeling of reinforced concrete structures subjected to impact loads. PhD thesis (unpublished), University of Toronto

  • Stacey TR Support of excavations subjected to dynamic loading. In: Qian Q, Zhou Y (eds) 12th ISRM International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Beijing, China, 2011. International Society for Rock Mechanics, ISRM

  • Staker MR (1985) Mechanical testing; chapter: introduction to high strain rate testing, 9th edn. ASM International, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannant DD, Brummer RK, Yi X (1995) Rockbolt behaviour under dynamic loading: field tests and modelling. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstracts 32:537–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)00024-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembaty Z (2011) How to model rockburst seismic loads for civil engineering purposes? Bull Earthq Eng 9:1403–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9269-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mining Engineering, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia

    L. Li, P. C. Hagan, S. Saydam, B. Hebblewhite & C. Zhang

Authors
  1. L. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. C. Hagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Saydam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Hebblewhite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, L., Hagan, P.C., Saydam, S. et al. A Laboratory Study of Shear Behaviour of Rockbolts Under Dynamic Loading Based on the Drop Test Using a Double Shear System. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52, 3413–3429 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01776-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01776-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation