Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Test Response of Ground Support Systems for Underground Excavations at the Walenstadt Testing Facility

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

Abstract

Ground support systems must provide a safe environment to personnel while maintaining the excavation functionally to ensure continuous mine’s production. In addition, in burst-prone mines, these systems must be capable of resisting dynamic loading from mining induced seismic events. Hence, dynamic testing of the ground support system (combination of different reinforcement and retention elements) is required to assess the support system capacity and improve the performance of these elements under dynamic loading. During the recent years, Geobrugg has been working on improving load transfer element products (retention elements) by testing them in conjunction with different arrangements of reinforcement elements in a field-scale impact test facility located at Walenstadt, Switzerland. The test facility is composed of a double level platform of a square-shaped pyramidal truss geometry, in the upper-level housing a loading mass that drop from a height up to 5 m. The mass is guided by a central steel pipe and impacts a support system sample located at the lower level with an area of 3.6 m × 3.6 m, where the ground support system is installed. In this paper, six dynamic tests performed between 2018 and 2021 are considered. The arrangement, measurement, results, analyses, and some recommendations (conclusions) on the design of ground support under dynamic loads based on the tests performed are presented. The results of these tests have enabled to improve the understanding of the behaviour of ground support systems under dynamic loads. The main findings include a classification of the performance of mesh types used as load transfer elements and some recommendations on the design of ground support systems under dynamic loading. Among the recommendations, it is suggested the use of embedded meshes in shotcrete, and the use of load transfers materials (gap or damping materials, such as ‘gabions’) between the rock mass and the ground support system to improve the performance.

Highlights

  • New results of dynamic behaviour of ground support systems studied through field-scale dynamic impact test.

  • Improved understanding of the dynamic behaviour of ground support systems involving mesh, shotcrete and rockbolts.

  • Conclusions relevant for the design of ground support systems under dynamic loading.

  • Relevant results for underground mining design under high stress conditions and burst-prone ground.

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

(modified from Player et al. 2008)

Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

(modified from Vallejos et al. 2020)

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Note: the load-displacement responses are introduced before the load-time responses for practical purposes, even though the load-displacement response is obtained after the load-time response is measured.

Abbreviations

\(d_{{\text{p}}}\) :

Displacement at peak load of a support element or system during an impact test

\(d_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Displacement at ultimate load of a support element or system during an impact test (reaching the failure)

\(d_{{\text{y}}}\) :

Plastic displacement (yielding state) of a support element or system reached during an impact test (not reaching the failure)

\(E_{{\text{c}}}\) :

Normalized linear energy (work) capacity of ground support system

\(E_{{\text{c}}}^{{\text{a}}}\) :

Actual normalized work done (energy absorbed) by a ground support system tested

\(E_{{\text{c}}}^{{\text{t}}}\) :

Theoretical normalized linear (work) capacity of a ground support system tested

\(E_{i}^{{\text{a}}}\) :

Actual input energy (normalized) of a test

\(E_{i}^{{\text{n}}}\) :

Nominal input energy (normalized) of a test

\(E_{m}\) :

Energy absorption capacity of load distribution element

\(E_{{\text{p}}}\) :

Work done (energy absorption) up to the displacement at peak load of a support element or system during an impact test

\(E_{{\text{r}}}\) :

Energy absorption capacity of reinforcement system

\(E_{{\text{S}}}\) :

Energy absorption capacity of shotcrete

\(E_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Work done (energy absorption) up to the ultimate displacement of a support element or system during an impact test (reaching the failure)

\(E_{{\text{y}}}\) :

Work done (energy absorption) up to the plastic displacement (yielding state) of a support element or system during an impact test (not reaching the failure)

\({\text{FOS}}\) :

Factor of safety

\(k_{i}\) :

Equivalent initial stiffness of a support element or system

\(k_{si}\) :

Second equivalent initial stiffness of a support element or system (second impact)

\(L_{{\text{p}}}\) :

Peak load of a support element or system during an impact test

\(L_{{\text{u}}}\) :

Ultimate load of a support element or system during an impact test (reaching the failure)

\(L_{{\text{y}}}\) :

Average plastic load (yielding state) of a support element or system (post peak) during an impact test (not reaching the failure)

References

  • Andrieux P, Turichshev A, O’Connor P, Brummer RK (2005) Dynamic testing with explosive charges of rockburst-resistant ground support systems at the Fraser nickel mine. Report to Falconbridge Limited Mine Technical Services

  • Baek B, Karampinos E, Hadjigeorgiou J (2020) Understanding the impact of test configuration on welded-wire mesh laboratory test results. Rock Mech Rock Eng 53:4873–4892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02198-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton N (1988) Rock mass classification and tunnel reinforcement selection using the Q-system. Rock classification systems for engineering purposes. ASTM STP 984, Kirkaldie L (ed). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 59–88

  • Brändle R, Luis Fonseca R (2019) Dynamic testing of surface support systems. In: Ground Support 2019. Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 243–250

  • Brändle R, Rorem E, Luis Fonseca R, Fischer G (2017) Full-scale dynamic tests of a ground support system using high-tensile strength chain-link mesh in El Teniente mine, Chile. In: UTM 2017. Proceedings of the first international conference on underground mining technology. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 25–43

  • Brändle R, Luis Fonseca R, von Rickenbach G, et al (2020) Double impact dynamic test of a ground support system at the Walenstadt testing facility. In: MassMin 2020. Proceedings of the eighth international conference and exhibition on mass mining. University of Chile, Santiago, pp 1079–1090

  • Brändle R, Luis Fonseca R, von Rickenbach G, et al (2022) Large-scale dynamic testing of ground support systems at the Walenstadt testing facility. In: Caving 2022. Fifth international conference block sublevel caving. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 177–190

  • Bucher R, Cala M, Zimmermann A, et al (2013) Large scale field tests of high‐tensile steel wire mesh in combination with dynamic rockbolts subjected to rockburst loading. In: Ground Support 2013. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 221–232

  • Cai M (2019) Rock support in strainburst-prone ground.Int J Min Sci Technol 29:529–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai M, Kaiser PK (2018) Rockburst support reference book. Volume I: rockburst phenomenon and support characteristics. MIRARCO—Mining Innovation Rehabilitation and Applied Research Corporation. Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

  • Cala M, Roth A, Roduner A (2013) Large scale field tests of rock bolts and high-tensile steel wire mesh subjected to dynamic loading. In: ISRM international symposium - EUROCK 2013. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

  • Crompton B, Berghorst A, Knox G (2018) A new dynamic test facility for support tendons. New Concept Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics Newsletter, pp. 13–15

  • Darwin D, Dolan CW, Nilson AH (2016) Design of concrete structures. McGraw-Hill Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer W (2000) Seismology for rockburst prediction. Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee - SIMRAC final project report

  • Hadjigeorgiou J, Potvin Y (2007) Overview of dynamic testing of ground support. In: Deep Mining 2007. Proceedings of the fourth international seminar on deep and high stress mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 349–371

  • Hadjigeorgiou J, Potvin Y (2011) A critical assessment of dynamic rock reinforcement and support testing facilities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 44:565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson DJ, Diederichs MS (1996) Cablebolting in underground mines. BiTech Publishers, Richmond

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser PK (2014) Deformation-based support selection for tunnels in strainburst-prone ground. In: Deep Mining 2014. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on deep and high stress mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 227–240

  • Kaiser PK, Cai M (2012) Design of rock support system under rockburst condition. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 4:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser PK, Moss A (2022) Deformation-based support design for highly stressed ground with a focus on rockburst damage mitigation. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 14:50–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser PK, McCreath DR, Tannant DD (1996) Canadian rockburst support handbook. Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University, Sudbury

  • Karampinos E, Baek B, Hadjigeorgiou J (2018) Discrete element modelling of a laboratory static test on welded wire mesh. In: Caving 2018. Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on block and sublevel caving. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 735–746

  • Karampinos E, Hadjigeorgiou J (2021) Quantifying the impact of bolting patterns on the performance of welded wire mesh. Geotech Geol Eng 39:359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01497-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li CC, Mikula P, Simser B et al (2019) Discussions on rockburst and dynamic ground support in deep mines. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11:1110–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malvar LJ, Crawford JE (1998) Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. In: 28th DDESB seminar. Orlando, USA

  • Marambio E, Vallejos J, Burgos L, et al (2020) Numerical modelling of dynamic testing for surface retaining elements used in underground mining: calibration. In: MassMin 2020. Proceedings of the eighth international conference and exhibition on mass mining. University of Chile, Santiago, pp 1124–1133

  • Morissette P, Hadjigeorgiou J (2019) Ground support design for dynamic loading conditions: a quantitative data-driven approach based on rockburst case studies. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11:909–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss A, Kaiser PK (2022) An operational approach to ground control in deep mines. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 14:67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz A (2019) Ground support systems at CODELCO, El Teniente mine. Internal Report

  • Muñoz A, Brändle R, Luis Fonseca R, Fischer G (2017) Full-scale dynamic tests of a ground support system using high-tensile strength chain-link mesh in El Teniente mine. In: 9th International symposium on rockburst and seismicity in mines - RaSiM 9. Santiago, Chile

  • Ortlepp WD (1983) Considerations in the design of support for deep hard-rock tunnels. In: 5th ISRM Congress

  • Ortlepp WD (2001) Performance testing of dynamic stope support test facility at Savuka. SIMRAC Report GAP 611

  • Ortlepp WD, Stacey TR (1994) Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels and shafts. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 9:59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortlepp WD, Stacey TR (1997) Testing of tunnel support: dynamic load testing of rock support containment systems. SIMRAC GAP Project 221:1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortlepp WD, Stacey TR (1998) Performance of tunnel support under large deformation static and dynamic loading. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 13:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Player JR, Villaescusa E, Thompson AG (2004) Dynamic testing of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept. In: Villaescusa and Potvin (eds) Proceeding in 5th international symposium on ground support. Perth, Balkema

  • Player JR, Morton EC, Thompson AG, Villaescusa E (2008) Static and dynamic testing of steel wire mesh for mining applications of rock surface support. In: 6th international symposium on ground support in mining and civil engineering construction. Western Australia, pp 693–706

  • Potvin Y, Hadjigeorgiou J (2015) Empirical ground support design of mine drives. In: Design Methods 2015. Proceedings of the international seminar on design methods in underground mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 419–430

  • Roth A, Cala M, Brändle R, Rorem E (2014) Analysis and numerical modelling of dynamic ground support based on instrumented full-scale tests. In: Deep Mining 2014. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on deep and high stress mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp 151–163

  • Tannant DD, Brummer RK, Kaiser PK (1994a) Response of rockbolts to nearby blasts. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on applied rockburst research. Santiago, Chile, pp 257–264

  • Tannant DD, McDowell GM, McCreath DR (1994b) Shotcrete performance during simulated rockbursts. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on applied rockburst research. Santiago, Chile

  • Thompson AG (2004) Rock support action of mesh quantified by testing and analysis. In: Surface Support in Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 391–398

  • Vallejos JA, Marambio E, Burgos L, Gonzalez CV (2020) Numerical modelling of the dynamic response of threadbar under laboratory-scale conditions. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 100:103263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villaescusa E, Thompson A, Player J (2010) Dynamic testing of ground control systems. Results of research carried out as MERIWA Project No. M349A, Western Australian School of Mines

  • Villaescusa E, Thompson AG, Player JR (2013) Static and dynamic testing of welded and woven mesh for rock support. In: Ground Support 2013. Proceedings of the seventh international symposium on ground support in mining and underground construction. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 187–196

  • Villaescusa E, Kusui A, Drover C (2016a) Ground support design for sudden and violent failures in hard rock tunnels. In: Proceedings of 9th asian rock mechanics symposium. Bali, Indonesia

  • Villaescusa E, Player JR, Thompson AG, De Zoysa A (2016b) Dynamic testing of combined rock bolt and mesh schemes. In: Seventh international conference and exhibition on mass mining. Sydney, NSW, Australia

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely appreciate the permission given by CODELCO—El Teniente mine to publish this paper. The authors also acknowledge the support of E. Villaescusa and DCR (David Cordova Rojas Ingenieros S.R. Ltd) to perform dynamic tests on ground support systems commonly used in Peruvian and Chilean underground mining under rockburst prone. In addition, the authors acknowledge the contributions of Geobrugg by collaborating at the dynamic testing facility at Walenstadt while performing the tests and by actively participating during the analysis and elaboration of this document. Finally, the authors acknowledge the support from the basal CONICYT Project AFB220002 of the Advanced Mining Technology Center (AMTC)—University of Chile. The Laboratory of Geomechanics and Mine Design from the University of Chile is especially acknowledged for its contribution to the development of this paper. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of other individuals or organizations.

Funding

This study was funded from basal CONICYT project AFB220002 of Advanced Mining Technology Center (AMTC)—University of Chile.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Mining Technology Center (AMTC), University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Javier A. Vallejos, Exequiel Marambio, Lorena Burgos & David Cuello

  2. Department of Mining Engineering, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Javier A. Vallejos

  3. Geobrugg, Santiago, Chile

    Gabriel von Rickenbach & Germán Fischer

  4. Geobrugg, Romanshorn, Switzerland

    Rico Brändle & Roberto Luis

Authors
  1. Javier A. Vallejos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Exequiel Marambio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorena Burgos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Cuello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rico Brändle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roberto Luis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gabriel von Rickenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Germán Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RB and RL supported on the design and execution of the tests, also providing instant information and results. EM and LB performed the back-analyses and interpretation of the results, ordering and capturing the information in the manuscript. JAV, DC, RL, GvonR, and GF provided valuable guidance and review on the design, performance, back-analyses, and presentation of the tests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier A. Vallejos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest; the research does not involve human and/or animal participation; and all participants have given their informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vallejos, J.A., Marambio, E., Burgos, L. et al. Dynamic Test Response of Ground Support Systems for Underground Excavations at the Walenstadt Testing Facility. Rock Mech Rock Eng 57, 389–428 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03547-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03547-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation